1

Introduction to the Theology of Religions.

Critical Approach

Sílvio Murilo de Azevedo

2021
 2

Copyright © Sílvio Murilo Melo de Azevedo, estando proibida a reprodução

total ou parcial desta obra sem o devido consentimento do autor.

Azevedo, Silvio

Introduction to the Theology of Religions. Critical Approach by Silvio Murilo Azevedo –

Editora Clube de Autores.

pp. 349.

1. Theology – Theology of Religions – Hermeneutics – Post-modernism – Pluralism – Inter-

religious Dialogue.
 3

Presentation

This investigation aims to build a panoramic view of the current discussion in Western circles
about the status of Christianity in relation to other world religions and the post-modern and
post-religious dispositions that intend, through a generalized relativization, to equalize all
religions, despising its uniqueness. We do not seek, however, to offer to the reader a mere
bibliographical review of the theories of Catholic, Protestant and Evangelical theologians on
the subject, but we also seek to create our own theory by a return to what says about it the
New Testament, which is dealt with in the last chapter.

Obviously, our starting point is not a non-confessional theological generalism, if only because
there is no such a thing. This enterprise has as theoretical reference the more moderate
evangelical and Protestant theology, since in it we see the only possibility of maintaining the
reformed motto of sola Scriptura, even though we try to reach these new issues. As the reader
will see, this does not constitute an impediment to the inclusion of Catholic theologians in the
project, because, if they are not adopted as founding texts along the way, they are, however,
important companions on the way, with great contributions to the assumption of our goal.

For the rest, at some extent, the ideas presented here have already been profiled by others. Our
contribution will be to add new arguments to them, as well as to pursue a more solid biblical
hermeneutic approach, trying to bridge this discussion in the area of Systematic Theology
s0me contributions from Biblical Theology, which is what I try to do in the last chapter.

I tried to give this work as much utility as possible, so that it can be read as a manual for the
Theology of Religions, that is, for clarifying the main conceptual positions and their main
debaters, classifying them, organizing them and analyzing their results. The stand point of this
work is a conservative one, but a conservative that decide to face seriously the relativist
approach and make of their main proponents a judiciously and critic reading, recognizing that
their intentions at most are good, but the results are bad not useful for a Christian Theology of
Religions. I admit, although in many parts of the present work I tell about the hermeneutic
vices of the interpreters here discussed, until now I am in debt with the readers because I
could not finish the second part of this research, namely, the Inclusivism of the New
Testament. I hope in next months I’ll do it, if God’s grace helps me.
 4

Sumário
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................... 8
The Postmodern Odyssey in religious Ocean ...................................................................................................... 8
1. a. Between Scylla and Caribde .................................................................................................................... 8
1.a.1. An empirical demand ............................................................................................................................... 12
1.a.1.a. Secularization .................................................................................................................................... 13
1.a.1.b. Postmodernity ................................................................................................................................... 22
1.a.1.c. Globalization ..................................................................................................................................... 30
1.a.1.d. Mundialization of Christianity .......................................................................................................... 34
1.a.1.e. The witness of History ...................................................................................................................... 39
1.a.2. The Scriptural Demand ............................................................................................................................ 42
1.a.2.a. Theological Hermeneutics ................................................................................................................ 45
1. b. The status questionis of Theology of Religions ........................................................................................ 58
1.b.1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 58
1.b.2. Some classificatory taxonomies .......................................................................................................... 70
CHAPTER II ..................................................................................................................................................... 78
Exclusivism ....................................................................................................................................................... 78
2. a. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 78
2.b. Pre-Constantinian Church........................................................................................................................... 80
2.b.1. Gospels: Polemic writings ................................................................................................................... 81
2.b.2. The New Testament religious context ................................................................................................. 84
2.b.3. Apologist Fathers................................................................................................................................. 94
2.c. Roman Catholic Exclusivism .................................................................................................................... 105
2.d. Protestant Exclusivism ............................................................................................................................. 109
2. d. 1. Karl Barth ........................................................................................................................................ 112
2. d. 2. Emil Brunner ................................................................................................................................... 118
2.e. Exclusivism of Ecumenical Organizations, Evangelicals, Pentecostals and Independents Churches. ..... 123
2.e.1. Ecumenical Organizations ................................................................................................................. 123
2.f. Evangelicalism .......................................................................................................................................... 137
2.f.1. Robert C. Sproul and Ronald Nash .................................................................................................... 140
2.f.2. Gabriel Fackre .................................................................................................................................... 143
2.f.3. John R. W. Stott e John E. Sanders .................................................................................................... 145
2.f.4. Gerald R. McDermott......................................................................................................................... 150
2.g. Independents ............................................................................................................................................. 153
2.g.1. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Days Saints .................................................................................... 154
2.g.2. Seventh Day Adventists..................................................................................................................... 155
2.g.3. Jehovah’s Witnesses .......................................................................................................................... 158
2.h. Pentecostals .............................................................................................................................................. 160
 5

2.h.1. Veli-Matti Kärkkläinen...................................................................................................................... 160

2.i. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................. 163
CHAPTER III .................................................................................................................................................. 166
Inclusivism ...................................................................................................................................................... 166
3.a. Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 166
3.b. Apologist Fathers...................................................................................................................................... 169
3.b.1. Clement of Alexandria....................................................................................................................... 169
3.c. Roman Catholic Inclusivism ..................................................................................................................... 171
3.c.1. Karl Rahner........................................................................................................................................ 182
3.c.2. Jacques Dupuis .................................................................................................................................. 187
3.c.3. Edward Schillebeeckx........................................................................................................................ 192
3.d. Protestant Inclusivism .............................................................................................................................. 197
3.d.1 Lutherans ............................................................................................................................................ 198
3.d.2. Presbyterians and Reformed churches ............................................................................................... 207
3.d.3. Anglicans ........................................................................................................................................... 210
3.d.4. Methodists ......................................................................................................................................... 217
3.e Evangelical-Pentecostal Inclusivism ......................................................................................................... 221
3.e.1. Clark Pinnock .................................................................................................................................... 222
3.e.2. Amos Yong ........................................................................................................................................ 228
3.e.3. S. Mark Heim..................................................................................................................................... 235
3.f. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................ 240
CAPÍTULO IV ................................................................................................................................................ 243
Pluralism .......................................................................................................................................................... 243
4.a. Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 243
4.b. Particularistic Pluralism ............................................................................................................................ 245
4.b.1. Jürgen Moltmann ............................................................................................................................... 250
4.c. Synthetic Pluralist ..................................................................................................................................... 255
4.c.1. John Hick ........................................................................................................................................... 267
4.c.2. Paul Knitter ........................................................................................................................................ 276
4.c.3. Claude Geffré..................................................................................................................................... 282
4.c.4. Raimon Panikkar ............................................................................................................................... 287
4.c.5. Michael Amaladoss ........................................................................................................................... 296
4.c.6. Hans Küng ......................................................................................................................................... 299
4.c.7. Stanley Samartha ............................................................................................................................... 305
4.d. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................ 309
CAPÍTULO VI ................................................................................................................................................ 315
Last Words ...................................................................................................................................................... 315
References ....................................................................................................................................................... 325
 6

Periodics and abbreviations

AR Approaching religion
Ag. Ap. Against Apion
Ant. Antiquities of Jews
ATh Acta theologica
BR Bible Review
BEThS Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society
BThT Biblical Theology Bulletin
CBR Currents Biblical Research
CR Cerpit Review
Ciberteologia Revista de Teologia e Cultura
Concilium International Journal of Theology
CTP Cadernos de Teologia Pública
EA Estudio Agustiniano
EAPR East Asian Pastoral Review
EF Educação e Filosofia
EMQ Evangelical Missions Quarterly
ER Ecumenical Review
Études
Horizons
HTR Harvard Theological Review
HTS Hervormde Teologiese Studies
IJSA International Journal of Sociology and Anthropology
IR An International Review
IRM International Review of Mission
JAAR Journal of American Academy of Religion
Jaevadhra
JES Journal of Ecumenical Studies
JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
JHCS Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies
JRT Journal of Reformed Theology
JTR Journal of Theological Reflection
Logos Journal of Catholic Thought and Culture
L&S Letter & Spirit
LS Louvain Studies
Micromega
Missiology An International Review
NIB New Interpreters Bible
NRT Nouvelle Revue Théologique
Numen Revista de Estudos e Pesquisa da Religião
PI Promotio Iustitiae
Ribla Revista de Interpretação Bíblica Latino-Americana
RTL Revue Theologique de Louvain
RHPR Revue de l’Histoire et Philosophie Religieuse
RP Raisons Politiques
RS Religião e Sociedade
RSR Revue de Sciences Religieuses
ReS Religious Studies
SJT Scottish Journal of Theology
SoT Signs of the Times
SM Studia Missionalia
ST Selecciones de Teología
ST Scripta Theologica.
ThT Theology Today
TC Teología y Cultura
TD Theology Digest
 7

TJ Trinity Journal
TS Theological Studies
TTJ Torch Trinity Journal
TV Teología y Vida
VE Verbum et Ecclesia
WFI World Faiths Insights
War War of Jews

The abbreviations of the Bible follow the KJV.

 8

INTRODUCTION

The Postmodern Odyssey in religious Ocean

1. a. Between Scylla and Caribde

As Paul Ricoeur reminds us, Christianity was born under the sign of hermeneutics.

First, because it comes into the world as an interpretation of the Old Testament in light of the

advent of Jesus Christ and his preaching – not forgetting that the OT itself also comes into

existence as an effort to understand God's action in history of Israel. And these interpretations

accompany all history of Christianity, since this same canonical interpretation addresses the

listeners of all times, as they interpret their own existence in the light of the sacred text, as

well. Therefore, we have here a chain of cyclical interpellations by which God manifests

himself to men, and calls them to know Him and His salvation; on the other hand, each new

generation also interrogates the Word in search of understanding the message written in it.

This is because neither the text that questions men nor those that are questioned are generic

entities. The Word of God was recorded and conveyed by holy men of a certain place and

time and was primarily addressed to their contemporary hearers. Every reader who does not

belong to this original hermeneutic circle is invited to undertake again the hermeneutic vortex,

unfortunately descending, in a dialectical process, as understood by St. Augustine: crede ut

intelligas et intellige ut credas (believe to understand and understand to believe).

 9

In short, each new time asks new questions to the biblical text, so that, through the

inexhaustible richness of divine revelation, they can be answered in the own language and

culture of its reader. This extreme translatability and universality of the Christian message, its

ability to speak to all men, regardless of time and place (its historical, social, economic and

geographic conditions), was what made possible for Christianity to become the world's most

expanding religion.

However, such a quick and obvious conclusion hides dangers. For example, to what

extent should the biblical message be made dependent on the ability or inability of its readers

to interpret it? The translatability of Scripture does not depend on merely human terms, as

transcultural translation was the solution to its best understanding. The hermeneutic

incapacity may result from the listeners' contumacy and rebellion (because of human fallen

condition) and not necessarily from the preachers' lack of contextualizing ability; much less

from cultural limitations of the message itself, as some theologians have argued, adducing a

need to demythologize the Scripture. The hermeneutic gap can also have social reasons,

which can be aggravated by the rigidity of secular and religious institutions and by historical-

social contexts that are unfavorable to certain truths. In short, human questions to the Word of

God should not all be considered legitimate. Every new question imposed by the times on the

Scriptures must be examined by theological hermeneutics, so that men and cultures can also

be called into question by it.

Among the new questions that the new times bring us, there are some that deserve a

critical reading, especially those that reach the very heart of Christianity, its identity and its

legacy, in a context where such things have their importance limited by relativism. In

contemporary postmodern society, where values have such limited circumscriptions, it is

worth asking: Christianity still has a sui generis message to give to the world, or, on the

contrary, its religious message is one among many, which means it says essentially nothing
 10

different? If you are a conservative Christian and believe in the uniqueness of your faith, there

is still a new question: how can the gospel relate to the teachings of other religions without

offending them and without offending those who, believing themselves to be Christians,

believe that multiculturalism and pan-ecumenism are inescapable values, given their ethical

demand?

With good reason it is said that the hermeneutic problem of pan-ecumenism is currently

an “theoretical impasse” 1 . Despite the extraordinary number of antagonistic theories that

present themselves to solve the present problem, because they can be classified into two

groups: at one hand, some think that the Christian message should give up proselytism and

adopt a milder and more conciliatory tone, which means, for example, considering the saving

efforts of other religions as legitimate; at the other, there are those who believe that doing so

would mean to discard the imperativiness of all biblical passages that emphasize the

specificity, uniqueness and religious exclusivity of Christianity, which in their view would be

a form of heresy.

And here the impasse. We cannot do one thing or another, or fail to do something,

without finding ourselves at fault. The current social condition demands a difficult

contextualization, which is essential to the Christian message, demands from us a practice that

even today does not have sufficient theoretical illumination; even though, it is urgent and

necessary. We deal with two equally important demands that request from theologians,

missiologists and evangelists a Solomonic solution, whose objective is to preserve from one

side the vitality of Christianity, from another its validity. By vitality we mean the capacity of

adapting itself so that we can speak to the hearts of all men in all ages; by validity, the ability

to say the same thing to all men of all ages, that is, without renouncing the basic items of the

1
Michel Barnes. Theology and the Dialogue of Religions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), p. 13.
 11

Christian faith, among which is the statement about the human condition: "all have sinned and

fall short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23), and about the remedy to that: salvation.

This is not an entirely new situation. Whenever deep ideological changes are

experienced by human societies, theological hermeneutics is asked to make the same gospel

to speak differently. The difference is that today to fulfill the mission of preaching the gospel

to the globalized world is covered with so many difficulties that prudence recommends the

use of the word crisis, which implies in a risk and in an opportunity, as express the two

ideograms that composes the word in mandarin. The task has become too arduous, because in

order to maintain the Christian message is necessary to conciliate both requirements:

contextualization and preservation of the faith, in a measure that is far from any consensus.

About this, there are those who prefer to see the above question as an unsolvable

problem, or, so to speak, an aporia, which can be well defined by an oxymoron: or we deny

the essence of the Sources (absolute discourse about God, the human condition and its

remedy), something that the gospel categorically forbids us; or we give up the proclamation of

the message to the world (which is less and less inclined to listen to what gospel has to say),

and this the gospel absolutely obliges us. In other words: (a) either we surrender the Sources

by rejecting their essential exclusivism, in an attempt to make the gospel relevant to

contemporary man, then, by this very feat, we make it irrelevant and relativized; or (b) we do

not deliver them and thereby make it similarly irrelevant, by making it incompatible with the

understanding of its contemporary listener. And to top such a terrible situation, we are

incapable to decide which of these two sins is the most offensive to God.

In the Homeric accounts there is a passage that has already served as an illustration for

difficult problems to many speeches and that now fits this discussion like a glove. It is about

the dire situation of Ulysses, crossing through the Straits of Messina, between two rocks,
 12

where two monstrous creatures lived. Their names: Scylla and Caribd. The first rock

concealed a monster that, engulfing the waters, produced a sink where ships and their crews

disappeared; the second rock concealed a creature, known only by the long arms that snatched

sailors busy freeing the nave from Scylla’s maelstrom.

This episode, cited more than once to illustrate difficult dilemmas, when some kind of

disastrous consequence is inevitable, whatever be the choice, fits perfectly the current

situation of Christianity, which, on the one hand, cannot fail to respond to the situation in

which its listener is; on the other hand, it cannot give up its sacred Sources either. Two

requirements, two demands, which impose on the Christian faith the need to rethink itself, to

reposition itself in the face of the world. (a) An empirical requirement: the world to which a

message should be addressed; and (b) a theological demand: the need to preserve the validity

of its Sources, which have just completed three millennia and six centuries of existence and

never before so questioned.

1.a.1. An empirical demand

What is here called empirical demand refers to the need for the Christian message to

adapt to its listeners in the course of the ages, until all people have heard it and then the end

can come (Matt. 24: 12). No period in history has been more lavish in worldviews; none, so

full of religious and ideological-axiological options. None of them, however, seems to deserve

greater and more urgent consideration than the problem of Christianity's relationship to other

religions in a globalized environment, or, in other words, the religious pluralism.

Before moving in this direction, it is necessary a short examination of the demands that

belonged to the precedent times, whose outcomes remain among us, forming a complex

cultural matrix. Indeed, we didn't get to the current state of affairs by parachuting into it.

What we are today is at least the sum of everything that happened in the last two centuries.
 13

From a historical-ideological point of view, our current condition has been built since French

Revolution, passing through the Industrial and Scientific Revolutions. Our understanding of

the current state of humanity would be greatly harmed if these factors, which today are no

longer present, were not also considered. This ideological agenda still remain influencing the

social behavior. Indeed, the contradictions of our time results from this mixture of elements

that do not exclude each other, but are complementary, and come together to make more

complex our mission of understanding the world to which we owe a message.

1.a.1.a. Secularization

The first empirical demand of our time is secularization, an ongoing social process in

the West that affects religious institutions and their relationship with each other and society. It

begins at the dawn of the 19th Century, when the Enlightenment, already enthroned as the

dominant ideology, requested the ethical expulsion of religion from the public space, with at

least three consequences: “(a) declining interest in religion in other social sectors; (b) the

diminishing influence of religion on people’s lives and in dealing with one another; (c) and

changing processes within religion itself”2.

On the first and second consequences, that relates religion with other social sectors and

refers to Religion’s loss of influence on people lives, the problem is rooted on its current

incapacity of giving sense to the human everyday life in face of other rival social forms of

“nomization” 3. According to Durkheim, religion is the main responsible for the creation of

world’s meaning, which human beings live in, giving to men the sense of totality, the society

and its world of significances4. Yet, nowadays, religion has been supplanted by its main rival,

the science, which currently is ideologically dominant. Science seems to explain life and the

2
Carl Sterken. Interreligious Learning. The Problem of Interreligious Dialogue in Primary Education (Leiden:
Brill, 2001), p. 20.
3
The term has its source in sociology of E. Durkheim whose root is the Greek radical nomos, law, and means that
the main function of society is to create a sense of order and behavioral ethics that the human being biologically
does not have. Berger's thesis following classical sociology is that religion is the main nomizing force in society.
4
Émille Durkheim. Formas elementales de la vida religiosa (Madrid: Akal Editor, 1982), p. 9-10.
 14

world with more significance for most people, although it asks a different kind of question:

not the why, but the how of the world and life.

For Peter Berger, arguing from the perspective of the sociology of knowledge, the main

problem of the Christian religion from the second half of the 20th Century onwards is a “loss

of plausibility”, explained as its increasing incapacity of “cosmifying” the social reality, in

other words, the inability to constitute a world of meanings that serve to legitimize the law

and societal order, giving society and the individuals’ lives a meaning that protect them from

the concrete and chaotic world. Today the most important aspects of cosmification no longer

occurs through religion’s discourse, but through science’s5. It seems that religion has lost the

ability to give a unified view of reality, which includes the individuals lives and whaever else

is related to them6. Scientific myths have more plausibility for contemporary man because

they seem to satisfy current conceptions of reasonableness.

Indeed, religion is the oldest and most effective modality of cosmification7, and has

accompanied humanity since its inception. The Western society, however, from Renaissance

onward, has been gradually abandoning it. In the beginning it was the religious monologue of

medieval Theocentrism, later it adopted parallel secular motifs that characterized Renaissance

Anthropocentrism. The paradigm shift occurs because of a deification of the human and the

humanization of the divine in all areas of social life: in politics, philosophy, literature, science

and art. The spiritual decay of the Catholic Church, the material opulence of Italian cities and

the consequent loosening of the societal stamens of the Middle Age, the development of the

5
Peter Berger. O dossel sagrado. Elementos para uma teoria sociológica da religião (São Paulo: Edições
Paulinas, 1985), p. 40. See also Lestor R. Kurtz. Gods in the Global Village. The World’s Religion in
Sociological Perspective (Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press, 1995).
6
“In 1979, 45 percent of Roman Catholics assigned (great) significance to religion as a force in their personal
lives, as opposed to 38 percent in 1996. In 1979, 5 percent of Roman Catholics said that religion had no
significance in their personal lives. By 1996 this statement was endorsed by 15 percent of the respondents.” Carl
Sterken. Interreligious Learning, p. 21.
7
Peter Berger. O dossel sagrado, p. 40.
 15

natural sciences and the rediscovery of the Greek classics, are among the main factors that led

to the renaissance society to a sort of practical atheism.

P. Berger differentiates the Renaissance’s secularization from ours by saying that

contemporary secularism affects all population layers of the West and not just the most

educated part of society, as in the case of the 15th Century Italy:

Probably, for the first time in history, the world's religious legitimations have lost
their plausibility not just for a few intellectuals and other marginal individuals, but
for broad masses of entire societies. This brought about an acute crisis not only for
the nomization of large social institutions, but also for that of individual biographies.
In other words, a problem of 'meaning' emerged both for institutions such as the
state and the economy, and for the ordinary routines of everyday life. The problem,
of course, has been intensely posed for many theorists (philosophers, theologians,
psychologists, etc.), but there is good reason to believe that it has also been quite
acute for ordinary people who are not given to theoretical speculations and just they
seek to resolve the crises in their own lives8.

Another sociologist of knowledge, also of German origin, Niklas Luhmann, has an even

more pessimistic perception of the religious retraction. He opines that it is not just a question

of religion having lost its capacity of “nomization”, as it is no longer the main ideological

construction agency of society. In the current phase of Western history, the religious system

enters a terminal phase, having lost even its autonomy in relation to other systems. From now

on, the religious subsystem tends to have its space invaded by other subsystems (politics, art,

science, medicine, etc.), which gradually subtract it from its attributions until it has nothing

left but a vague interpretative function, which melancholy is reduced in the distinction

between the absolute and the relative9, with almost no practical application has for those who

still believe. Luhmann is correct, the holistic view of the world provided by religion lost its

place and now is replaced by the atomized view of science, at one hand, or, at other, by a

Postmodern Holism that gives anyone or any science the right of opining on spiritual matters.

The Christian religion is no longer able to gather in its discourse all this fragmented reality

8
P. Berger. O dossel sagrado, p. 137.
9
Roberto Cipriani. Manual de Sociologia da Religião (São Paulo: Paulus, 2007), p. 305.
 16

produced by science and, if it tries, it is attacked as dogmatic, obscurantist and authoritarian,

because of its violent past, which its opponents insist on remembering.

But Christianity cannot watch idly their expulsion from the social life of the West.

Many theologians sought to provide an answer to the new cultural and social situation. With

the same purpose. Since the second half of the 19th Century, the European Protestant

theology, mainly the German one, already tried to align itself with the Enlightenment project

of Kant and Hegel, giving birth to what would later become known as Liberal Theology. The

result, unfortunately, was not for its advantage. The Christian message did not become more

acceptable in secularized Germany, but had its churches invaded by Secularization, before

only an external opponent. Later, at the turn of the 19th to the 20th Century, the moral and

spiritual failure of this generation of theologians became evident by the fact that its most

illustrious members signed a shameful manifesto in support of German imperialist

warmongering at the dark dawn of the First World War10.

From this outrageous fact a group of theologians emerges, determined to take up

theology where the liberals had abandoned it: the biblical text. Dialectical theologians (F.

Gogarten, E. Thurneysen, R. Bultmann, K. Barth, and E. Brunner), each of them looking for

their own way, tried to respond to the challenge of preaching in a secularized world. At first,

what moved them was a prophetic attitude, instilled by a religious socialism (Herman Kutter,

Leonhard Ragaz and Christoph Blumhardt) that tried to curb the inhuman expansion of

Capitalism in Europe. In addition, there was the influx of the existentialist philosophy of S.

Kierkegaard and the theological leadership of Karl Barth. Later, however, each adopted its

own measure of compromise to the Enlightenment and Scripture, and the movement got a

setback.

10
Rosino Gibelini. A Teologia do século XX (São Paulo: Loyola, 1998), p. 18.
 17

Part of Catholic theology of the time, called progressive, also took on the same burden.

Avoiding the Protestant Liberal Theology excesses, but following the same goal, they

promoted an approaching of the preaching with the science to get closer to the mind of 20th

Century’s men, through the translation of historical doctrines supported by Roman

Catholicism into a language supposedly more contextualized and understandable to

contemporary man and his way of seeing the world. One of the methodologies to achieve this

goal was the replacement of Thomism by other conceptual languages for a new philosophical

anthropology, such as Darwin in Pierre T. Chardin’s writings 11 , and Heidegger in Karl

Rahner’s12.

Can be also mentioned among the various Catholic theologians who followed this same

progressist line, Edward Schillebeeckx, a Flemish-speaking Belgian theologian, for whom the

contemporary listener of the Word would be suffering from “a deficit of experience” 13. For

him, the concept of revelation should have two empirical sources, the original experience of

the writers of biblical texts and the experience of modern readers. Therefore, to reavel the

meaning of Scripture, a correlation must be made between these two experiences14. If this

conciliation does not take place, as in general happens, this is an indication of a loss of the

hermeneutic dimension of Christianity: “The conversation about God and salvation in Jesus,

is expressed in terms of a worldview of other times, not making sense or carrying meaning for

human beings, from an intellectual or practical point of view”15.

In his view, contemporary Christian theology had forgotten that both the OT and NT are

interpretations: the first, interpretation of divine action in the history of Israel; in the second,

11
Pierre T. de Chardin. The Phenomenon of Man (New York: Harper, 1959).
12
Karl Rahner. Spirit in the World (London: Bloomsbury, 1964).
13
E. Schillebeeckx. Jesús, la historia de un viviente (Madrid: Ediciones Cristianidad, 1981), p. 58.
14
E. Schillebeeckx. Jesus and the Christ (New York: Crossroads, 1981), p. 50.
15
E. Schillebeeckx apud Marguerite Abdul-Masih. Edward Schillebeeckx and Hans Frei. A Conversation on
Method and Christology (Toronto: Canadian Corporations for Studies in Religion, 2001), p. 59.
 18

the OT is interpreted in light of the eschatological event of Christ 16 . For Schillebeeckx,

therefore, the same search for understanding that our spiritual ancestors undertook in the past

must accompany contemporary readings of the New Testament, that is, we have to interpret

Scripture in light of our own condition as inhabitants of a secularized world, where the

meaning for God's Word must be sought in harmony with science, read, Enlightenment.

K. Rahner, mentioned above, one of the architects of the Second Vatican Council,

denounced Catholic theology of his time as the bearer of a theological disease he called

“calcification” (Verkrustung), doctrinal “hardening” (Fixierung)17. In the nineteenth century

the Catholic Church was cornered by liberal attacks (instilled by the political ideas of J.

Locke) against Church political privileges. This situation of being on the defensive promoted

the hegemony of an ultra-conservative movement inside the Catholicism that became known

to posterity as “the Age of the Pious”, responsible for several authoritarian actions: the

Silabus errorum (list of books banned by the Church for containing liberal ideas), the

declaration of the infallibility of the Magisterium (ex cathedra), the prohibition of theological

diversity and the return of Thomist philosophy (Neothomism) to the order of the day in

Catholicism, etc.

It was a natural reaction for the Roman Church to erect theological barriers against the

world that attacked it18, and, therefore, sought to protect its status quo from the assaults of

sectors of society that wanted to reduce its participation in civil and political life. But, for

Rahner, it would also have increased the isolation of Catholicism, causing it to lose its

hermeneutical capacity for adaptation to the new times. The fear of modernism had made

Roman Catholics stop thinking, limiting themselves to repeating old confessional and

16
Rosino Gibelini. A teologia do século XX, p. 326.
17
Benedikt Hampel. Geist des Konzils oder Geist von 1968? Katholische Studentengemeinden im geteilten
Deutschland der 1960er Jahre (Berlin: Lit Verlag, 2017), p. 128.
18
Dermot Lane. The Experience of God: An Invitation to do Theology (New York: Paulist Press, 1981), p. 1.
 19

conciliar formulas, as if this were their raison d’etre. They should have just taken them as a

starting point for new reflections, as the times demanded it19; and not transforming them into

a dead dogmatics, faithful to the letter, but disinterested in human reality, and consequently

contrary to the Spirit20.

In relation to Schillebeeckx, Rahner's hermeneutical project, kantianly, takes a step back

regarding dogmatics. His theoretical interest is the precondition of man as a listener of the

Word, that is, an investigation of what makes humans willing to listen to the Word of God.

Rahner's concern is the divine unconditioned and the human a priori in the meeting of the

gospel message with its human recipient. This anthropological perspective saves him from

ideological enticements that, for example, are real risks in E. Schillebeeckx's project. Rahner

also realizes that the theoretical instruments provided by the neo-Thomists would not enable

him to carry out the hermeneutic task and so decides to replace them with conceptual tools

more suited to the new times: the critical philosophy of Kant and the phenomenology of

Heidegger, through which he could approach the understanding at a deeper level, before any

word could be expressed or understood. In short, for Rahner in hermeneutics “it is not just

about knowing faith, but understanding life” 21.

The semantic occlusion of Christian message deplored above was Hans Küng’s concern

too. The proposed solution, however, is that of a historian of Christianity, and not that of a

hermeneutist that seeks new keys of interpretation in philosophy, or else a theologian with

sociological concerns that seeks a continuous aggiornamento of the Christian message as

social changes so require. Küng's new hermeneutics was inspired by primordial sources that

19
Karl Rahner apud Érico J. Hammes. “Conceito e missão da teologia em Karl Rahner”, CTP (Ano 1 . Nº 5,
2004), p. 9.
20
Idem apud ibidem.
21
Rosino Gibelini. Op. cit., p. 226.
 20

search itself to stay free from the influence and interference of the Councils and from the

Catholic Magisterium, according to him, the roots of current dogmatisms:

It would not be appropriate in a new age, instead of simply repeating the old
Hellenistic dogmas, to focus again on the New Testament message and reinterpret it
for contemporary Christians, as the Hellenistic theologians once correctly did to
their time?22

For Küng, the golden age of biblical hermeneutics was the second century of our era.

Everything that is situated before and after will be, respectively, Semitism or Hellenism, both

classifiable as dogmatic approaches to the sources, given the enormous number of heresies

that these two periods produced. In fact, the true openness to the other, having as a project the

religious inclusion of the non-Christian world, would only truly occur with the theology of the

Apologist Fathers (Justin, Irenaeus and Clement), when the Patristics correctly tried to insert

the Christian message in its context: the Greco-Roman society. With this, the author of Being

Christian is already taking the first steps in the field of Postmodernity, despite initially

placing himself among those whose concern was the discourse of science.

(c) On the last consequence, namely, the change within the religions themselves, Weber

is a good source for understanding it. Indeed, there is a Weberian expression that clarifies

partially what happened to the West, it is “the disenchantment of the world” (die

Entzauberung der Welt), understood by him as the rationalization of social relations and the

consequent separation of state domination from that domination exercised by religious

institutions23. This process, in turn, resulted from a rationalization of the Christian religion,

22
Hans Küng. Christianity. The Religious Situation in our Time (London: SCM Press, 1995), p. 95.
23
The term is much more expressive in the original language (Entzauberung means “de-magnification”). Its
meaning today, unfortunately, tends to be misunderstood due to an inadequate contamination with the Comtean
evolutionary concept, by which secularization has come to be understood as a kind of overcoming of religion
through the naturalization or demystification of reality by the sciences and by the technology. In Weber, science
itself is also included in the process of secularization. According to Weber's comprehensive sociology, all
spheres of social life suffer from its effects. In the context of capitalism, the old patrimonial forms of
socialization and domination are replaced by rational models that are interconnected and inter-influential. The
secularization or rationalization of religious life, therefore, coincides with other rationalization processes in
economics, law, science, etc.
 21

caused by the loss of space of the liturgical and cultic aspects, as it is present in Roman

Catholicism, and absent from the logocentric Protestantism that succeeded it. Furthermore,

the Protestant multi-confessionality further favored the internalization of religion, making the

individual's heart its last refuge24. This retraction of religion into man's interior life and its

withdrawal from the societal environment was a decisive factor in the formation of the

rationalist and desacralized environment that prevails in the Christian countries of Europe and

America. Religious discourse was stripped of its authority and replaced by the discourse of

other secular societal institutions: political, productive, academic and media institutions. In

other words:

[Secularization is] a process by which the comprehensive and transcendent religious

system is reduced in functionally differentiated societies to a subsystem alongside
other subsystems, losing in this process its prerogative to include the other
subsystems. As outcome the social significance of religion is greatly diminished25.

The process did not take place in the same way and with the same intensity everywhere

in Europe. In France, it was motivated by an anticlericalism heir to the French Revolution, as

an expression of the repudiation of the alliance of the high Roman Catholic clergy with the

French nobility and the clergy's silence in the face of French common people’s

impoverishment during the 18th Century. In Germany it was the result of a long line of

defenders of the individualization of religion and the autonomization of reason, starting with

Martin Luther’s concept of last forum of conscience, passing through Kant and Hegel, and
24
To avoid further misunderstandings, it should be noted that, in Weber, rationalization does not mean making
religion more rational. Rational here has its reference in the sociology of knowledge and not in epistemology, so
that it means that there is a transformation in the motivations of human actions, which are no longer collective,
as they no longer refer to kinship and other forms of socialization (WEBER, 1946, 329), and become more
dependent on an individual decision, through an internalization of these motivations: “it is the development of
inner and extra-mundane values, in a conscious effort to sublimate through knowledge” (WEBER, 1946, 328).
Rationalization means, in other words, that the individual has more freedom to disagree and to adopt
idiosyncratic or deviant behavior, thus favoring social change and the formation of new social groups. The
adept's relationship with God takes place immediately and is no longer referred to the traditions that previously
determined conduct. This, of course, generates solidarity among all those who have been touched by the charism,
resulting in a conflict between charismatic structures and traditional social structures; that is, whenever salvation
prophecies generate religious congregations, the natural and institutionalized power will be the first to clash with
them (WEBER, 1946, 330).
25
K. Dobbelaere apud Katarzyna Zielinska. “Concepts of religion in debates on secularization” (AR, volum 3,
no. 1, 2013), p. 27.
 22

ending with Bible textual criticism of the 18th and 19th centuries, respectively. In England it

was the product of a theology of prosperity from which the Industrial Revolution was born

and whose origins are rooted in Calvinism26.

Obviously, these three sources of secularization are not separated social processes, but

somehow interlinked, as far as its trigger factors are the same and intertwined. The rise of

sciences of nature at the end of 18th Century with their fixed and inexorable laws as an

absolute discourse, for instance, the Chemistry of Lavoisier, but specially the Newtonian

Physics, which gave to Kant the theorical basis to his Critic of Pure Reason (in this work, like

in Newtonian Physics, time and space are the only universal absolutes, and God can be known

solely as an abstraction). Physics and Chemistry as basis of Enlightenment’ knowledge also

influenced the Biblical Historical Criticism and the Liberal Theology, as an attempt to renew

the relevance of religion in this new context, rejecting as untruth all supernatural phenomena

in Scripture. The same could be said about the crescent resistance against the presence and

influence of religion in state and societal institutions. Shortly, these three triggers exerted a

joint influence.

1.a.1.b. Postmodernity

Few years after theologians' concerns about secularization, began to occupy the pages of

specialized literature a new and disturbing challenge. This time, because of an excess of

religious experiences, not its missing, which was alluded to by E. Schillebeeckx as ‘a deficit

of experience”. In other words, the new hermeneutic difficulty of Christianity, ironically,

occurs in a context of “revenge of the sacred” 27, when the interest in spirituality returns in its

entire strength and vigor, in the context of the so-called Postmodernity.

26
Max Weber. A ética protestante e o “espírito” do Capitalismo (São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 2007).
27
Leszek Kolakowski. “A revanche do sagrado na cultura profana” (RS, maio (1), 1977), pp. 153-162.
 23

It is always difficult to point out causal factors in the Human Sciences, but it can be said

that Postmodernity is a cultural environment that was produced in large part by the

ideological failures successively showed by 20th century as solutions to human problems

(Nazism, Fascism, Communism, Capitalism). It also reflects the birth of a holistic

consciousness that emerged as a reaction to the excessive epistemological fragmentation of

science, caused by the cartesian analytical project; the exhaustion of the dogmatism of

Modernity and other derivative ethical and aesthetic 'isms'; the end of humanism, whose swan

song was the existentialism of J. P. Sartre; the emergence of weak epistemologies, more or

less linked to changes in the way of seeing matter and energy (Eisenstein, Prigogine, Einstein,

etc.); the radicalization of French philosophers and semiologists, like Derrida, Foucault,

Barthes, whose acid critics mortally wounded Modernity and Enlightenment, two great

enemies of religion.

In short, it is difficult to enlist everything that contributed to the birth of Postmodernity.

However, in the face of such a mass of factors, one can suspect that Postmodernity is a kind

of hangover from modernity, “an extreme form of decomposition of the rationalist model of

modernity” 28. As if the wreckage of everything that this Modern model produced now rested

on an immense beach where contemporaries stroll. Concepts, ideas, values, all the products of

an era are there degrading in the already set sun of calculating reason, under whose icy rays

the seeds of the new barbarism will be ripening, paraphrasing the beautiful philosophical-

prophetic image of Horkheimer29.

Indeed, from the social point of view, a process of dissociation is underway, triggered

by the degradation of the institutions created when the great national states were invented in

the 16th Century. The Church had its functions reduced in the new composition of the secular

28
Allain Touraine. Crítica da modernidade (Petrópolis: Vozes, 2002), p. 266.
29
Max Horkheimer. O Conceito de Iluminismo (São Paulo: Editora Abril Cultural, 1983), p. 109.
 24

State. However, the political institutions that had apparently inherited ideological prerogatives

from the Church would not go unscathed through this process of social degradation, but

would suffer in May 1968, in France, a coup de grâce from which they have not yet

recovered, in which democracy itself lost its capacity of representation and ideological

dogmatisms became of no interest to anyone. The social institutions that used to guarantee the

modern instrumental reason have also lost their ability to support the nomization process,

transferring to the individual, by inertia, this task:

The post-social situation is the product of a complete separation between

instrumentality and meaning, the former is managed by companies, economic or
political, in competition with each other in the markets; the second, became purely
private, subjective30.

This state of impermanence that involves everything that is absently thrown in front of

us has its philosophical explanation in Lyotard's famous concept of “the end of

metanarratives” 31. The legitimizing narratives (science, the Industrial Revolution, academic

knowledge, progress, bourgeois morality, the Enlightenment, etc.) on which the moderns

intended to place the foundations of reason, outside the transience of discourses and

reproduce reasoning there absolutely exempt, capable of generating certain, safe and

indubitable truths, they reach their end when it is realized that the mere possibility of their

existence is just an illusion, a great and fundamental illusion, as would be demonstrated by the

linguistic shift promoted by Wittgenstein and Saussure, two masters that unveiled the false

foundations of the transcendental reason.

Saussure and Wittgenstein, two great patrons of two methodologies from different fields

of knowledge, ended up reaching the same conclusion: the deconstruction of the notion of

30
Allain Touraine. Crítica da Modernidade, p. 198.
31
The metanarratives, that is, the narratives of the narratives, are so called because they intend to place
themselves outside of language, on a higher rational plane, on a universal and transcendental truth value
platform, from which they could supposedly judge the course of human history. See Jean-François Lyotard. La
condición postmoderna (Madrid: Ediciones Cátedra, 1987), p. 4.
 25

language as a simple representation of thought, and of thought as independent of it 32 .

According to the Saussurean model of language, the two main elements of the semantics of

language: the signifier (the word) and the signified (the concept) are united in the sign; this

semiotic structure dismisses the presupposition that “ideas can pre-exist words” 33 . A

statement with which Wittgenstein agrees, although, as far as it is known, he was not familiar

with Saussure's work. His emphasis, however, was not structural as in the eminent Swiss

linguist, but pragmatic, that is, the actions we carry out with language (the context in which it

occurs) are the semantic ground from which meaning is also derived34.

In short, the human beings are reduced to a miserably limiting immanence concerning

their capacity of reasoning and judging. Men, therefore, are left with only minor reasons to

make ethical, religious and aesthetic decisions and even justify their existence: personal,

affective reasons. His status as a judge of the universe was melancholy replaced by that of a

solitary walker circling like “a tourist the garden of history, who considers a deposit of

theatrical masks that can be used and discarded according to his pleasure, his taste, and his

usefulness35”. Despite Lyotard's lack of rigor when speaking of the end of metanarratives, by

using a self-refuting argument36, the postmodern condition can be defined as the wreck of a

subject who, without references, is no longer able to remain afloat in history. and in reality

itself.

32
Dorothea E. Olkowski. Postmodern Philosophy and Scientific Turn (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University
Press, 2012), p. xiii.
33
Ferdinand Saussure. Curso de linguística geral (São Paulo: Editora Cultrix, 2006), p. 79.
34
Ludwig Wittgenstein. Philosophical Investigations / Philosophische Untersuchungen (U. S. A., The
Macmillan company, 1969), # 97.
35
Rossano Pecoraro. Niilismo e (pós) modernidade: introdução ao “pensamento fraco” de Gianni Vattimo (Rio
de Janeiro: Editora da Puc, 2005), p. 70.
36
According to J. Habermas, Lyotard himself offers with this argument a metanarrative that can be ironically
called “the great narrative of the end of great narratives”. Habermas draws our attention to the fact that the
unmasking of the Frankfurt School critics or the deconstruction carried out by the postmodern would only be
possible if they possessed a transcendental rational pattern, that is, a theory that revealed the masks of ideology
(Richard Rorty. “Habermas, Lyotard e a Pós-modernidade” – Educação e Filosofia, 4 (8), Jan – Jun – p. 76). In
short, since each and every theory is immanent to a given system, it can say nothing about the others except in
the opinion field.
 26

In fact, strictly speaking, from an epistemological point of view, the post-modern man

cannot even be considered a subject. What Roland Barthes says about the author's eclipse and

of his intentions in writing, which opens the text to a hermeneutic anything goes, is the most

significant sign of postmodern dissolution. In Post-modernity, man as a subject ceases to

exist, being nothing but what the masks he wears say he is. The inference comes from

Barthes' literary conclusion about the author's death, present in a famous passage where he

interprets H. Balzac's observations about the female condition insert in Lost Illusions.

According to this reading, they are only the most finished manifestations of the spirit of an

age37 and cannot be attributed to a supposed Balzachian psychology, as if he were the author

of intelligent observations on the soul of the 19th Century’s female. Balzac was just the mirror

of the collective where this woman reflected.

Returning to the religious question and now concluding this topic, according to

Postmodern, Christianity or religions have no means to judge each other, since it is impossible

to get out of religious systems where each one says itself, tells the world and says God (they

do not have the capacity of abstracting themselves from their own language-games). The

question of truth disappears in the face of the epistemic impossibility of a universal truth.

There are as many truths as there are believers in them. The notion of error vanishes, since an

error only occurs within a given system. As a consequence, we are witnessing the birth of a

relativism that does not allow any normative possibility, except for minor normativisms,

arising from subjective and affective reasons. Postmodern man finds himself, lost within the

labyrinth of immanence, without Ariadne's thread and without Dedalus’ wings; not knowing

who he is, let alone where he comes from or where he is going.

As one might suspect, in this context “the revenge of the sacred” does not take us back

to pre-modern landmarks. Frustration with the non-fulfillment of the promises of Modernity

37
Roland Barthes. O rumor da língua (Brasília: Editora Brasiliense, 1988), p. 284.
 27

does not make European and North American churches automatically empowered to fill the

current human existential gap. After all, European Christianity was a participant in the failed

project of Modernity, adopting Enlightenment principles in its interpretation of Scripture,

embracing a short-sighted rationalism incapable of solving human problems and, on the

contrary, causing the emergence of new and more disturbing dilemmas. Starting with the

absolute certainty in the 16th Century, completes its career in the 19th Century with the

absolute doubt. Isn't that why most people in the West feel a real distaste for strict and

exclusive religious positions, which seek conformity and despise differences?

In this context, any more incisive religious, ethical and ideological attitude will be

considered politically incorrect. The exclusive claim to the truth has become unacceptable

today due to the distrust of the several and failed dogmatic experiences above referred to. The

modern period, with its numerous contenders (rationalism, empiricism, criticism, logical

empiricism, analytic philosophy), has not been able to establish with absolute certainty either

an epistemological truth, or a methodology, whose validity exclude all other methodologies or

doctrines. Likewise, the failure to define political-economic ideologies, to solve economic and

social problems (Imperialism, Fascism, Nazism, Communism, Capitalism) threw the world

into two total wars. As a result, today there is an ethos where religions and ideologies are

removed from their metaphysics and asked to present themselves only as praxis, through

which they are judged:

It is a climate in which it is natural to think of religions as different, but equally

valid paths to salvation, equally valid responses to the Real. Religious assertions are
only true in the strict sense of being existentially significant38.

Contemporary epistemological relativism and the so-called “weak epistemologies” 39

generate the false idea that the rejection of Christianity in the West diminishes. If religion is

38
Clark H. Pinnock. A Wideness in God’s Mercy: The Finality of Jesus Christ in a World of Religions (Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992), p. 10.
 28

more acceptable now, it is because it addresses all kinds of spiritualities, which means

religious feelings without religious institutions. That deficit of plausibility of Christianity

constituted in the former context of secularism remains. Scientific discourse has not been

supplanted or replaced by Christian religious narratives. What happened was a weakening of

the cosmifying capacity of science that makes individuals seek to supply it by other means:

through the weak epistemology, holistic thinking, spirituality, etc. Religiosity, therefore,

returns through the back door of society, that is, Churches as societal institutions remain

structured as they were in the modern era, with limited capacity of cosmification, because it

remains out of the public space, exiled from the public space in Europe and America (not so

much in America because of its Civil Religion), it remains occupying the place where

Secularism placed it, in name of the secular state: the space of private life40. This is the main

reason why the sociocultural environment is still not favorable to it.

In contrast, it is enough to observe how, outside the West, the discourse of science and

its technological achievements did not and do not have the same devastating effects on local

religiosities. Muslims and Eastern religions have a good relationship with science and do not

feel threatened by it, because there religion occupies a fundamental space in society's life, its

nomizing function remains, because there the Enlightenment did not come to exclude religion

39
Weak epistemology is the repudiation of universal and timeless truths and the acceptance of local, minor,
temporal truths without ontological pretensions. Better said, it is a paradigmatic change, the replacement “of
truths about the world by truths about a world” (BERTENS, 1997, p. 195) (author's italics). In this perspectivist
context, it makes no difference to quote a literary critic who speaks primarily of changes in postmodern narrative
theory, or to quote only authors who are strictly philosophers; the new model reaches all spheres of culture and
no longer needs institutional support to consolidate. Indeed, weak epistemology does not respect disciplinary
boundaries between the sciences. The limits are artificial and are created for political reasons, which transforms
postmodern theorists into strange people, who place themselves on the margins of the disciplinary mainstream.
Indeed, among them there are philosophers who think from linguistics and semiotics and make a sort of
philosophy of the text (Derrida); philosophers who use psychology to validate their philosophical arguments
(Wittgenstein); philosophers who write in partnership with psychiatrists on the psyche of contemporary man
(Deleuze and Guattari); semiologists who draw philosophical conclusions from their studies (Barthes); theorists
whose method encompasses history, psychology, sociology and philosophy and whose result is a discipline that
has yet to be named and yet to be invented (Foucault), philosophers who move between literature, mathematics
and science without, allegedly , leaving the epistemological field (Serres), etc.
40
Johann B. Metz. Passion for God. The Mystical-political Dimension of Christianity, J. Matthew Ashley (trad.)
(Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1997).
 29

from the public space, like in West. Indeed, even this public space/private space distinction is

inadequate when applied to these types of societies. The religious wars that devastated Europe

in past and had pivotal role in French and English Revolutions never existed among them,

either because amidst Muslims the sectarian differences are much milder, or because Hindus’

Inclusivism admits all the gods, or also because within East people (Dao), in general, praxis is

more important than creeds.

In short, and without going into merit, an atheistic or secularized perception of the

world has no more epistemological basis than a religious one. If it dominates the West today,

it is because people live in an environment where God, religion, faith are taboos, because they

are considered irrelevant information, or because they are not available to the public, in view

of their exile from life in society. In other words, everything is a matter of praxis. Making

practices and ideas accessible to people, introducing them into the public space, increases the

possibility of their being believed, accepted and practiced; in sum, that these things make

sense to them, because, in general, men act by imitation. This is not to say that religiosity

depends exclusively on its practice in society. Indeed, the private dimension of religiosity

cannot be extinguished by suppressing the means, but the expression of religious feeling is a

social phenomenon, if the institutions through which it is expressed are suppressed or

restricted, they will have fewer religious needs and they will be reduced to extreme situations,

when the individual is faced with illness, death and grief. The Enlightenment, having expelled

the institutions that convey and express religion from public space, affected its plausibility

and relevance:

Most of what we 'know' we take for granted based on the authority of others, and it
is only if others continue to confirm this 'knowledge' that it will remain plausible to
us. It is such social sharing, 'knowledge' socially taken for granted, that allows us to
move with some confidence through daily life41.

Peter Berger. A Rumor of Angels. Modern Society and the Rediscovery of the Supernatural (New York:
41

Doubleday & Company, 1970), p. 19.

 30

1.a.1.c. Globalization

Another factor that favors the current pluralist religious environment is Globalization,

because through it the cultural and religious diversity of the planet becomes more evident.

Today's migratory waves, produced by macroeconomic conditions and civil wars in the

under-developed world, have collaborated to bring cultures and religions closer together. Not

by chance, the United States, the richest nation, “has [also] become the most religiously

diverse nation in the world” 42. Indeed, since the US Immigration act from 1965, immense

masses of immigrants from Asia and other parts of the world began to enter the States,

changing the religious American landscape probably forever. This change is so deep that

onward does not make any sense calling them a Christian nation, becoming better categorized

as a “post-Christian nation”43, especially in their extremes: east and west coast, were a more

dynamic economy demands more immigrants.

Europe, after the economic boom of the 1990s, has also become an important

destination for several waves of immigrants. France welcomes without really welcoming

Muslims from its former colonies and protectorates. England is host to Hindu Indians and

Germany to Muslim Turks. Religions are invading the West, and are carrying out their

luggage to there not only immigrants, but also students, tourists, businessmen, adventurers,

etc. Those religions that we knew existing in some remote part of the world and were

explained only by experts, now put their face in our window or knock at our front door, with

no need of introductory speeches, being what they are before our eyes. In addition, in the

'global village' it is also possible to have direct access to the world's religions through the

internet, getting to know their rites, their spirituality, their sacred texts, their holy men, etc.

42
Diana Eck. A new religious America: How a Christian country has become the world most religiously diverse
nation (New York: Harpercollins, 2001), pp. 4-5.
43
Catherine Cornille. “On Interreligious Dialogue and Cultural Change”. In Catherine Cornille; Stephanie
Corigliano. Interreligious Dialogue and Cultural Change (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2012), p. 5.
 31

Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Shintoists, Confucians are now among us. As Hans

Küng’s words sum it up quite well: in the current situation, “for the first time in history it is

impossible for any religion to exist in splendid isolation, ignoring the others” 44. Interpretive

theories that until recently helped the West to understand the Christian legacy in the world

religious context have lost their usefulness. In nuce they were already wrong, because they

were born not with the intention of understanding the other's religion, but to reduce, fight and

dominate them. Today they no longer exert any attraction on people as theories about the

rational superiority of Christianity over other religions, because what everyone wants to know

and understand is those who do not worship like them and are their neighbors.

Andrés T. Queiruga speaks of two major expansions in the human world responsible for

Küng’s disturbing conclusion: (a) an expansion of the historical horizon of civilizations and

(b) an expansion of the planetary geographic horizon, which took place mainly in the 20th

Century, which caused that a self-absorbed Christianity, occupied only with its parish

differences, would lose its meaning45.

(a) Historical expansion of civilizations. Only recently, outside the historians’ circles,

the West discovered that before the biblical prophets were born, entire civilizations were

already flourishing in Asia, with advanced culture, technology and religions, such as Chinese,

Indochinese and Indian. About that Erik Voegelin, speaks of “the significance of the

extraordinary spiritual experience that appeared simultaneously” 46 in diverse parts of the

world in a period of history that extends from the eighth to the second century B.C.E., called

by Karl Japers as the “axial age” 47. This period witnessed the birth of the most important

world religions. It is truly impressive how all these religious and philosophical movements,
44
Hans Küng. On Being Christian (New York: Doubleday, 1976), p. 89.
45
Andrés T. Queiruga. O diálogo das religiões (São Paulo: Paulus, 1997), p. 13.
46
Henrique C. de Lima Vaz. Escritos de Filosofia III. Filosofia e Cultura (São Paulo: Edições Loyola, 1997), p.
202.
47
Apud Karen Armstrong. Uma história de Deus. Quatro milênios em busca do Judaísmo, Cristianismo e
Islamismo (São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 2008), p. 43.
 32

which include the great reforming prophets of the Old Testament, Buddha and the Pre-

Socratics, present a “surprising structural and thematic homology in their messages, operating

a true revolution in the symbolic universe of great civilizations”48. A creative explosion on the

sacred that many scholars attribute to the expansion of commercial relations between nations

and the advent of an unprecedented situation of material and social prosperity among them.

Summing up, even though it is theoretically problematic to establish a link between material

and spiritual progress, given the current times, one thing is certain, the cultural permutes of

this time must have been central to this universal religious flowering.

(b) Geographic expansion. Contemporaneity is characterized by a more plural space and

at the same time smaller in relative terms. Distances tend to become irrelevant due to various

technological factors. Air transport now makes it possible for millions of people to move from

one to another part of the globe in few hours, allowing us Westerners to see newly emerged

faces from a cultural context quite different from our own, the way they really are, without

retouching. The internet brings cultures together and makes them exchange experiences

without the censoring interference of institutions.

On the other hand, large megalopolises such as Mumbai, São Paulo – Rio (São Paulo,

Rio de Janeiro, Campinas and Santos), Bos-wash (Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore

and Washington), Tokkaido (Tokyo, Kawasaki, Yokohama) , the megalopolis of the Rhine

river valley (Amsterdam, Düsseldorf, Cologne, Bonn, Stuttgart) not only constitute

conglomerates of cities, but also conglomerates of the suburbs that exist between them;

finally, places where the distinction between the rural and the urban disappears, which makes

them, given the conservative tendency of the rural, much more tolerant places in relation to

those who are different and to diversity. It is well-known the etymological origin of the word

pagan, originally in Latin the antonym of civilian or the inhabitants of cities, but afterwards

48
Henrique C. de Lima Vaz, Escritos de Filosofia III. Filosofia e Cultura, p. 202.
 33

the word shifted its meaning, becoming the antonym of Christian, because Christians were at

most inhabitant of cities and in the rural zone dwelled the people who followed the ancient

Greco-Roman religions. They were a more conservative populace and more resistant to

Christian missions49. Today this basic sociological feature of rural behavior: conservantism, is

not any longer true.

The cosmopolitan nature of these large urban conglomerates should also be highlighted

in its missiological implications. Los Angeles, for example, perhaps the most cosmopolitan

city in the world, counts among its 18 million inhabitants (Greater Los Angeles), Asians

(Chinese, Japanese, Thai, Filipos, Vietnamese, Armenians, Iranians), African Americans and

Latinos (Mexicans, Puerto-Riccans, Salvadorans, Brazilians, Colombians, etc.), in addition to

the traditional Caucasian populations from old Europe. In LA these populations live

segregated forming ethnic strongholds: Filipos live in a neighborhood called Filipotown; the

Thais in Thaitown, etc.. The practical result of this means that it is no longer necessary to go

to Thailand to learn about the way of life of these South Asians (including their religion).

