No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 February 2024
Ian Markham makes two basic contentions in his article ‘Creating options: Shattering the “exclusivist, inclusivist, and pluralist” paradigm’. The first is that the threefold paradigm of approaches to the question of salvation outside explicit Christianity are flawed and therefore unhelpful. The second is that his own tentative proposal further indicates this point, for his own position does not fit neatly into any of the three approaches. I think that Markham’s arguments for his first contention are not entirely convincing and therefore his own proposal fails to fit the categories, not because it has created a new option, but because it leaves certain questions unanswered and introduces a certain amount of confusion. In fact I will suggest that the usefulness of the three categories of exclusivism, inclusivism and pluralism allows us to see more clearly what type of questions he leaves unanswered and thereby justify themselves heuristically in providing a basis for criticising those who question their viability. This brief reply has as its main purpose to defend the threefold paradigm in the theology of religions.
This is not to say that these three categories are problem-free. It is simply the case that a sustained and convincing critique of them is yet to be produced. I agree with Markham that Michael Barnes develops a sophisticated Trinitarian inclusivism despite his claim to break the paradigm. Kenneth Surin’s critique of the paradigm is of an altogether different nature. Surin seems to redescribe the terrain so that there are no valid theological questions left, only political-sociological questions.
1 See Barnes, M, Christian Identity and Religious Pluralism: Religions in Conversation, (London, SPCK, 1989.)Google Scholar
2 See Surin, K 'The “Politics of Speech”, in ed. D'Costa, G, Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered, (New York, Orbis, 1991), pp.192–212Google Scholar.
3 See Milbank, J, Theology and the Social Sciences, (Oxford, Blackwell, 1991)Google Scholar for one of the best discussions of this issue and an attempt to reinstate theology as the queen of the sciences.
4 Markham, p.1, quoting J Hick, review of G Richards, Towards a Theology of Religions, in Religious Studies, 26, 1, 1990, p.175. All subsequent quotations from Markham are in the main body of the text.
5 D'Costa, G, Theology and Religious Pluralism, (Oxford, Blackwell, 1986), p.4Google Scholar.
6 See for example Hick, J, God and the Universe of Faiths, (London, Macmillan,) pp. 127–28Google Scholar.
7 London, SCM, 1991.
8 Rahner, K, ‘Reflections on the Unity of the Love of Neighbour and the Love of God’, in Theological Investigations, Vol 6, (London, Darton, Longman & Todd, 1969,)Google Scholar ch.16; see also Coogar, Y., The Wide World My Parish, (London, Darton, Longman & Todd, 1961), pp.104–21Google Scholar.
9 See Blondel, M, Action (1893), (tran. Blanchette, O) (Indiana, Notre Dame University Press, 1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
10 See my criticism of Knitter and Hick on this point. Respectively: “The Reign of God and a Trinitarian Ecclesiology: An Analysis of Soteriocentricism”, in eds. Mojzes, P & Swidler, L, Christian Mission and Interreligious Dialogue, (Lampeter, Edwin Mellin, 1990), pp.51–61Google Scholar; and ‘Taking Other Religions Seriously: Some Ironies in the Current Debate on a Christian Theology of Religions’, The Thomist, 54, 3, 1990, pp.519–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
11 See Lindbeck, G, The Nature of Doctrine in a Post‐Liberal Age, (London, SPCK, 1984), p.42Google Scholar.
You have
Access