341 - The Death and Birth of Theological Journals

The Death and Birth of Theological Journals
By Patrick D. Miller

DEVOTED to every topic under the sun, magazines and journals proliferate in the modern world at an amazing rate.

The oft-declared imminent disappearance of the print medium in the shift to computers receives its most ironic rejoinder in the startling number of new magazines devoted entirely to computers and their accouterments (books as well, of course). I once started a very minor hobby of trying to collect first editions of new magazines. The collection went nowhere because I could not keep up with the number that were coming out, and storage would have become a problem very quickly. Many of these new journals or magazines appear on the scene with much fanfare. Others crawl out of the woodwork of esoteric academic fields. And some are very private or personal publications supported only by the editor or publisher who wants to put out a magazine whether or not any market exists for it. Many do not last very long, and their circulation is not necessarily an indicator of which ones will succeed and which will fail.

The theological world, of course, has its share, of which this periodical is one of some happy longevity as it moves through its fiftieth year of publication. It is appropriate, therefore, for us to mourn the death of sister publications that have become old and trusted friends and celebrate the birth of new ones that hopefully will find their place of usefulness and enjoy a long and happy life. The past year has seen the demise of one periodical that had an influence far beyond its low circulation and the birth of another that bids fare to influence the future direction of Protestant theology, though one year of publication is an insufficient base to prognosticate with any confidence.

The end of Christianity and Crisis was an event worthy of coverage and comment in The New York Times, testimony both to the impact of that magazine over the last generation and also to its special connection to the New York scene. Had it been located in Kansas City, its impact probably would have been less and its disappearance of little note to the New York newspapers. Perhaps its time had come, and those of us who read it through the post-World War II years and depended upon its editorial acumen and its sensitivity to the moral issues of our time to guide us or to provoke us, but nearly always to make us think a little further, need to move on to read other journals. But this is also a death in the family of religious publishing and that cannot happen without some sadness and grief. A voice is stilled that

342 - The Death and Birth of Theological Journals

was once highly influential, and an intelligent liberal theological platform does not have sufficient appeal to produce the funds and circulation to keep going. Is that a reflection of our times or simply a manifestation of the vicissitudes of religious publishing when not institutionally supported? Perhaps some of both. But the journalistic bite and the abrasively challenging fervor that one associates with the old Christianity and Crisis seems to have shifted more to the right or to the center. At least theological liberalism does not seem to be where most of the exciting action is these days. Studies of the baby boomer generation reveal a liberalism among many of them, but it is a kind of general tolerance and looseness to the institutional church and confessional traditions that would startle the Niebuhrs and others of their generation who wrote for Christianity and Crisis.

Which brings us to the recent birth of a new theological journal, Pro Ecclesia, subtitled "A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology," clearly a Lutheran-based operation but hardly confined to Lutheran theology or concerns. We heard about this new magazine by word of mouth (and not from Lutherans), as have many others, a sure sign of widening interest that is rather uncommon for the appearance of a theological periodical, particularly one that has no large organizational or institutional base. It is published by a so-far little-known outfit called the Center for Catholic and Evangelical Theology in Northfield, Minnesota, but its editors, Carl Braaten and Robert Jenson, are well-known Lutheran theologians, as are the members of the Board of the Center. One is not quite sure what to make of the additional note in the publication information, to wit, "in cooperation with the American Lutheran Publicity Bureau." Perhaps there is a larger base of support than immediately apparent. If so, the chances of survival are also more likely.

The subtitle of the journal is a tour de force and an important signal to readers. This periodical means to be rooted in the gospel and open to the larger church. It hopes to hang on to the particularity of the Christian faith as it is embodied in the good news proclaimed in Jesus Christ, but it recognizes that good news can not be set forth or interpreted in a purely parochial fashion. The name of the journal insists with equal vigor on the church as the context for Christian faith and life. The "pro," of course, carries a double meaning. The journal is written for the church but it also takes its stand "pro ecclesia." It is this latter nuance that will probably give the magazine its particular bite and flare.

