Wrestling With Angels. Catholic and Evangelical Tradition-Specific Approaches To Theology of Religions. A THD Dissertation by Wouter Biesbrouck, 2013

KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN
FACULTY OF THEOLOGY AND RELIGIOUS STUDIES
WRESTLING WITH ANGELS

CATHOLIC AND EVANGELICAL TRADITION-SPECIFIC
APPROACHES TO THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS
A dissertation presented in partial

fulfilment of the requirements for
the Doctor’s Degree in Theology
Promoter by
Prof. Dr. Terrence MERRIGAN Wouter BIESBROUCK
2013
KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN
FACULTY OF THEOLOGY AND RELIGIOUS STUDIES

APPROACHES TO THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS
A dissertation presented in partial

fulfilment of the requirements for
the Doctor’s Degree in Theology
Promoter by
Prof. Dr. Terrence MERRIGAN Wouter BIESBROUCK
2013
Doctrinal formulae are neither a set of neat
definitions nor some sort of affront to the free-
thinking soul; they are words that tell us enough
truth to bring us to the edge of speech, and words
that sustain enough common life to hold us there
together in worship and mutual love.
–Rowan Williams
De theoloog, de vrijgestelde kerkelijke technicus

van de klaarheid.
–J. H. Walgrave, O.P.
PREFACE V
PREFACE
It happened ten years ago. At one of the weekly staff meetings of Ichtus, the
Evangelical student movement in Flanders, we, a group of five or six volunteer and
salaried staff members, challenged each other to say what our long term personal
dreams were. Leaving all the potential practical hindrances aside –very atypical for me
– I surprised myself by acknowledging that my dream was to pursue doctoral studies
in theology. In the course of my work for Ichtus, I had experienced that studying in
preparation for lectures, and training sessions, was something that energized and
continued to fascinate me. Most of that studying and reading was related to biblical
studies and biblical theology and doing that ‘for real’ at an academic level represented
my unrealistic and vague dream for the future. The communitarian discernment that
occurred in that small group challenged me to look beyond the practical (not least:
financial) obstacles, and take at least one step in the direction of that dream. More than
a year later, I started in the abridged bachelors programme in theology, knowing that
there was enough money to sustain our family through the first year. But after this first
step, a second could be taken, and then a third, and then… Five years later I was in
possession of an advanced master’s degree in theology and ready to start doctoral
studies.
The choice to study theology at the KU Leuven is not an obvious one for an
Evangelical Protestant. But I have from the beginning understood my study as
contributing somehow to the ecumenical encounter in Belgium. It was – and is – my
conviction that in a secular society, Christians do not have the luxury to be so divided
that they can’t cooperate. This was and is certainly the case for the small Evangelical
community in Belgium, but also increasingly so for the Roman Catholic community
which in recent decades saw its numbers of practicing believers dwindle to a minority
in society. However, if any real cooperation is to happen, there must be people who
understand the other Christian tradition, who speak that language more or less
fluently, and who are willing to figure as translators. I wanted to learn Roman Catholic
theology, not from hearsay, not from reading books written by Evangelicals about
Roman Catholicism, but from Roman Catholics themselves. In the meantime, I have
come to understand that thinking that I can be an important bridge between the two
traditions suffers from some hubris, and since then I have adjusted my ambitions to
more modest proportions, without, however, giving up on that goal.
Little did I know when I started studying theology, that this process of learning
the other from the inside, was to become an important aspect of my doctoral studies.
First, I had to discover that my future was not in biblical studies, but in systematic
theology. I was welcomed in systematic theology by Professor Terrence Merrigan, and
under his supervision I wrote my master’s thesis on Hans Frei’s concept of narrative
theology. When Professor Merrigan learned that I wanted to familiarize myself with
Roman Catholic theology, he suggested Gavin D’Costa’s theology of religions as the
VI PREFACE
topic for my advanced master’s thesis. Up till then, I had thought that getting involved
with other religions was theologically uninteresting. I was very wrong, as I soon
discovered, not least through studying the work of Gavin D’Costa. As a matter of fact, I
realized that theology of religions was at the crossroads of systematic theology. Under
the guidance of my promoter, I started to explore the fascinating theological
implications of a world with many religious traditions, its implications for the defining
doctrines of Christianity, and the Roman Catholic approach to it. Professor Merrigan,
dear Terry, thank you very much for giving me this opportunity and for guiding me
through these years.
There are more people and groups, apart from my promoter, who have played
an important role in my explorations. The members (past and present) of the research
group Christian self-understanding and interreligious dialogue – Terry, Patrick, Marianne,
Christoph, Beata, Therese, sister Maria, Joke, John, Andrew, Ashlee, Geertjan, Chris
and Vilte – created a safe atmosphere in which it is fun to ‘do’ systematic theology. I
will cherish the memories of our ‘colloquys’. A special thanks goes to John, for
allowing me a disproportional amount of office space, and setting an example of
integrity in studying theology.
I have appreciated participating in the research unit systematic theology, not in
the least in cooperating with the professors of RUST, from whom I learned so much.
I also had the privilege of participating in the GOA project ‘The Normativity of
History: Theological Truth and Tradition in the Tension between Church History and
Systematic Theology’. I hope that my dissertation proves the fecundity of this
interdisciplinary research project in the attention it gives to matters, not only of
systematic theology, but also of fundamental theology and the history of church and
theology.
The Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies provided a welcoming and
stimulating environment for my studies. Thank you also to the secretarial staff and the
library personel.
I also want to express my gratitude to the members of the jury of my reading
committee, Professors Gavin D’Costa, Peter De Mey, and Ron Michener. It is a
privilege to be critically read and interacted with. Their comments and critique have
stimulated my theological reflection and improved my dissertation.
A couple of colleagues have been fellow pilgrims, sharing in weal and woe the
life of doctoral students. Judith, Machteld, Geertjan and Sam, I always looked forward
to sharing coffee breaks and lunch times with you. Your friendship is much
appreciated. There were some other ‘usual suspects’ at coffee break or lunch hour,
whose company I have appreciated. Because of you, these times were never wasted.
To live the life of a doctoral student requires, (as any job or life situation does),
the (prayerful) support and care of many people. I have been surrounded, for years
already, with many people in that category. A lot of people are involved in the writing
of a doctoral dissertation, but some deserve special credit.
PREFACE VII
Sam Goyvaerts started studying theology in the same year as I did. Now nine
years later, we are both finishing our doctoral studies. Your friendship means a lot to
me, Sam. Whenever I will think of the Roman Catholic Church in Belgium, I will think
of you, and thank God.
Paul Yiend has been a good friend for many years now. Our lunch meetings have
been very stimulating, challenging me to think through both abstract theological
concepts and problems of practical spirituality and church life. Paul, you helped me to
keep alert to (potential) problems in Roman Catholic theology, and introduced me to
Amos Yong. Your questioning mind makes you a good philosopher on top of being a
good theologian. I learned a lot through our exchanges on evangelical, charismatic,
Anglican and ecumenical theology. Many thanks, also, for proofreading Chapter V of
this dissertation.
I would like to mention three friends at the Evangelische Theologische Faculteit,
Heverlee, fellow doctoral students, who supported me, prayed with and for me, and
who formed sort of an evangelical sounding-board to me. Thank you, Jelle, Léon and
Maria.
The members of the ‘Zondagavondkring’ of the ‘Evangelische Gemeente Leuven’
have stood beside me during these past years, sharing in the frustrations and joys of
my (lack of) progress. Thank you for your support and prayers.
To the many friends and family members who have supported me, and Leen, my
wife, through these years: a heartfelt thank you. Pa en Moe, jullie in het bijzonder wil
ik bedanken voor de kansen de je me hebt gegeven, voor de stimulans om te (blijven)
studeren en voor jullie aanhoudend gebed.
Five people are, each, worth more than ten doctorates. My wife Leen, my
daughters Elke and Maren and my sons Bram and Stijn. You have had to put up with
most of the burden of my studies, yet you love me none the less. What is this, but
grace?
Stijn, jij bent geboren in de maand dat ik begon met theologie studeren, en nu ben
je bijna negen. Jij hebt me nooit anders gekend dan als een studerende papa. Gelukkig
heb je je daar niets van aangetrokken toen we voetbalden. Ik ben trots op je.
Bram, jij was het meest nieuwsgierig naar mijn ‘werk’, mijn kantoor, mijn
collega’s, mijn promotor en zelfs naar het onderwerp van mijn doctoraat. Het was zalig
om jou aan anderen te horen uitleggen waar mijn doctoraat over ging. Uit die vragen
merk ik dat je met me mee leeft en van me houdt. Ik ook van jou.
Maren, je bakkunsten en je vragen hielden me met mijn voeten op de grond (al
moet ik toegeven dat ik zelfs zonder je bakkunsten wellicht te zwaar zou zijn om aan
de zwaartekracht te ontspringen). Ik hoop dat je blijft volhouden, met bakken en met
vragen stellen (en natuurlijk met Grieks en Latijn ). Maar zelfs al doe je dat niet, je
blijft altijd, mijn Maantje.
Elke, jouw opmerkingen en vragen weten me als geen ander uit mijn kot te
lokken. Dank je, dat je bent blijven proberen mij problemen voor te leggen, ook al was
VIII PREFACE
er te vaak te weinig tijd. Ik waardeer het enorm dat je niet alles gewoon voor waar
aanneemt, en in discussie durft te treden (je kunt dat ook goed). Je bent een moedige
meid, die ik erg waardeer. Je weet niet hoe trots ik op je ben, lieve Elke (hééél trots,
dus).
Leen, the last word is, of course, for you. You know better than anyone (even
better than me) that this dissertation is not the work of one man. You have believed in
this project from the beginning, and supported me throughout, giving up comfort and
security so that the goal could be reached. Although I will be getting the credit, you
have done the hardest work. Perhaps your name does not figure prominently on the
dissertation, yet you made possible every single word that is written in it. Every
sentence in this dissertation has your name and your love tagged to it. I may not know
all that you have done and given up for us to reach this goal, but I know this: you bless
me greatly. You are such a beautiful person.
.
TABLE OF CONTENTS IX
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface ____________________________________________________________________________ V
Table of Contents __________________________________________________________________ IX
Abbreviations ____________________________________________________________________ XII
Bibliography _____________________________________________________________________ XIII
Introduction _____________________________________________________________________ XLI
PART I MAPPING THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS: CUI BONO & QUO

VADIS? ___________________________________________________________________ 1
CHAPTER I. SITUATING THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS: CUI BONO? ______________ 5

§ 1. The Genesis of The Threefold Typology ___________________________________________ 5
A. Definitions _________________________________________________________ 5
B. Who Coined ‘Exclusivism-Inclusivism-Pluralism?’ _________________________ 6
C. Hick’s Cosmological Typology for Theology of Religions: Ptolemaic, Epicyclic,
Copernican _________________________________________________________ 8
§ 2. A Critique of the Classic Typology ______________________________________________ 12
A. A Pluralist Critique (Knitter) __________________________________________ 12
B. An Inclusivist Critique (D’Costa) ______________________________________ 13
C. An Exclusivist Critique (Perry) ________________________________________ 15
D. The Rhetoric of the Typology _________________________________________ 16
§ 3. Alternatives to the Classic Typology Critiqued ____________________________________ 19
A. A Pluralist Alternative: Paul Knitter ____________________________________ 19
B. An Inclusivist Alternative: Jacques Dupuis _______________________________ 22
C. An Exclusivist Alternative ____________________________________________ 23
§ 4. Concluding Remarks _________________________________________________________ 27
A. Epistemology or Soteriology? _________________________________________ 27
B. A Methodological Issue: On the Use and Abuse of Typologies _______________ 28
C. Christological Paradigm _____________________________________________ 28
CHAPTER II. QUO VADIS? TOWARDS A MORATORIUM ON THEOLOGY

OF RELIGIONS? ________________________________________________________31
§ 1. Introduction _________________________________________________________________ 31
§ 2. The Comparative Theological Project ___________________________________________ 33
§ 3. The Limited Applicability of the Call for a Moratorium ____________________________ 35
A. The Revelatory Value of Religions Is not Undisputed in all (Sub-)Traditions ____ 35
B. (Sub-)Traditions that Do not Share Comparative Theology’s Basic Presupposition 36
C. Another Look at the Magisterial Roman Catholic Position ___________________ 37
D. A Protestant-Evangelical Position ______________________________________ 41
§ 4. Continued Effort in Theology of Religions Is a Pastoral Imperative ___________________ 46
§ 5. Concluding the Call for a Moratorium on Theology of Religions _____________________ 47
§ 6. Concluding Reflections on the Status Quaestionis of Theology of Religions _____________ 48
A. Fundamental Theological Issues Raised by the Discussion ___________________ 48
B. The Unquestioned Primacy of Dialogue _________________________________ 48
C. Tradition-specificity and Openness _____________________________________ 51
PART II CATHOLIC AND EVANGELICAL TRADITION-SPECIFIC

APPROACHES __________________________________________________________53
CHAPTER III. GAVIN D’COSTA BETWEEN TRADITUM AND TRADITIO: A

ROMAN CATHOLIC TRADITION-SPECIFIC APPROACH __________61
§ 1. Gavin D’Costa _______________________________________________________________ 61
A. Biographical Information _____________________________________________ 61
X TABLE OF CONTENTS
B. Major Publications __________________________________________________ 62

§ 2. D’Costa’s Methodology: Textual Theologian ______________________________________ 64
A. Introduction _______________________________________________________ 64
B. Works Investigated for this Research ____________________________________ 64
C. Evolution of Gavin D’Costa’s Position __________________________________ 65
D. Which Magisterial Documents Does Gavin D’Costa Use? ___________________ 68
E. What Are the Methodological Parameters of his Project? ____________________ 69
F. D’Costa’s Understanding of Tradition and Development ____________________ 72
G. Conclusion: A Dynamic Model within Hierarchically-Set and Strict Parameters __ 74
§ 3. D’Costa’s Primary Theological Themes __________________________________________ 76
A. Revelation: God’s Self-disclosure ______________________________________ 76
B. The Trinity: Christian Doctrine’s Identifying Category ______________________ 79
C. The Turn to the Spirit Is a Turn to the Church _____________________________ 82
D. The Normativity of Christ ____________________________________________ 85
E. Balancing Nature and Grace __________________________________________ 87
F. Socio-historical Mediation of Grace ____________________________________ 89
§ 4. Catholic Theology at the Service of Interreligious Dialogue: A Pneumato-Ecclesiological
Theology of Religions _________________________________________________________ 91
A. Salvation__________________________________________________________ 91
B. The Spirit _________________________________________________________ 92
C. The Church ________________________________________________________ 93
D. Christ ____________________________________________________________ 94
E. The Other _________________________________________________________ 98
§ 5. The Practice of Interreligious Dialogue: Dialectics and Out-Narration ________________ 103
A. Dialectics ________________________________________________________ 103
B. Rhetorical Out-Narration ____________________________________________ 105
C. Dialectics in Practice: The Case of Pluralism ____________________________ 106
§ 6. Critique and Evaluation ______________________________________________________ 109
A. Methodological Issues ______________________________________________ 109
B. Theological Issues _________________________________________________ 114
C. Dialogical Issues __________________________________________________ 126
D. Missing Issues - Themes Not Developed ________________________________ 130
E. Conclusion _______________________________________________________ 132
CHAPTER IV. GERALD MCDERMOTT AND THE REVIVAL OF JONATHAN

EDWARDS: A REFORMED-EVANGELICAL PERSPECTIVE ______ 135
§ 1. Gerald McDermott: Biographical Information ___________________________________ 135
§ 2. Research Interests & Major Publications ________________________________________ 137
§ 3. McDermott’s Sources and Authorities __________________________________________ 139
A. Bible and Biblical Theology _________________________________________ 139
B. Jonathan Edwards__________________________________________________ 142
C. Apologists, Church Fathers and Other Great Theologians ___________________ 144
§ 4. McDermott’s Theology of Religions_____________________________________________ 147
A. Revelation _______________________________________________________ 147
B. Covenant ________________________________________________________ 156
C. Spiritual Beings and the Origins of the Religions _________________________ 158
D. Prisca Theologia ___________________________________________________ 162
E. Revealed Types ___________________________________________________ 164
F. Dispositional Soteriology ____________________________________________ 166
A. Methodological Issues ______________________________________________ 172
B. Theological Issues _________________________________________________ 178
C. Dialogical Issues __________________________________________________ 183
D. D’Costa and McDermott ____________________________________________ 184
E. Summing up ______________________________________________________ 185
TABLE OF CONTENTS XI
CHAPTER V. AMOS YONG AND THE PNEUMATOLOGICAL IMAGINATION:

A PENTECOSTAL-EVANGELICAL PERSPECTIVE ________________ 187
§ 1. Amos Yong, Pentecostal Theologian ____________________________________________ 187
A. Biographical Information ____________________________________________ 187
B. Yong’s Project: A Pneumatology of Quest Inspired by a Pneumatological
Imagination ______________________________________________________ 189
C. Pentecostalism ____________________________________________________ 192
§ 2. Foundational Pneumatology __________________________________________________ 202
A. Ontology and Metaphysics __________________________________________ 203
B. Epistemology & Experience _________________________________________ 204
C. Pneumatological Imagination ________________________________________ 208
§ 3. Yong’s Theology of Religions __________________________________________________ 211
A. Ubiquitous Spirit __________________________________________________ 211
B. Foundational Pneumatological Categories ______________________________ 216
C. Discerning the Presence and Activity of the Holy Spirit in the Religions _______ 222
§ 4. Welcoming and Being the Stranger: Theology and Praxis of Interreligious Dialogue ____ 236
A. Theology as Performance ___________________________________________ 236
B. Hospitality: Welcoming the Stranger __________________________________ 238
C. Comparative Theology: Being the Stranger _____________________________ 241
A. Appreciating Audacious Amos _______________________________________ 249
B. Methodological Issues ______________________________________________ 251
C. Theological Issues _________________________________________________ 260
D. Dialogical Issues __________________________________________________ 274
E. Conclusion _______________________________________________________ 278
PART III CONCLUSIONS _______________________________________________________ 281
CHAPTER VI. SOME META-REFLECTIONS ON (THREE) TRADITION-

SPECIFIC APPROACHES ____________________________________________ 283
§ 1. Methodological Issues ________________________________________________________ 284
A. Particularism _____________________________________________________ 284
B. Religion as a Problematic Concept ____________________________________ 286
C. The Way Scripture Is Used __________________________________________ 290
§ 2. Theological Issues ___________________________________________________________ 292
A. Revelation _______________________________________________________ 292
B. Dispositional Soteriology ___________________________________________ 298
C. Church __________________________________________________________ 300
D. Dealing with Demons ______________________________________________ 303
E. Trinity __________________________________________________________ 304
§ 3. Dialogical Issues ____________________________________________________________ 307
A. The goal(s) of Dialogue _____________________________________________ 307
B. The Practices of Dialogue: Dialectics __________________________________ 308
C. The Companion of Dialogue: Mission __________________________________ 309
D. The Method of Dialogue: Comparative Theology and Discernment ___________ 311
E. The Spirit of Dialogue: Vulnerability and Hospitality ______________________ 314
§ 4. Conclusions ________________________________________________________________ 317
CHAPTER VII. WRESTLING WITH ANGELS _______________________________________ 319

XII ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATIONS
Documents of the Vatican

AG Ad Gentes
DH Dignitatis Humanae
DI Dominus Iesus
DP Dialogue and Proclamation
GS Gaudium et Spes
LG Lumen Gentium
NA Nostra Aetate
RH Redemptor Hominis
RM Redemptoris Missio
UR Unitatis Redintegratio
Other abbreviations
AoG Assemblies of God
CDF Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
k.loc Kindle location – the ‘pagination’ in Kindle e-books
NRSV New Revised Standard Version Bible, Copyright © 1989, Division of
Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the
U.S.A.
PCBD Yong, Amos. Pneumatology and the Christian-Buddhist Dialogue: Does the Spirit
Blow Through the Middle Way? Studies in Systematic Theology. Leiden: Brill,
2012
WJE The Works of Jonathan Edwards Online, Jonathan Edwards Center, 2008-2011,
73 volumes, edwards.yale.edu
BIBLIOGRAPHY XIII
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abraham, William J. The Divine Inspiration of Holy Scripture. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1981.
Anderson, Douglas. “Peirce’s Common Sense Marriage of Religion and Science.” In The
Cambridge Companion to C.S. Peirce, ed. Cheryl Misak, 175-192. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Anderson, J.N.D. Christianity and World Religions: The Challenge of Pluralism. Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1984.
Anderson, John E. Jacob and the Divine Trickster: A Theology of Deception and YHWH’s
Fidelity to the Ancestral Promise in the Jacob Cycle Siphrut: Literature and
Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures, ed. Stephen B. Chapman, Tremper
Longman III and Nathan MacDonald. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011.
Aquinas, Thomas. Summa theologiae. London: Blackfriars, 1964-1976.
Austin, J. L. How to Do Things with Words. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1975.
Awad, Najeeb George. “Theology of Religions, Universal Salvation, and the Holy
Spirit.” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 20, no. 2 (2011): 252-271.
Badcock, Gary D. “The Church as ‘Sacrament’.” In The Community of the Word: Toward
an Evangelical Ecclesiology, ed. Mark Husbands and Daniel J. Treier, 188-200.
Downers Grove, IL; Leicester: IVP; Apollos, 2005.
Bailey, Kenneth E. Jacob & The Prodigal: How Jesus Retold Israel’s Story. Oxford; Downers
Grove, IL: Bible Reading Fellowship; IVP, 2003.
Barnes, Michael, SJ. Theology and the Dialogue of Religions Cambridge Studies in
Christian Doctrine, ed. Colin Gunton and Daniel W. Hardy. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Barrett, C. K. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. Vol. 1.
Preliminary Introduction and Commentary on Acts I-XIV International Critical
Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994.
Barrett, David B., and Todd M. Johnson. World Christian Trends, AD 30-AD 2200:
Interpreting the Annual Christian Megacensus. Pasadena, CA: William Carey
Library, 2001.
XIV BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barrett, David B., George Thomas Kurian, and Todd M. Johnson. World Christian
Encyclopedia: A Comparative Survey of Churches and Religions AD 30-AD 2200. Vol.
1: The World by Countries, Religionists, Churches, Ministries. 2nd ed. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics. The Doctrine of Reconciliation. Translated by G.W.

Bromiley. Vol. IV/3.2, ed. G.W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance. Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 2010. Reprint, T&T Clark, 1961.
________. Church Dogmatics. The Doctrine of Reconciliation. Translated by G.W. Bromiley.

Vol. IV/3.1, ed. G.W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,
2010. Reprint, T&T Clark, 1961.
Bavinck, Herman. Gereformeerde dogmatiek. Vol. I Inleiding - Principia. IV vols.

Kampen: J. H. Bos, 1895.
Beasley-Murray, George R. John Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas, TX: Word, 1987.
Reprint, electronic edition by Logos Library System, 1998.
Bebbington, David W. The Dominance of Evangelicalism. The Age of Spurgeon and Moody A
History of Evangelicalism. Leicester: IVP, 2005.
Becker, Karl Josef, Ilaria Morali, Maurice Borrmans, and Gavin D’Costa, eds. Catholic
Engagement with World Religions: A Comprehensive Study. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis,
2010.
Beinert, Wolfgang. “Canon.” In Handbook of Catholic Theology, ed. Wolfgang Beinert and
Francis Schüssler Fiorenza, 50-54. New York, NY: Herder & Herder, 1995.
________. “Ecclesial Magisterium.” In Handbook of Catholic Theology, ed. Wolfgang

Beinert and Francis Schüssler Fiorenza, 194-199. New York, NY: Herder &
Herder, 1995.
________. “Hierarchy of Truths.” In Handbook of Catholic Theology, ed. Wolfgang Beinert

and Francis Schüssler Fiorenza, 334-336. New York, NY: Herder & Herder,
1995.
________. “Reception.” In Handbook of Catholic Theology, ed. Wolfgang Beinert and

________. “Revelation.” In Handbook of Catholic Theology, ed. Wolfgang Beinert and

BIBLIOGRAPHY XV
________. “Sensus Fidelium.” In Handbook of Catholic Theology, ed. Wolfgang Beinert

and Francis Schüssler Fiorenza, 655-657. New York, NY: Herder & Herder,
1995.
Berkhof, H. Christelijk geloof. Een inleiding tot de geloofsleer. Nijkerk: Callenbach, 1979.
Biesbrouck, Wouter. “Christologie en narrativiteit in het werk van Hans W. Frei.

Betekenis en verwijzing bij evangelieverhalen.” (unpublished master’s thesis)
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 2008.
________. “The Apologetic Rationality of Gavin D’Costa’s Theology of Religions.”

(unpublished advanced master’s thesis) Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 2009.
________. “Maria uit de Bijbel: Naar een protestants-evangelische mariologie.” In

Geboren uit de Maagd Maria. Een tip van de sluier opgelicht, ed. Kristof Struys and
Wouter Biesbrouck, 126-137. Antwerpen: Halewijn, 2011.
________. “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, Sed Extra Mundum Nulla Damnatio:
Reappropriating Christ’s Descent Into Hell For Theology of Religions.” Louvain
Studies (2013 (forthcoming)).
________. “The Use of (Post-) Conciliar Texts in Gavin D’Costa’s Theology of

Religions.” Gregorianum (2013 (forthcoming)).
Bloesch, Donald. The Future of Evangelical Christianity. Garden City, NY: Doubleday,
1983.
Bock, Darrell L. “Luke, Gospel of.” In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Joel B.
Green, Scot McKnight and I. Howard Marshall, 495-509. Downers Grove IL;
Leicester: IVP, 1992.
Boersma, Hans. Heavenly Participation: The Weaving of a Sacramental Tapestry. Grand

Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2011.
Boeve, Lieven. Onderbroken traditie: Heeft het christelijk verhaal nog toekomst? Kapellen:
Pelckmans, 1999.
________. God onderbreekt de geschiedenis: Theologie in tijden van ommekeer. Kapellen:

Pelckmans, 2006.
Boeve, Lieven, and Gerard Mannion, eds. The Ratzinger Reader: Mapping a Theological
Journey. London: T & T Clark, 2010.
XVI BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bovell, Carlos R. ““Inerrancy, a Paradigm in Crisis”.” In Interdisciplinary Perspectives on

the Authority of Scripture. Historical, Biblical, and Theoretical Perspectives, ed.
Carlos R. Bovell, 91-106. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2011.
Bray, Gerald. “Explaining Christianity to Pagans: The Second-Century Apologists.” In

The Trinity in a Pluralistic Age: Theological Essays on Culture and Religion, ed.
Kevin J. Vanhoozer, 9-25. Grand Rapids, MI - Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1997.
Breuning, Wilhelm. “Analogy.” In Handbook of Catholic Theology, ed. Wolfgang Beinert

and Francis Schüssler Fiorenza, 5-7. New York, NY: Herder & Herder, 1995.
Briggman, Anthony. Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit Oxford Early
Christian Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
Bullivant, Stephen. The Salvation of Atheists and Catholic Dogmatic Theology Oxford
Theological Monographs. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
Capéran, Louis. Le problème du salut des infidèles. Essai historique. 2nd rev. ed. Toulouse:
Grand Séminaire, 1934.
________. Le problème du salut des infidèles. Essai théologique. 2nd rev. ed. Toulouse:
Grand Séminaire, 1934.
Carson, D.A. The Gagging of God. Leicester: Apollos, 1996.
Chung, Sung Wook. “Other Religions.” In The Oxford Handbook of Evangelical Theology,
ed. Gerald R. McDermott, 355-367. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
The Church as Community of Common Witness to the Kingdom of God: Report of the Third
Phase of the International Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the
World Alliance of Reformed Churches (1998-2005). 2007.
Clooney, Francis X., SJ. “Christianity and World Religions: Religion, Reason, and
Pluralism.” Religious Studies Review 15, no. 3 (1989): 197-204.
________. “Comparative Theology.” In The Oxford Handbook of Systematic Theology, ed.

John Webster, Kathryn Tanner and Iain Torrance, 653-669. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2007.
________. Comparative Theology: Deep Learning Across Religious Borders. Chichester:

Wiley-Blackwell, 2010.
________. “Response.” In The New Comparative Theology, ed. Francis X. Clooney, SJ, 191-
200. London: T&T Clark, 2010.
BIBLIOGRAPHY XVII
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. “Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the
Theologian.” Origins 20, no. July 5 (1990): 117-126.
________. Dominus Iesus: On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the
Church:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cf
aith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html, 2000.
Cox, Harvey. Fire from Heaven: The Rise of Pentecostal Spirituality and the Reshaping of
Religion in the Twenty-First Century. London: Cassell, 1996.
Creemers, Jelle. “Time Will Teach Us … Reflections on Thirty-Five Years of Pentecostal

– Roman Catholic Dialogue.” Ecclesiology 5, no. 3 (2009): 322-344.
Crisp, Oliver. “On Barth’s Denial of Universalism.” Themelios 29, no. 1 (2003): 18-29.
________. “On Being a Reformed Theologian.” Theology 115, no. 1 (2012): 14-25.
D’Costa, Gavin. “John Hick’s Copernican Revolution Ten Years After.” New Blackfriars
65, no. 769-770 (1984): 323-331.
________. Theology and Religious Pluralism: The Challenge of Other Religions. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell, 1986.
________. John Hick’s Theology of Religions: A Critical Evaluation. Lanham, MD:

University Press of America, 1987.
________. “The Absolute and Relative Nature of the Gospel: Christianity and Other
Religions.” In Pluralism, Tolerance and Dialogue. Six Studies, ed. M. Darrol Bryant,
133-146. Waterloo, Ontario: University of Waterloo Press, 1989.
________. “Christ, the Trinity and Religious Plurality.” In Christian Uniqueness

Reconsidered: The Myth of a Pluralistic Theology of Religions, ed. Gavin D’Costa, 16-
29. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1990.
________. “‘Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus’ Revisited.” In Religious Pluralism and Unbelief:
Studies Critical and Comparative, ed. Ian Hamnett, 130-147. London: Routledge,
1990.
________. “One Covenant or Many Covenants? Toward a Theology of Christian-Jewish

Relations.” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 27, no. 3 Summer (1990): 441-452.
________. “A Christian Reflection on Some Problems with Discerning ‘God’ in the

World Religions.” Dialogue & Alliance 5, no. 1 (1991): 4-17.
XVIII BIBLIOGRAPHY
________. “Toward a Trinitarian Theology of Religions.” In A Universal Faith? Peoples,

Cultures, Religions, and the Christ, ed. Catherine Cornille and Valeer
Neckebrouck, 139-154. Leuven: Peeters, 1992.
________. “Whose Objectivity? Which Neutrality? The Doomed Quest for a Neutral
Vantage Point from which to Judge Religions.” Religious Studies 29, no. 1 (1993):
79-95.
________. “Revelation and Revelations: Discerning God in Other Religions. Beyond a

Static Valuation.” Modern Theology 10, no. 2 (1994): 165-183.
________. “The Impossibility of a Pluralist View of Religions.” Religious Studies 32, no. 2
(1996): 223-232.
________. “The Resurrection, the Holy Spirit and the World Religions.” In Resurrection
Reconsidered, ed. Gavin D’Costa, 150-167. Oxford: Oneworld, 1996.
________. “Revelation and World Religions.” In Divine Revelation, ed. Paul Avis, 112-
139. London: DLT, 1997.
________. “On Cultivating the Disciplined Habits of a Love Affair Or on how to do

theology on your knees.” New Blackfriars 79, no. 925 (1998): 116-136.
________. “Review of Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism, by Jacques

Dupuis.” Journal of Theological Studies 49, no. 2 (1998): 910-914.
________. The Meeting of Religions and the Trinity. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000.
________. Sexing the Trinity: Gender, Culture and the Divine. London: SCM Press, 2000.
________. “Other Faiths and Christian Ethics.” In The Cambridge Companion to Christian
Ethics, ed. Robin Gill, 154-167. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
________. “Postmodernity and Religious Pluralism: Is a Common Global Ethic Possible

or Desirable?” In The Blackwell Companion to Postmodern Theology, ed. Graham
Ward, 131-143. Oxford: Blackwell, 2001.
________. “Nostra Aetate - Telling God’s Story in Asia: Promises and Pitfalls.” In Vatican
II and its Legacy, ed. M. Lamberigts and L. Kenis, 329-350. Leuven: Peeters, 2002.
________. “Revelation, Scripture and Tradition: Some Comments on John Webster’s

Conception of ‘Holy Scripture’.” International Journal of Systematic Theology 6, no.
4 (2004): 337-350.
BIBLIOGRAPHY XIX
________. Theology in the Public Square: Church, Academy and Nation Challenges in
Contemporary Theology, ed. Gareth Jones and Lewis Ayres. Malden, MA;
Oxford: Blackwell, 2005.
________. “Theology of Religions.” In The Modern Theologians: An Introduction to

Christian Theology Since 1918 (3rd ed.), ed. David Ford and Rachel Muers, 626-
644. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005.
________. “Christian Orthodoxy and Religious Pluralism: A Further Rejoinder to

Terrence Tilley.” Modern Theology 23, no. 3 (2007): 456-462.
________. “Christian Orthodoxy and Religious Pluralism: A Response to Terrence W.

Tilley.” Modern Theology 23, no. 3 (2007): 435-446.
________. “Queer Trinity.” In Queer Theology: Rethinking the Western Body, ed. Gerard
Loughlin, 269-280. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2007.
________. “Catholic Engagement with Other Religions: Dogmatics in Interaction with

Culture - Understanding, Interpretation and Judgement.” Paper Presented at
the Expert Meeting with Gavin D’Costa on “Real Challenges to Contemporary
Theology. Pluralism: Catholicity in the Public Square.” Nijmegen, 4 November,
2008.
________. “Review of God’s Rivals: Why Has God Allowed Different Religions? Insights
from the Bible and the Early Church by Gerald R. McDermott, IVP Academic,
2007.” Reviews in Religion and Theology 15, no. 2 (2008): 166-168.
________. Christianity and World Religions: Disputed Questions in the Theology of Religions.
Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.
________. “Hermeneutics and the Second Vatican Council’s Teachings: Establishing

Roman Catholic Theological Grounds for Religious Freedoms in Relation to
Islam. Continuity or Discontinuity in the Catholic Tradition?” Islam and
Christian-Muslim Relations 20, no. 3 (2009): 277-290.
________. “The Holy Spirit and the World Religions.” Louvain Studies 34, no. 4 (2010):
279-311.
________. “Catholicism and the World Religions: A Theological and Phenomenological

Account.” In The Catholic Church and the World Religions: A Theological and
Phenomenological Account, ed. Gavin D’Costa, 1-33. London: T&T Clark, 2011.
________. “Theology amid Religious Diversity.” In The Oxford Handbook of Religious

Diversity, ed. Chad Meister, 142-153. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
XX BIBLIOGRAPHY
________. “Traditions and Reception: Interpreting Vatican II’s ‘Declaration on the

Church’s Relation to Non-Christian Religions’.” New Blackfriars 92 (1040), no.
July (2011): 484-503.
________. “Catholics Reading the Scripture of Other Religions: Some Reflexions.” In

Mission in Dialogue. Essays in Honour of Michael L. Fitzgerald, ed. Catarina Belo
and Jean-Jacques Pérennès, 33-42. Louvain - Paris: Editions Peeters, 2012.
________, ed. Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered: The Myth of a Pluralistic Theology of

Religions, Faith Meets Faith. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1990.
________, ed. Resurrection Reconsidered. Oxford: Oneworld, 1996.
D’Costa, Gavin, Paul Knitter, and Daniel Strange. Only One Way? Three Christian
Responses on the Uniqueness of Christ in a Religiously Plural World. London: SCM,
2011.
D’Costa, Gavin, and Terrence W. Tilley. “Concluding Our Quaestio Disputata on

Theologies of Religious Diversity.” Modern Theology 23, no. 3 (2007): 463-468.
Dayton, Donald W. “Methodism and Pentecostalism.” In The Oxford Handbook of

Methodist Studies, ed. James E. Kirby and William J. Abraham, 171-187. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2011.
Del Colle, Ralph. Talking with Evangelicals: A Guide for Catholics. New York: Paulist
Press, 2012.
Demarest, Bruce A. “General and Special Revelation: Epistemological Foundations of

Religious Pluralism.” In One God, One Lord. Christianity in a World of Religious
Pluralism, ed. Andrew D. Clarke and Bruce W. Winter, 189-206. Carlisle:
Paternoster, 1992.
DiNoia, J. A. The Diversity of Religions. A Christian Perspective. Washington DC: Catholic

University of American Press, 1992.
du Plessis, David J. The Spirit Bade Me Go: The Astounding Move of God in the
Denominational Churches. Plainfield, NJ; London: Logos International; Logos
Fountain Trust, 1970.
Duffy, Stephen J. “Experience of Grace.” In The Cambridge Companion to Karl Rahner, ed.
Declan Marmion and Mary E. Hines, 43-62. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2005.
Dupuis, Jacques, SJ. Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism. Maryknoll, NY:
Orbis, 1997. Reprint, 2001.
BIBLIOGRAPHY XXI
Durand, Emmanuel, O.P. “A Theology of God the Father.” In The Oxford Handbook of
the Trinity, ed. Gilles Emery, O.P. and Matthew Levering, 371-386. Oxford:
Edwards, Jonathan. The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Vol 13: The Miscellanies, a-500. Edited
by Thomas A. Schaffer. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994. Reprint, The
Works of Jonathan Edwards Online (edwards.yale.edu).
Ehrman, Bart D., ed. The Apostolic Fathers II, The Loeb Classical Library 25. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 2003.
Eichrodt, Walter. Theology of the Old Testament. 2 vols. London: SCM, 1967.
Ernst, Harold E. “The Theological Notes and the Interpretation of Doctrine.” Theological
Studies 63, no. 4 (2002): 813-825.
Fabiny, Tibor. “Edwards and Biblical Typology.” In Understanding Jonathan Edwards.

An Introduction to America’s Theologian, ed. Gerald R. McDermott, 91-108.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Final Report: Dialogue Between the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity and Some
Classical Pentecostals 1972-1976. http://www.prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/pe-
rc/doc/e_pe-rc_pent01.html, 1976.
Fintel, William A., and Gerald R. McDermott. Cancer: A Medical and Spiritual Guide for
Patients and Their Families. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2004.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A, SJ. Scripture, the Soul of Theology. New York, NY: Paulist Press,
1994.
Flett, John G. “In the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit: A Critical
Reflection on the Trinitarian Theologies of Religion of S. Mark Heim and Gavin
D’Costa.” International Journal of Systematic Theology 10, no. 1 (2008): 73-90.
Frei, Hans W. The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative. A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth
Century Hermeneutics. New Haven,: Yale University Press, 1974.
________. Theology and Narrative. Selected Essays, ed. George Hunsinger and William C.
Placher. New York, NY; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Gaillardetz, Richard R. By what Authority? A Primer on Scripture, the Magisterium, and the
Sense of the Faithful. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003.
XXII BIBLIOGRAPHY
Geivett, R. Douglas, and W. Gary Phillips. “A Particularist View: An Evidentialist

Approach.” In More Than One Way? Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World,
ed. Dennis L. Okholm and Timothy R. Phillips, 213-245. Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan Pub. House, 1995.
Gelpi, Donald L., SJ. The Divine Mother: A Trinitarian Theology of the Holy Spirit. Lanham:
University Press of America, 1984.
Glaser, Ida. The Bible and Other Faiths: What Does the Lord Require of Us? The Global
Christian Library, ed. David Smith. Leicester: IVP, 2005.
Goldberg, Robert. The Nations that Know Thee Not: Ancient Jewish Attitudes Toward Other
Religions New York, NY: New York University Press, 1998.
Green, Joel B. “Acts of the Apostles.” In Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its
Developments, ed. Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids. Downers Grove, IL;
Leicester: IVP, 1997.
Grenz, Stanley J. Revisioning Evangelical Theology. A Fresh Agenda for the 21st Century.
Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1993.
________. “Beyond Foundationalism: Is a Nonfoundational Evangelical Theology

Possible?” Christian Scholar’s Review XXX, no. 1 (2000): 57-82.
Grenz, Stanley J., David Guretzki, and Cherith Fee Nordling. Pocket Dictionary of
Theological Terms Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999.
Griffiths, Paul J. An Apology for Apologetics: A Study in the Logic of Interreligious Dialogue.
Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2007. Reprint, Orbis Books, 1991.
________. “Review Symposium on Gerald O’Collins’ Salvation for All: God’s Other
Peoples.” Horizons 36, no. 1 (2009): 133-138.
Griffiths, Paul, and Delmas Lewis. “On Grading Religions, Seeking Truth, and Being
Nice to People: A Reply to Professor Hick.” Religious Studies 19, no. 1 (1983): 75-
80.
Grisanti, Michael A. “Inspiration, Inerrancy, and the OT Canon. The Place of Textual
Updating in an Inerrant View of Scripture.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society 44, no. 4 (2001): 577-598.
Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Leicester;

Grand Rapids, MI: IVP; Zondervan, 1994.
BIBLIOGRAPHY XXIII
Guarino, Thomas G. Foundations of Systematic Theology. London; New York, NY: T&T
Clark, 2005.
Hedges, Paul. “Particularities: Tradition-Specific Post-modern Perspectives.” In

Christian Approaches to Other Faiths, ed. Paul Hedges and Alan Race, 112-135.
London: SCM, 2008.
________. “A Reflection on Typologies: Negotiating a Fast-Moving Discussion.” In

Christian Approaches to Other Faiths, ed. Paul Hedges and Alan Race, 17-33.
London: SCM, 2008.
________. Controversies in Interreligious Dialogue and the Theology of Religions

Controversies in Contextual Theology, ed. Lisha Isherwood. London: SCM,
2010.
________. “Radical Orthodoxy and the Closed Western Theological Mind: The Poverty
of Radical Orthodoxy in Intercultural and Interreligious Perspective.” In The
Poverty of Radical Orthodoxy, ed. Lisa Isherwood and Marko Zlomislić, 119-143.
Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2012.
Heim, S. Mark. Salvations: Truth and Difference in Religion Faith Meets Faith. Maryknoll,
N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1995.
Hick, John. “Learning from Other Faiths: IX. The Christian View of Other Faiths.”
Expository Times 84 (1972): 36-39.
________. God and the Universe of Faiths: Essays in the Philosophy of Religion. London:
Macmillan, 1973.
________. God Has Many Names. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1980.
________. “On Grading Religions.” Religious Studies 17, no. 4 (1981): 451-467.
________. “On Conflicting Truth-Claims.” Religious Studies 19, no. 4 (1983): 485-492.
________. “Religious Pluralism.” In The World’s Religious Traditions: Current Perspectives

in Religious studies: Essays in Honour of Wilfred Cantwell Smith, ed. Frank
Whaling, 147-164. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1984.
________. Problems of Religious Pluralism. London: Macmillan, 1985.
________. “The Next Step Beyond Dialogue.” In The Myth of Religious Superiority: A
Multifaith Exploration, ed. Paul Knitter, 3-12. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2005.
XXIV BIBLIOGRAPHY
Hick, John, Dan Cohn-Sherbok, Johhn Peacock, and Gavin D’Costa. “Roundtable
Review of The Meeting of Religions and the Trinity by Gavin D’Costa.” Reviews in
Religion and Theology 8, no. 3 (2001): 232-250.
Hollenweger, Walter. “Pentecostals and the Charismatic Movement.” In The Study of

Spirituality, ed. Cheslyn Jones, Geoffrey Wainwright and Edward Yarnold, 549-
554. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986.
Holmes, M. W., ed. The Greek New Testament. SBL Edition: Society of Biblical Literature
and Logos Bible Software, 2010 (electronic form).
Hughes, Jabez. “Aratus, Phaenomena.” In Specimens of the Classic Poets in a Chronological

Series From Homer to Tryphiodorus, Translated Into English Verse, and Illustrated
With Biographical and Critical Notices (Vol. 1), ed. Charles Abraham Elton, 273-
279. London: Robert Baldwin, 1814.
Irenaeus. “Against Heresies.” In The Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus. Revised
and chronologically arranged, with brief prefaces and occasional notes by A. Cleveland
Coxe, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 2001.
Johnson, Keith E. Rethinking the Trinity & Religious Pluralism. An Augustinian Assessment
Strategic Initiatives in Evangelical Theology. Downers Grove, IL: IVP
Academic, 2011.
Justin Martyr. “Justin’s Hortatory Address to the Greeks (Translated by the Rev. M.
Dods, M.A.).” In The Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus. Revised and
chronologically arranged, with brief prefaces and occasional notes by A. Cleveland
Coxe, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, vol. 1 273-289. Grand
Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. An Introduction to the Theology of Religions: Biblical, Historical,

and Contemporary Perspectives. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003.
________. Trinity and Religious Pluralism: The Doctrine of the Trinity in Christian Theology
of Religions. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004.
________. “Pneumatologies in Systematic Theology.” In Studying Global Pentecostalism.

Theories and Methods, ed. Allan Anderson, Michael Bergunder, André Droogers
and Cornelis van der Laan, 223-244. Berkeley-Los Angeles-London: University
of California Press, 2010.
Keener, Craig S. The Spirit in the Gospels and Acts: Divine Purity and Power. Peabody,
MA: Hendrickson, 1997.
BIBLIOGRAPHY XXV
Kidd, Douglas. Aratus: Phaenomena Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Knitter, Paul. “Roman Catholic Approaches to Other Religions: Developments and

Tensions.” International Bulletin of Missionary Research 8, no. 2 (April) (1984): 50-
54.
________. “Interpreting Silence: A Response to Miikka Ruokanen.” International Bulletin

of Missionary Research 14, no. 2 (April) (1990): 62-63.
Knitter, Paul F. No Other Name? A Critical Survey of Christian Attitudes Toward the World
Religions American Society of Missiology Series, No. 7. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis,
1985.
________. “Preface.” In The Myth of Christian Uniqueness ed. John Hick and Paul F.
Knitter, vii-xii. London: SCM, 1987.
________. “A New Pentecost? A Pneumatological Theology of Religions.” Current

Dialogue 19, no. 1 (1991): 32-41.
________. “Catholics and Other Religions: Bridging the Gap between Dialogue and
Theology.” Louvain Studies 24, no. 4 (1999): 319-354.
________. Introducing Theologies of Religions. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2002.
________. “Religions Pluralism and Religious Imagination: Can a Pluralistic Theology

Sustain Christian Faith?” Louvain Studies 27, no. 3 (2002): 240-264.
________. “Is the Pluralist Model a Western Imposition? A Response in Five Voices.” In
The Myth of Religious Superiority: A Multifaith Exploration, ed. Paul Knitter, 28-42.
Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2005.
Kohn, Livia , and James Miller. “Ultimate Reality. Chinese Religion.” In Ultimate
Realities, ed. Robert Cummings Neville, 9-35. Albany: State University of New
York Press, 2001.
Kozinski, Thaddeus J. The Political Problem of Religious Pluralism: And why Philosophers
Can’t Solve it. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2010.
Küng, Hans. “What is True Religion? Toward an Ecumenical Criteriology.” In Toward a

Universal Theology of Religion, ed. Leonard Swidler, 231-250. Maryknoll, NY:
Orbis Books, 1987.
Lamoureux, Denis O. Evolutionary Creation. A Christian Approach to Evolution. Eugene,

OR: Wipf & Stock, 2008.
XXVI BIBLIOGRAPHY
Lashier, Jackson Jay. The Trinitarian Theology of Irenaeus of Lyons Dissertations (2009 -).
Paper 109. http://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu/109, 2011.
Lindbeck, George A. The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age
(With a New Introduction by Bruce D. Marshall and a New Afterword by the Author).
25th anniversary ed. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009
(original ed. 1984).
Lindström, Harald. Wesley and Sanctification: A Study in the Doctrine of Salvation.

Wilmore, KY: Asbury, [1946]. Reprint, With a Foreword to the Reprint by
Timothy L. Smith, [1980].
Lints, Richard. “The Postpositivist Choice. Tracy or Lindbeck?” Journal of the American
Academy of Religion LXI, no. 4 (1993): 655-677.
Lonergan, Bernard J. F., S J. Method in Theology. London: Darton, Longman & Todd,
1972.
Macchia, Frank D. “Pentecostal and Charismatic Theology.” In The Oxford Handbook of

Eschatology, ed. Jerry L. Walls. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
MacIntyre, Alasdair C. After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. Note Dame, IN: University
of Notre Dame Press, 1981.
________. Whose Justice? Which Rationality? Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame
Press, 1988.
________. Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry: Encyclopaedia, Genealogy, and Tradition
Gifford Lectures 1988. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1990.
“maieutic, adj. and n.”. In Oxford English Dictionary Online,

http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/112474?redirectedFrom=maieutic& September
2012.
Marshall, I. Howard. Acts Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Leicester; Grand

Rapids, MI: IVP; Eerdmans, 1980.
________. “Acts.” In Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament, ed. G.K.
Beale and D.A. Carson, 513-606. Grand Rapids, MI; Nottingham, UK: Baker
Academic; Apollos, 2007.
Martin, Ralph. Will Many Be Saved? What Vatican II Actually Teaches and Its Implications
for the New Evangelization. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012.
BIBLIOGRAPHY XXVII
Mathetes. “Letter to Diognetus.” In The Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus. Revised
and chronologically arranged, with brief prefaces and occasional notes by A. Cleveland
Coxe, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. New York, NY: Christian
Literature Publishing Co., 1885. Reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001.
McClymond, Michael James, and Gerald R. McDermott. The Theology of Jonathan

Edwards. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
McDermott, Gerald R. One Holy and Happy Society: The Public Theology of Jonathan
Edwards. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1992.
________. Seeing God: Twelve Reliable Signs of True Spirituality. Downers Grove, IL: IVP,
1995. Reprint, Seeing God: Jonathan Edwards and Spiritual Discernment
(Vancouver: Regent College Publishing, 2000).
________. “Jonathan Edwards and American Indians: The Devil Sucks Their Blood.”
The New England Quarterly 72, no. 4 (1999): 539-557.
________. Can Evangelicals Learn from World Religions? Jesus, Revelation & Religious
Traditions. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2000.
________. “Jonathan Edwards and the Salvation of Non-Christians.” Pro Ecclesia 9, no. 2
(2000): 208-227.
________. Jonathan Edwards Confronts the Gods: Christian Theology, Enlightenment

Religion, and Non-Christian Faiths. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
________. “What if Paul Had Been from China? Reflections on the Possibility of
Revelation in Non-Christian Religions.” In No Other Gods Before Me? Evangelicals
and the Challenge of World Religions, ed. John G. Stackhouse, 17-35. Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001.
________. “Holy Pagans.” Christian History 22, no. 1 (2003): 38-39.
________. “Jonathan Edwards, John Henry Newman and Non-Christian Religions.” In

Jonathan Edwards: Philosophical Theologian, ed. P. Helm and O. Crisp, 127-137.
Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003.
________. “Jesus and the Religions.” Books & Culture 10 (2004): 9.
________. “God and the Religions: New Turns in the Debate or Reviving Disputation:
Right and Wrong Ways to Think about Other Religions.” Pro Ecclesia XIV, no. 4
(2005): 487-493.
XXVIII BIBLIOGRAPHY
________. “Jonathan Edwards on Justification: Closer to Luther or Aquinas?”

Reformation & Revival Journal 14, no. 1 (2005): 119-138.
________. God’s Rivals: Why Has God Allowed Different Religions? Insights from the Bible
and the Early Church. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2007.
________. “Jonathan Edwards on Justification by Faith -- More Protestant or Catholic?”

Pro Ecclesia 17, no. 1 (2008): 92-111.
________. “Alternative Viewpoint: Edwards and Biblical Typology.” In Understanding

Jonathan Edwards. An Introduction to America’s Theologian, ed. Gerald R.
McDermott, 109-112. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
________. “Conclusion: Edwards’s Relevance Today.” In Understanding Jonathan

Edwards. An Introduction to America’s Theologian, ed. Gerald R. McDermott, 201-
217. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
________. “Edwards and the World Religions.” In Understanding Jonathan Edwards. An

Introduction to America’s Theologian, ed. Gerald R. McDermott, 177-194. Oxford:
________. The Great Theologians. A Brief Guide. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2010.
________. “Is Sola Scriptura really Sola? Edwards, Newman, Bultmann, and Wright on
the Bible as Religious Authority.” In By What Authority? The Vital Question of
Religious Authority in Christianity, ed. Robert L. Millet, 66-95. Macon, GA:
Mercer University Press, 2010.
________. “Revelation as Divine Communication through Reason, Scripture and

Tradition.” In Jonathan Edwards as Contemporary. Essays in Honor of Sang Hyun
Lee, ed. Don Schweitzer, 187-205. New York, NY: Peter Lang, 2010.
________. “Covenant, Mission, and Relating to the Other.” In Covenant and Hope.
Christian and Jewish Reflections, ed. Robert W. Jenson and Eugene B. Korn, 19-40.
Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012.
________, ed. The Oxford Handbook of Evangelical Theology. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2010.
McGowan, A.T.B. The Divine Spiration of Scripture. Challenging Evangelical Perspectives.

Nottingham: Apollos, 2007.
McGrath, Alister E. Christian Theology: An Introduction. 3rd ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 2006.
BIBLIOGRAPHY XXIX
________. Christianity’s Dangerous Idea: The Protestant Revolution: A History from the
Sixteenth Century to the Twenty-First. London: SPCK, 2006.
Merrick, James. “The Spirit of Truth as Agent in False Religions? A Critique of Amos
Yong’s Pneumatological Theology of Religions with Reference to Current
Trends.” Trinity Journal 29, no. 1 (2008): 107-125.
Merrigan, Terrence. “Approaching the Other in Faith: A Reply to Paul F. Knitter.”

Louvain Studies 24, no. 4 (1999): 355-360.
________. “Ecumenism and Interreligious Dialogue. The Foremost Challenge for the
Churches at the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century.” Louvain Studies 33, no. 1
(2008): 159-178.
Michaels, J. Ramsey. The Gospel of John New International Commentary on the New
Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010.
Michener, Ronald T. Engaging Deconstructive Theology Ashgate New Critical Thinking

in Religion, Theology and Biblical Studies. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007.
Miller, Ed. L. Good News in History: Essays in Honor of Bo Reicke. With a Contribution by
Professor Reicke. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1993.
Millet, Robert, and Gerald R. McDermott. Claiming Christ: A Mormon-Evangelical Debate.

Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos, 2007.
Misak, Cheryl. “Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914).” In The Cambridge Companion to

C.S. Peirce, ed. Cheryl Misak, 1-26. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2004.
Morali, Ilaria. “Salvation, Religions, and Dialogue in the Roman Magisterium. From
Pius IX to Vatican II and Postconciliar Popes.” In Catholic Engagement with World
Religions: A Comprehensive Study, ed. Karl Josef Becker, Ilaria Morali, Gavin
D’Costa and Maurice Borrmans, 122-142. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2010.
Moyaert, Marianne. Fragile Identities: Towards a Theology of Interreligious Hospitality.

Translated by Henry Jansen Currents of Encounter. Studies on the Contact
Between Christianity and Other Religions, Beliefs, and Cultures 39.
Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2011.
________. Leven in Babelse tijden. De noodzaak van een interreligieuze dialoog. Kalmthout -
Zoetermeer: Pelckmans - Klement, 2011.
________. “On Vulnerability: Probing the Ethical Dimensions of Comparative

Theology.” Religions 3, no. 4 (2012): 1144-1161.
XXX BIBLIOGRAPHY
________. “Scriptural Reasoning as Inter-Religious Dialogue.” In The Wiley-Blackwell

Companion to Inter-Religious Dialogue, ed. Catherine Cornille, 64-86. Chichester:
Wiley-Blackwell, 2013.
Mushy, Prosper. Sensus Fidelium as a Locus for Theology: Some Perspectives on the Use of
the Concept in Ecumenical Dialogue. Saarbrücken: LAP Lambert Academic
Publishing, 2010.
Nash, Ronald H. “Restrictivism.” In What About Those Who Have Never Heard? Three
Views on the Destiny of the Unevangelized, ed. John Sanders, 107-139. Downers
Grove, IL: IVP, 1995.
Neckebrouck, Valeer. Antropologie van de godsdienst: De andere zijde Studia

Anthropologica. Leuven: Universitaire Pers Leuven, 2008.
Netland, Harold A. Dissonant Voices: Religious Pluralism and the Question of Truth. Grand
Rapids, MI; Leicester: Eerdmans; Apollos, 1991.
________. Encountering Religious Pluralism: The Challenge to Christian Faith & Mission.
Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001.
Neville, Robert Cummings. Religious Truth The Comparative Religious Ideas Project.
Albany: State University of New York Press, 2001.
________, ed. The Human Condition, The Comparative Religious Ideas Project. Albany:
State University of New York Press, 2001.
________, ed. Ultimate Realities, The Comparative Religious Ideas Project. Albany: State
University of New York Press, 2001.
Neville, Robert Cummings, and Wesley J. Wildman. “Comparative Conclusions about

Ultimate Realities.” In Ultimate Realities, ed. Robert Cummings Neville, 151-185.
Albany: State University of New York Press, 2001.
________. “On Comparing Religious Ideas.” In Ultimate Realities, ed. Robert Cummings
Neville, 187-210. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2001.
Newbigin, Lesslie. The Gospel in a Pluralist Society. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989.
________. The Open Secret: An Introduction to the Theology of Mission. rev. ed. Grand
Newman, John Henry Cardinal. An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. 6th
ed. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame press, 1989.
BIBLIOGRAPHY XXXI
Noll, Mark A. A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada. London - Grand
Rapids, MI: SPCK - Eerdmans, 1992.
________. The Rise of Evangelicalism. The Age of Edwards, Whitefield and the Wesleys A
History of Evangelicalism. Leicester: IVP, 2004.
Nongbri, Brent. Before Religion: A History of a Modern Concept. New Haven, CT; London:
Yale University Press, 2013.
O’Collins, Gerald, SJ. “Review Symposium on Gerald O’Collins’ Salvation for All:
God’s Other Peoples. Author’s Response.” Horizons 36, no. 1 (2009): 138-142.
Okholm, Dennis L., and Timothy R. Phillips, eds. More Than One Way? Four Views on
Salvation in a Pluralistic World. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Pub. House, 1995.
Oliverio, L. William. “An Interpretive Review Essay on Amos Yong’s Spirit-Word-

Community: Theological Hermeneutics in Trinitarian Perspective.” Journal of
Pentecostal Theology 18 (2009): 301-311.
________. “The One and the Many: Amos Yong and the Pluralism and Dissolution of
Late Modernity.” In The Theology of Amos Yong and the New Face of Pentecostal
Scholarship. Passion for the Spirit, ed. Wolfgang Vondey and Martin William
Mittelstadt, 45-61. Leiden: Brill, 2013, forthcoming.
Olson, Roger, “Defining “Evangelical”: Why It’s Necessary and Impossible”,

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2013/01/defining-evangelical-why-
its-necessary-and-impossible/ (accessed 14 January 2013).
Olson, Roger E. “Pentecostalism’s Dark Side.” Christian Century 123, no. 5 (2006): 27-30.
________. “A Wind that Swirls Everywhere.” Christianity Today March (2006): 52-54.
On Becoming a Christian: Insights from Scripture and the Patristic Writings With some
Contemporary Reflections. Report of the Fifth Phase of the International Dialogue
Between Some Classical Pentecostal Churches and Leaders and the Catholic Church
(1998-2006) http://www.prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/pe-rc/doc/e_pe-rc_5-
contents.html and
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/eccl-comm-
docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20060101_becoming-a-christian_en.html, 2006.
Pahl, Michael W. “Scripture and Tradition: Seeking a Middle Path.” In The Sacred Text.
Excavating the Texts, Exploring the Interpretations, and Engaging the Theologies of
the Christian Scriptures, ed. Michael Bird and Michael Pahl, 63-81. Piscataway,
NJ: Gorgias Press, 2010.
XXXII BIBLIOGRAPHY
Paige, Terence P. “Philosophy.” In Dictionary of Paul and his Letters, ed. Gerald F.
Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin and Daniel G. Reid, 713-718. Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 1993.
Parry, Robin. “Ideological Criticism.” In Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the

Bible, ed. Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Craig G. Bartholomew, Daniel J. Treier and N. T.
Wright, 314-316. London; Grand Rapids, MI: SPCK; Baker Academic, 2005.
Perry, Tim S. Radical Difference: A Defence of Hendrik Kraemer’s Theology of Religions

Editions SR. Waterloo, Ont.: Published for the Canadian Corporation for
Studies in Religion = Corporation canadienne des sciences religieuses by
Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2001.
Peterson, Eugene. Reversed Thunder: The Revelation of John and the Praying Imagination.
San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row, 1988. Reprint, New York, NY:
HarperCollins, 1991.
Piggin, F.S. “Principalities and Powers.” In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter
A. Elwell, 878-879. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1984.
Pinnock, Clark. Flame of Love: A Theology of the Holy Spirit. Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 1996.
Pinnock, Clark H. “Revelation.” In New Dictionary of Theology, ed. Sinclair B. Ferguson,

David F. Wright and James I. Packer, 585-587. Leicester: IVP, 1988. Reprint,
electronic ed., Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000.
Plantinga, Alvin. “Pluralism: A Defense of Religious Exclusivism.” In The Philosophical

Challenge of Religious Diversity, ed. K. Meeker and P. Quinn, 172-192. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Poirier, John C. “Scripture and Canon.” In The Sacred Text. Excavating the Texts,
Exploring the Interpretations, and Engaging the Theologies of the Christian Scriptures,
ed. Michael Bird and Michael Pahl, 83-98. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2010.
Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue, and Congregation for the

Evangelization of Peoples. Dialogue and Proclamation: Reflection and Orientation
on Interreligious Dialogue and the Proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils-
/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_19051991_dialogue-and-
proclamatio_en.html, 1991.
BIBLIOGRAPHY XXXIII
Poochigian, Aaron. Aratus’ Phaenomena. Translated, with an Introduction and Notes John
Hopkins New Translations from Antiquity. Baltimore: John Hopkins University
Press, 2010.
Race, Alan. Christians and Religious Pluralism: Patterns in the Christian Theology of
Religions. London: SCM Press, 1983.
Radcliffe, Timothy. “Tolerance is Not Enough to Learn the Art of Living With Others.”
The Guardian, Sunday 16 December 2012.
Rahner, Karl. Foundations of Christian Faith. An Introduction to the Idea of Christianity.

Translated by William V. Dych. New York: Seabury Press, 1978.
Rahner, Karl, S.J., and Herbert Vorgrimler. Klein theologisch woordenboek. Hilversum;
Antwerpen: Paul Brand, 1965.
Rahner, Karl, SJ. The Trinity. Translated by Joseph Donceel. New York, NY: Herder &
Herder, 1970. Reprint, London: Burns & Oates, 2001.
Ramachandra, Vinoth. “Mission as Reconciliation: Religious Pluralism and Social

Conflict.” Paper presented at the conference Mission as reconciliation in pluralistic
contexts: ASEAN and Sri Lanka Edinburgh 2010 conference, 8-11 June 2009.
Malaysia:
http://www.edinburgh2010.org/fileadmin/files/edinburgh2010/files/pdf/Vinoth
%2010%20theses.pdf, 2009.
Ratzinger, Joseph. “The Ecclesiology of the Constitution of the Church, Vatican II,
‘Lumen Gentium’.” L’Osservatore Romano, 19 September 2001, 5-8.
Reed, David A. “Amos Yong’s “New” Pentecostal Theology: Anglican Notes on the
Oneness-Trinitarian Impasse.” In The Theology of Amos Yong and the New Face of
Pentecostal Scholarship. Passion for the Spirit, ed. Wolfgang Vondey and Martin
William Mittelstadt, 239-257. Leiden: Brill, 2013, forthcoming.
Reid, Daniel G. “Principalities and Powers.” In Dictionary of Paul and his Letters, ed.
Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin and Daniel G. Reid, 746-752. Downers
Grove, IL - Leicester: IVP, 1993.
Richie, Tony. “The Spirit of Truth as Guide into All Truth: A Response to R. A. James
Merrick, “The Spirit of Truth as Agent in False Religions? A Critique of Amos
Yong’s Pneumatological Theology of Religions with Reference to Current
Trends”.” Cyberjournal for Pentecostal-Charismatic Research 19 (2010).
________. “A Distinctive Turn to Pneumatology: Amos Yong’s Christian Theology of

Religions.” In The Theology of Amos Yong and the New Face of Pentecostal
XXXIV BIBLIOGRAPHY
Scholarship. Passion for the Spirit, ed. Wolfgang Vondey and Martin William
Mittelstadt, 103-121. Leiden: Brill, 2013, forthcoming.
________. Toward a Pentecostal Theology of Religions. Encountering Cornelius Today

Cleveland, TN: CPT Press, 2013, Kindle edition.
Robeck, Cecil M., Jr. “The Azusa Street Mission and Historic Black Churches: Two
Worlds in Conflict in Los Angeles’ African American Community.” In Afro-
Pentecostalism: Black Pentecostal and Charismatic Christianity in History and
Culture, ed. Amos Yong and Estrelda Y. Alexander, 21-41. New York; London:
New York University Press, 2011.
Ryken, Leland, James C. Wilhoit, and Tremper Longman, III. “Head.” In Dictionary of
Biblical Imagery, 368. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998. Reprint,
electronic edition 2000.
Saldarini, Anthony J. “Ultimate Realities: Judaism: God as a Many-sided Ultimate

Reality in Traditional Judaism.” In Ultimate Realities, ed. Robert Cummings
Neville, 37-60. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2001.
Sanders, John, ed. What About Those Who Have Never Heard? Three Views on the Destiny of
the Unevangelized. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1995.
Sandidge, Jerry L. Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977-1982): A Study in Developing

Ecumenism. Vol. 1. 3 vols. PhD Thesis KU Leuven. Leuven, 1985.
________. Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977-1982): A Study in Developing

Ecumenism. Vol. 1 Studies in the Intercultural History of Christianity. Frankfurt
am Main; New York: P. Lang, 1987.
Saucy, Mark. “Evangelicals, Catholics, and Orthodox Together. Is the Church the
Extension of the Incarnation?” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43, no.
2 (June) (2000): 193–212.
Schmidt-Leukel, Perry. “Exclusivism, Inclusivism, Pluralism: The Tripolar Typology-

Clarified and Reaffirmed.” In The Myth of Religious Superiority: A Multifaith
Exploration, ed. Paul Knitter, 13-27. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2005.
Scott, James M. Geography in Early Judaism and Christianity: The Book of Jubilees Society
for New Testament Studies Monograph Series. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2002.
Smith, James K.A. The Fall of Interpretation: Philosophical Foundations for a Creational
Hermeneutic. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000.
BIBLIOGRAPHY XXXV
Stephenson, Christopher Adam. Pentecostal Theology According to the Theologians: An

Introduction to the Theological Methods of Pentecostal Systematic Theologians
Dissertations (2009 -). Paper 9.
http://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu/9, 2009.
Stott, John. The Spirit, the Church and the World. The Message of Acts. Downers Grove, IL:
IVP, 1990.
Strange, Daniel. The Possibility of Salvation Among the Unevangelized: An Analysis of

Inclusivism in Recent Evangelical Theology Paternoster Theological Monographs.
Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2002.
________. “Exclusivism: ‘Indeed Their Rock is Not like Our Rock’.” In Christian
Approaches to Other Faiths, ed. Paul Hedges and Alan Race, 36-62. London: SCM,
2008.
Studebaker, Steven M. “Toward a Pneumatological Trinitarian Theology: Amos Yong,

the Spirit, and the Trinity.” In The Theology of Amos Yong and the New Face of
Pentecostal Scholarship. Passion for the Spirit, ed. Wolfgang Vondey and Martin
William Mittelstadt, 83-101. Leiden: Brill, 2013, forthcoming.
Sullivan, Francis A., SJ. Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the
Magisterium. Dublin: Gill & MacMillan, 1996.
________. Salvation Outside the Church? Tracing the History of the Catholic Response.
Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2002. Reprint, Paulist Press, 1992.
Suurmond, Jean-Jacques. Word and Spirit at Play. Towards a Charismatic Theology.

Translated by John Bowden. London: SCM, 1994.
Tanner, Kathryn. “Review of Sexing the Trinity: Gender, Culture and the Divine by Gavin
D’Costa.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 71, no. 4 (2003): 937-939.
Tanner, Norman P., SJ. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 2: Trent to Vatican II.
London; Washington DC: Sheed & Ward; Georgetown University Press, 1990.
Theophilus, Antiochenus. “Theophili Antiocheni Ad Autolycum.” In Patristische Texte

und Studien 44, ed. Miroslav Marcovich. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1995.
Theophilus of Antioch. “Theophilus to Autolycus.” In Fathers of the Second Century:

Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria. Revised and
chronologically arranged with brief prefaces and occasional notes by A. Cleveland Coxe,
ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
2001.
XXXVI BIBLIOGRAPHY
Thompson, Livingstone. A Protestant Theology of Religious Pluralism Studies in the

History of Religious and Political Pluralism, ed. Richard Bonney. Oxford: Peter
Lang, 2009.
Tiessen, Terrance L. Irenaeus on the Salvation of the Unevangelized ATLA Monograph

Series, no. 31. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1993.
________. Who Can Be Saved? Reassessing Salvation in Christ and World Religions.
Downers Grove, IL; Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 2004.
Valkenberg, Pim, and Harm Goris. “‘In Hem is Gods volheid lijfelijk aanwezig’: Jezus
en de religies.” Tijdschrift voor Theologie 48 (2008): 403-421.
van Woudenberg, René. “Christelijk exclusivisme en religieus pluralisme.” Nederlands

Theologisch Tijdschrift 48 (1994): 275-290.
Vanhoozer, Kevin. “Scripture and Hermeneutics.” In The Oxford Handbook of Evangelical

Theology, ed. Gerald R. McDermott, 35-52. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2010.
Vanhoozer, Kevin J. “Does the Trinity Belong in a Theology of Religions? On Angling

in the Rubicon and the ‘Identity’ of God.” In The Trinity in a Pluralistic Age:
Theological Essays on Culture and Religion, ed. Kevin J. Vanhoozer, 41-71. Grand
Rapids, MI; Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1997.
Verboven, Lucette. Pelgrims onderweg: Spirituele ervaringen en gesprekken. Kapellen;

Zoetermeer: Pelckmans; Meinema, 2006.
Volf, Miroslav. Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and
Reconciliation. Nashville: Abingdon, 1996.
Vondey, Wolfgang, and Martin William Mittelstadt. “Introduction.” In The Theology of

Amos Yong and the New Face of Pentecostal Scholarship. Passion for the Spirit, ed.
Wolfgang Vondey and Martin William Mittelstadt, 1-24. Leiden: Brill, 2013,
forthcoming.
________, eds. The Theology of Amos Yong and the New Face of Pentecostal Scholarship.
Passion for the Spirit, Global Pentecostal and Charismatic Studies. Leiden: Brill,
2013, forthcoming.
Wainwright, William. “Jonathan Edwards.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

(Fall 2009 Edition), ed. Edward N. Zalta:
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2009/entries/edwards/, 2009.
Walgrave, J.H. Heil, geloof en openbaring. Kasterlee: De Vroente, 1968.

BIBLIOGRAPHY XXXVII
Walton, John H., Victor H. Matthews, and Mark. W. Chavalas. The IVP Bible Background
Commentary: Old Testament. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2000. Reprint, electronic
edition, 2000.
Webster, John. “‘The Visible Attests the Invisible’.” In The Community of the Word:
Toward an Evangelical Ecclesiology, ed. Mark Husbands and Daniel J. Treier, 96-
113. Downers Grove, IL; Leicester: IVP; Apollos, 2005.
Weinandy, Thomas G. The Father’s Spirit of Sonship: Reconceiving the Trinity. Edinburgh:
T & T Clark, 1995.
Wiggins, David. “Reflections on Inquiry and Truth Arising from Peirce’s Method for
the Fixation of Belief.” In The Cambridge Companion to C.S. Peirce, ed. Cheryl
Misak, 87-126. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Williams, Daniel H. Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism. A Primer for
Suspicious Protestants. Grand Rapids, MI - Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1999.
Williams, Rowan. “Balthasar and Rahner.” In The Analogy of Beauty. The Theology of
Hans Urs von Balthasar, ed. John Riches, 11-34. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986.
________. Wrestling with Angels: Conversations in Modern Theology, ed. Mike Higton.
London; Grand Rapids, MI: SCM; Eerdmans, 2007.
Wink, Walter. Naming the Powers: The Language of Power in the New Testament The
Powers 1. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1984.
________. Unmasking the Powers: The Invisible Forces that Determine Human Existence The
________. Engaging the Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World of Domination The
Wright, N.T. The New Testament and the People of God Christian Origins and the
Question of God. London: SPCK, 1992.
________. Scripture and the Authority of God. London: SPCK, 2005.
Yoder, John Howard. The Politics of Jesus: Vicit Agnus Noster. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI;
Carlisle: Eerdmans; Paternoster, 1994. Reprint, 2000.
Yong, Amos. ““Not Knowing Where the Wind Blows...” : On Envisioning a

Pentecostal-Charismatic Theology of Religions.” Journal of Pentecostal Theology,
no. 14 (1999): 81-112.
XXXVIII BIBLIOGRAPHY
________. “Whither Theological Inclusivism? The Development and Critique of an

Evangelical Theology of Religions.” Evangelical Quarterly 71, no. 4 (1999): 327-
348.
________. “The Demise of Foundationalism and the Retention of Truth: What

Evangelicals Can Learn from C.S. Peirce.” Christian Scholar’s Review XXIX, no. 3
(2000): 563-588.
________. Discerning the Spirit(s): A Pentecostal-Charismatic Contribution to Christian

Theology of Religions Journal of Pentecostal theology. Supplement Series.
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.
________. “On Divine Presence and Divine Agency: Toward a Foundational

Pneumatology.” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 3, no. 2 (2000): 167-188.
________. “Discerning the Spirit(s) in the World Religions: Toward a Pneumatological

Theology of Religions.” In No Other Gods Before Me? Evangelicals and the
Challenge of World Religions, ed. John G. Stackhouse, 37-61. Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Academic, 2001.
________. Spirit-Word-Community: Theological Hermeneutics in Trinitarian Perspective

New Critical Thinking in Religion, Theology and Biblical Studies. Burlington,
VT and Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002. Reprint, Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006.
________. “The Word and the Spirit or the Spirit and the Word: Exploring the
Boundaries of Evangelicalism in Relationship to Modern Pentecostalism.”
Trinity Journal 23, no. 2 (2002): 235-252.
________. “As the Spirit Gives Utterance: Pentecost, Intra-Christian Ecumenism and
the Wider Oikoumene.” International Review of Mission 92, no. 366 (2003): 299-
314.
________. Beyond the Impasse: Toward a Pneumatological Theology of Religions. Grand

Rapids, MI: Baker Academic; Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 2003.
________. “The Hermeneutical Trialectic: Notes Toward a Consensual Hermeneutic

and Theological Method.” The Heythrop Journal 45, no. 1 (2004): 22-39.
________. “The Holy Spirit and the World Religions: On the Christian Discernment of
Spirit(s) “After” Buddhism.” Buddhist-Christian Studies 24 (2004): 191-207.
________. “The Spirit Bears Witness: Pneumatology, Truth, and the Religions.” Scottish
Journal of Theology 57, no. 01 (2004): 14-38.
BIBLIOGRAPHY XXXIX
________. “Christian and Buddhist Perspectives on Neuropsychology and the Human

Person: Pneuma and Pratityasamutpada.” Zygon 40, no. 1 (2005): 143-165.
________. “A P(new)matological Paradigm for Christian Mission in a Religiously Plural

World.” Missiology 33, no. 2 (2005): 175-191.
________. The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh: Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global
Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2005.
________. “Discerning the Spirit.” Christian Century 123, no. 5 (2006): 31-33.
________. “Can We Get “Beyond the Paradigm”?-- A Response to Terry Muck’s

Proposal in Theology of Religions.” Interpretation 61, no. 1 (2007): 28-32.
________. “Pentecostalism and the Theological Academy.” Theology Today 64, no. 2
(2007): 244-250.
________. “Radically Orthodox, Reformed, and Pentecostal: Rethinking the Intersection

of Post/Modernity and the Religions in Conversation with James K.A. Smith.”
Journal of Pentecostal Theology 15, no. 2 (2007): 233-250.
________. “The Spirit of Hospitality: Pentecostal Perspectives Toward a Performative

Theology of Interreligious Encounter.” Missiology 35, no. 1 (2007): 55-73.
________. “The Spirit, Christian Practices, and the Religions: Theology of Religions in
Pentecostal and Pneumatological Perspective.” The Asbury Journal 62, no. 2
(2007): 5-31.
________. Theology and Down Syndrome: Reimagining Disability in Late Modernity. Waco,
TX: Baylor University Press, 2007.
________. “Between the Local and the Global: Autobiographical Reflections on the
Emergence of the Global Theological Mind.” In Shaping a Global Theological
Mind, ed. Darren C. Marks, 187-194. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008.
________. Hospitality and the Other: Pentecost, Christian Practices, and the Neighbor Faith
Meets Faith. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2008.
________. ““The Light Shines in the Darkness”: Johannine Dualism and the Challenge
for Christian Theology of Religions Today.” Journal of Religion 89, no. 1 (2009):
31-56.
________. In the Days of Caesar: Pentecostalism and Political Theology – The Cadbury
Lectures 2009 Sacra Doctrina: Christian Theology for a Postmodern Age. Grand
XL BIBLIOGRAPHY
________. The Bible, Disability, and the Church: A New Vision of the People of God. Grand
Rapids, MI and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2011.
________. “On Doing Theology and Buddhology: A Spectrum of Christian Proposals.”

Buddhist-Christian Studies 31 (2011): 103-118.
________. “Primed for the Spirit: Creation, Redemption and the Missio Spiritus.”
International Review of Mission 100, no. 2 (2011): 355-366.
________. The Spirit of Creation: Modern Science and Divine Action in the Pentecostal-
Charismatic Imagination Pentecostal Manifestos. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
2011.
________. Who is the Holy Spirit? A Walk with the Apostles Brewster, MA: Paraclete Press,
2011, Kindle edition.
________. The Cosmic Breath: Spirit and Nature in the Christianity-Buddhism-Science

Trialogue Philosophical Studies in Science & Religion. Leiden and Boston: Brill,
2012.
________. “The Holy Spirit, the Middle Way, and the Religions: A Pentecostal Inquiry
in a Pluralistic World.” Evangelical Interfaith Dialogue 3, no. 1 (2012): 4-15, 25.
________. Pneumatology and the Christian-Buddhist Dialogue: Does the Spirit Blow Through
the Middle Way? Studies in Systematic Theology. Leiden: Brill, 2012.
________. Spirit of Love: A Trinitarian Theology of Grace Waco, TX: Baylor University
Press, 2012.
________. “The Spirit, Vocation, and the Life of the Mind: A Pentecostal Testimony.” In
Pentecostals in the Academy: Testimonies of Call, ed. Steven M. Fettke and Robby
Waddell, 203–20. Cleveland, TN: CPT Press, 2012.
Yong, Amos, and Tony Richie. “Missiology and the Interreligious Encounter.” In
Studying Global Pentecostalism. Theories and Methods, ed. Allan Anderson,
Michael Bergunder, André Droogers and Cornelis van der Laan, 245-267.
Berkeley-Los Angeles-London: University of California Press, 2010.
INTRODUCTION XLI
INTRODUCTION
This introduction tries to achieve several goals. First of all, the topic of our dissertation
is introduced by way of exposition of its title. Second, we try to point to the importance
of the subject matter and this dissertation’s original contribution to the research field.
We do this by introducing theology of religions (and our personal involvement in this
research), narrowing down the focus to the meaning and importance of tradition-
specific approaches to then arrive at the specific research question that is the subject
matter of the dissertation. We point to several dimensions of this research which can
claim a modest originality and contribution to the research field. Finally, the plan of
this work is introduced to help navigate the reader the structure of the dissertation.
The title of this work, Wrestling with angels: Catholic and Evangelical tradition-
specific approaches to theology of religions, needs some unpacking. This will evidently be
done in the course of this dissertation, but at its start, it is fitting to at least entice the
reader to the significance of its subject matter. This study is an investigation into the
possibility of a tradition-specific approach to the theology of religions as it relates to
interreligious dialogue. The subtitle makes clear that more than one tradition-specific
approach will be considered. As the name of this method conveys, the approach is
specific to a particular tradition. We have chosen to look at three distinct approaches,
one Roman Catholic, and two Evangelical.
The main title of this work, however, is called ‘wrestling with angels’ and tries to
capture some important aspects of the dialogical and dialectical character that marks
these tradition-specific approaches. A fuller unfolding of the aptness of the metaphor
‘wrestling with angels’ must await the concluding chapter (chapter VII), but we can
unveil already the link with the Jacob-story (Genesis 32:22-32), when Jacob is on the
verge of re-entering the land of his father (and estranged brother) after an exile of
many years. During the night Jacob wrestles with a mysterious person who
permanently injures Jacob, yet blesses him as well. It becomes clear to Jacob that he has
fought an angel-like person, and he acclaims that ‘he has seen God face to face’.
Tradition-specific Christian approaches to other religions are analogous to this
mysterious encounter. They want to embrace the other, but are as much fighting them.
Or the other way round: they are fighting the other, only to discover that they are
embracing them. There is injury and blessing, perhaps with the injury becoming a
symbol of the blessing. Wrestling with angels seems to be an appropriate metaphor
because tradition-specific engagement with the religious other may sometimes take the
form of a fight, a disputation, even if the goal is to respect the other. This engagement
XLII INTRODUCTION
is not a neutral practice, as it involves injury and blessing, and in the end, amazement
to have been in the presence of God.1
Theology of religions was first ‘given’ to me by my promoter as the topic for my
advanced master’s thesis. Prior to that moment, I had never, even casually,
contemplated working in this area.2 I simply wanted to do theology whilst at the same
time familiarizing myself with Roman Catholic theology. Since a major focus has been
the theology of Gavin D’Costa, I have been privileged in being able to satisfy the two
broad goals I set out to start with.
Familiarizing myself with theology of religions, however, has been a fascinating
journey. For a number of reasons, I am very glad that this is the field of theology I am
working in. Theology of religions is one of the major issues currently debated in
theology. Secondly, and connected with the first reason, the relations between the
religions is an issue of great societal importance. Thirdly, it is a topic that is extremely
important for the Church at large. Fourthly, this issue has hardly been dealt with in my
own tradition (Free Evangelical Churches in Flanders).
Tradition-specific theology has been defined (by a commentator who is not

sympathetic to the project) as that method that “seeks to develop an internal dialogue
[…], without heed to an external […] world, or to other sources and claims to truth.”3
This approach of only having recourse to internal Christian sources has been
questioned because it reduces the plausibility ad extra, prohibits dialogue because of
(assumed) incommensurability between different religions, and uses the ‘religious
other’ only to enrich one’s own tradition. Hence, this dissertation investigates whether
a tradition-specific approach can really issue in a coherent theology of interreligious
dialogue.
In Christian theology’s understanding of the nature and function of the (non-
Christian) religions, important impulses have come from globalisation, in the form of
increased exposure to other religions, and also from developments in philosophy, such
1 The main title of this dissertation (wrestling with angels) was first suggested to me by my promoter,
Professor Dr. Terrence Merrigan. It immediately captured my imagination as it reminded me of a book
with the same title, which had been for a long time on my desk, waiting to be read. This book, by Rowan
Williams, is a collection of previously published papers, which mentions only in a cursory fashion its title,
referring to the “salutary difficulty – the sense of ‘wrestling’, if you will, with angels or whatever else.”
Rowan Williams, Wrestling with Angels: Conversations in Modern Theology, ed. Mike Higton (London; Grand
Rapids, MI: SCM; Eerdmans, 2007), xix. The context of the quote is a discussion of the consequences of
upholding or negating traditional doctrinal theology, such as christology. Foregoing interaction with
traditional doctrinal theology, claims Williams, leaves theology without such wrestling with angels. A
similar concern is central to this dissertation, i.e., christological, pneumatological, and trinitarian theology
are potential stumbling blocks. Yet engaging these theological themes can be a ‘salutary difficulty’.
2 The closest I had come to theology of religions was reading a book in the late nineties concerning
the ‘destiny of the unevangelized’. John Sanders, ed., What About Those Who Have Never Heard? Three Views
on the Destiny of the Unevangelized (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1995).
3 Paul Hedges, Controversies in Interreligious Dialogue and the Theology of Religions, ed. Lisha
Isherwood, Controversies in Contextual Theology (London: SCM, 2010), 155.

INTRODUCTION XLIII
as the linguistic turn and the rise of postmodernity. Insights from postmodern
philosophy that have contributed to contemporary theology of religions include the
acknowledgment of the perspectival nature of knowledge (all rationality is
‘traditioned’) and the importance of plurality and alterity. These developments have
lead to the rediscovery and celebration of particularity, i.e., the specificity of traditions.
The positions identified through the classical typology of exclusivism,
inclusivism and pluralism are being questioned as meta-narratives which either neglect
the other a priori (exclusivism) or force the other into a pre-existing mould (inclusivism
and pluralism). Hence, the need for a different approach that does not smother the
particularity of the different traditions and at the same time acknowledges its own
perspectival nature – not as something to be ashamed of, or as something that must be
overcome once recognized, but rather as a necessary condition to reach meaning and
truth.
The particularist position is also new in that it gives much more attention to the
cognitive and spiritual dimensions of religious traditions, over against pluralism that is
based in praxis and/or experience.
Perhaps the different approaches to theology of religions can be organised as

follows:
- the pre-modern approach: exclusivism (extra ecclesiam nulla salus)
- the modern approach: inclusivism
- the hyper-modern approaches: pluralism
- the post-modern approach: particularism
- the hyper-post-modern approach?: interreligious theology?
It seems that exclusivism does not take seriously enough the factuality of
religious plurality. It stresses epistemological issues over the universal salvific will of
God. There are serious pastoral implications of upholding a very strict exclusivism in
the face of a multi-religious society. Inclusivism holds the danger that the other
religion is not conceived of as a comprehensive form of life, but rather as something
which contains some elements that point to Christianity – so the integrity of the other
religion is denied. Pluralism does not take seriously the commitments and convictions
of adherents of the different religions, who seem to hold these in ‘absolute’ ways.
Rather, it subsumes all these differences in a new totalising narrative. Particularism
offers itself as an alternative that respects the integrity of other religions as complex
wholes, but equally the commitment and convictions of the own tradition. It remains to
be seen whether it offers a framework for fruitful interreligious dialogue.
Theology of religions and related disciplines, such as comparative theology, have
been in the vanguard of the theological enterprise since the seventies of last century, a
position that is not abating. The issues raised by the tradition-specific approach have
appeared as reactions against pluralist theologies. George Lindbeck’s little book The
XLIV INTRODUCTION
Nature of Doctrine (1984)4 and Alasdair MacIntyre’s trilogy (After Virtue: A Study in
Moral Theory (1981), Whose Justice? Which Rationality? (1988) and Three Rival Versions of
Moral Enquiry (1990))5 can perhaps be described as the remote cause of the tradition-
specific approach. The proximate cause, perhaps being the book Christian Uniqueness
Reconsidered: The Myth of a Pluralistic Theology of Religions, edited by Gavin D’Costa and
published in 1990.6 This has been seminal in bringing to the fore substantial
reservations about the pluralist position and introducing elements of a particularist
framework. Since then, a never abating stream of articles, books and round table-
discussion has been published. Even theologians who are not specialising in theology
of religions have occasionally ventured into this area (exemplified by the professors
Systematic Theology at our Faculty).
Some have argued that there are basically two schools in a liberal – post-liberal
divide: pluralists and particularists. This is however, a simplifying of reality.
Obviously, particularists are hard to fit into one ‘school’ as they insist on the
particulars of their respective traditions. One only has to think of the differences
between Gavin D’Costa, S. Mark Heim and Amos Yong, although all three of them
work from a trinitarian perspective. But also pluralists are diverse, even if their
approach is more unifying. See the difference between John Hick, Paul Knitter, Perry
Schmidt-Leukel and Paul Hedges, for example.
When zooming in on the tradition-specific approach, one can see the post-liberal
influence in George Lindbeck, Joseph DiNoia, and Gavin D’Costa (but less so in more
recent work). But there is also a growing group of (neo-)evangelical theologians who,
more or less, can be ranked among the particularists: Clark Pinnock, Terrance Tiessen,
Gerald McDermott, and Amos Yong. These authors come from a wide spectrum of
Evangelicalism: Calvinist, Arminian and Pentecostal.
The goal of this study is, first of all, to answer the question whether a tradition-
specific approach can issue in a coherent theology of interreligious dialogue. I further
hope to show what a tradition-specific approach means in terms of the use of sources
and authorities from one’s tradition. In the course of this dissertation we will study
and compare the Roman Catholic approach of Gavin D’Costa with that of two
Evangelical theologians (Gerald McDermott and Amos Yong). All three of them have
legitimation issues with respect to the majority opinion amongst theologians in their
4 George A. Lindbeck, The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age (With a New
Introduction by Bruce D. Marshall and a New Afterword by the Author), 25th anniversary ed. (Louisville, KY:
Westminster John Knox Press, 2009 (original ed. 1984)).
5 Alasdair C. MacIntyre, After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory (Note Dame, IN: University of Notre
Dame Press, 1981); Alasdair C. MacIntyre, Whose Justice? Which Rationality? (Notre Dame, IN: University of
Notre Dame Press, 1988); Alasdair C. MacIntyre, Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry: Encyclopaedia,
Genealogy, and Tradition, Gifford Lectures 1988 (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1990).
6 Gavin D’Costa, ed., Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered: The Myth of a Pluralistic Theology of Religions,
Faith Meets Faith (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1990).

INTRODUCTION XLV
tradition. In a simplistic conservative-liberal analysis, we could say that D’Costa has

moved to a more conservative position than the mainstream in his tradition, whilst
McDermott and Yong take positions that are considered to be more liberal in
Evangelicalism. What makes this interesting for our research question, is that they
must defend how their position does justice to their theological tradition.
There are two other goals or contributions, although they are more indirect. The
first is ecclesial. We want to make a contribution to the understanding of other
religions in our own tradition, especially in Flanders. The second indirect goal (and
hopefully contribution) is ecumenical: bringing Roman Catholic and Evangelical
Protestant theology in conversation with each other. Here also, the goal is not merely
academic, but ecclesial as well. Being relatively conversant with Roman Catholic
theology, we want to present our fellow Evangelicals with a more honest view and
correct understanding of the Roman Catholic Church and its theology. We wouldn’t
mind if in the process of writing this dissertation, we could also present our Roman
Catholic confrères a more positive view of Evangelicalism. It is our conviction that this
ecumenical conversation will become increasingly crucial for the worldwide church.
We are convinced that our research makes a – modest – contribution to the

research field for a number of reasons. First of all, this dissertation engages in an
extended investigation in the dialogical implications of tradition-specific approaches
through three case studies, furthering the understanding of the dynamics of tradition-
specific approaches in general and in theology of religions in particular. Second, we
interact with Gavin D’Costa on a methodological level with a special focus on the
appeal to his sources and authorities. This will not only enhance the understanding of
his approach, but can also contribute to the intra-Roman Catholic discussion on
theology of religions. Third, our research contributes to the reception of Evangelical
approaches to theology of religions. Evangelicals have sometimes been dismissed from
the conversation because of their exclusivistic and/or dogmatic position. The legitimacy
of tradition-specific approaches has increased the possibility of Evangelical voices to be
heard, and this dissertation is a small contribution to this effect. Fourth, and more
specific, our research hopes to contribute to the reception of and interaction with the
theology of Amos Yong. What is the case for the credibility of Evangelical voices in the
academic discussion in general, is even more so for Pentecostal voices. Yet the theology
of Yong is not only a challenge for his own Pentecostal tradition, it has the possibility
to contribute significantly to the general development of theology of religions and
comparative theology. Fifth, and finally, our research highlights the contributions that
can be made when Roman Catholic and Evangelical theology are brought into
conversation with one another. This shows the fecundity of theology of religions for
ecumenical theology and vice versa.
XLVI INTRODUCTION
A few words on the structure and plan of this dissertation. It consists of seven
chapters in three parts. Part one deals with the status questionis in theology of religions,
Part two discusses three tradition-specific approaches, and Part three brings together
meta-reflections on the similarities and differences between these three cases.
Part I (Mapping theology of religions: cui bono & quo vadis?) provides a state of the
question, i.e., an overview of where theology of religions is, but looks at the research
field through the lens of two questions: ‘Who benefits?’ (cui bono) and ‘where do we
go?’ (quo vadis). The first chapter (Cui Bono?) analyses the use of typologies in theology
of religions to provide an overview of the research field. We apply a hermeneutics of
suspicion to the question of typologies, suggesting that the formulation of typologies
often betrays an ideological bias. Typologies are not theologically neutral in other
words. There is obviously also an agenda to the demand of some comparative
theologians to place theology of religions under a moratorium. We investigate this
claim in chapter two (Quo Vadis? Towards a moratorium of theology of religions?) where
we search for the reasons behind this demand, and what conditions must be fulfilled
before it can be considered legitimate. We show that there is an abiding need for
theology of religions, both from a systematic theological point of view as well as from a
pastoral theological point of view.
Part II (Catholic and Evangelical tradition-specific approaches) forms the heart of this
dissertation. The distinct tradition-specific approaches of three theologians are studied
in detail. We consider respectively Roman Catholic theologian Gavin D’Costa (chapter
III), Reformed-Evangelical theologian Gerald McDermott (chapter IV), and Pentecostal-
Evangelical theologian Amos Yong (chapter V). In the year 2000, all three of them
published a monograph that is a landmark in their own career, and in their tradition.7
D’Costa was already a respected author in the research field, but his The Meeting of
Religions and the Trinity brings forcefully to the fore the tradition-specific turn that he
had made in the previous years. McDermott’s Can Evangelicals Learn From World
Religions? is the result of a fruitful engagement with the theology of Jonathan Edwards
and applying that to an Evangelical understanding of revelation in the contemporary
context of religious pluralism. Finally, Amos Yong’s Discerning the Spirit(s), the
publication of his doctoral dissertation, is a novel and challenging Pentecostal-
charismatic contribution to Christian theology of religions.
These three authors are chosen because they stand in the particularist approach
to theology of religions and make important contributions in two directions: towards
theology of religions in general, and towards theological development in their home
tradition. Yet there are also other reasons why these three authors and their respective
7 Gavin D’Costa, The Meeting of Religions and the Trinity (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000); Gerald R.
McDermott, Can Evangelicals Learn from World Religions? Jesus, Revelation & Religious Traditions (Downers
Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2000); Amos Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s): A Pentecostal-Charismatic Contribution
to Christian Theology of Religions, Journal of Pentecostal theology. Supplement Series (Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 2000).
INTRODUCTION XLVII
confessional traditions are singled out. Gavin D’Costa, first of all, is one of the most
prominent Roman Catholic scholars in theology of religions, and could be said to be
responsible for putting the tradition-specific approaches squarely on the agenda.
D’Costa is also interesting because his career embodies the growing importance of the
particularist approach. This will be illustrated through the increasing appeal in his
publications to texts from the teaching office of the Roman Catholic church.
The two other authors are part of the Evangelical movement broadly defined. It
is no coincidence that Evangelical authors figure in this dissertation, as its author is
himself a child of that tradition. The combination of Roman Catholic and Evangelical
authors equally testifies to the ecumenical convictions of the present author. Bringing
these two traditions into dialogue with each other has all along been part of the
motivation to study theology at a Roman Catholic theology department. In that sense,
this dissertation could be said to be an attempt at ‘language learning’ and trying to
acquire as much of an insider perspective in another (Christian) tradition as possible,
even as the dissertation’s explicit focus is on tradition-specific approaches to Christian
understanding of other religions.
Our evaluation of the tradition-specific approaches will follow a common
structure. We will look at three different levels for issues that are important and/or
possibly contested: the methodological, the theological and the dialogical. At the
methodological level, we are interested primarily in the sources and authorities that
are used (or not) by our three theologians, and how they make use of these. As we place
these authors in the category of tradition-specific or particularist approaches, it is
pertinent to investigate how they appeal to those elements that are specific to their
tradition. The second level of investigation is the theological. First, the tradition-
specificity is not only obvious in the kind of authorities used, but also in the kind of
theological topics discussed. Although all three theologians are part of the Christian
tradition, their particular confessional tradition also informs their approach. So we
expect christology to be a crucial theme in all three, but neither will we be surprised if
ecclesiology features more prominently in a Roman Catholic analysis, biblical
revelation in a Reformed perspective, and pneumatology and demonology in a
Pentecostal viewpoint. The third level of evaluation will be the dialogical. We are, after
all, also interested in whether and how tradition-specific approaches can result in a
coherent theology of interreligious dialogue.
Although most research time has been devoted to study the contribution of
Gavin D’Costa,8 the chapter on Amos Yong is the longest. There are at least three
reasons for this. The first is that our advanced master’s thesis on the apologetic
rationality of Gavin D’Costa’s theology of religions is presupposed as a preparatory
8 Some of the results of our research on Gavin D’Costa’s theology of religions are being published
in article form. See Wouter Biesbrouck, “The Use of (Post-) Conciliar Texts in Gavin D’Costa’s Theology of
Religions,” Gregorianum (2013 (forthcoming)).
XLVIII INTRODUCTION
work for this chapter.9 Only a limited amount of that material reappears in this
dissertation. The second reason is that in chapter V (on Amos Yong), we devoted some
space to introduce Pentecostalism as a movement, as this is perhaps the least known
tradition of the three that are studied, and also the most contested, both in the
Christian ecumenical dialogue as at the interreligious round table. The third reason is
that Yong’s approach is both deep and wide. It is deep, in the sense that he has
developed a philosophical-theological foundation for his systematic theological
engagements, and wide, in that he has been active in several overlapping disciplines
that are relevant to interreligious dialogue: theology of religions, comparative
theology, and the science-theology dialogue.10 Doing justice to Yong’s comprehensively
developed position has required relatively more space.
Part III concludes the dissertation with two chapters. Chapter VI (Some meta-
reflections on (three) tradition-specific approaches) compares the approach of D’Costa,
McDermott and Yong according to three aspects: their methodological, theological and
dialogical outlook. Given that all three speak out of an explicit Christian perspective,
we want to establish whether or not there are sufficient similarities to speak of one,
general, tradition-specific approach to other religions. The final and very short chapter
(VII: Wrestling with angels) is more of an epilogue and returns to the metaphor of our
dissertation’s title. We show how the metaphor is fitting for tradition-specific
approaches on the one hand, but also to the writing of a dissertation on the other.
Concluding the overview of this dissertation’s structure, we would like to point

out its chiastic structure:11
I. Who benefits?
II. Where do we go?
III-IV-V. Tradition-specific approaches
VI. Where do we go? Where have we gone?
VII. Who benefits? Did I benefit?
9 Wouter Biesbrouck, “The Apologetic Rationality of Gavin D’Costa’s Theology of Religions”

((unpublished advanced master’s thesis) Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 2009).
10 Although the latter is also developed inter-religiously by Yong, we have not engaged this aspect
of his work.
11 We leave it to later exegetes of this dissertation to discuss whether this structure was originally
intended by its author, or only an a posteriori imposition by its (first) reader.

PART I
MAPPING THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS:
CUI BONO & QUO VADIS?

2 PART I
PART I: MAPPING THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS: CUI
BONO & QUO VADIS?
Cui bono, or ‘Who benefits?’ is a crucial question in solving complex homicide cases.
The Roman orator and senator Cicero (106-43 B.C.) popularized the term, attributing
the phrase to Roman consul Lucius Cassius (127 B.C.). Cicero made use of this question
in his rhetorically outstanding defence of his friend Milo who was accused of
murdering a political enemy.12
In more recent times, ‘Who benefits?’ has become an important question in
postmodern analyses of how texts are used to change or preserve existing power
structures. The question cui bono would then be a crucial part of ideological criticism.
Robin Parry explains what this entails:
At its most basic, ideological criticism is the task of uncovering
the hidden ideologies at work in social practices, structures,
and texts. Written texts encode ideology, communicating and
reinforcing it in ways usually unperceived. It is often said that
every ideology serves the interests of certain people and
groups while marginalizing others. This would make every
ideology, however liberating for some, a potential source of
oppression for others. Unmasking the dynamics of such power-
relations is central to the work of the ideological critic. With
reference to a written text, the critic will employ a hermeneutic
of suspicion, seeking to find whose interests are served by the
text.13
It is our contention that overviews of theology of religions often betray such an

(unconscious) ideological bent. This is the case in the search for a typology of the
different positions in the field, as will be discussed in Chapter I. But this is, arguably,
also the case in the call of some comparative theologians for a moratorium on theology
of religions. The reasons for this assessment are spelled out in Chapter II, which raises
the question of the future of theology of religions, hence, quo vadis?
12 The phrase can be found in pro Milone 32.2 an English translation of which is available at
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Cic.+Mil.+32&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0020
(accessed 13 April 2010).
13 Robin Parry, “Ideological Criticism,” in Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible, ed.
Kevin J. Vanhoozer et al. (London; Grand Rapids, MI: SPCK; Baker Academic, 2005), 314.
4 PART I
CHAPTER I.
SITUATING THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS: CUI BONO?

The making and use of typologies in theology of religions often betray an ‘ideological’
position. Several scholars have already argued that the classical typology (exclusivism-
inclusivism-pluralism) suffers from this defect. We will look closely at these
accusations. But how do the alternatives that have been offered fare? Can these also be
said to be “a potential source of oppression?” 14
We will proceed with our research in three steps. First, we will study the genesis
of the classical typology and what this tells us of the ideological position it represents.
Second, we will look at the critiques that this typology has generated. These will help
us to evaluate the scope of the ‘ideology’ behind the typology and the whole field of
theology of religions. Third, our discussion of alternative typologies will show that
these are not developed in an ‘ideological’ vacuum.
§ 1. THE GENESIS OF THE THREEFOLD TYPOLOGY
A. DEFINITIONS
As we will be working in this chapter with the terms ‘exclusivism’, ‘inclusivism’ and
‘pluralism’, it is best to start with at least some definitions before we proceed to our
critical analysis.
1. John Hick
Hick sets out the three types along a soteriological axis:

 “Exclusivism relates salvation/liberation exclusively to one particular
tradition.”15
 Inclusivism “is the view that God’s forgiveness and acceptance of humanity
have been made possible by Christ’s death, but that the benefits of this sacrifice
are not confined to those who respond to it with an explicit act of faith.”16
 Pluralism holds that “there is a plurality of saving human responses to the
ultimate divine Reality.” “In Christian theological terms, there is a plurality of
divine relations, making possible a plurality of forms of saving human
responses.”17
14 Parry, “Ideological Criticism,” 314.

15 John Hick, “Religious Pluralism,” in The World’s Religious Traditions: Current Perspectives in
Religious studies: Essays in Honour of Wilfred Cantwell Smith, ed. Frank Whaling (Edinburgh: T&T Clark,
1984), 150.
16 Hick, “Religious Pluralism,” 152.

6 PART I
2. Alan Race
Race plots the three categories along an epistemological axis:

 “Exclusivism […] counts the revelation in Jesus Christ as the sole criterion by
which all religions, including Christianity, can be understood and evaluated.”18
 Inclusivism holds that “[t]o be inclusive is to believe that all non-Christian
religious truth belongs ultimately to Christ and the way of discipleship which
springs from him.”19
 Pluralism’s essential feature is that “knowledge of God is partial in all faiths,
including the Christian. Religions must acknowledge their need of each other if
the full truth about God is to be available to mankind.”20
B. WHO COINED ‘EXCLUSIVISM-INCLUSIVISM-PLURALISM?’
It is generally acknowledged that the tripolar typology of ‘exclusivism’, ‘inclusivism’,

and ‘pluralism’ is the best known and most widespread typology in theology of
religions. However, there seems to be some confusion as to the origin of this typology.
Alan Race’s book Christians and Religious Pluralism, (first edition 198321) seems to
be the earliest publication in which the threefold typology is used. However, there,
Race states, “In this study we adopt the headings Exclusivism, Inclusivism, and
Pluralism as a broad typological framework within which most of the current Christian
theologies of religions can be placed.”22 But Race does not mention from where he
adopts these headings.
In the Meeting of Religions and the Trinity, Gavin D’Costa remarked that “Race
acknowledged his debt regarding the threefold typology to the European nineteenth-
century Christian missionary, John Farquhar.”23 We have not found any reference to
this in the first edition of Race’s Christians and Religious Pluralism.24 Earlier, D’Costa in
his (revised) PhD thesis on John Hick, seemed to claim that Hick is the author of the
typology. He refers to a contribution of Hick in a work published in 1984. D’Costa
states that “[t]his typology has been adopted by a number of theologians – see for
18 Alan Race, Christians and Religious Pluralism: Patterns in the Christian Theology of Religions (London:
SCM Press, 1983), 11.
19 Race, Christians and Religious Pluralism, 38.
21 This book is mistakenly dated 1982 by several authors, for example, Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s).
Also Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, An Introduction to the Theology of Religions: Biblical, Historical, and Contemporary
Perspectives (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003). And Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, Trinity and Religious
Pluralism: The Doctrine of the Trinity in Christian Theology of Religions (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004).
22 Race, Christians and Religious Pluralism, 7 (my italics).
23 D’Costa, Meeting, 20.
24 D’Costa does not refer to a specific page but simply to the whole work. He does, however, refer
to both to the first and second edition, the latter of which I have not been able to consult.
CHAPTER I: SITUATING THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS: CUI BONO? 7
example, Race 1983[…].”25 In his 1984 contribution to a Festschrift for Wilfred Cantwell
Smith, Hick writes that “many different options have been and are being canvassed.
Both because of the fullness of this discussion within Christianity, and because I am
myself a Christian and am concerned with the problem from a Christian point of view,
I propose to describe the main options in Christian terms. They are three in number.”26
Hick identifies them as ‘exclusivism,’ ‘inclusivism’27 and ‘pluralism.’28 Similarly, Barnes
notes that “Race himself ascribes [the typology] to Hick” after noting that the typology
first appears in Race’s 1983 work. However, no specific reference is given to where
Race writes this.29 But already in 1983, the same year of the publication of Race’s book,
Hick had used this typology in his article in Religious Studies.30 Hick replies in this
article to a critique by Paul Griffiths and Delmas Lewis31 on Hick’s 1981 article in
Religious Studies.32 It is worth quoting Hick’s first published use of the typology
extensively:
There are, I think, three main possibilities, which can be aptly
labelled the exclusivist, the inclusivist, and the pluralist
understandings of the religious situation. By exclusivism I
mean the view that one particular mode of religious thought
and experience (namely, one’s own) is alone valid, all others
being false. By inclusivism I mean the view (advocated by Karl
Rahner in his influential theory of ‘anonymous Christianity’
and largely adopted, though without use of that term, by
Vatican II) that one’s own tradition alone has the whole truth
but that this truth is nevertheless partially reflected in other
traditions; and, as an additional clause special to Christianity,
that whilst salvation is made possible only by the death of
Christ, the benefits of this are available to all mankind (a
position adopted by the present Pope in his Encyclical
Redemptor Hominis, 1979, para. 14). And by pluralism I mean
the view - which I advocate - that the great world faiths
embody different perceptions and conceptions of, and
25 Gavin D’Costa, John Hick’s Theology of Religions: A Critical Evaluation (Lanham, MD: University
Press of America, 1987), 17n.80 (my italics). However, in a more recent article, D’Costa says that “[i]n 1983
Alan Race coined [emphasis added] the threefold typology in his book Christians and Religious Pluralism.”
Gavin D’Costa, “The Impossibility of a Pluralist View of Religions,” Religious Studies 32, no. 2 (1996): 223.
At this point there is no longer any reference to Hick as being the author.
27 “However we may now turn to a second Christian answer to our question, which can be labelled
inclusivism.” Hick, “Religious Pluralism,” 152.

