The present decade has seen the publication of a large number of christologies. Chalcedon no longer sets the logic of these new works. Taking their cue from biblical studies, they assign the resurrection a key position as the swing-point from the earthly Jesus to the ensuing theological and dogmatic tradition of Christian faith. They likewise agree in locating the origin of faith in the resurrection in the events which gave rise to the Easter appearance tradition within the New Testament.

At this point significant differences emerge. The present article offers a sample of representative positions in order to exhibit how they differ with regard to the kinds of question they are willing to entertain about the Easter appearances as well as with regard to the kinds of reality claim they wish to assert. The article concludes that the key issue dividing them is the philosophical question of the nature of objectivity.

Theories of personal development can contribute to the understanding of conscience and conscience formation. (I) Clinical psychologist Carl Rogers has formulated a description of stages in the process of personal growth. While Rogers' stages run parallel to Kohlberg's stages of moral development, they contribute a more sensitive appreciation of some aspects of moral conscience. (II) Kohlberg's idea of conscience appears to be a postconventional phenomenon characterized by moral rationalism. This fact raises certain questions about the value of Kohlberg's work as a paradigm for Christian conscience formation. (III) Both Rogers and Kohlberg contribute to an understanding of conscience. In Christian theology, however, conscience is a multifaceted reality which represents a plurality of moral dimensions. While stage advance describes some characteristics of mature conscience, conscience is a broader reality than either Rogers' or Kohlberg's stages will satisfy to describe.

The appearance in English translation of E. Schillebeeckx's Jesus is a major contribution to the North American discussion of christology. Because the Dutch original was published in 1974, the book actually provides an excellent vantage point and occasion for looking backward and forward on the 1970's, a decade of rich christological development. Gustav Aulen's Jesus in Contemporary Historical Research (ET, 1976) to some extent provided such an overview; and for its size, G. O'Collins' What Are They Saying about Jesus? (1977) is uncommonly helpful; but to date nothing has matched the scope of Schillebeeckx's volume nor the depth of its analytic appraisal.

Much of the value of Schillebeeckx's book lies in its broad synthesis of current scripture exegesis; in particular it distills the wealth of German and Dutch scholarship, much of which is not easily available to theologians this side of the Atlantic. But Schillebeeckx goes far beyond a careful exposition and correlation of contemporary scriptural and theological study about Jesus. He structures in clear, even though complex, fashion the many strains of today's research into christology, and so provides a framework in which issues can be identified and conclusions evaluated. Perhaps, then, the most fruitful way of profiting from the volume is to relate it, in four major areas, to other christological research of this past decade.

Assessing the position of the Catholic in the United States, a great Catholic assertion is predicted for the final years of this century, a “second spring.” Impediments to this are listed and differences of Catholic and Protestant style are noted. Suggestions are made for bringing the Catholic elite and Catholic people back together again.

Despite the extensive discussion about theological discourse in both the English-speaking world and in Europe, there have been few serious and extended attempts to relate Anglo-American philosophy and theology to Karl Rahner's “transcendental” perspective. Because of their difference in perspective each has much to offer the other. It is reasonable to hope that in bridging the gap between the two, we might make some progress in the still more formidable task of developing a Christian theology which would enable us to emerge from our linguistic ghettos to offer a more credible response to contemporary secular culture. The article warns, however, that the search for points of affinity between these two casts of mind can easily lead to a distortion of one perspective or the other, rather than to a genuine confrontation and dialogue. An examination of an attempt to find such points of affinity provides the occasion for disclosing Rahner's possible contribution to the discussion of religious language, while also demonstrating the limitations of any approach which seeks points of similarity without at the same time noting the fundamental difference between his perspective and that of some who represent Anglo-American thinking.

Teaching religion in a state university setting challenges one to find non-confessional ways to discuss theological problems. While “Theology” itself is not the proper concern of a “Religious Studies” department, one can raise some significant theological issues in courses like Religion and Literature. The purpose of this course was to examine the presuppositions about damnation brought to the course by the professor and the students. A “Damnation Game” and a variety of literary texts were used to test the range of ideas we had about damnation, and to draw us into an experiential approach to religion and literature.

Von Hügel performs an invaluable service for religion and deserves to be classified among the seminal thinkers in religious studies because of his holistic approach to the study and practice of religion. He insists on a healthy friction ortension between various elements of religion as a necessary component of a mature religious life. Such friction is found especially in the interplay of the mystical element of religion with the intellectual and institutional elements. This mystical element, which includes a person's volitional and intuitive side as well as effortful activity, is found to be a legitimate area of scientific investigation and a valid form of human knowledge. Von Hügel's contributions to the study and practice of religion are then situated and evaluated in terms of four areas of current interest. These areas are the journey toward wholeness, the possibility of self-transcendence, the spiritual importance of the body, and the eschatological anticipation of mankind's final end.

Within the discussion of religious art there arises the fascinating question of how art can engender the awareness of those special (hierophanous) moments in culture where the sacred dimension breaks through into otherwise profane experience. This question requires a consideration of the peculiar relationship which a given art form has to its world (e.g., imitation vs. interpretation, recording vs. transformation).

The special potency of cinematic art in its relationship to physical and spiritual reality, and to surface and depth, is the subject of the present article. While religion-and-film discussions frequently focus upon religious themes in film, the purpose of the following analysis is that of considering a theology of film, taking account of fundamental questions of cinematic theory. Among thinkers whose systems suggest possibilities for dialogue are theologian (Paul Tillich), a phenómenologist (Mikel Dufrenne) and a “school” of film theorists, including especially the followers of André Bazin.

The rise and spread of new religious movements, like the Unification Church, the Children of God, and the Hari Krishnas, have brought a lot of reactions from Jews and Christians alike. This paper examines the problem of how Christians should react and respond to these proselytizing groups. It is stressed that ridiculing the so-called cults is hardly an academic procedure and much less a viable theological and pastoral solution. Two responses, one by the National Council of Churches and one by the Lutheran Church are briefly described and evaluated. Finally, some guidelines towards a Christian theological and pastoral approach to the cults are proposed.

A member of the Theology Department and of the Staff of Campus Ministry team taught at Marquette University a course in which the objective was to offer the opportunity for both the experience of prayer and for reflection upon that experience. In this article the two teachers describe that experiment and offer their reflections upon its potential for meeting the need for such cooperative ventures.

Theology has a problem Justifying itself to its students as well as to itself. Its proper role is to bring the student to a deeper Christian faith experience. Two methods for doing this are the “general religious experience” approach and the method which concentrates on the uniqueness of Christ and his message and an interpersonal encounter with him. The latter method is preferred, and has proven most useful in rekindling the faith among college students.

Catholic Christianity entails a commitment to both identity and universality. These two polarities can be blended in differing ways. A traditionally ecclesiocentric form of Catholic belief, emphasizing identity, is presently giving ground to forms of belief that are more ecumenically sensitive, whether they adopt a Christocentric or a theocentric focus. Today Catholic theology is giving greater attention to the dimension of universality. Theological education in a college setting should be doing likewise.