The classical christology employed the categories of nature and person in its attempt to elucidate the meaning of the incarnation. Today actional categories seem preferable and are used here in an experimental and exploratory way. The incarnation is, as a result, described as the conjunction of God's giving and man's receiving, a conjunction which in turn gives rise to man's giving in imitation of the divine activity. The analysis of the divine giving focuses particularly on the actional or “economic” meaning of the trinitarian doctrine while the analysis of the human receiving concerns itself principally with the question of human freedom and sinlessness and its implications for a processive understanding of incarnational communion. These christological reflections give rise, in conclusion, to some brief soteriological considerations on Jesus' catalytic influence in the process of human growth or salvation.

This article speculates on opening Christology to categories from the comparative study of religion. First, it describes the taxonomical work of scholars like R. Otto, M. Eliade, and G. Van der Leeuw, suggesting how such might be applied to New Testament data. Next, it studies Jesus as a numinous figure, concluding that he manifests the holy in the peculiar modality of love. “Holy Love” to Jesus' signal relation with God. It concludes that such insights are complementary, if not superior, to those from ontological approaches.

I trust that my choice of the topic of christology for an address to a national convention of the College Theology Society needs no explanation. Christology was, is, and, I suspect, always will be the single most important question in Christian theology. Of the three religions of the book, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, we Christians are the only ones who have accepted identification in terms of our stance about a person of history, Jesus of Nazareth. Although Judaism revers Moses as the lawgiver, the designation “Judaism” suggests that primary identity is not in terms of an attitude toward Moses but in terms of relationship to the tribe of Judah and the people of Israel. Westerners persist in calling Muslims “Mohammedans,” but that is by false analogy with the title “Christians.” While Mohammed is the prophet, a Muslim is one who has accepted Islam, that is, submission to the will of Allah, as preached by Mohammed. Christians, however, are those who profess that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, the Christ. The question “Who do men say that I am?” stands in a central place in the tradition of the Synoptic Gospels, symptomatic of where it stands in our faith; and we Christians are those who think that, whether he understood it fully or not, Peter gave the correct answer to that question.

Since I bear the brunt of editorial responsibility for this section of Horizons, I take this opportunity to propose some guidelines for future contributors here and to give an example in the pages which follow. The topics chosen for a survey of recent literature, I feel, should be substantive; the kind of topic that would normally be central to a college or university course. The presentation should aim at thematic continuity rather than discrete quantity. This means that not every book and article written in the last decade need be mentioned, and older works are not excluded; but an attempt is made to achieve a critical assessment of dominant trends in the topics chosen. So, the theology of this section will be research-oriented, as all good theology should be, but, given the predominant membership-interest of the CTS, it should be aimed at classroom courses, actual or possible.

Secondly, cooperation in contributions counts as additional value, in view of the growing need for interdisciplinary interest in most areas of theology today. A systematic theologian in particular, someone has said, is one who knows something about everything and everything about nothing. I therefore acknowledge my debt in the present piece to my colleague at the University of San Francisco, John H. Elliott, whose work in New Testament is well known to those who read the professional journals and monographs in that area, and who heartily agrees with me that our team-teaching in the classroom has been an indispensable aid to our own specialties. With these preliminary remarks I offer the following example to the critical view of readers and future contributors.

The present article does not purport to be an exhaustive study of literature on American Indian culture or even religion. Its purpose is to familiarize college religion and theology teachers with materials directly related to religion among North American Indian peoples, whose growing ethnic consciousness is making itself felt throughout the continent. Because of the pervasiveness of religion in every aspect of tribal life, many of these works are also cultural studies, but I have tried to concentrate chiefly on the religious, as it touches various sides of Indian life and white society. I have avoided listing histories and purely ethnological studies. Finally, I shall include several readings that may assist those who desire to offer courses on or including the subject, as I have done now for four years with some good results.

“Theology as Biography” is a course jointly offered by the University of Notre Dame and Saint Mary's College, team taught by Elena Malits, C.S.C., David Burrell, C.S.C., and Stanley Hauerwas. It is one of a collection of course descriptions and essays on teaching, Teaching Religion to Undergraduates: Some Approaches and Ideas from Teachers to Teachers (ed. Luke Johnson, available for $2.50 from the Society for Religion in Higher Education, 363 St. Ronan St., New Haven, Conn. 06511). It offers an example of the kind of sharing of specific course ideas Horizons will attempt to feature in each issue. Please send along to us ideas on approaches to courses that you would like to share. By the way, all these course ideas need not be unusual. A really well-conceived approach to a basic undergraduate course could be quite valuable. – B.P.P. and R.V.A.