28 “The third possible answer to the question of the relation between salvation/liberation and the
cumulative religious traditions can best be called pluralism.” Hick, “Religious Pluralism,” 153.
29 Michael Barnes, SJ, Theology and the Dialogue of Religions, ed. Colin Gunton and Daniel W. Hardy,
Cambridge Studies in Christian Doctrine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 8n.9.
30 John Hick, “On Conflicting Truth-Claims,” Religious Studies 19, no. 4 (1983): 487.
31 Paul Griffiths and Delmas Lewis, “On Grading Religions, Seeking Truth, and Being Nice to
People: A Reply to Professor Hick,” Religious Studies 19, no. 1 (1983). It is interesting to note that Griffiths
and Lewis label Hick’s position as “non-judgmental inclusivism” (p. 75).
32 John Hick, “On Grading Religions,” Religious Studies 17, no. 4 (1981).
8 PART I
correspondingly different responses to, the Real or the

Ultimate from within the different cultural ways of being
human; and that within each of them the transformation of
human existence from self centredness to Reality-centredness is
manifestly taking place.33
In his discussion of the genealogy of the typology, Tim Perry adds some extra
information. On the one hand, he refers to the 1983 edition of Race’s book that the
typology “is often said to have been inaugurated by Alan Race in the first edition of
Christians and Religious Pluralism […].”34 On the other hand, he adds a footnote stating
that “[t]his observation is not quite correct. Race developed the typology while reading
for an MA at Birmingham University under the tutelage of John Hick.”35 We
understand Perry’s point to be threefold. First, that Race did indeed coin the words.
Second, that this already happened in his MA thesis and not in his 1983 book. Third,
the typology in its three categories was basically developed by Hick. Race was chiefly
providing new headings for already existing categories.36
Paul Hedges, more recently, simply states that this typology “was introduced by
Alan Race in 1983 […].”37 As this appears in a work co-edited with Alan Race, and in a
chapter on typologies for which Hedges acknowledges Race’s suggestions,38 we
consider it settled that Race coined the typology.
C. HICK’S COSMOLOGICAL TYPOLOGY FOR THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS:

PTOLEMAIC, EPICYCLIC, COPERNICAN
The basic outline for the classic typology in theology of religions should, however, be
traced back to John Hick and can be found in chapter 9, The Copernican Revolution in
Theology, of his book God and the Universe of Faiths, published in 1973.39
In this work, Hick compares the developments in theology of religions with the
developments in cosmological scientific theory. In earlier cosmology, one started with
a geocentric or Ptolemaic view in which all planetary and stellar movements were
understood with respect to the earth as its unmovable centre. This theory was the
33 Hick, “On Conflicting Truth-Claims,” 487. It is interesting to note that, in these definitions, the
soteriological and epistemological aspects are mixed, whereas in his 1984 definitions the soteriological
typology was singled out (see our discussion of definitions starting on p.5).
34 Tim S. Perry, Radical Difference: A Defence of Hendrik Kraemer’s Theology of Religions, Editions SR
(Waterloo, Ont.: Published for the Canadian Corporation for Studies in Religion = Corporation canadienne
des sciences religieuses by Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2001), 12 (my italics).
35 Perry, Radical Difference, 12n.3.
36 Perry provides a genealogy of the typology to prove just that (Perry, Radical Difference, 12-17). We
will look into that in the next section.

37 Paul Hedges, “A Reflection on Typologies: Negotiating a Fast-Moving Discussion,” in Christian
Approaches to Other Faiths, ed. Paul Hedges and Alan Race, SCM Core Text (London: SCM, 2008), 17.
38 Hedges, “Reflection,” 31n.1.
39 John Hick, God and the Universe of Faiths: Essays in the Philosophy of Religion (London: Macmillan,
1973). Chapter 9 is based on a lecture given in 1972 and part of the chapter has appeared as John Hick,
“Learning from Other Faiths: IX. The Christian View of Other Faiths,” Expository Times 84 (1972).
nearly uncontested scholarly consensus for almost two millennia. Of course,

observations undermined the notion of a simple circular path of celestial bodies
around the earth. The Ptolemaic system theorized that sun, moon, or planets, moved
along a circular orbit in an epicycle. This is a smaller orbital movement, the centre of
which moves along the larger circular orbit. Each celestial body had its own big orbit
around the earth together with a specific epicycle. As the science of astronomy
progressed, more detailed data put the theory under increasing stress, so that
additional epicycles had to be postulated in order for the data to cohere with the
theory. It was only in the middle of the 16th century that the work of Nicolaus
Copernicus (1473-1543) challenged the Ptolemaic system fundamentally with the
competing system of heliocentrism. But heliocentrism did not win the day
immediately. Even ninety years after the publication of Copernicus’ work, Galileo
Galilei stood trial before the Inquisition for supporting heliocentrism.
Central in Hick’s argument is his likening of the Church dogma, extra ecclesiam
nulla salus, to the Ptolemaic system. As Christianity became increasingly aware of other
religions, additional theories had to be proffered for the system to remain standing.
Hick mentions such ideas as invincible ignorance, implicit faith, baptism by desire, and
implicit desire to belong to the Church.40 But these can only be understood as
“supplementary theories, developed to modify the original dogma whilst leaving it
verbally intact, ‘epicycles’ because they are so powerfully reminiscent of the epicycles
that were added to the old Ptolemaic picture of the universe, with the earth at the
centre, to accommodate increasingly accurate knowledge of the planets.”41 It is worth
quoting Hick at length to show how he understands his own position as a necessary
consequence of being honest to reality ‘out there’:
Looking back we can see that it was theoretically possible to
stick indefinitely to the conviction that the earth is the centre,
adding epicycle upon epicycle as required to reconcile the
dogma with the facts. However, the whole thing became
increasingly artificial and burdensome; and the time came
when people’s minds were ready for the new Copernican
conception that it is the sun and not the earth that is at the
centre. Then the old Ptolemaic system was thrown aside and
appeared in retrospect utterly antiquated and implausible. And
much the same, I cannot help thinking, applies to what I shall
call the Ptolemaic theology whose fixed point is the principle
that outside the church, or outside Christianity, there is no
salvation. When we find men of other faiths we add an epicycle
of theory to the effect that although they are consciously
adherents of a different faith, nevertheless they may
40 Hick, Universe of Faiths, 123-124. For a different evaluation of this history, see Gavin D’Costa,
“‘Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus’ Revisited,” in Religious Pluralism and Unbelief: Studies Critical and Comparative,
ed. Ian Hamnett (London: Routledge, 1990).
41 Hick, Universe of Faiths, 123-124.
10 PART I
unconsciously or implicitly be Christians. In theory, one can

carry on such manoeuvres indefinitely. But anyone who is not
firmly committed to the original dogma is likely to find the
resulting picture artificial, implausible and unconvincing, and
to be ready for a Copernican revolution in his theology of
religions.42
Although Hick is appreciative of the position of Vatican II with respect to other

religions, he considers it to be just another epicycle added to the old theory. According
to Hick, “Vatican II has not made the Copernican revolution that is needed in the
christian [sic] attitude to other faiths.”43
Hick mentions some other ‘epicycles’ which have been added since Vatican II.
One is the concept of ‘anonymous Christian’ developed by Karl Rahner, whom Hick
criticizes for not being able to face up to the “required Copernican revolution.”44 Hick
further mentions a Protestant epicycle which allows for a post-mortem possibility of
accepting Jesus Christ as Saviour.45
This discussion hints at an important aspect of how Hick understands theology
of religions to develop. For him, it is inevitable that, in the end, we all will have to face
up to the Copernican revolution. There is also a clear evolutionary path where one
starts with the old dogma of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, moves on to ever more
sophisticated epicycles for fine-tuning this dogma, to finally being ready to make a
paradigm shift. Hick makes it very clear:
The needed Copernican revolution in theology involves an
equally radical transformation in our conception of the
universe of faiths46 and the place of our own religion within it.
It involves a shift from the dogma that Christianity is at the
centre to the realisation that it is God who is at the centre, and
that all the religions of mankind, including our own, serve and
revolve around him.47
42 Hick, Universe of Faiths, 125.

45 Interestingly, Hick writes that this is “sometimes heard in discussions although I have not seen it
in the published literature […].” Hick, Universe of Faiths, 129. This ‘epicycle’ would become famous with
the publication of George Lindbeck’s The Nature of Doctrine in 1984. This opinion was, however, already
widely published in the 19th century. In 1934, surveying Protestant doctrine on the salvation of ‘infidels’ in
the middle of the 19th century, Louis Capéran writes that “Cette thèse a obtenu plein succès. En
Allemagne, en Angleterre, en Suisse, en France, en Amérique, les adhésions se sont multiplies.” Louis
Capéran, Le problème du salut des infidèles. Essai historique, 2nd rev. ed. (Toulouse: Grand Séminaire, 1934),
495-496. Capéran furthermore devotes a whole chapter to a theological evaluation of this option in Louis
Capéran, Le problème du salut des infidèles. Essai théologique, 2nd rev. ed. (Toulouse: Grand Séminaire, 1934),
3-16.
46 Hence the title of this collection of essays of Hick refers to his Copernican revolution: God and the
Universe of Faiths.
47 Hick, “Learning,” 131.
Perry has shown how this process squares well with Hick’s own spiritual
biography, claiming that “Hick deliberately links his own personal narrative with what
became the threefold typology.”48
What also becomes clear from this narrative, is that the ‘Ptolemaic system’ and
the ‘epicycles’ really form one basic category with two subdivisions. Although
‘exclusivism’ and ‘inclusivism’ can easily be seen as the new labels for geocentrism and
its epicycles, they are basically variations on a theme. Hick does not see them as
fundamentally different. It is only the shift from Christocentrism to theocentrism49 that
makes a real difference.
48 Perry, Radical Difference, 13-14. The quote is on p.14. On several occasions, Hick has described his
spiritual journey in his writings as a three-step process that is easily linked to the three-fold typology. See
e.g., John Hick, God Has Many Names (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1980), 13-19.
49 Should we understand Hick’s later move from theocentrism to reality-centrism as an epicycle in
its own right?

12 PART I
§ 2. A CRITIQUE OF THE CLASSIC TYPOLOGY
Although the threefold typology is widely used, it has received its share of criticism.
There is a substantial group of theologians who find it to be deficient and who no
longer wish to use it. Several alternatives have been proposed, but none of these have
won the day. In any case, even when new typologies are proposed, the classic typology
is used as a sort of benchmark, confirming its importance.
A. A PLURALIST CRITIQUE (KNITTER)
Paul Knitter, a prominent Roman Catholic scholar in theology of religions, is well

known in the field for promoting a more pluralist understanding in interreligious
dialogue.50 Knitter is not particularly critical of the classic typology. As we shall discuss
below,51 he does suggest an alternative typology that is largely concurrent with the
classic typology of Race, while at the same time expanding on it. Instead of three types,
Knitter suggests four. A first criticism would be then that the classic typology is not
broad enough as there are more than three options.
There is, however, one particular point of critique levelled by Knitter against the
classic typology. This concerns the fact that this typology confirms the Christological
impasse. The moot point in theology of religions, from a Christian perspective, is that it
does not seem to be able to get beyond the question of the place of Christ. According to
many pluralists, as long as a traditional Christology is held on to, no progress can be
made in interreligious dialogue. This is the Christological impasse. Knitter claims that
the classic typology is perpetuating the Christological starting point in theology of
religions. The very categories of exclusivism, inclusivism and pluralism are centred on
a certain understanding of the place of Christ. The first two claim the unsurpassable
centrality of Christ, whilst pluralism denies this. Yet in its denial it is still characterized
by its stance toward Christ. So instead of creating space for interreligious dialogue, the
use of the typology is thrusting the pluralist theologian back on the very issue that put
interreligious dialogue in a catch-22.52
For Knitter, “[A] Pneumatological theology of religions could dislodge the
Christian debate from its confining categories of inclusivism or exclusivism or
pluralism.”53 Knitter hopes that in taking the Spirit as the starting point one can affirm
50 Knitter co-edited with John Hick the now famous The Myth of Christian Uniqueness (London: SCM,
1987).
51See on p.19.
52I would venture that precisely this Christological impasse is a reason why some exclusivists do
not object to the classic typology. The classic typology would show clearly where theologians are with
respect to Christological orthodoxy, which is exactly the issue exclusivists try to defend. For example, see
Harold A. Netland, Dissonant Voices: Religious Pluralism and the Question of Truth (Grand Rapids, MI;
Leicester: Eerdmans; Apollos, 1991), chapter 7.
53 Paul F. Knitter, “A New Pentecost? A Pneumatological Theology of Religions,” Current Dialogue
19, no. 1 (1991): 35.

the lasting value of other religions whilst at the same time maintaining the salvific role
of Christ.54 According to Knitter the “economy of the Spirit within religions” is seen as
“genuinely distinct from, but essentially related to, the economy of the Word in
Christianity.”55 Such a model would meet the aspirations of the pluralists in
recognizing truth and value in other faiths that are not found in Christianity. But, at the
same time it would, according to Knitter, also respect the concern of inclusivists by
relating these new truths to the revelation received in Jesus.56 Thus Knitter concludes
that “[w]ith a theological model that sees the economy of the Spirit within religions as
genuinely distinct from, but essentially related to, the economy of the Word in
Christianity, we can extract ourselves, it seems to me, from the bottleneck created by
the debate between ‘inclusivists’ and ‘pluralists’.”57
B. AN INCLUSIVIST CRITIQUE (D’COSTA)
Gavin D’Costa is another major contributor to Christian theology of religions. His 1986
work Theology and Religious Pluralism: The Challenge of Other Religions58 contributed
significantly to the propagation of the classic typology. However, ten years later,
D’Costa claimed that this typology is redundant.59 There are several reasons why
D’Costa changed his mind. These can be summarized as follows:
 Pluralism and inclusivism could (should) be construed as forms of
exclusivism.
 One major reason for the development of the classic typology is in
determining different positions on ‘who will be saved’, but it fails in that
respect.
 The typology is polemical in nature.
As the latter critique is one that is raised by a number of scholars, across the
typological spectrum, it will be dealt with in a separate discussion.60
1. Pluralism is exclusivism
The main argument consists in showing how pluralism has the same logical structure
as exclusivism. Only the truth claims and the criteria for discerning truth differ. Just
like exclusivists, pluralists hold to specific truth criteria, and what does not confirm to
54 Knitter, “A New Pentecost?,” 35.

58 Gavin D’Costa, Theology and Religious Pluralism: The Challenge of Other Religions (Oxford: Basil
Blackwell, 1986).
59 “This paper could be an act of public self-humiliation as in what follows I am going to suggest
that a typology that I have promoted and defended against critics I now come to recognize as redundant.”
D’Costa, “Impossibility,” 223.
60 See ‘The Rhetoric of the Typology‘, p.16.
14 PART I
these, is excluded from being counted as truth. D’Costa shows how this is the case by
discussing some representative theologians who are pluralists: John Hick and Paul
Knitter for Christian pluralism, and Dan Cohn-Sherbok for Jewish pluralism.61
Hick, for instance, makes a distinction between the noumenal and the
phenomenal because the Real is beyond language, beyond description. All religions are
pointers to the Real, but inevitably all contain both truths and falsehoods in their
descriptions of the Real. No one religion can claim to be the only true religion. When
religions claim that the Real has revealed itself, Hick asserts that these claims are
mythical.62 The central Christian claim of the incarnation, for example, must therefore
be a myth. But, as D’Costa asks, how does Hick know that the Real is beyond
description? This central claim in Hick’s philosophy of religion is a truth claim in its
own right, and those truth claims that clash with it are deemed false. As a matter of
fact, traditional orthodox Christianity is excluded from consideration from the start.
This is not pluralism, says D’Costa, but exclusivism.
A similar logical structure is uncovered in the arguments of other pluralists, and
D’Costa later claims that the central theological commitments of pluralists are actually
tradition-specific in their own right. However, the tradition they reflect is not one of
the major world religions, but that of the Enlightenment tradition.63
2. The scope of salvation
D’Costa states that the “pluralism, inclusivism and exclusivism typologies have often
skewed the question [of what notion of exclusive truth is used] so that it is a matter of
how many are saved.”64 The impression is given that pluralists have the widest sense
of God’s mercy, whereas the other two types are much more narrower in their
understanding of the scope of salvation. Although this understanding has an intuitive
rightness, upon closer inspection it must be questioned. As it stands, there are
universalists in all three categories, with Karl Barth being the most notorious example
of a universalist exclusivist. As pluralists are not necessarily universalists, it is
conceivable that some exclusivists end up with more saved than some pluralists.
We do well not to forget, however, that the classic typology is not necessarily
linked up with the question of the number of the saved. Knitter, for example, defines
mutualism (his word for pluralism) primarily in terms of authentic and fair dialogue
between religions.65
61 See D’Costa, Meeting. Knitter and Hick were already discussed in D’Costa, “Impossibility.”
62 D’Costa, “Impossibility,” 227-229.
63 See more extensively in D’Costa, Meeting. And more recently also Gavin D’Costa, Christianity and
World Religions: Disputed Questions in the Theology of Religions (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009). See also
the discussion in Biesbrouck, “Apologetic Rationality”, 32-35.
64 D’Costa, “Impossibility,” 232.
65 Paul F. Knitter, Introducing Theologies of Religions (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2002), 109-112.
C. AN EXCLUSIVIST CRITIQUE (PERRY)
As is the case with D’Costa, Tim Perry also critiques the polemical and rhetorical
character of the classic typology. We shall deal with this critique in the next section.
There is, however, another point of critique offered by Perry, who shows that the
categories are sometimes defined too narrowly and sometimes too widely. Here, we
refer back to the definitions set out before.66
The definition of exclusivism, inclusivism and pluralism as offered by Hick are
put on a soteriological axis. They deal with who will be saved. As we already pointed
out, some exclusivists extend the scope of the saved to people outside of Christianity.
There are various ways by which exclusivists argue for this: through post-mortem
evangelism, through universalism, or by claiming agnosticism regarding how this
happens.67 But whatever the reason, this makes clear that the typology does not make
the needed (and claimed) distinctions.
If we follow the definitions set out by Race, it becomes clear that his
epistemological focus does not really give more clear-cut types. His definition of
exclusivism (Jesus Christ as the sole criterion to judge other religions) is too broad,
according to Perry. At least some recognized inclusivists would fall into this definition
of exclusivism.68 This becomes more clear when looking at his definition of inclusivism
(all non-Christian religious truth belongs ultimately to Christ). Perry states that, “If the
revelation in Jesus Christ is the sole criterion of religious truth (exclusivism), then all
religious truth belongs to Christ (inclusivism). Likewise, if all religious truth belongs to
Christ, then he is necessarily the sole criterion. If the central issue is the standard of
religious truth, according to Race’s own definitions, there is no substantial
disagreement between exclusivists and inclusivists.”69
Perry’s critique of the definition of pluralism is similar to D’Costa’s point in that
“Epistemologically speaking, there is nothing pluralistic about the pluralist
hypothesis.”70 In claiming that ‘religions must acknowledge their need of each other if
the full truth about God is to be available to mankind’ (Race’s definition of pluralism),
Race is making an exclusive claim about reality.71
66 See on p. 5ff.
67 Perry, Radical Difference, 19.
71 Daniel Strange summarizes the critique of this section well: “Exclusivism allows for differences
with respect to the soteriological and ‘alethic’ value(s) in other religions.” Daniel Strange, “Exclusivism:
‘Indeed Their Rock is Not like Our Rock’,” in Christian Approaches to Other Faiths, ed. Paul Hedges and
Alan Race, SCM Core Text (London: SCM, 2008), 37.
16 PART I
D. THE RHETORIC OF THE TYPOLOGY
A critique that is often levelled against the classical typology is that, from the outset,
the dice is loaded against inclusivism and especially exclusivism. These positions are
sometimes presented as morally and intellectually inferior.
Consider again what Hick wrote about Rahner, namely, that he “is struggling
valiantly to do justice to the reality of religious Faith outside Christianity; but equally
clearly he has not been able to face the Copernican revolution that is required […].”72
The ‘required’ makes it clear that Rahner’s position is intellectually inferior, almost
culpably so. Commenting further on ‘Ptolemaic theology,’ Hick asks:
Is there, one asks oneself, some vestige here of the imperialism
of the christian [sic] west in relation to ‘lesser breeds without
the law’? It remains possible to retain the Ptolemaic point of
view; but when we are conscious of its historical relativity we
may well feel the need for a more sophisticated, comprehensive
and globally valid theory.73
Here Hick implies that exclusivism is a form of imperialism, which clearly makes
exclusivism morally repugnant.
It is equally clear that Race follows the style of Hick. In comparing De Lubac and
Rahner with St. Paul and St. Luke respectively,74 he claims that “perhaps there has
always been a tension between these two styles of theology in Christian history. The
question for today is whether the new knowledge of history of religions strains the
tension beyond a tolerable level, and renders both styles inadequate to deal with it.”75
The similarity with Hick lies in the fact that, according to Race, there is now new
knowledge that makes it impossible to continue to believe in the old theories. Race is
more outspoken in his rejection of exclusivism, when in his discussion of pluralism he
writes that “[o]nce exclusivism is rejected, the way is opened for a more positive
approach to the theological issues of religious pluralism.”76 This statement makes it
clear that Race does not think exclusivism is a ‘positive’ approach to the theological
issues of religious pluralism. What does he mean by ‘positive’? Used colloquially, it
means an optimistic approach. But in the context of academic writing, ‘a positive
approach to issues’ means a constructive approach, not one in which the issues are
evaded or neglected. It would be hard to substantiate this opinion. It seems that Race is
72 Hick, Universe of Faiths, 127-128 (my italics).

73 Hick, Universe of Faiths, 132. It is ironic that the critique of imperialism will also be raised against
the pluralist approach (see below).
74 Race writes that “De Lubac (like Paul) is more existential, in that God’s dramatic irruption into
history demands a decision from the individual to be converted to the new way. Rahner (like Luke) is
more concerned to smooth over the blatant discontinuities in God’s providential care, showing how God
has always been preparing history for the coming of Jesus, who brings final salvation to the whole world.”
Race, Christians and Religious Pluralism, 55.

using the rhetoric of his analysis polemically against the positions with which he
differs.
In a 1989 review article on thirteen books on theology of religions published
between 1985 and 1987, Francis Clooney commented that
exclusivists are generally presented unsympathetically, as
fiercely ruling out the truth of other religions, proclaiming
(sometimes arrogantly) Christian superiority, having naive
views on world history, etc. But this is of course a caricature,
not quite fair; it is unfortunate that the exclusivist position is
not presented in the best possible light, as more complex than a
mere rejection of religions (non-Christian, perhaps Christian
too).77
These examples come from the earliest literature expounding the classic
typology. In the meantime, have the proponents of the typology adjusted their
rhetorical denunciation of exclusivism, given the critique that has been offered?
Unfortunately, this is not clearly the case. We will show this from a selection of recent
discussions on the classic typology by some of the protagonists.
John Hick bluntly states that “[t]oday to insist on the unique superiority of your
own faith is to be part of the problem.”78 In context, the problem he discusses is the
religious violence that threatens world peace. To the extent that exclusivists and
inclusivists hold on to the superiority of their faith, they are, according to Hick, a threat
to world peace. Whatever the value of this statement, it is clear that Hick understands
these positions to imply dramatic morally negative implications.
Paul Knitter, in the same volume, tries to counter the critique that pluralism is a
form of Western imperialism. Although he seriously engages this critique, he continues
to make strong pronunciations that fall under the original critique. See, for example,
the following remark:
Maximally, some religious believers will go further and say not
only that the truth they have discovered or been given is
relevant for others but also that it is necessary for others.
Without this truth others cannot be “saved” or come to the
fullness of truth. But I suggest that such a maximal claim is but
a further theological elaboration of the fundamental belief that
my truth is relevant also for you. What a religious person feels,
naturally and necessarily, is that what is good for me can also
be good for you. The corollary—that what is good for me is not
only good but necessary for you—is more a matter of what
77 Francis X. Clooney, SJ, “Christianity and World Religions: Religion, Reason, and Pluralism,”
Religious Studies Review 15, no. 3 (1989): 200.
78 John Hick, “The Next Step Beyond Dialogue,” in The Myth of Religious Superiority: A Multifaith
Exploration, ed. Paul Knitter, Faith Meets Faith (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2005), 12.
18 PART I
religious believers have been taught, not what they really know
in the marrow of their religious bones.79
Knitter reinterprets the religious claims of the adherents to this position so that it
fits his own framework. Knitter claims to know what exclusivists as religious believers
“know in the marrow of their religious bones” contrary to what they themselves claim.
It is hard to escape the conclusion that, according to Knitter, exclusivists actually know
existentially that there is no such thing as exclusivism, but are still caught in that
paradigm due to the power of its teaching structures. Is Knitter here really open to the
otherness of this theological tradition?
Similarly, Hedges in his reflection on typologies writes:
Exclusivism, therefore, refers to those systems that excluded
non-Christians from salvation. […T]he only alternative was
damnation and hellfire.80
The addition of hellfire to damnation in my opinion betrays a moral condemnation.

As has been shown already, many exclusivists do not exclude all non-Christians from
salvation; some even include all non-Christians in salvation! The exclusivist position is
clearly misrepresented here.
It should also be recognized that, in our postmodern cultural setting, pluralism is
a concept that is positively looked upon whereas exclusivism is intuitively judged
negatively. In a purely academic discussion, these concepts need not necessarily carry
their cultural baggage. Perry Schmidt-Leukel even tries to turn the tables by suggesting
that, in common parlance, exclusivism “can have positive overtones (as, for example,
in ‘exclusive shops’ or ‘exclusive service’ […]).”81 It is very hard to take this remark
seriously. He fails to see that the words ‘exclusive’ and ‘exclusivism’ have entirely
different connotations. Whereas ‘exclusive’ indeed has positive connotations,
‘exclusivism’ only has negative overtones.
By way of conclusion, we can say that there appears to be a rhetorical element
present in the typology, one that reflects a prejudice towards the exclusivist and
inclusivist positions. The person whose position is labelled ‘exclusivist’ or ‘inclusivist’
does not play on a level playing field with the person whose position is labelled
‘pluralist’. In an area of theology that stimulates dialogue, this alone should weigh
heavily in the evaluation of the usefulness of the typology.
79 Paul F. Knitter, “Is the Pluralist Model a Western Imposition? A Response in Five Voices,” in The
Myth of Religious Superiority: A Multifaith Exploration, ed. Paul Knitter, Faith Meets Faith (Maryknoll, NY:
Orbis, 2005), 31.
80 Hedges, “Reflection,” 17-18.
81 Perry Schmidt-Leukel, “Exclusivism, Inclusivism, Pluralism: The Tripolar Typology-Clarified and
Reaffirmed,” in The Myth of Religious Superiority: A Multifaith Exploration, ed. Paul Knitter, Faith Meets
Faith (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2005), 27.
§ 3. ALTERNATIVES TO THE CLASSIC TYPOLOGY CRITIQUED
A. A PLURALIST ALTERNATIVE: PAUL KNITTER
1. Early typology (1985)
In No Other Name, published in 1985, Knitter presents a fourfold typology that shows
the different answers given in Christianity to the existence of other religions:82
 the conservative Evangelical model: one true religion;
 the mainline Protestant model: salvation only in Christ;
 the Catholic model: many ways, one norm;
 the theocentric model: many ways to the centre.
As is immediately clear, this typology follows confessional lines. Knitter is well
aware of the dangers of this presentation. He clearly states that the distinctions
between the types are often blurred, and that theologians of certain confessions fit
better in the model of another confession. Yet he remains convinced that “each model
is rooted, historically and theologically, in a particular confession,”83 with the exception
of the theocentric model that is ecumenically rooted.
In his presentation of the models, Knitter focuses each time on at least one
representative theologian. Karl Barth is the advocate of the conservative Evangelical
model, Paul Althaus and Emil Brunner of the mainline Protestant model, and Karl
Rahner of the Catholic model, while the theocentric model is represented by John Hick,
Raimundo Panikkar and Stanley Samartha. Working with representative theologians is
certainly helpful to give substance to an otherwise abstract model,84 even if it is not
without risks. Though Karl Barth’s approach to other religions may well resonate with
a conservative Evangelical confession, very few within that confession would regard
Barth as ‘rooted historically and theologically’ in the conservative Evangelical
confession. It is here also that a further problem manifests itself. If, as many scholars
would agree,85 the historic understanding of Christianity is that Christianity is the ‘one
true religion,’ it is somewhat misleading to say that this model is historically and
theologically rooted in conservative evangelicalism, a relative latecomer on the scene.86
Knitter’s 1985 typology does, however, succeed in distinguishing two different
approaches within what Race calls the ‘inclusivist’ model. His ‘mainline Protestant
82Paul F. Knitter, No Other Name? A Critical Survey of Christian Attitudes Toward the World Religions,
American Society of Missiology Series, No. 7 (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1985), 73-168.
83 Knitter, No Other Name?, 74.
84 We hope that our adoption of this approach will be equally helpful.
85 For an historical overview, see Biesbrouck, “Apologetic Rationality”, 3-17.
86 This is not to deny that this position is mainline within Evangelicalism. It is.
20 PART I
model’ is distinguished from ‘the Catholic model’ because the latter recognizes other
religions as means of salvation, something denied in the former model. 87
Obviously, this categorization does not reflect the significant developments that
have taken place within Roman Catholic theology of religions since 1985. It would be
very difficult to maintain nowadays that a view that considers non-Christian religions
as means of salvation is “the Catholic model.” The magisterial position seems to deny
this opinion, as is evident from the publication of Dominus Iesus88 and the Notification
of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith regarding the work of Jacques
Dupuis.89
A final critique of this typology is that it is not consistent in its denominational
classification. Whereas the first three models are linked to one Christian tradition, the
theocentric model is called ‘ecumenical’. We have already pointed out (as does Knitter
as well) that the other models are not confined to one Christian tradition.90 We
therefore question the appropriateness of labelling the models in this way. Our reasons
are not only historical (as pointed out above), but also practical. Confining an approach
to one particular Christian tradition does not stimulate theologians of other traditions
to interact meaningfully with that position. Some critics, for example, call the common
factor in the theocentric approach not ecumenical, but liberal. Having labelled it thus,
the challenges generated by the theocentric model can be passed over too easily by
theologians who consider themselves conservative.
Although we would doubt the usefulness of plotting positions on the liberal-
conservative axis, it does show the rhetorical power of labels—whether they be
‘ecumenical’ or ‘liberal’.
87 Knitter argued, in 1984, that “the majority of Catholic thinkers interpret the Conciliar statements
to affirm, implicitly but clearly, that the religions are ways of salvation.” (Paul Knitter, “Roman Catholic
Approaches to Other Religions: Developments and Tensions,” International Bulletin of Missionary Research 8,
no. 2 (April) (1984): 50 (our italics).
88 See, for example, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Dominus Iesus: On the Unicity and
Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church

(http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_domin
us-iesus_en.html, 2000), §14: ”Those solutions that propose a salvific action of God beyond the unique
mediation of Christ would be contrary to Christian and Catholic faith.” (accessed 27/09/2010).
89 See, Jacques Dupuis, SJ, Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis,
1997; reprint, 2001), appendix 1, 434-438. Section V of this Notification states explicitly that “to hold that
these religions, considered as such, are ways of salvation, has no foundation in Catholic theology […]”
(p.437). An argument could be made that even prior to 1985 there was no magisterial support for Knitter’s
claim. But still in 1990, Knitter would argue that this is the position of Vatican II. Responding to Miikka
Ruokanen’s interpretation of Vatican II’s position on other religions, Knitter writes that “[w]ithin this
broader context of catholic experience and tradition, there are, I suggest, even clearer and more persuasive
reasons to interpret the Council’s silence in a positive sense and to conclude, with the majority (not just
‘many’) of contemporary Roman Catholic theologians that Vatican II implicitly affirms the salvific
potential of other religions.”Paul Knitter, “Interpreting Silence: A Response to Miikka Ruokanen,”
International Bulletin of Missionary Research 14, no. 2 (April) (1990): 62-63. It seems as if Knitter took his
wishes for reality.
90 Dupuis makes a similar remark when he notes that the debate over theology of religions cuts
“across the confessional barriers.” Dupuis, Toward, 181.

2. A more recent typology (2002)
The above observations may partially explain why Knitter, in a more recent work,91 has
opted for a different classification and nomenclature for his typology:
 the replacement model: only one true religion;
 the fulfilment model: the one fulfils the many;
 the mutuality model: many true religions called to dialogue;
 the acceptance model: many true religions: so be it.
The replacement model is presented in two varieties: total replacement and
partial replacement. The former corresponds to the conservative evangelical model of
his earlier typology. The second corresponds to his mainline Protestant model, even if
Knitter would no longer describe it as mainline Protestant. For it is the fulfilment
model, claims Knitter, that “characterizes the teaching of the ‘mainline churches’: the
Lutheran, Reformed, Methodist, Anglican, Greek Orthodox, and Roman Catholic
Churches.”92 His third model, the mutuality model, corresponds with the theocentric
model of his earlier typology. But now another model, ‘the acceptance model’, is
added. This model only arose during the last two decades of the twentieth century, so
it should not come as a surprise that it was not included in his early typology. Contrary
to the mutuality model, the acceptance model does not start from the premise that
there is something common to all religions, but rather that the differences are real and
ought to be accepted as such. As such, the acceptance model is a child of
postmodernity in that it takes for granted that there is no neutral vantage point from
where to look at and judge religions. However, rather than lamenting the loss of this
modern opinion, it is celebrated. The differences make the difference.
Knitter’s acceptance model incorporates the diverse approaches93 of George
Lindbeck, Mark Heim, and comparative theology (Francis Clooney, James Fredericks).
Although it is fitting that new approaches in interreligious dialogue are noted, it
remains a question whether these different views really fit into a single model.
The new typology proposed by Knitter is a clear improvement on the old one.
The questionable denominational classification is abandoned, although the positions as
such still find a place, and a new approach in theology of religions is taken account of.
Moreover, ‘replacement model’ and ‘fulfilment model’ are concepts that already have
currency in Christian theology of religions because of their use with respect to the
relationship between Christianity and Judaism. It is also our conviction that these
labels are rhetorically less contaminated.
91 Knitter, Introducing Theologies.

92 Knitter, Introducing Theologies, 63.
93 Knitter calls them ‘expressions’. See Knitter, Introducing Theologies, 177.
22 PART I
B. AN INCLUSIVIST ALTERNATIVE: JACQUES DUPUIS
In his overview and analysis of the debate over theology of religions, Dupuis is
searching for which fundamental perspectives drive the debate. He discerns three
different paradigms according to which theologians in interreligious dialogue organise
their theorising. These are ecclesiocentrism, Christocentrism and theocentrism.
Dupuis makes an important distinction between the concept of ‘paradigm’ and
that of ‘model’. A paradigm has to do with the interpretative keys, “the fundamental
perspective, the principle of intelligibility, according to which theories are being
proposed as to how the various religious traditions […] relate to each other.”94 As there
can only be one fundamental perspective, different paradigms are mutually exclusive.
Taking his lead from Avery Dulles’s studies of models of the Church and models
of revelation, Dupuis understands different models in theology of religions to be
complementary rather than exclusive of one another. Examples of models in theology
of religions that are complementary are, for example, regnocentrism with its focus on
the Kingdom or Reign of God, and pneumatocentrism which makes reference to the
universal presence of the Spirit in the world.
Dupuis also works with the terms ‘exclusivism’, ‘inclusivism’ and ‘pluralism’,
but, according to him, these are simply the positions that derive from the fundamental
perspectives of ecclesiocentrism, Christocentrism and theocentrism.95
The distinction between paradigm and model is helpful. Paradigms are
exclusive, models are not. In his reckoning, theology of religions has experienced a
double paradigm shift. First from ecclesiocentrism to Christocentrism, and, secondly,
from Christocentrism to theocentrism. However, if we understand him correctly,
theocentrism need not necessarily be a different paradigm from Christocentrism. In the
case of a high, ontological Christology, Christocentrism cannot be separated from
theocentrism. One can speak of a real paradigm shift, however, when the Christology
is functional or representative, as is the case with many theologians advocating a shift
toward theocentrism.96
For the Roman Catholic Dupuis, the first paradigm shift, away from
ecclesiocentrism, is taken for granted. He speaks of “the untenable ecclesiological
perspective according to which salvation was deemed available to people only through
faith in Jesus Christ explicitly professed in the Church community.”97 He laments those
Catholics who still operate in “the exclusivist paradigm, explicitly repudiated by the
94 Dupuis, Toward, 181.


Church’s teaching office.”98 According to Dupuis this exclusivist stand “survives to

some extent in evangelical circles, even today.”99
There seems to be an inconsistency in his approach. It looks as if Dupuis equates
ecclesiocentrism with exclusivism and then locates it in Protestant-Evangelical circles.
But many, if not most, Evangelicals would combine a high Christology with a low
ecclesiology. Perhaps this is contra-intuitive for a Roman Catholic, but one would be
hard pressed to say that the exclusivism of Evangelicals is ecclesiocentric. It would
seem that exclusivism is not so closely connected to ecclesiocentrism as Dupuis argues.
Interestingly enough, precisely in the area of ecclesiology, Dupuis has been
corrected by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.100 One could say that the
CDF judges his ecclesiology to be too weak. A possible implication, if the CDF is right,
is that ecclesiocentrism and Christocentrism are not mutually exclusive, or, in Dupuis’
categories: they are not different paradigms, but different models.
Dupuis understands the task of theology of religions as consisting of the
determination to “look at religious pluralism not merely as a matter of course and a
fact of history (pluralism de facto) but as having a raison d’être in its own right
(pluralism de jure or ‘in principle’)”.101 For such a de iure pluralism, it seems that
Dupuis understands the traditional Roman Catholic view of the Church as an obstacle.
C. AN EXCLUSIVIST ALTERNATIVE
1. General remarks
The voice of exclusivism is currently less represented in academic theological

publications. This is partly due to the fact that exclusivism was the default position in
Christian theology of religions, and “the current discussion of religions has arisen in
search of an alternative to exclusivism.”102
Some of its proponents do not feel the need to propose alternative typologies and
continue to work with the classic typology. Harold Netland is a case in point. His 1991
monograph is a protracted defence of the exclusivist position, especially with respect to
epistemological issues.103 It is not exceptional to find defences of exclusivism in more
98 Dupuis, Toward, 185. He is referring to the letter of the Holy Office to the archbishop of Boston in
1949 on the interpretation of the axiom Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
100 Concerning the role of the Church, Dupuis says, for example, that “[Vatican II] affirms the
necessity of the Church for salvation (LG 14), as the ‘universal sacrament of salvation’ (LG 48). This
necessity does not, however, imply a universal mediation in the strict sense, applicable to every person
who is saved in Jesus Christ. On the contrary, it leaves room for ‘substitutive mediations’ […] among
which will be found the religious traditions to which the ‘others’ belong.” Dupuis, Toward, 351.
102 Clooney, “Christianity and World Religions,” 200.
103 Netland, Dissonant Voices.

24 PART I
epistemological-philosophically oriented works.104 In this context, epistemological

exclusivism is defended against certain forms of postmodern relativism.
Donald Carson gives a counter-rhetorical twist to the classic typology by calling
the pluralist position “radical religious pluralism.”105 He defines exclusivism, first of
all, as holding the position that “the central claims of biblically faithful Christianity are
true. Correspondingly, where the teachings of other religions conflict with these
claims, they must necessarily be false.”106 This is noteworthy, not simply because it
assumes that the traditional Christian position is the biblically faithful position, but
also because it stresses the epistemological issues of the debate before the
soteriological.
Within the exclusivist camp, however, a major alternative has been to relabel the
exclusivist position as ‘particularism’. Dennis Okholm and Timothy Phillips propose
this term because it was used “interchangeably with exclusivism before the current
discussion,” and refer in this regard to the work of Paul Tillich.107 Alister McGrath
claims, somewhat prematurely, that the term exclusivism “has now been generally
abandoned, mainly because it is considered to be polemical. The approach is now
generally described as ‘particularism’, on account of its affirmation of the particular
and distinctive features of the Christian faith.”108
Some theologians use ‘restrictivism’ as a subcategory of exclusivism, mostly
referring to that Reformed tradition that claims that salvation is accessible only to a
limited number of people – thereby denying any strong universal salvific will of
God.109 Sanders claims to have coined the term ‘restrictivism’: “Another term was
needed in order to distinguish exclusivism from the belief that salvation is restricted to
those who hear the gospel from a human agent and place their faith in Jesus before
they die. Hence restrictivism is a subcategory of exclusivism, but the two are not
identical.”110
104 Alvin Plantinga, “Pluralism: A Defense of Religious Exclusivism,” in The Philosophical Challenge of
Religious Diversity, ed. K. Meeker and P. Quinn (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2000). René van
Woudenberg, “Christelijk exclusivisme en religieus pluralisme,” Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift 48 (1994).
105 D.A. Carson, The Gagging of God (Leicester: Apollos, 1996), 26.
106 Carson, The Gagging of God, 27.
107 Dennis L. Okholm and Timothy R. Phillips, eds., More Than One Way? Four Views on Salvation in a
Pluralistic World (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Pub. House, 1995), 16-17.
108 Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Blackwell, 2006), 546.
Perhaps this optimistic note has escaped revision from earlier editions of the book. Hedges remarks that
all language is rhetorical, and that the term ‘particularity’ is polemical rhetoric as well, for it “suggests that
the position so described respects the individuality of each faith, in its own particular manifestation,
seeing each as an individual particular. The term is therefore just as charged…” Hedges, “Reflection,” 22.
109 For a helpful discussion, see Daniel Strange, The Possibility of Salvation Among the Unevangelized:
An Analysis of Inclusivism in Recent Evangelical Theology, Paternoster Theological Monographs (Milton

Keynes: Paternoster, 2002), 35-39. Strictly speaking, the number of the saved are not necessarily smaller in
a restrictivist position compared to an inclusivist or even pluralist position. Inclusivists and pluralists
would claim that salvation is accessible for all, not that it is attained by all.
110 Sanders, ed., What About, 157n4.
2. D’Costa’s alternative(s) for the classic typology
There are two ways in which D’Costa offers an alternative to the classic typology. The
first is a radically new classification with respect to how someone is saved. The second
is a refinement and elaboration of the classic typology.
a. A seven-graded classification of the means of salvation
D’Costa speaks of a “seven-graded classification on the precise question of how a

person is saved.”111 The focus lies “on the means and the goal of salvation.”112 For
Christians, the goal is the beatific vision. He continues in specifying his classification:
“The seven means/goals would be: through the trinity (trinity-centered), through
Christ (Christ-centered), through the Spirit (Spirit-centered), through the church
(church-centered), through God not conceived of in a trinitarian fashion, but in a
theistic fashion (theocentric), through the Real that is beyond all classification (reality-
centered), through good works (ethics-centered).”113 This classification does not fall
into the trap of polemicising the discussion and it allows him to focus on “the
substantial theological issues that must be resolved in fidelity to the Christian
tradition.”114
There are some problems with this. First of all, D’Costa speaks of seven
means/goals, while his seven ‘centrisms’ are all means. Earlier, he spoke of the beatific
vision as the goal in Christianity. This term is commonly used in Roman Catholic
tradition, but much less in Protestantism. Some definition or description of the term
would be appropriate. In any case, it is clear that the seven centrisms are only relevant
from a Christian perspective, which is made more explicit when he states that the
discussion should be characterized by fidelity to the Christian tradition. D’Costa states
further on that he considers the first five centrisms to be necessary for Catholic
orthodoxy, while the first three suffice for Protestant orthodoxy. I assume that ‘five’ is a
typographical error, since it is not clear to me how ‘God not conceived of in a
trinitarian fashion’115 could be a necessary part of Catholic orthodoxy. D’Costa would
seem to confirm this suspicion when he writes, a little later, about the “four required
tenets: salvation comes from the triune God through faith in Christ and his church,
through the power of the Spirit. These four tenets are non-negotiable […].116 But then
he confuses matters again by writing a few sentences later that there are three required
tenets: “The various types of models that I have inspected compromise on one or more
111 D’Costa, Christianity and World Religions, 34.

112 D’Costa, Christianity and World Religions, 34-35 (original italics).

26 PART I
of the three tenets that I consider central.”117 How many tenets does D’Costa now
consider to be required? Three, four or five?
b. A refinement of the classic typology
D’Costa has pointed out real weaknesses of the classic typology and he develops some
alternatives, especially with respect to the question of how, from a Christian
perspective, one is saved. But eventually, D’Costa continues to work with the basic
scheme of the classic typology even as he seeks to nuance it.118 He speaks of three kinds
of pluralism: unitary pluralism (Hick), pluriform pluralism (Panikkar) and ethical
pluralism (Knitter).119 There are two types of inclusivism according to D’Costa: Karl
Rahner’s structural inclusivism and restrictivist inclusivism.120 Finally, he discerns two
types of exclusivism: restrictive-access exclusivism (strict Calvinism) and universal-
access exclusivism (D’Costa).121
By his use of the basic outline of the classic typology, I believe that D’Costa
shows that it has strengths that cannot be simply reduced to its rhetorical power.

118 D’Costa, Christianity and World Religions, 3-33.

§ 4. CONCLUDING REMARKS
A. EPISTEMOLOGY OR SOTERIOLOGY?
Is the classical typology concerned with the question of the truth of religions, or is it
concerned with salvation? That is not always clear, and often the two discourses are
intermingled.122 Although the two issues are related, the distinction is important. It can
be argued that Hick and D’Costa123 defined the categories soteriologically, whereas
Race tried to define the terms more epistemologically.124 For Race, exclusivism “counts
the revelation in Jesus Christ as the sole criterion by which all religions, including
Christianity, can be understood and evaluated.”125 Inclusivism believes that “all non-
Christian religious truth belongs ultimately to Christ.”126 Pluralism is characterized by
the acknowledgment that “knowledge of God is partial in all faiths […]. Religions must
acknowledge their need of each other if the full truth about God is to be available to
mankind.”127 The soteriological and epistemological understandings of the three types
do not completely overlap. It is well known that Karl Barth is invoked as an
unambiguous example of epistemological exclusivism, but at the same time he held a
universalist view as to whom would be saved.128 Some of those who are labelled
exclusivist contend for a scope of salvation that is wider than some of those who are
labelled inclusivist.129
Perry argues also that, when set out on an epistemological axis, there are in
reality not three types, but only two, since the pluralist hypothesis is not pluralistic
when evaluated epistemologically.130 Pluralism makes exclusivist claims about the
truth of its position.131
In any case, this implies that the three types are not univocal, creating
considerable confusion as well as clarifying things.
122 For an attempt to separate the discussion of the soteriological issues and the question of the
value of religions, see Terrance L. Tiessen, Who Can Be Saved? Reassessing Salvation in Christ and World
Religions (Downers Grove, IL; Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 2004).
123 D’Costa, Theology and Religious Pluralism. This work is generally credited with popularizing the
threefold typology.
124 But see the discussion in Perry where he shows that Race ends up mixing them as well. Perry,
Radical Difference, 17.

128 Although Barth denied to teach universalism, his position is best understood as implying
universalism. See Oliver Crisp, “On Barth’s Denial of Universalism,” Themelios 29, no. 1 (2003).
131 This issue is explored above (on p.13).

28 PART I
B. A METHODOLOGICAL ISSUE: ON THE USE AND ABUSE OF TYPOLOGIES
One sort of critique of the classic typology arose almost immediately, in that several
theologians were op the opinion that their position did not easily fit into one of the
three categories. Reality is often more complex than theory allows for. But given the
fact that the typology is used as a heuristic tool, and that its pedagogical qualities are
evident, this critique should not necessarily lead us to abandon it. One can insist,
however, that these qualities of the typology are made clear. Recognizing this, Race
wrote in 1983 that “[i]n the final analysis any typology is simply an aid to
understanding the truth and ought not to pose as the truth itself.”132
D’Costa referred to the typology as three paradigms, using terminology from
philosophy of science, indicating with this word that the three positions are not strictly
delimited and fixed but show an inner variety. Theologians “within one paradigm tend
to share a number of basic presuppositions dictating their attitudes and approaches to
problem-solving.”133 The diversity that is allowed within each paradigm is clearly a
strength for this approach.
Another solution to this problem has recently been advocated by Hedges. Instead
of speaking of ‘exclusivism’, etc., in the singular, he suggests speaking of
‘exclusivisms’, ‘inclusivisms’, and ‘pluralisms’. The explicit reason he gives for these
plurals is “that this will point to the open and fluid nature of the typology as a
framework which can be used to explore a range of ideas, rather than as a straitjacket
containing fixed or determined essences.”134
In this work, we will continue to use the threefold typology as a heuristic tool.
C. CHRISTOLOGICAL PARADIGM
We agree with Dupuis that it is helpful to distinguish between different paradigms that
are mutually exclusive and varying models that may well be complementary. We
differ, however, in our opinion of what the paradigm shifts are. According to our
understanding, within Christian theology of religions, there is one fundamental
paradigm shift, namely, that from a constitutive or ontological Christology to a
representative or functional Christology. Those working with a constitutive
Christology can work with different models, for example, christocentric,
ecclesiocentric, pneumatocentric, theocentric and regnocentric. These models are not
necessarily mutually exclusive. Those theologians working from a representational
132Race, Christians and Religious Pluralism, 139.

133D’Costa, Theology and Religious Pluralism, 6.
134 Hedges, “Reflection,” 27. Hedges credits Alan Race with suggesting the use of the plural (see
Hedges, “Reflection,” 33n.38).

Christology can actually employ some of the same models, but they work within a
different paradigm. They indeed have crossed a “theological Rubicon.”135
A more radical approach to theology of religions, however, has recently been
suggested by some theologians involved in the young field of comparative theology,
and it is to this question that we must now turn.
Paul F. Knitter, “Preface,” in The Myth of Christian Uniqueness ed. John Hick and Paul F. Knitter
135
(London: SCM, 1987), viii.

30 PART I
CHAPTER II.
QUO VADIS? TOWARDS A MORATORIUM ON

THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS?
§ 1. INTRODUCTION
Francis Clooney has argued for a moratorium on theology of religions in order to direct
the freed-up theological energy towards comparative theology.136 In this section, we
will interact with this statement and show the (‘ideological’) presupposition
undergirding this call for a moratorium and we will also argue that this presupposition
is not shared by two influential sectors of Christianity.
First we will briefly outline what the project of comparative theology entails and
sketch the rationale for Clooney’s bold statement along with the nuances that are
necessary to understand the context of the assertion. Secondly, we will show how
comparative theology necessarily starts from some basic assumptions deriving from
theology of religions. Comparative theologians do not always make these assumptions
explicit. Thirdly, we want to elaborate what the meaning and implications are for
theology of religions that starts from a magisterial Roman Catholic position and from a
conservative Evangelical position. This will make clear that the call for a moratorium
on theology of religions could only be valid for those (sub-)traditions that share
comparative theology’s specific and disputed theological assumption.
Living in a conspicuously multi-religious world, in which religions are high on
the public agenda and prevalent in intellectual forums, it is no luxury to direct
theological research to the relations and interactions between the different religions.
The last quarter of the twentieth century has seen a veritable surge in those areas of
theological reflection that concern other religions. Not only has theology of religions
established itself as a new theological discipline, it has generated spin-offs that are
growing themselves towards independence: theology of interreligious dialogue137 and
comparative theology.138 It is no exaggeration to state that this cluster of disciplines is
136 See most recently Francis X. Clooney, SJ, Comparative Theology: Deep Learning Across Religious
Borders (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010), 15.
137 Although theology of religions and theology of interreligious dialogue are often used
interchangeably, the latter can be understood as more focused on the theological legitimisation of
interreligious dialogue whilst the former is more focused on the nature and function of other religions
according to a specific theology. For an example of how a theology of interreligious dialogue might look,
we refer the reader to our analysis of Amos Yong’s theology of hospitality on p.236ff.
138 Scriptural reasoning can be considered as a third sub-discipline emerging from theology of
religions. Although this is an important development, our engagement in this chapter will concern the
relation between theology of religions and comparative theology. For more on scriptural reasoning, see
D’Costa, Christianity and World Religions, 39; Marianne Moyaert, “Scriptural Reasoning as Inter-Religious
32 PART I
currently one of the most booming areas of theological research. At the same time it is
also clear that theology of religions is a discipline that is constantly critiqued. The
disillusionment with the threefold typology of exclusivism, inclusivism and pluralism
is certainly one of the reasons for this. Another is the unmasking of the older pluralist
school as being an implicit advocate of Western liberalism and Enlightenment thinking
rather than an open and tolerant neutral mediator between religions. Both these
reasons have fuelled the argument from comparative theologians that we should at
least temporarily put theology of religions on hold and focus our attention on specific
endeavours of comparative theology. Only when much more work is done in this area
– a work of many generations – can we come back to theology of religions.
Dialogue,” in The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Inter-Religious Dialogue, ed. Catherine Cornille (Chichester:
Wiley-Blackwell, 2013).
CHAPTER II: QUO VADIS? TOWARDS A MORATORIUM ON THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS? 33
§ 2. THE COMPARATIVE THEOLOGICAL PROJECT
Clooney defines comparative theology succinctly as follows:139

Comparative theology – comparative and theological beginning to
end – marks acts of faith seeking understanding which are
rooted in a particular faith tradition but which, from that
foundation, venture into learning from one or more other faith
traditions. This learning is sought for the sake of fresh
theological insights that are indebted to the newly encountered
tradition/s as well as the home tradition.140
The comparative element of the project consists of studying another tradition from
within one’s own tradition and of understanding one’s own tradition from the point of
view of the other tradition. It does not seek to engage both traditions from a
supposedly neutral vantage point; it is self-consciously ‘traditioned’ in its comparison.
However, the ‘other’ is not approached from a defined set of presuppositions. An emic
understanding is aimed for. That is, the believer of the other tradition must be able to
recognise him or herself in the description of his or her tradition. This means that
evaluation of the other must (in most cases) be postponed.141
The theological element consists in the aim to bring fresh theological insights to
the home tradition for it does not want to leave the home tradition unaffected.
Most often, textual witnesses are compared, and in most of the cases only one
other tradition is engaged.142 A tendency in current comparative theology is to start by
looking for similarities between different traditions,143 although in principle one could
also start by looking at remarkable differences.144
Theology of religions, on the other hand, is defined by Clooney as that
“theological discipline that discerns and evaluates the religious significance of other
religious traditions in accord with the truths and goals defining one’s own religion.”145
In contrast with comparative theology, the evaluative function of theology of religions
stands out. Usually, other religions are discussed in broad terms, not in their details.
As such, both disciplines are complementary and should benefit from each
others’ results, as Clooney admits. However, given that comparative theology is still a
very young discipline with a rather limited number of participants, and given that its
139 For a concise description of the comparative theological project by Clooney, see Francis X.
Clooney, SJ, “Comparative Theology,” in The Oxford Handbook of Systematic Theology, ed. John Webster,
Kathryn Tanner, and Iain Torrance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007).
140 Clooney, Comparative Theology: Deep Learning, 11.
142 The privileging of texts is not necessary, but seems to be the case. This contributes to the critique
of comparative theology being elitist. The choice for texts however, seems to be mostly for pragmatic
reasons. For a discussion of this critique, see Clooney, Comparative Theology: Deep Learning, 67-68.
144 Clooney, Comparative Theology: Deep Learning, 75-77.

34 PART I
projected results should influence theology of religions significantly, Clooney says he

can “sympathize with calls for a moratorium on theology of religions, if such a
moratorium allows us to direct more energy to comparative theology, the less
practiced discipline.”146

§ 3. THE LIMITED APPLICABILITY OF THE CALL FOR A MORATORIUM
A. THE REVELATORY VALUE OF RELIGIONS IS NOT UNDISPUTED IN ALL

(SUB-)TRADITIONS
The case for a moratorium on the study of theology of religions – even in its nuanced
form as found in Clooney – cannot be applied in a general manner. It is our contention
that, if there is any validity in the claim for a moratorium, it is limited to those (sub-
)traditions that share some basic understanding about the nature and function of other
religions.147 The most fundamental of these theological presuppositions is stated by
Clooney as follows: “God chooses to be known, encountered, and accessible through
religious traditions as complex religious wholes […].”148 For the sake of our discussion,
we will call this the ‘axiom of the revelatory value of religions.’149
But there are more theological presuppositions that, according to Clooney,
provide “solid theological grounds for thinking that comparative work will be
fruitful.”150 The axiom of the revelatory value of religions is the first that Clooney
mentions. Others include the claim that even the full presence of God in one tradition
does not preclude God’s presence in other traditions, and the assertion that it is
possible to hear God’s voice in another religion even if that other religion as a whole is
not embraced.151
Clooney is to be applauded for being so explicit about these presuppositions. He
recognizes that theology of religions can clarify “the framework within which
comparative study takes place.”152 At the same time he is not happy when scholars
critique comparative theology for concealing its theology of religions. According to
Clooney, the “[q]uestions about what comparative theology is or what its
presuppositions are, are best taken up after comparative theological practice and with
respect to specific cases.”153
There is then a tension in Clooney’s work, since while, on the one hand, he
recognises that some basic presuppositions must be true in order for comparative
theology to be fruitful, on the other hand, he refuses to explicate his theology of
religions.
147 The qualifying “sub-” is used to indicate that religious traditions do not always have a unified
view on issues.
149 To reframe Clooney’s statement in terms of the revelatory value of other religions, is to narrow
down what he conveys with this presupposition. Clooney’s statement is wider in scope, but it is not saying
less than that religions have revelatory value. For our discussion here, this wording suffices.
153 Francis X. Clooney, SJ, “Response,” in The New Comparative Theology, ed. Francis X. Clooney, SJ
(London: T&T Clark, 2010), 196.

36 PART I
In our understanding, the fundamental presupposition for comparative

theology’s fecundity, viz., “God chooses to be known, encountered, and accessible
through religious traditions as complex religious wholes,”154 is taken by Clooney and
other comparative theologians as if it were an undisputed result of theology of
religions. If all agree on this basic assumption, comparative theologians can fruitfully
proceed with their project. However, as we understand the discipline, this claim is one
of the major discussion points within theology of religions. Thus, Clooney’s position
seems to assume that theology of religions has confirmed that point whereas in reality
it is still a moot point.
If my evaluation of the status quaestionis of theology of religions is correct, and if
Clooney is correct in postulating the revelatory value of religions as a necessary
condition for comparative theology, the call for a moratorium on theology of religions
in favour of comparative theology should only apply to those religious (sub-)traditions
that affirm the postulate. Those (sub-)traditions that do not share this presupposition
should not follow up on the call for a moratorium on theology of religions.
B. (SUB-)TRADITIONS THAT DO NOT SHARE COMPARATIVE THEOLOGY’S

BASIC PRESUPPOSITION
If comparative theology is serious about its own methodology, it must honour the fact
that some (sub-)traditions do not share its basic presupposition of the revelatory value
of religions.
In Clooney’s exposition of comparative theology, two ideas are central. First,
comparative theology is done from a position of faith, and second, it considers
religions in all their particularities, not just in their bland generalizations. Both of these
ideas make continued efforts within the field of theology of religions indispensable – at
least in some sectors of Christianity. The last point implies, amongst others, that it is
impossible to make a general claim about Christianity’s position vis-à-vis the other
religions, since Christianity is not a homogenous tradition that can be univocally
defined. The first point implies that comparative theology is practiced from a
confessional position and must take that vantage point seriously. So if a particular
Christian tradition does not accept that other religions have revelatory value, the
project of comparative theology within that tradition is built on loose sand, and a call
for a moratorium on theology of religions is definitely premature.
We will try to clarify this claim by reflecting on it from two different Christian
traditions. One is from Clooney’s own Roman Catholic tradition – albeit from a more
conservative branch of Catholicism. The other tradition is Evangelical Protestantism,
which generally has a much more restricted understanding of the presence of God in
other religions.

C. ANOTHER LOOK AT THE MAGISTERIAL ROMAN CATHOLIC POSITION
That not all Catholics are happy with comparative theology – even when exercised by
Catholic theologians – can be deduced from the absence of any reference to
comparative theology in the recent work, Catholic Engagement with World Religions: A
Comprehensive Study.155 Curiously, this ‘comprehensive study’ has no chapter or section
on comparative theology. Leading comparative theologians such as Clooney or
Fredericks are not mentioned in the index, even though the whole fourth part of the
book is devoted to comparisons between particular religions and the Catholic faith.
However, it should be noted that the book argues that “[t]he method used here [in
comparative study] should not properly be called ‘theology’ even though theology
plays a crucial role in the overall discussion.”156
Rather than a moratorium on theology of religions, conservative Roman Catholic
theology of religions seems to be engaging in omertà about comparative theology or
even in denying that it is properly called theology.
One gets the impression that not all Catholic theologians would unambiguously
share the idea that ‘God chooses to be known, encountered, and accessible through
religions traditions as complex religious wholes’. In fact, some would even argue that
the official position of the Roman magisterium157 is one that denies that postulate.
1. Vatican II
a. A positive assessment of elements in other religions
Vatican II has clearly given the lead for a positive assessment of other religious
traditions.158 Most famously, Nostra Aetate 2 states that
155 Karl Josef Becker and others, eds., Catholic Engagement with World Religions: A Comprehensive
Study (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2010). This book, more than 600 pages of fine print, two columns per page,
not only presents itself as a comprehensive study on the topic of world religions, but also, according to the
Foreword, is hailed as “the absolute best summary … of the Catholic Magisterial teaching…” (p.xxix).
156 Becker and others, eds., Catholic Engagement with World Religions: A Comprehensive Study, xxxiv.
157 In what follows, we will be using the term ‘(Roman) magisterium’ to indicate the (Roman
Catholic) ecclesial hierarchy, and the term ‘magisterial texts’ will refer to those official and (for Roman
Catholics) authoritative statements issued by the ecclesial hierarchy. It should be clear that not all texts
issued by the magisterium hold the same authority. There may even be different levels of authority
regarding different statements in the same text. As a general rule, it can be said that texts from the second
Vatican council are of the utmost importance, and the hierarchy of authority of conciliar texts is (1)
Constitutions, (2) Decrees, and (3) Declarations. For post-conciliar texts, encyclicals rank higher than
declarations of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, which in turn rank higher than texts from one of
the dicasteries. For a fuller discussion of this issue, see our discussion of D’Costa’s use of (post-)conciliar
texts in the next chapter.
158 See for this evaluation, Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue and Congregation for the
Evangelization of Peoples, Dialogue and Proclamation: Reflection and Orientation on Interreligious Dialogue and
the Proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils-
/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_19051991_dialogue-and-proclamatio_en.html, 1991), §15.
38 PART I
[t]he Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in

these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways
of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which,
though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and
sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which
enlightens all men.159
This positive appreciation is also found in other documents of the second Vatican
council. Ad Gentes 3 claims that religious attempts of non-Christians to seek God, find a
place in God’s universal design for salvation. Lumen Gentium 17 considers that
“[w]hatever good lies latent in the religious practices and cultures of diverse peoples, is
not only saved from destruction but is also cleansed, raised up and perfected unto the
glory of God.”160
b. A nuanced assessment of elements in other religions
This positive assessment should, however, be balanced. First, what is said in Nostra
Aetate 2, is said about elements in other religions, not of those religions as a whole.
Second, these elements of truth in the religions are not true because of the religion, but
because the “Truth enlightens all men.” It seems that these elements are part of what
could be called general revelation, not special revelation. Finally, Vatican II considers
these elements to be praeparatio evangelica.161
c. A negative assessment of elements in other religions
The documents of the Second Vatican Council also point to the necessity that these
positive elements of other religious traditions be “enlightened and healed,”162 “uplifted
and perfected,”163 “furbished,” “set free,” “brought under the dominion of God,”164
“cleansed, raised up.”165 That is so because even these positive elements are tainted by
evil:
But whatever truth and grace are to be found among the
nations, as a sort of secret presence of God, He [sic] frees from
all taint of evil and restores to Christ its maker, who
159 All citations from Vatican documents are, unless otherwise stated, from the English text as found
on the Vatican’s website (www.vatican.va).
160 More examples could be given, but because this positive assessment of other religions is not
questioned by comparative theologians, there is no need to do so here.

161 So e.g., in LG 16: “Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church
as a preparation for the Gospel.” Similarly in AG 3.

162 AG 3.
163 AG 9.
164 AG 11.
165 LG 17.
overthrows the devil’s domain and wards off the manifold

malice of vice.166
Lumen Gentium 17 has a similar appraisal:

Through her [the Church’s] work, whatever good is in the
minds and hearts of men [sic], whatever good lies latent in the
religious practices and cultures of diverse peoples, is not only
saved from destruction but is also cleansed, raised up and
perfected unto the glory of God, the confusion of the devil and the
happiness of man [sic].167
We should not overlook the fact that this also seems to imply that even the
truthful and graceful elements in other religions which point to the secret presence of
God are misused by the devil to promote vice and distract from God’s salvation.
2. Post-conciliar developments
The three most important post-conciliar Vatican documents concerning the relation
with non-Christian religions are undoubtedly John Paul II’s encyclical Redemptoris
Missio, the exposition of this encyclical in the document Dialogue and Proclamation
issued by the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue and the Congregation for
the Evangelization of Peoples, and the Declaration Dominus Iesus by the Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Redemptoris Missio continues the positive but nuanced appreciation of other
religions, but also makes explicit that other religions “contain ‘gaps, insufficiencies and
errors’.”168
Dialogue and Proclamation is also clear in its positive assessment of religions. But it
equally reaffirms the line taken in AG 9, and also clarifies,
To say that the other religious traditions include elements of
grace does not imply that everything in them is the result of
grace. For sin has been at work in the world, and so religious
traditions, notwithstanding their positive values, reflect the
limitations of the human spirit, sometimes inclined to choose
evil. An open and positive approach to other religious
traditions cannot overlook the contradictions which may exist
between them and Christian revelation. It must, where
necessary, recognize that there is incompatibility between some
166 AG 9. This is taken from the English translation as found on the website of the Vatican. It is clear
from the other translations and from the English translation as found in Norman Tanner that the “He”
refers not to Christ or God, but to the missionary activity and thus ought to be translated as “It.” See
Norman P. Tanner, SJ, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 2: Trent to Vatican II (London; Washington DC:
Sheed & Ward; Georgetown University Press, 1990), 1019.
167 Italics added.
168 RM 55.
40 PART I
fundamental elements of the Christian religion and some

aspects of such traditions.169
Dominus Iesus, the most recent of these three documents, is the most explicit in
pointing out the limitations of the positive approach:170
Certainly, the various religious traditions contain and offer
religious elements which come from God, and which are part
of what “the Spirit brings about in human hearts and in the
history of peoples, in cultures, and religions.” Indeed, some
prayers and rituals of the other religions may assume a role of
preparation for the Gospel, in that they are occasions or
pedagogical helps in which the human heart is prompted to be
open to the action of God. One cannot attribute to these,
however, a divine origin or an ex opere operato salvific efficacy,
which is proper to the Christian sacraments. Furthermore, it
cannot be overlooked that other rituals, insofar as they depend
on superstitions or other errors (cf. 1 Cor 10:20-21), constitute
an obstacle to salvation.171
In a note, “the religious elements which come from God” are called “seeds of the
divine Word (semina Verbi),” and reference is made to AG 11 and NA 2.172
Although this text affirms that elements in the religions may “prompt the human
heart to be open to the action of God,” it is quite another thing to say that “God
chooses to be known, encountered, and accessible through religious traditions as
complex religious wholes.” As a matter of fact, Dominus Iesus is careful to point out that
some rituals of other religions “constitute an obstacle to salvation.” It comes as no
surprise then to read the following evaluation by Catholic theologian Ilaria Morali after
studying the recent magisterial text on this issue:
[T]he Congregation denies any salvific or supernatural
function to these religious elements, locating them entirely
within the sphere of merely human action. Among other
things, this explains why there can also be rites that, as they
depend upon the lacunae and errors of other religions, are
obstacles to salvation (DI 21).173
169 Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue and Congregation for the Evangelization of
Peoples, Dialogue and Proclamation, 31.
170 It should be clear, however, that Dominus Iesus explicitly reaffirms the positive approach to other
religions of NA 2. See DI 2.
171 DI 21.
172 Note 85 of DI.
173 Ilaria Morali, “Salvation, Religions, and Dialogue in the Roman Magisterium. From Pius IX to
Vatican II and Postconciliar Popes,” in Catholic Engagement with World Religions: A Comprehensive Study, ed.
Karl Josef Becker et al., Faith Meets Faith (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2010), 139.
3. Conclusion: Roman Catholic theology of religions and the possibility

for comparative theology
The preceding discussion makes clear that there is an obvious need for discerning
which elements in other religions point to God, and which prove to be obstacles to
salvation.
The fruits of the Spirit of God in the personal life of
individuals, whether Christian or otherwise, are easily
discernible (cf. Ga 5:22-23). To identify in other religious
traditions elements of grace capable of sustaining the positive
response of their members to God’s invitation is much more
difficult. It requires a discernment for which criteria have to be
established. Sincere individuals marked by the Spirit of God
have certainly put their imprint on the elaboration and the
development of their respective religious traditions. It does not
follow, however, that everything in them is good.174
The establishment of criteria seems to be something that pertains explicitly to the

field of theology of religions, albeit informed by comparative theology.
This theological evaluation of religions is something that comparative theology is
not willing to do at this point, especially in general terms. It is striking that it is
precisely this that Dialogue and Proclamation calls indispensable: “a correct theological
evaluation of these [other religious] traditions, at least in general terms, is a necessary
presupposition for interreligious dialogue.”175
We have seen that there is ground to the argument that the Roman magisterium
does not unambiguously share Clooney’s axiom about the revelatory value of other
religions. This raises questions about the possibility of a fruitful engagement in
comparative theology from a Catholic position that tries to be loyal to the magisterium.
We have also seen that one of the documents that is most open towards other
religious traditions, Dialogue and Proclamation, explicitly calls for the kind of theological
activity that falls within the domain of theology of religions.
The conclusion seems inevitable: from a ‘conservative’ Catholic point of view,
there should not, and perhaps even cannot, be a moratorium on theology of religions.
D. A PROTESTANT-EVANGELICAL POSITION
When plotted on the traditional exclusivism-inclusivism-pluralism typology, most

Evangelical theologians would fall somewhere between the exclusivist and inclusivist
positions, most often closer to exclusivism. The discussion within Protestant-
Evangelical theology still very much centres on whether or not inclusivism is a real
option. One element which is taken seriously regarding other religious traditions is the
174 DP 31 (italics added).

175 DP 14.
42 PART I
possibility that they are under the influence of the demonic.176 Commitment to this
proposition seriously undermines the possibility of adopting the kind of approach to
theology of religions and comparative theology which Clooney is taking for granted.
1. Old-school Evangelical rejection of other religions as demonic?
In those works by Evangelical theologians that argue for a more inclusivist approach to
theology of religions, one can often find remarks suggesting that there used to be an
overall negative assessment of other religions as works of the devil, or, at best, as
misguided and misleading attempts by fallen humanity to reach God. Norman
Anderson was one of the first in (Anglo-Saxon) Evangelicalism to propose a relatively
open attitude towards other religions. He pointed out that more conservative
Evangelicals would agree that other religions may contain ‘rays of truth’, but those
“rays of truth which they indubitably contain are explained in terms of the fact that
even Satan himself can and does sometimes appear as an angel of light (2 Cor
11:14).”177 Amos Yong, who is one of the leading contemporary Evangelicals engaging
in theology of religions, writes that
[t]raditionally, evangelical Christianity has been identified as
the individual’s cognitive awareness of a living relationship
with Jesus (whether mediated sacramentally or otherwise). By
implication, all other religions were false, being either failed
human efforts to reach God or inspired by the devil and his
demons.178
Terrance Tiessen, the contemporary Canadian Reformed theologian, comments

about this ‘old-school’ Evangelical approach that “[n]on-Christian religions are
considered to be the result either of Satanic deception or of human aspirations toward
God, and Christianity is deemed incompatible with, and completely different in
essence from, other religions.”179
It is, however, not that easy to find such overall negative assessments of other
religions in the writings of academic Evangelical theology. What comes closest to this
kind of approach is found in the evaluation of the biblical comments by Douglas
Geivett and Gary Phillips:
First, in both Testaments other religions are viewed at best as
nonredemptive, and at worst as partaking of the domain of
darkness (e.g., Ex. 20:3-6; 2 Chron. 13:9; Isa. 37:18-19; 40; Jer.
2:11; 5:7; 16:20; Acts 26:17; Col. 1:13). As for those Gentiles who
176 For my argument here, it is irrelevant whether one agrees with this evaluation or not.
177 J.N.D. Anderson, Christianity and World Religions: The Challenge of Pluralism (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 1984), 171. As cited Tiessen, Who Can Be Saved?, 300.
178 Amos Yong, “Discerning the Spirit(s) in the World Religions: Toward a Pneumatological
Theology of Religions,” in No Other Gods Before Me? Evangelicals and the Challenge of World Religions, ed.
John G. Stackhouse (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 50.
179 Tiessen, Who Can Be Saved?, 300.
remain apart from Jesus Christ, God’s wrath abides on them (1

Thes. 2:16).180
2. Reflecting the biblical rejection of other religions
It is this biblically-oriented approach that sets the framework for any Evangelical
evaluation of other religions. Bruce Demarest avers that
Biblically speaking the non-Christian religions (1) preserve
legitimate truth-content from general revelation; (2) contain
distortions of the truth-content of general revelation; and (3)
reflect absence of both saving knowledge and saving grace.
They are at best inadequate vehicles of salvation, and they are
at worst demonic.181
So although there can be genuine ‘rays of truth’ in other religions, the overall
evaluation is still very negative. The proper Christian approach is usually understood
as to offer resistance to the devil, not to study what (if any) good the devil can bring
(James 4:7).182
3. The mixed experience of the mission field
Evangelicals have traditionally been known – and rightfully so – for their deep
commitment to the missionary task of the church. Much of the theological engagement
with other religions in Evangelicalism grew out of the context of the mission field. This
engagement issued in two conflicting experiences. On the one hand, there is the
experience of conversion – where believers of other religions convert to Christianity.
Lesslie Newbigin writes as someone with many years of missionary experience in India
that
[t]he sphere of the religions is the battlefield par excellence of the
demonic. New converts often surprise missionaries by the
horror and fear with which they reject the forms of their old
religion—forms that to the secularized Westerner are
interesting pieces of folklore and that to the third-generation
successors of the first converts may come to be prized as part of
national culture.183
180 R. Douglas Geivett and W. Gary Phillips, “A Particularist View: An Evidentialist Approach,” in
More Than One Way? Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World, ed. Dennis L. Okholm and Timothy R.
Phillips (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Pub. House, 1995), 237.
181 Bruce A. Demarest, “General and Special Revelation: Epistemological Foundations of Religious
Pluralism,” in One God, One Lord. Christianity in a World of Religious Pluralism, ed. Andrew D. Clarke and
Bruce W. Winter (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1992), 206.
182 James 4:7 (NRSV): “Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from
you.”
183 Lesslie Newbigin, The Open Secret: An Introduction to the Theology of Mission, rev. ed. (Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), 170.

44 PART I
On the other hand, the missionary who engages sincerely with people from other
faiths cannot so easily dismiss all their beliefs and religious experiences and
expressions as demonic. Newbigin writes that “[a]nyone who has had intimate
friendship with a devout Hindu or Muslim would find it impossible to believe that the
experience of God of which his friend speaks is simply illusion or fraud.”184
4. A more nuanced approach in recent Evangelical theology of religions
Many Evangelicals are open to serious engagement with other religions. They
understand the biblical framework to be more conducive to such an approach than
previously estimated. The biblical evidence that speaks of demonic influence in
idolatry is still taken seriously, but at the same time there are attempts to articulate
theologically the positive experience of interreligious encounter on the mission field
mentioned above. Moreover, the influence of the demonic is not exclusively located in
‘other’ religions. In a Barthian manner, the Christian religion is also placed under
critique. So Tiessen argues that “the religions are one instrument that Satan, the ‘father
of lies,’ uses to keep people from the only Savior. Sadly, the demons can also be at
work within biblical covenantal religion, as is evident in Christ’s warnings to the
churches in Smyrna, Pergamum and Thyatira (Rev 2:8-25).”185 At the same time,
Tiessen allows for a more positive evaluation of the development of other religions
within God’s overall providential arrangement. He puts forward the following
proposition:
Religions develop as inherently religious people respond to
God’s revelation in the forms that are accessible to them.
Consequently, religions are ambiguous constructions,
incorporating both the appropriation of divine truth and its
suppression, due to human fallenness and demonic deception.
The value of religions is therefore measured both by the
completeness of the revelation to which they have responded
and by the extent to which they have believed and obeyed,
rather than suppressed, the truth that God has revealed. 186
In a somewhat similar fashion, Amos Yong distils three basic axioms of a

pneumatological theology of religions, the third of which states that “the religions of
the world, like everything else that exists, are providentially sustained by the Spirit for
184 Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989), 174.
185 Tiessen, Who Can Be Saved?, 313.
186 Tiessen, Who Can Be Saved?, 297. Tiessen (p. 299) is working with a definition of religion as
developed by Lesslie Newbigin (The Open Secret: An Introduction to the Theology of Mission, rev. ed. (Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995, p. 160)): The term religion refers to “all those commitments that, in the
intention of their adherents, have an overriding authority over all other commitments and provide the
framework within which all experience is grasped and all ideas are judged.” Such a formal definition does
not entail a (negative) theological evaluation, as is the case with a Barthian understanding of religion.
divine purposes.”187 The very title of Yong’s (first) book on theology of religions,
Discerning the Spirit(s),188 shows this ambiguous relation towards other religions: There
is the Holy Spirit to be discerned in other religions, but the very necessity of
discernment shows that there may also be evil spirits at work in other religions.
5. Conclusion: Evangelical theology of religions and the possibility for

comparative theology
Comparative theology explicitly states that it is committed to taking religious

particularities seriously. We have shown that, for some Evangelicals, other religions
are at worst a satanic ploy to mislead humanity in its search for God. Even more
progressive Evangelicals allow for demonic deception in religions. So, at least for a
good number of Evangelicals, God does not choose “to be known, encountered, and
accessible through religious traditions as complex religious wholes […].”189 So how can
Evangelical comparative theology be fruitful if it does not share Clooney’s basic axiom
for comparative theology concerning the revelatory value of religions?
It seems that either comparative theology must not take seriously the religious
particularity of Evangelical Christianity, or that there cannot (yet) be a fruitful
Evangelical comparative theology. This situation leads to the opposite of what Clooney
wants. It is possible that Evangelical theology of religions will develop in such a way
that it will affirm Clooney’s basic prerequisite for comparative theology. But as long as
that is not yet the case, there must rather be a moratorium on (Evangelical)
comparative theology. If Evangelical theology maintains, in its most progressive form,
the ambiguity of other religions, then Evangelical comparative theology is perhaps
possible, but must inevitably entail an evaluative judgement of other religions.190 In
either case, there can be no moratorium on theology of religions for Evangelicals.
Indeed, one might argue that, from an Evangelical perspective, there should be more
theology of religions, rather than less.191
187 Yong, “Discerning the Spirit(s) in the World Religions,” 48. The other two axioms are that (1)
God is universally present and active by the Spirit, and (2) God’s Spirit is the life-breath of the imago Dei in
every human being and the presupposition of all human relationships and communities.
188 Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s).
190 This latter approach is taken by Amos Yong and is discussed at length in chapter V.
191 Another logical option is, of course, that Clooney’s axiom concerning the revelatory value of
religions is not really a prerequisite for fruitful comparative theology.

46 PART I
§ 4. CONTINUED EFFORT IN THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS IS A PASTORAL

IMPERATIVE
People of faith are constantly in interaction with practitioners of different religious

traditions. Questions about truth and the salvific relevance of other religions impose
themselves upon the believer and demand resolution.
Especially in missionary contexts, this cannot be avoided. When people convert
to Christianity, should theologians urge the other Christians in these parishes or
communities to withhold judgment about the revelatory and soteriological value of the
former religion? John Hick agreed that “some kind of assessing of religious
phenomena seems to be a corollary of deep religious seriousness and openness to the
divine.”192 It is exactly this kind of evaluation and assessment that is the task of
theology of religions. When theology is understood as an academic practice in the
service of the community of God, theology must address these issues. It is pastorally
impossible and insensitive to withhold judgment on these issues.
192 John Hick, Problems of Religious Pluralism (London: Macmillan, 1985), 67.
§ 5. CONCLUDING THE CALL FOR A MORATORIUM ON THEOLOGY OF

RELIGIONS
From a systematic theological point of view, it is not a realistic option to bracket our
reflections on the relative value of other religions vis-à-vis our own tradition. It may be
true that we need much more specific data, generated by comparative theology, in
order to make responsible judgments about other religions, but the practice of
comparative theology presupposes some basic intuitions that add up to a rough outline
of a specific theology of religions.
We have shown that there is an abiding need for theology of religions, both from
a systematic theological point of view as well as from a pastoral theological point of
view. In most cases this continued effort in theology of religions should proceed hand
in hand with efforts in comparative theology.
It seems that the need for theology of religions is all the more pertinent when
theologians work from an outspoken tradition-specific position. Ironically,
comparative theology claims to share this focus on the particularity of the religions.
Hence, comparative theology will only flourish when it complements, rather than
substitutes for, theology of religions.
Precisely because it is faith seeking understanding, we would argue that theology
of religions cannot but proceed from a tradition-specific perspective, even if these
resulting theologies of religion remain necessarily provisional.
In the following chapters, we will more closely look at theology of religions from
three different tradition-specific positions.
48 PART I
§ 6. CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS ON THE STATUS QUAESTIONIS OF

THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS
A. FUNDAMENTAL THEOLOGICAL ISSUES RAISED BY THE DISCUSSION
The discussion in these first two chapters raises several issues of a fundamental
theological nature. We can only mention them here, but will take them up in following
chapters.
1. There are epistemological issues. In what way is faith an avenue of truth?
How do we evaluate the conflicting faith convictions of rival religions?
2. There is the tension between the particular and the universal in
Christianity – especially the historical mediation of revelation. How
should we approach this tension?
3. Connected to this is the question, in Christian theology, of the relation
between general and specific revelation. Are these categories relevant or
useful?
4. We have noted the importance and influence of the diverse approaches to
typology, including the rhetorical elements. What role does our tradition-
specific locatedness play in the encounter between religions?
B. THE UNQUESTIONED PRIMACY OF DIALOGUE
A constant factor in recent theology of religions is the stressing of the necessity of

dialogue between religions. As an example, we take the work of Paul Knitter. Knitter
repeatedly points toward the primacy of dialogue in his thinking. The third and final
part of No other Name? is entirely devoted to ‘a more authentic dialogue.’193 His
preference for the theocentric model is argued on the basis that “it provides the most
promising path toward a valid reinterpretation of Christian doctrine and toward a
more authentic interreligious dialogue.”194 His rejection of other models is also, at least
in part, due to their inadequacy with respect to dialogue. In summarizing his overall
evaluation of the conservative Evangelical model, Knitter writes that “[m]ost
importantly, they raise serious roadblocks to the kind of interreligious dialogue that
many Christians feel called to if they, as well as adherents of other faiths, are to make
their religious contribution to the welfare of our divided world.”195 Similar
observations can be found in his evaluation of the ‘catholic model’.196
In his more recent work Knitter is even more outspoken regarding this goal:
For me, and for most of the pluralists I walk with, our “highest
good” or goal is not diversity but dialogue, not the simple fact
193 Knitter, No Other Name?, 169-232.

195 Knitter, No Other Name?, 95-96.

of having lots of religions but enabling those religions to talk

to, and learn from, and work with each other. So our intent is
not to affirm the equality of all religions but rather, to enable all
religions, whatever their ingredients or however they might be
ranked, to enter into a genuine conversation.197
To be completely honest and up-front about this [mutuality]
model, we have to recognize that its rock-bottom concern is
how to promote genuine dialogue with other religions.198
Trying to lay out a conclusion for this book has helped me
clarify what I really wanted to do in the book from the start.
Yes, my intent, like that of so many other theologians, was to
call my fellow Christians to a more serious, a more fruitful
dialogue with persons of other religions.199
These quotes will suffice, but many more could be adduced.

Of course, it comes as no surprise that books in the field of interreligious
dialogue deal with dialogue. But what is more surprising is that there is no sustained
discussion of why dialogue is so important and what legitimizes its functioning as
criterion for accepting or rejecting a certain theology of religions. An answer to this
question can be gleaned, however, from segments of Knitter’s work, some of which we
quoted above.200 We believe that there are two reasons why the primacy of dialogue is
unquestioned: (1) Postmodern intuitions suggest a relational concept of truth that
replaces an older model of truth. This necessitates a reformulation of Christian
doctrine, especially christological doctrines,201 which happen to be an obstacle to
interreligious dialogue. And, (2) the stringent needs of the world, especially where the
poor and the environment are concerned, make cooperation between religious people,
through dialogue, obligatory.
(1) The new model for truth that Knitter proposes states that truth “will reveal
itself mainly by its ability to relate to other expressions of truth and to grow through
these relationships—truth defined not by exclusion but by relation.”202 According to
Knitter, the old model of truth was based on the principle of contradiction and defines
truth through exclusion.203
197 Paul F. Knitter, “Religions Pluralism and Religious Imagination: Can a Pluralistic Theology
Sustain Christian Faith?,” Louvain Studies 27, no. 3 (2002): 240-241.
198 Knitter, Introducing Theologies, 109-110.
200 For an extensive discussion of the need for dialogue, see Paul F. Knitter, “Catholics and Other
Religions: Bridging the Gap between Dialogue and Theology,” Louvain Studies 24, no. 4 (1999). Some of the
lacks of this approach are succinctly pointed out in Terrence Merrigan, “Approaching the Other in Faith: A
Reply to Paul F. Knitter,” Louvain Studies 24, no. 4 (1999).
201 For an outworking of this, see Knitter, “Catholics.”
203 Knitter, No Other Name?, 217-218. More recently, Knitter takes up the tension between truth and
dialogue in Knitter, “Catholics.”

50 PART I
We think this is misleading because, in describing ‘the old model’, Knitter seems
to misunderstand the principle of (non-) contradiction. If, in a given situation, someone
makes proposition ‘P1’ about the situation, the principle of non-contradiction implies
that proposition ‘not-P1’ cannot be simultaneously true. ‘P1’ and ‘not-P1’ exclude each
other. However, Knitter suggests a new model for truth in which other propositions
could be made about the given situation, say ‘P2’, ‘P3’, or ‘P4’, that could be equally true
as ‘P1’. It is in the relation of ‘P1’, ‘P2’, ‘P3’, and ‘P4’ that truth will be defined, according
to this new model. But obviously, ‘P2’, ‘P3’, and ‘P4’ are equally acceptable in the ‘old’
model of truth, as long as ‘P2’, ‘P3’, and ‘P4’ do not formally contradict ‘P1’.
However, Knitter does not seem to advocate the rejection of the principle of non-
contradiction. As a matter of fact, it is precisely his adherence to this principle that
forces him to alternative interpretations of traditional christological doctrine.204 Knitter
argues that “traditional understandings of Christ and the church throw up doctrinal
obstacles to the ethical obligation to engage in authentic dialogue with others.”205 If his
understanding of the new model of truth were coherent, the traditional doctrines
would not pose a problem. But it is precisely because they (seem to) contradict
propositions of other religions, that they must be recontextualized. So Knitter is himself
working with the old model of truth.
(2) At the end of his Introducing Theologies of Religion, Knitter gives testimony of
his participation in the Interreligious Peace Council. He tells of the importance of this
experience when the Council concluded that too much time was spent talking about
problems between religions instead of focusing on the really important issues of
poverty, injustice and environmental degradation.206 On other occasions, taking his
lead from liberation theology, Knitter states that praxis precedes theorizing. He
explains that several theologians who make the paradigm shift to the mutuality model,
do this via what he calls “the ethical-practical bridge.”207 “For this bridge, ethical issues
and ethical responsibility are the pillars that will sustain a new kind of interfaith
exchange.”208
Dialogue as disputation
One element of dialogue that is rarely stressed in these works, is what Paul Griffiths
calls the necessity of interreligious apologetics.209 Griffiths defines this as follows:
If representative intellectuals belonging to some specific
religious community come to judge at a particular time that
204Knitter, Introducing Theologies, 152. See also Knitter, No Other Name?, 177ff.
205Knitter, Introducing Theologies, 111 (italics original).
208 Knitter, Introducing Theologies, 134.
209 Paul J. Griffiths, An Apology for Apologetics: A Study in the Logic of Interreligious Dialogue (Eugene,
OR: Wipf & Stock, 2007; reprint, Orbis Books, 1991), chapter 1.
some or all of their doctrine-expressing sentences are

incompatible with some alien religious claim(s), then they
should feel obliged to engage in both positive and negative
apologetics vis-à-vis these alien religious claim(s) and their
promulgators.210
Vinoth Ramachandra, an Anglican public theologian from Sri Lanka, claims that
it “is a fallacy to believe that argument has no place in inter-religious dialogue.
Argument, so long as it does not descend to the level of misrepresentation and
invective, is a form of respect towards the other. The other’s views are considered
important enough to be taken seriously, neither ignored or ‘downplayed’ in the
interests of a superficial harmony.”211 Similarly, Gerald McDermott argues for an
understanding of interreligious dialogue as disputation. He cites two relevant
examples. One is intra-Christian disputation when, in 13th century Paris, rival
theological schools of Franciscans and Dominicans debated the meaning of biblical
doctrines and then retired to the chapel for a common Eucharist.212 The other example
is the disputations that were held between Muslims and Christians in 9 th century
Baghdad.213
C. TRADITION-SPECIFICITY AND OPENNESS
Christian theology of religions, as a discipline, is dependent for its flourishing on the

creative tension between, on the one hand, a recognition of the tradition-specificity of
the different religious traditions and, on the other hand, a real openness towards the
other tradition as a complex reality that somehow fits in God’s providential dealings
with humanity.
If either of these poles is given up, theology of religions will wither. If there is not
a principled openness towards the other religion, then there is no necessity for
theology of religions. The whole question of the value and function of other religions
can be answered with a single ‘No!’. But if the particularity of the different traditions is
surrendered as being a hindrance to theology of religions and interreligious dialogue
in particular, then theology of religions will itself have become a discrete religious
tradition.
In the following chapters, we will look at three different tradition-specific
approaches to Christian theology of religions and investigate how they struggle with
the polar tension of particularity and openness, and how, if at all, they succeed in
210 Griffiths, Apology, 3.

211 Vinoth Ramachandra. “Mission as Reconciliation: Religious Pluralism and Social Conflict.”
Paper presented at the conference Mission as reconciliation in pluralistic contexts: ASEAN and Sri Lanka
Edinburgh 2010 conference, 8-11 June 2009. Malaysia:
http://www.edinburgh2010.org/fileadmin/files/edinburgh2010/files/pdf/Vinoth%2010%20theses.pdf, 2009.
212 Gerald R. McDermott, “God and the Religions: New Turns in the Debate or Reviving
Disputation: Right and Wrong Ways to Think about Other Religions,” Pro Ecclesia XIV, no. 4 (2005): 490.
213 McDermott, “God and the Religions,” 490.
52 PART I
keeping these two together. First, we will look at the approach of Gavin D’Costa as a
theologian who increasingly is aligning his position with that of the magisterium of the
Roman Catholic Church. In the next two chapters we will look at some recent work of a
Reformed-Evangelical theologian (Gerald McDermott) and a Pentecostal-Evangelical
theologian (Amos Yong), who both try to combine loyalty to their confessional identity
with a move from an exclusivist to a more inclusivist theology of religions.
PART II
APPROACHES
54 PART II
PART II: CATHOLIC AND EVANGELICAL TRADITION-
SPECIFIC APPROACHES
Part II forms the heart of this dissertation. The distinct tradition-specific approaches of
three theologians are studied in detail. We consider, respectively, Roman Catholic
theologian Gavin D’Costa (chapter III), Reformed-Evangelical theologian Gerald
McDermott (chapter IV), and Pentecostal theologian Amos Yong (chapter V).214
We will be studying these three authors with three particular points of focus.
Obviously, their theology of religions is what interests us. But in order to understand
how these theologians can be considered as tradition-specific theologians, we will first
pay attention to the sources they use, the authorities they invoke, and how this is done.
What are the traditions they claim as their own and with which they identify? How
does the use of these sources compare with others in that tradition? Is there evolution
in their appeal to these sources or in the kind of sources that are used? A second point
of attention is the theological themes that are considered to be crucial by our authors
and how these are put to work in their theology of religions. Here, topics such as the
Trinity, revelation, soteriology, and christology, to name only a few, will be analysed.
The third area of attention is related to how the theology of religions translates into
dialogue with other religions. How is the ‘religious other’ viewed? How are the
theological convictions and the religious practices of other religions evaluated? We will
see that discernment is an important category. But how does this discernment occur,
what are its criteria? How much leverage do (elements of) other religions have in
impacting the home tradition? Perhaps none? Or is their impact limited to providing
fresh perspectives on old doctrines? Or is their contribution such that they can also
suggest new ideas that were hitherto not yet available in the home tradition, although
compatible with it? Or perhaps the other religions contain revelation that changes the
home tradition significantly?
Summarising the above, we will pay special attention to the methodological,
theological and dialogical issues in the theology of religions of our three authors.
There is a certain unevenness in studying these three theologians. Gavin D’Costa
has been active in theology of religions for thirty years, contributing significantly to its
current shape. His scholarly output on the topic is vast. He has engaged many of the
major contributors in the field, and has also been significantly discussed by many other
theologians. By contrast, Gerald McDermott has a much more limited output in
theology of religions, as this could be said to be only his secondary – though important
– field of interest, the primary one being the theology of Jonathan Edwards.
214In the introduction to this dissertation, we gave some of the reasons why precisely these three
authors were chosen. These reasons will not be repeated here.
56 PART II
Nevertheless, his contribution has been significant for Evangelical theology of

religions, and this is the main reason for his inclusion in our study. Amos Yong is the
youngest of these three theologians, having received his PhD in 1998. Although his
research interests are broad, theology of religions has been the most prominent. His
scholarly output in that area has been very impressive, a fact which makes it difficult to
provide a comprehensive view of his oeuvre. Yong makes an interesting addition to
our study. Not only does he bring a unique Pentecostal contribution, he has also been
active in comparative theology, combining it with a developed theology of religions
and a theology of dialogue.
Before we can embark on the actual analysis of tradition-specific approaches, one
more introductory issue must be broached. Given our institutional setting in a Roman
Catholic department of theology, we need to briefly situate the Evangelical tradition
with which McDermott and Yong associate themselves.
The contemporary Protestant-Evangelical tradition is a movement that is rooted
in three layers of Protestantism.215 The oldest layer is of course that of the Reformation
itself, beginning in the sixteenth century. If Protestantism can be summarily described
by the five solae (sola scriptura, sola fide, sola gratia, solus Christus, soli Deo gloria),
Evangelicalism can be considered as firmly rooted in Protestantism.
A second constitutive movement for Evangelicalism is Pietism. This movement is
connected with the Lutheran pastor Philipp Jacob Spener who published in 1675 his
manifesto Pia Desideria (the piety which we desire). This work called for a renewal of
the inner spiritual life, a more active participation of the laity in daily faith, a reduced
focus on church structures, and a wider use of the Bible by everyone in the church.216
The most direct basis of the Evangelical movement can be traced to Britain and
the United States, beginning in the period 1735-1765. That period was marked by a
series of ‘revivals’ – intense periods of extraordinary response to gospel proclamation,
complemented by an unusual dedication to pious living. Famous revival preachers of
that era were George Whitefield, Charles and John Wesley, and Jonathan Edwards.
Central in their preaching was the necessity of conversion (regeneration) and a life of
active sanctification.217 In Britain, these revivals “were known as the ‘Evangelical
Revival’, while in the American colonies they were called the ‘Great Awakening’.”218
From the eighteenth century onwards, this movement spread to all continents. It
should be remarked that it is not, in the first place, a church denomination, but a
movement in (predominantly) Protestant churches. David Bebbington, British historian
of Evangelicalism, mentions Evangelicals in mainstream churches (Anglican,
215 This section on the history of Evangelicalism is based on Wouter Biesbrouck, “Maria uit de
Bijbel: Naar een protestants-evangelische mariologie,” in Geboren uit de Maagd Maria. Een tip van de sluier
opgelicht, ed. Kristof Struys and Wouter Biesbrouck, LOGOS (Antwerpen: Halewijn, 2011), 126-127.
216 Mark A. Noll, The Rise of Evangelicalism. The Age of Edwards, Whitefield and the Wesleys, A History
of Evangelicalism (Leicester: IVP, 2004), 15.

217 Noll, The Rise of Evangelicalism, 12-13, 15.
218 Noll, The Rise of Evangelicalism, 15.

PART II: TRADITION-SPECIFIC APPROACHES 57
Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist) alongside other denominations (Congregationalists,

Mennonites, Moravian brethren, etc.).219 Although there is a certain measure of
competition between these different groups, there is also cooperation. In the nineteenth
century, this cooperation found expression especially in the establishment of Bible
Societies for the translation, publication and dissemination of the Bible. Starting at the
end of the nineteenth century, it also became evident in the establishment of
Evangelical Alliances.220
The common central characteristics of Evangelicalism throughout the different
denominations and throughout history can be summarized under four headings:
1. Conversion: the conviction that lives must be changed by turning towards
God.
2. The Bible: the authority and sufficiency of Scripture, accessible for all the
faithful.
3. Activism: the commitment of all the faithful, inclusive of the laity, to a life in
service of God, especially in evangelism and mission, but also in social action.
4. Crucicentrism: the conviction that the death of Christ is crucial in bringing
atonement for sin. Included in this theme is also Christocentrism.221
The two Evangelical authors whom we discuss, Gerald McDermott and Amos
Yong, could be said to represent two major strands within Evangelicalism, viz. the
Reformed tradition (McDermott) and the Pentecostal-charismatic movement (Yong). A
case can be made that these two strands of the movement can be traced back to two
prototypical figures of Evangelicalism.222 Reformed Evangelicalism can be traced to
New England theologian, pastor and philosopher Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758),
whereas the roots of the Pentecostal-charismatic section of Evangelicalism are located
in the Methodist-Holiness movements which have John Wesley (1703-1791) as their
founding father, even if the direct beginnings of Pentecostalism are dated ca. 1900
through the influence of Charles Parham and William Seymour. The inclusion of
Pentecostalism in Evangelicalism is not uncontested, but Amos Yong self-identifies as
an evangelical Pentecostal, and Mark Noll, one of the leading historians of
Evangelicalism writes that “modern-day pentecostals must be considered parts of the
219 David W. Bebbington, The Dominance of Evangelicalism. The Age of Spurgeon and Moody, A History
of Evangelicalism (Leicester: IVP, 2005), 50-58.
220 Bebbington, The Dominance of Evangelicalism. The Age of Spurgeon and Moody, 61.
221 Noll, The Rise of Evangelicalism, 16. Roger Olson would also add “a tendency to strongly defend
“the Great Tradition of Christian orthodoxy (broadly defined).” Roger Olson, “Defining “Evangelical”:
Why It’s Necessary and Impossible”, http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2013/01/defining-
evangelical-why-its-necessary-and-impossible/ (accessed 14 January 2013). Equally interesting is what
Roman Catholic theologian Ralph Del Colle names as the distinct concerns of Evangelicalism: ‘authority of
Scripture’ and ‘witness to the saving power of Jesus Christ’. See Ralph Del Colle, Talking with Evangelicals:
A Guide for Catholics (New York: Paulist Press, 2012), 10.
222 For an attempt to establish a Protestant theology of religions from a Moravian tradition, see
Livingstone Thompson, A Protestant Theology of Religious Pluralism, ed. Richard Bonney, Studies in the
History of Religious and Political Pluralism (Oxford: Peter Lang, 2009).
58 PART II
broader evangelical family since they are descended from nineteenth-century leaders
who emphasized Holiness and the work of the Holy Spirit, and who were themselves
decisively shaped by the teaching of several important leaders of the eighteenth-
century revivals, especially John and Charles Wesley.223
Although both approaches are broadly Evangelical, the differences between them
cannot be neglected. The following table aims to provide a typology of these two
Evangelical avenues.
Reformed tradition Pentecostal tradition

Evangelical founding father Jonathan Edwards Charles & John Wesley
Trinitarian focus Word Spirit
Canonical focus Pauline letters Luke-Acts
Liturgical focus Sermon Testimony
Pedagogical method Propositionalism Narrative approach
Intellectual mode Rationalism Experientialism
Principal (original) location Geneva / Princeton Aldersgate / Azusa Street
Main (current) area of operation Northern hemisphere Two-thirds world
Confession or creed Westminster Confession None (anti-creedalism)
Social location of believers White collar Blue collar
Spiritual focus Purity Power
Although this characterisation is in some sense a caricature, it nevertheless gives

an indication of where the differences are located. It should be remembered, however,
that both Evangelical avenues share the four characteristics of emphasis: conversion,
Bible, activism and the cross. Given the more limited familiarity with Evangelical
theology outside its own ranks, and given the important differences – within the
greater similarity – within Evangelicalism, we considered it important to not limit our
presentation of an Evangelical tradition-specific approach in theology of religions to
one of these strands only.224 Because Pentecostalism is the least known tradition (also
for the present author), we have incorporated in chapter V on Amos Yong a more
extensive situating of that movement.
Finally, it is important to recall that Evangelicals are relative latecomers in the
field of theology of religions. Their predominant mode of operation has been one of
mission and evangelisation, corroborated by an exclusivistic position towards other
religions. It is only in the last two decades that Evangelical theologians have explored
223Noll, The Rise of Evangelicalism, 16.

224Evangelicalism is not limited to these two strands. The landscape of Evangelicalism is very
diverse, and important distinctions can be made on the basis of theology, ecclesial structure, spiritual life,
etc. The choice of Reformed-Evangelical and Pentecostal-Evangelical for analysis in our dissertation is
therefore partly pragmatic. But one positive reason for this choice is that, in some sense, the Reformed and
Pentecostal traditions are at opposite ends of Evangelicalism’s spectrum.
PART II: TRADITION-SPECIFIC APPROACHES 59
more inclusivistic positions, but this is certainly not (yet?) received by the majority of
Evangelicals.225
Before we discuss the two Evangelical authors, we will devote our attention to
Gavin D’Costa so that the three chapters of this segment of our dissertation, provide
the reader with an informative cross-section of Christian tradition-specific approaches
to theology of religions. In the next part (Part III) we will offer some meta-reflections
on these three tradition-specific approaches, comparing the approaches of our three
theologians by looking for material and formal similarities and differences on a
methodological, theological and dialogical level.
225For a general overview of Evangelical theology of religions, see Kärkkäinen, An Introduction. A

succinct summary can be found in Sung Wook Chung, “Other Religions,” in The Oxford Handbook of
Evangelical Theology, ed. Gerald R. McDermott (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010). An example of the
intra-Evangelical discussion about salvation and other religions can be found in Okholm and Phillips, eds.,
More than One Way?
60 PART II
CHAPTER III.
GAVIN D’COSTA BETWEEN TRADITUM AND TRADITIO:

A ROMAN CATHOLIC TRADITION-SPECIFIC
APPROACH
In this chapter we will analyse and critically evaluate the approach of Gavin D’Costa to
the theology of religions. After a short introduction of D’Costa and his work (§1),226 we
investigate his methodology on the basis of a study of sixteen publications. Our focus
is particularly the appeal D’Costa makes to conciliar and post-conciliar texts from the
Roman Catholic teaching office (§2). In the third section (§3), we glean the primary
theological themes from his publications. §4 zooms in on D’Costa’s theology of
religions, bringing to light that his is a pneumato-ecclesiological theology of religions.
In the next section we discuss how D’Costa envisions interreligious dialogue (§5).
Finally, we close off this chapter with a critique and evaluation, organised around four
topics: methodological, theological, and dialogical issues, pointing in the end to some
themes that are absent (§6).
§ 1. GAVIN D’COSTA
A. BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
Gavin D’Costa was born in 1958 in Kenya, East Africa, from Indian parents whose
ancestors were converted in the 16th century by the Portuguese.227 When he was 10
years old, he emigrated to England.228 There he studied English and Theology in
Birmingham under John Hick,229 before pursuing a PhD in Cambridge. Currently,
D’Costa is professor of Catholic theology at Bristol University.
D’Costa is a Roman Catholic, and actively involved in theology of religions. He
was a member of the British Council of Churches Committee for Relations with People
of Other Faiths, and a member of the Roman Catholic Committee for Other Faiths
(England and Wales).230 He served on the Church of England and Roman Catholic
226 This section is an adaptation of Biesbrouck, “Apologetic Rationality”, 1-2.