All this proximity could only produce the dismantling of several myths referring to non-

Christian populations. Today it is undeniable, for example, that these traditions are bearers of

an ancient wisdom that rivals Western science (medicine, for example) and even when it

comes to religion, their teachings contain many 'religious truths'. In this regard, the moral

superiority of Christianity, so praised by nineteenth-century European and Protestant

theologians and philosophers – especially those inscribed under the rubric of German

Idealism (von Harnack, Troeltsch, Ritschil, Herrmann) 50, lost much of its persuasive force. It

was discovered that the so-called “golden rule” of the gospels, considered a unique mark of

Christian ethics – “do to others what you want them to do for you” – is present in practically

49
Christopher P. Jones. Pagan and Christian (Cambridge, MS: Harvard University Press, 2014), p. 5.
50
Rosino Gibellini. A teologia do século XX, p. 19.
 34

all the great world religious traditions 51 . Finally, there is a wisdom in religions that is

incompatible with the timid place reserved for them by the West52.

1.a.1.d. Mundialization of Christianity

Despite the fact that European Christianity faces a consistent decadence that has lasted a

century, which allows some to refer to the Christian faith in Europe as a “Post-Christianity” 53,

otherwise, in other parts of the world, Christians experience an unprecedented expansion that

even the most optimistic missiologists of the early 20th century could not imagine it could

occur, becoming today the most dynamic religious movement in the world. Two-thirds of

Christians today live at countries of Asia, Africa and South America and it is in these

countries that Christianity today faces its greatest missiological challenges. This is where the

encounter of Christians with world religions occurs most disturbingly:

In fact, during the 20th century it became the most universal and extensive religion
in history. There are Christians and Christian churches organized in every inhabited
place on earth today. The Church is, for the first time in history, ecumenical in the
literal sense of the word: its boundaries are coextensive with the oikumene, the
entire inhabited world54.

The growth of Christianity in Africa is impressive, especially after the end of Europeans

colonies, with the emerging of the most African nations. At the beginning of the 20th Century

there were only 8.7 million Christians on the African territories, something around 9% of its

population. Muslims outnumbered Christians 4 to 1. With the end of the colonial period,

Christianity experienced a rapid growth that began with 60 million in the late 1980s, jumped

51
Mahabharata: Shanti parva CCLX21: "let no man commit against another, an act he would not like to be
committed against himself." Analectus of Confucius, book 12:2: “do not do to others what you do not want them
to do to you. Buddhist Udanavarga, v. 18: “don't hurt others with something that hurts you”. Andrew Wilson
(org.). World Scripture. A Comparative Anthology of Sacred Texts (New York: International Religious
Foundation/Paragon House Publishers, 1991.
52
Raimon Panikkar. “The pluralism of truth” (WFI, no. 26, 1990), p. 7.
53
Phillip Jenkins. God’s Continent: Christianity, Islam and Europe’s Religious Crisis (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2005).
54
David Barret, George Kurian and Todd Johnson. World Christian Encyclopedia: A Comparative Survey of
Churches and Religions in Modern World (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 15.
 35

to 330 million in 1998 and in 2000 reached the level of 350 million55. Today, there are already

more Christians in Africa than adherents of Animism, their original religion (there are around

300 million animists in whole Africa today) 56. And when Europe threatens to be completely

covered by the green crescent flag, Christians from Central Africa fills the emptiness of

European Christian churches. “Greater Paris has 250 ethnic Protestant churches, most of them

made up of black Africans” 57.

In Asia the Christian message is also expanding with great speed. There are countries

that are almost completely Christianized, such as the Philippines and South Korea, to a lesser

extent. Among those continental China is the most recent evangelized. Although there is no

reliable data on China (local laws prohibit proselytizing and outdoors evangelism), it is

known that in China Christians already number in the hundreds of millions. Official Chinese

government data only take into account regularly established and registered congregations, so

they tend to underestimate the growth rate of Christianity, as well as the total number of its

adherents; government does not put the household congregations in their accounts. According

to official sources, in 2006 there were 21 million Christians in China, of which 16 million

were Protestants and 5 million Catholics. Unofficial sources, however, point to far more

realistic numbers, somewhere around 12 million Catholics and 30 million Protestants58. In

reality these numbers are just guesswork. Nobody actually knows how many Christians there

are in China. It would not be surprising if there were twice as many as people showed here.

South Korea is the most missiological interesting case in Asia. Initially a Buddhist

country (until the 19th century), today it is very Christianized, around 25% of the population

55
Lamin Sanneh. Whose Religion is Christianity? The gospel beyond the West (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B.
Eerdmans, 2003), pp. 14-15.
56
Chad Meister. Introducing Philosophy of Religion (London/New York: Routledge, 2009), p. 6.
57
Phillip Jenkins. God’s Continent: Christianity, Islam and Europe’s Religious Crisis, p. 94.
58
Lian Jiang. Visiting Parents from China: their Conversion Experiences in America and Contribution to
Christianity at Home (Doctorate Thesis, Faculty of Bright Divinity School, 2006), p. 50.
 36

professing the Christian faith (Catholics, Historical Protestants, Pentecostals and

Independents) 59. With just over a hundred years of history, Korean churches have achieved

remarkable growth in numbers and strength60. Korean megachurches redefined the meaning

of the word megachurches far beyond what was thought in the West. With its mega

congregations ranging in size from 8,000 (Yodo Full Gospel Church) to 30,000 members

(Sung Rar Baptist Church) 61 , and, despite their huge size, they are extremely organized,

divided into cells and ministries and with a missionary fervor that apparently does not cool

down. From 1995 until now Catholicism, Pentecostals have experienced strong growth, while

historical Protestants, like the Presbyterians, are stagnant 62. In any case, the dynamism of

Korean Christianity is undeniable.

In India there are vigorous and ancient Christian churches, whose foundation took place

at least one thousand years ago, as is the case of the Syriac Rite Catholic Church. Others

reached there at the end of the nineteenth century with the missions of Methodists,

Presbyterians, and Baptists; and others already in the course of the 20th Century (Seventh-day

Adventists and other Independents). However, despite this millenary history, Christianity in

India is only the third largest religious force, counting approximately 24 million followers,

which means 2.3% of the total population of the country 63 , with the vast majority of the

population still professing loyalty to Hinduism. In other words, this means saying that

Christians are a tiny minority and that even in the most expressively Christian provinces

59
Mark Mullins. “The Empire strikes back. Korean Pentecostal mission to Japan”. In Karla Powe (ed.).
Charismatic Christianity as a Global Culture (Columbia SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1994), p. 88.
60
But Korea is an exception. Mission situation in other Buddhist countries is stagnant or in decline, Christian
population barely reaches the rate of 5 % (average): Butan – 1%; Cambodia – 1%; Japan – 3%; Laos – 3%;
Mongolia – 1%; Myanmar – 9%; Sri Lanka – 9%; Thailand – 2%; Vietnam – 9%. Terry Muck; Francis S.
Adeney (eds.). Christianity Encountering the World Religions. The Practice of Mission in the Twenty-First
Century (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2009), p. 8.
61
Mark Mullins. “The Empire strikes back”, pp. 89 e 90.
62
Han Soo Park. A Study of Missional Structures for the Korean Church for its Postmodern Context (Benton
Harbor MI: Umi dissertation publishing, 2008), p. 42.
63
Wikipedia, entry: Christians in India (Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Census commissions,
Census 2001).
 37

(Kerala) their members do not exceed 10% of the population64. And we can't even say that

they experience vigorous growth because the numbers have been fluctuating around this rate,

up or down, for decades.

With all this and as Christian missionary efforts and results advance, the need grows to

theorize about the limits of the acculturation of its message, given the dangers that hide

behind pressures for faster ecclesiastical growth in these areas of intersection: syncretism,

heresies, factionalism, etc. This theorization has been called mission theology and intends to

deal precisely with three aspects of evangelization that need to be balanced addressed: (a) the

biblical text, (b) the faith of the community and (c) the missionary context65. As a minority,

Christians are constantly tempted to facilitate the conversion of their listeners, tending to

neglect the biblical sources whenever there are great cross-cultural difficulties.

In this regard, one of the most serious events in the world of missions takes place in

South Korea. Reports from this region make it known that Pentecostal churches are suffering

liturgical and theological influences from local animism, even experiencing a process of

shamanization in its cultic service, with pastors emulating the Korean shamans, especially

with regard to spiritual healing, as this is a common point between them:

In Korean traditional society, shamans (mudang) serve as a link between the

common people and the spiritual world, inhabited by countless gods, ancestors and
spirits. Through rituals and offerings, shamans can control the spirit world,
transforming malevolent spirits into protective spirits; performing cures and
exorcisms and producing concrete benefits to individuals66.

Andrew Walls writes about the need to theologize every time new cultural boundaries

are crossed, as in doing so Christianity is faced with situations that pose new questions before

64
Leonard Fernando e G. Gilpert Sauch. Christianity in India. Two Thousand Years of Faith (New Delhi:
Penguins Book India, 2004), xiii.
65
Charles R. van Engen. What is Theology of Missions (TC, ano 1, vol. 1, Ago, 2004), p. 45.
66
Ibid., p. 92.
 38

it67. This need is evidenced by the various missiological and theological congresses convened

around the world from the second quarter of the 20th century, when the penetration of the

gospel in the non-Christian world intensified68.

Some historians of Christianity, however, defend free evangelistic propagation in the

world, without any institutional control, even if this would mean free doctrinal innovation,

motivated by local needs of acculturation. This occurrence should be considered something

positive, as indication of spiritual maturity:

When mission theorists in past decades spoke of three autonomies as a goal for
younger churches, they included self-financing, self-government, and self-
propagation. They did not perceive self-interpretation or self-theologizing as equally
a necessity. They hoped that theology would remain what it always was, because the
meaning of the gospel was perfectly understood by the mother Churches, and all the
younger ones had to do was keep proclaiming the same message 69.

We must not forget that not all local demands must be satisfied, for behind them,

according to the Scriptures, may be hidden the inclinations of a fallen humanity, prone to evil

and sin. On the other hand, as already discussed, it is up to Theology to analyze the legitimacy

of the demands so that the gospel does not fall into ideological traps, as happened in the past

when an expressive part of Christians in the 2nd Century C.E. adopted Neoplatonism as the

ideological framework through which the Christian message came to be understood.

Unfortunately, that cross-cultural experience degenerated into a Gnostic deviation that

undermined the foundations of the Christian faith and not merely helped it to become more

67
Andrew Walls. “The rise of global theologies”. In Jeffrey P. Greeman e Gene L. Green. Global Theology in
Evangelical Perspective. Exploring the Contextual Nature of Theology and Mission (Downers Grove, IL:
Intervarsity Press, 2012), p. 20.
68
“International Congress on World Evangelization in Lausanne (1974); Willowbank Consultation on Gospel
and Culture (1978); International Consultation on Simple Lifestyle (1980); Pattaya Consultation on World
Evangelization (1980); International Consultation on the Relationship between Evangelism and Social
Responsibility (1982); International Conferences for Itinerant Evangelists (1983, 1986); Lausanne II in Manila
(1989); Theological Commission’s Consultation on the Unique Christ in our Pluralist World, Manila (1992);
Mission Commission’s Iguassu Missiological Consultation; Forum for World Evangelization, Pattaya (2004).
(Lamin Sanneh. Whose religion is Christianity? p. 25-26).
69
Justo Gonzales. Mañana. Christian Theology from Hispanic Perspective (Nashville, TS: Abingdon, 1990), p.
49.
 39

missionable. Disastrous experiences like this have occurred throughout the course of Christian

history, the last of them linked with the infamous Nazism, degenerating into a racist church.

As an example of how difficult can be the inculturation we can take the case of

Marxism in 20th Century. At one hand, there is a temptation of considering the Marxist

prophetic claims on socioeconomic inequalities as an indication of a necessary shift of

direction in Church mission, as defended by theologians of liberation, which methods of

socioeconomic analysis become quickly outdated by globalization and post-industrial new

context. At the other hand, in the other extreme, Prosperity theology is a striking example of

what can happen to the preaching of the gospel if the needs of the masses are the preachers'

only guide. What initially could be considered a legitimate popular cry for divine help in the

face of difficulties related to their own survival (health, indebtedness, economic difficulties)

ended up degenerating into spiritual pride, added to consumerism and materialism, as we see

today. In short, the relations of men among themselves and in relation to God distorted by the

mediation of merchandise and capital (Karl Marx). The same theorist cannot be the guideline

of Theology, like the theologians of liberation taught, as far as it drives the Church into a

secularization; but must be not despised if its role is to unveil the bad dispositions of the fallen

humanity.

1.a.1.e. The witness of History

Throughout history, Christianity, especially the post-Constantinian Church, has been

marked by an oppressive behavior towards religions and their various unauthorized intern

mutations (heresies). Countless times this oppression has translated itself into violence and

death of those who did not practice its hegemonic modality, and this today testify against

Christians, causing a feeling of discomfort in those that do not profess it. In face of these facts

many Christian leaders are drawn to consider pluralism as a form of compensation for the

Christian violence in the past.

 40

This generalization is not methodologically adequate; the history of the pre-

Constantinian Church is a different one from its later hegemonic version. In the first and

second centuries, formative Christianity flourished in a Greco-Roman cultural melting pot,

which deserves the designation of the first globalization. At this time, the various religious

currents converged and coexisted within the borders of the Roman Empire, in a more or less

peaceful way. The Romans controlled the growth of religions, but they did not restrain it,

except exceptionally, aiming to maintain the pax romana. Christianity was not hegemonic in

those times, at least not until it became the official religion of the empire, after Constantine’s

conversion. It was from the fourth century onwards that the history of intolerance began, with

the creation of the Roman monarchic bishopric.

Later, in the 7th Century C. E., Christians faced the advance of Islam in the Near East

and Europe, in the period known as the Crusades, when there was much bloodshed, and,

exceptionally, in Muslim-occupied Iberia, a peaceful coexistence between the three religions

of the Book (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) unfolded, coinciding with an unprecedented

technological and cultural flourishing. With power changing from Muslim hands to Catholic

kings in Iberia (Fernando and Isabel), after the expulsion of the Moors, a process of

persecution of the Jews begins that would only end after their expulsion from Spain and

Portugal, during the period that became known as 'holy' inquisition.

This intolerant spirit was not, however, the monopoly of Catholics. The 16th Century

also witnessed widespread persecution in lands conquered by the Protestants, against religious

minorities in Germany and Switzerland (Anabaptists, Mennonites and Spiritualists, followers

of Muntzen), led or at least subsidized by the silence of the reformers and other important

religious authorities. John Calvin personally promoted the persecution of the so-called

Anabaptist radicals, condemning many of them to capital punishment for drowning, perhaps
 41

to make them comply, at least in death, with the Calvinist doctrine of infant baptism70. Martin

Luther, initially kept silent on Muntzen movement, but under the pressure of political

compromises with the German princes, he acquiesced to the harsh repression carried out by

the nobles against the rebels 71 . On the Jews and their lies, Luther defends among other

barbarities the burning of Jewish synagogues, the demolishing of their houses unto the

ground, the confiscation of their prayer books and Talmud, the prohibition of rabbis’

teachings and their practice of loan sharking, and that they should not travel without state

supervision and were put to heavy work (concentration camps)72. That is, everything Nazis

did to the Jews was Luther's recommendation.

The problem of intolerance for Luther and Calvin has its roots in post-Constantinian

Church and its link with politics and state power, as can be evident in the Luther’s different

treatment between Muntzer’s movement and Jewish problem: revolted peasants were German,

Jews were outcasts without nationality or citizenship. Both Ecclesiologies, therefore, had

equivocal fundaments, since both imagined the Church as a kind of new Israel, something

Jesus never taught. This misinterpretation of the Reformer and their time was the source of

the bloody hecatomb that cost the lives of millions of Catholics and Protestants in the Thirty

Years' War, and indirectly also the justification of Enlightment.

Still in the 16th Century, then in the Americas, one of the most infamous stories reputed

to Christianity. With the loss of territories to Protestantism in Europe, the Catholic Church

through the Iberian kings turned to the Americas, and their missionary and civilizing impulse

came to confront pre-Columbian civilizations, which they did not know and still considered

inferior. As a result, the gigantic slaughter that claimed the lives of millions of human beings,
70
Willem Balke. Calvin and the Anaptist Radicals (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1981).
71
Michael G. Baylor. The German Reformation and the Peasant War. A Brief History with Documents
(Boston/New York: Bedford/St. Martin: 2012).
72
Martin Luther. Concerning the Jews and their Lies (New York: Ephraim Talmage editor, 1975), pp. 34-36.
See also Eric W. Gritsch. Martin Luther’s anti-Semitism: Against his Better Judgment (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm.
B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2012).
 42

for the sole reason that they were not Christians and live differently. It is known that the

symbolic defamation of these peoples was often unjustified and produced with the sole

objective of legitimizing their shameful exploitation73.

Thus, excluding the exceptional historical circumstances mentioned, unfortunately,

supported not by the initiative of Christians, the coexistence of Christianity with other

religions has been violent, leaving genocides and/or ethnocides in the wake of its passage,

provoking in us today the question: until at what point is the bloody 'civilizing' project of

these Christians a tributary of the Sources of Christianity? Or, to put it another way, is there

something intrinsically intolerant and violent about the Christian message that would force us

today to rethink ourselves as Christians? At first it can be anticipated that the problem seems

not to be attributable to Christian sources and their message, but to a certain interpretation of

them, which occurred after their co-option by the Roman State. But this we be seen in the

following topic.

1.a.2. The Scriptural Demand

These questions take us back to the primordial text of Christianity, since the

hermeneutic task is not limited to recognizing the existence of a new global multicultural and

multi-religious environment and its supposed pre-condition for a new orientation in inter-

religious relations. The second and no less important obligation of theological hermeneutics is

the preservation of what has been entrusted to us: the Christian Sources (I Cor. 4: 1 and 2),

despite ideological pressures to the contrary.

Furthermore, this is not the first time that a crisis of plausibility has come to the

Church's doorstep. The Pre-Constantinian Church lived before the challenge of the Greco-

Roman world for at least two centuries and survived without making doctrinal concessions,
73
See Tzvetan Todorov. The Conquest of America. The Question of the Other (New York: Harper Collins,
1999).
 43

even though it was pressured by ideologies as powerful as those that exist today, in that case

the Neoplatonism. Although at this time there have been many deviations from orthodoxy,

most Christian churches have kept the deposit of faith, without necessarily having turned their

back to the world, immersing themselves in a theological denial of current problems. How the

churches weathered this time of crisis was the most accurate definition of what was and was

not canonical with respect to existing Christian traditions. It is evident that the decision of the

bishops was necessary to prevent that the ideas of Valentine and Marcion replaced the

apostles’ writings.

Secondly, although we speak here of a Christian tradition (parenesis), conserving the

sources is not a museum work, destined to an idolatry of the Bible, a grapholatry or

bibliolatry. Rather, it means rejecting any attempts to destroy the essence of God's Word, that

is, what its very name points out to. In our context, it means, in the face of the current process

of emptying its salvific meaning, to reaffirm the relevance as God's special agency for the

salvation of all men: the preaching of Scripture. Does this mean a destructive ethnocentrism,

as postmodern thinkers conclude? Or aspects of a pre-Enlightenment epistemological naivety,

as the moderns prefer? None of them.

As for the first question, the fact that, for Postmodern Western anthropologists and

sociologists, the pretension of the Christian message to the absolute is intrinsically violent

against other cultures, must be answered with another question: wouldn't the same pretension

in others be equally violent against Christians? Furthermore, these theorists seem to have as a

parameter of comparison between Christian faith and other religions, a post-Constantinian

Christianity, or, in a post-colonial approach; and, indeed, the European and North American’s

missions of the nineteenth century, both were carried out by an extremely persuasive political-

economic power. However, Christian churches today descend again into the catacombs, being

a minority in the Far East, prohibited in the Near East and only tolerated in secularized post-
 44

modern West. The pre-Constantinian Church, far from wanting to convert the whole world to

its truth, only wants freedom to fulfill the divine mandate to preach the gospel and welcome

those who feel touched by its message.

As for the epistemological question raised by the moderns, first of all, it is necessary to

consider that reality is not a simple visual field to be known and explored with the tools of a

realistic epistemology; it needs to be interpreted and not merely known. The sacred books of

religions are the interpreters par excellence of this reality, especially of what is deepest in it.

They deal with the metaphysical ground that sustains this world, namely, the human

condition, the precarity and provisionality of all things, the absolute divine. Therefore, all

religions are presumed to have an undisputed and absolute truth about these things, since they

consider themselves to be from divine origin.

This broad conceptual framework, which mixes religious and epistemological doctrines,

makes it impossible to reconcile the world's religions without due consideration of their

sacred texts and of which they say. Or, as others want, that, in order to enable interreligious

dialogue, the absolute is removed from this equation, through the relativization of the

discourse of religions, under the excuses of promoting the peace and good will among men.

But it is not possible to discard the Scriptures and preserve religions. All the metaphysics that

stands on the scriptural ground would turn to dust if this operation were carried out, and

religion itself would become a certain set of wisdom discourse without any relevance to

human existence. That is the disservice of approaches like John Hick’s, destroying the

plausibility of religious discourse, on the pretext of promoting an abstract religion that he

found in the philosophy books he read; in sum, consolidating religious pluralism on a Kantian

monistic basis74.

74
Jenny Daggers. Post-Colonial Theology of Religions. Particularity and Pluralism in World Christianity
(Abingdon, U.K./New York: Routledge, 2013), p. 94.
 45

Now, if Scripture is to be kept in its essential condition as the path to salvation, as the

movement was called in the beginning of Christian preaching: “the way” (Acts 9: 2), it

remains to be seen how it would be possible to reconcile these two antipodes: the empirical

and scriptural demands. Theological hermeneutics is where these two demands meet to be

examined in their dialectical relationship.

1.a.2.a. Theological Hermeneutics

In our view, the field of theological hermeneutics stands on three foundations: (a) divine

revelation, (b) the language by which the revelational experience is expressed, and (c) the

contextualization of this language according to time and culture of its interpreters: believers

and theologians. As for revelation, 'in our view' is not a mere figure of rhetoric, because

nothing has been so debated as the question: what is the starting point for revelation? Hardly

two theorists think the same on this subject. There are those who prefer to start with the

human experience of the divine, such as the aforementioned E. Schillebeeckx, which is

accompanied by many others75. For Tillich, for instance, the experience is only the means, but

not the source of revelation76, which is right. However, instead of saying that the source is

God, he asserts that it occurs at the moment of the unconditional breaking into the

conditioned. That is, God is transmuted from Someone who speaks and manifests Himself to

men into a Being who is the basis of reality and the source of human’s feeling of the divine;

and Scripture in this context loses its assertive dimension, becoming just a collection of

symbols, which the men turn themselves to, when their philosophical questions remain

unanswered. Therefore, Scripture loses relevance, as the theological work takes as its scope

only human culture and not the Scriptural text itself (correlational method)77. It is undeniable

that the Bible has a symbolic dimension that in many cases brings it closer to what world

75
Peter Hodgson. Winds of Spirit. A Constructive Christian Theology (Louisville, KT: Westminster John Knox
Press, 1994), p. 13.
76
Paul Tillich. Systematic Theology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953), vol. 1: 59-66; vol. 2: 14.
77
Paul Tillich. Systematic Theology, vol. 1: 22-28.
 46

religions say, but reducing it to this is not consistent with its own claim to be the Word of

God.

As can be seen, between Schillebeeckx and Tillich there is no opposition. They just

represent two groups that adopt different methods to achieve the same goal: the continuity

between culture and theology, through a de-transcendentalizing of the divine. Those

represented by Tillich adopt the principle philosophically linked to Phenomenology, which

despises the factual dimension of Scripture, in the name of a religious essence shared by all

religions. Schillebeeckx's followers reinforce principle (c), aiming to overcome biblical

exclusivism (the biggest obstacle to interreligious dialogue), emphasizing its hermeneutic

condition, especially the NT, and disregarding its nature as an authoritative witness of the

Christic event.

1.a.2.a.1. Sciences of Religion

The Sciences of Religion (Religionswissenschaft) was first mentioned in 1872, by F.

Max Müller, a German-born professor of Sanskrit at Oxford78. His methodological proposal

was born from the complexity of the subject and from the development of the autonomous

human sciences that were being organized in the end of the 19th Century. Many scholars of

diverse field of the knowledge, like psychology, philosophy, sociology, anthropology, etc.,

wrote books to explain religion on scientific and even atheistic standpoint79. After this first

wave with atheist trends, believers and not so believer theorists start to organize which today

is called Sciences of Religion, an interdisciplinary and descriptive study of religion, which

replace the theological and dogmatic approaches. But the replacement was not only an

outcome of the atheistic trends of Illuminism. Religion is a “multivariable and multileveled

phenomenon” that does not admit “reductionists explanation.

78
William Grassie. The New Sciences of Religion. Exploring Spirituality from the Outside in and Bottom up
(New York: Palgrave McMillan, 2010), p. 3.
79
Idem, ibid.
 47

Indeed, no single analytic theory is adequate”80 to explain religion, and, on the other

hand, no exclusion of the normativity of theology can be reasonably assumed, because they

speak of different things: religious experience, social and psychologically determined

(sociology and psychology or religion, respectively), phenomenological essence of religious

experience, religious as foundation of social order (sociology of knowledge), religious values

(philosophy of religion), etc. Our objective in the following lines is to argue for the need of

the recognition of theology in the encyclopedia of the sciences of religion.

(a) Phenomenology of religion

In my opinion the methodological principle of phenomenology seeks to analyze the

religious experience on its most fundamental essence, in this regard it is not to be confused

with psychology, because its essence is not found in the mind, but it is transcendental, in

Kantian sense. Therefore, this approach can be identified with a philosophical contribution

that is not doctrinal, but pre-linguistic and intentional. In this type of analysis, the religious

experience results as structure of religious experience and can serve as a kind of synthesis of

all religions, since in essence all religions look like, with same structural components. The

most famous example of this type of approach is the work of Rudolf Otto, The Holy81, where

this author takes Scripture as a manual of examples of religious experiences that offers to the

reader a set of essential characteristics, which Christianism would share with all other

religions.

It is undeniable that in many respects the religious experiences are similar. Even

because those who experience them are all human beings with identical transcendental

structure. However, it is also necessary to take into account the deep differences that separate

them, manifested especially in: the way of seeing the sacred, salvation and separation from

80
Ibid., p. 4.
81
Rudolf Otto. The Idea of the Holy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1958).
 48

the divine, right and wrong in sacred and profane practices, spiritual agents and its way of

acting in the world; finally, the different ways of seeing reality and life. Religious experience

is not purely consequence of an intentional phenomenological proneness to believe or to act

ritualistically. This abstraction does not exist in human behavior, as Wittgenstein tries to

prove in his reflections, never using intentionalität or meinung, replacing these words loaded

with misconceptions with another: absicht, that means “intent embedded in the situation”82. It

is impossible to separate the language from the world and, therefore, language from the

intentionality, for that a general religious intentionality is something very difficult to find

through analysis. If we were willing to start an analytical endeavor, to go on pushing the

religious circumstances away until we reach one that was essential, we would find ourselves

in the situation of someone who defoliated an artichoke looking for its core and ends up

finding himself with a stalk in his hand83. On the contrary, if our actions are born already

embedded, and not as things that lose their purity in contact with the world, the sacred text

conforms the worshiper's dispositions to a specific religious pattern, since it normalizes the

experience of the sacred in the context of a religious culture presented.

For example, religious experiences such as salvation, error or sin, lightning, revelation,

repentance, truth, etc., in Christianity are constituted from the sacred texts that define them,

being obvious the limits of a Phenomenology of Religion in this case. Phenomenology could

only describe an already constituted experience and could only be a broad analysis of the

meaning of already existing religious symbols; it cannot retreat towards an anthropological

precondition, a pure religious intention, prior to any thematization. Religious symbols are

where it all begins, the most fundamental human language. Beyond them there is only silence,

82
Other text that could clarify a little more what Wittgenstein means as intentionality, or consciousness as a
metaphysical entity akin to the soul: “what really is the world of consciousness? I'd like to say: What's on my
mind, what's in my mind now, what I see and hear...' I could simplify it by saying 'what I'm seeing now'”.
Ludwig Wittgenstein. Últimos Escritos sobre Filosofía de la Psicología II, Lo interno y lo exteno (Madrid,
Tecnos, 1996), p. 103).
83
Ludwig Wittgenstein. Philosophical Investigations, parag. 164.
 49

because it is with them that human thought is born. When an object is separated from its

concrete existence, where it is mixed with the formless mass of other objects, language is

born. The religious symbol causes this type of abstraction, from which language is born:

It could be said that it was not this union (of the oak with the human being) that gave
rise to these rites, but, in a sense, their separation. Because the awakening of the
intellect takes place with the separation of the original ground, the original basis of
life (The origin of choice). The way of awakening the spirit is the veneration of
objects84.

With symbols thought is born, with them the being that interprets them is also born. So

that human subjectivity itself, in a way, depends on them, as Augustine intuitively suspected

in the late Ancient Ages, in understanding the human soul as presenting a trinitarian

structure85. In our century, thanks to Jung's Analytical Psychology, it was realized how much

the health of the human psyche depends on symbolic structures, present in religious

archetypes, which combined with other aspects of psychological life to form a whole called

individuality or subjectivity86. These archetypes in their structuring function are present in all

religiosities and their archetypal qualities can be found in all forms of religion, since they all

have a common origin: humanity itself. Nothing guarantees, however, that the process is not

the opposite, that is, that in fact there are no archetypes, the unconscious tendencies that

create the conditions for symbolic production, but the relationship with the sacred is what

shapes the human psyche, as concluded by Augustine, or human behavior (as could be said in

a sort of behaviorism?), as it appears in the book of Genesis87.

(b) Sociology of Religion

84
Ludwig Wittgenstein. Remarks on Frazer's Golden Bough. In C. G. Luckhardt. Wittgenstein, Sources and
Perspectives (Ithaca NY, Cornell University Press, 1979), p. 73.
85
Sto. Augustine. De Trinitate, (Roma, Cittá Nuova Editrice, 1987), IX, ii, 2; IX, x, 15.
86
John Cothingham. The Spiritual Dimension. Religion, Philosophy, and Human Value (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2005), p. 70.
87
Biblical brevity about the imago Dei is instructive. In addition to the natural difficulties of theorizing about the
essence of the human and divine condition, all we know about God is what the Scriptures say: his creative
activity, his commands, his love, his justice. The imago Dei, in turn, is reduced to a praxis, to some basic human
acts that mimic the work of the Creator (Gen. 1:27; 2:15, 2:19).
 50

Reinforcing this emphasis on distinctions, from the Sociology of Religion comes the

perception of the socializing importance of religion, through its rites and myths, for the

definition of man in its most diverse historical and geographical instances. For Auguste

Comte, for example, religion is the main socializing agency88. According to Durkheim, there

are three primary social functions of religion: (a) social cohesion – religion helps to maintain

social solidarity by sharing rituals and beliefs; (b) social control – religion based on norms

and prohibitions, moral or ritual, helps to maintain conformity and behavioral control of

individuals; (c) the provision of meaning and purpose – it provides answers to existential

questions89. In short, religious symbols and their interpretation are the foundations of this

psychosocial complex that we call religion. According to Peter Berger, they make up the

sacred canopy that protects the fragile social structure from dissolution by anomie.

Despite these important contributions from the Sciences of Religion and without

underestimating all the lights that were projected on religious phenomena by these disciplines,

the ineluctable conclusion is that Phenomenology, Psychology and the Sociology of Religions

have their limitations. In our opinion none of these disciplines are completely successful in

trying to subtract from the phenomena that study the doctrinal elements of which religions are

composed. No phenomenological typology, no socio-anthropological cause, can explain the

spiritual peculiarities of the different religions of the world, except considering the

educational process that peoples undergo through the myths and rites of their own religions90.

88
Roberto Cipriani. Manual de sociologia da religião, p. 47.
89
Émille Durkheim. Formas elementares da vida religiosa (São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 2003).
90
“Here is not the place to define the typical characteristics of all religions. But it may be useful to illustrate the
above principles by example. Here are some of them: The ancient Egyptians were fascinated by the mystery of
death; all the remnants of your civilization testify to this intense preoccupation with absolute life that arises after
death. The Greeks were faced with the problem of the relationship between form and creative life. They loved a
serious and beautiful style in art, behavior, philosophy, the sacred madness that breaks all forms and leads man
along strange paths. The Romans appreciated the value of the law, in deep respect for the 'numina', they followed
certain prescriptions to be in accordance with the rules in worship, social life and personal conduct. The wisdom
of the ancient Chinese was to live in harmony with the order of the universe, the path, the great Tao. Judaism is
characterized by a sacred fear before God, his holiness, a feeling that encourages worship and everyday life.
Islam takes its name from the total obedience of its adherents to Allah”. C. J. Bleeker. The Sacred Bridge
(Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1963), p. 34.
 51

In the specific case of Christianity, the ideas of revelation, sin and fall, of salvation

through Jesus alone, of judgment, of restoration of all things, cannot be simply allegorized or

metaphorized. Its accommodation to a dominant ideology – as in the case of Postmodernity –,

in its way of seeing the world, endangers Christianity as a whole. This is not how the unwary

flatterers of phenomenology think, a minor issue, linked to doctrinal matters that should be

disregarded in favor of a common essence. Christians cannot, just like that, overlook the

foundation of their faith, the Scriptures, when they seek to recontextualize their message in

today's world. Unless they want to see it destroyed.

1.a.2.a.2. The Postmodern Hermeneutics

Another way to avoid the biblical exclusivism is putting aside the concept of revelation,

which serious obstacle to make Christianity enters the interreligious dialogue, although it

denies one of the most important features of it, namely, the authoritative status of Scriptures,

as it loses its condition of vehicle of divine revelation. Indeed, others Asian great religions,

like Hinduism and Buddhism, are worry to the dialog as they do not work with this concept.

Because they do not emphasize divine transcendence, but God’s immanence, they replace the

concept of revelation with illumination that is potentially relativist. Many theorists worry

about the Christian Exclusivism, when they come to read NT, they do not see an authoritative

text, but a text that has mere chronological priority, that is, it is the witness of the interpretive

effort of Christians to understand the Christ event, who had the same objective we have when

reading its story: to try to identify the deeper meaning of the life, death and message of Jesus.

Several Catholic theologians (discussed in more detail below) are linked to this current,

including the author of the following quotation, Juan Luis Segundo:

The New Testament is a paradigmatic example of this, since its writings are other
interpretations that present themselves as different and at the same time. And that, as
such, they launch an assault, so to speak, of the spirit and meaning of Jesus of
 52

Nazareth, to make valid the transposition of values and the meaning of existence
lived in another context and facing other issues 91.

Still following this line of reasoning, the gospels are not the history of Jesus, they are

just interpretations of his story for two main reasons: (1) interpretation of the Christic event in

light of Old Testament prophecies and (2) interpretation in the sense of translating a Semitic

religious mentality towards a Hellenistic conception that would characterize the new audience

of the story of Jesus: the pagans92. In other words, the gospels resulted from a process of

inculturation that might be continued throughout history until our days.

In short, what we thought as authoritative texts given to remain untouchable, now are

just interpretations of the story of Jesus, written to atend the demands of a Hellenistic world.

Any other project of inculturation would deserve the same status of the NT writings.

However, we cannot help the question: where is the history of Jesus? The answer may not be

easy, but it will never be expendable. It is undeniable that the gospels are not biographies of

Jesus and strictly not history too, but neither they are fictional accounts. They build a theology

as they selectively omit events and highlight others, but they are also testimonial accounts. If

we had only one gospel, we could more easily suspect its suitability, but as there are several

and convergent reports, there is a factual dimension that cannot be annulled in favor of a

hermeneutical facilitation to the interreligious dialogue. It is a poor analysis which concludes

that the NT is a mere Hellenization of the expectations of the OT. The Christic event is a sui

generis act of God, diverse from everything in the world of religions, and this cannot be put

aside so that interreligious dialogue becomes possible. Doing that does not even means

relativization, but another kind of standardization, as the demand of the theological thought is

today the religious pluralism, and not the obedience to the Christian sources.

91
Juan Luis Segundo. La historia perdida y recuperada de Jesús de Nazaret. De los Sinópticos a Pablo
(Santander : Editorial Sal Terrae, 1991), pp. 371 e 372.
92
Ibid., p. 646.
 53

For Geffré, the hermeneutic enterprise is based on a concept of the Word of God that

does not coincide with that of Holy Scripture, as it is understood as a partial witness of divine

revelation, locating the semantic plenitude of the gospel in the eschatological order93. This

means that Scripture in general and the text of the Gospels specially belong to the order of the

transitory and the surmountable and, therefore, requires a constant updating of their message,

as the time of consummation has not yet arrived. Jesus himself, proclaimed Christ by the early

Christian community, has a historical and human dimension that does not exhaust all the

revelational possibilities of the eternal Logos. Therefore, the search for an unknown Christ,

who presents himself in all the religious experiences of all human beings94, must be also part

of the Christian experience of the sacred. Geffré, therefore, expands the hermeneutic circle

beyond the pages of Scripture, also including other religious experiences, requiring that

Scripture may be interpreted in the light of the non-Christian religious, as well; as the goal of

hermeneutics is interpret the human religious experience in its deepest sense95.

In a different way, what everyone says is that the historical and textual dimensions of

biblical accounts are no longer the preferred hermeneutical references. The meaning of the

text is no longer provided by the relation between the author’s intention, the text and context,

and the rules of comprehension, like in Schleiermacher's romantic hermeneutics taught 96 .

Scripture is also no longer mediated by texts reconstituted by scientific methods, as

Bultmann’s Historicism intended. According to a Hermeneutics influenced by the masters of

suspicion (K. Marx, S. Freud and F. Nietzsche)97 the meaning stays beyond the surface of the

text. The author's sincerity, the interpreter's objectivity and the translucency of the context are

called into question in such a way that the surface of the text is transformed into a game of

93
Claude Geffré. Le Christianisme au risque de l’interprétation (Paris : Cerf, 1988), p. 20.
94
Claude Geffré. De Babel à Pentecôte : Essais de théologie interreligieuse (Paris : Cerf, 2006), p. 32.
95
Claude Geffré. Crer e interpretar. A virada hermenêutica da Teologia (Petrópolis: Vozes, 2004), p. 148.
96
Paul Ricoeur. Interpretação e ideologias (Rio de Janeiro: Francisco Alves, 1990), p. 20-23.
97
Paul Ricoeur. O conflito das interpretações. Ensaios de Hermenêutica (Porto: Rés Editora, s. d.), p. 100.
 54

mirrors, where one can read only indirectly. Let’s imagine a device that we can call the

interpretation machine, into which any text (even Sacred Text) to be read should be inserted.

The book is open in the middle and perforated until crossing the cover in numerous places of

its surface, under the cover there is a translucid glass and below it a mirror. The interpreter

must read throughout. Nothing there should attract one’s attention except what can be seen in

one’s own experience, for the understanding the essence of the text is possible only by a self-

mediation and by the mediation of the world. In places where the text is not translucent, not

allowing the view of a generic human face, this opacity means ideological contents, which

must be overcome so that the essential can remain. There are no special qualities in the

Scripture, no limitations in the interpreter, that is, no revelation and no need of illumination,

which would teach us that we were dealing with a different type of book. Is it still necessary

to open it and read inside it? Is it necessary any further argument to see that its relevance is

gone?

The conclusion seems obvious. Following this kind of Hermeneutics, when the reader

tries to get rid of the ideological content of the biblical text, it is then when it becomes an easy

prey. The extreme relativism that results from this conception only limits ideology to small

circles common to the current processes of singularization from which a phenomenological

study of non-predicative human essence cannot take it out. As assumed above, the religious

experience is not reducible to a behavior or a feeling. The religious creeds shapes and even

transforms human behavior, as occurs to the very idea of revelation and the sort of experience

linked to it. In sum, what we see in a text is not what can be read in it, but what is supposed to

be found there, and this, in the case of Postmodern hermeneutics comes from its own

relativistic ideologies.

Yet, recognizing the necessity of a theological enterprise does not suffice, unless it is

admitted also the need of a normative Hermeneutics; contrariwise, we fall back to the
 55

relativistic terrain by the hands of the Scripture itself, as seen in Segundo and Geffré

reasonings, as far as they make the Scripture says something it actually does not say. Scripture

is not intended to be a text like any other. The OT claim to be the Word of God, and although

the author of the NT does not draw to themselves a primary revelation condition, such as the

OT prophets, given their constant "thus saith the Lord" and "the word of the Lord came to

me", the NT writers are convinced of the authority of their words because they saw the advent

of Jesus, which they witnessed, as an event firmly grounded in the OT, ant that’s the reason

why they frequent quoted from there. They give no room to Segundo’s assumption that NT is

just an updating of OT regarding to Hellenist culture, or to Geffré’s idea of really revelation is

only manifest in eschatological times, even because, for them, the eschatological time begins

with the appearance of Jesus. The pluralist assault to the Bible, trying to entice it, despite all

internal indications that pluralist hermeneutics is not possible, indicates that we might come

back to a normative Hermeneutics. The first principle we must return to is the Reform Sola

Scriptura. The Bible interprets itself as far as its compass is the greatest hermeneutical

principle: the revelation of Jesus Christ in these latest days. That means that a critical reading

of the Bible is possible and necessary. The holy men and women in the Scripture are holy in

human sense, the Church and institutions are God’s agencies in a mysterious sense, only God

knows how it can accomplish His will, given their frequent ethical problems.

A critical Hermeneutics within the framework of Sola Scriptura is coherent with which

the Scripture says about itself. The revelation is progressive, Sermon of Mount upgrades the

Decalogue and the ethical obligations of the Torah in the context of the universalization of

salvation. However, this is not a demand of the Hellenism itself or of its audience, but an

internal demand of Scripture, since it is told in diverse passages that all families of the earth

would be reached by God’s grace. Normative Hermeneutics, therefore, is not normative

because of empirical demand. It is already known that not every empirical demand is
 56

legitimate, given the fallen condition of the humanity. Thus, we must search the scriptural

normativity, which we do in the following lines.

1.a.2.a. 3. Normative Hermeneutics

Originally, Exegesis and Hermeneutics were terms that represented the common task of

interpreting a sacred text. In this sense they were alternately used in the NT98. In the Early

Church around the 2nd Century arose the need for more general principles of interpretation to

guide reading and preaching. Thus emerged two great schools of hermeneutics: (a) the school

at Antioch which was characterized by a more literal reading of Scripture, inspired by

Aristotle; (b) and the Alexandrian school, which adopted an allegorical method, due to the

strong influence of Plato and of the Stoa philosophy99. The Alexandrian school prevailed,

influencing St. Augustine and other medieval thinkers. From the strengthening of Aristotle's

philosophy as the Church's ideological matrix in the Late Medieval Age, the literalist

interpretation gains new strength, influencing the literalist reading of the gospels by St.

Francis of Assisi and later the Reformation.

It is common in evangelical circles the distinction between Hermeneutics and Exegesis,

relating them with different fields of the science of interpretation, Hermeneutics dealing with

critical examination and theological-philosophical assumptions that presupposes the

interpretation of the Bible; while Exegesis treats with grammar, vocabulary, syntax and

historical context of the text100. Hermeneutics is a theory of interpretation and Exegesis is

applied interpretation, that means, the first focuses on the general principles of interpretation,

98
Hermeneutics: Matt. 1: 23; Mark 4: 41; Luke 24: 27. Exegesis: Luke: 24: 35; John 1: 18: Acts 10: 8, 15: 12,
etc.
99
Robert W. Bernard. “The Hermeneutics of the Early Church Fathers”. Bruce Corley; Steve W. Lemke; Grant I.
Lovejoy. Biblical Hermeneutics. A Comprehensive Introduction to Interpreting the Scripture (Nashville, TN:
Broadman&Holman, 2002).
100
Yung Hoon Hyun. Redemptive-Historical Hermeneutics and Homiletics. Debates in Holland, America and
Korea from 1930 to 2012 (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2015), p. 8.
 57

and the second on the study of the text, envisaging devotional and/or homilectics goals101. The

conceptual limitations of this distinction are evident. There is a dialectic relation between

these two dimensions of interpretation. If our option is the normative Hermeneutics, its

principles must be extracted from the Scriptures itself and this will be possible solely through

a proper Exegesis, built with help of an adequate Hermeneutics.

A Normative Hermeneutics presupposes a divine origin to the Bible, whether by direct

action on human agents through dreams and visions, or/and by indirect activity of the Holy

Spirit by means of intellectual guiding of its writers and the conserving the text from

corruption. In either case there is a supernatural action directing the way the Scripture was

produced. Illuminist hermeneutics denies this principle giving to the human powers the entire

responsibility for the birth of the Bible. As we already observed this make the Scripture

become irrelevant religiously.

There are others principles we should include as essential to its proper approach: (a)

Scripture interprets Scripture, by explaining obscure passages through clearer ones; (b) Tota

Scriptura, which presupposes the unity of the Bible and, as corollary, that the Exegesis must

take into account the entire Scripture to interpret one single passage (II Tim. 3: 15). (c) The

kernel of the revelation is Jesus, his words and deeds (Heb. 1: 1-3), and this means that Jesus’

teachings are the final word to solve all controversies upon doctrines. (d) The revelation is

progressive, but this ‘progress’ is internal, from Old to New Testament and it does not include

the entire history of councils and other dogmatics sources, as thinks Karl Barth and Hans

Küng; even because the conciliar decisions that are characterized by conciseness are nothing

more than fighting the excesses of Christological heresies, remaining faithful to what the

Scriptures say. (e) The degree of relevance of each part of Scripture is determined by the

101
Bruce Corley. “A Student’s Primes for Exegesis”. In Bruce Corley; Steve W. Lemke; Grant I. Lovejoy.
Biblical Hermeneutic, p. 6.
 58

Scripture itself, this means that it is not a proper Hermeneutics to create doctrines from

isolated passages, that is, it is only biblical doctrine which is reinforced and reiterated by the

Scripture itself. On this particular principle it is not reasonable to ground a Christological

pluralist conclusion on the Logos (without considering the merit), as some catholic

theologians do, because the Logos is a unique and solitaire biblical allusion, for that build a

whole Christology upon it is an undue illation.

1. b. The status questionis of Theology of Religions

1.b.1. Introduction

The picture is complex and began to take shape in the beginning of the second half of

the 20th Century, especially after Vatican II, when the term Theology of Religions became a

common designation to a greater hermeneutical task, which no longer fits into the mere

contextualization of Christian’s preaching in the missionary field. In fact, the growing

presence and importance of non-Christian religions requires the creation of a new theological

discipline, a discipline in the sub-area of Apologetics, which arises from the need for

theological justification of Christian religious exclusivism in the face of salvific pretensions

of religions, as if it were a kind of theodicy. According to Dupuis the Theology of Religions

gained autonomous status in the theological encyclopedia in the early seventies, with the

publication of a work by V. Bonblik, Teologia delle Religioni102. It gains this status because

of the high degree of its complexity, that became evident by the huge range of methodologies

and theories proposed by theologians and philosophers of religion.

As a result, today we speak of the Theology of Religions as some decades ago we spoke

of Comparative Religions, that is, it is currently an autonomous discipline within the

Theological encyclopedia. No longer it must be studied as a chapter on the doctrine of

102
Apud Michel Barns. Theology and the Dialogue of Religions, p. 7.
 59

salvation, in which the saving condition of those who had never heard the preaching of the

gospel was speculated; or as former, occupied merely with the comparative juxtaposition of

doctrines, religious creeds and their possible historical and social origins, as the study of

Compared Religions. Sometimes this theological task of putting under examination the other

religions envisaged missiological objectives, as these studies served to find contact points

between Christianism and the other religions, in order to facilitate the preaching and the

formulation of missional strategies. As it is obvious, now Christian theology is no longer on

the offensive, but in a defensive position, given the empirical factors mentioned above.

But, after all, how is this new discipline defined today by theologians and philosophers

of religion? Some propositions were made, the following ones I consider the most

enlightening:

The Theology of Religions involves the attempt, by Christian theologians, to reflex

upon the meaning and significance of non-Christians religious beliefs and practices
from the standpoint of Christian revelation103.

Theology of Religions is a discipline of theological studies that attempts to

theologically assess the meaning and value of other religions. [...] think theologically
about what it means for Christians to live with people of other religions and about
Christianity with other religions104.

The repetition of the word theology and theological indicates that this is a problematic

definition, because we must first clarify what theology or theological means; our

understanding of the theology of religions depends on our concept of theology. Theology

from an epistemologically strong point of view is a normative field of knowledge that relies

on sacred texts to define right and wrong in the religious and axiological field and true and

false in the ontological field. The use of revelation in the first definition points out to the

Bible and also indicates that it treats with a normative discipline. Yet, Theology from an

103
Keith E. Johnson. “Theology of Religions”. In Dictionary of Ecumenical Movements (Genève: WCC
Publications, 2002), pp. 1126-1128.
104
Veli-Matti Kärkkläinen. An Introduction to the Theology of Religions (Downers Grove IL: Intervarsity Press,
2003), p. 20.
 60

epistemologically weak perspective is an explanatory and classificatory study of religious

beliefs and their historical evolution, so it is easily confused with another discipline: History

of Religions. If the first definition of Theology is adopted, two names can be used for the

discipline: Theology of Religion and Theology of Religions; if the weak perspective is

adopted, the appropriate designation becomes Theologies of Religions.

(1) Theology of Religion generally works in the deductive field primarily concerned

with Christian religious experience and the relationship between revelation and faith, faith and

religion and faith and salvation 105 . It seeks to conceptualize and/or typify the Christian

religious experience and is generally a concern for systematic confessional theologians106,

appearing as a chapter in many systematic theologies. The problem is that its definition of

religion does not fit to the experience of all adepts of religions. For instance, if religion is

defined as religio from Latin verb religare, presupposing that its function is to restore the

communion between God and fallen man, it makes no sense to the religions, that does not

know nothing about falling from God’s grace after the entrance of sin into the world. If we

define it more generically as worship of God, for some Hinduist, Buddhists, Confucian and

Taoists adepts a great number of world religions it will not make sense, as well107. In short,

after brief considerations we are led to admit that a purely deductive approach is impossible.

Religion is not singular, but plural.

(2) Theology of religions, in turn, combines the empirical approach with the biblical

foundation, since it seeks to “study the various religious traditions from the perspective of the

Christian faith and its fundamental statements about Jesus Christ” 108. As we think we have

anticipated when talking about empirical and textual demands, this methodology is a hybrid

105
Jacques Dupuis. Rumo a uma teologia cristã do pluralismo religioso (São Paulo: Paulinas, 1999), p. 7.
106
Paul Tillich. Dinâmica da fé (São Leopoldo: Sinodal, 1970).
107
Paul O. Ingram. Living without a Why. Mysticism, Pluralism and the Way of Grace (Eugene, OR: Wipf and
Stock, 2014), p. 14.
108
Veli-Matti Kärkkläinen. An Introduction to the Theology of Religious, p. 21.
 61

between inductive and deductive and is the only one that works with the three hermeneutical

principles presented: religious experience, sacred text and the interpreter's historical situation,

so it will be our methodological choice.

Theology of religions can also have a phenomenological treatment, which shifts the

normative field from Bible to the empirical one. Phenomenology, as a descriptive

methodology whose objective is to discovery the essence of the experience, is applied to

religion, as far as the theorists uses it to describes the essence of religion and shapes this

generic essence as normative against those that are supporters of exclusive approaches.

Phenomenology assumes that all religions are equals in essence and have no reasons to claim

superiority over each other, theirs discourse are despised and replaced by a transcendental

common experience, like demonstrate Otto’s in his work 109 . This approach is commonly

supportive to a pluralistic theology of religions, but its problem is that it is based in “an

abstraction that exists only in the heads of scholars” and is useless to approach to real

religions, that is, the “religious experiences of human beings”110.

(3) Theologies of Religions, also known as pluralist theology of religions, may have a

merely descriptive character, if we stick to the classification and typology of religious beliefs

and its mutual relationships, which would make us share its object with the History of

Religions. But it can also be normative, as far as its proposal for the inter-religious dialogue is

a demand that aims the end of symbolic violence and the search of a worldly peace, which

envisaged gives occasion for symbolically violent doctrines to be rejected in the name of good

coexistence among men. In this case, however, despite acting in the axiological field, it

should not be considered a theological discipline, as the criterion for its regulation would not

be a biblical discipline, but philosophical, since deals with ethics.

109
Rudolf Otto. The Idea of the Holy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1958).
110
Paul O. Ingram. Living without a Why, p. 16.
 62

In a similar line with other Sciences of Religions mentioned, that is, according to a non-

normative approach, there is also the Psychology of Religion. The difference between it and

Phenomenology, for instance, lies in the fact that phenomenology is a kind of formal science

while the psychology of religion is empirical and at some extent, experimental; that is, it

studies religion as a singular human experience, which means analyzing the

psychophysiological aspects presented by the body in the face of a religious experience, like

faith111, trance and psychic state112, religious belief113, religious archetypes114, etc., whereas

phenomenology deals with the common features of religious experience.

As already anticipated, the first and last methodological (Theology of Religion and

Theologies of Religions) options will be discarded in this research. The first, because the

disregarding of the third principle, that is, it ignores the empirical reality of other religions.

The latter, for not taking into account the second principle, that is, it does not make the

Scriptures and revelation its standing point and, eo ipso, becomes a meta-religious proposal,

given that philosophy abandons the logical support, with which it appears in the first and

second option, to becomes the main theoretical axis. In fact, at best, it should be classified

elsewhere in the encyclopedia of the Sciences of Religion: Philosophy of Religion; and, at

worst, it should be considered a negative approach to religions, characteristic of those who are

enemies of them, since it destroys the relevance of religious discourse, relativizing it115.

This methodology denies religion its essence: its claim to the absolute, considered a

problem by them, as it is supposedly at the origin of all world religious conflicts. In practice,

however, by relativizing the discourse of religions, disposing them of their essence – their

111
James Fowler. Estágios da fé: psicologia do desenvolvimento humano e a busca do sentido (São Leopoldo,
Brasil: Sinodal, 1992).
112
Edênio Valle. Psicologia e experiência religiosa (São Paulo: Loyola, 1998).
113
William James. The Varieties of Religious Experience. A Study in Human Nature (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2012).
114
Carl Gustav Jung. The Archetypes and Collective Unconscious (London: Routledge, 2012).
115
Mário F. Miranda. O Cristianismo em face das religiões (São Paulo: Loyola, 1998), p. 22.
 63

pretension to be an unconditioned truth – which results from this operation, nothing gains in

terms of inter-religious dialogue, as one exclusivism is exchanged for the other. Which

philosophers of religion subtract from religions they assume for themselves, since the

abolition of religious absoluteness is replaced by the absolutization of their meta-religious

point of view. Therefore, there remains the subscription of philosophers of religion to an

Illuminist116 and Kantian project, which is an opponent of religions, despite their protests to

the contrary. Religion according to the ‘simple reason’, or, should be said, according to ‘an

absolute reason', is a religion mutilated and stripped of its most important values.

So that, given the incongruity of the results of this type of methodology with what the

theorists who defend it intend – the inter-religious dialogue, we should call them inclusivists

(as they try to include all religions under the same phenomenological essence) and even as

exclusivists, since they exclude the normative pretension of religions; but never as pluralists,

since they deprive all religions of their relevance. They are actually reductionist, as they

reduce the luxuriance of religious experience to phenomenological essences that, as we have

already anticipated, do not admit that the doctrine itself is the origin of religious behavior.