Three issues have appeared at the time of this writing. While a small base over the long haul, that is sufficient to get some feel for the directions this new journalistic baby is charting. The editors (in this case Braaten) are explicit about the definite theological commitments of the journal:

In the first place, the editors of this journal will take seriously the trinitarian and christological focus of the universal tradition of Christian orthodoxy. Their common ground includes the cardinal truths of the

343 - The Death and Birth of Theological Journals

apostolic and catholic faith as confessed in the Ecumenical Creeds of the ancient church. This in itself will look like an oasis within the context of current liberal Protestantism and liberationist Catholicism in American theology, for whom the Creeds are mere relics of an outdated patriarchal form of Christianity. No less significant is our view that the Creed is a necessary form of the Gospel grasped by faith. (Vol. 1 [1992], p. 6)

The analysis sounds as if it takes its cues more from the academy and the theological debate than from church and actual church practice where the creeds are hardly "mere relics," but the initial issues indicate that these commitments will be followed through quite seriously. There is going to be a full countenancing of the tradition, not only in editorial commitment to the creeds but in articles that engage the history of doctrine to assert the continuing significance of that history (and not only the Reformation part). The credal commitment is indicated in various editorials but also in the attention given to "The Baltimore Declaration," itself a contemporary confessional statement that stakes its claims on the ancient credal formulations and against certain contemporary theological trends.

The opening issues identify both the things this journal will be for and those it will be against (there is about as much "anti" as there is "pro" in Pro Ecclesia). It is clearly pro tradition and creeds, rigorously defending the orthodox Christian understanding of christology and the trinity. Pro Ecclesia is probably more avowedly and actually attentive to the ecumenical church and movement than any journal in recent times that is not an organ of some ecumenical body. It is pro restoration of the one Catholic Church, committed to overcoming the sixteenth century "schism"-a somewhat strange term for Protestants, especially Lutherans, to use in reference to what we have traditionally called "reformation." The latter term seems more open to claiming continuity than the former. In any event, this new theological voice is in serious conversation with the Roman Catholic Church and listening (critically) to its pronouncements. One rarely encounters a Protestant journal where Cardinal Ratzinger's name is not a dirty word. To this point, Pro Ecclesia maintains both a firm interest and attention to things Lutheran but also, consistent with its stated commitments, an openness to other voices. Initial issues include Catholic, Reformed, Anglican, and Jewish authors and discuss church documents coming from Reformed, Lutheran, Catholic, and Anglican groups.

With equal vigor, the new journal knows what it does not like on the contemporary ecclesial and theological scene. It pursues its targets from various angles. The two most obvious of those, in the initial editorials as well as in the articles, are religious pluralism and liberation/feminist theology. John Hick and Paul Knitter are bad guys. In editorials, articles, and book reviews, the claimed openness of Christian theology to the place of other religions is under attack, though in sophisticated ways that do not rule out dialogue with other religions. Pluralism in the religious community is seen as a part of the rot of contemporary Protestantism.

344 - The Death and Birth of Theological Journals

Equally pernicious, according to Pro Ecclesia (explicitly stated and implicitly suggested in a variety of ways) are liberationist movements, particularly feminist theology and hermeneutics. The title of Editor Braaten's recent book, No Other Name, is indicative of the approach of this journal, if first issues are any clue: both the "no other," as it rules out any other revelation or mode of salvation than that declared in the historic creeds, specifically formulated in trinitarian doctrine, and the " name," as it resists the efforts to rethink and reinterpret Scripture and doctrine with a view to claiming its inherent inclusiveness and overcoming its patriarchal and male dominance, particularly in speaking about God and Christ.

One senses that a gauntlet has been thrown down and the backlash against feminist hermeneutics is in full swing, not only among persons who have not thought very deeply about these matters but among major theologians. If first issues are any indication, the new baby is going to have to work harder. Claims that revision of language for God in translation, interpretation, and theology are primarily a fault of reader incompetence are an insult to many biblical and systematic theologians who hold a high view of Scripture and a serious commitment to the Christian faith but know that the feminist critique is a serious one, requiring new theological endeavors and not simply superficial dismissal of the problem.

As an older sister, THEOLOGY TODAY welcomes the new baby into the family of theological journalism, at the same time feeling that the coincidence of the death of one journal representing an articulate and vigorous critique of church and society from the perspective of neoorthodoxy and liberalism and the birth of another, vigorously defending the historic faith and critical of much of contemporary church life and theology, may not be an altogether propitious omen for the church. But then the church depends upon its Lord and not upon omens, much less upon theological journals. We will listen carefully and share a continuing conversation-as well as writers. A number of Pro Ecclesia's authors have written for us also (even in this issue!), and there are a number of pieces in the first three issues of the new journal that this editor would love to have had for THEOLOGY TODAY. We are and will be challenged most vigorously, I believe, on the ecumenical side. Founded by one of the great ecumenists of this century, John Mackay, THEOLOGY TODAY has not in its most recent history shown the ecumenical zeal of the first issues of Pro Ecclesia. We shall try to learn from our baby sister (yes, the gender designation is intentional) even as we sometimes find ourselves moving in a different direction or open to theological voices our journalistic colleagues do not countenance.