227 Whence the Portuguese family name D’Costa. For this, and more information about his
childhood in Kenya and England, see the chapter on Gavin D’Costa in the interview book by Lucette
Verboven, Pelgrims onderweg: Spirituele ervaringen en gesprekken (Kapellen; Zoetermeer: Pelckmans;
Meinema, 2006), 177-179.
228 D’Costa, Christianity and World Religions, x.
229 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_D%27Costa (accessed on March 27, 2009).
230 D’Costa, ed., Christian Uniqueness, 213.

62 PART II
Committees on Other Faiths and he is Consultor to the Pontifical Council for

Interreligious Dialogue.231
Perhaps mention ought to be made as well of the fact that his wife is a Quaker 232
and that his sister converted to Buddhism.233
With his multicultural background and his position as professor of theology in a
secular university, one is not surprised to see his ongoing interest in interreligious
dialogue and his attention to apologetics.
B. MAJOR PUBLICATIONS
D’Costa is a well-published author, with several monographs, edited books,

contributions to edited books and many articles in scholarly journals (such as Modern
Theology and the International Journal of Systematic Theology). His first monograph,
Theology and Religious Pluralism: The Challenge of Other Religions (Oxford; New York:
Basil Blackwell, 1986), contributed significantly to establish the threefold typology of
exclusivism-inclusivism-pluralism. In 1990 he edited a book that proved to be
somewhat of a landmark in the response to a pluralist approach to theology of
religions: Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered: The Myth of a Pluralistic Theology of Religions,
(New York: Orbis Books, 1990). Other books include:
 John Hick’s Theology of Religions: A Critical Evaluation (Lanham: University Press
of America, 1987)
 Sexing the Trinity: Gender, Culture and the Divine (London: SCM, 2000).
 The Meeting of Religions and the Trinity (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2000).
 Theology and the Public Square: Church, University and Nation (Oxford: Blackwell,
2005).
 Christianity and World Religions: Disputed Questions in the Theology of Religions
(Oxford: Blackwell, 2009)
D’Costa is now a recognized authority in theology of religions, a fact that is

corroborated by his authorship of overview articles of the research field in reference
works, such as Modern Theologians: An Introduction to Christian Theology since 1918,234 The
Cambridge Companion to Christian Ethics,235 The Blackwell Companion to Postmodern
Theology,236 and The Oxford Handbook of Religious Diversity.237 His familiarity with Islam,
231 D’Costa, Christianity and World Religions, from the back cover.
232 Personal communication at the expert meeting with D’Costa on “Pluralism: Catholicity in the
Public Square,” Radboud University Nijmegen, 4 November 2008.
233 D’Costa, Christianity and World Religions, xiv.
234 Gavin D’Costa, “Theology of Religions,” in The Modern Theologians: An Introduction to Christian
Theology Since 1918 (3rd ed.), ed. David Ford and Rachel Muers (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005).
235 Gavin D’Costa, “Other Faiths and Christian Ethics,” in The Cambridge Companion to Christian
Ethics, ed. Robin Gill (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001).

236 Gavin D’Costa, “Postmodernity and Religious Pluralism: Is a Common Global Ethic Possible or
Desirable?,” in The Blackwell Companion to Postmodern Theology, ed. Graham Ward (Oxford: Blackwell,
2001).
CHAPTER III: GAVIN D’COSTA: BETWEEN TRADITUM AND TRADITIO 63
Hinduism and Buddhism, on the one hand, and with Christian theology and Roman
Catholic magisterial teachings, on the other, make his work a rich source of penetrating
and innovative contributions. His analysis of philosophy since the Enlightenment
provides an interesting angle for both his critique of pluralist theology of religions and
his plea for the contribution of religion to the public square.
237 Gavin D’Costa, “Theology amid Religious Diversity,” in The Oxford Handbook of Religious
Diversity, ed. Chad Meister (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011).
64 PART II
§ 2. D’COSTA’S METHODOLOGY: TEXTUAL THEOLOGIAN
A. INTRODUCTION
D’Costa calls himself a textual theologian,238 i.e., he “works to explicate the tradition
found in the texts of scripture, tradition and magisterial teachings.”239
How does Gavin D’Costa appeal to the texts of the magisterium and what does
this say about his methodology? Can we deduce from this how he understands
tradition and doctrinal development?
In this section, we will first list the works we have taken as the database for our
research, with a brief explanation of why this selection was made. Second, we will note
a shift in position in D’Costa’s career so far. Third, we will present some statistics about
the conciliar and post-conciliar texts D’Costa refers to. Fourth, we will delineate what
we understand to be D’Costa’s methodological parameters. Fifth, we will look at how
D’Costa understands the tension between tradition and the development of dogma.
We will close this section with an evaluation of his methodology.240
B. WORKS INVESTIGATED FOR THIS RESEARCH
We investigate sixteen publications of Gavin D’Costa.241 First of all, it should be clear

that the works under investigation are only a selection of the publications by D’Costa.
238 Gavin D’Costa, “Christian Orthodoxy and Religious Pluralism: A Further Rejoinder to Terrence
Tilley,” Modern Theology 23, no. 3 (2007): 461.

239 Gavin D’Costa and Terrence W. Tilley, “Concluding Our Quaestio Disputata on Theologies of
Religious Diversity,” Modern Theology 23, no. 3 (2007): 465.

240 The content of §2 (and §6 A) are published in adapted and condensed form in Biesbrouck, “The
Use of (Post-) Conciliar Texts.”

241 D’Costa, Theology and Religious Pluralism; Gavin D’Costa, “The Absolute and Relative Nature of
the Gospel: Christianity and Other Religions,” in Pluralism, Tolerance and Dialogue. Six Studies, ed. M.
Darrol Bryant (Waterloo, Ontario: University of Waterloo Press, 1989); Gavin D’Costa, “Christ, the Trinity
and Religious Plurality,” in Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered: The Myth of a Pluralistic Theology of Religions,
ed. Gavin D’Costa, Faith Meets Faith (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1990); D’Costa, “Extra Ecclesiam.”;
Gavin D’Costa, “A Christian Reflection on Some Problems with Discerning ‘God’ in the World Religions,”
Dialogue & Alliance 5, no. 1 (1991); Gavin D’Costa, “Whose Objectivity? Which Neutrality? The Doomed
Quest for a Neutral Vantage Point from which to Judge Religions,” Religious Studies 29, no. 1 (1993); Gavin
D’Costa, “Revelation and Revelations: Discerning God in Other Religions. Beyond a Static Valuation,”
Modern Theology 10, no. 2 (1994); D’Costa, “Impossibility.”; D’Costa, Meeting; Gavin D’Costa, “Nostra Aetate
- Telling God’s Story in Asia: Promises and Pitfalls,” in Vatican II and its Legacy, ed. M. Lamberigts and L.
Kenis, BETL (Leuven: Peeters, 2002); D’Costa, “Further Rejoinder to Tilley.”; Gavin D’Costa, “Christian
Orthodoxy and Religious Pluralism: A Response to Terrence W. Tilley,” Modern Theology 23, no. 3 (2007);
Gavin D’Costa, “Hermeneutics and the Second Vatican Council’s Teachings: Establishing Roman Catholic
Theological Grounds for Religious Freedoms in Relation to Islam. Continuity or Discontinuity in the
Catholic Tradition?,” Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations 20, no. 3 (2009); Gavin D’Costa, “Catholicism and
the World Religions: A Theological and Phenomenological Account,” in The Catholic Church and the World
Religions: A Theological and Phenomenological Account, ed. Gavin D’Costa (London: T&T Clark, 2011); Gavin
D’Costa, “Traditions and Reception: Interpreting Vatican II’s ‘Declaration on the Church’s Relation to
Non-Christian Religions’,” New Blackfriars 92 (1040), no. July (2011); D’Costa and Tilley, “Concluding Our
Quaestio Disputata on Theologies of Religious Diversity.” This list of publications is the dataset used to
D’Costa has published extensively. One category of publications that has not been
taken up in the database is that of book reviews.242
Secondly, the investigated works are quite different in form as they range from
monographs to articles in peer-reviewed journals and contributions to edited books.
Thirdly, they represent the whole career of D’Costa up till the moment of the
investigation (1986-2011).
Fourthly, what they have in common, is that they are formative of D’Costa’s
theology of religions. That explains why two of his monographs are not included:
Sexing the Trinity. Gender, Culture and the Divine (London: SCM Press, 2000) and
Theology in the Public Square: Church, Academy and Nation (Malden, MA; Oxford:
Blackwell, 2005). The main focus of these books is not theology of religions.243
C. EVOLUTION OF GAVIN D’COSTA’S POSITION
1. Stage 1: Rahner and inclusivism
Looking at these works in chronological order for references made to (post-) conciliar
texts, one cannot fail to notice a certain evolution, or shift in approach.244 In the early
works, there is hardly any reference to (post-)conciliar documents. His first
monograph, Theology and Religious Pluralism: The Challenge of Other Religions (Oxford:
Basil Blackwell, 1986), has no direct reference to any Vatican II document or to post-conciliar
documents. In expounding the Roman Catholic position, D’Costa’s main source is Karl Rahner.
His 1990 contribution about the axiom extra ecclesiam nulla salus245 is an exception
in that it refers to Dignitatis Humanae, Lumen Gentium, Nostra Aetate, and Ad Gentes. But
almost all the references are in the endnotes, and there is no extensive discussion of
these documents in the main text. Moreover, in this work, D’Costa made the following
claim:
What then are the parameters for further Catholic reflection on
religious pluralism in the light of this study? […] First,
Christian reflection on non-Christian religions should begin
from a thoroughly Christocentric and ecclesiological starting
point. …[G]race […] must be causally related to Christ and his
answer the specific question investigated in this section (§2). In the remainder of the chapter (§3-§6), we
have not limited ourselves to this subset of D’Costa’s publications.
242 In the course of the discussion below, one book review will be mentioned however.
243 However, his 2009 monograph, Christianity and World Religions: Disputed Questions in the Theology
of Religions (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), has not been included either, because there is no major
engagement with (post-) conciliar documents.
244 In an interview on YouTube, Gavin D’Costa explains the evolution of his thought as a two-phase
trajectory. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wa7HdJ7FI78 (accessed 2 November 2011). The first

period of thought is described as one in which he was very influenced by Karl Rahner. Stage two started
with increasing unhappiness with Rahner’s theological method which depended so heavily on
anthropology.
245 D’Costa, Gavin. “‘Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus’ Revisited.” In Religious Pluralism and Unbelief:
Studies Critical and Comparative, ed. Ian Hamnett, 130-147. London: Routledge, 1990.
66 PART II
church. […] Second, given this starting-point, the following

may also be stated as possibilities without contradicting the
extra ecclesiam axiom. Non-Christians can be saved while
remaining explicit non-Christians. The religion of the non-
Christians may thereby contain the instrumental means of
grace in varying degrees.246
2. Transition
By 2000, things have changed dramatically. In The Meeting of Religions and the Trinity.
(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000) we find extensive references to magisterial texts,
especially in the chapter that contains his constructive approach.247 His method seems
to be broadly in place by then. From then on, references to magisterial texts abound in
his publications.
The change must have taken shape somewhere in the 1990s, although it is not
immediately clear from the sources when precisely this shift occurred. Trying to
specify the timing is not only interesting for biographers, for it may help us discover
the sources of this change.
Interestingly enough, I believe this transition is at least partly set in motion
through the influence of theologians and philosophers like Karl Barth,248 George
Lindbeck, Alasdair MacIntyre and John Milbank, who are not Roman Catholic (except
for MacIntyre, who is a convert to Catholicism). In 1990 D’Costa edited Christian
Uniqueness Reconsidered: The Myth of a Pluralistic Theology of Religions (Maryknoll, NY:
Orbis Books). Through this work he must have become more acquainted with theologians and
philosophers who follow an outspoken tradition-specific approach, as the contributions of John
Milbank, Kenneth Surin and Paul Griffiths show. His 1993 article, Whose Objectivity? Which
Neutrality?,249 shows a clear influence of MacIntyre’s philosophy, and especially of the notion
that all rationality is traditioned and that —contrary to the claims of pluralism— there is no
neutral vantage point from which to judge religions. This approach clears the way for an
outspokenly particularist method in theology of religions. This is already becoming evident in
Revelation and Revelations, published in 1994.250
My approach to the topic in this paper is extremely specific,
both in its presuppositions and in the focus of the question. I
write as a Roman Catholic […] in the attempt to articulate a
theology that is truthful to my own Christian tradition […].
246 D’Costa, “Extra Ecclesiam,” 142.

247 Chapter 4. “Trinitarian Theology: An Invitation to Engagement.”
248 In the 10 minute interview on YouTube, D’Costa states that the one key influence in his change
of position was reading Karl Barth. Von Balthasar’s book on Barth helped him integrate Barth in his
Catholic theology. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wa7HdJ7FI78 (accessed 2 November 2011). This
interview confirms my own findings that there is a shift in D’Costa’s thinking. He mentions, apart from
Barth, other theologians who are important to him now: von Balthasar, John Paul II, Ratzinger-Benedict
XVI, and theologians involved in the Nouvelle Théologie.
249 D’Costa, “Whose Objectivity?.”
250 This work ‘betrays’ the influence of Karl Barth both in its dialectical approach as well as in
explicit statement of influence.

This starting point implicitly rejects alternative strategies, such

as those who wish to reflect on the relationship of Christianity
to other religions from vantage points which do not proceed
from specifically Christological, trinitarian and ecclesiological
presuppositions.251
And although in this article we already do find several references to magisterial

texts, these references remain mostly in the endnotes, and often are not specific, i.e.,
documents are referred to in their totality.
3. Stage 2: Theologian of Roman Catholic magisterial texts
Although Meeting is the earliest publication in which we find extensive interaction

with, and exposition of, the texts of the teaching authority, D’Costa’s publication Nostra
Aetate – Telling God’s Story in Asia: Promises and Pitfalls, though only published in 2002,
was presented at a conference in 1995 on Vatican II and its legacy.252 The discussion of
Nostra Aetate is the same as found in Meeting. If his conference paper is substantially
the same as what was published, his current method was in place by the middle of the
1990s.
In the three most recent publications researched, we still find the same
particularist approach. These publications are interesting as they are quite similar in
their methodology, even if the intended readership of these works is probably quite
divergent. The 2009 article253 is published in the scholarly journal, Islam and Christian-
Muslim Relations. The readership are scholars of religion and interreligious dialogue,
some of whom are undoubtedly Muslim. D’Costa is well aware of this as he explains to
the readers what Vatican II is and what a Council document is.254 His 2011 publication
in New Blackfriars255 is aimed at Roman Catholic theologians and, by extension, other
Christian theologians. Yet the method is similar in that it also comments on one
Council document. The last publication256 taken into account is aimed at a more general
Catholic readership. Again, the method is similar in that a theology of religions is
developed out of the conciliar and post-conciliar documents.
If there is development in D’Costa’s method since 1995/2000, it consists in a more
thoroughgoing tradition-specificity. The later works show an even more outspoken
Roman Catholic (magisterial) position. An indication of this process is the use of a
concept like ‘indifferentism’ rather than ‘pluralism.’257 The former concept reflects the
use of that word by the magisterium.
251D’Costa, “Revelation and Revelations,” 166 (accentuation original). It should be pointed out that
the emphasis on Trinity, Christology and the Church will remain central in D’Costa’s approach.
252 D’Costa, “Nostra Aetate.”
253 D’Costa, “Hermeneutics and Vatican II.”
254 D’Costa, “Hermeneutics and Vatican II,” 278-279.
255 D’Costa, “Tradition and Reception.”
256 D’Costa, “Catholicism and the World Religions.”
257 D’Costa, “Hermeneutics and Vatican II,” 281. D’Costa, “Tradition and Reception,” 492, 498.
68 PART II
D. WHICH MAGISTERIAL DOCUMENTS DOES GAVIN D’COSTA USE?
The following list of references is but a crude measure. Sometimes a reference to a

Council document is only in passing, whilst other references may contain extended
discussions. Hence, not too much should be deduced from the list. Nevertheless it
provides a relatively simple overview of D’Costa’s primary magisterial references.
In the aforementioned works, we find twenty two references to Lumen Gentium.258
Fourteen of these are to LG 16, three to LG 17.259
We found sixteen separate references to Nostra Aetate.260 Five are to NA 2, three to
NA 4.261
Redemptoris Missio, John Paul II’s 1990 encyclical, is referred to fourteen times,
seven times to RM 29, three times to RM 28.
Next in the list of most frequently cited texts of the magisterium is Ad Gentes.262
There are seven references to this Council Decree. Both AG 9 and 11 are cited three
times.
Gaudium et Spes263 has six references, with four to GS 22 and two to GS 44. This
low frequency hides the relative importance of the references and the extended
discussion, for example, in Meeting.
Dignitatis Humanae264 is mentioned five times, three references are to DH 2. It
should be noted that there is extended discussion of it in the 2009 publication.265
Dominus Iesus266 is also mentioned five times. Most of the references (four) are to
DI 21.
Redemptor Hominis, the first encyclical of John Paul II (1979), gets two references.
Dialogue and Proclamation,267 the document that takes a prominent place in Jacques
Dupuis’ theology of religions, is mentioned twice. DP 8 is mentioned once regarding
mission and inculturation; the other reference is to DP 29 in the course of outlining
Dupuis’ approach.268
258 Lumen Gentium is Vatican II’s dogmatic constitution on the Church.

259 When the numbers of the references do not add up to the total number mentioned, this is due to
the fact that sometimes reference is made to the whole document, rather than to a specific paragraph.
Furthermore, references to paragraphs that only occur once, are not mentioned here, though they are
incorporated in the total number.
260 Nostra Aetate is Vatican II’s declaration on the relation of the Church to non-Christian religions.
261 There was also a reference to NA 7 and NA 9 (although NA only contains 5 paragraphs) in
D’Costa, “Extra Ecclesiam,” 144 n.30.

262 Ad Gentes is Vatican II’s decree on the missionary activity of the Church.
263 Gaudium et Spes is Vatican II’s pastoral constitution on the Church in the modern world.
264 Dignitatis Humanae is Vatican II’s declaration on religious freedom.
265 D’Costa, “Hermeneutics and Vatican II.”
266 Dominus Iesus is a declaration by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the unicity
and salvific universality of Jesus Christ and the Church, issued in 2000.
267 This is a joint document of two curial departments: the Pontifical Council for Interreligious
Dialogue and the Congregation for Evangelization of Peoples, published in 1991.

268 Evangelii Nuntianti (1975) and Fides et Ratio (1998) are also both mentioned once.
E. WHAT ARE THE METHODOLOGICAL PARAMETERS OF HIS PROJECT?
1. Parameters
‘Parameters’ is a word that D’Costa frequently uses – from early on. For example, in
Extra Ecclesiam (1990) he inquires, “What then are the parameters for further Catholic
reflection on religious pluralism in the light of this study?,”269 and in Meeting, “this
affirmation [of the Spirit’s presence in non-Christians] is framed within a parameter […].
That is, the Council explicitly taught that the church is necessary for salvation.”270 And
further in the same work, “While Dupuis’ position is extremely nuanced, it still falls
short of retaining this delicate Conciliar balance by removing some of the terms of the
relations (church), rather than by fruitfully engaging with them as necessary
parameters.”271
The citations given for the use of the specific word, ‘parameters’, serve to point
out that, for D’Costa, theology of religions is not a game without rules, so to speak.
There are some clear limits that define the playing field. The constant use of the word,
‘parameters’, and the context in which it is used, indicates his acceptance of these
boundaries. He is not trying to change the parameters – these are given, and must be
respected.
So before we describe what these parameters are, according to D’Costa, it is
crucial to understand his acceptance of the fact that parameters exist, that they are
given.
2. Guided by the magisterium
We have no lack of evidence concerning Gavin D’Costa’s methodology in his ‘second

stage,’ i.e., since his Roman Catholic tradition-specific turn. D’Costa takes the Roman
Catholic magisterial texts as his guiding principles. He states in his book, Meeting, that
his “entire discussion is firmly rooted in ecclesial documents from Vatican II to the
present day.”272 In a discussion with fellow Catholic theologian Terrence Tilley, where
they point to the similarities and differences in their approaches, one of the major
differences pointed out underscores what we have just said:
D’Costa works to explicate the tradition found in the texts of
scripture, tradition and magisterial teachings. He is happy with
the Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian in seeing
the primary task of the theologian to be that of explicating and
expounding the teachings of the Catholic Church. This is
clearly a textual process (amongst other aspects) which will
269 D’Costa, “Extra Ecclesiam,” 143 (my italics).

270 D’Costa, Meeting, 110 (my italics).
271 D’Costa, Meeting, 110 (my italics). This is a constant feature. See also D’Costa, “Nostra Aetate,”
334. And also D’Costa, “Catholicism and the World Religions,” 9.

272 D’Costa, Meeting, 12. Similar references could be pointed out for several of his other works.
70 PART II
often require an accurate assessment “of the authoritativeness

of the interventions [of the magisterium] which will become
clear from the nature of the documents, the insistence with
which a teaching is repeated, and the very way in which it is
expressed.”273
Although Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of a Theologian appeared in 1990, we

have never before found a Roman Catholic theologian referring to it as his or her
guiding principle.274
It is not just that magisterial texts are used as ‘delimiting’ sources, so to speak,
but that these are used very authoritatively. The teaching authority’s documents are
“the authoritative guide on interpreting Council documents.”275
3. D’Costa’s interpretative method: contextual reading in line with the

tradition and taking the hierarchy of documents into account
Texts of the magisterium must also be interpreted. How does one proceed? Gavin
D’Costa is clear. First and foremost in his interpretative method are conciliar texts.
These conciliar texts must be read in their context, in light of previous councils, in light
of later councils and, finally, in light of the magisterium’s documents pertaining to the
subject, for these are the authoritative guides in interpretation. The following quote is
illuminating:
It is also an interesting feature of the Councils that they
provide a hermeneutical context to interpret other Councils.
How does one establish a proper reading of a Council’s
teaching? The Catholic answer is: read the Council texts in their
context; then read the Council’s texts in light of previous
Councils; then read the Council’s texts in the light of later
Councils that might provide fuller interpretation of them (as,
for example, Vatican II provided fuller interpretation of the
authority of the Pope after the First Vatican Council (1869-
1870)); and finally read the magisterium’s documents that
pertain to that subject, as this organ provides the authoritative
guide on interpreting Council documents. It is taken for
granted that all these teachings derive from scripture, or are
implicit in scripture, or at least do not contradict scripture.276
But since there are many magisterial texts in the Roman Catholic tradition, there
still needs to be a certain kind of hermeneutic operative. Another feature that is made
explicit, is the fact that there is a hierarchy of authority of magisterial texts that has to
be taken into account. Nostra Aetate, a conciliar text pertaining to theology of religions,
273 D’Costa and Tilley, “Concluding Our Quaestio Disputata on Theologies of Religious Diversity,”
465.
274 As a matter of fact, we have rarely noticed a Roman Catholic theologian refer to it at all.
275 D’Costa, “Hermeneutics and Vatican II,” 279.
is ‘only’ a Declaration, which is the lowest in the hierarchy of council texts.

Constitutions and decrees must be given precedence and NA must be interpreted in
light of LG and AG, for example, even if LG is chronologically earlier:
I will also draw from the Declaration on the Relation of the
Church to Non-Christian Religions (NA). A ‘declaration’ has no
dogmatic value but here acts as a phenomenological
commentary on the dogmatic claims in LG 16.277
Analogically, there is a hierarchy of authority in post-conciliar texts. Encyclicals

clearly rank higher than declarations of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith,
which in their turn rank higher than texts from one of the dicasteries (such as Dialogue
and Mission, a text from the Secretariat for Non-Christians, published in 1984).
Equally illuminating is D’Costa’s approach to the reception of Vatican II. Here as
well, D’Costa has a clear reading strategy. He distinguishes four different approaches
in the reception of Vatican II which are distinct but not necessarily incompatible with
one another. The first approach is the school of Vatican II researcher Giuseppe
Alberigo, which follows a historical-critical method in its approach to the council
documents as it assumes “that if we can reconstruct the intentions of the historical
players in the composition of the documents we can access the meaning of the
documents.”278 The second approach is an extension of the first in that it enlarges the
number of methods to study Vatican II. This approach is also “drawing on various
theories of reception from cultural studies and philosophical hermeneutics.”279 Joseph
Komonchak is mentioned as one of the representative scholars of this approach. Third,
“there is the traditional internal hierarchy of Council documents reading-theory, which
states that, for example, Dogmatic Constitutions must always guide our reading of
lower level documents.”280 D’Costa mentions Ilaria Morali as a representative of this
method. The fourth approach “argues that the Council should be read interpreted [sic]
by the tradition (previous councils, magisterial teachings etc.) as argued by Pope
Benedict XVI, Levering, Marchetto and others.”281 D’Costa clearly favours the last
approach, but equally claims that this “position is capable of including the others,
although in so doing, it modifies and corrects the first two.”282
277 D’Costa, “Catholicism and the World Religions,” 15.

278 D’Costa, “Tradition and Reception,” 495.
281 D’Costa, “Tradition and Reception,” 495-496.

72 PART II
F. D’COSTA’S UNDERSTANDING OF TRADITION AND DEVELOPMENT
1. Theory: Lindbeck’s view of dogmas as grammatical rules
In Extra Ecclesiam D’Costa expounds a Lindbeckian approach to dogma: “[T]heological

archaeology can help recover some of the profound insights within the traditions of the
church and incorporate these regulative and grammatical rules within new
hermeneutical horizons.”283 A practical implication for D’Costa is that such an
approach leads the theologian to seek guidance in the traditions of the church, rather
than leaving the traditions behind.284
This Lindbeckian approach to dogma is reiterated in the Tilley-D’Costa debate of
2007. Now, however, he also specifies some disagreement with Lindbeck:
I take dogma, like Lindbeck, to provide grammatical rules by
which Christian speech is to be ruled and, unlike Lindbeck, I
also take dogma to provide substantive ontological claims,
which are the grammatical rules being applied in a historical
context showing the instantiation of the rule. It might be that
the definition and concerns change such that a correct
instantiation of the rule in one period is actually changed quite
dramatically as the correct instantiation of the same rule in
another period, without this involving actual logical or
ontological contradiction.285
This means that D’Costa is not tied to the specific formulations of particular
dogmas. Rather, he is trying to find the underlying rule that the dogma exhibits. On
the other hand, because he takes dogma to provide substantive ontological claims, he
cannot leave specific dogmas aside and pretend they never existed. He must grapple
with them.
This is exactly what he does in two specific instances. The first is the ancient
dogma that there is no salvation outside the church, and the second is the tension
between religious indifferentism and religious liberty.
2. Two test cases
a. Extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Throughout Church history, tradition has maintained that there is no salvation outside
the church. Yet Vatican II affirms that all people are offered the possibility of salvation,
even when they do not visibly belong to the church (GS 22) whilst at the same time
283 D’Costa, “Extra Ecclesiam,” 131 (endnote with reference to Lindbeck).

284 D’Costa, “Extra Ecclesiam,” 143 “the traditions of the church should guide our reflection rather
than be insensitively abandoned.”.
285 D’Costa, “Further Rejoinder to Tilley,” 458.
explicitly teaching that the Church is necessary for salvation (LG 14). D’Costa is aware
of the tension that these paradoxical statements create.
The axiom extra ecclesiam nulla salus has long been understood as excluding non-
Christians from salvation. But for D’Costa this cannot be the correct understanding,
given the teachings of Vatican II. He seeks to resolve the tension by trying to uncover
the rule that underlies this dogma. Through a historical-theological investigation,
D’Costa is able to point out that a common element in the axiom is the condemnation
of those who culpably resist membership of the Catholic church. At the same time, the
Church has always maintained that some people could be saved without belonging
explicitly to the church. One only has to think of the salvation of the Old Testament
saints, or the medieval concept of ‘baptism by desire’.
The axiom, while negatively formulated, also contains positive elements.
According to D’Costa, “The axiom’s basic theological raison d’être was to maintain the
Christian conviction that God is the source of all salvific grace, and that Christ, through
his mystical body, the church, is the prime mediator of that grace. As a regulative rule,
it stipulates that when a Christian speaks of salvation he or she cannot do so without at
the same time speaking of Christ and his church.”286
What D’Costa manages to do here, in combining a Lindbeckian rule-seeking with
a historical-theological analysis, is to establish continuity in tradition in the face of
apparent and blatant contradiction and discontinuity. The discontinuity is only
apparent, not real. At the same time he has allowed for development in understanding.
What we now understand more clearly is that adherents to non-Christian religions are
(mostly) invincibly ignorant of the Church and the gospel.
b. Religious Freedom
The second test case is also related to a statement of Vatican II. Dignitatis Humanae
(Declaration on Religious Liberty) argues for religious liberty. Up till then, the Roman
Catholic church had always maintained that, in Catholic majority countries, only
Roman Catholicism could be the legitimate religion. “The state has the duty, per se and
in principle, to recognize by constitutional law that the Church is a perfect society sui
iuris and that it is the only religious society which has a right iure divino to public
existence and action.”287
D’Costa agrees that, in this instance, “we have what seems nothing short of a ‘U-
turn’.”288 However, by following the same approach as described above (Lindbeckian
rule-seeking and historical-theological analysis), D’Costa claims to uncover the
common element in these apparently contradicting strands of the tradition. What is

287 D’Costa, “Hermeneutics and Vatican II,” 281 referring to the ‘Syllabus of Condemned Errors’
1864.
74 PART II
common to both is the rejection of theological-religious indifferentism. This

indifferentism is what previous popes tried to fight. The experience from the United
States, where state and church were constitutionally separated, and which did not lead
to indifferentism, facilitated the new development.289
Hence, as with the first test case, this second one is not really an example of a
rupture in tradition. Underlying the very different expressions in tradition is the basic
opposition to religious indifferentism.
3. Conclusion
It is clear from the examples given, that D’Costa is working implicitly with the
assumption that there is continuity in Roman Catholic magisterial teaching. No
unambiguous rupture of tradition is possible. When apparent contradictions exist, it is
the task of theologians to show how these can be harmonized. This is done through a
close inspection of the theological rule underlying the dogma.
On the other hand, D’Costa clearly believes in development of dogma, so that
new contexts can generate, so to speak, clarification of existing dogmas and new
applications can be found for old dogmas.290 His understanding of tradition is not
static, but dynamic, although he would claim that continuity for central matters of faith
is essential.291 On other issues, he admits to discontinuity, such as the deicide charge
against Jews, the prohibition of usury and the condoning of slavery.292
G. CONCLUSION: A DYNAMIC MODEL WITHIN HIERARCHICALLY-SET AND

STRICT PARAMETERS
1. A dynamic model
The dynamic aspect of D’Costa’s methodology becomes clear in his focus on the role of
history. It is only eschatologically that the Church finds its fulfillment, in the meantime
she must grow and develop in her understanding of the Trinity. The relation with the
world and the religious other is part and parcel of this ongoing development. This
means that the last dogmatic word has not yet been said. In the context of discussing
the mediation of grace, D’Costa claims that “history really counts and cannot be
predicted prior to its becoming.”293
289 In the mind of many Catholics up till then, the French Revolution, with its separation of church
and state, inevitably lead to the suppression of Roman Catholicism.
290 An example of the latter – the use of ‘Christ’s descent into hell’ – will be discussed below.
291 For an interesting discussion between D’Costa and Knitter on tradition as traditum and traditio,
see Gavin D’Costa, Paul Knitter, and Daniel Strange, Only One Way? Three Christian Responses on the
Uniqueness of Christ in a Religiously Plural World (London: SCM, 2011), 153-154 and 193-196.
292 D’Costa, Knitter, and Strange, Only One Way?, 193-194.

The dynamics of history also count for dogmatic development. Although D’Costa
is clear that there is “central dogmatic continuity with the ancient faith,” he equally
allows for “deepening insights and developments of understanding in the modern
magisterial pastoral orientation towards other religions.”294
The development of doctrine is not simply a matter of pastoral orientation.
D’Costa fully acknowledges the Marian dogmas, not just content-wise, but also the
good right of the magisterium to pronounce such new dogmas.295 He is fully open to
future councils and magisterial texts which will teach “definite truths” which are now
not yet fully understood.296 For example, D’Costa has speculated on the possibility of
the Qur’an being canonized as Scripture in the future, and he does not rule out such a
possibility.297
2. Hierarchical parameters
It has also been very clear that the magisterial texts are used as delimiting sources, for
they figure authoritatively. In his discussion on the interpretation of Vatican II, for
example, D’Costa suggests the following:
[F]inally read the magisterium’s documents that pertain to that
subject, as this organ provides the authoritative guide on
interpreting Council documents.298
For D’Costa, this does not imply that “creativity is ruled out, or novelty in terms
of fresh doctrinal expressions,”299 but it clearly limits the avenues in which theologians
can speculate. The space to manoeuvre – theologically – is limited, and it does seem
that the focus is more on continuity than on discontinuity with tradition.

295 D’Costa, Knitter, and Strange, Only One Way?, 193.
297 Gavin D’Costa, “The Holy Spirit and the World Religions,” Louvain Studies 34, no. 4 (2010).

76 PART II
§ 3. D’COSTA’S PRIMARY THEOLOGICAL THEMES
Theology of religions is a sub-field of systematic theology. Many dogmatic questions

impinge upon theology of religions. How one understands and develops, for example,
trinitarian theology, Christology, pneumatology, revelation, ecclesiology, soteriology,
or theological anthropology, heavily influences the theology of religions that one ends
up with. D’Costa claims that “theology of religions has no future without a full and
proper relationship to dogmatic theology.”300 It is for this reason that we will try to
distil his views on these dogmatic issues in this section before looking, in the next
section, at how he applies these in his theology of religions.
A. REVELATION: GOD’S SELF-DISCLOSURE
Revelation, according to D’Costa, is revelation of God. It is God’s self-communication.

The content of revelation is therefore not primarily an ethical code, nor some truth(s)
about the world, life or reality; it is rather that God, who is totally other, gives
humanity access to himself. Fundamental to D’Costa’s Christian understanding of
revelation is that it is “the self-revelation of the triune God.”301
There are a number of publications in which D’Costa deals primarily with
revelation. In his 1994 article in Modern Theology, he outlines, from a Christian
perspective, what is meant by revelation and what is presupposed.302 To start with,
there are three ecclesiological presuppositions claiming that there can be no revelation
without the church. The first states that “the reality of revelation within Christianity
presupposes, in some measure, the authority of the church.”303 The point that D’Costa
wants to stress is that speaking of a canon of scripture means speaking of an authority
which decides on the boundaries of that canon. The way this is worded, however, is
not unproblematic. Is it the reality of revelation that presupposes the authority of the
church, or rather the recognition of, or access to, revelation as revelation? If it is, as he
states, the reality of revelation that presupposes the church, then the factuality of
revelation would be dependent on the church, and no longer the free self-
communication of God. It seems that, from the explanation given, and from other
writings, D’Costa intends the second rather than the first. For example, in critiquing
John Webster’s theology of scripture, D’Costa writes that “[r]evelation itself is the
triune God who acts in and through scripture, but cannot be logically identical with
scripture.”304 If revelation and scripture cannot logically be identical, then presumably
the same can be said about the church and revelation.
300 D’Costa, “Holy Spirit,” 310.

301 Gavin D’Costa, “Revelation, Scripture and Tradition: Some Comments on John Webster’s
Conception of ‘Holy Scripture’,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 6, no. 4 (2004): 348.
302 D’Costa, “Revelation and Revelations,” 166ff.
303 D’Costa, “Revelation and Revelations,” 166.
304 D’Costa, “Revelation, Scripture,” 348.

D’Costa’s second ecclesiological presupposition is precisely that scripture as such

is not the residence of revelation, but rather the church as community of the faithful
which lives scripture.305 There is an indissoluble link between church and revelation.
Here again, D’Costa comes close to equating revelation with church. Elsewhere, he
contests the “problematic assumption that ‘revelation equals sacred texts’, rather than a
communal form of reading ‘sacred texts’ authorised in a particular manner.”306 Taken
literally, it follows that revelation equals the living church. As already pointed out, in
critiquing Webster’s purported equation of scripture with revelation, D’Costa is careful
to distinguish the two, seemingly implying that the same holds for church and
revelation:
[W[hile scripture is the material principle of revelation (either
the sole as Webster wishes to hold, or side by side or in co-
equality and subordination [with tradition], as I would wish to
defend), it is not revelation itself. Revelation itself is the triune
God who acts in and through scripture, but cannot be logically
identical with scripture.307
However, in a more recent article on the Holy Spirit and the world religions,
D’Costa claims that “the truth of revelation ‘subsists’ in the Catholic Church.”308 He
refers to LG 8 and particularly to the commentary on LG by Joseph Ratzinger.309
From this springs D’Costa’s third ecclesiological presupposition, namely, that
revelation presupposes “the trinitarian foundations of the church.”310 Referring in
general to Lumen Gentium, he explains that the glory of the Trinity is the reason for the
existence of the church. It is not immediately clear from the trinitarian foundations of
the church why the church is necessary for revelation. Perhaps D’Costa implies that
giving glory to God is part of the dissemination of revelation.
Next to the three ecclesiological presuppositions, D’Costa offers two other
presuppositions regarding revelation. The first of these states that
the economic trinity is the immanent trinity (contrary to
Rahner’s addition of vice versa, so that the immanent is the
economic, thereby conceding the epistemological priority of the
triune historical self-revelation). […] The nature of the
revelation […] is the self-disclosure and hiddenness of God in
himself. […] Revelation is principally an invitation of being to
communion.311

306 Gavin D’Costa, “Revelation and World Religions,” in Divine Revelation, ed. Paul Avis (London:
DLT, 1997), 114.
309 Joseph Ratzinger, “The Ecclesiology of the Constitution of the Church, Vatican II, ‘Lumen
Gentium’,” L’Osservatore Romano, 19 September 2001.


78 PART II
This understanding of revelation acknowledges that we can truly speak of God.

Even if our knowledge of God is necessarily limited and never exhaustive, our God-
talk is not merely mythical.
The last presupposition concerning revelation is, according to D’Costa, that
“revelation ‘was closed with the death of the last Apostles’. […T]he plenitude of God’s
being is present in Christ.”312 D’Costa does not understand this in the sense of a full
closure of the debate about revelation, but rather that it “centrifugally [binds] all truth
of God as being present, hidden, disclosed and concealed in Christ in so much as God
is present in Christ.”313 God may still surprise us, new things about God are to be
discovered. But all these surprises, these new things, must necessarily be ontologically
related to Christ. Nothing new that is discovered of God can contradict Christ because
the economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity and in that sense no new revelation is
forthcoming.314
The combination of the last two presuppositions points to the christological
centrality of revelation. It is in Jesus Christ that God reveals himself; therefore, “the
very term [revelation] is Christologically determined” 315 and “if defined apart from
Christ, then what follows cannot be called a Christian understanding of revelation.”316
Revelation is mediated by the church through scripture and tradition. But
scripture and tradition cannot as such be equated with revelation. For it is always
through faith that scripture and tradition lead to revelation. In that sense, scripture and
tradition can be called the material principle of revelation, but not revelation itself. Yet,
as material principle, scripture and tradition are indispensable.317 D’Costa is careful in
establishing “the ontological priority of God’s action in revelation, and the subsequent
epistemological and dependent mediation of that revelation through scripture and
tradition.”318 It is precisely because revelation and scripture do not coincide that
tradition exists.
Finally, D’Costa is familiar with the distinction between general and special
revelation. He works primarily with the category of special revelation as this is closely
linked, in his understanding, to salvation, whereas general revelation does not
(necessarily) imply salvation.319
It is clear from this short presentation of D’Costa’s understanding of revelation
that it is intimately related to fundamental theological topics such as Christology,
ecclesiology and pneumatology and salvation history. But it is to his understanding of
the Trinity that we now turn.

314 See also the discussion in D’Costa, Meeting, 38, 129.
315 D’Costa, “Revelation and World Religions,” 134.
317 D’Costa, “Revelation, Scripture,” 348-349.
319 D’Costa, “Revelation and World Religions,” 119, 136. See also D’Costa, Meeting, 104.
B. THE TRINITY: CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE’S IDENTIFYING CATEGORY
D’Costa is widely respected for bringing trinitarian theology to the attention of

theology of religions as a way of opening up Christian orthodoxy for the religious
other. His 1990 contribution Christ, the Trinity and Religious Plurality320 set the stage, but
in 2000 two monographs of his appeared that both contained ‘Trinity’ in their title: The
Meeting of Religions and the Trinity,321 on the one hand, and Sexing the Trinity: Gender,
Culture and the Divine,322 on the other. Both books are quite different in their content,
their method, and the audience they reached, even if trinitarian theology and theology
of religions feature to some extent in both works.
Meeting “sets out a trinitarian theology of religions, heavily based on a trinitarian
pneumatology.”323 One commentator, however, finds D’Costa’s trinitarian theology in
Meeting to be lacking. He notices that D’Costa develops his trinitarian theology from
four (short) Paraclete passages in John’s Gospel, but that it is not a full trinitarian
theology that comes forth, but rather a theology of the Holy Spirit:
The concern is whether trinitarian theology is the same as the
doctrine of the Spirit. This is pertinent because D’Costa does
not seem to make a distinction between them. In fact, his
conclusions relate more to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit
(pneumatology) than to trinitarian theology. D’Costa shows
that there is correlation between Christian talk about the Spirit
and talk about Jesus. However, a fundamental aspect of
trinitarian theology relates to the relationship between talk
about Jesus the Son and about the Father, which is not given
any real attention in D’Costa’s discourse. […] In brief then,
D’Costa calls trinitarian theology a discourse that seems to
resemble a doctrine of the Holy Spirit more than anything
else.324
Although this is an overstatement, it is true to some extent.325 What is pointed out

as lacking here, however, is developed more fully in other places, such as the two other
works of D’Costa referred to above.
D’Costa has made clear that it is through Jesus that we come to know the Father,
for it is “through Christ that we encounter a Trinitarian God, who makes herself
320 D’Costa, “Christ.”

321 D’Costa, Meeting.
322 Gavin D’Costa, Sexing the Trinity: Gender, Culture and the Divine (London: SCM Press, 2000).
323 Kärkkäinen, Trinity and Religious Pluralism, 67.
324 Thompson, A Protestant Theology of Religious Pluralism, 86-87.
325 John Flett remarks that “D’Costa’s constructive position, in actuality, presents little by way of
detailed reflection on the doctrine of the Trinity. In The Meeting of the Religions and the Trinity, he examines
not the Trinity, per se, but ‘the affirmation that the Holy Spirit may be actively present in other religions’.”
See John G. Flett, “In the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit: A Critical Reflection on the
Trinitarian Theologies of Religion of S. Mark Heim and Gavin D’Costa,” International Journal of Systematic
Theology 10, no. 1 (2008): 83.
80 PART II
known as she is: as an utter and gracious mystery (God the Father), in the Word
incarnate (the Son), and in God’s indwelling sanctifying and prophetic presence (the
Spirit).”326 Yet there is a danger of turning Jesus into an idol when it is claimed that the
Father is made known exclusively through Jesus. D’Costa points out that it is both the
Spirit and the Son who reveal the Father.327 D’Costa avers that tradition calls Jesus
“totus Deus, but never totum Dei; wholly God, but never the whole of God.”328 It is the
task of the Holy Spirit to continue to deepen and thus enlarge our understanding of
God. Yet, this deepening can never be in contradiction to Christ. What happens is that
the Spirit opens up new vistas of God in Jesus, such that Christ “is more fully
translated and universalized. In this sense, Jesus is the normative criteria [sic] for God,
while not foreclosing the ongoing self-disclosure of God in history, through the
Spirit.”329
God has revealed himself in Christ through the Spirit as the triune God, as a
loving communion. This love overflows, thereby inviting humanity into this love-
relationship.330 The presence of the Spirit in people, cultures or religions, implies the
presence of the triune God, because of the theological rule that the external works of
the Trinity are undivided.331 While the works ad extra are undivided, the relations in the
immanent Trinity can be distinguished from each other.332 In this fashion, D’Costa
seeks to safeguard the activity of the Spirit so that it does not become an independent
track in salvation history, but remains intimately related to the work of Christ.333
For D’Costa, perichoresis (by which the persons are said to co-inhere one another)
is of utmost importance with respect to the Trinity. His understanding of perichoresis
goes against the monarchical view in which the Father is the sole ungenerate source of
the Godhead. He cites Weinandy approvingly. “A proper understanding of the Trinity
can only be obtained if all three persons, logically and ontologically, spring forth in one
simultaneous, nonconsequential, eternal act in which each person of the Trinity
subsistently defines, and equally is subsistently defined by, the other persons.”334
D’Costa argues that the persons of the Trinity should not be distinguished in terms of
origins because “there is no causality within the Godhead.”335 Working with causality or
in terms of origin will, according to D’Costa, lead to the heterodox teachings of
326 D’Costa, “Christ,” 17.

328 D’Costa, “Christ,” 18-19.
331 See Flett, “In the Name,” 83.
332 Kärkkäinen, Trinity and Religious Pluralism, 70.
333 We differ, therefore, from Flett, who argues that the rule opera Trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa
“remains a simple assertion; no systematic implications are drawn from this principle, and it could
disappear without deleterious effect.” Flett, “In the Name,” 83.
334 D’Costa, Sexing the Trinity, 20. He quotes from Thomas Weinandy, The Father’s Spirit of Sonship:
Reconceiving the Trinity (Edinburgh: T& T Clark, 1995), 14.

335 D’Costa, Sexing the Trinity, 21.
subordinationism or modalism.336 In order to avoid these heresies, “the co-equal

sharing between the three persons”337 of the Trinity must be stressed.
When talking about the immanent Trinity, the question is raised about the
appropriateness of what we predicate of God. This is an important issue for D’Costa, as
he is very sensitive to gendered representations of God. We must speak of God, and
the incarnation makes this possible, for it implies that “human beings have the ability
to reflect on the divine.”338 We must, however, acknowledge that we can only speak
analogically about God. D’Costa heeds the teaching of the maior dissimilitudo with
regards to God-language, recognizing that no similarity between creatures and Creator
may be noted without insisting on a greater dissimilarity between them.339 When this
analogical aspect of our God-talk is no longer acknowledged, the door to heresies is
open and some creaturely aspect or construction is predicated as being essential to
God. Such views of God have resulted in the creation of idols and there will always be
a need for a form of iconoclasm. D’Costa believes that this is the danger in certain fixed
gender representations of God and it is this concern which induced him to become
involved in ‘sexing the Trinity’ or ‘queering the Trinity’.340 Therefore, there is a danger
in the use of ‘Father’ or ‘Son’ when speaking of the first and second person of the
Trinity when these predicates are thought to refer to ‘maleness’. Equally, the record is
not set straight when, for example, the Spirit is consistently referred to as ‘She’, for this
also threatens to indicate an essentializing of gender in the Trinity. According to
D’Costa, “it is possible to see how the divine life is capable of being represented in
multi-gendered terms […] in gay, lesbian and heterosexual self-giving, faithful and
fruitful love […].”341 He arrives at this conclusion by working with Balthasar’s
conception of the Trinity:342
336 D’Costa, Sexing the Trinity, 21.

337 D’Costa, Sexing the Trinity, 30-31.
338 Gavin D’Costa, “Queer Trinity,” in Queer Theology: Rethinking the Western Body, ed. Gerard
Loughlin (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2007), 270.

339 This theological insight was formalized at the Lateran IV Council, held in 1215. For a reflection
on the use of theological language and Christian doctrine, see Thomas G. Guarino, Foundations of
Systematic Theology (London; New York, NY: T&T Clark, 2005), 209ff.
340 D’Costa, Sexing the Trinity; D’Costa, “Queer Trinity.”
341 D’Costa, “Queer Trinity,” 271.
342 D’Costa discusses the following quotation of Balthasar on the Trinity: “‘In trinitarian terms, of
course, the Father, who begets him who is without origin, appears initially as (super-)masculine; the Son,
in consenting, appears initially as (super-)feminine, but in the act (together with the Father) of breathing
forth the Spirit, he is (super-)masculine. As for the Spirit, he is (super-)feminine. There is even something
(super-)feminine about the Father too, since . . . in the action of begetting and breathing forth he allows
himself to be determined by the Persons who thus proceed from him; however, this does not affect his
primacy in the order of the Trinity.’ (Balthasar 1988- 98: V, 91; emphasis added).” D’Costa finds much to
appreciate in this definition, but criticizes strongly the last part which is italicized (D’Costa, “Queer
Trinity,” 273.) The use of ‘super’ in (super-)feminine and (super-)masculine is Balthasar’s way of
indicating that these terms are used analogically of God, even if they do “denote something specific about
the inner life of God.” (D’Costa, “Queer Trinity,” 272.)
82 PART II
Balthasar’s Trinity symbolizes divine love in terms of

interpenetrating and reciprocal relationships between
supramasculine and suprafeminine, suprafeminine and
suprafeminine, and supramasculine and supramasculine
(analogically: heterosexual, lesbian, and gay relationships); but
only in so much as these relationships are self-giving for the
wider community, as endless outpourings and sharings.343
Although D’Costa is making use of Balthasar (against Balthasar!) to advocate the

possibility of ordaining women to the priesthood, for our purposes here, it is only
important to note that, for D’Costa, the defining quality for intra-trinitarian relations is
the “self-giving for the wider community as endless outpourings and sharings.”
C. THE TURN TO THE SPIRIT IS A TURN TO THE CHURCH
If the Trinity is the identifying category of Christian doctrine, then perhaps one can say
that the Church, for D’Costa, is the identifying category in his Roman Catholic
theology of religions. We already made clear in our discussion on revelation that
ecclesiology plays a prominent role.344 The same could be said for his trinitarian
theology where ecclesiology is inextricably bound up with the role of the Holy Spirit.
One observer even claims that the introduction of ecclesiology into trinitarian theology
through pneumatology is D’Costa’s most original contribution to theology of religions.
“[F]or D’Costa, the Spirit’s presence not only implies the presence of the triune God,
but also the presence of the church. This is the most distinctive contribution of D’Costa
to contemporary trinitarian discourse.”345
An axiom of D’Costa’s pneumatology is that there is to be no separation between
the Spirit and the Body of Christ because there can be no separation between the Spirit
and Christ. He is sensitive to the issue that, especially in the Latin West, there is a
tendency to effectively subordinate the Spirit to Christ and the Father. According to
some theologians, the Filioque of the Western Church tradition has tended to result in
the eclipse of the personhood of the Spirit.346 Although D’Costa denies that the Latin
West – at least in the form of the magisterial teaching of the Roman Catholic Church –
is responsible for such a stifling of the Spirit, he nevertheless appreciates the effort to
restore engagement “with the Spirit for a proper understanding of Christ.”347
Some theologians have tried to develop a Spirit Christology in order to overcome
this stifling of the Spirit. In this process, some, like Roger Haight and John Hick,
advocate a pneumatology in order to avoid a high, i.e., constitutive, Christology.
According to D’Costa, this ‘solution’ creates new problems that are as bad as the ones it
343 D’Costa, “Queer Trinity,” 273 (italics original).

344 See discussion on p.76ff.
345 Kärkkäinen, Trinity and Religious Pluralism, 69-70.
346 D’Costa points to Colin Gunton, Catherine LaCugna and Thomas Weinandy who have made
this point. D’Costa, “Holy Spirit,” 286-287.

set out to solve, for in the end such Spirit Christologies finally subordinate Christ to the
Spirit. This either leads to the dissolution of Christ’s distinctiveness, effectively
crossing him out of the Trinity, or, it subsumes Christ into the activity of the Spirit.
While the first move implies a binitarianism of sorts, the second move smacks of
modalism.348
Even theologians who are more orthodox and careful in their pneumatology,
such as Jacques Dupuis and Amos Yong, are critiqued because they preclude Christ
from some of God’s actions. For these, the Spirit can act independently of Christ.
However, according to D’Costa, every activity of the Holy Spirit must, on an
ontological level, necessarily be connected to the Son; otherwise the unity of the Trinity
would be compromised.349 D’Costa identifies most closely with these theologians who
“want to thematise more fully the co-dependence of Christ and the Spirit and thus the
intra-trinitarian co-constitutive nature of Christ, Spirit and Father without denigration
of the inner-trinitarian taxonomy.”350
The result is that what has been called the christological impasse cannot really be
avoided. However, rather than allowing this to be a hindrance to his theology, D’Costa
tries to develop his pneumatology so that it simultaneously honours a constitutive
Christology while creating space for novelty in the work of the Spirit. D’Costa goes
about this task by looking at similarities and differences in the activity of the Spirit
prior to Christ’s first coming and after Pentecost. Building on Leo the Great, he affirms
that “there are degrees to the work of the Spirit before Christ; and there is a decisive
new event at Pentecost.”351 In both ‘moments’, the work of the Spirit is directed
towards Christ and therefore christologically oriented. Before Christ’s advent, the
Spirit was universally active in preparing people for Christ. God’s covenantal
relationship with Israel and the resulting Scriptures (Old Testament) are instrumental
in this. After Christ’s coming, the work of the Spirit consists, according to D’Costa, in
“applying the fruits of Christ to people.”352 This application consists in the formation of
the Church, making Christ present to the believer, and in enabling the believer to
participate in the life of the Trinity.353 This makes clear that the Holy Spirit is co-
constitutive of Christology and ecclesiology.354 Pneumatology shapes ecclesiology
“precisely because we know Christ through the Spirit.”355
This is no subordinationism of the Spirit to Christ, since there is room for new
actions by the Spirit. Two presuppositions of D’Costa are crucial in this argument.

353 D’Costa puts it as follows: “The Spirit within the church has the role of helping the church to
follow Christ more truthfully, and coming to indwell the trinity more completely.” D’Costa, Meeting, 115.

84 PART II
“First, Christ is not fully known by the Christian Church. Second, the Christian Church
does not know its own complete and perfect form prior to the eschaton.”356 Both these
elements play a significant role in D’Costa’s theology of religions, but they can be
analysed independent of that context.
The first presupposition points to the task of the Spirit to make Christ known to
the Church. As Christ is not (yet) fully known, the Church must, under the guidance of
the Spirit, be continually open to discover the depths of the riches that are still hidden
in Christ. The input for these discoveries can come from unexpected places, and it is in
this work that the Spirit’s role is decisive. It is here that the Spirit is not simply
regurgitating the historical Jesus, but adds new insights, even when they are always
christologically oriented. Indeed, not being attentive to these prods of the Holy Spirit
results in an unwarranted clinging to an incomplete image of Christ and God, which
may well issue in idolatry. However, when the Church is attentive to the nudges of the
Spirit, she will be transformed through being more true to Christ. The pilgrim Church,
however, cannot predict the directions these transformations will take. The Church is
to be open to the surprises of the Spirit. When the Church, led by the Spirit, finds itself
in new situations, then new truths may be discovered, issuing in the development of
dogma. In this sense, then, the Spirit is co-constitutive of Christ and the Church.
According to D’Costa, such a christologically oriented Spirit is true to the trinitarian
understanding of the Latin West – including the Filioque – without falling into the trap
of subordinationism.357 In the context of his discussion of the possibility of prophecy
and inspiration – both activities of the Spirit – in world religions, D’Costa argues that
these ‘abstract possibilities’ [of prophecy and inspiration in
world religions] would lead, once they are encountered
through discernment, to a deep inculturation of the Church
into a fuller grasp of the mystery of Christ, given to us in
revelation, and leading us into the fuller Catholicity of the
Church. Both these developments in Christology and
ecclesiology show us that the Spirit is far from subordinate, but
is actively leading the Church into the fullness of the mystery
of Christ, in proportion to its critical attentiveness to the Spirit
in the world religions.358
Because of the ecclesiological orientation of the Spirit, his presence – even outside
the constraints of the visible Church – results in “an embodied form of life.”359 In
studying the first Paraclete passage in the Gospel of John (Jn 14:15-18),360 D’Costa

359 D’Costa, Meeting, 114, with a reference to RM 29.
360 John 14:15-18 (NRSV):15”If you love me, you will keep my commandments. 16And I will ask the
Father, and he will give you another Advocate, to be with you forever. 17This is the Spirit of truth, whom
the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, because he abides
with you, and he will be in you. 18I will not leave you orphaned; I am coming to you.”
shows that facilitating human participation in the trinitarian love relationship is the
task of the Holy Spirit. However, this requires an ecclesiological context in which
‘keeping the commandments’ is made possible, i.e., “a form of life and practice is
required and a constant attentiveness to the relationship in which this gift is
recognized, nurtured, and received.”361 The presence of the Spirit in the world entails
the presence of the Trinity, the presence of the Church, and the presence of the
Kingdom of God, even if this is perhaps ambiguous or hidden.362 In this sense, one can
understand that the necessity of the Church for salvation is not a major stumbling
block for D’Costa.
This points back to the second presupposition we mentioned above, namely, that
the Christian Church does not know its own complete and perfect form prior to the
eschaton. Such an understanding keeps the pilgrim Church humble and directed
towards the other. Humility and the rejection of triumphalism are required because
there is always more to God than the Church knows.363 The Church should also be
directed towards the other, because it is in the other (both individuals and structures,
even religions) that this abundance of God can be discovered. Until the eschaton, the
Church and the kingdom of God do not completely overlap.
D. THE NORMATIVITY OF CHRIST
In our discussion of D’Costa’s theological themes so far, we have regularly come upon
the central place of Christ in his argumentation. It will suffice here to summarize these
arguments and add one that has not yet been mentioned.
Revelation, God’s self-disclosure, is closed in Christ in the sense that all truth of
God is centrifugally bound up with Christ.364 If something new of God is discovered –
which is possible, since we always only know God partially – it cannot contradict
Christ. Speaking of revelation implies speaking of Christ.365
Turning to trinitarian theology, it is clear that here also we should speak of the
normativity of Christ, for it is through Jesus that we come to know the Father, that we
encounter the trinitarian God. We should note, however that D’Costa is wary of
Christomonism, for there cannot be “an exclusive identification of God and Jesus,”366
because of the intratrinitarian distinctions.
It is the Spirit who teaches and brings to remembrance all that Jesus has taught
his disciples (Jn 14:25-27). This implies that the Spirit brings no independent revelation,

363 D’Costa, “Revelation and Revelations,” 180-181.
365 “[T]he very term is Christologically determined.” D’Costa, “Revelation and World Religions,”
134.
86 PART II
but applies the revelation in Jesus.367 The work of the Spirit is inseparably linked to the
work of Christ, as are their persons. Every activity of the Spirit is, on an ontological
level, connected to the Son.368
As for the Church, Christ is normative as the Church is the body of Christ. It has
no existence apart from his presence. D’Costa notes that in John, Luke and Paul, “the
persecution of Jesus and the persecution of the church” are equated.369
There is another area in which D’Costa recognizes Christ as normative. It is in the
necessity of an ontological and epistemological relation with Christ, in order to be
saved, or, as D’Costa would word it, to enjoy the beatific vision.370 In discussing the old
creedal statement that ‘Christ descended into hell’, he reminds us of the potential of
that statement as a solution to the problem of the unevangelized. The Limbo of the Just
(limbus patrum) contained those ‘saints’ (both Jews and pagans) who had died before
the incarnation of the Christ. The lives of these saints were oriented towards Christ –
although in a manner unknown to them. They were already ontologically related to
Christ (and the Church). However, they must also be epistemologically related to
Christ in order to be ready for final salvation, the beatific vision. It is here that the
tradition of Christ’s descent into hell as a descent into the Limbo of the Just is put to
use, for Christ’s descent was “to preach to gospel to those who had died before the
incarnation and to guide them into heaven.”371 In this way, they would also be
epistemologically related to Christ. D’Costa now avers that a similar ‘logical space’372
must exist for the unevangelized, who during their lifetime, were ontologically related
to Christ. Whatever one may think about this use of the creedal statement, it is clear
that, for D’Costa, Christ is normative, epistemologically and ontologically, for
everyone.

372 D’Costa, Christianity and World Religions, 187. The exact meaning of this word is not clear to me.
D’Costa uses the terms ‘conceptual space’ and ‘logical space’ for the limbus patrum after the resurrection.
As the gates of heaven are open since the resurrection, orthodoxy has it that the limbus patrum is empty.
D’Costa concurs, but with a twist. He notes that Albertus Magnus considers the limbus patrum to continue
to exist even when empty. D’Costa understands Albertus to mean that “the conceptual place is still there,
but there is no reason for any to enter there.” D’Costa claims that up till the time of Albertus and beyond,
Christians thought that the gospel had reached all peoples, so that there were only two categories of
people, i.e., those accepting the gospel and those rejecting it. Hence, avers D’Costa, there is no one in a
position to enter the limbus patrum. But we live in different times, and are aware of the millions of people
who are unevangelized. Therefore, the Limbo of the Just might be re-appropriated for this category of
people – but not as a waiting room. Perhaps it is more a transit room where the righteous ‘pagans’ are
epistemologically confronted with Christ and move on to either Purgatory or directly to Heaven. D’Costa,
Christianity and World Religions, 178.
D’Costa is clearly not afraid of positing the normativity of Christ. As he says,

“For orthodox Christians, there can be no Christological impasse, except the scandal of
preaching Christ crucified and risen, as a challenge and invitation to the religions.”373
E. BALANCING NATURE AND GRACE
There are two tendencies in D’Costa’s evaluation of the relation between nature and
grace, and the impact of sin. On the one hand, he affirms “the Thomistic principle:
gratia non tollit naturam, sed perficit (grace does not destroy nature but perfects it).”374 On
the other hand, he is careful not to conflate nature and grace.
The first element is obvious in his affirmation of Nostra Aetate 2 which recognizes
that truths can be found in non-Christian religions because all men are enlightened by
a ray of Truth. These truths are to be found, according to Vatican II, in conscience and
the natural law written in the hearts of all people.375 What D’Costa calls the Thomistic
principle is traditionally understood as one of the defining characteristics of Roman
Catholic anthropology in contradistinction to Protestant anthropology. In a recent
exchange with D’Costa, Reformed theologian Oliver Crisp notes that, for Reformed
believers, “grace regenerates nature, redirecting it back to God by repairing what has
been damaged, or almost effaced […]. So it is not merely that grace must perfect that
which is imperfect, but functional. It is more that grace must repair what is severely
damaged.”376 Nevertheless, according to D’Costa, not all Thomists would affirm this
principle of gratia non tollit, sed perficit naturam.377 In any case, even when affirmed, it
does not imply the absence of “a robust doctrine of original sin,” for Crisp clearly
recognizes such a robust doctrine of sin in Thomas Aquinas.378 That grace perfects
nature does not imply that grace builds a superstructure on the foundation of nature,
thereby covering up the defects in (human) nature – it is rather that human nature is
purified and uplifted.379

375 D’Costa refers to Gaudium et Spes 16, 29; Dignitate Humanae, 2, 3; Ad Gentes, 9. D’Costa, Meeting,
104.
376 Oliver Crisp, “On Being a Reformed Theologian,” Theology 115, no. 1 (2012): 21.
377 Crisp, “On Being a Reformed Theologian,” 25 note 13. Crisp mentions that he received this
insight from conversations with D’Costa.
378 Crisp, “On Being a Reformed Theologian,” 25 n.13.
379 If not all Roman Catholics would affirm the so-called Thomistic principle, then not all
Protestants would deny it either. The famous Dutch Reformed theologian Herman Bavinck (1854-1921)
uses this Thomistic principle affirmatively in his discussion of the inspiration of Scripture. He argues that
some objections to the inspiration of Scripture are due to a mechanical understanding of inspiration, and
that these objections can be lessened when inspiration is (correctly for him) understood as being organic –
i.e., the Holy Spirit did not overrule the humanness of the authors of Scripture: “Het menschelijke is
orgaan geworden van het goddelijke, het natuurlijke de openbaring van het bovennatuurlijke, het zienlijke
teeken en zegel van het onzienlijke. [… De Heilige Geest ] is niet in eens van boven op hen neergedaald,
maar heeft zich van heel hunne persoonlijkheid als van zijn instrument bediend. Ook hier geldt het woord,
88 PART II
It is precisely in the doctrine of sin that the second element in D’Costa’s

anthropology shines through. Whereas, in general terms, one can affirm that the
Reformed tradition has a more pessimistic view of human nature than the Roman
Catholic,380 within this last tradition, there is still a continuum of opinions on the
balance between nature and grace.
On several occasions, D’Costa points to a different understanding of the relation
between nature and grace as one of the reasons why the silence of Vatican II on the
salvific nature of non-Christian religions has been understood in polarized ways.
Those interpreters of Vatican II who relate (supernatural) grace more clearly with
Christian (special) revelation see Vatican II’s silence on that issue “as an intended
restraint,” whereas for “those wanting to relate nature and grace more closely, such as
Rahner in his intrinsicism, the silence is seen as an open question to be answered—
affirmatively.”381
Because D’Costa mentions this observation in several publications, without,
however, elaborating this point in any of those, it is worth quoting him at length:
I have more than once suggested that the view of this
relationship [between nature and grace] will determine a
theologian’s understanding of other religions – and more
profoundly and basically, the human condition in its fallen
state. At times, in [Felix] Wilfred’s and [Aloysius] Pieris’ work
it would seem that nature and grace are conflated in so much
as there is an almost pelagian tendency to affirm (without
theological causality) good works as the means to salvation.
Whether this tendency (and it is only a tendency) takes
seriously the gravity of evil and sin and its disruption to our
basic human condition is surely called into doubt. Even
recalling the difference of context, this was precisely the
question that was left unresolved in the Rahner – von Balthasar
debate over Rahner’s ‘anonymous Christian’. Nostra Aetate
and other related documents, I have argued, suggests [sic] that
the Balthasar side of the debate should be favoured, but the
silence of the documents will, and should, encourage vigorous
and painful debate.382
D’Costa is quite critical of Rahner, claiming that he comes dangerously close to a

fusion of nature and grace.383 The result is that “Christianity is just a better
interpretation of the same experience of grace mediated differently in other religions.”
dat gratia non tollit sed perficit naturam.” Herman Bavinck, Gereformeerde dogmatiek, IV vols., vol. I
Inleiding - Principia (Kampen: J. H. Bos, 1895), 358.
380 Crisp, “On Being a Reformed Theologian,” 21.
381 D’Costa, Meeting, 105. The same text can also be found in D’Costa, “Nostra Aetate,” 333-334.
382 D’Costa, “Nostra Aetate,” 349-350. For a similar critique of Paul Knitter, see D’Costa, Knitter, and
Strange, Only One Way?, 191-192.

383 This is the case because Rahner relates “revelation to experience via his transcendental
anthropology.” D’Costa, “Revelation and World Religions,” 132.

According to D’Costa, such a view does not take seriously enough the tragedy of sin, a
situation which results in “an impoverished theology of the cross.”384 The Balthasar –
Rahner debate, to which D’Costa refers, is succinctly analysed by Rowan Williams. He
explains that “Rahner thinks of human frustration in terms of incompletion, Balthasar
in terms of tragedy.”385 According to von Balthasar, Rahner’s understanding of
fulfilment, “leaves the tragic problem of self-loss untouched, and so fails, in the long
run, to take freedom sufficiently serious.”386
The upshot of this discussion is that D’Costa can in principle affirm truth and
goodness in other religions. However, in practice, he is very reluctant to do so because
he is very aware of the tendency of sin to encroach upon religions when there is no
special revelation. This means that the (non-Christian) religions cannot wholly be
affirmed as ‘good’ or ‘salvific’ so that, when evaluating other religions, the Christian
theologian must take the presence of idolatry seriously into account.
F. SOCIO-HISTORICAL MEDIATION OF GRACE
There is, however, another area in which D’Costa still follows an important insight that
was stressed by Karl Rahner, viz., in the socio-historical mediation of grace.387 D’Costa
summarizes Rahner’s position as follows: “[G]iven the socio-historical nature of men
and women, grace must be mediated historically and socially. The incarnation is
paradigmatic in suggesting this.”388
We have already seen that D’Costa’s re-appropriation of the Limbo of the Just
makes possible the admission of unevangelized people because “it does not negate or
downplay the historical lives lived by people and communities as building God’s
kingdom in ‘inchoate’ ways, in seeking goodness, truth, and beauty, as best they
can.”389 So here, the socio-historical dimension of salvation is stressed.
For D’Costa, following Redemptoris Missio 28,390 “the Spirit’s activity in other
religions has important structural and cultural dimensions, and does not take place

385 Rowan Williams, “Balthasar and Rahner,” in The Analogy of Beauty. The Theology of Hans Urs von
Balthasar, ed. John Riches (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986), 32.
386 Williams, “Balthasar and Rahner,” 33. Williams ends his article on the Balthasar –Rahner debate
with a memorable aphorism: “If Rahner’s Christ is an answer to the human question […], Balthasar’s
Christ remains a question to all human answers, and to all attempts at metaphysical or theological
closure.” Williams, “Balthasar and Rahner,” 34. It should be noted, however, that Williams writes twenty
years later that, “[i]n exploring the tension between Balthasar and Rahner, I did less than justice to the
latter, I think.” Williams, Wrestling with Angels, xv.
387 See, for example, Karl Rahner, Foundations of Christian Faith. An Introduction to the Idea of
Christianity, trans. William V. Dych (New York: Seabury Press, 1978), 314.
390 The relevant passage in RM 28 reads as follows: “The Spirit’s presence and activity affect not
only individuals but also society and history, peoples, cultures, and religions.”
90 PART II
solely in the secret of the heart, or in some asocio-acultural location.”391 Although this is
not a univocal affirmation that one should understand this in the sense of mediating
grace, it points nevertheless to the socio-cultural ramifications of the Spirit’s presence.
D’Costa does, however, affirm this in a more recent work:
We find the Holy Spirit can be found in the hearts of non-
Christian people and also in their values, cultures and
religions. This is an important move, because it allows for both
the subjective work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of women
and men as well as the fruits of that activity that is lodged in
the cultural institutions, texts, rituals and practices. While these
latter are not to be understood sacramentally, in an ex opera
operato fashion […], this does not diminish both the subjective
and historical elements of God’s grace to be found in the hearts
of persons and in visible elements in their religions. 392
The normal way that grace is mediated socio-historically, according to D’Costa, is

through the Church and its sacraments. But, in the case of non-Christians, who,
according to Roman Catholic theology can be ordinantur to Christ and the Church, the
mediation occurs also socio-historically, and not just ideally or immaterially.
According to D’Costa, “if non-Christians encounter grace, they do so as embodied
social beings and thus through their religious cultures. This means that elements of
their religious cultures can mediate grace […].”393
Along similar lines, but formulated negatively, D’Costa critiques, from the point
of view of Dalit theology, the attribution of the ‘Spirit’ to Hindu mystical experience,
precisely because one cannot see the results of the Spirit’s presence in cultural
transformations for the good of society. D’Costa then remarks that this issue “brings
into focus the danger of the de-socialisation of ‘religion’ into aesthetic and
intellectualised ‘spiritualities’, produced in part by nineteenth-century Europeans.”394

392 D’Costa, Knitter, and Strange, Only One Way?, 24. Further in this book, in his exchange with
Daniel Strange, D’Costa questions Strange’s Reformed denial of the presence of the Spirit in structures as
follows: “Dan[iel Strange] writes: ‘God through his Spirit does not strive with religious traditions and
systems but with individuals in his image’ […]. But if the person in question writes texts that are taken as
authoritative, cannot the action of the Spirit also be discerned in religious structures (for example in caring
for widows)? What is the logic of isolating the Spirit in the personal inner subjectivity of the person, and
not the structures which persons shape and form? I wonder whether our different ecclesiologies shape our
attitudes on this point.” D’Costa, Knitter, and Strange, Only One Way?, 150.

§ 4. CATHOLIC THEOLOGY AT THE SERVICE OF INTERRELIGIOUS

DIALOGUE: A PNEUMATO-ECCLESIOLOGICAL THEOLOGY OF
RELIGIONS
The themes discussed in the previous section (§3) will obviously make their
reappearance here, but with one major difference. Whereas there, our focus was on
D’Costa’s systematic theological outlook in general, here we will focus specifically on
how this affects his theology of religions.
A. SALVATION
1. Conditions for salvation
D’Costa argues that the scriptural conditions for salvation are (1) Christ as sole
mediator, for salvation comes from him alone, (2) “the final epistemic necessity of
faith,”395 and (3) the Church as necessary for salvation: “solus Christus, fides ex auditu,
and extra ecclesiam nulla salus.”396
2. God wills all to be saved
The triune God is a loving and gracious God who wants all people to be saved. The
notion of the universal salvific will of God is first of all taken from God’s character as
described in Paul’s first letter to Timothy: “[God] desires everyone to be saved and to
come to the knowledge of the truth.”397 This affirmation is uncontroversial in Roman
Catholic theology.398 An important implication is that if God wants all people to be
saved, then he must provide the means for it. This is precisely the starting point for a
theology of religions, as it investigates how salvation is mediated to those who have
not been exposed to the gospel and who are outside the scope of the (visible) Church;
for salvation “entails a specific knowledge and full participation in the life of the triune
God.”399 Salvation is knowing the triune God in the beatific vision.400

397 The verse in context (1 Tim 2:1-6, NRSV) reads: “1First of all, then, I urge that supplications,
prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for everyone, 2for kings and all who are in high
positions, so that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and dignity. 3This is right and is
acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4who desires everyone to be saved and to come to the
knowledge of the truth. 5For there is one God; there is also one mediator between God and humankind,
Christ Jesus, himself human, 6who gave himself a ransom for all —this was attested at the right time.”
So this Pauline passage holds together the universality of God’s salvific will and the particularity of
the unique mediation of Jesus Christ.
398 Uncontroversial, that is, in Roman Catholic theology. It is problematic in the Calvinist branch of
Protestantism. For D’Costa’s rejection of this Calvinist understanding, see D’Costa, Christianity and World
Religions, 28.
92 PART II
3. Salvation is universally accessible
What is non-negotiable, for D’Costa, and for Roman Catholic theology in general, is
that the salvation which is willed by God for all, and is conditioned by Christ, faith and
Church, as noted above, is indeed universally accessible. It is unthinkable that God
would not provide the salvific means to everyone. Taking his cue from Lumen Gentium
and Gaudium et Spes, D’Costa can argue that this is well established. Lumen Gentium 16
states, “Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those
who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God
and with His grace strive to live a good life.” And the relevant section of Gaudium et
Spes 22 reads, “All this holds true not only for Christians, but for all men of good will
in whose hearts grace works in an unseen way. For, since Christ died for all men, and
since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that
the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of
being associated with this paschal mystery.”
The crucial question is, of course, how God provides ‘helps necessary for
salvation’ and how the possibility of being associated with the paschal mystery is
actualized. The instrumental cause, according to D’Costa, is the Holy Spirit.
B. THE SPIRIT
1. The Holy Spirit is active outside the visible Church
From the already quoted GS 22, it is clear that it is the ministry of the Holy Spirit to
give each person – also those outside the visible Church – the opportunity of “being
associated with this paschal mystery.” The Spirit is active throughout the world, with a
certain freedom, for the ‘Spirit blows where he wills.”401 We will later show that this
freedom operates within certain conditions, but when salvation reaches those outside
the bounds of the visible Church, it is clear that it is administered through the
operation of the Holy Spirit, who applies to them the salvation wrought by Christ.
2. The Holy Spirit’s presence is also structural
The Holy Spirit is not simply present in the minds and hearts of individual non-
Christians, but his presence has structural dimensions as well. D’Costa writes that “[i]n

401 Most Bible translations have “[t]he wind blows where it chooses” in John 3:8. In Greek, the word
for spirit and wind is the same: πνεῦμα. This is an obvious word play. The Douay-Rheims Bible translates
as “The Spirit breatheth where he will; and thou hearest his voice, but thou knowest not whence he
cometh, and whither he goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.” John Paul II referred to this
scriptural passage in Redemptoris Missio 20 in reference to the work of the Spirit: “It is true that the inchoate
reality of the kingdom can also be found beyond the confines of the Church among peoples everywhere, to
the extent that they live ‘gospel values’ and are open to the working of the Spirit who breathes when and
where he wills (cf. Jn 3:8).” See also D’Costa, “Revelation and Revelations,” 174; D’Costa, Meeting, 114.
Remdemptoris Missio there is an unambiguous acknowledgment that the Spirit’s activity

in other religions has important structural and cultural dimensions, and does not take
place solely in the secret of the heart, or in some asocio-acultural location.”402 D’Costa
shows that in RM 28, John Paul II expounds on the conciliar document Gaudium et
Spes,403 but in a way that extends what is written there. RM 28 reads:
The Spirit’s presence and activity affect not only individuals
but also society and history, peoples, cultures, and religions.
Indeed, the Spirit is at the origin of the noble ideals and
undertakings which benefit humanity on its journey through
history […].
We have already mentioned that grace is mediated socio-historically.404 This is an

anthropological necessity.405 Because human persons are embodied social beings, they
must also experience grace in this manner. If non-Christians can experience grace –
which they can if the (post-) conciliar documents are correct – then this grace must be
mediated by the Spirit through socio-historical means. These means do not necessarily
have to be from their religions, as they could in principle come from the culture and
social organisation of life apart from religion. However, it is a priori likely that these
means are not unrelated to the elements of the religions, since cultures have pervasive
religious influences.406
C. THE CHURCH
1. The Church and the Spirit cannot be separated
If it is the Spirit who relates non-Christians to the paschal mystery, then it also is the
Spirit who ‘orders’ non-Christians to the Church. As has been mentioned, the Holy
Spirit is co-constitutive of Christology and ecclesiology. According to D’Costa,
“pneumatology is always ecclesiologically oriented.”407 Given that the Spirit in the
Church enables the Church “to follow Christ more truthfully […], then this same Spirit,
when outside the church must also have an analogous role within the other cultures, to
help make women and men more Christ-like, individually and in community, however
frustrated and thwarted.”408 Although D’Costa is clear in his affirmation, he is not clear

403 Particularly GS 26, 38 and 93.
404 See p. 89.
405 Theological anthropology is not a theme which D’Costa has developed, but the nature-grace
balance and the socio-historical mediation of grace would certainly be elements of his theological
anthropology. We have already noted his qualms about Rahner’s transcendental structure of the human
person. See our discussion on p. 87ff.
406 Religion is understood by D’Costa as a sub-category of culture. See D’Costa, Christianity and
World Religions, part II and III.

407 D’Costa, Meeting, 114. D’Costa goes on to quote RM 29: “Moreover, the universal activity of the
Spirit is not to be separated from his particular activity within the Body of Christ, which is the Church.”
94 PART II
in outlining what this may mean in practice. Are religions, as such, oriented towards
Christ and the Church? That is hard to imagine. Or is it certain groups within a
religion, which have, under the ministry of the Spirit, a form of life that is Christ-like?
2. The Church is necessary for salvation
It is uncontroversial for D’Costa that the Church is necessary for salvation. This is
something that the Church has always taught.409 The dictum extra ecclesiam nulla salus is
the expression of the theological rule that, when we speak of salvation, we always also
speak of the Church (and of Christ). And although this dictum has sometimes been
understood as excluding from salvation those who are not formally part of the Church,
in reality it has, according to D’Costa, only implied those who are not invincibly
ignorant of the Church.410
D. CHRIST
1. Christ is necessary for salvation – causally and ontologically…
First, and fundamentally, D’Costa is clear that there cannot be any salvation without
Christ. Everyone’s salvation is causally linked to Christ, for he is the “prime
mediator.”411 Salvation is God’s gift, wrought by Christ, and applied by the Spirit.
Christ is the saviour; there is no way around him when salvation is at stake.
However, the grace operative in people, even non-Christians, relates them
ontologically to Christ. D’Costa explains Rahner’s understanding of how non-
Christians are related to God. “Rahner, for example, classically argued that the inner
telos of every genuinely good and charitable act is oriented toward and presupposes
God, regardless of whether the person is a theist […]. In this way, good works
dependent on grace became the minimal requirement for salvation in the absence of
evangelization. […] Ontologically, they [i.e., non-Christians] have become ‘related’ to
the reality of God through grace.”412 Although D’Costa also critiques Rahner for giving
insufficient attention to the epistemological implications of the axiom fides ex auditu,
D’Costa nevertheless retains this ontological relation on the basis of a person’s life. This
ontological relationship with God/Christ is made concrete, according to D’Costa,
409 D’Costa, “Extra Ecclesiam.”

410 See our analysis on p. 72ff.
411 D’Costa, “Revelation and World Religions,” 131; D’Costa, Christianity and World Religions, 20.
D’Costa uses ‘prime’ mediator, rather than ‘sole’ or ‘only’ mediator, not because he thinks there are other
mediators apart from Christ, but because he believes that others can participate in this mediating activity
of Christ. See, for example, his argument for Mary as co-redemptrix in D’Costa, Sexing the Trinity, 32-39,
196-203.
“through conscience, through noble and good elements within a person’s religion,
through the activity of grace and the Holy Spirit in both these modes.”413
We note that D’Costa makes it clear that these ‘good works’ are made possible by
grace through the work of the Holy Spirit. In this way, he avoids the error of
Pelagianism. Christians and non-Christians alike are saved, not because of their
meritorious works, but because of Christ and the grace of God operative in them
through the Holy Spirit. But “good works may be a sign of human responding to
grace.”414
Whereas, for Rahner, it seems that this causal and ontological link with
God/Christ is sufficient for the salvation of the non-Christian, it is not so for D’Costa.
Salvation, according to D’Costa “entails a specific knowledge and full participation in
the life of the triune God.”415 The implication is that non-Christians, who are linked to
Christ in an ontological way, must also be confronted with Christ epistemologically in
one way or another. Fides qua must go together with fides quae. The act of faith and the
content of faith are both necessary for salvation.
2. … but also epistemologically
D’Costa rules out the catholic tradition of ‘implicit faith’ as a solution to be applied to
non-Christians, even if there is a long lineage of arguments in this direction. The notion
of ‘implicit faith’ has an ancient pedigree.
The ideas of votum ecclesiae – an unconscious desire for the Church – and ‘implicit
faith’ or ‘implicit knowledge of Christ’, and ‘baptism of desire’ (votum baptismi) are
already found in Augustine and Aquinas,416 to name only a few. These ideas were
developed with regards to non-Christians in the 16th century, by Domingo de Soto
(1494-1560).417 According to D’Costa, “The doctrine of implicit faith attempts to
formulate conditions for the reception of salvific grace for one who is not a full visible
member of the church.”418 This thought was further developed by Francisco Suarez
(1548-1619) and Juan De Lugo (1583-1660), who argued that explicit theism was a
sufficient base for the ‘baptism of desire’ (votum baptismi).419 This issue had become
important, because, at that time, the many peoples in the ‘New World’ had been
‘discovered’, peoples who had lived for centuries without any knowledge of Christ and
his Church. Suarez and De Lugo grounded their case in Hebrew 11:6 which states that

416 Summa Theologiae III, q.66 a.11, Reply to Objection 2. Aquinas refers to Augustine’s argument
in De Baptismo Book IV, Chapter 22). Aquinas speaks of ‘baptism of the Holy Spirit’ rather than ‘baptism of
desire’, but this is only a terminological, not a substantial difference.

96 PART II
“without faith it is impossible to please God, for whoever would approach him must
believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.”420
But D’Costa is right when he does not follow this trajectory of doctrinal
development. This teaching of ‘implicit faith’, and the ‘baptism of desire’ were
originally developed in the context of catechumens who, in the course of their
catechumenate, died before baptism was administered to them. These catechumens
were clearly instructed in Christianity, they were familiar with the gospel, they were
actually already believers, but not yet formal members of the Church. However, they
had clearly indicated their desire to become members (votum ecclesiae). The Church
taught that these catechumens “were saved as their desire for baptism counted as
implicit membership of the church. But requisite for implicit membership was explicit
knowledge of God and Christ, not an implicit knowledge.”421 D’Costa follows the
argument, made by DiNoia, concerning non-Christians, “that there is no clearly
specified ‘potentially explicable and publicly identifiable body of teachings implicitly
held’ by [such] a person ‘on the authority of competent or official teachers.’ […]
Aquinas is misused when this theory is extended to those outside the visible
Church”422
Another solution to the problem is also critiqued. As noted before, D’Costa
disagrees with Rahner’s idea of the ‘anonymous Christian’ as it fails “to explain how
such people become explicitly aware of the Blessed Trinity when they die unaware of
the Blessed Trinity and are not allowed to make any more free decisions after death.”423
D’Costa fears that Rahner gives up on the particularity of Jesus Christ. Faith, according
to D’Costa, is not just a formal category, but also a material one. The material aspect of
faith concerns its object. “‘Faith’ cannot be spoken of without reference to the material
content of faith, the cumulative tradition, which informs and gives meaning to the
formal act of faith.”424 Precisely this seems to be lacking in Rahner’s understanding of
the salvation of ‘anonymous Christians’. D’Costa asks, “Is the scandal of revelatory
particularity evaporated in affirming salvific revelatory realities, however provisional,
historically apart from the particularity of Jesus Christ?”425 D’Costa does confirm
Rahner’s idea that ‘anonymous Christians’ are ontologically related to Christ (and the
Church) already in this life.
Therefore, D’Costa tries to develop another line of tradition, which explains how
people who have never been exposed to Christ and the Church, but can be said to be
420 NRSV.
422 D’Costa, “Revelation and World Religions,” 134. The quote is from J. A. DiNoia, The Diversity of
Religions. A Christian Perspective (Washington DC: Catholic University of American Press, 1992), 102.
424 D’Costa, “A Christian Reflection on Some Problems with Discerning ‘God’ in the World
Religions,” 6-7.
ontologically related to Christ, can attain salvation. His solution concerns ‘the limbo of
the Just for the unevangelized’.426
The limbo of the Just, or limbo of the Fathers (limbus patrum) was understood by
the early Church as an abode of hell in which the Old Testament Saints (and according
to some, also the holy Pagans) were awaiting the victory of Christ. When Christ
descended to hell, after the crucifixion and before the resurrection, he liberated those in
the limbus patrum and took them with him to heaven.
Already in 1990, D’Costa averred that, “This category [of the Just who lived
before Christ – who are saved] was understandably not extended by the Fathers to
apply after Christ. However, logically, this category can be extended to those after
Christ who have never been confronted by the gospel historically and existentially.”427
We notice that, with the addition of ‘existentially’, D’Costa enlarges the group of
people who have not been confronted with the gospel. Many people, probably even
those who are brought up in a Christian environment, have never been existentially
confronted with the gospel, although they may have heard it proclaimed many times.
It was only in 2009 that D’Costa made a full exposition of this renewed
traditional argument.428 In recovering and reusing the creedal statement that Christ
‘descended into hell’, D’Costa tries to salvage the unity between the causal, ontological
and epistemological necessity of Christ for salvation understood as the beatific vision.
D’Costa extends the existence of the limbus patrum to include the ‘time’ after the
resurrection of Christ, as a ‘logical space’ for those non-Christians who, during their
lifetime, were already ontologically related to Christ. At their death, these people are
not yet ready for the beatific vision as they are unaware of Christ and the Trinity.429 The
fullness of salvation cannot be attained without knowledge of Christ, the Church and
the Trinity. At death, the category of non-Christians who are ontologically related to
Christ and are marked for salvation, must come to know Christ. In a fashion
reminiscent of Christ’s proclamation of salvation to the Just, these non-Christians
encounter Christ in the limbus patrum.
D’Costa makes it clear that this does not entail a ‘second chance’. He maintains
the Augustinian opinion that no new choices can be made post-mortem. The members
of this category of non-Christians are not converting in the proper sense of the word,
for they are already (ontologically) related to Christ. What happens in the ‘limbo of the
Just’ is not a ‘new choice’, but a ‘maturation’ of something that took shape during the
lifetime of the person in question. These people discover in the limbus patrum whom
they have been following and whom they have been worshipping, even if only
implicitly.

429 They cannot immediately go to purgatory, because, according to D’Costa, the purgatorium is also
christologically oriented. A meeting with Christ prior to purgatory is therefore necessary.

98 PART II
E. THE OTHER
1. Loving the other because of who the trinitarian God is
D’Costa’s approach combines a denial of the salvific structure of other religions with a
necessary openness and willingness to learn from others, including the religions.430
This openness to others is not just a matter of the benefit to ourselves. Part of the
rationale derives from trinitarian reasons. To be open to others is to love others. To
love others is what Christ commands his followers to do. Love of the (non-Christian)
neighbour is therefore imperative. One cannot love another by domesticating his or her
opinions, let alone his or her religion. D’Costa writes that a “Christocentric
trinitarianism discloses loving relationship as the proper mode of being. […] God’s
self-disclosure in Christ shows that the proper mode of being is in loving communion,
exemplified in the love between the Father and the Son, and correlatively the love
between the three persons of the Trinity. […] It is through this modality of love that we
are called into communion with God. Hence, love of neighbor is co-essential with the love of
God.”431
As Christians, we are called to follow the cruciform love of Christ. There is no
way that our relations with the religious other could be characterized by an
imperialistic attitude if we believe that Christ holds any normativity for us as
Christians.432
2. The religious other is a gift for the Church
One of the novelties in D’Costa’s trinitarian approach is his understanding of

‘fulfilment’ within Catholic theology of religions as a two-way process.433 It is not
simply a case of the non-Christian religion finding fulfilment in Christianity;
Christianity is itself fulfilled and deepened through its engagement with other
religions. This deepening is only possible in attending to the other religions. This is an
early conviction of D’Costa. Already in 1990 he wrote, “Here I want to make an
important qualification regarding the word ‘fulfillment’. It has for too long been
erroneously assumed that Christianity’s ‘fulfillment’ of another religion is a fait
accompli. Fulfillment is wrongly seen as a task completed rather than historically
enacted and thus ongoing and dynamic.”434 This dynamic understanding of fulfilment
is important, but a second and crucial aspect of this dynamism is highlighted in an
article published in 1994, where D’Costa laments that “[t]he greatest weakness in
430 This section draws on my Master’s thesis: Biesbrouck, “Apologetic Rationality”, 38.
431 D’Costa, “Christ,” 19-20. Italics in the original.
432 D’Costa, “Christ,” 20-21.
433 This section builds further on Biesbrouck, “Apologetic Rationality”, 37-38.
434 Gavin D’Costa, “One Covenant or Many Covenants? Toward a Theology of Christian-Jewish
Relations,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 27, no. 3 Summer (1990): 447.

Roman Catholic documents on Christianity and other religions is the one-sided

conception of fulfilment theology […]. The logic of my argument requires that it is
unambiguously acknowledged that in the possibility of encountering God’s judgment
and hearing God’s word, the church itself is fulfilled in its meeting with other
religions.”435 The argument then becomes fully developed in Meeting (2000). It starts
with Gaudium et Spes 44 which relates how the Church benefits from Western secular
modernity:
Since the Church has a visible and social structure as a sign of
her unity in Christ, she can and ought to be enriched by the
development of human social life, not that there is any lack in
the constitution given her by Christ, but that she can
understand it more penetratingly, express it better, and adjust
it more successfully to our times.
The Church, as a social structure, is then also on the receiving end in its
relationship with human social life. This gift from the world to the Church transforms
her praxis and her self-understanding.436
The next step in the argument is to point out that the presence of the Spirit
outside the visible church is not just in the hearts of individuals. The involvement of
the Spirit in other cultures and religions has structural dimensions. “The Spirit’s
presence and activity affect not only the individuals but also society and history,
peoples, cultures and religions.”437
Bringing the arguments together, D’Costa argues that surely the Spirit’s presence
in other religions can have an equally beneficial and transformative role on the Church
as is the case with what is good and true in Western secular modernity.
The conclusion of this argument is far-reaching, however. When the Church is
not attentive to the potential presence of the Holy Spirit in non-Christian religions, “it
may be unwittingly practicing cultural and religious idolatry.”438 Put more positively,
“the discernment of the activity of the Holy Spirit within other religions must also
bring the church more truthfully into the presence of the triune God.”439
Here we have a pneumatological foundation for true Christian openness to other
religions, without domesticating them. Crucial in this project is the whole issue of
discernment: discerning the inchoate reality of the Kingdom in other cultures and
religions; discerning what in other religions is of the Spirit, and what is not. This is not
only a time-consuming and risky business; discernment is a project that must be done
by and in the Church.
435 D’Costa, “Revelation and Revelations,” 178. The roots of this thought are already clearly present
in his seminal article “Christ,” 22-26.
437 Redemptoris Missio 28.

100 PART II
3. Learning from the other through the Spirit: a dialectical and dialogical
process
That the Church can and must learn from other religions, and that, in this way,
Christianity finds its own fulfilment, is settled for D’Costa:
The doctrine of the Spirit […] provides the narrative space in
which the testimonies of people from the world religions, in
their own words and lives, can unmask the false ideologies and
distorted narrative practices within Christian communities. At
the same time, it allows Christians to be aware of God’s self-
disclosure within the world’s religions, and through this
process of learning, enrich its own self-understanding.440
That being said, the way in which this learning process takes shape is not
straightforward. What is clear, is that it will happen through a dialectical and
dialogical process. An example of such a dialectical method is offered by D’Costa in his
analysis of the question of whether there is revelation in other religions. According to
D’Costa, the question must be answered a priori both ‘no’ and ‘yes’. This negative and
positive answer cannot be resolved into one another, but must be held in creative
tension. In a second moment, this a priori answer must be enriched through a posteriori
engagement with specific religions.441 The a priori observations “form the parameters,
the grammar and rules, of how one speaks about other religions. But it is only a
posteriori that any specific judgements can be made.”442
It is this necessary a posteriori moment that makes the process of discernment not
only dialectical, but also dialogical, for a direct encounter with the other religions is
inevitable. “[T]he ‘gifts’ from outside the church need to be received ‘through
dialogue’.”443 This is not a noncommittal exercise for the Church, since the Church
“may find itself under the judgement of the Holy Spirit.”444 When the Church listens to
the self-understanding of other religions, it may very well be confronted with some of
the sins that Christianity perpetrated against other peoples, cultures, and religions. 445
This confrontation may also point Christian churches to their own inadequacies, when,
for example, other religious communities exhibit the fruits of the Spirit to a greater
extent. Evading this confrontation may perhaps seem less painful, but is, in the long

441 D’Costa, “Revelation and Revelations,” 169. See 168-175 for the full dialectical engagement with
this question.
444 D’Costa, “Revelation and Revelations,” 178. Cf. D’Costa, “Christ,” 24. This is a thoroughly
biblical idea. John 16:8 claims that the Spirit brings judgement (“And when he comes, he will prove the
world wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment.”(NRSV)), whilst 1 Peter 4:17 states that
judgement starts with the Church (“For the time has come for judgment to begin with the household of
God.” (NRSV)).
445 D’Costa gives such examples as exposure of anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim tendencies in the
church and its theology.

run, pernicious. According to D’Costa, “Without listening to this testimony, Christians

cease to be faithful to their own calling as Christians, in being inattentive to God.”446
The effect of such authentic ‘listening’ to the other will entail a transformation of
the Church. This transformation takes both a subjective and an objective form. The
subjective form consists in a closer adherence to the Triune God. The Spirit’s task
consists of leading the Church to a more authentic discipleship. When the Church
incorporates the gifts of the Spirit from outside the Church, she will grow in her
likeness to Christ.447 The objective form that this listening entails, is a “reconfiguring of
Christian practice and understanding.”448 D’Costa refers here to “inculturation—or
fresh auto-interpretation.”449 Elsewhere, he speaks of ‘indigenization’ as an aspect of
listening.450
Inculturation, or indigenization, is a delicate issue. D’Costa makes it very clear
that this work is not the task of individual theologians. It is, rather, an ecclesial task.
Redemptoris Missio 29 states very clearly that “the discernment of this presence [of the
Spirit in other religions] is the responsibility of the Church, to which Christ gave his
Spirit in order to guide her into all the truth.”451
It is also possible that what the Church receives as ‘from the Spirit’ in other
religions, is not something that is recognized as such by insiders of that tradition. “God
may speak through the other religions, either despite them (despite their auto-
interpretation) or through them (in their auto-interpretation).”452 An obvious example
would be the difference between the Christian interpretation of the Old Testament
through the New Testament, and the interpretation of the Old Testament in Judaism.
This raises doubts about whether the particularity of ‘the other’ is really honoured, or
whether listening to ‘the other’ is just a pretext to enrich one’s own narrative.
4. Respecting the particularity of the other
D’Costa is very sensitive to being truly open to the other. As a matter of fact, he even
argues that openness to the other, championed by the pluralists, is actually better
served through his own approach.453 He is aware of the potential critique levelled
against his own suggestions, especially with regards to his statement that a priori
reflections on other religions have a rightful place. But since he also pleads for a
complementary a posteriori approach, only after which specific judgments should be
446 D’Costa, “Christ,” 23. D’Costa is even more sharp when he states that, “If the church fails to be
receptive, it may be unwittingly practicing cultural and religious idolatry.” D’Costa, Meeting, 115.
451 Cited in D’Costa, Meeting, 116.
453 D’Costa, Meeting, 132-138.

102 PART II
proposed D’Costa avers that, therefore, “the a priori nature of the reflections […] do not
in themselves lead to smothering the Other or to closure.”454
The Church does not own the Holy Spirit, even if it is constituted by the Spirit.
The presence of the Spirit in the other religions must therefore be painstakingly
evaluated. The Church cannot presume that she already knows a priori where and how
the Spirit is active. Discernment will require paying close “attention to the inner logic
and intrasystematic richness within another religion (i.e., auto-interpretation) prior to
being able to affirm, critique, and engage with that tradition.”455 This careful listening
must proceed in such a way that the other is not domesticated.
However, this is not the end of the discerning process. It must also contain a
second movement, which, although linked with the former, is still distinct. This is what
D’Costa calls “critical and constructive engagement with the Other.”456 Here is where
inculturation or indigenization can start. It is very important that this phase only starts
after the open and authentic listening to the auto-interpretation of the other. Yet
inculturation involves a reception of the other in ways that are not necessarily
approved by the other. According to D’Costa,
[T]he process of indigenization is purely an intra Christian
affair and in no sense impinges on the integrity or authority of
the self-understanding of the non-Christian who teaches us
about the Spirit (in ways intended or unintended).
Indigenization is only imperialism when non-Christians are
asked to affirm and authorize this process, thereby rendering
them Christian.”457
We could say that D’Costa presents (Roman Catholic) theology of religions as an

open narrative458 or, in his own words, “a trinitarian meta-narrative [that] does a very
good job in narrating an unfinished story regarding other religions, while also allowing
other religions their own voice.”459

458 For an analysis of the difference between Christianity as an open versus closed narrative, also in
relation to other religions, see Lieven Boeve, Onderbroken traditie: Heeft het christelijk verhaal nog toekomst?
(Kapellen: Pelckmans, 1999). Also Lieven Boeve, God onderbreekt de geschiedenis: Theologie in tijden van
ommekeer (Kapellen: Pelckmans, 2006).
459 D’Costa, Meeting, 92. Part of this section is based on Biesbrouck, “Apologetic Rationality”, 22-23.
§ 5. THE PRACTICE OF INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE: DIALECTICS AND

OUT-NARRATION
D’Costa uses a two-pronged method as a way of engaging other religions: rational

dialectics and rhetorical out-narration. The two are complementary.460
A. DIALECTICS
The dialectical method is a dialogical way of resolving disagreements between

conversation partners. To be able to come to a solution, this method presupposes that
the partners in the discussion share some common ground, especially concerning logic
and language. The goal of the dialectical method is to persuade the conversation
partner of one’s own position. D’Costa summarizes dialectics as “historically
contextualized rational argument.”461 Different positions in a discussion can engage
one another rationally “such that there may be a successful outcome.”462
Borrowing from Alasdair MacIntyre, D’Costa singles out three characteristics of
dialectics: language learning, apologetics, and outperforming the rival463 tradition. This
third feature is not always clearly separated from rhetorical out-narration which will
be discussed later.
1. Language learning
The first feature is the necessity to learn “the language of the alien tradition as a new
and second first language.”464 It should be clear that we are referring to a broad concept
of ‘language’ that potentially entails a whole culture, with traditions, beliefs and
practices.
This language learning is necessary to prevent the discussion partners from
smothering the differences of the other. The other cannot be understood solely from
within the framework of one’s own position. To suspend one’s own frame of reference
and adopt – albeit temporarily – the terms of reference of the rival position generates a
familiarity with the rival position that is not attainable in any other way.
Another way of putting this is to plead for thorough ‘insider-reporting’, which
means that the other tradition or religion is understood in the way that adherents of
460 This section is based on Biesbrouck, “Apologetic Rationality”, 29-31.

463 We use the word ‘rival tradition’ for simplicity’s sake but note that D’Costa actually refrains
from doing so. He claims that “one need not construe the other as ‘rival’ (MacIntyre), nor as the object of
out-narration (Milbank). Within a Roman Catholic trinitarian orientation, the other is always interesting in
their difference and may be the possible face of God, or the face of violence, greed, and death.
Furthermore, the other may teach Christians to know and worship their own trinitarian God more
truthfully and richly.” D’Costa, Meeting, 9.
464 MacIntyre, Whose Justice?, 364.
104 PART II
that position understand themselves. D’Costa calls insider-reporting those kinds of

interpretations with which an insider would agree.465
In a very concrete way, this is an act of risky love, in the first place, because of the
time and effort that go into it and, in the second place, because one cannot know
beforehand that the outcome of this process will be the vindication of one’s own
position. One could end up accepting the ‘language’ of the ‘rival’ as superior.
2. Apologetics
The second feature of dialectics mentioned by D’Costa is apologetics. It involves

“locating the internal problems within that [other] tradition, by that tradition’s own
standards and criteria, and showing why those problems and the questions they seek
to address are possibly irresolvable within those traditions on their own terms.”466
Dialectics understood as apologetics is that kind of process which discloses “new
inadequacies, hitherto unrecognized incoherencies, and new problems for the solution
of which there seem to be insufficient or no resources”467 within the questioned
tradition.
Sometimes this is also called immanent criticism, which D’Costa explains as
“showing how positions internally collapse through unresolved lacunae, internal
contradictions, or gaping difficulties.”468
So the apologist will typically point to the shortcomings of the rival tradition, but
in such a way that they are accepted as shortcomings by adherents of the rival
tradition. This is one reason why the apologist must learn the rival language
thoroughly, so as to understand what, in the other tradition, is recognized as a
shortcoming.
An important avenue for apologists to walk is to look at the goals stated by the
rival tradition and then to investigate if and how it succeeds in achieving these goals.
Each tradition will come with its own goals, and these are not necessarily the same
across different traditions.
In analogy with insider-reporting, there is also such a thing as outsider-reporting.
This is a judgment on the insider-report, an interpretation of it. The outsider- report
must cohere with the worldview of the outsider and usually is (though not necessarily
so) a critique of the insider worldview. D’Costa remarks that insiders can sometimes
learn from outsider reports and are free to engage in a dialectical dialogue with
See discussion in D’Costa, Christianity and World Religions, 93.