They are methodologically exclusive, as they judge all religions by their single and exclusive

method: the rationalist, rejecting any other that does not submit to it117.

The most important concepts produced by this type of enterprise and can be inscribed in

the lineage as its ascendants were F. Schleiermacher's “feeling of absolute dependence” 118,

Rudolf Otto's “the sacred” (already quoted) and Paul Tillich's “ultimate concern” 119 . The

116
Gavin D’Costa (edt.). The Meeting of Religions and Trinity (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2000), pp. 1 e 2;
Cf. G. D’Costa. Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered. The Myth of Pluralistic Theology of Religions (Maryknoll,
NY: Orbis Books, 1990; Mark Heim. Salvations. Truth and Differences in Religion (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis
books, 1995).
117
Mark Heim. Salvations. Truth and Differences in Religion (Maryknoll NY: Orbis books, 1995).
118
Sobre a religião: discursos aos seus menosprezadores eruditos (São Paulo: Novo Século/Fonte Editorial,
2000).
119
The New Being (New York: Scribners, 1955); What’s religion? (New York/London: Harper & Row
Publishers, 1973).
 64

influence of Kant's first criticism (Critic of Pure Reason) is visible in all these thinkers, as

they are attempts to define religion from an experience reduced to a form, emptied of its

content. That is, through the discovery of an a priori to religion, which can also be called as a

general essence of religion, restricted to an abstract experience of a transcendental nature,

according to Kant's understanding of this word120.

However, at the end of this analytical process, every specific religious phenomenon is

deprived of its relevance, becoming just a manifestation of a feeling of the sacred or its pre-

condition, while its teachings are a mere result of historical, geographic, economic

circumstances. and social, with which they are circumstantially covered and therefore

completely expendable. The unconditioned is apophatic and transcendental, it is not possible

for it to have any kind of factual knowledge, so that our access to it is only through abstractive

reasoning, which is accessed by eliminating what is contingent until it remains just an

essence121.

But, is this abstraction of religion epistemologically possible? We have already

discussed it when talking about the phenomenological method, and the answer continues to be

‘no, absolutely’. Firstly, as the typical case of these Kantian interpreters reveal, Kant’s

concept of the sacred is actually a residue of Western theism, since the main quality attached

to the divine in this context is the transcendence, the noumenon outside the human

experimental field. Therefore, it is not an absolutely athematic, original notion, identified by

phenomenology, as its defenders suppose. It results from a residually Christian theological

conception. Neither Kantian abstraction nor Husserl's phenomenology would be able to go

beyond the religious experience that is already fertilized by two thousand years of Christian

theology.

120
That which is outside of experience, but is its condition of possibility.
121
E. Kant. Crítica da razão pura (São Paulo: Nova Fronteira, 2000).
 65

The assumption of all theologians who are linked to the Kantian tradition is that at first

a transcendental religiosity exists in the human spirit, that is, the condition of possibility of all

religiosities; and then, as result of the experience conditioned by historical, social mobiles,

geographic, economic, the specific religiosities, religion is born. Now this order of things is

extremely improbable. It leaves out of considerations the main shaper of religious behavior,

which are the sacred texts. This theory would only become plausible if one could isolate a

matrix religious experience 122 : "the feeling of absolute dependence", "the sacred", or "the

ultimate concern", or anything else with same abstract nature. From the sacred texts that make

it up, there is glaring evidence to the contrary, attesting the existence of a dialectical

relationship linking these two things: experience and beliefs, as Rudolf Otto, himself makes it

clear by the examples they extract from Scriptures.

Therefore, that project of reaching the essence of religion having as a starting point no

religion bumps into a methodological and epistemological impossibility. As for the first, it is

impossible to make a synthesis of all religions because of the irreducible differences that

distance them, making superficial all points of contact between their experiences123. If the

complete theological picture is not taken into account, the only thing you get from such an

operation is a meaningless amalgamation. Since Wittgenstein and Saussure, it is known that

every sense is systemic, therefore any religious statement must be understood on the

background of the system to which it belongs and not compared to another foreign element124.

122
G. Lindberg. The nature of doctrine (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), p. 17.
123
An example of this difficulty is the concept of love: “Buddhist compassion, Christian love – and if I may
quote a quasi-religious phenomenon – the fraternity of revolutionary France, are not varied modifications of a
single human consciousness, emotion, attitude or feeling, but they are radically (that is, from the roots) different
ways of experiencing and being guided in relation to oneself, to others and to the cosmos.”. George Lindbeck
apud Paul Hedges. Controversies in Interreligious Dialogue and the Theology of Religious (London: SCM Press,
2010), p. 154.
124
I base myself here on the semantics of L. Wittgenstein: “I once wrote 'the proposition is placed in relation to
reality like a measuring rod...' I now prefer to say a system of propositions is placed in relation to reality like a
rod to measure. What I mean is this. If I compare the measuring rod with a spatial object, I compare all the
graduation lines at the same time... If I know that the object extends to the 10th line, I also immediately know
that it doesn't extend to the lines 11 and 12, and so on. Statements describing the length of an object to me form a
system, a system of propositions. Now it is this system of propositions that is compared to reality, not a single
 66

Therefore, it is not possible to make the Theology of Religions a patchwork that brings

together elements of all religiosities, as the starting point must always be some specific

religion125, that will give the sense of whole, from which the individual doctrines take their

meaning. That is, although interpreting the same phenomena: life, existence, the sacred, the

relationship with God, salvation, etc., religions are always talking about different things.

Therefore, the doctrinal body of religions are closed systems, systemic structures, and not

merely poems and/or juxtaposed ethical definitions, as some theologians seem to think; for

that it has epistemological significance too. Arguing against this reasoning W. C. Smith, for

example, says that the empirical data of non-Christian religious wisdom is sufficient reason

for Christianity to adopt some of its doctrines, with no further reason:

Henceforth any serious intellectual statement about the Christian faith must
necessarily include, if it is to achieve its purpose among men, some doctrines of
other religions. We explain the fact of the Milky Way through the doctrine of
creation, but how to explain the existence of the Bhagavad Gita??126

Those authors who defend the epistemic possibility and ethical and religious legitimacy

of a kaleidoscopic “global theology” 127, form a large group. In addition to the aforementioned

Wilfred C. Smith 128 , also Leonard Swidler 129 , Ninian Smart 130 , Keith Ward 131 , can be

mentioned. These authors work more in the philosophical field than in the theological. Its

epistemological framework is postmodern, which is characterized by the loss of systemic

view of religious reality. In other words, they implicitly assume that the nomizing role of

religion was even clearly transferred to science, with religion having an aesthetic-ethical

proposition.”. Friedrich Waismann e B. F. McGuiness (orgs.). Wittgenstein und die Wiener Kreis, Gespräche.
(Schriften 3, Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp Verlag, 1969), entry of 12/25/1929.
125
O. Thomas. “Religious Plurality and Contemporary Philosophy: A Critical Survey” (HTR, April, 1994), p.
198.
126
Wilfred C. Smith apud A. Race. Christians and Religious Pluralism, p. 2.
127
Anselm Kyong Suk Min. The Solidarity of Others in a Divided World: a Postmodern Theology after
Postmodernism (London: T & T Clark, 2004), p. 176.
128
Towards a World Theology: Faith and the Comparative History of Religion (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1981).
129
Toward a Universal Theology of Religion (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1987).
130
The World’s Religions (Cambridge: The Press of Syndicate of University of Cambridge, 1998).
131
Religion and Creation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002); Religion and community (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2000); Religion and Human Nature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).
 67

dimension. Making it debatable whether in this context it would still make sense to speak of

faith as an essential religious category, since religion would no longer mean the adoption of a

system of thought as a whole, within which religious people place themselves and understand

the reality that surrounds them.

Obviously, the degree of commitment to a certain religious discourse can vary from

time to time and from person to person, as is the case when comparing the religiosity of

traditional peoples with that of industrial and post-industrial societies. However, it is more

than certain that it can never be a mere intellectual assent, or an individual ethical-aesthetic

experience. Religion is a certainty that encompasses all life, not just one aspect of it. It is

through religion that we know the world and the things that surround us132. Unfortunately, this

is no longer important in the postmodern religious context, as it is a fact that the aesthetic

aspect of religion has been transferred to other segments of culture, and the same with ethic

ones. M. Maffesoli, for example, draws our attention to the link that is being formed between

aesthetics and ethics, through “shared emotion or collective feeling” 133 in postmodern man. It

is known that the postmodern common man is no longer concerned with epistemology, hence

faith for him has a much more superficial and emotional meaning than for modern ones. It

remains, however, to discuss whether the syncretic processes adopted by the postmodern

world, with all its consumerist and hedonistic nature, could be adopted by someone who

thinks about religion from a normative point of view.

Postmodernism does not operate in a societal vacuum. The collective logic is quite

complex. The old modern institutions are still actuating and still influencing and controlling

the society, albeit in a weaker way if compared to the past. In short, it is obvious that today

132
L. Wittgenstein. Da Certeza / Über Gewissheit G. E. M. Anscombe e G. H. von Wright (orgs.), Lisboa,
Edições 70, 1990.
133
Michel Maffesoli. O tempo das tribos. O declínio do individualismo nas sociedades de massa (Rio de Janeiro:
Forense Universitária, 1998.
 68

there is no longer the same commitment people had in the past to the so-called great

institutional discourses. In this new post-modern environment, it is even possible the

phenomenon of dual religious affiliation, common in South America; and double religiosity,

increasingly normal in certain eastern countries, such as, for example, India134. But, even from

a normative point of view, is it coherent to simply adopt the postmodern perspective, ignoring

the other societal ideologies still present in the world? What would ground these theologians

elect postmodern parameters as paradigmatic?

Against what we called a 'patchwork' pluralism also argues P. Ricoeur, who is a

philosopher and not directly involved in the current debate, as he seems to defend a

particularistic pluralist point of view, but that for now serves as a counterpoint:

If at the bottom of my faith God is truly other, not only in relation to me, but other in
relation to all my representations, then I can confess that his otherness is revealed
and is revealed in another place, through other scriptures as well. [...]
I can't confess this if I'm not anchored somewhere myself, if I don't go deep and dig
right there where I am, waiting to hear the echo of the probe and the drilling work
that my distant brothers are doing elsewhere. , far from mine, on the surface of
cultures [...] [Because] It is not possible at all to fly above cultures and religions:
there is no point of view of the star Sirius, because it would not be a point of view:
no if you have access to the religious unless through a specific religion 135.

Avoiding the relativism present if Ricœur’s words, here becomes necessary an

addendum. First, as to the Kantian problem of representations, not even the least thinking

Christian would today guess that our concepts about God are information about His essence.

Since Luther and his reflections based on Paul136, this pretension is banned of our theological

reflections. The Deus revelatus is known only in the context of the economy of salvation; the

Deus absconditus, that is, God in his essence, is unknowable, due to an ontological

134
Michael Amaladoss. “Double Religious Belonging and Liminality: An Anthropo-Theological Reflection”
(JTR, Jan., 2002).
135
Apud Carlos Cantone (org.). A reviravolta planetária de Deus (São Paulo: Paulinas, 1995), p. 54.
136
The word mystery (mysterion), just as Pauline theology uses it, demonstrates the limitations of our
understanding of the divine. The various mysteries cited in Paul's letters: "mystery of God" (1 Cor. 4:1),
"mystery of His will" (Eph 1:9), "mystery of Christ's love for His Church (Eph. 5: 32), “mystery of the Gospel”
(Eph. 6:19), “mystery of Christ” (Col. 4:3), “mystery of faith” (II Tim. 3:9), “mystery of godliness” (1 Tim.
3:16), etc.
 69

incompatibility with us: finitum non capax infinitus. Secondly, as to a fixed point,

peremptorily denied in these times, it can be said that yes, there is a fixed point, a Sirius star

in this entire world religious universe: Jesus Christ, who judges religions, and constitutes

himself as a criterion exterior and superior to them.

Saying this, however, does not mean that as Christians we become judges of the other

worshipers, because, often, we are under same condemnation of the prophetic word of Jesus.

Which makes a religion true is not just a correct speech about God - orthodoxy - but also a

correct practice in relation to other God's creatures, who we are whether Christians or non-

Christians - orthopraxis. And in this we all have a duty: keep silent; no one possessing the

prerogative to judge, except the Lord. The institutional bond means nothing in the face of the

prophetic demand that is addressed to all of us human beings. The shadow of judgment

obscures all practices and discourses. Therefore, the last word on religions demands an

“eschatological verification” 137. This expression does not mean the reference to a future event

that will finally reveal which religions are approved by divine judgment and which are not138.

In no place Jesus says that institutions will be judged in the Doomsday, what repeatedly is

said in the gospels and the epistles is that only individuals will be judged, even in the context

of Israel’s punishment that Christians believed was the falling of Jerusalem and destruction of

the temple, Jesus’ admonitions in the apocalyptical sermon in the Synoptics, which is linked

with these terrible events are addressed to the persons and not to Jews as a whole.

In conclusion, it remains for us to cite Harold Netland, whose definition of the scope of

the Theology of Religions summarizes the framework of interests of the nascent discipline

that is adopted by the ongoing investigation:

137
Adolphe Gesché, “O cristianismo e as outras religiões”, in: Faustino TEIXEIRA (Org.), Diálogo de pássaros,
(São Paulo: Paulinas, 1993), p. 42.
138
E. Schillebeeckx. História humana, revelação de Deus (São Paulo, Paulus, 1994), p. 211.
 70

(1) the soteriological question of the fate of the unevangelized; (2) the theological
explanation of the phenomenon of human religiosity; and (3) the missiological
question of the extent to which we can adapt and build the establishment of the
Church in various cultural contexts from aspects of other religious traditions 139.

With the exception that the second point (2) will not be examined except collaterally,

given the limited dimensions of this work. In its place the salvific status of religions will be

considered in order to explain the singularity of Christianism. In other words, the initial

guiding question is: how to harmonize the peculiarity of Christianity, its saving and

revelational privilege in the person of Jesus Christ, with due respect for religions and their

religious wisdom? Before moving in this direction, it is necessary to analyze the state of the

current issue. Where do the discussions stand? Who are the main disputers regarding the

systematization of the area now in formation?

1.b.2. Some classificatory taxonomies

There is no single way to answer the question about the new world religious

configuration and how Christianity fits into this broad picture. A wide range of theories have

been called upon to classify and systematize how Christianity can relate to other religions. We

present below some of the most important typological approaches and their respective

proponents.

Among Catholics, the typology of J. P. Schneller 140 counts among the oldest

classifications, which in my view is not completely adequate, as it does not define sufficiently

the conceptual possibilities of the issue and the religious subjects involved: (a) the

ecclesiocentric universe - exclusive proposal, allusive to the famous Roman Catholic motto:

extra ecclesiam nulla salus (there is no salvation outside the Church); (b) the Christocentric

universe - an inclusive proposition that takes the logos (the pre-existing Christ) as the central

139
Harold Netland. Encountering Religious Pluralism. The Challenge to Christian Faith and Mission (Downers
Grove: InterVarsity, 2001), p. 310.
140
Apud Jacques Dupuis, Rumo a uma teologia cristã do pluralismo religioso (São Paulo: Paulinas, 1999), p.
255.
 71

axis of the religious dialogue: extra Christo nulla salus; (c) and the theocentric universe –

pluralist proposal that makes God a universal experience and the center of religious dialogue:

extra Deo nulla salus. As can be seen, the subjects defined by this typology preferentially

inhabit the Roman Catholic theological space and, to a lesser extent, the historical Protestant,

given its similar ecclesiological emphasis. It would not be suitable, for example, for the

Theology of Religions of Evangelicals and Independents. They are outright minority, but not

a negligible one, given their current explosive growth.

In the Protestant field, the pioneer in these considerations was H. Richard Niebuhr,

who formulated a theology of culture from a Christological perspective. Analyzing a

possible encounter of Christ with cultures, thought this possibility in a four-way typology:

Christ against culture, Christ in culture, Christ beyond culture, Christ and culture in

paradox, and Christ transforming culture 141. Niebuhr's work, although innovative for that

time, does not address the problems raised today, because it avoids dealing directly with

the problem of religious pluralism, preferring to approach the subject indirectly, that is,

emphasizing cultural pluralism and ideological encounter, since the challenge for

Christian message in those day was Marxism and secularism.

Several works were inspired by Niebuhr's pioneering work. Among the most

representative is that of the pluralist theologian Paul Knitter 142 , whose typology is

presented in the following format. (a) Substitution, whereby Christianity, as the only true

religion, seeks to replace other religions. (b) Fulfillment: Christianity perfects the saving

rudiments of religions. This was the position of the Second Vatican Council, the theology

of evangelical preparation and of Karl Rahner with his notion of “anonymous Christian”.

141
H. R. Niebuhr. Christ and Cultures (New York: Harper Sanfrancisco, 2001 – reedição comemorativa aos 50
anos de sua publicação).
142
P. Knitter. “La tipología de las religiones en el pensamiento católico” (Concilium, no. 203, 1986), pp. 123-
184).
 72

(c) Reciprocity, through which religions are called to an equal dialogue, based on a

common triple platform: historical-philosophical, mystical-religious and practical-ethical,

with the objective of common improvement. (d) Acceptance and it is so called because it

recognizes many true religions, saving men in different ways. This model neither desires

nor expects the overcoming of religious differences; they are not an obstacle to dialogue,

but its cause, that is, what provokes the need for dialogue. The latter is the most suitable

model for interfaith dialogue according to Knitter 143.

A similar typological alternative is that of H. Küng, based no longer on the institutional

intention of Christianity in relation to other religions, but on the question of religious truth:

(1) no religion is true, (2) only one religion is true, (3) all religions are true, (4) one religion is

true, the others are true as they participate in this truth144. For Küng, from the salvific point of

view, all religions are true, but the one that carries the life and work of Jesus Christ is the only

ethically normative one145, this meaning that Christ’s ethical doctrines judges all religions.

Of all typologies, A. Race's 146, in my view, remains the most interesting, due to its

scope and conceptual simplicity, and because in a way it does justice to all disputers

(Catholics, Protestants, Evangelicals, Independents and Pentecostals). As mentioned above, it

comprises three types: (a) Exclusivism, in which the material fact of the existence of other

religions is neglected in favor of the salvific importance of Christianity; (b) Inclusivism, in

which there is an attempt to maintain both the salvific importance of Christianity and the love

143
This typology deserves serious reservations, however, it is initially declared Catholic, which rules out any
possibility of using it, given its post-Constantinian nature, rejected lines above. The imperialist project, for
example, which is implicit in its formulation, especially of the Replacement model, only makes sense in Roman
Catholic missiology; the same applies to the Fulfillment model, which has as its background the doctrine of the
sacramental presence of the Catholic Church in the life of all human beings (Rahner). These ideas will be
unfolded later, when the specific discussion takes place.
144
Hans Küng. “What is True Religion? Toward an Ecumenical Criteriology” in Leonard Swidler (ed.) Toward a
universal theology of religion (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1987), pp. 231-250.
145
Idem, ibid.
146
Christians and Religious Pluralism; Patterns in the Christian Theology of Religions (New York: Orbis
Books, 1986). Soon after Gavin D’Costa published Theology and religious pluralism: the challenge of other
religions (London: SCM Press, 1986), following the same terminology.
 73

of God for mankind (God's universal saving will is also manifested in religions, albeit in a

secondary way); and, finally, (c) Pluralism, according to which the salvific importance of

Christianity disappears in the face of the importance of the love of God, which, by a universal

plan of salvation, is destined for everyone and is manifested to all religions147.

Veli-Matti Kärkkläinen made an adaptation on Race’s typology to contemplate John

Hick's more radical pluralism, that is, in addition to the ecclesiocentric, Christocentric and

theocentric models, suggesting a fourth model, calling it Realitycentric, because still

according to Hick, it is the best way of doing justice to Buddhism, that does not fit any model

of the threefold classification. Hick proposed a model that is based not on God but on the

"ultimate reality" with a panentheist taste 148 ; Theravada Buddhists do not believe in the

existence of a God. In fact, Kärkkläinen reluctantly cites this model because of its

vagueness149. I also reject it because accepting his reasoning, in a typological classification, a

concept that defines nothing would not be useful. Moreover, it has nothing to do with

theology, but speaks from another field of knowledge, namely, the philosophy of religion.

The current denominational distribution of these positions almost invariably appears to

be as follows: exclusivist theologians generally are: more traditional Historical Protestants,

Evangelicals, Pentecostals, Independents (Seventh-day Adventists, Latter-day Saints, and

Jehovah's Witnesses) and Catholic theologians who still resist the 'conquests' of the Second

Vatican Council; inclusivists are first-generation historical Protestants (Lutherans and

Anglicans), some evangelicals who work in academia, but mostly Catholic theologians; and

147
There is a typology parallel, whose elements serve to define theological options almost as well as Race's
typology, that is used by many recent scholars. We are talking about Dhavamony's triple typology:
ecclesiocentric (exclusivism), Christocentric (inclusivism) and Theocentric (pluralism). Mariasusai Dhavamony.
Christian Theology of Religions. A Systematic Reflection on the Christian Understand of World Religions (Bern:
Peter Lang, 1988), pp. 43-61. I do not consider this typology totally adequate because some Asian theologians
adopted the doctrine of Logos, believing in Christ as one of the diverse avatars, and in despise of it, they are
pluralist.
148
John Hick. A Christian Theology of Religions. The Rainbow of Faiths (Louisville, KT: Westminster John
Knox Press, 1995), p. 63.
149
Veli-Matti Kärkkläinen. An Introduction to Theology of Religions, p. 25.
 74

the pluralists, former Catholics, Protestants, adherents of Liberal Theology, mostly professors

of theology in non-confessional faculties.

At the risk of committing some important omissions, because the related bibliography is

currently immense, we can try to point out the most representative thinkers from each group.

Among the exclusivists are: the Protestants, Karl Barth 150 , Emil Brunner 151 , Gerald R.

McDermott152; most Evangelicals writers: Robert Sproul153, Ronald Nash154, John Sanders155,

Gabriel Fackre156, Harold Netland157, Davie Edwards and John Stott158; and the Pentecostal

Veli-Matti Kärkläinen (whose work has already been cited). Among the inclusivists are great

exponents of post-Vatican II Catholic theology: Karl Rahner159, Jacques Dupuis160, John A.

DiNoia 161 and Edward Schillebeeckx 162 ; the evangelicals: Clark Pinnock 163 and Mark

Heim 164 ; the Pentecostal Amos Yong 165 . Among the pluralists: firstly, the Catholic

theologians: Paul Knitter 166 , Hans Küng 167 , Claude Geffré 168 , Roger Haight 169 , Galvin

150
Epistle to the Romans (New York, Oxford University Press, 1980); Church Dogmatics (Edinburgh, T & T
Clark, 1961).
151
Natural Theology (London: Blackwell, 1951).
152
Can Evangelicals Learn from World’s Religions? (Downers Grove, IL, InterVarsity Press, 2000).
153
Reason to Believe (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1978).
154
Is Jesus the Only Savior (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994).
155
No Other Name: An Investigation into the Destiny of the Unevangelized (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1992).
156
What about Those Who Have Never Heard? (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1995).
157
Encountering Religious Pluralism. The Challenge to Christian Faith (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press,
2001); with Edward Rommen (eds.). Christianity and the Religions. A Biblical Theology of World Religions
(Pasadena: Evangelical Missiological Society, 1995).
158
Evangelical Essentials: A Liberal-Evangelical Dialogue (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988).
159
Curso fundamental da fé (São Paulo, Paulinas, 1989).
160
Teologia a caminho, fundamentação para o diálogo ecumênico (São Paulo, Paulus, 1999).
161
The Diversity of Religions: A Christian Perspective (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America
Press, 1992).
162
Jesús, la historia de un viviente (Madrid, Ediciones Cristianidad, 1981).
163
A Wideness in God’s Mercy: The finality of Jesus Christ in a World of Religions, op. cit.
164
Salvations. Truth and Differences in Religions (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1995).
165
Discerning of the Spirit (s). A Pentecostal-Charismatic Contribution to Christian Theology of Religions
(Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000).
166
No Other Name? (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1985); One Earth Many Religions (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis
Books, 1995); Jesus and the Other Names. Christian Mission and Global Responsibility (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis
Books, 1996).
167
Ser cristão (Rio de Janeiro: Imago, 1976); Christianity. The Religious Situation of Our Times (London: SCM
Press, 1995).
168
De Babel à Pentecôte : Essais de théologie interreligieuse (Paris : Du Cerf, 2006).
169
Jesus, Symbol of God (Maryknoll NY: Orbis Books, 1999).
 75

D’Costa170; Asian theologians: Catholics – M. Amaladoss171, R. Panikkar172, and an Asian

Protestant one: S. Samartha 173 ; European Protestants, starting with the proponent of this

classification, Allan Race; then with Jürgen Moltmann174, John Hick175, H. Coward176, S., etc.

Obviously, this list has several problems. In addition to the inevitable omissions and

partiality that characterizes someone who writes from the Western perspective – without

taking into account the theology of Religions of the Eastern Christian Churches, for example

– we are aware of how dangerous it is to make such generic categorizations, which are almost

always unable to define from in an exact and adequate way the position of the debaters, many

of them cannot justly be included in one or another category, given the specificity and

complexity of each theory.

Gavin D’Costa has several reservations regarding to Race’s typology. The first of them

concerns the complexity of these ideas, which prevents a perfect framing of these theories.

This is the case of K. Barth, K. Rahner and J. Hick, classified, according to that typology, as

exclusivist, inclusivist and pluralist, respectively. However, D’Costa draws our attention to

the fact that all off them advocate, despite their theoretical distance and confessional origin,

on salvation of all humankind, as, at some extent, they defend a final universal reconciliation

(apokatastasis), just like Origen did, and that greatly confuses their positions previously

believed so distinctly marked177. This happens because we cannot help the conclusion that

three scholars share a kind of pluralism, but as we will see they are not.

170
Theology and Religious Pluralism: The Challenge of Other Religions (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986).
171
The Asian Jesus (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2006).
172
The Unknown Christ of Hinduism: Towards an Ecumenical Christophany (London: Danton, 1964).
173
One Christ, Many Religions: Towards a Revised Christology (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1991.
174
The Church in the Power of the Holy Spirit (London: SCM Press, 1977); Experiências de reflexão teológica:
caminhos e formas da teologia cristã (São Leopoldo, RS: Unisinos, 2004).
175
The Myth of Christian Uniqueness: Toward a Pluralistic Theology of Religions (New York: Orbis Books,
1987).
176
Pluralism: Challenges to World Religions (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1985).
177
Gavin D’Costa. Christianity and World Religion. Disputed Questions in the Theology of Religions (Malden
MA/Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), p. 34.
 76

Harold Netland has basically the same contention, underscoring the fact that the

problem is not due to the ineptitude of Race's typology, but that over time, debates tend to

become increasingly sophisticated as subsidiary differences are added by each of the

contestants, so that it becomes very difficult to define the locus of each one within these

threefold typology178. From doctrinal perspectives, religions are complex organisms. There is

no way to compare them generically, without a referential axis that serves as a parameter for

the comparison: Church, salvation, truth, the experience of the sacred, revelation, etc. If the

referential axis changes, the position of each debater probably will also change, as in the case

presented by D'Costa. On ecclesiology one can be inclusivist, but on salvation, exclusivist,

and so on.

However, it would be impossible to approach such a range of theoretical propositions

without resorting to some sort of typology to guide us within the general framework of

debates and thus be able to organize the field of knowledge. Therefore, I adopt Allan Race's

taxonomy with reservations regarding to its extreme generality, which will be balanced with

further considerations with proposal of sub-types. My main contention to Race's typology is

the ecclesiological perspective which, although more attenuated than the J. P. Schneller's

(given that Race is Protestant and not Catholic), still remains.

In fact, it would be inappropriate and even ridiculous, for example, to speak of

Inclusivism (in Catholic sense) with reference to the way a minor religious movement relates

themselves to the world. In the missiological and ecclesiological horizon of religious

minorities there are only individuals of other religions, never religious institutions that shelter

them, and should be included; not least because their ecclesiological perspective is unlikely to

be post-Constantinian. Furthermore, as already stated, there are theories so complex that it

Harold Netland. Encountering Religious Pluralism. The Challenge to Christian Faith and Mission (Downers
178

Grove III: InterVarsity, 1988), p. 47.

 77

makes no sense to call them exclusivist, inclusivist or pluralist. The biblical approach to the

subject, for example, presents this complexity. Below, we will present, despite the

reservations, the typology of Race, with its main representatives, following a chronological

order (from the oldest to the most recent). We deplore that it is only possible to present a

succinct presentation of the debaters' ideas due to the limitations of this work, proposed as an

introductory discussion.

The organization of this work follows the sequence already presented in this

introduction. Firstly, the main factors for the current pluralist social condition, the theories of

Theologies of Religions and the status questionis. Chapter 2, 3 and 4, in the same order of

presentation the well-known threefold theoretical framework: Exclusivism, Inclusivism and

Pluralism, with its respective sub-divisions and main supporters. The order of presentation of

supporters will have as criterion the antiquity of the denomination combined with the

relevance of its role in the debate. This explains why Pentecostals appear before the

Independents, although chronologically they come later. In the last chapter will be presented

the inclusivist principle of Jesus, according to our reading of some theological concepts of the

gospels. Noting that inclusivism here does not mean including religions as means of salvation,

but as limited means of manifesting God's grace and mainly as places where those who should

be included are found.

 78

CHAPTER II

Exclusivism

2. a. Introduction

The exclusivist view was hegemonic for the most of the existence of Christianity,

varying only in emphasis or degree of the exclusion of the other religions. There has been two

thousand years of exclusivism, attenuated only from the last decades of the 20th century

onwards. However, Exclusivism is not a monolithic block, where the monopolistic and

excluding salvific pretensions prevail, as express in the motto: extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

There is no one Exclusivism, but several. The word implies a dual semiotic charge: who

excludes and who is excluded. In fact, from the original Latin, exclaudere means to close

something for some and to expel others from, in other words, to close something for the

enjoyment of some and by extension prevent the enjoyment of others. Here, therefore, we

have four possibilities of emphasis. As for the affirmative aspect, (a’) it means salvation by

one single means, (a’’) the exclusive access of a certain group to salvation; as for the negative

aspect, it can mean (b’) the exclusion of other saving means and (b’’) the exclusion of other

groups from salvation. Obviously, to affirm (a’ and a’’) is by extension to affirm (b’ and b’’),

with a small, but important difference: to affirm (a’) can mean exceptions in (b’’); but

affirming (b’ and b’’) leaves no room for exceptions.

 79

Something similar Ronald Nash says in his book, albeit in a simpler way. Among the

exclusivists there are two groups: the dot-Exclusivism-dot, which emphasizes exclusion (b),

and therefore does not admit exceptions; and but-Exclusivism, which highlights exclusivity,

but not exclusion (a) and, for that leaves open the possibility for exceptions 179 . We can

therefore call them (a) Strong Exclusivism and (b) Weak Exclusivism. Strong Exclusivism,

also called Restrictive Exclusivism, because it emphasizes the instrument chosen by God (the

Church), and superbly limits all means of divine grace to its circumscription, requiring from

all human beings to become aware of the grace of God through this unique instrument; (b)

Weak Exclusivism, whose emphasis is on the divine choice of means and instruments stated

in the Scriptures, which, however, does not preclude recognizing the limits of human

knowledge about the means of God's grace that may eventually go beyond them.

Obviously, it would be too simplistic to think that it all boils down to the polarization

between these two extremes, and the respective theological conceptions clinging to them like

bananas in a bunch. The best graph to represent the problematic relationship between these

theories is a network of smaller points interconnected and connected to the larger points (a'

and a'') and (b' and b''), from which they approach and distance, as far as allow their

convictions. Weak Exclusivism (a), for example, should not be confused with Inclusivism, to

be analyzed in the next chapter, because it never goes so far as to assert that there are God’s

revelations in the religions as do some kinds of Inclusivism. On the other hand, paradoxically,

Strong Exclusivism is strangely closer to the Roman Catholic Inclusivism than to the weak

version of Exclusivism, because of the Church-based soteriological emphasis, being the

Church the community of believers and the sign of divine salvation (sacrament), respectively.

Shortly, the distinction between the two types of Exclusivism, Strong and Weak versions,

stands on the emphasis each one of them adopt, Strong Exclusivism stressing on the

179
Ronald Nash. Is Jesus the Only Savior (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), preface.
 80

exclusion, or on the Church; and the Weak Exclusivism, focusing in the inclusion, or on the

vicarious death of Jesus. The first is more usually Catholic; the second, more Protestant or

Evangelical choice.

As it is already noticeable, it would be very complicated to organize this chapter

thematically, grouping these approaches according to this double division. I do not see a good

result in this attempt by V.-M. Kärkkläinen. Doing so we would be obliged to break the flux

of ideas put in different places similar things; or be forced to zigzag along the timeline to

present diverse kinds of Strong and Weak Exclusivism, which would certainly hinder the full

understanding of these approaches, as their historical context would be lost. Therefore, for the

sake of simplicity, the methodological choice fell on an organization according to a

chronological criterion, starting with the oldest approaches and ending with the most recent

ones. In most cases there will be a crescendo of openness to other religions parallel to the

timeline, since the Early Church until our days.

2.b. Pre-Constantinian Church

The New Testament Church cannot be classified as exclusivist tout court. In addition to

its problematic ambiguity between the Strong and Weak versions of Exclusivism, the fact that

it defends an exclusive salvation in Jesus Christ, as well as the exclusive divine agency of the

Church founded by him, does not mean several things either. For example, it does not mean

the subsumption of other salvific modalities under what would be a supposed sacramental

umbrella of the Church, which is a later theological development of the Catholic Church; it

does not mean either an expansionist project of religion that goes hand in hand with an

imperialist or colonialist expansionism, which is feature of North-American

denominationalism of the 19th Century; nor is it the ability or the right to pursue forms of

Christianity considered alien to the hegemonic faith in its custody, as the reformers did. All
 81

these attributions belong to the Post-Constantinian Church, that is, to that Church transformed

into the official religion of the Eastern Roman Empire by Constantine's decree and by the

decision of the others emperors who followed him. It was this Church that was organized into

bishoprics, whose administrative model and jurisdiction coincided with the geographical

regions of the imperial provinces. It was that Church that received judicial authority and

passed it on to her bishops, she was also the one who waged a religious war against Donatists,

Monophysites, Manicheans, Nestorians180, etc., and which in a way paved the way for the

expansion of Islam into territory once dominated by Christianity, Asia and North Africa.

The Exclusivism of the Early Church is one of a minority movement seeking to convert

individuals, presenting the gospel in that great assembly that Hellenistic globalization had

been gathering around the world since the 3rd Century B. C. E. A context where there was no

official religion (at least not in the sense adhered to the word by the post-Constantinian

church), at that time the State did not interfere too much in religious matters (just enough to

maintain public order), where, therefore, all beliefs and ideologies vied for a place in the

public space on equal terms. As we shall see later, the Church's rejection of the pagan

institutions of her time was only partial; it did not imply, for example, the denial of the ethical

and epistemological value of classical philosophy, given that some Stoic conceptions are

present in Paul and Plato in some extent in John.

2.b.1. Gospels: Polemic writings

The exclusivism of the NT’s authors presents itself in different degrees, given the

peculiar historical conditions of each community in which they were born. In view of this, it

is undeniable that in many passages the gospels use an antagonistic and even virulent

language to refer to religions and the surrounding Jewish context. It would be a mistake,

180
Roger Haight. Christian Community in History. Historical Ecclesiology (New York: The continuum
international publishing group, 2004), p. 202.
 82

however, to interpret these passages as conceptual language as appear in systematic theology,

as if they were generic concepts dissociated from their historical reality. Even because, on the

other hand, the pages of the NT are even encomiastic with respect to numerous non-Christian

characters in the story of Jesus and the acts of the Apostles, as is evident in Mark and Luke

gospels. For all this, the definition of which modality of Exclusivism (Strong or Weak) the

pre-Constantinian Church adopts is quite problematic.

The NT is a collection of contextualized texts written to respond to real and concrete

community problems. Among these problems was Paganism, which often persecuted and

slandered Christians. Indeed, an important hermeneutical principle to understand how and

why the gospels were redacted is knowing their location in a particular social locus, an issue

that was debated by the Socio-redaction Criticism. This aspect was extremely neglected both

by the History of Form (Formegeschichte) and by the first generation of the History of

Redaction (Redaktiongeschichte) 181, but without which the question of the meaning of texts is

not resolved. From the point of view of semantic it can be said that in the gospels there are

two types of referents. The textual referent concerned with telling the history of Jesus, and the

social referent, which aims at the experience of communities and potential listeners of the

gospels, the sum of both generates the gospels, that is, the history of Jesus addressing a

specific context of readers. His writing technique consisted of making the community

recognize itself in the history of Jesus, the disciples and other characters in the gospels; make

one history include another; make the past of Jesus and the disciples reflect the present of the

target communities or readers182.

Often the receiving communities of Jesus’ traditions had a fierce struggle to survive in

an environment hostile to their faith, with a degree of opposition that grew as they also

181
Gerd Theissen in epilogue a R. Bultmann. Historia de la tradición sinóptica (Salamanca: Ediciones Sígueme,
2000). p. 422.
182
François Viljoen. “Mathew, the Church and anti-Semitism” (VE, 28, 2, 2007), p. 699.
 83

expanded the boundaries of preaching and communities. The reconstruction of the history of

Jesus carried out by each of these communities should take these struggles into account. It

was essential for them that Jesus should resemble them and be a model to be contemplated

and followed, given the difficulties they faced.

In addition, the receiving and diffusing communities of Jesus' traditions also struggled

with profound internal transformations. This means that these texts were redacted in periods

of identity crisis, because of imperial or Jewish persecutions, because they are no longer a

branch of Judaism183. Indeed, Matthew and Luke wrote to communities in transition184; so,

also Mark and John. Mark desiring more independence from the community founded by the

disciples in Jerusalem; John facing hard opposition of Diaspora Judaism, probably having

many members of his community denounced to imperial power by Jews resentful of Christian

expansion185.

Although NT does not address directly the other religions, excepting some few

passages, the problem is implicit. The context is the key that will open us to an understanding

of the ambiguities of the New Testament about the world around it, which includes other

religions, explaining why some New Testament sources were apparently more inclusive than

others.

183
Antagonism between Christians and Jews grew long after the destruction of the temple in the First Jewish
Revolt (AD 66-70). Judaism in formation at that time, no longer having a temple around which to orbit,
gradually transferred its loyalty to Rabbinism, a movement originating in Pharisaism. A. Overman. O evangelho
de Mateus e o Judaísmo formativo. O mundo social da comunidade de Mateus – São Paulo: Loyola, 1997), p.
45.
184
Eugene Laverdiere e William Thompson G. “New Testament Communities in Transition: A Study of
Matthew and Luke” (TS, no. 37.4, 1976), pp. 570.
185
For a further reading on the social historicity of these Christians communities see: L. Schottroff y W.
Stegemann: Jesús de Nazaret, esperanza de los pobres (Salamanca: Sígueme, 1981). H. C. Kee, Community of
the New Age. Studies in Mark's Gospel (Lonon: SCM Press, 1977). Phillip Esler, Community and Gospels in
Luke-Acts; The Social and Political Motivations of Lucan Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1987). J. Andrew Overman. O evangelho de Mateus e Judaísmo formativo, o mundo social da comunidade de
Mateus; Igreja e comunidade em crise, o evangelho segundo Mateus, São Paulo: Paulinas, 1999. Gerd Theissen.
Colorido local y contexto histórico en los evangelios. Una contribución a la historia de la tradición sinóptica
(Salamanca: Ediciones Sígueme, 1997).
 84

2.b.2. The New Testament religious context

Entering this consideration in flagrant opposition to the controversial spirit of the NT

against its time, we cannot fail to recognize that its controversy with that culture had two

roots, an active and a reactive: (a) the active controversy against the Greco-Roman religions

was addressed to its miss of moral quality. The pagan religion they practiced had lost its

original virtues, when it was still an agrarian religion practiced in an agrarian society. The

poets had turned the Greek deities into bad examples for human beings, making of them

prodigal in all sorts of vices: greed, envy, lust, pride, etc., many of their readers being willing

to follow Olympic god’s examples 186 . The new mystery religions only gave rise to more

licentiousness, as did the Dionysian and Eleusinian mysteries. Other guilds, which we can call

with Tillich quasi-religions187, had been founded by philosophers, and initially even had a

very high ethical and moral impulse, but at the time of the New Testament had already fallen

into pure hedonism, as among Epicureans; or fatalism, as taught Stoicism.

(b) As for the reactive part of the controversy of Christianity with its time, the fact that

it was a minority, striving to establish its identity in relation to Judaism and to conquer its

place in the sun in the Gentile Greco-Roman society, suffering for part of both prejudice and

persecution, led the Christian faith in the early years to be prone to polemics, as most of the

New Testament writings demonstrate. It cannot be forgotten that the very tradition of OT

prophetism that Christianity sees itself as a continuity was antagonistic to the polytheism of

186
“The very anthropomorphism that made the gods so close to humans, an extension of society's patronage and
honor system itself, perhaps had a downside in revealing the gods as petty, corrupt and immoral as human
beings. The myths that the Romans learned from Homer and from the tragedies exposed the Olympian gods (in
particular) as guided by the same passions”. Luke T. Johnson. Among the Gentiles. Greco-Roman religion and
Christianity (New Haven\ London: Yale University Press, 2009), p. 38.
187
A concept applied by P. Tillich to the radical left and right ideologies of the 20th century (Nazism, Fascism,
Communism) due to their totalitarian pretensions that even included the religious dimension of societal life. See
Paul Tillich. El futuro de las religiones (Buenos Aires: Ed. La Aurora, 1976). Mutatis mutandis in Hellenistic
world there was the same totalitarian way of organization, through the existence of a large numbers os voluntary
associations with intense communal life, which encompassed politic, economic, social and religious dimensions,
within them in many ways there were occasion to licentious behavior contrary to the nature, as women were
excluded of their meetings.
 85

its Gentile neighbors, defining their worship as idolatrous and even mocking it, as witnessed

in several passages in the OT (1 Kings 18: 27; Psalm. 135: 16-17; Jer. 2: 27; etc.).

This polemical spirit also penetrated the Septuagint (250 B.C.E.), the Scripture used by

Jew in Greco-Roman world. The translation from Hebrew to Greek outpoured in LXX harsh

words that were not present in the original, with enormous consequences for future relations

between Christians and non-Christians in those times. Some examples can be easily point out:

Psalm 96:5 says, “the gods of the nations are idols”; “the gods of the nations are demons

(daimonia)” (Psalm. 95:5), therefore placing all Gentile religions under the sign of the

demonic. the idea of demons as antagonistic spiritual agents to God is not emphasized in the

OT, rather, there the emphasis is on the government and sovereignty of God, so it is not

common for the OT to compare Gentile idolatry to the worship of demons188.

But, although the Septuagint was the source foundation of the NT, the Christian writing

did not adopt its intolerant spirit, often overtly hostile to the Gentiles, which rather reflected

Jews’ difficulties in preserving their faith in the Hellenistic world during the dire Seleucid

period. All NT sources included Gentiles in Jesus’ project of the kingdom of God, varying

only in the degree of their submission to Judeo-Christian practices (circumcision, purity

rituals and other cultic precepts or just moral obligations), the Hellenist Church being more

inclusive because did not see these cultic obligations as necessary to the Gentiles that became

Christians (Acts 15); while some elements in Jerusalem Church taught that Gentiles might

become Jews before becoming Christians.

However, the NT does not have a much milder treatment regarding to the Gentiles

religions. For Paul the conversion of the Thessalonians meant the abandonment of idols to

188
The OT texts say about the idolatry: “vanity, a ridiculous work” (Jer. 10: 15); “in need of vital breath” (Jer.
51: 17); “nothing” (Isa. 44: 9); “empty” (Jer. 2: 5; 16: 19); “a lie” (Jer. 10:14; Am 2:4); “demons” (Deut. 32: 17.
The deuterocanonical and/or apocryphal ones follow closely: “dead things” (Wis. 13: 10); “lying” (Bar. 6: 50);
“the beasts are worth more than they” (Bar. 6:67); "the cause and end of all evil" (Wis. 14: 17).
 86

serve the true living God (1 Thess. 1:9); for him the Colossians were transferred from the

realm of darkness to light (Col. 1:13). There is also no lack of Old Testament references to

demons: “the things they sacrifice are to demons that they sacrifice” (I Cor. 10: 20). Another

constant reference in Paul is the Gentile understood as ignorance in the intellectual sense: the

Gentiles had their eyes opened to the true God (Acts 26:18; I Thess. 4:5). But equally in the

sense of error (1 Rom. 1:27). He tells Galatian Christians that came from Paganism: “In

another time, when you did not know God, you served those who are not really gods. But now

that you know God […]”. Acts 17:30 speaks of pre-Christian times as “times of ignorance”,

as in the Areopagus discourse culminates with the inscription of the altar “Unknown God”

(Acts 17:23). Eph. 4: 18 characterizes the Gentiles as “submerged in darkness, cut off from

the life of God by the ignorance that is in them”189. It is not commonly found in the OT

The general letters also speak of the Gentiles living in times of ignorance. In 1 Peter 1:

14 the Christians are exhorted to behave in a dignified manner: “Do not be conformed to the

passions that you had before, in the time of your ignorance”. Another word used, though less

commonly, is error (klane) (II Peter 2:18). Christians who came from the Gentiles were “like

wandering sheep” (I Peter 2:25; Heb. 5:22). However, perhaps, those mentioned here as

ignorant and wandering are not Gentiles as such, but sinners in general190. Revelation is no

less incisive in its reproaches. There the Jews are called “the synagogue of Satan” (Rev. 2:9)

and Roman, the Great Harlot (Ch. 17).

The picture is not simple. The New Testament has pages extolling the Gentiles,

especially those referring to worthy and righteous representatives who have come to accept

the gospel's invitation; on the other hand, there are the shameful references, like the ones just

mentioned. New Testament’s Gentiles are anything but simple and labelable. There were

189
R. Bultmann. La teologia del Nuevo Testamento (Salamanca: Ediciones Sígueme, 1981), p. 114.
190
Idem, ibid.
 87

religious manifestations less and more distanced from Christianity. To these closer

manifestations we notice a sympathetic treatment. Paul quoted some pagan poet when he

writes: “in Him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17: 28). Matthew spoke of magi,

probably astrologers, but, as well, Scripture connoisseurs, that came to honor the new born

king. As the text says they come from East and, therefore, could be Zoroastrian priests (Matt.

2: 1-12) 191. There is in OT a parallel to this passage of Matthew, that is, the Melchizedek

experience, “priest of the Most High God” (El Elyon), to whom Abraham paid the tithe and

by whom he was blessed. This passage is important because it deals with adepts of specific

religion, which denotes the evangelist’s inclusivism was not a sort of generic hope in future

evangelization of the world, Matthew seems to think in wide effects of God’s action that

surpass Church’s ministry.

Amidst Greco-Roman society there was a dynamic and constantly changing, which

made it be flooded by old and new creeds, all of them undergoing profound transformations

because of the intense syncretism and eclecticism that united everything in a common cultural

flow, whose coexistence, as occurs in our days, it was administered by the individuals

themselves, according to their own singularity 192 . This means that, starting from NT, we

cannot speak of Greco-Roman world generically, following an a priori condemnation or

approval. There are too much singularity and plurality and this in some extent explains the NT

ambiguity regarding the religions.

191
Gerald R. McDermott; Harold A. Netland. A Trinitarian Theology of Religions. An Evangelical Proposal
(New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), p. 11.
192
After Alexander's conquests (3rd Century B.C.E.), the Koiné Mediterranean world presented to the individuals
the new challenges and opportunities for individualistic salvation, where syncretism occurred according to the
taste and inclinations of each one. John Anton. “Theourgia – Demiourgia: A Controversial Issue in Hellenistic
Thought and Religion”. in Richard T. Wallis (ed.). Neoplatonism and Gnosticism - Albany: State University of
New York Press, 1992, p. 28). There were voluntary associations for all ideological and religious tastes, although
the state tried to exert some kind of control by demanding that these associations have officially declared their
nature, as was the case with Christians who registered their churches as funeral associations. James S. Jeffers.
The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era. Exploring the Backgrounds of Early Christianity (Downers
Grove. IL, InterVarsity Press, 1999), p. 76. What is certain is that no one could know what happened at these
meetings except those who attended.
 88

Gods and religions counted by the hundreds, came from all over to fight for space and

coexist in the globalized Greco-Roman world. The agrarian gods from ancient Roman society

(Lares); the Greek Olympian gods, portrayed by Homer and Hesiod and later adopted by the

Romans, as well; the gods of the Greek mystery religions (Eleusinian, Dionysiac and Orphic

mysteries) 193 and the mystery religions imported from Egypt and Asia Minor (Isis, Cybele,

Atargatis and Adonis194, respectively); gods of mythical Persian religions (Mithra)195 and of

Syriac origin (Jupiter Dolichen) 196 , brought to Rome by legionaries and merchants; the

emperor gods of the official religion of the Roman state; Israel's God of Judaism, spread

throughout the Jewish diaspora; the spiritualities of atheistic, spiritualist, deist (a kind of), and

philosophical quasi-religions (therapist, Pythagorean, Epicurean, Stoic, Cynic, etc.).

Some of these religions had the good will of the authorities, for example, obviously, the

worship of the emperor and traditional religions, such as the ancient Greco-Roman gods and

Judaism itself, tolerated for its antiquity. Others less tolerated and even restricted by their

disturbing nature for public order, such as the Orphic and Dionysian Mysteries, due to the

ecstatic behavior of their worshipers, which often led them to unpredictable behavior; the

Epicureans, because of their notorious atheism; and the Christians because of their

193
“"From the fourth century onwards, the form of Greek religion that attracted most educated people was not
the religion of the Olympic gods, but those of the mysteries, which gave individuals a more personal relationship
with the deity". Werner Jaeger. Early Christianity and Greek Paideia (Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard
University Press, 1961), p. 55.
194
As goddess of reproduction, her most important symbol was the phallus. According to Apuleius in the Golden
Ass, its priests were emasculated men and sexual inverts, practitioners of ritual prostitution in honor of the
goddess to propitiating good crops. Jaime Alvar. “Cultos sírios”. In Jaime Alvar et al. Cristianismo primitivo y
religiones mistéricas (Madrid: Cátedra, 1995), pp. 446 e 447.
195
“Ahura-Mazda occupies the hegemonic position of the [Persian] pantheon, while Mithra appears as military
commander, head of the armies of justice, defender of order against chaos and light against darkness”. Jaime
Alvar. “El misterio de Mitra”. In Jaime Alvar et al. Cristianismo primitivo y religiones mistéricas, p. 508.
196
It was a kind of Baal, originating from a neo-Hittite culture, which, after being Hellenized, adopted the name
of Dolichen, alluding to the origin of his cult. Lord of thunder, weather and iron, he had the attributes necessary
to become one of the Roman gods of war. Jaime Alvar. “Deuses sírios”. In Jaime Alvar et al. Cristianismo
primitivo y religiones mistéricas, p. 448.
 89

misanthropy (hatred of humankind) 197 and amixia (self-segregation), which in the eyes of the

Romans gave it an antisocial and anticivic character198.

Among the religions favored by the Roman state, deserved to be highlighted the official

cult of the emperor, which at first was resisted by the senate, but over time and under the

influence of the Eastern provinces, which had already practiced it since the time of the Persian

kings199, gained strength and popular appeal. First with Julius Caesar, that after his death was

declared god, and, later, with Octavio Augustus, who, like Eastern kings, became god while

still alive. Augustus Caesar had been declared the son of Apollo and so all the other emperors

whether Julians or Flavians, by whose power they were able to calm storms (August Caesar)

and, according to the gifts granted by Asclepius – god of Medicine, cure the sicks (Vespasian)
200
. In this context, titles such as ‘Lord’, Savior’, Son of God’ were commonly used by

supplicants to invoke Roman emperors in public prayer. The very term gospel (euaggelion),

or 'good news' was used by the emperor's heralds when they announced their good pleasure to

the citizens of a certain city: free cereal distribution and invitation to participate in civic

festivities, promoted to commemorate new territorial conquests, etc.201.

The strength of this civil religion must not be underestimated. It was the cement that

united the subjugated peoples around Rome, the capital of the world, even though among

these peoples and in the 'eternal' city itself, numerous gods were worshipped inside its

innumerable temples. The local elites of the dominated peoples had as survival politics to

197
“This is understandable if we remember that all [social] activities at the time – theatre, the army, literature,
sports, etc. – were so attached to the pagan cult that Christians were forced to leave them. Therefore, in the eyes
of a pagan who loved their culture and society, Christians seemed to be misanthropes who hated the entire
human race.”. Justo Gonzalez. Uma história ilustrada do Cristianismo – vol. 1 (São Paulo: Sociedade religiosa
edições Vida Nova, 1991), vol. 1), p. 55 e 56.
198
The cult of the emperor from which Christians also shunned was a practice so deeply rooted in Greco-Roman
gentile civility that it can be said that Christians, refusing to pay it honor, would resemble those who today
disrespect the national flag and/or the national anthem.
199
Luke T Johnson. Among the Gentiles, p. 37.
200
Amy-Jill Levine, Dale C. Allison Jr., John D. Crossan. The historical Jesus in context, Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 2006, p. 28.
201
Ibid., p. 29.
 90

practice and promote the emperor's worship because this would mean stand under the favor of

Roman state202. In so doing, they attracted to themselves the legions, to secure their taxes, and

to be protected against local revolutions and insurrections and invasions by other client kings.

But it wasn't just a matter of political pragmatism, which made the emperor cult grow

and gain popularity.

The permeability and dispersity intrinsic to polytheism made emperor worship not
only an intelligible but also a logical practice. If the deity was revealed by its
effective presence and power, then those who exercised imperial dominion over the
entire oikumene were truly theoi phenomenoi (visible gods)203.

Another great opponent of Christianity was Judaism. Not formative Judaism until the

middle of the first century, but Judaism that evolved from Pharisaic Rabbinism, gaining

strength after the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. In addition to being the oldest sect

and having outlived its most powerful rivals (the Sadducees who disappeared with the temple,

the Essenes and Zealots, slaughtered by Titus and Vespasian, during the First Jewish Revolt).

Before this time, Judaism came to rely on Roman sympathy because of the antiquity of their

traditions, and the good clientage of Herodians rulers, who always knew what side to adhere

in Roman civil wars. Recognizing it, the Roman emperors, from Julius Caesar to Claudius204,

granted them by decree the right to worship their God and practice their traditions without

being harassed, the temple in Jerusalem guaranteed the sending of offerings and tithes,

without any tax on the priestly class or rate. So, thanks to imperial favor, Jewish synagogues

202
There were thirteen small altars in Athens dedicated exclusively to Augustus. Emperor Claudius, under whose
reign Paul arrived in Athens, is described in one of the inscriptions dedicated to him as "Lord and Benefactor."
There was also a complete cult of Antonia Augusta, designated as θεα Άvτovία, with priests and later with high
priests, as Athens was considered the place of her conception. David Gill e Conrad Gempf (eds.). The book of
Acts in its first century setting (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1994), p. 85.
203
Luke T. Johnson, Among Gentiles, p. 37.
204
Claudius issued an edict in 51 d. C. that expelled the Jews from Rome. Acts 18: 2 mentions this fact without,
however, giving reasons for it. “But the Roman historian Suetonius offers us an intriguing piece of information,
telling us that the Jews were expelled from Rome because they were causing constant disturbances 'because of
Chrestus'. Most historians agree that Chrestus is Christ himself, whose name would have been misspelled.”
(Justo Gonzalez. Uma história ilustrada do Cristianismo, vol. 1, 1991, p. 51). That is, the Jews were expelled
from Rome, because dissensions with Christians about Jesus Christ.
 91

were rich and powerful, while Christians held their meetings in the homes of adherents and

sympathizers205.

