“Who do you say that I am?”  

Of all the questions Jesus poses in the Gospels, this one might just be the most essential.  When a high school senior takes this question seriously enough to publish his response to it in the school newspaper, I see cause for celebration.  

In the adjacent letter, Peter James outlines his objections to content presented in the Christology unit of the Christian Life Choices (CLC) theology course.  In doing so, he reveals a commitment to the Faith and a passion for truth that I hope his classmates emulate.  I also hope they emulate his willingness to discuss his concerns with his teachers and his openness to authentic dialog.  The following paragraphs are intended to defend the theology department’s curriculum and methods in response to Peter’s critiques.  I hope to compose them in such a way as to encourage, rather than suppress, the penetrating questions he asks. 

If I understand Peter’s objections correctly, they begin with the inclusion of the first chapter of Marcus Borg’s Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time in the CLC course packet.  In this chapter, Borg chronicles the development of his own understanding of Jesus and introduces the distinction between the Pre-Easter Jesus and the Post-Easter Jesus.  The Pre-Easter Jesus refers to the historical words and deeds of Jesus during the three decades between his birth and death.  About him, Borg says, we know very little.  The Post-Easter Jesus, on the other hand, is the risen Jesus as experienced by the Church in the first few decades after his death.  According to Borg, the majority of the New Testament and of our understanding of Jesus is based on the latter.  

Peter’s position is that Borg is out of step with the teaching of the Catholic Church.  In some respects, he is correct.  Borg was born into a Lutheran family and later converted to the Episcopal Church, so one can assume he disagrees with the magisterium on at least some theological issues.  One of those issues, which Peter points out, involves the central event of salvation history – the resurrection.  In other publications, including a debate with N.T. Wright, Borg defends the reality of Christ’s resurrection, but suggests the resurrection might not have been physical.  This suggestion certainly contradicts the teaching of the Catholic Church, which has always affirmed the resurrection of the body.  It is important to note, however, that this contradiction does not appear in the chapter assigned in the CLC course.  

But it is fair to ask, “Why include the work of an author who, in other publications, contradicts the Church?”  The theology department’s answer to this question is twofold: 1) the assigned chapter effectively introduces sophisticated theological concepts students must understand if they are to develop a more mature faith; and 2) Borg chronicles his own struggle to let go of previously cherished concepts in pursuit of a deeper, more intimate relationship with Jesus, which is exactly what we want students to do.  Peter suggests we utilize the work of a Catholic author instead of Borg to meet these two targets.  The theology department is certainly open to that, since Borg’s chapter is simply a tool to drive understanding.  If the readers have specific suggestions, I’d love to explore them.

Beyond the Borg chapter, Peter also calls into question the department’s teaching regarding the historical nature of Gospel events.  The short version of that teaching is as follows: in writing the Gospels, the evangelists’ goal was not necessarily to convey a moment-by-moment, historically accurate account of events, but to communicate the good news that God is with us and saves us in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  To that end, they employed a number of strategies.  In some instances, such as the healing of Bartimaeus, they seem to have written in such a way as to reference actual witnessed events.  But in other cases, many Catholic scripture scholars, including Catholic bishops, suggest the meaning was likely intended on a more symbolic level.  Check out the bishops’ introduction to the Gospel According to John in the New American Bible to see an example.  The Church does not hesitate to assert the historicity of the Gospels, but doing so does not necessitate a literal interpretation of all Gospel events.  In fact, in “The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church,” the Pontifical Biblical Commission – at the time headed by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger – cautions against an insistence on literalism.  “In what concerns the Gospels,” it says, “fundamentalism does not take into account the development of the Gospel tradition, but naively confuses the final stage of this tradition (what the evangelists have written) with the initial (the words and deeds of the historical Jesus). At the same time fundamentalism neglects an important fact: The way in which the first Christian communities themselves understood the impact produced by Jesus of Nazareth and his message. But it is precisely there that we find a witness to the apostolic origin of the Christian faith and its direct expression.”  

As a theology department, our ultimate duty is to give students the Church’s teaching in its fullness and complexity – we owe them that. Scripture scholarship is a huge, complex field, and it is important to note that not all Catholic scripture scholars agree on the finer points of how to interpret a particular passage. In response to being exposed to this scholarship, Peter’s love for Jesus prompted him to ask questions, which we wholeheartedly affirm. Responding to those questions has spurred growth in my own faith and in that of my colleagues.  So thank you, Peter, for helping us all grow in intimacy with Christ.  Thank you for moving us forward in our never-ending effort to respond to Jesus’ question, “Who do you say that I am?”

Sincerely, 

Jon Ott, Theology Department Chair