465
D’Costa, Meeting, 6.
466
467 MacIntyre, Whose Justice?, 362.
468 D’Costa, Christianity and World Religions, 52. Another term that fits this category, borrowed from
comparative theology, is intra-textual criticism.

them.469 Basic to outsider reporting is that it entails a (theological) judgment on the

religion that has been reported on.470
3. Arguing for an alternative
Rational dialectics, as sketched so far, consists of a preparatory phase (language

learning) and a critical phase (apologetics). A third element in dialectics is more
positive. It offers an alternative to the subverted tradition in that it claims to out-
perform its rival. In D’Costa’s words, “[I]t requires that our tradition is able to address
both the lacunae within the other tradition and more satisfactorily resolve the
problems that exercised that tradition.”471 Elsewhere he understands it as explaining
how and why the weaknesses in another tradition arose and “how they might be better
attended to from within an alternative tradition of inquiry.”472
B. RHETORICAL OUT-NARRATION
Rhetorical out-narration is not part of dialectics, because of the absence of common

ground between the traditions whereby the truth of one tradition “can be ‘secured’,
‘shown’, ‘established’”473 to someone of another tradition.
D’Costa, following Milbank, calls for out-narration precisely because the
rationalities of the traditions differ significantly. For Milbank, there can be no place for
rational dialectics because there are no “mutually accepted fundamental starting
points.”474 Reason offers no common ground because reason itself is tradition-specific.
Rhetorical out-narration therefore implies a conversion, the shifting of one’s allegiance
from one tradition, religion or frame of reference to another. For Christians, to out-
narrate “suggests that only through the display of Christ can the beauty and truth of
Christ be apprehended.”475 It is for this reason that mission rather than dialogue is
emphasized. In dialoguing, one has to translate the specific Christian vocabulary into
another discourse with the danger of diluting the Christian-ness of one’s position. In
the end, one has not (re)presented the Christian tradition, but a ‘new’ tradition.476
D’Costa is clear, however, that out-narration is not antithetical to rational
dialectics. We are not forced to make an either/or choice between the two. We need to
do “proper justice to both continuity and discontinuity: the recognition of points of
contact and similarities, but always within a greater difference.”477 This means that out-

470 One could also call this inter-textuality.

106 PART II
narration, necessary as it is, is complementary to rational dialectics. D’Costa thus

confirms the necessity of both dialogue and mission.
C. DIALECTICS IN PRACTICE: THE CASE OF PLURALISM
The arguments for dialectics which D’Costa promotes, are put in practice primordially
in conversation with pluralist theology of religions and, more broadly, with secular
modernity. D’Costa’s interest in public theology clearly overlaps with his interest in
interreligious dialogue.478 For D’Costa, the concept of religion is dramatically shaped
by a modern narrative so much so that “[i]t might even help things greatly if we
scrapped the word ‘religion’ and instead replaced it with ‘culture’ and asked ourselves
about a theology of culture rather than a theology of religions.”479 One implication is
that it is difficult to draw a clear line between ‘religions’ and ‘cultures’. Secular
modernity, for example, shares many characteristics of religions in that it is a cultural
form of power.480
The pluralist position in theology of religions is also a cultural form of power. It
should, therefore, be analysed as a partaker in interreligious dialogue, and not simply
as the framework in which interreligious dialogue takes place. Put otherwise: pluralist
theology of religions is a player in, not the playing field of, interreligious dialogue. This
recognition propels D’Costa to engage the pluralist position in the dialectical way
outlined above.
D’Costa’s PhD research focused on John Hick’s theology of religions.481 Earlier in
his career, he studied under Hick. One could construe this as the preparatory step of
the dialectical process, i.e., language learning. There are, of course, other pluralists with
whom D’Costa engages. One of the most extended interactions has been with Paul
Knitter, with whom he has been in conversation for many years.482 The goal of this kind
of language learning is always to get as close as possible to an insider-view. The
ongoing discussion between D’Costa and the pluralists shows that this is a complex
exercise.483 It would be wrong, however, to attribute this ongoing disagreement to a
478 The public theology aspect of D’Costa’s theology is not the object of our research, except for
those instances when it impinges directly on his theology of religions. His most prominent work in that
area is Theology in the Public Square: Church, Academy and Nation (2005), but the topic surfaces also in part I
of Meeting (2000) and part II and III of Christianity and World Religions (2009).
481 D’Costa, Hick.
482 This has, to date, culminated in a book-length dialogue between Knitter and D’Costa, which also
includes Daniel Strange. See D’Costa, Knitter, and Strange, Only One Way? Knitter writes in this work
(p.153) – in his first response to D’Costa – “What follows is a conversation between family members who
are also good friends. Gavin and I are both Catholics and friends who have enjoyed many a brotherly
theological conversation over the years (often, as is wont of Catholic theologians, accompanied by a bottle
of fine scotch).”
483 See, for example, John Hick and others, “Roundtable Review of The Meeting of Religions and the
Trinity by Gavin D’Costa,” Reviews in Religion and Theology 8, no. 3 (2001).

failed ‘language learning’, even if the latter is a never-ending project. Much of the
disagreement has more to do with the interpretation of the pluralist position. After
‘auto-interpretation’, or insider-reporting, follows necessarily hetero-interpretation,
which involves a theological judgement. It is no surprise that opinions will differ with
regards to theological judgments.
The second step in a process of rational dialectics is the apologetic phase.484 The
goal is to locate “the internal problems within that [other] tradition, by that tradition’s
own standards and criteria, and [to show] why those problems and the questions they
seek to address are possibly irresolvable within those traditions on their own terms.”485
One of the major goals of Meeting is to do precisely that. D’Costa observes how, for
pluralist theology, ‘openness’ and ‘tolerance’ are of paramount importance, yet in
precisely these areas he finds pluralism lacking. Rather than being open to, and
tolerant of, other religions, pluralist theology marginalises some positions. “[I]t seems
to ignore or deny the really difficult conflicting truth claims by, in effect, reducing
them to sameness.”486 The critical issue here is that Christian pluralist theology, as a
derivate of modernity, is not producing the goods of openness and tolerance which it
promised. As the other religions (Christianity included) are forced within modernity’s
straightjacket, their alterity is denied. Modern pluralist theology imposes its own
criteria and denies the self-understanding of the religions when this self-understanding
implies exclusivistic claims. This is a serious breach of their own criteria and could be
considered a form of intellectual violence. In this sense, pluralist theology is a form of
imperialism and functions as a totalizing grand narrative. It faces the same kind of
postmodern critiques that befall other hegemonic modern narratives.487
The third and final moment in rational dialectics is arguing for an alternative that
out-performs pluralism. This alternative should do better at addressing the
shortcomings of pluralism, and improve on its solution of the basic problem. D’Costa
does offer an alternative, trinitarian, account as regards the issues of openness and
tolerance. D’Costa claims that,
This rhetorical strategy suggests that my trinitarian orientation
may better attain the real goals of pluralists, “openness,”
“tolerance,” and “equality,” even if these goals are so changed
as to be unrecognizable to pluralists. In this sense, they are not
the same goals at all. However, since my dialectical arguments
were deployed to show that the pluralist goals, as they
484 This paragraph builds partly on Biesbrouck, “Apologetic Rationality”, 34-35.

487 Vanhoozer notes what he calls the ‘repressive’ character of pluralistic theology, stating that
“[n]ot only does a pluralistic theology of religions keep some phenomena out, but those that are let in
must conform to the prevailing interpretive framework.” Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “Does the Trinity Belong in
a Theology of Religions? On Angling in the Rubicon and the ‘Identity’ of God,” in The Trinity in a
Pluralistic Age: Theological Essays on Culture and Religion, ed. Kevin J. Vanhoozer (Grand Rapids, MI;
Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1997).
108 PART II
themselves understood them, were unattainable, then this

strategy allows us to see coherent and sustainable ways in
which openness, tolerance, and equality might be displayed—
and even be proposed as attractive to pluralists.488
Perhaps this last phrase – the invitation to pluralists to change sides – can be
understood as part of ‘mission’, whereas up till then, D’Costa was engaged in
‘dialogue’. If so, then we see that rational dialectics is complemented by rhetorical out-
narration. But, as the quote illustrates, the dividing line between the two is not all that
clear.
We should note, however, that D’Costa has not been as forthcoming concerning
dialectics with respect to other religions as he has been towards pluralist theology and
secular modernity. His work consists more of the groundwork for such an
interreligious dialectics, rather than the interreligious dialogue itself.
488 D’Costa, Meeting, 132. The whole section (132-138) is arguing for this alternative.
§ 6. CRITIQUE AND EVALUATION
In the final section of this chapter, we will organise our critique and evaluation of
D’Costa’s proposals in theology of religions in terms of four categories. The first
category deals with methodological issues. We have spent a fair amount of time and
space on D’Costa’s method as a textual theologian. His methodology steers his
theology to certain results and precludes others. We will offer an internal critique and
point to some issues that seem to be incongruent, given the method D’Costa opted for.
The second group of critiques deals with certain theological questions that arise from
D’Costa’s proposal. The third category discusses what we have identified as ‘dialogical
issues’. The final category concerns particular issues which we found to be missing
from, or lacking in, D’Costa’s work, but which could enhance his proposal.
A. METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES
There are a number of issues pertaining to the methodology that D’Costa has adopted
for his theology, which need to be addressed. For a textual theologian like D’Costa, the
particular choice of texts with which he interacts, is of crucial importance. We would
identify some texts that could have been used, but seem to have been left out. We shall
seek to understand the reason for these omissions.489
It is not only the choice of the texts used, but also the relative authority assigned
to them that is important. We have already shown that D’Costa is quite explicit about
the hermeneutical rules for interpreting the authority of magisterial documents.
However, his decision to become a textual theologian is based on a magisterial
document that does not hold a great deal of authority.
We close this section with some observations on the similarities between the
discussion on the authority of magisterial texts and the intra-Evangelical discussion on
the inerrancy of scripture.
1. Selectivity: Texts of the magisterium not used
a. Gaudium et Spes 92
D’Costa makes much of the openness of the Roman Catholic Church to learn from the
Spirit’s presence in other religions.490 To argue his case from magisterial documents, he
first establishes that the Church can learn from modern culture, as stated in GS 44.
Other texts show, next, that the Spirit is present, not only in individual non-Christians,
but also structurally in cultures and religions. Ergo, the Church finds fulfilment in its
engagement with other religions.
489 The discussion appearing under §6 A is also part of our forthcoming publication, for which see
Biesbrouck, “The Use of (Post-) Conciliar Texts.”
490 See our discussion on p.98ff.
110 PART II
We think that perhaps a direct way to establish this can be found in GS 92. GS 92
figures in the conclusion of GS, in a section that discusses the dialogue of the Church
with all peoples. GS 92 starts with an exhortation for internal ecclesial dialogue,
followed by dialogue with other, non-Roman Catholic, Christians. Then comes a
passage, which we will shortly quote, that refers to dialogue with non-Christian
religionists. It concludes with a section claiming that neither those who do not believe
in God nor even those who resist the Church are excluded from dialogue.
The relevant passage, for our discussion, states that,
We think cordially too of all who acknowledge God, and who
preserve in their traditions precious elements of religion and
humanity. We want frank conversation to compel us all to
receive the impulses of the Spirit faithfully and to act on them
energetically.491
This passage relates elements in religions with impulses from the Spirit and
compels all to receive these impulses. The ‘all’ undoubtedly includes the Roman
Catholic Church. If the Church is led by the Spirit to its fullness, and some of these
impulses of the Spirit reside in other religions, then the Church needs the other
religions for its own fulfilment, and not only vice versa. If our analysis is correct,
D’Costa’s point can be established without the detour via GS 44. As far as we know, GS
92 is never mentioned by D’Costa.
b. Redemptoris Missio 10
Although RM is often referred to, most references are to RM 29 and 28.492 A relevant
passage, however, is certainly RM 10:
10. The universality of salvation means that it is granted not
only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered
the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made
concretely available to all. But it is clear that today, as in the
past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to
know or accept the gospel revelation or to enter the Church.
The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not
permit this, and frequently they have been brought up in other
religious traditions. For such people salvation in Christ is
accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a
mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them
formally part of the Church but enlightens them in a way
which is accommodated to their spiritual and material
situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his
Sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables
each person to attain salvation through his or her free
cooperation.
491 GS 92.
492 See our discussion on p.68.
This section has some important things to say about the mediation of the grace of
Christ to those in other religions. It refers to the mediation of grace “in a way which is
accommodated to their spiritual and material situation.” Francis Sullivan agrees that
this is a very significant statement. He writes, “Since their spiritual condition can be
expected normally to reflect the religious traditions in which they have been brought
up, it would logically follow that the grace they receive will also be accommodated to
those religious traditions.”493 Although Sullivan is careful not to jump to the conclusion
that religions as such are mediators of grace, he notes nevertheless that John Paul II
spoke of ‘participated forms of mediation’ (RM 5)494 that are not excluded by the
unique mediation of Christ.495
c. Dialogue and Proclamation 29
Dialogue and Proclamation is a joint document of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious
Dialogue and the Congregation for Evangelization of Peoples, issued in 1991. It offers,
according to its subtitle, “reflection and orientations on interreligious dialogue and the
proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ.” As such, it is an important resource for
Roman Catholic theologians working in the field of theology of religions.
We have already noted that D’Costa hardly refers to this document.496 Especially
relevant is DP 29, which discusses the unity of salvation as follows:
From this mystery of unity it follows that all men and women
who are saved share, though differently, in the same mystery
of salvation in Jesus Christ through his Spirit. Christians know
this through their faith, while others remain unaware that Jesus
Christ is the source of their salvation. The mystery of salvation
reaches out to them, in a way known to God, through the
invisible action of the Spirit of Christ. Concretely, it will be in
the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious
traditions and by following the dictates of their conscience that
the members of other religions respond positively to God’s
invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they
do not recognize or acknowledge him as their saviour (cf. AG
3,9,11).
This states that other religions mediate salvation in Jesus Christ through their
practices, rather than despite them. As far as we know, D’Costa only refers to this
passage in his review of Dupuis’ Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism, but
493 Francis A. Sullivan, SJ, Salvation Outside the Church? Tracing the History of the Catholic Response
(Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2002; reprint, Paulist Press, 1992), 194. Sullivan wrongly refers to this
passage of RM as RM 8 instead of RM 10. See Sullivan, Salvation, 219 n.22.
494 RM 5 is also not referenced in D’Costa, although he clearly refers to it when he says that “these
religions might be forms of ‘participated mediation’ in so much as their positive elements might actually
be part of God’s plan to lead all people to Christ.” D’Costa, Knitter, and Strange, Only One Way?, 34.
495 Sullivan, Salvation, 194.
496 See p.68.

112 PART II
only to show how Dupuis uses this section. D’Costa writes that, “While Dupuis is
correct to identify this positive passage [DP 29], and recognizes that it occurs with
careful qualifications and within a dialectical context, he nevertheless plays down this
context in taking this passage as a cue to develop his own position. However, he has
clear support from the Federation of Asian Bishop’s Conference documents published
in the 1980s.”497 A more extensive engagement with this passage, and the whole
document, is certainly called for.498 Is interaction with this document lacking because it
is ‘only’ from the curia, and not, for example, an encyclical?499
2. The hierarchy of magisterial documents
a. The importance of ‘The Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian’
In his interpretation of the second Vatican council and post-conciliar texts of the
magisterium, D’Costa takes into account a hierarchy of documents in which Vatican
II’s dogmatic constitutions rank higher than, for example, its declarations, while
encyclicals are more important than texts from the curia.500 The relative importance that
is assigned to statements in magisterial documents is directly linked to their
hierarchical status. But there seems to be a tension in D’Costa’s interpretative method.
For his own calling as a theologian, he bases himself strongly and explicitly on the
Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian.501 But this text is not ranked that
high in the hierarchy of documents, as it is ‘only’ a document by the Congregation for
the Doctrine of the Faith. It is not clear why he invests so much in following this
Instruction if, by doing so, he sets more limits on his research than would otherwise be
the case.502
b. The weighing of magisterial documents
497 Gavin D’Costa, “Review of Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism, by Jacques Dupuis,”
Journal of Theological Studies 49, no. 2 (1998): 910.
498 There is another reference to DP in Meeting (112), although it is wrongly referred to as Dialogue
and Mission. There D’Costa writes, “It is perhaps a matter of time before similar acknowledgments
regarding other religions enter into post-Conciliar documentation, but will do so only, and should do so
only, on the basis of the historical experience of the local churches. Various regional synods have already
begun to find and reflect upon such historical realities, not least the Asian bishops.” An endnote (Meeting,
140 n.20) continues that, “[I]n some sections of the Roman curia, this can also be seen. See the interesting
cross-currents that work in the joint curial document: Dialogue and Mission [sic – this should be Dialogue and
Proclamation], 1991 […].”
499 We should, perhaps, also note that Dupuis contributed significantly to Dialogue and Proclamation
and that it seems to be quite radical from D’Costa’s point of view.

501 This is a document by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, issued in 1990.
502 For an extended discussion by D’Costa justifying ecclesial theology, see Gavin D’Costa, Theology
in the Public Square: Church, Academy and Nation, ed. Gareth Jones and Lewis Ayres, Challenges in
Contemporary Theology (Malden, MA; Oxford: Blackwell, 2005), 112-144.
A more fundamental critique with regards to D’Costa’s interpretation of the hierarchy

of magisterial documents is that he seems to introduce a juridical element into the
discussion. If the weighing of the authority of magisterial documents occurs primarily
in terms of the hierarchy of the documents, relevant elements may be overlooked. A
more thorough juridical reception would include in its analysis the hierarchy of truths
and the ‘relative’ assent that needs to be given to these. Perhaps D’Costa could look at
the system of theological notes that was widespread before Vatican II.
Harold Ernst, for example, pleads for a re-evaluation of the theological notes that
were developed in neo-scholasticism. Although he does not want to revert to the neo-
scholastic paradigm for theological study, the system of theological notes had
something very valuable in that it clearly established a hierarchy of truths with an
explicit ordering of the degree of certitude attached to each kind of truth, together with
the kind of assent that was demanded.503 According to Ernst, this system of theological
notes was still in the minds of the Council Fathers at Vatican II, although they wanted
to leave behind the neo-scholastic paradigm.504 The Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis
Redintegratio 11, for example, states that,”[w]hen comparing doctrines with one
another, they should remember that in Catholic doctrine there exists a ‘hierarchy’ of
truths, since they vary in their relation to the fundamental Christian faith.”505
The cry for a system akin to the theological notes is not a conservative knee-jerk
reaction, but a necessity to facilitate a proper hermeneutics of magisterial documents.506
Without such a system, avers Ernst, “[t]he result is that interpreters of doctrine lose the
ability to discriminate sufficiently among propositions, and the theoretically many
gradations of doctrinal authority collapse to a ‘zero-one’ dichotomy. A doctrine is
either fully binding or not at all, requires either absolute assent or none at all, is either
defined dogma or mere opinion, has either been authoritatively pronounced by the
magisterium or has not.”507 This zero-one dichotomy has resulted in the polar
interpretations of Vatican II as either rehearsing pre-conciliar teachings, or as a totally
503 Harold E. Ernst, “The Theological Notes and the Interpretation of Doctrine,” Theological Studies
63, no. 4 (2002).
504 In the Notificationes attached as an appendix to Lumen Gentium, the term ‘theological note’ is
explicitly mentioned. The notification reads, “A question has arisen regarding the precise theological note
which should be attached to the doctrine that is set forth in the Schema de Ecclesia and is being put to a
vote. The Theological Commission has given the following response regarding the Modi that have to do
with Chapter III of the de Ecclesia Schema: ‘As is self-evident, the Council’s text must always be
interpreted in accordance with the general rules that are known to all.’”
505 Several taxonomies of truth have been proposed, such as – in decreasing order of authority and
certitude – dogma, definitive doctrine, authoritative doctrine, and prudential admonitions and Church
discipline. For a discussion of these, see Richard R. Gaillardetz, By what Authority? A Primer on Scripture,
the Magisterium, and the Sense of the Faithful (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003), 90-103. Similarly,
Wolfgang Beinert, “Hierarchy of Truths,” in Handbook of Catholic Theology, ed. Wolfgang Beinert and
Francis Schüssler Fiorenza (New York, NY: Herder & Herder, 1995).
506 See also Francis A. Sullivan, SJ, Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the
Magisterium (Dublin: Gill & MacMillan, 1996), 162-174.

507 Ernst, “Theological Notes,” 823-824.
114 PART II
new direction for Roman Catholic teachings. Ernst believes that the system of
theological notes would make it possible to interpret Vatican II as a transitional event
in which doctrinal statements are qualified “such that Catholic truth leaves the
maximum room for individual freedom.”508
c. Inerrancy
A system of theological notes makes clear that, even in the Church’s teaching office,
there is a possibility of error. Richard Gaillardetz remarks that “[m]any people believe
that acknowledging the possibility of error in church teaching will undermine the
authority of the magisterium. If one admits the possibility of error, they fear, believers
would lose confidence in the Church’s teaching authority. I am inclined to believe that
quite the opposite is the case.”509
D’Costa’s staunch defence of magisterial teachings sometimes gives the
impression that he does not allow for enough differentiation among the teachings of
the magisterium, such that a zero-one dichotomy is the result.510 He might be said to
approach the magisterium too reverently, as if its every word were infallible. In this
respect, there is a likeness to some Evangelical approaches to scriptural inerrancy,
where no contradiction or error is allowed in the source of authority, and ‘epicycles’
are invoked to salvage the doctrine and to establish harmonisation while overcoming
any suggestion of contradiction.511
B. THEOLOGICAL ISSUES
Some of the topics discussed under this heading are closely related to methodological
issues, but we discuss them here because we want to probe further into their
theological implications.
The first topic has to do with the place of the sensus fidelium in the reception of
magisterial documents. D’Costa seems to hold that the role of the theologian is to serve
primarily as an expositor of magisterial documents, whereas other Roman Catholic
theologians would put more stress on the theologians being part of the magisterium of
508 Ernst, “Theological Notes,” 825.

509 Gaillardetz, By what Authority?, 100.
510 I do not think that D’Costa falls into this trap. The danger is that he drives his interlocutors to
such a dichotomy of either seeing all as dogma or all as pure opinion.

511 A first epicycle to ‘save’ biblical inerrancy is to state that only the ‘autographs’ are inerrant. A
second is the claim that scripture is only inerrant in what it affirms; a third is that inerrancy does not
demand the inerrancy of the non-inspired sources used by the biblical writers. Another epicycle consists in
stating that textual updatings are also inspired. For this last epicycle, see Michael A. Grisanti, “Inspiration,
Inerrancy, and the OT Canon. The Place of Textual Updating in an Inerrant View of Scripture,” Journal of
the Evangelical Theological Society 44, no. 4 (2001). For a critique and more balanced Evangelical approach of
scripture, see A.T.B. McGowan, The Divine Spiration of Scripture. Challenging Evangelical Perspectives
(Nottingham: Apollos, 2007). Also pertinent is the analysis in Carlos R. Bovell, ““Inerrancy, a Paradigm in
Crisis”,” in Interdisciplinary Perspectives on the Authority of Scripture. Historical, Biblical, and Theoretical
Perspectives, ed. Carlos R. Bovell (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2011).
the Church, and on the faithful’s reception of these texts in order for them to become
authoritative.
We have, secondly, some questions about D’Costa’s understanding of the
relation of the Church, as Body of Christ, with the resurrected Christ.
Thirdly, we wonder whether the analysis of the Paraclete passages in John’s
Gospel is robust enough to bear D’Costa’s pneumato-ecclesiological theology of
religions.
We round off this section with a suggestion of another way that the conciliar and
post-conciliar magisterial documents can be used to approach other religions
ecclesiologically.
1. Sensus fidelium and reception
Gaillardetz makes a distinction between a ‘juridical view of reception’ and what he

calls a ‘communio-model of reception of magisterial teaching.512 The former has a linear
command-obedience structure, in which the formal teachings that are promulgated are
obediently accepted by the faithful. He claims that this juridical view, which has
gained ascendance since the late Middle Ages, was challenged by Vatican II, although
the council did not develop an alternative.513 His own proposal of the communio-model
of reception is an attempt to make explicit what Vatican II implied. In this model, “a
reciprocal give and take between the bishops and the community” occurs, such that
there are two moments in reception. “The first occurs as the bishops receive the faith of
the people […] and the second occurs as the faithful receive the doctrinal formulations
of the bishops […].”514 It is such a dynamic understanding of reception, with the active
512Gaillardetz, By what Authority?, 114-115.

513Gaillardetz, By what Authority?, 114.
514 Gaillardetz, By what Authority?, 115-116. Gaillardetz explains his communion-model as a
hermeneutical spiral in diagram form as follows (p. 115):

116 PART II
participation of the faithful, that we find lacking in D’Costa’s understanding of

reception.515
Wolfgang Beinert, in the Handbook of Catholic Theology, defines reception as “the
process in which the community of faith acknowledges a decision of the church
authority as true, binding, and fostering faith and makes this its own.”516 Reception is
not necessarily positive, in the sense of necessary acceptance of teachings, for it can
also mean ‘non-reception’.517 This dynamic process of reception and/or non-reception is
the filter through which the magisterial teachings pass, to sort out what contributes to
the building up of faith.518
The role of the sensus fidelium is therefore crucial in the process of reception.519
Beinert explains that the sensus fidelium is “a criterion of theological understanding.”
He proceeds to say that “[t]o the extent that the magisterium does not establish the
faith but preserves and communicates it as handed down by the community, it is
515 See D’Costa, “Tradition and Reception.”

516 Wolfgang Beinert, “Reception,” in Handbook of Catholic Theology, ed. Wolfgang Beinert and
Francis Schüssler Fiorenza (New York, NY: Herder & Herder, 1995), 569.
517 Examples of non-reception in history are magisterial teachings on usury, slavery, and religious
freedom. Todd Salzman (in a lecture at the Leuven Encounters in Systematic Theology, Eight International
Conference, 26-29 October 2011) also pointed to Yves Congar, who mentions that there are two types of
reception and ecclesiological models: (1) fiat and obedience (hierarchical) and (2) dialogue and consensus
(Vatican II). This fits well with Gaillardetz’s understanding.
518 Beinert, “Reception,” 570-571. Todd Salzman (see previous note) remarks that non-reception is to
be judged by a large majority of the faithful. In the examples of non-reception, one has to note the
longevity of this process of non-reception. This should relativize somewhat the short-time horizon in
current discussions of reception of magisterial teachings.
519 For an extensive recent treatment of the sensus fidelium, see Prosper Mushy, Sensus Fidelium as a
Locus for Theology: Some Perspectives on the Use of the Concept in Ecumenical Dialogue (Saarbrücken: LAP
Lambert Academic Publishing, 2010), especially chapter 4.
subordinate to the sensus fidelium.”520 A juridical view of reception is therefore out of

the question, as the faithful are also led by the Spirit who leads the Church in all
truth.521 Reception is not merely obedience but involves judgment by the community of
faith. In Gaillardetz’s words, “[T]o ignore the provisionality of some of these church
positions, to act as if every formal teaching of the Church is equally central and lays the
same claim on believers, is to be guilty of ecclesiastical hubris.”522
Tradition has it that the magisterium is dual: the magisterium cathedrae pastoralis
(bishops) and the magisterium cathedrae magisterialis (theologians).523 A special place in
this process of reception is, therefore, reserved for theologians. The discernment of the
authoritative status of magisterial teachings has traditionally been assigned to
theologians.524 This process of discernment resulted in the aforementioned system of
theological notes. The fact that the system of theological notes has fallen into disuse,
without an alternative system being put in place, puts both the bishops and the
faithful525 in a difficult situation. The role of Roman Catholic theologians is to mediate
between the magisterium and the whole community of faith. Theologians have to
expound the teachings of the Church as clearly as possible, but they equally have to
communicate to the magisterium what they discern as the sensus fidelium and express
these findings in a systematic, theological way.526 This two-way mediation can be
found in the 1975 document of the International Theological Commission, called Theses
on the Relationship between the Ecclesiastical Magisterium and Theology, and also in the
document of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, issued in 1990 and entitled
Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian. The latter document, however, has
also been experienced as a curtailing of the role of theologians in their critical
engagement with magisterial teachings, especially with regard to the possibility to
publicly dissent from church teachings. Although the Instruction is explicit that “it
could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all
520 Wolfgang Beinert, “Sensus Fidelium,” in Handbook of Catholic Theology, ed. Wolfgang Beinert and
Francis Schüssler Fiorenza (New York, NY: Herder & Herder, 1995), 656-657. This recognition of the role of
the faithful in reception is clearly witnessed in Lumen Gentium 12 which states that “[t]he holy people of
God shares also in Christ’s prophetic office […]. The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the
Holy One […] cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole
peoples’ supernatural discernment in matters of faith when ‘from the Bishops down to the last of the lay
faithful’ […] they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals.”
521 “The magisterium stands in a circle of communication with the faith and the understanding of
faith of the entire church. […] The relations are thus primarily defined in a pneumatological, not in a
juridical way.” Wolfgang Beinert, “Ecclesial Magisterium,” in Handbook of Catholic Theology, ed. Wolfgang
Beinert and Francis Schüssler Fiorenza (New York, NY: Herder & Herder, 1995), 197.
523 Gaillardetz, By what Authority?, 60 with reference to Thomas Aquinas.
524 That these theologians were understood to be in good standing in the Church, is mentioned by
Gaillardetz, By what Authority?, 60.

525 The juxtaposition of ‘bishops’ and ‘faithful’ is unfortunate. The ecclesial hierarchy are, of course,
also part of ‘the faithful’.

118 PART II
deficiencies,”527 theologians are asked to communicate ad intra, with the church

authorities, and not ad extra. The theologian who argues privately with the
magisterium concerning a difference of opinion regarding some teaching, must be
willing to suffer in silence, rather than engage in public opposition.528 The latter, called
‘dissent’, is dealt with extensively in the Instruction.529 Some Roman Catholic
theologians wondered whether disagreement with official Church teachings
articulated in scholarly articles constitutes such public dissent. Gaillardetz notes that
some of the critiques of this passage are possibly misplaced, since the intention of the
CDF was probably to proscribe only “organized and antagonistic resistance to the
Church’s teaching office.”530 He does lament the fact that the CDF was not completely
clear on this issue. In the face of the recognition of the possibility of error, Gaillardetz
raises the interesting issue of whether “respectful ‘public dissent’ of theologians” might
not be “an instrument of the Spirit for necessary change?”531
D’Costa does not seem to recognize the possibility of this kind of disagreement as
part of the reception process. This is particularly strange, as he seems to make use of it
himself on an issue that is not related to theology of religions, namely, the ordination
of women.532 Perhaps his dialogue with fellow Roman Catholic theologians who
disagree with some of the recent magisterial teachings in theology of religions would
benefit from a more explicit recognition that they are engaged in the reception process
of these teachings, as much as he is.
It remains the case, however, that the CDF has been quite restrictive towards
divergent opinions. A number of Roman Catholic theologians have had their work
scrutinized and sometimes condemned by ‘Rome’. In the current situation, perhaps it
is up to non-Roman Catholic Christian theologians to work on these frontiers of
Christian theology of religions. They cannot be ‘called to Rome’, and may divert some
of the heat blowing in the direction of daring Roman Catholic theologians. The
ecumenical dimension of Christian theology of religions could then also be
strengthened by such a move.
2. Christ and his Body
A number of benign critics of D’Costa have pointed out that he is in danger of

conflating Christ with the Church. This critique comes in slightly different forms, but
seems to centre around the question of the Church as the extension of the incarnation.
527 Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the
Theologian,” Origins 20, no. July 5 (1990): #24.
528 Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Instruction.”#31
529 Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Instruction,” #32-41.
532 In “Queer Trinity” (269), he writes that “the practice of exclusive male ordination is as heretical
as the doctrine of God that sustains it.”

In his response to D’Costa’s position paper, Daniel Strange critiques D’Costa on a

systemic level for his adherence to the Catholic system since Catholicism mistakenly
understands “the Church as the prolongation of the incarnation.”533 However, D’Costa
is adamant in his negation of this ascription:
To say […] that the Church is a ‘prolongation of the
incarnation’ is falsely to conflate Christ with the Church,
whereas Catholic ecclesiology as it stands makes clear
distinctions between the two […]. Historically, Catholic
theologians have proposed triumphalist ecclesiologies that
diminish the distinction between the risen Christ and the
Church, but none have been accepted by the magisterium, even
when formulating the doctrine of papal infallibility.534
This would seem to settle the matter, but perhaps either D’Costa is not always
very precise in his language about the relation of Christ and the Church, or his
evaluation of what constitutes ‘conflation of Christ with the Church’ differs from that
of some interlocutors.
John Flett, for example, opposes “D’Costa’s description of the church as the re-
enactment of God’s presence through non-identical repetition.”535 Elsewhere, D’Costa
writes that “[i]n being the church, the body of Christ, Christians are called to be Christ
to the world.”536 A sentence later, he repeats this in a slightly, but significantly,
different way. “[T]he church is called to be as Christ to the world […] while always also
being subject itself to the gospel.”537 It seems as if there is a mixing of identity and
analogy, as if the two sentences are not differentiated in D’Costa.
In a review of D’Costa’s monograph, Sexing the Trinity, Kathryn Tanner remarks
that
D’Costa also needs to explain more clearly the relationship
between Jesus and the Marian church, in particular the
difference, if any, between what Jesus is and achieves, insofar
as he is the incarnation of God, and what the Marian church is
and achieves as co-redeemer with him. D’Costa talks of the

535 Flett, “In the Name,” 88. Flett (“In the Name,” 88 n.94) mistakenly attributes these words to
Gavin D’Costa, “Toward a Trinitarian Theology of Religions,” in A Universal Faith? Peoples, Cultures,
Religions, and the Christ, ed. Catherine Cornille and Valeer Neckebrouck, Louvain Theological & Pastoral
Monographs (Leuven: Peeters, 1992), 120. The correct reference, however, is D’Costa, Meeting, 120. D’Costa
writes there: “Hence, for John, the disciples are called to re-enact the presence of God, first known in their
encounter with the risen Jesus, and to then repeat and imitate Jesus, not as a recalling of a past event, but
in a constant ‘repetition’, although a non-identical repetition, of this judgment and promise, this saving
transformation.”
536 D’Costa, Meeting, 119-120.
537 D’Costa, Meeting, 120 (our italics). Similarly, a little later D’Costa speaks of the church being an
extension of the ministry of Jesus through the Spirit. “[In Jn 16:7-11] the Spirit enables the continuing
ministry of Jesus to be exercised in the non-identical repetition of his transformative love through his
body, the church.” D’Costa, Meeting, 124.
120 PART II
Marian church as sharing in “the unique embodiment of

divinity in this man Jesus” (30), but it becomes harder and
harder to see what is unique about Jesus if the incarnation itself
opens out, in a theologically undifferentiated way, to include
within it the church of redeemed women and men. In short, if
the incarnation is a shared state that produces a host of co-
redeemers along with Jesus, then what sense does it make to
say that Jesus is unique? […] [D’Costa] does not seem
sufficiently wary of the dangers of his own proposal of a
continuing incarnation in the church. There is surely a reason
why this position is associated with an elevated status for the
church hierarchy in the Roman Catholic documents he cites
[…].538
We notice here a similar critique, albeit in a very different context. It is interesting

that Tanner links such an understanding of the Church sharing in Christ’s incarnation
with a hierarchical understanding of the Roman Catholic church.
Perhaps it is no coincidence that these three critics, as well as the present author,
are Protestant. A different understanding of the relation of Christ to his Church
constitutes a crucial division between Roman Catholic and Protestant ecclesiologies.
Although, for Protestants, the link between Christ and the Church is intimate, the two
must clearly be distinguished. Other metaphors, besides ‘the Body of Christ’ are used,
such as ‘Bride’ and ‘Temple’, in order to prevent a possible conflation of Christ with his
Body the Church. When the body metaphor is used, it often occurs with the mention of
Christ as the head of the body.539 Typical of a Protestant understanding of the Church is
that Christ stands over against the Church even as he is intimately connected with her.
The Church is always dependent upon Christ, must always seek him, listen to him and
be a witness to him. John Webster’s understanding can be cited as a clear example:
What […] is involved in speaking of the church’s acts as
attestations of the Word and work of God? Testimony is
astonished indication. Arrested by the wholly disorienting
grace of God in Christ and the Spirit, the church simply points.
538 Kathryn Tanner, “Review of Sexing the Trinity: Gender, Culture and the Divine by Gavin D’Costa,”
Journal of the American Academy of Religion 71, no. 4 (2003): 938-939. The exact quote in D’Costa is: “For the
unique embodiment of divinity in this man Jesus Christ ‘gives rise among creatures to a manifold
cooperation which is but a sharing in this unique source’.” D’Costa, Sexing the Trinity, 30. D’Costa is himself
referring to Lumen Gentium 62, but the juxtaposition of ‘sharing’ and ‘cooperation’ – taken from LG 62 –
with ‘unique embodiment of divinity’ is his own doing and not found in LG 62.
539 See, for example, the lemma ‘Head’ in the Dictionary of Biblical Imagery: “As an image of the
relationship of Christ and the church, Paul adopts the symbolism of head in connection to the body (Col
1:18; 2:19; Eph 4:15; 5:23). He appears to rely on a widespread and common conception-illustrated
especially in the medical writers, Plato and Philo-that there is a twofold sense of leadership and source of
provision denoted by the head when it is used in association with the body. Thus when Paul speaks of
Christ as the head, he implies that he not only provides leadership to the church but that he nourishes the
body by supplying whatever it needs for its ongoing growth and development (see esp. Col 2:19; Eph
5:23).” Leland Ryken, James C. Wilhoit, and Tremper Longman, III, “Head,” in Dictionary of Biblical
Imagery (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998; reprint, electronic edition 2000), 368.
It is not identical or continuous with that to which it bears

witness, for otherwise its testimony would be self-testimony
and therefore false. Nor is its testimony an action which effects
that which it indicates; the witness of the church is an
ostensive, not an effective, sign; it indicates the inherent,
achieved effectiveness which the object of testimony has in
itself. Strictly subordinate to that which it is appointed and
empowered to indicate, raised up not to participate in, extend
or realize a reality which lies quite outside itself, the church
lifts up its voice and says, Behold the Lamb of God who takes
way the sin of the world.540
From such a point of view, it is easy to see how D’Costa’s writings, quoted above,
can be understood as precisely conflating Christ and his Church.
This is not just D’Costa, however. The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith
notes in Dominus Iesus 16, that “just as the head and members of a living body, though
not identical, are inseparable, so too Christ and the Church can neither be confused nor
separated, and constitute a single ‘whole Christ’.”541 If, for Roman Catholics, Christ and
the Church constitute a single whole Christ, one can almost hear Karl Barth shout from
the grave, that “[t]hus to speak of a continuation or extension of the incarnation in the
Church is not only out of place but even blasphemous. Its distinction from the world is
not the same as His; it is not that of the Creator from His creature.” 542 Current
ecumenical practice would not use such vehement language, but the issue still remains
the same.543
540 John Webster, “‘The Visible Attests the Invisible’,” in The Community of the Word: Toward an
Evangelical Ecclesiology, ed. Mark Husbands and Daniel J. Treier (Downers Grove, IL; Leicester: IVP;
Apollos, 2005), 106.
541 Compare this with John Webster, who also stresses that Christ and the Church can neither be
confused nor separated. “I suggest that the active life of the church is best understood, not as a visible
realization or representation of the divine presence but as one long act of testimony—as an attestation of
the perfect work of God in Christ, now irrepressibly present and effective in the Spirit’s power. This
combination of emphases—on the ‘spiritual visibility’ of the church, and on the character of its acts as
attestations of God—reflects an orderly account of the relation between God’s perfection and creaturely
being and activity, neither separating nor confusing the divine and the human. The church is the form of
common human life and action which is generated by the gospel to bear witness to the perfect word and
work of the triune God.” Webster, “The Visible,” 96.
542 Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics. The Doctrine of Reconciliation, ed. G.W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance,
trans. G.W. Bromiley, vol. IV/3.2 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2010; reprint, T&T Clark, 1961), 729. The
whole quote reads, “Thus to speak of a continuation or extension of the incarnation in the Church is not
only out of place but even blasphemous. Its distinction from the world is not the same as His; it is not that
of the Creator from His creature. Its superiority to the world is not the same as His; it is not that of the
Lord seated at the right hand of the Father. Hence it must guard as if from the plague against any
posturing or acting as if in relation to world-occurrence it were an alter Christus, or a vicarius Christi, or a
corredemptrix, or a mediatrix omnium gratiarum, not only out of fear of God, but also because in any such
behaviour, far from really exalting itself or discharging such functions, it can only betray, surrender,
hazard and lose its true invisible being, and therefore its true distinction from the world and superiority to
world-occurrence.”
543 For an Evangelical assessment, see, for example, Mark Saucy, “Evangelicals, Catholics, and
Orthodox Together. Is the Church the Extension of the Incarnation?,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological
122 PART II
The point of this discussion is not simply to outline differences between

Protestant and Roman Catholic ecclesiologies, but to reflect on implications for
theology of religions. D’Costa’s approach might benefit from an incorporation of the
idea that Christ also stands over against the Church. As Flett rightly remarks, the
Church, as body of Christ, is not identical with Christ. The resurrected Christ,
“universally present in his particularity,” “positively affirms that God’s activity is not
limited to Christianity.”544 Such a view allows for understanding the Kingdom of God
as larger than the Church. The closer Christ and his Church are linked, the greater the
overlap must be between the Kingdom and the Church so that when Christ and the
Church are conflated, the Kingdom and the Church become identical.
Perhaps this tendency to conflate Christ and the Church is linked to D’Costa’s
Johanine exegesis of the resurrection as Pentecost. According to D’Costa, “if we are to
enquire about the Spirit in John, we must equally ask about the resurrection, and in
John’s logic, this is a question about the disciples who form the church: yesterday and
today’s Christians. The resurrection is a story of the formation of Christian community,
just as for Luke, Pentecost marks the beginning of the same story.”545 It seems as if, in
exclusively following the Gospel of John on this issue, D’Costa is not only in danger of
conflating the resurrection and Pentecost, but also Christ and the Church.
It is to D’Costa’s exegesis of the Paraclete passages in John that we now turn.
3. On selective readings of the Paraclete passages
In the previous section we inquired whether the exclusive use of John’s Gospel as the
biblical source for his pneumatology leads D’Costa into a blurring of the distinction
between Christ and the Church, and between the resurrection and Pentecost. For the
current section, the subject matter is whether the analysis of the Paraclete passages546 in
John’s Gospel stands up to scrutiny.
D’Costa studies these passages because one of them (Jn 16:13) is explicitly
referred to in Redemptoris Missio 29,547 a crucial text in his theology of religions. This
text is important because it suggests that close attention should be given to other
Society 43, no. 2 (June) (2000). However, for a positive Evangelical appreciation of a sacramental
ecclesiology, see, for example, in the same volume as Webster’s contribution, Gary D. Badcock, “The
Church as ‘Sacrament’,” in The Community of the Word: Toward an Evangelical Ecclesiology, ed. Mark
Husbands and Daniel J. Treier (Downers Grove, IL; Leicester: IVP; Apollos, 2005). He writes (p. 199),
similarly to DI 16, that “evangelicals in their thinking about Christology need to grasp the sense in which
Jesus Christ the Son of God is not who he is without the church.”
544 Flett, “In the Name,” 88.
546 The four main Paraclete passages in John are 14:15-18; 14:25-27; 15:26-27; 16:7-15.
547 The relevant section reads: “Every form of the Spirit’s presence is to be welcomed with respect
and gratitude, but the discernment of this presence is the responsibility of the Church, to which Christ
gave his Spirit in order to guide her into all the truth (see Jn 16:13).”
religions – including the manner in which they understand themselves – in order for
the Church to be guided by the Spirit into all the truth.548
Before tackling the Johanine passages, D’Costa proposes some qualifications, two
of which are relevant for our discussion. First, D’Costa is aware that these Paraclete
passages are not dealing with the issue of the Holy Spirit and other religions. Stronger,
“John understands the non-Christian, the Other, as a persecutor and destroyer of the
church and not a person in whom the Holy Spirit is found.”549 Second, D’Costa then
claims that he “will look at John on his own terms, while also recalling that John is
today to be read in the light of the church’s teaching that the Holy Spirit is to be found
within other religions.”550 This seems to be an outright contradiction. How can John be
read on his own terms if he is to be read in some specific way? This would presumably
be a possibility if the Gospel makes it clear that this is the required reading strategy.
But then, how can D’Costa state so strongly that, for John, the Holy Spirit is not found
in the Other?
We see this tension (contradiction?) at work in D’Costa’s discussion of the first
Paraclete passage in the Gospel of John (John 14:15-18).551 D’Costa bypasses the fact
that Jesus says of the Spirit, “[T]his is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive
because it neither sees him nor knows him.” In Meeting, no further comment is made to
defend this use. The situation is different in his 1996 contribution to Resurrection
Reconsidered552 which clearly figured as the basis of the similar section in Meeting.553 The
major difference with respect to the issue under consideration is that, in the earlier
publication, he gives more of a justification:
One obvious objection to my strategy is that John was not
concerned with non-Christian religions as such and that using
John for this purpose is unlikely to be fruitful as he is so
negative and dualistic regarding the ‘world’. My response to
this can only be unfolded in what follows, but is guided by the
conviction that the logic of the gospel demands this type of
reading strategy, and every reading strategy is always an
enactment.554

551 Jn 14:15-18 (NRSV): 15”If you love me, you will keep my commandments. 16And I will ask the
Father, and he will give you another Advocate, to be with you forever. 17This is the Spirit of truth, whom
the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, because he abides
with you, and he will be in you. 18”I will not leave you orphaned; I am coming to you.
552 Gavin D’Costa, ed., Resurrection Reconsidered (Oxford: Oneworld, 1996).
553 Gavin D’Costa, “The Resurrection, the Holy Spirit and the World Religions,” in Resurrection
Reconsidered, ed. Gavin D’Costa (Oxford: Oneworld, 1996).

554 D’Costa, “Resurrection and World Religions,” 151-152.
124 PART II
This quote ends with an endnote stating that, “In this I am sympathetic to the
‘Yale school’ in terms of a hermeneutical strategy and for the notion of the performance
of a text.”555
If we understand D’Costa correctly, he is arguing for the Church as the proper
cultural-linguistic setting that is appropriate and necessary for the correct
interpretation (and re-enactment) of scripture. It is the Christian community of the
faithful which decides the meaning of the text.556
The problem with such a reading strategy is that it is non-communicable to
readers who are part of a different reading community. This is certainly the case for
people who adhere to other religions, but it is equally so for non-Roman Catholic
Christians.
Such a reading strategy is also problematic because it seemingly uncritically
adopts the interpretation of those in power. This gives the impression of a particular
kind of circular reasoning: From Jn 14:15-18, we learn both that the Spirit leads the
Church into all truth, as well as that non-Christians (‘the world’) cannot receive the
Spirit. Yet, the contemporary Church teaches that the Spirit is present, also in non-
Christians. Hence, this must be the meaning of John, for the Spirit leads the Church
into all truth. The teaching office of the (Roman Catholic) church ends up being the
correct interpreter of the Johanine understanding of the Spirit. This brings us back to
our previous discussions about the importance, for D’Costa, of magisterial texts, on the
one hand, and the reception of magisterial teachings, on the other.
However, support for D’Costa’s reading may come from Amos Yong, in such a
way that the plausibility of D’Costa’s reading is established, not by arguments of
authority which work intra-systemically only, but by an appeal to exegetical and
theological reasons which are much more open to public evaluation. Amos Yong, who
for reasons similar to those of D’Costa, is interested in finding biblical support for the
Spirit’s universal presence, even in adherents of other religions,557 has tackled the
Johanine dualism and its implications for theology of religions head-on in a 2009
article.558 Although Yong is not discussing the Paraclete passages as such, his topic is
the sharp division in John’s Gospel between the community of believers and the world,
a division that is depicted in a light-darkness analogy. Yong proffers ways to
understand the light-darkness metaphor other than regarding it as describing the
division between saved believers and ‘the world’ or between Christianity and non-
555 D’Costa, “Resurrection and World Religions,” 165 n.5. D’Costa then goes on to refer to Hans Frei
(Eclipse of Biblical Narrative), Ronald Thiemann (Revelation and Theology), George Lindbeck (Nature of
Doctrine) and Gerald Loughlin (Telling God’s Story).
556 For a discussion of this reading strategy in the work of Hans Frei, see Wouter Biesbrouck,
“Christologie en narrativiteit in het werk van Hans W. Frei. Betekenis en verwijzing bij evangelieverhalen”
((unpublished master’s thesis) Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 2008), 28-32.
557 See Chapter V for our analysis of Yong’s theology of religions.
558 Amos Yong, ““The Light Shines in the Darkness”: Johannine Dualism and the Challenge for
Christian Theology of Religions Today,” Journal of Religion 89, no. 1 (2009).

Christian religions. On the basis of contextual – both textual and socio-historical –

considerations, a different picture emerges. In the context of a minority Jewish-
Christian movement facing ostracism from the broader Jewish community, the Jewish-
Christian movement evinced sectarian behaviour and its rhetoric in order to develop
its own identity in response to the ‘enemies’. “Extrapolating to contemporary theology
of religions, exclusivism may be more about Christian self-identity than it may be a
theological description about religious others in the eyes of God.”559 In a very different
socio-historical context, for example, one in which Christianity is a majority and holds
power, such a Johanine rhetoric is out of place.560 A second argument explains that the
light-darkness antinomy in the fourth gospel shows clear evidence that it should
primarily be understood in an ethical framework. The dualism in John’s gospel, then, is
not so much an epistemological one (to know or not to know Christ), or even one based
on faith (to believe or not to believe in Christ), but one of orthopraxis (to do or not to
do as Christ):561
The dividing line between light and darkness is less what
people do or do not know, and more so what they do. […] In
the Johanine scheme of things, then, light and darkness are
most clearly manifest in what people do, even as faith (pistis) is
a matter of not only knowledge but also practices. If so, the
unevangelized, including those who are members of other faith
traditions, are judged to be in light or darkness just as are
followers of Jesus: according to their deeds.562
Although it is impossible to do full justice to Yong’s argumentation in our short

discussion here, it clearly holds promise for the biblical foundation that D’Costa wishes
to establish.
4. Non-Christian religions as ecclesial communities?
Can we speak of other religions as ‘ecclesial communities’– analogous to the way in

which the magisterium speaks of the ecclesial communities of Protestantism? These
latter are not regarded as full churches, but they are clearly related to the one, holy,
catholic and apostolic Church that subsists in the Roman Catholic church. Dominus
Iesus 16 explains this:
With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council
sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one
hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which
exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the
Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her
structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”,
559 Yong, “The Light Shines in the Darkness,” 46.

560 Yong, “The Light Shines in the Darkness,” 47-48.
561 Yong makes use of the following Johanine passages: Jn 3:17-21.36; 5:28-29.
562 Yong, “The Light Shines in the Darkness,” 52-53.

126 PART II
that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are

not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church. But with
respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their
efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to
the Catholic Church”.563
The italicized quote is a reference to Lumen Gentium 8. It is clear that in Dominus

Iesus, as well as in Lumen Gentium, the reference is to non-Roman Catholic Christian
communities. However, this part of Lumen Gentium reappears in a somewhat different
form in another conciliar document, namely, Nostra Aetate 2:
The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in
these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways
of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which,
though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and
sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which
enlightens all men.
The crucial element is that, here, the reference is to non-Christian religions which
contain elements of truth and holiness (cp. ‘sanctification and truth’ in Lumen Gentium
8). Could it be that certain forms of life within non-Christian religions are analogous to
forms of life in ecclesial communities, and that the former, too, make possible “a
certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church?”564
Dominus Iesus has been experienced within ecumenical circles as a serious
setback. For Roman Catholic theology of religions also, it was experienced as
restrictive.565 But perhaps this analogy can open up a new avenue? It seems to me that,
in two Latin terms, namely, subsistit and ordinantur, two theological disciplines are
hidden for Roman Catholics, namely, ecumenism and theology of religions, and that
both are treated as sub-disciplines of ecclesiology.566 If this is the case, then perhaps the
theology of the relations between Christianity and Judaism will take a pivotal place in
this discussion.
C. DIALOGICAL ISSUES
This third category of critiques evaluates D’Costa’s approach towards the ‘other’. As
D’Costa is confident that his proposal is more open to the ‘other’ than the pluralist
approach in theology of religions, we first investigate whether the other is not staged in
a utilitarian way in his model.
563 Dominus Iesus 16 (italics between double quotation marks are mine).
564 Dominus Iesus 17.
565 Some would argue that Dominus Iesus actually was only a restatement of the Council and
recalled things that had tended to be (deliberately?) overlooked.

566 For a challenging perspective on what the ecumenical movement can learn from interreligious
dialogue, see Terrence Merrigan, “Ecumenism and Interreligious Dialogue. The Foremost Challenge for
the Churches at the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century,” Louvain Studies 33, no. 1 (2008).
Secondly, we point out that D’Costa’s interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus
is in danger of smoothing out the harm done by past interpretations. When that is the
case, the history of the ‘other’ is forgotten.
1. The ‘other’: midwife or spouse?
In our discussion of ‘the other’567 we mentioned that what the Church receives from
other religions may not be recognized by the other religion as a gift. The example of the
Christian interpretation of the Jewish scriptures is a case in point. We wrote that “[t]his
raises doubts about whether the particularity of ‘the other’ is really honoured, or
whether listening to ‘the other’ is just a pretext to enrich one’s own narrative.”568 Here
we want to probe a little further into the question of whether the ‘other’ is only
approached as ‘other’ because otherwise she would be of no benefit to me. If this is the
case, we have an ironic contradiction, a subtle means-end reversal. If I approach the
‘other’ because I may recognize God’s face in her face, do I then really look for the
other, or only for God? In other words, does the other only interest me to the extent
that she represents God – something that can help me grow in my relation to God – but
not in her total personality? The other is only the means to my spiritual growth, or to
increasing Christianity’s understanding of the mystery of God. I do not meet the other
an sich, but only functionally.
Another pertinent question is how our knowledge of God’s mystery is deepened
through interreligious dialogue. Is interreligious dialogue only clarifying what we
already know, or can we learn something really new? This is a real problem in
interreligious dialogue, probably more so when one starts, as D’Costa does, with the
conviction that one’s own religion is true and the others are, at best, a mixture of truth
and error. To illustrate this issue, we can extend the ‘face’-metaphor. If we want to
recognise God in the face of the other, we must necessarily start from what we already
know of God: hence, we will look for traits in the other’s face that exhibit some family
resemblance. Knowing that the other religion is a mixture of truth and error, what are
the chances that the peculiar traits in the other’s face, i.e., those that are dissimilar to
the familiar ones, will be seen as reflections of God? For instance, in his discussion of
interreligious prayer as ‘loving risk’, D’Costa works from what the Catechism teaches
about prayer. “If interreligious prayer is in the least acceptable, it must, for the
Christian, bear these three marks [i.e., gift, covenant, communion] if it is to keep
fidelity to the triune God and the community of the church.”569 The essence of prayer,
then, would appear to be fixed just as God as Trinity is fixed. What remains open is
‘only’ a fuller discovery of “the mystery of the triune God.”570 The other is only
567 See the discussion on p.100ff.

568 See p.101.

128 PART II
germane to the degree that she contributes to the increase in Christianity’s self-
understanding. The other is only the midwife, never the spouse.
D’Costa argues that his form of ‘universal access exclusivism’ is superior to other
models, such as inclusivism and pluralism, because these latter do not approach the
other religions as comprehensive systems, but select those elements in the religions
that either conform to the pattern of fulfilment (inclusivism) or to a preconceived
vision of an ideal religion (pluralism). Only his model of exclusivism, it is claimed,
does justice to other religions in their totality. What inclusivism and pluralism affirm in
another religion is not the other religion itself, but what an outsider (the inclusivist, the
pluralist) selects and prioritises.571 But can his approach really avoid similar selectivity?
Discussing the lives of the ‘saints’ in other religions as a possible locus of the presence
of the Spirit, D’Costa writes that “the experience of holy lives outside the church is
extremely significant for the church. It is here that the distinction and relationship of
Spirit and Son language takes on one possible meaning in the context of other
religions.”572 The implication seems to be that we can discern the activity of the Spirit in
other religions where we see Christ-like people. This does not imply that all the ‘saints’
of other religions are indiscriminately to be considered Christian saints, but at least we
should be open to investigate their lives and behaviour in the light of Christ’s life. But
how does this differ from the inclusivism and pluralism that D’Costa rejects because
they only single out some aspect of which Christianity could be said to be the
fulfilment? Is this kind of reasoning not simply fulfilment theology?
2. The pastoral discontinuity in extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Although we appreciate D’Costa’s effort to harmonize the conciliar statement that all
people are offered the possibility of salvation even when they do not belong formally
to the church (GS 22) with the extra ecclesiam dictum, there remain some qualms.
The first is that it makes a difference when one states the theological rule
positively (the Church is necessary for salvation), rather than negatively (no salvation
outside the Church). This difference is magnified when it is affirmed that no formal
link with the Church needs to exist. Instead of ‘no salvation outside the Church’, we
now have: ‘though the Church is necessary for salvation, you do not need to be
formally linked to the Church in order to be saved’.
The greatest difficulty with such a neat harmonisation is that, in taking this
contemporary interpretation of the axiom as its starting point, it overlooks the spiritual
and existential harm that has been done by the ‘church’ in such pronouncements.
D’Costa is aware of this when he remarks that “the axiom is susceptible to misuse
when applied negatively and literally as an instrument of oppression. In relation to
non-Christian religions these negative ideological implications are as detrimental and
571 See our discussion in Chapter I.

dangerous as they were in earlier times when the axiom was utilized within a different
context.”573 Notwithstanding this acknowledgement, and D’Costa’s skilful argument
about what the real intention of the dictum always has been, it does not take seriously
enough the damage the axiom has done in the lives of many people. It is not that he is
unaware of this. On the contrary, he is to be applauded for making it explicit:
The medieval use of this axiom, while still bearing some
organic continuity with the axiom’s positive teaching (that
salvation comes through Christ and his church), became an
alibi for a sometimes unchecked papal ideology and
demonstrates the possibility of the misuse of an essentially
positive insight, applied in a negative and literal fashion.
Coupled with the dubious exegesis of Jesus’ teaching in Luke
14:23 (‘Compel them to come in’), the axiom was liable to be
used as an ideological instrument of oppression.574
But is this limited to the medieval use? If I, a Protestant – currently considered by

the Roman Catholic church, as a brother, albeit one separated – had lived in the
sixteenth or seventeenth century, would I not have been considered (and perhaps
‘pronounced’575) eternally lost because I found myself outside the confines of the one
true Church? But hundreds of thousands of people have been in this position. It is too
easy to state that there is continuity in the tradition, and that these people are, in fact,
not burning in hell, but enjoying the beatific vision.576 Is it not too easy to plead for
dogmatic continuity in the understanding of the extra ecclesiam dictum, when there is in
fact a clear pastoral discontinuity, even rupture?
Linked to this is another issue. Non-Roman Catholics, who are seemingly aware
of the Roman Catholic church,577 must necessarily be invincibly ignorant of the Roman
Catholic church if they are to be called brethren. If not invincibly ignorant, they cannot
be saved; hence they should not be called brethren.578 Given the contemporary
Heilsoptimismus in Roman Catholic teachings, the implication is that the number of
people who seem to be invincibly ignorant has increased dramatically in the last half
century. One wonders whether it is even possible for a non-Roman Catholic not to be

574 D’Costa, “Extra Ecclesiam,” 138-139.
575 D’Costa is right to point out, however, that “this was not primarily a personal judgement upon
the fate of anyone.” D’Costa, “Extra Ecclesiam,” 135. In an explanatory note, D’Costa points to the
affirmation (in Denzinger 2865-67) that “no comment can be legitimately made upon the personal salvific
status of anyone.” D’Costa, “Extra Ecclesiam,” 145n.35. On the other hand, this ‘concession’ was only
made many centuries later.
576 Or, perhaps more likely, being made ready, for the beatific vision, in purgatory.
577 Take, for example, a Protestant doctoral student in a Roman Catholic theology department,
studying Roman Catholic ecclesiology amongst other things.

578 From a Roman Catholic perspective, I should consider myself as either hell-bound or invincibly
ignorant. Although the latter is to be infinitely preferred, neither is flattering.

130 PART II
invincibly ignorant. This observation seems to erode the concept of non-culpable

ignorance.579
D. MISSING ISSUES - THEMES NOT DEVELOPED
In the course of our study of D’Costa’s theology, we have sometimes wondered why
some topics have not received extensive discussion, although they seemed to us crucial
in theology of religions. The first of these is ‘faith’. A more systematic discussion by
D’Costa of how he understands faith would be welcome to clarify his approach. It is
central in his theology, and mentioned briefly in several publications, but there is no
extended discussion of it in one place.
Secondly, we think that a more developed theological anthropology would
enhance D’Costa’s proposal in terms of its usefulness in the dialogue with other
religions.
1. Faith
There is no systematic analysis of ‘faith’ to be found in D’Costa’s writing, although in

several places there is some interaction with the topic. There is a little interaction with
Heb 11:6, a verse that seems to set out minimal material requirements for saving
faith.580 The question of implicit faith is also discussed briefly in several places.581
D’Costa’s most extended elaboration of faith has already been mentioned in our
discussion of the epistemological necessity of Christ for salvation.582 D’Costa
distinguishes between the formal and material aspect of faith:
The formal aspect may be called the Transcendent and
dynamic structure of the assent of faith. The material aspect
concerns the object of faith. The formal act of assent may be
similar in two concrete instances, while the material content of
faith in those two instances may be radically dissimilar and
mutually incompatible. […] ‘Faith’ cannot be spoken of
without reference to the material content of faith, the
579 Recently, this Heilsoptimismus has been challenged on the basis of the teaching of Vatican II. See
Ralph Martin, Will Many Be Saved? What Vatican II Actually Teaches and Its Implications for the New
Evangelization (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012). However, for a more generous reading of ‘non-
culpable ignorance’ in Catholic dogmatic theology, see Stephen Bullivant, The Salvation of Atheists and
Catholic Dogmatic Theology, Oxford Theological Monographs (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012).
580 D’Costa, Christianity and World Religions, 22, 163. Heb 11:6 (NRSV) reads, “And without faith it is
impossible to please God, for whoever would approach him must believe that he exists and that he
rewards those who seek him.”
581 D’Costa, “Extra Ecclesiam.”; D’Costa, “Catholicism and the World Religions,” 5; D’Costa,
Knitter, and Strange, Only One Way?, 11, 148.

582 See p.95.
cumulative tradition, which informs and gives meaning to the

formal act of faith.583
Although this comes from D’Costa’s early work (1991), we see clear continuity in
his thinking concerning the necessity of faith in Christ for salvation, i.e., of the
necessity of the material aspect of faith. His recent development of the limbus patrum
idea is specifically proffered to allow those who, in their lifetime, have not been
exposed to the gospel message, to assent to the material content of the faith.584 But
perhaps this aspect could be developed more fully. Is there a necessary place also for a
formal aspect of faith for those people who, during their lives, are ontologically, but not
epistemologically, related to Christ?585 In what manner do these people become
ontologically related to Christ? Is the Spirit working in these people apart from, or in
cooperation with, the faith of these people? Is the material content of their non-
Christian faith irrelevant, such that only the formal aspect counts?
2. Theological anthropology
The second topic regarding which we had expected more discussion is D’Costa’s
theological anthropology. Again, this does not mean that the issue is totally absent in
his writings. We have already discussed the nature-grace balance,586 as well as the
necessity of grace being mediated socio-historically.587 These issues obviously betray
some fundamental-theological anthropological ideas. Although many theologians
would start interreligious dialogue and theology of religions from our common
personhood as created beings in the imago Dei, D’Costa seems to eschew this approach.
Perhaps this is linked to his giving up of the Rahnerian model very early in his career.
In D’Costa’s analysis, Rahner’s transcendental method leads to a too close relation of
nature and grace. This does not mean that our common humanness is absent in
D’Costa’s theologizing, for it appears in his evaluation of (apparent)
incommensurability in the cultural-linguistic framework. D’Costa critiques Milbank for
giving up too quickly on dialectics. For Milbank, the commonalities between religions
have too often been emphasized to the detriment of the differences. D’Costa agrees, but
thinks that Milbank does not acknowledge that there are similarities and points of
contact. D’Costa asks, “If God creates all men and women in Her [sic] image, does the
583 D’Costa, “A Christian Reflection on Some Problems with Discerning ‘God’ in the World
Religions,” 6-7.
584 For a sympathetic reading of D’Costa, elaborating on the link between Heilsoptimismus and the
understanding of Christ’s descent into hell, see now Wouter Biesbrouck, “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, Sed
Extra Mundum Nulla Damnatio: Reappropriating Christ’s Descent Into Hell For Theology of Religions,”
Louvain Studies (2013 (forthcoming)).
585 In other words, can atheists also be saved, or must they somehow formally assent to something?
586 See p.87.
587 See p.89.

132 PART II
cultural-linguistic entirely eradicate this sense of some common origins and

purpose?”588
Similarly, in an unpublished paper, presented at Nijmegen, D’Costa wrote,
I think commensurability and translatability are defensible,
both on a philosophical and anthropological level, and most
importantly, from a theological level as well. So a premise, to
be defended some other time, is that every human is made in
the image of God (outside interpretation is here unavoidable
[as distinct from insider interpretation]), a metaphysical belief
which allows the possibility of translatability, without denying
various difficulties.589
Perhaps the time has come to defend this premise more extensively, as it would
clarify and strengthen his case.
E. CONCLUSION
We have tried to give an overview of D’Costa’s work in theology of religions after a

brief introduction of him as person and academician. D’Costa has had a rich academic
career so far, with publications now spanning nearly thirty years,590 which evidences an
active engagement with interreligious dialogue and theology of religions.591 The second
section outlined the methodology underlying his approach, presenting D’Costa as a
textual theologian who uses the texts of the teaching office of the Roman Catholic
church as the parameters within which he elaborates a dynamic model in theology of
religions. This included a discussion of D’Costa’s interpretative method and his
understanding of tradition and the development of dogma, showing that he combines
a dynamic understanding of tradition with the assumption that no unambiguous
rupture of tradition is possible, so that the central matters of the faith show clear
continuity throughout history. Our analysis made clear that D’Costa’s approach is a
clear example of a (Roman Catholic) tradition-specific approach to theology of
religions. In the third section of this chapter, we distilled the main theological themes
of his approach, and presented these in a systematic way. These themes are revelation,
the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, the Church, the normativity of Christ, and grace in relation
to nature, and mediation. Both the fact that these are the main themes in his
theologizing as well as the way he understands these, evidences his tradition-

589 Gavin D’Costa, “Catholic Engagement with Other Religions: Dogmatics in Interaction with
Culture - Understanding, Interpretation and Judgement.” Paper Presented at the Expert Meeting with
Gavin D’Costa on “Real Challenges to Contemporary Theology. Pluralism: Catholicity in the Public
Square,” (Nijmegen, 4 November: 2008), 8-9.
590 His first academic publication is, as far as we could trace, Gavin D’Costa, “John Hick’s
Copernican Revolution Ten Years After,” New Blackfriars 65, no. 769-770 (1984).
591 His theological engagement also includes interaction with public theology, a domain that we
have left largely unexplored.

specificity as a Roman Catholic Christian. In section four, we zoomed in on his

theology of religions, more specifically how he puts Roman Catholic theology in the
service of interreligious dialogue. We suggested that his particularist approach is best
described as a pneumato-ecclesiological theology of religions, indicating the
importance of pneumatology and ecclesiology, with the former in service of the latter.
Section five presented D’Costa’s understanding of how interreligious dialogue should
proceed as a combination of engagement in rational dialectics and rhetorical ‘out-
narration’. We illustrated his model by means of a consideration of the way in which
he engages the pluralist position in theology of religions. Although D’Costa has made
some extended evaluative comparisons592 we could say that he is more a theoretician of
theology of religions than a practitioner of academic interreligious dialogue. The final
section, which now comes to a close, critiques and evaluates his theology. We have
been engaging D’Costa under four rubrics: methodological, theological, dialogical and
missing issues. It is now time to take more distance and to round up these critiques.
D’Costa is certainly to be commended for his extensive contribution to the field
of theology of religions. In the course of the past thirty years, D’Costa has become one
of the major ‘players’ in the field. He is always irenic in his interaction with scholars
with whom he disagrees, illustrating in this way what he argues for in relation to other
religions, i.e., an openness towards the other in being willing to learn from them,
whilst honouring them through critical interaction with their arguments. Perhaps three
domains stand out in which his contribution has been crucial. The first is his
debunking of the pluralist position in theology of religions as a form of Enlightenment
religion. Through this critique, the playing field has been levelled. The second domain
is that of setting the Trinity squarely on the agenda of the theology of religions.
Thirdly, he has shown that a particularist approach in theology of religions is one that
has to be reckoned with. The strength of his contribution is that he has shown the
fecundity of a tradition-specific Roman Catholic theology of religions even when
working within the constraints of the magisterial documents.
Though D’Costa’s work shows development over the years – the most important
probably being his early shift away from a Rahnerian position593 – the continuity is also
clear. In 1990 he contributed two chapters which can be seen as seminal for his
approach in the following decades. In Christ, the Trinity and Religious Pluralism, we find
the seeds of his trinitarian and pneumatological approach, as well as his understanding
of Christianity in need of fulfilment through engagement with other religions.594 In
‘Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus’ Revisited, we can see the centrality of ecclesiology which
592 D’Costa has made an extensive and evaluative comparison between a Hindu and a Christian
saint in D’Costa, Theology in the Public Square, 145-176. Similary, D’Costa has compared the Christian and
Muslim engagement with the public space in D’Costa, Christianity and World Religions, 128-158.
594 D’Costa, “Christ.”

134 PART II
will take a pivotal place in his later work, as well as an inchoate interaction with the
limbus patrum as a solution for the salvation of non-Christians.595
Yet, despite three monographs on theology of religions,596 there is still a need for
a more systematic presentation of his theology of religions. It is our impression that
Gavin D’Costa started with theology of religions, and step by step discovered how it
‘interferes’ with central dogmatic statements. This provides him with an opportunity to
study these dogmatic issues in more detail, resulting in the fine-tuning of his theology
of religions, and sometimes even in a change in his position – such as his shift from
Rahnerian inclusivism to universal-access exclusivism, his growing attention to
ecclesiology, his embrace, and later apparent abandonment of a post-liberal position in
favour of a more thorough Roman Catholic tradition-specific approach, and his
‘rediscovery’ of Christ’s descent into hell. It is our impression that it is theology of
religions, and his interaction with other scholars, that drives D’Costa back to basic
dogmatic theology, allowing him to (re-)discover elements in his tradition that prove
their fecundity for theology of religions. In that sense, one can say that his theology of
religions is an ad hoc one. In any case, his is a project of ressourcement, but there is
perhaps now a need for a more systematic presentation.
If D’Costa were to seek to sum up his position in a systematic way, we would
encourage him to elaborate his trinitarian approach. The narrative space in
Christianity, for the religious other, is not simply provided by the doctrine of the Spirit,
as D’Costa claims.597 In order for it to be truly trinitarian, it must also be related to the
doctrine of the Son who, as the resurrected Christ, combines in himself both a
particular history and a universal presence. He is not identical with the Church, but
alive and active in and for the world. And there is, of course, also the Father – who
sends the Son and spirates the Spirit to reconcile the whole world with himself.
595 D’Costa, “Extra Ecclesiam.”

596 D’Costa, Theology and Religious Pluralism; D’Costa, Meeting; D’Costa, Christianity and World
Religions.
CHAPTER IV.
GERALD MCDERMOTT AND THE REVIVAL OF

JONATHAN EDWARDS: A REFORMED-EVANGELICAL
PERSPECTIVE
In this fourth chapter, we engage the work of Gerald McDermott. After two brief
sections introducing McDermott (§1) and his research interests and major publications
(§2), we look into his appeal to authorities and his use of sources (§3). This provides us
with enough background to delve into his theology of religions wherein the concept of
revelation takes a primordial place (§4). The chapter closes with a critique and
evaluation of his approach structured in terms of methodological, theological and
dialogical issues (§5).
§ 1. GERALD MCDERMOTT: BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
Gerald Robert McDermott is the Jordan-Trexler Professor of Religion at Roanoke

College, VA. He obtained a B.A. in New Testament and Early Christian Literature at
the University of Chicago in 1974, a B.S. in History and Education, North Dakota State
University, 1982 and an M.R.E in Grand Rapids Baptist Seminary, 1982. He obtained
his PhD in religion from the University of Iowa in 1989. McDermott has been in
Roanoke College since 1989. Roanoke College is a liberal-arts college with Lutheran
roots.
McDermott is also part-time teaching pastor of St John Lutheran Church
(Roanoke, VA). The church’s website mentions that he was “raised as a Catholic, went
through a period of agnosticism in college, and then came to Christian re-commitment
a short time later.”598 McDermott is also an ordained Episcopal priest.599
598 http://www.stjohnlutheran.org/about-us/staff-listing (accessed 1 September 2012). On his

personal webpage at Roanoke College McDermott mentions that he spent seven years in a religious
commune in the period after graduating from the University of Chicago
(http://www.roanoke.edu/religion/mcdermott.htm - accessed 1 September 2012). It is typical for
Evangelicals to provide a testimony of their religious journey with special attention to their conversion
experience.
599 It is interesting to note that McDermott, an Episcopal priest, is teaching pastor in a Lutheran
church. On his personal webpage (http://www.roanoke.edu/religion/mcdermott.htm) he mentions that St.

John Lutheran Church is affiliated with the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA). The church’s
website, however, mentions affiliation with the Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ (LCMC).
This is interesting because the LCMC broke away from the ELCA after the ELCA ratified an agreement
(Called to Common Witness) with the Episcopal Church in the USA (ECUSA) which established full
communion between the ELCA and ECUSA. The LCMC holds that the agreement is in violation of the
Lutheran Confessions because it provided that the ELCA accepts the historic episcopate
(http://www.lcmc.net/history/232.html - accessed 1 September 2012). Although precise information is
lacking, it seems probable that St. John’s Lutheran Church left the ELCA for the LCMC after 2009 because
136 PART II
McDermott is an Evangelical theologian of some renown, a fact which no doubt

contributed to him serving as the editor of the Oxford Handbook of Evangelical Theology
(2010).600 He self-identifies as Evangelical and as Reformed. For the former, his book
Can Evangelicals Learn from World Religions? implies an Evangelical outlook.601 In the
first chapter of that book McDermott describes how he understands ‘Evangelicalism’,
from a historic-theological perspective in contradistinction to Fundamentalism, on the
one hand, and Protestant orthodoxy, Liberalism and Postliberalism, on the other
hand.602 McDermott’s Reformed position can not only be gleaned from his research
interest in Reformed theologian Jonathan Edwards. In an autobiographical note in his
monograph, God’s Rivals, he writes, “I should also add that my treatment of these texts
and issues reflect my Reformed theology.”603
of disagreement with the ELCA’s acceptance of non-celibate gay pastors. The number of Lutheran
churches which affiliate with the LCMC rose significantly when the ELCA allowed for (non-celibate) gay
and lesbian pastors in 2009. McDermott’s personal webpage, which mentions the affiliation with ELCA, is
not up-to-date, the last entry mentioning a book ‘forthcoming’ in 2009. This would explain the outdated
information about church affiliation.
600 Gerald R. McDermott, ed., The Oxford Handbook of Evangelical Theology (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2010).

601 “I will look at the question of revelation in the religions from an evangelical perspective.”
McDermott, Can Evangelicals?, 22-23, my italics.

602 McDermott, Can Evangelicals?, 21-39.
603 Gerald R. McDermott, God’s Rivals: Why Has God Allowed Different Religions? Insights from the Bible
and the Early Church (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2007), 18.
CHAPTER IV: GERALD MCDERMOTT AND THE REVIVAL OF JONATHAN EDWARDS 137
§ 2. RESEARCH INTERESTS & MAJOR PUBLICATIONS
McDermott’s primary research interest is the theology of Jonathan Edwards (1703-

1758), with theology of religions being a close second. It is in the field of Jonathan
Edwards studies that McDermott is a prominent scholar with several important
publications, such as One Holy and Happy Society: The Public Theology of Jonathan
Edwards,604 which is a comprehensive study of Edwards’s socio-political theory;
Jonathan Edwards Confronts the Gods¸605 which distils Edwards’s theology of religions
and its development during his career; and recently a (co-authored) massive The
Theology of Jonathan Edwards,606 which claims to be the most comprehensive survey of
Edwards’s theology ever produced.
The second major research strand in McDermott’s theology, is the development
of an Evangelical theology of religions. In 2000, the year Jonathan Edwards Confronts the
Gods appeared, McDermott published Can Evangelicals Learn from World Religions?607
The latter is an application of Edwards’s insights for contemporary evangelical
theology of religions. The work is about ‘revelation’ and the novelty McDermott
introduces is the concept of ‘revealed types’. He looks at several world religions to test
this category. A second monograph in this research area appeared in 2007: God’s Rivals:
Why Has God Allowed Different Religions? Insights from the Bible and the Early Church. 608
This book discusses the nature and functions of religions from an Evangelical point of
view. It introduces the ‘supernatural’ in the discussion, based on biblical concepts like
‘gods’ and ‘principalities and powers’. It also considers the function of religions to be
analogous to the function of the State in biblical understanding, i.e., as a force to
restrain evil and encourage goodness. As such, religions are intended by God, though
like the State, they are equally prone to become corrupted and sinful. A new book is
projected, A Trinitarian Theology of Religions: An Evangelical Approach (Oxford University
Press). In this book, McDermott and his co-author Harold Netland will use “core
Christian understandings of the Tri-personal God to address such questions as whether
there is revelation in other religions, whether conversation with other religionists is
necessary, how to distinguish between religion and culture, and what it means to be a
Christian witness in a pluralistic world.”609
604 Gerald R. McDermott, One Holy and Happy Society: The Public Theology of Jonathan Edwards
(University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1992).
605 Gerald R. McDermott, Jonathan Edwards Confronts the Gods: Christian Theology, Enlightenment
Religion, and Non-Christian Faiths (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).

606 Michael James McClymond and Gerald R. McDermott, The Theology of Jonathan Edwards (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2012).

607 McDermott, Can Evangelicals?
608 McDermott, God’s Rivals.
609 From McDermott’s profile at

roanoke.edu/Academics/Academic_Departments/Religion_and_Philosophy/Faculty/Dr_McDermott.htm
(accessed 10 April 2013).
138 PART II
With Mormon, Robert Millet, McDermott co-authored Claiming Christ: A

Mormon-Evangelical Debate610 in which they debate the Book of Mormon, the Trinity,
faith and works, and other issues at the heart of Mormon-Evangelical disagreements.
Together with oncologist William A. Fintel, McDermott wrote Cancer: A Medical
and Spiritual Guide for Patients and Their Families,611 answering both medical and
spiritual/theological questions raised by cancer.
McDermott’s ecumenical and historical interests in theology come to the fore in
The Great Theologians: A Brief Guide.612 In this book he introduces lay readers to eleven
important theologians.613
610 Robert Millet and Gerald R. McDermott, Claiming Christ: A Mormon-Evangelical Debate (Grand
Rapids, MI: Brazos, 2007).
611 William A. Fintel and Gerald R. McDermott, Cancer: A Medical and Spiritual Guide for Patients and
Their Families (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2004).

612 Gerald R. McDermott, The Great Theologians. A Brief Guide (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2010).
613 These theologians are Origen, Athanasius, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Edwards,
Schleiermacher, Newman, Barth and Von Balthasar.

§ 3. MCDERMOTT’S SOURCES AND AUTHORITIES
In Can Evangelicals Learn from World Religions?, McDermott sets out to show that other
religions can contain truth and revelation. The structure of his argument is to (1)
expound his understanding of revelation, (2) provide biblical suggestions to underpin
his approach, (3) provide theological considerations, and (4) look at some of history’s
great theologians, with Jonathan Edwards as a constant guide.
In God’s Rivals, the structure of the argument concerning the nature of non-
Christian religions, after a description of the scandal of particularity, is to sketch (1) a
biblical evidential basis (examples of knowledge of God outside Israel and the Church),
(2) a biblical theology of other gods from the vantage point of the Old Testament
concept of the Lord of Hosts, and (3) a biblical theology of supernatural powers/entities
from the New Testament concept of principalities and powers, before launching on (4) an
exploration of these concepts in selected Apologists and Church Fathers (Justin Martyr,
Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria and Origen).
This approach shows that the authorities invoked by McDermott are (1) the Bible
and themes in biblical theology, (2) Jonathan Edwards, and (3) selected Apologists and
other great theologians.
A. BIBLE AND BIBLICAL THEOLOGY
In his theological definition of Evangelicalism, McDermott follows the six fundamental

convictions as outlined by Alister McGrath, the third of which is “[t]he supreme
authority of Scripture.”614 The conviction is that “God has chosen to reveal himself
through Scripture.”615 McDermott distances himself (and Evangelicalism) from
Fundamentalism by admitting that Scripture is culturally conditioned and should be
studied with the help of critical scholarship.616 He equally avoids the excesses of
privatized biblical interpretation by stressing that private interpretation should not be
allowed the upper hand over the consensus of the Church, “which includes the historic
creeds and great theologies of the last two thousand years.”617 McDermott urges
theology to “pay preeminent attention to the narratives about Jesus and God’s
614 McDermott, Can Evangelicals?, 30. McDermott quotes from Alister McGrath, Evangelicalism and
the Future of Christianity (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1995) 53-87. The six convictions are (1) The majesty of
Jesus Christ, both as incarnate God and Lord and as Saviour of sinful humanity; (2) the lordship of the
Holy Spirit, Who is necessary for the application of the presence and work of Christ; (3) the supreme
authority of Scripture; (4) the need for personal conversion; (5) the priority of evangelism for both
individuals and the church as a whole; and (6) the importance of Christian community for spiritual
nourishment, fellowship and growth.
615 McDermott, Can Evangelicals?, 30.
616 McDermott, Can Evangelicals?, 30-31. For more on the distinction with Fundamentalism, see
McDermott, Can Evangelicals?, 34-37.

140 PART II
people”618 in contrast with a uniquely propositional approach to Scripture. This

narrative theological approach follows from the conviction that “the God of Scripture
is a God of history, the narrative of Whose history is found in Holy Scripture.”619
However, when it comes to the biblical starting points to consider the possibility
of revelation and truth in other religions, McDermott refers to three biblical texts. The
first is Jn 1:3-4.9:
3All things came into being through him, and without him not
one thing came into being. What has come into being 4in him
was life, and the life was the light of all people. […] 9The true
light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.620
According to McDermott, this establishes that “the second person of the Trinity is
responsible for knowledge of God given to Gentiles and non-Christians.”621 McDermott
avers that knowledge of God is included in the light given by the Word. All human
beings, including pagans, have been given life by the Word and are enlightened by the
Word. For McDermott, this implies that Christ is the source and mediator of all
knowledge of God,622 for “[i]t is Christ, then, who is responsible for whatever
knowledge of the true God is found outside of Judaism and Christianity.”623 This is,
according to McDermott, the source of Justin Martyr’s Logos spermatikos idea624 and of
Clement of Alexandria’s conviction that Greek philosophers were also illumined.625
We note the opposition to this interpretation of Jn 1:9 by fellow Reformed
theologians. According to Daniel Strange, an interpretation such as the one expounded
by McDermott is often used by “Wesleyan evangelicals in their own defence of a
‘prevenient grace’.”626 Strange critiques D’Costa’s use of Jn 1:9, pointing out that such
an interpretation is common in Roman Catholic tradition. Strange opines that Jn 1:9
refers not to an internal illumination, but to a “special revelation, radiating specifically
from the incarnate Logos and holding consequences and benefits only for those whose
lives are touched by it.”627

620 Jn 1:3-4.9 (NRSV), my italics.
622 McDermott, God’s Rivals, 25 n.9.
623 McDermott, God’s Rivals, 33.
626 D’Costa, Knitter, and Strange, Only One Way?, 181. For a Wesleyan evangelical affirming this
interpretation, see Harald Lindström, Wesley and Sanctification: A Study in the Doctrine of Salvation
(Wilmore, KY: Asbury, [1946]; reprint, With a Foreword to the Reprint by Timothy L. Smith, [1980]), 44-50.
627 D’Costa, Knitter, and Strange, Only One Way?, 181. Strange bases his evaluation upon the
exegetical study of Ed. L. Miller, Good News in History: Essays in Honor of Bo Reicke. With a Contribution by
Professor Reicke (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1993). On the other hand, McDermott could boast the support
of fellow Reformed theologian Bruce Demarest, who also utilises Jn 1:9 as evidence “for an a priori or
innate sensus divinitas, general revelation, or natural theology.” See Bruce Demarest, General Revelation:
McDermott gives no attention to the exegesis of this passage in John and

provides no arguments for his interpretation. This is a serious drawback, since it seems
to be a basic presupposition underlying his theology of religions.628
A second text supporting the possibility of truth and revelation in other religions,
is Acts 14:16-17:
In past generations [God] allowed all the nations to follow
16
their own ways; 17yet he has not left himself without a witness in
doing good—giving you rains from heaven and fruitful
seasons, and filling you with food and your hearts with joy. 629
The context of this passage is Paul’s mission to pagans in Lystra. The locals
mistake Paul and Barnabas for Hermes and Zeus after they have healed a paralysed
man. In response, Paul invites the population of Lystra to worship the true God, whose
existence and loving care have been accessible to the inhabitants of Lystra. For
McDermott this is proof that “God is portrayed in Scripture as wanting to reveal
Himself in ways not connected to the history of Israel or Christ.”630
The third text supporting the possibility of truth and revelation in other religions
is Col 1:17, 2:3.
1 17He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold
together. 2 3in [Christ] are hidden all the treasures of wisdom
and knowledge.631
According to McDermott, “this must mean, at least, that all of reality is somehow
comprehended in and by Christ.”632 A corollary of this idea is that there are, in
principle, an infinite number of perspectives on Christ possible, each one potentially
offering new insights and teaching something new. McDermott then draws this
conclusion: “[T]here may be far more to Christ that the church will learn as it reflects
on Scripture and tradition—and perhaps other religions—with the help of the Holy
Spirit.”633 This thought clearly undergirds McDermott’s theology of religions. If the
Historical Views and Contemporary Issues (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1982) cited in Miller, Good News in
History: Essays in Honor of Bo Reicke. With a Contribution by Professor Reicke, 80.
628 Confirmation of (aspects) of McDermott’s interpretation of this passage can be found in J.
Ramsey Michaels, who, commenting on Jn 1:3-4, states that “[i]t is fair to assume that ‘the light of humans’
refers to a capacity for love and understanding given to every human being at birth. […T]he testimony of
verse 4 is that physical birth is also a source of ‘light’ from God. At least the burden of proof is on those
who would argue otherwise.” J. Ramsey Michaels, The Gospel of John, New International Commentary on
the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010), 55-56. Commenting on Jn 1:9, George R. Beasley-
Murray writes that “[i]n face of false claims (concerning John or any other alleged prophet-redeemer) the
authentic Light is affirmed to be the Word who illumines the existence of every man (positively and
negatively, for salvation and judgment; see 3:19–21). George R. Beasley-Murray, John, Word Biblical
Commentary (Dallas, TX: Word, 1987; reprint, electronic edition by Logos Library System, 1998), 12.
629 Acts 14:16-17 (NRSV), my italics.
630 McDermott, Can Evangelicals?, 76-77. Also, McDermott, God’s Rivals, 30.
631 Col 1:17, 2:3 (NRSV).

142 PART II
church can indeed learn far more about Christ than what she already knows, and if
religions are potential vehicles of knowledge about Christ, then the church is greatly
stimulated to engage other religions in an open and respectful manner.
B. JONATHAN EDWARDS
We have already mentioned that McDermott is a prominent scholar of New England

theologian, Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758). It seems that McDermott’s historic-
theological research on Edwards’s position vis-à-vis other religions generated a fruitful
systematic-theological application to theology of religions from an Evangelical point of
view. Two monographs, one on Jonathan Edwards and one on theology of religions
from an Evangelical point of view, appeared in 2000.634 It is clear that the theological
insights gained from Jonathan Edwards are transferred and pushed further for a
contemporary Evangelical theologia religionum. This indebtedness on Edwards is also
evident in a spate of articles that have appeared since 2000.635
This reliance on Jonathan Edwards is very fitting. Jonathan Edwards was one of
the main theologians who stood at the cradle of the Evangelical movement. Together
with George Whitefield (1714-1770) and John Wesley (1703-1791), Edwards’s influence
on Evangelicalism’s beginnings can hardly be overstated.636 It is, then, not at all
surprising that one of the leading theological voices in contemporary Evangelical
theology of religions should draw on one of Evangelicalism’s founding fathers. It is in
this sense also that we can say that McDermott’s approach is tradition-specific. Not
only does he lay down a biblical foundation for his position, as is to be expected from
an Evangelical; he also draws inspiration from America’s first and, perhaps foremost,
Evangelical theologian.637
Edwards’s fame with the general populace is tainted due to his association with
Puritanism and because of his (in)famous sermon, Sinners In The Hand Of An Angry
634 McDermott, Can Evangelicals; McDermott, Jonathan Edwards Confronts the Gods.
635 Gerald R. McDermott, “Jonathan Edwards and the Salvation of Non-Christians,” Pro Ecclesia 9,
no. 2 (2000); Gerald R. McDermott, “What if Paul Had Been from China? Reflections on the Possibility of
Revelation in Non-Christian Religions,” in No Other Gods Before Me? Evangelicals and the Challenge of World
Religions, ed. John G. Stackhouse (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001); Gerald R. McDermott, “Holy
Pagans,” Christian History 22, no. 1 (2003); Gerald R. McDermott, “Jesus and the Religions,” Books & Culture
10 (2004); Gerald R. McDermott, “Is Sola Scriptura really Sola? Edwards, Newman, Bultmann, and Wright
on the Bible as Religious Authority,” in By What Authority? The Vital Question of Religious Authority in
Christianity, ed. Robert L. Millet (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2010); Gerald R. McDermott,
“Revelation as Divine Communication through Reason, Scripture and Tradition,” in Jonathan Edwards as
Contemporary. Essays in Honor of Sang Hyun Lee, ed. Don Schweitzer (New York, NY: Peter Lang, 2010).
636 For an excellent introduction to the early history of Evangelicalism, including the role of
Jonathan Edwards, see Noll, The Rise of Evangelicalism.

637 Jonathan Edwards is called “America’s most important and original philosophical theologian” in
William Wainwright, “Jonathan Edwards,” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2009 Edition), ed.
Edward N. Zalta (http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2009/entries/edwards/, 2009).
God.638 The last decades, however, have seen a resurgence in Edwards’s studies, which
has done much to rehabilitate him, at least among academic theologians and
philosophers. These recent studies have contributed to a much more balanced picture
of Edwards and his thought in the context of his time. Edwards continues to be an
important source of inspiration for Reformed Christians, especially in the USA. We
should note, however, that McDermott’s work on Jonathan Edwards’s theology of
religions offers a novel perspective. In Jonathan Edwards Confronts the Gods (2000),
McDermott built his case primarily on the (then mostly unpublished) theological
notebooks that Edwards kept during his whole career.639 It is the distinct contribution
of McDermott to show that one of the great issues that occupied Edwards’s attention
was the rise of deism. According to McDermott, “the discovery of new lands (and
hence new religions) in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries played a significant
role in the rise of deism, which formed the basis for the most trenchant critiques of the
Christian faith in the eighteenth century.”640 McDermott has been able to show that the
rise of deism acutely posed the challenge of God’s fairness towards non-Christians.
McDermott claims that more than twenty-five percent of Edwards’s notebook entries
battle with the challenges raised by deism, and that a substantial number of these
“focus precisely on the contents of non-Christian religions.”641 McDermott notes that a
common notion of the time (based on an oft-quoted seventeenth-century geographer’s
estimation) claimed that only one-sixth of the world had heard the gospel. Deists
consequently claimed that, according to Calvinism, more than eighty percent of the
world population was damned.642 McDermott argues,
The scandal of particularity, then, was an important stimulus
to deism. It was a principal reason why they judged the
orthodox God to be a monster in whom they could not believe.
And the religions of non-Christians, of which they learned
from sixteenth- and seventeenth-century reports coming out of
voyages to the New World and the East, provided the
background against which the God of orthodoxy stood out as
arbitrary and therefore cruel. These reports portrayed millions
of non-Christians as religious souls who often seemed more
moral than their European contemporaries. The idea that they
could be consigned to an eternal hell simply because they had
never heard the gospel was too much for deists and many
others to accept. The true God, they concluded, must be of a
638 This sermon was preached on July 8, 1741 in Enfield, Connecticut during the ‘Great Awakening’
(ca. 1730-1755).
639 These ‘Miscellanies’ now make up 4 volumes of The Works of Jonathan Edwards, published by Yale
University Press: vol. 13, 18, 20, 23.

640 McDermott, Jonathan Edwards Confronts the Gods, 5.
642 McDermott, Jonathan Edwards Confronts the Gods, 5. For more bibliographical detail on this
datum, see McDermott, “Jonathan Edwards and the Salvation of Non-Christians,” 210 n.9.
144 PART II
different sort from what tradition had delivered. And his

revelation could not have been restricted to a chosen few. 643
Some interaction with theology of religions was therefore necessary to defend the
reasonableness of (Reformed) Christianity. On the basis of Edwards’s private
notebooks, a different Edwards emerged than was common among Edwards scholars.
The notebooks show an Edwards who is intrigued by religions and is well up to date
with what had been published about other religions in travel journeys, dictionaries and
encyclopaedias of religion. The notebook entries betray deep theological reflection with
a view to incorporating these reflections in a theology of history and a history of
redemption.644
Another important element to understand Edwards’s view of other religions, is
that in 1750 he became pastor of the church in Stockbridge, Massachusetts. He stayed
seven years in Stockbridge, serving both an ‘English’ congregation as well as an Indian
congregation consisting of between one hundred and two hundred Mahican and
Mohawk Indians.645 This was most probably Edwards’s first real encounter with the
heathen.646 McDermott remarks that, in notebooks of these final years of Edwards’s life,
he “reflects most generously and expansively on the religious state of the heathen.”647
As a result of these reflections, claims McDermott,
Edwards found a way to acknowledge genuine religious truth
outside the Judeo-Christian world while at the same time
holding fast to a particular and historical revelation. In the
process, Edwards opened his own intricate system to the
possibility of salvation for those outside the Christian church. 648
C. APOLOGISTS, CHURCH FATHERS AND OTHER GREAT THEOLOGIANS
It is clear from several of McDermott’s works that, next to the Bible and the theology of
Jonathan Edwards, other great theologians, in particular the Apologists and Church
Fathers, play a prominent role in the search for authorisation of his theology of
religions.
We have already noted that his interest in the church’s great theologians has led
to a book introducing a lay (Evangelical) audience to eleven of these theologians. The
selected theologians (Origen, Athanasius, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin,
Edwards, Schleiermacher, Newman, Barth and Von Balthasar) also betray an
ecumenical attitude. He has selected these theologians because of their impact on
theology and the church, and, with the exception of Schleiermacher, also theologians
643 McDermott, Jonathan Edwards Confronts the Gods, 25-26.

645 For these figures, see Gerald R. McDermott, “Jonathan Edwards and American Indians: The
Devil Sucks Their Blood,” The New England Quarterly 72, no. 4 (1999): 546 n.32.

with whom McDermott has affinity. It is in accordance with his Evangelical mood that
McDermott is more sympathetic towards orthodox Roman Catholics (Newman,
Balthasar) than towards liberal Protestants. McDermott is convinced that
Schleiermacher, though enormously important to understand the shape of
contemporary Christianity and theology, is a threat to Christianity, while he believes
that Evangelicals have important things to learn from Catholics like Newman and
Balthasar.
This attention to theology’s great tradition and ecumenical openness is a typical
phenomenon in the Evangelicalism of the last decades. Exemplary of this change in
attitude in Evangelicalism is the title of Daniel Williams’ monograph published in 1999:
Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism. A Primer for Suspicious Protestants.649
The ‘suspicious Protestants’ in view are primarily Evangelicals, and for them the
Tradition must indeed be retrieved since it has been lost as part of Evangelicalism’s
return to Scripture as its sole norm. It is also the conviction of many contemporary
Evangelical theologians that such a retrieval will indeed contribute to Evangelicalism’s
renewal.650 Evangelical theologian Hans Boersma recently wrote that “the increasing
trend among evangelicals to look for inspiration to the church fathers is a healthy
one.”651
McDermott undergirds the rationale for his book on The Great Theologians as
follows:
Ignoring the great and godly minds of the church […] when we
have them at our fingertips through books and even the
Internet seems to be a kind of arrogance and presumption. It
ignores the biblical reminder that there is wisdom in “the
multitude of counsellors” (Prov 11:14 KJV). It also forgets
another biblical observation that learning from other godly
minds and comparing our thoughts with theirs is like iron
sharpening iron (Prov 27:17), making our thinking about God
sharper and clearer. The result will be deeper knowledge of
God, which Jesus said is “eternal life” (Jn 17:3).652
In the concluding chapter, McDermott summarizes seven elements that can be

learned from these great theologians, several of which are relevant to his own use of
649 Daniel H. Williams, Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism. A Primer for Suspicious
Protestants (Grand Rapids, MI - Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1999).
650 Another Reformed scholar in theology of religions, Terrance Tiessen, wrote a monograph on
Irenaeus before seeking application for an Evangelical theologia religionum: Terrance L. Tiessen, Irenaeus on
the Salvation of the Unevangelized, ATLA Monograph Series, no. 31 (Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1993);
Tiessen, Who Can Be Saved? See also Gerald Bray, “Explaining Christianity to Pagans: The Second-Century
Apologists,” in The Trinity in a Pluralistic Age: Theological Essays on Culture and Religion, ed. Kevin J.
Vanhoozer (Grand Rapids, MI - Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1997).
651 Hans Boersma, Heavenly Participation: The Weaving of a Sacramental Tapestry (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 2011), 9.
652 McDermott, Great Theologians, 12-13. Note the use of biblical quotations to authorise the use of
‘tradition’.
146 PART II
the Tradition in his theology of religion. The third conclusion is stated as “[t]he cultural
limitations of theologians do not prevent their opening up truth for the church;”653 the
fourth as “[t]he Holy Spirit is at work in the history of the Great Tradition;”654 the fifth
as “[t]here has been development of understanding over time through the history of
the Great Tradition;”655 and the sixth as “[w]e will be able to discern the spirits today
(which is the work of theology) only by studying afresh this long and rich Great
Tradition.”656 These convictions about the usefulness of Tradition clearly illustrates the
theological authority it holds for McDermott.657 Tradition is not only useful. The Holy
Spirit is also at work in the history of Tradition and it helps the church and theology in
discerning the spirits, one of its main tasks. Denying this resource would indeed be an
act of arrogance.
In his theology of religions, McDermott makes use of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus,
Clement of Alexandria, Origen,658 Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin,659 Edwards and
Newman.660
653 McDermott, Great Theologians, 206.

657 Some of these insights are, fittingly, learned from Jonathan Edwards. McDermott writes about
Edwards’s view of tradition that “Edwards also observed that the history of theology was driven partly by
the ‘gradual’ illumination of the meaning of the Scriptures.” McDermott, “Revelation,” 200.
658 These four are found in McDermott, God’s Rivals.
659 These three are discussed in McDermott, Can Evangelicals?
660 Edwards and Newman are discussed together in Gerald R. McDermott, “Jonathan Edwards,
John Henry Newman and Non-Christian Religions,” in Jonathan Edwards: Philosophical Theologian, ed. P.
Helm and O. Crisp (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003). Newman also features in McDermott’s discussion of the
religious authority of the Bible in McDermott, “Is Sola Scriptura really Sola?.”
§ 4. MCDERMOTT’S THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS
A. REVELATION
1. Revelation as God’s self-disclosure and the resulting knowledge
Revelation is, arguably, the most important theological theme for McDermott, at least
in the context of his theology of religions.661 Revelation, according to McDermott,
consists of two main aspects. It is first of all the act or process of God who reveals
himself and his plans. Secondly, revelation is “the knowledge of God that results from
that disclosure.”662
Concerning the first aspect, it is important to understand that the initiative and
action is on the part of God. Revelation is not the result of human aspiration for God,
but God who unveils God-self. True to his Evangelical tradition, McDermott provides
scriptural underpinning for this aspect by quoting and commenting on Eph 3:5 663 and 1
Jn 1:1-3.664
It is not that humans are not involved in this process, but apart from God’s
initiative, there would be no knowledge of him. Not only is the ontological difference
between humans and a transcendent God unbridgeable from the human side,665 but sin
has misdirected humanity’s desire to know God.666
The second aspect of revelation in McDermott’s understanding, is the knowledge
of God resulting from God’s self-disclosure. This does not in the first place refer to a
corpus of propositions; rather, “the content of revelation was a God Whose character
and nature were revealed primarily in narratives about His work and redemption,
which began in the counsels of the godhead in eternity and will continue until the
eschatological establishment of a kingdom headed by the Son.”667 Consequently, the
knowledge that is communicated is not simply a transfer of information that increases
insight, but an invitation to trust the One who unveils his character in the process of
661 He puts forward his position in What if Paul Had Been from China – which basically appropriates
Jonathan Edwards’s position as expounded in Jonathan Edwards Confronts the Gods. We also see this in Can
Evangelicals, chapter 2, which is an appropriation of Jonathan Edwards Confronts the Gods, chapter 5.
663 Eph 3:5 (NRSV): In former generations this mystery was not made known to humankind, as it
has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit.
664 1 John 1:1-3 (NRSV): We declare to you what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what
we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the word of
life— this life was revealed, and we have seen it and testify to it, and declare to you the eternal life that
was with the Father and was revealed to us— we declare to you what we have seen and heard so that you
also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus
Christ.
665 1 Tim 6:16 (NRSV): “It is he [God] alone who has immortality and dwells in unapproachable
light, whom no one has ever seen or can see” (my italics).

148 PART II
revelation: “Those who receive this revelation are called not to mere mental assent but
to an openness that is self-involving and transforming.”668
2. General and special revelation
God reveals himself in nature and in his redemptive acts. McDermott accepts the
general usefulness of the distinction between special and general revelation, but finds
it lacking nonetheless. General revelation is revelation of God that is accessible to
everyone “through nature and conscience (Rom 1:18-20; 2:14-15),”669 something that
Calvin called the sensus divinitatis. In Reformed doctrine, general revelation is
revelation, accessible to all, of God the Creator but not of God the Redeemer, whereas
special revelation reveals God the Redeemer.670 However, according to McDermott, not
all revelation is covered between special and general revelation. “[S]ome truth claims
in the religions that seem to mirror or deepen what we know of Scripture are peculiar
to only one or a few religions. Since they are not accessible to all, they cannot be called
instances of general revelation as the term is conventionally used.”671
McDermott does not follow Karl Barth in negating that there is truth about God
accessible through natural revelation. He states that Barth overreacted in order to
protect Christianity from the pro-Nazi German Christian movement.672 McDermott
does follow Barth, however, in positing that salvation requires subjective
understanding of the objective knowledge of God. For Barth, this so-called natural
revelation, is not real revelation, because it is always misunderstood. “The only
knowledge we have of God is in the face of Christ (2 Cor 4:6).”673 According to
McDermott, however, although this “natural revelation” is prone to being
misunderstood, it is genuine revelation and one of the means through which the Holy

670 McDermott, Can Evangelicals?, 50. Is it really possible to make such a neat distinction between
knowing God the Creator, but not God the Redeemer? For, surely, the Creator is the Redeemer, and vice
versa. Can these two really be juxtaposed? Someone who knows God as Creator, knows the Redeemer,
even if he does not know the redeeming actions of this God. So perhaps McDermott should state it as
follows: general revelation is that revelation which allows humans to know God as Creator, special
revelation allows one to know him also as Redeemer.
671 McDermott, Can Evangelicals?, 52-53. See below for an exposition of McDermott’s new category
of ‘revealed types’ to fill this lacuna.

673 McDermott, Can Evangelicals?, 53. 2 Cor 4:6 (NRSV): For it is the God who said, “Let light shine
out of darkness,” who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the
face of Jesus Christ.
Spirit opens up people for salvation.674 McDermott points to Acts 17:27675 and Rom
2:15676 as well as to Calvin and Jonathan Edwards to underpin his position.
McDermott follows Avery Dulles’s exposition of five models of revelation
(revelation as (1) doctrine, as (2) history, as (3) inner experience, as (4) dialectical
presence and as (5) new awareness) claiming these to be complementary rather than
contradictory. Because revelation is God’s self-disclosure, and the triune God
transcends human understanding and experience, revelation, according to McDermott,
must be multidimensional.677 That is why revelation can be both described as event and
proposition, as objective and subjective, as rational and ineffable.678
3. Unfolding revelation and the development of doctrine
That revelation unfolds in history, and hence, that there is legitimate and necessary
development of doctrine, is a crucial concept in McDermott’s understanding of
revelation.
Because revelation is also the event of God’s self-disclosure (see above), and since
events unfold in time, revelation necessarily unfolds in history. Now, God
accommodates his revelation to the language and level of development of the
recipients of revelations. This implies that the available language, concepts, ideas and
‘traditions’ are utilized to reveal new elements of who God is and how he acts. That is
why one can say that Christianity is by necessity a syncretistic religion, in that it makes
use of, and incorporates, language and ideas of other ‘traditions’ to interpret the reality
of God’s self-disclosure. McDermott relies on missiologist Andrew Walls679 for this
insight, and on John Henry Newman, specifically his understanding of the third note
of genuine doctrinal development: assimilative power.680 For McDermott, “God
redeems not only individuals and nations but the wisdom of the nations.”681 This
process is at work already in the use and translation of Hebrew concepts of the Old
Testament to the Greek of the New Testament, for example in the use of ‘Lord’ (κύριος
‘kurios’) as a translation of the concept of ‘Messiah’. The Greek concept of κύριος was
not merely taken over, but also invested with its Jewish usage. Therefore, whenever

675 Acts 17:27 (NRSV) (From Paul’s speech at the Areopagus in Athens): “so that they would search
for God and perhaps grope for him and find him—though indeed he is not far from each one of us.”
676 Rom 2:15 (NRSV): [Gentiles who do instinctively what the law requires] show that what the law
requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting
thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them.
679 Andrew F. Walls, The Missionary Movement in Christian History (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1996).
680 John Henry Cardinal Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, 6th ed. (Notre
Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame press, 1989), 185-189 and 355-382. See McDermott, “What if Paul Had
Been from China?,” 21-22 (where the reference in note 14 to Newman’s Essay on Development should be
p. 381 rather than 380).
681 McDermott, “What if Paul Had Been from China?,” 22.
150 PART II
Christianity is brought to a new culture and translated into a new language, it is, to
some extent, reconfigured and expanded.682
McDermott sees this happening throughout history, for example with Augustine
and his absorption of Neo-Platonism in making Christianity intelligible to his times, in
Aquinas who articulated the faith with the help of Aristotelianism, and Calvin, who
incorporated Renaissance humanism’s understanding of rhetoric in his presentation of
Divine accommodation in revelation.683 Denying the existence of such an assimilative
process runs the risk of “substituting ideology for theology—which we do when we
think that the God of the Bible cannot be more than the God of the Bible (active in
cultures not described by the Bible).”684 It is not just that our understanding of the
gospel must be applied to new contexts, but that we are open to new understandings
of the gospel in the confrontation of Scripture and world.685
For McDermott, the illumination of the Holy Spirit is needed to unpack the
revelation given to us. In that illumination, “knowledge of the original blinding
revelation of God in Christ is expanded.”686 McDermott finds scriptural underpinnings
of this understanding in the Johanine encouragement that “[w]hen the Spirit of truth
comes, he will guide you into all the truth.”687 The Holy Spirit gradually illuminates
Scripture in (church) history, leading inevitably to development of doctrine. For
McDermott, this illumination is appropriated by the Church, but it may originate from
encounters with other religions. “[D]octrine develops—and sometimes by use of pagan
traditions.”688
4. Revelation as the history of redemption
If revelation unfolds in history, can we expect new revelation of the same ‘magnitude’
as the revelation that has been received in Jesus Christ? If that line of thought were
followed through, it could imply that the revelation of God in Jesus might one day be
surpassed, and relegated to a secondary status, in the fashion that Christians now
understand the Jewish Torah. This is, of course, a question highly relevant to theology
of religions.
McDermott, however, posits a close link between the history of revelation
(unfolding revelation) and the history of redemption. There is no revelation that is
unconnected to God’s redemptive actions. All revelation, therefore, must be connected
to the climax of God’s redemptive actions: the life, death and resurrection of Jesus
682 In the Septuagint—the Greek translation of the Old Testament—Lord, as a title for God (‫אֲדֹנָי‬
‘adonai’), is translated as κύριος. McDermott, “What if Paul Had Been from China?,” 22.
687 Jn 16:13 (NRSV).
688 McDermott, “What if Paul Had Been from China?,” 23. For McDermott’s understanding of
cultural context as overlapping with religious context, see below.

