OLD ERRORS

Luke Timothy Johnson’s analysis of the tensions within contemporary Christology (“Human & Divine,” January 31) is very well thought out, but I’m afraid that his four rules for keeping the conversation going are probably not going to lead to a resolution. Historical scholarship has explained the church’s turn toward ontology in the patristic era as a result of the influence of Greek philosophy, but it has also made accepting the logic of that era—and the contradictions to which it soon led—increasingly problematic. Indeed, the fact that the councils of Chalcedon in 451 and Constantinople III in 680 had to be held at all demonstrates the imbalance in Christian understanding created by the First Council of Nicea (325). And while the correctives provided by these later councils made it into our catechisms and theological manuals, the liturgical use of the Nicean formula continues to prolong the imbalance.

One possible remedy to this imbalance may be found in the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s 1964 instruction on the historicity of the Gospels. In that document, scholars spoke of the three stages of tradition that went into the composition of the Gospels: first, the memory of the words and deeds of Jesus; second, the apostolic kerygma, or proclamation, of the salvation won for us by his death and resurrection; and finally, the particular theological themes favored by each evangelist—for example, the “descent” of “the Word made flesh” in John. One can’t help wondering if the elevation of some of these third-stage theological motifs to the status of dogma hasn’t turned out to be a major mistake. Turning them into constituents of Christian orthodoxy has not only made it more difficult to understand the basic message of Jesus; it has also undermined the ability of Christianity to give a coherent account of itself.

The challenge of rediscovering the historical Jesus is not a simple task. But this quest is central to the future of Christianity and is not nearly as futile as Johnson seems to imply. The CDF’s call for a return to a “canonical” understanding of Scripture may not be a reaction to the liberal confusions popularized by groups like the Jesus Seminar so much as an increasing uneasiness with the outcome of really serious but fully enlightened conservative Catholic scholarship, such as that done by American Catholic scholars like Raymond Brown and John P. Meier, and the Anglican scripture scholar N. T. Wright.

Johnson may be quite correct in seeing the two conflicting approaches in creative tension. But I very much doubt that the tension will ever prove truly creative so long as one side refuses to admit that it could ever have made a mistake.

RICHARD W. KROPF
Johannesburg, Mich.

DEFENDING THE FLOCK

The recent editorial “Bridge Closed” (February 15) sent a chill down my spine. It painted Bishop Edward Braxton as an unmovable stone, stubbornly rejecting any challenge to the church or its teachings. As a university student and a Catholic, I applaud His Excellency’s stance on this issue. The bishop is the shepherd of the local church, and it is his job to make sure that the sheep are not led astray. Some see this as conservative nonsense, but I see it as taking one’s role as a successor to the apostles seriously. The bishop was trying to prevent Luke Timothy Johnson from misguiding students. Newman centers are supposed to be bastions of the Catholic faith at secular institutions. Sadly, young Catholics are not being immersed in the Catholic subculture the way their parents and grandparents were. As a consequence, many of my generation are searching for truth and meaning in empty places. So I support the bishop in his decision. Once, as a priest, he may have thought differently, but as a leader in the church he now sees the challenges that face the institution. I believe he was trying to put out a fire before it got started.

ROBERT RAMSER
University Heights, Ohio

A BAD DAY

My day began hearing an NPR interview with Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on the subject of the Eighth Amendment. Then I opened the February 15 edition of Commonweal and read about Bishop Edward Braxton’s “simple” rationale for barring Luke Timothy Johnson from a speaking engagement at Southern Illinois University’s Newman Center. Finally, I turned to William T. Cavanaugh’s review of Faith, Reason, and the War against Jihadism by George Weigel (“Clash Course”). I was ready to turn off the lights, go back to bed, and pray for an end to this barrage. But I resisted temptation and read on. So thank you for Cathleen Kaveny’s lucid and helpful column on the Eighth Amendment (“Justice or Vengeance”). Thank you for your own “Bridge Closed” editorial on tolerance and academic freedom. And thank you for allowing William Cavanaugh the latitude to articulate why Weigel’s thinking truly is so “superficial and one-sided.”

(REV.) PHILIP D. REIFENBERG
Cudahy, Wis.

MEET ME IN ST. LOUIS?

Bishop Edward Braxton is not the only bishop in this part of the country to weigh in on the “no invitation” list. Archbishop Raymond L. Burke of St. Louis apparently told the Aquinas Institute at St. Louis University that it needed to uninvite the theologian Peter Phan as a guest speaker. Professor Phan had been scheduled eighteen months earlier.

Unfortunately, the Institute has a new director, who appears to have acquiesced. It is troubling when educational institutions feel they cannot invite speakers with differing viewpoints. The Catholic Action Network and some other groups in this area invited Phan to come speak anyway. He was excellent, and quite personable.

JOELLEN McDONALD
St. Louis, Mo.