In the second century, relations between Christians and Jews fell apart for good, as the

Jews understood that Christianity was much more than a sect within Judaism. The first

conflicts took place when the missions of both religions clashed in the Greco-Roman world,

as shown in the book of Acts of the Apostles. As is well known, the migratory movements

produced by Hellenism and the facilitation of communication due to the fact that the known

world became a Greek-speaker created a favorable environment for the dissemination of

religious ideas. The Jews, for their dispersion in the ecumene and for having a certain

sympathy from the authorities, were among those who favored themselves the most,

becoming known for their strong proselytism, thus deserving sharp remarks from classical

Latin writers. Horacio, Latin poet of the 1st Century B.C.E., declares: “if you do not want to

come voluntarily, we will make the Jews compel you to come” 206
. Because of this

proselytism emerged the religious figure of the God-fearing (pheboumenos ton theon), pious

or worshiper of God (theosebes), proselytes (sebomenon proselyton) (Acts 13:43). That is,

non-ethnic Jews, but religious ones, who observed the law of Moses just like a Jew by birth,

or people who observed the law without ever being circumcised, or even people sympathetic

to Judaism.

The evidence for adherent Gentiles of Judaism, however, cannot be limited to this
terminology. [...] Statements by Philo and Seneca talk about the expansion of Jewish
law and Josephus argues that the Jews of Antioch partially incorporated Gentile
admirers207.

205
“Excavations in Sardis [Asia Minor] have demonstrated how large and elaborate the Jewish synagogue in the
city was, providing a visual demonstration of the disparity in size and prestige between Judaism and nascent
Christianity.” (Luke T. Johnson. Among Gentiles, p. 22).
206
Apud Daniel Rode “el Todopoderoso en la misión de bendecir a todas las etnias”. In Elias Brasil. Teologia e
metodologia da missão (Cachoeira: Ceplib, 2011), p. 430.
207
John J. Collins. Between Athens and Jerusalem. Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans Publishing, 2000), p. 266.
 92

When Christian missions began to penetrate the places where Jewish missions were

already operating, obviously the Jews were not happy to see competitors coming to hinder

their efforts to win the world to their faith. The book of Acts introduces its readers to a large

number of righteous Gentiles who, despite not fully and openly embracing Judaism, mainly

because of the incompatibility of their occupation in the public service (where they would

have to worship the emperor) with the new faith, nevertheless showed themselves to be

willing to listen to and practicing what the Christian apostles and evangelists preached: the

centurion Cornelius (Acts 10: 1 – 5), the centurion whose servant was healed (Luke 7: 2 – 4),

the pro consul Sergio Publius (Acts 13: 7, 12 ), the Philippian jailer (Acts 16: 25-34), pro

consul Gallio (Acts 18: 12-14) and Publius, chief of the island of Malta (Acts 28:7-10).

As time progressed towards the end of the 1st Century C.E. the situation would only

worsen, also because of successive imperial decrees that banned the practice of the Christian

religion208, then no longer identified as a sect of Judaism, but as an independent religion. As is

known, the Roman state never carried out persecutions against Christians nor promoted

investigations to find out who practiced Christianity clandestinely. It merely stopped and

judged those who were accused of being Christ's followers209. It seems that some Jews must

have betrayed their Christian enemies and with this unleashed an entire unfriendly social

process that spanned the centuries and perhaps was at the origin of anti-Semitism in many

parts of the Christian world.

208
In the time of Emperor Trajan, around the year 101 d. C., as the correspondence between the governor of
Ponto-Bithynia, Pliny, the young man, and the aforementioned (Justo Gonzalez. Uma história ilustrada do
Cristianismo, vol. 1, 1991, p. 62). Their concern was that the number of Christians had become excessive and
that was why they were worry about the judgement of the followers of this depraved superstition could lead the
Roman system of justice to collapse.
209
A Trajan's recommendation to the governor Pliny was that no investigations should be carried out against
Christians in mass, but if anyone was accused of this practice and, being brought into court and in the face of
judicial coercion, refused to worship the emperor, the offensor should be sentenced to death by torture. In this
context, around 107 d. C., Ignatius of Antioch was sentenced to death. Afterwards, many other Christians
followed him to the wild beasts, to be slaughtered by them before the eyes of the population in the coliseum
(Ibid., pp.64 e 66).
 93

With all of this, NT Strong Exclusivism cannot be overestimated. The New Testament

has several passages that point in this direction. The NT writers are clear in declaring Jesus

Christ the only and sufficient Savior “there is no other name by which it matters that we are

saved” (Acts 4:12); “there is only one mediator between God and men” (I Tim. 2: 5); “I am

the way the truth and the life and no one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14: 6).

And the Church is presented as the diffuse agency of his message (Matt. 28:19). The NT's

Weak Exclusivism, however, is reflected in the conviction that the divine will is for the

salvation of all peoples on earth, including those who practice non-Christian religions (II

Peter 3:9; I Tim. 2:4). The conviction that all are children of the same God, that the same

Spirit works in all (John 3:8), and even if they ignore what is expressly stated in the

Scriptures, they will all be judged by the same law, for all have it printed in conscience (Rom.

2:15) and can perceive the Creator by the works of their hands (Rom. 1:20).

In short, the NT is exclusivist, but it can be understood as more or less, according to the

emphasis placed on certain passages, that must be read in some extent through a contextual

light. As already discussed, the sources do not present themselves as systematic works and

even the most exclusive ones, such as the Gospel of John, never close the door to divine

action outside the limits of what they know. The same John who says that no one goes to the

Father except through Jesus, also says that Jesus has sheep from another fold (John 10:16);

and that the Spirit, like the wind, blows where he wills, his voice is heard, but it is not known

neither where it comes from nor where it goes (John 3: 8). That is, God's saving action is not

controlled by human institutions. In fact, as the Church grew stronger and the persecution of

the Roman state diminished, it became more willing to Inclusivism, adopting a favorable

reading of the culture that was compatible with its teachings. This occurred in the second

century when Greek philosophy (at least the philosophers of the classical era: Socrates, Plato
 94

and Aristotle) were co-opted by the apologist fathers210, in a more assertive way than Paul did

in relation to Stoa philosophy.

R. Panikkar very shrewdly identifies two types of relationship between Christians and

religions: (a) the phase in which Christians see themselves as witnesses, as exemplarily

evident in Peter's first sermon in Jerusalem addressed to those were their brothers in the same

faith (the Jews): “Jesus is risen, of which we are all witnesses” (Acts 2: 32), And a second

phase (b) in which there is a conversion from another religion to Christianity, which Panikkar

believes to have started in the Constantinian and post-Constantinian era. In fact, although the

NT speaks of conversion (methanoia), the meaning of the word is usually linked to the

abandonment of a previous life full of sin and its replacement by a new life, when one is a

new creature, which is the meaning of the allegory of baptism as death and resurrection (Rom.

6:4). In Paul the Church is an organism whose growth is produced by the gifts of the Spirit.

Only Peter and Matthew clearly speak of an entry into a community of believers (Mt 16:19).

Institutional emphasis is, therefore, as correctly identified by Panikkar, the most important

mark of the post-Constantinian Church and becomes the foundation of a Strong Exclusivism,

symbolically more violent, in no way endorsed by Scripture. Therefore, strictly speaking, the

first church that presented this type of approach was the Roman Catholic Church.

2.b.3. Apologist Fathers

It is necessary to make a preliminary consideration about the Apologist Fathers

explaining why they appear here as adepts of Exclusivism rather than in the chapter dedicated

to Inclusivism, as commonly today. The first mistake in the current classification is putting

210
Indeed, each of the Apologists Fathers will find a theological point of contact with the pagan philosophy of
their time. Justin the martyr spoke of seeds of the verb (sperma tou logous), present in all cultures; Irenaeus of
Lyon defended a theology of God's covenants; and Clement of Alexandria, the conception that throughout
history there would have been several revelations of God: the law and the prophets to the Jews, philosophy to the
Greeks and wisdom to the Hindus, which he called gymnosophists.
 95

them all together, as they were not very different thinkers. Firstly, it is necessary to figure out

that they are not part of the same group; secondly, it is necessary to pay attention to what they

actually try to include under the rubric of Christianity. Before posing the question of what

kind of Inclusivism they adopt, it should be noted that their Inclusivism was not primarily

aimed at the religions of their time, the mystery religions, Western or Eastern ones; ancient

Greco-Roman paganism; or the quasi-religions of classical schools of philosophy. It would be

anachronistic to think this way. None of them knew about Eastern religions, except Clement

(in some extent); Islam was born only at 7th Century C.E, and only with Maximus the

Confessor and John Damascene, centuries forward, appears the first allusion to the problem of

other religions211.

Although it is correct to say that the apologist Fathers were the pioneers in the

elaboration of the idea of the crowning, as far as for them Christianism is the uppermost

revelation of God in relation to the former manifestations of truth (philosophy and OT), but

none of them had ever in mind the inclusion of the religions of their time in the platform of

which Christianity would be the best:

The Fathers never accepted polytheism, since it was contrary to the teachings of the
Old Testament. In general, they were extremely skeptical and hostile to Mystery
Religions, pagan mythologies, and many pagan rituals. Astrology as a means of
acquiring secret knowledge, so prevalent among the Mystery Religions and others,
was a constant target of his criticisms. The Fathers also opposed Eastern sects, such
as Manichaeism, which had found doors open to the West in the early centuries
C.E.212

On the part of Christians, this rejection occurred for the reasons already mentioned in

the previous topic, that is, the notorious immorality and decadence of Greco-Roman

paganism. On the other part, the pagans rejected them, Christians being accused by pagan

philosophers of many impiety (amixy, misanthropy and atheism, mainly); they despise them,
211
Michel Fédou. The Fathers of the Church in Christian Theology (Washington, DC: The Catholic University
Press, 2019), p. 317.
212
Veli-Matti Kärkkläinen. An introduction to theology of religions, pp. 55 e 56.
 96

because of their socioeconomic condition, because they had not Roman citizenship; they took

them to court to accuse them of practicing an Illegal religion (religio ilicita). So, the

persecuted and slandered Christians could not come to terms with the Greco-Romans Gentiles

of their time, which were completely hostile to them. By the way the apologist literature arises

to defend Christianism from Pagans accusations and to prepare the new generations of

Christians to face the internal errors which threatened apostles’ legacy213.

For all this, it is clear what kind of Inclusivism the Apologist Fathers aimed at. An

Inclusivism addressed to the knowledge of the time, that is, the Greek philosophy, which they

used to demonstrate that Christianity was a "philosophy" too, that is, had intellectual support,

and was historically linked to former religion and philosophical manifestations. Summing up,

it was not a new and eccentric superstition; or still, not an amixy/misanthropy, practiced by

marginal individuals in society, given the illegal condition of Christian religious practices.

Their intention was overcoming prejudices against Christianity and favoring its expansion

among the most literate people of those times. It has nothing to do with the alternative power

project of a religion that in other times had been hegemonic and dominant, as is the case of

Roman Catholic Inclusivism; nor is it related to the idea of other manifestations of the Logos

before Jesus Christ, as among the pluralist theologians.

Against this assessment argues H. Küng. The world religions today are much more akin

to Christianity than it was to the Greco-Roman paganism that the Apostolic Fathers knew, and

therefore, according to Küng, an inclusive project is possible as much as it was possible for

the Apologist Fathers in their times: world religions are equal to philosophy214. This statement

must be pondered, as it should be noted that the philosophies of Plato, Aristotle and Stoa were

actually a kind of philosophers’ religion, in the same way that the world religions referred to

213
Giorgio Jossa. Il Cristianesimo Antico. Dalle Origini al Concilio di Nicea (Roma: Carocci, 2006), p. 91.
214
Hans Küng. On Being Christian (New York: Doubleday, 1976), p. 113.
 97

by Küng are philosophical religions and not popular ones. Other than that, Greek philosophy

was not endorsed in toto by the Fathers of Church, as demonstrate their reservations to

Gnosticism. Otherwise, if we put side-by-side the Philosophers’ religion of that time and the

world religions of today, they will coincide in almost everything, because the source is the

same, the Eastern wisdom. pre-Socratics 215 , Pythagoras e Parmenides 216 , Plato 217 ,

Aristotle218, and others; all these drank from the Eastern fountain, because the Christian spring

did not exist yet when they started to teach. In this regard, the question is: was all this rich

oriental stream accepted by the guardians of Christian doctrine without further ado? The

answer we already know: not at all. Why then is it resorted to those who have rejected almost

entirely the Eastern doctrines, as if it was by their recommendation that Christians today

accept these doctrines? It does not make sense.

215
“Rig-Veda makes ocean the source of all things, as Thales made water his primary principle; while
Upanishads identify air as primary element in agreement with Anaxagoras.” Peter Adamson; Jonardon Ganeri.
Classical Indian Philosophers. A History of Philosophy without any Gap (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2020), p. 327.
216
“Pythagoras’ doctrines of vegetarianism and reincarnation sounds rather Indian, and that the monism trend in
Brahmanical thought that culminates in advarta Vedanta has an echo in Parmenides.” Peter Adamson; Jonardon
Ganeri. Classical Indian Philosophy, p. 327.
217
“In Plato the mystic tradition reached the zenith. He believed in the immortality, divinity and transmigration
of the souls, and the supra-sensible (beatific) vision of the philosophers. The simile of cave reminds us of the
doctrine of maya [illusion]. Like Indians philosophers he holds that the body is fetter for the soul, which can be
broken through the pursuit of wisdom. Like Hindus he believed that God is perfect righteousness and those of us
who are most righteous are most like him. His doctrine of Logistikon, Thumos and Epithumia reminds us of the
Samkhya of the doctrine of the gunnas (sattva, rajas and tamas, respectively). The division of soul into three
classes based on the preponderance of these psychical elements answers to the divisions of the Indian caste
system. The concept of the Age of Kronos in Plato, which is similar to the Golden Age of Hesiod, seems to be a
new version for the four yugas of the Hindus.” C. L. Tripathi. “The Influence of Indian Philosophy on
Neoplatonism”. In R. Baines Harris (ed.). Neoplatonism and Indian Thought (Norfolk, VI: International Society
for Neoplatonic Studies, 1982), p. 281.
218
Aristotle’s idea of God as Creator in many points coincides with Brahmanical thought. He is indivisible,
devoid of parts; has no magnitude, as motionless engine imparts motion through an infinite potency. He is being
devoid of emotions and is unalterable (Metaphysics). Bādarāyaṇa would say, […] that Brahman is “the support
of heaven, earth, and all other things” (§1.3.13. Though it takes on the forms of other things, brahman is in itself
formless (§3.2.11, 14, 24). “The elements of ancient Greek cosmology. Here, we get the sequence air, fire, water,
and earth, produced one after another with brahman as their ultimate source. They will eventually return to
brahman, dissolving into it in the reverse order of their generation, when the world-cycle finally ends (§2.3.8–
15)”. Peter Adamson; Jonardon Ganeri. Classical Indian Philosophy, pp. 132-133. Aristotle is concerned with
the movement, to escape from the Eleatic static world, that is distant from physical reality, which is his interest.
Yet, he basically says the same as far as he portrays God as the ontological foundation of the world that does not
interfere with its functioning.
 98

And does not make sense as well, that the same inclusive project can be applied to

Christianism in regard to the modern Western philosophies, as we should take Freud and

Marx as guides, as it is recommended by Küng. This is even more questionable than it would

be to make an indiscriminate synthesis of Christianity with world religions, since such

philosophies are frankly atheistic, whereas those known and adopted by the Apologist Fathers

were not; quite the contrary219.

The following lines we search to deconstruct the myth of inclusivism of the 2nd Century

Fathers, briefly presenting the main thoughts of Justin and Irenaeus on the subject. Clement

will be put in the Inclusivism Chapter because he really belongs to it.

3.b.3.a. Justin Martyr

Justin Martyr was born in Palestine, probably in Samaria, around the year 100 and lived

in Rome for most of his adult life. He undertook, as usual, a long spiritual journey until

becoming a Christian, passing through Zenon, Plato, Aristotle and Pythagoras, which in a

sense allows us to say that his theology is a synthesis of these philosophies with Christianity

(in which they are compatible). As stated above, this synthesis was not primarily aimed at

Paganism, but at the philosophy he had known. His words, when addressed to the religion of

his time, were quite harsh: “And you know perfectly well that the artisans of such gods are

dissolute people, who live shrouded in wickedness.” 220 For him, the myths told by poets

“were nothing more than the work of demons” 221; nevertheless, he does not shy away from

demonstrating the points of contact of these stories with sacred history, insofar as this can

help in the reception of the gospel.

The idea of the crowning in neither of the Apologist Fathers was born to create a

missiological point of contact between Christianity and other religions, but to refute the

219
Hans Küng. On Being Christian, p. 113.
220
Justino de Roma. I, II Apologia e Diálogo com Trifão (São Paulo: Paulus, 2000), I Apologia, 9.
221
Idem, I Apologia, 54.
 99

Gnostics' argument that in Jesus divine truth broke out without any previous point of contact

with the history, the world being hitherto dominated by the darkness of ignorance as to the

true God. Justin then argues against this Gnostic conception by creating the doctrine of Logos

spermatikos, by which both philosophers and prophets of Antiquity would have been by God

inspired when they wrote their works. His aim was to emphasize that there was no

incompatibility between philosophy and Christianity222. In this sense he speaks of Christians

before Christ: Heraclitus and Socrates, side by side with Abraham, Ananias and Azariah; both

groups being participants of the Word, as they live according to the Word, understood by him

as “rationality” 223. The doctrine of a trans-temporal Logos apart from Jesus Christ believed

and affirmed by Asian Catholic theologians, for example, never crossed his mind.

All the truth that exists in philosophy was inspired by the Johannine Logos: “the Stoics,

Heraclitus and Muson”. However, this is only a partial truth, since the full Logos can only be

found among Christians: “Christians have the entire verb” 224. They are only “seeds of truth”,

which besides being “contradictory” partials are imperfectly understood, which, however,

God in His mercy granted to men so that they should not walk in complete ignorance225. The

proof is that the most perfect and apex manifestation of the revelation of God is the cross,

which no other religion or philosophy has ever anticipated226. On the other hand, Justine uses

many points of contact of the Greek pagan culture to make the Christian doctrine more

acceptable in the eyes of its readers. Through affinities and contrasts he tries to produce an

approach from unknown to known: the judgment, the sons of Zeus and the Son of God227. It

was not an indiscriminate synthesis.

222
Eric Osborn. “Justin Martyr and the Logos Spermatikos” (SM, vol. 42, 1993), p. 47.
223
Justino de Roma, I Apologia, 46.
224
Idem. II Apologia, 10.
225
Idem, II Apologia, 44.
226
Idem, II Apologia, 55.
227
Idem, I Apologia, 20-21.
 100

In short, what Justin intends with this work is to lead his readers, not primarily to

recognize the hand of God in Greek philosophy, at that time a kind of science, nor even to

bring Christianity closer to other religious traditions, as has been done by pluralists, contrary

to the author's intention; but “to make Christ's message applicable to all humanity – both to

Jews and to Greeks” 228 , as is evident in the trilogy that is his great work: the first two

volumes addressed to the Greeks; the last one, to the Jews. Furthermore, if there was an

integrative concern in Justino, it was not directed at religions, but at Christianity itself, as he

sought, both in philosophy and in the Old Testament, points of insertion for his faith. The

problem for Justin was not Greek religions and philosophy, but Christianity itself considered,

as it were, a religion without honor by all, without rational or scriptural foundation. Thus, for

Justin, Melchizedek does not represent the non-Christians separated from the Abrahamic

stock and yet endowed with a saving function, but Christianity itself, so that there is seen

circumcision (Jews) serving the uncircumcision (Christians), as having Abraham paid tithe to

the king and priest of Jerusalem, which is a type of Christ229.

For all this, it is difficult to see in what sense one can attribute to Justin or any of the

Second Century fathers, with the exception of Clement of Alexandria, a dialogical

hermeneutic essence, to be imitated today by Christianity, as insists, for example, H. Küng (as

we will see later). Justino is less pastoral than Paul, given the literary genre he chose to

convey his ideas: two treatises and one dialogue, instead of letters addressed to the churches;

as his message was not addressed to them, but to the scholars of his time. Furthermore, there

is no great distinction, especially when it comes to the relationship with non-Christians, with

that ambiguity mentioned in both: negative reception of Greco-Roman paganism and partially

positive reception of this philosophy, only that Paul is more modest in his appreciation of the

228
Craig D. Allert. Revelation, Truth, Canon and Interpretation. Studies in Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho
(Leiden: Brill, 2002), p. 3.
229
Justino de Roma, Diálogo com Trifão, 33.
 101

Greek philosophers who are compatible with Christian doctrine. And even more unjustified is

making Justin's position equivalent to that of those theologians who try to engage in

interreligious dialogue. Justin is a strong exclusivist who attributes to Greco-Roman

paganism, or demonic inspiration when he counteracts Christian rites, such as baptism230; or it

is imitation, when it accompanies Christian doctrine. That is, he not only defends the

exclusivity of salvation in Christ, he also rejects the religion of his time.

3.b.3.b. Irenaeus of Lyons

Irenaeus of Lyons was born in Smyrna, Anatolia, present-day Turkey, between 130-140

CE, and there he was a pupil of Polycarp, one of the best known and most respected apostolic

fathers. There is news that he passed through Rome until he found himself in Lyon, around

170, where he would replace Bishop Pothinus who had been martyred 231. Irenaeus was not a

theoretician as were the other parents, Justino and Clemente, his work was the result of

pastoral concerns, in view of the danger that ran the Christian faith before serious threats it

faced. For example, Gnosticism and several heterodox Christologies more in agreement with

the dominant ideology of the time, Middle Platonism. Irenaeus was one of the champions of

pre-Nicene orthodoxy. Without him perhaps Christianity would have become something

unrecognizable to the early Christians. With this in mind, the conclusion of some that

Irenaeus would have been an inclusive theologian will seem strange, for instead of trying to

relativize Christianity or bring it closer to the surrounding religious world, Irenaeus' aim was,

quite the opposite, to insist on the uniqueness of the Christian faith, as it had been given to it

by the Early Church.

The first great insight that allows us to understand Irenaeus is precisely his effort to

promote continuity between the Old and New Testaments, between the prophets and the

230
Justino de Roma. Apologia I, 62.
231
Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity, Angelo di Bernardino (ed.) (Downers Grove, IL.: InterVarsity, 2014),
A. Orbe, entry: “Irenaeus of Lyons”.
 102

gospels. The Gnostics against whom Irenaeus reacted taught a diametrically opposite doctrine,

namely, that the manifestation of Jesus brought with it a new and sui generis revelation

“which suddenly burst into human consciousness, without continuity with the past”232 (as a

species of inner illumination, which is characteristic of Eastern religions), and which therefore

had nothing to do with the OT message. The problem posed by the Gnostics has Middle

Platonism as a background and is the absolute divine transcendence, which goes far beyond

the problem of sin and becomes an ontological and cosmological separation between God and

creation, since for them matter is antagonistic to God. As a solution, they adopted the platonic

theory of a demiurge (or creator angels) that created this false material world, which would

have been modeled as a copy or shadow of the true world of eternal ideas233. To bridge this

abyss, Jesus was sent by the true God, whatever should be understood his first coming234,

reveals the way of salvation, transforms into access to a new knowledge, to which only Jesus

as Logos has access in the pleroma.

For Irenaeus, the flesh is sick with sin, but it is not necessarily antagonistic to God,

since He Himself is its Creator. The Logos for Irenaeus is the pre-existing Jesus, before time,

but with a single existence in the flesh, whose importance can never be underestimated before

the eternal existence, because he is also incarnation in the history of Jesus235. Therefore, it is

not possible to bring Irenaeus closer to the Asian theologians who read Logos, but understand

Avatar, with various historical manifestations, through enlightened beings from different

cultures (Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster, Mohammed and Jesus himself), for whom the

uniqueness of Israel's history in which Jesus is inserted has no importance. In this sense it can

232
Brian E. Daley. God Visible – Patristic Christology Reconsidered (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), p.
67).
233
Irineu de Leão. Contra as Heresias. Denúncia e Refutação da Falsa Gnose (São Paulo: Paulus, 2000): I: 5. 2,
3, 5; IV: 1. 1.
234
The Logos “descended on Jesus at his baptism in the form of a dove”; or in the incarnation, passed through
Mary “like water through a tube” [without contact with the flesh]. Irineu de Leão. Contra as Heresias, I: 7.2.
235
Irineu de Leão. Contra as Heresias, III, 16.2.
 103

be said that the pluralism of these theologians is a kind of Gnosticism, as the entire OT

message is despised and replaced by a relativistic abstraction of the Logos.

Against this, Irenaeus builds sober integrative theologies of the Old and New

Testaments, and make them compatible demonstrating that divine revelation gradually

improves and is not irruptive, like taught the Gnostics236. The prophets saw the truth only

partially, for that the NT clarifies the OT, Jesus is the apex of divine revelation. In this effort

to theologically integrate the entire history of salvation contained in Scripture Irenaeus makes

some statements that are interpreted by inclusivists and pluralists as an integration not only of

Christianity with OT, but also of Christianity with other religions, which in no way was his

intention.

Irenaeus speaks in the Armenian version of his work about the two hands of God

working together in Creation of man, the Word and the Spirit, using a broad interpretation of

the verbs present in all acts of creation, because "God spoke and it was done" and breath-spirit

(ruach) was blown into the man molded of clay 237 . In view of the controversy with the

Gnostics, he had some clear objectives: (a) to demonstrate that it was not a demiurge who

created man, but the same Trinitarian God who would later come in the Son to rescue His

creation; (b) the motif of the hands also serves to neutralize the Gnostic idea of absolute

transcendence of God, given that God created man “with his own hands”, considering the

manipulation of clay 238 ; (c) just as the creation of carnal man was also God's work,

redemption must also involve the rescue of the flesh, through the resurrection, contrary to

what the Gnostics’ ideas on the imprisonment of divine sparks in the flesh of man239. In this

context, C. Pinnock's interpretation that takes the benefits of Christ's grace beyond any

236
Ibid., IV: 22.1 and 33.
237
Ibid., V: 1.3.
238
Anthony Briggman. Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of Holy Spirit (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2012), p. 122.
239
Idem, ibid.
 104

historical or geographical limitation, by understanding that the Spirit's presence in man's

creation gives this grace a universal meaning240, does not correspond to what says the text,

and can at best be a homiletical interpretation. Strictly what the text says is exactly the

opposite, it affirms the unity of the triune God and not an independence between Jesus and

Spirit, as if there were a dispensation of the Spirit independent of Jesus' (further on, the

discussion on the filioque). Finally, the metaphor of John's gospel on our ignorance about

what the Spirit does or goes (3:8) is a human limitation, not a divine one.

Another part of Irenaeus’ production generally is co-opted by the Inclusivist and

Pluralist perspectives as a theology of covenants (diateké) that appears as isolated passages in

his work and suddenly transformed by them into the flagship of his theology. The text reads:

For this reason, four covenants with humanity were also concluded: one, in the times
of Adam, before the flood; the second, after the flood, in the times of Noah; the
third, which is the gift of the Law, in the times of Moses; and the fourth, finally,
which, through the Gospel, renews man and recapitulates them all in himself, and
elevates men, making them soar to the heavenly kingdom241.

A decontextualized reading easily leads to a pluralist conclusion, since the first two

covenants are universal and are prior to the one signed with Abraham (in another place

mentioned) 242 , that could be interpreted as a covenant with Abrahamic religions (Islam,

Judaism and Christianism); and the covenant with Moses or with Israel, and the verse ends up

saying that they all lead to salvation. Some things need to be pointed out: Irenaeus' objective

is to show that God has always been present in human history, extending His gracious hand to

humanity, different from what the Gnostics affirmed that only in the days of Jesus the inferior

and antagonistic eons to God could be overcome. "The taking flight to the heavenly kingdom"

240
Clark Pinnock. Flame of Love. A Theology of the Holy Spirit (Downer Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), p.
188.
241
Irineu de Leão. Contra as Heresias, III: 11.8.
242
Ibid., III: 12.11. In the Greek version it appears instead of Adam, Abraham and the covenant of circumcision,
which is yet another argument that Irenaeus had no intention of supporting the pluralist thesis. James Bushur.
Irenaeus of Lyons and the Mosaic of Christ. Preaching Scripture in the Era of Martyrdom (London: Routledge,
2017), p. 127.
 105

is an allusion to the gospel of John, as the four covenants are compared to the four gospels,

and John is represented by an eagle. There is no inclusive intention in relation to human

religious traditions in Irenaeus' comparison. Even because there is no such a disjunctive view

in his reading. For him, the sacred history from Adam to Jesus is a unique history of salvation,

as he says, Jesus is the recapitulation of its all phases since Adam243. In fact, Irenaeus wanted

to include with this allegory the entire OT, rejected by many of the Gnostics, such as Marcion.

Nothing, therefore, can dispel the conclusion that Irenaeus was a strong exclusivist, even a

little more than Justine, as in him there was no inclusive view of the philosophy. No wonder,

because the philosophy of Irenaeus' time was no longer favorable to the Christian faith; it had

become a dangerous rival to the gospel.

2.c. Roman Catholic Exclusivism

From its beginnings, Roman Catholicism quickly progressed to a more restricted

Exclusivism with the strengthening of the bishop of Rome, which occurred with the transfer

of the seat of government to Constantinople. It remains to be seen what led him to such a

rapid occlusive turn since the beginning of the post-Constantinian period (325 AD). Several

factors can be pointed out: (a) the first was the institutional strengthening and the

politicization of the religious sphere, thanks to the administrative vacuum left by the move of

the capital from Rome to Constantinople244. Secondarily under this same rubric, there was

also the adoption of the monarchic bishopric as a form of ecclesiastical government and the

constant confrontation of internal and external dissent against the Church.

The second factor, now from a (b) theological perspective, Augustine's thought was

decisive for the emergence of Catholic Exclusivism. In St. Augustine there is a deeply

Irineu de Leão. Contra as Heresias, V: 21.1.

243

Helen C. Evans e William D. Wixom. The glory of Byzantium. Art and Culture of the Middle Bizantine Era
244

(New York: The Metropolitan Museum of art, 1997), p. 21.

 106

pessimistic view of humanity, for him, in its fallen condition, the human race is massa danata,

generated by concupiscence (desire and sexual intercourse)245. The whole theology of the fall,

of the original sin, from which the human inability to avoid sin and promote the practice of

the good came from (non posse non peccare or impossibilitas non peccandi), as they appear

in the controversy with Pelagius, makes us think that outside from divine grace everything is

condemned beforehand 246 . As a corollary of all this Lapsarian theology, there is also the

doctrine of the sacraments and their indispensability for the salvation of all mortals, in view of

the so-called original sin. Practices as infant baptism, beliefs as cosmology with a special

place for the post-mortem of just men, children died without baptism (the limbo), arose as

result of this doctrine. Church understood as sacrament, the only solution to the problem of

original sin, will be the cornerstone of Strong Roman Catholic Exclusivism: Extra Ecclesia

nula salus.

This conception crossed the centuries in the Catholic Church and reverberated even in

great minds such as Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), who strongly endorsed it, and even

contributed to its deepening, making use of the allegorical exegetical method used by the

Greek Patristics (Origen), to pontificate: “outside the Church there is no salvation; it is like

Noah's ark at the time of the flood” 247, that is, as clean and unclean animals were rescued

inside the ark, therefore, the saving capacity of the Church as a sacrament is proven. Using a

sort of sensus plenior in reading Paul (I Cor. 11: 3; Eph. 4: 15; 5: 23), Thomas Aquinas

concluded+ that the Church is the mystical body of Jesus, for that all people that are in the

Church, which is Christ, are saved248.

245
Sto. Agostinho apud K. Armstrong. Uma história de Deus, p. 166.
246
De Corretione et Gratia. In Jean Chené e Jacques Pintard (eds.). Œuvres de Saint Augustin. Bibliothèque
Augustinien (Paris : Desclée de Brower, 1962), p. 344.
247
Veli-Matti Kärkkläinen. An introduction to the theology of religions, p. 69.
248
Hans Boersma. “Ressourcement of Mystery: The Ecclesiology of St. Thomas Aquinas and the Letter to the
Romans”. In Matthew Levering; Michael Dauphinais. Reading Romans with St. Thomas Aquinas (Washington,
D.C.: the Catholic University of America Press, 2012), p. 73.
 107

In short, at the end of the Middle Ages, the Roman Catholic Church saw itself as the

exclusive mediator of divine grace, the only door by which anyone who wanted to escape

eternal damnation should pass through. Hence the categorical conclusion of Fulgencio de

Ruspe, a disciple of St. Augustine, at the end of the so-called Dark Age, became the official

doctrine of the Catholic Church, and was adopted by the Council of Florence (1442):

The council firmly believes, professes, and announces that no one who lives outside
the Church, not only pagans, but Jews, Heretics, or Schismatics as well, can have a
part in eternal life; all of them will go into the eternal fire, prepared for the devil and
his angels (Mt. 25: 41), if they do not adhere to it before the end of life. [...] Even if
one had given many alms and even shed blood for Christ, if he lived in union with
the Catholic Church, he could not be saved249.

Formerly, the Council of Trent (1545-1563) tried to soften this extreme disposition.

Francisco Suárez, Spanish philosopher and theologian, one of the Council’s leader minds,

taught that the Pagans could be saved in voto, that is, if they wished to be baptized, or if they

wished to belong to the Church, this implicit wish would be sufficient for salvation, if it was

provided by a purpose of the conscience and was followed by a life befitting it250. In addition

to this, other theories were formulated such as primitive or general revelation and deathbed

conversion, applied to the salvation of honest people who had lived outside the Church, but

who wanted to join it before death251, with time developed the doctrine that extreme unction

would have the same sacramental properties as baptism.

A long time later, during the First Vatican Council, in the 19th century, other

theological subtleties appear to soften the rigidity of the conciliar decision of Florence and

Trent. The concept of “invincible ignorance” of one who is ignorant of the gospel is an

example. This is how Pope Pius IX pontificated:

249
Enchiridion symbolorum in C. Cantone. A reviravolta cósmica de Deus (São Paulo: Paulinas, 1996), p. 91.
250
John Marebon. Pagans and Philosophers. The Problem of Paganism from Augustine to Leibniz (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 2015), p. 292.
251
J. Wong. “O Deus de Jesus Cristo em perspectiva pneumatológica”. In C. Cantone. A reviravolta planetária
de Deus), p. 415.
 108

It is naturally necessary to affirm in faith that outside the Roman Apostolic Church
no one can be saved, that this is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not
enter it will perish in the flood; but it must be considered equally right that those
who are in ignorance of true religion, if this ignorance be invincible, have no guilt in
the eyes of the Lord.252

Later the encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore (1863), by the same pope and moved

primarily against the formation of religious societies without papal approval (franc masonry),

which occurred under the endorsement of the Italian secular government, additionally also

explained the scope of “invincible ignorance” mentioned in the first encyclical, clarifying that

it concerned not only non-Catholic Christians but also adherents of other religions253:

It is known to us and to you that those who pour into an invincible ignorance about
our most holy religion, but who observe with care the natural law and its precepts,
engraved by God in the hearts of all; who are willing to obey God and who lead an
honest and upright life, can, with the help of divine light and grace, attain eternal
life254.

During World War II, under the rule of the inglorious Pius XII (who made a pact with

Hitler), the encyclical Mystici corporis (1943) identified the Roman Church with the mystical

body of Christ, through which God’s grace is imparted to men: “This grace He could directly

distribute by Himself to all mankind. He wanted, however, to communicate them through the

visible Church, formed by men, so that through her they could all be, in a certain way, be its

collaborators in the distribution of the divine fruits of the Redemption”255. To the Church are

liked “all those who, for certain, unconscious longing and desire are directed towards the

redeemer's body” 256. Dupuis assumes that this "unconscious desire" (inscio desiderio) “would

be an implicit and sincere will for accomplishing God's will” 257.

252
Singularem quadam in J. Dupuis. Rumo a uma teologia cristã do pluralismo religioso, p. 175.
253
Enchiridion symbolorum in J. Dupuis. Op. cit., p. 175.
254
Enciclica Quanto Conficiamur del Sommo Potefice Pio IX, fourth paragraph.
255
Carta Encíclica Mystici Corporis do Sumo Pontífice Pio XII, Chapter I.
256
Enchiridion symbolorum in J. Dupuis. Rumo a uma Teologia Cristã do Pluralismo Religioso, p. 175.
257
Ibid.
 109

As a conclusion to this topic, it can be observed that at this point we are already one

step away from the pan-ecumenism of the provisions of Vatican II, because what separates

this document from the first one is a subtlety of the Latin language. The first brings

ordinantur (being ordained, oriented), a word that indicates the direction of non-Christians to

Catholicism through this unconscious desire; the second (in Lumen Gentium, no. 15), the verb

is registered is coniuncti (being united), that is, be united to the Church. In this case, the

Gentiles are included in the Catholic Church by extending the sacramental function of the

Church and are not merely oriented towards it, as the encyclical Mystici corporis effectively

affirmed (Later on, when discussing Inclusivism, we will still return to Vatican II).

However, Vatican II is not the end stop for Catholicism on this issue. In the years after

the council, the Catholic position returned to old exclusivist emphases, thanks to the actions

of Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect for the Doctrine of Faith. In the Domino Iesu Declaration of

2000, there is an affirmation that could be used as the definition of the soft Exclusivism, and

with we close this topic:

It must be firmly believed as the truth of Catholic faith that the universal saving will
of Triune God is offered and fulfilled once per always in the mystery of the
incarnation, death and resurrection of the Son of God (n. 14). Therefore, those are
considered contrary to the Christian and Catholic faith hypotheses that they
envisaged a saving action of God outside the one mediation of Christ (ibid.).
Therefore, it can and must be said that Jesus Christ has a meaning and value for
mankind and its own history, singular and unique, only his own, exclusive,
universal, absolute. Jesus is, in fact, the Word of God made man for the salvation of
all258

2.d. Protestant Exclusivism

Among the Historical Protestants (Lutherans, Reformed, Presbyterians, Anglicans)

Exclusivism initially meant the same as for Catholics, that is, Exclusivism in a strong

modality, with express exclusion of non-Christian religions. They differed from Catholics

only by the lesser ecclesial-sacramental emphasis and greater importance given to soteriology.
258
Giacomo Biffi. La Chiesa Cattolica e il Problema della Salvezza (Torino: Elledici, 2000), p. 6.
 110

But in their case the same extra ecclesia nula salus remains, for soteriological reasons. Since

the salvation depends on the exercise of faith and “the Church is the body of Christ, to which

we can only belong if we are joined to Him in faith”259, then there is no salvation apart from

the Church. In addition, their emphasis on the solas: Solus Deus, Solus Christus, Sola Gratia,

Sola Scriptura and Sola Fides, prevented them from having a favorable view of religions,

since self-justification is assumed to be practiced by them260. Salvation is by the grace alone,

through faith in Jesus, was strongly advocated by all the reformers, and this averted them

from seeing salvation otherwise obtained.

Ulrich Zwingli is the lest exclusivist of the reformer, differing from them for instead of

throwing all pagans into hell, he put the righteous non-Christian in Paradise together with the

righteous Christians261. However, Zwingli did not think so because of the universal access to

the natural revelation, as did Erasmus, for instance. On the contrary, for him all knowledge

about God manifest among Gentiles comes from God Himself, by His grace and election,

because “as far as the nature and endowment of man are concerned, there is no difference

between pious and the impious man”262. For Zwingli, God “could save non-Christian who

manifest qualities of the faithful life”, because He decided to save some people outside the

Church263.

Regarding to interreligious relations, the Reformers followed the trends of post-

Constantinian times, finding in the OT theocratic ecclesiology of sinaitic covenant a good

justification for maintaining the Roman Catholic exclusivist approach, although not adopting

259
J. van Gederen; W. H. Valema. Concise Reformed Dogmatics (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2008), p.
729.
260
Richard H. Bliese; Craig van Gelder. The Evangelizing Church. A Lutheran Contribution (Minneapolis, MN:
Augsburg Fortress, 1989), p. 99.
261
Apud Phillip Schaff. Creeds of Christendom. With a History and Critical Notes, vol. one, (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1993), p. 360.
262
Ulrich Zwingli. Commentary on True and False Religion (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2015), p. 60.
263
Ronald J. Allen. A Faith of Your Own. Naming What You Really Believe (Louisville, KT: Westminster John
Knox Press, 2010), p. 119.
 111

its sacramental ecclesiology. Calvin, for example, defended a Mosaic ecclesiological view

about the government of the Church, and as for affiliation to it, he defended a unity between

the two alliances (the Old and the New Testament), even endorsing the hereditary

transmission of the ecclesial bond via infant baptism, for him a sort of circumcision264.

The Augustinian concept of two realms adopted by Luther made the German reformer

think dialectically in “realm of creation” and “realm of redemption”, to the first belonging all

human being that are children of the same Father, the Creator; and to the second, only that are

saved by the grace of Jesus. Both are created by God to preserve His creation, the first

regarding this natural life, the second, the eternal life. Another metaphor also used by Luther

to these two realms - God’s left hand and right hand, teaches that God government is effective

through the temporal authorities too, so that the repressive acts of profane authorities

somehow are under God’s coordination to make His will possible265, which end up to give an

endorsement to combination of the temporal and spiritual powers266.

Consequently, in their relations with Jews, Muslims, and Christian religious minorities

(Anabaptists), the Reformers still breathed the intolerant medieval airs, making them

approach to other religions in similar way as Catholic Church did, that is, in terms of

symbolic and factual violence, with entire chapters of their relation with deviant people a

history stained with blood. The zeal without discernment of Luther and Calvin was crucial to

the persecution to death they moved against thousands of Jews and Anabaptists, respectively.

264
John Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion (Peabody, MS: Hendrickson, 20090, Book III, chap. XV.
265
Jonathan D. Beeke. Duplex Regnum Christi. Christ’s Twofold Kingdom in Reformed Theology (Leiden: Brill,
2021), p. 44.
266
When the imperial mandate (1929) determined that all convict Anabaptist should be sentenced to death for his
religious practice this Lutheran theological concept made acceptable that 1 thousand or 4 thousand of them were
actually were killed by their faith. Günther Gassman; Duane H. Larson; Mark W. Oldenburg. Historical
Dictionary of Lutheranism (Lanham, ML: Scarecrow Press, 2011), entry: Anabaptists. And when Nazi
government of Germany called on German people to the war, some Lutheran pastors volunteered to fight the war
as combatants for the same reason: the authorities are the left hand of God and must be obeyed as their mandates
came from God Himself. See Daniel Cornu. Karl Barth et la Politique (Genève, Éditions Labor et Fides, 1967),
p. 94.
 112

The reason for his intolerance lay in his ecclesiology from a post-Constantinian perspective,

with mixture of temporal and spiritual in the government of the Church, that is, to alongside

the religious government of churches and parishes, leaded bishops to rule over the civil and

political segments of society, degenerating the inter-religious relations, which finally caused

religious wars in many parts of Europe, culminating in the Thirty Years’ War (18th Century),

which pitted Catholics against Protestants, with great slaughter on both sides.

With the end of the Thirty Years' War and the beginning of the secularization process of

the State, it was implemented under the presumption that this was the solution to the problem

of intolerance, the Illuminist ideas of separation of state and religion, and a strong influence of

Illuminism on Protestant theology also began. The religious superiority of Christianity was

transferred from religion to ethics and culture, via Kant and Hegel. This positioning in its

most violent and subtly concealed forms, which mixes an oppressive religious policy with an

exacerbated Eurocentrism, is now surpassed. In the theological field, however, there are

recent developments that still make this notion persist among us, although no longer on the

old fundamentalist or rationalist bases, rather through a more refined theology, drawn up by

some of the greatest theologians of the 20th Century. Next, the ideas of some of its most

exponential figures.

2. d. 1. Karl Barth

Karl Barth was a Swiss Reformed theologian, who became famous as the founder of a

new theological school known as Neo-Orthodoxy. He initially led other dialectician

theologians (R. Bultmann, F. Gogarten, and E. Brunner) in a revolt against Liberal Theology,

inspiring them with his ideas and the prophetic force of his texts, which guaranteed him

numerous enemies too. Considering the issue in discussion, Barth also collects polemics for

the radical negative contention against the salvific condition of other religions, through an
 113

aprioristic rejection267 he rejects any human initiative in the relationship with God, whether

from mystical or rationalist origin. For it, he ab initio discarded the debates that took place in

his days about the possibilities of interreligious dialogue. Yet, despite never having been

directly involved in this debate, some of the theologians who played an important role took

him as their intellectual mentor: Hendrik Kraemer 268 , Willem Visser’t Hooft 269 and Sven

Ensminger270.

The theological characteristics that are generally pointed out as fundamental for the

composition of Barthian ideas do not actually serve to identify the core of his thought. Neither

the alleged Kierkegaardian-inspired existentialism of his first phase, nor Anselm's influence

on his theological turn, which gave birth to the impressive Church Dogmatics, constitute what

actually brought Barth back to Scripture. According to Barth, the Protestant principles, Sola

Gratia, Sola Fides and Sola Scriptura, have a much more radical meaning than usual

understood in Protestant circles, because his starting point is a prophetic spirit, whose motive

is the first two commandments of the decalogue: the first that says as to who God is and the

second, what kind of worship is due to Him271.

Obviously, the historical context in which Barth made heard his voice, namely, the

morally and religiously decaying environment of European Protestantism instilled by Liberal

Theology must be considered to a fully understanding of his position. He was the only one of

the dialecticians who had the courage to acknowledge that the Word of God is above its
267
Peter Berger recounts a very interesting conversation between Barth and Anglican cleric DT Niles, the first
bishop of the United Church of South India. They discussed the Barthian thesis “Religion ist Unglaube”. At a
certain point in the interview Niles asks Barth: "How many Hindus have you talked to?" Barth's answer: "none".
"How do you know then that Hinduism is unbelief?" Barth's answer reveals the core of his methodology: “a
priori”. (Peter Berger. The Heretical Imperative. Contemporary Possibilities of Religion Affirmation, London:
Collins, 1980, p. 84).
268
Hendrik Kraemer. Religion and Christian Faith (Cambridge: James Clark, 1956).
269
W. Visser’t Hooft. No Other Name: The Choice Between Syncretism and Christian Universalism (London:
SCM Press, 1963); None Other Gods (London: Student Christian Movement Press, 1937).
270
Sven Ensminger. Karl Barth’s Theology as Resource for a Christian Theology of Religions (London:
Bloomsburry T & T Clark, 2014).
271
I. W. C. van Wik. “God and the gods: Faith and human-made idols in the theology of Karl Barth” (HTS, 63-4,
2007).
 114

hearers, and if, therefore, there is a disagreement between them, divine judgment must be

proclaimed upon men who have not been able to understand, it is not up to theologians to

make any kind of repair on the Word of God so that it may be understood and accepted by

men in rebellion. He did not act like some of his former colleagues, understanding

hermeneutics as the mere accommodation of the gospel to its listeners.

Indeed, the theme of the discontinuity between the divine revelation and the human

comprehension runs throughout the Barthian theology. The infinite qualitative difference

between God and man is an obstacle that no human being can overcome. It is an

insurmountable gap, which does not allow in any way the human beings to access the divine

truth, even though a gradual ascent; there is no continuity, for instance, between grace and

human religions 272 . The abyss is only bridged by divine revelational initiative. This

conception of radical separation from God leads him to an aprioristic rejection of any religion

that does not come from faith, and is not a response to divine grace. This parameter includes

all types of idolatry and all types of justification by works (Werkgerechtigkeit), in general, the

two classes of error that non-Christian (and even Christian) religions incur. As they are not a

response of faith to the Word of God, and only Christianity is this response (as revealed in

and by Jesus Christ), all other religions that start from the human word can only be worthy of

the divine ‘no’273.

From this perspective moves Barth his crusade against every deity that is not the biblical

one and it is not the result of a self-revelation of a God, who is totally other (Das ganz

Andere). In his inaugural work, the Epistle to the Romans, for example, Barth reacts against

the god of Liberal Theology and of Christian Socialism, and not properly against non-

Christian religions. A god with strong ideological elements, however so small, will be the

272
K. Barth. The Epistle to the Romans (London/Oxford, Oxford University Press,1968), p. 248- 260.
273
K. Barth. Church Dogmatics, vol. II/1 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1961), p. 17.
 115

portrait of an age; an idol, but never the biblical God, one who is accessible only by His own

will and initiative. In articles and papers that appear in the years immediately preceding the

rise of Nazism and the subsequent Cold War, Barth turns against the gods of Western

ideologies, whether capitalist or communist ones: the state, consumption, the individual274,

etc.

The direct reaction to world religions will only emerge in Barth’s transition from the

dialectical phase – marked by negativity and emphasis in God’s transcendence – to the

analogical phase, in which he seeks the point of contact between God and man and finds it in

the analogia fidei principle, and upon which his magna opus will be based, Church

Dogmatics. Again, the direct recipient of Barth’s invectives against religion is no other

religions, but the ideas of Schleiermacher by which religion is synthetized as “sense of

absolute dependence”275 already mentioned. From this perspective must be understood the

apparent most extreme form of Exclusivism: “the revelation of God as the abolition of

religion” 276; “religion itself and as such is never and nowhere true”. By the word 'true' Barth

means “true knowledge, worship of God and reconciliation of man to God” 277. By the same

prism, the most infamous Barthian moto “Religion ist unglaube” (religion is unfaith or

unbelief) must be understood. It means that religions in general are based on human pride and

vanity and not on faith (Glaube): “we start with the statement: religion is disbelief, religion is

a concern – we can actually say it is the concern – of a Godless humanity” 278. It is evident

that Barth here has also at his target the theology of religions of Paul Tillich, given his critic

on Tillich’s main theological principle in this regard: religion as the “ultimate concern”279.

274
K. Barth. Dádiva e Louvor (São Leopoldo: Sinodal, 1989).
275
K. Barth. Church Dogmatics, vol. I/2, p. 1.
276
K. Barth. Church Dogmatics, vol. I/2, p. 26.
277
K. Barth. Church Dogmatics, vol. I/2, p. 356.
278
K. Barth. Church Dogmatics, vol I/2, p. 280.
279
Paul Tillich. A dinâmica da fé (São Leopoldo: Sinodal, 1970), pp. 1-2.
 116

For Barth no “ultimate concern”, and, as well, no “absolute dependence”, will save a Godless

humanity.

Compared to faith, religions result from an inverted process, according to which

human’s redemption begins with the human being and has the transcendent as its destination,

while the true process starts with God’s self-revelational act, having as its final destination the

wicked man, lost in his transgression (Gen. 3: 8 and 9). As religions, being in the realms of

God's revealing grace, they act like the builders of the Tower of Babel, just as these builders

try to solve the problem of deluge in disregard of the divine promise, made in the covenant

with Noah: “the waters will no longer become a flood to destroy all flesh” (Gen. 9; 15), and in

this sense they commit the same kind of sin as the first human beings: listening to temptation,

they doubted the Word of God when they were warned that when they ate the forbidden fruit

they would die (Gen. 2: 17). Therefore, every unrevealed religion is a type of sin, because it

abandons dependence on the Word of God and seeks to create human new paths to access the

unknown God.

In this list are all world religions, without exception. The Muslims' God, for example, is

an idol, for his rejection of the Son of God280. Muslim Christology does not present a fully

human Jesus; it was an appearance of Jesus that was hung on the cross, not Jesus himself – a

docetic solution to the union of God with man in Jesus, therefore, adopts a heresy as a guide

to understanding Christian doctrine. Islamism is a cultural religion, extremely dependent on

values linked to the way of life of the Islamic society 281 , therefore, according to Barth's

perspective, its foundations are ideological and cultural, suffering from the same defect of the

contemporary “isms” rejected by Barth’s in his theological struggle throughout his lifetime.

280
K. Barth. Church Dogmatics, vol. IV/ p. 432.
281
K. Barth. Church Dogmatics, vol. IV/2, p. 615.
 117

Barth's theological bases are diverse. First, there is the Christological foundation of his

theology, which makes everything that he says to be inscribed methodologically and

ontologically in Jesus Christ. This so-called Christomonism, more than once criticized, makes

him reject the merely normative Christology of Troeltsch and Tillich, which gave ethical

priority for Jesus’ teachings; and all of the Roman Catholic theology, on account of the other

avenues for the knowledge of God. For him, theology must always start from the “scandal of

particularity” of the Christic event282, just as Paul's theology was based on the scandal of the

cross. Jesus Christ is the only foundation by which divinity can be understood by human

beings. It is through the incarnation of Christ, for example, that man is endowed with the

capacity to understand God and himself, a hermeneutic procedure that he calls the analogy of

faith (analogia fidei). In the introduction of his Church Dogmatics, he radicalizes by

denouncing the analogy of beings (analogia entis) of St. Thomas Aquinas as an “antichrist

invention”283, concluding that what emerges from it is not the God worshiped by Christians,

but the Aristotelian false god284.

In short, Barth he doesn't make any concessions to the possibility of knowledge of the

divine, neither obtained through reason nor through religion’s self-illumination. This path is

completely forbidden, it is the essence of sin, and his objective is to extol divine grace and

humiliate the human means used to reach the God unreachable. There are two fundamental

reasons for the harshness of Barth's claims against religions. First, his relentless struggle

against Liberal Theology, having as an interlocutor, especially Schleiermacher, and his “sense

of absolute dependence”, by which all religions were equated, including Christianism. The

second reason is a corollary of the first. The Barthian Christological monologue, which may

be consistent with his ideas, it is not biblical.

282
K. Barth. Church Dogmatics, vol. II/1, p. 1.
283
K. Barth. Church Dogmatics, vol. I/1, p. x.
284
Ibid., vol. II/1, p. 84.
 118

The heat of discussion having passed and the prophetic ardor against liberals having

subsided, Barth later reaching full maturity, his pen undergoes an important inflection on the

matter. In volume 23 of his Church Dogmatics, he comes to admit the possibility of a silent

witness about God in nature and history: “the lights, words and truths of the creature can be

the place where the eternal Word of God shines” 285, that is, he surreptitiously admits that

religions can be used by divine revelation to manifest sparks of their truth. Consistent with

this perception, he would have already rejected particularism, by the understanding of which

only a few are doomed to salvation while the vast majority of humanity is destined for final

damnation. No way. Barth is what we might call a hopeful universalist. Now, since salvation

results from a decision of God and not of human beings’ choices, he hopes that in the end the

saving and expiatory effects of Calvary will be applied to all by divine decision. For if God's

desire is that all be saved (I Tim. 2:4), then the will of God may be fulfilled, because what

God wants, he does286.