Christ. The unfolding of revelation through history, therefore, cannot gainsay the
truths that the incarnation disclosed. According to McDermott, “We will not discover
anything new through non-Christian religions that is ontologically unrelated to or
contradictory to Christ.”689 For McDermott, the uniqueness of Christ’s salvific work is
beyond dispute. The history of redemption, therefore, is the history of redemption by
Jesus Christ.
On the other hand, McDermott stresses that this does not contradict the
unfolding of revelation, nor the development of dogma:
If there is no new revelation behind the Triune God, there is,
nevertheless, new development in the history of revelation as
Christ makes himself more fully known by the progressive
illumination of the Holy Spirit. What begins as an act of
translation becomes a discovery of a new dimension of Jesus
Christ. The attempt to transmit faith in Christ across linguistic
and religious frontiers reveals that the Spirit of Jesus Christ has
unveiled meaning and significance never known before. In this
unveiling, there are new glimpses of the Trinity’s glory. […] In
other words, as Christians seek to relate Christ to other visions
of life and new worldviews […], Christ’s fullness in his body
grows.690
It is interesting to note that McDermott defends such an understanding on the

basis of a peculiar notion in Jonathan Edwards. Edwards claimed some kind of growth
in God through redemptive history. Edwards uses the analogy of Christ and the
church. “The church of Christ,” avers Edwards, “is called the fullness of Christ: as
though he were not in his complete state without her.”691
McDermott posits, what he calls, an “ontic growth in God through the history of
redemption.”692 ‘Ontic’, as distinguished from ‘ontological’, refers to a growth in God’s
relations, rather than a growth in his essence. “The temporal extension of God’s
actuality repeats in time God’s internal actuality without improving it. […] What
happens in space and time, therefore, is really and integrally related to God’s own
life—not by adding to God’s being ad intra but by constituting the external extension of
God’s internal fullness.”693 Perhaps this could be restated as ‘the immanent Trinity is
the economic Trinity and the economic Trinity becomes the immanent Trinity’. We are
not speaking about a different God – the referent of the economic and the immanent
Trinity is identical. Yet the immanent Trinity is not accessible but through the
689McDermott, “What if Paul Had Been from China?,” 24.

690McDermott, “What if Paul Had Been from China?,” 25.
691 McDermott, “What if Paul Had Been from China?,” 26. McDermott cites from Jonathan Edwards,
The End for Which God Created the World, in Ethical Writings, vol. 8 of The Works of Jonathan Edwards, ed. Paul
Ramsey (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 439.

152 PART II
economic Trinity. As the grasp of the economic Trinity increases, the epistemological
gap between the immanent and the economic Trinity narrows progressively.
Even with the unfolding of revelation securely anchored in the Christ event, the
danger exists of a misplaced triumphalist conception of the Church’s grasp of
revelation. McDermott cautions that we should be humble about the possibility of
correct interpretation of revelation. As Pseudo-Dionysius taught the Church, our finite
language will never be able to completely comprehend God who is infinitely greater
than us.694 Not only our finitude, but also our sinfulness impairs our possibility of
correct interpretation.695 But McDermott also points to the necessity of the illumination
of the Holy Spirit as “a divine operation in the mind and heart of a recipient of grace
that confirms to the recipient the reality of a supernatural truth or person.”696
According to McDermott, the illumination of the Spirit not only confirms the
Bible as God’s Word, it also allows for its correct interpretation, the crux of which is
“opening the eyes of the believer to the Reality behind and to which Scripture
points.”697 The implication seems to be that illumination by the Holy Spirit does not
necessarily lead to right interpretation of individual Scriptural texts, but rather to the
right interpretation of its Divine author. Illumination, then, gives personal knowledge
of – i.e., relationship with – God, the author and goal of Scripture. It allows educated
and non-educated believers alike an understanding of what is real in the Bible, i.e., to
know God. In this, McDermott weds a subjective to an objective aspect of revelation.698
He believes that Barth was right in stressing the subjective aspect of revelation to
combat dead orthodoxy. But McDermott, following Edwards, also points to the work
of the Holy Spirit in the authorship and selection of the canonical writings.699
McDermott goes on to say that “[b]ecause both poles of revelation are required,
interpretation is open to distortion—particularly by those who have objective
revelation but not the subjective illumination of the Spirit.”700 However, by saying that
distorted interpretation is “particularly” a danger for those missing subjective
illumination, McDermott seems vulnerable to a triumphalistic attitude, contrary to his
earlier warnings to the necessity of being humble. His thesis is only correct in a very
general (even if crucial) sense: interpretation of who God is, i.e., understanding and
knowing the author and goal of Scripture. Such an understanding does not extend to
the interpretation of individual Scripture texts.
694McDermott, Can Evangelicals?, 65.

695McDermott, Can Evangelicals?, 66.
698 For a similar approach in seeing the objective and subjective aspect of revelation together, see H.
Berkhof, Christelijk geloof. Een inleiding tot de geloofsleer (Nijkerk: Callenbach, 1979), §11 De tweeheid van de
openbaring: Woord en Geest, 59-64.

McDermott makes it clear that he does understand this in the general sense just
outlined, when he opines that “the most important criterion in interpreting revelation
is christological.”701 And although God has revealed himself fully in Christ, this does
not imply that our grasp of God’s revelation is complete. McDermott avers that our
understanding now “may be far less than what it will be someday […] [for] the scope
of the Spirit’s work in illuminating that revelation is as wide as the cosmos itself.”702
Such an understanding of the unfolding of revelation obviously raises questions
about what a trustworthy interpretation is, and how individuals and the Church as a
whole can discern what is a correct unpacking of God’s full revelation in Christ. In
other words, the question could be formulated as follows: ‘Does the Holy Spirit
illuminate individuals or ecclesial communities?’703 It is to this issue of the place of the
Bible and Tradition in revelation that we now turn.
5. The place of Bible and tradition in revelation
McDermott is very explicit that the idea that Scripture is ‘sufficient’, must be rejected.704
He states that neither natural revelation, nor written revelation “represents the fullness
of revelation that is necessary for the knowledge that the triune God is not only true
but real.”705
McDermott states that “Scripture is the principal testimony to the triune God’s
true identity but […] tradition and reason are and ought to be integral components of
the process of interpreting Scripture.”706 This is a typical statement for McDermott,
which shows his Evangelical fidelity to the authority of Scripture on the one hand, and
the according of a positive place to tradition, on the other. There are two aspects to this
statement. The first, which is problematic, is the statement that Scripture is the
principal testimony to the identity of the Trinity. It is problematic, because it conflates
the roles of Scripture with that of Christ. The second aspect concerns the necessity of

703 For such a formulation, see Kevin Vanhoozer, “Scripture and Hermeneutics,” in The Oxford
Handbook of Evangelical Theology, ed. Gerald R. McDermott (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 42.
Vanhoozer puts the question as follows: “Is ‘the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures’ functionally
equivalent to ‘the Holy Spirit speaking to the church as she reads the Scriptures’?”
704 McDermott writes that “[i]f Edwards is right (and I think he is), we must reject not only the
sufficiency of natural revelation but also the sufficiency of written revelation.” McDermott, Can
Evangelicals?, 69. However, this may be a careless formulation. Traditionally, Reformed doctrine (and
Protestant doctrine in general) has always asserted the ‘sufficiency of Scripture’. Alister McGrath writes
that “[t]he ‘sufficiency of scripture’, […] affirms that no doctrines other than those clearly set out in the
Bible are necessary for salvation.” Alister E. McGrath, Christianity’s Dangerous Idea: The Protestant
Revolution: A History from the Sixteenth Century to the Twenty-First (London: SPCK, 2006), 203. No doubt,
McDermott would confirm this understanding of the sufficiency of Scripture.

154 PART II
tradition and reason for the right interpretation of Scripture. This will be the subject of
our current discussion.
For McDermott, there is no nuda scriptura, no ‘naked Scripture’, no unmediated
access to God’s words. As we showed in the previous section, this is no invitation to
peel away the layers of past interpretation to arrive at the pure and untainted meaning
of God’s words, precisely because the ‘sediment of the Church’s interpretation’ is part
of God’s unfolding revelation.
In an illuminating essay on the meaning of Sola Scriptura,707 McDermott draws on
insight from Jonathan Edwards, John Henry Newman, Rudolf Bultmann and Tom
Wright to state his own position regarding religious authority. He summarizes his
position in six propositions, which we will use as the outline for our discussion of
McDermott’s views.708
1. The authority of the Bible is really the authority of the Triune God.
Scripture’s authority is not absolute, but derivative. Scripture itself makes it clear that
all authority is delegated by the Father to the Son.709 According to leading Evangelical
scholar, Kevin Vanhoozer, Evangelicals do not, strictly speaking, “believe ‘in’ the Bible
but in the God who authored and speaks authoritatively through it.”710 Vanhoozer
remarks that what in the future will be characteristic of Evangelicalism is how it
unpacks the meaning of sola scriptura. The question before Evangelicals is, still
according to Vanhoozer, whether sola scriptura (the ‘Scripture principle’) really means
‘alone’, or whether it refers to prima scriptura, “in which case there is room for
incorporating reason, experience, and especially tradition, as well.”711 Although this
shows that McDermott’s proposition stands firmly in the Evangelical tradition, it is
telling that both authors find it necessary to make explicit that the Bible’s authority is
derivative.712
2. Sola Scriptura means God speaking and acting through Scripture.

The authority of the Bible is derived from the fact that God works through Scripture.
Scripture is the means God uses to work in and through believers individually and
communally. McDermott quotes Tom Wright, who states that “‘[a]uthority of
707 McDermott, “Is Sola Scriptura really Sola?.”

708 The summary can be found in McDermott, “Is Sola Scriptura really Sola?,” 90-95.
709 Mt 28:18 (NRSV): Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been
given to me.”
710 Vanhoozer, “Scripture and Hermeneutics,” 35.
711 Vanhoozer, “Scripture and Hermeneutics,” 48 n.4. Vanhoozer opts for ‘prima scriptura’, and
makes a distinction between the ‘magisterial role of the Bible’ and the ‘ministerial role’ of reason,
experience and tradition in interpreting the Bible (47).
712 McDermott, “Is Sola Scriptura really Sola?,” 90-91.
scripture’ can make Christian sense only if it is a shorthand for ‘authority of the triune
God, exercised somehow through scripture.’”713
3. Using the Bible for religious authority means extending the biblical drama into new acts.
This proposition is based on an analogy developed by Tom Wright to explain how one
can interpret the Bible faithfully. Wright compares the Bible to a play of Shakespeare
consisting of five acts, of which the last act is missing.714 Although it is tempting to try
and write a definitive version of the missing fifth act, the better course of action is to
ask actors steeped in Shakespeare, and the four extant acts of this play in particular, to
perform the fifth act so that it brings the play to a close. When the actors are trained in
the Shakespearian tradition, and when they have immersed themselves in this
unfinished play, they will be able to “show a proper final development, not merely a
repetition, of what went before.”715 Wright likens the biblical drama to a five-act play,
with Creation, Fall, the people of Israel and Jesus constituting the first four acts. In the
Bible, we also have the first scene of act five: the writing of the New Testament.
Moreover, in the New Testament, we get some hints of the final scene of the last act.
The task of the Church is to perform act five in a way that is faithful to the previous
acts and with an eye on the final scene.
4. Sola Scriptura means that the story of God’s history of redemption guides and corrects
tradition.
This proposition allows for development in our understanding of Scripture, but at the
same time posits a kind of ‘gospel pattern’ or evangelical principle to which these
developments are accountable. McDermott avers that “these principles are derived
from what Edwards called the history of redemption, which history is truly the history
of God’s acts within history.”716
5. Sola Scriptura requires good tradition to read the pattern of God’s work in redemption
properly.
It is not only the scriptural pattern which judges the development of tradition, but the
tradition which helps us to see the pattern in Scripture. Taking his lead from Newman,
713 McDermott, “Is Sola Scriptura really Sola?,” 91. The quote comes from Tom Wright, The Last
Word: Beyond the Bible Wars to a New Understanding of the Authority of Scripture (San Francisco, CA:
HarperSanFrancisco, 2005) 23 (The UK edition of this book is N.T. Wright, Scripture and the Authority of God
(London: SPCK, 2005).) Such an approach comes close to Vanhoozer’s speech-act theory of Scripture. See,
for example, Vanhoozer, “Scripture and Hermeneutics,” 44ff.
714 N.T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God
(London: SPCK, 1992), 140-143.

715 McDermott, “Is Sola Scriptura really Sola?,” 91.

156 PART II
McDermott affirms that “the Bible is not, strictly speaking, self-interpreting.”717 Every
interpretation is traditioned interpretation.
6. Scripture and church tradition are co-inherent.

McDermott claims that it is futile to try and establish the chronological primacy of
these. Without giving tradition final authority, its importance is nonetheless
highlighted when he states that “church and Scripture are ‘joint effects of the working
out of the event of Christ’, and tradition and Scripture are ‘co-inherent aspects of the
ongoing ministry of the Spirit.’”718
B. COVENANT
Covenant is not only an important biblical theme719 but also a central concept in
Reformed dogmatic theology. McDermott incorporates and extends the covenantal
theology720 developed by Jonathan Edwards for his own theology of religions.
McDermott applies to the religions what he learns from Edwards’s view on the relation
between Israel and the Church. Although McDermott acknowledges that the relation of
Judaism to Christianity is sui generis,721 “nevertheless, Edwards’s reflections on the
covenants contain some pointers that can help us with our consideration of truth in the
religions.”722
Central to Edwards’s view on covenant is that the covenant of works and the
covenant of grace are considered as two dispensations of the same master plan of
redemption:
The covenant of works was the cortex or shell, which
“envelops” the medulla of the “gospel” or covenant of grace.
The first is comparable to the letter of the law, whose true

718 McDermott, “Is Sola Scriptura really Sola?,” 94. McDermott quotes John Francke, “Scripture,
Tradition and Authority: Reconstructing the Evangelical Conception of Sola Scriptura,” in Evangelicals and
Scripture: Tradition, Authority and Hermeneutics, ed. Bacote, Vincent, Laura C. Miguélez, and Dennis L.
Okholm (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004) 205, 210.
719 Walter Eichrodt used covenant as the organising principle of his theology of the Old Testament.
Walter Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, 2 vols. (London: SCM, 1967).
720 “Covenant theology is the system of theology that centers on God as a covenant-making God
and sees in the history of creation two great covenants: the covenant of works and the covenant of grace.
Covenant theology asserts that prior to the Fall God made a covenant of works with Adam as the
representative of all humankind. In response to Adam’s disobedience God established a new covenant
through the second Adam, Jesus Christ. Those who place their faith in Christ come under the benefits of
this new covenant of grace.” Stanley J. Grenz, David Guretzki, and Cherith Fee Nordling, Pocket Dictionary
of Theological Terms (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 32.
721 For an application of this insight to contemporary Jewish-Christian relations and the question of
mission to the Jews in particular, see Gerald R. McDermott, “Covenant, Mission, and Relating to the
Other,” in Covenant and Hope. Christian and Jewish Reflections, ed. Robert W. Jenson and Eugene B. Korn
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012).
meaning is communicated obscurely and indirectly, while the

second may be likened to the spirit of the law, delivered more
simply and directly.723
The obedience required under the covenant of works is aimed at teaching the
Jews that they are not capable of keeping it and that they therefore need grace. One
could say that the covenant of works is a pedagogical tool devised by God in order to
establish the covenant of grace. Because Israel (and the other nations) were “spiritually
immature,” the covenant of grace could not yet be revealed in its fullness.724 With the
covenant of works (for example, as in the Ten Commandments) the gospel was
preached to Israel, but obscurely, as if under a veil. The preamble to the Ten
Commandments, for instance, states that God is already the God of Israel, and that he
has liberated them out of Egypt, even before the question of obedience is raised.725 This
is grace preceding obedience. The lesson that McDermott learns and applies to
theology of religions is that “[i]t is within God’s providential designs to reveal His
truth sometimes obscurely, partially and indirectly.”726
A second element that McDermott learns from Edwards is that “[t]he Holy Spirit
is at work revealing God even when the name of Christ is not known.”727 From the
perspective of the New Testament, the theophanies in the Old Testament are,
according to Edwards, in fact encounters with Christ.728 McDermott extends this
conviction to state that some elements in other religions may equally be seen as
prefigurations of Christ.729
There is also a third element that McDermott borrows from Edwards’s covenant
theology. According to Edwards, what was expected of the Old Testament saints
differed from those of the New Testament, based on the fuller revelation received by
the latter. For example, Christians will be held accountable for some behaviour which
was permissible for Old Testament saints. The historical context plays a role in what is
expected of believers. What is decisive in this historical context is the degree of
revelation to which one is exposed. According to McDermott, “we should not dismiss
other religions as completely lacking revelation merely because they make different
requirement of their adherents. In fact we might expect there to be different
requirements where lesser degrees of revelation have been given.”730

725 Ex 20:1-2 (NRSV):”Then God spoke all these words: I am the Lord your God, who brought you
out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.”

729 McDermott speaks of “Mahayana Buddhism and Hindu bhakti, both of which teach that human
merit is not sufficient to reach God […], something of God’s gracious character is unveiled in these other
religions that know next to nothing of the Jesus of the Gospels.” McDermott, Can Evangelicals?, 103.
158 PART II
For McDermott, it is clear that Edwards believed that “religious obligations are
relative to historical context.”731 People of other religions live according to different
requirements than those of Christianity. But as such this is no proof that these religions
contain no truth. In fact, the lessons learned from covenant theology point to the
contrary.
C. SPIRITUAL BEINGS AND THE ORIGINS OF THE RELIGIONS
In his quest to answer why God has allowed different religions, McDermott looks to
the Bible and the earliest important theologians of the Christian era. He finds a
common thread in these sources, namely, that religions are not simply the result of
human musings on the transcendent, but that they are
spiritual projects as well. The religions are living and breathing
beings […] that have inner souls, derived in part from spiritual
entities called “gods” by the Old Testament and “powers” by
the New Testament. Not every bit of every religion is spiritual
or directly linked to spiritual entities, but at least some parts of
some of the religions are just that. 732
McDermott claims to offer the first book-length study of this issue. He tries to
steer clear of both a fundamentalist extreme which relegates other religions to the
demonic733 and the other extreme of religious relativism.734 Neither approach is
sanctioned by his sources, the Old Testament, New Testament, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus,
Clement of Alexandria and Origen.
His study of the Old Testament texts confronts him with those passages that
speak of other ‘gods’,735 of the ‘divine council’,736 and of the ‘Lord of hosts’.737
According to McDermott, these texts are often overlooked. One reason for this is that
our contemporary cosmology allows no spiritual beings.738 Another reason is that we
reinterpret these references along the lines of a supposed pure monotheism such as we
find in Isaiah,739 for instance.740 There is a certain tension in how the Old Testament
understands ‘the gods’, and quite often those texts assuming the reality of other divine
beings are interpreted from the vantage point of Second Isaiah which claims that the
gods are just empty idols, non-entities with no ontological reality.

733 McDermott reminds his readers that the “history of Christianity is also interlaced with the
demonic” on the one hand, and that “God has left traces of his truth and beauty even in religious whose
origins were problematic.” McDermott, God’s Rivals, 13.
734 McDermott, God’s Rivals, 13-15.
735 References in the Psalms abound, for example, Ps 86:8; 96:4; 135:5.
736 Ps 89:5-8.
737 1 Kg 22:19-23.
739 See Is 44:8.

McDermott follows current scholarship in seeing development in the way Israel

thought about other gods. Painting with broad strokes, he says that a first view,
starting around the twelfth century BC and lasting until the Babylonian exile, posited a
divine council over which Yahweh presides. Subordinate gods praise Yahweh, suggest
strategies to him and administer nations other than Israel.741 According to this view,
other gods are worthy of honour and respect.742 A second phase started in the ninth
century BC, the period after the establishment of a ‘rival’ temple in Samaria, and the
debacle with Solomon’s idol worship. The idea that other deities may be honoured, is
strongly opposed.743 The third phase starts with (or after) the Babylonian exile in the
sixth century BC. The prophets aver that, in relation to the God of Israel, the other
deities are no gods at all.744
Although there are tensions between these visions, they are not simply
contradictory but to some extent complementary. McDermott discerns four distinct
approaches in the Old Testament with regards to other religions building on an
analysis of Robert Goldberg. These are (1) “neighbourly pluralism,” (2) “competitive
pluralism,” (3) “vehement missionary exclusivism,” and (4) “cosmic warfare.”745
“Neighbourly pluralism” is the approach that recognises that all nations have their
own god(s), something which the God of Israel has so ordained. The foreign gods are
created by, and subordinate to, Yahweh. There is no problem as long as Israel is
allowed to worship Yahweh.746 “Competitive pluralism” acknowledges the existence of
other gods, but this approach stresses much more the incomparability of Yahweh and
understands the other gods more in opposition to Yahweh. The gods have deviated
from their original calling as subordinates in the divine council. There is no place for
respect for or worship of other gods. Paradigmatic of this approach is Elijah’s clash
741 See, for example, Ps 29: 1-2 (NRSV): “1Ascribe to the LORD, O heavenly beings, ascribe to the
LORD glory and strength. 2Ascribe to the LORD the glory of his name; worship the LORD in holy splendor.”
See also the way the relation of Satan to God is depicted in the book of Job.
743 McDermott, God’s Rivals, 59. Dt 13:6-11 invokes Israelites to report and kill fellow citizens who
worship other gods: 6If anyone secretly entices you […] saying, “Let us go worship other gods,” […] 8you
must not yield to or heed any such persons. Show them no pity or compassion and do not shield them.
9But you shall surely kill them; your own hand shall be first against them to execute them, and afterwards
the hand of all the people. 10Stone them to death for trying to turn you away from the LORD your God, who
brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. 11Then all Israel shall hear and be afraid,
and never again do any such wickedness (NRSV).
744 McDermott, God’s Rivals, 59. See, for example, Jr 2:11: Has a nation changed its gods, even though
they are no gods? But my people have changed their glory for something that does not profit (NRSV, my
italics). The climax of this approach can be read in the wonderfully sarcastic denunciation of idol worship
in Is 44:9-17.
745 McDermott takes the first three of these from Robert Goldberg, The Nations that Know Thee Not:
Ancient Jewish Attitudes Toward Other Religions (New York, NY: New York University Press, 1998), 10. The
fourth approach seems to be his own addition. For discussion of these approaches, see McDermott, “God
and the Religions,” 491-492; McDermott, God’s Rivals, 61-65.
746 Mi 4:5 is characteristic of this approach: 5For all the peoples walk, each in the name of its god, but
we will walk in the name of the Lord our God forever and ever (NRSV). McDermott, God’s Rivals, 61.
160 PART II
with the priest of Baal on Mount Carmel.747 “Vehement missionary exclusivism” is

forthright in its denial of the ontological reality of other gods.748 This approach is
strictly monotheistic. Yahweh is the one and only God. So-called other gods exist only
in the imagination and belief of pagans.749 It is missionary because it envisions the
other nations discovering Yahweh as the true God. However, McDermott avers that
this approach, in its pure form, is not present in the Old Testament because there
always seems to be the idea that other gods are misleading and/or evil. That is
probably why McDermott adds another approach to the three that Goldenberg
proffered. He calls this fourth approach the “cosmic war view.”750 This approach does
not deny the reality of other gods, even if it may not call them ‘gods’ in its polemic
against them. This Old Testament approach believed that “the cosmos is full of
supernatural powers and […] the cosmic forces that these deities represented were
defeated by Yahweh, but at the same time the Bible suggests the war is ongoing.”751
This view is present, for example, in those texts that describe Yahweh’s relation to
Leviathan, a supernatural sea monster. On the one hand, in the context of a reference to
the Exodus out of Egypt, Ps 74:14 makes it clear that Yahweh defeated Leviathan;752 but
Is 27:1,753 on the other hand, mentions an ongoing battle with Leviathan.754 This Old
Testament approach shares some of the supernatural beings with the surrounding
cultures, but it differs in its interpretation of them:
If the biblical and early church thinkers were right, “the gods”
are the remnants of primeval angelic powers, once created by
Yahweh, but who later turned in rebellion against the Creator.
Therefore, they may be acknowledged as real and formidable
creations of God, while at the same time only Yahweh is to be
worshipped as the true God. […] It does suggest that we
747 1 Kg 18:20-40. McDermott, God’s Rivals, 62.

750 McDermott, “God and the Religions,” 491-492; McDermott, God’s Rivals, 62-63.
752 Ps 74:14 (NRSV): You crushed the heads of Leviathan; you gave him as food for the creatures of
the wilderness.
753 Is 27:1 (NRSV): On that day the Lord with his cruel and great and strong sword will punish
Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting serpent, and he will kill the dragon that is in the sea.
754 In its comment on Ps 74:14, the Bible Background Commentary mentions that “Leviathan has often
been identified as a crocodile, which were found mostly in Egypt (where it symbolized kingly power and
greatness) […]. Alternatively, Leviathan has been depicted as a sea monster (see Is 27:1). Support for this is
found in Ugaritic texts, which contain detailed descriptions of a chaos beast, representing the seas or
watery anarchy, in the form of a many-headed, twisting sea serpent who is defeated by Baal. […] Several
other passages in the Old Testament mention Leviathan, but most of them speak in terms of God’s creative
act that establishes control over watery chaos (personified by the sea serpent). In Isaiah 27:1, however, that
struggle between order and chaos occurs at the end of time. […] Biblically, Leviathan would therefore
most easily fit into the category of “supernatural” creature (like cherubim) as opposed to natural or purely
mythological.” John H. Walton, Victor H. Matthews, and Mark. W. Chavalas, The IVP Bible Background
Commentary: Old Testament (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2000; reprint, electronic edition, 2000).
should be attentive to the presence of the spiritual dimension

when confronting other religions.755
McDermott discerns a similar pattern in the New Testament, where he focuses on

the writings of Paul. Paul uses a number of concepts to speak of cosmic powers,756 often
summarized in the literature as the “principalities and powers.” These concepts refer to
angelic and/or cosmic powers that were created by God,757 but rebelled against him,
and were decisively defeated by Christ on the cross,758 but who still exert their
influence on earthly reality. Following New Testament scholar George Bradford Caird,
McDermott affirms that “[t]he idea of sinister world powers and their subjugation by
Christ is built into the very fabric of Paul’s thought, and some mention of them is
found in every epistle except Philemon.”759 A dialectical understanding of these powers
follows from their being created good, but having rebelled later. Even in their
rebellion, they are used by God to serve his plans. In this, they take on a function
analogous to the role of the state in Paul’s worldview: willed and authorised by God,
used for the enforcing of the law and yet capable of becoming perversions of their
initial calling and thereby becoming dangerous for, and detrimental to, humanity.760
It seems that the apostle Paul linked these powers to the idols that pagans
worship. There are, however, also a couple of indications of a more positive evaluation
of religions in Paul, even if the overall evaluation is very negative. In his Areopagus
address,761 he recognizes in Athens that some knowledge of God is correct and he is
able to quote two of their philosophers approvingly.762 In conclusion, McDermott
evaluates the Pauline contribution as follows:
[W]hile the powers and principalities seek to undermine God’s
redemptive plans, God co-opts their seditious designs by using
their work to support his own purposes.[…] Thus the origins of
at least some religions are supernatural; they teach some
limited truths; and God uses them in his work of redemption. 763

756 Eph 6:12 (NRSV): For our struggle is not against enemies of blood and flesh, but against the
rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual
forces of evil in the heavenly places.
757 Col 1:15-16 (NRSV): 15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16for in
him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or
dominions or rulers or powers—all things have been created through him and for him.
758 Col 2:15 (NRSV): He disarmed the rulers and authorities and made a public example of them,
triumphing over them in it.

759 George Bradford Caird, Principalities and Powers: A Study in Pauline Theology (Oxford: Clarendon,
1956), vii, cited in McDermott, God’s Rivals, 69.

761 Paul’s speech in Athens as reported in Acts 17.
762 Acts 17:28 (NRSV): For ‘In him we live and move and have our being’; as even some of your own
poets have said, ‘For we too are his offspring’. This quotes Epimenides (6th century BC) and Aratus (4th
century BC). McDermott, God’s Rivals, 82.
162 PART II
A similar evaluation of other religions results from McDermott’s discussion of

Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria and Origen, although more positive
elements begin to transpire. Justin detected inspiration by Christ in Greek
philosophy;764 Irenaeus believed that God, through his Word, was operative in the
religions;765 Clement of Alexandria considered some religions to be covenants intended
to lead gentiles to Christ;766 Origen, although more pessimistic about the religions and
philosophies of his era, considered them as praeparatio evangelica.767
D. PRISCA THEOLOGIA
Prisca theologia, or ancient theology, is that theological conviction that there is genuine
special revelation of God available in all cultures. This revelation was originally given
to Adam, and/or Noah and his sons, and then handed down to their descendants so as
to reach all nations and cultures that developed from this beginning. A second source
of this special revelation is what the Babylonian and Persian cultures on the one hand,
and the Greco-Roman philosophers from before the Christian era, on the other hand,
had ‘borrowed’ from the Jews.768
McDermott points to the development of this conviction, starting with Philo, and
picked up and developed by Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria, to name only a
few. The idea was employed in the sixteenth and seventeenth century, amongst others
by the ‘Jesuit Figurists’.769 Jonathan Edwards, on whom McDermott is dependent for
his theology of religions, made much of the prisca theologia. For Edwards, prisca
theologia took a central place in his intellectual battle with deism. One of deism’s
fiercest attacks on Christianity, and Reformed theology in particular, was the charge
that it would make God a moral monster if he judged people on the basis of their
acceptance of Jesus Christ, even if they had never heard of him. As we have already
mentioned, according to the general convictions of that era, five-sixths of the world
was depraved of such revelation. Edwards was keen on proving that, in fact, special
(saving) revelation was much more widely available. In order to show this, Edwards
had recourse to the idea of prisca theologia. McDermott shows how Edwards filled his
private notebooks with large extracts from the works of those seventeenth-century
764 McDermott, God’s Rivals, 85-98, 158.

768 McDermott discusses prisca theologia in several places: McClymond and McDermott, The Theology
of Jonathan Edwards, 580-585; McDermott, “Jonathan Edwards and the Salvation of Non-Christians,” 208-
214; McDermott, Jonathan Edwards Confronts the Gods, chapter 5; McDermott, God’s Rivals, 90-93, 120;
Gerald R. McDermott, “Edwards and the World Religions,” in Understanding Jonathan Edwards. An
Introduction to America’s Theologian, ed. Gerald R. McDermott (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 175-
181.
769 Following Matteo Ricci, missionary to China in the late sixteenth, early seventeenth century, the
Figurists found in ancient Chinese religion evidence of true knowledge about God, which convinced them
of a connection with the knowledge of God revealed in the Old Testament.
theologians who were proponents of prisca theologia.770 According to Edwards, this

showed that “five-sixths of the world had not been deprived of the basic truths of the
gospel.”771 In this conviction, Edwards differed from mainstream Calvinism, which
held (and holds) that outside of Christianity, there is, at best, only knowledge of the
Creator, not of the Redeeming God.772 For Edwards, “knowledge of God the Redeemer
had been available to all peoples from the beginning.”773 Among the knowledge
available through the prisca theologia is monotheism, the Trinity, creatio ex nihilo.774
Other knowledge found in a Confucian work concerns the coming of a suffering
messiah and the annunciation of a saint, coming from the west, who would exonerate
from sin and suffering.775
It is not that Edwards was simply positive about the value of the prisca theologia.
First of all, this knowledge had been deteriorating as it was passed on. “Human
finitude and corruption inevitably cause the revelation to be distorted, resulting in
superstition and idolatry.”776 But, on the other hand, thanks to renewed contact with
the Jews, this process of distortion was slowed down.777 Nevertheless, “the vast
majority of the heathen failed to take advantage of this knowledge, and so this
knowledge was used for their condemnation rather than salvation.”778
McDermott discusses the prisca theologia as a way in which the Christian tradition
has wrestled with the problem of universal access to saving revelation. It is clear that
McDermott intends to show that some of the great theologians (Justin Martyr, Clement
of Alexandria, Jonathan Edwards) have wrestled with this issue of the access to
revelation of the heathen. However, given that he acknowledges the mistaken
historical basis for much of the prisca theologia,779 it is unclear why he neither rejects it,
nor tries to re-appropriate it as an avenue in theology of religions. Perhaps, he does see
a link between the prisca theologia and his own category of ‘revealed types’, an issue to
which we now turn.
770 Four sources were important for Edwards: Chevalier Ramsay (1686-1743), Philip Skelton (1707-
1787), Theophilus Gale (1628-1678) and Ralph Cudworth (1617-1688). See McDermott, “Edwards and the
World Religions,” 178-179.
771 McClymond and McDermott, The Theology of Jonathan Edwards, 583.
774 McDermott, “Jonathan Edwards and the Salvation of Non-Christians,” 211.
776 McDermott, “Edwards and the World Religions,” 180.
777 Such periods of contact occurred with Moses at the time of the Exodus, through the reign of
David and through the Diaspora following the Babylonian exile. Edwards also believed that Plato had
gone to Egypt to learn from Jewish religion. McClymond and McDermott, The Theology of Jonathan
Edwards, 584-585.
778 McDermott, “Jonathan Edwards and the Salvation of Non-Christians,” 212.
779 See below (p.181), for more discussion of this issue .

164 PART II
E. REVEALED TYPES
McDermott not only employs (and extends) Edwards’s view on covenants and on
prisca theologia for his own theology of religions, he also borrows Edwards’s typological
reading of reality.780
A typological reading of the Old Testament is characteristic of the earliest
Christian interpretation of God’s dealing with Israel. This hermeneutical strategy has a
very long and strong pedigree in the first sixteen centuries of Christianity. 781 Christian
typology typically sees “in the Old Testament adumbrations (‘types’) of New
Testament fulfilments (‘antitypes’).”782
The novelty of Edwards’s approach consisted in extending this method from the
Old Testament to nature and history. This is relevant for theology of religions, since
Edwards believed that non-Christian religions also contained such types. So even
when the other religions were ultimately misleading, according to Edwards, they
nevertheless were vehicles for God’s communication with all of humanity. There are
types of the true religion (Christianity), that are available to the heathen, both in nature
and in the events of history. This includes the religious history of non-Christian
cultures and traditions. This conviction of Edwards helped him counter the deist’s
attack on Reformed doctrine concerning the necessity of special revelation for
salvation. According to the deists, Christianity’s universal claims were belied by the
scandal of particularity. “The deists had thrown down the gauntlet. Jonathan Edwards
eagerly picked it up and threw it back in the form of his typological system—that is,
God’s system of pointers throughout things he makes and permits.”783
God communicates with humanity through types for several reasons, the most
important being the necessity of accommodating immaterial reality to human
understanding by using material symbols.784 For example, nature, claimed Edwards,
780 Jonathan Edwards’s view on typology is outlined in Tibor Fabiny, “Edwards and Biblical
Typology,” in Understanding Jonathan Edwards. An Introduction to America’s Theologian, ed. Gerald R.
McDermott (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009); McClymond and McDermott, The Theology of Jonathan
Edwards, 586-589; McDermott, Jonathan Edwards Confronts the Gods, chapter 6; McDermott, “Jonathan
Edwards, John Henry Newman and Non-Christian Religions,” 128-129; Gerald R. McDermott,
“Alternative Viewpoint: Edwards and Biblical Typology,” in Understanding Jonathan Edwards. An
Introduction to America’s Theologian, ed. Gerald R. McDermott (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009);
McDermott, “Edwards and the World Religions,” 181-184. For the appropriation of Edwards’s typology in
McDermott’s theology of religions, see McDermott, Can Evangelicals?, chapter 4; McDermott, “What if Paul
Had Been from China?.”; Gerald R. McDermott, “Conclusion: Edwards’s Relevance Today,” in
Understanding Jonathan Edwards. An Introduction to America’s Theologian, ed. Gerald R. McDermott (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2009), 215-216.
781 For an analysis of the demise of typological readings of the Bible, see Hans W. Frei, The Eclipse of
Biblical Narrative. A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics (New Haven,: Yale University
Press, 1974).

was replete with types of divine truth: “There are sermons in stones, flowers, and
stars.”785
But Edwards was innovative when it came to acknowledging the presence of
types of Christ and Christianity in non-Christian religions. Even though he considered
these religions to be false and deceptive, “God outwitted the devil […] by using
diabolically deceptive religion to teach what is true.”786 The sacrificial system in many
religions is such a type. The need for sacrifice is not part of general revelation, but
instituted by God after the Fall. The sacrificial system points forward to Christ’s
sacrifice. Even the practice of human sacrifice, a clear diabolical system, could be used
by God. The devil, according to Edwards,
believed that he had promoted his own interests, outsmarting
God; but God outflanked the devil. He permitted this
diabolical deception because through it the devil prepared the
Gentile world for receiving … this human sacrifice, Jesus
Christ.787
Similarly, the worship of images by idolaters prepared “the Gentile mind for the
concept of the incarnation.”788
This is similar to the relation beween the Old and New Testament, even if that
relation is sui generis. The New Testament understands some events of the Old
Testament as pointers to Christ.789 In an expansion of Edwards’s view, McDermott
claims “that among the religions are scattered promises of God in Christ and that these
promises are revealed types planted there by the triune God.”790
These kinds of types are not part of general revelation, because they are not
universally available. Neither are special revelation, since, in themselves, they do not
teach the way to salvation. These types give partial access to divine realities. For
Edwards, avers McDermott, the typological link between the religions and
Christianity, means that it is not possible to see them as strictly discontinuous. There is
a sort of continuity – even if not uninterrupted – between the religions containing the
types, and Christianity holding the antitype.791 That is why McDermott coined the term
785 McDermott, “Edwards and the World Religions,” 182. Scripture itself validated such an
understanding, according to Edwards. The evangelists speak of Jesus as ‘light’, ‘bread’, ‘vine’, ‘water’, …
The implication, for Edwards, is “that all lights and breads and vines are pointers to, or types of, their
antitypes in Jesus.” McDermott, Can Evangelicals?, 104-105.
786 McDermott, “Edwards and the World Religions,” 182. McDermott, Can Evangelicals?, 106.
789 Such as the Exodus, or God providing Abraham with a ram to sacrifice instead of his son (Gn
22).
791 McDermott sees a similarity in Edwards’s typological view of the religions, with C.S. Lewis’s
pointers to Christianity in the mythologies of many cultures. McDermott, “What if Paul Had Been from
China?,” 27-28.
166 PART II
‘revealed types’. The revealed types are “instances of Jesus Christ speaking and
imaging the Triune God.”792
Such an understanding challenges Christians to be open towards other religions,
for they can contain pointers to Christ, which may even shed new light on our
understanding of God. And although this new light, according to McDermott, will
never contradict God’s final revelation in Christ, it may help the church grow in
understanding and in living the revelation given by God.793
McDermott warns that a Christian search for types in other religions always
remains a process of hetero-interpretation. Adherents of the other religions will most
probably not recognize, let alone condone such a typological interpretation. This is,
however, inevitable. That Jews will not agree with Christians that the liberation out of
Egypt is a type of redemption through Christ, does not prevent Christians from using
this typology. McDermott warns that “revelation can therefore remain within a religion
as a partly or even totally concealed revelation. It might not be apparent to insiders in
the religion, or even to outsiders, without the work of the Holy Spirit.”794
F. DISPOSITIONAL SOTERIOLOGY
McDermott discusses a final model from Edwards which could open up classical
Reformed theology to truth, revelation and salvation in non-Christian religions.
Edwards’s dispositional soteriology is perhaps the most novel for Reformed theology
and one that could bear fruit both in ecumenical relations and in theology of religions.
As far as we can see, McDermott has not (yet?) appropriated this Edwardsian
dispositional soteriology for his own theology of religions, although there are some
hints that he would not object to such an appropriation.795 It is clear, however, that
McDermott gives ample attention to this aspect of Edwards’ soteriology and that it
figures prominently in his reconstruction of Edwards’ theology of religions.796

794 McDermott, Can Evangelicals?, 118. Both in Can Evangelicals and God’s Rivals, McDermott looks at
other religions in order to discern such revealed types and other divine truths present.
795 McClymond and McDermott, The Theology of Jonathan Edwards, 593. Also: “God gave religious
truth to non-Christians, and even to wicked non-Christians. On the general question of the salvation of
pagans, he raised the possibility that some of the heathen could be saved […]. So while he built the
theological foundations upon which a more hopeful doctrine of salvation might have been erected,
Edwards himself never chose to do so.” McClymond and McDermott, The Theology of Jonathan Edwards,
598. Is his use of Christ’s descent (God’s Rivals, 111, 168) an application of dispositional soteriology?
796 Edwards’s dispositional soteriology is discussed in McClymond and McDermott, The Theology of
Jonathan Edwards, 589-598; McDermott, “American Indians.”; McDermott, “Jonathan Edwards and the
Salvation of Non-Christians.”; McDermott, Jonathan Edwards Confronts the Gods, chapter 7; McDermott,
“Jonathan Edwards, John Henry Newman and Non-Christian Religions.”; Gerald R. McDermott,
“Jonathan Edwards on Justification: Closer to Luther or Aquinas?,” Reformation & Revival Journal 14, no. 1
(2005); Gerald R. McDermott, “Jonathan Edwards on Justification by Faith -- More Protestant or
Catholic?,” Pro Ecclesia 17, no. 1 (2008); McDermott, “Edwards and the World Religions,” 185-191.
If Edwards differed from Calvin on the extent of revelation, 797

he also viewed salvation differently—in a way that contains
intriguing implications for the salvation of non-Christians. This
new approach to soteriology emerged not from a history of
religion but from his philosophical reflections on being. To be
more precise, Edwards applied his own dispositional ontology
to soteriology. This move helped him determine what
distinguishes saved heathen from unsaved ones. 798
Edwards’s dispositional ontology, based on ideas of Aristotle and Aquinas,

stated that the essence of being human is “to have a certain ‘disposition’ that can be
seen in one or more ‘habits’.”799 “A habit,” according to Edwards, “is an active and real
tendency that moves a person to be and do what he or she is and does.”800 A real
tendency is more than simply a custom or regularity.801 Even when the tendency is not
used, it is still real. Its ontological reality is manifested whenever the opportunity
occurs to exercise the tendency: “its exercise is necessary and inevitable when the
opportunity for exercise presents itself.”802
Edwards spoke of a “holy disposition,” i.e., a tendency of the regenerate, when
referring to what is essential in the regenerate. This essential disposition, when
exercised, “would certainly produce holy effects.”803 It consists of “a sense of the
dangerousness of sin, and of the dreadfulness of God’s anger… [such a conviction of]
their wickedness, that they trusted to nothing but the mere mercy of God, and then
bitterly lamented and mourned for their sins.”804
Having this disposition is, according to Edwards, the only thing that is necessary
for salvation.805 This is particularly noteworthy, because not “even the act of receiving
Christ, is necessary. “The disposition is all that can be said to be absolutely necessary.
The act [of receiving Christ] cannot be proved to be absolutely necessary… ‘Tis the
disposition or806 principle is the thing God looks at.’”807 Edwards goes on to give the
797 Whereas Calvin acknowledged a sensus divinitatis in all humans, he limited this to knowledge of
God as Creator; it did not amount to salvific knowledge of God. Edwards believed that the heathen also
possessed knowledge of God the Redeemer through the prisca theologia and contact with the Jews.
McDermott, Jonathan Edwards Confronts the Gods, 132-133.
800 McDermott, “Edwards and the World Religions,” 185. See also McClymond and McDermott, The
Theology of Jonathan Edwards, 589.

804 From Edwards’s notebook, Miscellanies 39, quoted in McDermott, Jonathan Edwards Confronts the
Gods, 133.
806 The online versions of the Works of Jonathan Edwards renders “disposition and principle” rather
than “disposition or principle.” Jonathan Edwards, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Vol 13: The Miscellanies,
a-500. Edited by Thomas A. Schaffer (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994; reprint, The Works of Jonathan
Edwards Online (edwards.yale.edu)), 214.
807 Miscellanies 27b, quoted in McDermott, Jonathan Edwards Confronts the Gods, 134.
168 PART II
example of someone who dies unexpectedly, who does not actually exercise his faith,
but possesses the disposition of faith. According to Edwards, “‘tis his disposition that
saves him.”808 He then continues his explanation by giving the illuminating example of
the Jews of the Old Testament. They also, without explicitly knowing Christ, were
saved, “though without doubt they had the disposition, which alone is absolutely
necessary now, and at all times and in all circumstances is equally necessary.”809 These
examples are written in Edwards’s notebook in the context of a discussion of
conversion, where the salvation of the heathen is not in view. Nevertheless, it shows a
crucial aspect in Edwards’s understanding of soteriology. “[F]aith is subsumed by the
category of disposition. As becomes clear elsewhere in Edwards’s writings, disposition
functions as the ontological ground of forensic imputation.”810
Explicit faith in Christ, then, is not a formal requirement for salvation. As a
matter of fact, Edwards recognises four categories of people who do not know Christ
explicitly, yet who may – in principle – be saved. The first category is infants, who may
be regenerate without knowing Christ, yet with the disposition to believe in Christ. The
second group are the saints of the Old Testament. New Testament saints form the third
group. Edwards mentions here Cornelius before he met Peter,811 but also the apostles
before they met Christ, for they were already in a disposition to follow Christ. When
they are offered the opportunity, they exercise it.812 According to McDermott,
“Edwards infers from this that ‘conversion may still be by divine constitution
necessary to salvation in some respect even after [a person] is really a saint.’”813 The
fourth category of people who may be saved without explicit knowledge of Christ is
called, by McDermott, the “holy pagans.”814 In this category are the non-Israelite saints
of the Old Testament. But as Edwards became more familiar with the Indians in his last
years, he wrote of an Indian tribe who excelled “in religion and virtue” and who were
“far the best disposed Indians […] who would be inclined to their utmost to assist,
encourage, and to strengthen the hands of missionaries and instructors, should any be
sent among them.”815
Late in his life, Edwards cryptically wrote in his notebook that the revelation
given to pagans could be to the benefit of their own souls.816 McDermott concludes
that,
808 Edwards, WJE 13, 214.

809 Edwards, WJE 13, 214.
811 Acts 10.
812 McDermott, “Edwards and the World Religions,” 187-188. McClymond and McDermott, The
Theology of Jonathan Edwards, 595. McDermott, Jonathan Edwards Confronts the Gods, 137.
814 McDermott, Jonathan Edwards Confronts the Gods, 138. Also McDermott, “Holy Pagans.”
815 McDermott, “Holy Pagans,” 138.

Edwards is hesitant and tentative, but he nevertheless clearly

opens the possibility that these heathen can use revelation for
their own spiritual benefit—a notion that is incoherent unless it
means they can be saved. When it is recalled that Edwards
wrote this entry during a period in which he was frequently
quoting from writers who explicitly argued for the salvation of
the virtuous heathen, it is difficult to believe that Edwards did
not include salvation among the possible benefits to heathen
souls.817
McDermott notes how Edwards’s view on justification and regeneration

developed, perhaps influenced by his reflections on the heathen and their access to
revelation. Edwards started to understand “justification and regeneration as phased,
and in one respect life-long, processes rather than instantaneous events.”818 McDermott
notes that this shows a surprising similarity to how Roman Catholicism understands
justification, i.e., as “a long and gradual process of transformation that includes
sanctification.”819 In 1727 Edwards still considered regeneration to be instantaneous,
while by 1740 he wrote that “regeneration is ‘in some respect continued through the
whole life’ because it is the gradual restoration of the image of God ‘through the whole
work of the sanctification of the Spirit’.”820 Therefore, perseverance in good works is
necessary because there is a future dimension to justification.821 Justification, for
Edwards, is conceived through union with Christ.822 Therefore, not only the legal status
before God of the sinner has changed through justification; it also changes his nature.823
“Edwards did not follow the Protestant scholastic tendency to collapse all of
soteriology into justification, […] he saw no contradiction or inconsistency between
justification by Christ’s righteousness and justification by good works.”824
Such an understanding of justification and the dispositional soteriology made it
possible for Edwards to consider the salvation of the non-Christians. “If their
knowledge of Christ was incomplete, it may have been because they were still in the
initial stages of regeneration and justification, which may have been completed in
glory—just as in the case of elect infants. Edwards never reached this explicit
conclusion in his published writings or private notebooks. Yet his theology laid the
groundwork for such an interpretation.”825
So we have phased or gradual regeneration, which may precede conversion,
together with the fruits of regeneration, rather than the profession of faith, being
817McDermott, “Jonathan Edwards and the Salvation of Non-Christians,” 222.

818McDermott, Jonathan Edwards Confronts the Gods, 135.
820 McDermott, “Justification by Faith,” 94-95 with reference to Edwards’s Miscellanies 847.
821 McDermott, “Justification by Faith,” 94.
822 McDermott remarks that Luther also did not distinguish justification and sanctification, contrary
to what later classic Protestantism would do. McDermott, “Justification by Faith,” 98.
823 McDermott, “Justification by Faith,” 104.

170 PART II
evidence of regeneration. If this soteriology is applied to the case of the heathen, do we

end up with ‘anonymous Christians?’ McDermott compares Rahner’s idea with
Edwards’s soteriology. Both, claims McDermott, hold to a dispositional soteriology.
Salvation is a function of someone’s disposition. For Rahner, the ‘anonymous
Christian’ is obedient to his own conscience; for Edwards, “saving disposition is
centered in religious consciousness—awareness of sin and one’s need for divine
mercy.”826 There are other differences, the most important being the fact that Rahner’s
transcendental anthropology stresses humanity’s inherent supernatural existential
whereas Edwards points to external revelation that is made available to non-Christians
in the prisca theologia.827
Edwards’s dispositional soteriology, in combination with his covenantal theology
and his views on typology and prisca theologia are germane to a theology of religions,
although his untimely death prevented him from bringing all this together in a more
systematic way.
The relevant question for our research, however, is what McDermott makes of
this for his own theology of religions. He seems to have appropriated Edwards’s views
on covenant, typology and prisca theologia, with the additional insights of the great
theologians of the Church. But it is not clear why he did not discuss, let alone
appropriate, Edwards’s dispositional soteriology in Can Evangelicals? or God’s Rivals. Is
it because this is where Edwards diverges more from classical Protestantism and the
Reformed tradition in particular? There is a hint, in the final page of God’s Rivals, that
McDermott is open to some appropriation of Edwards’s dispositional soteriology.
McDermott writes that it is clear from his study of the Bible and early Fathers that the
religions are not independent roads to salvation, and that if other religionists are saved,
it is through Christ and “their acceptance of the gospel.” “We do not know,” writes
McDermott, “how God does that in many cases. Perhaps, as some of the Fathers
suggested, the creed’s assertion that Christ went to Hades to preach the gospel is the
symbol that in some mysterious way Christ presents the gospel at or after death to
those who have not yet heard.”828 Such an understanding of Christ’s descent to Hades
could be seen as the way through which God deals with the heathen. Edwards wrote of
the rightly disposed heathen that, “if their knowledge of Christ is incomplete, it may be
because they are still in the initial stages of regeneration and justification, which may be
completed in glory, just as it is for infants.”829 McDermott states that Edwards did not
explicitly say so, but that it is nevertheless a faithful conclusion based on his theology.

829 McDermott, Jonathan Edwards Confronts the Gods, 137 (my italics).
Christ’s descent to Hades might then indeed be the occasion to complete their
knowledge of Christ.830
Such a solution is, of course, very similar to that developed by Gavin D’Costa,
two years after the publication of McDermott’s book.831 D’Costa avers that those
heathen who are ontologically, but not epistemologically, related to Christ, will meet
Christ and his gospel post mortem in the limbus patrum.832 Edwards’s regenerated
heathen could also be said to be ontologically related to Christ. In both instances, this
ontological relation is visibly expressed in ‘good works’ or fruits of the Spirit.
830 For a recent historical and theological discussion of this solution, see Biesbrouck,
“Reappropriating Christ’s Descent.”
831 D’Costa, Christianity and World Religions. D’Costa wrote a review of McDermott’s God’s Rivals:
Gavin D’Costa, “Review of God’s Rivals: Why Has God Allowed Different Religions? Insights from the Bible and
the Early Church by Gerald R. McDermott, IVP Academic, 2007,” Reviews in Religion and Theology 15, no. 2
(2008).
832 See our discussion in Chapter III.
172 PART II
A. METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES
Before we embark on singling out some methodological issues, it is good to point out
that one important methodological aspect has been dealt with already in the foregoing
analysis. In § 3 we discussed at some length McDermott’s sources and authorities,
these being the Bible, Jonathan Edwards and the Great Tradition.
1. The Use of the Bible in Theology
a. Biblical data or systematic theology?
In providing evidence that the Bible “contains hints and suggestions that God has
given knowledge of Himself to people and traditions outside the Hebrew and
Christian traditions,”833 McDermott is careful to point out that “the evidence is not
proof.”834 These biblical suggestions of extra-biblical revelation are precisely that – only
suggestions, and nothing more. In a strict sense, the fact that McDermott takes all this
evidence from the Bible, cannot prove his point since the evidence proffered is
‘biblical’, even if its origin can be traced elsewhere. The evidence could actually be
used to argue for the opposite of what McDermott wants to prove – namely, that if the
religions had something worthwhile to communicate, it would have been incorporated
into biblical revelation.
What McDermott does, is more like starting from a general systematic-
theological conviction that there is revelation of God in other religions, and then
working back to find traces of this conclusion in the general story line of the Bible,
rather than in the biblical data as such.
It seems to us that the approach is more deductive than inductive: from
systematic theology, to biblical theology, to biblical studies. This is not per se a
wrongheaded approach. Our systematic theological convictions also grow out of our
faith, our worship, our being traditioned in Christianity, and all of these are informed
by biblical data and more specifically the Bible’s grand narrative as understood from a
christological perspective. McDermott has argued that God’s character is revealed in
the grand storyline of the history of redemption, more so than in discrete propositions
distilled from the Bible.835 However, McDermott’s Reformed Evangelical theological
outlook (and readership) forces him to proffer also biblical underpinnings for his
position, perhaps more than the discrete biblical data can provide?
This brings us back to the issue of the relation of Bible and revelation.

835 See our discussion on ‘Revelation’ on p. 147.
b. Bible and revelation
At the conclusion of his engagement with other religions, McDermott writes that “[i]n
some cases I have identified biblical truths that never have been seen before—either
because understanding given to the church centuries ago have been forgotten or
neglected or because this understanding of biblical revelation has never (as far as I
know) opened up until now.”836 This quote testifies to some tension in McDermott’s
approach. Biblical truths, biblical revelation and tradition are taken together, and this
might create the impression of constricting Christianity to the Bible. Why is he
stressing ‘biblical’ truths so much if he is maintaining that the Spirit gradually unfolds
the truth of revelation to the church over time?837 It would make more sense if he spoke
of ‘Christian’ truths rather than ‘biblical’ truths.
A similar tendency is apparent when he answers the question, “Why study other
religions when we do not know our own?”838 McDermott then goes on to lament that
“most Christians are fairly illiterate biblically.”839 It is his advice that young Christians,
who are not “well grounded in Scripture,” should not study other religions because
they are not familiar with their own. Familiarity with Christianity is equated with
biblical literacy.
Another confusion arises when the Bible is simply equated with the ‘Word of
God’. “Both Calvin and Jonathan Edwards argued that an unregenerate person cannot
receive the Bible as the Word of God by the force of arguments from reason.”840 We
notice here the common Evangelical tendency to equate the Bible with the Word of
God. But should we not reserve the Word of God (with capitals) for the second person
of the Trinity? Perhaps ‘word(s) of God’ could be used of the Bible, in order not to
confuse the Bible and God the Son, or the Bible and Christ.
Earlier, we noted that McDermott stated that “Scripture is the principal
testimony to the triune God’s true identity […].”841 And we expressed our
disappointment with the fact that such a statement seems to eclipse Jesus Christ as the
“principal testimony to the triune God’s true identity”842 This is not an uncommon
tension in Evangelical doctrine of Scripture. See, for example, the following statement
by Harold Netland, another leading Evangelical in theology of religions. “God has
836 McDermott, Can Evangelicals?, 208. As an example of the latter, McDermott then says, “For
example, there is nothing precisely like the Daoist wu-wei in Christian thought.”
841 See our discussion on p. 153.
842 Such an understanding should be common knowledge among Evangelicals, since it is very
biblical. The Letter to the Hebrews (1:1-3) states as much: “1Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many
and various ways by the prophets, 2but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he
appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds. 3He is the reflection of God’s glory
and the exact imprint of God’s very being, and he sustains all things by his powerful word” (NRSV).
174 PART II
graciously taken the initiative in revealing himself to humankind, and although God’s
revelation comes in various forms, the definitive revelation for us is the written
Scriptures.”843 We must say, however, that in unpacking this statement, Netland does
remind his readers that “according to Scripture itself the highest and fullest revelation
from God is Jesus Christ, the incarnate Word of God.”844
Too often, one notes in Evangelicalism a facile equation of revelation with
Scripture. This unfortunate confounding results in a wrongheaded focus. It is a sorry
state, since this confounding is not reflected in the earliest sources of Evangelicalism.
Moreover, this has been pointed out before by leading Evangelical scholars. The
Evangelical movement has within itself the resources to develop a theology of
revelation and a bibliology that is different and healthier. As the situation stands, one
could get the impression that Evangelical bibliology is in danger of usurping the place
of Christology. With the equation of the Bible and the Word of God, it is common to
understand the Bible as necessary for salvation. Perhaps it is not only the place of
Christology that has been taken over by Evangelical bibliology; the same danger may
well exist where pneumatology is concerned. There is a tendency to understand the
Spirit as a function of the Bible, rather than the role of the Bible being made clear in
view of pneumatology.845 It is quite common for handbooks of Evangelical systematic
theology to start with bibliology, before the doctrine of God is broached.846 Suggestions
to discuss bibliology under the heading of pneumatology847 have not been fully
appropriated. Grenz remarks that this tendency to separate bibliology from
pneumatology, and its treatment under revelation, is typical of Reformed theology.
According to Grenz, this mirrors “the structure of the Reformed creeds. These
generally […] include a statement concerning Scripture as a separate article prior to the
confessional statements concerning God.”848
McDermott himself develops some resources to make the necessary distinction
between Scripture and revelation. In speaking of the necessity of the illumination by
the Holy Spirit, he points to the fact that the Bible (written revelation) is not the Word
of God. You need the Holy Spirit to meet the Word of God (Christ) in the written
843 Harold A. Netland, Encountering Religious Pluralism: The Challenge to Christian Faith & Mission
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 316.
844 Netland, Encountering Religious Pluralism, 317.
845 We would point to an analogous pitfall in Roman Catholic ecclesiology. We believe that there is
a danger in Roman Catholic theology for ecclesiology to usurp the place of Christology. In understanding
the Church as the continuation of Christ’s incarnation, the biblical statement that there is ‘no salvation
outside Christ’, is translated as ‘no salvation apart from the Church’. And as Evangelical bibliology tends
to usurp pneumatology, so Roman Catholic ecclesiology is in danger of the same. Rather than
understanding the Church under the heading of pneumatology, the Spirit tends to be a function of the
Church.
846 See, for example, Wayne Grudem’s widely referred Systematics: Wayne Grudem, Systematic
Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Leicester; Grand Rapids, MI: IVP; Zondervan, 1994).
847 Stanley J. Grenz, Revisioning Evangelical Theology. A Fresh Agenda for the 21st Century (Downers
Grove, IL: IVP, 1993), 113-115.

848 Grenz, Revisioning Evangelical Theology, 114.
word(s) of God (Bible). He makes it clear that Christianity is not a religion that
worships a book, but a person; otherwise it would be bibliolatry.849 Moreover, we have
pointed out that McDermott approvingly refers to Wright’s analogy of the authority of
Scripture as a play in five acts. That analogy points to the necessity of the Holy Spirit
and the responsibility of the Church to be familiar with Christ and the grand story line
of Scripture, in order to ‘write’ the missing fifth act. If this approach is followed, the
focus will not be on Scripture as such, but on the message of redemption spelled out in
Scripture, climaxing in Christ’s life, death and resurrection.
There are other Evangelicals who provide resources for a more balanced
understanding of Scripture. Grenz lamented in 1993 that there is an “evangelical
tendency to equate in simple fashion the revelation of God with the Bible—that is, to
make a one-to-one correspondence between the words of the Bible and the very Word
of God.”850 He mentions that this tendency was already criticized in 1981 by William
Abraham.851 Grenz points out that Protestant orthodoxy as well as Puritanism and
Pietism – the major impetuses to Evangelicalism – commonly made the distinction
between “the word of God and the words of God.”852 According to Grenz, Evangelicals
increasingly accept the neo-orthodox view that revelation is mediated “by means of act
plus interpretation.”853 Grenz also refers to biblical scholarship which pointed out that
the term, ‘word of God’, is used, not for the Scriptures, but rather for “messages
actually spoken by God to or through prophets and centering above all on the person
and work of Jesus.”854 He goes on to say that, “according to the New Testament
community, ‘the word of God’ is the Holy Spirit announcing the good news about
Jesus, which word the church speaks to us in the Spirit’s power and by the Spirit’s
authority.”855 Scripture, then, is a “trustworthy record of God’s speaking in the past.”856
As such, the faithfulness of the kerygma of the contemporary Church can be measured
against this ‘canon’.857
More recently, John Poirier has argued that the authority of scripture is not
grounded in its (supposed) inspiration, but in the fact that it “preserves the apostolic
kerygma (viz. the apostles’ testimony to Christ’s death, burial, resurrection,
ascension/exaltation, and sending of the Spirit), so that the authority of Scripture is in

851 William J. Abraham, The Divine Inspiration of Holy Scripture (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1981).
852Grenz, Revisioning Evangelical Theology, 130-131. Grenz is referring to Donald Bloesch, The Future
of Evangelical Christianity (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983), 118.
856 Grenz, Revisioning Evangelical Theology, 130-131.
857 The Greek word κάνον from which ‘canon’ derives, means ‘measuring rod’ or ‘guiding rule’.
See, for example, Wolfgang Beinert, “Canon,” in Handbook of Catholic Theology, ed. Wolfgang Beinert and
Francis Schüssler Fiorenza (New York, NY: Herder & Herder, 1995), 50.
176 PART II
fact authority on loan from kerygma.”858 As we noted above, the focus is not on the
written text, but on Christ who is the focus of the text. For Poirier, “not the Bible, but
rather the apostolic kerygma” is the foundation of the church. “This means,” so Poirier
continues, “that the traditional place that much if not most Christian theology has
attributed to Scripture is really the province of kerygma.”859
Michael Pahl has pointed out that it is very often the “orally proclaimed message
of salvation in Christ [that] is quite frequently described as the ‘word of God’. […] In
fact, such ‘word of God’ language is used almost exclusively in the earliest Christian
writings through the second century for the orally proclaimed gospel, and only rarely
with respect to the written Scriptures.”860 Such an understanding of the authority of the
kerygma, obviously leads to a positive re-evaluation of the authority of those who gave
testimony to the central aspects of the kerygma, i.e., to Jesus’s life, death and
resurrection. The role of the apostles, and the role of tradition obviously come into
play. Pahl summarizes his investigation succinctly. “It was this Scripture-testified,
apostle-witnessed, gospel-centered tradition—an ‘Apostolic-Kerygmatic Tradition’—
which functioned as the primary authority for the earliest Christians in shaping their
faith and practice.”861
McDermott seems to struggle between an older Evangelical view of Scripture,
and more recent developments. We believe that his theology of religions would be the
richer if these later developments had been followed through more consistently. By
trying to stick to the necessity to prove his position from the discrete biblical data, his
case is weakened. We doubt that his efforts in this direction will be able to convince
conservative Evangelicals. But the more ecumenical Evangelicals will not find a good
model in this aspect of his methodology, even if they will benefit from his results.
2. Religion or Culture?
At the outset of God’s Rivals, McDermott clarifies what he understands under the term
‘religion’. He points out that the modern understanding of religion, as a separate
domain of human culture and existence, differs considerably from how it was
understood in the ancient world. Of the biblical authors, avers McDermott, “none
thought of ‘religion’ in the modern sense—as a belief system that is separated from the
rest of life, or of a rival belief system that can be considered apart from active loyalty to
858 John C. Poirier, “Scripture and Canon,” in The Sacred Text. Excavating the Texts, Exploring the
Interpretations, and Engaging the Theologies of the Christian Scriptures, ed. Michael Bird and Michael Pahl,
Gorgias Précis Portfolios (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2010), 89.
859 Poirier, “Scripture and Canon,” 95-96.
860 Michael W. Pahl, “Scripture and Tradition: Seeking a Middle Path,” in The Sacred Text. Excavating
the Texts, Exploring the Interpretations, and Engaging the Theologies of the Christian Scriptures, ed. Michael Bird
and Michael Pahl, Gorgias Précis Portfolios (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2010), 75-76.
861 Pahl, “Scripture and Tradition,” 79. It is remarkable, but not uncharacteristic of the recent trends
in Evangelicalism, to explicitly state, as Pahl does, that the Roman Catholic notion of ‘Sacred Tradition’ fits
reasonably well with his model.
or rebellion against the true God.”862 Religion and culture overlap considerably
according to this view, and cannot be neatly distinguished, let alone separated from
each other.
It is evident that non-Christian cultures have had considerable influence on
Christianity. What is more, this is not simply something which Christianity is
undergoing; it can and should be an active strategy of Christianity to assimilate the
best of the cultures. We can (and should) ‘plunder the Egyptians’, says McDermott, as
did Augustine with Neo-Platonism, Aquinas with Aristotle, and Calvin with
Renaissance humanism. These are then considered examples of learning from other
traditions. In this, he is correct. But speaking of ‘traditions’, rather than ‘religions’, and
then drawing the conclusion that we also, can learn from the religions, is a bit
confusing. With respect to the contemporary application, he seems to use ‘religion’
according to its modern usage. It is not so much that McDermott makes the point that
we can learn from those cultures or philosophies, but more specifically from their
religious constellations. But did Augustine, Aquinas or Calvin really learn a lot from
Greek polytheism or mythology? It would be difficult to find examples where
Christianity has assimilated cultic, liturgical or worship patterns from other ‘traditions’
or ‘religions’. Joseph Ratzinger, for example, who has argued that the meeting of
Judeo-Christian faith and Hellenism was providential, is careful to distinguish between
the God of the philosophers, and the gods of the religions. “Christianity boldly and
resolutely made its choice and carried out its purification by deciding for the God of the
philosophers and against the gods of the various religions. […] The early Church
resolutely put aside the whole cosmos of the ancient religions, regarding the whole of
it as deceit and illusion […].”863 Gavin D’Costa also claims that the philosophy adopted
by, for example, the Church Fathers, “had no intrinsic cultus” and they therefore had
not time for “cultic practices, analogous to modern world religions.”864 It seems that
McDermott’s (correct) comprehensive understanding of ‘religion’ in the ancient world,
would benefit from more nuance. ‘Religion’, ‘philosophy’, ‘tradition’, and ‘culture’,
although overlapping in meaning, are not synonyms.
A similar stretching of the evidence is found in McDermott’s discussion of
biblical suggestions concerning learning from other religions. McDermott points to
stories about Jesus in the gospels, where Jesus relates to pagans. McDermott says that
“Jesus praised the faith of pagans and urged Jews to learn from these pagan
examples.”865 As such, this statement is correct. Jesus indeed invites his hearers to
imitate their faith. But the problem is that these examples are not indications of

863 Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2001), 137, cited
in Lieven Boeve and Gerard Mannion, eds., The Ratzinger Reader: Mapping a Theological Journey (London: T
& T Clark, 2010), 19.
864 D’Costa, “Review of God’s Rivals,” 167.

178 PART II
learning from other religions, but of learning from the faith—in Jesus!—of people who
belong to other religious cultures. Strictly speaking, these examples from the gospels
could be used as counter indications of what McDermott wants to prove. One could
say that these are examples of the necessity for other religionists to turn to Christ.
B. THEOLOGICAL ISSUES
1. Biblical versus contemporary worldview
McDermott’s theology of religions is thoroughly ‘spiritual’ in the sense that it

incorporates a spiritual understanding of reality. His world, informed by the ‘biblical’
worldview or cosmology,866 is one in which God, gods, powers, angels, Satan and
demons take a prominent place. McDermott even argues that the neglect of this
dimension is one of the shortcomings of contemporary theology, and theology of
religions in particular.
Some nuance is in order about the term ‘biblical worldview’ or ‘cosmology’ with
respect to spiritual beings. First, it is not only the Bible that assumes the existence of
spiritual beings; this is a characteristic shared by most of the ancient world. What is
relevant for McDermott’s argument is that it is a worldview shared by the early
Church Fathers on whom he depends. This means that ‘biblical worldview’ should be
understood to include most of the history of Christianity.867 Second, it is hazardous to
speak of the biblical worldview, as if the Bible were unambiguous on this issue. To a
certain extent, one could argue that there are as many biblical cosmologies as there are
biblical authors. Taking this caveat into account, however, it is appropriate to speak of
‘the’ biblical worldview in the context of our current discussion. The point of the
discussion of cosmology, i.e., the existence of spiritual beings (both good and bad), is a
conviction shared by all biblical authors. Hence, though the details of their number,
nature, function and influence may differ, their existence is not doubted.
This does not mean that McDermott’s appropriation of this worldview is
unproblematic. First, McDermott takes together the different ways the Old Testament
understands the gods. He sees the diachronic spread of ideas about ‘the gods’ as
something to be appropriated synchronically. McDermott argues for three stages in the
evolution of convictions about the gods: a period from the twelfth century BC to the
Babylonian exile; a period starting in the ninth century BC and a stage starting during
or after the Babylonian exile in the sixth century BC. Theological convictions about the
gods differ in these stages. First, there is acceptance of their subordinate roles which
allows for honour and respect; second there is condemnation of such honour; and,
third, there is the conviction that, relative to Yahweh, the other gods are no gods at
866 In this section, We will use ‘worldview’ and ‘cosmology’ interchangeably. The focus is on the
perception of the dimensions of and relation between the material and spiritual aspects of reality.
867 Perhaps it is not unfair to say that it is a recent Western phenomenon to diverge from this
worldview.
all.868 According to McDermott, these conflicting portraits are not necessarily

contradictions. However, McDermott also speaks of progressive and unfolding
revelation. Could it not be that the three phases of Old Testament views on ‘other gods’
ought also be seen as temporary, each new view requiring the discarding of the
previous one? This would imply that the most recent view, which denies the existence
of the gods, expresses God’s intentions best. Perhaps, then, the New Testament
understanding of angels and demons, and ‘principalities and powers’, could also
undergo a development as the Spirit unfolds the original revelation through history.
However, McDermott – and with him most of Christian history – has
appropriated these spiritual dimensions of the biblical cosmology. But one could
wonder, then, why McDermott does not appropriate the material aspects of that
cosmology: a three-tier universe, with the earth in the middle, the underworld below,
and the firmament dividing the heavens from the waters above the firmament.869 What
are his criteria for accepting the spiritual dimensions of the cosmology, but rejecting
the material aspects of it?
Nevertheless, McDermott accepts the validity of ‘powers under Christ’. These
powers were created good, but have turned bad. Notwithstanding their rebellion, God
makes use of these ‘powers’, for example, to enforce respect for his law.870 According to
McDermott, these powers also “distort the meaning of that law and lead people away
from the true God by masquerading as the supreme deity.”871 It is a weakness that
McDermott does not explain how these ‘powers’ exert their influence over people. It is
difficult to accept such pervasive influence, that nevertheless goes unnoticed.
Perhaps one possibility is to understand these ‘evil powers’ as those economic
and socio-political structures that have been perverted and exert their power over
millions of people. These ‘powers’ are the dehumanizing structures that oppress
people. The analysis of John Howard Yoder could be used as a resource, for his
theology is congenial to (certain forms of) Evangelical theology.872 Yoder clearly
identifies the ‘structural’ aspects of the ‘powers’, but succeeds in sticking close to the
Pauline language, not least in his christological focus.
Although this socio-political understanding is quite common, it has not received
a hearty welcome in mainstream Evangelical circles.873

869 For a good description of the cosmology in the Old Testament, and the ‘science’ that goes with it,
see Denis O. Lamoureux, Evolutionary Creation. A Christian Approach to Evolution (Eugene, OR: Wipf &
Stock, 2008), 105-147.
872 John Howard Yoder, The Politics of Jesus: Vicit Agnus Noster, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI; Carlisle:
Eerdmans; Paternoster, 1994; reprint, 2000), 134-161.

873 See, for example, F.S. Piggin, “Principalities and Powers,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology,
ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1984), 879-879. John Howard Yoder mentions
that “Anglican evangelical Bible teacher John Stott best represents the thesis that what Paul is really
talking about is ‘personal, demonic intelligences’ […]. Yet Stott […] does not support with any
180 PART II
2. Revelation and the scandal of particularity
There are a number of ways in which McDermott tries to negotiate the scandal of
particularity. He struggles with the strict dichotomization of special and general
revelation, the former being revelation that gives access to salvation, a characteristic
which general revelation lacks. One way to overcome the scandal is to assume the
universal availability of (some aspects of) special revelation through prisca theologia.
Another way in which the polarity between general and special revelation is resolved,
is by postulating typological bridges between the two.
a. Special and general revelation
McDermott notes that Edwards and Calvin agreed that nature only reveals God the
Creator. Though there is objective revelation of God in nature, it is not sufficient for
salvation.874 Although McDermott adds that not all is said when we speak of general
and special revelation, he does not question the basic fact that general revelation is not
salvific.
But is it really possible to make such a sharp distinction between general and
special revelation? Can one separate God’s revelation in nature from his redemptive
acts? Are not his works one? Is not the Creator the Redeemer and vice versa? Is not
creation redemptive and redemption creative?
McDermott further makes a distinction between revelation from God and
revelation of God as incarnate in Jesus. “There may exist revelations from God in other
religions, but only in the religion of the Christ is there the revelation of God as
incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth.”875 Here as well, we question whether it is possible to
make such a sharp a distinction. Is revelation from God, not also always revelation of
God? Does communication by God not always reveal his person and character?
Scripture suggests “that God desires all the world to know Him.”876 Based on the
biblical data, McDermott concludes that “people outside the Jewish and Christian
churches have known Him—or at least some aspects of His person and character.”877
But is this not ‘special revelation’? It is not clear why McDermott feels the need to add
documentation his taken-for-granted claim that there has in fact been a serious deposit of scholarly
evangelical exegesis spelling out how that claim is to be taken. The student of the ancient world is less
clear than is the person in the pew about what would have to be meant by ‘intelligences’ or by ‘personal’
(or even by ‘real’). What underlies Stott’s critique [of the socio-political understanding of the principalities
and powers] would seem to me to be a set of unquestioning assumptions about the worldview behind
these texts, a worldview which persists uncritically in our popular culture, so that Stott can assume a
greater univocality in the evangelical tradition than any scholar has in fact spelled out.” Yoder, Politics of
Jesus, 160 n.28.
876 McDermott, Can Evangelicals?, 77. Given his Reformed perspective, does this not imply that God
infallibly provides the means to accomplish this – and also makes sure that it is accomplished?
this disclaimer of ‘at least some aspects of his person and character’? Is it not evident
that our knowledge of God—even if it is ‘saving knowledge’, is always limited, and in
that sense ‘only’ ‘some aspects of his person and character’?
Not only is there knowledge of God outside Christianity, McDermott also agrees
with Leslie Newbigin that “there is real experience of God outside Christianity.”878 So,
for McDermott, we have real knowledge and real experience of God outside
Christianity, in the religions. The only thing one cannot say is that the religions have
knowledge of God as incarnate in Jesus Christ. What does it mean to have real
knowledge and experience of God – even if partial – but no knowledge of the
incarnation? Is knowledge of the incarnation digital i.e., all or nothing – while (other?)
knowledge and experience of God is analogue, i.e., on a continuum?
b. Prisca theologia
We have noted above that McDermott gives ample attention to the theme of prisca
theologia.879 The major issue dealt with under this title is the universal accessibility of
saving revelation. We also remarked that he does not, to our knowledge, make clear if
he himself appropriates this solution to the scandal of particularity in his
understanding of the accessibility of revelation. His opaqueness on this issue is less
than satisfying. It probably shows that he recognizes the importance of the general
availability of revelation for theology of religions, while at the same time feeling
unease about the particulars of this solution to that problem.
Some of the main proofs for the existence of such a prisca theologia were found in
texts that more recently have been shown to be misdated. Instead of coming from
before the Christian era, the most crucial parts of these texts are shown to be later
(Christian) interpolations. McDermott says of the prisca theologia that it is a “tradition in
apologetic theology, resting on misdated texts (the Hermetica, Chaldean oracles,
Orpheia, and Sybilline [sic] oracles).”880
It remains unclear if there is more to the prisca theologia for McDermott than
historical proof of the importance of the topic of universally accessible revelation.
Perhaps McDermott’s introduction of the concept of ‘revealed type’ is an attempt to
answer the need for universally accessible revelation?
c. Revealed type, analogy and sacramental ontology
McDermott extends Jonathan Edwards’s concept of types discernible in nature and

history to the history of religions and calls them ‘revealed types’.881 God has willed that
there are revealed types as pointers to spiritual realities, or more precisely, as

879 See our discussion on p. 162ff.

182 PART II
“instances of Jesus Christ speaking and imaging the Triune God.”882 Revealed types are
not special revelation, but help illuminate revelation. “The religions can provide not
new revelation that add to the revelation in Christ but a kind of revelation (revealed
type) that helps explicate the biblical revelation. Or to use familiar theological
language, they can serve as tools for the Spirit’s illumination of the (written) revelation
we have been given but imperfectly understand.”883
The problematic aspect of this quote is that the revealed types are only of use for
Christians. They help Christians individually, and the Church, to extend their
understanding of Christ. Revealed types are means available to the Church in
unpacking revelation. However, thus understood, revealed types are of no help in
solving the scandal of particularity. The recognition of these types is the work of the
Church. Finding types of Christ in other religions is not the work of auto-interpretation
of these religions, but of hetero-interpretation. If we consider the types of Christ in the
Old Testament, they are only discernible by Christians. The Jews do not see them. The
early Christians, many of whom were Jews themselves, used this typology in trying to
persuade their non-Christian fellow Jews of the appropriateness of following and
worshiping Jesus. At best, the Holy Spirit could use this typology to illuminate the
non-Christian Jews. But the presence of Christians and Christian testimony was always
indispensable.884
One wonders if there are not many similarities between McDermott’s ‘revealed
type’ and what Christian theology has traditionally called ‘analogy’. In the Handbook of
Catholic Theology, Breuning states that “[analogy] enables humans to perceive (created)
reality as a symbol of God, and it thereby sets them on the path of movement toward
the Creator. […] Analogy is thus a mode of communication that leads into the depths
of the divine mystery?”885
Such an understanding of reality as containing traces of transcendence, and as
pointers toward God, is similar to what Evangelical theologian Hans Boersma has
called a ‘sacramental ontology’, although the latter concept goes further than ‘revealed
type’. According to Boersma, “[a] sacramental ontology insists that not only does the
created world point to God as its source and ‘point of reference’, but that it also
subsists or participates in God.”886 Perhaps such a participatory ontology would be a
worthwhile avenue to tackle the issue of the scandal of particularity and the universal
accessibility of revelation.

884 McDermott also notes this: “Truths that Christians learn from the religions may not always be
apparent to practitioners of those religions. […] Revelation can therefore remain within a religion as a
partly or even totally concealed revelation. It might not be apparent to insiders in the religion, or even to
outsiders, without the work of the Holy Spirit.” McDermott, Can Evangelicals?, 117-118.
885 Wilhelm Breuning, “Analogy,” in Handbook of Catholic Theology, ed. Wolfgang Beinert and Francis
Schüssler Fiorenza (New York, NY: Herder & Herder, 1995), 7.

886 Boersma, Heavenly Participation, 24.
C. DIALOGICAL ISSUES
1. Other religions as maieutic
McDermott’s engagement with other religions is primarily maieutic. Maieutic can be

defined as relating to the process of “assisting a person to become fully conscious of
ideas previously latent in the mind.”887 McDermott describes the purpose of his book,
Can Evangelicals Learn from World Religions?, as follows. “[P]erhaps evangelicals may be
able to learn from the Buddha—and other great religious thinkers and traditions—
things that can help them more clearly understand God’s revelation in Christ.”888 The
goal is better self-understanding, better understanding of Christian revelation. In
commenting on the assimilative principle, as exemplified by Augustine, Aquinas and
Calvin, McDermott asks, “Could these theologians have learned these lessons from
studying the Bible alone? Once again, we do not know. The Bible contained these lessons
at least in seminal form.”889 McDermott certainly is opening up to other religions, but his
approach could be summed up as a willingness to learn from other traditions with the
expectation that it will provide fresh perspectives, rather than new ideas.890 For
example, in discussing Buddhist ideas of the contingency of the world and the self, he
claims that “Buddhist thinkers do not add qualitatively to the biblical view of self and
world, but they confirm and sharpen biblical claims about the radical contingency of
the created order.”891 This is a strong assertion.892 McDermott seems to exclude a priori
‘new’ things to be learned from other religions. Is this really necessary for his tradition?
Can one not simply say that the ‘new’ that we learn, will be in accordance with the
truth of Christianity? Would such an adjusted statement threaten his theological
system? We do not think it would. Even McDermott himself had earlier agreed with
D’Costa’s statement that “Jesus is totus Deus but not totum Dei. He is wholly God but
not all of God.”893 If that can be affirmed about Christ, should we not be open to ‘new’
things learned through other religions? It seems that McDermott, in his discussion of
the other religions, is looking especially for similarities that can deepen our
understanding and experience of our own tradition. He is not looking for differences
that can enlarge Christian tradition.
887 “maieutic, adj. and n.,” in Oxford English Dictionary Online (September 2012), (accessed 5 October
2012).
889 McDermott, Can Evangelicals?, 211 (my italics).
890 See, for example, his discussion on Buddhism: McDermott, Can Evangelicals?, 134.
892 For a discussion on his use of “biblical view” rather than “Christian view,” see our discussion
above.
893 McDermott, Can Evangelicals?, 95. McDermott refers to D’Costa, “Christ.”
184 PART II
2. Dialogue as disputation
There is one dialogical issue contributed by McDermott that was already mentioned in
chapter II (§6), viz., that dialogue can also take the form of disputation. McDermott
finds two models of this sort of dialogical exchange. The first model is the intra-
Christian disputation that took place in thirteenth-century Paris between Franciscans
and Dominicans. According to McDermott, this provides a model for interreligious
dialogue as the sharp discussion between the rival theological schools took place in a
larger framework of understanding and respect. For these religious, this took the form
of sharing the Eucharist after the disputation. Other modes would need to be sought
that might be of use in an interreligious dialogue disputation, but a (non-liturgical)
meal would certainly be possible. McDermott proffers a second model for
contemporary interreligious disputation, the debates held between Muslims and
Christians in ninth-century Baghdad.894
This mode of operation can be considered dialogical as it considers the other’s
view as important enough to fight over. If such a disputation takes place under the
right conditions, it can alert the proponents to how their tradition is understood by
outsiders, and provide them with an immediate possibility to remediate if that
understanding is incorrect. Disputation as dialogical method resists superficial
harmonisation.
D. D’COSTA AND MCDERMOTT
There is, overall, considerable agreement between the basic parameters of the theology
of religions of Gavin D’Costa and Gerald McDermott. The shared contours contain the
following demarcations:
 Christianity and the religions are not completely discontinuous.
 Other religions are, in themselves, not ways of salvation.
 The religions are a mixed bag, with the real possibility of demonic
influence. The religions are ‘spiritual’ or ‘supernatural’ to some extent.
 The religions are somehow also used by God for the salvation of their
adherents.
 Other religionists are not per se doomed.
 God has not left anyone without the means to be saved.
 Salvation is through Christ.
 In order to be saved, one must be linked to Christ both epistemologically
and ontologically.
 Both invoke Christ’s descent to Hades and post-mortem completion of
salvation as a solution to the epistemological deficit of the
righteous/regenerate heathen.

 The church can learn from other religions, because they contain truth.
 Even if (aspects of) other religions find their fulfilment in Christ, this
fulfilment may not be so perceived by insiders of that religion.
 There is development in the Church’s understanding of revelation and
the meeting of the religions may be a catalyst in increasing this
understanding.
 Revelation is a crucial category in theology of religions.
Given these similarities, it is noteworthy that the authoritative sources used by
these authors to reach these demarcations are quite different. Although both are
guided by the biblical data and story line, and by great theologians of the early Church,
McDermott relies primarily on eighteenth-century Reformed theologian Jonathan
Edwards, while Gavin D’Costa builds his theology of religions primarily on the texts of
the Roman Catholic magisterium.
These similarities should not blind us to the differences. The role of the church in
theology of religions in McDermott seems to be limited to the role of discerning,
whereas in D’Costa the role of the church in salvation and its mediation is preeminent.
We note also a more extensive biblical argumentation in McDermott, reflecting his
confessional background. A more extended comparison, however, is made difficult by
the fact that McDermott has published significantly less on the topic than D’Costa. His
theology of religions has to be gleaned from a more limited number of publications
and is complicated by the fact that several of these deal primarily with the theology of
Jonathan Edwards, so that it is not always clear if the positions presented are also those
of McDermott. If a comprehensive and systematic presentation of D’Costa’s theology
of religions is still wanting, that is less of a problem since most of the necessary
elements have already been discussed in one or more of his publications. That cannot
(yet) be said of McDermott, however.
E. SUMMING UP
The work of Gerald McDermott is an interesting and challenging addition to

Evangelical theology of religions for a number of reasons. His major contribution is
perhaps the observation that a more open, i.e., inclusive, approach to other religions is
possible by having recourse to one of the founding fathers of Evangelicalism and a
hero of the Reformed-Evangelical movement: Jonathan Edwards. This move creates (or
at least attempts to create) legitimacy for an inclusivistic Reformed-Evangelical
theology of religions, an issue that is not self-evident. We have seen that McDermott
has also sought to legitimate his position through providing a biblical argumentation
and by appealing to the ‘Great Tradition’ of the church. These arguments are more
biblical-theological and historical-theological than ‘pure’ biblical exegesis.
The second major contribution of McDermott lays in opening up the bifurcation
between general and special revelation. There are several elements to his
186 PART II
understanding of revelation that are noteworthy. The view of revelation as unfolding,

implying the development of doctrine, has the possibility to open up the faulty view
that the Bible and revelation are synonyms, even if we have critiqued McDermott for
not always following up on this insight. With the presentation of the prisca theologia,
McDermott has shown that there has been a tendency (maybe even necessity?) in the
church to look for traces of revelation in other (religious) traditions. The extensive
typology used by Jonathan Edwards is one such attempt. It is to the credit of
McDermott that he has suggested the category of ‘revealed type’ as fulfilling precisely
this role. This concept opens up the possibility, at least in principle, for adherents of
other religions to respond to God’s revelation in a saving way. The most daring
innovation of McDermott’s re-appropriation of Jonathan Edwards, however, is his
discussion of a dispositional soteriology. Although we would like to see a more explicit
position of McDermott on this Edwardsian idea, he has at least opened up an
interesting avenue of discussion.
The idea that may find the most difficult reception outside Evangelical theology
of religions is probably the linking of the origin and existence of other religions to
supernatural forces and beings. It is, nevertheless, an important topic, both in
establishing a link with church tradition and with Evangelical spirituality.
McDermott has not (yet) drawn many conclusions for interreligious dialogue
from his theology of religions. There are, however, a couple that need to be mentioned.
The first is that other religions have to be considered individually, and on their own
terms, in order to discern if they contain ‘revealed types’. Bland generalisations do not
work and this is an important improvement at the religious round table. The second
dialogical idea which McDermott contributes is that interreligious dialogue can also
take the form of a civilized disputation. This method allows for critical interaction,
taking the other tradition seriously as a rival system in some sense. Thirdly and
negatively, one implication of McDermott’s understanding of revelation is that the
other religious tradition is instrumentalized because it functions primarily as a tool to
increase Christian self-understanding, not by adding something new, but by
uncovering what is already present.
We can now move to the third and last tradition-specific approach studied in this
dissertation, the Pentecostal-Evangelical contribution of Amos Yong.
CHAPTER V.
AMOS YONG AND THE PNEUMATOLOGICAL

IMAGINATION: A PENTECOSTAL-EVANGELICAL
PERSPECTIVE
After having studied a Roman Catholic and a Reformed-Evangelical tradition-specific
approach to theology of religions, we now shift our attention to a Pentecostal-
Evangelical perspective. We introduce Amos Yong, his research interest and
Pentecostalism in §1 to provide the reader with the necessary context to evaluate his
approach. §2 discusses Yong’s foundational pneumatology, a philosophical-theological
foundation to ground all of Yong’s theological works. In §3 we highlight the main
characteristics of Yong’s theology of religions. The next section discusses the dialogical
implications Yong draws from his theology of religions. It introduces Yong’s theology
and praxis of interreligious dialogue (§4). The final section of this chapter critically
evaluates Yong’s approach, as in the other chapters, in terms of methodological,
theological and dialogical issues (§5).
§ 1. AMOS YONG, PENTECOSTAL THEOLOGIAN
A. BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
Amos Yong was born in Malaysia from Chinese parents who were ministers of the
Assemblies of God, a Pentecostal denomination.895 Both his parents grew up in
Malaysia and were raised in Theravada Buddhism,896 until they converted to
Christianity during their teenage years.897 At the age of ten, Yong emigrated with his
family to California, USA, where his parents took up a pastorate among Chinese
immigrants.898 As a ‘pastor’s kid’, he was thoroughly steeped in the practice and
narrative framework of Pentecostalism,899 including the experience of ‘baptism in the
Spirit’ at the age of twelve.900
895 Amos Yong, “Between the Local and the Global: Autobiographical Reflections on the Emergence
of the Global Theological Mind,” in Shaping a Global Theological Mind, ed. Darren C. Marks (Aldershot:
Ashgate, 2008), 187.
896 Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s), 256.
897 Yong, “Between the Local and the Global,” 187.
900 Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s), 149-150.

188 PART II
Yong undertook undergraduate studies at a Pentecostal Bible college,901 with a

major in ministerial studies. He worked as a youth pastor in his denomination for a
year,902 after which he studied for, and attained, a masters degree in historical
theology903 in a Wesleyan-Holiness seminary.904 This environment and the study
helped him to open up to other Evangelical and mainline Protestant traditions.905
My studies at a Wesleyan Holiness seminary raised the intra-
Christian ecumenical question for me with great force,
challenging me to confront the very sectarian and exclusive
form of Christian self-understanding which characterized the
Chinese-American Pentecostal churches of my upbringing and
which went relatively unchallenged during my undergraduate
education.906
In order to prepare for doctoral studies in theology, Yong studied for a second
masters degree, in intellectual history, at Portland State University.907 This study put a
major emphasis on the history of philosophy, and also introduced Yong to metaphysics
and process philosophy.908 In the fall of 1996, Yong enrolled for PhD studies at Boston
University, working under Robert Cummings Neville.909 The ecumenical question was
expanded from ‘other Christians’ to ‘other religionists’. Whereas before Yong had
discovered that other Christians could be “people of the Spirit even if they didn’t
believe in, embrace, or practice […] Pentecostal spirituality,”910 he now studied the
possibility and forms of Divine presence amongst those “categorized as pagan,
heathen, or non-Christian.”911 Yong defended his PhD in December 1998 and published
it in 2000 as Discerning the Spirit(s): A Pentecostal-Charismatic Contribution to Christian
Theology of Religions.912
Although he had by then already travelled a long way, both geographically and
theologically, this was only the start of a fruitful academic career that is characterized
by a broad research interest and an impressive publishing record.
901 Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s), 96. This was at Bethany College, the Assemblies of God college in
Santa Cruz. See Roger E. Olson, “A Wind that Swirls Everywhere,” Christianity Today March (2006): 53.
902 Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s), 183; Yong, “Between the Local and the Global,” 187.
904 Western Evangelical Seminary in Portland, OR. Amos Yong, “The Holy Spirit, the Middle Way,
and the Religions: A Pentecostal Inquiry in a Pluralistic World,” Evangelical Interfaith Dialogue 3, no. 1
(2012): 5. Yong, “Between the Local and the Global,” 187.
905 Yong, “A Pentecostal Inquiry in a Pluralistic World,” 5.
907 Yong, “Between the Local and the Global,” 187; Yong, “A Pentecostal Inquiry in a Pluralistic
World,” 5.
912 Yong, “A Pentecostal Inquiry in a Pluralistic World,” 25 n.8.

CHAPTER V: AMOS YONG AND THE PNEUMATOLOGICAL IMAGINATION 189
B. YONG’S PROJECT: A PNEUMATOLOGY OF QUEST INSPIRED BY A

PNEUMATOLOGICAL IMAGINATION
1. Yong’s major publications and research interests
Anyone studying the work of Amos Yong cannot but be impressed by the amount and
diversity of his publications. Starting with the publication of his PhD thesis in 2000, he
published thirteen monographs in thirteen years! Alongside these monographs, Yong
(co-) edited eleven books and published 126 chapters and journal articles, of which 84
journal articles published in more than 30 different journals, and all this in a time span
of fifteen years: 1997-2012. Of the journal articles, several were published in top-
ranking journals such as Journal of Religion, Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, Scottish
Journal of Theology, Theology and Science, Journal of Ecumenical Studies, Heythrop Journal,
Studies in Interreligious Dialogue, Buddhist-Christian Studies and others. He published
many articles in PNEUMA: the Journal for the Society for Pentecostal Studies and in the
Journal of Pentecostal Theology.913
Although it is still relatively early to evaluate the impact of his research output, it
is unquestionable that he is changing the face of Pentecostal studies through the
breadth and depth of his research. Proof of that impact is the forthcoming publication
of an evaluation of his contributions to theology by twelve authors.914
Yong’s research interests can be easily gleaned from his publications.915 First and
foremost, perhaps, is the research cluster of theology of religions and interfaith
dialogue, together with comparative theology and Buddhist-Christian dialogue in
particular. But other research interests are also evident: Pentecostalism and science,916
global Pentecostalism,917 political theology918 and theology of disability.919 An
interesting novelty in Yong’s research output is the triangulation of Pentecostal
theology, theology of religions and the theology-science dialogue.920 Yong is convinced
913 This information is based on his up to date bibliography found at the institutional webpage
http://www.regent.edu/acad/schdiv/faculty_staff/yong.shtml (accessed 10 December 2012).
914 Wolfgang Vondey and Martin William Mittelstadt, eds., The Theology of Amos Yong and the New
Face of Pentecostal Scholarship. Passion for the Spirit, Global Pentecostal and Charismatic Studies (Leiden:
Brill, 2013, forthcoming).
915 For a list of his research interests, see also his webpage at
http://www.regent.edu/acad/schdiv/faculty_staff/yong.shtml (accessed 10 December 2012).
916 Amos Yong, The Spirit of Creation: Modern Science and Divine Action in the Pentecostal-Charismatic
Imagination Pentecostal Manifestos (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2011).

917 Amos Yong, The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh: Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2005).

918 Amos Yong, In the Days of Caesar: Pentecostalism and Political Theology – The Cadbury Lectures 2009
Sacra Doctrina: Christian Theology for a Postmodern Age (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010).
919 Amos Yong, Theology and Down Syndrome: Reimagining Disability in Late Modernity (Waco, TX:
Baylor University Press, 2007); Amos Yong, The Bible, Disability, and the Church: A New Vision of the People of
God (Grand Rapids, MI and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2011).
920 Amos Yong, The Cosmic Breath: Spirit and Nature in the Christianity-Buddhism-Science Trialogue,
Philosophical Studies in Science & Religion (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2012).
190 PART II
that today we need a global theology that is informed by, and engages, many
perspectives, disciplines, cultures and religions.921
2. Outline of Yong’s project
Before delving into Yong’s theology of religions, it will be helpful to sketch his overall
theological project. As noted, Yong’s research interests are quite diverse and his
publications numerous. The common thread running through all of them is the
combination of ‘a “pneumatological imagination’ and ‘a pneumatology of quest’. The
pneumatological imagination is “a way of seeing God, self and world that is inspired
by the Pentecostal-charismatic experience of the Spirit,”922 and is captured by the
foundational theological conviction of the presence and activity of the Holy Spirit. A
pneumatology of quest, on the other hand, “allows only a provisional certitude at
every turn, beginning with the theological and metaphysical presuppositions and
hypotheses, continuing with the interpretation of empirical data, and including (but
not terminating at) the discernment of Spirit(s).”923 In that sense, it is a theology ‘from
below’ because the contemporary global and multireligious world “demands that
theological truth claims be fully public, exposed to the scrutiny of all who would be
interested in the subject being discussed.”924
Yong’s resulting theological project is very comprehensive and therefore highly
ambitious. It goes from fundamental theology to systematic theology with tributaries
in theology of religions, comparative theology, science and religion, political theology,
and more, all contributing to what Yong calls a global theology.
Although we will shortly be expounding Yong’s fundamental theological
position in more detail, it is necessary that we consider it briefly here as well. Although
the basic tenets of his fundamental theology were already evident in his PhD, in Spirit-
Word-Community: Theological Hermeneutics in Trinitarian Perspective (2002), Yong sets out
in detail his fundamental theology as a foundational pneumatology. Spirit-Word-
Community deals with metaphysics, epistemology and anthropology,925 and provides
the stepping stones for all Yong’s theological endeavours. This book sets out to answer
the fundamental question of how to understand the universality of the Spirit’s
presence and activity in the postmodern world. According to Yong, it must therefore
necessarily deal with the nature of reality (metaphysics) and the nature of being
(ontology). Yong’s epistemology charts “a middle way between absolutism and
relativism” yet is still able to make truth claims, be it in a humble and provisional way
which is open to correction.926 His theological anthropology allows him to answer


“how human beings could encounter, respond to and reflect upon the divine.”927 Yong
comments on the development of his fundamental theology as follows:
I began to see that understanding human beings as communal,
interpersonal, and inter-subjective realities helped me to
respond not only to the anthropological question but also to
the epistemological one. The pneumatological motif helped me
tie the pieces together, leading to a foundational pneumatology
(sketching a metaphysics and ontology of divine presence and
activity), a pneumatological imagination (human knowing as
emergent from our imaginative engagement with the world),
and a pneumatological anthropology (humans as social
creatures bound together by common needs, interests and
purposes). The result was a theological hermeneutics and
methodology featuring a dynamic epistemology that
recognized human knowing as an inter-subjective enterprise.
Put succinctly, Christian theological reflection occurs in
communities of faith that are continuously shifting, that
overlap with innumerable other communal perspectives, and
that are each constituted by material practices directed toward
the creation of a better world.928
With the foundation now well in place, Yong is able to provide his own
systematic theology in The Spirit Poured Out on all Flesh (2005). This work fleshes out
what was presented more abstractly in Spirit-Word-Community, again with the focus on
the universal presence and activity of the Holy Spirit. It proposes a pneumatological
soteriology, ecclesiology, theology of culture and of creation. It is a global theology in
that it takes on board many perspectives: ecumenical, interreligious, scientific, and
religious, social-justice oriented, and feminist.929
The ambitious nature of this work is unapologetically spelled out in the preface
as “theology as particular and yet aspiring toward the universal; of theology as local
and yet claiming to be global; of theology as occasional and yet handed down once for
all; of theology as narrativistic and yet also metanarrativistic; of theology as
conservative and yet novel; of theology as modern and yet postmodern; and so on.”930
Several of these topics are worked out in more detail in separate works. Some of
this material –theology of religions and comparative theology – is related to our
research topic, and will be dealt with in greater detail. But other work will not be
considered in the remainder of this project.
In Theology and Down Syndrome (2007), a theology of disability is worked out as
Yong theologizes about Down Syndrome, connecting this in a systematic theological

930 Yong, Spirit Poured Out, 10.

192 PART II
way with the doctrine of creation and providence, theological anthropology,

ecclesiology, soteriology, eschatology and the doctrine of God.931
Several ‘applications’ of his fundamental and systematic theology are related to
Yong’s understanding of the public nature of theological truth claims. In the Days of
Caesar: Pentecostalism and Political Theology (2010) presents a political theology from a
Pentecostal perspective. But the dialogue between science and theology also connects
with Yong’s conviction that truth has a public nature: “science itself is a fully public
enterprise, and theology’s engagement with the public square has increasingly
recognized the need to engage in dialogue with modern science.”932 Yong has invested
heavily in the science-religion debate, proposing his own notion of the
pneumatological imagination as a contribution to the discussion.933
Of course, Yong’s theology of religions and comparative theology also connect
with the public nature of theology and his focus on global theology – i.e., the need to
include multiple perspectives in theological analysis.
Before we explore his theology of religions, however, we need to understand the
broader context of his theology. We will first briefly sketch Yong’s Pentecostal context
in the following section, followed by an examination of the fundamental theological
principles underlying his whole project. The next two sections will, therefore, acquaint
us with Yong’s confessional context, and his theological method and vision.
C. PENTECOSTALISM
In this section, we will discuss the Pentecostal-charismatic context of Amos Yong’s

theology by first describing the pre-history of modern Pentecostalism in Methodism
and in the nineteenth century Holiness movement. This will be followed by a sketch of
the beginnings of Pentecostalism early in the twentieth century in the USA, and its
remarkable growth across the globe. Third, we will point to the charismatic renewal in
mainline churches in the 1960s and its linkages with Pentecostalism, and to a ‘Third
Wave’ gathering momentum in the 1980s. This will be followed be a brief evaluation of
the state of Pentecostal theology. This section will be rounded off by a summary
presentation of the essentials of Pentecostal-charismatic spirituality.
931 Yong, “Between the Local and the Global,” 193. For a discussion on how this work also expresses
Yong’s foundational pneumatology and pneumatological imagination, see Christopher Adam Stephenson,
Pentecostal Theology According to the Theologians: An Introduction to the Theological Methods of Pentecostal
Systematic Theologians, Dissertations (2009 -). Paper 9.
(http://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu/9: 2009), 178-182.
933 Cf. Cecil M. Robeck, Jr., “The Azusa Street Mission and Historic Black Churches: Two Worlds in
Conflict in Los Angeles’ African American Community,” in Afro-Pentecostalism: Black Pentecostal and
Charismatic Christianity in History and Culture, ed. Amos Yong and Estrelda Y. Alexander, Religion, Race,
and Ethnicity Series (New York; London: New York University Press, 2011).
1. Pentecostal precursors
The beginnings of Pentecostalism are often dated to the Azusa Street revival in Los
Angeles, CA, 1906-1908.934 Popular Pentecostal understanding would have it that
Pentecostalism started ‘out of the blue’ with ‘fire from heaven’.935 Yong, for example,
remarks that “the experience of the Spirit establishes in the minds of most Pentecostals
a direct, incontrovertible connection with the apostolic faith, thereby bypassing most, if
not all, of the history of Christianity since the time of the apostles as inconsequential at
best or detrimental at worst to pentecostal fervor.”936 Historians of Pentecostalism,
however, recognize the developments that led to this outburst of charismatic signs.
Classical Pentecostalism, which began early in the twentieth century, was clearly
linked to the Holiness movement – itself a child of Wesleyan Methodism. Another
precursor can be found in the Revivalism of, for example, Charles Finney (1792-1875).
Both antecedent movements were major influences in the USA in the second half of the
nineteenth century.937
For John Wesley (1703-1791), the Holy Spirit was received at conversion, and
Christian perfection, understood as a stage in the Christian life in which Christians
became free from all sins, was potentially reached in the Christian’s lifetime.938 His
Methodist contemporary, John Fletcher, however, made a distinction between believers
who are not yet filled with the power of the Holy Spirit and those that are “baptized
with the Pentecostal power of the Holy Ghost.”939 At the same time, Fletcher
understood Pentecostal sanctification more as an event than a process.940 It was to be
this strand of Methodism that influenced the Holiness Movement941 most profoundly.
This movement, a radicalisation of Methodism,942 would focus more on ‘entire
934 Donald W. Dayton, “Methodism and Pentecostalism,” in The Oxford Handbook of Methodist
Studies, ed. James E. Kirby and William J. Abraham (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 184-185;
Frank D. Macchia, “Pentecostal and Charismatic Theology,” in The Oxford Handbook of Eschatology, ed. Jerry
L. Walls (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 280.
935 ‘Fire from heaven’ is the title of Harvey Cox’s book on the rise of Pentecostalism. Yong’s PhD
thesis is an attempt to answer Cox. See Harvey Cox, Fire from Heaven: The Rise of Pentecostal Spirituality and
the Reshaping of Religion in the Twenty-First Century (London: Cassell, 1996); Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s),
17-20.
936 Amos Yong, “The Word and the Spirit or the Spirit and the Word: Exploring the Boundaries of
Evangelicalism in Relationship to Modern Pentecostalism,” Trinity Journal 23, no. 2 (2002): 238.
937 Mark A. Noll, A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada (London - Grand Rapids,
MI: SPCK - Eerdmans, 1992), 181.

