In the beginning of this work, I proposed that secularization accounts for a multifaceted methodological reductionism, which is the upshot of the secularist oversight that separates instead of distinguishing autonomous spheres of inquiry and mistakes retardation for progress and progress for retardation. Such a reductionism, as illustrated by the secularist discourses analyzed by Taylor, Buckley, Boyle, and Lonergan, often goes hand in hand with a no less multifarious ontological reductionism. In illegitimate secularization, an ontological reductionism might acquire the form of ontological physicalism, while in illegitimate sacralization, it tends to collude with a classicist metaphysics that sacralizes universality and permanence at the expense of particularity and change. This final constructive chapter counters the problem of reductionism by proposing emergence (the opposite of ontological reductionism) as the key concept that simultaneously provides both the general framework for an adequate theological response to modern secularism and the specific argument for my extension of Lonergan’s Law of the Cross.