2. d. 2. Emil Brunner

Within this Protestant and dialectical lineage that defends Exclusivism, the figure of

Emil Brunner also stays highlighted. Like Barth, he was a Swiss Reformed theologian, whose

most senior teaching took place at the University of Zurich. Brunner is the foremost advocate

of a weak Exclusivism, on the basis of which much contemporary Protestant and evangelical

theologians continue to labor. His position maintains the uniqueness and superiority of the

revelation in Jesus Christ, not excluding, however, the possibility of the creational act of God

at biggening of human history continue to produce its revelational effects in other religions:

There are phenomena in the religions of non-Christian peoples which ‘we must refer
back to stirrings of the divine Spirit in their hearts’. The most important of these
‘effects’ of the original revelation is the sense of God, in general. Men have always

285
Karl Barth. Church Dogmatics, XXIII, p. 171.
286
Karl Barth. Church Dogmatics, IV/3, pp. 477-478.
 119

had a certain knowledge (notitia) of God, and this knowledge of God ‘will not allow
itself to be stifled287.

He accompanies Barth in the distinction between "revelation" and "religion", and

therefore also rejects phenomenological approaches that produce a parity between Christianity

and non-Christian religions: “. The Christian faith alone lives by the Word of God, by the

revelation in which God imparts himself” 288 . Yet, although Brunner has a concept of

revelation that departs from the reformed, he does not believe in a propositional revelation,

but in an encountering one, as suggested in the quotation above. This imposes on his thinking

a certain ambiguity that is criticized by Barth. Revelation for him is a sui generis mark of the

Christianity, but is as well “something of reverence and gratitude toward a Power on which

man knows himself to be dependent, which is different from his dependence on natural

facts”289, statement that smells like Schleiermacher. This apparent contradiction is due to a

dialectic character of natural religions. In an aspect, religion is “a recollection of the divine

truth which has been lost; in all there is a longing after the divine Light and divine Love”;

notwithstanding, natural religion is also, “abyss of demonic distortion of the truth” 290.

Therefore, “Jesus Christ is both the Fulfilment of all religion and the Judgement on all

religion”291, the manifestation of God coming to meet the human being292, that is, remaining

the truth that religions seek in vain, because they are not based on revelation, but on

immanent psychological processes.

From the standpoint of Jesus Christ, the non-Christian religions seem like
stammering words from some half-forgotten saying: none of them is without a
breath of the Holy, and yet none of them is the Holy. None of them is […] without

287
Emil Brunner. “Revelation and Reason” (London/Philadelphia: SCM Press/Westminster Press, 1947), p. 121.
288
Ibid., p. 116.
289
Ibid., p. 123.
290
Idem, ibid.
291
Ibid., p. 129.
292
Emil Brunner. Truth as Encounter (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2000).
 120

its impressive truth, and yet none of them is the truth; for their Truth is Jesus
Christ293.

Thus, Brunner defends a more attenuated modality of Exclusivism, because he rejects

Barth's Christomonism, rather believing in natural revelation, to which religions can have

access, in addition to the special one, restricted to the scriptural revelation. In this he follows

the path opened by John Calvin294, turning, however, into something positive which Calvin

considered negative concerning the content of religions’ doctrines. Brunner sees in them a

true and effectual knowledge for salvation295, following the Reformed tradition of Zwingli,

who saw all goodness, truth, honesty, courage, perhaps present among the Gentiles, as signs

of their divine election296.

Returning to the discussion about the divergence between Brunner and Barth, the

rupture between them begins in 1929, with the publication of Brunner’s article “The Other

Task of Theology”, through which he seeks to find in man “a bridge of insertion” for the

reception of God's Word297. Like Barth, he believes in the absolute difference between God

and human beings and that this distance can only be bridged by divine grace and by His

initiative. However, contrary to Barth, for him there must be a point of contact in human

nature, this being what makes us able to understand revelation, whether general or special

one, and brings us all together to be part in the same human family. Actually, Brunner’s non-

propositional revelation gives much more weight to human reason in the revelational process

than Barth’s concept does. For Barth, human reason has no preponderant role in the reception

of revelation, because if divine revelation crossed history unscathed since it was given in

293
Emil Brunner. Revelation and Reason, p. 270.
294
“It is beyond dispute that it is inherent in the human mind, certainly by natural instinct, some sense of
divinity”. John Calvin. A instituição da religião cristã, vol. 1 (São Paulo: Editora Unesp, 2008), p. 43.
295
“[…] so that no one resort to the pretext of ignorance, God has instilled in everyone a certain understanding
of his deity, of which, frequently renewing the memory, he instills from time-to-time new drops, so that, when
everyone, without exception, understand that there is a God and are his work, be condemned, by their own
testimony, for not worshiping and not consecrating their own lives to His will.” (Ibid., idem).
296
Apud Philip Schaff. Creeds of Christendom, vol. 1, p. 380.
297
Rosino Gibellini. A teologia do século XX, p. 24.
 121

Jesus, this was due to the operation of the Spirit within the Church and not to the faculties of

human reason.

In Brunner’s book, Nature and Grace 298 (1934), he imagined having found this point of

contact (Anknüpfungspunkt). In this work Brunner outlined his natural theology, making a

distinction between the material imago Dei, lost in the fall, and the formal imago Dei, which

remains inscribed in human reason and distinguishes us from other God’s creatures, since it

makes it possible for us to be moral beings and recipients of divine revelation299. Thanks for

that, sinful human beings remain able to recognize God in nature and the events of history and

to become aware of their guilt before their Creator. However, while acknowledging general

revelation, Brunner, because remaining an exclusivist thinker, does not give to the religions

an autonomous salvific status, as its salvation can only be properly discerned, interpreted and

explained in the light of Christian faith300.

In a book cited above, Revelation and Reason, Brunner defends, based on the

superiority of revelation, a kind of hierarchy between religions. In the foreground would be

Christianity, as a fully revealed religion and the only one that pretends to be a religion with a

final revelation for mankind. In second place stands the Semitic religions, which as partially

revealed, depends on Christianism. Concerning the above-mentioned point of contact in

relation to faith, there is in this kind of religion a sense of guilt in the face of sin: “a bad

conscience. It is the place where the change of direction must begin. The guilt, as a negative

relationship with God, is the contact point for faith”. 301

For Brunner, although Judaism, Islam and Zoroastrianism have this fundamental

element for the understanding of the Grace of God, which we can call the conscience of sin, in
298
Emil Brunner. Natural Theology (London: Blackwell, 1951).
299
Joseph J. Smith. “Primal revelation and the natural knowledge of God: Brunner and Catholic theology”, TS
(no. 27, vol. 3, 1966), pp. 293 e 294.
300
Emil Brunner. Revelation and Reason, p. 62.
301
Ibid., 214.
 122

these religions still mixed with this conscience, “self-justifying” and “self-saving” elements,

which cannot be equate Christianity in its complete emphasis on faith 302 . Furthermore,

although both of them are grounded in biblical traditions, none of these religions are fully

revealed: Judaism added the Mishná and Talmud to its cannon, and make of them its

preferential reading; Islam, although accepting the Scripture, did the same with Al-Qur’an.

Besides, they are systems of morality, because they do not teach justification by faith. And, as

problem with the revealed truth, Judaism, still awaits the final and definitive revelation,

because its adherents still wait for the manifestation of the Messiah, since they do not accept

that Jesus has fulfilled the prophecy 303; and Islam, as already mentioned, adopts a heretic

Christology: the Docetism.

In the last plan are the other world religions, which, as bearers of the formal imago Dei,

still have in their custody elementary truths, related especially to ethical and moral aspects.

Therefore, while not completely devoid of true religious insights, these religions have nothing

to offer savingly. The understanding of religions according to Brunner, therefore, is as

pessimistic as that of K. Barth, but less radical for not think them as rebellious manifestations,

against God. None of this natural knowledge about God, favored by the formal imago Dei,

can be conveniently thought of as with saving capacity304, since natural revelation is incapable

of unfolding God's plan to save mankind through the teachings, life and death of Jesus Christ,

author and finisher of faith, without whom no one will see God.

From what has been said up to this point, it is clear that one should not overestimate

Brunner's “openness to religions”. In essence he keeps saying the same things as Barth and

others reformers: that religions cannot save and Jesus’ death is the only means of grace, that

the truth about the human condition can only be known through the Revelation (sinner and

302
A. Race. Christians and Religious Pluralism, pp. 22 e 23.
303
Emil Brunner. Revelation and Reason, pp. 258-273.
304
Emil Brunner. Revelation and Reason, p. 79.
 123

lost condition of humankind), that if some of the non-Christians can be saved, they will not be

by their own knowledge of God305. And even this small opening towards religions Brunner’s

theology promoted, it was not produced by a desire to enter into a dialogue with religions, but

it is just the corollary of Brunner's concept of revelation and his commitment to natural

theology.

2.e. Exclusivism of Ecumenical Organizations, Evangelicals, Pentecostals and

Independents Churches.

Under this topic it is put a great diversity of exclusivists types, some of them weak,

some other strong ones, enormously variant between each other, many of these groups did not

deserve the term because are a heterogenous mass diverse people with little in common, like

the ecclesiastical organizations enlisted beneath. The Pentecostal and Independent Churches

has little in common, but appear together here because are more recent theological

manifestations (with regard to the subject covered). This is the logic of this whole chapiter. In

the crescent order, from oldest to more recent manifestations. That is why the Independents

are treated after Ecumenical Organizations, Evangelical and Pentecostals, in despise of being

chronologically older.

2.e.1. Ecumenical Organizations

This classification is strictly speaking inadequate, for the extreme heterogeneity of these

organizations, there being exclusivists, like IMC and LCM; inclusivists and pluralists, as

WCC. Even internally there were no harmony among these organizations, existing within

them groups with different positions concerning the issue in discussion. Christian uniqueness

and pluralism alternated in the hegemonic position, with attacks and counterattacks, according

to the convictions of whom was in charge.

David Pitman. Twentieth Century Christian Responses to Religious Pluralism (Abingdon, UK/New York:
305

Routledge, 2016), p. 55
 124

The missiological meetings of the International Missionary Council (IMC), the

meetings of the Lausanne Committee on Mission (LCM) and World Evangelization (LC) and

the conferences of the World Council of Churches (WCC) demonstrate the strong disputes

within Protestant churches regarding to that dilemma between two obligations imposed by the

new multicultural and multi-religious environment: the obligation of preaching and the

demand of dialogue, which produced a pendulum movement in the results of councils and

meetings. At first produced by the disturbing presence of a liberal wing that tried on several

occasions over the years to lead the councilors to adopt pluralism, or at least an inclusiveness,

in relation to other religions. More recently, as more refined pluralist theories came to light,

and as the influence of the Postmodern environment prevailed, the ecumenical organisms

have been leaning towards a more pluralist position, albeit without giving up what sources say

about Jesus. What is certain is that the meetings and conferences have with great difficulty

maintained the exclusivist position, but today, the future of exclusivism in these organizations

is uncertain, considering the latest decisions. In the following line a succinct report of this

troubled history.

Since the first meeting of the IMC in Edinburgh (1910), there were already speakers

who advocated a broader ecumenism that took into account the saving capacity of religions.

Many of these provisions came from a reading of Scripture itself and of the missionaries'

experiences with non-Christian people in the missionary fields. The old idea of fulfillment,

drawn from certain passages in Luke-Acts and from the Letters of Paul, generated an

understanding that other religions were preparation for the gospel306. Other conceptions had

Enlightenment inspiration via theorists of the sciences of religion (M. Müller, R. Otto, E.

Troeltsch), so that in religions the presence of the religious impulse was recognized, even

though Christianity was attributed its crowning: “despite the deep gulf between the two

306
Jan van Lin. Shaking the Fundamentals. Religious Plurality and Ecumenical Movement (Amsterdam: Rodopi
B. V., 2002), p. 19.
 125

[Christianity and non-Christian religions] there is an unbroken evolution between them” (TE

Slater and JN Farquhar) 307. Besides these, there was another source of inspiration for pluralist

conceptions. The idea of progressive revelation supported by OT scholars linked to Historical

Criticism. Now, if Old Testament religiosity itself underwent an evolution from rudimentary,

tribal religious conceptions to the ethical and religious climax of the later prophets, why

shouldn't the same be true of non-Christian religions?

The impact of these ideas in this occasion was so strong that the meeting organizers felt

that they might summon up a new commission to rewrite the final considerations in order to

keep the results of the council more in line with good theology:

Nowhere has the slightest foundation been found for the idea that Christianity is but
one religion among others, or that all religions are simply different paths to the same
Father, and that they are therefore equally pleasing to His View. An enormous
conviction animates the complete evidence that Jesus completes and replaces all
religions308.

At the meeting in Jerusalem (1928), disputes over the issue began in the preliminary

meetings leading up to the council itself. An American group of liberal tendencies, originating

especially from Harvard University (which had not yet felt the impact of Karl Barth's ideas),

took on the task of drafting a protocol of intentions. Kenneth Saunders, after several years of

experience in missionary work among Buddhists, draws his readers' attention to “the fact...

that behind all religions there is man's religion and religious conscience” (emphasis added).

“This recognition”, he argues, “compels missionaries to partner with the peoples of Asia in a

great spiritual quest”309.

The statements in this draft document would come to be questioned shortly thereafter. A

week before the meeting in Jerusalem, in a round of discussions in Cairo, European

307
Jan van Lin. Shaking the Fundamentals, p. 20.
308
Ibid., p. 25.
309
James L. Cox. “Jerusalem 1928. It’s message for today” (Missiology, 1981, 9, no. 139), p. 143.
 126

theologians made corrections to the North American document. Led by famous Dutch mission

theologian, Hendrik Kraemer. Under his leadership, the preliminary document took a step

back in search of the safer ground of the complete and absolute uniqueness of Christianity:

“Christianity is a sui generis religion in the strictest sense of the word”310, which is also an

exaggeration, if one does not speak from the Barthian discontinuity between Christian faith

and immanentist revelations of religions, the true inspiration of Kraemer and other editors.

In the end, the conciliar document comes out in the format of a conciliatory conclusion

that tried to keep the peace between the debaters, without, however, clarifying the matter very

much. On the one hand, it stated: “we are God's messengers to proclaim the only redemption

that cannot have any parallel in non-Christian religions” 311 . On the other hand, he also

recognized the value of non-Christian religions, including religious values, albeit without

ceasing to profess the superiority of Christianity:

The Jerusalem conference (1928) seeks values in religions and argues that even
though it finds many values in them, it is only in Christianity that all these values are
found articulated and in balance. The council's final declaration enlists such spiritual
values - "the sense of the majesty of God" in Islam, "the deep sympathy for human
suffering" in Buddhism, "the desire for contact with ultimate reality" in Hinduism,
"the belief in order morality of the universe" of Confucianism, and "the disinterested
search for truth and human well-being" of secular civilization312.

Not satisfied with the results of the meeting in Jerusalem, W. E. Hocking, director of

one of the WCC subcommittees, edited a document (Re-thinking Missions: Report of the

Commission of Appraisal of the Laymen's Foreign Mission Inquiry) criticizing the

Exclusivism of the conciliar document, arguing that the mission of Christian churches in these

new times should be to direct their preaching to the secularized world and not to adherents of

other religions: “in every religion there is an inalienable intuition of the true God. All are

310
James L. Cox. “Jerusalem 1928. It’s message for today”, p. 144.
311
Ibid., p. 145.
312
Lesslie Newbigin. The Open Secret. An Introduction to the Theology of Missions (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing, 1995), p. 170.
 127

brothers [and sisters] to one another in the common search for the ultimate unity in the most

perfect ultimate truth” 313

, a truth that the document's silence on revealed its author's

unwillingness to discuss about it.

At Tambaram, India (1938), the internal conflict remains within the IMC regarding to

the saving capacity of religions. The more conservative group is back in charge again, under

the leadership of the same Hendrik Kraemer. His book, The Christian Message in a non-

Christian World, became the preparatory study manual for the conference, and one of its

conclusions is an Exclusivism that reached even non-Western cultures, as he says that

“Christians in Asia were left with no option but to take a stance against their cultural and

religious heritage”314. G. V. Job, reacting against him, wrote God is the builder of Indian

Christianity, not the missionaries; and God would use Indian religious heritage as long as used

European cultural and religious researches when the gospel was preached there315. Tambaram

in its final report brought a conciliatory declaration with a biblical inspired statement (Acts

14: 17): “it is of the essence of the Christian faith that God has never left himself without

witnesses, which becomes manifest in the religious values of other religions” 316.

In Evanston, U. S. (1954), Enlightenment ideas begin to lose strength, but the problems

with contextualization have not disappeared. The Postmodern environment begins to gain

adherence in the Christian milieu in a positive way, because under the influence of the missio

Dei missiological concept, institutions begin to step out of the spotlight and a process of

valuing lay work begins. One missiologist at the time who emphasized the need for this shift

in focus was Tom Allan, who, though absent from the council, had a strong influence on its

313
Jan van Lin. Shaking the fundamentals. Religious Plurality and Ecumenical Movement, p. 263.
314
Dale T. Irvin. “Mission in Protestant Theology”. In Dale T. Irvin; Peter C. Phan (eds.). Christian Mission,
Contextual Theology, Prophetic Dialogue (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2018), p. 66.
315
Idem, ibid.
316
Jan van Lin. Shaking the fundamentals, p. 260.
 128

results317. The institutions being taken out of focus allowed the conference to have as its final

report the recognition that mission is above all God's: “all that God has done in and through

Christ forms the center of all human history” 318 , and this means putting the destinies of

evangelization in the hands of lay people. However, the world's religious pluralism was

hardly touched by the meeting and the problem will be raised again at the meeting in New

Delhi in 1961.

In this new round of discussions in Tambaram, Indian Christian theologians (Paul

Devanandan, DT Nilles, Sabapathy Kulendran) brought new arguments seeking to formulate a

partnership relationship in relation to non-Christian religions. The reasons now stemmed from

civil and social reasons. As India had just gained its independence from the British Empire,

these theologians claimed for themselves the right to collaborate with India's non-Christian

religions for nation-building319. It is in this context that the concept of interreligious dialogue

appears for the first time, as part of a program to improve the living conditions of human

beings, which would become the hallmark of the social gospel that was beginning to emerge

in Europe, but mainly in the Americas of South and Central. Furthermore, it is the principle of

discomfort of Third World theologies with the Eurocentrism of these organizations, which

made them very insensitive to local needs that were not religious.

At Frankfurt (1970) a group of German missiologists leaded by Peter Bayerhaus

produced a manifesto which became known as the Frankfurt Declaration. In this is expressed

the discomfort of a significant part of participants of WCC that did not agree with the

direction took by WCC and started a fragmentation inside the ecumenical movement. WCME

(Commission of World Mission Evangelism) became a dissonant note in the unity, adopting

317
Alexander C. Forsyth. Mission by the People: Rediscovering the Dynamic Missiology of Tom Allan and His
Scottish Contemporaries (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2017), p. 67.
318
Jan van Lin. Shaking the Fundamentals, p. 265.
319
Wesley Ariarajah, entry: “Interfaith Dialogue” in Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement.
 129

sometimes a confrontational attitude320, by denouncing the WCC fake evangelization, since it

had turned it into a humanism321.

The reaction of Frankfurt Declaration had almost no influence in internal politics of

WCC. One year after that, at Adis-Abeba Central Committee Meeting (1971), the decisions

keep going in the same direction. The statements of Committee “confirm the WCC’s interests

in disturbing the governments in developing countries by using the members churches or

church organizations”322, as it is evident by its declarations323. The same origin has the issue

of interfaith dialogue, which despising all negative reactions of evangelicals, became more

and more stressed until it became a specific item in the WCC agenda, as was created a sub-

unit especially addressed to it. At its final document the participants concluded giving WCC

first institutional steps toward Pan-ecumenism: “dialogue is to be understood as the common

adventure of the churches”324.

The Lausanne Committee on World Mission and Evangelization (LC) (1974), organized

by Billy Graham with theological support of John Stott, brought together more than 2,500

delegates from over 150 countries, and was an attempt of reaction against the excesses of

liberal theology, which had crept into ecumenical associations 325 . In effect, Lausanne

represented the evangelical counterpart of WCME against WCC’s liberal trends. Since the

IMC, an Evangelical and more conservative organization, merged with WCC, Protestant and

320
Timothy Yates. Christian Mission in the Twentieth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), p.
199-200.
321
Ibid., p. 199.
322
Virag Pachpore. The Indian Church (Nagpur, India: Nachiket Prakashan, 2015), p. 64
323
“The Central Committee urges the members churches themselves or through their respective national councils
to: (A) Investigate and analyze the military, political, industrial and financial systems of their countries to
discover and identify the involvement and support provided by these systems in perpetuation of racism and racial
discrimination in the domestic and in foreign policies of their countries and co-ordinate their finding through the
Program to Combat Racism (PCR).” Virag Pachpore. The Indian Church, p. 64.
324
World Council of Churches. Baar Statement: Theological Perspective on Plurality, on line.
325
The Lausanne Covenant bought back some reformed forgotten principles: “the authority and power of the
Bible”, “the uniqueness and universality of Christ”, “the return of Christ” and “the world evangelization”, all of
them, doctrines swept out of the WCC by liberal theology. George Vanderveld. “Evangelical Ecumenical
Concerns”. In Dictionary of Ecumenical Movements (Genève: WCC Publications, 2002), pp. 437-440.
 130

liberal organization326 at 1961, they alternated liberal and conservative politics within WCC.

In the council’s inaugural speech, Billy Graham denounced the WCC's missteps: until that

moment its coordinators had been transforming evangelization into humanization and, instead

of promoting the encounter of men with God, promoted the encounter of men with other men

from other cultures327, which in itself is not a bad thing, but it cannot be considered the main

objective of evangelization. For the Councilors, although there is a general revelation present

in nature that proves the existence of a Creator 328 , there is also "the uniqueness and

universality of Christ, [with] unique status among religious figures." Thus, the LC restores the

emphatic note of interreligious relations in evangelization, which the pluralism of many

threatened to overthrow329.

Few years after this tendency to fragmentation would have another chapter. At Lusaka

(1973), a new extra-ecclesial organization rises, the Africa Conference of Churches. The

participants met under the impact of Third World’s liberation and feminist theologies.

Because WCC lost relevance to church leaders in underdeveloped countries, from then on,

they focused on their own theological priorities. At the same time, more exactly two years

later, the EATWOT (Ecumenical Association of Third World Theologians)330was organized.

One of the missiological innovations brought about by these new ideas was the anti-

exclusivist conclusion that new converts from other religions no longer needed to part with

their old faith in accepting Christianity; salvation is obtained through Christ and not through

membership in religious organizations331.

326
Dale T. Irvin. “Mission in Protestant Theology”, p. 70.
327
Fred W. Beuttler. “Evangelical Mission in Modern America“. In Martin I. Klauber; Scott M. Manetsch (eds.).
The Great Commission. Evangelical and the History of World Missions (Nashville, TN: B & H, 2008), p. 126.
328
Marianne Moyart. Fragile Identities: Towards a Theology of Interreligious Hospitality (Amsterdam: Rodopi,
2011), p. 20.
329
Veli-Matti Kärkkläinen. Trinity and Religious Pluralism (Aldershot UK/Burlington USA: Ashgate
Publishing, 2004), p. 98.
330
Dale T. Irvin. “Mission in Protestant Theology”, p. 72.
331
Idem, ibid.
 131

At Nairobi (1975), the WCC recognizes what is already evident: pluralism arising from

globalization was the greatest threat to unity. With 286 churches represented and nearly two

thousand five hundred people gathered in assembly, divergences would be inevitable, with

two great pressure points on such a precariously constructed unity: the social gospel, which

saw the Church's mission rest on the humanistic goal of equality socioeconomic; the interfaith

dialogue, which threatened to transform evangelization into encountering. As for the second

point, which is what interests us, the organizers tried to reconcile Exclusivism and Pluralism,

giving the floor to debaters who defended the antagonistic positions. At one hand, bishop

Arias declared: “To evangelize is to help men to discover the Christ hidden in them and

revealed in the gospel. All men and all human values are destined to be recapitulated in

Christ”; at other hand, replied John Stott: “fashionable as it is today, is incompatible with the

teaching of Christ and his apostles, and is a deadly enemy of evangelism” 332. Nairobi made

clear that the issues about interfaith dialogues could not be approached superficially, things

like “syncretism, indigenization, culture, mission” still missed a proper explanation 333 .

Despite all this internal division Nairobi was the first time that representants of other religions

took assent among the Christian Church in a council, and thereafter it would become a

common feature of the WCC encounters.

At sixth WCC assembly, in Vancouver (1983), the same issue continued to lead the

works of the participants of the council. This time in the context of a broader concept of

Eucharist, which included the men of other faiths too. “The Eucharist, it was said, makes

imperative not only unity among Christians but also their dialogue with people of other faiths

and engagement in que quest for the world peace”334. At the assembly, such as at Nairobi,

332
Bruce J. Nichols. “Nairobi 1975: A Crisis of Faith for WCC”, Themelios (vol. 1, issue 3, Summer, 1976), p.
70.
333
World Council of Churches. Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement Article on Interfaith Dialogue, on line.
334
Douglas Pratt. The Church and Other Faiths. The World Council of Churches, the Vatican and Interreligious
Dialogue (Bern: Peter Lang, 2010), p. 88.
 132

some religious authorities representing other religions also took assent. Dr. Gopal Singh on

behalf of these guests made a speech about the presence of Christianism in India much before

Jesus’ message was preached in Europe335. Summing up, WCC at that time was entangled in a

fatal dilemma, divided between these two tasks: the witness to nations and the necessity of

dialogue with religions; recognizing that “Christ invites others to make their response to him”,

admitting that “God is active in our world”, and seeking to learn “from the insights and

experiences people of other faiths have of ultimate reality” 336. The drafters of the council

documents seem to think that admitting these two demands and keeping them side by side in

the text could solve the problem.

At Tambaram II (1988), the internal division underhanded by paradoxal declarations

kept deepening337. Even though the title of the council was: “Christian witness in a pluralistic

world”, there was a hidden agenda that concealed a strong controversy on the main vocation

of the Church, between those who defended the mission and those who supported humanistic

goals and inter-faith dialogue. Some recurring questions in the debate revealed how deep the

discord ran: “Can revelation and salvation be found outside the Church and even outside of

Christ? Can other religions also have a valid mission? Can Christians learn from people of

other religions, etc.? 338 While Lesslie Newbigin gave the opening sermon based on Paul

(Rom. 10:12-15), in the audience Wilfred C. Smith and Diana Eck and supporters had another

interpretation completely opposite to that of Bishop Newbigin regarding to Christianity's

encounter with the other religions339.

335
Ibid., p. 89.
336
Ibid., p. 90.
337
Jan van Lin. Shaking the Fundamentals, p. 265.
338
Geoffrey Wainwright. Lesslie Newbigin. A Theological Life (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), p.
200.
339
Idem, ibid.
 133

One of the preparations for the Canberra (Australia) meeting at 1989, was a

restructuring of the WCC by the central committee. The sixteen sub-units were reduced to

seven, and one of them, Faith and Witness, gained a new office that would increase in

importance over time. We speak about Office Inter-Religious Relationships (OIRR), reshaped

to take charge of some specific tasks340. At the same time, in cooperation with the Catholic

Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue (PCID) increased producing annual meeting

treating on two fundamental issues: interreligious marriage and inter-faith prayer 341 .

Thereafter, this office took charge of the issue and it gradually succeeded in expanding the

importance and scope of interfaith dialogue within the WCC.

At Baar, Switzerland (1990), WCC starts a series of meetings to discuss interfaith

dialogue, after a four years program entitled “My Neighbor’s Faith and Mine - Theological

Discoveries through Interfaith Dialogue”, delegates from Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox

were gathered during one week to come to a consensual final document on religious

pluralism, Christology and Pneumatology in relation to multi-religious context342. However,

the starting point of the document produced is theocentric, since it concludes that God acted

and acts in all humanity, his manifold grace has been found by the multiple paths produced by

human diversity 343 . the meeting adamantly rejected the idea of God's action having been

limited to a geographic region and an ethnic group. As for salvation, the document recognizes

that although God's saving action is active in all humanity, the instrument of this salvation is

340
“(A) relationship with people and organizations of other religious traditions; (b) relationship with
international inter-Faith organizations; (c) enabling the churches in their relationship to people of other faith; (d)
monitoring developments in interreligious relationship at different levels and dealing with specific issues in
relationships, such as use of religion in conflict situations, the problem of religious minority communities, etc.;
(e) dealing with concrete situations of conflict where religion plays a role in collaboration with staff who work
on international affairs”. Douglas Pratt. The Churches and other Faiths, p. 126.
341
Douglas Pratt. “Interreligious Dialogue: Ecumenical Engagement in Interfaith Action”. In Kath Engebretson
et al. (eds.). International Handbook of Interreligious Education (New York: Springer, 2010), p. 109.
342
World Council of Churches. Baar Statement: Theological Perspective on Plurality, on line.
343
Idem, ibid.
 134

Jesus Christ, his life, teachings, death and resurrection are the means by which God saves 344.

The conclusion of the document on interreligious dialogue recurs that thereafter no theology

can be formulated without taking into account what the religions say and that without their

collaboration it will not be possible to have a full understanding of the Christian faith itself,

nor will it be possible operate the liberation of man 345 . One cannot fail to notice the

humanistic and secular touch of the end, since it seems that preaching and salvation is thought

of as a secular activity of freeing man from his worldly problems and limitations by means

that go no further than that.

In Manila (1992) a World Evangelical Fellowship Committee met to continue the

discussion on the relationship of Christianity to other religions. Clarke Pinnock and John

Sanders expanded the missiological approach based on Pneumatology, demonstrating that the

Holy Spirit can also act in religions, beyond the limits of the Church. Two classic works of

Evangelicalism emerged from these considerations346. The influence of the two theologians

mentioned was decisive, since the final document at the end of the meeting reports: “only God

saves. [...] All salvation results exclusively from the person and the expiatory work of

Jesus”347. Yet, the document did not fail to confirm the world's religious multi-diversity and

the value of religions. Following Brunner, the manifesto stated: "because men and women are

made in the image of God, religions often contain elements of truth and beauty." However,

the meeting did not manage to resolve the impasse or to undo the internal divergence on

344
Idem, ibid.
345
Idem, ibid.
346
Clark H. Pinnock. A Wideness in God’s Mercy: The Finality of Jesus Christ in a World of Religions (Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992); John Sanders. No Other Name: An Investigation into the Destiny of the
Unevangelized (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992).
347
Veli-Matti Kärkkläinen. “Evangelical Theology and the Religions”. In Timothy Larsen e Daniel J. Treier
(edts.). The Cambridge Companion to Evangelical Theology, p. 201.
 135

whether adherents of religions are saved by the vicarious death of Jesus, even if they are not

aware of it348.

Harare, Zimbabwe (1998), until that date, the largest WCC council, with over 5,000

attendees and 966 delegates representing worldly 336 church-members and 35 associate

churches, 282 observers from non-members churches, 142 persons from WCC staff, lay and

clergy, women and men, with their marvelous diversity. They met on the campus of the

University of Zimbabwe to celebrate the 50th Anniversary Jubilee Assembly of WCC, whose

theme was “Turn to God – Rejoice in Hope”349. The novelty in relation to previous councils is

that for the first-time other religions were able to participate, although they were only there

symbolically, through a delegation of 8 people, representing the Sikh faith, Buddhism,

Judaism, Islam and Hinduism350. In this conference, religions were not mere spectators or

observers, as were the emissaries of the Catholic Church. The program included sessions

where inter-religious meetings took place, through the free mutual changing of experiences

with non-Christian participants, in padre (meeting place) specially designed for that

occasion351. Not surprisingly, because the Harare Assembly Program Guidelines, drawn up

before the meeting, had already defined the WCC's “primary focus” to help “churches deal

with the missiological and political challenges of living in pluralistic societies” 352.

After Harare the tone of the WCC would not change anymore. At Geneva (2005) other

faiths participants passed the hundred people. On this conference the general secretary Samuel

Kobia declared convinced: “dialogue with other faiths has become a core issue for the

348
Darren T. Duerksen; William A. Dyrness. Seeking Church. Emerging Witnesses to the Kingdom (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2019), p. 14.
349
Diane Kesler. “Together on the Way. Harare 1998: An Introduction and Personal Perspective”. World
Council of Churches. Eighth Assembly, on line.
350
Idem, ibid.
351
World Council of Churches. Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement Article on Interfaith Dialogue, on line.
352
World Council of Church. From Harare to Porto Alegre (1998-2006) (Genève, 2005), p. 81.
 136

WCC”353. At Edinburgh (2010), in the 100th anniversary of the first Missionary Council at

the same place, becomes evident a different kind of Christianism, that left the theological

struggles back in the 20th Century. An Experimental Christianity is born. “Edinburgh 2010 is

necessarily experimental” 354 . Only future will be able to assess what is done now, what

religious trans-experience allows to the communities, according to the context they are

inserted in. No biblical or epistemological anchor stabilizes their search for peace, harmony,

dialogue, equality, fraternity, liberty, etc. Every community may find which is its best,

according to its needs and spiritual elements at its disposal. As was declared by Vatican II

Nostra Aetate, in the world of religions no good or/and holy should be rejected, although no

one has bothered to define these things.

The conclusion of Jan van Lin, director of the WCC interfaith meeting sector in the

Netherlands, demonstrates that the discussion around the theology of religions took on the

contours of a crisis: “In this discussion it seemed/it seems that within the ecumenical

movement there was/ there are many different concepts, which have produced/produce too

much confusion and result in the WCC being challenged today by an identity crisis” 355. How

to reconcile the ‘Go and preach’ of Matthew 28: 19-20 with the new definition of mission by

Stanley Samartha, first director of the WCC sub-unit on Dialogue with People of Living

Faiths and Ideologies (1970-1981) 356: “God's continuing activity through the Spirit to mend

the brokenness of creation, to overcome fragmentation, and to heal the rift between humanity,

353
Ibid., p. 88.
354
Daryl Balia; Kirsteen Kim. “Experimenting with a Multi-Regional, Cross-Denominational, Poly-Centric
Study Process”. In Daryl Balia; Kirsteen Kim (eds.). Edinburgh 2010. Witnessing to Christ Today (Oxford:
Regnum Books International, 2010), p. 3.
355
Jan van Lin. Shaking the Fundamentals, p. 269.
356
Ans Joachim van der Bent. Historical Dictionary of Ecumenic Christianity (Metuchen, NJ: The Scarecrow
Press, 1994), entry: Stanley Samartha.
 137

nature and God” 357. It seems that WCC has taken upon itself the task of leading the churches

towards a post-Christianity.

2.f. Evangelicalism

First, it is necessary to define what the Evangelicalism mentioned here is. Generally

speaking, in the West, all those who are not Roman Catholics and do not belong to the

Orthodox Church, call themselves Evangelicals. Lately, however, with the growth of the

influence of Liberal Theology among the Historical Protestant Churches, it was agreed to call

Evangelical Churches those that clung to “a more orthodox version of Christianity in

opposition to the liberal wing”358. McDermott and Netland point out some of the peculiar

theological qualities of them359: (a) conversion, people who stress the necessity of spiritual

new birth. (b) the Bible, Evangelicals accepted the Reformed preaching, to this day cling to

the motto Sola Scriptura, which can also be grouped under the rubric of Biblicism, but they

are not fundamentalists or inerrantists, that is, adepts of a mechanical inspiration (the Bible,

every word of it, is the Word of God), instead they adopt another concept of inspiration,

namely, dynamic inspiration (only the ideas were inspired)360. This median position of the

evangelicals in relation to the Scriptures makes them avoid liberalism, without, however,

abdicating the modern resources for text interpretation: literary and historical analysis of the

text361. (c) They can equally be classified under the rubric of "Cruxcentrism", because of its

theological emphasis on soteriology, instead of on ecclesiology, like the Catholics 362 . (d)

Activism, work of charity, mission, social reform. Generally, the group also includes

357
Daryl Balia; Kirsteen Kim. “Experimenting with a Multi-Regional, Cross-Denominational, Poly-Centric
Study Process”, pp. 37-38.
358
Veli-Matti Kärkkläinen. Introduction to Theology of Religions, p. 144.
359
Gerald R. McDermott; Harold Netland. A Trinitarian Theology of Religions, p. 4.
360
Louis Berkhof. Introductory Volume to Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans,
1996), p. 151.
361
For further reading on differences between evangelicalism and fundamentalism see Gerald R. McDermott;
Harold A. Netland. A Trinitarian Theology of Religions, pp. 6-9.
362
Douglas Sweeney. “Introduction”. Martin I. Klauber; Scott M. Manetsch. The Great Commission, p. 2.
 138

Pentecostals and Charismatic Mission Protestants; however, we will address to Pentecostals

elsewhere, because of the peculiarities of their theology of religions.

In relation to Catholics and Protestants, this group was the latest to consider the topic

under discussion, that is, with the necessary depth and energy. They only started to think

about from the 1980s onwards363, and even so in its pragmatic aspect, because the evangelical

theologians’ concern is the unevangelized’s destiny364, given the increased perception of the

non-Christian world, boosted by globalization and the other factors presented in the first

chapter. In short, it was not exactly the problem of interreligious dialogue or the salvific status

of religions that were their interests. The basic principles of Exclusivism proposed by J. Stott

demonstrate it:

a) Recognition of the authority of Scripture, b) the perdition of human being

separated from Christ, c) salvation in Jesus Christ alone, d) Christians are witnesses
"by word and deed" (without denying Christian social responsibility or doing from
this our unique and consummate mission), and e) the need to evangelize and save
souls365.

Historically, the entry of evangelicals into issues pertaining to the theology of religions

took place in 1970, with the writing of a document known as the 'Frankfurt Declaration'

(already mentioned above), which was produced as a reaction to the liberal theology of

religions of the WCC. The prominent missiologist, Peter Bayerhaus, was the editor of the

363
In fact, the first work of the evangelical strain to address the issue was authored by sir James N. Anderson.
Christianity and comparative religions (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity, 1970).
364
Ajith Fernando. The Christians Attitude Toward World Religions (Wheaton III: Tyndale House, 1987); John
Sanders. No Other Name: An Investigation into the Destiny of the Unevangelized (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1992); John Piper. Let the Nations be Glad (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1993), Jesus the Only Way to God. Must
You Hear the Gospel to be Saved? (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2010); Ramseh Richard. The Population of
Heaven: a Biblical Response to the Inclusivist Position on Who Will Be Saved (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994);
Gabriel Fackre; Ronald Nash; John Sanders. What About Those Who that Have Never Heard? Three Views on
the Destiny of the Unevangelized (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995); D. A. Carson. The Gagging of
God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996); Daniel Strange. The Possibility of
Salvation among the Unevangelized: An Analysis of Inclusivism in Recent Evangelical Theology (Waynesboro,
GA: Paternoster, 2002); Terrance Tiessen. Who Can Be Saved? Reassessing Salvation in Christ and World
Religion (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press: 2004); Christopher W. Morgan; Robert A. Peterson. Faith
Comes by Hearing. A Response to Inclusivism (Downers Grove, IL/Nottingham, U.K.: IVP Academic/Apollos,
2008).
365
Apud Marianne Moyart. Fragile Identities, p. 16.
 139

document which among other things said something that would be put as a manifesto of the

Exclusivism: “the Bible is the most appropriate frame of reference and criteria for the

relations of Christianity with other religions. Salvation can be obtained only through the cross

of Christ, through participation in the faith” 366.

Unlike the WCC documents, analyzed above, there are no such serious disagreements in

this group on this issue. What marks positions here is only regarding the degree of

Exclusivism adopted, with two modalities, already presented in the introduction. There are

theologians that are adept to Strong Exclusivism, also called “Restrictivist” 367 : Robert C.

Sproul, Ronald Nash and Gabriel Fackre; and theologians who espouse Weak Exclusivism:

John Sanders and John Stott. The Strong group is more homogeneous, all of its

representatives aligned with Calvino's ideas, while the Wesley Exclusivism group, gathered

around the figure of Wesley, is more variegated. We tried to group them according to the

criterion of theological approach that unites them, and we apologize for not being able to

scrutinize in a more specific and in-depth way the position of each one here, given the limited

space available.

In addition to the above classification of Nash's typology: dot-Exclusivism and but-

Exclusivism, there is another, from a more robust philosophical point of view, produced by

John Sanders, which helps us to understand the field of controversy more clearly. The

debaters are further divided into two groups: (a) Ontological and Epistemological Exclusivist

and (b) Only-Ontological Exclusivist. Ontological exclusivism would be the fundamental

belief, of both groups, in the exclusivity of the salvation of all human beings by Jesus Christ.

The first group (a) believes need intellectual and spiritual assent to the atoning sacrifice of

366
Veli-Matti Kärkkläinen. Trinity and religious pluralism, p. 97.
367
Gerald R. McDermott. Can evangelicals learn from world religions? p. 40.
 140

Jesus (fides ex auditu), being required of them further repentance, baptism and affiliation368.

Among the thinkers who gather around this conception are: Robert C. Sproul and Ronald

Nash. The other group (b), made up of John Sanders and John Stott, is less restrictive, and

recognizes the existence of means of grace used by God to save those who have not heard the

gospel, who are unknown to us. Below is a brief presentation of these two groups.

2.f.1. Robert C. Sproul and Ronald Nash

Robert C. Sproul (1939-), American theologian and preacher, fruitful author, senior

minister of preaching and teaching at Saint Andrews Seminary, Florida, known also for his

radio and televangelist speeches. He is a vibrant advocate of Calvin's theological views and

was one of the first to speak out on the salvific condition of 'the ones who did not hear'. As a

convinced Presbyterian his position is obviously Calvinistic and emphatically supportive of

divine sovereignty and justice, as well as of Exclusivism, by which he identifies the question

of the salvation of those who have not heard as unmistakably already decided in the worst

possible way369. It is not a question of asking: why God would save only a few? Rather, we

should ask why there is any kind of salvation, since all human beings subsist in rebellion

against God? 370. If there is salvation, it is only because God has graciously decided not to let

everyone go astray.

Whether or not men have heard the gospel invitation does not matter, as long as they

have heard the voice of God in the natural condition of God’s creature. For Sproul, as for

Calvin, Romans 1:18 and 19 is reason enough for the eternal damnation of anyone, even if he

has never heard a Christian preacher. This passage means that everyone has had access to

368
Gavin D’Costa. Christianity and the World Religions, p. 25.
369
“God made a choice – he chose some individuals to be saved unto everlasting blessedness in heaven others he
chose to pass over, to allow them to follow the consequences of their sins into eternal torment in hell.” Robert C.
Sproul. Chosen by God: Know God's Perfect Plan for His Glory and His Children (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale
House Publishers, 1994), p. 22.
370
Robert C. Sproul. Reason to Believe, p. 43.
 141

clear enough and simple knowledge of God to know what to do and what not to do371. That is,

whoever is eternally lost knows enough not to consider himself a victim of ignorance, even

though he is not given sufficient grace for salvation 372 . Sproul is unconcerned about this

picture of cruelty that apparently can be adhered to the God that Christians adore. The God he

preaches is a God angry with a rebellious humanity. Therefore, it can be said that those who

are saved are not saved because they have not rejected Christ, but because Christ has not

rejected them.

However, this emphasis on divine wrath moved against rebellious human beings does

not seem to find echo in the Scriptures, if it is considered in its entirety. There are several

texts that point in another direction. John says that “God so loved the world that He gave His

Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16), that is,

He loved the world, not just the group of the elects. Paul writes in his Letter to Romans 5:6

that Christ died for us while we were still sinners. Jesus taught us to forgive our enemies and

bless those who curse us (Matt 5:44-45), why wouldn't he do this Himself, in terms of

salvation?

Ronald Nash (1936-2006) was Professor of Christian Philosophy and Theology at

Western Kentucky University, at Reformed Theological Seminary, and later at Southern

Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky, where, after a life dedicated to ministry

and teaching, he died from complications due to a stroke. Despite having been linked to a

more politically progressive theology for much of his working life (liberation theology), Nash

was very conservative in his thinking about the theology of religions. This was probably due

371
Ibid., p. 44.
372
Other authors go further than Sproul, coming to the point of systematizing what human beings are capable of
knowing about God, relying only on the resources of natural revelation, present in divine creation, according to
Romans 1 and 2 ; 10: 18: “(1) belief in one good and mighty God; (2) the belief that man owes this God perfect
obedience to his law; (3) the awareness that he does not meet the divine standard, and therefore is guilty and
condemned; (4) the recognition that he can offer nothing to God to make up for (or make atonement) for his sins
and guilt; (5) the belief that God is pious and will forgive and accept those who surrender to his mercy”. Millard
Erickson. “Hope for those who haven’t heard? Yes, but…”, EMQ (11, no. 2, April, 1975), p. 124-125.
 142

to a theological DNA originating from the Calvinist tradition via Southern Baptists and

Presbyterians, denominations with which he worked for all his life. So that, he had the same

theological tendency as Sproul, from whom he was little distinguished, also defending a

strong exclusivism: “Christian exclusivists begin by believing that the tenets of one religion –

in this case, Christianity – are true and that any religious beliefs not logically compatible with

those tenets are false”373.

Evidently, he adopts the Bible as the final word for any controversy of a theological

order, however, as a fundamentalist he adopts a literal exclusivism: "there is no other savior

or other religion, we believe, that can bring human beings to the redemptive grace of God"374.

Jesus' statement in John 14: 6: “I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the

Father except through me” is understood by him in the most restricted way possible (hence

the title given to this modality of Exclusivism: Restrictivist). From a Pauline text: "if you

confess with your mouth that Jesus is the Lord, and if you believe in your heart that God

raised him from the dead, you will be saved" (Rom. 10: 9), he concludes that salvation is

restrict to those who have conviction and express explicit faith in Jesus Christ375. Confession,

therefore, is a condictio sine qua non of salvation. For Nash, in Sanders' terms, salvation in

Jesus Christ has ontological and epistemological requirement. If someone in the course of his

life (Heb 9:27-28) has not had the opportunity to confess his sins and accept Jesus as his

personal Savior, even if he has never heard of the gospel, and has lived an irreproachable life

from a moral standpoint, he will be lost as much as the worst of apostates or libertines.

Nash's problem, as was Sproul's, is to eliminate the biblical texts that speak of God's

universal love for human beings. Even more when this fact is enhanced by the inescapable

373
Ronald Nash. Is Jesus the Only Savior, pp. 11-12.
374
John Sanders (ed.). What about those who that have never heard? Three views on the destiny of the
unevangelized, p. 107; See also Ronald Nash. Is Jesus the Only Savior, p. 16.
375
John Sanders. What about those who that have never heard? p. 108.
 143

statistical data of billions of people who have not heard and will not hear “the good news of

salvation”. As a Calvinist he does not believe that the death of Jesus has a vicarious effect for

everyone and, therefore, it will only be effective for those who believe (John 3: 16), with the

others being condemned and without justification for their ignorance. But Paul asks Nash

“How will they believe in Him from whom they have heard nothing? And how will they hear

if there is no one to preach?” (Rom. 10:14). Paul could not have been aware of the enormity

of the problem his own words pose. The 'known' world in which he lived was limited to the

Roman mare nostrum (Mediterranean) and eastern surroundings. Therefore, we are forced to

think, for the love of the divine decree: "not wanting anyone to perish, but that all come to

repentance" (I Peter 3: 9), that this believing cannot be so specific, just as believing was not of

the patriarchs and other non-Israeli saints who are in the gallery of faith in Hebrews 11.

By not considering it, we make God a cruel tyrant who decides to save only a few from

an enormous quantity of creatures that offended him, His grace although being sufficient to

save all those who somehow let themselves be guided by the Spirit with inscrutable means of

grace, rather prefers to limit them to the preaching of a certain kind of Christians. Calvinist

monergism only serves to ratify the divine injustice of saving some by a discretionary will,

supposedly based on the book of Romans, and sending those who by His Grace heeded their

call to extend the invitation to others and, failing these, let the unreached to be lost and

destined for eternal damnation.

2.f.2. Gabriel Fackre

Gabriel Fackre (1926-2018) was a clergyman of the United Church of Christ, which

resulted from the merger of Reinhold Niebuhr's Evangelical and Reformed Church with the

Congregational Christian Church. He is the author of an extensive list of theological works

and has been professor of theology and culture at Andover Newton Theological School, as
 144

well as visiting professor at several other institutions. He was also involved in WCC

ecumenical meetings and commissions, having been the representative of his confession in

Amsterdam (1948) and Evanston (1954).

His theological position on the plight of those who have not heard the gospel invitation

is somewhat consequence of his involvement with the ecumenical movement. Why then not

classify him directly as an inclusivist? Because Fackre is adept at a soft type of Exclusivism,

despite although it requires both the ontological and the epistemological principles. That is,

having Jesus carried out his work of atonement on the cross, it becomes necessary that those

who are saved are saved by an explicit faith in the Savior. However, Fackre's position is

outside the evangelical curve because of a “divine perseverance”, better known as post-

mortem evangelism, which will occur through an eschatological evangelization by Jesus

Himself, immediately before the parousia376, by which all human beings, cultural Christians

or non-Christians, will be invited to repent of their sins and accept Jesus as Savior.

To support his thesis Fackre relies on one of the most controversial passages in

Scripture: “He also went and preached to spirits in prison, who at other times were

disobedient, when God patiently waited in Noah's day while the ark was being built”. (1 Peter

3:18-20). Secondarily, He also uses 1 Peter 4: 6: “For this reason the gospel was preached

even to those who are now dead, that being judged according to the body, they may live

according to the spirit; and John 5: 25: “Verily I say unto you, the time is coming and it is

come when even the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear him shall

live” 377 . None of these passages suffices, because two of them have clearly metaphorical

sense: the first are not verily dead, but are called so in allegorical way, as also appear in other

376
There is a lineage of important Christian theologians of the past who advocated this doctrine: Milito,
Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Athanasius, and Gregory Nazianzen. After Augustine the doctrine
fell into disrepute, gaining adherents again in the 19th Century. (John Sanders, No other Name, 184-188).
377
Gabriel Fackre. What about those who have never heard, p. 81-85.
 145

passage of Peter: “dead in their sins”; in the second reference, the dead are really dead but

what they hear is the resurrection calling, not an eschatological calling for conversion.

In reality what Fackre has in his hands to implement his doctrine of eschatological

evangelization before the Last Judgement is just a single text, I Peter 3:18-20378, which is a

quite controversial text because of its grammatical problems that allows diverse readings.

Besides, it is not a good hermeneutical principle to base doctrines on a single text of the Bible,

even more if it deals with something so important as God’s Final Judgement and men’s

eternal destiny. Second, even if this is what the text says, its doctrine would have to contradict

crystalline texts that say exactly the opposite: "it was given to men to die once and after that

the judgment" (Heb. 9: 27). As it stands, Fackre's proposition seems more like an ad hoc

hypothesis, which was born to save ontological and epistemological Exclusivism from sinking

into the ocean of millions of non-Christians wronged by the evangelical omission of

Christians.

2.f.3. John R. W. Stott e John E. Sanders

John R. W. Stott (1921-2011), Anglican-Evangelical clergyman, for many years

ministering in London at All Souls, Langham Place. Always combative for the gospel cause,

with Billy Graham he was one of the leaders of the Lausanne Covenant movement (1974),

which resulted in the creation of a more orthodox strand within the WCC ecumenical

movement. Prolific author, leaving as legacy more than fifty works with his signature, many

of them even translated into oriental languages. At his last days, Stott was awarded by the

English royalty with dignities and received numerous honorary doctorates, given the solidity

of his theological production, despite never having served as a professor of theology.

378
The text in question has many obscure things, in addition to the sentence structure itself, full of subordinates,
which make it difficult to understand: 1) who are the spirits in prison? 2) what did Christ preach to them? and 3)
when did Christ sermonize them? None of these questions can be answered without the help of arguments
outside the text, so it is better not to use it as evidence for any doctrine, even more so in isolation.
 146

Stott has never written any work specifically dealing with the subject of our interest;

however, he must not fail to say here and there what he thinks about. In fact, there's not much

to say, since the idea is exactly this, to be silent about what is not explicitly revealed in

Scripture, position that can be defined as a soteriological agnosticism. That is, given the

universal saving will of God, presented in various places in Scripture, it follows that somehow

God will save these people who have never heard the gospel invitation, although we do not

know how this will occur, since the divine work for the salvation of those who have not heard

is a mystery:

I believe the most Christian stance is to remain agnostic on this issue [...] the fact is
that God, along with the most solemn warnings of our responsibility to respond to
the gospel's appeals, has not revealed how He will deal with those who never have
heard them.379

Although Stott was not able to specify what nature and to what extent the exclusivist

motto about the indispensability of Jesus' mediation should be recognized by adherents of

non-Christian religions for their salvation, he seems to adopt some sort of epistemological

principle. Those from other religions who will be saved must have some degree of gospel

knowledge, but “just how much knowledge and understanding of the gospel do people need

before they cry out to God and be saved”, he says, “this, we do not know” 380 . As God’s

actions through the Spirit in the extra muri realm are mysterious and unknowable, we can

believe it, but not know it.

Stott’s ideas are not a solitary conviction, since besides Stott e Pierson, there are many

others names that line up themselves with this position: Robert H. Glover 381 , James S.

379
David Edwards; John Stott. Evangelical essentials: A Liberal-Evangelical Dialogue (Downers Grove, IL, III:
InterVarsity Press, 1988), p. 327.
380
John Stott. The Contemporary Christians: Applying God’s Word to Today’s World (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 1992), p. 319.
381
Robert H. Grove. The Progress of World-wide Missions (New York: Dorna, 1924).
 147

Dennis382 and John E. Sanders, already quoted and in the following line discussed. Moreover,

most preachers of foreign missions in the 19th Century already adopted it, sustaining the need

to evangelize, without, however, letting their hope be extinguished because of the immense

number of those that will never hear the gospel, despite Christian’s efforts. Arthur Pierson,

Presbyterian leader, for example, said: “If there is somewhere a soul longing for God,

following the light of nature and its conscience, in trust and faith that the Great Unknown will

somehow give more light, to guide him to life and bliss, let her rest in the arms of God's

paternal care383.

John E. Sanders was Professor of Theology at Huntington University and Oak Hills

Christian College, currently serving at Hendrix College. He became known for the

controversy he was involved in at Huntington University, an institution from which he was

exonerated, for defending and promoting an extreme form of Arminius-Wesleyanism, which

became known as “Open Theism”, that is, God lacks the capacity for omniscience: God is

“creative and omnicompetent rather than all-determined and immutable”384. He is the author

of numerous theological works, including No Other Name, which is often cited in this

investigation, whose subject is exactly that at hand. His position stands out from Stott's in a

subtlety. Although Sanders does not preserve the epistemological residue that Stott was keen

to maintain (since Stott admitted his ignorance of the degree of knowledge necessary for

salvation, without necessarily dismissing it), he does maintain the ontological principle, which

he acknowledges is the only valid one for the salvation of all men: the death of Jesus Christ

on the cross.

382
James S. Dennis. Foreign Missions After a Century (London: Oliphant Anderson & Ferrier, 1984).
383
Apud Harold Netland. Encountering Religious Pluralism. The Challenge to Christian Faith and Mission
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001), p. 51.
384
John E. Sanders. “Historical Considerations”. In Clark Pinnock et al. The Openness of God. A Biblical
Challenge to Traditional Understanding of God (Downers Grove, IL/Carlyle, U.K.: InterVarsity/Paternoster,
1994), p. 97.
 148

Sanders’ “Open Theism” is the start point to his Theology of Religions without

epistemological dimension. According to which God has no knowledge of the future, for the

simple reason that, strictly speaking, the future does not exist for nobody, including God. The

freedom God gave to human beings is really open. He does not know it, and it does not

depend on God’s decisions. He resorts to a series of passages that talk about God's repentance

and takes them as literal to demonstrate that God does not know the future 385 . Sanders

opposes the theological determinism generally defended by theologians of the Calvinist

tradition without denying the doctrine of divine omniscience 386 or divine sovereignty

(omnipotence). In short, according to Sanders' “Open Theism”, God does not exercise

absolute control over His creation; rather, it operates on the basis of a “general sovereignty”

that is concerned only with the general structures of its plan of government387.