938 Noll, A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada, 181. Dayton, “Methodism and
Pentecostalism,” 173-177.
939 Dayton, “Methodism and Pentecostalism,” 177-178, quoting a letter from Fletcher of 1778.
940 Dayton, “Methodism and Pentecostalism,” 174; Yong, Spirit Poured Out, 105.
941 Dayton calls the Holiness Movement “the middle term between Methodism and
Pentecostalism.” Dayton, “Methodism and Pentecostalism,” 178.
942 This radicalisation is not to be simply understood as a more conservative branch. In social issues,
the Holiness movement was more progressive, for example with respect to the abolition of slavery and the
equality of women, including women preachers. Cf. Noll, A History of Christianity in the United States and
Canada, 180-185. Dayton suggests that “[m]ost of the Holiness churches were founded in struggles over
194 PART II
sanctification’ as a deeper Christian experience, a blessing for those who ask for it.943
This experience came to be called a baptism of the Holy Spirit by 1874.944
This doctrine of the baptism of the Holy Spirit was also accepted in the
revivalism started by Charles Finney. Its focus, however, became more the ‘power’
than the ‘purity’ aspect of the experience. Dayton argues that “[t]here was an
increasing awareness that the Lukan texts taught more the theme of ‘power’ than
‘purity’. […] Many Holiness advocates solved this problem by speaking of a negative
side (sanctification) and a positive side (empowerment), the ‘cleansing’ that was
required before the ‘filling’.”945
By the end of the nineteenth century, the major Pentecostal doctrine of ‘baptism
in the Spirit’ was well in place, especially in Wesleyan Holiness circles.
2. Pentecostal beginnings
The Azusa Street revival (1906-1908) was led by William Seymour (1870-1922), an
African-American preacher, whose parents were former slaves.946 Seymour had been
influenced by the teaching of Charles Parham (1873-1929), a Holiness preacher who
started a Bible college in 1900. Parham’s Bible study had led him to the conclusion that
speaking in tongues was the incontrovertible proof of baptism in the Spirit. Early in
1901, one of the students of Parham experienced speaking in tongues, soon followed by
fellow students. Seymour briefly participated947 in Parham’s Bible college in 1905,
before moving to Los Angeles where he founded the Apostolic Faith Gospel Mission in
social issues (abolitionism, the ministry to the poor in the style of the Salvation Army, the ministry of
women, etc.) in which mainstream Methodism was the ‘conservative’ party.” Dayton, “Methodism and
Pentecostalism,” 180.
943 Dayton, “Methodism and Pentecostalism,” 179.
944 See details in Dayton, “Methodism and Pentecostalism,” 182.
946 There are different ways to narrate the story of Pentecostalism’s beginnings. Here we follow the
standard narrative of dating it to the Azusa Street revival in 1906. Noll remarks that “[o]bservers at the
time linked Azusa Street with the great Welsh Revival of 1904 and 1905 […].” Noll, A History of Christianity
in the United States and Canada, 388. It should also be noted that there were other experiences of ‘baptism in
the Spirit’ earlier in the history of Christianity. To note only one, we point to what is considered the second
beginning of the Moravian Church (Unitas Fratrum). In 1722, Count Nikolaus Ludwig von Zinzendorf
(1700-1760), a German Lutheran pietist, provided the persecuted believers of the Bohemian Brethren
Church a safe place on his estate in Herrnhut. After a time of internal struggle, the community of believers
at Herrnhut underwent a dramatic transformation with “the famous Pentecostal experience of 13 August
1727, which is used to mark the rebirth of the Unitas Fratrum.” Thompson, A Protestant Theology of
Religious Pluralism, 124.
947 This ‘participation’ is to be relativized, because due to segregationist laws, Seymour was not
allowed to be present in the class room. “He was, however, allowed to sit just outside the door in the
hallway and absorb Parham’s teachings.” Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s), 152n.7. See also Dayton,
“Methodism and Pentecostalism,” 184. Harvey Cox writes that Parham, a “Ku Klux Klan sympathizer,”
allowed Seymour to “listen to the lectures seated on a chair outside an open window. On rainy days he
was permitted to sit inside the building, but in the hallway outside the classroom, with the door left ajar”
(Cox, Fire from Heaven, 49).
a building at 312 Azusa Street, formerly the premises of a Black Methodist Church.948
Yong notes that “Seymour’s preaching led to an outbreak of glossolalia which was the
central feature of the Azusa Street revival (1906-1908).”949 Two characteristics of this
revival are important to point out. The first is the racial intermingling in Seymour’s
church. The experience of Spirit baptism and speaking in tongues crossed the racial
and gender barriers. This is noteworthy because when Charles Parham came to visit,
he was greatly offended by the mixing of the races in the Azusa Street church, and he
distanced himself from Seymour.950 The second aspect characteristic of this revival was
its missionary impact. On the one hand, this was the result of understanding the Spirit
baptism as an empowerment to mission, just as the account of the original Pentecost in
Acts 2 proved.951 Consequently, many of the people baptised by the Holy Spirit felt
called to, and went into mission, both locally and internationally. On the other hand,
the church in Azusa Street “became a mecca for thousands of visitors from around the
world, who often went back to their homelands proclaiming the need for a special
postconversion baptism of the Holy Spirit.”952
This movement saw an enormous numerical growth in the twentieth century,
from its small sectarian beginnings to what is now one of the largest and fastest
growing branches of Christianity. Classical Pentecostals numbered circa 66 million in
the year 2000.953 Yet in those early years, avers Yong, “[t]hese were, generally speaking,
a socially marginalized, politically voiceless, economically deprived and ecclesially
slighted group […]. They were also culturally and intellectually despised. Yet it is clear
that their experience of the Spirit provided them with the voice, status, power and
means by which their place in the world and, more importantly, the Kingdom of God,
was legitimated.”954
The movement took on many (and flexible) institutional forms, with several
Pentecostal denominations resulting. Of those, the Assemblies of God, of which Yong
948 Noll, A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada, 386. Dayton, “Methodism and
Pentecostalism,” 185. Cox calls it an “African Methodist Episcopal church” (Cox, Fire from Heaven, 56).
949 Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s), 153. The revival started in a house church meeting on April 9,
where Seymour and others present began speaking in tongues for the first time. The numbers of
participants increased dramatically in the daily meetings, such that new premises had to be looked for. On
April 14, the first meeting in the Azusa Street church took place. The huge earthquake and ensuing fire
that devastated San Francisco on April 18, 1906 definitely added to the apocalyptic fervour of the times.
Cox, Fire from Heaven, 56, 59.
950 Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s), 153. For an illuminating account of the Azusa Street Mission in the
context of the African American community in Los Angeles of the time, see Robeck, “The Azusa Street
Mission and Historic Black Churches: Two Worlds in Conflict in Los Angeles’ African American
Community.”
951 See also Acts 1:8 (NRSV): “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you;
and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”
952 Noll, A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada, 386.
953 David B. Barrett and Todd M. Johnson, World Christian Trends, AD 30-AD 2200: Interpreting the
Annual Christian Megacensus (Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 2001), 375.
196 PART II
is a licensed minister, is the most influential in North America.955 Protestant churches

quickly distanced themselves from these Pentecostals. Fundamentalists were
convinced that the supernatural gifts of the Spirit had ceased after the apostolic times,
whereas liberal Protestantism rejected all supernaturalism out of hand. In 1942,
however, classical Pentecostal denominations were invited to help establish the
National Association of Evangelicals in the USA.956 In 1985, Jerry Sandidge could write
that “[m]ost classical Pentecostals would consider themselves firmly within the
Evangelical Protestant tradition.”957 It must be noted, however, that many Pentecostals
have reservations about a total identification with Evangelicalism.958
Donald Dayton defines Pentecostalism as “that branch of Christianity that
teaches that individuals must experience a ‘personal Pentecost’ along the lines of the
book of Acts—and that this event is evidenced by the practice of speaking in tongues
(though not all Pentecostals accept this ‘evidence’ doctrine).”959
As Pentecostalism grew, it exerted influence, both positive and negative, on other
Christian churches. Yet in the late 1950s and 1960s, a charismatic renewal occurred in
the mainline Christian churches, an event which took classical Pentecostalism by
surprise.
3. Charismatic renewals
Early in the 1960s, a charismatic renewal started in the Episcopal Church of the USA,
followed by similar events in other mainline Protestant churches. What surprised
Pentecostals perhaps most was the charismatic renewal that took off in the Roman
Catholic church. This started in the USA in 1967 among students and professors at
Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, followed by similar events at the University of Notre
Dame in 1968.960 To the bewilderment of Pentecostals, Catholic charismatics not only
exhibited the classical pentecostal signs of Spirit baptism, but also a stronger devotion
to Mary and a deeper sacramental theology and praxis.961 The influence of
Pentecostalism on the charismatic renewal in the Roman Catholic church is recognized
by the latter. In the final report of the fifth phase of the international dialogue between
Pentecostals and Roman Catholics, it is stated:

956 Amos Yong, “Pentecostalism and the Theological Academy,” Theology Today 64, no. 2 (2007): 244.
957 Jerry L. Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977-1982): A Study in Developing
Ecumenism, 3 vols., PhD Thesis KU Leuven, vol. 1 (Leuven: 1985), lxxxviii.

958 Yong writes about the relation between evangelicalism and the Pentecostal movement, that, “For
some, these two traditions overlap to a large extent while for others, there are major differences that at
present prohibit any substantive dialogue.” Amos Yong, Spirit of Love: A Trinitarian Theology of Grace
(Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2012), xii.
960 Noll, A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada, 450.

225. In this context of the new awareness of the work of the

Holy Spirit, the witness of classical Pentecostals and their
teaching on Baptism in the Holy Spirit contributed to the
beginning of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal in 1967 in the
United States. The early leaders of the renewal prayed for the
experience of Baptism in the Holy Spirit and received it with
many also speaking in tongues. Subsequently they reflected
theologically on both their own experience and the Pentecostal
doctrine of Baptism in the Holy Spirit and submitted their
renewal movement to the guidance of the church’s pastors.962
In common with classical Pentecostalism, the charismatic renewal in mainline

churches, including the Roman Catholic, resulted in “an increase in personal piety,
commitment to evangelical witness, deeper Bible study, and openness to more intense
forms of spirituality which inevitably accompanied the manifestation of the
charismata.”963 In contrast with classical Pentecostalism, they mostly do not consider
glossolalia to be the proof of Spirit baptism.964 Currently, the number of charismatics in
mainline churches is estimated at about 175 million, of whom 120 million are Roman
Catholic.965
Next to classical Pentecostalism and the charismatic renewal, a third stream of
charismatics can be discerned, the so called ‘Third Wave’. These neo-charismatics,
often gathering in independent churches, are also labelled ‘post-denominationalist.966
During the 1980s these groups came to be powerful centre-stage players on the
Christian scene.967 Third Wavers “emphasize signs and wonders, power confrontations
in evangelism and healing […]. For Third Wavers, the realm of the demonic is very
much a reality, but so is the victory wrought by Christ over these principalities and
powers.”968
Whereas classical Pentecostals largely came from the lower social classes,
charismatics tend to represent a broader social stratification.969 The World Christian
Encyclopedia declares that the total number of Pentecostals, Charismatics and Third
Wavers is nearly 525 million, with 66 million classical Pentecostals, 172 million from
962 On Becoming a Christian: Insights from Scripture and the Patristic Writings With some Contemporary
Reflections. Report of the Fifth Phase of the International Dialogue Between Some Classical Pentecostal Churches
and Leaders and the Catholic Church (1998-2006) (http://www.prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/pe-rc/doc/e_pe-rc_5-
contents.html and http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/eccl-comm-
docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20060101_becoming-a-christian_en.html, 2006), (accessed 12 January 2013).
964 Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s), 157. Pace Noll, A History of Christianity in the United States and
Canada, 450-451.
965 Barrett and Johnson, World Christian Trends, 275.

198 PART II
the Charismatic Renewal and 286 million Third Wavers.970 Together, they represent
over a quarter of all Christians, with a yearly growth rate that exceeds that of other
Christian streams.971 Of the 9 million new members each year, one-third is due to
natural growth, whereas two-thirds “are converts and other new members.”972 The
Pentecostal/Charismatic movement is thoroughly global, with two-thirds of its
members living in the Third World.973
Although the Pentecostal, Charismatic and Neo-charismatic movements are quite
different, not to mention the internal differences within each of these movements,974 it
is still not uncommon to describe them together as a single movement. What binds
them together is “a single basic experience. Their contribution to Christianity is a new
awareness of spiritual gifts as a ministry to the life of the church.”975
In this work, the Pentecostal, Charismatic and Neo-charismatic movements are
also considered together, not because their differences are overlooked or deemed
unimportant, but because this is the outlook shared by Amos Yong. Yong would see
these movements as sharing a similar Pentecostal imagination.976 According to Yong
“all agree that no matter how ‘Spirit-baptism’ is actually defined, it is sus generis [sic] to
their Christian experience.”977 What is common to a Pentecostal-charismatic experience
of Spirit-baptism is the “emphasis on the dynamic orientation toward the Spirit’s
activity in Pentecostal-charismatic spirituality and life.”978 For Yong, it is this shared
understanding between Pentecostals and (neo-)charismatics that leads him to suggest a
Pentecostal-charismatic theology of religions rather than simply a Pentecostal one.979
4. Pentecostal theology?
Although academic Pentecostal theology used to be considered a contradictio in

terminis, the last two decades have seen the emergence of a number of academic
Pentecostal theologians. Although Pentecostal/charismatic Biblical scholars, such as
Gordon Fee, Peter H. Davids, and Craig S. Keener, have been active and respected in
their guild since the 1980s, systematic theologians have only made their appearance
970 David B. Barrett, George Thomas Kurian, and Todd M. Johnson, World Christian Encyclopedia: A
Comparative Survey of Churches and Religions AD 30-AD 2200, 2nd ed., vol. 1: The World by Countries,
Religionists, Churches, Ministries (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2000), 9.
974 The Neo-charismatic movement consists of more than 18,000 denominations! See Barrett and
Johnson, World Christian Trends, 284.

977 Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s), 165. Frank Macchia defines Spirit Baptism as “a feeling of being
possessed by God and transformed so as to inspire a more intimate communion with Christ and a fervent
passion for the establishment of his kingdom.” Macchia, “Pentecostal and Charismatic Theology,” 289.

more recently.980 They include Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, Frank Macchia, James K. A.

Smith, Miroslav Volf, Wolfgang Vondey, Keith Warrington, and Amos Yong. 981 Of
these, Yong is quickly establishing himself as one of the leading Pentecostal
systematicians.982
It is possible to demonstrate this evolution towards academic theology through
the history of ecumenical dialogue between Pentecostals and the Roman Catholic
church. The formal conversation started in 1972, resulting in six phases of international
dialogue to date.983 Without doubt, this longstanding dialogue influenced the
development of academic Pentecostal theology. Several Pentecostal theologians took
part in some stage of the dialogue. The most notable was undoubtedly Miroslav Volf,
who participated from 1985-1994.984 It is clear that, in the first phases, many of the
Pentecostal participants to the dialogue were not, or hardly, trained as academic
theologians. Jerry Sandidge notes that, in the first phase (1972-1976), only a few
Pentecostals “could be considered to be on a theological/historical par with the
Catholics. […T]he Catholic side outweighed the Pentecostal side in scholarship and
theological expertise; whereas, the Pentecostal side had more experience on the
pastoral and practical levels.”985 Yet in those early phases of the dialogue, the
980 Yong remarks that the first generation of professional systematic theologians belonging to
classical Pentecostal churches emerged only in the 1990s. He mentions that the first academic Pentecostals
were historians (in the 1960s), followed by biblical scholars who earned their PhD in the 1970s. See Yong,
“Pentecostalism and the Theological Academy.”; Amos Yong, “The Spirit, Christian Practices, and the
Religions: Theology of Religions in Pentecostal and Pneumatological Perspective,” The Asbury Journal 62,
no. 2 (2007): 6. This late arrival on the academic scene is limited to classical Pentecostals. Several highly
respected academic theologians are linked to the charismatic renewal, including Roman Catholics Thomas
Weinandy, Francis Sullivan, Donald Gelpi and Ralph Del Colle and the Baptist theologian Clark Pinnock.
981 The vibrancy of contemporary Pentecostal theology is witnessed by the publication of a series,
starting 2010, called ‘Pentecostal Manifestos’ co-edited by James K.A. Smith and Amos Yong and
published by Eerdmans.
982 For this evaluation, see L. William Oliverio, “An Interpretive Review Essay on Amos Yong’s
Spirit-Word-Community: Theological Hermeneutics in Trinitarian Perspective,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 18

(2009): 301 n.1. Yong’s coming to prominence in the wider Evangelical community can be gleaned from a
2006 Christianity Today article on him and his pneumatology: Olson, “A Wind that Swirls Everywhere.”
983 Dr. David du Plessis, a respected Pentecostal leader, was invited as guest at the second Vatican
Council in 1964. Formal dialogue was started at the initiative of du Plessis and the Roman Catholic Fr.
Kilian McDonnell. See Final Report: Dialogue Between the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity and Some
Classical Pentecostals 1972-1976. (http://www.prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/pe-rc/doc/e_pe-rc_pent01.html,
1976), §1. The first five phases took place from 1972-1976, 1977-1982, 1985-1989, 1990-1997 and 1998-2006.
Currently a sixth phase has been started which is planned to take place from 2011-2015. For a succinct
appraisal of the first five phases of the dialogue, see Jelle Creemers, “Time Will Teach Us … Reflections on
Thirty-Five Years of Pentecostal – Roman Catholic Dialogue,” Ecclesiology 5, no. 3 (2009). For interesting
autobiographical information on the early years (prior to 1970) of Pentecostal ecumenical relations, see
David J. du Plessis, The Spirit Bade Me Go: The Astounding Move of God in the Denominational Churches
(Plainfield, NJ; London: Logos International; Logos Fountain Trust, 1970).
984 Miroslav Volf is currently professor of theology at Yale Divinity School.
985 Jerry L. Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (1977-1982): A Study in Developing
Ecumenism, Studies in the Intercultural History of Christianity, vol. 1 (Frankfurt am Main; New York: P.
Lang, 1987), 122-123.
200 PART II
Pentecostal participants “were impressed with the scholarship and theological depth of
the Roman Catholics” and as a result felt challenged to do their homework on an
intellectual-theological level.986 However, in later phases of the dialogue, the number of
academic theologians on the Pentecostal side grew steadily, so that by the fifth phase
(1998-2003), the vast majority were PhD holders.987 In the same vein, Veli-Matti
Kärkkäinen mentions that the ecumenical encounters with Roman Catholics, the
Reformed and the World Council of Churches have been a challenge for Pentecostals
“to formulate in a more precise way their understanding on this vital topic [of theology
of religions].988
This challenging of Pentecostal systematic theology, partly through interaction
with a ‘theological other’ is an interesting example of how the ‘other’ can be seen not
only as a threat to the identity, but actually as a gift to open up the possibility of
greater self-understanding and theological and spiritual maturation.
5. Pentecostal essentials
Of crucial importance in understanding the Pentecostal identity is not so much the

statements of faith, or the systematic theological treatises, but its spirituality. Veli-Matti
Kärkkäinen expresses it clearly, “[T]he key to discerning and defining Pentecostal
identity lies in Christ-centered Charismatic spirituality with a passionate desire to
‘meet’ with Jesus Christ as he is being perceived as the Bearer of the Full Gospel.”989
Walter Hollenweger, according to Yong “the dean of Pentecostal studies,”990
describes Pentecostal and charismatic spirituality in terms of five characteristics:
1. An emphasis on the oral aspect of liturgy;
2. theology and witness cast in narrative form;
3. maximum participation at the levels of reflection, prayer and decision-
making, and therefore a form of community which is reconciling;
4. inclusion of dream and vision into personal and public forms of
spirituality, so that the dreams function as kinds of icons of the individual
and collective;
986 Sandidge, Roman Catholic/Pentecostal Dialogue (PhD Thesis), 265-268. The quote is from page 268.
987 Among the Pentecostals, the ratio of session participants holding a PhD, compared to their total
number was 29% in Phase I, 18% in Phase II, 35% in Phase III, 63% in Phase IV, and ca. 67% in Phase V.
The drop in academics between Phase I and II is due to the fact that a number of charismatics from
mainstream Protestant churches (holding a PhD) were invited for Phase I, while from Phase II onward
participation was officially limited to classical Pentecostals. I thank Jelle Creemers for this information as
well as for pointing me to the work of Sandidge.
988 Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, “Pneumatologies in Systematic Theology,” in Studying Global
Pentecostalism. Theories and Methods, ed. Allan Anderson et al. (Berkeley-Los Angeles-London: University of
California Press, 2010), 234.
989 “Bearer of the Full Gospel” means understanding Jesus as “Savior, Sanctifier, Baptizer with the
Spirit, Healer, and Soon Coming King.” Kärkkäinen, “Pneumatologies in Systematic Theology,” 224.
5. an understanding of the body/mind relationship which is informed by

experiences of correspondence between body and mind.991
Yong agrees with this characterization, even if it does not include glossolalia or
mention Spirit baptism explicitly.992 Yet Yong will more often describe the essentials as
a pentecostal-charismatic imagination in which the presence and activity of the Holy
Spirit is central. “Spirit-baptism,” for Yong, “points to an encounter with the divine
(Spirit) […].” Such an experience “can be accompanied by a variety of manifestations”
which are understood as “holistic encounters with the divine Spirit” although of
themselves, these phenomena do not “guarantee the special presence and activity of
the Holy Spirit.”993
991 Walter Hollenweger, “Pentecostals and the Charismatic Movement,” in The Study of Spirituality,
ed. Cheslyn Jones, Geoffrey Wainwright, and Edward Yarnold (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986),
551-552.
993 Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s), 168. Yong will later develop ‘Spirit baptism’ as the primary
category in his pneumatological soteriology in such a way that it becomes a metaphor for the whole
dynamic of salvation. This includes, according to Yong, repentance, water baptism, forgiveness of sins,
sanctification, empowerment for ministry to church and world and down payment for the eschatological
redemption of God. Yong, Spirit Poured Out, 102.
202 PART II
§ 2. FOUNDATIONAL PNEUMATOLOGY
Yong’s ambitious theology looks like it intends to be a ‘theory of everything’ by trying

to offer a breakthrough in the stalemate of current theological methodologies. He
boldly claims that his foundational pneumatology is a third way that overcomes “the
disastrous dualism of either/or – whether that be of scripture or tradition; of faith or
reason; or grace or nature, etc.”994 Such a pneumatology can, according to Yong,
overcome the problem that the theological quest is always prematurely shut down as it
is “inevitably corralled by one or the other side of the dialectic of thought.”995
It is his foundational pneumatology that allows Yong to reach into more areas
than just theology of religions or comparative theology. It provides him with a
theological method that is applicable to many theological disciplines. Yong’s
foundational pneumatology is his contribution to fundamental theology, which makes
application possible in systematic theology and practical theology and all their sub-
domains.996
It is probably fair to say that Yong’s fundamental theology grew out of his
theology of religions. His basic Pentecostal conviction that the Spirit is universally
present and active needed backing up from more fundamental theological arguments.
Not providing this back up would be to perpetuate, what Yong calls, “the kind of
subjectivism which has long plagued Pentecostal-charismatic piety and spirituality.”997
He therefore sets out to give an account of “who the Holy Spirit is relative to the world
as a whole and what the Spirit is doing in the world.”998 It is this account that Yong
calls a ‘foundational pneumatology’. This account should be given in a way that is
palatable to the world, and not just acceptable ‘within the confines of the church’, or as
Yong puts it, “Succinctly stated, a foundational pneumatology is concerned about the
coherence of pneumatological statements as truth claims.”999 This is what distinguishes
this effort as fundamental theology rather than systematic theology.
994 Amos Yong, “The Hermeneutical Trialectic: Notes Toward a Consensual Hermeneutic and
Theological Method,” The Heythrop Journal 45, no. 1 (2004): 29.
995 Yong, “Hermeneutical Trialectic,” 29.
996 An exposition of Yong’s fundamental theology can be found in Amos Yong, “The Demise of
Foundationalism and the Retention of Truth: What Evangelicals Can Learn from C.S. Peirce,” Christian
Scholar’s Review XXIX, no. 3 (2000); Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s), chapter 4; Amos Yong, “On Divine
Presence and Divine Agency: Toward a Foundational Pneumatology,” Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 3,
no. 2 (2000); Amos Yong, Spirit-Word-Community: Theological Hermeneutics in Trinitarian Perspective, New
Critical Thinking in Religion, Theology and Biblical Studies (Burlington, VT and Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002;
reprint, Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006); Amos Yong, Beyond the Impasse: Toward a Pneumatological
Theology of Religions (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic; Carlisle: Paternoster Press: 2003), chapter 3;
Yong, “Hermeneutical Trialectic.” For a critical appraisal of his method, see Oliverio, “An Interpretive
Review Essay.”
998 Yong, Beyond the Impasse, 57.
999 Yong, “Divine Presence and Agency,” 175.

Yong wants to develop a pneumatology that is truly foundational, i.e., it must be

applicable to all humanity, not only to Christians. Although Yong is looking for
foundations for his pneumatology, he is not looking for a strong Cartesian
foundationalism.
His teachers in this domain are theologian Donald Gelpi, SJ (1934-2011)1000 and
Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914).1001 What is taken from Peirce is the fallibilism of his
epistemology and his categorial scheme in metaphysics. From Gelpi, the
epistemological importance of experience and of conversion as a multidimensional
experience is borrowed and expanded.
A. ONTOLOGY AND METAPHYSICS
On the question of metaphysics, Yong believes unabashedly that his approach is able to
overcome the “disastrous dualisms of […] Platonism, Thomism, Cartesianism, and
Kantianism, even while preserving their valid insights toward a Trinitarian ontology
and metaphysics.”1002
Following Peirce, Yong understands both the whole of reality as well as the
individual particularities to be “constituted triadically as essential qualities, concrete
facts and actualities, and inner habits, dispositions and laws,”1003 or in Peircean
terminology: firstness, secondness, and thirdness.
Firstness is pure potentiality, the simple quality of feeling, that
which makes a thing what it is in itself. Secondness is the
element of struggle or of brute, resistant fact, that by which a
thing is related to others. Thirdness is what mediates between
firstness and secondness, the universals, laws, generalities, or
habits that ensure the continuity of the process of reality. 1004
It follows that everything is determined by these three categories. We experience

things “as the togetherness of qualities [firstness], facts [secondness], and laws
[thirdness]-the hows, whats, and habits or tendencies of experience.”1005 There is, in
other words, a triadic structure to reality. These three categories constitute every
experience. Firstness, as the quality of things, however, is not experienced, but is
1000 Gelpi wrote extensively on religious experience and Trinitarian theology.

1001 C.S. Peirce is more difficult to categorize. He was a philosopher, but also a mathematician,
logician, and scientist.
1002 Yong, “Hermeneutical Trialectic,” 30. This is also very characteristic of the work of Donald
Gelpi.
1004 Yong, “Demise of Foundationalism,” 573. Compare: “Peirce’s ubiquitous classificatory scheme –
the categories of Firstness, Secondness, and Thirdness – is designed to cover any object of thought. It is a
classificatory scheme that takes each category to be an ‘independent and distinct element of the triune
Reality’ […]. The doctrine, which permeates Peirce’s work, is extremely complex and difficult.” Cheryl
Misak, “Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914),” in The Cambridge Companion to C.S. Peirce, ed. Cheryl Misak
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 19.
1005 Yong, Spirit-Word-Community, 93.
204 PART II
“abstracted from our experiences of Secondness (facts) and Thirdness (laws).”1006 This
is an important observation for Yong, for it allows him to correlate this metaphysical
scheme with trinitarian theology. Yong links this scheme of Peirce to an Irenaean
understanding of the Trinity in which all God’s works are wrought through his two
hands: the Word and the Spirit.1007 The Father, then is not immediately present to the
world, but mediately, through his two hands. Yong explains the divine experience as
understanding
[T]he Father as the qualitative source of creative efficacy, the
Son as the decisive sign or image of the Father through whom
the Godhead is embodied and efficaciously interacts with the
world, and the Spirit […] as the interpretant of the divine
relationality both ad intra and ad extra. Thus the [Spirit] is the
divine mind, interpreting generally and legally the mutual
relationship of Father and Son—precisely because she is sent
by the Father and Son together, as revealed by the economic
missions—on the one hand, and the relationship of human
beings on the other. The result is […] a foundational
pneumatology-an abstract account of how Christians do and
ought to experience the reality of God through the divine
Breath.1008
This implies that there is a pneumatological structure to reality that accounts for
the divine presence and action in the world.
Yong is well aware of the postmodern critique of metaphysics and does not
assume that metaphysics can be built up from a neutral philosophical foundation.
Yong starts from biblically-inspired pneumatological insights to construct a universally
valid rationality that resists becoming hegemonic precisely because of its
pneumatological character.1009
B. EPISTEMOLOGY & EXPERIENCE
Next to the metaphysical element of Yong’s foundational pneumatology, there is also

an (obviously linked) epistemological side that is intertwined with an experiential
aspect. Yong’s epistemology is heavily influenced by that of C.S. Peirce, while he
borrows and expands Donald Gelpi’s understanding of experience and the importance
of the multidimensionality of conversion.


1. Peirce’s fallibilism
C.S. Peirce critiqued Descartes’ method of universal doubt as a way to reach

indubitable knowledge. Peirce also considered the individualism of Descartes’
approach to be faulty. According to Peirce, knowledge of the world arises out of
continuous experience of it. This experience consists of two moments. The first, called
‘perceptual judgment’, is “the uncontrollable operation of grasping, assenting and
acting on sensation.”1010 This aspect of knowledge is both uncontrollable and
indubitable in itself. However, the second moment of experience, termed ‘perceptual
facts’, are “the controlled cognitions or ideas that follow upon perceptual
judgments.”1011 The perceptual judgments are analysed by the intellect. This activity is
not immediate, but post factum. Since this moment is dependent on fallible memory,
and “since perceptual facts in their final form are propositions produced by controlled
cognition, thinking can only grasp reality partially and inexactly.”1012 The implication is
that all our knowing is fallible and absolute certainty is beyond our reach and must
always be open to critique and correction.1013 The propositions (perceptual facts) which
are formulated on the basis of perceptual judgments must be tested against experience,
and when experience contradicts the proposition, it must be abandoned. Nevertheless,
propositions can be truthful in the sense that they correspond with reality.
Peirce’s theory of truth requires that these propositions are tested in a
community of inquirers, and not just solipsistically. This community context allows for
“practical certainty” and lets one “rely on the accumulated wisdom of human
experience and the consensus of the community of inquirers to establish both truth and
reality.”1014 For Peirce, this implies that, in the very long run, opinions converge toward
truth. The process ends when the community of inquirers reach a final opinion on an
issue, i.e., when no more doubt is generated. This does not prevent later generations of
inquirers from reopening the case and calling previous conclusions into question.
Given the fallibility of our knowledge, such a possibility is unavoidable.1015
Important conclusions follow. First, Yong shares Peirce’s chastened realism. It is
not relativistic, yet its fallibilism should lead to a humbler kind of theology. Adhering
to a correspondence theory of truth in combination with an understanding of advances
1010 Yong, “Demise of Foundationalism,” 570.

1013 This is where Peirce’s fallibilism differs from the ‘basic beliefs’ postulated by Reformed
epistemology and classical foundationalism. In these latter systems, the ‘basic beliefs’ are beyond critique.
Cf. Yong, “Demise of Foundationalism,” 570 n.22.
1015 Even if ultimate correspondence with reality is an eschatological notion, this fallibilistic
epistemology is finally not fideistic since it always remains open to correction. This is why Yong claims
that it is his fallibilistic scheme that prevents his metaphysical thinking to be “aprioristic as in the onto-
theological tradition.” Yong, “Hermeneutical Trialectic,” 38 n.25.
206 PART II
in knowledge asymptotically tending towards the truth, prevents this position from
being relativistic.
Second, experience should play a constitutive role in any theologizing.
Propositions are formulated on the basis of ‘perceptual judgments’ and are always
open to be questioned, corrected or abandoned on the basis of new information arising.
This system is not aprioristic and secluded from interactions with the world.
Third, the community plays an important role as the hermeneutical context in
which theory formation takes place. This allows for a cultural-linguistic understanding
of faith formation and traditioning. This is important as it underlines the necessity of
tradition-specific approaches where a system’s particularity is not a hindrance but a
condition.
Fourth, although exposure to ‘other’ communities may challenge the provisional
truths of a certain community, taking these challenges seriously will help in the
converging of the provisional truths to the ultimate truth. This means that Yong’s
system is not limited to a cultural-linguistic frame. This element is especially relevant
in the context of interfaith dialogue. The religious other is actually necessary to arrive
at greater truth.
2. Gelpi’s experientialism
Yong was introduced to the work of C.S. Peirce through the writings of the Roman
Catholic Donald Gelpi, SJ. But Gelpi himself also contributed directly to Yong’s
theology. Gelpi was trained in the transcendental methodologies of Karl Rahner and
Bernard Lonergan. Later, however, he rejected their aprioristic approach and adopted
the fallibilistic epistemology and empirical element of Peirce. Both Lonergan and Gelpi
suggest that conversion provides theology with foundations, since conversion
both enlarges the horizons of one’s ability to comprehend and
integrate theological data, and produces the needed
transformation of soul such that one takes responsibility for
one’s theologizing relative to oneself and one’s religious
community. In this way, conversion supplies the foundation or
indispensable pathway through which theology must
eventually proceed.1016
For Lonergan, conversion includes an intellectual, moral and religious

dimension, with all three interconnected.1017 Gelpi extended this analysis and speaks of
affective, speculative, moral, socio-political and religious conversion.1018 Gelpi also
developed a general theory of experience, in which he considered conversion to be one
1016 Yong, “Divine Presence and Agency,” 168-169.

1017 Bernard J. F. Lonergan, S J, Method in Theology (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1972), 130-
132 for conversion as foundational, and 237-244 for the dimensions of conversion.
1018 Donald L. Gelpi, SJ, The Divine Mother: A Trinitarian Theology of the Holy Spirit (Lanham:
University Press of America, 1984), x.

subset of experience. According to Gelpi, experience is humanity’s defining category.

“People do not have experiences; rather, experiences are what people consist of.”1019
His theory of experience explains both how humans “encounter and engage the world”
as well as “how humans relate to God and vice-versa.”1020
Yong differs from Gelpi (and Lonergan) in disentangling theology’s foundations
from Christian conversion, arguing that the breadth of human conversion, and in fact
human experience in general, can function as such foundation. For Yong, “a better
strategy for foundational pneumatology is to focus on the entirety of the
epistemological and experiential spectrum of the human being-in-the-world rather
than on the methodological or functional role of specific experiences, including that of
Christian conversion.”1021
For Yong, it is crucial to extend Gelpi’s understanding of experience to the largest
possible framework, making the public addressed “the universal humanum.”1022 If the
experience of the Spirit is universal, as Yong maintains, then the truth in foundational
pneumatology “cannot be parochial.”1023 If the connection between a foundational
pneumatology and Christian conversion experience were too explicit, it would no
longer be able to figure as a universally valid foundation. According to Yong, “What is
true of the Holy Spirit in a foundational pneumatology cannot be true only for
Christians but has to be relevant to, and perhaps compelling for, all.”1024
3. Universal truth claim
From the above, it is clear that Yong acknowledges the public nature of truth, and
following David Tracy, he makes a distinction between fundamental theology,
systematic theology and practical theology. Fundamental theology is more philosophic
in nature, is addressed primarily to the academy and tries to be all-inclusive.
Systematic theology is more confessional and is addressed primarily to the church.
Practical theology is oriented to transformative praxis and is addressed primarily to
those correlating theology and the work of the kingdom in the world.1025 Yong’s
foundational pneumatology therefore strives for a universalizing rationality. But this is
“tempered by a fallibilistic epistemology”. Such an approach has a “stronger theory of
truth than one that is relativized by cultural-linguistic worlds.”1026
This does imply, however, that the particular experiences of one tradition must
be translated into a more ‘vague’ language while, at the same time, retaining the ability

1024 Yong, Beyond the Impasse, 63-64.

208 PART II
to express their fundamental insight.1027 This opens the tension between on the one
hand, forcing particularities into “a foreign philosophical framework” so that its
“particularity is compromised,”1028 and, on the other hand, the risk that the
fundamental pneumatology will be an imperialistic tool to force non-Christian
experiences into a covert Christian mould.1029 Yong, however, is convinced that this
does not necessarily lead to an impasse, since his approach is not “insulated from
outside criticism, whether it be biblically derived by those internal to the Christian
tradition or whether it eventuates from secularists, non-Christians, or members of
other faiths. A dialectical process is at work here, as is undoubtedly the case in all
questions of this sort.”1030
C. PNEUMATOLOGICAL IMAGINATION
Yong’s foundational pneumatology is propelled by what he calls a pneumatological

imagination. He claims that ‘imagination’ functions at three levels:
First, the imagination mediates the human engagement with
the external world through the recording of images derived
from experience. Second, the imagination enables human
beings to actively construct the world. Finally, the imagination
holds both of these activities—of reproduction and
production—together coherently such that one and the same
person moves from one to the other subconsciously and
fluidly.1031
An imagination is thereby also holistic, in that it integrates affective, volitional

and spiritual dimensions.1032 But the imagination also has a normative dimension “to
the extent that the ideals, rules and principles by which behaviours are measured are
interiorized and self-consciously applied.”1033
What then, does Yong’s ‘pneumatological imagination’ entail? We mentioned
earlier that, according to Yong, the pneumatological imagination is “a way of seeing
God, self and world that is inspired by the Pentecostal-charismatic experience of the

1031 Yong, Spirit-Word-Community, 128-129.

Spirit.”1034 This experience of the Spirit is captured in three ‘root metaphors’1035 linked
to basic Pentecostal1036 experiences of the Holy Spirit.
Yong’s first root metaphor is the biblical metaphor of ‘power’.1037 A fundamental
way in which Pentecostals experience this is through a powerful encounter with the
Spirit. Such an experience enshrines in Pentecostals the conviction that there is more to
reality than meets the eye. Yong calls this “the ‘anti-nominalistic’ character of the
pneumatological imagination.”1038 Pentecostals typically believe in the presence of both
the Holy Spirit and of other spirits. At the same time, the ‘power’ metaphor also
indicates that the Holy Spirit is an empowering force, enabling the person to act in this
world.
A second primordial experience of the Holy Spirit is the Spirit’s relational
character in mediating the divine. The root metaphor consists in the Spirit not drawing
attention to herself. This is expressed in the biblical language of the Spirit as the Spirit
of God and the Spirit of Christ.1039 Yong understands this to increase the holistic aspect,
as the pneumatological imagination has a “christomorphic structure.”1040 Like Christ,
the imagination is able to integrate opposite images, such as “finding exaltation in
humility, infinite in finitude, life in death […]. The result is a more truthful and
accurate engagement with reality in all its multiplicity and plurality.”1041
A third (biblical) root metaphor for the experience of the Spirit is ‘wind’ or
‘breath’, translations of the Hebrew ruach and the Greek pneuma, both of which words
can also be translated as spirit. According to Yong, the metaphor “points to the
assumed contrast between spiritual and material reality.”1042 Yong claims that this
image exhibits the normative character of the pneumatological imagination. The fact
that there are diverse spirits active in the world should lead one to “earnestly desire
the experience of the divine Breath rather than pursue after the breezes of just any
spirit.”1043

1035 Yong defines ‘root metaphors’ as “formative cultural symbols or icons that enable large-scale
coherent visions of the world and that thereby function normatively in the assessment of visions of those
outside that metaphoric framework because of their capacity to absorb and explain the other in its own
terms.” Yong, Spirit-Word-Community, 133.
1036 Yong would speak of ‘pneumatic’ experience rather than ‘Pentecostal’, or if a particular
tradition is mentioned, he would speak of a ‘Pentecostal-charismatic’ experience. We believe that our

terminology is fair as it is our goal to point out the particularity of Yong’s system. At the same time Yong
usage is strategic because he is trying to convince his colleagues in academia of his position and
‘pneumatic’ is less scandalous than ‘Pentecostal’.
1043 Yong, Spirit-Word-Community, 139. It is not clear to us why the root metaphor of ‘power’, points
to the anti-nominalist character of the imagination, while the metaphor of breath points to its normative
210 PART II
Yong’s pneumatological imagination is the driving force of his theology, whilst

his foundational pneumatology allows him to drive wherever he wishes. Now that
Yong’s foundational pneumatology and his pneumatological imagination are in place,
we can proceed to investigate his theology of religions.
character. Both metaphors, according to Yong, point to the presence of spirit(s) in reality. On what basis is
this distinction then made?
§ 3. YONG’S THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS
Yong’s crucial starting point for his theology of religions is the universal presence and
agency of God in the world through the Holy Spirit. Yong argues for this starting point
on the basis of three clusters of arguments: biblical, metaphysical, and theological. On
this foundation, Yong develops three categories that structure his thought: divine
presence, divine activity and divine absence. This latter category does not primarily
refer to apophatic theology, but to the presence and activity of other spirits. It is the
combination of these three categories that renders the evaluation of religions less than
straightforward, but which makes discernment of the spirits essential. Discernment,
then, plays a central role in Yong’s theology of religions. This involves an extensive
treatment of the meaning of this notion as well as developing a criteriology for
discernment. From his earliest work onwards, Yong has been engaged in trying to put
his theory to work, by showing how discernment works in the practice of interreligious
dialogue. This explains why theology of religions, according to Yong, can never remain
an abstract exercise but is intertwined with interreligious hospitality. An implication of
this position, for Yong, is that comparative theology is inextricably connected to
theology of religions.
A. UBIQUITOUS SPIRIT
1. Biblical building blocks
In setting out to prove the omnipresence of the Holy Spirit, Yong starts with
Scripture.1044 He looks at the biblical narrative as a play in three acts: “creation, re-
creation, and final creation.”1045
a. Presence and agency of the Holy Spirit in creation
Although the Word is often singled out as God’s agent of creation – for it is God’s
speaking which calls the world into existence – Yong points to the dual agency of
Word and Spirit in the creative process. In order to speak words, breath (ruach –
breath/wind/Spirit) is necessary. The breath/Spirit of God is mentioned at the very
beginning of the creation narrative, as hovering over the primordial waters (Gen
1044 “Christian theology begins with Scripture […].” Yong, Beyond the Impasse, 35. The Scriptural
argument is followed by theological and philosophical-metaphysical arguments. In Discerning the Spirit(s),
the metaphysical foundation is first laid, followed by a Scriptural and theological arguments (cf. p. 99-132).
It is perhaps no coincidence that Beyond the Impasse is primarily directed at an evangelical audience,
whereas Discerning the Spirit(s) is aimed at an academic theological public in general.
1045 Yong, Beyond the Impasse, 36. Yong claims these categories as his own, even if they are well-
known in theology under the names of ‘creation-redemption-consummation’.

212 PART II
1:2).1046 Yong finds confirmation for this participation of the Spirit in the making and
sustaining of creation in the Psalms.1047 Psalm 33 states, “By the word of the Lord the
heavens were made, and all their host by the breath of his mouth.”1048 And similarly, in
Psalm 104 the Psalmist says of God’s sustaining the animals of the earth, “When you
hide your face, they are dismayed; when you take away their breath, they die and
return to their dust. When you send forth your spirit, they are created; and you renew
the face of the ground.”1049 The most explicit passage in the Psalms referring to the
ubiquity of God through his Spirit is found in Psalm 139: “Where can I go from your
spirit? Or where can I flee from your presence? If I ascend to heaven, you are there; if I
make my bed in Sheol, you are there. If I take the wings of the morning and settle at
the farthest limits of the sea, even there your hand shall lead me, and your right hand
shall hold me fast.”1050 These passages make clear the agency and presence of the Spirit
in all of creation. Yong is convinced that “[r]ecognition of the Spirit’s omnipresence
follows from this pneumatological vision of creation and providence.”1051
The New Testament adds its own testimony to God’s omnipresence through the
Holy Spirit in St. Paul’s Areopagus’ address.1052 The apostle preaches that all of
mankind owes its life and breath to God and quotes approvingly Epimenides, one of
the Greek poet-philosophers, to the effect that humanity lives, moves and exists in
God.1053 Yong concludes that, “From this, it is clear that human life—even that of the
1046 Gen 1:1-2 (American Standard Version): 1In the beginning God created the heavens and the
earth. 2And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God
moved upon the face of the waters.
1048 Ps 33:6 (NRSV, my italics). Breath translates the Hebrew ַ‫( רּוח‬ruach), which can also be translated
as wind or s/Spirit.
1049 Ps 104:29-30 (NRSV, my italics).
1050 Ps 139:7-10 (NRSV).
1052 Acts 17:24-28 (NRSV): 24The God who made the world and everything in it, he who is Lord of
heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by human hands, 25nor is he served by human hands, as
though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mortals life and breath and all things. 26From one
ancestor he made all nations to inhabit the whole earth, and he allotted the times of their existence and the
boundaries of the places where they would live, 27so that they would search for God and perhaps grope for
him and find him—though indeed he is not far from each one of us. 28For ‘In him we live and move and
have our being’; as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we too are his offspring.’
1053 Terence P. Paige, “Philosophy,” in Dictionary of Paul and his Letters, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne,
Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 716. There is some
discussion, however, whether Acts 17:28a (“In him we live and move and have our being”) is really a
quote from Epimenides. Theophilus of Antioch quotes from the poem Phaenomena by Aratus, and one
translator seems to combine both parts of Acts 17:28 (“in him we live and move and have our being” and
“we too are his offspring”) as follows: “On thee our being hangs; in thee we move; All are thy offspring
and the seed of Jove.” Theophilus of Antioch, “Theophilus to Autolycus,” in Fathers of the Second Century:
Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria. Revised and chronologically arranged with
brief prefaces and occasional notes by A. Cleveland Coxe, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, The
Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001), II.8 p.97. This translation of Aratus’s
Phaenomena is taken from Jabez Hughes, “Aratus, Phaenomena,” in Specimens of the Classic Poets in a
Chronological Series From Homer to Tryphiodorus, Translated Into English Verse, and Illustrated With Biographical
pagan poets (or philosophers) quoted here by Paul—is animated by the presence and
activity of God by and through the divine Spirit.”1054
b. The Holy Spirit of God in re-creation
A ubiquitous and active Spirit cannot but be involved in redemption as well. Yong
points out that the Spirit’s presence and agency is first and foremost visible in Jesus’
life, death and resurrection.1055
However, another crucial moment of the Spirit’s presence and agency in
salvation—or re-creation, as Yong calls it—is the day of Pentecost. True to his tradition,
Yong confers a pivotal place on the narrative of Pentecost in Acts. That day marks the
first step of the outworking of God’s plan to extend his covenantal blessings beyond
the Jewish people. On the day of Pentecost, diaspora Jews from all over the world are
gathered in Jerusalem and participate in the outpouring of the Spirit.1056 The text claims
that the Spirit is poured out “upon all flesh” (Acts 2:17). Yong is quick to point out that
the “all” should not be limited to the (inchoate) church. Instead, the “Spirit’s activity
across the dimensions of both space—the Spirit’s being poured out upon all people—
and time—’in the last days’, stretching from the Day of Pentecost to the coming of the
and Critical Notices (Vol. 1), ed. Charles Abraham Elton (London: Robert Baldwin, 1814), 275. Hughes (p.
274) claims unambiguously that “Aratus is quoted by St. Paul, in his oration to the Athenians on Mars’s
hill: Acts xvii. 28. “For in him we live, and move, and have our being; (as certain also of your own poets
have said;) for we are also his offspring.” Other, more recent translations, however, do not come to results
that are so close to Acts 17:28a. Aaron Poochigian, for example, translates the relevant verse as, “By Zeus
alone we live, Born as his children, too […]”, whereas Douglas Kidd has “in all circumstances we are
dependent on Zeus. For we are also his children […].” See Douglas Kidd, Aratus: Phaenomena, Cambridge
Classical Texts and Commentaries (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 73; Aaron Poochigian,
Aratus’ Phaenomena. Translated, with an Introduction and Notes, John Hopkins New Translations from
Antiquity (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 2010), 1. The Greek of Acts 17:28a, is too distant from
Aratus to be a direct quote (Aratus: πάντη δὲ Διὸς κεχρήμεθα πάντες. τοῦ γὰρ καὶ γένος εἰμέν whereas
Acts 17:28 (NA 26) has: ἐν αὐτῷ γὰρ ζῶμεν καὶ κινούμεθα καὶ ἐσμέν, ὡς καί τινες τῶν καθ ὑμᾶς
ποιητῶν εἰρήκασιν·).
Theophilus of Antioch used the same Greek text of Aratus’s poem as that in the critical editions of
Aratus’s Phaenomena. See Antiochenus Theophilus, “Theophili Antiocheni Ad Autolycum,” in Patristische
Texte und Studien 44, ed. Miroslav Marcovich (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1995), 49. In any case, the idea proffered
in Aratus’s Phaenomena is the same as St. Paul’s expression “in him we live, and move, and have our
being.”
1055 Yong points to crucial moments in Jesus life, where the Spirit is mentioned, particularly in the
Gospel of Luke. For example, his conception (Lk 1:35), dedication (Lk 2:25-35), baptism (Lk 3:21-22),
temptation (Lk 4:1-14), ministry (Lk 4:18-19), death (Heb 9:14) and resurrection (Rom 1:2-4). Yong, Beyond
the Impasse, 38.
1056 Acts 2:17-21 (NRSV): 17’In the last days it will be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit
upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions,
and your old men shall dream dreams. 18Even upon my slaves, both men and women, in those days I will
pour out my Spirit; and they shall prophesy. 19And I will show portents in the heaven above and signs on
the earth below, blood, and fire, and smoky mist. 20The sun shall be turned to darkness and the moon to
blood, before the coming of the Lord’s great and glorious day. 21Then everyone who calls on the name of
the Lord shall be saved’. This part of Peter’s speech references an Old Testament prophecy in Joel 2:28-32.
214 PART II
kingdom of God—begs to be understood in a universal sense that transcends (at least

the institutional boundaries of) the church.”1057
c. The Holy Spirit in final creation
Peter’s speech at Pentecost already made clear that there is an eschatological dimension
to the Spirit’s agency, tracing the activity of the Holy Spirit “not only [from] original
creation and re-creation (initial salvation), but […] also to final creation—the new
heavens and the new earth.”1058 This includes not only God’s people, but the whole of
creation as well. Referring to Rom 8:18-27, Yong claims that the Holy Spirit “groans in,
with, and through us, in order to bring about the liberation of the creation itself.”1059
In the meantime – and this should be understood literally, for we live between
the ‘already’ and the ‘not yet’ – “we not only eagerly anticipate the coming of the
kingdom but also celebrate its presence in our midst (Luke 17:21), precisely because of
the presence and activity of the Spirit (Luke 11:20).”1060
2. Metaphysical matters and theological thoughts
Yong proffers not only biblical arguments to establish his case for the ubiquity of the
Spirit as the point of departure for his theology of religions. There are also clear
metaphysical and theological groundings. We have already discussed Yong’s
metaphysical theory in the context of his foundational pneumatology.1061 Our
discussion here will build on that, but focus more explicitly on the theological
connections with the Spirit.
In Yong’s metaphysics, there is a triadic structure to reality in which everything
is constituted as essential qualities (firstness), concrete facts and actualities
(secondness), and inner habits, dispositions and laws (thirdness).1062 In theological
terms, this means that every determinate being is constituted both by the Word and the
Spirit because everything is created by the Father through these, his two hands. 1063
Firstness itself is not experienced but “abstracted from our experiences of Secondness

1058 Yong, Beyond the Impasse, 40. Yong makes reference to the following biblical texts: Rev 5:9, 7:9,
21:24, 22:17; Rom 1:4; Ezek 37:1-14; Rom 8:18-27.
1061 See § 2 on p.202ff.
1063 Yong prefers this Irenaean model of the Trinity over social trinitarian models “because it seems
to me to be capable of preserving the centrality of the notion of community inherent in the social doctrine
without the latter’s tendencies toward tritheism.” Yong, Beyond the Impasse, 43 n.8. Irenaeus mentions God
as creating with his both hands, Word and Spirit, in Irenaeus, “Against Heresies,” in The Apostolic Fathers,
Justin Martyr, Irenaeus. Revised and chronologically arranged, with brief prefaces and occasional notes by A.
Cleveland Coxe, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 2001), 463.
(facts) and Thirdness (laws).”1064 In theological terms, the Father is not immediately
present to the world, but is mediated through Word and Spirit. This means that there is
a universal and particular dimension to both Word and Spirit, albeit in different
ways.1065 The Word is not just particular in Jesus of Nazareth, but universal in the
cosmic Christ, whereas the Spirit is not only universal, but also particular in bringing
to the fore the pluriformity of concrete things. Word and Spirit always intertwine, as is
made clear by the notion of perichoresis.1066 Such an approach has the advantage that it
refuses to render the Spirit subordinate to the Word, relegating the Spirit as the silent
member of the Trinity. Yong states, “Each determination of being is what it is by virtue
of the presence and activity of the Logos within the force fields set in motion by the
Spirit, the supreme field of force. The Logos is the concrete form or pattern of each
thing even as the Spirit is the power of its actualization and instantiation.”1067
Yong continues to find confirmation for this pattern in history as well as
salvation history; it is operative in creation, incarnation and consummation. According
to Yong, not only is everything ontologically constituted by Word and Spirit,1068 but
also epistemologically encountered in this fashion. “The Spirit illuminates the symbolic
structure of reality that enables us to know. Every determination of being therefore
reveals the divine through the Word and by the Spirit, at least partially.”1069
There is, then, a potential religious dimension to any experience, rather than a
separate category of religious experience. The experience of God differs from other
experiences, not in its contrast with ‘normal’ experiences, but in relating us to “a
dimension of being that includes but is not exhausted by normal experience.”1070 Our
experience of God also comes through perception of concrete reality, but we intuit in it
an abundance which exceeds ourselves. According to Yong, this dimension opens up a
“heightened sense of truth, beauty, excellence and reality.”1071 Yong’s understanding of
religious experience is therefore down to earth. Since all experience begins with our
senses, we also experience the presence of the Spirit, initially at least, “with the
concrete determinations of being. […] Yet, in and through this engagement, we come
into relationship with an other. This leads us eventually to an experience of the ‘more’
that we intuit in our engagement with the world.”1072

1068 Yong quotes Ps 33:6, which states: “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their
host by the breath of his mouth” (NRSV, my italics). The word for ‘breath’ is ruach, the same word used for
Spirit.

216 PART II
3. Accompanying axioms
Yong summarizes the implications of the foregoing discussion in three axioms that
characterize his theology of religions:
“Axiom 1: God is universally present and active in the Spirit.”1073
“Axiom 2: God’s Spirit is the life-breath of the imago Dei in every human being
and the presupposition of all human relationships and communities.”1074
“Axiom 3: The religions of the world, like everything else that exists, are
providentially sustained by the Spirit of God for divine purposes.”1075
The first axiom should not be controversial, but becomes more complex when
one tries to make explicit the ways in which the Spirit is present and active. The second
axiom is an ontological claim that establishes a universal common ground in
humankind notwithstanding the pluriformity of human expressions, gender, culture
and religion.1076 Axiom three refuses to categorically condemn any religion as anti-
theistic. It recognises that “[i]f God is reaching out to sinners, it is hard to comprehend
why he would not do so in the sphere of religion.”1077 It is willing to see the religions as
dynamic rather than static, implying that former Christian evaluations of (parts of
other) religions – either positive or negative – may be out of date.
B. FOUNDATIONAL PNEUMATOLOGICAL CATEGORIES
For Yong, the Holy Spirit is the primary symbol of God’s universal presence and
activity.1078 Two foundational pneumatological categories are, therefore, divine
presence and divine agency. A third category to which we will devote more attention
anon, is that of divine absence. It holds a crucial place in Yong’s theology, is one that is
distinctive to his approach to religions, and characteristic of his Pentecostal tradition.
Together, these three categories provide the rationale for Yong to approach the other
religions pneumatologically.
1. Divine presence
That the Spirit is universally present has, of course, immediate implications for one’s
approach to other religions. It implies that the Holy Spirit is also present in non-
Christian religions. There are, however, two distinct levels at which the presence of the
Spirit should be thought of, one ontological and the other phenomenological.
Concerning the ontological level, we have already pointed out that Yong’s metaphysics

1077 Yong, Beyond the Impasse, 46. This is actually a quote from Clark Pinnock, Flame of Love: A
Theology of the Holy Spirit (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 203.
1078 Yong, “Discerning the Spirit(s) in the World Religions,” 51.
understands every determinate being in the world to be co-constituted by the Spirit.

This includes the particulars of religions, such as doctrines, stories, rituals, ethical
codes, places of worship, hierarchies, etc. Yong states that these “are what they are by
virtue of being created as such. The Spirit is the mediator of the pure possibilities open
to each thing.”1079
On the phenomenological level, however, Yong would say that there are degrees
to which the Spirit is present in concrete things or events. He would assess a greater
degree of the Spirit’s presence in those determinations of being that are more authentic
to their created norm and which are therefore more harmoniously situated in their
environment.1080 Yong will say that there is an aesthetic quality to our experience of
divine presence.1081
2. Divine agency
The Spirit’s universal presence could still be regarded as rather inconsequential if it

were not also connected with divine activity. The Spirit, of course, acts in such a way
that things or events move toward a more authentic existence in harmonious relations
with their environment. The fact that the Spirit is at work in the world can then be
evaluated on the basis of concrete things or events being transformed into situations in
which the “harmonies of things are heightened and intensified in their
interrelatedness.”1082 This implies that there is an ethical dimension to discerning divine
activity, whereas discerning the Spirit’s presence holds more of an aesthetic quality.1083
This applies also to religious phenomena. The development over time of religious
doctrines, rituals, texts, etc., is characterized by a certain direction with respect to the
religious life of the believer and of human life in general. Yong will say that the Spirit is
at work in religious phenomena if they result in more authentic life and relations.1084
Yong clarifies how he understands this though the example of religious rituals.
For theists, for example, a ritual is an action that relates the believer to the divine in
certain respects.1085 To evaluate the Spirit’s activity in that ritual, Yong asks questions
like, “Do religious rituals embody the norms, ideals and values that they claim, and,
more importantly, are such mediated to practitioners of ritual activity? Do rituals
promote social cohesion? Do they enable religious devotees to negotiate social
change?”1086 Religious rituals therefore exhibit divine agency to the degree that their
objectives are achieved in the religionist.1087


218 PART II
But if religious phenomena can grow more authentic and generate more intense
relations in harmony with their environment, they can also move in the opposite
direction. This impels Yong to develop a third pneumatological category, next to
divine presence and agency: divine absence.
3. Divine absence
If the Spirit is universally present and active, it is paradoxical to introduce divine

absence as an important category.1088 In Yong’s metaphysics, where every
determination of being is constituted by Word and Spirit, the ubiquitous divine
presence makes divine absence an impossible category. His metaphysics implies that,
for every determination of being, there is a divine ontological causality. However,
certain creatures are also ontologically characterized by freedom. The freedom to act,
grow, develop is constitutive of their being in the world. This means that there is, what
Yong calls, “cosmological causation.”1089 In more traditional theological terms, this is
rendered as the distinction that should be made between primary and secondary
causality.
God respects the creaturely integrity through freedom that is characteristic of
conscious agents. Yong calls this the “quality of pure possibility” with which God has
endowed each thing.1090 This freedom can be exercised in ways that are contrary to
their created norm. The implication is that the Holy Spirit can be both present – in the
fact of a thing’s being created – and absent – in their following a course that leads to
destruction, falsehood and evil. Such divine absence makes room for the agency of
other spirits. Although all created things reflect Spirit and Word, they do not do so in a
pure manner but “every thing, and more specifically, every religious reality and event,
reflects not only Word and Spirit to a greater or lesser degree but also human and
perhaps even demonic spirits to various degrees as well.”1091 The full presence of Spirit
and Word is something that will only be eschatologically realised. When God’s
kingdom comes in its full glory, God will be all in all.1092 In the meantime, there are
various degrees in which God is present and active in all things. Not only Word and
Spirit are reflected, but “also human and perhaps even demonic spirits to various
1088 Yong is aware of the potential confusion of the category of divine absence with apophatic
theology. He writes that he is “aware that in some Christian traditions, the absence of the divine is not
necessarily linked with the demonic but is rather connected with the apophatic silence of distance of God.
I fully appreciate this understanding of divine distance even as I think it is important to recognize this
apophatic dimension of the theological task (Amos Yong, Pneumatology and the Christian-Buddhist Dialogue:
Does the Spirit Blow Through the Middle Way?, Studies in Systematic Theology (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 16n.34).
1091 Yong, “Discerning the Spirit(s) in the World Religions,” 51.
1092 1 Cor 15:28 (NRSV): “When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be
subjected to the one who put all things in subjection under him, so that God may be all in all.”
degrees as well.” Naming some of these spirits ‘demonic’ implies that some things
“actively resist the arrival of the divine kingdom.”1093
Although Yong does not eschew using the label ‘demonic’, he more often refers
to these spirits with the more generic Pauline terminology of ‘principalities and
powers’.1094 A common interpretation of this notion is offered by Daniel Reid:
The two terms, principalities and powers, are shorthand for a
variety of terms Paul employed to refer to powers that were
created by God but in some way are hostile to Christ and his
church. The precise meaning of these terms in their various
contexts has been a matter of twentieth-century scholarly
debate. Most would agree, however, that Paul was speaking of
a spiritual dimension of the created order (objective and
personal powers, some would add) who, being inimical to
Christ and his church, were in some way opposed and either
neutralized or conquered by Christ.1095
Yong explicitly engages the biblical theology of the late Walter Wink. Wink
published a trilogy on ‘the powers’ that was dedicated to reappropriating this Pauline
notion for contemporary use.1096 Wink’s analysis pointed towards a social, institutional,
structural and political understanding of ‘the powers’, an idea that was already
prevalent, but he also showed that there is more to the biblical understanding of
‘powers’ than meet the eye.1097 Wink would claim that, “These Powers are both
heavenly and earthly, divine and human, spiritual and political, invisible and
structural.”1098 At the same time, it was made clear that a biblical analysis of ‘the
powers’ proved that, “These Powers are also both good and evil.”1099 His analysis also
led him to conclude that “the vast preponderance of uses [of power language] refer to
the human and structural dimensions of power […]. However, […] it is precisely this
spiritual element which does not and cannot be made to fit our modern reductionist

1094 Compare Col 1:16 (“for in [Christ] all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible
and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers—all things have been created through
him and for him.” NRSV) with Eph 6:12 (“For our struggle is not against enemies of blood and flesh, but
against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the
spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.” NRSV).
1095 Daniel G. Reid, “Principalities and Powers,” in Dictionary of Paul and his Letters, ed. Gerald F.
Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid (Downers Grove, IL - Leicester: IVP, 1993), 746.
1096 Walter Wink, Naming the Powers: The Language of Power in the New Testament, The Powers 1
(Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1984); Walter Wink, Unmasking the Powers: The Invisible Forces that Determine
Human Existence, The Powers 2 (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1986); Walter Wink, Engaging the Powers:
Discernment and Resistance in a World of Domination, The Powers 3 (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1992).
1097 The biblical concepts for principalities and powers that Wink examined for his analysis are
many and pervade the whole New Testament. These include: rulers (archontes), kings (basileis), those in
authority (hoi exousiazontes), chief priests (archiereis), authorities (archontôn), angels and principalities
(archai), power (dynamei), name (onomati), wisdom (sophian), authority (exousian), commission (eptiropês),
world rulers (kosmokratoras), thrones (thronoi), dominions (kyriotêtes). Wink, Naming the Powers, 7-8.
1098 Wink, Naming the Powers, 11.

220 PART II
categories that most cries out for explanation.”1100 Wink carefully counters this
reductionist approach in allowing for a spiritual dimension of ‘the powers’. Central in
his understanding is seeing ‘the powers’ as “the inner aspect of material or tangible
manifestations of power.”1101 But Wink is quick to point out that, according to him,
these powers do not exist apart from their material manifestation, i.e., they do not exist
independently.1102
Now although Pentecostals typically take the demonic element of a biblical
worldview very seriously, before Yong, few have interacted with Wink’s analysis.1103
Yong, however, appropriates the Winkian understanding, changes it along the way,
and brings it to fecundity in his theology of religions.1104 Yong does complain that Wink
is not paying enough attention to the metaphysical issues of his theology. He tries to
link Wink’s analysis to his own metaphysical scheme, finding it very congenial to such
a linkage. What Wink calls the inner aspects of ‘the powers’ squares with Yong’s use of
the category of thirdness, and Wink’s outer aspects – the concrete form – can easily be
linked with the category of secondness.1105 Translating Wink’s system in his own
philosophical scheme, Yong says that “the demonic is a law or nexus of laws that
attempts to pervert the determinate forms of being and establish force fields of
destruction.”1106 However, what Yong finds missing in Wink’s analysis, is a notion
similar to the category of firstness, i.e., “the existential spontaneity of each event or
thing as endowed by the divine creative act.”1107 It is this spontaneity that allows that a

1102 Wink, Naming the Powers, 105. Wink cites an interesting biblical example as evidence for his
point: In Mark 5:1-20 we read of Jesus healing the Gerasene Demoniac and ‘Legion’ (as the spirit is named)
begs to be allowed to go into a herd of swines. The point being made, says Wink, is that “demons can
become manifest only through concretion in material reality.” Wink, Naming the Powers, 106.
1103 Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s), 128 n.41. Demonic influence is typically understood in the
individual sphere, as affecting individuals who can be demon-possessed. The structural, socio-political
dimension is usually lacking in popular Pentecostal literature. Yong, however remarks that the
demonology of Third Wave charismatics since the 1990s paid more attention to “spiritual warfare directed
toward identifying, addressing and overcoming strongholds of demonic oppression regnant over various
kinds of social networks such as neighbourhoods, people groups, cities and nations dispersed over specific
geographic regions.” Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s), 238. For Yong’s extended interaction with the literature
on ‘principalities and powers’, both the history of the research as well as Yong’s appropriation of it, see his
political theology In the Days of Caesar, 134-165.
1104 We criticized the lack of such appropriation in Gerald McDermott’s analysis of the Old
Testament use of ‘gods’ and of biblical cosmology. See p. 178ff.

But Yong differs from Wink in a central point: Wink adheres to a process theological view with a
Whiteheadian ‘metaphysics’. Wink does not allow the spirits existence independent of material
manifestations. He claims the same for God (Wink, Naming the Powers, 124, esp. n.19). For a discussion of
Yong’s more general qualms with process theology, see Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s), 92-93. He mentions
especially the ontological implications of the doctrine of creation in process theology, the inability of God
to act unilaterally in the world, and its eschatology. Cf. Yong, Beyond the Impasse, 137.
1107 Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s), 129. Yong explicitly finds lacking Wink’s “panentheistic model of
God derived from process theology […].” Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s), 129.
choice can be made in all freedom “against the norms, ideals and values revealed in
Jesus Christ.”1108 Once this choice is made, a force is set loose that brings to destruction
the identity of that determination of being and rips apart its network of relations.1109
Yong agrees with Wink that the influence of these ‘spirits’ “can only be measured
in concrete realities.”1110 But he disagrees with Wink’s view that they are ‘impersonal’.
“I am not here denying the idea of a personal devil and his demons. I am simply
denying the claim that such realities can be conceived only in a spiritual sense apart
from concrete forms.”1111
Yong distinguishes three levels in ‘the powers’:
First, the powers are ‘spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly
realms’ (Eph. 6.12). Second, the powers are the human
authorities established by God that operate social or political
institutions (Rom. 13.1-8). These persons can do God’s bidding
or degenerate into sinful rebellion. Thirdly, and by no means
lastly, the powers may be understood to refer to actual social
and political structures or institutions (according to Rev. 13.1-
7).1112
The Holy Spirit works towards constituting each thing and event as authentic
and harmonious in its relations, so that they exist in harmony with their inner norms
and goals. Ultimately, all things will be brought, by the Holy Spirit, under the norm
and purpose of Jesus Christ. The demonic, however, works against such
transformation, opposing the ultimate divine norms as revealed in Jesus Christ, and
effectively resisting the coming of God’s kingdom in glory.1113
Yong gives three characteristics of the effects of demonic spirits.1114 The first is
their disrupting gravitational force such that things and events are set on a destructive
track. Second, this destruction is realised by developing inauthentic relations between
things. The demonic is, thirdly, characterized by inciting determinations of being to
“overreach [their] divinely appointed reason for being.”1115 Remark how the primeval
sin of Adam and Eve fits well with this analysis: (1) the destructive outcome of original
sin is evident; (2) the inauthentic relations which are developed between Adam and
Eve and between them and God and between humanity and the world, are obvious; (3)
and the overreaching of humanity is probably the prime notion that comes across in
the temptation as spelled out by the snake, to ‘be like God’.

1110 Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s), 131. Yong, Beyond the Impasse, 137-138.

222 PART II
Given such an understanding of God’s presence, agency and absence, it is

evident that a proper theology of religions must heavily invest in a theology of
discernment. It is no surprise that this is a task that Yong has dutifully taken on. And it
is to this issue that we now turn our attention.
C. DISCERNING THE PRESENCE AND ACTIVITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IN THE

RELIGIONS
The major focus of Yong’s theology of religions is discernment, i.e., the question of
distinguishing, in the religions, the Holy Spirit from other spirits.1116 After briefly
spelling out the need for discernment (‘Why?’), we will show in this section, that, for
Yong, discernment is not simply a gift of the Holy Spirit, but an ongoing dialectical and
hermeneutical process that involves detailed study of all concrete aspects of the
religions (‘What?’). Thirdly, we discuss the relation between christology and
pneumatology in discernment (‘Who?’). Finally, we will explain how Yong tries to
develop a criteriology for discernment and how this relates to the christological
impasse (‘How?’). This will pave the way for an analysis, in the following section, of
Yong’s praxis of discernment.
1. Why? The need for discernment
Yong argues that a pneumatological theology of religions should be geared to

discernment of the Spirit and the spirits (human, social, demonic) in the religions. All
religions are an intermingling of the divine, the human and other (demonic) spirits.1117
This implies that there are different degrees to which determinate beings can reflect the
divine. Being able to distinguish the demonic from the human and divine, therefore, is
central to his project.
An implication of such an understanding is a dynamic view of discernment, i.e.,
to trace the spiritual trajectory of a thing or event and thus point to the activity of the
Spirit or its absence, and to the activity of other spirits in the same thing or event.1118
2. What? The breadth of discernment
Given Yong’s metaphysics that understands all determinations of being to consist of

logos and pneuma, concrete form and inner habits, it follows that discernment should
pay equal attention to both these material and spiritual aspects of reality. It is,
therefore, not simply a matter of detecting the presence of the Holy Spirit or of evil
spirits. Understanding the world we live in involves discerning the inner trajectories of
things. These will only be revealed after close inspection of the world in all its

concreteness. The complexity of reality necessitates a very broad approach to the many
dimensions of life.1119
Yong’s metaphysics thus predicts that there cannot be a purely ‘spiritual’ way to
discernment. On the other hand, Yong has to wrestle with the Pentecostal tradition that
emphasizes the charism of spiritual discernment which the Holy Spirit bestows on
(some) believers. Yong tackles this issue by presenting an elaborate analysis of the
biblical terms connected with discernment.1120
The results of his biblical analysis show Yong that biblical discernment comes in
two distinct but related senses: one narrow and one broad. The narrow biblical
category of spiritual discernment is the gift of God by the Holy Spirit, given to guide
believers, to give insight and to build up the people of God. The broader biblical
understanding of discernment, however, “emphasizes the processes of cultivating
physical, cognitive, and affective sensibilities in order to more accurately perceive the
assorted features of the natural world and of socio-institutional and interpersonal
relationships and to guide one’s actions in a responsible manner.”1121
Discernment, then, is not just a gift of God precluding human activity; on the
contrary, discernment requires training and cultivation. According to Yong, such a
broad notion of discernment “requires nothing less than that we aspire to be fully
trained and equipped to engage the world in its fullness.”1122 Such an engagement
involves a multi-dimensional, multi-perspectival, dialectical approach. Yong labels this
a ‘hermeneutics of life’.1123 Discernment is to life what hermeneutics is to texts; it is
about “the perceiving and assessing of human life in the world.”1124
If, as Yong argues, each determination of being has both a “concrete form and
dynamic or relational vector,”1125 then discerning the ‘spirit’, i.e., the inner aspect of a
‘thing’, means that one should study the concrete form meticulously. This follows from
the conviction that the inner aspect is revealed in its manifestations. Yong avers that
there is no access to the spiritual aspect of determinations of being except through the
concrete phenomenological forms. Such an exercise requires all the human senses and
available analytical tools.1126
Yong tests this hypothesis in pointing out what would be involved in trying to
discern the spirit of his own Pentecostal denomination, the Assemblies of God (AoG).
Members of the AoG, of course, would hope that the ‘spirit of the AoG’ is the Holy

1126 Yong, Beyond the Impasse, 151. The importance of the phenomenology of things is also the reason
why Yong is engaged in the science-theology dialogue. Theology must engage the sciences, not only
because of the metaphysical structure of reality, but also because discernment requires attention to
concrete forms.
224 PART II
Spirit, but determining this requires a broad and in-depth assessment of the concrete
manifestations of the AoG. These would include the denominational leadership, the
local churches, the teaching programmes, the mission statements, the liturgies of the
worship services, the missionary approach, the Bible colleges belonging to the AoG.1127
Such an enumeration of the aspects and levels of things to be assessed
immediately shows that discernment is a highly complex project, one which most
likely will not result in an unambiguous black or white answer. Yong, therefore, makes
a caveat, one that is important to fully take into account:
The goal of a pneumatological theology of religions can never
be to state dogmatically or precisely: “This is where the Spirit
of God is!” This is the case for at least two reasons. First and
foremost is the fallibility and finitude that accompanies all
human knowledge. Second, while Christians who believe in
the charismatic gift of discernment of spirits can and should
earnestly desire this gift, it is surely the case that even if God
does all things through Word and Spirit, the full manifestation
of Word and Spirit in the world has been distorted, muted, and
even effaced by sin.1128
The charism of discernment, then, is no shortcut to discerning the spirits. The

way to the inner aspects of things goes necessarily through paying attention to their
concrete forms, because –as Yong believes– “the Spirit operates incarnationally.”1129
Spiritual discernment, then is never “a purely spiritual exercise.”1130 If spirits do not
manifest themselves, they are either irrelevant, or worse, the result of our imagination.
Analogously to Wink, Yong avers that “[n]on-manifesting spirits could not be said to
exist in any meaningful sense […].”1131
Recognizing the complexity involved in discernment, Yong avers that discerning
the Holy Spirit and/or the demonic in religions entails a process that encompasses
three stages. The first stage concerns discernment on a phenomenological-experiential
level, the second stage is moral, and the third theological.1132
Discernment, then, should focus first on the concrete phenomena of religions and
the religious dimension of experiences of the believers. Religious experience becomes a
comparative category for discerning the Spirit.1133 What happens in this stage of
discernment, is a closer look at the subjective description of religious experience by the
religionist and the relative quality apportioned to it. What do believers claim is
happening in their specific religious experience? At a fundamental level, says Yong,

1129 Yong, Beyond the Impasse, 153. He quotes Thomas Dubay, Authenticity: A Biblical Theology of
Discernment (Denville, NJ: Dimension, 1977), 157.


“we can tentatively acknowledge the Spirit’s presence […] insofar as the practice of any
ritual by devotees do [sic] not deviate essentially from its controlling norms.”1134 In
other words, one can – provisionally – allow for the presence of the Spirit on the basis
of qualitative religious experiences. However, because this stage is inevitably
subjective, discerning the Spirit(s) cannot be limited to this phase.1135
Whereas the first stage is connected to religious experience, Yong connects the
second, ethical, stage in discernment, with what he calls ‘religious utility’.1136 The idea
is that one looks for the transformative power of religious symbols1137 in the life of the
devotee. Does this specific experience, related to that religious symbol, lead to a
transformed life of the believer? Admission of such transformation may point to the
activity of the Spirit, according to Yong.1138 There is a pragmatic element in this level of
discernment: “Do the symbols work?”1139 Yong here makes an interesting distinction
between the network meaning of religious symbols and their content meaning.1140 The
network meaning of symbols is related to their plausibility at the cultural-linguistic
level of the particular religion. In other words, “symbols have networks of meaning in
which reference can be found by extensional means to other symbols in the system.”1141
The network meaning of religious symbols is thus linked to the intra-systemic value
and the coherence of a religious tradition.
The third stage in discernment, the theological, is linked to what Yong calls
‘religious cosmology’. Here, the question must be asked, avers Yong, about the truth of
the religious symbol. This is the content meaning of a religious phenomenon. “At the
transcendent level, however, symbols have content meaning in which reference is
determined by the intentionality of the devotee with regard to the divine.”1142 Whereas
the network meaning of religious symbols is evaluated on the basis of coherence, the
content meaning of religious symbols is evaluated on the basis of a correspondence
model of truth. This is dealing with the transcendent reference of a religious symbol,
hence the reason why Yong talks of ‘religious cosmology’. This is obviously the most
delicate part of discernment, and Yong recognizes that “there is no guarantee that
claims regarding the transcendent references of religious symbols can be successfully

1137 ‘Religious symbol’ refers to any religious phenomenon (for example rituals, texts, creeds, praxis,
etc.) that holds significance and has symbolic reference. See Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s), 251 n. 38.
1138 Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s), 251. Throughout his analysis, Yong remains very nuanced. His
acknowledgment of fallibilism precludes strong black and white conclusions.

1140 Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s), 252. See also Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s), 145-146.

226 PART II
adjudicated anytime soon.”1143 Such adjudication must await eschatological

resolution!1144
3. Who? Discerning Christ or discerning the Spirit?
Before we look at more concrete examples of Yong’s criteriology, we must discuss how
he deals with the ‘christological impasse’. The centrality of the christological criterion
in theology of religions has long since been considered a difficulty which tends to end
interreligious dialogue prematurely. Yong, however, proffered his pneumatological
approach as a way to move ‘beyond the impasse’.1145 This does not mean that the
christological issue does not play a role.
The advantage of approaching religions with pneumatological categories is that,
according to Yong, they move theology of religions beyond the christological impasse –
at least temporarily. Yong’s metaphysical and theological distinction of Word and
Spirit has created space for interreligious dialogue that does not start with christology,
but allows speaking of the “presence and activity of the Spirit in a way that is not
strictly christological.”1146 For Yong, it is undeniable that “there is an experience of the
Spirit that is not explicitly christological.”1147 Yong, however, is adamant that
eschatologically “there will be a convergence of Spirit and Word in the full revelation
of the divine mystery.”1148 In the here and now, every determination of being exhibits
only to some extent the presence and activity of the Spirit. In the eschaton, the Spirit
will bring to conclusion the transformation of the determinations of being such that
they conform to the image of God in Jesus,1149 for Jesus is, according to Yong, the “most
complete instance” of the presence and activity of the divine.1150
The implication of this is that the christological criteria cannot be held at bay
forever. Even in the Irenaean understanding of the distinct missions of Word and Spirit
as both hands of the Father,1151 these missions are, in the end, indivisible.1152 Yong

1144 Yong perceptively asks whether this is then not fideistic. His answer: “Perhaps ultimately yes,
in the sense that all strictly theological conviction are finally verifiable or falsifiable only in the eschaton.
At the same time, it is a chastened rather than incorrigible fideism that is also open to the correction of the
Spirit whether that be through prayer and faithful meditation on Scripture, insights from the broader
Christian community, the interreligious dialogue, or otherwise.” Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s), 255.
1145 Hence the title of his second monograph in theology of religions: Beyond the Impasse: Toward a
Pneumatological Theology of Religions (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic; Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 2003).
1151 Some Patristic scholars would disagree with drawing the implication that Irenaeus’s speaking of
the two hands of the Father implies distinct missions for the Son and the Spirit. The imagery that Irenaeus
probably had in mind, was that of a potter (cf. Is 64:8 (NRSV): “Yet, O LORD, you are our Father; we are
the clay, and you are our potter; we are all the work of your hand.”) Both hands of the potter share the
same ‘mission’, not a distinct one. See the discussion in Keith E. Johnson, Rethinking the Trinity & Religious
argued in Discerning the Spirit(s) and Beyond the Impasse for a temporary bracketing of
christology in order to facilitate interreligious dialogue. He stated that
It seems to me that defining our pneumatic experiences only
christologically closed the door to any further development of
a theology of religions since a dogmatic response simply
vitiates the empirical encounter. I would want to withhold
dogmatic judgment until we have had adequate opportunity to
test this hypothesis regarding the pneumatic character of
religious experience against the evidence. 1153
On the basis of such proposals by Yong, some fellow Evangelicals critiqued him
for dividing the mission of the Spirit from that of the Son.1154 However, Yong’s
proposal as spelled out in Discerning the Spirit(s) and Beyond the Impasse was not to
divide the missions of the Spirit and the Son, but rather to make distinctions such that
this proposal “holds the christological problem in abeyance.”1155 Yong explicitly adds
that this is for “heuristic purposes” and that the intention is that “christological issues
will not be discarded forever.”1156 According to Yong, “There is thus no final escape
Pluralism. An Augustinian Assessment, Strategic Initiatives in Evangelical Theology (Downers Grove, IL:
IVP Academic, 2011), 121-126. Irenaeus’s use of the two-hands metaphor was to emphasize God’s direct
involvement (a ‘hands-on approach’) in the creation of humanity, against Gnostic influence which
postulated a Demiurge for this kind of material involvement. See Anthony Briggman, Irenaeus of Lyons and
the Theology of the Holy Spirit, Oxford Early Christian Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 119-
126.
1152 Initially, Yong sought to create space for a pneumatological theology of religions by renouncing
the filioque. He feared that affirming the filioque would subordinate pneumatology to christology, thereby
perpetuating the christological impasse. He found support for this move in “the growing agreement in the
West regarding the dogmatic illegitimacy of the filioque particularly in the light of its intrusion into the
creed outside the recognized conciliar processes.” Yong, Beyond the Impasse, 186. Also Yong, Discerning the
Spirit(s), 66. Later, however, he modified his position, becoming “very sympathetic to the substance of
Aquinas’s handling of the filioque, even if it does not resolve all of the ecumenical problems.” Yong, Spirit
of Love, 169 n.20. In Spirit-Word-Community (59-72) Yong avers that, on the basis of Scripture, several
models of the relation of the Spirit to the Son can be envisaged. In Spirit Poured Out (226), Yong states the
following: “Although I had previously tended toward the Orthodox answer, I have since come to see the
value of the Filioque insofar as it provides for one clear model of trinitarian salvation history in which
redemption is accomplished in, and dynamically experienced by, those who are being saved.”
1154 See Johnson, Rethinking the Trinity, 94–98 and 119–26; James Merrick, “The Spirit of Truth as
Agent in False Religions? A Critique of Amos Yong’s Pneumatological Theology of Religions with
Reference to Current Trends,” Trinity Journal 29, no. 1 (2008). For a rebuttal of Merrick’s evaluation of
Yong, see Tony Richie, “The Spirit of Truth as Guide into All Truth: A Response to R. A. James Merrick,
“The Spirit of Truth as Agent in False Religions? A Critique of Amos Yong’s Pneumatological Theology of
Religions with Reference to Current Trends”,” Cyberjournal for Pentecostal-Charismatic Research 19 (2010).
See also Yong’s own anticipation of the critique and his response in Amos Yong, “A P(new)matological
Paradigm for Christian Mission in a Religiously Plural World,” Missiology 33, no. 2 (2005): 185-186. For
Yong’s reaction to his critics, see Yong, “A Pentecostal Inquiry in a Pluralistic World,” 11-12. Yong is
especially disappointed that his critics seem to limit themselves to a narrow selection of his publications,
neglecting those that interact with the issues under critique.
1155 Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s), 70. For Yong’s christological orthodoxy, see for example, Yong,
Discerning the Spirit(s), 120; Yong, “A Pentecostal Inquiry in a Pluralistic World,” 12.
228 PART II
from Christology, and this is the truth about the relation between Word and Spirit. But
the question at hand is whether or not to impose christological norms up front or
perhaps later in the dialogue.”1157 Yong believes that his pneumatological approach to
theology of religions offers exactly this rationale for broaching christology only later in
interreligious dialogue. At the same time, Yong has come to acknowledge explicitly
that “basic faith commitments,” such as God’s salvation of the world in Jesus through
the Spirit “cannot be bracketed in the interfaith encounter, at least not over the long
haul.”1158
4. How? The criteria of discernment
a. Christological confession?
Apart from the christological issue we have discussed above, there is a Scriptural
argument to enter a christological criterion into discernment of the spirits. It is the
question whether the christological confession can function as a comparative
criterion.1159 Two scriptural texts link the christological confession directly to the Holy
Spirit and discernment. 1 Cor 12:31160 and 1 John 4:1-3.1161 However, these texts do not
lead to a straightforward criterion of discernment. On the one hand, these texts refer to
intra-Christian disputes, and thus are not immediately applicable to situations where
other religions are confronted.1162 On the other hand, even an explicit Christian
confession does not necessarily prove the presence of the Spirit, as Jesus makes clear in
Mt 7:15-23, for not all who call him ‘Lord’, know him. A surer criterion of relation with
Christ is the extent to which fruit is discernible in the believer:1163
So while discerning the Spirit is intimately connected with the
Christ, this should not be understood in a way that
subordinates the Spirit to Christ—as in, “Ah, here is a
confession of Jesus as Lord, and therefore we can be certain of
1157 Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s), 136. Also Yong, “P(new)matological Paradigm,” 180, 185-186.
1158 Amos Yong, “Can We Get “Beyond the Paradigm”?-- A Response to Terry Muck’s Proposal in
Theology of Religions,” Interpretation 61, no. 1 (2007): 29. In responding to critics, Yong claims explicitly, “I
affirm that ultimately for Christians, the work of the Spirit is discerned through that of the incarnational
and cruciform work of the Son […].” Yong, “A Pentecostal Inquiry in a Pluralistic World,” 12.
1159 This paragraph is based on Yong, Beyond the Impasse, 167-170.
1160 1 Cor 12:3 (NRSV): “Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking by the Spirit of
God ever says “Let Jesus be cursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except by the Holy Spirit.”
1161 1 John 4:1-3 (NRSV): “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether
they are from God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2By this you know the Spirit of
God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3and every spirit that
does not confess Jesus is not from God. And this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that
it is coming; and now it is already in the world.”
1163 This brings us back to St. Paul’s reference to the fruit of the Spirit in Gal 5:22-23.
the presence and activity of the Spirit!” in a simplistic sense—

or that renders the Spirit subservient to the Word. 1164
b. Critical criteria
We already pointed out the aesthetic and ethical criteria and the criterion of the
trajectory of ‘things’ in our discussion of the foundational pneumatological categories
of divine presence, divine activity and divine absence.1165 But these are located more on
an abstract theoretical level and not directly applicable to concrete situations. Yong
then moves “to a concrete pneumatology of religions [which] calls for an interpretive
scheme for religious symbols. This may be called a theology of discernment.”1166 He
discusses two historical predecessors on the issue of discernment: Jonathan Edwards
and Hans Küng.1167
Jonathan Edwards, the New England theologian of the first half of the eighteenth
century, worked under conditions of, and was instrumental to, what is called the first
Great Awakening, a cross denominational spiritual revival among New England
Protestant churches. The intense religious experiences, sometimes accompanied with
unexpected bodily movements, created confusion and adverse reaction. A proper
discernment of the Spirit(s) was called for. According to Edwards, what was central in
discerning whether an experience was from the Spirit are the criteria of Christ and
Scripture. Religious experience as such is no sure guide.1168 However, because Edwards
evaluated potential signs of the Spirit within an explicit Christian (and ecclesial)
context, his approach is not easily amenable to considerations of a religiously plural
world. Yong critiques recent writers who transfer Edwards’s insights uncritically to
our multi-religious context.1169
Yong is more appreciative of the effort of Hans Küng, even if Küng’s goal was
not in the first place to discern the spirit(s) but rather to distinguish true from false
religiosity.1170 Küng presents three general categories of criteria in the context of
ecumenical dialogue, as concentric circles moving from general to more specific
criteria: The outer circle is a general ethical criterion such that true religiosity is
positively correlated to what is humanitarian. The middle circle stands for the degree
of faithfulness to the canonical origins of a religious tradition. True religiosity is
positively correlated with the extent of being “faithful to [a tradition’s] authentic

1165 See above p. 216ff, and also Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s), 96-136.
1167 According to Yong, Edwards’s The Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God (1741) is a
theological classic on spiritual discernment, as are the Ignatian Exercises. Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s), 138
n.49.
1170 Hans Küng, “What is True Religion? Toward an Ecumenical Criteriology,” in Toward a Universal
Theology of Religion, ed. Leonard Swidler, Faith Meets Faith Series (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1987).
230 PART II
essence as scripturally defined.”1171 The third criterion, represented as the inner circle,
is Christ. Because of its particularity, it is only indirectly applicable to non-Christians,
and that after Christians have applied it faithfully to themselves.1172
This leads immediately into the major tension that is operative in any
comparative theological discernment. When one is engaged in Christian discernment
of spirits in non-Christian traditions, Christian criteria cannot be avoided. But, “to be
fair to [religious] others in the interreligious dialogue, their own internal criteria have
to be invoked at some level.”1173
We will be discussing anon how Yong tries to deal with that delicate yet crucial
issue. Before we do so, we present some of the most concrete criteria that he has put
forward in his Pentecostal systematic theology.1174 This work is of a later date than the
two most directly related to theology of religions. These criteria can perhaps be
summarized with what Yong calls “the marks of the Kingdom.”1175 Yong suggests five
(minimal) clues as to the presence and agency of the divine Spirit.
First, are the fruits of the Spirit being manifest in the religious
phenomenon in question?1176
Although not mentioned here explicitly, the expression ‘fruit(s) of the Spirit’
specifically refers to those characteristics, or virtues, mentioned in the text of St. Paul in
his letter to the Galatians.1177
Second, are the works of the kingdom manifest in the life and
ministry of Jesus—after all, the Spirit witnesses to Jesus—seen
in the religious phenomenon […]?1178
Yong refers at this place to an analysis earlier in this book where he discusses
‘Spirit Christology in Luke-Acts’. The kingdom works of Jesus mentioned there include
(1) ministry to the poor, downtrodden, marginalized; (2) release of captives and freeing
those oppressed by demons; (3) opening of the eyes of the blind; (4) proclaiming the
day of Jubilee, which involves a cancellation of debt, understood both literally and
spiritually, as well as the granting of a second chance at life.1179
Third, is salvation, understood in its various dimensions […],
discernible in the religious phenomenon? 1180
1171Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s), 141.

1172Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s), 141.
1174 Yong, Amos. The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh: Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology.
Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2005.

1177 See Gal 5:22-23a (NRSV): “22By contrast, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience,
kindness, generosity, faithfulness, 23gentleness, and self-control.”

1179 See Yong, Spirit Poured Out, 86-88.

Yong refers first to his discussion of ‘Spirit soteriology in Luke-Acts’ in which

dimensions of the gospel are mentioned: (1) Forgiveness of sins, (2) deliverance from
evil powers, (3) healing of the sick, (4) liberation of the poor and oppressed through the
establishment of a new community, the church, and (5) recognition of the
eschatological dimension of salvation.1181 Second, the many dimensions of salvation are
referred to so that one can (and should) speak of (1) personal salvation, (2) family
salvation, (3) ecclesial salvation with reference to baptism, (4) material salvation
because of the embodied nature of humanity, (5) social salvation, which extends
ecclesial salvation to wider interpersonal relations and socio-institutional structures, (6)
cosmic salvation which points to the redemption of creation, and finally (7)
eschatological salvation, which reminds us of the ‘already’ and ‘not yet’ character of
salvation.1182
Fourth, is conversion in the various human domains […]
occurring in the lives of those in other faiths?1183
Yong argues for multidimensional conversion, in which he extends the analysis

of Lonergan and Gelpi, such that conversion denotes (1) intellectual conversion, (2)
affective conversion, (3) moral conversion, (4) socio-political conversion, and (5)
religious conversion. It is important to understand that, for Yong, conversion in one
domain is dynamically related to those in other domains. ‘Advance’ in one domain
enables conversion in the other, and stagnation or regression in one domain hinders
the conversion in the other domains.1184
Fifth, is the ecclesial mark of holiness […], understood in its
realized and eschatological senses, discernible, however dimly,
in the religious phenomenon? Put alternatively, can the
processes of purification according to a trajectory anticipating
the coming kingdom be discerned in the religious tradition in
question?1185
For Yong, the mark of ecclesial holiness entails sanctifying transformation within
a communal and eschatological context.1186
Yong is well aware that these criteria remain abstract and their application
dependent on the concrete context and the specific religious phenomenon that is being
analysed.1187 And although these criteria are helpful as heuristic tools, discerning the
1181 See Yong, Spirit Poured Out, 88-91.

1182 See Yong, Spirit Poured Out, 91-98. Also Amos Yong, Hospitality and the Other: Pentecost, Christian
Practices, and the Neighbor Faith Meets Faith (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2008), 63.
1184 See Yong, Spirit Poured Out, 103-109. Also Yong, Hospitality and the Other, 63.
1186 Yong, Spirit Poured Out, 139-142.

232 PART II
Spirit in the religions with the help of these criteria will always generate more
questions than answers.1188
If anyone hoped for fast and easy answers from Yong in the exercise of
discernment, his analysis will by now have pointed in the opposite direction. Because
of the complexity, the diverse contexts in which religions subsist, and because of the
immense diversity of religious phenomena, discernment will necessarily be complex,
fallible, and eschatological. In short, it will remain an exercise in via, for the
“criteriologies should be recognized for what they are: human constructions.”1189
c. Comparative categories
The complexity of the matter of discernment and its ultimate resolution in the
eschaton, are, however, no reason to forego the practice of discerning the spirits. As a
matter of fact, it is inevitable and becomes more urgent.
We have already seen how Yong stresses the necessity of meticulously studying
religious traditions in their concrete manifestations, i.e., their religious symbols, which
includes the concrete beliefs and practices of religionists. This must be done, both from
an insider perspective (as much as this is possible), and with the best analytical tools
available from the diverse fields of sciences studying religion and theology.
Such a dialogical and dialectical method moves one inevitably into the field of
comparative theology. Comparative theology, in Yong’s approach, is the necessary
corollary of a theology of discernment. Yong defines comparative theology by
explaining the distinct contribution of both terms, such that “whereas comparative
theology focuses on religious symbols and their extensional references, comparative
theology asks about their intentional references.”1190
We already pointed out that extensional references of religious symbols stand for
the network meaning of symbols, i.e., the internal coherence of those symbols within
the larger narrative framework of the religious tradition. In other words, it deals with
the fittingness of the symbol in the cultural-linguistic framework of the religious
tradition. The intentional references deal with the content meaning of religious
symbols in their relation to the transcendent, in short, the truth question. According to
Yong, comparative theology must ask the truth question, and this in contrast with
comparative religion, which can proceed without the truth question being asked. 1191
Although there are obvious similarities to Francis Clooney’s understanding and praxis
of comparative theology, we do well to note important differences as well. For
Clooney, the theological element consists in the aim to bring fresh theological insights to
the home tradition for comparative theology does not want to leave the home tradition

1191 Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s), 145 n.64.

unaffected. Clooney contrasts this with theology of religions that exercises an

evaluative function.1192 Yong’s explicit dealing with the truth question in comparative
theology stands in contrast with Clooney’s insistence that evaluation of the other must
(in most cases) be postponed.1193
According to Yong, the comparative element of comparative theology necessitates
not only the investigation of religious symbols within their own cultural-linguistic
framework, but also the comparison of these with religious symbols in different
religious traditions. Such an approach raises the issue of appropriate comparative
categories for this exercise. Such categories must “capture what is important to each
tradition that is being compared on its own terms even while being sufficiently non-
biased to be specified by elements from two or more traditions.”1194
Yong is primarily interested in the categories of the Holy Spirit’s presence and
activity. An important goal in his theology of religions is to look for appropriate
analogues in other religions “such that we are put in a position to pursue the
comparative task and affirm or deny the Spirit ‘s presence or activity.”1195 It is clear that
developing these comparative categories must follow from how the religious
phenomena are defined and categorized from an insider perspective.1196 But once this is
done, comparative categories must be developed. According to Yong,
This is imperative since the task of discerning the Spirit
involves the comparison and contrasts of phenomena in
diverse religio-cultural traditions. Not only is the concept of
‘spirit’ defined very differently in different traditions, but there
are also traditions which lack such a concept altogether. Given
the Christian presupposition that the Holy Spirit is at work
universally to a greater or lesser extent in the non-Christian
faiths, what is required is that the religious symbols of other
traditions be accurately classified in more vague categories in
order to open up avenues for comparison.1197
Yong borrowed the concept of ‘vague categories’ from his Doktorvater Robert
Cummings Neville, to deal with the problem of the lack of adequate comparative
categories.1198

1194 Yong, “P(new)matological Paradigm,” 191n.26.
1196 Yong claims that “allowing insiders to register what is important about their tradition is central
to the foundational pneumatology” he has set in place. Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s), 142. Also Yong, “A
Pentecostal Inquiry in a Pluralistic World,” 8.
1198 Yong, Beyond the Impasse, 178. Neville directed a major comparative project that resulted in three
edited books: Robert Cummings Neville, Religious Truth, The Comparative Religious Ideas Project
(Albany: State University of New York Press, 2001); Robert Cummings Neville, ed., The Human Condition,
The Comparative Religious Ideas Project (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2001); Robert
Cummings Neville, ed., Ultimate Realities, The Comparative Religious Ideas Project (Albany: State
234 PART II
Vagueness of categories, according to Neville, “does not mean fuzzy-

minded[ness] […]. Rather, it is a characteristic of a category according to which the law
of non-contradiction does not apply to what might fall under the category or specify
it.”1199 So, for example, if ‘ultimate reality’1200 is the vague category, this can be specified
in Chinese religion as “harmony and transcendence and their actualization in human
life,”1201 or as “God” in Judaism.1202 These specifications may contradict each other, be
complementary, or partly overlapping.1203 In the comparative exercise, these
specifications must next be analysed with regard to “what they claim and deny with
reference to one another.”1204 This process implies also that from within each tradition,
the relative importance of the thing compared is indicated. So, even if the specifications
of a vague category in different traditions are the same (or similar), they may differ in
the role these play within that tradition. An important aspect of this methodology, also
exemplified in Yong’s appropriation of it, is that “explicit effort needs to be made to
test and modify the categories by phenomenologically thick representations of
them.”1205 This means that the comparative category has a certain vulnerability in
function of the phenomenological testing of it.
Yong believes that the comparative categories used in theology of religions tend
to be either too specific or insufficiently specific. One particular problem is that some
such categories are used apologetically or polemically by proponents of one tradition
in order to indicate how another tradition is deficient. Examples of such categories are
‘Christ’, ‘the Trinity’, or ‘the Church’. Other categories can be too vague, for example,
‘kingdom’, ‘salvation’, or ‘liberation’. What all these examples have in common,
however, is that they, to some extent, “reflect the biases of the tradition from which
University of New York Press, 2001). For an extended exposition of the meaning of comparative
categories, see esp. Robert Cummings Neville and Wesley J. Wildman, “On Comparing Religious Ideas,”
in Ultimate Realities, ed. Robert Cummings Neville, The Comparative Religious Ideas Project (Albany: State
University of New York Press, 2001).
1199 Neville and Wildman, “On Comparing Religious Ideas,” 198.
1200 Next to ‘ultimate reality’, the two other vague categories elaborated upon in Neville’s project
are ‘human condition’ and ‘religious truth’. Each one of these is the subject matter of a separate volume in
which specialists of Chinese religion, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism provide
specifications of the vague category under scrutiny and other scholars try to draw more generalising
comparative observations.
1201 Livia Kohn and James Miller, “Ultimate Reality. Chinese Religion,” in Ultimate Realities, ed.
Robert Cummings Neville, The Comparative Religious Ideas Project (Albany: State University of New
York Press, 2001), 11.
1202 Anthony J. Saldarini, “Ultimate Realities: Judaism: God as a Many-sided Ultimate Reality in
Traditional Judaism,” in Ultimate Realities, ed. Robert Cummings Neville, The Comparative Religious Ideas
Project (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2001), 37.
1203 Neville and Wildman, “On Comparing Religious Ideas,” 200. With regard to ‘ultimate realities’,
for example, Neville and Wildman remark that in the diverse religions they are “conceived in both
ontological and anthropological terms.” Robert Cummings Neville and Wesley J. Wildman, “Comparative
Conclusions about Ultimate Realities,” in Ultimate Realities, ed. Robert Cummings Neville, The
Comparative Religious Ideas Project (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2001), 165.

they derive, with the result that what is of central value and importance in the other
tradition fails to be registered or accounted for.”1206
We have already seen that Yong has tried to formulate such ‘sufficiently vague
categories’ as analogues for his Pentecostal-charismatic categories of divine presence,
divine activity, and divine absence. These comparative categories are, respectively,
‘religious experience’, ‘religious utility’, and ‘religious cosmology’. We will later
discuss how these are applied in the praxis of a specific comparative theological
project. At this moment, it is important to point out that it is only a posteriori that an
evaluation can be made about whether the vague categories into which the concrete
religious symbols have been ‘translated’ in order to allow a comparison, have
preserved the importance and meaning they had in their original religious setting.1207
d. Concluding comments
Discernment of the spirits is necessary, according to Yong, because of the intermingling

of the divine, the human and other spirits. Discerning the spirits is, on the one hand, a
gift of the Holy Spirit, and, on the other hand, a multidisciplinary exercise in
observing, analysing and evaluating concrete manifestations in their context. It
involves discernment on three levels: phenomenological-experiential, moral, and
theological. We have shown how Yong keeps the christological issue temporarily at
some distance (however not without returning to it eventually) in order to move
beyond the impasse in interreligious dialogue. Finally, we looked at some more
concrete criteria for discernment as proposed by Yong. Prominent among those are ‘the
marks of the Kingdom’, and the ‘fruit of the Spirit’. Equally important is Yong’s broad
understanding of salvation and conversion and the eschatological outlook that is
maintained throughout, which guards one from making absolute claims in the here
and now, yet allowing for a final christological resolution. We have shown how Yong
tries to develop comparative categories that allow him to take the concrete symbols of
other religious traditions with the utmost seriousness, and at the same time correlate
them to the Christian (Pentecostal) foundational categories of divine presence, activity
and absence. These three categories are transposed to the ‘sufficiently vague’
comparative categories of religious experience, religious utility and religious
cosmology.
Interestingly, Yong himself believes that discerning the presence and activity of
the Holy Spirit in the religions is ultimately “less complicated than some think.
Whenever and wherever we find the affective disposition toward and intentional
activity that benefits others, prima facie there is the creaturely participation in the
loving presence of the divine Spirit intending to save and redeem the world.”1208
1206 Yong, Pneumatology and the Christian-Buddhist Dialogue, 235.

1208 Yong, Spirit of Love, 152.
236 PART II
§ 4. WELCOMING AND BEING THE STRANGER: THEOLOGY AND PRAXIS

OF INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE
If discerning the S/spirit(s) is the central practice in Yong’s theology of religions – and
it is – it has been made clear in the foregoing analysis that this is not an ivory-towered
armchair activity, but rather one that requires immersion in the complexities of the
phenomenological diversity of other religious beliefs and practices. For Yong, theology
is not just something ephemeral, but intimately related with praxis; i.e., theology is also
performance, and each distinct theological outlook is linked to a particular set of
practices that distinguish it from other theologies.
Yong envisions his theology of religions as a theology of hospitality that is
characterized by a double vulnerability, that of being the host in welcoming the
stranger, and that of being the guest in becoming the stranger. Theology of religions,
for Yong, is thus inextricably linked with interfaith encounter and comparative
theology in which welcoming and being the stranger are the foremost practices to be
exercised.
A. THEOLOGY AS PERFORMANCE
Experience as a locus theologicus has always been important to Yong, and has led him to
take the empirical aspect of theology seriously. More recently, Yong has given this link
more theoretical groundings by pointing towards the interrelation between Christian
beliefs and practices. From postliberal theology, he has learned that rules and doctrines
are shaped by communal practices.1209 Speech-act theory likewise points Yong to the
performative function of theology.1210 Theology is not simply a descriptive enumeration
of what people of a specific religious tradition believe, but part of the dramatic
performance that includes the practices that are both shaped by, as well as shaping the
beliefs. In that sense, the old adagio of lex orandi, lex credendi is honoured, even if not all
the ‘practices’ would easily fit in the category of prayer, or more generally, liturgy.
Following the cultural-linguistic theology of doctrine,1211 Yong affirms that full
understanding of the logic of a theological system is possible only by “embracing its
practices.”1212 As a consequence, insider reporting, or auto-interpretation must be
allowed for in engaging religious traditions other than one’s own.
1209 Yong, Hospitality and the Other, 51.

1210 Speech-act theory makes a distinction between locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary
aspects of speech acts. A locutionary speech act describes and informs and in that sense is either true or
false. An illocutionary act tries to achieve something with the words, for example: warning, promising,
persuading. The perlocutionary effect of speech acts refers to the results of what is said, “they describe the
effects on the hearer or reader, usually recording the exchange from their points of view.” Yong,
Hospitality and the Other, 48. The seminal work in speech-act theory is J. L. Austin, How to Do Things with
Words, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1975).
1211 Lindbeck, Nature of doctrine.

