booklogging

The subtitle is “A Multifaith Exploration” and the phrase works on two levels as a description of the book: it explores theological responses to the fact of a multifaith global context and it includes contributions from people of several different faith backgrounds. It will be no surprise that the broad aim of the book is to articulate a pluralist approach to interfaith relations. The title focuses on the idea of religious superiority, that any one religion is superior to another, and tries to explore the proposal that such a view is a myth; a necessary story for the adherents of the a religion but not one to be taken to exclude and downgrade or disrespect others. In fact the aim is to encourage the various religions to develop ways of thinking about other faiths, using their own faith resources, that gives them parity of esteem with ones own. The reason given for this is approach is that without such parity, there is an inherent rivalry which is conflictual and therefore ill-suited to the harmonious development of world history.

Of necessity, the multiplicity of voices means that there is no one smooth argument. In fact I came away thinking that quite a number of contributions were actually arguing for a generous variety of inclusivism rather than pluralism. It seemed to me that most contributers were unable to resolve the inherent conflict between thorough-going pluralism and holding ones own tradition in some way valuable, and so a form of inclusivism was the only recourse and I felt that Reinhold Bernhardt's essay probably showed that most clearly. I remained unconvinced by the arguments for pluralism and felt on balance that the attempted arguments for it from an orthodox Christian position failed. It seems that, although there are themes in Christian theology that can be pressed into a more inclusivist mould, the thorough-going pluralism advocated by the editor seems to be too big a stretch.

Given that the strongest argument for pluralism seems to be that it is the easiest position from which to accord genuine respect for religious difference, I would judge that those of us who continue to be unconvinced by pluralism have to respond to the challenge to do non-pluralist theology in such a way as to give honour where honour is due and to lay foundations for genuinely respectful learning from the religiously other and to disinherit the arguments for disrespect and even violent responses.

One of the strange omissions for me, except for one mention, was Barth. I found the constant acceptance of 'religion' as straightforwardly salvific in some way problematic and longed to see a fuller engagement with more evangelical approaches seeing all religious endeavour including Christian as fraught with fallen tendencies and traps for the unwary; so if we have a hard time affirming Christian religion, how can we unconcernedly affirm others'?

There is much in this book that bears further thought and wrestling with and as a set of statements advocating a pluralist position in response to the critiques of its first blush it is important. In the end it seems to me that Bernhardt should have the last word; “the religions will never totally move beyond a 'Ptolomaic' framework; they will have to engage each other in a never-ending dialogue ... inclusive insofar as it starts on the side of ones own religion; ... mutual since it will open one's own tradition to the challenging otherness of other religions.”