This extreme Arminian background must be taken into account to understand Sanders.

This would prevent us from following Kärkkläinen conclusions on Sanders’ inclusiveness388.

The means of grace presented by the Pentecostal theologian are not defined, but suggested;

since it is impossible to know how it will be the call of God and the response of men. His

claims about the salvation of those who never heard would be based on a kind of freedom

granted by God to mortals, and not on a divine plan that contemplates a specific means of

385
John Sanders. “Historical Considerations”, p. 96.
386
According to J. Sanders, there are several passages of Holy Scripture that support an open view of divine
providence: “(1) the Bible portrays God answering people's requests (2 Kings 20; Mark 2: 5, 6: 5-6 ; James 4:2);
(2) the Bible portrays God as being affected by creatures and sometimes being surprised by them (Gen 6:6; Ezek.
12:1-3; Jer. 3:7); (3) The Bible portrays God changing his mind as he relates to his creatures (Gen 22: 12; Exo
32; I Sam 2: 30; Jn 4: 2, Judges 10); (4) the Bible portrays God anticipating certain events that do not actually
occur (Ezek. 26:1-16, 29:17-20). J. Sanders. The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence (Downers Grove,
IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998), Chapters 3 e 4.
387
John Sanders. The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence, p. 197.
388
Kärkkläinen highlights five points that make him perceive Sanders as an inclusivist: “(1) while Christians are
saved by their faith in Jesus Christ, others can gain access to salvation by faithfully responding to the light given
them, even though they have not been reached by the gospel; (2) general revelation not only serves to prepare the
people to receive the gospel, but also as a means of salvation; (3) the Spirit of the Triune God can salve those
who have not received the gospel; (4) the exclusivity and uniqueness of Christ as a manifestation of God
(through the incarnation) does not render other manifestations of the Logos meaningless; (5) the Church, through
biblical teaching and missionary experience, has found evidence of God's redemptive work in cultures not
previously exposed to the preaching of the Christian message”. Veli-Matti Kärkkläinen. Introduction to
Theology of Religions, 144-145.
 149

grace for them. All the means of grace cited by Kärkkläinen appear in John Sanders' book in

just one paragraph389, which means that they are not really crucial to his theology. What is

fundamental for him is the “principle of faith”, linked to the theology of creation. This

principle is, according to its own definition, a conviction that brings together three

fundamental elements: truth, trust and effective action: “faith in God contains some truth,

whether this truth comes from the Bible or from God's work in creation” 390. Pages before,

Sanders had used the allegory of the shelter that had miraculously saved him from a storm.

This is the point at which I base myself to classify Sanders one step ahead of Stott by further

reducing the need to know in the divine work of salvation. His conclusion was that there was

no need to know who had built and who owned the shelter, what mattered at that moment was

its saving effectiveness. And then it concludes by criticizing the intellectualist notion of the

faith that saves391.

Sanders ends by quoting C. S. Lewis when he speaks of a broader saving process: “I

think that every prayer that is sincerely offered even to a false god is accepted by the true

God, and that Jesus Christ saves many who do not think He knows them.” 392 How exactly

does this happen? How exactly does God work within the religions? 393 According to Sanders,

it is impossible to know, since God himself does not know how human freedom will respond

to his saving dispositions, and what means of grace will be dispose by Him to save men. So

that the principles provided by Kärkkläinen are only possibilities for a salvation that will only

actually be known from an eschatological perspective. In short, for Sanders epistemological

389
John Sanders. No other Name, p. 36.
390
Ibid, idem.
391
Ibid, p. 37.
392
John Sanders. No other name, p. 45.
393
“Há pessoas nas outras religiões que estão sendo guiadas pela secreta influência de Deus a se concentrar
naquelas partes de sua religião que está de acordo com o Cristianismo, as quais, assim, pertencem a Cristo sem
conhecê-lo” (Ibid., idem).
 150

agnosticism reaches out to God himself, because He decided to bestow the men an absolute

liberty.

2.f.4. Gerald R. McDermott

American and Anglican-Evangelical theologian, senior scholar of History of

Christianity at Beeson Divinity School Faculty since 2015 and at Baylor University as visiting

professor, G. R. McDermott has become notable as an exponential figure of the new

generation Protestant theology, because of his approach to the theme of theology of

religions394. His position in this matter leaves aside what is commonly explored by theorists,

namely, the question of salvation, and enters into another debate related to the problem of

revelation and truth395. His approach is more open than that of other notorious exclusivists

already seen, yet he never abandons Exclusivism, even though some of his claims seem to go

beyond what could be classified in this way. He affirms categorically the uniqueness and

exclusivity of Jesus’ salvation396, but at the same time believes that the biblical revelation

itself, to be understood in all its complexity, needs the wisdom of the world's religions397, and

this in no way compromises the exclusivity of salvation in Jesus. The presence of truths in

religions, for McDermott like in Zwingli must be attributed to God. He is the source of all

truth, “at least indirectly”398. These last words suggest that McDermott goes beyond Zwingli,

because he speaks that besides nature there was other form of revelation in mind, as long as

he says “at least”. Thus, it remains to be seen whether within this framework of ideas the

normativity of Christian revelation is maintained. If the exclusivity of Jesus and the

394
Baylor University. Institute of Studies of Religion. “Gerald R. McDermott, Website.
395
Gerald R. McDermott. Can Evangelicals Learn from World Religions, p. 41.
396
“Now I am an Orthodox Christian who believes salvation comes only through the life, death and resurrection
of Jesus Christ. There is salvation in no one else (Acts 4: 12)”. Gerald McDermott. God’s Rivals. Why Has God
Allowed Different Religious (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2007), p. 14.
397
Gerald R. McDermott. Can Evangelicals Learn from World Religions, p. 16.
398
Gerald R. McDermott. God’s Rivals, p. 15.
 151

revelational normativity of Scripture are maintained, then McDermott is exclusivist, despite

the apparent pluralism.

In other book written in association with Harold Netland, McDermott discusses in more

detail what is the type of revelation given by God to other religions. He begins his argument

by offering several examples of how in the Bible divine revelation can occur outside the

confines of Israel; he found several characters in relation to which this revelation is implied:

Pharaoh's priests, Pharaoh himself, Hiram, Naaman, Nebuchadnezzar, etc.399 In the NT Paul

quotes pagan poets (Acts 17: 28) and the most important statement about the mission and

nature of Christ was uttered by the Roman centurion in charge of his crucifixion: "Verily this

man was the Son of God (Mark 15:39).

Moving forward to revelation in other religions, McDermott gives examples of some

non-Christian teachings from which our comprehension of Christian doctrines of justification

by faith can be improved: the Hindu bakhti tradition, Mahayana Buddhist belief of rebirth in

pure land, Japanese Buddhist Shinran teaching that reject human “ways of effort” 400 .

McDermott is not unaware of the differences that separate these religious ideas from Christian

doctrine of salvation by faith, the absolute transcendence of a Holy God, for instance, in

whose presence we can never be, however much we clothe ourselves with good works. At

other hand, God’s grace does not mean the same for Christians and non-Christians. Krishna

forgives human’s sins without it costing him absolutely nothing: pure condescension; for

Jesus, however, the grace that saves us cost everything401.

What calls McDermott’s attention are the similarities and the consequent question:

Where these truths come from? In his answer we find an explanation on the indirect ways of

399
Gerald R. McDermott; Harold Netland. A Trinitarian Theology of Religions. An Evangelical Proposal (New
York: Oxford University Press, 2014), p. 107.
400
Idem, ibid.
401
Gerald R. McDermott. Religiones del mundo, p. 23.
 152

God’s revelation, that is, a mysterious provision by which non-Christians wisemen can come

to know about God’s revelation of Scripture’s doctrines. He evokes Jonathan Edwards and the

ancient Church Fathers who spoke of prisca theologia, to refer to those truths that in early

human history were shared and then passed on to future generations402. As evidence of that he

relies on the cultural interchange in ancient world, especially between Egypt and India,

reported by many philosophers and historians, including Egyptian Fathers of Church

(Clement and Origen)403. McDermott mentions the Austrian anthropologist and historian of

religions, Wilhelm Schmidt, and his research on the ancient religions, highlighting that

surprisingly most of them originally were monotheists, which can be assumed as evidence of

the wide presence of this prisca theologia in Antiquity404.

Consistent with this idea that all truth comes from God, McDermott concludes that non-

Christian religions can improve our own Christianity in a number of ways: (a) teach us how to

be a more effective witness, as far as we know better the world where we must witness; (b)

give us many lessons on ethics, as does Confucianism about our filial duties; (c) help us better

understand our own Christian faith by comparing Christian doctrine with others; (d) to be a

better disciple, since the faithfulness of non-Christians is a reproach to Western secular

Christianity; (e) through cooperation with other religions, it makes it easier to defend religious

freedom in the face of attack by activists defending abortion and other "freedoms" harmful to

life, when thought of as a gift from God.405.

I consider the efforts of McDermott totally successful. The conception of prisca

theologia is quite interesting because it can be considered a pluralist element in an inclusive

scheme. It is pluralistic because this fundamental theology predates Christianity and even

402
Gerald R. McDermott; Harold Netland. A Trinitarian Theology of Religions, p. 114.
403
Idem, ibid.
404
Ibid., p. 113.
405
Gerald R. McDermott. Religiones del mundo. Una introducción indispensable (Nashville, TN: Thomas
Nelson, 2013), pp. 4-6.
 153

Judaism, a situation to which Genesis 4: 26 can be pointed out as a fundamental text: "To Seth

also was born a son, whom he named Enos; henceforth they began to call on the name of the

Lord". It is inclusivist because the prisca theologia of religions must be compared to the

Scripture to correct the distortions and misrepresentations in present religions because of the

effects of sin. Which means that while a lot can be learned from religions, what Christianity

has to teach has much more value.

In this pluralistic world the missions must continue, only now with much more

preparation and care, as we have already discovered that what we received was not the totality

of the revelation, but its fundamental and essential content, free of error knowledge. But now,

Christians must dwell on non-Christian religious traditions and learn before teaching.

2.g. Independents

Obeying to a chronological criterion, this group is here treated after the Evangelicals,

although its convictions are more restrictive than theirs. What groups them in a separate

section of the Christian world is their condition, as their name indicates, of, institutionally, not

being direct or indirect descendants of the religious movement that originated in the

Reformation of the 16th Century. Its origin is completely North American and was born out of

a restorationism or a “primitivism”406 that intended to reform the reformed churches, going

beyond the point where they left the reformation. It encompasses three churches that

originated from eschatological doctrines that flourished in this country in the first half of the

19th Century: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-days Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses and the

Seventh-day Adventists. Besides being distinctly American religious movements, their other

406
The concept was created by Mead to define an important aspect of American religious sociology. Basically, it
means the tendency of American denominationalism to, disregarding the historicity of its Christian legacy, seek
in its own experience the foundations of its history, thus becoming a movement with no links to its past history.
Sidney E. Mead. The Lively Experiment. The Shaping of Christianity in America, Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock
Publishers, 2007.
 154

characteristic is that they accept other inspired texts besides the Bible, although the degree of

inspiration of said texts varies among them.

Independents, in general, have not yet placed the theology of religions on their

theological agenda, as they are not adherents of ecumenism either. However, it is possible to

draw from their fundamental doctrines some inferences that are related to the subject. Below

are some observations from these readings.

2.g.1. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Days Saints

Mormons or Latter-day Saints, as they prefer to be called, are almost universalistic,

since, at the end of this world's history, few people will experience eternal damnation 407 ,

people they call “sons of perdition”, that is, those “who choose to reject Jesus after receiving

full and sure knowledge of him”, those that are fated to the “outer darkness”, a sort of hell 408.

Even thieves, liars, murderers, and other transgressors of the divine law, even those who have

rejected the preaching of the gospel, will have their share of divine goodness. But this does

not prevent us from classifying them as exclusivists, despite all the peculiarities of their

soteriology. They hold that everyone is saved by the grace of God in Jesus Christ, knowing it

or not, accepting it or not.

The theological solution adopted to preserve divine justice was the hierarchization of

salvation, the creation of various degrees of salvation, more precisely three kingdoms where

men's souls will ultimately go: the celestial, the terrestrial and the telestial. To the first will go

those who in life fulfilled all the divine prescriptions (ethical and ceremonial), but also those

who did not fulfill them, because post mortem, everyone will have this opportunity. In

Mormon theology the gospel is preached to the souls of those who have died, can receive

baptism vicariously when their families are, can marry for eternity (if the widower or widower

Douglas Davies. The Mormon Culture of Salvation (Aldershot, England: Ashgate, 2000).
407

Rodney Turney. “Sons of Perdition”. In Daniel H. Ludlow (ed.). Encyclopedia of Mormonism (New York:
408

Macmillan, 1992), pp. 1391-1392.

 155

so desires), and so on. To the second will go non-Mormons, that is, those who did not trust the

divine origin of J. Smith's revelations, those who received the post mortem gospel and

rejected it, those who let themselves be blinded by the wickedness of the world409. To the

third plan will go all who have rejected the gospel, the testimony of Jesus (the revelations of

Joseph Smith), the testimony of the prophets and the everlasting covenant. Also, liars,

adulterers, murderers, to all who mocked the commandments of God. Their punishment will

be resurrected only after a thousand years410.

Whereas salvation as the rest of Christianity understands it would be a blessing to live

in the presence of God, therefore, the heavenly kingdom of Mormons, what does The Church

of Latter-day Saints' greatest authority, Joseph Smith, say about the fate of non-Christians. -

Christians is that "all men and women who died without a knowledge of the gospel, but who

would have received it if they had had the opportunity, will be heirs to the heavenly

kingdom." Also, that "those who died without knowing him, but who had known him would

have embraced him wholeheartedly, will be heirs to the kingdom." 411 Why then not classify

Mormons as inclusivists? Why gospel knowledge, as the text indicates, is implied. In addition,

there is also post-mortem evangelism, so the best conclusion about them is that they are

adherents of a weak Exclusivism.

2.g.2. Seventh Day Adventists

Among the Independents, the position of Seventh-day Adventists is the most open to

interfaith dialogue412. Historically they are in line with the Millerite perspective that from the

409
Joseph Smith. Doctrines and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Days Saints (Whitefish, MO:
Kessinger Publishing, 2010), 76: 72-79.
410
Ibid., 76: 81-86.
411
Ibid., 137: 7-8.
412
“As members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, we rejoice that God loves and cares for his creation –
every human being of every race, culture and belief. We recognize that God has revealed himself in many ways,
including certain values and truths found in the world's great religions. Respecting the beliefs of people of other
religions, we as believers in Jesus want to share important and unique truths revealed in the Holy Bible. We want
to do this in a language and manner that is meaningful and understandable to peoples, in the context of their own
cultures.” This text was composed by the Committee on Global Mission Issues of Seventh-day Adventists.
 156

beginning saw the proclamation of the coming of Jesus as a worldwide phenomenon, not

hesitating to make a Catholic priest (Manuel Lacunza), an eclectic missionary (Joseph Wolff),

and a Presbyterian precursor of Pentecostalism (Edward Irving), as precursors of a message

which they themselves would appropriate in the future as the core of their identity: the soon

return of Jesus. Furthermore, Millerite Adventism was formed eclectically from preachers of

all denominations who, following William Miller, made the theme of the premillennial advent

of Jesus the mainstay of their public utterances and ministry. In addition, their set of doctrines

was constructed by theological conferences constituted by lay people and clerics of diverse

denominational origins. For that, in the Seventh-Day Adventists’ DNA there is a natural

openness to other faiths.

As for the salvific status of non-Christian religions, they basically support ideas very

close to E. Brunner's, believing in the general revelation of nature, that is, although they also

adopt Pauline 413 and Calvinist 414 pessimism regarding to the human natural capacity of

knowing God, human beings can perceive in the natural world the fingerprints of its Creator,

since they are convinced creationists. Coherently, they believe in the revelational hierarchy

also defended by Brunner, and, therefore, direct their missionary efforts primarily to the

conversion of Jews and Muslims and secondarily to other non-Christians.

Stefan Höschele. Interchurch and interfaith relations. Seventh-day Adventist statements and documents
(Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2010).
413
Ellen G. White, the SDA Church's greatest authority, endowed with her prophetic authority, declares: “The
Gentiles will be judged according to the light they have received . . . they have reasoning ability, and can
distinguish God in His created works. God speaks to all men through His providence in nature. It made it public
to everyone that He is the living God. Gentiles could argue that things could not have been done in an exact
order, and purposefully worked out, without a God who originated everything. They could reason from cause to
effect, that there must be a first cause, an intelligent agent that could be none other than the eternal God. The
light of God in nature is continually shining into the darkness of heathenism, but many who see this light do not
glorify the Lord as God.” (SoT, August 12, 1982).
414
From the work of the same author: “Nature still speaks of its Creator. However, these revelations are partial
and imperfect. In our fallen state, with weakened faculties and restricted eyesight, we are unable to interpret
them correctly. We need the fullest revelation of Himself that God has given us in His Word”. Ellen G. White.
Educação (São Paulo: Casa Publicadora Brasileira, 2001), pp. 16-17.
 157

It also favors their open and dialogic position, the fact that, historically (even because

they are a minority), they have been defending religious freedom and recommending a

proactive attitude of their members in defense of laws that encourage and guarantee freedom

of worship, temperance and freedom of expression. Furthermore, they have tried to insert

themselves in the intra-Christian dialogue, seeking to go as far as their convictions allow415.

Liturgically, they also demonstrate a tolerant spirit towards people of other denominations and

religions, accepting baptism by immersion in other denominations, as well as their

participation in their Eucharistic ceremonies, with the decision of participating or not being up

to the conscience of each one.

Despite so many historical and doctrinal dispositions favorable to an opening to inter-

religious dialogue, they still do not have a fully developed theology about the saving

condition of those who did not listen, because only in the last years their hermeneutical

interest have turned to the theme. Perhaps, among the evangelical theologians presented, the

one closest to them is J. Stott, as can be seen from the quotes from Hellen White in the

footnotes. Like Stott, Ellen G. White also recognizes the human limitation to unravel the

mysteries of divine action and purposes as God reveals his grace to people outside the

Church. The missiologists give their endorsement to it, recognizing that on this matter there

are two extremes to avoid: (a) that the all unevangelized will be lost, (b) that all of them will

be saved, and, therefore, the best position is think that God will judge judiciously “the

innermost life of every human to determine their responses to His influence upon them, other

than through direct evangelization”416.

415
Jeffrey Gross; Harding Meyer; William G. Rusch (eds.). Growth in Agreement II. Reports and Agreed
Statements of Ecumenical Conversations on a World Level, 1982-1998 (Genève/Grand Rapids, MI: WCC/Wm.
B. Eerdmans, 2000), pp. 295-309.
416
Gorden R. Doss. Introduction to Adventist Mission (Silver Spring, ML/Berrien Spring, MI: Institute of World
Mission/Department of World Mission, 2018), p. 103.
 158

2.g.3. Jehovah’s Witnesses

Of the three independent denominations, Jehovah's Witnesses are the one that present a

more restricted Exclusivism, denying any relationship with other religions, but that of being

an evangelizing agency with those who hear their message, requiring from their members

only that they respect the other religions people, which hides an implicit meaning: 'but not

what they think' 417 . The fundamental ideas that guide the ecumenical and pan-ecumenical

movement: unity, the common search for good, the appreciation of faith and the search for

peace, not rejected by the governing body of the JWs, because, according to them, they are

not in accordance with biblical guidelines that present, unfortunately, poorly contextualized;

on the other hand, all-inclusive biblical passages are omitted and forgotten418. Not to mention

that, unlike what the title of the text suggests, it is not about religious mixture, but about

interreligious dialogue.

This attitude of the JWs is quite predictable, in view of the negative standpoint they

have regarding the others. Indeed, the idea of falling from grace has a strong anti-

institutionalist content, applying to all types of institutions: religious, political, economic,

medical, educational, etc. In short, the Witnesses have a totalitarian contention with the world

which they call the “present state of affairs” 419, which actually, decoding, means that the

world is under the complete dominion of the devil. Everything that exists in the world subsists

under its dominion, from the fall of man (religious dimension) to the construction of the

Tower of Babel (political and social dimension); and today this realm of evil is at its height,

since Satan was cast out of heaven (Rev. 12: 9, 12), according to their eschatological

417
Jehovah’s Witnesses.org. “Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Practice Interfaith?”
418
Jehovah’s Witnesses.org. “Interfaith – Is it God’s Way?”
419
As it is translated the expression “consummation of the centuries”, according to the New World version. This
passage appears in the eschatological sermon of Jesus at Matthew 24: 3.
 159

interpretation, on the occasion of one of Jesus' possible manifestations (parousia) (1914,

1925, 1975, 1986)420.

As for those who have never heard, the JWs have a slightly more refined theology and

for that it is worthy of analysis. Agreeing with the fallen condition of human beings and the

need for divine provision to remedy it, they think there is no salvation without Jesus and

without confession of his name by those who repent of their sins. Therefore, the JWs

consigning themselves between those who defend an ontological and epistemological

salvation founded on Jesus. But, like Latter-day Saints, JWs believe that only the members of

their own denomination, alive after Armageddon, will be the founding community of Jesus’

new world; that is, the 144,000, who will be corulers with Him, according to his literalist

interpretation of the Apocalypse (chapter 7) 421. The rest, both those who died before the Great

Tribulation and those who never had the opportunity to hear the gospel, will be resurrected

during the thousand years. At the end of this time, if they are judged favorably, for having

accepted the vicarious sacrifice of Jesus and having corrected themselves of their

wrongdoings, they will become part of the first group of the saved; otherwise, they will be

permanently annihilated422.

Thus, for the JWs, religions do not exist, still less the question of salvation of their own,

put as problem for Christian soteriology. All those social factors placed at the beginning have

no effect on the Jahvist community in view of the high degree of sectarianism in which its

adherents live. However, their presence in the world mission field is quite expressive. The

solution to this apparent contradiction is the conclusion that the presence of the Jahvist in

these countries where Christianity is a minority does not occur because there is a good

contextualization of their doctrine, neither because they enter into a dialogue with the local

420
Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. Peace and Security. How Can You Find it? (New York, 1986), p. 75.
421
Wikipedia. “Fate of the Unlearned”.
422
Ibid.
 160

religions. What happens is that, as also happens in countries where Christianity is the

majority, they live and feed, opportunistically, on denominational failures to satisfy popular

eschatological expectations, which they know how to exploit.

2.h. Pentecostals

Pentecostals are the least strict exclusivists. However, it is not yet possible to call them

inclusivists, with the exception of Amos Yong, to be evaluated in the subsequent chapter.

They maintain the so-called negative theology of natural religion and the consequent saving

Exclusivism of Jesus. That is, they support the idea that the religions in which they participate

play no significant salvific role. “They are saved in spite of their religions and practices” and

not because of them423. However, the unevangelized are also under God's grace through the

Spirit.

However, although accepting the uniqueness and exclusivity of the Christ, from an

institutional and liturgical point of view, Pentecostals are less limiting than Evangelicals,

because of the pneumatological emphasis of their theology of religions: “diversity and

pluralism are therefore intrinsic to the Church, where Spirit is poured out. For, on the other

hand, On the day of Pentecost, as the Spirit was sent to the Early Church, the result of this

was a living organism” which cannot be controlled by any human institution424.

2.h.1. Veli-Matti Kärkkläinen

American Finn Professor of Systematic Theology at Fuller Theological Seminary, in the

United States and elsewhere, prolific author of several important theological works. In one of

these, he makes a comprehensive analysis of the whole issue of theology of religions, in his

considerations he approaches the propositions of C. Pinnock, distinguishing himself from the

Steve Studebaker. From Pentecost to the Triune God (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2012), p. 210.
423
424
Amos Yong. The Spirit poured out on all flesh. Pentecostalism and the possibility of global theology, (Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Academics, 2005), p. 173.
 161

Canadian theologian only in terms of a slightly more positive appreciation of non-Christian

religions, because of his ecclesiological and pneumatological emphasis. Indeed, for him,

religions contain elements of truth that can instruct Christians. The Spirit also works outside

the Christian Church among religions. The Spirit is not subordinate to the Church and this

opens the possibility for good things and truths to be found amidst religions425. However,

religions themselves cannot save426. Salvation in religions takes place only at the crossroads

where they and Christianity meet. Salvation only occurs when the good things and the truths

of religions make it possible for Christianity to enter the life of these communities with its full

truth. Veli-Matti, therefore, defends, as the synthetic pluralists, a kind of religious synthesis

between Christianity and religions, but always with Christianity prevailing.

He is aware that it is not an easy task to put Christianity side by side with other

religions. The author himself demonstrates this when he compares Christianity and Islam and

realizes that the concept of the trinity generates an insurmountable incompatibility, as he

himself recognizes it427. As for the real possibilities of putting Christianity in dialogue with

other religions, he makes several attempts using Christology as a basis, but problems are

inevitable. Veli-Matti begins his reasoning with peaceful arguments about the plural nature of

New Testament and other Christologies throughout history: “1. Incarnational Christology of

the Early Church and Catholicism; 2. Protestantism's theology of the cross; 3. The

Christology of the Ascension and Resurrection of the Eastern Church; 3. The Christology of

the Power of Pentecostalism and Charismatic Movements” 428.

425
Veli-Matti Kärkkläinen. An introduction to ecclesiology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2002), p. 24.
426
Veli-Matti Kärkkläinen. An introduction to theology of religions (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003), p.
139.
427
Veli-Matti Kärkkläinen. An introduction to theology o religions, p. 157.
428
Veli-Matti Kärkkläinen. Christology. A global introduction. An ecumenical international and contextual
perspective (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Publishing Group, 2007), p. 17.
 162

Up to this point we can follow him without any problem. All these religious movements

start from Scripture or parts of it, used to meet the peculiar hermeneutical needs of a time and

place. However, when the process refers to "contextual Christologies"429, in which a synthesis

between religious cultures is rehearsed, then the result is a poorly made sonnet, as the limits

of orthodoxy are exceeded, leaving the Bible to be a normative text, as the very essence of

Christian theology requires.

In African cultures, for example, where various religious concepts favor the theological

encounter with Christianity, generating some theological points of contact, the operation is

not that simple. As in the case of what is called African “Christ as ancestor” Christology, also

a kind of Logos theology. However, there are many fundamental things in Christian theology

that are unparalleled in African culture, the transcendence of pre-encarnacional being of

Christ for example gets lost in this context. Likewise, the concept of salvation and sin, with all

its heavy loading of metaphysical charge, that pales in African culture. Evil is generally

linked to people who are evil doers, or local spirits and geniuses, and not related to a general

evil agent enemy of God: Satan 430; and salvation “has to do with physical and immediate

dangers that threaten survival, good health and general prosperity or safety 431. In other words,

Christ could not be called the Savior, as Bible understands it, considering only what mostly

African traditions say432.

Likewise, the Asian Christology “Christ as universal savior” would have great difficulty

in adapting to the Johannine Logos theology, as it appears in the Bible, and would be more at

ease among Apolinarist and other Docetic thinkers, since they denied history and the value of

429
Veli-Matti Kärkkläinen. Christ and Reconciliation (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2013),
p. 71.
430
Daniel Kasomo. “An Investigation of Sin and Evil in African Cosmology”, IJSA (vol. 1(8), Dez 2009), p.
147.
431
Kudzai Biri. African Pentecostalism, the Bible and Cultural Resilience (Bamberg, Germany: University of
Bamberg Press, 2020), p. 234.
432
Veli-Matti Kärkkläinen. Christ and Reconciliation, p. 73.
 163

the irruption of the Logos in human history. Here again a problem with the enculturation of

the concept of salvation, which for Asian religions cannot occur in history, the material world

being the seat of the slavery of the human soul, according to both Vedanta Hinduism and

Theravada Buddhism. According to all these Eastern and Western mysticism there is no

journey of God into human history, right the opposite, the journey of men outwards human

history. Jesus of Nazareth, who died on a cross in Jerusalem for the sins of mankind has

nothing to offer to these Asian theologians.

For just this simple example it can be realized the unsurmountable difficulties that

involved the task of synthetizing religious discourses on even limited bases as the case of

soteriology. The kernel of the problem lies on the nature of these doctrines, they imply each

other with in a complete system. According to the ideas of Wittgenstein and Saussure, the

slightest change in one of them would produce a chain destabilization that would also require

a chain reorganization. So that at the end of the synthesis process (which can take decades),

we would realize that in the end there would be neither Christianity nor Buddhism or

Hinduism, but something else we cannot yet know.

2.i. Conclusion

This chapter has been organized based on some criteria, which were: from the oldest to

the youngest, and from the most closed to the most open, applied to the ecclesial institutions

and authors. We are aware that in many aspects the more closed are not the oldest and vice-

versa. Take the case of K. Barth that is the most closed exclusivist and, nevertheless, is almost

a universalist, believing that in the last day all people will be saved. Thus, if the choices made

were different, the possible criteria (geographic, purely chronologically, etc.) would be

organized in a totally different way and we would have a completely different chapter. Other

names would appear and others would be absent.

 164

As the reader can see, this is a field full of subtleties and slippery concepts, so that no

generalist work in the world would be able to do justice to all those numerous theories that

makes up this field of knowledge. Even now, doubts remain that some who appeared last

would not be better ranked in the beginning of the subsequent chapter, or that the first ones of

the coming chapter would not be more coherently placed in this place, like the Inclusivism of

the Protestants, thar are so weakly argued. As every border region, whether theoretically or

geographically, it is the territory of ambiguity and duplicity, there will be no lack of opinions

contrary to what is exposed here. For instance, to what extent is professor Kärkkläinen well

placed as an exclusivist? The differences between him and Yong, for example, are so tenuous,

but he never went so far as to suggest that the Scriptures of non-Christian religions may have

been Spirit-inspired, as Yong did (this we will come back to later in the topic about him).

Furthermore, the authors listed here may in a few years have evolved towards more or

less Exclusivism. It was necessary to make a complete examination of each one deeply;

unfortunately, it is impossible in this limited space. An especial problem in this subject is the

case of ecumenical organizations that being more coherent could not appear as Exclusivists,

because just some of them were classifiable in such group, WCC, for instance was half-half

between Exclusivism and Inclusivism in its beginning and more recently became completely

inclusivism. The logic that guided me in putting WCC among the exclusivists is the same of

the general plan of this work, that is, historical. WCC started leaning towards Exclusivism and

then became inclusivist. Conceptually, it would be more correct to place half of the WCC

among the exclusivists and the other half among the inclusivists in the next chapter. However,

in doing so, we would lose the thread of history and the motives that led to such a profound

theological transformation.

The explanation of this singular problem touches the general plan of this investigation.

This group of scholars and respective theories prioritize the first part of the theology of
 165

religions’ task, namely, the commitment to the sources, something that easily can be

confounded with compromise to institutions and creeds, and that’s another feature that can be

notice amidst exclusivists: the longer the denominational history, the more closed is the

Exclusivism adopted. So that, those who come from more recent institutions are more open

than those whose original institutions are covered by secular glories. The Pentecostals and

Independents are more inclusivists than the Historical Protestants. WCC is exception because

its theologians, the ones who embraced the ecumenical cause with the tightest embrace, where

also people originated from liberal theological courses in Europe and North-America. This

theology was since ever critical of Scripture, so it was easy for them put aside biblical

exclusivism and move forward towards Inclusivism and even Pluralism, without major

conflicts of conscience. Contrariwise, the conservative churches among the Protestant joined

inter-church organizations and maintained their original trust in the Scriptures. In the next

chapter some of them will be put under examination, although not all of them have evolved to

Inclusivism. Once again, we try to present historical evolution rather than merely labeling

these institutions.

The Catholic Church seems to contradict the general rule presented above, namely, that

the oldest institutions are the most closed. As we will see in the next chapter, from Vatican II

onwards Catholicism will take a turn towards openness, but this only happened due to two

fundamental factors: (a) the theological basis of Roman Catholicism is its sacramental

soteriology and ecclesiology, corollary of that; and not the Scriptures. So that it is easier for

the Roman Catholic theologian to overlook Biblical Exclusivism when constituting his

theology of religions; (b) secondly, what led Catholicism to open up was the paradigm shift in

ecclesial government and in its relationship with the world. Catholicism realizes today that the

old post-Constantinian prerogatives are no longer applicable and therefore adopts a humbler

and inclusive attitude regarding to the non-Christians religions.

 166

CHAPTER III

Inclusivism

3.a. Introduction

Inclusivism has a long history in Christianity. Some even think that it started in its

beginnings, in apostolic days, with the inclusive missiology of Paul, Luke and Mark, where

there is a certain compatibility between Gentile and Christian culture, which could even be

classified as a soft Inclusivism. Paul in his texts refers in many points to Greek philosophy,

especially Stoicism (Rom. 2: 15), because he speaks of a natural moral knowledge, but not

attributing it to the Logos, but to the Creator. Yet, Paul says that even those who have never

heard the gospel will not be considered innocent. It seems that for the apostle of the peoples,

natural revelation is not enough to save, but only making to get lost those who deviate from

the divine purposes printed as God's fingerprints in His creatures. According to Luke, for

example, Paul speaking to the Gentiles in Lystra, recorded them that “God did not let himself

be left without witness of himself, doing good”, giving them rain and fruitful seasons from

heaven, filling their hearts of plenty and joy (Acts 14: 17). In Acts 17, where apparently Paul's

record preaching to the Athenians gives a clear presentation of the idea of continuity between

the paganism of the Greeks and the worship of the true God, it is actually a reference to the

religiosity, the religious impulse, of the Greeks and not their religion itself. Furthermore, the
 167

reason for the Gentile’s ignorance remains unspoken, since Paul presents himself as revealing

the identity of the God, they worshiped without knowing. We can also mention II Peter 3:9

and I Timothy 2:4, both texts used to support the universal saving will of God. However, what

is said in these texts about God's desire to save everyone does not allude to a divine action in

religions, nor to their salvific efficacy as a means, albeit secondary, of salvation. We can

conclude that these texts generally used to support New Testament Inclusivism only have to

say about religions what is reticent and unspecific, which only reinforces the idea that they do

not have a theology of religions.

However, it cannot be said that these authors are inclusivist, not as in this chapter

Inclusivism is defined, by understanding the means of salvation of religions as God’s grace

means of salvation. The NT considers as the work of God only the impulse for the salvation

of religions, not his way of satisfying this impulse. According to soft Exclusivism, God

operates in religions from this impulse that was implanted in humanity by the Creator himself,

and not through an active divine will, which regularly acts in them. Eventually, it may even

happen that in religions may exist elements compatible with the gospel, but this is something

exceptional433. In relation to Inclusivism, this is one of its principles, that is, it is part of the

conjunction of two dimensions: (a) the universal saving will of God and (b) salvation only

through the ministry of Jesus Christ.

On the other hand, it must be recognized that the ontological and epistemological need

regarding the salvation in Jesus is not an absolute, since we cannot fully know how God

works through his Spirit in individuals, so that they come, even partially, to a knowledge of

433
Justine and Clement spoke of “seed of the Logos”, Eusebio of Caesarea of “evangelical preparation”; Origin
attributes to some ideas of philosophers the condition of “propaedeutic” to the gospel; Augustine saw in Plato
someone who could perceive, although imperfectly, “the end of human life” and the “way to the Father”, as long
as it is the Logos. Michel Fédou. The Fathers of the Church in Christian Theology, p. 310. Despite the protests
of inclusive Catholic theologians, these Christian thinkers did not defend the regular action of God in religions,
nor natural revelation as sufficient for salvation. They step in the footsteps of Paul, when he says that the
manifestation of Jesus in the world had a prior preparation of providence, as socioeconomic and cultural
conditions favored the preaching of the gospel (Gal. 4: 4).
 168

the truth. But, up to this point we have remained exclusivists, although soft ones. According

to Inclusivism, it is not any longer about the Spirit acting on individuals or, as already stated,

exceptionally in religious institutions, but about a systematic action of God in religions, to

presuppose that this universal saving will of God is so active in religions as in Christianity.

Clark Pinnock states it expressly and clearly: “Inclusivism believes that God uses both general

and special revelation in saving ways. […] Revelation is embodied in other religions”434.

Having defined Inclusivism, we still need to distinguish between three types of

Inclusivism: Evangelical-Pentecostal, Protestant and Catholic. Evangelical-Pentecostal

Inclusivism is Soteriocentric and Pneumocentric, Protestant is Theocentric and Catholic is

Ecclesiocentric. Thus, in the inclusive Evangelical-Pentecostal modality, non-Christian people

are saved by Christ, but they do not know about it. This salvation always occurs through

Christ, the Spirit is the instrument, which according to this conception works outside the

limits of the Church. In the Protestant case, the knowledge of what is true can occur through

natural revelation, which, according to some inclusivists, has a positive function, that is, it is

not only negative, in the sense of preventing the invocation of ignorance to justify

disobedience (Paul), but it is also sufficient to guide people to God. In the Roman Catholic

case, Gentiles are saved by Christ also indirectly, through the sacramental role of the Church.

The NT is not inclusive because it does not embrace any of the above principles. It does

not consider natural revelation sufficient to lead to the truth except exceptionally, which

usually prevents us from finding salvific truths in religions. It does not believe in the

sacramental role of the Church, because the doctrine of original sin, as presented by St.

Augustine, is not biblical doctrine. Nor does it defend the idea of the Spirit acting outside the

circumscription of the Church, since, although there are examples of the Spirit's action outside

Clark H. Pinnock. “An Inclusivist View”. In Dennis L. Okholm; Timothy R. Phillips. More than One Way?
434

Four Views of Salvation in a Pluralistic World (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1995), pp. 117-118.
 169

the geographic limits of the Church, this extra-ecclesial action does not occur alongside or as

part of His ministry in the Church, but always in relation to it (Acts). He prepares those

without a knowledge of the gospel to receive the gospel that is preached by the Church.

3.b. Apologist Fathers

Analyzing from that dual perspective placed at the beginning: (a) the exclusion of

salvation in Christ and (b) the universal saving will of God, interpreting the latter as God's

positive will for saving also within the religions, this does not seem to be the case for Justin

Martyr and that is why he had another position in this picture. For him, as for other soft

exclusivists, such as Brunner, the truth of religions does not stem from anything other than a

creature nature that carries sparks of truth, placed in human consciousness by the Creator

through Logos, that is, a rationality universal that remained in the fallen imago Dei, which

places it in the group of soft exclusivism.

This is not the case with Clement of Alexandria, who appears here precisely because he

believes that God's saving will is due not only to his action in the past in the act of creating

the world and the human being, but also in the present, in the act of redeem it through

religions. Below is a brief explanation of him.

3.b.1. Clement of Alexandria

There is no reliable information about Clement's birth and death date, it is usually given

as his birth date 150 and death date 215 CE 435. Little is known about his life, apart from

sparse notes (in the first chapter of Stromata) and what others say, for example, Eusebius of

Caesarea (Ecclesiastical History) 436 . Like the other Apologist Fathers, he would have

undertaken a spiritual journey that would take him from Athens, his birthplace, Italy, Syria,

Palestine, until, around 180 C.E., he found himself in Alexandria, where he would live until

435
Nuovo Dizionario Patristico e di Antichità Cristiane, Angelo di Bernardino (ed.) (Genova: Marietti, 2006), M.
Mees, entry: “Clemente di Alessandria”, p. 1066.
436
Idem, ibid.
 170

close to his death437. Owner of an encyclopedic knowledge that is partly explained by the

place where he would choose to live most of his life, Alexandria, the most cosmopolitan and

cultured city in the ancient world438, Clement, more than any other Christian thinker of his

time, knew and appreciated the culture Greco-Roman439. No wonder, therefore, his spiritual

disposition towards pluralism. He had at his disposal the greatest library in the ancient world,

as his abundant citations attest. Because of his skill and erudition, he could devote himself to

missionary work among the members of the wealthiest and most educated class in that city440.

Similar to other Apologist Fathers, Clement did not give free rein to Greco-Roman

culture. He deplored pagan customs and their idolatry. In the first chapter in his Exhortation

to the Heathen he urges his readers “to abandon the wicked mysteries of idolatry to worship

the Divine Word and the Father”. In the same work Clement makes several criticisms of the

pagan cults, their myths and superstitions. However, he recognizes that among philosophers

there are those whose teachings are not far from the truth, and, unlike Justin, he taught not

that these fragments of truth resulted of pure emulation of the Scriptures by philosophers,

Clement thinks rather that they were divine inspiration: " through his inspiration if in some

measure he has reached the truth” 441. The same he will say about poets if they somehow

managed to tell the truth442.

In Stromata, also known as Miscellanies, using the analogy of the hands of God, he goes

a step further than his predecessors in acknowledging that to the Gentiles, through philosophy,

God directs a revelational economy equivalent to that given to the Hebrews443. And it goes

437
Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Heathen. In Alexander Roberts; James Donaldson (eds.). Ante
Nicene Christian Library. Writings of Clement (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1844), p. 11.
438
Eric Osborn. Clement of Alexandria (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), p. 2.
439
Ibid., p. 3.
440
M. Mees, entry: “Clemente di Alessandria”, p. 1067.
441
Clement of Alexandria. Exhortation to the Heathen, p. 71.
442
Ibid., chapter VII.
443
Clement of Alexandria. Stromata. In Alexander Roberts; James Donaldson (eds.). Ante Nicene Christian
Library. Writings of Clement (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1844), VII, 1.3.
 171

further, also admitting that salvation is within the reach of philosophers without needing

anything other than what they already find in philosophy itself: “For it is not His way to

compel one who is able to obtain salvation by himself by the exercise of free choice and by

fulfilling all that is required on his part so as to lay hold on the hope” 444. And concludes:

“Angels are assigned to the different nations” 445.

Clement was firmly convinced that God's love and sovereignty were sufficient reasons

to think that in the economy of divine salvation there was a dispensation reserved for the

religion of philosophers. However, this salvation was not the result of a Pelagian self-

indulgence in the human capacity to please God, as the quotation above suggests. Ultimately,

salvation is not granted to anyone through the practice of moral and ethical actions, the

incarnation of Jesus remains fundamental to Clement's theology of religions, which very

clearly adopts the two fundamental points of Inclusivism: the saving will universality of God

and exclusivity of salvation through Jesus446.

3.c. Roman Catholic Inclusivism

Catholic Inclusivism begins to be theologically elaborated three decades before Vatican

II, with the mitigation of the outcomes of Pius’ era, whose greatest symbol was the Syllabus

errorum, a list of modernist works banned by the Roman See. This index was considered the

apex of the megalomaniac syndrome of a church at war with the world; used alongside other

decisions to stop the weakening of Catholic Church’s temporal power, but useful only to

make it lose popular appeal and increase its isolation. The condemnation of theological

444
Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, VII, 2.5.
445
Ibid., VII, 2.6.
446
“Here we have following alternatives: either the Lord care not for all men – which might rise from incapacity
(but this is forbidden to say, for incapacity is a mark of weakness), or from want of will on the past of one
possessed with power (but an affection is incompatible with Goodness; in any case He who for our sake took
upon him our flesh with its capacity for suffering is not rendered indifferent to others sorrows by self-indulgence
– He has regard for us all, which also beams Him who was made the Lord of all. For He is the Savior not of one
here and another there, but, but he is the savior not of one here and another there, but of all in the measure of
each one's aptitude. He distributed His own bounty both to Greeks and to Barbarians”. Idem, ibid.
 172

pluralism and the consequent stimulus to the rebirth of Thomism (Neothomism), the

declaration of papal infallibility, the condemnation of the liberal doctrine of the secular State,

the curial repudiation of religious freedom, and the censorship of liturgical regionalisms; none

of these actions served to curb the inevitable new paradigm into which Catholicism was

entering. The post-Constantinian era was coming to an end. That world of Catholicism's

political-religious hegemony was definitely falling behind.

Catholic Church urgently needed to reconcile with the world and break its isolation. As

response many signals of renovation started to emerge from several parts of Catholic world

(but not without fierce resistance from elements of the hierocracy). The winds of renovation

blew on Catholicism from all parts of Europe (except Spain and Portugal), specially from

France and Belgium, with the so-called nouvelle théologie447, which can be divided into four

phases: (a) first phase (1935-1942) lead by the Dominicans: M. Dominique Chenú, Yves M. J.

Congar, L. Charlier; (b) second phase (1942-1950), started with the French Jesuits Jean

Daniélou, H. Bouillard, H. de Lubac; third phase (1950-1962), with Dutch-speaker, German-

speaker and English-speaker theologians that promoted a theological pluralism. Its main

names are Odo Cassel, Karl Rahner, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Erich Prziwara and E.

Schillebeeckx; and the fourth, with the Vatican II itself448.

Without these previous theological developments there would have been no

hermeneutic turnaround in the Roman Church449, and consequently neither Vatican II would

have existed. Indeed, Le Saulchoir's theological reform followed some fundamental

guidelines that contradicted the anti-modernism of Pius X's encyclical: Pascendi (1907);

447
“The expression nouvelle théologie is used today almost exclusively as a technical designation for the
[catholic] theological movement associated with the period between 1935 and 1960”. Jurgen Mettepennigen.
Nouvelle Théologie. New Theology. Inheritor of Modernism, Precursor of Vatican II (London: T & T Clark,
2010), p. 4.
448
Ibid., pp. 31-36.
449
Hans Schwatz. Theology in a Global Context. The Last Two Hundred Years (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B.
Eerdmans, 2005), pp. 427-436.
 173

however, it did not embrace the opposite position either, taking rather a middle way tone that

would be fundamental to the further aggiornamento of John XXIII 450 . The fundamental

guidelines were: (a) the return to the revelated data (the Scriptures), (b) the methodological

assumption of biblical and historical critics to its study, (c) the return to the Aquinas’ sources

rather than the Neo-Scholasticism used in its place, (d) the concern with the current problems

of the world451.

From the vanguard of Catholic theology came several specific contributors. the most

important would come from Le Saulchoir and La Fourvière, the Jesuit house of Lyon. It will

not be possible to mention all the names that contributed to the rebirth of Catholic theology,

so we will stick only to those whose ideas are most closely related to our theme.

The first of the list is M.-D. Chenú, with him everything started because he was the

systematizer of the ideas that founded the new Catholic theological practice. Furthermore, he

was the dean of the theology faculty and therefore the one who orchestrated all those changes.

He was one of the first theologians to realize the need for a return to sources, the necessity of

a Ressourcement of Catholic theology which at that time withered away in the dogmatic

desert of the neo-scholastic theological manuals 452 . A huge hermeneutics endeavor he

engaged with all heart and which is described in the methodological manifesto of the nouvelle

théologie453, unfortunately, earned him a long period of ostracism, but he didn't silence his

voice. His fault was trying to replace the aridity of the Catholicism of the Pius by means of a

new reading of the sources, with emphasis on spirituality and historicity of the doctrinal

sources, which opened the doors to the weakening of Catholicism’s dogmatic positions,

450
Rosino Gibelini. A teologia do século XX, pp. 164-165.
451
Ibid., p. 166.
452
Jacob H. Wood. “Ressourcement”. In Jordan Hillebert (ed.). T & T Clark Companion to Henri de Lubac
(London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2017), p. 4. For further reading see Patricia Kelly. Ressourcement Theology.
A Sourcebook (London : Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2021).
453
Marie-Dominique Chenú. Une école de théologie : Le Saulchoir. Avec les études de Giuseppe Alberigo,
Étienne Fouilloux, Jean Ladrière et Jean-Pierre Jossua (Paris, Éd. du Cerf, 1985).
 174

predisposing it to the interreligious dialogue. On spirituality, his studies of the medieval great

theologians (including Aquinas) broke the paradigm of “absolute and immutable” truth,

replacing it by a contextual one 454 . On historicity, Chenú seems to be influenced by

existentialist ideas when he proposes the abandonment of the abstract concept of truth in

Greco-Latin philosophy and the adoption of biblical concept of truth, which main

characteristics are “time, the fragility of things and persons” 455

. He condemns the

ontologizing of biblical accounts, since they speak of existence not essences. This meant also

that the concept of revelation becomes no longer primarily a set of factual truths about God

and human beings, but a self-communication of God to man through the incarnation456.

Yves Congar could be called ‘the prophet of Vatican II’, because he anticipated the

mains items of the Council’s agenda with three books, he published in the years that preceded

it: Disunited Christians457, True and False Reform in the Church458 and Lay People in the

Church 459 , each of them inspiring at least one of the council’s documents. In Disunited

Christians, although he is still attached to “an ecumenism of return”, which can be taught as

the pre-history of Ecumenism, since expect the return of those who have abandoned Catholic

Church (the Protestants), is actually in an advance in relation to the Pius’ era paradigm,

because he also assumed the need for a reformation in the Church, making it able to receive

those who decide to return, which presupposes that the Catholic Church would have gone

wrong in his post-Constantinian dispositions. It is said that Congar’ thought “dominated the

Vatican II” for two main reasons: (a) proposed a form of ecumenism that was acceptable to

454
Fergus Kerr. Twentieth Century Catholic Theologians. From Neo-Scholasticism to Nuptial Mysticism
(Oxford: Blackwell, 2007), p. 19.
455
Idem, Ibid.
456
Karim Schelkens. Catholic Theology of Revelation on the Eve of Vatican II. A Redaction History of the
Schema De fontibus revelationis (1960-1962) (Leiden: Brill, 2010), p. 32.
457
Yves Congar. Chrétiens Désunis : Principes d'un 'oecuménisme' catholique (Paris : du Cerf, 1937).
458
Yves Congar. Vraie et fausse réforme dans l'Eglise (Paris : du Cerf, 1950).
459
Yves Congar. Jalons pour une théologie du laicat (Paris : du Cerf, 1953).
 175

Catholicism; (b) valued the laity until then undervalued by the ecclesiastical hierarchy 460. In

sum, Congar’s ideas shaped the modern Catholicism. But earned not for that, except long

years of exile461.

The works of the Jesuit Jean Daniélou favored basically the Catholic theology of

religions in two main points. First, like Chenú his theological emphasis summoned Catholic

Theology to return to the biblical sources, so that it could feed on the living sap of the gospel,

in order to maintain the connection between theology and life. Still on Chenú’s track,

Daniélou advised against dogmatism, drawing his readers attention to the hermeneutical

consequences of a Greek and Gnostic reading of the Bible, as they emphasized a static feature

that the holy history has not. It was necessary to recover the notion of history, as well “the

continuity and discontinuity of its development”462. That is, the disparity between times must

be not understood as antagonism, because the real understanding of the Christian doctrines

does not arise from categoric dogmatic declarations, but from life and comparisons of

different situations of life used pedagogically by God. For example, the OT emphasis on

monotheism was necessary in a context of polytheism, because unicity would be only

comprehended in that, and it was necessary to speak of God’s unicity before God’s Trinity,

because Trinity would not be plenty understood without the prior lesson of unicity463. So that,

there was not an antagonism between falsity and truth among religions. In history the false is

becoming truth.

460
Fergus Kerr. Twentieth Century Catholic Theologians, p. 36.
461
Andrew Meskaroz. “Yves Congar: The birth of Catholic Ecumenism”. In Paul S. Peterson. Generous
Orthodoxies. Essays on the History and Future of Ecumenical Theology (Eugene, OR: Pick Wick, 2020), p. 13.
See also Yves Congar. True and False Reform in the Church (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2011). This
last book was read by pope John XXIII when he was still archbishop and papal nuncio in France. Then when he
convened the Second Vatican Council, he did exactly what the book of Congar proposed, namely, the Catholic
Church was not brought together to fight heresies or denounce individuals or institutions, but to revitalize
ecclesiastical life and review its positions in relation to the world, that is, what Congar understood as reform in
the Church.
462
Jüngen Metteppenigen. Nouvelle Théologie. New Theology, p. 99.
463
Idem, ibid.
 176

Secondly, as the same methodology is applied in the studies of Sciences of Religion,

Daniélou is capable of pointing to a secret evolution in the people’s different knowledges of

God. It is possible to recognize the reasonableness of Inclusivism, admitting in the pagan

religions’ imperfect truths, “stepping stones related to Judaism and Christianism”464. They

would, therefore, be perfecting the knowledge of the true God when they seem to oppose

Him. Although other before him had already said the same, Daniélou gives his endorsement

to the current works of authors linked to the History of Religions and Phenomenology of

Religion, like George van der Leeuw and Mircea Eliade, making his Inclusivism encompass

even the primitive and animists religions, which before him nobody had dare to do465. Surely

under influence of Teilhard de Chardin, Daniélou saw all religions included in Christianism as

far as they were necessary stages for human history to reach its most perfect religious stage,

just like as to the former, all forms of life were stages so that the supreme manifestation of

Jesus, the greatest of all men, might be attained.

Henri de Lubac, French Jesuit, considered one of the most important catholic

theologians of the 20th Century due to his huge theological production. He went through

stormy times like many others in this group, but was rehabilitated, becoming one of the periti

pointed to the Vatican II, leaving his mark on several conciliar documents. Its difficult to sum

up the contributions of de Lubac. He demonstrated his “mastery over a staggering array of

figures, epochs and intellectual disciplines”, in such diverse areas like history, philosophy,

dogmatics, theology, etc466. Like Chenú he tried to recovery the historicity of Christian Faith,

calling back the entire context of the time of its birth as indispensable material for its

comprehension: “Christianity transformed the old world by absorbing it. Can St. Paul's

thought be imagined cut off from the numberless roots which bound it to Tarsus and

464
Jean Daniélou. God and the Ways of Knowing (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1957), p. 11.
465
Ibid., p. 12.
466
Jordan Hillebert. “Introducing Henri de Lubac”. In Jordan Hillebert (ed.). The T & T Clark Companion to
Henri de Lubac, p. 6.
 177

Jerusalem, to Greek civilization, Eastern mysticism and the Roman Empire?” 467 This

conclusion stems from his following of Apologist Fathers, thinking that “the seed of the Word

is innate in the whole human race. The divine likeness in it may be dimmed, veiled,

disfigured, but it is always there”468. But, unlike the Apologist Fathers, Lubac's emphasis on

Greco-roman pagan religions is positive, not negative.

Indeed, in a further work, The Discovery of God469, de Lubac presents the idea of God

in our conscience as a pre-conceptual element, since God has no part in our common

experience 470 . He seems to think in a sort of spiritual intentionality that rises from a

mysterious confidence in something that is beyond. Therefore, God is present in our soul

“before any explicitly reasoning or objective concept is possible”471. To these two elements,

namely, history and anthropology, Lubac joins the dogmatic propositions of Catholicism, that

is, fundamentally, his position is that of a moderate Inclusivism. Ilaria Morali summarizes

Lubac's positions that links him to the theology of religions in 4 points:

(a) Desiderium naturale vivendi Deum and religious fact as, par excelence, as a
combination of cause and effect. Desiderium inspire and drives the human beings to
search and unite with God. Therefore, non-Christian religious facts are
consequences of an aspiration deposited in the depths of the human spirit, but this
natural inspiration just has in itself, the force of nature, unable to rise above itself.
Grace is needed;

(b) The peaceful expression the man according to the image is a principle common
to every human being and in this sense Tertullian's expression corresponds to it:
anima naturaliter christiana. Non-Christian religions are simple manifestations of
this reality, rooted in human beings, while similarity implies a transformation
through the grace that only God can bestow.