It is precisely in this area that the traditional Christian theologies of religions are
deficient, claims Yong. The threefold typology is a case in point, as it does not work
from insider reports but applies an extraneous thought-system to other religious
traditions.1213
But even deficient theologies of religions “assume and inform Christian
interreligious practices.”1214 These practices may not necessarily be arid. As a matter of
fact, Yong argues that a pneumatological theology of interreligious dialogue
necessitates a pluriformity of practices, such that the practices of exclusivism,
inclusivism and pluralism can be fruitfully put to use.
Central practices of an exclusivistic theology of religions are evangelism and the
formation of Christian community, which are linked to three axioms:1215 (1) “There is
no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved.”1216 (2)
“How are they to believe in one of whom they have never heard?”1217 And, (3) “No
salvation outside the church.”1218 In relation to interreligious engagement, the
exclusivist approach will always consider interreligious dialogue to be a function of
evangelism; it will have a missiological telos.1219
Christian inclusivism, according to Yong, sees continuity between the activity of
the Spirit in the church and in the world, even if these works are distinct.1220 The central
practices of inclusivism are contextual missiology and transformative interreligious
dialogue.1221 “[I]nterreligious dialogue becomes a Christian practice in its own
right;”1222 it is no longer “subservient to proclamation.”1223 It also implies that “mutual
enrichment and transformation are possible in the dialogical encounter.”1224
Pluralism also has its own set of practices. Following the analysis of Hick,
Pannikar and Pieris, Yong mentions the practices of (1) “sustained human inquiry,”
being a result of Hick’s epistemological position;1225 (2) application of moral criteria
such that religious truth is being adjudicated according to its fruits;1226 (3) the
recognition that pluralism is “designed to enable the practices of global citizenship;”1227
(4) the “invitation to a multiplicity of contemplative practices” (following Raimon

1215 Yong, Hospitality and the Other, 67ff. Yong, “Christian Practices,” 7-9.
1216 Acts 4:12 (NRSV).
1217 Rom 10:14 (NRSV).
1218 For an historical and theological analysis of this axiom, see Sullivan, Salvation.
1221 Yong, “Christian Practices,” 25; Yong, Hospitality and the Other, 76ff.

238 PART II
Pannikar);1228 and, (5) in the footsteps of Aloysius Pieris, interreligious engagement

should be “focused on practices conducive to social reform and liberation.”1229
What Yong offers, then, is not a fourth approach on top of the threefold typology,
but rather an integration of the interreligious practices of the three positions. He tries to
do so while remaining critical towards the theological claims of the three positions.1230
The way Yong tries to realise this integration is through a theology of hospitality.
B. HOSPITALITY: WELCOMING THE STRANGER
A notorious problem with a strict understanding of the cultural-linguistic theology of

doctrine is its tendency to become closed upon itself, focusing on the internal
coherence of the ‘system’, without allowing outsider critique or internal diversity.
Yong believes that his pneumatology offers a way out of that deadlock, and asks, “Is
what is needed not a dynamic internal to the cultural-linguistic theory of doctrine that
can move, invite, and even sustain such engagement, but do so in ways that maintain
continuity with the historic Christian tradition?”1231 Yong proposes that it is precisely
the “hospitable encounter with the stranger, the alien, and even the religious other”
that creates room for critical reflection.1232 The central virtue is ‘hospitality’. It is Yong’s
pneumatological framework which connects theology of religions and theology of
hospitality.
Pivotal in his pneumatological approach is the correlation of the ‘many tongues’
of Pentecost to the pluriformity of religious practices. Yong’s argument can be
summarised as follows:1233 the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost
resulted in the gospel being preached or understood in many languages, ‘many
tongues’. This Pentecost miracle was referring back to the many nations and languages
as they developed, according to the biblical story, after the Tower of Babel incident.1234
The universal ramifications of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit are being underlined
in this manner. Yong, next, notes that language and culture, although distinct, cannot
easily be separated, but are intimately connected.1235 The Pentecost miracle, then, is an

1230 Yong, “Christian Practices,” 14-19, 25-26; Yong, Hospitality and the Other, 98.
1233 We follow Yong’s analysis in Amos Yong, “The Spirit of Hospitality: Pentecostal Perspectives
Toward a Performative Theology of Interreligious Encounter,” Missiology 35, no. 1 (2007): 58-59. See also
Amos Yong, “As the Spirit Gives Utterance: Pentecost, Intra-Christian Ecumenism and the Wider
Oikoumene,” International Review of Mission 92, no. 366 (2003); Amos Yong, “The Spirit Bears Witness:
Pneumatology, Truth, and the Religions,” Scottish Journal of Theology 57, no. 01 (2004): 26-30; Yong,
“P(new)matological Paradigm,” 176-177; Yong, Spirit Poured Out, 195-202; Yong, “Christian Practices,” 20-
23.
1234 Genesis 11.
1235 This modern awareness finds expression in such ideas as, for example, the cultural-linguistic
theory.
affirmation of the many languages and, hence, cultures that exist.1236 It is important to
note that the recipients of the Holy Spirit in the Acts 2 narrative “spoke different
languages, not the same language.”1237 But since religious traditions are also intimately
related to languages and cultures, the divine blessing on the many languages must
have positive spill-overs for religions as well. “At this level,” avers Yong, “the
Pentecost narrative can be understood to hold forth the possibility of the redemption of
the diversity of religions.”1238 The next step in Yong’s argumentation is to connect this
understanding with a theology of hospitality such that
the many tongues and many practices of the Spirit of God are
the means through which divine hospitality is extended
through the church to the world, including the worlds of the
religions, and that it is precisely through such hospitable
interactions that the church in turn experiences the redemptive
work of God in anticipation of the coming kingdom.1239
The ultimate paradigm of the divine hospitality is located in the practices of Jesus
Christ. In Jesus, God’s hospitality is taking shape through him being the pre-eminent
recipient of hospitality. From conception (in Mary’s womb) to his burial (in Joseph of
Arimathea’s tomb), Jesus was dependent on the hospitality of those around him.
However, as the Emmaus story1240 makes clear, inviting Jesus as guest entails receiving
divine hospitality.1241 It is, however, not only at the extremes of Jesus’ earthly life that
the theme of hospitality comes to the forefront. Jesus ministry is characterised through
and through by this virtue. One of the recurring themes in his ministry is the open
table fellowship of Jesus, welcoming in particular the poor and destitute.1242 But the
theme of hospitality is put squarely before those willing to follow Jesus in the parable
of the Good Samaritan.1243 The telling of the parable, according to Luke, is triggered by
the question of a lawyer who wants to know what he must do to inherit eternal life. 1244
Yong avers,
Might people of other faiths not only be instruments through
which God’s revelation comes afresh to the people of God, but
also perhaps be able to fulfil the requirements for inheriting
eternal life ([Lk] 10:25) precisely through the hospitality that
they show their neighbors (which includes Christians)? 1245
1236 For Yong’s elaboration on a theology of culture, see Yong, In the Days of Caesar, 166-210.
1238 Yong, “Spirit of Hospitality,” 59.
1240 Lk 24:13-35.
1241 Yong, Hospitality and the Other, 101-102.
1243 Lk 10:25-37.
1244 Lk 10:25 (NRSV): Just then a lawyer stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he said, “what must I do
to inherit eternal life?”

240 PART II
Yong is adamant that the life of Jesus and the early church, which are described
by this kind of hospitality, are normative for Christians. It is the gift of the Holy Spirit
that enables individual Christians and the church at large to emulate such a
christomorphic praxis of hospitality.1246 This is particularly the case in interreligious
dialogue, according to Yong.
Retrieving the practices of exclusivistic, inclusivistic and pluralistic theologies of
religions, Yong suggests that a theology of hospitality is characterised by the following
interreligious practices: (1) The ecclesial practices of Christian mission are characterised
by welcoming others. The divine hospitality characteristic of the missio Dei is centred,
according to Yong, not on the church, but on the stranger.1247 The welcoming attitude
should be reflected in the concrete praxis of the local and the global church. (2) The
kingdom practices of hospitality are characterized by peace and justice, because the
missio Dei has social dimensions as well. Socio-structural engagement is co-constitutive
of the church’s missionary programme.1248 (3) The practices of individual Christians
should also be christomorphic.1249 To understand what this entails, Yong combines the
gospel stories of the Good Samaritan, where the neighbour who is a (religious) stranger
“reveals to us the redemptive hospitality of God,”1250 and the parable of the sheep and
the goats1251 who are judged “according to the hospitality shown to Jesus as
represented in the poor, the hungry, the naked, and those in prison.”1252 Loving our
neighbours is
the means through which the love of God is given to them, but
our being loved by our neighbors, including those of other
faiths, is also the means through which the love of God is given
to us. In this way, I suggest, the practices of hospitality—of
being hosts as well as guests—become the concrete modalities
through which the gifts of the Holy Spirit are poured out on all
flesh.1253
Such Christian practices of hospitable interreligious dialogue cannot but be

transformative for all parties engaged.1254 One preeminent way in which theologians
can engage in transformative hospitable interreligious dialogue is through comparative
theology.

1251 Mt 25:31-46.
1252 Yong, Hospitality and the Other, 152. Yong reads ‘the poor’ to be including, but not limited to,
Christians. See also Yong, The Bible, Disability, and the Church, 136-142 for a linking of ‘the sick’ with
disabled persons.

C. COMPARATIVE THEOLOGY: BEING THE STRANGER
Yong’s theological engagement with other religions has always been geared towards
comparative theology. In his published PhD thesis, the penultimate chapter consisted
of a case study in comparative theology in which Yong puts Pentecostalism at the
religious round table together with Umbanda, a Brazilian new spiritistic religion.1255 In
Yong’s systematic theology, in a chapter on theology of religions, he offers a small case
study focusing on the Spirit in Christian-Muslim perspective.1256 But mostly, Yong has
focused on Christian-Buddhist relations, issuing in a number of articles and now
recently in two monographs.1257 According to Yong, “The first and most important
theological task in our global context today, in my estimation, is comparative
theology.”1258
1. Comparative theology in a pneumatological key
Consistently with his overall approach, Yong tackles comparative theology

pneumatologically. Yong believes that the Pentecost story in Acts 2 grounds a positive
approach to other faiths in all their particularity.1259 We have earlier noted that, for
Yong, the concept of religion is intrinsically related to culture and language. The
multitude present in Acts 2 were honoured in their otherness through their being
witnessed to in their own languages. Yong avers that “the diversity of cultures and
religions is registered in the Pentecost narrative through the preservation of the radical
alterity (otherness) of each tongue in its integrity.”1260 It is precisely the outpouring of
the Holy Spirit that makes it possible for people “to encounter and engage others
authentically, even across religious lines.”1261
1255 Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s), chapter 8, 256-309.

1256 Yong, Spirit Poured Out, 257-266.
1257 See, for example, Amos Yong, “The Holy Spirit and the World Religions: On the Christian
Discernment of Spirit(s) “After” Buddhism,” Buddhist-Christian Studies 24 (2004); Amos Yong, “Christian
and Buddhist Perspectives on Neuropsychology and the Human Person: Pneuma and
Pratityasamutpada,” Zygon 40, no. 1 (2005); Amos Yong, “On Doing Theology and Buddhology: A
Spectrum of Christian Proposals,” Buddhist-Christian Studies 31 (2011); Yong, Cosmic Breath; Yong,
Pneumatology and the Christian-Buddhist Dialogue. In 2003, Yong wrote that he has “spent the last ten plus
years studying the Buddhist tradition in some depth, and this has led me into the circles of the Society for
Buddhist-Christian studies.” Yong, “As the Spirit Gives Utterance,” 305.
1259 Yong, Pneumatology and the Christian-Buddhist Dialogue, 15. As this monograph represents Yong’s
most full and recent treatment and application of comparative theology to date, in what follows it will be
used as our guide to his approach.

242 PART II
2. Yong’s comparative method
Yong’s interreligious dialogue invites, even necessitates, a comparative theology in

which the religious other is encountered in all her or his particularity. Absolutely
crucial in this respect is that those items which are important from an insider
perspective, come to the foreground. The participants thus bring their particular faith
commitments to the religious round table. This insider view, or the religionists’ auto-
interpretation, is important, especially for Christians, “so that we do not bear false
witness about our neighbours.”1262
Yong explains the next steps of his method in comparative theology, as follows:
[T]he dialogue partners can begin to explore the issues in order
to determine what ought to be debated. Surface similarities
between religious traditions can then be rigorously analyzed
according to underlying differences between religious-cultural-
linguistic frameworks. Along the way, as commitments are
registered, viable comparative categories will be generated in
order to ensure that what is being compared and contrasted are
[sic] commensurable and in what respects. Only the
development of adequate comparative categories emergent
from thick descriptions (that understand doctrines and
practices as interrelated) will enable valid comparisons of the
beliefs and symbols, and their related and nested practices,
across religious lines.1263
In his book, Pneumatology and the Christian-Buddhist Dialogue (henceforth:

PCBD),1264 Yong takes care to consider not only creeds and doctrines for comparison,
but also to take practices into account. The attention to diversity is not only apparent in
the selection of the media of religious traditions, but also in the consideration of the
internal plurality of each religious tradition. Yong explicitly “highlights the varieties of
Christian and Buddhist traditions.”1265 The application of these methodological
considerations is evident in the structure of PCBD. There are three parts, each of which
involves a separate comparative exercise. Each part opens with a Christian perspective,
followed by a Buddhist perspective and closes with a comparative analysis. Part Two,
for example, looks at some aspects of Eastern Orthodox theosis as one Christian
understanding of salvation, followed by considering the Theravadin tradition of self-

1264 Amos Yong, Pneumatology and the Christian-Buddhist Dialogue: Does the Spirit Blow Through the
Middle Way?, Studies in Systematic Theology (Leiden: Brill, 2012). This work has been long in the making.
In 2004, Yong already mentions this manuscript as containing 300 pages (Yong, “After Buddhism,” 206
n.5). In the introduction to PCBD (xiii), Yong mentions that the original draft was completed by the
summer of 2003, with several revisions occurring in the following years.
renunciation (Arahant) before, finally, a comparative Christian-Buddhist soteriology is

attempted.1266
Yong believes that his pneumatological approach gives more space to certain
“religious sensibilities and commitments such as spiritual practices and spiritual
realities that are all too often ignored in treatises of comparative theology.”1267
Religious practices, and spiritual realities, such as the notion of the demonic, are often
“ignored in more textual, doctrinal, or philosophical comparative analyses.”1268
It is the conviction of Yong that his pneumatological approach offers the
possibility to be truly comparative and, at the same time, true to the Christian
particularities. He takes the work of Francis Clooney as a model in “allowing religious
others to register their own views,” on the one hand, but Yong takes care not to lose
sight of “Christian commitments in engaging other faiths on the other hand (so as not
to undermine the authenticity of the Christian encounter with those in other faiths).”1269
3. Christian-Buddhist dialogue
Although it is not possible to give a detailed exposition of Yong’s concrete comparative

Christian-Buddhist theology, it is nevertheless important to register the broad outlines
of this work. We will proceed in three steps. First, we will show how Yong uses his
pneumatological categories of divine presence, divine activity, and divine absence in
dialogue with Buddhism. Second, we will mention the lessons that Yong derives from
this exercise for Christian theology, more particularly with respect to a Christian
understanding of revelation, of the centrality of Christ and of soteriology. Finally, we
will point out what Yong now considers to be the results of this dialogue for Christian
practices of interreligious encounter. These results figure at the internal level (Christian
self-understanding), the external level (relations with others) and at the social level
(concerning the common good).
1266 Yong, Pneumatology and the Christian-Buddhist Dialogue, 103-180. Part Three compares
Pentecostal demonology and the Buddhist Mara tradition of the demonic to come to a comparative
Christian-Buddhist cosmology (Yong, Pneumatology and the Christian-Buddhist Dialogue, 181-234). Part One
differs slightly. It looks at anthropology, but uses the neurosciences as a bridge to compare the Christian
view of divine presence of the Spirit in creation and human nature with the Buddhist idea of shunyata
(‘emptyness’) as pivotal in understanding human becoming (Yong, Pneumatology and the Christian-Buddhist
Dialogue, 31-102).
1269 Yong, Pneumatology and the Christian-Buddhist Dialogue, 19. He comments on the same page
about Clooney’s approach: “Throughout, Clooney rides the fine line between allowing the Hindu sources
to dictate the discussion on their own terms while recognizing that as a Christian he cannot completely or
forever bracket his own theological convictions.”
244 PART II
a. Yong’s comparative categories
We have previously mentioned the central place that comparative categories take in
Yong’s approach. In PCBD he also works with the pneumatological categories of divine
presence, agency and absence. Yong uses the flexibility of these categories to explore
how these can be concretised in Christianity and what comparable symbols could be in
Buddhism. He finds these in the concepts of pneuma (S/spirit) and shunyata (East Asian
Buddhism, emptiness), theosis (Eastern Orthodox, divinisation) and arahant
(Theravadin, sainthood), and Satan (in Pentecostal demonology) and Mara (the premier
Buddhist symbol of the demonic).
Here we see Yong’s method in practice. He considers his pneumatological
categories of divine presence, agency and absence to be sufficiently vague to allow the
search for symbols and concepts, such as pneuma and shunyata or theosis and arahant
which can serve as comparative bridges. These concepts, however, “preserve
meaningful signification of similarities and differences that capture what is important
and valued in the traditions being compared from their own internal perspective.”1270
Divine presence
Yong considers divine presence in Christianity as a pneumatological symbol of
ultimate reality. This allows him to seek for symbols of the ultimate in Buddhism.1271
Genesis 1 and 2 offer an understanding of the Spirit that informs Christian
cosmology and anthropology. It leads Yong to a view of creation and human nature
that is permeated by the Spirit and that is relational through and through. This concept
of relationality provides Yong with a bridge towards Buddhism, “as it is deeply rooted
in what the Mahayana tradition of Buddhism calls shunyata or “emptiness” […].”1272
Divine activity
Divine activity, avers Yong, is a symbol of salvation. In Christian theology, God is
believed to will the salvation of all and to be working towards that end. The second
step in the comparative exercise is to look for the soteriological symbols which are
available in Buddhism. Yong suggests “that Christian and Buddhist soteriologies of
individual transformation are best compared and contrasted through the interreligious
category of sainthood.”1273 Saints are those exemplary believers who embody the goal
of the religion maximally. If you want to know what a religion is after, look at the
saints of that religion. The Eastern Orthodox concept of theosis, divinisation, captures,
for Christianity, this soteriological idea of individual transformation. In Buddhism, the
1270 Yong, “After Buddhism,” 193.


Theravadin concept of the arahant, sainthood, offers enough points of contact to make a
comparison fruitful.
Divine absence
Yong’s understanding of divine absence is that which resists, and rebels against, God’s
kingdom, against his salvific will. Yong’s search for a symbol that is comparable in
Buddhist cosmology leads him to the concept of Mara. Although Buddhist
understandings of demons are not without remainder placed in the category of evil,
the demonic is a rather straightforward comparative category in the Buddhist-
Christian dialogue. Mara is “the premier Buddhist symbol of the demonic”, and is the
“tempter who arouses desires which lead to death.”1274 Yong tries to find out whether
Christian and Buddhist demonologies are similar, and where they diverge, so as “to
gain a clearer understanding of how each tradition connects what is fundamentally
wrong with the world with the demonic, and how such can be and/or is addressed.”1275
He focuses on rites of exorcism in Asian Pentecostalism and in East Asian folk
Buddhism.
b. Christian theology ‘after’ Buddhism
The comparative exercise is not just executed in order to come up with a list of
similarities and differences between two religious traditions. The goal, for Christians, is
to be able to discern the Spirit more clearly. Comparative theology must, for Christians,
result in drawing lessons for Christian theology. Yong distils three theological
questions: “1) What are the implications for the Christian doctrine of revelation in light
of the Christian-Buddhist dialogue? 2) How might we understand the centrality of
Christ for Christians in light of the […] exercise in interreligious dialogue? 3) What is
ultimately and soteriologically at stake in the Christian-Buddhist encounter?”1276
Implications for the doctrine of revelation

Yong believes that a simple ‘yes or no’ answer cannot be given with respect to the
question of the presence of divine revelation in Buddhism. He approvingly notes that
others have pointed out that “the ideals, values, and purposes of the dharma as
recorded in the Buddhist scriptural canon [are] comparable and maybe even
compatible in some ways with those preserved in the Christian Bible.”1277 Yong
reminds us that our knowledge of divine revelation is incomplete and will only be
1274Yong, Pneumatology and the Christian-Buddhist Dialogue, 203.

1275Yong, Pneumatology and the Christian-Buddhist Dialogue, 24.
1276 Yong, Pneumatology and the Christian-Buddhist Dialogue, 240. The first two issues are also raised
in Yong, “After Buddhism,” 193-199.

1277 Yong, Pneumatology and the Christian-Buddhist Dialogue, 242. Yong is referring to the work of
Keith Ward.
246 PART II
fully realized eschatologically.1278 As there is the possibility of growth in our

knowledge of God, Yong believes that this will be “facilitated in part by the kind of
comparative theological exercise that we have attempted […].”1279
Implications for Christian understanding of the centrality of Christ

Yong is adamant that, without Jesus Christ, there is no substance to what Christians
bring to the interfaith encounter. But to what extent is Christ the definitive criterion in
interreligious dialogue? Yong states that there is a hermeneutical spiral between
knowing who the Spirit is because of Jesus, and knowing Jesus because of the Holy
Spirit. For Yong, “the Christian hermeneutical spiral means that we discern the Spirit
according to the norm of Jesus the Christ even as we discern Jesus Christ by the power
of the Spirit.”1280 Recognition of this hermeneutical spiral is essential to prevent
Christomonism, for it is through acknowledgment of the pneumatological aspect that
Christianity as a trinitarian faith is honoured.1281
Yong believes that part of Christ’s unfathomed depths will be opened up by the
Spirit through the interfaith encounter.1282 He interestingly makes a distinction between
saying that ‘Christ is present in Buddhism’ and ‘the Spirit is present in Buddhism’. The
former cannot be claimed without violating how Buddhists understand their own
traditions. But Yong believes the latter can be said “insofar as we can discern beauty,
goodness, and truth in these traditions […].”1283 If these transcendentals, these
universal human aspirations, persist, Yong anticipates their “eschatological
convergence in the glory of Christ.”1284
Implications for the understanding of salvation

Asking Christian soteriological questions of Buddhism is replete with difficulties.
Buddhism is not geared towards attaining salvation as understood in Christian
theology. Pushing such questions at the interreligious round table may quickly
terminate the dialogue. Nevertheless, the question of salvation remains important for
Christians. Yong’s answer tries to salvage the best of pluralism, exclusivism and
inclusivism, the typology developed to deal with the soteriological question of
religious plurality.
Yong affirms the pluralism at the phenomenological, descriptive, level. But he
does not give pluralism much theological credit.1285 He also affirms the exclusivist
1278Cf. 1 Cor.13:12 (NRSV): “For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face.
Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known.”
1285 Yong, Pneumatology and the Christian-Buddhist Dialogue, 246-247.

position, in acknowledging that exclusivism is somehow necessary with respect to

certain beliefs and practices. Yong believes that Christians can have “dual religious
identity only to the degree that such does not compromise their Christian faith.”1286
Finally, Yong deems that some kind of inclusivism is unavoidable,1287 although he is
very much aware that “attempts to locate other religious traditions within the home
theological framework risks perpetuating a form of religious imperialism.”1288
In the end, Yong does not want to make overall pronouncements of the
soteriological merits of Buddhism as a whole. He wants to respect the different
understanding of salvation in Buddhism rather than apply the Christian
understanding uncritically. At the same time, he wishes to acknowledge the internal
diversity in Buddhism, such as distinct faith communities, beliefs, rituals, and
practices. Yong’s pneumatological approach looks at specific elements in particular
contexts and then tries to discern if and how these “might mediate God’s saving work,
at least on this side of the eschaton, in the lives of religious believers, devotees, and
practitioners.”1289 He remarks that the same applies for Christianity. Here as well, it is
not Christianity that saves, but God, through Jesus by the power of the Spirit.1290
c. Implications for practices of interreligious encounter
These results figure at the internal level (Christian self-understanding), the external
level (relations with others) and at the social level (concerning the common good).
At the level of Christian self-understanding, the interreligious encounter changes
people. Yong points out that persons engaged in interfaith dialogue start to ask
different theological questions, ponder different answers, change their opinions about
the other and their own religious tradition. Although is it not possible to predict where
the limits of this change reside, “from the standpoint of faith in the Spirit of Christ who
leads us into all truth, our self-understanding will not contradict but will expand in
unpredictable directions the Christian commitments we have embraced.”1291
The change in Christians will obviously also affect the interaction with the
dialogue partners, because clichés and stereotypes about the other are left behind as
the person tries to enter the perspectives of the other.1292
Yong is also convinced that interreligious dialogue will stimulate and foster
mutual trust and solidarity which will result in cooperation for the common good.1293
1286 Yong, Pneumatology and the Christian-Buddhist Dialogue, 247 n.11.

1287 “If forced to choose, I would have to say that the inclusivist position fits best overall, especially
in terms of being open to being surprised by what I might encounter in other faiths.” Yong, Pneumatology
and the Christian-Buddhist Dialogue, 248-249.

248 PART II
Far from undermining Christian mission, Yong claims that such interreligious
dialogue will actually be “at the heart of the kind of Christian mission that will be
welcomed in the twenty-first century.”1294

A. APPRECIATING AUDACIOUS AMOS
Any critical appraisal of Yong’s theology of religions must start with an appreciation of
what he has accomplished in his still relatively short academic career. One should not
forget that, for Pentecostals, theology of religions is a field of theological inquiry that
does not sit easily with traditional Pentecostal convictions. Before the year 2000, one
was hard pressed to find an extensive Pentecostal contribution to theology of
religions.1295 Recently, one of the other major Pentecostal players in this discipline, Veli-
Matti Kärkkäinen, gave the following assessment:
In general, Pentecostals have been very cautious about
speaking of any kind of salvific role of the Spirit among
religious outside the work of the Spirit in preparing people for
hearing the gospel. […] The rationale for Pentecostals’
exclusivist attitude is found in the fallen state of humankind
and in a literal reading of the New Testament, which for
Pentecostals does not give much hope for non-Christians.
Furthermore, Pentecostals, like many of the early Christians,
tend to point out the demonic elements in other religions rather
than common denominators.1296
The least one can say is that Yong not only adds Pentecostal theology as another
player in the field of theology of religions, he also raises the bar and changes the
playing field. Pentecostalism was a marginalised and marginalising voice in theology
of religions; Yong transformed it into a serious contender in comparative theology.
Pentecostalism’s previous disengagement with theology of religions made
exclusivism the default position for Pentecostals.1297 This is undoubtedly still the case
for the vast majority of ‘ordinary’ Pentecostal Christians throughout the world.
Although the discrepancy between the dominant opinion among academic theologians
and the opinion of the ‘person in the pew’ is probably an issue for all confessions, one
wonders how Yong’s opinions are received (if at all) in his own denomination, for
example. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that Pentecostalism’s academic
engagement with theology of religions is more or less concurrent with Yong’s own
theological career, but the big strides he has taken in that area are undoubtedly hard to
1295 Yong wrote in 2000 that he was “unaware of any theological reflection on the non-Christian
faiths by Pentecostals to date.” Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s), 26.
1296 Kärkkäinen, “Pneumatologies in Systematic Theology,” 234-235.
1297 “And since Pentecostals have not given serious thought to developing a formal theology of
religions of their own until very recently, they have historically not felt the need to go beyond the
exclusivism they shared with Evangelicals (and fundamentalists) regarding the religions.” Amos Yong
and Tony Richie, “Missiology and the Interreligious Encounter,” in Studying Global Pentecostalism. Theories
and Methods, ed. Allan Anderson et al. (Berkeley-Los Angeles-London: University of California Press,
2010), 253.
250 PART II
follow for the laity. Yong has not only absorbed the inclusivism of the more
progressive Evangelical theologians, he holds positions about other religions that many
Pentecostals and Evangelicals would consider liberal1298 at best, and heretical at worst.
Of course, this is not only an issue for Yong, for he rightly remarks that “it is
noteworthy that those [Pentecostal theologians] working most directly and pointedly
in the area of Pentecostal theology of religions seem to be developing in generally
inclusivist directions.”1299
What we have found truly daring and surprising, is Yong’s willingness to put his
own tradition under critique, and his openness to other points of view. In his first
monograph, the publication of his doctoral thesis, Yong engaged in a surprisingly open
comparison of some Pentecostal practices and the relatively young Brazilian spiritistic
religion of Umbanda. For Pentecostals, and Evangelicals in general, the a priori
categorisation of ‘demonic’ would undoubtedly be the prevailing opinion concerning
Umbanda. Yet Yong’s careful study allowed him to come to unanticipated results,
finding clear fruits of the Spirit in places where others would only imagine demons.
Yong takes some radical positions for a Pentecostal, and this is not without
personal risks for an accredited minister in the Assemblies of God.1300 David du Plessis,
probably the first Pentecostal who got involved in ecumenical conversations, with the
World Council of Churches in the nineteen-fifties, and the Roman Catholic Church in
the nineteen-sixties, lost his ministerial credentials in the Assemblies of God in 1962
because of his involvement in the ecumenical movement.1301 Roger Olson writes that,
“Merely being a member of the Society for Pentecostal Studies often brings a
Pentecostal scholar’s commitment to the movement into question.”1302
It is, however, not simply the audacity of Yong’s theology that deserves our
appreciation. Yong’s empirical approach, which focuses not just on texts in
comparative theology, for example, but also on rituals, traditions, institutions, and
practices in general, renders a more holistic understanding of religions and their
internal diversification, than is common in theology of religions. Yong’s stress on the
phenomenology of religious experience with its accompanying religious practices and
beliefs, helps him to keep down to earth while at the same time open to the
supernatural. His willingness to study religion from multiple perspectives certainly
makes him a role model for all practitioners of these theological disciplines.
1298 ‘Liberal’ is a term of abuse in Evangelical and Pentecostal circles.

1299 Yong and Richie, “Missiology and the Interreligious Encounter,” 256.
1300 This is not only the case in theology of religions, where Yong sees the marks of the Spirit where
fellow Pentecostals would only see the devil. Yong also severely criticises the political practices of (some)
Pentecostals worldwide. For this, see Yong, In the Days of Caesar, 129-134.
1301 His credentials were reinstated in 1980. See http://www.revival-
library.org/pensketches/am_pentecostals/duplessis.html (accessed 1 April 2013).
1302 Roger E. Olson, “Pentecostalism’s Dark Side,” Christian Century 123, no. 5 (2006): 28.
B. METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES
1. Fallibilism and shifting foundations: A one-eyed sniper and a moving

target?
It is ironic that C.S. Peirce, on whom Yong relies heavily for his foundational
pneumatology, did not consider theology as a science. Science, according to Peirce is
set to establish ‘belief’ or firm opinion in the face of doubt according to a specific
method.1303 The different methods humans avail themselves of to deal with doubt are,
according to Peirce, “the method of dogmatism or tenacity, the method of authority,
the a priori method, and the method of experience, which Peirce himself approves and
commends to his reader.”1304 But according to Peirce, theology “is antiscientific just
insofar as it is tenacious and authoritative. Instead of actually exploring the
possibilities, it begins with a dogmatic platform and seeks to insulate it from
criticism.”1305 According to Peirce, then, theology was not a heuristic science, but it
“embodies all that [he] resisted: tenacity, authority, closure of inquiry, and absence of
growth.”1306 This is ironic, because the way Yong imagines theology to be, answers
squarely to the Peircean requirements for science. In advocating an empirical theology,
intertwined, in view of its fallibilistic epistemology, in the hermeneutical spiral, Yong
seems to counter Peirce’s objection head on.
Yong’s choice for Peirce’s fallibilism and consequent soft foundationalism is one
that is no longer new in Evangelical circles, even if not uncontested.1307 Ronald
Michener, for example, speaks of an “epistemology in process,”1308 that is characterized
by “limited objectivity and provisional truth claims.”1309 However, Yong’s metaphor of
1303 “Doubt (not knowing what to think about this or that) is the disquieted, dissatisfied state that
[humans] seek to end.” David Wiggins, “Reflections on Inquiry and Truth Arising from Peirce’s Method
for the Fixation of Belief,” in The Cambridge Companion to C.S. Peirce, ed. Cheryl Misak (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2004), 90.
1304 Wiggins, “Peirce’s Method for the Fixation of Belief,” 90.
1305 Douglas Anderson, “Peirce’s Common Sense Marriage of Religion and Science,” in The
Cambridge Companion to C.S. Peirce, ed. Cheryl Misak (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 181.
1306 Anderson, “Peirce’s Common Sense,” 182.
1307 See, for instance, Stanley J. Grenz, “Beyond Foundationalism: Is a Nonfoundational Evangelical
Theology Possible?,” Christian Scholar’s Review XXX, no. 1 (2000); Richard Lints, “The Postpositivist Choice.
Tracy or Lindbeck?,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion LXI, no. 4 (1993); James K.A. Smith, The Fall
of Interpretation: Philosophical Foundations for a Creational Hermeneutic (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity
Press, 2000). For a concise Evangelical overview of the discussion regarding classical and soft
foundationalism; see Ronald T. Michener, Engaging Deconstructive Theology, Ashgate New Critical
Thinking in Religion, Theology and Biblical Studies (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007), chapter 13, 225-240.
1308 Michener, Engaging Deconstructive Theology, 232.
1309 Michener, Engaging Deconstructive Theology, 233. The following quote from Michener expresses
well the epistemological sentiment that Yong also conveys: “The Christian faith does involve truth claims
about reality, hence the need for a soft foundational perspective that assumes the possibility of human
dialogue and understanding, while at the same time acknowledging its limitations. A deabsolutized,
interactionist apologetic is processional. It is objectively ‘grounded’ in the eschatological realism
purported by the soft foundational perspective we have examined, but it does not demand absolute
252 PART II
‘shifting foundations’ hints more at the precariousness of speaking of foundations,

even if he continues to do so. C.S. Peirce used a similar metaphor. “Science, Peirce says,
‘is not standing upon the bedrock of fact. It is walking upon a bog, and can only say,
this ground seems to hold for the present. Here I will stay till it begins to give
way.’[…]”1310 If this is a correct understanding of reality, and we think that it is, then
describing reality is perhaps as difficult as a one-eyed sniper trying to hit a moving
target.
2. Tradition-specific sources
a. Open particularism
‘Many tongues’ is a recurring theme in all of Yong’s writings. Although its initial
reference point is the miracle of languages on the Day of Pentecost, it has come to stand
for the pluriformity of human particularities, not only linguistic, but also cultural and
religious, and it is shorthand for the many (religious and other) practices that are
allowed, or rather, welcomed, in Yong’s analysis. He has no room for a bland pluralism
of the greatest common denominator; on the contrary, his is a radical acceptance of
humanity’s diversity (linguistic, cultural, religious) as willed and affirmed by the Spirit
in the Pentecost experience of the Spirit being poured out on all flesh:
[T]he particular experiences of women and men, young and
old, poor and affluent, oriental and occidental, Jew and Greek,
red and yellow, black and white, those who speak and those
who sign, and even the Muslim, the Hindu, the Buddhist, the
Confucian, etc., would not need to be denied. Rather, each of
these can be seen to give particular testimony to the nature of
humankind and of humanity’s relationship to God (theological
anthropology) in anticipation of the full reconciliation to be
accomplished in the kingdom.1311
Such an approach supports heavy investment in the tradition-specificity of one’s

own religious tradition, as well as taking it as one’s starting point. But it also pushes
one to investigate the ‘other’ as legitimate in their own right. This attitude, which Yong
calls “open particularism” is “Christocentric, biblically committed, evangelistically
motivated, soteriologically inclusive, and yet dialogically open, even to the point of
knowledge claims placed in hermetically sealed arguments. It does not insist on finality, but it seeks
continual growth and engagement within human finiteness. It is an apologetic which affirms that learning,
growing, and developing is part of our created nature. As James K.A. Smith pointed out, we must not
equate finitude with evil or violence, but as part of our created humanness.” Michener, Engaging
Deconstructive Theology, 234.
1310 Misak, “C.S. Peirce,” 15.
1311 Yong, “As the Spirit Gives Utterance,” 308.

learning from religious others […].” 1312 Yong, then, confirms both the particularity of
his own faith tradition within the context of a plurality of other religions, and the
public truth claims that accompany such particularism.1313 At the same time, he stresses
the necessity of learning from other perspectives.
This balancing act between confidence in one’s religious self-understanding and
a fundamental openness to the other, is what defines the challenge of all tradition-
specific approaches that are willing to venture out into the interfaith encounter. It
needs the self-confidence of the cultural-linguistic approach and the openness of the
pluralists. This, however, can never be an individual venture. The role Yong assigns to
the community, in a cultural-linguistic understanding, as the hermeneutical context of
formation, underlines the necessity of tradition-specific approaches where a system’s
particularity is not a hindrance to, but a condition for, open engagement. This method
is put to the test and vindicated in Yong’s comparative theological exercise, especially
where he compares his own tradition’s religious cosmology (demonology) with the
Buddhist understanding of demons.1314
b. Use of Scripture and Luke-Acts as a canon within the canon
As can be expected of a scholar in the Evangelical tradition, Yong seeks to ground his
approach in Scripture, since “Christian theology begins with Scripture.”1315 This is
witnessed to by the Scripture index that can be found in his monographs.1316 Yong’s
Pentecostal leanings can also be gleaned from his use of Scripture, in the prominence
that the book of Acts enjoys in his work. Together with the gospel of Luke, Acts “has
been central to pentecostal beliefs and practices from the beginning of the movement in
the early twentieth century.”1317 Elsewhere, Yong points to “the centrality of Luke-Acts
to the pentecostal biblical imagination.”1318 This can be explained on two accounts.
1312 Yong, “As the Spirit Gives Utterance,” 313-314 n.42. The concept of ‘open particularism’ is
borrowed from Henry E. Lie, Open Particularism: An Evangelical Alternative to Meet the Challenge of Religious
Pluralism in the Asian Context (PhD diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1998).
1313 Miroslav Volf points to St. Paul as facing the same problem of validating the particularism of
faith in Jesus Christ while at the same time maintaining its public truth character. According to Volf, “no
persuasive alternative to overcome particularism has been proposed. No one has shown how one can
intelligently hold to a nonparticularist universalism. As it happens, every claim to universality must be
made from a particular perspective.” Miroslav Volf, Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration of
Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation (Nashville: Abingdon, 1996), 46. This is also cited in Michener,
Engaging Deconstructive Theology, 185 n.62.
1315 Yong, Beyond the Impasse, 35. Elsewhere, Yong writes that “Christian theology will go only so far
as biblical interpretation will allow” and therefore “systematicians and comparative theologians must
inevitably deal with the ‘hard texts’ of scripture.” Yong, “The Light Shines in the Darkness,” 33.
1316 The unfortunate exception here is Yong, Hospitality and the Other, but not because there are no
Scripture quotations in this book, on the contrary!

1317 Yong, In the Days of Caesar, 106.
1318 Yong, Spirit Poured Out, 83. Also Amos Yong, “Discerning the Spirit,” Christian Century 123, no.
5 (2006): 33.
254 PART II
First, Luke, as author of both works,1319 gives ample attention to the Holy Spirit, both in
the life and ministry of Jesus Christ and in the beginnings and expansion of the church.
Second, Pentecostalism “as a restorationist movement, […] has been oriented since its
beginnings to recapturing the apostolic experience.”1320 The ‘baptism with the Spirit’, as
recorded in Acts 2, serves as the template for Pentecostal experience and spirituality.
The result is that the book of Acts functions more or less as a “canon-within-a-canon,”
a concept that arguably can be extended to Luke’s gospel as well. But within this
double work, the Day of Pentecost narrative holds a pivotal place. Typical as well, is to
read the gospel of Luke from the perspective of Acts.1321 According to Yong, “there is
literary justification for rereading Luke in light of the Day of Pentecost motif. This is
not to say that the Day of Pentecost is either the only or the dominant interpretive
theme of the Lukan corpus; it is to say that an argument can be made for the coherence
of both Lukan volumes in light of the outpouring of the Spirit.”1322
All these characteristics are clearly at work in Yong’s theological method. A
quick perusal of the Scripture indices of his monographs shows that in all but two of
the consulted works, Acts gets most of the Scriptural references.1323 What is more, Yong
has recently published a devotional theology of the Holy Spirit conceived of as a
commentary on Acts and Luke.1324 That Luke-Acts figures prominently in Yong’s
pentecostal imagination, is also clear in the many references to the Lukan corpus in the
title of books and chapters.1325
1319 Lukan authorship is commonly accepted in scholarship. For overviews, see Darrell L. Bock,
“Luke, Gospel of,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, and I. Howard
Marshall (Downers Grove IL; Leicester: IVP, 1992); Joel B. Green, “Acts of the Apostles,” in Dictionary of the
Later New Testament and Its Developments, ed. Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids (Downers Grove, IL;
Leicester: IVP, 1997).
1321 Yong argues in one instance as follows: “But because the earliest believers lived out of their
memory of Jesus, in almost every other chapter, we will glance ‘back’, historically speaking, from Acts to
the Gospel of Luke itself, in order to glimpse just how the followers of Jesus might have been inspired by
his Spirit-filled life, ministry, and teachings as they negotiated their own challenges of being in but not of
the world. Proceeding in this way does what I had been raised to do: reread our present life in light of the
lives of the apostles so as to allow their experiences to illuminate our own.” Amos Yong, Who is the Holy
Spirit? A Walk with the Apostles (Brewster, MA: Paraclete Press, 2011, Kindle edition), k.loc 228-232.
1322 Yong, Spirit of Love, 195 n.11.
1323 We consulted for this exercise the nine monographs that we used in this dissertation, plus Spirit
of Creation. It is only in this latter book, together with Pneumatology and the Christian-Buddhist Dialogue that
Acts is not quoted most often. In both cases that honour goes to Genesis. In Hospitality and the Other, no
Scripture index is available, but Luke-Acts figures prominently in the book’s argument for hospitality in
interreligious engagement.
1324 Yong, Who is the Holy Spirit?
1325 Yong does not limit his Scripture use to Luke-Acts. In Spirit of Love, for example, he also
extensively considers the Johanine and Pauline literature. The Johanine literature is equally put to use to
defend his ‘inclusivistic’ theology of religions in Yong, “The Light Shines in the Darkness.”
Yong defends his own privileging of the Lukan corpus as the “lens through
which to read the Bible”1326 on the basis of two considerations. The first consideration is
that all Bible reading starts from a particular point of view. To begin with the point of
view that Pentecostals prefer, simply shows that Yong is working out of a tradition-
specific approach. Yong is adamant that “the claim that there is any purely biblical
theology apart from experiential traditions of interpretation that approach the canon
from some standpoint,” is misguided.1327
The second consideration defending the privileging of Luke-Acts is that such an
approach does not necessarily result “in a neglect of the remainder of the scriptural
witness, but instead functions more like a hermeneutical lens through which
pentecostals read and engage the rest of the Bible.”1328
As we hope to show below, Yong’s reading of Acts 2 is rich, though not without
its problems.1329 It does prove that his approach to Scripture is creative, not slavishly
reproducing common opinion. Above all, it is made fertile by approaching Scripture
with contemporary questions while at the same time trying to identify larger biblical-
theological themes with an eye to the general trajectory of Scripture. One example will
demonstrate this. The theme of hospitality as the primary mode for interreligious
encounter is developed in Hospitality and the Other. The Lukan parable of the Good
Samaritan is the iconic story around which Yong builds his argument, but the theme of
hospitality is found in the Lukan corpus as a whole, and more generally a theology of
hospitality is teased out of Scripture starting from Luke-Acts.
Overall, Yong follows a similar trajectory as that proposed by N.T. Wright.
Wright suggested that theology, or Christian life in general, can be compared to a play
that has to be performed, and the Bible is the incomplete script for it. There is enough
material to know the main themes and major actors, but the details of the performance
are open to some improvisation, although the general direction of how the play will
end is also clear.1330 It should be noted that such an approach to Scripture is much more
relaxed than that which is prevalent within Evangelical or Pentecostal circles.1331 But if
theology is performance, as Yong claims, it is clearly the case that Luke-Acts functions
1326 Yong, Spirit Poured Out, 86. Also Yong, Spirit of Love, 94: “a lens through which the rest of the
New Testament, as well as the Hebrew Bible, is read”.
1327 Yong, Spirit Poured Out, 86. Similarly, on p. 212 he writes “that the goal of a purely biblical
theology is not attainable. All theological reflection depends upon, and emerges from, the experiential,
existential, and sociocultural matrix wherein it finds itself.”
1328 Yong, In the Days of Caesar, 106.
1329 See p. 260ff.
1330 Wright, New Testament and People of God, 140-143. Yong, Hospitality and the Other, 55. As we saw
in Chapter III, Gerald McDermott makes use of the same metaphor developed by N.T. Wright.
1331 For this, see also our discussion in the previous chapter (p.172ff.) on ‘the use of the Bible in
theology’.
256 PART II
within Pentecostal spirituality as the script for the individual believer and the local
church.1332
That Yong’s posture toward Scripture is more relaxed than one would expect
from an Pentecostal-Evangelical theologian, is made explicit in the monograph
espousing his theological method and hermeneutics, Spirit-Word-Community. Yong is
clearly not caught in the trap of equating the Word of God and the Bible,1333 for he
unambiguously states that Scripture “should […] be understood to represent or point
to rather than contain or circumscribe the Word of God. Alternatively put, Scripture is
not the Word of God but makes present the living Word of God in Jesus Christ […].1334
This has implications, both for the authority of Scripture and for his use of it.
First, concerning Scripture’s authority, Yong acknowledges it as authoritative, but at
the same time he points out that the historical situatedness of all human activity, even
when inspired by the Holy Spirit, means that speaking of Scripture in terms of
inerrancy and infallibilism is problematic.1335 A theologian’s handling of Scripture will
therefore always be a dialectical process between Scripture’s normativity and its (and
the theologian’s) historical situatedness. Yong explains,
The Bible’s authority (its normativeness) does not work in
isolation, but in conjunction with the norms intrinsic to human
engagement with reality in all its multidimensionality.
Certainly, Scripture may be insisted upon as the final norm—
or, according to the classical formula, as norma normans non
normata […]. But even here, the reality is that human beings do
not come to Scripture with a blank slate. [...] The upshot of all
this is that practically speaking for theological hermeneutics,
there will always be a dialectical struggle between Scripture as
norma normans and tradition as norma normata.1336
Yong, then, works from within a ‘progressive’ Pentecostal-Evangelical

perspective in his understanding of the locus of authority in Scripture.1337
Second, concerning his use of Scripture as locus for his theology, Pentecostals, in
particular, will recognise the priority of Luke-Acts in Yong’s biblical hermeneutics. As
a systematic theologian, however, Yong does not remain within the context of the
biblical world, but seeks to let Scripture speak creatively to burning contemporary
1332 For example, Yong writes about the abrupt end of the book of Acts the following: “The next
chapters of the book of Acts, if they were ever to be written, would tell more about men and women, even
perhaps among us today, who are also empowered by the Spirit of God to proclaim and enact the
kingdom of God to the ends of the earth.” Yong, Who is the Holy Spirit?, k.loc 2611-2612. Evangelical
theologian Ronald Michener says something similar: “The metanarrative of Acts must theologically
become our personal story as well.” Michener, Engaging Deconstructive Theology, 176.
1333 See the previous chapter for the ambiguity of McDermott in this matter.
1337 For a useful engagement with the issue of the authority of Scripture from a ‘progressive’
evangelical perspective, see Wright, Scripture and the Authority of God.

issues such as religious plurality, globalism, and the science-religion dialogue.

According to Yong, “Christian theology […] should be recognized as a provisional
theoretical activity which attempts to correlate biblical revelation with our experience
of the world and vice versa.”1338 Even if his biblical hermeneutic is not always
convincing, he is to be applauded for his efforts. Yong successfully combines two
avenues in his use of Scripture. On the one hand, he is loyal to the tradition-specific
modus operandi of Pentecostalism’s use of Scripture, yet without its fundamentalistic
Biblicism.1339 On the other hand, he is creative in applying Scripture to themes that are
not prevalent in that tradition, such as theology of religions, political theology, the
science-religion debate, and theology of disability.
c. Testimony and the importance of experience
A recurring feature of Yong’s theological method is the place he assigns to testimony,

i.e., the witness to one’s own, or someone else’s, personal experience. This is
exemplified most clearly in Yong’s first monograph, Discerning the Spirit, where, apart
from the introduction, each chapter starts with a personal testimony, or what Yong
calls “brief autobiographical vignettes.”1340 Yong defends his use of these on two
grounds. Firstly there is the tradition-specificity of Pentecostal theology, in which
orality, more so than textuality, takes a prominent place.1341 Its use is partly apologetic
towards his own tradition. In trying to convince his co-religionists of his views, he
must speak their language, they must be able to recognise it as a Pentecostal
argument.1342 But, secondly, Yong is not writing only for fellow Pentecostals. In using
testimonies, he wishes to introduce non-Pentecostal scholars to this genre.1343
The importance of testimony can also be gleaned in other work by and on Yong.
Whereas ‘reminiscences’ as a genre is not unknown for theologians on the occasion of
their retirement or in old age, it is rather uncommon for younger theologians. Yong,

1339 Yong laments that “theology for Pentecostals tends to be monopolar—focuses on what the Bible
says—even as it neglects the contemporary pole of interpretation. Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s), 22 n.4.
1341 “The ‘testimony’ has always been the preferred form of discourse for Pentecostals […].” Yong,
Discerning the Spirit(s), 28.

1342 For an example of this, see Yong’s testimony in a more pastorally oriented work: “I’ve also come
to recognize that my own view of the Spirit’s person and work is too individualistic, too spiritualistic, and
too ecclesiocentric. […] I now believe there is so much more the Spirit is doing in the world beyond what
I’d been trained to recognize. I now believe that the Spirit is at work not just at the level of the individual
but also at the level of society and its various political and economic structures; not just at the
otherworldly, spiritual level but also at the this-worldly level of the material and concrete domains of our
lives; not just in and through the church but also in and through wider institutional, cultural, and even
religious realities. In other words, I now think that the world of the Holy Spirit is much wider than I’d
guessed, and that the work of the Spirit is to redeem and transform our world as a whole along with all of
its interconnected parts, systems, and structures.” Yong, Who is the Holy Spirit?, k.loc 172-173 and 185-190.
1343 At the same time, Yong believes that he is striving for “an objective and dispassionate
argument.” Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s), 28.

258 PART II
however, gives such an overview of his work, interspersed with biographical data in
the young journal Evangelical Interfaith Dialogue1344 and in a collection of articles that
gathers the testimony of Pentecostal scholars, confirming the Pentecostal tendency
towards orality and testimony.1345
Others have commented on this practice as well. It is not an exclusively a
Pentecostal habit, but more generally an Evangelical one, even if Pentecostals are more
prominent in its use.1346 Evangelical theologian, Ronald Michener, for example, also
affirms “the value of one’s personal redemptive story within the community
context.”1347
In a forthcoming work evaluating Amos Yong’s theology, Wolfgang Vondey and
Martin Mittelstadt comment on Pentecostal scholarship in general as being ‘embodied’
in the following terms:
For most Pentecostals, this emphasis reflects a going-beyond
the mere intellectual pursuit of knowledge to include holistic
modes of learning and being. […] In the scholarly discourse of
Pentecostals, this articulacy is seen in the evangelistic,
expository, inspirational, sermonic, and thematic emphases of
many publications that include prayer, praise, testimony,
exhortation, and other elements not typical for scholarly
conventions. […] While such expressions seldom receive
scholarly recognition from the wider academy, they represent
the important desire of Pentecostal scholarship to shed the role
of objective knowledge for the sake of passionate
participation.1348
Although testimony is not common fare in academic discourse, postmodernity

has made it at least possible. Allowance for testimony can be seen as part of a ‘turn to
experience’ that is characteristic of the “contemporary postmodern dynamic
worldview.” 1349 It is evident that Yong stands firmly within this wave of postmodern
1344 Yong, “A Pentecostal Inquiry in a Pluralistic World.” See also the article on Yong in Christianity
Today: Olson, “A Wind that Swirls Everywhere.”
1345 Amos Yong, “The Spirit, Vocation, and the Life of the Mind: A Pentecostal Testimony,” in
Pentecostals in the Academy: Testimonies of Call, ed. Steven M. Fettke and Robby Waddell (Cleveland, TN:
CPT Press, 2012).
1346 For a recent attempt to establish testimony as a model for interreligious dialogue, see Tony
Richie, Toward a Pentecostal Theology of Religions. Encountering Cornelius Today (Cleveland, TN: CPT Press,
2013, Kindle edition), k.loc 1811-2006.
1347 Michener, Engaging Deconstructive Theology, 176. In discussing the biographical information
concerning Gerald McDermott in Chapter III, we already pointed out that ‘testimony’ is typically
Evangelical.
1348 Wolfgang Vondey and Martin William Mittelstadt, “Introduction,” in The Theology of Amos Yong
and the New Face of Pentecostal Scholarship. Passion for the Spirit, ed. Wolfgang Vondey and Martin William
Mittelstadt, Global Pentecostal and Charismatic Studies (Leiden: Brill, 2013, forthcoming), 10. For their
comments on Yong’s use of testimony, see Vondey and Mittelstadt, “Introduction,” 14.
1349 Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen perceptively remarks that “Pentecostalism’s belief in the ongoing,
dynamic work of the Spirit in the world is in keeping with the contemporary postmodern dynamic
worldview, with its ‘turn to experience’.”Kärkkäinen, “Pneumatologies in Systematic Theology,” 233.
research that takes experience to be of utmost importance. It is the rationale for his
empirical approach to theology, maintaining that theological claims must be tested
against reality.1350 He asserts in Beyond the Impasse, for example that the following
methodological claim is central in his work: “that a pneumatological theology of
religions not only commits but also enables us to empirically engage the world’s
religions in a truly substantive manner with theological questions and concerns.”1351
But the use of testimony, and experience more generally, also makes the scholar
more vulnerable. This could operate in two directions. In the first place, as regards his
own fellow Pentecostals, Yong could face marginalisation that might lead to
estrangement from his religious tradition when the reigning, ‘mainstream’ experience
of the Spirit is perhaps in conflict, or at least not in continuity, with his own. From the
non-Pentecostal scholar’s side, identifying with such a specific ‘non-academic’ practice
in his academic work, may induce some scholars to, at best, neglect his work, or, at
worst, to deride it as non-neutral, or simply as poor scholarship. However, as we have
pointed out already, Yong considers vulnerability to be a virtue, particularly in the
interfaith encounter. It seems that he is willing to take the risk of marginalisation for
the greater – potential – benefit of learning from others.
3. Eclecticism
We have already pointed out that Yong has published in many domains of theology;
and it has become evident that he uses a vast array of sources whilst interacting with
several branches of the sciences to an extent that may seem overwhelming. As
mentioned above, this is linked to Yong’s empirical method according to which he
must study (religious) phenomena (beliefs and practices, i.e., the ‘many tongues’) in all
their particularity and diverse contexts. In the course of his publications, he makes
extensive use of, for example, cultural anthropology, sociology, biology, neurosciences,
semiotics, philosophy, religious studies, world religions in general and Buddhism(s) in
particular, political sciences, international relations, and economics. This comes on top
of the use of a broad array of theological disciplines (fundamental, biblical, historical,
systematic, ethical, practical). At one point, Yong remarks, no doubt tongue in cheek,
that “the eclecticism of my thinking could surely be disciplined.”1352
This is certainly a worthy recommendation. Yet it also raises two immediate
questions. Firstly, can any one person really be abreast of the scholarship in these
diverse areas? Given his support of a fallibilist epistemology, Yong is certainly aware
of the difficulties that accompany all the excursuses in these areas. Part of the solution
that Yong envisions for this problem is, undoubtedly, the importance he grants to the
1350 This also betrays Yong’s pragmatism in the ‘school’ of C.S. Peirce.
1352 Yong, Pneumatology and the Christian-Buddhist Dialogue, xv.
260 PART II
(scholarly) community to correct and refine.1353 Because of his conviction that theology
is concerned not only with intra-systemic truth, but also with ‘public’ truth, he
deliberately opens up his research for review and correction to the scholarly and
ecclesial communities he is addressing.
But, secondly, qualms remain. If one celebrates the ‘many tongues’ understood as
the pluriformity of approaches, perspectives, practices and voices (as Yong does), does
this not make one susceptible to simply picking and choosing what suits the argument?
Postmodern plurality has levelled the playing field for almost all and any perspectives.
Who is going to adjudicate between different tongues regarding what is allowed and
what is not? And on what basis is this going to happen? It seems that, before the
S/spirit(s) can be discerned, the discernment must be discerned as well.
Perhaps Yong would argue that we inevitably have to enter the hermeneutical
circle at some point, but when we continue the hermeneutical process of correction and
refinement, progress is made. In the end, the chosen perspective or approach will be
judged by its results. In some sense, then, a pragmatist criterion reigns.
C. THEOLOGICAL ISSUES
1. Non-Christians as recipients of the gift of the Spirit
a. The Spirit Poured out on All Flesh
The Day of Pentecost, as narrated in Acts 2, holds a central symbolic and referential
place in Yong’s pneumatological imagination. What is vital in his understanding, is the
conception of the coming of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost as producing a
decisive change in the way God and the world relate to each other. Yong takes his lead
for this idea from the Dutch theologian, Jean-Jacques Suurmond. Suurmond claims
that,
Certainly, the Pentecost event of the outpouring of Christ’s
Word and Spirit on ‘every living creature’ is regarded as a
decisive new change in the relationship between God and the
world and thus also in the relationship between human beings
[…].1354
For Suurmond, the gift(s) of the Spirit is/are not limited to the church, because
“the baptism with Word and Spirit is not limited to those who know Christ.”1355
Suurmond explicitly draws people from other religious traditions into this event.1356
1353See also our discussion, above, of Peirce’s fallibilism, p. 205ff.

1354Jean-Jacques Suurmond, Word and Spirit at Play. Towards a Charismatic Theology, trans. John
Bowden (London: SCM, 1994), 201.
1355 Suurmond, Word and Spirit at Play, 198.

Yong affirms and develops this understanding of Suurmond, by offering further

exegetical, historical, and philosophico-theological considerations of the narrative of
the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2.1357 The decisive element of the narrative, for Yong’s
approach at least, is the interpretation by the apostle Peter of the coming of the Holy
Spirit on the gathered disciples, in terms of Old Testament prophecy being fulfilled.1358
Peter states that what has happened “is what was spoken through the prophet Joel: ‘In
the last days it will be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh
[…]’.”1359
Throughout Yong’s oeuvre, the ‘Spirit poured out on all flesh’ is a symbol of (the
promise of) a truly inclusive and universal Divine presence and activity. Everyone is
within reach of being ‘baptised’ with the Holy Spirit, irrespective of language, race,
age, gender, economic situation, and even religious adherence. But it is this last
category, most pertinent to our subject matter, that is not without its problems. It is
relatively straightforward, and generally accepted, that the Spirit comes on people
notwithstanding their language, race, age, gender or economic situation. That is a
direct application of the Old Testament text that Peter quotes. But that it would equally
apply to non-Christians, is an exceptional interpretation. After all, in the Acts narrative,
Peter exhorts his non-Christian audience to repent and be baptized in the name of
Jesus, only after which the gift of the Holy Spirit follows.1360
Yong must then proffer other evidence to back up his claim that non-Christians
are also within the purview of Spirit-baptism, without becoming Christian in the
process. Yong, first, notes that Pentecost rectified what the ‘Tower of Babel’ had
confounded:1361 the many languages which prohibited unified action in Babel are
countered at Pentecost by the unity in diversity of the many languages spoken by the
disciples through the Holy Spirit.1362 There is one message that is preached in many
languages, enabling human encounter of an order that was previously not imaginable.
1357 For affirmation of Suurmond’s position, see Yong, “As the Spirit Gives Utterance,” 300-301;
Yong, Spirit Poured Out, 195.
1358 Joel 2:28-29 as quoted in Acts 2:17-18.
1359 Acts 2:16-17 (NRSV).
1360 Acts 2:38 (NRSV): “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that
your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
1361 Although it is a popular theme to link the languages miracle on the Day of Pentecost with the
languages miracle at the Tower of Babel, “there is no hard evidence in the text for seeing this interpretative
nuance in Luke’s story” (I. Howard Marshall, “Acts,” in Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old
Testament, ed. G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson (Grand Rapids, MI; Nottingham, UK: Baker Academic; Apollos,
2007), 532).
1362 In an important sense, Pentecost is not the undoing Babel because that would mean to reinstall a
central place of worship and a single language of worship. Rather, Pentecost fulfils what the ‘judgment’ on
Babel began to realise, i.e., it brings the knowledge of God to the ends of the earth. Babel stands for the
centralising power, the hegemony and unitary language of power, the hubris of reaching for God on one’s
own terms. Pentecost stands for the democratisation of power, the dispersion of people to the ends of the
earth to praise God in many languages and in many places, the reaching out of God towards humankind,
the unexpected bestowal of an empowering gift.
262 PART II
But, second, this event is not simply one of crossing language borders. Pentecost is also
the event which enables “intercultural or cross-cultural communication.”1363 Those
making up the audience of Peter’s speech are not only diaspora Jews from all over the
world, they include (proselyte) Gentiles as well.1364 This means that the people gathered
there, out of which three thousand converted,1365 represented many languages, races
and cultures.1366 Given the modern insight that languages, cultures and religions are
intimately interconnected, Yong points out that “their experience of the one God had
been […] shaped by the particularities of their linguistic, socio-historical, and cultural
experiences.”1367 Yong even goes so far as to state that the category of proselytes is
much more internally diversified than one would think. He problematizes the category
of proselytes, suggesting the possibility that some of them even “were not pure
monotheists, or perhaps had not severed ties with the pagan communities from which
they came.”1368 Yong then states that, on exegetical grounds, no definitive choice can be
made concerning the question “whether Luke understood Pentecost as an intercultural
or interreligious event […].”1369 While it indeed makes sense to understand the
audience as not strictly religiously homogenous, it is quite a stretch to say that Luke,
possibly, understood them to be truly interreligious.1370
Since Yong estimates that exegesis cannot decide the matter, he tries to point to
other elements that give plausibility to his reading of the narrative. In Acts 2:9-11,1371
nine nationalities/regions are mentioned which link the Pentecost narrative to the
‘Table of Nations’1372 in Gen 10 and thus to the descendants of Noah’s sons Shem, Ham,

1364 For confirmation of the presence of proselytes of many nations, and not just from Rome, see C.
K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, International Critical
Commentary, vol. 1. Preliminary Introduction and Commentary on Acts I-XIV (Edinburgh: T&T Clark,
1994), 123; I. Howard Marshall, Acts, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Leicester; Grand Rapids,
MI: IVP; Eerdmans, 1980), 71.
1365 Acts 2:41.
1366 Sometimes Bible translations unnecessarily add to the confusion. When Peter addresses the
ethnically mixed audience in Acts 2:29, the Greek reads Ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί, (andres adelphoi, ‘men, brothers’)
whereas the NRSV translates as “Fellow Israelites,” thereby giving the impression that an ethnic and
cultural homogenous group is assembled. The Greek text is taken from M. W. Holmes, ed., The Greek New
Testament. SBL Edition (Society of Biblical Literature and Logos Bible Software, 2010 (electronic form)).
1370 Craig Keener, for example, is clear that “they were certainly Jewish (whether by birth or
conversion […]).” Craig S. Keener, The Spirit in the Gospels and Acts: Divine Purity and Power (Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 1997), 207 n.45.
1371 Acts 2:9-11(NRSV): 9 Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and
Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to
Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretans and Arabs.
1372 The Table of Nations in Gen 10 lists the descendants of Noah as constituting seventy nations.
‘Seventy nations’ (or seventy-two in some traditions) is commonly understood as representing the whole
world.
and Japheth.1373 This linkage clearly signals the universal scope of the event, which
exceeds the boundaries of national or ethnic ‘Israel’. So we have in the Pentecost
narrative clear references to the Table of Nations in Gen 10, and to the language
confusion at the Tower of Babel in Gen 11.1374
We can confirm with Yong that this universal scope is definitely present in the
Pentecost narrative. We also agree with his linkage of language, culture and religion.
But in the end, what happens in the Pentecost narrative is that those people from
different countries and languages, who are (potentially) religiously heterogeneous,
convert and are baptized. This hardly offers support for Yong’s thesis.1375
b. Cornelius and the manner of the Spirit’s presence
There is another problem with Yong’s interpretation as he follows Suurmond. Yong

and Suurmond seem to understand Pentecost as producing an ontological change in
reality such that “the capacity for authentic encounter among humankind (including
those who are not Christians) has increased to an important degree through the
charisms.”1376 If that is the case, then this is, in principle, empirically verifiable. But then
one would expect Yong to try and test this hypothesis empirically. So far as we can see,
no such testing has been forthcoming.1377
1373 John Stott confirms Yong’s understanding of Luke representing the descendents of Shem, Ham
and Japheth and a ‘Table of Nations’ comparable to Gen 10 (John Stott, The Spirit, the Church and the World.
The Message of Acts (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1990), 68). Craig Keener also confirms the correspondence
with the Table of Nations in Gen 10 (Keener, Spirit, 194). According to James M. Scott, “it is difficult to
avoid the conclusion that the list of nations in our text is purposely alluding to the Table of Nations
tradition.” James M. Scott, Geography in Early Judaism and Christianity: The Book of Jubilees Society for New
Testament Studies Monograph Series (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 77.
1374 Further evidence is offered by James Scott on the basis of an analysis of the Book of Jubilees (a
second century BC pseudepigraph which was popular amongst Jews and early Christians). Scott remarks
that “the Diaspora Jews who gathered in Jerusalem represent ‘every nation under heaven’ (Acts 2:5) and
point to the universalistic thrust of the Book of Acts. The allusion to the Tower of Babel […] helps us see
that the list of nations in [Acts 2] vv. 9–11 goes back to the Table of Nations. According to the Book of
Jubilees, the Feast of Pentecost itself was originally incumbent upon all people, when it was given to Noah
after the Flood. Just as the sending out of the 70/72 disciples, based on the Table of Nations tradition,
anticipates the mission to the nations in the Book of Acts, so also the pars pro toto list of nations in Acts 2:9–
11, again based on the Table of Nations tradition, anticipates the later mission to the nations.” Scott,
Geography 84.
1375 For an alternative approach that makes use of the Tower of Babel narrative to celebrate
particularity and otherness, see Marianne Moyaert, Fragile Identities: Towards a Theology of Interreligious
Hospitality, trans. Henry Jansen, Currents of Encounter. Studies on the Contact Between Christianity and
Other Religions, Beliefs, and Cultures 39 (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2011); Marianne Moyaert, Leven in Babelse
tijden. De noodzaak van een interreligieuze dialoog (Kalmthout - Zoetermeer: Pelckmans - Klement, 2011).
1377 Yong seems to tone down this claim when he explains Pentecost as an eschatological event. This
implies that “it is the reconciliation of humankind in all its diversity as the people of God, temporarily in
the church of Jesus Christ in anticipation of the arrival of the kingdom of God.” Yong, “As the Spirit Gives
Utterance,” 306.
264 PART II
The question that remains unresolved, however, is how the Spirit’s ontological
presence to all created things, including the religious other, (as established by Yong’s
metaphysics), is continuous or discontinuous with her presence and activity in the
Christian believer. For it is this presence and activity of the Holy Spirit which
constitutes this believer as a member of the church, thereby engrafting her onto the
renewed people of God.1378 One place where Yong seems to hint at an answer, is where
he says that “the Day of Pentecost outpouring of the Spirit upon all flesh is God’s
prevenient gift that makes possible the repentance of individual hearts so that any who
call upon the name of the Lord will experience […] the forgiveness of sins and receive
the Holy Spirit.”1379
A case in point may be the Acts narrative concerning Cornelius, who is described
as “a devout man who feared God” and as “an upright and God-fearing man.”1380 Yong
suggests that “God [hears] the prayers of all people, even if they are made without
knowledge of the name or person of Jesus.”1381 In Evangelical circles, this narrative is
predominantly understood in an exclusivistic sense: even someone who is considered
to be upright by his neighbours, must hear the gospel proclaimed and accept it, before
he is saved.1382 Yong turns this interpretation upside down. If the traditional
explanation is correct, avers Yong, this would imply that people who remain
unevangelized, have never truly cried out to God.1383 But, Yong inquires, if Cornelius is
truly devout, upright and God-fearing, surely this is only possible through the working
of the Holy Spirit?1384 Yong sums up by asking a set of rhetorical questions. “Thus is it
possible that the unevangelized are not beyond the workings of the Spirit of God? Is it
possible that the prayers of the unevangelized also rise up as a memorial before God
and that God has his own ways of dealing with and accepting those who have
constantly sought him, even apart from missionaries?”1385
1378 Irenaeus, whom Yong invokes as a source for the distinct mission of the Spirit, “understands the
Holy Spirit to be present in believers only.” Briggman, Irenaeus of Lyons, 181.

1379 Yong, Spirit of Love, 96. The prevenient gift mentioned here, is to be understood as the Wesleyan
category of ‘prevenient grace’. According to Wesley, the whole of creation is sustained by God’s
prevenient grace and it is this gift which “both makes salvation possible and also undergirds the actual
experience of salvation by human beings.” Yong, Spirit Poured Out, 103. See also Yong, Beyond the Impasse,
79. It is the concept of prevenient grace that excludes any possibility of works righteousness in the
Wesleyan tradition.
1380 Acts 10:2 and 10:22.
1381 Yong, Who is the Holy Spirit?, k.loc 1699-1700.
1382 See, for example, Ronald H. Nash, “Restrictivism,” in What About Those Who Have Never Heard?
Three Views on the Destiny of the Unevangelized, ed. John Sanders (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1995), 120-122.
Yet, for a different Evangelical approach more in line with Yong’s understanding, see Ida Glaser, The Bible
and Other Faiths: What Does the Lord Require of Us?, ed. David Smith, The Global Christian Library
(Leicester: IVP, 2005), 167-168.
1383 Yong, Who is the Holy Spirit?, k.loc 1702.
1385 Yong, Who is the Holy Spirit?, k.loc 1712-1714. For a very recent Pentecostal theology of religions
that takes Peter’s encounter with Cornelius as its paradigm for interreligious encounter, see Richie, Toward
a Pentecostal Theology of Religions.
Perhaps Yong hints at a solution in commenting on John 3:8 (“The wind blows
where it chooses, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes
from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”).1386 John
compares the mystery of the Spirit to the moving of the wind. “For Yong, the
implications of this text suggest the fruit and gifts of the Spirit may appear among
other religious cultures and traditions.”1387
What we find puzzling, though, is how Yong can still speak of the Spirit as
bringing ‘new birth’1388 when he understands salvation as multidimensional, and has a
view of conversion as a continuous process encompassing many aspects.1389 How can
one meaningfully speak of a ‘before’ and ‘after’ as the concept ‘new birth’ implies?
In conclusion, we can state that, while Yong’s novel interpretation of the
universal scope of ‘the Spirit poured out on all flesh’ in Acts 2 is attractive, it
nevertheless seems to be built on shaky exegetical and biblical-theological grounds.
Yong seems to be on firmer exegetical ground in his analysis of the Cornelius narrative.
Moreover, his philosophico-theological arguments seem much stronger in arguing for
“the redemption of the religious sphere of human life” through the presence and
agency of the Spirit.1390 We also appreciate and support his affirmation of the radical
particularity of what is ‘other’ through the Pentecost narrative.1391 But it remains
unclear if Yong can meaningfully differentiate between the work of the Spirit in
everyone or everything everywhere, and the Holy Spirit’s work in bringing about new
birth in individuals.1392
2. Incipient universalism?
Precisely the combination of the universal-scope reading of Acts 2 with the

pneumatological ontology developed by Yong, can give the impression that Yong is a
soteriological universalist. One could claim that both his hermeneutics of Acts 2 and
his metaphysics provide complementary trajectories that asymptotically converge in
the direction of universalism. However, scattered throughout his oeuvre, one can find
1386 NRSV.
1387 Richie, Toward a Pentecostal Theology of Religions, k.loc 1595-1596. Richie refers to Amos Yong,
““Not Knowing Where the Wind Blows...” : On Envisioning a Pentecostal-Charismatic Theology of
Religions,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology, no. 14 (1999); Yong, Spirit Poured Out, 24, 71, 200.
1388 Yong claims, for example, that “The Spirit is not only the sanctifier of those who are being
saved, as it is commonly recognized, but also the one who actually brings about the new birth itself (Titus
3:5; John 3:3-7). More than that, it is the Spirit who is at work in the hearts and lives of individuals,
preparing them for that new birth (John 16:8-11).” Yong, Beyond the Impasse, 39.
1389 See our discussion of the multiple dimensions of salvation and conversion on p. 229ff.
1392 Yong avers that his monograph Spirit of Love answers the qualms some have about his supposed
“overly optimistic view of the Spirit’s work in the world, and an eliding of the differences between the
Spirit of creation and the Spirit of redemption.” Yong, Spirit of Love, xii. We confess that not all doubts
have been removed by reading this work.
266 PART II
negative references to soteriological universalism. But even here, the record is not
uniform. To show the confusing nature of these remarks, we will juxtapose, in
chronological order, comments by Yong that deal with salvific universalism.
The first reference we would like to present, appears in 1999, in an article in an
Evangelical journal where Yong aligns himself with an inclusivist outlook. But he
makes it very clear that Evangelical inclusivists are neither relativists nor pluralists.
Tellingly, he uses universalism twice as a synonym for pluralism or relativism.1393
Then, in 2003, Yong writes that “we can affirm that the Spirit’s outpouring upon
all flesh does not necessarily lead to universalism,”1394 in the context of pointing out
that the Spirit’s ubiquitous presence still necessitates discernment. But by writing that
this outpouring does not necessarily lead to universalism, Yong admits that it would
not be unsurprising to draw such a conclusion.
In a discussion of the eschatological dimension of redemption, Yong writes, in
2005, the following:
In anticipation of this final redemption, the Spirit continues to
issue an open-ended invitation to “anyone who wishes [to]
take the water of life as a gift” (Rev. 22:17), even as the Spirit
blows forth the winds of refreshing preceding the return of the
Messiah and the universal restoration of God (Acts 3:19-21).
And although this cosmic salvation may not be a literal
universalism, it certainly will entail the submission of all things
under Jesus, the exaltation of his name (Phil. 2:9-11), and the
final subjection of both the Son and all things under God “so
that God may be all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28).1395
As part of his pneumatological soteriology, Yong again ‘admits’ that several

biblical texts may give the impression of a ‘literal universalism’.
Much more straightforward is Yong’s suggestion, in 2007, to augment James K.A.
Smith’s participatory ontology with a ‘pneumatological assist’. But Yong avers that his
pneumatological ontology does not lead to universalism:
In other words, there is no temptation to any soteriological
universalism in this account. On the contrary, it is precisely the
possibility of damnation which demands the proclamation of
the gospel by the power of the Spirit, and it is precisely the gift
1393 Amos Yong, “Whither Theological Inclusivism? The Development and Critique of an
Evangelical Theology of Religions,” Evangelical Quarterly 71, no. 4 (1999): 336 n.22 and also 341. The latter
reference reads: “[I]nclusivists, it must be remembered, are also very concerned with the relativism and
the universalism of pluralists like Hick and Knitter.”

of the Spirit that makes such communication possible to begin

with.1396
If this was not clear enough, Yong co-authored with Tony Richie an article on
missiology, in 2010, where they “repudiate” universalism. In an attempt to carve out a
Pentecostal attitude to interfaith encounter, they state the following,
If our position is to avoid both a universalistic soteriology in
which all people are finally saved (which we repudiate) and a
blanket endorsement of the religions as already redeemed of
God (which we reject), then what is the proper posture with
which we should approach people of other faiths?1397
Both universalism and pluralism (now clearly distinguished) are unambiguously

repudiated and rejected. One would think that the issue is now settled. But in a
monograph published the same year (2010), Yong develops a Pentecostal political
theology. Commenting on the eschatological hope that is testified to in biblical texts on
universal restoration, he states,
Such a universal restoration does not, however, result in any
simplistic doctrine of universalism. Rather, these eschatological
contentions are best considered subjunctively, with their
fulfillment hinging upon the response of free creatures. Thus,
the Petrine call to repentance establishes one of the primary
contingencies related to the universalistic hope. But if from the
perspective of stubborn and hard-hearted humanity there is no
hope for either the restoration of Israel or for the redemption of
the world, then from the view of the miraculous (even if
subjunctively understood) outpouring of the Spirit upon all
flesh, “What is impossible for mortals is possible for God”
(Luke 18:27).1398
If we understand Yong aright, he is rejecting a simplistic doctrine of universalism.

But he seems to be veering towards a complex doctrine of universalism. How otherwise
to understand this passage?
In his most recent monograph to date (2012), on a Trinitarian theology of grace,
Yong finishes his work by claiming that a “missiology of love [….] culminates in the
reconciliation of all things, even the powers of the cosmos itself.”1399 He clarifies his
understanding of an apokatastasis as follows:
Is it possible that there will be recalcitrant spirits that will resist
this excessive, abundant, and unconditional love of God? Of
course, in a world characterized by freedom, this is always
1396 Amos Yong, “Radically Orthodox, Reformed, and Pentecostal: Rethinking the Intersection of
Post/Modernity and the Religions in Conversation with James K.A. Smith,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology
15, no. 2 (2007): 247.
1397 Yong and Richie, “Missiology and the Interreligious Encounter,” 259.
1398 Yong, In the Days of Caesar, 351-352.

268 PART II
possible. After all only enspirited creatures can be free to love,

to receive love, and to reject love. Does this mean that such
creatures have it within their power to refuse eternally God’s
gracious offer of love in Christ and the Spirit? Theoretically
yes, although practically, I cannot fathom how this might be
possible. Do love and grace then win? It seems that our answer
must be yes, for a God who loves the world unconditionally in
Christ and by the Spirit; but on the other hand, our answer
may also be no, if we were to look carefully at the creaturely
gravitation toward hate and evil, even amid a world awash
with the baptismal love of God’s Spirit. So is the final answer
negative? Perhaps not so long as we have the breath of the
Spirit within us to announce to the world that it does not have
to be that way, that God loves the world, and that God desires,
in Christ and through the Spirit, that we can experience and
participate in that love even now.1400
Yong calls this monograph his “apologia pro vita sua,” since it “captures [his]
pentecostal passion and fervor unlike any of [his] other books” while, at the same time,
expressing the confidence that it is compatible with his “ecumenical commitments”
and his “enthusiasm for interreligious encounter […].”1401 And although these
comments are not directed specifically to the quoted text, but to the book in general,
the quote does represent Yong’s current opinion.
The remarks quoted above give the impression that Yong presents himself, not as
a ‘dogmatic universalist’, but as a ‘hopeful universalist’.1402 This is confirmed in a note
in the same monograph, where Yong remarks that “my references to God’s ‘universal
redemption’ even in light of this Lukan ‘universal restoration’ do not presume the
heterodox doctrine of universalism […] since I am agnostic about what will happen in
this regard.”1403
One implication that seems to be important to Yong is that a ‘hopeful
universalism’ or agnostic position on the matter does not diminish missiological
urgency, but leaves room for the evangelistic thrust of the church. This is confirmed
when Yong comments on the above quote (from In the Days of Caesar, 351-352) that it
suggests that “the possibility of the salvation of any, much less of all, is dependent in
part on if, how, and to what extent those who have received the Holy Spirit bear
witness to the gospel.”1404
Nevertheless, the foregoing catena of quotes does show that Yong would render
service to his readers were he to clarify his position in a future publication. Does he

1402 If this is the case, Yong remains within the confines of orthodoxy. For a concise discussion of
apokatastasis, see Karl Rahner, S.J. and Herbert Vorgrimler, Klein theologisch woordenboek (Hilversum;
Antwerpen: Paul Brand, 1965), 27-28.

repudiate soteriological universalism, is he merely ‘agnostic’ about it, or is he a

‘hopeful universalist’?
3. Revelation
Whereas for Gavin D’Costa and Gerald McDermott, revelation stands out as an
important theological concept in their theology of religions, Yong, at first glance, does
not seem to pay much attention to ‘revelation’ as a theological category.1405 This
impression is misleading, however. It is typical of Yong that he does not always
discuss ‘revelation’ under that distinct nomenclature. Where he discusses it, he does so
comparatively and pneumatologically, something which tends to blur the boundaries
of revelation. At the same time, Yong has devoted a whole monograph (Spirit-Word-
Community) to theological method and hermeneutics in which revelation could be said
to be a major theme. Chapter 8, called “The Objects of Interpretation: Word,” deals
with “the question of how to discern the objects of interpretation—revelation that is
mediated experientially, scripturally and ecclesially—that are relevant to the
theological task.”1406 Yong notes that this involves a hermeneutical trialectic, “a
hermeneutics of religious experience, a hermeneutics of the Word of God, and a
hermeneutics of the ecclesial and theological tradition.”1407 This hermeneutical
approach hints at the fact that there is no ‘objective’ access to revelation, but that it is a
dynamic, historical and subjective experience under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Yong’s hermeneutical trialectic of Spirit, Word, community, relates to the loci
theologici of experience, Scripture and tradition respectively. But by calling it a
‘hermeneutical trialectic’, Yong points out that these three stand in a dynamic relation
with each other and cannot be disentangled. It is in this context that Yong, even as a
Protestant, tries to correct Protestantism’s skewed privileging of written Scripture. The
following quote illustrates this, while at the same tame showing the interconnectedness
of religious experience and practice, Scripture, and tradition:
Until the development of the printing press, Christian life and
piety revolved not around the written Scriptures but around
the rules of faith, the liturgies, the sacraments, the
iconographies, and so on. To claim that the Word of God is
only textually and script-urally located would be to deny
access to the divine Word for most Christians in history and
many (who are illiterate) today. 1408
Divine revelation is not only accessible to literate Christians, but more generally
to all people. To establish this, Yong adopts the typological understanding of
1405 A glance at the indices of his monographs shows that revelation is not prominently indexed.
Even where it occurs, it is often in discussion of work of other scholars.

270 PART II
revelation of Jonathan Edwards, which we discussed in the previous chapter.

Following Edwards, Yong claims that every human being is within reach of God’s
revelation through typology in nature and history. Although Yong (with Edwards),
maintains Scripture’s central role as the means to discern revelation in history and
nature, he suggests that “phenomenal reality is revelatory.”1409
The pneumatological aspect of Yong’s concept of revelation turns it into a
dynamic category. It is the Holy Spirit who testifies to Christ through the Church’s
Scriptures. This testimony of the Spirit is adapted to the context in which the
contemporary ecclesial community finds itself. But because our current context is one
also characterized by religious plurality, it is “possible that the seeds of the Word sown
into the hearts and lives of all persons everywhere (cf. John 1:9) have germinated, at
least in part, in the world’s religious traditions [...] .”1410 Adjudicating what is revelation
in comparative context, and what is not, is then inevitably an exercise in discernment.
There is no black or white answer possible to the question whether there is revelation
in other religions. This does not worry Yong, for the eschatological dimension of
revelation1411 implies that “our knowledge of divine revelation cannot be exhaustively
encapsulated. Hence, it is always the case that we will continue to grow in the grace
and knowledge of God as revealed in Jesus by the power of the Spirit.”1412 Yong claims
that such growth of knowledge of God is enhanced through comparative theology.
Also here, though, discernment is a complex business, involving many
dimensions. It means taking into account “the situation in all of its complexity; […]
tradition; […] history; […] experience; […] Scripture; and […] what the Spirit is doing
in, and therefore saying to, the churches.”1413
Whatever may be the case, it has become clear that the criteria for discerning
revelation in religious traditions (even in Christianity) are not obvious a priori, but
rather, that they come after the facts. Yong gives the example of the Christian scriptural
canon, which started as a means by which the early Church could safeguard the
apostolic witness. “Only later did these witnesses take on the form of an authoritative
canon.”1414 Yong concludes that “the normativeness of Christian revelation vis-à-vis
other faiths is not static but rather dynamic when set in pneumatological
perspective.”1415
1409 Yong, Spirit-Word-Community, 203-205, quote on 205.

1410 Yong, “P(new)matological Paradigm,” 185-186.
1411 Cf. 1 Cor.13:12 (NRSV): For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face.
Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known.
1415 Yong, “P(new)matological Paradigm,” 188.

4. Cosmology
We do not want to repeat here our analysis and appreciation of Yong’s use of ‘divine
absence’ and its accompanying religious cosmology.1416 There are, however, a couple of
thoughts that we would like to propose.
The first is the question of whether ‘absence’ of the Holy Spirit immediately
implies the presence of other (malign) spirits.
Second, we wonder whether Yong’s understanding of divine absence is not
implied in the two other categories (divine presence and activity). We conceive of these
categories on a continuous axis, with God’s presence and activity ‘measured’ on a
continuum with maximum ‘presence’ and ‘activity’ being realities only
eschatologically. Saying that God is present in someone also implies, then, a certain
absence. Saying that God is active implies that there remains a certain ‘inactivity’ as
well.
On the other hand, there is a clear advantage in speaking of ‘divine absence’
rather than systematically speaking of ‘other spirits’. The category of divine absence
indicates that God is still the reference point, and that the other spirits can do nothing
except under God’s general providence. Only when God withdraws his activity (but
not his presence!?) can the ‘other spirits’ achieve anything.
Another question deals with how to understand demons metaphysically in
Yong’s scheme. Do demons exist apart from concrete forms? It would seem that Yong
maintains that we can only meaningfully speak of them in their manifestations. But
this raises the question of whether there can be demons (and angels) before the
creation of the world. Do they have ontological reality apart from their concrete
manifestations? Perhaps Yong would say that before the creation of the world, before
the existence of concrete manifestations, they do not exist, but they are nevertheless
real. They are real, as firstness, but they do not exist, because that involves the category
of secondness.
It seems as if divine presence and absence always appear together in
determinations of being. There is an interesting parallel with the popular early
Christian work, the Shepherd of Hermas,1417 where a person (a Christian) is said to have
two angels: one of righteousness and the other of wickedness:
“Hear now,” he said, “about faith. Α person has two angels,
one of righteousness and the other of wickedness.” 2. “And
how, then, Lord,” Ι asked, “will Ι know the inner workings of
these, since both angels dwell with me?” 3. “Listen,” he said,
“and you will understand these things. The angel of
righteousness is sensitive, modest, meek, and mild. And so,
when he rises up in your heart, he immediately speaks with
1416See p. 218ff.
1417Commonly dated to the early second century. Bart D. Ehrman, ed., The Apostolic Fathers II, The
Loeb Classical Library 25 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003), 167.
272 PART II
you about righteousness, purity, reverence, contentment, every

upright deed, and every glorious virtue. When all these things
rise up in your heart, realize that the angel of righteousness is
with you.”1418
The text goes on to describe the effects of the angel of wickedness and an
exhortation to recognize that angel on the basis of his works. It is interesting to note
that the author of the Shepherd of Hermas also claims that discernment of the ‘spirits’
occurs on the basis of the fruits of the Spirit.1419
5. Trinity
Yong’s constant use of the adjective ‘pneumatological’ would almost conceal the fact
that his project is a trinitarian one. What he sets out to do, is to try and redress the
balance so that the Spirit is no longer the silent and shy member of the Trinity in
(Western) theology. Of course, Yong also stresses the importance of the Spirit because
of his ecclesial, and hence theological, tradition. Yet he is also convinced that
pneumatology should be the entry point to trinitarian theology, simply because it is
through the presence and work of the Spirit that we get to know God. The Holy Spirit
opens the epistemological door to the knowledge of God. Pursuing this project will
result in a robust Trinitarian theology, according to Yong.1420
Perhaps Yong was, in the beginning, too enthusiastic in trying to carve out a
separate space for the Spirit. In Discerning the Spirit(s), he joined the chorus of those
who denounced the Filioque.1421 By the time of the publication of Spirit-Word-
Community, two years later, Yong was more nuanced,1422 and this was also linked to his
metaphysical understanding.1423 Three years later, Yong would say that “[a]lthough I
had previously tended toward the Orthodox answer, I have since come to see the value
1418 Ehrman, ed., The Apostolic Fathers II, Shepherd of Hermas, 36 (VI.2) p.263.
1419 Ehrman, ed., The Apostolic Fathers II, Shepherd of Hermas, 36 (VI.2) p.265. Another link between
the Shepherd of Hermas and Yong’s metaphysics is the idea that ‘things’ have a spirit, or ‘thirdness’. At one
point, the Shepherd of Hermas says to the Christian: “‘I commanded you in the first commandment,’ he
said, ‘to guard faith, fear, and self-restraint.’ ‘Yes, Lord,’ Ι replied. ‘But now,’ he said, ‘I want to show you
their powers [Or: character], that you may understand the power [Or: character] and inner working each
of them has. For their inner workings are twofold, appointed for both the just and the unjust.’” Ehrman,
ed., The Apostolic Fathers II, Shepherd of Hermas 35 (VI.I), p. 261.
1420 “As opposed to so-called trinitarian theologies which seem inevitably to collapse into binitarian
notions or even christocentric or christomonistic formulations (because of a marginalized, neglected, or

even forgotten pneumatology), starting with the Spirit contributes to a more fully and robustly trinitarian
theology which also adjusts our doctrines of creation and redemption in an eschatological direction.”
Yong, Spirit of Love, xiii.
1422 Yong says that “the filioque correctly represents only one aspect of the divine being and
economy.” Yong, Spirit-Word-Community, 72.

1423 According to Yong, “Secondness and Thirdness are both derivatives of Firstness, and […]
Thirdness is derivative of both Firstness and of Secondness […].” Yong, Spirit-Word-Community, 94.
of the Filioque insofar as it provides for one clear model of trinitarian salvation history
[…].”1424
Yong had initially renounced the Filioque because he thought it subordinates the
mission of the Holy Spirit to that of the Son. This did not fit well with his Irenaean
model of the Son and Spirit representing the two hands of the Father, a model that
formed the theological groundwork of Yong’s pneumatology in Discerning the Spirit(s).
But in later work, we notice that Yong combines the Irenaean ‘two-hands-model’ with
the Augustinian ‘mutual-love-model’.1425 This combination results in a “relational
vision of God” which affirms that “mutual and interpersonal relations define the
divine persons and [rejects] ontological subordination, hierarchy, division,
individualism, and tritheism.”1426
It remains confusing, however, that Yong continues to speak of distinct or
separate economies of Spirit and Word; and on other occasions of separate missions. We
wonder if it would not be better to speak of distinct roles rather than missions or
economies. Are not the Spirit and the Word united in the salvation economy of the
Father? Is there one salvation economy, or are there two? To speak of ‘roles’ would
allow Yong to maintain the possibilities he seeks to safeguard while, at the same time,
preventing such theologies from collapsing the Spirit into the Son, or subordinating the
Spirit to the Son.1427
We do wish to point out, however, that the pneumatology of Irenaeus has some
interesting links with Yong’s metaphysics and pneumatology. Patristic scholars,
Anthony Briggman and Jackson Jay Lashier, both point out that the role of the Spirit in
creation, according to Irenaeus, is relational. Briggman, for example, speaks of the roles
of Word and Spirit in creation in a way that resembles Yong’s use of the concepts of
Secondness and Thirdness:
[W]ith regard to the activity of the Word and Wisdom of God,
Irenaeus conceives of a two-stage creation in which the Word
causes creation to come into existence […], while […] Wisdom
acts […] to render what is created in a harmonious whole. The
activities of the Word and Wisdom in creation are, at least
logically, sequential. Both are required for a complete and
meaningful created order.1428

1425 Stephenson, Pentecostal Theology, 150-151.
1426 Steven M. Studebaker, “Toward a Pneumatological Trinitarian Theology: Amos Yong, the Spirit,
and the Trinity,” in The Theology of Amos Yong and the New Face of Pentecostal Scholarship. Passion for the
Spirit, ed. Wolfgang Vondey and Martin William Mittelstadt, Global Pentecostal and Charismatic Studies
(Leiden: Brill, 2013, forthcoming), 86.
1427 For a more extended criticism of Yong’s trinitarian models, claiming that Yong’s use of the
‘mutual-love-model’ results in the Spirit not having “personal agency equivalent with the Father and the
Son,” see Studebaker, “Amos Yong, the Spirit, and the Trinity,” 83-101, 89 for the quote.
1428 Briggman, Irenaeus of Lyons, 146. In a similar vein, Lashier quotes Irenaeus and subsequently
comments: “Irenaeus writes, ‘[W]e should know that he who made and formed and breathed in them the
274 PART II
Lashier sums up the relational role of the Spirit in creation, according to Irenaeus,
as a “‘binding together’ work of the Third Person, [which] entails uniting the
individual pieces or parts of creation into a coherent whole.”1429
D. DIALOGICAL ISSUES
1. Discernment
a. Discernment, Christian self-understanding and the other
There are two dialogical issues concerning discernment that we want to single out, and
they work in opposite directions. The first is the question of whether discernment is
only intended to increase Christian self-understanding. The second is whether
discerning spirits other than the Holy Spirit can ever be an acceptable practice in
interreligious dialogue.
First, there is unquestionably a maieutic element in Yong’s theology of
discernment, in that it produces “self-criticism that leads to the mutual and, ultimately,
eschatological transformation of religious traditions, including the Christian faith.”1430
Yet as even this quote makes clear, the whole exercise of discernment in the context of
interreligious dialogue is not merely intended for self-understanding but to serve the
marks of the kingdom of God: righteousness, peace, truth.1431 What these marks are in
concrete situations, however, is also something that cannot be decided by Christianity
alone. That peace, righteousness and joy can even be singled out is perhaps also
already questionable. It is clear that these are generated from within a specific
Christian religious understanding.1432 Yet Yong would probably have recourse to his
metaphysics to substantiate his case, taking these as vague categories that can be
concretised differently in different religions. Yong can claim, for example, that
religious phenomena can grow more authentic and generate more intense relations in
breath of life, and nourishes us by creation, establishing all things by his Logos, and binding them together
by his Sophia—this is he who is the only true God…’ Here, Irenaeus uses two separate verbs to describe the
creative work of the Logos and Sophia respectively—the Logos ‘establishes’ (confirmare) all things, while the
Sophia ‘binds together’ (compingere) all things.” Jackson Jay Lashier, The Trinitarian Theology of Irenaeus of
Lyons, Dissertations (2009 -). Paper 109 (http://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu/109: 2011),
195.
1429 Lashier, Trinitarian Theology of Irenaeus, 203.
1430 Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s), 313. For the suggestion that increased self-understanding is indeed
the goal of Yong’s interreligious dialogue, see the comments by a ‘friendly critic’ in David A. Reed, “Amos
Yong’s “New” Pentecostal Theology: Anglican Notes on the Oneness-Trinitarian Impasse,” in The Theology
of Amos Yong and the New Face of Pentecostal Scholarship. Passion for the Spirit, ed. Wolfgang Vondey and
Martin William Mittelstadt, Global Pentecostal and Charismatic Studies (Leiden: Brill, 2013, forthcoming),
254.
1431 Tony Richie, “A Distinctive Turn to Pneumatology: Amos Yong’s Christian Theology of
Religions,” in The Theology of Amos Yong and the New Face of Pentecostal Scholarship. Passion for the Spirit, ed.
Wolfgang Vondey and Martin William Mittelstadt, Global Pentecostal and Charismatic Studies (Leiden:
Brill, 2013, forthcoming), 115.
1432 In this particular case, they are taken from Scripture, from Rom 14:17.
harmony with their environment. A religious phenomenon could be said to ‘produce’

joy, righteousness and peace if its secondness and thirdness are in harmony with its
firstness. This happens when a ‘thing’ exists in harmony with its inner norms and
goals, and generates transformative power in the life of the practitioner.
A second issue is perhaps more delicate at the religious round table. Can it really
be the case that an outsider is qualified to tell adherents of another religious tradition
that one of their phenomena bears witness to (or does not bear witness to) the presence
of the Spirit? Should discernment not always be an intra-tradition exercise? Is that not
how the biblical texts about discerning the Holy Spirit function, according to Yong –
i.e., they refer to intra-Christian disputes, not inter-religious issues.1433
Is Yong adjudicating where demons reside in other religions? This is obviously a
very difficult issue. It is evident that it is acceptable, even if delicate, to do this for one’s
own religious tradition. But if, in comparative theology, what one does is labelled
‘discerning the spirits’, then it seems that this is being done also for the other religion.
Is this the case? Yong is looking to identify the places where, on the basis of the internal
criteria of another religion, destructive forces are operative. Yong’s metaphysics comes
to his aid here. He is looking to see where ‘things’ diverge from their creational
purpose. The latter is – at least primarily – decided upon the basis of criteria internal to
a religious tradition. So if one evaluates a belief, practice, or event on the basis of the
stated goals given by that tradition, and the results point in the opposite direction, one
could claim to be more or less ‘objectively’ discerning the spirits. Nevertheless, in the
end, discernment involves also the ‘truth question’ which Yong links to religious
cosmology. This is where comparative theology and theology of religions intertwine.
Some pronouncements must be made, but we recall what Yong acknowledged about
this phase of discernment. “[T]here is no guarantee that claims regarding the
transcendent references of religious symbols can be successfully adjudicated soon.”1434
In such a context, it is important that the judgements about other religions are made for
internal use, and in such a way that it is clear that they are fallible and stand open to
correction.
This discussion illustrates the importance of discernment being an interreligious
activity, one that is collectively executed at the interreligious round table.
b. Ethical criteria for discernment
When Yong gets most concrete about criteria of discernment, he places them in 5
categories:
1. fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22-23a);
2. the marks of the kingdom as visible in the life of Jesus;
3. the many dimensions of the gospel and salvation;
1433 We refer the reader back to our discussion on “Christological confession?“ on p. 228.
276 PART II
4. the different levels of conversion;

5. ecclesial holiness, the sanctifying transformation within a communal and
eschatological context.1435
Yong, however, is able to summarize these succinctly, in a recent work, as an
ethical criterion. “Whenever and wherever we find the affective disposition toward
and intentional activity that benefits others, prima facie there is the creaturely
participation in the loving presence of the divine Spirit intending to save and redeem
the world.”1436
Such a summary seems to boil down to the ethical criterion which was already
proposed many years ago by several scholars.1437 This may seem disappointing: does it
all come down to what we already know? On the other hand, knowing this, and living
it, is not an inconsequential thing. For if we have followed Yong’s approach, we will
have grown as persons and as religious traditions, and the world will have become a
better place. Perhaps our understanding, as Christians, of who Christ is, will have
grown as well. For, “do not the prisoners, the naked, the hungry and the sick of today
include not only Samaritans but also those in other religious traditions? Might we
come to a deepened and transformed understanding of Christ when viewed through
the prisms of other faiths?”1438
It reminds one also of Justin Martyr’s ingenious approach, where he establishes
that the Greek philosophers already spoke of the gift of the Holy Spirit, but under a
different name, i.e, ‘virtue’:
And if any one will attentively consider the gift that descends
from God on the holy men, —which gift the sacred prophets
call the Holy Ghost,—he shall find that this was announced
under another name by Plato in the dialogue with Meno. For,
fearing to name the gift of God “the Holy Ghost,” lest he
should seem, by following the teaching of the prophets, to be
an enemy to the Greeks, he acknowledges, indeed, that it
comes down from God, yet does not think fit to name it the
Holy Ghost, but virtue. For so in the dialogue with Meno,
concerning reminiscence, after he had put many questions
regarding virtue, whether it could be taught or whether it
could not be taught, but must be gained by practice, or whether
it could be attained neither by practice nor by learning, but was
a natural gift in men, or whether it comes in some other way,
he makes this declaration in these very words: “But if now
through this whole dialogue we have conducted our inquiry
and discussion aright, virtue must be neither a natural gift, nor
1435 See our discussion on ‘Critical criteria‘, p. 229ff.

