There is something extravangantly but wastefully chivalrous about Ivan Strenski's uncommonly vitriolic commentary on the report concerning the St. Louis Project (see his "Our Very Own 'Contras,' "Journal of American Academy of Religion, Summer, 1986, pp. 323-335). Strenski takes a number of us to task-primarily Laurence O'Connell, William May and me-because we make lots of mistakes when thinking about relationships between theology and religious studies. He believes that all of us intend a kind of "re-theologizing" of the academic study of religion. He even suspects that we hope someday to be able "to do theology" and not only to study about it. He offers that we "were never really convinced of the value of secular religious studies in the first place." Our objective, he asserts, is similar to that of "the contras." We are combative in wanting to overturn the emancipatory work of the real and trustworthy revolutionaries who, now about twenty years ago, "emancipated" religious studies from theology. My initial reaction-goodness, gracious-was to suspect that some parcels had gotten mixed in the mail, that Strenski had been reading about some program other than the one that was being discussed at St. Louis University. For, contrary to what he wants to believe, it can be argued forcefully that the fundamental achievement of the St. Louis Project was a kind of "emancipation" of religious studies. But the language of oppressors, colonizers, revolutionaries, contras, and the like is hardly appropriate. Somehow Strenski missed the story; and because he did, he inserted some other story's plot. A revivification of theological studies, under a religious studies banner, was not what was intended at St. Louis University. On the contrary, this Jesuit institution, with a long and distinguished record in theology, was reaching for the instrumentation to add a religious studies component to its undergraduate curriculum, and in ways that are congruent with the school's institutional identity.