(c) they are only inappropriately defined as ‘religions’, as they establish a

relationship between human beings and God. Christianity, on the contrary, is the
religion from God, which takes and activates the initiative to strengthen relations
with human beings, under the generic negative name 'religion', the author
understands every form of religious expression, primitive or evolved, pre-Christian
or from the Christian period; Lubac mainly targets 'those systems' current objectives

467
Henri de Lubac. Catholicism. A History of Dogma in Relation to the Corporate Destiny of Mankind (New
York: Sheed and Ward, 1958), p. 145.
468
Ibid., p. 144.
469
Henri de Lubac. Sur les chemins de Dieu (Paris : Aubier, 1956).
470
Fergus Kerr. Twentieth Century Catholic Theologians, p. 78.
471
Idem, ibid.
 178

that religiously 'occupy', that is, they determine, conditioning, the life of a people, in
addition to the individuals that make it up.

(d) the proper function of non-Christian religions is to be 'evangelical preparations'.

They play, therefore, a propaedeutic role, not exactly a salvific one; thus, a non-
Christian religion will be all the more a preparation the more these elements are in
them; it will be a kind of crossroads between the search and openness to God for the
human being and the divine concern for him […]472.

The Flemish Jesuit Emile Mersch published in 1938 a book that it caused a stir among

Catholics and even among Protestants 473 . This book had the virtue of shifting the legal

character of Church concept present in Pius X’s catechism474, replacing it with a theological

one: “Christ’s mystical body”, which few years afterward was endorsed by the pope Pius XII

in the encyclica Mystici Corporis, where it is clearly stated: “The Church is Christ’s mystical

body”475. The encyclical underlines the eminently “supernatural character of the Church” and

points more decisively to its “soteriological” and “cosmic” nature 476 which suggests the

irreducibility of the Church to its institutional limits. There are other names that defended that

diffused catholicity, like Karl Rahner, just mentioned here because he deserves specific

treatment, given the importance and specificity of his contribution to the theology of religions.

All these seeds that flourished in Vatican II were dispersed in the vast Catholic field,

maturing under the storm of hierarchical repression of two decades, within which silenced

many voices, but the books of theses authors continued to work, while the author themselves

could not, since most of them were exiled477. This explains the amazing ease with which the

pope, three months after being elected, managed to assemble and lead a council that will

472
Ilaria Morali. Henri de Lubac (São Paulo: Loyola, 2006), pp. 64-66.
473
Emille Mersch. The Whole Christ. The Historical Development of the Doctrine of the Mystical Body in
Scripture and Tradition (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2011).
474
“The Church is the society of true Christians, that is, of the baptized who profess the faith and doctrine of
Jesus Christ, participate in his sacraments and obey the Pastors established by him”. Giacomo Biffi. La Chiesa
Catolica e il Problema della Salvezza, p. 16.
475
Ibid., p. 17.
476
Louis Bouyer. « Où en est la théologie du Corps mystique ? » RSR (tome 22, fascicule 3-4, 1948), p. 314.
477
The greatest proof of the effectiveness of the nouvelle théologie in ending the hegemony of Neo-
Scholasticism in the Catholic Church is the fact that the highest representative of its conservative wing, Joseph
Ratzinger, published his Introduction to Christianity (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2004) without saying a word
about Thomas Aquinas. Guy Mansini. Fundamental Theology (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of
America Press, 2018), p. 267.
 179

change Catholicism radically. Indeed, convened by John XXIII and held between 1962 and

1965, follows a path openly opposite to that of Vatican I, towards the modern world, with

valorization of laicity, media and social communication, liturgy, government of the church,

work classes, science, theological and religious diversity, non-Christians, etc.478

Although they do not deal exclusively with the problem of non-Christian religions, as

already anticipated, the council gave a general makeover to Catholicism, it is enough to check

the diversified theme of its 16 council documents. In addition to Christian ecumenism, as

world religions and in relation to Catholicism with them, they deserve a prominent place, with

two of these documents dealing to some extent with the theme: Lumen Gentium and Ad

Gentes, and one of them directly related to: Nostra Aetate. The discussions run around three

rubrics: (1) the salvation of those outside the Catholic Church; (2) Authentic values that can

be found in non-Christians and their religious traditions; (3) the attitude of these values in the

Catholic Church, that is, that of the Church in relation to its religious traditions and its

members479.

The difference between the council provisions of Vatican II and other councils and

encyclicals is that the problem of salvation in non-Christian religions is no longer a difference

treated in a merely personal scope, but in the institutional context too, that is, it deals with the

salvific status of religious institutions to which the non-Christian belong, like Lumen Gentium

does in its considering on Muslims480, one of the three Abrahamic religions. In relation to the

478
Documents of Vatican II (City of Vatican: Vatican Publishing House, 2014).
479
J. Dupuis. Rumo a uma teologia cristã do pluralismo religioso, p. 228 a 229.
480
“But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these
there are the Mohammedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and
merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.” Lumen Gentium II.16, in Documents of Vatican II. See
also Nostra Aetate, par. 3: “The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living
and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,5 who has spoken to men;
they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith
of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they
revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion.
In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their desserts to all those who have been raised
 180

non-Abrahamic religions, however, the document keeps the same individual criterion of

assessment481, that is, the institutions and teachings being understood as mere preparation for

the gospel, as proposed by Jean Daniélou, for example482.

Another significant change from previous councils was the banning of prejudiced

offensive terms such as paganus and gentilis from of the lexicus of council documents,

replacing it with compliments. Nostra Aetate 483 , for instance, has some of the kindest lines

regarding to the religions: “The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these

religions” (art. 2), acknowledging to non-Christians “the spiritual riches of the peoples”,

“things that are true and good, spiritual and moral” (art. 2), “deep religious sense” (art. 2),

“rays of that truth which enlightens all men” (art. 2). The conciliar document recommends

“dialogue and collaboration with followers of other religions” (art. 2), however, despite all

these expressions recognizing in religions a human and religious value that is peculiar to

them, they are not granted their own salvific status – people are saved in religions, no longer

despite them, and yet, still not through them. Christ is the universal savior and the Spirit the

spreading agent of this salvation. And with the conclusion that “the true religion is necessarily

the Catholic Church, although 'elements' (vestigia) of the vera religio can be found in other

religions as well” 484.

up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and
fasting”.
481
“Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives
to all men life and breath and all things, (cf. Acts 17:25-28) and as Savior wills that all men be saved. (cf. 1 Tim.
2:4) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His
Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them
through the dictates of conscience. 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.” Idem, ibid.
482
“Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the
Gospel”. Idem, ibid.
483
Nostra Aetate, in Documents of Vatican II.
484
F. Conesa. “Sobre la religión verdadera: aproximación al significado de la expresión” (ST, vol. XXX, Enero –
Abril, 1998), p. 47.
 181

In practice, Vatican II only served change the ecclesial ambience, so the most tolerant

interpretations of religions could come out of the underground of the Catholic Church,

dominated until then by the self-defense attitude of Vatican I. The proof of this is that the

conciliar statements are generalist and, therefore, purposefully consensual, allowing their

ambiguities to continue generating interpretations and serving diametrically opposite sides in

the Catholic theological arena. “The conciliar documents contain much compromise,

ambivalence and ambiguity on vital issues at multiple junctures. And, as with earlier councils

in the church's history, many opposed the changes which Vatican II brought”485. However,

unlike what happened to the forerunner generation, ideas like those of the theologians

subsequently presented could be expressed without generating silencing hierarchical

persecutions.

Within Catholic Inclusivism, it is still possible to distinguish three modalities: (1) a

Rahnerian Inclusivism closer to Exclusivism, since it understands all human experience as

indirectly resulting from the Christic mystery in its universal action, leading to the conclusion

that every human being, being religious or not, and if religious (whatever it is), he is an

anonymous Christian486. (2) The other conception is closer to Pluralism, as it expands the

ministry of Jesus so that it becomes comprehensive with respect to other religions,

considering its relationship with the Church irrelevant. This is the position of Jacques Dupuis

and Edward Schillebeeckx. It is also worth noting that members of both groups are also

485
Gerard Mannion. “How a Church Opened its Door”. In Vladimir Latinovic; Gerard Mannion; Jason Welle
(eds.). Catholicism Opening to the World and other Confessions. Vatican II and its Impact (Cham, Switzerland:
Palgrave McMillan, 2018), p. 5.
486
“[Man] already accepts [God's] revelation when he wants him to really accept himself fully, because it
[revelation] already speaks of him. Before an official ecclesiastical faith takes an explicit form, wherever a
person undertakes and lives daily duty in the quiet sincerity of patience, in devotion to their material duties to the
demands made upon them by those under their care... Therefore, no matter what a man declares in his
conceptual, theoretical, religious reflection, anyone who does not say in his heart, 'there is no God' (like the fool
in the psalm), but bears witness to him by the radical acceptance of his being, is a believer. But if on this journey
he truly and truly believes in the holy mystery of God, if he does not suppress this truth, but gives it free rein,
then the grace of this truth by which he allows himself to be led is always already grace. of the Father in his Son.
And anyone who lets himself be guided by this grace can rightly be called an 'anonymous Christian'." Karl
Rahner. Theological Investigations (vol. 6), pp. 394-395.
 182

involved in a hermeneutical project aimed at the secularized world, with thinkers that will not

be addressed in the following summary. This is the case of Segundo, South American

theologian, who did not address the problem of non-Christian religions, for that, despite all his

theological importance and scope487, will not enter in our considerations.

As general conclusion to the Catholic Inclusivism, Lumen Gentium teaches that all men,

by virtue of that same humanity to which they belong, independent of having or not having

received the Gospel, they are oriented to the people of God (art. 16), through creation and the

universal outpouring of the Spirit. Here is perceptible Karl Rahner’s hand in the conciliar

document, making it opportune to take a look at the ideas of the great Catholic inclusivist488.

3.c.1. Karl Rahner

Karl Rahner was born in 1904 in Freiburg, Germany. He studied philosophy and

theology during the 1930s at various German institutions, and taught at several of them. So

that, when the ecumenical council took place, he was already a renowned and recognized

theologian in ecclesiastical and academic circles. In fact, the fundamental question that guided

Rahner's theological path from the beginning came from having realized that in general

Catholic doctrines and dogmas as a whole needed a new formulation, because the

philosophical categories on which they were based no longer were satisfactory in the face of

new epistemological and social challenges 489 . He was one of the first to look outside

487
Juan L. Segundo. La história perdida e recuperada de Jesús de Nazaret. De los Sinópticos a Pablo
(Santander: Editorial Sal Terrae, 1991).
488
Bernard Sesboüé. Karl Rahner. Itinerário Teológico (São Paulo: Loyola, 2004), p. 24.
489
These modern challenges in Rahnean view are well resumed in a threefold problematic by Gibelini. Teologia
do Século XX, p. 226: (a) “We live in a secular and pluralistic society, in which the statements of the faith have
lost their obviousness, and in which, in the pluralism of convictions and worldviews, typical of an open society,
it becomes more difficult to transmit Christian truth; (b) related to pluralism, it is necessary to register the
increase in knowledge in all fields of knowledge, which makes it particularly difficult to make syntheses,
although the systematic theologian should try to synthesize the last and fundamental questions of all theology;
(c) these difficulties of Christian proclamation and of doing theology must be added, on the other hand, a kind of
hardening (Fixierung) and encrustation (Verkrustung) of theological concepts, which, remaining unchanged over
the centuries, no longer correspond to the completely changed situation in the life of modern man. From the
intersecting of these elements, the modern crisis of faith is born and to face it is necessary to introduce a new
 183

Neothomism for the questions to be answered by theology, taking classes with Heidegger,

who will exert an important influence in the formation of his thought. Indeed, one can

summarize his theological project by the question: "how can modern man believe?" 490. That

is why contemporary themes have always been his greatest concern: ecumenism, religious

pluralism, spirituality, ethics, postmodernism, the priesthood in contemporaneity, etc.

He was one of the main architects of Vatican II, being invited by John XXIII to

compose, together with Henri de Lubac and Yves Congar, the team of expert theologians of

the Council's Theological Commission. Since the eve of the Council, in the phase of

preparatory commissions (1960-1962) they were working, creating documents and organizing

the debate agenda491. Rahner, as advisor to the sacraments commission, was in charge of a

study on the Catholic diaconate, in which he advocated the restoration of a permanent

diaconate, so Article 29 of the Lumem Gentium came directly from his hands492. There is yet

another trace of Rahner's hand in the same conciliar document, already anticipated lines

above. It is an excerpt from art. 16: “Nor does Divine Providence deny the necessary help 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”. Here, there is a suggestion of

a non-explicit knowledge of God that is directly linked to the anonymous Christian theory of

Karl Rahner and his new anthropological key for the fundamental theology.

In formulating the Rahnerian thesis of the “anonymous Christian” theoretical tools

borrowed from Kant and Joseph Maréchal and, to a lesser extent, from Heidegger are used493.

method in theology, in which the data of faith is not simply transmitted in its traditional contents, but is put in
correspondence with experience that man has of himself; it is not just about knowing the faith, but understanding
life.
490
Bernard Sesboüé. Karl Rahner. Itinerário Teológico, p. 29.
491
Bernard Sesboüé. Karl Rahner. Itinerário Teológico, p. 23.
492
Jared Wicks. Investigating Vatican II. Its Theological Ecumenical Turn, and Biblical Commitment
(Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2018), p. 51.
493
Rahner was Heidegger's student in the 1930s, therefore, still at the time of the first Heidegger of Being and
Time. According to the author's own indications, Heidegger's influence on his thinking was more
 184

It has been rightly said that in Rahner there is an important methodological change, which he

calls the “anthropological turn”, which causes Catholic theology after Vatican II to abandon

the cosmological ground, characteristic of Thomism and Neothomism, and move towards the

anthropological ground, which will characterize the so-called Rahnerian Transcendental

Thomism. Theological investigation no longer has its starting point in divine revelation, but in

the man who opens himself to receive it494.

It was Kant, via Joseph Maréchal, who made this turn possible for Rahner, thanks to the

cognitive a priori discovered by the philosopher of Königsberg in his first Critic. Interpreting

Kant beyond himself, Maréchal identifies in the human cognitive structure, beyond time,

space and categories, “an aprioristic opening of thought to absolute being” 495. As Rahner

would later explain, that there is, in addition to a categorical activity of objective explicit

consciousness, an existential implicit activity, in which human will and freedom are

fundamental constituents, that bears the reference of something placed beyond the known

objects by explicit consciousness496. In short, in the human transcendental experience, which

Kantianly can be described as the condition of possibility of any experience, there is an

opening to the divine mystery.

Based on this “athematic experience” of the divine, an experience not co-opted by

traditions or doctrines, and whose precondition is divine grace, it finds the common ground of

all the world's religions. The human cognitive structure, which seems to have been prepared

for the subjective perception of the transcendent, bears witness to the universal saving will of

methodological, that is, Heidegger's rigor and hermeneutics, than theoretical, by providing a theoretical
framework for the construction of his theology. Carlos Schickendantz. “Una relación entre Martin Heidegger y
Karl Rahner. Una recepción y diferenciación todavía por escribir”, TV (XLIX, 2008), p. 378.
494
Eduardo S. Santos. “Considerações sobre a escatologia em Karl Rahner”, Teocomunicação (v. 35, no. 150,
dez. 2005), pp. 776-777.
495
Carlos Schickendantz. “Una relación entre Martin Heidegger y Karl Rahner”, p. 376.
496
Karl Rahner. Curso Fundamental da Fé: introdução ao conceito de Cristianismo (São Paulo: Edições
Paulinas, 1989), pp. 33 e 34.
 185

God, as it becomes “a condition of possibility for significant and true saving acts of God” 497.

All human beings are structurally included in the grace of God, there are, however, those who

know the nature of this opening to the transcendent and those who do not. The first are

explicit Christians; the second, implicit or anonymous Christians. From an anthropological

point of view, there is no important difference between them. The difference is in the

cognitive field: “the Christian knows what he is and the non-Christian does not know it; is an

anonymous Christian” 498.

We prefer the terminology according to which man is called an ‘anonymous

Christian’, who on the one hand has actually accepted for his freedom this self-
offering grace from God through faith, hope, and love; while on the other hand, he is
not yet a Christian on the social level (through baptism and Church membership), or
in the sense of having consciously objectified Christianity to himself in his mind (by
the explicit Christian faith resulting from hearing the explicit Christian message).
We must put it as follows: the 'anonymous Christian', in the sense we give the term,
is the pagan after the beginning of the Christian mission, who lives in the state of
Christ's grace, by faith, hope and love, although he does not have the knowledge
explicit of the fact that your life is oriented to the saving grace of Jesus Christ 499.

Apparently, Rahner gives salvific value to religions, but this is only possible in their

subordination to Christianity, because although they do not know it, his adepts’ salvation

occurs only through the redemptive action of Christ. So that they, in fact, have no saving’

status of their own, their religious sensibility needs to be reinterpreted by Christian religious

categories. Given this state of confusion, it is necessary to make a fundamental conceptual

distinction. If ontologically they do not have saving autonomy; missiologically, they save, as

long as the non-Christian worshiper is faithful to the divine mystery to which he has

contributed through the social and cultural means at his disposal. It rightly echoes Henri de

Lubac's criticism of the loss of relevance of the Christian message and the consequent

superfluity of its evangelizing mission: “if an implicit Christianity is sufficient for the

497
Karl Rahner apud Faustino Teixeira. “Karl Rahner e as religiões”. In Pedro R. R. Oliveira e Cláudio Paul.
Karl Rahner em perspectiva (São Paulo: Loyola, 2004), p. 249.
498
J. Morales. “La teología de las religiones”, ST (vol. XXX, Sept.-Dic., 1998), p. 765.
499
Karl Rahner, Theological Investigations, Vol. 14 (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1976), p 283.
 186

salvation of those who do not know Christ by any other means, why place oneself in search of

an explicit Christianity?” 500

J. Dupuis, in defense of Rahner, states that this concept of “anonymous Christian” not

only denies religions a salvific status of their own, but also sees in their adherents an implicit

existential deficiency, because the thematic content of religions is not taken into account , and

is valued only in its openness to the divine mystery, so that the non-Christian worshiper is

restricted to a mystical preliminary stage that provides him with only the condition of

possibility of knowing God, whose realization takes place elsewhere: in the sacramental

context of Roman Catholic Church. Anonymous Christianity, in this way, would remain a

fragmented, incomplete and radically mutilated reality, which feeds in itself dynamics that

drive it to adhere to explicit Christianity501.

H. Küng harshly criticizes Rahner's theory of anonymous Christianity. For him, the

Rahnerian theory is an exclusivist “methodological trick” 502, which considers the Christian

religion as the only true one, while the others are just inferior stages of religiosity that need to

be completed by the sacramental presence of the Catholic Church in the world. So, the old

axiom extra ecclesiam nulla salus remains valid:

[Rahner's theory] is just a new interpretation of the old dogma. The Church is no
longer referred to as in Florence: the Holy Roman Church, more properly interpreted
correctly, refers to all men of good will, who, without exception, are part of the
Church in some way. But aren't they introducing here, allegedly through the back
door, into the Holy Roman Church, the entire human race of good will [...], that
there is no other element that is willing to dispose of them, whether they want it or
not? Outside the Church there is no salvation. The formula is as true as ever,
because everyone is inside, beforehand, as non-formal Christians, but anonymous,
or, as one should put it to save logic: anonymous Roman Catholics 503.

500
Apud Faustino Teixeira. “Karl Rahner e as religiões”, p. 255.
501
K. Rahner Apud J. Dupuis. Rumo a uma teologia cristã do pluralismo religioso, p. 205.
502
H. Küng. Teologia a caminho. Fundamentação para o diálogo ecumênico (São Paulo: Edições Paulinas,
1999), p. 270.
503
H. Küng, On Being Christian, p. 79.
 187

3.c.2. Jacques Dupuis

Jacques Dupuis was a Belgian Jesuit priest who was noted as a great connoisseur of

Hinduism, having been a consultant to the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue and

to the WCC Commission for Evangelization. Because of the suspicion of heterodoxy, his

most famous book Towards a Theology of Religious Pluralism created so much controversy

in the Roman Catholic milieu that he had to explain himself as to what he wrote and what he

did not write, as the work does not explicitly address the uniqueness and exclusivity of the

redemptive action of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Indeed, in January 2001, shortly before his

death (2004), the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a note against his book504.

When pressed, he had to write an addendum, an external gloss, in the form of an article505, to

clarify this point. For this and other problems, the Roman curia was led to think that its

conclusions would be riddled with possible breaks with orthodoxy, although

methodologically, from the Catholic perspective, his investigation was correct.

In fact, what Dupuis proposes as a method is a hermeneutic triangle: “the text or datum

of faith, the historical context and the modern interpreter” 506. Regarding to the datum of faith,

beside the hermeneutics’ peculiarities of Dupuis reading of Scripture, he includes Fathers of

the Church, the Magisterium of the Church and all ‘catholic’ councils, as source. As to the

historical context, J. Dupuis asserts that the theology of religions “should be seen as a new

way of doing theology: a new method in a situation of religious pluralism” 507 , that is, it

requires the satisfaction of what we call in chapter I of current study of empirical demand. As

for today's interpreter, it is up to him to make a synthesis between these two constitutive

504
Congregação para a Doutrina da Fé. Notificação a propósito do livro de Jacques Dupuis “Para uma teologia
cristã do pluralismo religioso" (Brescia, Queriniana, 1997).
505
J. Dupuis. “The truth will make you free. The theology of religious pluralism revisited (Louvain Studies, vol.
24, Fall, 1999), pp. 211-263.
506
J. Dupuis. Rumo a uma teologia do pluralismo religioso (São Paulo: Paulinas, 1999), p. 32.
507
J. Dupuis. Rumo a uma teologia do pluralismo religioso, p. 36.
 188

elements. This, then, is Dupuis' theological project. A synthetic inclusivism very similar to A.

Yong's proposal, with the exception that in Dupuis' case, the textual elements necessary for

the synthesis will not only come from the Scriptures.

In fact, with regard to the text or the datum of faith, he opts for the “genetic” or

“evolutionary history” method, which is based on the Scriptures, but also on the final

provisions of the Second Vatican Council, which he also attributes to Tradition and to the

Magisterium the quality of source text of Christianity. This means that the systematic

theologian, even when carrying out an exegetical study of the NT Christology, has to extend

his studies to the Christology of the post-biblical tradition of the Fathers and the

Magisterium508. The intention of this method, according to Dupuis, is to prevent the plurality

of New Testament Christologies from being reduced to an amorphous diversity and without

unity. The post-New Testament Christological reflection is, therefore, a canonical extension

that occurs under the sign of the ministry of the Spirit, in response to a hermeneutic need. But,

always as an “organic process of development”, that is, in an evolutionary way, in a

“substantial unity of contents” 509.

Through this conception Dupuis is led to think of NT Christology as fundamentally

diachronic. In other words, it reaches higher levels as theological reflection progresses, until it

culminates in the Johanine Prologue510. This is why Dupuis' exegesis is concerned solely with

theologically exploring the Johannine Logos to support his Theology of Religions. In this he

follows the tradition of the Apologist Fathers, whose theology of Logos developed in dialogue

with Greek culture (philosophy). Therefore, Dupuis' conclusion is that “it is the Word of God

that saves, and not properly the Word-made-flesh, that is, Jesus Christ” 511.

508
Ibid., pp. 14 e 15.
509
J. Dupuis. Rumo a uma teologia do pluralismo religioso, p. 22.
510
Ibid., p. 101.
511
Ibid., p. 274.
 189

At this point Dupuis quotes Aloysio Pieris 512 and also approaches Panikkar and

Samartha, apparently without reaching the pretense of seeing in the Johannine Logos as the

foundation of other Logos’ manifestations in the Asian religious history of Buddha and

Krishna (Panikkar, Amaladoss). If he does not reach as much as his Asian colleagues, at least

he sees “in John's prologue a universal presence of the Logos before the incarnation in Jesus

Christ” 513, which cannot be exhausted in the historical figure of Jesus Christ514. Dupuis is

quick to point out that there is no distinction between the Word-to-be-incarnate and the Word-

incarnate 515 , only to find himself in the uncomfortable position of denying the distinction

having already made it. Now Dupuis prefers to be contradictory than to be Nestorian, and thus

become reprehensible by the conciliar declarations of Chalcedon516.

The diachrony defended by Dupuis is not correct. The widespread idea that Johannine

Christology is high and that of the synoptics is low is an untenable simplification of

Christology in the gospels517 and only serves a theology of Logos, which is the foundation for

Dupuis' pluralist theory. The claim that the Logos is the Christological apex of the Gospel of

John is also gratuitous and is based more on the authority of the Fathers and the Magisterium

than on what is actually found in the text. In Dupuis' opinion, the shift from a functional

512
A. Pieris, An Asian Theology of Liberation (New York: Orbis Books, 1988); Fire and Water: Basic Issues in
Asian Buddhism and Christianity (New York: Orbis Books, 1996).
513
J. Dupuis. Rumo a uma teologia do pluralismo religioso, p. 274.
514
Dupuis says, while recognizing the exceptionality of the man Jesus: “the divine Word remains beyond what
the human being Jesus can manifest and reveal. [...] even though once his glory is recovered, the risen Jesus
Christ does not replace the Father; neither does his glorified human being exhaust the Word, never fully
contained in a historical manifestation, whatever it may be”. (Idem, p. 300 ff.).
515
Ibid., idem.
516
The Nestorian position does not accept saying that the Word of God was born of Mary or that the Word of
God died on the cross. Basically, the Nestorian position introduces a separation between the man Jesus and the
Word of God. But, the conciliar decision of Chalcedon states: "Human nature and divine nature are united in one
person, without confusion, without change, without division and without separation".
517
A high Christology can also be found in the Synoptics, as they also have as a background Messianic Psalms 2
and 110, the “Son of Man” who sits in his Father's judgment seat to judge the world (Dan. 7: 9-13, 14). This is
the origin and destiny of Jesus in the Synoptics, before birth and post-resurrection, like the Johannine Logos he
is preexisting and eternal, clothed in majesty and running with the Father, as there is a flood of passages in the
Synoptics that speak of these transcendent qualities of Jesus even in the context of this world, as in the text in
which he evokes for himself the authority to forgive sins, as it appears as the primordial role of the Son of Man
in Daniel 7:14 (Mark 2: 10). And many other texts that it is not convenient to cite here in this reduced space.
 190

Christology to an ontological Christology occurs even in the pages of the NT, in the Gospel of

John, another statement without textual support518.

This theory does not stand up to closer scrutiny of the NT. Johannine Christology is

dialectical and tensional. In John there is no ontologizing of the Logos, since the core of the

Johannine prologue is verse 14: “and the word was made flesh and dwelt among us; and we

saw his glory, the glory of the only Son with the Father”. It is not by chance that in John the

verb dwelt among us, maintaining its glory with the Father, being in time and outside of time,

simultaneously. That is, he is there and here in the same time lapse, paradoxically, being one

and the same here or there. And not, as these theologians teach, as different entities, a timeless

greater: the Logos, and a lesser: the historical Jesus, who participates in a partial way in the

nature of the Logos519. There are countless passages of this nature in the Gospel of John:

“before Abraham existed, I am” (John 8: 58), “[...] and if I go and prepare a place for you, I

will return and take you with me, that where I am you also be” (John 14: 3).

There is a constant use of this stylistic device in John. On Jesus' lips, the verb to be

(einai) appears in the present tense (eimi), even when the temporal reference is in the past. In

this, Johannine theology wants to show the supratemporality of the historical Jesus,

demonstrating that there is no dichotomy between Jesus and the Logos. It is coherent with the

synoptics' concept of the kingdom of God, where this tension also appears between the

already and the not yet, between the accomplished and consummated eschatologies. There

being, therefore, no important alteration between the sources in this respect, except the fact

that the reference of the former is to the kingdom of God and that of the latter is the person of

518
J. Dupuis. Introdução à cristologia (São Paulo: Loyola, 1999), p. 101e 102.
519
The Platonic theory of participation cannot be found in the Gospel of John, nor there or anywhere else. This is
not the reality of the Logos and its human shadow, Jesus Christ, a passing or temporary reality, whose existence
is derivative rather than essential. Jesus Christ is the Logos in time. He, the Logos, is not on the uranium tops
having a shadow cast on the earth, Jesus of Nazareth. He is in heaven with the Father and on earth close to his
disciples. He is omnipresent, yet his divinity is hidden in humanity. Believing in the doctrine of participation
makes us Docetic, a doctrine already condemned in the first century and whose condemnation was ratified at the
Council of Nicaea.
 191

Christ himself, since the consummate eschatology is much less emphasized in John than in the

Synoptics. Both eschatologies, however, have the same function, namely, to demonstrate the

existence of a spiritual reality that is present and active against the grain of history, but not

outside it.

Therefore, abstracting the Johannine Logos from the temporal reality of Jesus is an

operation that is unfaithful to Johannine theology. An ontologizing of the Logos is something

foreign to the Semitic thought that John shares, that is, the OT word/wisdom theology (Prov.

3:19, 8:30; Psalm 104:24), its aim being no other than that of demonstrate that divine action in

the human context is accomplished through the incarnation of Jesus, just as it was

accomplished in the past in Israel's wonderful deliverance from the yoke of Egyptian

bondage. With the difference that in the Christian context this action is no longer punctual and

isolated520, but is a constant presence in the life of the Church, due to the continuity of this

initial action in the very exalted Christ directing the Church and sending the Consoling Spirit

upon her.

What can be said as a conclusion is that, unfortunately, the synthesis between East and

West, between the three methodological elements, intended by Dupuis in his Theology of

Religions failed. He skipped the biblical text, calling it the datum of faith, but in fact making

it play a minor role in his ideas, as it gave way to Patristic and papal documents in his

argumentations. Effectively, only the other two aspects of his threefold methodology were

really considered: the historical context of the datum and the situation of today's interpreters.

He makes the mistake that characterizes pluralists as a whole: subsuming under the pressure

of time, he disregarded or neglected the biblical text. In his case, there was still the

ecclesiastical pressure that prevented him from even being coherent with his own thought,

520
Although we are aware that it repeats itself every time the chosen people cry out under the yoke of
oppression, the first act of liberation of God remains an archetype that explains the others and from which the
others take their meaning.
 192

since in the end it is not really known what were Dupuis’ ideas, given the multitude of

addenda and glosses appended by himself to his texts.

3.c.3. Edward Schillebeeckx

Schillebeeckx was a Dominican Roman Catholic theologian, also born in Belgium

(1914) and died in Holland (2009). First, as alumnus of Domien De Petter at Ghent, after as

student at Le Saulchoir in Paris, during 1946-1947, when attended the classes of several pre-

conciliar theologians, such as M.-D. Chenú, Yves Congar, Henri de Lubac, among others521,

Schillebeeckx had in his academic life contact with the most progressist forces in Catholic

Church, and this explains his theological evolution toward contemporary concerns. With K.

Rahner and H. Küng, Schillebeeckx had his name linked to the Second Vatican Council,

where he acted, like the others, as a private consulting theologian, and was profoundly

influenced by its results522. He dedicated a good part of his works to giving continuity to the

theological reflections inaugurated by the council he helped to build, always in dialogue with

the world and with secularized theology, and for this reason in many situations during his life

he rubbed against the Roman hierarchy523. After teaching in Louvain, he finished his career at

the seminary in Nijmegen, Holland, making a total of 40 years in higher education524.

His work can be divided into before and after Vatican II. In period before the council,

he was very close to a neo-Thomist and conservative theology (until the beginning of the

1960s), then, obviously, it emphasized much more the relationship of the Church and the

521
Franco Brambilla. Edward Schillebeeckx (São Paulo: Loyola, 2006), p. 23 e 24.
522
Erik Borgmann. Edward Schillebeeckx. A Theologian in his History (London: Continuum, 2004), p. 2.
523
There are some examples of these conflicts: his decisive collaboration in the formation of the Dutch Pastoral
Council, whose members were elected and could be lay, which was vetoed by the Roman curia, for not admitting
lay interference in ecclesiastical administration; the publication of the New Dutch Catechism, which did not
receive the imprimatur; the publication of the book Jesus: an experience in Christology, considered inadequate
by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, etc. See. Peter Hebblethwaite. The new inquisition? The case
of Edward Schillebeeckx and Hans Küng (New York: Harper Row, 1980).
524
Phillip Kennedy. Schillebeeckx (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1993), p. 2.
 193

Gospel with the world525. Coherently, initially, he taught of faith, revelation and experience

through a “dogmatic approach” “in terms of a sacramental existential encounter of God with

humanity in history”526. His conception of revelation at that time can be understood through a

simple scheme: (b) objective revelation as in Scripture, (b) and subjective interpretation of

Scripture527. From mid-1960 to the 1970’s, under influence of philosophical hermeneutics

and critical theories he shifted the revelation’s start point to the concrete situation of its

recipient, whose experience ceases to be a mere passive witness of the revelation to become

the means of its manifestation528. So that, human beings had an active role in that, since it is

produced in dialectic way.

In last decades of his scholarship his reflection experienced a third change, the human

experience becoming the very place of revelation and no longer just its means of

manifestation: “praxis oriented towards liberation becomes the way in which revelation and

salvation are made real, and a tool to verify the authenticity and truth claim of revelation”529.

This last Schillebeeckx’s shift was born as an outcome of John T. Robinson and the

secularized theology’s impact in Europe 530 , which made him seek a dialogue with the

secularized world, adopting a theme and a methodological approach (a sort of Theology of

Culture) that put him on a collision course with the Roman curia. His impression already

quoted in the pages above was that in our time there is “a deficit of experience” 531 that causes

a negative dialectics: the Christian experience is not illuminated by revelation and the

revelation is not fertilized by the reader's experience.

525
Franco Brambilla. Edward Schillebeeckx, p. 49.
526
Marguerite T. Abdul-Masih. Hans Frei and Edward Schillebeeckx. A Conversation on Method and
Christology (Waterloo, Canada: Wilfred Laurier University Press, 2001), p. 55.
527
Idem, ibid.
528
Ibid., p. 56.
529
Idem, ibid.
530
Erik Borgmann. Edward Schillebeeckx, p. 336.
531
E. Schillebeeckx. Jesús, la historia de un viviente, p. 58.
 194

Schillebeeckx, who was said to have adopted a “metadogmatic” investigative line532,

that is, he is a catholic theologian who, like protestant theologians, does not value too much

the post-biblical history of dogma. Actually, he assumes a hermeneutics very close to that of

H. Küng, in the underestimation of dogma, with the difference that for Küng the golden age of

dogmatics: the apologist parents, can never be despised. They similarly point out a threefold

phased hermeneutic for the theological work: scientific, dogmatic and theological exegesis.

The first phase is concerned only with the manifestation of the history of salvation in that

specific time, that is, it can only “find out what and in what way some concrete men spoke of

God and in what This way of speaking was co-determined by their own culture” 533. The

second deals with the “salvific action of God in itself, through its manifestation in early

Christianity” 534. The third concerns an “updating with respect to the present” 535. Applying it

to Christology Schillebeeckx will harvest the following results: according to his first phase all

traditions of divine men of Greco-Roman must be put aside (scientific exegesis); the salvation

and liberation brought by Jesus’ ministry and his death in all synoptic accounts must be the

part of dogmatic conserved (dogmatic exegesis), the ontological Christology that prevails

from then on have to be avoided; the secular society to which this ontological Christology has

nothing to say must determine the discard of all this insipid conciliar and magisterial

dogmatics (theological exegesis). Summing up, the way Schillebeeckx operationalizes his

hermeneutics, there is actually a dialogue between the first and the last exegesis, with a much

smaller role delegated to dogmatics. The is a great need to recover the synoptic Christologies,

which have much more in common with modern man than the conciliar Christologies536. They

are Christologies 'from below' and, therefore, more credible in the eyes of contemporaries.

532
Rosino Gibellini, A teologia do século XX, p. 334.
533
Edward Schillebeeckx apud Andrés T. Queiruga. Repensar a cristologia, sondagens para um novo
paradigma (São Paulo: Paulinas, 1999), p. 77.
534
André T. Queiruga. Repensar a teologia, sondagens para um novo paradigma, p. 77.
535
André T. Queiruga. Repensar a teologia, sondagens para um novo paradigma, p. 77.
536
Edward Schillebeeckx. História humana, revelação de Deus (São Paulo: Paulus, 1994), pp. 46 a 58.
 195

In short, what Schillebeeckx does is to create a methodology based on a broken

hermeneutics, in which the relationship between tradition and modernity is measured by the

reading of the modern theologian, in view of the needs of contemporary man 537 , but still

divided between this contextualization and its ecclesial obligations. What this means in

practice to him is a bi-fronted theology that makes each speculative statement his have to be

offset by another, faithful reproducing the thought of tradition, that is, instead of theological

avant-garde, it only creates the illusion that the modernity has come to Catholic theology. The

following statement can be cited as an example:

It is the first time I have expressed my reflection on the Trinity so openly. For me,
the Trinity is God's way of being a person. I admit all the requirements of dogma
without running the risk of talking about three people, a kind of family, and, in fact,
a tritheism, which is quite popular in the Christian faith538.

As the above statement about the Trinity indicates, in which Schillebeeckx’s affinity

with the Nicene Trinitarian thought does not seem clear, the truth is that the Flemish

theologian can barely disguise his difficulty with the Catholic dogmatic thought that preceded

him. His intention in sustaining contradictory claims is to keep up appearances and get away

with curial sanctions, as had happened to his colleague J. Dupuis. Indeed, Schillebeeckx does

not believe in the Holy Spirit 539 . Nor believes that Jesus is God 540 or that he has been

resurrected541. Its Christology is from below and completely secularized, and his eagerness to

537
A. T. Queiruga. Repensar a teologia, sondagens para um novo paradigma, p. 127.
538
Ibid., idem.
539
“I fully accept the Creed, but in the profession of faith, there are not the three divine persons. I believe in
Almighty God, in Jesus Christ, the Father's beloved, God's son par excellence; I believe in the Spirit, which for
me is the real problem. In the Bible, The Spirit is a gift, not a third person, it is God's way of being [...]. I confess
to the Trinity, but these speculations about the three people tell me nothing [...]”. (Schillebeeckx apud Queiruga.
Repensar a cristologia, sondagens para um novo paradigma, p. 150).
540
Schillebeeckx considers ridiculous the idea “of a divine man, that is, an earthly God disguised as a man” (E.
Schillebeeckx, Jesús, História de un viviente, p. 27); in another place it says that “in his humanity Jesus is so
intimately something that comes from the Father that precisely because of this he is the Son of God (therefore,
not as the Word)” (Ibid., p. 697).
541
On the resurrection Schillebeeckx expresses himself in an ambiguous and pusillanimous way: “something
must have happened in such a way as to have produced the conversion of the disciples” (Ibid., p. 400). Trying to
be consistent with the idea of a scientific exegesis, Schillebeeckx created a middle way as to the factual content
of the resurrection, that is, neither was it an objective event, "empirically verifiable", "a historical event", nor a
subjective event, or that is, something that existed only in the minds of the disciples. Schillebeeckx argues that
 196

make himself heard by those in this secularized world pays a huge price: he joins the list of

those who have crossed the line that separates orthodox Christianity from heresy.

Similarly, his theology of religions grounded in an expanded and all-encompassing

Ecclesiology, which in reality elides the sacramental element, so important to the Catholics:

“the world, now defined more specifically and concretely, is itself mediator of the presence of

God"542. Extra mundum nula salus, an expression coined by Schillebeeckx, later transformed

into the motto of pluralism, means then that “the creative and saving presence of God is

mediated by human beings” in their experience of God 543

. Even though he risks

psychologizing this experience, for him it is the last word for its validation, there being

nothing outside of it to recommend it, except what is most fundamental: the sense of

creaturely finitude. In this ballast he seeks to make a phenomenology of religious experience

from the manifestation of Jesus Christ: God as Abba, total surrender to the divine will – the

Passover. These are the fundamental elements to understand religion, that is, through Jesus'

relationship with God. The religious experience of Jesus, however, is not normative nor does

it serve to assess the religious experience of other religions. We cannot have a full view of

divinity through Jesus:

the disciples "saw" or believed that Jesus was alive with God, but they did not look at his risen figure. Fergus
Kerr. Twentieth Century Catholic Theologians, p. 63. In an interview with Ramona Simut, he expresses similar
ideas: “I believe in the bodily resurrection, but this has nothing to do with corpses coming to life. The corps of
Jesus Christ did not leave the tomb, and whoever holds it believe in fairy tale. I believe in the bodily resurrection
of Jesus but not as a dead body coming to life again. Here, however, I must mention that there are two major
points of interpretation. Firstly, those who believe there will be a bodily resurrection in the sense that life will be
given to dead bodies. Secondly, Paul says we have a new body coming from heaven, a pneumatological vision;
there is no such thing as corpses coming out of the tomb. The corporality, the completeness and the wholeness of
being a human with God eschatologically is something which cannot be expressed by a representation. We are
not a soul only, the resurrected body will be spiritual, I believe in the resurrection of body, but it has nothing to
do with corpse coming to life from the tomb” Ramona Simut. “Reinterpreting Traditional Theology. An
Interview with Edward Schillebeeckx”, Perichoresis (5/2, 2007), pp. 281-2. It seems that Schillebeeckx is torn
between something Jesus revived and the disciples having a collective vision of his glorified body coming from
heaven. In short, rather unsatisfactory ideas. Resurrection is something that happened or didn't happen. If you
have faith in God and in His Word, it has happened; if you have faith in science and technology, it didn't happen.
Schillebeeckx tries to make an impossible compromise between two antagonistic beliefs.
542
Daniel S. Thompson. The Language of Dissent: Edward Schillebeeckx and the Crisis of Authority in the
Catholic Church (Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 2003), p. 89.
543
Idem, ibid.
 197

Jesus not only reveals God, but also conceals him, since he appeared among us as a
human creature and not in divine form. As man, he is a contingent, historical being
who can in no way represent the fullness of God [...] unless we deny the reality of
his authentic humanity.

This prevents any pretense of exclusivity: anyone who does not take seriously the
fact of Jesus' concrete and particular existence, precisely in his capacity as a
geographically conditioned, culturally marked, and for that very reason limited man,
makes Jesus an emanation, or an effect. necessary divine, with the consequence that
all other religions disappeared into nothingness544.

What prevents us then from classifying Schillebeeckx as a pluralist, given so many

signs in his writings that he goes in this direction? Because although it opens up the

possibility of the experience of God occurring outside the confines of Christian churches and

even among those who do not profess any religion, he never abandons the Christian points of

reference. And perhaps his own theological project did not contribute to any concluding note

in this regard. His theological priority has always been to speak to European secularized pre-

postmodern man and not to post-modern man, who lives in a society of religious pluralism.

3.d. Protestant Inclusivism

The Protestant cluster of Theology of Religions is quite limited and heterogenous,

subsisting within it those who put the issue on the agenda of theological discussions and those

who do not do, because of a number of reasons. At most, their roots are exclusivists, for a

greater commitment to Scripture and the so-called solas, and for the soteriological nature of

their theology of religions, which reinforce the exclusivity of salvation in Jesus. This is the

first reason for disinterest in the subject, but, besides, there are missiological reasons too.

Lutheranism, for instance, is an ethnic church with little presence in the missionary field, from

which the concerns about the accommodation of Christianity with other world religions come

among them so lately. Anglicans show the same feature: it is an English religion. For that

both are more concerned with the secular ambiance of Europe and occupied to face the

544
Edward Schillebeeckx. História humana, revelação de Deus, p. 254.
 198

interposed barriers put by atheistic and non-religious people. Presbyterians and Methodists, as

second generation of American Protestantism are from their origins not committed to the

matter, but as part of the North-American denominational ambiance, they took characteristics

of Evangelical’s emphasis “on new birth, holy living and flexibility with respect to church

forms”, and took part of missiological golden age of 18th and 19th. What allows us to put this

heterogenous elements together? Their ecclesiology based on covenants, which made all of

them, in different extent, see themselves as Israelites did, as a chosen community in a degree

the Evangelicals could not do. after all, the urban society in which they came into existence

would make no sense not to reinforce individualism.

In the following lines it will be presented these three kinds of approach with very

economic treatment, because their lengthy history does not allow, in such a limited space,

equally lengthy and detailed accounts. Not to mention that many names will be deliberately

ignored for the same reason, so that it is possible to trace here just an outline of how these

churches evolved in their view of non-Christian religions in the plan of salvation.

3.d.1 Lutherans

Lutherans of all Protistans was the people who least changed its basic original features

of an ethnical chosen people, and so continue to be known in many parts of the world where

Germans settled. Accordingly, intuitionally, their attention to missions was never drawn with

the same intensity as it was in case of other Protestants, and if they were invited to issue an

opinion, it is likely that this would be best classified as Exclusivism. Luther’s prime

missiological intuition was to rechristianize the European Christianity, for him, deviated from

its pure scriptural origins; never thought on missions or ecumenism. Reformers’ thinking, his

and of others, was centrifugal oriented, giving so many centuries of subjection under papal

yoke. On the contrary, all dedicated their energies to assure as religious right the free
 199

discernment and decision on religious matters, as far as it meant scape from Catholic Church

control. The inexistence of a well-formed concept of mission has also contributed to the

Luther's silence on the salvific status of non-Christian religions545.

When the question on non-Christian religions falls under Luther’s considerations, his

standpoint was not at all a sympathetic one. His anti-Semitism and anti-Islamism are well-

known, as his ideas can be reducible to intolerant and disrespectful definitions: ‘Jews were

liars’ and ‘Muslim people infidels’. Luther's infamous statements in his book On Jews and

Their Lies, which unfortunately was used by Hitler in the Nazi program for Jewish

segregation, has being deplored and explicitly repudiated since the Council of the Evangelical

Lutheran Churches in America (ELCA) in 1994 546 , paving the way for dialogue between

Lutherans and Jewish communities.

Notwithstanding, there are many points in Luther’s theology that open a great door to an

inclusive theology of religions, preventing Christianity from being dominated by absolutist

theological pretentions, which could lead Christians to see themselves as unique bearers of the

whole truth about God and the way to salvation. One of them is his dialectical thinking

inspired by Paul’ letter to the Romans, which encompasses many items of his soteriology:

The hidden God, law and gospel, the paradoxal qualities of saving faith (which finds
us at same time sinners and yet justified), God’s ‘left hand’ and ‘right hand’
kingdoms, and the theology of cross. Though these are all centered in Christ, they

545
Based on David Bosch’s monumental work (Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission),
W. Shaw systematized five reasons why Luther could not have a an opinion formed about religions and even
about mission: “(a) The Protestant fundamental task was to reform the church of their time, which took up most
of their time and energy, (2) the Protestant had no direct contact with non-Cristian people, (3) the churches of
Reformation were constantly in survival mode and could barely organize themselves until 1648, (4) when the
reformers left monasticism they left a developed and effective missionary agency, and developing such an
agency would take ages, and (5) internal struggles and feuds amongst Protestants kept them very busy. Leaving
time for few attempts to mission to those outside the Christian framework”. Wilhelmina M. Shaw. “Theology of
Religions in Martin Luther”. In Jaco Byers (ed.). Perspectives on Theology of Religions (Durbanville, South
Africa: Aosis, 2017), p. 26.
546
Veli-Matti Kärkkläinen. An introduction to the theology of religions, p. 128.
 200

contain powerful cautions against presumptions to bind God’s hands or to idolize

one’s own religious traditions547.

The deep meaning of these paradoxal statements points out to a wide operation of God’s

grace, that goes beyond the boundaries of ecclesial limits of Church’s affairs, because God’s

left-hand acts alongside with His right one, and the Deus Revelatus has revealed His greatness

through the Absconditus. So, there are in God separated activities, but not distinct, they

combine dialectically to fulfill God’s will among men and creatures548. Luther assumes that

God’s works are essentially unfathomable and thus not completely knowable by human

beings. Despite his concentration on the opus proprium of the Revelatus God that ironically

was not enough known in Europe in his time, he did not fail to recognize God’s opus

allienum, as in his work On War against the Turks he opines that the Turks could be “agents

of God’s punishment”, because of Christian’s deviations from gospel obedience, although he

also charged them of being servant of Devil549.

As anticipated in the introductory lines, Lutheran theologians primarily directed their

efforts to face the problem of a non-religious and secular society (Rudolf Bultmann, Friedrich

Gogarten, Paul Tillich, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, etc.) and seem not to be concerned with non-

Christian religions. This can be attributed to some reasons: (a) no mature theology outside

Europe until the first half of the 20th Century and cold war, (b) Lutherans had any important

role in the missionary efforts of 19th Century, so they delayed this reflection, (c) the

predominance of K. Barth’s exclusivism in German speaking countries. But these great

Lutheran theologians’ openness to the secular society can make up for Lutherans' lack of

institutional interest in the problem of other religions. This situation only started to change in

547
S. Mark Heim. “Accounts of Our Hope: An Overview of Themes in the Presentation”. In S. Mark Heim (ed.).
Grounds for Understanding. Ecumenical Resources for Responses to Religious Pluralism (Grand Rapids, MI:
Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1998), p. 12.
548
See J. Paul Rajashekar. “Luther as a Resource for Christian Dialogue with other World Religions”. In Robert
Kolb; Irene Dingel; L’ubomír Batka. The Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther’s Theology (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2014), p. 442.
549
Ibid., p. 438.
 201

late 1980s. And as it was supposed to be, the winds of change came from America. Firstly,

American Lutheran Church of America (ALCA) decided that inter-Faith relationships might

be considered a relevant issue, despite the non-missional natural condition of Lutheranism. Of

course, the sole coexistence of American Lutherans amidst a plurireligious context in one of

the most plural countries in the world, compelled these institutions to manifest their position.

Recently, Lutheran World Federation (LWF), published an official report entitled as Religious

Pluralism and Lutheran Theology550. In another consultation at São Leopoldo, Brazil (1999),

other country with marked Lutheran presence and religious pluralist ambience (because of

19th Century emigrations from Prussia to Brazil), the consultants summoned Brazilian

Lutheran churches “to enter into a dialogue with people of other faith” under a twofold

recommendation: the commitment to Christ and the honest acknowledgement of religions’

contributions to the enrichment of humanity551.

It is difficult to say where North American Lutheranism is heading, given the more than

40 Lutheran denominations existing in that country. The question of the salvific condition of

religions, as well as other controversial issues (women's ordination, homosexuality, etc.)

continue to divide the various synods under the authority of which the Lutheran churches in

the United States are organized. Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA) has serious

problems with its identity, losing its main brains to other denominations because it has

become a basket of cats where even those who are not cats are welcome and called so; on this

issue, one of the last chapters of this decay was the open-letter written by Carl Braaten552, its

550
Veli-Matti Kärkkläinen. An Introduction to the Theology of Religions, p. 128.
551
Ibid., p. 129.
552
As an exclusivist response to John Hick’s book No other Name? Braaten published No other Gospel.
Christianity among the World Religions (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1992), where he criticizes the neo-
Arianism of Hick and others, who search to relativize Jesus’ role in redemption, emphasizing that of God
(Theocentrism), as if Trinity were divided. In fact, there is no more trinity, the worst to be said. Braaten was not
discussed here because his position was already discussed (Exclusivism).
 202

most important theologian deplored the today situation553. Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod

with its conservatism has difficult to face the current world transformations

3.d.1.a. Paul Tillich

Many troubles hinder our journey towards understanding Tillich's theology of religions.

The first one is understanding his thought. Paul Tillich put himself as a direct heir of Luther’s

dialectical legacy, as a border thinker between philosophy and theology, between Europe and

America, and, as to what interests us in the current discussion, between Inclusivism and

Pluralism. This means that in some aspects of his theology of religions he is inclusivist and in

other, exclusivist; what makes justifiable to call his position a “progressive inclusivism”554, as

it was once. At last, Tillich did not deliver to posterity a fully mature reflection on the subject,

because the world’s concerns with the issue caught him in his last years.

Indeed, Tillich’s great theological project was not the same we are occupied with in this

place. His mature years’ concerns were the European and North-America secular society and

mid-Century ideologies: Nazism, Communism, Scientificism, and alike. His efforts directed

his reflection towards an attempt to translate the biblical language into a philosophical

conceptual one, which he assumed as missiologically necessary. For him it was time to

change the fundamental questions. Secularism was spreading because the theologians insisted

in giving answers to questions that no one else asked555, because the preachers did not know

the lives of their message’s recipients556, had not enough participation in the lives of their

contemporary gospel hearers. In addition, he contends that giving the questions alongside

553
Ed. Schroeder. “Carl Braaten’s Jeremiad: ELCA is Just Another Liberal Protestant Denomination”, Crossings
(April, 2005).
554
David Pitman. Twentieth Century Responses to Religious Pluralism. Difference is Everything (Abingdon,
U.K./New York: Routledge, 2014), p. 109.
555
Paul Tillich. Theology of Culture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1959), p. 205.
556
Idem, ibid.
 203

with the answers is a wrong method of evangelization that only works with unshaped and

primitive people557. Developed world did not accept this methodology.

To replace this state of affairs he suggests his “method of correlation”: philosophy,

culture, sciences, might ask the questions and theology give the answers 558 . With all

complexity that it could mean, when it comes to Paul Tillich, we can call it a refined

contextualization. The main role of theology is “mediation the eternal criterion of truth as it is

manifest in the picture of Jesus as the Christ and the changing experiences of individuals and

groups”559. Or, as he continues, “If the mediating task of theology is rejected, theology itself

is rejected; for the term "Theo-logy" implies, as such, a mediation, namely, between the

mystery, which is theos, and the understanding, which is logos”560.

But Tillich mistakes his missiological proposal as defining theology. Theology is a

mediation indeed, but not between mystery and logos, rather between the self-revealed theos

and our experience of Him, our comprehension from the standpoint of our experience. Tillich

wrote and taught prior to linguistic turn in philosophy, that is why his epistemological realism

is so optimistic. As somebody said, Tillich is a 19th century thinker dressed as a 20th one,

mostly influenced by German idealism (especially Schelling). That is, he saw the light before

Wittgenstein and Saussure blurred up the certainties of illuminist reason with their works.

Wittgenstein says that languages are “close and complete systems of human

communication”561. In Saussure, language is also self-sufficient and self-referential because it

is a system that walks, that is, a closed system that modifies itself in a block 562 . The

conclusion is not difficult. Tillich made a distinction between questions and answers, but
557
Ibid., p. 204.
558
Pan Chiu-Lai. Towards a Trinitarian Theology of Religions: A Study of Paul Tillich Thought (Kampen, the
Netherlands: Kok Pharos, 1994), p. 67.
559
Paul Tillich. The Protestant Era (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1948), p. xiii.
560
Idem, ibid.
561
Ludwig Wittgenstein. Das Blaue Buch und Eine Philosophische Betrachtung (Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp
Verlag, 1982), # 6.
562
Ferdinand Saussure. Curso de Linguística Geral (São Paulo: Cultrix, 2006), p. 16.
 204

gospel gives the answer alongside the questions, all in block. As language game the gospel is

a theological system, which comprises a perspective on the world and existence, as well as the

solution to both problems. If would be possible to ask proper questions on life and existence it

wasn’t necessary God’s revelation; the revelation of gospel is about the essence of this world.

