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.

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.

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.

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.