1437 Yong himself has pointed out Hans Küng as one of these. But Paul Knitter, and John Hick could
also be named.
1438 Yong, “P(new)matological Paradigm,” 186. The implied biblical reference is, of course, Mt 25:31-
46.
what one can receive by teaching, but comes to those to whom

it does come by divine destiny.”1439
This, we believe, captures well Yong’s approach. The fruit of the Spirit can be
understood as ‘virtue’. The Spirit is discerned in the crucible of the praxis of daily life.
Yet, this is not something that grows out of the human person independently of God. It
is, rather, something God has given.
2. Hospitality, vulnerability and mutual conversion
What is admirable in Yong’s comparative theology, is his openness to being

vulnerable. Extending hospitality to the (religious) stranger is not, for Yong, standing
in a position of control. Even the host is a guest. And choosing the path of hospitality is
leaving behind one’s status as a tourist, and choosing rather to embark on a
pilgrimage.1440 In the course of the pilgrimage, the pilgrim is transformed because of an
ongoing conversion process that is enhanced by the pilgrimage. This is due to leaving
the security of ‘home’ and of ‘control’, by becoming vulnerable. Meeting the religious
other is giving up control and becoming open to conversion. Miroslav Volf has
expressed this powerfully in Exclusion and Embrace, the monograph in which he reflects
theologically on what it means for him as a Croatian to forgive Serbs. Volf writes:
[T]he will to give ourselves to others and “welcome” them, to readjust
our identities to make space for them, is prior to any judgment about
others, except that of identifying them in their humanity. The will to
embrace precedes any “truth” about others and any
construction of their “justice.” This will is absolutely
indiscriminate and strictly immutable; it transcends the moral
mapping of the social world into “good” and “evil.”1441
Yong gives two biblical examples from the book of Acts, which substantiate what
Volf writes, and which can be considered as interreligious meetings. The first example
concerns the meeting of the Apostle Peter with the Centurion Cornelius (Acts 10). The
amazing element in this meeting is that “Peter was not the only instrument of
evangelism; instead, Cornelius was also an instrument for the conversion of Peter.”1442
1439 Justin Martyr, “Justin’s Hortatory Address to the Greeks (Translated by the Rev. M. Dods,
M.A.),” in The Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus. Revised and chronologically arranged, with brief prefaces
and occasional notes by A. Cleveland Coxe, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene
Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001), chapter 32, 286-287.
1440 Yong refers to the distinction between being a tourist and a pilgrim in Yong, Hospitality and the
Other, xvi.
1441 Volf, Exclusion & Embrace, 29.
1442 Yong, Who is the Holy Spirit?, k.loc 1717-1718. Compare with what Ida Glaser writes: “Acts 10
shows how God deals with [Cornelius]; but the focus is on how God deals with Peter.” Glaser, The Bible
and Other Faiths, 168. Tony Richie also states that “the encounter of Peter and Cornelius demonstrates a
form of mutual conversion. The gospel is objective and enables both evangelist and evangelized to learn of
Christ together. Thus the example of Peter and Cornelius becomes paradigmatic for dialogical and
278 PART II
The second example is when Paul (and those with him) endured shipwreck and
came ashore in Malta.1443 The natives there (called ‘barbarians’, βάρβαροι, indicating
that they did not speak Greek) welcomed Paul and his companions, offering
hospitality to them. Yong understands this as an important example that should incite
us to develop a “theology of guests” which will help us to also receive “hospitality of
strangers and people of other faiths.”1444 Yong avers that this is particularly important
for missionaries, who must learn to “appreciate that our bearing witness through the
power of the Spirit involves not only our speaking about the things of the gospel but
also receiving the hospitality of others.”1445 The ability to receive hospitality is part and
parcel of the kind of life followers of Jesus must be willing to live. It is not just in
speaking, but in the way we encounter the other, the stranger, that we bear testimony
to the love of God manifest in Jesus through the Spirit.1446
E. CONCLUSION
Yong’s theology of religions and comparative theology is surprising, rich, and

complex. It is surprising, because of the large strides forward he forces Pentecostal
theology to take. Surprising, also, because of the positions he takes which are not
infrequently in conflict with his tradition. Yet his theology is also rich, because he not
only contributes to Pentecostal theology, but to theology in general and theology of
religions and comparative theology in particular. Finally, it is complex, because of the
wide ranging sources he uses, and because of the complexity inherent in the multi-
religious globalising world with which he engages.1447
We would love to see more interaction with his work, because it is only in the
crucible of the academy, the church, and interreligious practice, that the intellectual,
ecclesial, and practical value of his approach will become clear. Up till now, most of the
(limited) reception of Yong’s work has occurred in doctoral dissertations, and in the
work of fellow Pentecostals.1448 We think that L. Williams Oliverio is right when he
situational encounter between Christians and those of non-Christian religions.” Richie, Toward a Pentecostal
Theology of Religions, k.loc 313-316.
1443 Acts 27:39-28:10
1445 Yong, Who is the Holy Spirit?, k.loc 2587-2588.
1446 Yong, Who is the Holy Spirit?, k.loc 2588-2589. For a lucid explanation of the virtue of
vulnerability in comparative theology, see Marianne Moyaert, “On Vulnerability: Probing the Ethical
Dimensions of Comparative Theology,” Religions 3, no. 4 (2012). Moyaert interacts with the work of
Francis Clooney, but most of what she writes fits very well with the kind of approach taken by Amos
Yong.
1447 David Reed perceptively remarks that “Yong’s foundational pneumatology has a long arm –
reaching into the church, world religions, the disenfranchised of the earth, human political structures, and
the cosmos. Reed, “Anglican Notes,” 244.
1448 A major contribution is the forthcoming multi-authored work on Yong’s theology, Vondey and
Mittelstadt, eds., The Theology of Amos Yong. Nearly all the contributors are Pentecostal or charismatic
theologians.
claims that “[t]he integration of Yong’s broader work hinges upon a greater reception
and response to his metaphysical program and theological hermeneutics. The question
remains how Yong’s theological forays relate to the Pentecostal traditions that Yong
seeks to represent and to whose particularities he attends.”1449
1449 L. William Oliverio, “The One and the Many: Amos Yong and the Pluralism and Dissolution of
Late Modernity,” in The Theology of Amos Yong and the New Face of Pentecostal Scholarship. Passion for the
Spirit, ed. Wolfgang Vondey and Martin William Mittelstadt, Global Pentecostal and Charismatic Studies
(Leiden: Brill, 2013, forthcoming), 60.
280 PART II
PART III
CONCLUSIONS
CHAPTER VI.
SOME META-REFLECTIONS ON (THREE) TRADITION-

SPECIFIC APPROACHES
In this chapter we will try to bring together some meta-reflections on the three
tradition-specific approaches to other religions that we have been studying. We
compare the approach of D’Costa, McDermott, and Yong according to three aspects:
their methodological, theological, and dialogical outlook. Given that all three speak out
of an explicit Christian perspective, we want to establish whether or not there are
sufficient similarities to speak of one, general, tradition-specific approach to other
religions.
Such a goal obviously raises the question of whether the differences between the
three approaches will be subsumed into the similarities, out of a drive to find an
encompassing framework. That would be ironic, since tradition-specific approaches in
theology of religions came to the forefront in reaction to a pluralism which was
charged with being a hegemonic narrative, subsuming the essentials of the different
religions under the pluralist framework. Undoubtedly, this is a real danger for our
attempt here, and the reader will have to judge if we have succeeded in circumventing
that problem.
It is not that we will try to limit our observations to the formal principles,
registering only methodological issues. If that were the case, perhaps we would not
have to reckon with the danger of smothering the differences.1450 We will tackle also
similarities (and differences) in the theological concepts that seem to be prominent in
the analysis of the three theologians, as well as in the substantial elements of the
dialogical attitude that all three advocate.
1450But perhaps even this statement is too optimistic. Some would claim that John Hick’s
philosophy of religion is about establishing the overall formal similarities between religions, without
claiming that the discrete particulars are the same across religions. Yet notwithstanding this, it has been
argued by S. Mark Heim that such an approach does not allows for the possibility of multiple religious
ends. See S. Mark Heim, Salvations: Truth and Difference in Religion, Faith Meets Faith (Maryknoll, N.Y.:
Orbis Books, 1995).
284 PART III
§ 1. METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES
A. PARTICULARISM
It is, we believe, fair to call all three of our authors representatives of a particularist or
tradition-specific approach to theology of religions. Paul Hedges has summarised
‘particularities’ (his term for particularism) in six characteristics:
(1) [E]ach faith is unique, alterity is stressed over similarity, as
seemingly common elements in religious experience or
doctrine are regarded as superficial; (2) it is only possible to
speak from a specific tradition, there can be no pluralistic
interpretation; (3) the Holy Spirit may be at work in other
faiths, requiring them to be regarded with respect and dignity;
(4) no salvific potency resides in other faiths, though they are
somehow involved in God’s plans for humanity but in ways
we cannot know; (5) particularity is based in a post-modern
and post-liberal worldview; (6) the orthodox doctrines of
Trinity and Christ are grounding points from which to
approach other faiths.1451
Undoubtedly, our authors would want to nuance or differentiate their position

with respect to one or more of these characteristics, and fitting Amos Yong into this
‘mould’ raises perhaps the biggest challenges.1452 Yet, as a heuristic device we believe it
works well for all three of our authors.
If we try to sum up the specificity of the particularistic approach of our three
authors, the following could be proffered.
Gavin D’Costa’s approach is characterised by the use of (post-) conciliar texts as
the parameters for developing a theology of religions. The magisterial texts set the
1451 Paul Hedges, “Particularities: Tradition-Specific Post-modern Perspectives,” in Christian

Approaches to Other Faiths, ed. Paul Hedges and Alan Race, SCM Core Text (London: SCM, 2008), 112-113;
Paul Hedges, “Radical Orthodoxy and the Closed Western Theological Mind: The Poverty of Radical
Orthodoxy in Intercultural and Interreligious Perspective,” in The Poverty of Radical Orthodoxy, ed. Lisa
Isherwood and Marko Zlomislić, Postmodern Ethics Series (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2012), 129. Just after
presenting these characteristics, Hedges (“Radical Orthodoxy,” 130) claims that D’Costa has argued that
the particularist approach ultimately fails and that he (D’Costa) has moved to a different position. To back
up this claim, Hedges refers to D’Costa, Christianity and World Religions, 30-31 and 45-54. We find this a
very eccentric reading of D’Costa, for which we find no evidence in the cited pages (or other work of
D’Costa for that matter). On the contrary! Hedges’s remark comes in a section in which he discusses ‘John
Milbank and the particularist model in theology of religions’, and it is true that D’Costa has proffered
some critique of Milbank’s position. But we think it is fair to state that D’Costa fits nicely within Hedges’s
description of particularism, even if D’Costa would no doubt want to provide some nuance in a number of
places. Hedges has elsewhere acknowledged D’Costa’s “particularist mode” in Christianity and World
Religions. See Hedges, Controversies, 165n.56.
1452 Yet Yong unabashedly claims to “make no apologies for my distinctively Pentecostal
perspective since there is no ‘neutral ground’ – contra pluralist theologies – on which one can stand to
make transcendental proclamations about the religions; hence, mine is a ‘confessional’ approach in the
tradition of ‘faith seeking understanding’ (fides quaerens intellectum).” Yong, “Christian Practices,” 19.
CHAPTER VI: META-REFLECTIONS ON TRADITION-SPECIFIC APPROACHES 285
limits of his approach, which we have called pneumato-ecclesiological. In this, D’Costa

proves to be truly and thoroughly Roman Catholic. The prominence of church
documents as authoritative sources, and of theological themes that are at the forefront
of Roman Catholic theology (such as the Trinity, the Church, Christ, mediation) would
seem to corroborate our judgment, even if he sometimes takes positions that stretch the
church’s current theological understanding of other religions.
D’Costa’s theology of religions can be compared to a playing field that is
delimited by boundaries set by the magisterium. These boundaries are not all huge
walls; there are some openings in the boundaries that allow exploration beyond.
Within these limits, an interesting game can be played, with the magisterium as the
referee of the game.
Although Gerald McDermott has perhaps not yet developed an encompassing
theology of religions, there are many elements in place in order for us to make a
substantial evaluation.1453 We could summarize his approach as rooted in principles
derived from, but extended beyond, Jonathan Edwards. His analysis of revelation in
world religions and of the purpose of the religions in God’s providence confirm clearly
his Reformed-Evangelical and ecumenical interests. The most important elements of
his theology of religions are a number of principles derived from the theology of
Jonathan Edwards, arguably America’s most prominent Reformed theologian. The
themes that surface in his analysis also confirm this. McDermott establishes first a
biblical foundation and also discusses concepts such as revelation and covenant, both
beloved topics in Reformed theology. We can say that both in his sources and in the
topics he discusses, McDermott proves to be committed to his Reformed-Evangelical
perspective. At the same time, we also noted that McDermott dares to follow, and
perhaps also to extend, Jonathan Edwards in those matters that are not typical of the
later Reformed tradition. We think here particularly of Edwards’s dispositional
soteriology. Yet we believe McDermott goes further than Edwards and other Reformed
scholars would go in singling out Biblical texts that point in another direction than the
received Reformed consensus.1454 This is probably due to his ‘generous orthodoxy’1455
and borrowing from what he calls the ‘Great Tradition’ and theologians across the
denominational spectrum.
Amos Yong has developed the most systematic and comprehensive theology of
religions of our three authors.1456 It is fair to say that the “pneumatological
1453 It is also not in all cases clear if McDermott is simply describing the views of Jonathan Edwards
or if he is appropriating these for his own theology.
1454 See, for example, his understanding, and prominence of, Jn 1:9.
1455 ‘Generous orthodoxy is a term developed by Hans Frei. See Hans W. Frei, Theology and
Narrative. Selected Essays, ed. George Hunsinger and William C. Placher (New York, NY; Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1993), 208.
1456 We do, however, hasten to add that D’Costa’s many contributions add up to an encompassing
theology of religions. It would be good, however, if that were brought together in one systematic
theological volume on theology of religions.
286 PART III
imagination” is the pentecostal engine for his theology of religions. However, his
approach is perhaps also the most unwieldy and does not easily fit into one category.
From almost all of Yong’s writings, it is clear that he is a Pentecostal theologian. That is
also apparent in the sources, authorities, approach, and goals of which he avails
himself. The use of personal testimony and biblical theology stand out as important
sources. This is especially the case as regards his use of Luke-Acts as a ‘Pentecostal
canon’, and of baptism by the Spirit and the ‘many voices’ as prominent themes.
Pneumatology is, not surprisingly, central to his argument. Yong’s tradition-specificity
is also apparent in the importance he grants empirical testing, and in understanding
theology as performance. It is equally obvious in his cosmology which is populated by
the Holy Spirit and many other spirits, including evil ones. On the other hand,
however, Yong’s approach is atypical of Pentecostalism in a number of respects. We
point first to his establishing a firm philosophical foundation for all his theology. More
idiosyncratic is his understanding of conversion and salvation as multidimensional
and continuous processes. It is still unclear how these aspects of Yong’s theology will
be received in the Pentecostal churches.
We could describe Yong’s approach with an extended metaphor. Yong first
establishes that the world is one large magnetic force field (his metaphysics 1457), he then
lets his vehicle, which is powered by another magnetic field (the pneumatological
imagination), explore the earth. This allows him to cover considerable ground at great
speed, but it also raises the question of whether his exploratory vehicle is perhaps a
high speed train on a narrow track which Yong takes to be the whole world.
B. RELIGION AS A PROBLEMATIC CONCEPT
All three of our authors note that the modern concept of ‘religion’ is problematic,
because it seems to portray religion as an aspect of life that is private and separated
from other aspects of life such as economics, politics, leisure, etc. For Yong and
D’Costa,1458 this is partly linked to their cultural-linguistic understanding of religion,
even if they are not determined by this approach alone. D’Costa has given most
attention to the concept of religion and discussed it separately as a contentious issue.1459
We noted in Chapter III that, for D’Costa, the concept of religion is dramatically
shaped by a modern narrative, so much so that “[i]t might even help things greatly if
we scrapped the word ‘religion’ and instead replaced it with ‘culture’ and asked
ourselves about a theology of culture rather than a theology of religions.”1460
Elsewhere, he suggests understanding religions as a subset of culture, a change that is
supported by other sciences. “To include ‘religion’ as a category within ‘culture’ has
1457 This is the universal metaphysical structure of reality as being pneumatological.

1458 McDermott does not mention this influence, but absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence
of absence.
1459 See, for example, part II and III of D’Costa, Christianity and World Religions, 55-102.

strong support. ‘Religions’ are helpfully configured in cultural-power terms rather

than as reified ‘spiritualities’ […].”1461
That this is indeed supported by other scientists is made clear in the recent book
by Brent Nongbri. He makes an extensive analysis of the concept of religion, or rather
its absence, in ancient cultures:
The real problem is that the particular concept of religion is
absent in the ancient world. The very idea of “being religious”
requires a companion notion of what it would mean to be “not
religious,” and this dichotomy was not part of the ancient
world. […] What is modern about the ideas of “religions” and
“being religious” is the isolation and naming of some things as
“religious” and others as “not religious.”1462
For Nongbri, “the existence of the religious/secular division is part of what

constitutes the modern world.”1463 The implication is that a distinction must be made
between “ancient worlds (in which the notions of religion and being religious did not
exist) and modern worlds (in which ideas of religion produced from the sixteenth to
the nineteenth century have come to structure everyday life in many parts of the
world).”1464 However, in the modern worlds, the concept of religion is linked to that
particular understanding that limits religion to the private sphere of life, as basically
unrelated to the other aspects of life.
It is against this modern understanding of religion that all three of our authors
protest, because it violates the self-understanding of Christianity. To reduce being a
Christian, a follower of Jesus, to the private and inner sphere, isolated from the
complexity of life, is anathema for D’Costa, McDermott, and Yong. McDermott states
that “the modern concept of ‘religion’ as a domain somehow separated from the
totality of life was unknown by the ancient world.”1465
For Yong, “there is no such thing as ‘religion’ which we can essentially define.”
This implies, for Yong, that religions must be “understood in all of their diversity,
[rather] than to attempt what would be a futile search for a theological essence of
religion.”1466 In Beyond the Impasse, he defines religion as follows:
First, religion is a complex aspect of human experience that is
manifested through and inseparable from other dimensions of
human life. […] Minimally, is not the religious dimension of
human experience always embedded in or intertwined with
the cultural, social, political, and economic dimensions of life?
1461 D’Costa, “Holy Spirit,” 287 n.22.

1462 Brent Nongbri, Before Religion: A History of a Modern Concept (New Haven, CT; London: Yale
University Press, 2013), 4.
1463 Nongbri, Before Religion, 12.
1464 Nongbri, Before Religion, 154.
1465 McDermott, God’s Rivals, 12. Unfortunately, McDermott does not reference these claims, making
it unclear what his sources are for coming to this conclusion.

288 PART III
[…] If this is the case, then whatever religion is, the study of
religion is, effectively, the study of what it means to be human.
[…] The second point naturally follows, namely that religion is
irreducible to any one dimension of human experience and the
study of religion to any one method or approach. […] [T]his
leads to a third point, my adoption of Paul Tillich’s definition
of religion as ultimate concern.1467
However, throughout Yong’s oeuvre, a recurring theme is the link between

language, culture and religion.1468 According to Yong, it is not possible to have religion
“in its purity, apart from cultural considerations,” and correlatively, it is not possible to
have “purely linguistic, cultural, or cultural-linguistic phenomena apart from
religion.”1469
We agree that there is a strong case to disallow the application of the modern
concept of religion for the pre-modern world, because of the potential confusion this
might engender. At the same time, it is ironic that all three of our authors continue to
use the word ‘religion’ in their discourse. There is some similarity here with the
discussion of the classic typology of exclusivism, inclusivism and pluralism. Even
when disagreeing with it, one continues to use the typology. In the case of ‘religion’,
however, the situation is more serious, since one of the contested issues is that it cannot
and should not be used as a heuristic device. Alternatives, such as ‘cultures’, or
‘traditions’ are not without their own problems. The use of ‘religious traditions’ is only
slightly better, since this continues to imply that there is a distinct sphere of
‘religiousness’ discernible in traditions.1470 Another alternative, ‘worldview’, seems to
be more encompassing, but still suffers from an almost exclusively cognitive
understanding. The necessary link to practices and a whole way of life is occluded in
this concept.
We have a difficult situation. On the one hand, the concept of religion is argued
to have been non-existent in pre-modern cultures. On the other hand, when the
category of religion is applied to (post-) modern times, our authors resist the
application of the term to Christianity (and other ‘religions’) because it implies a

1469 Yong, Spirit Poured Out, 198. Yong is not following the cultural-linguistic approach uncritically.
He is more outspoken in his theory of truth, and is much more optimistic about the possibility of cross-
cultural encounter. According to Yong, “Religions are […] complex phenomena that are also dynamic,
fluid, syncretistic (in the non-pejorative sense). Cross-fertilization occurs here and there both in terms of
shared beliefs and shared practices. This is what enables encounter, engagement, understanding and
criticism across religious and cultural lines (not that any of these occur easily).” Yong, Spirit-Word-
Community, 302.
1470 Nongbri writes that religion scientists increasingly use the term ‘embedded religion’ to indicate
that “‘religion was embedded’ in the social structures of the ancient world.” But he protests that this can
“produce the false impression that ‘religion’ is a descriptive concept rather than a redescriptive concept for
ancient cultures.” Nongbri, Before Religion, 151.
privatised distinct sphere of life, an understanding which conflicts with Christianity’s

self-understanding.
If the concept of religion is not available for ancient cultures, it is also
questionable whether one should look to the Bible and the Church Fathers for models
of how to engage other religions. Yet this is something that all three our authors do.
We cannot and should not speak of the biblical approach or New Testament approach
to other religions. It seems to us that D’Costa has an extra problem in this area, since
the magisterial documents do speak about (other) religions, and there is even a
Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue next to a Pontifical Council for
Culture.1471
Perhaps the notion of religion should not be given up so easily. Anthropologist of
religion and theologian Valeer Neckebrouck proffers a defence of the concept of
religion in contemporary religious studies. He gives 9 reasons why he does not want to
dismiss the concept of religion.1472 Reason number 8 is the most pertinent to the
argumentation of Brent Nongbri:
It is also true that even within western culture the word
religion has not always and everywhere had the same
meaning. Lactantius gave another meaning to the term than
did Cicero, to give just one example. We should not get caught
in the net of word games. What counts for the contemporary
anthropologist is the question of whether, in the analysis of
Cicero as well as in that of Lactantius, something is mentioned
that they have in common and that can be found in what we
today define as religion. And even if that is not the case, this is
no reason to remove the word from our current vocabulary.
Cultura for the Ancient Romans, meant something completely
different from what is understood by culture in anthropology
today. Is there one sensible person who will take that as a
1471 In a review symposium on Gerald O’Collins’s book Salvation for All: God’s Other Peoples, this was
noted by Gerald O’Collins. Paul Griffiths critiques O’Collins’s use of the term religion, suggesting that
O’Collins should “think with the Church” in this matter, and thus to “divide the world into three
categories: Jewish, Christian, and pagan.” Paul J. Griffiths, “Review Symposium on Gerald O’Collins’
Salvation for All: God’s Other Peoples,” Horizons 36, no. 1 (2009): 134, although Griffiths recognises that
Islam does not easily fit into the ‘pagan’ category. O’Collins replies that this will not do, for the second
Vatican council “never used the word ‘pagan’ (paganus) […]. Furthermore, the Council uses the term
‘religion’ (religio) 71 times, speaking of ‘different religions’ and ‘other religions’ […] and of ‘the Christian
religion’ […].” Gerald O’Collins, SJ, “Review Symposium on Gerald O’Collins’ Salvation for All: God’s
Other Peoples. Author’s Response,” Horizons 36, no. 1 (2009): 138. D’Costa uses the fusion of the Pontifical
Commission for Inter-Religious Dialogue with the Pontifical Council for Culture (in 1993) as potential
evidence for a magisterial understanding of religion as a subset of culture. Their subsequent separation
(2007) was due to “circumstances [which] called for a high profile Pontifical Council […].” D’Costa, “Holy
Spirit,” 287 n.22.
1472 Valeer Neckebrouck, Antropologie van de godsdienst: De andere zijde, Studia Anthropologica
(Leuven: Universitaire Pers Leuven, 2008), chapter 2, esp. 78-88.

290 PART III
reason to disqualify the contemporary use of the term

culture?1473
We would argue that it is perhaps best if theologians and others continue to use
the concept of religion, while noting, as McDermott does, that this concept is not being
used in its privatized (interior and individual) sense of the term that has prevailed
since the Enlightenment, but is being employed as a category that encompasses the
whole of life, something that is embedded in all aspects of the individual’s and the
community’s way of life.
C. THE WAY SCRIPTURE IS USED
Scripture is an important and authoritative source for Christianity, so it is not

surprising that our three authors interact with, and build upon, biblical texts and
themes. We appreciate this interaction and their use of Scripture. It proves that the
Bible is for them not an empty, but an actual authority.
Yet in the three cases, we also questioned some aspects of the way they use the
Bible. We have the impression that they were tempted to interpret certain Bible
passages in ways that were more in line with their theology of religions than with the
apparent meaning of the text. Now it is clear that establishing the meaning(s) of a
biblical passage is no easy exercise, and there are multiple options available if one
consults the commentaries. Notwithstanding this caveat, we cannot escape the
impression that their interpretations diverged from the traditional interpretation,
whereas, most of the time, our authors seek to align themselves with the tradition. We
believe that there is a tension in play between their being more open to other religious
traditions than the Bible will allow for, while, at the same time, working within
contexts for which a biblical foundation is either essential (McDermott, Yong) or
necessary (D’Costa). Another way to formulate this is to see a tension between their
working from within a specific tradition and their stretching of the interpretation of
some of the biblical data which is part and parcel of that tradition.
We critiqued McDermott’s approach because he was trying – not completely
successfully, in our opinion – to stick to the necessity of proving his position from
discrete biblical data, rather than from biblical theology and the hermeneutical
trajectories of certain biblical themes and stories.
1473 Neckebrouck, Antropologie van de godsdienst, 87 – my translation. The original is as follows: “Het
is ook juist dat zelfs binnen de westerse cultuur het word religie niet altijd en overal precies hetzelfde heeft
betekend. Lactantius gaf een andere zin aan de term an Cicero, om slechts één voorbeeld te noemen. Wij
mogen ons echter niet laten vangen in een net van woordentwisten. Wat voor de hedendaagse
antropoloog van belang is, is de vraag of er zowel in de analyse van Cicero als in die van Lactantius iets ter
sprake wordt gebracht dat zij gemeenschappelijk hebben en dat ook nog teruggevonden wordt in wat wij
vandaag als religie definiëren. En ook indien dat niet het geval moest zijn, is er nog geen reden om de term
uit het hedendaagse vocabularium te verwijderen. Cultura betekende voor de Oude Romeinen iets gans
anders dan wat men vandaag in de antropologie onder cultuur verstaat. Is er één zinnig mens die, om die
reden, het huidige gebruik van de term cultuur onaanvaardbaar zal verklaren?”
We were surprised to see D’Costa using the Gospel of John against what he
claims John intended. D’Costa claims to read “John on his own terms, while also
recalling that John is today to be read in the light of the church’s teaching that the Holy
Spirit is to be found within other religions.”1474 Johanine dualism exhibits an opposition
between the Christians, in whom the Spirit abides, and ‘the world’ who cannot receive
the Spirit. D’Costa’s arguments to see the presence of the Spirit in other religions in the
Paraclete passages in John’s Gospel did not convince us. Nevertheless, we found
support for D’Costa’s interpretation in an article by Amos Yong on Johanine dualism.
It seemed to us that Yong has sketched a more plausible framework for interpreting
these passages contrary to the traditional exclusivistic outlook.
The strength of Yong’s approach is located in a combination of exegetical,
theological, and hermeneutical considerations in which the wider context (canonical
and socio-historical) was duly taken into account. That this is not always elaborated in
a convincing way, was pointed out when we discussed Yong’s interpretation of the
Pentecost narrative in Acts 2, which holds a crucial place in his pneumatology. The
claim that the Spirit’s outpouring encompasses ‘all flesh’, i.e., people of all languages,
cultures, and, particularly religions, seems to be more based on other arguments than
on credible exegesis of the passage.
We found Yong’s approach of developing a theology of hospitality on the basis
of the parable of the Good Samaritan more convincing since it develops one biblical
theme without the necessity of proving the case with individual Bible verses. We think
such an approach is more fruitful, but not without its problems, especially for
Evangelicals.1475 It implies a more relaxed attitude towards Scripture, allowing for
divergent trajectories in the Bible, not all of which can (or should) be reconciled with
one another.

1475 Yong claims that it is possible to make a distinction between the (fallible) perspective of
Scripture’s human author and the (infallible) ‘biblical claim’ and in so doing safeguarding Scripture’s
infallibility and even inerrancy. Yong, “The Light Shines in the Darkness,” 46. We doubt that such a move
will be convincing to biblical inerrantists.
292 PART III
§ 2. THEOLOGICAL ISSUES
A. REVELATION
Our authors agree that revelation is the self-communication of God with a view to
inviting others to communion with him. This self-communication is mediated socio-
historically in words and works, and ultimately in Jesus Christ. It is the Holy Spirit
who mediates revelation to us, through Scripture and tradition, experience, reason and
nature.
1. Scripture and tradition
The relative importance of the sources of Scripture, tradition, experience, reason, and
nature for our theology, our knowledge of God, differs in our three authors. While it is
perhaps a little schematic, (though overall justifiable), we could claim that, for D’Costa,
the sources stand in the following sequence: Scripture in tradition, followed by the
others, making tradition (church) the overall framework in which to understand and
discern the other sources. Given the ecclesiological presuppositions that D’Costa
discerns for revelation,1476 perhaps his position could be rephrased as extra ecclesiam
nulla revelatio est.1477
For McDermott, the sequence of sources probably is Scripture and tradition,
followed by reason and experience. Scripture is read through the lens of the Great
Tradition and the Great Tradition is pruned by Scripture. Reason and typology in
nature (and history) are also avenues of revelation which have to be discerned (an
activity of the church) through Scripture.
For Yong, the title of his book on theological method is a clear hint: Spirit-Word-
Community. These can be correlated to religious experience, Scripture and
tradition/church. Although he does not prioritize any one of these – which is why he
speaks of a hermeneutical trialectic – it is clear for him that, epistemologically, Spirit
comes first.
Yong problematizes the position even of progressive Evangelical scholars who
read gender relations as portrayed in the Bible from an egalitarian position. According
to Yong, these, as well as conservative Evangelicals who read these relations according
to a patriarchal perspective, read Scripture through a variety of lenses. “Both wish to
1476 As will be recalled, these presuppositions are that (1) the reality of revelation within Christianity
presupposes in some measure, the authority of the church; (2) Scripture as such is not the residence of
revelation, but rather the church as community of the faithful which lives Scripture; and (3) revelation
presupposes the trinitarian foundations of the church. For this, see our discussion in Chapter III, and
D’Costa, “Revelation and Revelations,” 166-167.
1477 This is not the same as stating that extra muros ecclesiae, nulla revelatio est.
claim commitment to Scripture, yet both are unwilling to acknowledge that Word
works alongside both Spirit and Community, rather than norming them, or alone.”1478
It is remarkable that both our Evangelical authors do not confess Scripture to be
alone, i.e., they understand the Protestant principle of sola scriptura to mean prima
scriptura and not nuda scriptura. Such an understanding is undoubtedly informed by a
cultural-linguistic understanding of faith formation, in which the religious community
plays a constitutive role. But whatever the reasons, their view of Scripture in relation to
tradition as a theological source brings them an important step closer to D’Costa who
understands Scripture and tradition to be the material principles of revelation, in
which Scripture is subordinated to tradition.1479 It is striking that both McDermott and
Yong make use of the same metaphor, developed by N.T. Wright, to explain their view
of Scripture. We recall that Wright likens the church’s use of the Bible to an unfinished
Shakespearian play performed by experienced actors who improvise the missing part
in a way that is faithful to what is extant of the play. There is, thus, no fixed script to
which the contemporary church can adhere, even if a basic pattern emerges from
Scripture and the general direction in which to move is clearly established. The focus is
moved from the ‘script’ to the faithfulness of the play-actors. Similarly, we pointed out
that D’Costa speaks of Scripture as such not being the residence of revelation, but the
church as community of the faithful which lives Scripture.1480
2. General and special revelation
It is not only the relative importance of tradition and Scripture that are noteworthy in
our authors. We also note a dilution of the borders between general and special
revelation. “General revelation maintains that God’s existence and particular attributes
can be ascertained through an innate sense of God’s reality and conscience as well as
through observation of the universe and history. Special revelation refers to the more
specific divine self-disclosure to and through certain persons that brings about human
salvation.”1481 Roman Catholic theology would more readily speak of natural and
supernatural theology or revelation, but these concepts are almost synonymous.1482 The

1479 D’Costa, “Revelation, Scripture,” 348. Other Roman Catholic scholars would take positions that
are hardly distinguishable from our Evangelical authors. Biblical scholar Joseph Fitzmyer, for example, is
open to understanding Roman Catholic doctrine (based on Dei Verbum) to speak of Scripture as the “norma
normans non normata, the norm that norms (but is) not normed, because it is unmanipulable (unverfügbar)
by either the Tradition or the magisterium. […] Tradition, however, is the norma normata (the normed
norm), i.e., it is normed by Scripture.” Joseph A Fitzmyer, SJ, Scripture, the Soul of Theology (New York, NY:
Paulist Press, 1994), 79-80.
1481 Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms 102.
1482 Compare the previous definition with a Roman Catholic description: “revelation occurs
wherever God is at work in history, thus also as ‘natural revelation’ in the reality of creation. Yet this is
fully recognized as revelation only in God’s grace in a ‘supernatural’ way. Wolfgang Beinert, “Revelation,”
294 PART III
distinguishing mark is the salvific effect of special revelation, which is why, in an

exclusivistic theology of religions, other religions cannot be said to be recipients of
special revelation.
We understand D’Costa to say in his 1997 contribution on revelation and the
world religions that there can be no special revelation in world religions other than
Judaism and Christianity, even if there is general revelation in the other world
religions.1483 We believe his 2010 article on the Holy Spirit and the world religions
softens the boundaries between the two. D’Costa opens up the conversation to probe
whether we can speak of prophecy and inspiration in the world religions. Surely, if this
were the case, we are working with the category of special revelation? D’Costa is very
cautious, yet he argues “that the Spirit’s possible presence in the world religions raises
the possibilities of ‘prophecy’, one of the chief activities of the Holy Spirit.”1484
Something similar can be said about the category of ‘inspiration’, although D’Costa’s
evaluation contains more caveats. He denies the possibility that holy texts of other
religions could be so inspired that they can become canonical Scripture,1485 but in a
non-canonical sense, inspiration could be said to occur. D’Costa says, “I argued that a
very tentative and qualified sense of using this term [inspiration] is possible to denote
God’s activity in moving the heart and mind of a person towards Christ, through the
power of His Spirit.”1486
In discussing Gerald McDermott, we have shown that two categories, borrowed
from Jonathan Edwards, bridge the gap between general and special revelation: the
concepts of prisca theologia and ‘revealed types’. We doubt whether the prisca theologia is
a plausible concept in our times. We have seen that it is unclear to us if McDermott
appropriates Edwards’s use of prisca theologia for his own theology of religions. We
take this as an indication that McDermott appreciates the problematic character of the
universal availability of revelation while questioning the usefulness of prisca theologia
as a solution.
The notion of revealed types seems to hold more promise for theology of
religions. These elements of nature or events in history are, analogous to types in the
in Handbook of Catholic Theology, ed. Wolfgang Beinert and Francis Schüssler Fiorenza (New York, NY:
Herder & Herder, 1995), 603-604.
1483 “It is also clear from the above that when revelation is granted as existing within non-Christian
religions, it need not be equated with salvation within these traditions. The use and distinctions between
general/special revelation and natural/supernatural theology indicate the complex and interrelated nature
of revelation and saving grace.” D’Costa, “Revelation and World Religions,” 136.
1484 D’Costa, “Holy Spirit,” 309-310. We note that Karl Barth wrote similarly: “We recognise that the
fact that Jesus Christ is the one Word of God does not mean that in the Bible, the Church and the world
there are not other words which are quite notable in their way, other lights which are quite clear and other
revelations which are quire real. […] And why should not the world have its varied prophets and apostles
in different degrees?” Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics. The Doctrine of Reconciliation, ed. G.W. Bromiley and
T.F. Torrance, trans. G.W. Bromiley, vol. IV/3.1 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2010; reprint, T&T Clark,
1961), 97.
1485 Although even this ‘no’ is nuanced! D’Costa, “Holy Spirit,” 310.

Old Testament, pointers to God and Christ. Such revealed types are, according to
McDermott, also present in the religions. However, for McDermott, these revealed
types seem to be of benefit to Christians only. Thus understood, it is questionable if
revealed types can be considered a halfway house between general and special
revelation. If, however, revealed types, which are (potentially) present in the world
religions, also work for the adherents of these religions so that they become directed
toward God, Christ and his church through the Holy Spirit, then the category of
revealed types is a meaningful addition to the vocabulary of tradition-specific theology
of religions.
We have found a similar understanding in Amos Yong. As a matter of fact, Yong
refers explicitly to Jonathan Edwards’s typology. Yong is able to link types in nature
and history to his metaphysics. Because of the relational and transcendental structure
of creation, including humanity, all humans are hard-wired to pick up the referential
quality of the created order. “In Peircean terms,” says Yong, “the world is revelatory
precisely because lived experience engages not only qualities and facts, but laws and
generalities. Put another way, it is because the habits of thinking are shaped by the
habits of the world that the mind is able to grasp the patterns, purposes, and intentions
of the created order, and hence of the world’s creator.”1487 A practical consequence of
this understanding is that theology must also engage the (natural) sciences. Yong
draws some conclusions about the distinction between general and special revelation,
which are worthwhile quoting:
The natural revelation-special revelation dualism is a
specifically modern formulation of the problem. Such
categories are both not productive nor especially sacrosanct
within a trinitarian framework, especially not within a triadic,
relational and social metaphysics. A theology of nature, I
would argue, can and should be conceptualized which is able
to transcend such dualisms even while it retains the important
insights in those frameworks.1488
We would like to push these ideas further since we question the fecundity of the
distinction between general and special revelation in our multireligious global context.
Our authors agree that revelation is God communicating God-self and inviting others
to communion with him. Can we not posit that all revelation is inherently salvific? Can
we make that sharp a distinction between general and special revelation? The works of
God in nature declare his glory, but those works cannot be divorced from his
redemptive plans. And since the economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity, God’s
works reveal God’s nature always at least to some extent; a nature which is inherently

1488 Yong, Spirit-Word-Community, 298. For Yong, the hard sciences should also be part of the
method of inquiry that informs a theology of nature. As a matter of fact, not only the natural sciences, but
all the sciences. It is not only material reality that fits in Yong’s metaphysics, but all ‘determinations of
being’.
296 PART III
loving, healing, and saving. Independent of how much we grasp of God’s character,
what is revealed in his works is continuous with his salvific purposes. What is typically
understood as general and special revelation are not two extremes, but continuous and
working in the same direction.1489 This does diminish the uniqueness of God’s
revelation in Christ. On the contrary! Christ is the goal and purpose to which all
revelation points as he himself points to the Father. For, in Christ, “all the fullness of
God was pleased to dwell.”1490
3. The role of the religions in revelation
Our three authors agree that with the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and
the kerygma of the apostles, there has come a formal closure to revelation. In a sense, all
that could be given to reveal God and his character has been given through the Spirit in
his Son Jesus Christ. Yet in another sense, the fullness of God that dwelled in Christ
requires an eternity to be unpacked. This takes the form of what can be called the
1489 A similar understanding has previously been suggested by Clark Pinnock: “Although there are
differences between general and special revelation in terms of their completeness and orientation, we
should not draw the contrast too sharply. After all, there is only one God whose Logos is spreading the
knowledge of the Lord everywhere. The two species of revelation stand together in a complementary
relationship. We should not forget that God is the source of revelation in both cases, and that the two types
of revelation work together to the same goal. The creational light ‘that enlightens every man’ orients us
toward the Word become flesh (Jn. 1:9, 14). General revelation alerts us to the reality of God, while special
revelation urgently summons us to make peace with God. The two species belong to the one over-arching
unity of divine revelation. […] If we posit a basic unity between general and special revelation, does it not
follow that both possess saving potential and that a sinner might turn to God and trust God in the context
of general revelation alone if he were limited to it? Many Evangelicals are very wary about giving an
affirmative answer to this question, because to do so would seem to imply that salvation is possible
anywhere, with or without the knowledge of Christ. I think it may be possible to answer affirmatively in a
way that would allay such fears. God’s grace is meant for the whole human race, and Christ has provided
for the salvation of all in his universal atonement (1 Jn. 2:2). Surely we may assume, with support from
Scripture in the form of what one might call the Melchizedek factor, that the person who turned to God in
the light of whatever revelation he had would become eligible, as it were, for the fuller revelation and the
salvation implied in it. We do not need to suppose that a person can enjoy Christ’s salvation without
Christ, but only that a person who turns to God for mercy on the basis of only general revelation will
surely receive it.” Clark H. Pinnock, “Revelation,” in New Dictionary of Theology, ed. Sinclair B. Ferguson,
David F. Wright, and James I. Packer (Leicester: IVP, 1988; reprint, electronic ed., Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 2000), 585-586. For a similar understanding on the continuity between special and
general revelation from a Roman Catholic theologian, see Jan Hendrik Walgrave, who writes: “De
verhouding tussen de Christus-openbaring en de universele openbaring, werkend in de religieuze
mensheid, is dus vooreerst een verhouding van dynamische continuïteit. Wat buiten het christendom als
een diffuus en getemperd licht aan het werk is, wordt in Christus geconcentreerde en helder stralende
volheid. In Hem wordt de bijzondere openbaring, begonnen in Israël, voltooid en geüniversaliseerd. De
hele lichtkring van de openbaring wordt vanuit het krachtcentrum in de gehele mensheid versterkt. Uit
kracht van de anonieme openbaringswerking van God is elke echte godsdienst dynamisch reeds gericht
op de alles voltooiende Openbaring van Christus.” J.H. Walgrave, Heil, geloof en openbaring (Kasterlee: De
Vroente, 1968), 207. For a speculative suggestion as to how God offers fuller revelation to those who turn
to God on the basis of ‘general revelation’, see my forthcoming article, Biesbrouck, “Reappropriating
Christ’s Descent.”
1490 Col 1:19 (NRSV).
unfolding of revelation, or the development of doctrine. It is the common characteristic

of our three authors to posit a positive role for the religions in that unfolding of
revelation, in contributing to the development of doctrine.
In one sense, this should not be surprising. If God wants to communicate with
humanity, it would be very strange indeed if he did not make use of people’s religion
for that purpose, for that is where people are supposedly most open to the
transcendent. And if God wants to teach humanity something of his abundant and
overflowing fullness, it would be strange indeed if he would not make use of the
pluriformity and diversity of the world’s cultures, languages. God is semper maior, he
cannot be grasped in one language, culture, or time period. And given the
interrelatedness of religion in all these aspects, is it not probable that something of
God’s plenitude is visible in the religions, something which has not yet come to
fruition in Christianity?
McDermott, for example, states, “We will not discover anything new through
non-Christian religions that is ontologically unrelated or contradictory to Christ.”1491
This does not mean that other religions have nothing to contribute, for “as Christians
seek to relate Christ to other visions of life and new worldviews […], Christ’s fullness
in his body grows.”1492
Similarly, D’Costa asks the following rhetorical questions: “Could the Spirit act
in a way that bears no ontological connection with the Son, without compromising the
unity of the trinity? Can there be real novelty in either the Spirit or Christ’s action,
without involving the other?”1493 But also, for D’Costa, the religions can contribute to
development of dogma, for he says, “I would add that [the Holy Spirit within the
religions] might help Christians discover truths, not yet proclaimed by the Church, as
the situation has not required it. This process is traditionally called the development of
dogma.”1494
Finally, Amos Yong in PCBD is dependent on D’Costa, when the former states
that “any new knowledge of Christ will not contradict what we already know […].
Rather, new insights afforded by the Spirit would simply reflect that such were not
available before or not needed in prior contexts.”1495 For Yong, part of Christ’s
unfathomed depths will be opened up by the Spirit through interreligious dialogue.1496
Comparative theology is a privileged method to contribute to this enriching.

1495 Yong, Pneumatology and the Christian-Buddhist Dialogue, 7. In a footnote (18), Yong refers to
D’Costa’s 2010 Louvain Studies article as he explains, “Roman Catholic theologian Gavin D’Costa thus says
that the interreligious dialogue ‘might help Christians discover truths, not yet proclaimed by the Church,
as the situation has not required it. This process is traditionally called the development of dogma’.”
298 PART III
B. DISPOSITIONAL SOTERIOLOGY
An interesting question is whether we can speak of a dispositional soteriology in our

three authors. It has been made clear in chapter IV that Gerald McDermott draws
heavily on Jonathan Edwards’s dispositional soteriology in carving out a potential for
the salvation of non-Christians. Some aspects of Amos Yong’s theology of religions
also point in the direction of a dispositional soteriology. And to what extent is Gavin
D’Costa’s soteriology divergent from Karl Rahner’s soteriology which can also be said
to be dispositional?
We start with Rahner as a point of contact between our three authors. Rahner’s
supernatural existential, understood as “the initial disposition to graced union with
God, which alone brings the completeness humans desire,” is, according to Stephen
Duffy, “humanity’s most intimate dimension, source and center of what human
personhood is called to be.”1497 This does not imply that every non-Christian is an
‘anonymous Christian’ according to Rahner. What is needed is “one who lives in
accord with the graced impulses of one’s being in its directedness to God […].”1498
As we saw, McDermott compares Rahner’s idea with Edwards’s soteriology.
Both hold to a dispositional soteriology, i.e., salvation is a function of someone’s
disposition. For Rahner, the ‘anonymous Christian’ is obedient to his own conscience;
for Edwards, “saving disposition is centered in religious consciousness-awareness of
sin and one’s need for divine mercy.”1499 Rahner’s transcendental anthropology stresses
humanity’s inherent supernatural existential whereas Edwards points to external
revelation that is made available to non-Christians in the prisca theologia.1500 Edwards’s
approach, then, is more extrinsic, that of Rahner is intrinsic, yet both are dispositional.
We can also see a link between McDermott’s description of Edwards’s
metaphysics and Amos Yong’s foundational pneumatology. Edwards’s dispositional
ontology states that the essence of being human is “to have a certain ‘disposition’ that
can be seen in one or more ‘habits’.”1501 “A habit,” according to Edwards, “is an active
and real tendency that moves a person to be and do what he or she is and does.”1502 A
real tendency is more than simply a custom or regularity.1503 Even when the tendency is
not used, it is still real. Its ontological reality is manifested whenever the opportunity
occurs to exercise the tendency: “its exercise is necessary and inevitable when the
opportunity for exercise presents itself.”1504 This language of ‘habit’ and ‘real tendency
1497Stephen J. Duffy, “Experience of Grace,” in The Cambridge Companion to Karl Rahner, ed. Declan
Marmion and Mary E. Hines (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 52.
1498 Duffy, “Experience of Grace,” 54.

that is still real even if not exercised’ shows striking similarity to the Peircean category
of thirdness as theologically appropriated by Yong. According to Yong, the spiritual
dimension of a thing is “the internal or inner legal, energetic, habitual, dispositional
and relational field of force that constitutes it as a concrete actuality.”1505 Yong’s
metaphysics enables him to postulate a universal directedness towards the spiritual,
which finds its telos in God. It is in this sense that Yong’s approach is reminiscent of
Rahner’s. The category of thirdness of things refers to the “inner habits, dispositions
and laws,”1506 to the “habits or tendencies of experience.”1507 This links Yong to
McDermott’s analysis of Edwards’s ontology and Rahner’s transcendentalism. It seems
that Yong is closer to Rahner than McDermott (Edwards) in his intrinsicism. Yong
explicitly discloses his continuity with Rahner in pointing out that his trinitarian
metaphysics “should necessarily incorporate elements of Rahner’s theological
anthropology,” to explain “how (the Spirit of) God is present and active in the world
[…].”1508
Now that a link has been established between dispositional soteriology and the
theology of McDermott and of Yong, we need to see if something similar can be said of
the theology of Gavin D’Costa. In chapter III, we pointed out that Rahner heavily
influenced D’Costa in his early years, but that D’Costa came to distance himself from
Rahnerian intrinsicism. D’Costa particularly found fault with Rahner’s purported
conflation of nature and grace. At the same time, D’Costa maintained the Rahnerian
stress on the necessity of socio-historical mediation of grace. Such grace is operative in
people, even in non-Christians, and it is this grace which relates them ontologically to
Christ. D’Costa explicitly refers to Rahner’s understanding of the salvation of non-
Christians in their being ontologically related to Christ. He faults Rahner only for not
paying sufficient attention to the necessity of being epistemologically related to
Christ.1509 The solution D’Costa proffers assumes the Rahnerian position of non-
Christians (potentially) being ontologically related to Christ. Such an ontological
relation is made concrete, according to D’Costa, “through conscience, through noble
and good elements within a person’s religion, through the activity of grace and the
Holy Spirit in both these modes.”1510 ‘Good works’, then, are an external sign of the
internal positive human response to God’s grace.1511 Amos Yong, commenting on the
parable of the Good Samaritan, claims to discern a double message in the parable, first,
that it is possible “to respond to the saving initiatives of God in works of love,” and
second, that this is available to those outside Judaism, “specifically Samaritans and


300 PART III
Gentiles.”1512 Therefore, Yong can conclude that, “Whenever and wherever we find the
affective disposition toward and intentional activity that benefits others, prima facie
there is the creaturely participation in the loving presence of the divine Spirit intending
to save and redeem the world.”1513
A link can here be established between D’Costa’s position, Edwards’s
dispositional soteriology, and Yong’s affirmation of the universal presence and activity
of the Holy Spirit and the concept of prevenient grace. “Prevenient grace, though often
thought to be synonymous with common grace, refers more specifically to the
Wesleyan idea that God has enabled all people everywhere to respond favorably to the
gospel if they so choose.”1514 Both disposition and prevenient grace precede conversion.
It seems that D’Costa’s agreement with GS 22 which states that every person is offered
the possibility of being associated with the paschal mystery points to a similar notion.
The difference between D’Costa and Yong, on the one hand, and McDermott and
Edwards, on the other, is that prevenient grace is universally available and can be
resisted, while Edwards’s conception of disposition seems to necessarily imply
salvation. In Reformed understanding, grace is irresistible. Perhaps Edwards conceived
of God giving the holy disposition to those (Christians and non-Christians alike) whom
he predestined before the foundation of the world to belong to the elect. But this latter
understanding obviously conflicts with the theological presuppositions of both
D’Costa and Yong, who both make much of the universal availability of salvation, even
if that availability is not in all cases appropriated.
C. CHURCH
Ecclesiology is not a major theme in McDermott’s work. The Church does play a
prominent role in identifying or discerning the revealed types which are available in
other religions, according to him, but apart from this there seems to be little discussion
impinging on ecclesiology. A confirmation of this observation is found in the absence
of any reference to ‘church’ or ‘ecclesiology’ in the index of McDermott’s three
monographs that are germane to his theology of religions.1515 Although it is delicate to
search for arguments in the absence of evidence, we would nevertheless suggest a
couple of (possible) reasons. The first is undoubtedly that McDermott has not
produced a full-blown theology of religions. His two monographs in this field of study
1512 Yong, Spirit of Love, 104. Yong links this to his interpretation of the parable of the sheep and the
goats in Mt 25:31-46. See esp. Yong, The Bible, Disability, and the Church, 136-142. This squares well with the
interpretation of Stephen Bullivant, who claims that “for unbelievers, it is pre-eminently in works (of
mercy) that Christ is – in this life, at least – encountered and served.” It is in ‘the least of these’, i.e., the
poor, the sick, the imprisoned, etc., that a real encounter with Christ is established, even if this is unknown
to the non-Christian. Bullivant, Salvation of Atheists, 179.
1514 Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms 56.
1515 McDermott, Can Evangelicals; McDermott, Jonathan Edwards Confronts the Gods; McDermott,
God’s Rivals.
are geared towards two specific issues: that of revelation and of the providential place
of religions in God’s economy. A second reason is perhaps that his primary source for
his theology of religions, Jonathan Edwards, was a Congregationalist minister, a
denominational setting which does not grant ecclesiology as prominent a place as
Roman Catholic theology does, for example.1516
As can be expected, Church plays a much more prominent role in Gavin
D’Costa’s theology of religions. It does so on both a methodological and a theological
level. In chapter III we pointed out that methodologically, D’Costa as a textual
theologian, lets the official teachings of the Roman Catholic church determine the
boundaries of his approach. It is within that framework that he seeks to creatively
develop openness towards the religious others. Theologically, D’Costa develops his
theology of religions around the focal points of the necessity of Christ and the Church
for salvation. He does so through what we called a pneumato-ecclesiological approach.
We have before pointed to a pitfall in Roman Catholic ecclesiology. There is a danger
in Roman Catholic theology for ecclesiology to usurp the place of christology. In
understanding the Church as the continuation of Christ’s incarnation, the biblical
statement that there is ‘no salvation outside Christ’ is translated as ‘no salvation apart
from the Church’. Rather than understanding the Church under the heading of
pneumatology, the Spirit tends to be a function of the Church. Now, of course, the link
between the Spirit and the Church is well established, as can be seen in the mentioning
of the Church under the heading of the Holy Spirit in the early creeds. But it is this
taxonomy that must be maintained. D’Costa is well aware that “there is more to God
than the church,”1517 and it is one of the functions of the religions in God’s economy to
remind the church of that fact. Similarly, D’Costa allows for a more encompassing
Church than can now be fathomed, for the “Christian Church does not know its own
complete and perfect form prior to the eschaton.”1518 Nevertheless, we are afraid that
the Church is usurping the Holy Spirit in his theology. We also pointed to a too close
equation of revelation and Church in his analysis, where some statements, if taken
literally, imply that revelation equals the living Church. Undoubtedly, there is a
confessional element playing in our evaluation. We could be said to have a certain
sensitivity or bias (depending on one’s ecclesial belonging) regarding the potential
encroachment of Roman Catholic ecclesiology.1519 If that observation is taken into
1516 This could of course be said of Protestantism as a whole. But then again, the monumental
‘Church Dogmatics’ was written by a Protestant.
1517 D’Costa, “Revelation and Revelations,” 180-181.
1519 Eugene Peterson captures something of Evangelical ecclesiology in stating, “The church is to the
gospel what the body is to the person: under the conditions of our creation necessary, but not the thing
itself.” We deem this claim to be faithfully describing a principle of Evangelical ecclesiology, but would
nevertheless want to point out that ‘the conditions of our creation’ is all we can talk about. Even in ‘re-
creation’, we will be bodily, maintaining a link between bodiliness and personhood. This metaphor
suggests probably a closer link between gospel and church than Peterson finds warranted. Eugene
302 PART III
account, perhaps all that can be said is that D’Costa is here truly tradition-specific. If he
can be identified with what outsiders consider to be the potential pitfalls of Roman
Catholic theology, then he must be faithful to his tradition. Nevertheless, D’Costa
agrees that this should not stop the discussion. If other religions can remind the
Church that there is more to God than the Church, undoubtedly Protestant Christians
may do so as well. It is precisely in this area that the ecumenical and religious diversity
can be said to be providential. Proverbs states, “Iron sharpens iron, and one person
sharpens the wits of another.”1520 Perhaps the same can be said of religions. D’Costa is
certainly open to such dialectical engagement.
We have earlier pointed out that more attention to the Kingdom theme could
offer help.1521 Now the kingdom of God is not a major theme in D’Costa’s work. The
bilateral ecumenical dialogue between the World Alliance of Reformed Churches and
the Roman Catholic Church relates the kingdom to other religions in one of her
documents:
If God intends the kingdom as the ultimate goal for all
humanity, then one must ask not only how other religions
relate to the church but also how they relate to the kingdom.
The distinction between church and kingdom thus can help us
to engage fruitfully with the world and its destiny and to enter
into a more open and creative dialogue with other religious
traditions or secular ideologies.1522
Amos Yong has interacted more with ecclesiology than McDermott has, though,
unsurprisingly, the Church takes a less defining role in his theology compared to that
of Gavin D’Costa. Nevertheless, the role of the Church is prominent in discerning the
presence and activity of the Spirit outside the confines of the Church.
Yong stresses pneumatology over ecclesiology, thereby implying that salvation is
through Christ, but not necessarily through the Church. He is wary that christology
will be collapsed into ecclesiology, a movement he recognizes in church history. Yong
observes an evolution from the early Church recognizing the salvation of non-
Christians based on Logos christology, “to a more recent exclusive or restrictive
approach based on a Christological ecclesiology. In other words, the history of
Christian thought shows a transition from an emphasis on Christ as savior to the
Peterson, Reversed Thunder: The Revelation of John and the Praying Imagination (San Francisco, CA: Harper &
Row, 1988; reprint, New York, NY: HarperCollins, 1991), 55.
1520 Prov 27:17 (NRSV).
1521 The following paragraph draws from Biesbrouck, “Apologetic Rationality”, 49-50.
1522 The Church as Community of Common Witness to the Kingdom of God: Report of the Third Phase of the
International Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the World Alliance of Reformed Churches
(1998-2005), (2007), §178. Whereas ‘kingdom theology’ would be a helpful complement to Roman Catholic
theology, Evangelicals need to be reminded in their praxis, more than in their theology, that the Kingdom
of God is larger than the Church. The sectarian tendency of isolation from the ‘evil outside world’ does not
square well with ‘kingdom theology’.
church as savior, thereby replacing a Christological soteriology with an ecclesiological

soteriology.”1523
The role of the Church, however, is not limited to the exercise of discernment.
The emphasis Yong places on the practices of Christian communities, i.e., in their
liturgical, dialogical and general praxis, puts the Church back on the agenda.
Particularly in extending hospitality to the stranger, the Church embodies
christomorphic practice and (re-)shapes the worldview and way of life of its members.
Finally, for Yong, the task of mission and evangelisation remains a prominent
task for the Church; a task which may have been redefined, but not removed, by the
presence of many other religions.
Yong is wary of collapsing christology into ecclesiology so that the necessity of
Christ for salvation becomes the necessity of the Church for salvation. To overcome
this tension, Yong develops an encompassing pneumatology. A question that surfaces
now is whether or not his christology has collapsed into pneumatology?
D. DEALING WITH DEMONS
D’Costa is explicit in giving attention to spiritual realities in other religions which may
be harmful. This is not an easy topic in academic theology. Yet the magisterial
documents on which D’Costa builds his theology make mention of such evil spirits.
D’Costa is to be commended for integrating this aspect rather than neglecting it, a
strategy that would have been easier and more ‘politically correct’. This is an area in
which tradition-specific approaches are clearly superior to those pluralist approaches
that try to work from a common enlightenment philosophy, because tradition-specific
approaches take seriously what is integral to a confession, even if some of these
elements have become (academically) unpopular. This openness to the reality of a
spiritual world is, next to his orthodox christology, undoubtedly one of the major
contributing factors to D’Costa’s reception among Evangelical theologians.1524
It is telling that both McDermott and Yong make the Church’s engagement with
evil spirits one of the characteristics of their theology of religions.
McDermott’s contribution is helpful in that it engages seriously the biblical
witness and (early) church tradition that other gods are demonic. McDermott is able to
develop a trajectory that maintains continuity with this tradition, while at the same
time pointing to other trajectories in the Bible and tradition which nuance an all too
simple black-and-white approach to other religions.
1523 Richie, “A Distinctive Turn to Pneumatology: Amos Yong’s Christian Theology of Religions,”
116-117.
1524 Other elements that enhance the reception of D’Costa among Evangelicals are (1) the central role
of fides ex auditu, which retains the importance of mission, and (2) the fact that he engages Evangelical
theologians.
304 PART III
Yong finds a way to bring this theme academically to the forefront when he
compares Buddhist and Christian exorcisms in PCBD.1525 He wonders if “the reason for
pentecostalism’s success and rapid expansion in the non-Western world is due to the
compatibility of its worldview with that of indigenous cultures.”1526 Yong sees several
advantages of talking about the demonic in comparative theology and theology of
religions:
Acknowledging the realm of the demonic not only enables the
rejection of the ethical and religious relativism, but also
empowers normative religious activity against the forces that
threaten human flourishing. Finally, the plain fact of the matter
is that the symbol of the demonic is present in all religious
traditions. As a central feature of human religiosity, its
consideration is a crucial component of any pneumatological
approach to the religions. Without such consideration, any
discussion of the spiritual aspect of human experience remains
impoverished.1527
Yong’s remark that ‘the symbol of the demonic is present in all religious
traditions’ is an important element for tradition-specific approaches to theology of
religions to take into account. Even when speaking on a purely phenomenological
level, where religious studies operates, dealing with the demonic is unavoidable. In a
comparative theological analysis, it is equally not alien to broach the subject.
E. TRINITY
The Trinity has been a rich resource for theology of religions in the last generation, a
situation which has partly come about through the contribution of Gavin D’Costa.1528
Rather than seeing the Trinity as a complicating factor in interreligious dialogue,
Christian tradition-specific approaches find theological motivation in the Trinity to
ground both particularity and universality, with God’s unity necessitating universality,
and his hypostases or three-personhood demanding particularity.
Our three authors are united in the rejection of the Rahnerian axiom that the
economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity and vice versa.1529 One reason they reject this
is because they want to make space for the religions in assisting the Church discover
who God is. McDermott agrees with D’Costa that Christ is totus deus but not totum dei,
1525 Yong, Pneumatology and the Christian-Buddhist Dialogue, chapters 8 to 10.

1528 D’Costa, “Christ.”; D’Costa, Meeting.
1529 Karl Rahner, SJ, The Trinity, trans. Joseph Donceel (New York, NY: Herder & Herder, 1970;
reprint, London: Burns & Oates, 2001), 21. It should be said that Rahner’s rule was formulated, partly, to
fight the idea that the hypostases within the Godhead are almost interchangeable. Rahner says, for example
that “it has been among theologians a more or less foregone conclusion that each of the divine persons (if
God freely so decided) could have become man, so that the incarnation of precisely this person can tell us
nothing about the peculiar features of this person within the divinity.” Rahner, The Trinity, 11.
i.e., Christ is wholly God but not all of God.1530 McDermott’s disagreement with
Rahner’s rule, however, is also connected to Jonathan Edwards’s notion of ontic
growth in God through the history of redemption which could be seen as an early
negation of Rahner’s rule. The immanent Trinity is not accessible but through the
economic Trinity, and as the Church’s grasp of the economic Trinity increases, the
epistemological gap between the immanent and economic Trinity decreases. It is the
Holy Spirit who is the primary agent in disclosing further knowledge of God revealed
in Christ, and the religions are instrumental in the Spirit’s work.
For D’Costa, also, the Spirit must be engaged for a “proper understanding of
Christ.”1531 D’Costa goes on to develop a pneumatology that is not subordinated to
christology without giving up the intrinsic links of the Spirit with Christ and the
Church. He tries to work out a pneumatology, that allows the Spirit to maintain (or
regain) her full subjectivity and that does justice to the inner trinitarian relations co-
constituting the three co-equal hypostases in the Trinity without falling back into the
language of causality within the Godhead.
D’Costa draws on the work of Thomas Weinandy1532 to give a theological account
of the Holy Spirit as more active and personal than tradition has sometimes allowed.
Weinandy suggests that the Father begets the Son in or by the Holy Spirit. The Spirit
proceeds from the Father as the one in whom the Son is begotten. This gives the Spirit a
more active role, defining the subjectivity or personality of the Holy Spirit more
clearly.1533 Amos Yong has also drawn from the work of Weinandy in order to place the
Spirit more to the forefront of theology.1534 According to Yong, the Spirit has too long
been forgotten as the ‘silent member’ in the Trinity.1535 As with D’Costa, Yong
approaches the Trinity pneumatologically. But whereas D’Costa highlights the
pneumatological links to christology and ecclesiology, Yong privileges more the
creational and eschatological dimension of the Holy Spirit. One of the consequences is
that Yong will more easily speak of the Spirit’s agency as being ‘christomorphic’ rather
than christological. The work of the Spirit in the lives of people can be discerned in
behaviour that is ‘Christ-like’, such that the lives of people are formed in the likeness of
1530 For D’Costa’s discussion of this, see D’Costa, “Christ.” For McDermott’s agreement with it,
McDermott, Can Evangelicals?, 95. For an argument stating that the maxim Totus deus not totum dei should
better be rendered totus deus sed non totaliter, see Pim Valkenberg and Harm Goris, “‘In Hem is Gods
volheid lijfelijk aanwezig’: Jezus en de religies,” Tijdschrift voor Theologie 48 (2008).
1532 Thomas G. Weinandy, The Father’s Spirit of Sonship: Reconceiving the Trinity (Edinburgh: T & T
Clark, 1995).
1533 D’Costa is critical of Weinandy’s continued use of naming the Father as the origin or cause of
the Trinity. See D’Costa, Sexing the Trinity, 20ff.

1535 Yong, Beyond the Impasse, 43. But see the remark of Weinandy, who suggests that “[i]n the light
of the contemporary concern for the Holy Spirit, it could now be said that, in most recent theological
thought, it is actually the Father who has become the forgotten person of the Trinity.” Weinandy, The
Father’s Spirit of Sonship, 8 n.15.
306 PART III
Jesus, even if, in the case of non-Christians, this does not involve a confession of Christ
(in this life).
Yong is also more reluctant to speculate about the immanent Trinity. In his
earlier work, this took an even stronger form, as reflected in his claim that “not only
[…] is [it] unprofitable to speculate on the intra-trinitarian relations, but that such
relations are legitimately understood only within the framework of the divine
economies of creation and redemption.”1536 Later, he has come to see “how such
speculative reflection is in some sense inevitable so long as it is recognized as such.”1537
It remains a question whether, after the move from a christological theology of
religions to a pneumatological-trinitarian theology of religions, we should expect, or
work towards, a ‘patrological’ theology of religions. The role of the Father is not
particularly highlighted in the trinitarian reflections of our authors, or of other authors
for that matter.1538 Perhaps the time has come to bring the Father back in business.1539

1537 Yong, Spirit-Word-Community, 73. Part of Yong’s reluctance to speculate about the immanent
Trinity is prompted by intra-Pentecostal ecumenical concerns. Early on in the Pentecostal movement, a
split occurred over the understanding of the Trinity, with ‘Oneness Pentecostals claiming that “there is one
God with no distinction of persons” and “Jesus Christ is the fullness of the Godhead incarnate.”Yong,
Spirit Poured Out, 205. Yong devotes a whole chapter to this issue in his brief systematic theology. See
Yong, Spirit Poured Out, chapter 5.
1538 For an attempt to define theology of religions according to the three persons of the Godhead, see
Najeeb George Awad, “Theology of Religions, Universal Salvation, and the Holy Spirit,” Journal of
Pentecostal Theology 20, no. 2 (2011).
1539 For a clear suggestion on a theology of God the Father, even if not related to theology of
religions, see Emmanuel Durand, O.P., “A Theology of God the Father,” in The Oxford Handbook of the
Trinity, ed. Gilles Emery, O.P. and Matthew Levering (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011).
§ 3. DIALOGICAL ISSUES
A society that fears difference and does not engage with it will
ultimately fall into intolerance. Real conversation with people
who are different is frightening: it changes how you view your
own identity. In his book on Dostoevsky, Rowan Williams
quotes Mikhail Bakhtin: “Dialogue … is not a means for
revealing, for bringing to the surface the readymade character
of a person; no, in dialogue a person not only shows himself
outwardly, but he becomes for the first time that which he is –
and we repeat, not only for others but for himself as well.”
–Timothy Radcliffe1540
A. THE GOAL(S) OF DIALOGUE
To what end, interreligious dialogue? To enhance world peace in a global context

characterized by a clash of civilizations? To work together for the alleviation of poverty
and other social concerns? To increase tolerance at the local level of multicultural
interactions between neighbours? To fight the vast secularisation of (western) society
and put religious perspectives back in public discourse?
Asking the question of the goal(s) of interreligious dialogue is asking what drives
those involved in the project. The driving force of our three theologians is tradition-
specific. They argue for interreligious dialogue on the basis that this is simply what
their Christian conviction demands. Interreligious dialogue, they have come to
understand, is inherent in Christianity’s great commandments (love of God and love of
neighbour) and great commission1541 (the missionary impulse). The love
commandments make an open and welcoming attitude toward the (religious) other
imperative, whereas the mission commandment is understood as necessarily
encompassing dialogue, minimally to learn the language and culture of the other so as
to be able to communicate the gospel faithfully and intelligibly.
However, what has surfaced in all three theologians studied, is that one
important goal of interreligious dialogue in the context of theology of religions is the
deepening of Christian self-understanding. The ‘other’ functions as midwife to help
Christianity give birth to greater insight in its own tradition; engagement with other
religions is maieutic. There is, of course, nothing wrong with greater self-
understanding. On the contrary! It could, however, become so if the other is merely a
tool used for self-enlargement. To what extent is increased self-understanding a
1540 Timothy Radcliffe, “Tolerance is Not Enough to Learn the Art of Living With Others,” The
Guardian, Sunday 16 December 2012.
1541 The great commission is used as shorthand for the missionary command Jesus gives his
followers to make all peoples his disciples. Mt 28:19-20 (NRSV): “19Go therefore and make disciples of all
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching
them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of
the age.”
308 PART III
beneficial by-product or the utilitarian goal of interreligious dialogue? It is ironic that

interreligious dialogue could become an obstacle in truly loving the other. This pitfall
of tradition-specific interreligious dialogue is not inevitable, however. We believe that
this is made evident in the project of our three theologians.
Perhaps a dialectic relation with one’s own tradition can be helpful in
maintaining the proper perspective. Christians need to be reminded that a better
understanding of one’s own tradition can only occur when, to a certain degree, the
tradition is disowned. Christians do not own Christianity. Christ is not the possession
of Christians. When Christ continues to stand over against Christians and the Church,
he remains an ‘other’. In the parable of the sheep and goats, Jesus says that the
righteous will be surprised to discover that they met Jesus without recognizing him.1542
The point of the parable is not an exhortation, saying that they should have recognized
Jesus in the face of the poor, marginalised and destitute, but rather that their loving
care for the poor was one of self-giving. The righteous were meeting the poor as truly
other, and not just as disguised familiar faces.1543 We are, of course, not implying that
meta-reflections are unchristian. The well-informed Christian knows that she can meet
Jesus in the other, and this knowledge can be appropriated in one’s way of life without
necessarily instrumentalizing the other. The tension remains, and perhaps it should.
That is why Christians need to be reminded of Christ ‘over against them’, to be
reminded that they do not possess him, even if they are his possession.
B. THE PRACTICES OF DIALOGUE: DIALECTICS
We have seen that dialectics is crucial in D’Costa’s dialogical method and that
McDermott has made a case for understanding interreligious dialogue as disputation,
citing the example of the disputations held between Muslims and Christians in ninth-
century Baghdad.1544 Yong’s approach is dialectical in the sense that his concept of
discernment is a dynamic interplay between Christian criteria and criteria developed
from within the other tradition in the dialogue process.1545 What is crucial in dialectics
is a genuine engagement with the other tradition that leads to an honest interpretation
of that tradition, such that insiders of that tradition recognize the interpretation as
valid. This analysis forms the basis for an open interaction. Any self-respecting
tradition must be willing and able to stand serious testing. This dialectical approach,
developed first by Alasdair MacIntyre in his trilogy of tradition-instituted rationality,
1542 37Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you
food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? 38And when was it that we saw you a stranger and
welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? 39And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and
visited you?’ (Mt 25:37-39, NRSV).
1543 There is a similar tension when someone has internalised altruistic behaviour. The love of
others, in that case, is to some extent also a love of self because not loving others would lead to cognitive
dissonance.
1544 D’Costa, Meeting, 5; McDermott, “God and the Religions,” 490.

progresses through interaction between different traditions. All reasoning is

traditioned, yet rational exchange is still possible, for traditions are not hopelessly
locked up in themselves, contrary to some radical cultural-linguistic interpretations.1546
“For MacIntyre, a consequence of his argument for tradition-instituted rationality
implies that while a tradition may claim to be exclusively true, it requires the assistance
of other traditions to do so, and its adherents must be ready to renounce its truth
claims if it is judged unable to survive dialectical arguments.”1547 Our three theologians
are not afraid of a good honest disputation. Any constructive critical interaction
engaged in, in an open atmosphere, is actually honouring the other tradition by taking
it seriously. When the parties involved are participating in a search for truth, and
confident in the robustness of their own tradition, nothing prevents them from
engaging in such interaction in the hope that it will be beneficial in the long run.
It is typical of the three authors studied, and perhaps for tradition-specific
approaches in general, that they are quite confident of their own tradition and face the
other traditions without fear. They also believe in the assimilative power of
Christianity, so that new insights can be incorporated. Since all truth is God’s truth, the
Egyptians can be plundered. But it is also typical that they do not halt the interaction
with other traditions at the level of dialectics. For all three of them, mission must be
part of the picture as well.
C. THE COMPANION OF DIALOGUE: MISSION
Evangelism and mission have not been an easy subject at the interreligious round table.
Partly under the influence of pluralistic theologies of religions, evangelism has been
frowned upon, or derided as unwarranted proselytism. One of the defining marks of
Evangelicalism is its missionary zeal. Ever since its eighteenth-century beginnings,
evangelism has been a constitutive practice of what it means to be Evangelical. The
continued worldwide growth of Evangelical churches (and, more outspokenly, even of
Pentecostal churches), in the last sixty years, is a direct result of its missionary thrust.
How do our Evangelical authors deal with this tradition-specific characteristic in a
context that is not particularly mission-friendly?1548 And although evangelisation has
been less the defining characteristic of the Roman Catholic church, nevertheless this
church has always maintained the necessity of proclaiming the gospel.1549 Recently the
Roman Catholic church has tried to put evangelisation back on the agenda with the
1546 MacIntyre, After Virtue. MacIntyre, Whose Justice? MacIntyre, Three Rival Versions.
1547 Thaddeus J. Kozinski, The Political Problem of Religious Pluralism: And why Philosophers Can’t Solve
it. (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2010), 202.
1548 It is no exaggeration to say that the questioning of the appropriateness of evangelisation in
interreligious dialogue has contributed to Evangelicalism’s negative appreciation of the whole project of
interreligious dialogue.
1549 See, for example, Lumen Gentium 17, the apostolic exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi of 1975 and
the encyclical Redemptoris Missio of 1990.

310 PART III
establishment of the Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelization in 2010.
So, also, for Gavin D’Costa, mission is not an issue that can be ignored.
As mission is an integral, even constitutive part of these Christian traditions, it is
no surprise that the three theologians we investigate, incorporate a theology of mission
in their theology of religions. As D’Costa says, for example, “missionary rational
dialectics and out-narration are always part of Christian engagement with other
religions.”1550 In his analysis of comparative theology, D’Costa remarks that, next to its many merits,
it lacks in not taking mission seriously. “Mission, intrinsic to Christian witness, seems to
have no place in the theological project except a deferred role. To put it differently,
[comparative theology] is divorced from mission and this may reflect that it is
contextually defined by academic practice, not ecclesiological witness.”1551
Gerald McDermott needs to defend his openness to truth in other religions by
answering the question,”Will this not undermine the evangelical urgency for
evangelism and missions? For if we say that the religions already have truth, why
expend money and lives to bring them our version of the truth?”1552 McDermott
answers elaborately, trying to convince his Evangelical readers that engaging in
interreligious dialogue is not to the detriment of evangelism. On the contrary, part of
his argument consists of explaining that it will actually enhance the effectiveness of
evangelism.1553 “One object of this book,” claims McDermott, “is to help evangelicals
share the gospel with a bit more respect and sensitivity. If non-Christian believers
sense that evangelicals respect their religious traditions as systems that contain
religious truth, they will generally be more open than otherwise. […] Perhaps more
will see the beauty of Christ as a result.”1554
Amos Yong has also seen the need to defend himself against the opinion that his
theology of religions weakens the necessity of evangelism. In Hospitality and the Other
he writes,
Among other concerns about my pneumatological approach to
theology of religions has been the relationship between
pneumatology and christology and the implications for
Christian mission. In this book, I seek to respond decisively to
these matters by developing the trinitarian framework of my
pneumatological approach and by showing how Christian
beliefs about other religions are both deeply shaped by

1551 D’Costa, Christianity and World Religions, 42. A little further on, D’Costa says, “I have also
suggested that the comparativist agenda is really a question of inculturation and criticized it for neglecting
missiological concerns. In the case of postliberal out-narration, we return to a proper emphasis on mission,
but with a neglect of inculturation and rational discussion.” D’Costa, Christianity and World Religions, 53.

Christian practices and have normative implications for

Christian missions.1555
Apart from this monograph on a theology of hospitality, Yong has published

several articles in missiology, convinced as he is that “interreligious dialogue
inevitably returns to, even as it has never really departed from, evangelical
proclamation. Effective witness is always based on dialogue, and authentic dialogue is
always at the heart of Christian mission.”1556
D. THE METHOD OF DIALOGUE: COMPARATIVE THEOLOGY AND

DISCERNMENT
1. Comparative theology
Our authors agree that comparative theology holds much promise as a method in
interreligious dialogue, especially dialogue amongst specialists. Still, their involvement
in, and evaluation of, comparative theology differs.
McDermott, in Can Evangelicals Learn From World Religions?, engages four world
religions in search of confirmation for his hypothesis that Evangelicals can indeed learn
from world religions because there is truth in those religions that can provide fresh
perspectives on familiar Christian truths. McDermott discusses Buddhism, Daoism,
Confucianism, and Islam. This is not standard comparative theology as that field has
recently established itself. The engagement is too brief and too general for that. Yet it
shows at least the willingness to understand other religions in terms of their own
criteria, before appropriating their ideas into one’s own system. As far as we know,
McDermott has not directly engaged with comparative theology as a distinct field of
study.
Gavin D’Costa has been much more explicit in his evaluation of the project of
comparative theology. He is generally very sympathetic towards it,1557 but nevertheless
finds it lacking in a couple of instances. We mentioned above the reluctance of
comparativists to put mission in the picture, something which is necessary for D’Costa.
He also disagrees with the view of James Fredericks that dialogue (i.e., comparative
theology) must precede theology of religions.1558 What D’Costa finds difficult in the
1555 Yong, Hospitality and the Other, xiv.

1556 Yong, “A Pentecostal Inquiry in a Pluralistic World,” 14. See also, for example, Yong, “As the
Spirit Gives Utterance.”; Yong, “P(new)matological Paradigm.”; Yong, “Spirit of Hospitality.”; Amos
Yong, “Primed for the Spirit: Creation, Redemption and the Missio Spiritus,” International Review of Mission
100, no. 2 (2011); Yong and Richie, “Missiology and the Interreligious Encounter.”
1557 D’Costa writes, “This also explains my own enthusiasm for the project [of comparative theology].”
D’Costa, Christianity and World Religions, 41 (my italics).

1558 D’Costa, Christianity and World Religions, 40. Also Gavin D’Costa, “Catholics Reading the
Scripture of Other Religions: Some Reflexions,” in Mission in Dialogue. Essays in Honour of Michael L.
Fitzgerald, ed. Catarina Belo and Jean-Jacques Pérennès, Les Cahiers du MIDEO (Louvain - Paris: Editions
Peeters, 2012), 35.
312 PART III
way comparative theology is practiced, is the postponing of judgment.1559 Precisely

these judgments are an essential part of D’Costa’s understanding of comparative
theology. These judgment can range from ‘this is a stepping stone to Christianity’, ‘it is
discontinuous with Christianity (perhaps even evil)’, ‘we do not know’, ‘time-bound
provisional incommensurability’, or ‘this aspect actually helps us understand either a
doctrinal or a practical aspect of our faith with a refinement not earlier available’.1560
D’Costa commends the comparative religion approach of Robert Cummings
Neville, saying that Neville is open to theological studies, but does not practice it
himself.1561 But Amos Yong, one-time doctoral student under Neville, has taken it upon
him to do exactly this kind of theological analysis in the comparative study.
Yong’s approach is empirical and phenomenological, focusing not only on texts
in comparative theology, but also on rituals, traditions, institutions, temples, moral
system, etc. This gives a more holistic understanding of religions than the approach of
other comparativists who predominantly limit themselves to analysis of sacred
writings.1562 Yong goes a long way in fulfilling D’Costa’s demand for comparative
theology, although we think that his judgments are more complex that D’Costa
suggests and are focused more on what Christian theology can learn from the other
religious tradition in the comparison. Yong describes his comparative theology in
comparison with that of Clooney as follows: “[M]y own development of comparative
categories is sensitive to the dialectical dynamic of having Christian perspectives
subordinate to those of others faiths, on the one hand (in allowing religious others to
1559 See, for example, D’Costa’s comment on Clooney’s work: “Clooney is not eschewing the
question of truth. He insists it requires a long patient engagement with the embodied, textured nature of
the claims. But even after his lengthy and careful studies, he, as with the others cited, fails to engage with
questions of truth or mission. If there are no challenges and questioning of these other texts, but simply a
self-referential transformation, can this be called ‘comparative’, ‘theology’, or even ‘Christian’? Mission,
intrinsic to Christian witness, seems to have no place in the theological project except a constantly deferred
role.” D’Costa, “Catholics Reading,” 36.
1560 It is worthwhile quoting D’Costa at length here: “[O]nce the multidisciplinary insider/outsider
reports […] are closely studied and understood, then, and only then, is theology able to make certain
judgments that are internal to theology about these findings. These judgments might be very simple: this is
compatible with our faith and indeed might be seen as a stepping-stone toward true faith (preparatio,
fulfillment); this is not compatible with the faith and, in certain instances, this is evil and to be challenged
(discontinuity); this aspect seems compatible with faith, but neither a positive nor a negative relation is
presently discernable (don’t know, but be attentive); it is impossible to judge whether this is compatible or
incompatible with faith, and it may actually be incommensurable for the time being (time-bound
provisional incommensurability); this aspect actually helps us understand either a doctrinal or a practical
aspect of our faith with a refinement not earlier available, because such resources were never present
within the Christian tradition before (for example, Aristotle for Aquinas, or Sankara for Panikkar), or
because, contingently, this has never been part of the tradition (meditation by the laity), or used to be
present in the tradition but is not much used contemporarily (praying the rosary, use of indulgences that
can be prompted when confronted by the analogical use of the “rosary” or “indulgences” in Buddhism).
These latter questions deal with the questions of truth that none of the alternatives I have looked at
address.” D’Costa, Christianity and World Religions, 101.

register their own views), while yet also not losing sight of Christian commitments in
engaging other faiths, on the other hand (so as not to undermine the authenticity of the
Christian encounter with those in other faiths).”1563 It seems to us that Yong is very
watchful in his judgments, apparently limiting himself to tentative judgments
regarding the presence of the Holy Spirit in some aspect of Buddhism, rather than in
pointing out where one should speak of ‘divine absence’, i.e., his category of the
presence of evil spirits.1564
2. Criteriology for discernment
Discernment is a central activity of a tradition-specific approach to interreligious

dialogue. Although McDermott has published a book on discernment, it is not focused
on theology of religions, but is a sort of re-writing and contemporary application of
Jonathan Edwards’s treatise, The Religious Affections.1565 McDermott does mention
discernment in the context of discussing revelation which unfolds, partly through
engagement with other religions. He writes, “We will be able to discern the spirits
today (which is the work of theology) only by studying afresh this long and rich Great
Tradition.”1566 For more concrete criteria of discernment, however, we must turn
elsewhere.
Because the documents of Vatican II mention not only that aspects of the
religions “reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men,”1567 but also their being
under the ‘taint of evil’ or being in the ‘devil’s domain’, containing ‘manifold malice of
vice’, discernment is also essential in Roman Catholic theology of religions.1568 Dialogue
and Proclamation 30 calls for discernment for which criteria have to be established.1569 It
is clear that, for D’Costa, it is the church which is responsible for the discerning, even if
theologians do the groundwork, and that the criterion is christological. There is no way
beyond the christological ‘impasse’ for D’Costa. In D’Costa’s pneumatological

1564 Yong does point to possibilities of speaking of ‘fulfilment’, and opportunities for evangelisation.
See, for example, Yong, Pneumatology and the Christian-Buddhist Dialogue, 175.
1565 Gerald R. McDermott, Seeing God: Twelve Reliable Signs of True Spirituality (Downers Grove, IL:
IVP, 1995; reprint, Seeing God: Jonathan Edwards and Spiritual Discernment (Vancouver: Regent College
Publishing, 2000)).
1567 Nostra Aetate 2.
1568 See, for example, AG 9: “[missionary activity] frees from all taint of evil and restores to Christ its
maker, who overthrows the devil’s domain and wards off the manifold malice of vice.” For a similar
assessment, see LG 17.
1569 DP 30 has as heading “the need for discernment” and the full text of the paragraph is: “The
fruits of the Spirit of God in the personal life of individuals, whether Christian or otherwise, are easily
discernible (cf. Ga 5:22-23). To identify in other religious traditions elements of grace capable of sustaining
the positive response of their members to God’s invitation is much more difficult. It requires a
discernment for which criteria have to be established. Sincere individuals marked by the Spirit of God
have certainly put their imprint on the elaboration and the development of their respective religious
traditions. It does not follow, however, that everything in them is good.”
314 PART III
understanding, it is the agency of the Holy Spirit outside the visible Church that is
making the connection with Christ and the Church. The work of the Spirit in the
Church is such that she leads the Church to a life in accordance with that of Jesus
Christ. The work of the Spirit outside the Church is similar, “to help make women and
men more Christ-like, individually and in community, however frustrated and
thwarted.”1570 We have noted earlier that D’Costa is not more concrete about what this
might mean in practice.
In any case, the Christ-like form which enables Christians to recognize the
presence and activity of the Holy Spirit in non-Christians, is something that Amos
Yong has confirmed as well. Yong calls it ‘christomorphic’. In his comparison of
sainthood in Eastern Orthodoxy and Buddhism, he says that sanctification, as the
characteristic of saints, is recognized in the ‘saint’s’ “walking in the Spirit and bearing
the fruits of the Spirit rather than the works of the flesh (Gal. 5:19-23).”1571 But this is
not all,
a follow-up criterion would be sanctification understood as the
transformation and renewal of the mind resulting in the
capacity to discern the good, acceptable, and perfect will of
God (Rom. 12:1-2). Here again, the process involves the Spirit’s
presence and activity (1 Cor. 2:9-16). At this level, can the good,
acceptable, and perfect will of God be understood in moral and
ethical terms reflected in the capacity to love one’s neighbor (
cf. James 2:8-17)? If this is the case, then can we discern the
Spirit in other faiths if the commandment to love our neighbor
is kept even if not explicitly connected with the name of Jesus
(cf. 1 Jn. 3:11-24)? But finally, the ultimate criterion of the
Spirit’s presence and activity is conformation to the image of
the Son culminating in glorification (Rom. 6-8, esp. 8:29-30 ).1572
This makes clear that ‘conformation to the image of Son’, or christomorphism, is

the ultimate criterion, but this does not necessitate explicit confession of the name of
Jesus.
It is typical of tradition-specific approaches to have ultimate criteria which are
derived from the Christian tradition.
E. THE SPIRIT OF DIALOGUE: VULNERABILITY AND HOSPITALITY
Entering into dialogue with others who are very different, requires an open and
humble mindset, especially if one is getting involved in discernment which includes
judging elements of other religious traditions. Our three authors claim that this spirit of
vulnerability and hospitality is inherent to the Christian tradition, although it is
expressed differently in our three authors. For D’Costa, it means, among other things,

‘doing theology on one’s knees’, i.e., in a prayerful attitude.1573 Such an humble attitude
is also at work when discernment is understood, not as the project of an individual, but
of the Church as a whole, a work that may take a very long time to complete.
For McDermott, this is closely linked with the Reformed understanding of the
nouthetical effects of sin, i.e., sin’s impact on the cognitive faculties. McDermott warns
that a danger exists for a misplaced triumphalist conception of the Church’s grasp of
revelation. He cautions that we should be humble about the possibility of correct
interpretation of revelation as our sinfulness impairs our possibility for correct
interpretation.1574
In Yong, this spirit of hospitality is not only evident in his making this the
constitutive practice of interreligious dialogue,1575 but also in the fallibilism that is
characteristic of his epistemology. Ideas, claims, and judgments are always ‘tentative’
and open to correction. The empirical-phenomenological approach that Yong takes,
also contributes to this vulnerability. Propositions are formulated on the basis of
experiences, making them always open to questioning, correction, or even
abandonment if new information arises. His system is not aprioristic and shielded from
interactions with the world, but characterised by a chastened realism.
The scriptural basis for such a spirit of vulnerability can be found in the tradition
of the people of God being resident aliens. For the Jewish people, the yearly Pesach
feast reminds them of the time when they were exiles and aliens in Egypt, and later
Babylonia. This is a resource to remind the people of God to treat other exiles and
aliens in their midst with respect and hospitality.1576 This attitude was appropriated by
the early Christian church, when the Christians in the first letter of Peter, are called
aliens and exiles, indicating their status as guests, but working as hosts for the benefit
of others.1577
1573 Gavin D’Costa, “On Cultivating the Disciplined Habits of a Love Affair Or on how to do
theology on your knees,” New Blackfriars 79, no. 925 (1998).

1575 See Yong, Hospitality and the Other.
1576 See, for example Leviticus 25:23: “The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine;
with me you are but aliens and tenants.” (NRSV, my italics).

1577 1 Pe 2:11-12. This status of exiles and aliens is also confirmed in the second century letter of
Mathetes to Diognetus: “For the Christians […] dwell in their own countries, but simply as sojourners. As
citizens, they share in all things with others, and yet endure all things as if foreigners. Every foreign land is
to them as their native country, and every land of their birth as a land of strangers. They marry, as do all
[others]; they beget children; but they do not destroy their offspring. They have a common table, but not a
common bed. They are in the flesh, but they do not live after the flesh. They pass their days on earth, but
they are citizens of heaven. They obey the prescribed laws, and at the same time surpass the laws by their
lives. They love all men, and are persecuted by all. They are unknown and condemned; they are put to
death, and restored to life. They are poor, yet make many rich; they are in lack of all things, and yet
abound in all; they are dishonoured, and yet in their very dishonour are glorified. They are evil spoken of,
and yet are justified; they are reviled, and bless; they are insulted, and repay the insult with honour; they
do good, yet are punished as evil-doers. When punished, they rejoice as if quickened into life; they are
assailed by the Jews as foreigners, and are persecuted by the Greeks; yet those who hate them are unable
to assign any reason for their hatred.” Mathetes, “Letter to Diognetus,” in The Apostolic Fathers, Justin
316 PART III
We find the spirit of vulnerability also operative in the risks the three theologians
take through their positions. Gavin D’Costa is vulnerable to critique from two
directions. On the one hand, he risks not being taken seriously in the academy because
of his concern to be loyal to the teaching office of the Roman Catholic church. On the
other hand, this does not prevent him from critiquing the position of the magisterium
with respect to the ordination of women, so that he risks being considered as too
conservative by those on the ‘left’ and disloyal by those on the ‘right’. McDermott is
risking his credentials in the Reformed-Evangelical community by suggesting that
there is a separate revelatory category of revealed type next to general and special
revelation. But he risks more with his uncharacteristic views of justification and
sanctification. This provides him theological space for the salvation of the
unevangelized, yet it touches Reformed theology in its heart. Amos Yong risks
marginalisation both from the academy and from his Pentecostal tradition. By doing
theology in a Pentecostal key, without hiding his denominational colours, he risks
being neglected by the so-called neutral and objective academic enterprise. But Yong
also risks being frowned upon by his fellow Pentecostals, for giving up on too many
essentials of Pentecostalism.
A spirit of vulnerability and hospitality nevertheless remains a challenge and
something requiring continuous attention and care. It also points to the ‘unfinished-
business’ character of interreligious dialogue, which awaits completion in the eschaton.
Awareness of this eschatological outlook safeguards Christianity against a militant
imperialism and opens it up to the surprises of the Spirit, even in the other religions.
Martyr, Irenaeus. Revised and chronologically arranged, with brief prefaces and occasional notes by A. Cleveland
Coxe, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. 1 (New York, NY:
Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885; reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001), chapter V, 26-27.
§ 4. CONCLUSIONS
We have come to the end of this dissertation. The previous sections in this chapter took
stock of our investigations of the theology of religions of Gavin D’Costa, Gerald
McDermott and Amos Yong. We have shown how their theologies strive for loyalty
towards their respective traditions and how they simultaneously try to create space for
the religious other. These authors have succeeded in wedding a particularist approach
to God’s universal salvific will such that the religious others are somehow connected to
the paschal mystery and the church (D’Costa), have access to revelation that
communicates God’s saving purposes (McDermott), or are graced by the presence of
the Holy Spirit (Yong).
We set out, in this dissertation, to answer the question of whether a tradition-
specific approach can lead to a coherent theology of interreligious dialogue. Although
we have problematized some elements in each position, the overall answer to that
question must be positive. This does not mean – alas – that the question of the religions
is solved once and for all. Religions are, in any case, not something to be solved.
Moreover, their contextual forms are so diverse, also within particular religions, that a
single answer could never do justice to this bewildering pluriformity. What we do
have, however, is a method that tries to do justice to the ‘other’, while at the same time
remaining faithful to the home tradition. It is the conviction of the three Christian
tradition-specific theologians whom we have studied, that this is precisely the way
God has chosen to disclose more of his character and work in accordance with the
fullness of revelation in the life, death, resurrection and Spirit-sending of his Son Jesus
Christ. Such a formulation testifies to the fact that the christological impasse is here to
stay with us. We cannot and should not go beyond it, but we must enter into it. It also
means that our interreligious encounter is always in danger of becoming a hegemonic
narrative, one that usurps the difference of the other. In one sense, there is no way
beyond this either. To some extent, all language is either hegemonic or nonsensical. In
the latter case, the human plight can never find resolution. Worse, the most likely
outcome will be that the babbling of the strongest will become the language forced
upon the others, with no other way to adjudicate between the different languages.
Choosing for the other option is, however, also a risky business. Living by the
conviction that one has found the truth, as Christians do, one is tempted to forget one’s
own fallibility. What counts at the level of the individual is also true at the institutional
and structural level. Religious traditions which are convinced they are in the truth,
must give serious attention to the need to ensure that the will to hegemonic power can
and will always be questioned, lessened, corrected, and subverted even if loyalty to the
tradition is maintained. Obeying the love commands such that loving God can never
be true unless the neighbour is loved, should keep Christians alert to the fact that the
encounter with the other, perhaps particularly the religious other, may be God’s way to
remind his people of their own incompleteness. Christianity, in particular, must hold
318 PART III
on to the principle of deus semper maior. We can never be sure that our embrace of God
does not take the form of a struggle. Perhaps in wrestling the other, we will be injured
by an angel and blessed by a stranger.
CHAPTER VII.

Jacob Wrestles at Peniel
22The same night he got up and took his two wives, his two
maids, and his eleven children, and crossed the ford of the
Jabbok. 23He took them and sent them across the stream, and
likewise everything that he had. 24Jacob was left alone; and a
man wrestled with him until daybreak. 25When the man saw
that he did not prevail against Jacob, he struck him on the hip
socket; and Jacob’s hip was put out of joint as he wrestled with
him. 26Then he said, “Let me go, for the day is breaking.” But
Jacob said, “I will not let you go, unless you bless me.” 27So he
said to him, “What is your name?” And he said, “Jacob.”
28Then the man said, “You shall no longer be called Jacob, but
Israel for you have striven with God and with humans, and
have prevailed.” 29Then Jacob asked him, “Please tell me your
name.” But he said, “Why is it that you ask my name?” And
there he blessed him. 30So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying,
“For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life is preserved.”
31The sun rose upon him as he passed Penuel, limping because
of his hip. 32Therefore to this day the Israelites do not eat the
thigh muscle that is on the hip socket, because he struck Jacob
on the hip socket at the thigh muscle.1578
This story in the Jacob cycle in the book of Genesis is one of the most enigmatic in
Genesis and perhaps the whole of Scripture. No wonder that it has enticed the
imagination. The title of our work – wrestling with angels – is obviously derived from
this narration. After having cheated Esau of his blessing, Esau schemed to kill his
brother, and Jacob fled. Now many years later, Jacob, returns to the land of his father
and brother. Jacob tries to appease Esau by sending him numerous gifts (blessings)
ahead of his arrival. Having arrived at the border of the promised land, Jacob is
apprehensive. And suddenly, in the darkness of the night, he is fighting a man (Esau?)
who turns out to be God. What is the true identity of this man/God? At the end, Jacob
is unambiguous: He has seen the face of God. When, in Gen 33, Jacob meets his brother
Esau, he acknowledges: “truly to see your face is like seeing the face of God.”1579 There
is also a word play between the wrestling with this man/God and the later embrace of
Esau: to wrestle (‫ ָאבק‬abaq – Gen 32:25) and to embrace (‫ חָבק‬chabaq – Gen 33:4).1580
1578Gen 32:22-32 (NRSV).

1579Gen 33:10 (NRSV).
1580 John E. Anderson, Jacob and the Divine Trickster: A Theology of Deception and YHWH’s Fidelity to
the Ancestral Promise in the Jacob Cycle, ed. Stephen B. Chapman, Tremper Longman III, and Nathan
320 PART III
The story is packed with intertextual hints and themes that are taken up in
later writings. There is first, the story of the Garden of Eden and humanity’s ousting
1581
from this promised land after they stole what was not theirs. Gen 3 informs us that
God placed an angel (a cherub) east of Eden, to prevent Adam and Eve to re-enter the
Garden. The same pattern is present in the Jacob story. He was ousted from the
promised land after stealing the blessing from his father. And when he tries to re-enter,
he encounters an angel at the eastern entrance of the promised land. A second
intertextual hint is with the first fratricide. Cain killed his younger brother Abel.
Humanity has definitely lost paradise now. In the Jacob narrative, we also have a story
of two brothers, with an intent of fratricide. But here reconciliation occurs, as Esau will
embrace his brother, so that he can peacefully re-enter the promised land. It seems
almost the undoing of Cain’s sin and the beginning of ‘paradise regained’. A third
connection is undoubtedly Israel’s return from the Babylonian exile. Also here, we
have Jacob identified as Israel returning from his eastern exile.1582 In the New
Testament, the parable of the prodigal son has many resemblances to this episode in
Jacob’s life.1583 The younger brother leaves the home, lives in exile, and returns. But
here the embrace that follows upon return is with the father, and the relation with the
older brother is still problematic.
What these stories have in common is the theme of the exile and stranger, of an
intimate experience of God, of wrestling and/or embrace, and of blessing or curse.
These are crucial elements for a theology of religions, and particularly a theology of
hospitality, as, for instance, developed by Amos Yong. This Jacob story is problematic
in its surface reading, but slowly unfolds its treasures when the many layers of
meaning are unravelled.
This story is a fitting metaphor for theology of religions, and interreligious
dialogue in particular. Encountering the (religious) stranger is a ‘salutary difficulty’, to
use the words of Rowan Williams.1584 Meeting the stranger is at first always
problematic; the stranger is a brother turned enemy. There is, however, no way beyond
this impasse. The only way forward is to engage the other. This engagement is not just
an intellectual exercise, but something that comes very close, it gets under the skin.
Before it can become an embrace, it is a wrestling. This encounter is not without its
risks. As with Jacob, one can become permanently injured. But Jacob’s injury became
the beginning of a tradition such that it reminded generations of people of his
MacDonald, Siphrut: Literature and Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns,
2011), 156-157.
1581 ‘Later’ refers to ‘later in the canon’. We do not deal with chronological issues here, although that
would be an interesting topic for investigation.

1582 The return from exile also recalls the Exodus out of Egypt, where Israel had stayed as a resident
alien, only to return much later to the promised land.

1583 This connection has been explored in Kenneth E. Bailey, Jacob & The Prodigal: How Jesus Retold
Israel’s Story (Oxford; Downers Grove, IL: Bible Reading Fellowship; IVP, 2003).
1584 Williams, Wrestling with Angels, xix.
CHAPTER VII: WRESTLING WITH ANGELS 321
encounter with the stranger/angel. Perhaps in the same way, our encounter with the
(religious) stranger will not leave us unaffected. Perhaps, we will never be the same.
But maybe, these wounds will become scars which we will show with pride to our
children and grandchildren. Perhaps the encounter with the (religious) stranger will
become a milestone in our own history. This, then, is our hope, that in wrestling the
stranger, we are fighting an angel, and that our injury will be a reminder of the
blessing we received. Perhaps, indeed, we will be able to say that we have had an
encounter with God.
The metaphor of wrestling with angels, then, is symbolic of what can happen in
interreligious engagement.1585 Meeting the stranger is not a neutral episode for a
religious tradition. As a matter of fact, even if we ‘win’ the wrestling contest, we are
injured, we will never be the same. Yet at the same time, we are also blessed through
our encounter with the other, and in the end, it appears that we have had an encounter
with the divine.
Maybe these wounds of the encounter can be the marginalisation one experiences
in the home tradition through the openness to the religious other. But as with Jacob,
the hope is to get to know God in a more intimate and personal manner. When that is
the case, the scars can be cherished as a memento to something very profound.
There is a second way in which the title of this work, ‘wrestling with angels’, is
appropriate, and this time on a more personal level. Writing a doctoral dissertation is a
dialectical enterprise in wrestling and embrace. The doctoral student has to embrace
his subject, he must get to know it in an intimate way. At the same time, such an
exercise is always also a wrestling, a fight, not only with other(s), but also with oneself.
The question of vulnerability is pertinent.
There are many things that I have learned in the process of writing this
dissertation. Some of these are summed up here below:
 Theology of religions is in some sense at the heart of systematic theology
because many dogmatic issues intersect in that domain. Especially in a
tradition-specific approach, all the traditional loci theologici are dealt with:
Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. Furthermore, it engages the major
Christian theological themes, such as trinitarian theology, christology,
pneumatology, revelation, anthropology, soteriology, ecclesiology and
eschatology.
 The issue of ‘revelation’ holds a prominent place. In what way is revelation
closed? Is there revelation outside Christianity? Does scripture take precedence
over tradition? What authority hold the magisterial teachings of the Roman
1585 There are other biblical examples of humans extending hospitality to angels and receiving
blessings through an encounter which can be described as ‘salutary difficulty’. We think of Abraham
welcoming three angelic figures, and Mary, welcoming the angel. Although this upsets Mary’s life, she
extends hospitality to God incarnate, and becomes instrumental in the blessing of the whole world.
322 PART III
Catholic Church – for Roman Catholics – and for other Christians? Is experience
a valid category for interreligious dialogue?
 Not being open to other religions, may in fact be a form of idolatry as it is
holding on to one particular ‘image’ of God without taking into account the fact
that our knowledge of God is (always) incomplete and in need of correction.
That the Spirit may lead us into greater understanding of God,
even/also/particularly in the dialogue with other religions.
 Being open to other religions – in practice – is most often a specialist’s privilege.
That the task of the theologian in this instance is important in contributing to
society.
 God’s glory is enlarged, not reduced, when adherents of other religions are
saved.
 Tradition-specific theology forms a delicate balance between integrity and
intégrisme.
 In Roman Catholic theology, creative interaction is possible even when working
directly with magisterial documents. However, I also understand now better
the frustration of other theologians when ‘new directives’ are issued in Rome,
and how this constitutes a curtailing of speculative theology.
 Roman Catholic ecclesiology is a breath-taking enterprise, both in the sense of
‘fascinating’ and ‘suffocating’.1586
 Scripture and Tradition are intimately related; there can be no ‘naked’ sola
scriptura – although I hold on to prima scriptura.
 That studying one theologian in depth is actually a helpful way to learn the
trade.
 The value of historical-theological research for constructive dogmatic theology:
as the interactions with Jonathan Edwards have shown.
 The value of seeking philosophical legitimation for theological positions.1587 The
fecundity of Yong’s appropriation of Peirce’s metaphysics for his systematic-
theological endeavour has been obvious.
 The neglect of Pentecostal voices is to the detriment of theology in general.
I understand, of course, that the use of ‘suffocating’ – even allowing for my rhetorical use, will
1586
prompt Roman Catholic theologians to say that I have not understood Roman Catholic ecclesiology. I
plead ‘guilty’ to that charge.
1587 Prof. Ronald Michener pointed out that ‘legitimization’ may betray a ‘latent modernist
compromise’. Perhaps I should rephrase this in a more consistent post-liberal key: Yong, on the basis of
the Christian and Pentecostal narrative, is convinced of the pneumatic structure of all of reality. Taking
this Christian narrative serious implies that a philosophical confirmation of this
Biblical/Christian/Pentecostal is probable. I praise Yong for pursuing this approach, for such an
understanding of reality makes the Christian story internally more consistent, perhaps convincing others
that the Christian story is true after all.
CHAPTER VII: WRESTLING WITH ANGELS 323
There are also several things which have come up in the course of the study
which await further engagement:
 Does a sacramental ontology provide a way, similar to the concept of ‘revealed
types’, to overcome the scandal of particularity and making God and his
salvation universally accessible?1588
 What would a trinitarian theology that focuses on the Father bring to advance a
Christian tradition-specific theology of religions?
 In what sense can a dialogue with the sciences start a conversation that allows
different religious traditions to meet each other on more neutral ground, similar
to how philosophy functioned in pre-modern times?
 What can the (alleged) failure of correlation theology teach tradition-specific
interreligious dialogue? If we take the Flemish-Belgian context as an example,
the most prominent other ‘religion’, understood as a comprehensive way of life,
is secularism. What does it mean to engage secularism as an ‘other’? Correlation
theology can be understood as theology engaging the (non-)religious other. In
the process of extending hospitality to the secular other, Christianity lost its
identity. Is a more tradition-specific approach possible towards secularism?
What form would it take?
 What would an Evangelical theology of hospitality look like in the Flemish
context, given that the religious other in this context is for the most part also the
cultural, racial and linguistic other?
Over the past years, Gavin D’Costa, Gerald McDermott and Amos Yong have
become my friends and my foes, strangers and angels at the same time. I am no longer
the same person who started on this pilgrimage called doctoral studies. I have been
injured along the way, but it has been a ‘salutary difficulty’. By God’s grace, and
through the encounter with these theologians, I have come to know Him, and love
Him, more deeply. It is my prayer that my work as theologian, if perhaps sometimes
creating difficulty, will prove to be salutary as well.
1588 For the concept of sacramental ontology, see Boersma, Heavenly Participation.

Wrestling With Angels. Catholic and Evangelical Tradition-Specific Approaches To Theology of Religions. A THD Dissertation by Wouter Biesbrouck, 2013

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wrestling With Angels. Catholic and Evangelical Tradition-Specific Approaches To Theology of Religions. A THD Dissertation by Wouter Biesbrouck, 2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN

FACULTY OF THEOLOGY AND RELIGIOUS STUDIES

WRESTLING WITH ANGELS

A dissertation presented in partial

WRESTLING WITH ANGELS

CATHOLIC AND EVANGELICAL TRADITION-SPECIFIC

A dissertation presented in partial

Prof. Dr. Terrence MERRIGAN Wouter BIESBROUCK

De theoloog, de vrijgestelde kerkelijke technicus

PART I MAPPING THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS: CUI BONO & QUO

CHAPTER I. SITUATING THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS: CUI BONO? ______________ 5

CHAPTER II. QUO VADIS? TOWARDS A MORATORIUM ON THEOLOGY

PART II CATHOLIC AND EVANGELICAL TRADITION-SPECIFIC

CHAPTER III. GAVIN D’COSTA BETWEEN TRADITUM AND TRADITIO: A

B. Major Publications __________________________________________________ 62

CHAPTER IV. GERALD MCDERMOTT AND THE REVIVAL OF JONATHAN

CHAPTER V. AMOS YONG AND THE PNEUMATOLOGICAL IMAGINATION:

PART III CONCLUSIONS _______________________________________________________ 281

CHAPTER VI. SOME META-REFLECTIONS ON (THREE) TRADITION-

CHAPTER VII. WRESTLING WITH ANGELS _______________________________________ 319

Documents of the Vatican

Aquinas, Thomas. Summa theologiae. London: Blackfriars, 1964-1976.

Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics. The Doctrine of Reconciliation. Translated by G.W.

________. Church Dogmatics. The Doctrine of Reconciliation. Translated by G.W. Bromiley.

Bavinck, Herman. Gereformeerde dogmatiek. Vol. I Inleiding - Principia. IV vols.

________. “Ecclesial Magisterium.” In Handbook of Catholic Theology, ed. Wolfgang

________. “Hierarchy of Truths.” In Handbook of Catholic Theology, ed. Wolfgang Beinert

________. “Reception.” In Handbook of Catholic Theology, ed. Wolfgang Beinert and

________. “Revelation.” In Handbook of Catholic Theology, ed. Wolfgang Beinert and

________. “Sensus Fidelium.” In Handbook of Catholic Theology, ed. Wolfgang Beinert

Biesbrouck, Wouter. “Christologie en narrativiteit in het werk van Hans W. Frei.

________. “The Apologetic Rationality of Gavin D’Costa’s Theology of Religions.”

________. “Maria uit de Bijbel: Naar een protestants-evangelische mariologie.” In

________. “The Use of (Post-) Conciliar Texts in Gavin D’Costa’s Theology of

Boersma, Hans. Heavenly Participation: The Weaving of a Sacramental Tapestry. Grand

________. God onderbreekt de geschiedenis: Theologie in tijden van ommekeer. Kapellen:

Bovell, Carlos R. ““Inerrancy, a Paradigm in Crisis”.” In Interdisciplinary Perspectives on

Bray, Gerald. “Explaining Christianity to Pagans: The Second-Century Apologists.” In

Breuning, Wilhelm. “Analogy.” In Handbook of Catholic Theology, ed. Wolfgang Beinert

Carson, D.A. The Gagging of God. Leicester: Apollos, 1996.

________. “Comparative Theology.” In The Oxford Handbook of Systematic Theology, ed.

________. Comparative Theology: Deep Learning Across Religious Borders. Chichester:

Creemers, Jelle. “Time Will Teach Us … Reflections on Thirty-Five Years of Pentecostal

________. John Hick’s Theology of Religions: A Critical Evaluation. Lanham, MD:

________. “Christ, the Trinity and Religious Plurality.” In Christian Uniqueness

________. “One Covenant or Many Covenants? Toward a Theology of Christian-Jewish

________. “A Christian Reflection on Some Problems with Discerning ‘God’ in the

________. “Toward a Trinitarian Theology of Religions.” In A Universal Faith? Peoples,

________. “Revelation and Revelations: Discerning God in Other Religions. Beyond a

________. “On Cultivating the Disciplined Habits of a Love Affair Or on how to do

________. “Review of Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism, by Jacques

________. “Postmodernity and Religious Pluralism: Is a Common Global Ethic Possible

________. “Revelation, Scripture and Tradition: Some Comments on John Webster’s

________. “Theology of Religions.” In The Modern Theologians: An Introduction to

________. “Christian Orthodoxy and Religious Pluralism: A Further Rejoinder to

________. “Christian Orthodoxy and Religious Pluralism: A Response to Terrence W.

________. “Catholic Engagement with Other Religions: Dogmatics in Interaction with

________. “Hermeneutics and the Second Vatican Council’s Teachings: Establishing

________. “Catholicism and the World Religions: A Theological and Phenomenological

________. “Theology amid Religious Diversity.” In The Oxford Handbook of Religious

________. “Traditions and Reception: Interpreting Vatican II’s ‘Declaration on the

________. “Catholics Reading the Scripture of Other Religions: Some Reflexions.” In

________, ed. Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered: The Myth of a Pluralistic Theology of