So that, if the questions change, so do the answers, and system change its feature and shape,

in block, like happened to Christian doctrines in Tillich's systematic theology. Not just the

form, as gospel was a nutshell, and philosophy of religion a kernel: God was the shell and the

Being was the kernel. Salvation, the shell; existential healing, the kernel. For the religions,

including Christianism, their symbols are not just blurry mirrors used for prospecting the

hidden kernel of the “ultimate concern”, which is discovered by reason. Tillich’s method and

conclusion, both are wrong. All religions assume having proper instruments to identify the

essence of reality, so that, their statements also intend to take a good glance at reality, as well

as on what is behind it.

Tillich’ concept of revelation favors so much the uniqueness of Christianity, since it

understands revelation as the manifestation of Jesus in history; as well as a broad-spectrum

revelation in non-Christian religions and in culture. According to this, culture and religion are

Siamese siblings, cannot be separated. Religion is the kernel and culture the nutshell, since

“the ultimate concern is hidden under cultural forms and deformations”563. With this in view,

the theologian’s mission is to interpret culture’s symbols, within or without an express

attempt of speaking about the ultimate concern; and to scrutinize which of its manifestations

are deformations and which are forms of the ultimate concern. He thinks the Church

according to the same broad-spectrum religion that he calls the “Latent Church”, defined as a

wide Church that coincides with the whole world:

F. Forrest Church (ed.) The Essential Tillich. An Anthology of the Writings of Paul Tillich (Chicago: Chicago
563

University Press, 1987), p. 110.

 205

The unconditional character of this concern implies that it refers to every moment of
our life, to every space and every realm. The Universe is God sanctuary. Every work
day is a day of the Lord, every supper a Lord’s supper, every work a fulfillment of a
divine task, every joy a joy in God564.

Thus, all cultural singularity (including religious one) appears only on the surface. The

rites, the Scriptures, traditions, all is comprehended as symbolism used for revealing God in a

social and historical determination, that cannot be absolutized; otherwise, it becomes an idol.

The God above God is findable in any divine-human encounter565, in any religion, despite the

differences among them regarding to the expression of this symbolism. A deep dive into the

divine reality reveals only the same ground that is God, but not the theist God of Bible which

is just a symbol of the real one, which is unknown. The God that, in a non-dual perspective

(like in Theravada and Zen Buddhism) is neither subject nor object, is above all

epistemological schemes 566 . ‘He’ is no person, no “somebody” that could listen to our

prayer567. Also, there is no “providence” or “immortality” related to this “chaotic world and

finite existence”, but even so, “absolute faith says Yes to being without seeing anything

concrete which could conquer the nonbeing in fate and death”568.

From this “absolute faith” that encompass all possible religions and cultural

manifestation that deal with the “ultimate concern”, we can realize that Tillich is either

inclusivist or pluralist, or, dialectically, both. Starting by the most evident, he is pluralist

because he thinks all religions sharing a common ground, the Deus absconditus, from whom

each tradition take its characteristic vision of God: monotheistic faiths from the occasions

(epiphanies) when He manifests His salvific power, irrupting in the human history; the

panentheistic faiths, like Hindu Brahmanism, that attaches itself to God’s Being that grounds

all reality and whose presence penetrates everything; the non-theistic faiths, like Theravada

564
Ibid., p. 102.
565
Paul Tillich. The Courage to be (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1952), p. 187.
566
Idem, Ibid.
567
Ibid., p. 187.
568
Ibid., p. 189.
 206

Buddhism, that abhors dualism and think of God as a supreme absence, the ontological abyss,

the “Absolut nothingness”, where there is no desire and sorrow. But Tillich himself never

took this move, namely, becoming a pluralist theologian. His dialectical thinking made him

sway between theism and monism, without denying neither of them. But his search for that is

behind the Christian symbols certainly made him lean to the monism and serves as good base

for a pluralism in John Hick fashion.

Otherwise, although being pessimist regarding to a synthesis of the religions pulled by

Christian doctrines, he states, mentioning Paul and the Fathers of the Church, that to be

“omni-inclusive” is part of the historical trends of Christianism569. The most that Christianity

can do is to shelter non-Christian religious elements on its theological basis, because for it a

logos-based theology of religions would no longer be possible 570. Tillich does not explain

what would be this Christian theological element that would support this, nor if this

implemented would have continuity. What is certain is that he seems inclined to think that the

future of religions in the world would end with a synthesis or have a tendency towards it571.

As usually happens, one life almost never suffices. Tillich's life-time was not enough to

face theologically two great problems: the secular world of the great ideologies in the interwar

and post-war period, and the spirituality of the postmodern world. Indeed, after having

dedicated his entire life to face secularism, Tillich, with 77 years old, enrolled in Mircea

Eliade's seminary, at University of Chicago, trying to articulate his theology with Eliade's

studies in the field of the history of religions572, which at that time was the closest issue to

theology of religions. From Tillich's work, what today could be classified as interreligious

dialogue was published under the title Christianity at the Meeting of Religions (book already

569
Paul Tillich. Le Christianisme et le Rencontre des Religions (Paris : Labor et Fides, 2015), p. 263.
570
Idem, ibid.
571
Idem, ibid.
572
Julien Ries. Incontro e Dialogo. Cristianesimo, Religioni e Culture (Milano: Jaca Book, 2009), p. 306.
 207

citated), containing some lectures, interviews and discussions in which Tillich participated,

and were copied by his students.

On the other hand, in his last lecture, only hours before his death, he reiterated that

Jesus is the ultimate criterion to judge the human history, including the world religions573. The

point for Tillich was not soteriological, but ethical, for that he approaches to Küng, but did not

do it in systematic way, since no treatise of this sort is found in Tillichian corpus, thus we

cannot draw a conclusion. So, the designation “progressive inclusivism” is quite adequate,

and denotes we do not know where Tillich would come if he lived enough for that.

3.d.2. Presbyterians and Reformed churches

Calvin’s emphasis on God’s sovereignty, as well on the Augustinian pessimism about

the irremediable depravity of man, made him have no concern for the fate of adherents of

non-Christian religions. They were thought to be naturally partakers of the human massa

danata, condemned and deserving of this condemnation, since they are found in rebellion

against God as everybody else 574

. Indeed, this confidence in God’s decrees and

predestinations, by the imparting of irresistible grace to those predestined for salvation does

not open many possibilities to pan-ecumenism. But that didn't make him become a dull parish

priest either, immersed in complete ignorance and disinterest in ecumenism. Calvin made

efforts alongside other reformers to promote the dialogue within reformation and even within

Christianity, including the Catholics575. Against Jews and Muslims, Calvin did not polemic.

Neither Jews nor Muslims were important point in Calvin’s religious radar. Nowhere near

does he display Luther's bellicosity against these religions. Perhaps this is a reflection of the

political instability in which Calvin had to exercise his ministry, forced to stay between

573
David Pitman. Twentieth Century Responses to Religious Pluralism, p. 117.
574
John Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion (Peabody, MS: Hendrickson, 2009), Book II, chap. 1, iv.
575
Augustinus M. L. Batlajery. « Ecumenical Activities of John Calvin”, JRT II (2017), pp. 223-248.
 208

Geneva and Strasbourg, to escape from opposition. While the Lutheran expansion was

directed more towards the north (Nordic countries), because the south (Bavaria and Austria)

remained faithful to Catholicism, Calvinism followed more diversified paths. In addition to

Switzerland itself, it reached France, England, Scotland and later the United States and from

there coming to hit the world, thanks to the missional movement of 19th Century.

Another difference between the paths that each of these reformations took is the intense

fragmentation of the movement originated by Calvin, whether for the form of ecclesiastical

government adopted, the congregational government, which gave the churches great freedom;

or for the more progressive and political attitude, which produced many schisms among the

churches for political, historical and practical, reasons, as was the war of cession between

north and south of the United States and the abolition of slavery576. This internal condition put

the Presbyterian and Reformed churches in a paradoxal situation when they enter in the

ecumenical context, that is, they can seek to dialogue with Catholics, Methodists, Lutherans

and Anglicans, but stand as one of most divided denomination at the United States577. This

situation started to change ultimately, in 2007, as World Alliance of Reformed Church

(WARC) merged with Reformed Ecumenical Churches (REC), “a smaller group of more

conservative Calvinist Church”, giving birth to World Communion of Reformed Churches

(WCRC), with headquarters in Geneva, with around 200 member churches, present in more

than 100 countries worldwide, and 80 million of communicants578.

As for pan-ecumenism, in recent years American Presbyterians have made efforts to

organize themselves in order to better face religious pluralism. Several committees were

576
Russell E. Richey. Denominationalism. Illustrated and Explained (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2013), p.
233.
577
In addition to PC(USA) there was in 1989 Cumberland Presbyterian Church, Associate Reformed
Presbyterian Church, Presbyterian Church in America, Korean Presbyterian Church and Evangelical
Presbyterian Church. James H. Smylie. A Brief History of Presbyterians (Louisville, KT: Geneva Press, 1996),
pp. 150-151. See also James E. McGoldrick. Presbyterian and Reformed Churches. A Global History (Grand
Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012).
578
Stuart D. B. Picken. Historical Dictionary of Calvinism (Lanham, ML: Scarecrow, 2012), pp. 208 e 209.
 209

created to discuss this theme, and documents are being produced by them to standardize and

guide the attitude of presbyteries in this regard. This is the case of the Presbyterian Principles

for Inter-faith Dialogue, a pamphlet produced by the PCUSA's Ecumenical and Inter-faith

Relations committee. This folder brings six points where they recognize:

(1) Pluralistic U.S. and global societies are the context within which Christians
relate to people of other faiths;
(2) God's Spirit works in surprising places throughout creation and is found even
among people who are unaware of the Spirit's presence;
(3) We are called to work with others in our pluralistic societies for the well-being of
our world and for justice, peace, and the sustainability of creatio;
(4) In our pluralistic world, we confess that Jesus is the truth and the way; through
him God gives life. Jesus does not point to truth but is the truth, in his person. […]
When we seek to discern God's presence in the world, we look to the life, death, and
resurrection of Jesus as the unique and sufficient revelation of God's love, grace,
truth. power, and righteousness. Jesus is Lord and Savior;
(5) We are called to relate to people of other faiths in full humility, openness,
honesty, and respect. We respect both ochers' God-given humanity and the
seriousness of their spiritual quests and commitments.;
(6) We need to be equipped to meet others in dialogue and witness579.

As it is clearly displayed, all principal points of inclusivism are present in the quotation.

The emphasis remains in the adherents of non-Christian religions and not in the religions

themselves: (a) God’s universal salvific will, through the operations of the Spirit; (b) salvific

and revelational exclusivity of Jesus; (c) and on the cover page a touch of the agnostic salvific

theory of J. Stott, already discussed: “The limits to salvation, whatever they may be, are

known only to God”580. Summing up, the unique points that indicate the necessity of an inter-

faith dialogue are (3) cooperation and (5) respect. for the rest, PCUSA's position could be

classified as a Soft Exclusivism.

Dutch Reformed Churches are still more late in the discussion, they are still unable to

think of the Spirit's operation outside ecclesiastical walls and of the invisible Church also

encompassing adherents of non-Christian religions. The visible Church refers primarily to the

institutional organism and its members, and the invisible to the body of those who will be

579
PCUSA. “Presbyterian Principals for Inter-Faith Dialogue”. In PCUSA’s webpage.
580
Idem, ibid.
 210

really salved and are predestinated to it 581 . The salvation of people who belongs to the

invisible Church and are outside its walls are “cases extraordinaries” and are so to prevent that

the people of God become “presumptuous”582 and in part “arose to explains apostasy”583.

In short, Reformed Churches are still looking at its inside, not at the transformations the

world is experiencing. Their standpoint is apologetic in 19th Century spirit, they did not see

the horror of two global wars and the political-economic rise of the non-Christian Orient. This

probably stems from the situation of the current condition of the Reformed Church in the

Netherlands, trying to survive in a society where secularism is making great strides towards

becoming generalized atheism. Because of this social pressure, Dutch Reformed Churches

became more closed and focused on their own institutional life, given their survival

difficulties.

3.d.3. Anglicans

With the exception of Catholicism, the so-called Church of England is perhaps the most

post-Constantinian church of all times. According to its main branch, the head of the English

state (the king or queen) is also the highest ecclesial authority in the Anglican Church. It is

disputable if only political reasons were what trigged the Reformation in England, but one

thing is sure, it was unleashed by a dispute between Henry VIII and the pope Clement VII on

the king’s right to remarry, and had a long list of monarchs to whom Anglicanism owns its

doctrinal and institutional development. Indeed, Anglican history has been subjected to a

review that tends to bring these accounts to a more balanced conclusion, that is, there was not

only a by-decree Reformation in England584, but also a popular and theological movement.

Too much waters passed under the bridge of English Reformation since the quarrel between
581
Ryan M. McGraw. The Ark of Safety. Is There Salvation Outside the Church? (Grand Rapids, MI:
Reformation Heritage Books, 2018), p. 91.
582
Ibid., p. 93.
583
Ibid., p. 98.
584
Paul Avis. Anglicanism and the Christian Church. Theological Resources in Historical Perspectives
(London: T & T Clark, 2002), p. 4.
 211

Henry VIII and the pope. The list of numerous Anglican exponential theologians (Thomas

Cranmer, William Tyndale, John Jewel, Richard Hooker, John H. Newman, etc.) and the

importance of religious players and motives in the English Glorious Revolution, indicate that

a real reformation took place there too, albeit their milder doctrinal results compared to that of

the continental lands.

Indeed, they are called the “middle way” of Reformation 585 , that is, one that stands

between Catholicism and Lutheranism/Calvinism, or, in better words, that is a synthesis of

both spiritualities, as they saw themselves as Catholic (but not Roman) and adepts to

Reformation 586 . On Scriptures and authoritative sources, Anglicans does not accept the

Protestant Sola Scriptura, but accept the Testaments (including some Apocrypha) plus the

first ecumenical councils (Nicene and Athanasian creeds) 587; on the other hand, they despise

the other Roman Catholic sources, such as papal councils and magisterium. Like in Protestant

churches the bread and the calix are shared with the assistance, but, like Roman Catholics,

Anglicans saw in the symbols of Eucharist the ‘spiritual’ presence of Christ588. As among

Roman Catholic, Anglo-Catholic have religious services called masses and the same spiritual

devotions: Rosary, Angelus, Benediction and the Blessed Sacraments. The officiant is also a

priest, but he/she can be married; likewise, the assistance genuflects and the people cross

themselves like roman catholic589.

The modern ecumenism among Anglicans started at Lambeth Conference (1888), when

was defined their four basic principles also called as “Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral:

Scripture, the Creeds, the two Sacraments (Eucharist and Baptism) and the historic Episcopate

585
William L. Sachs. The Transformation of Anglicanism. From State Church to Global Communion (London:
Cambridge University Press, 20020), p. 9.
586
Jack Estes. Anglican Manifesto. A Christian Response to Oneworld Religion (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock,
2014), p. 4.
587
William L. Sachs. The Transformation of Anglicanism, p. 9.
588
Wikipedia. “Anglicanism”.
589
Idem, ibid.
 212

locally adapted”590 that envisaged the definition of an Anglican identity but was endorsed also

by Scandinavian Lutheran Churches and Old Catholics of Holland, Germany and Austria591. It

was reinforced at Edinburgh Missionary Conference (1910) and at Lambeth Conference in

1920, and one year after started at Malines (Belgium) a set of informal conversations with the

Roman Catholics (1921-1926) 592 . At inauguration of WCC in the meeting of Amsterdam

(1948), an Anglican archbishop presided, Geoffray Fisher, and two bishops were its great

promoters: George Bells and William Temple 593. But, as over the years the impulse for a

united Christendom has faded, “bilateral conversations between individual churches have

multiplied”594 among the denominations. Anglicans churches were one of the most active in

this endeavor, starting from the 1990s onwards, bilateral understandings with different

denominations595.

The presence of Scandinavian Lutherans, especially Sweden, at Lambeth Conference

(1888), quite prior to the modern first ecumenical meetings, has historical and doctrinal

reasons. Historical because of the animosity towards Catholics. Since the frustrated invasion

of England by the Spanish Armada and the excommunication of Elisabeth II by the pope Pius

V, there would be no agreement between them. Posteriorly, a constitutional clause banned

from England marriages between European princes and princesses of Catholic houses and

members of the English royal family, for that, Lutherans consorts became usuals596. Sweden,

as one of the most conservative Lutheran countries, especially in regard to the maintenance of

the historic episcopate, has been a privileged partner in inter-denominational dialogue with

590
Bruce Kaye. An Introduction to the World Anglicanism (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008), p.
103.
591
Idem, ibid.
592
Colin Buchanan. A to Z of Anglicanism (Laham, ML: Scarecrow Press, 2009), entry: “Malines”.
593
Bruce Kaye. An Introduction to World Anglicanism, p. 105.
594
Idem, ibid.
595
Colin Buchanan. A to Z of Anglicanism, entry: “Ecumenism”.
596
Wikipedia. “Anglicanism”.
 213

Anglicans, being invited to participate in consultations since 1908 597 . From Lambeth

conference onwards, sequential meetings with Lutherans took place, and a large number of

common documents have been produced, culminating with Parvoo common statement (1993),

that reunited Anglican churches of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland with Lutheran

Nordic and Baltic churches (Scandinavian countries, Finland and Iceland) 598 . In 1991

Anglicans entered into agreement with German Lutheran Church on Eucharist 599. In 1996

started agreements with non-Episcopalians of South Africa, “and in 2000 and 2001 with

Lutherans in United States and Canada, respectively”600.

World Baptist Alliance had observers at Lambeth conference of 1888, and at 1998

Lambeth the consultants took a resolution on Baptists. In 2000 formal conversation between

Anglicans and Baptists started, and a five-year program resulted in a single report in 2005601.

Regional meetings were held with Baptists in Europe (2000), Asia (2001), Africa (2002),

Latin America (2003), the Caribbean (2003) and North America (2003). After these regional

meeting was constituted in 2004 a permanent committee named Conversations around the

World, presented to the ACC in 2005602.

With Methodist Churches the first agreements arose in the mid-20th Century, in

missionary fields as a form of surviving amidst great rates of hostile non-Christian population.

Anglicans united with Methodists at South India for the formation of United Church of South

India (1947), the same occurred in Sri Lank and East Africa (1950), Nigeria (1960), North

India and Pakistan in 1970603. “In Australia Methodists churches joined to Presbyterians and

Congregationalists in 1977 to form non-Episcopal united churches”. In South Africa (1996)

597
Colin Buchanan. A to Z Anglicanism, entry: “Lutheran Churches”.
598
Idem, ibid.
599
Bruce Kaye. An Introduction to the World Anglicanism, p. 106.
600
Colin Buchanan. A to Z of Anglicanism, entry: “Ecumenism”.
601
Ibid., entry: “Baptist Churches”.
602
Bruce Kaye. An Introduction to World Anglicanism, p. 107.
603
Idem, ibid.
 214

Methodists and Anglicans agreed on the interchangeability of ministers 604 . After repeated

denials by the Church of England, because of problems concerning ordinance, Anglicans

accept a common report with Methodists: In the Spirit of the Covenant (2005)605.

Officially, the Anglican-Catholic relationships started to change only at Vatican II, with

the first conversations between Archbishop Geoffrey Fisher and Pope John XXIII, at the end

of the same council there was a meeting between Anglican observers and Pope Paul VI.

Several meetings followed which resulted in common documents on the priesthood and

priestly ordination, the Eucharist (1979) and the authority of the Church (1981)606. After 1982

other consultations and common documents appear on diverse themes, the last one was on

Virgin Mary, dating from 2005607. Obviously, these documents are generic enough not to

produce controversy among the consultants, and this is the main feature of ecumenical

meeting, that is, what dominates the discussions of those engaged in the interdenominational

dialogue are the commonalities and not the differences, as occurred in the past.

The English colonial expansion, especially during the 18th and 19th Centuries, is

responsible by the more than 110 million adepts who make up this branch of Christianism608,

as result Anglican communion is today the third greatest force in world Christianity, ranking

only behind the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches, respectively609. This worldwide spread

of Anglican communion has given rise to the need for reflection on the Christian faith in

religious pluralism, although Anglican theology is not notable for its academic production on

the subject. Indeed, these meeting have inspired some inchoate theologies of religions by

604
Colin Buchanan. A to Z of Anglicanism, entry: “Methodists Churches”.
605
Idem, ibid.
606
Ibid., entry: “Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission”.
607
Idem, ibid.
608
David B. Barret; Todd M. Johnson. World Christian Trends. Interpreting the Annual Christian Megacensus
(Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 2001), p. 4.
609
Jack Estes. Anglican Manifesto, p. 1.
 215

Anglicans that were more anthropologists than theologians. As happened to Henry Callaway,

Anglican bishop at South Africa, who rejected the common idea that:

There could be no salvation outside the Church. He sensed the imprint God had
made upon all cultures, not merely European ones. Moreover, Christianity, in its
essence, represented for him a religion of humanity, a divine governance
encompassing all the parameters of human experience. Callaway suggested that an
original image of God lay in the "natural affections," prior to the constraints of laws,
doctrines, governments, or religious systems610.

Notwithstanding the radicality of the statement above, Anglicans have no important

agreements with non-Christian religions except with the Abrahamic religions. Since Lambeth

Conference of 1988, they recognize the shift of situation in the Postmodernity, as arises a
611
problematic coexistence between Christians and other religions adepts , but their

missiologic perspective was still too much English and post-Constantinian, because the

problem is seen in context of British former Empire, that is, the other religions adherents “are

British citizens, with the same rights, privileges and duties”612, that is, the coexistence is not

only necessary, but legally mandatory. On Theology of Religions the position of the Board is

always avoiding the extremes, where there can be no dialogue: exclusivism, that claims that

there is nothing to learn with other faiths, the unique necessity is to evangelize; pluralism,

whose averment is the necessity of inter-faith dialogue, with no need of evangelization613.

At Lambeth Conference of 1998 Anglican Communion took a step further recognizing

that they as Anglicans “are called to be a faithful Church in a plural world”, and that meant

“specifically at inter-Faith relations” 614 . The conference decided in the section three that

Anglicans, as servants of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior:

610
William L. Sachs. The Transformation of Anglicanism, p. 253.
611
The Central Board of Finance of the Church of England. Towards a Theology for inter-Faith Dialogue
(London: Church House Publishing, 1988), p. 5.
612
Idem, ibid.
613
Ibid., p. 7.
614
Anne Davison. “The Church of England’s Response to Religious Pluralism”. At Anglicanism.org A Resource
for Study.
 216

(a) to respect the rights and freedom of all faiths to worship and practice their ways
of life;

(b) to work with all people of good will to extend these freedoms of worship,
religious practice and conversion throughout the world;

(d) to enter into dialogue with members of other faiths, to increase our mutual
respect and explore the truths we hold in common and those on which we differ;

(f) to equip ourselves for our witness, dialogue and service by becoming better
versed in the teaching and practice of our own faith, and of at least one other faith 615.

This last resolution is very interesting because the disposition to the dialogue made the

consultants go beyond the Scripture (I Peter 3: 15), recommending the knowledge or the

familiarity with, at least, one other faith, besides the obligation to the Christian faith.

Therefore, the consultants assume implicitly that we are back to the Apologist Fathers’ times,

with no epistemological privileges and no institutional supports. In other words, we are today

in similar conditions to the Fathers of Church, facing the Greco-Roman ethos; we must have

sufficient knowledge of our potential catechumens’ culture, if we want to be heard and

understood when taking the gospel message to them. Currently, cultural Christianism is

fading in a global culture.

At Porto Alegre meeting of WCC (2006), Rowan Williams, then the archbishop of

Canterbury, astounded his assistance calling their attention to what he assumed to be the

misleading influence of the inclusive anonymous Christian theory of Karl Rahner. According

to him this theory was theologically and practically problematic 616 . It’s not necessary to

ontologize Christianism to include other religions under the Catholic’s sacramental umbrella.

The ideas of forgiveness and human adoption by God are present in practically all religions

and are sufficient to permit God to make a way until Him in other religions’ beliefs,

615
Idem, ibid.
616
Kenneth Rose. Pluralism: The Future of Religion (London/New York: Bloomsbury, 2013), p. 52.
 217

accomplishing what is told in Acts 14: 17: “God has never left himself without witnesses”617.

But is this interpretation exegetically fair?

Here we see the problem of these theologians that prone to Pluralism, as they intend to

maintain a certain fidelity to Christian sources, but misusing its texts or making of them a lose

interpretation inducing the readers to see in them what they never intended to say. What is

clearly told in the upper mentioned passage is that God’s blessing stands on to maintain all of

His creatures, since He gives them sun, rains, harvest, health, etc. Nothing is said about the

presence of God’s truths in the religions’ beliefs or on His revelation being extensive also to

them. In this case the biblical text loses its normative role and becomes a crutch for a lame

exegesis, placed at the service of human ideologies and not of the gospel.

3.d.4. Methodists

Methodists call themselves evangelicals, but Lutherans do too, and none of them are

really that. Methodists are not exactly evangelicals, because they are not a single thing, but a

heterogeneous and complex group, coming from different paths to their current diversified

situation. They have in their spiritual historical DNA an openness to the diversity, since from

their beginning they did not emphasizes beliefs, but practices and spirituality, as can be

noticed in the holy club’s meetings organized and directed by Charles and John Wesley618.

Because of this openness, over time, they collected many other religious elements that

afterwards was adopted as part of their identity: evangelical movements, high church

(Anglicans, specially), low churches circles, holiness movements, ultimately also charismatic

and Pentecostal churches619. The paradoxal trends present in his founder himself, him at the

same time an Oxford professor, whose style reveals a rational and elegant prose; moreover,

617
Idem, ibid.
618
Andy Langford; Sally Langford. Living as United Methodist Christians. Our stories, Our Beliefs, Our Lives
(Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2011), p. 14.
619
Veli-Matti. An Introduction to Theology of Religions, pp. 132-133.
 218

someone who mastered the scientific knowledge of his time. But at the same time, his

emotional sermons, loaded with resounding and tearful expressions, also reveal a passion for

the gospel that escapes the context where his movement was born.

As consequence of this propensity to diversity, there are many Methodist churches

today, the number of them reaches 80 churches, among which are: African Episcopal Zion

Church, British Methodist Church, Free Methodist Church, Primitive Methodist Church,

United Methodist Church and Wesleyan Methodist Church, etc. 620 . There are many

differences between them, however, some basic spiritual features, since John Wesley’s times,

are the common soil to all Methodists: (a) A person is free not only to reject salvation but also

to accept it by an act of free will; (b) all people who are obedient to the gospel according to

the measure of knowledge given them will be saved; (c) the Holy Spirit assures a Christian

that they are justified by faith in Jesus (assurance of faith); (d) Christians in this life are

capable of Christian perfection and are commanded by God to pursue it621.

Taking into account this common Wesleyan legacy, it was founded in 1881 the World

Methodist Council, a consultive institution, that today comprises 80 members denominations,

dozens of other affiliate organizations and eight standing committees, one of them addressing

the ecumenical dialogue “with the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Communion, the

Lutheran World Federation, the Salvation Army and the World Alliance of Reformed

Churches […], with the Orthodox Church and with certain Pentecostal churches” 622 . This

concern with ecumenism exists since Methodists’ first steps as organization. At a meeting in

the year of 1820, a document of Wesleyan Methodist Conference in Britain stated:

Let us […] maintain towards all denominations of Christians, who ‘hold the head’
[that is, Jesus the head of the Church – Eph. 5: 23], the kind and catholic spirit of

620
Wikipedia. “Methodism”.
621
Idem, ibid.
622
Wikipedia. “World Methodist Council”.
 219

primitive Methodism; and, according to the noble maxim of our Fathers in the
Gospel, ‘be the friend of all, and the enemy of none623.

Consistently, Methodists’ concerns with a world ecumenist organization exists since the

eve of the World Council of Churches’ first breath. Robert N. Flew, a British Methodist, was

a leader figure in the Faith and Order Movement, which was an organization that became the

forerunner of the WCC. John Mott, another great Methodist leader, made the first speech at

WCC’s inaugural meeting in Amsterdam (1948); three of the World Council of Churches’

general secretaries were Methodists: Phillip Potter (1972-1984), Emilio Castro (1985-1992)

and Samuel Kobia (2004-2010), Geoffrey Wainwright, other Methodist prominent leader,

presided the WCC Faith and Order Commission (1977-1991)624; Wesley Ariarajah, pastor and

theologian from Sri Lanka, was its deputy general secretary and director of inter-Faith

dialogue for around 10 years625.

About the non-Christians religions, Methodists have one of the most open dialogues in

the inter-Faith conversations, they can justifiably be called as adepts of a Pluralist

Inclusivism, although its founder, John Wesley, did not direct his attention to the matter, not

least because his commission was to evangelize and disciple nominal Christians in England

and in the United States. However, this inclination to dialogue can be clearly seen in Wesley’s

warm words in the famous Letter to a Roman Catholic626, where he shared his faith with a

Roman Catholic interested. Besides, his Arminian soteriology is another important theological

element that favors a receptive look towards other religions, since he did not perceive divine

grace restricted to institutional limits627, as displayed in (b) item of Wesley’s soteriology, that

is, people of other religions can be saved, despite them, as long as they are faithful to the light

623
David M. Chapman. “Methodism, Ecumenism and inter-Faith Relations”. In William Gibson; Peter Forsaith;
Martin Wellings (eds.). The Ashgate Research Companion to World Methodism (Abingdon, U.K./New York:
Routledge, 2013), p. 121.
624
Ibid., p. 125.
625
Idem, ibid.
626
John Wesley. Letter to a Roman Catholic. At John Wesley and Me webpage.
627
David M. Chapman. “Methodism, Ecumenism and inter-Faith Relations”, p. 139.
 220

they have received. This adamant confidence in the liberty of God’s grace makes today

Methodists go beyond Wesley’s legacy, that is, no longer thinking salvation restricted to the

worthiest members of other religions, but also reaching the religions themselves, as secondary

and parallel agencies of God’s grace, alongside with the Church, which is called as “cautious

pluralism”628.

This is the case of the Methodist theologian Kenneth Cracknell, to whom the

proposition of an inclusive pluralism should be attributed, without prejudice to the necessary

commitment to the Scriptures. Cracknell, as did Wesley, do not think of religions as

institutions, but as ways, traditions, where God’s grace operate too. Each religion in its own

way, but we are all pilgrims in order to reach humanity’s final goal: the transcendence629. The

base for thinking so widely in God’s operations and so optimistically the outcomes of

religion’s searching of God is the doctrine of the Logos 630 . The Methodist theologian's

position is quite "progressive", pushing the limits of Inclusivism to the edges of pluralism.

When he says, for example, that when we speak of the Christian path, we should be aware

‘that it is one way among many ways”; and he escapes from heresy only because he then

adds: “God's way has been most clearly discerned in the way Jesus followed”631.

What was said about the Anglican Inclusivism fits also here on Methodist one, that is,

the lose use of Scripture generates the same mistakes. The theology of a cosmic Logos that

encompasses all religions and is responsible for the truths they teach (John 1:1?), the

witnesses God has in all religions (Acts 4: 17?). Other problems, like lose use of conceptual

statements, for example, the pan-Methodist guide published by United Methodist Church, in

which is said “other religions can be complementary to Christianity”. In what sense? Ethically

628
Veli-Matti Kärkkläinen. An Introduction to Theology of Religions, p. 133.
629
Kenneth Cracknell. Towards a New Relationship: Christian and the People of other Faiths (London: Epworth
Press, 1986), p. 75-85.
630
Ibid., p. 79.
631
Kenneth Rose. The Future of Religions, p. 49.
 221

or religiously? The emphasis on dialogue is a corollary that Christianity is shifting its

soteriological paradigm, from the vicarious sacrifice of Jesus to knowledge of the truth. And

this cannot be called Gnosticism only because salvation does not come from outside the

world, but is in the world itself, so that it is a secularized Christianity, not a Gnostic one. Later

we will come back to this question.

3.e Evangelical-Pentecostal Inclusivism

This Inclusivism was born as a result of evangelical concerns about those who have

never heard the gospel, later evolved from a weak Exclusivism, by postulating biblical

arguments that emphasize the universal saving will of God, translated into an effective saving

action of God in religions, even though salvation occurs only through Christ. The authors

below agree with each other on this, but they disagree on the instrument God uses to lead

religions into salvation, nothing else unites them, being from their respective denominations

and varying widely in the admission of a not expressly Christic cause for salvation. The

common theoretical field between them is summarized by Pearson:

(1) God's revelation of himself in creation and in conscience not only condemns but
also saves. Accordingly, people can be saved without ever having heard of Jesus by
responding positively to general revelation.
(2) Many inclusivists raise the issue of God's righteousness: it would be unfair if
God condemned people merely because they had never heard the gospel of Christ.
For God to be just and merciful, there must be other ways to come to Him.
(3) Many inclusivists, not all, have argued that adherents of non-Christian world
religions can be saved without believing in the gospel. Not that these religions
themselves teach the way of salvation, but that God in His grace accepts those who
sincerely repent and follow Him within the limits of their religion.
(4) It is common for inclusivists to portray Old Testament believers as examples of
people saved without the message of Jesus. Inclusivists also attribute to them the
category of "pagan saints", biblical figures such as Melchizedek and Cornelius, who
are declared to have been saved without special revelation. Those in the present day
who have never heard of Jesus and are informationally a. C., God accepts them,
provided that, like the heathen saints, they turn to Him.
(5) All inclusivists claim that in Scripture some people are saved not specifically by
faith in Jesus, but based on a more general principle of faith. The unreached people
of today, in a similar way, can be saved without the gospel, based on the same
principle632.

Robert A. Peterson. “Introduction”. In Christopher W. Morgan (ed.). Faith Comes by Hearing (Downers
632

Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2008), p. 15.

 222

Although the framework systematized by Pearson is quite broad and complex, it does

not seem to touch on a primordial theme of Inclusivism, which is a kind of ontological

condition of salvation. His analysis only looks at the saved non-Christian's perspective on

salvation, and refrains from considering what God's perspective is. That is, how does God see

the non-Christian to whom he decides to grant salvation? Depending on how this question is

answered, one is inclusivist or pluralist. If one believes that God sees the non-Christian, even

though he ignores it, as being saved by the universal vicarious sacrifice of Jesus, then one is

an inclusivist; if, however, one believes that God saves the non-Christian by the moral and

spiritual qualities of the religion of which he is a part, then one is a pluralist. In other words,

the crux of the problem stays not in the spiritual or ethical disposition of the adherent of the

non-Christian religion, but in the disposition of God to see or not an intrinsic saving quality in

religions. It is not necessary to dwell on the easy conclusion that those who think that

religions have intrinsic saving qualities are giving up Christian sources and deserve to be

called a post-Christian.

3.e.1. Clark Pinnock

Clark Pinnock, a Baptist, Canadian, professor emeritus of theology at McMaster

Divinity College, has been accused in evangelical circles of approaching too much of a

pluralist position because of his more open convictions on the salvation of non-Christians. He

sees himself, however, as at a point of balance, being neither Restrictivist nor universalist, in

his own words, “the two greatest dangers for a theologian of religions” 633. Following his

reasonings, on the one hand, there are biblical texts that demonstrate God's universal desire to

save much more than self-reported group as elects (II Peter 3:9; I Tim. 2:4); on the other,

there are texts that expressly declare the universality and saving exclusivity of Jesus Christ (I

Clark Pinnock. A wideness in God’s mercy: the finality of Jesus Christ in a world of religions (Grand Rapids:
633

Zondervan, 1992), p. 12.

 223

Tim. 2:5; John 3:16) 634 . The point of balance between these two extreme points is what

Pinnock thinks to be his position:

A fundamental point in this theology of religions is the conviction that God's

redemptive work in Jesus Christ is intended for the benefit of the whole world. [...]
God's grace is not niggardly or partial. [...] According to the gospel of Christ, the
results of salvation will be great and generous635.

In building his arguments, Pinnock tries to recover the hermeneutics of the Apologetic

Fathers, especially that of Irenaeus of Lyons and that of the Great Cappadocians (Gregory and

Basil). From Irenaeus he welcomes the notion of universal covenants made by God with all

humanity, before the covenant signed with Israel at Sinai, namely, with non-Jews.

Contemporaneously, this is not a new argument, in the Roman Catholic field there is the

figure of Jean Daniélou who held similar ideas, speaking of "cosmic concerts" of God, which

has as much validity as the more known Mosaic and New Testament concerts. Following the

Fathers, he thinks they are valid for account of the theory of the preparation of the gospel

(Praeparatio evangeli), of which the gospel is the crowning and perfecting of a long list of

covenants, starting with Adam’s covenant, each one serving as preparation to the other until

their final perfection in the gospel636. I think both went beyond the limits of good exegesis.

The texts do not speak of other religions, hence, in this case, two very different things are

being mixed by these authors: ethnicity and religiosity. The people with whom God signed the

pre-Mosaic covenants were not Jews, but they were not adherents of other religions either, so

this is an inference not authorized by the text. There is a gradual perfection not from a less

revelational religion to its perfection in the upper degree, but from a less revelational relation

to another with superior revelational content.

634
Clark Pinnock. A wideness in God’s mercy, p. 18-19.
635
Ibid., p. 17.
636
Jean Daniélou. Holy Pagans of the Old Testament (London: Longmans/Green & Co., 1957).
 224

Yong raises contentions to this theory suggesting that the aforementioned covenants

were immediately broken after their foundation637 and, therefore, do not serve to exemplify

the inclusion of other religions. He lingers on the example of divine judgment on Babel.

However, God's covenant with Noah for the promise of no more covering the earth with the

waters of the flood (Gen. 9: 8-17), as well as the covenant with Adam, with the promise of the

coming of a descendant that would end to the serpent's dominion (Gen. 3:15), they were not

merely promises of “physical preservation of mankind” 638 but also of humanity salvation. The

covenant with Abraham is even more evidently saving, since it bears a promise: “in thee shall

all the families of the earth be blessed” (Gen. 12: 3). God promises salvation and a relief from

the consequences of sin in every great crisis of human history, and the promise is made to

those who relate to him in sacred history, having nothing to do with those who relate to other

gods.

From Cappadocians Pinnock extracts a pneumatological ecclesiology, which to this day

marks the Eastern Church and whose emphasis is on spiritual gifts and not on hierarchy639, as

occurs with the Western Church, where a Christological ecclesiology prevails, based on the

lordship of the post-Resurrection and the head-of-the-Church Christ (Eph. 5: 23), as well as

all the ecclesial implications prescribed by the Catholic Church’ Inclusivism. Pinnock's view

has a Trinitarian foundation, with a pneumatological emphasis; but it is not merely a matter of

putting the spotlight on the extra-ecclesial ministry of the Holy Spirit, but of illuminating the

pneumatological aspect of the Trinity to recover its communal nature, lost by an undue

637
According to the Scriptures, all the covenants celebrated by God with human beings were broken by
themselves, which is proof of human inconstancy, but they have not lost their effectiveness, which is proof of
divine fidelity. The covenant with Adam was broken by the murder of Abel; the pact with Noah trampled upon
in the construction of the Tower of Babel; the Abrahamic covenant broken by his own lies in Egypt, which
brought about the deaths of people in Pharaoh's house; the covenant with the Israelites breached by idolatry at
Baal-Peor, Jesus' covenant with the apostles was disregarded for their lack of faith as they fled and hid after
Jesus’ death. Human failure to fulfill what is established with God is not proof of divine failure, on the contrary,
it points to divine grace.
638
Clark H. Pinnock. A Wideness in God’s Mercy, p. 22.
639
Radu Bordeianu. Dimitru Staniloae : An Ecumenical Ecclesiology (London: T & T Clark, 2011), p. 1.
 225

emphasis on the so-called economy of salvation, where there is a relationship of functional

subordination (only in the context of human salvation) between the three persons of the

Trinity, both in the revelational dimension, where the Father sends the Son, the Son sends the

Spirit; as in the salvific dimension, in which the Spirit leads to Christ and Christ to the Father.

Because of this arrangement, the notion of the Trinity as a community in love640 was lost,

replaced by a hierarchical model, which more portrays the Western monarchic bishopric than

the intratrinitarian relationship of God:

God is an interpersonal process, a community of People who love one another and
experience one accord. [...] The three persons of God, although distinct, each having
their own processes of consciousness together form a shared life that is the perfect
ideal641.

The rigidity of the Western economy of salvation being abandoned, Pinnock makes

room for a more universalized notion of the work of the Spirit, which will be the foundation

of the universal covenants of God mentioned above. Just as the Spirit had a preparatory action

in creation, since before the world was created the Spirit hovered over the waters (so you say

calming the chaos so that the Word could bring life to light), so too, there is a work of the

Holy Spirit before the foundation of the Church, which are part of the aforementioned

covenants, and which function as praeparatio evangeli. The Spirit, therefore, performs a

saving work as important and universal as that of the eternal Logos:

We are indeed entitled to a more universal perspective when Spirit can be seen as
seeking what the Logos also intends and where one can believe and hope that none
are beyond the reach of grace. A foundation is laid for universality if in fact the
Spirit permeates the world and there is no closed place for its influence 642.

640
Dimitru Staniloae. The Experience of God (Brookline, MS: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1998), p. 245-246.
See also Miroslav Volf. After our Likeness: The Church as Image of the Trinity (Grand Rapids, MI, Wm. B.
Eerdmans, 1998).
641
Clark H. Pinnock. Flame of Love. A Theology of the Holy Spirit (Downer Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,
1996), p. 41.
642
Clark H. Pinnock. Flame of Love, p. 63.
 226

The place in the discussion board where Pinnock is inserted is complex, however, in my

view it does not abandon the orthodox space, as can be seen by his own words, which could

be summarized by a more simplified statement, namely, Pinnock is inclusivist. because he

believes in the uniqueness and exclusivity of salvation in Jesus, but he believes that God

works in religions through the Spirit, and not only through an Imago Dei implanted in the

human soul through creation. This complexity is due to the Christian sources themselves,

which, in addition to the controversial dimension mentioned above, which circumscribe what

is said about religions to certain contexts, they have texts that demonstrate the gracious divine

disposition to save men and women from all the races and creeds of the world, yet calling

them to a better and higher spiritual situation than that in which they find themselves:

According to the Bible, there are also religions among the nations that are on the
other side of the spectrum [and are not under God's condemnation]. It recognizes
faith, neither Christian nor Jewish, which is nevertheless noble, uplifting, and
wholesome. And to us come in this primordial faith and in the category of pagan
saints, believers such as Abel, Enoch, Noah, Job, Daniel, Melchizedek, Lot,
Abimelech, Jethro, Rahab, Ruth, Naaman, Queen of Sheba, the Roman centurion,
Cornelius and others. They were believers, men and women who experienced a right
relationship with God and lived holy lives, under the broader terms of the covenant
made with Noah643.

For Pinnock, however, this is nowhere near a biblical license for Pluralism. All the

praise in the above quote is directed to people, human beings, who, despite their socio-

religious context, managed to experience “a correct relationship with God” and were faithful

to the extent of their knowledge of the divine demands on them. One cannot transform

isolated situations, such as Paul's speech in the Areopagus of Athens or the Old Testament

figure of Melchizedek, an excuse to embrace an indiscriminate pluralism. According to

Pinnock:

The conclusion to be drawn is that religions can be dark, deceitful and cruel. They
harbor ugliness, pride, mistakes, hypocrisy, darkness, demons, contumacy,

643
Ibid., p. 92.
 227

blindness, bigotry, and deception. The idea that world religions ordinarily function
as ways of salvation is dangerous nonsense and not exempt thinking644.

Therefore, Pinnock's theological efforts deserve a positive assessment. He really

succeeded in building a higher level for this discussion in the evangelical environment. This is

also the opinion of more balanced critics, such as Veli-Matti Kärkkläinen, for whom the

Canadian theologian is the promoter of “a moderate form of inclusiveness fully anchored in

an orthodox Christianity”645, identifying in his work an innovative Trinitarian basis, by which

your ideas can be summarized:

Pinnock's evangelical and independent theology of religions is based on legitimate

Trinitarian foundations: (1) an open theism, which challenged the traditional view of
God as immutable and not inclined to be involved in world events; (2) a Christology
that regards Christ as the norm, but not as excluding other means of connection with
God; and (3) a pneumatology as an open infusion, which portrays the work of the
Spirit in cosmic terms646.

As contentions for Pinnock’s ideas, however, it can be said that, despite being motivated

by excellent intention, when he tries to give a biblical basis to his position, he persists in

perorations and inferences that are unjustified from a textual point of view, as those regarding

to the covenant theology. Likewise, in chapter 3 of his most important book on the subject of

religions, he is based on a perception sympathetic to religions, grounding his pneumatological

argument on the universal infusion of the Spirit. As we have seen, there are texts in the OT

and NT that support the idea that the action of the Spirit is not restricted to the Church, but

there it is not stated that it extends to religions, as institutions. The fact that the Spirit works in

the hearts of all men of all times does not mean that it acts in non-Christian religious

institutions, whatever the extent to which this occurs. On the other hand, just alluding to what

was said in the introduction, the extra-ecclesial action of the Spirit only has a geographical

dimension, because every time this action is mentioned in the Scriptures there is a connection

644
Ibid., p. 92.
645
Veli-Matti Kärkkläinen. Trinity and Religious Pluralism, p. 103.
646
Idem, ibid.
 228

with the Church or with the people of God, there are no reports on the Spirit at work with

people that live in total ignorance of biblical tradition. This obviously does not mean that this

in no way occurs. Through the Spirit someone or a community can be enlightened about Jesus

and the saving meaning of his life and death. However, this kind of inspiration or

enlightenment is very difficult since God does not use people as automatons and people who

are born in non-Christian contexts have cultural limitations to understand gospel’s truths, but

this is not impossible. Unfortunately, we can't theorize about something we don't know. In the

conclusion on Pentecostal views in the next topic, we will return to this question.

3.e.2. Amos Yong

Pentecostal Theology of Religions took its first steps in the mission field, as an attempt

of theological contextualization647 and was slow in setting aside the denominational fold to

conquering interlocutors in broader theological sphere. Some reasons contributed to this: (a)

The lack of systematic theologians among them – consequence of lack of formal theological

training648; (b) a century-long commitment to biblical preaching and ignorance of the former

Christian theological work and consequent slowness to find a suitable platform for a theology

of religions suited to their theology, something that only changed when Pentecostal

theologians discovered the Orthodox Church, a theology with pneumatological emphasis; (c)

at middle of 70s, when Pentecostals joined to the ecumenical organisms they started to see the

necessity of a wider reflection on ecumenism, this necessity increased as inter-Faith dialogue

grew up: at 1996, when main Pentecostal movements held international dialogue with World

Alliance of Reformed Churches (WARC)649.

647
Tony Richie. Toward a Pentecostal Theology of Religions. Encountering Cornelius Today (Cleveland, TN:
CPT, 2013).
648
Christopher A. Stephenson. Types of Pentecostal Theology. Method, System, Spirit (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2013), p. 3.
649
Veli-Matti Kärkkläinen. An Introduction to Theology of Religions, p. 140.
 229

Pentecostal Theology of Religions, although its peculiar pneumatological approach

keeps them inside the Evangelical framework, being biblical and exclusivist, marked

especially by the exclusivity of salvation in Jesus and “avoid abstract definitions of an essence
650
common to all religion” , as is common in phenomenological and philosophical

methodology, equalizing all religions. However, there are two arguments against Inclusivism

dividing them, namely, (a) firstly, the aforementioned negative theology of religions, which

does not admit a salvific dimension to religions; specially, because the Bible itself

recommends careful examinations of the spirits651; since the evil spirits exist and are active

within non-Christian religions, better be cautious about this; (b) Secondly, the action of Holy

Spirit always appears related to the ministry of the Son652. Amos Yong shows signs of having

abandoned these two fundamental principles, assuming right the opposite.

Like Pinnock, Yong is not satisfied with the results of the theologies of the religions he

knew and did not see himself included in any of Race's three typological groups (Exclusivism,

Inclusivism and Pluralism). He is not in favor of a strong Exclusivism, because he does not

think it is correct to decide a priori that religions are irrelevant or “disbelief”, as the Barthians

seemed to do; he is not inclusivist, because this perspective suggests that religions are

replaced or supplemented by Christianity; he is not adept at a synthetic Pluralism because the

philosophical metanarrative used to constitute the synthesis of human religiosity is as

mistaken as the imposing of Christian doctrines653. His objective is to create a fourth way,

through a theology of religions that really takes seriously the discourse of religions, assuming

them as places where the Holy Spirit also works, being the main role of the theologian of

religions to discern where there is and there is not the Spirit, assuming its activity in the lives

650
Tony Richie. Toward a Pentecostal Theology of Religions, p. 11.
651
Veli-Matti Kärkkläinen. An Introduction to Theology of Religions, p. 141.
652
Steve Studebaker. From Pentecost to the Triune God, p. 210.
653
Amos Yong. Pneumatology and the Christian-Buddhist Dialogue. Does the Spirit Blows through the Middle
Way (Leiden: Brill, 2012), p. 14.
 230

of all people who exercise faith654. “The Spirit blows where He chooses (John 3: 8). If that is

the case, why would the Spirit blow ‘outside’ the church but not at all in the religions?”655.

Therefore, Yong begins his theological edifice with a deconstruction of the well-known

subordination of the Spirit's operations to Jesus’ ministry, believed also in the evangelical

world, following the Catholic legacy. However, this is not biblical doctrine, but the result of a

power struggle between the Catholic and the Orthodox Church. Corroborating with Lossky,

his arguments lead him to question the conciliar decisions regarding the subordination of the

Spirit to the Son, or what he calls “the illegitimate dogmatics of the filioque”, enshrined in

Constantinople IV (867 C E), that is, a council that was sponsored by the Western Church656.

Following Pinnock, he believes that the Spirit works beyond the institutional limits of the

Church, because there is an “autonomous relationship” between the two ministries657, that is,

Jesus’ and Spirit’s ministry, both subordinate to the Father in the economy of salvation.

The term filioque, literally translated 'and of the son', was a clause added to the Nicene

creed by the Catholic Church at the council of Toledo III (589 AD), with the intention of

extending the Spirit's subordination not only to the Father, but also to the Son. Far from being

a 'Byzantine issue', the clause reflects the dispute for hegemony between the Latin and Greek

Churches, with the autonomy of the Spirit maintained by the Greek Church and its

subordination to the Son by the Latin one. The first thesis interested the Latin Church,

because it assumed its institution proceeded from the Son himself, “the head of the Church”

(Eph. 5: 23), so that if the Spirit submitted to Christ's authority, it implicitly submitted to the

authority of the pope, the visible head of the Church, and all the fundamental pneumatology

654
Amos Yong. Discerning the Spirit (s). A Pentecostal-Charismatic contribution to Christian Theology of
Religions (Sheffield UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), p. 24.
655
Amos Yong. Beyond the Impasse. Toward a Pneumatological Theology of Religions (Carlyle, U.K./Grand
Rapids, MI: Paternoster/Baker, 2003), p. 22.
656
Amos Yong. “The Turn to Pneumatology in Christian Theology of Religions: Conduit or Detour?” JES
(Summer-Fall, 1998), p. 451.
657
Amos Yong. Discerning the Spirit (s), p. 58.
 231

of the Orthodox Church, built by the great Cappadocians, would lose its legitimizing capacity.

A pneumatology subordinated to Christology has always interested the West, as well as a

rigid economy of salvation, which emphasized the Church and hierarchy, but the

subordination of the Spirit to the Father and the Son makes the Holy Spirit a minor figure of

the Trinity, subordinate to the Son and without freedom to act in the world outside the

Church658.

Yong does not go so far as to affirm an opposite Spiritoque clause, “in order not to

multiply potentially controversial terms that do nothing to increase solidarity between the

religious confessions”. But he seeks a middle way in the debate that averts a factionist Spirit

clause, rejecting any subordination of the Holy Spirit to Christ or to the Church. He tries to

defend a “mutuality of the economies of the Word and the Spirit”, in order to “avoid both the

fanaticism, enthusiasm and individualism of a theology dominated by the Spirit, as well as a

dogmatism, hierarchism, and institutionalism of a theology dominated by the Word” 659.

Theologically restored the freedom of the Spirit, A. Yong believe he could conclude

that the Spirit has the freedom to act directly related to the Father, as His second hand (in

addition to Jesus, who is the first one)660 and counterbalance the uniqueness of Jesus with a

characteristic universality of the Spirit. As is evident, its conclusions make room for the

admission of religions into the sphere of the divine mystery, under the auspices of the free

action of the Spirit, coordinated solely with the saving will of the Father661. This leads us, as

was said at the beginning, to the conclusion that Yong defends a kind of Inclusivism, in the

Rahnerian fashion, without, however, being based on Rahner’s theological anthropology, he

rather builds on a pneumatological theology:

658
Amos Yong. The Spirit Poured out on all Flesh, p. 216.
659
Ibid., p. 226.
660
Amos Yong. Beyond the Impasse, p. 69.
661
Amos Yong. “A P(new)matological Paradigm for Christian Mission in a Religiously Plural World”. In
Missiology: An International Review, XXXIII no. 2 (April, 2005), p. 176.
 232

I have suggested elsewhere that religions are neither accidents of history nor
usurpations of divine providence, but in many ways instruments of the Holy Spirit's
work from divine purposes in the world and that if the unevangelized are saved, they
are. through the work of Christ by the Spirit (even if through the religious beliefs
and practices available to them)662.

Yong must be right about the filioque. There really is no good in letting the compulsion

for systematicity take us so far as to understand that this economy of salvation limits the

actions of the three people of God. The way Father, Son and the Spirit act is not a close

hierarchical framework. If so, there would not be a Trinity, but a Tridivinity, that is, three

gods, linked in a relationship of staggered subordination, like in the polytheistic religions,

what would be an absurdity for a monotheistic religion, like Christianism. The relationship is

one of loving interdependence, between the Father, the Son and the Spirit, through an

economy of salvation that can never be explained by human rationality:

The nature of God is a communion between People who love each other, the
overflowing shared life that creates and sustains the universe. Ancient theologians
[Cappadocians] spoke of the divine nature as a dance, the cyclical flow of a
threefold life, the going and going among the People gracefully involving
creation663.

The hierarchical model, implicit in this saving economy, although merely functional and

not essential (since it takes effect only in the salvific context), must be abandoned in favor of

a community model, as this is more in line with the biblical text. Indeed, the order and agent

of divine actions vary enormously in the NT. Nobody comes to the Father except through the

Son (John 14: 6), but no man comes to the Son except through the Father (John 6:44, 45 and

53); the Father glorifies the Son (John 8:50), but the Son also glorifies the Father (John 7:18);

the Son sends the Spirit, but the Spirit guides the Son (Lk 4: 1 // Jn 20: 22); the Spirit baptized

the Son (Luke 3:22), but the Son baptized the disciples with the Spirit at Pentecost (Mt 3:11);

Jesus reveals the Father, but is by the Spirit that Jesus has access to the Father (Eph 2:18). In

662
Amos Yong. The Spirit Poured out on all Flesh, p. 236.
663
Clark Pinnock. Flame of Love. A Theology of the Holy Spirit (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1996), p.
22.
 233

Jesus' resurrection the Trinity were active bringing Him back to life (Acts 2: 24, 32 – the

Father // John 10: 17 – the Son // Rom. 8:11 – the Spirit). The order of the Trinity's operations

is not rigid either. The knowledge of the Word (Son) does not always come first and then the

baptism in the Holy Spirit. In the book of Acts the Spirit is poured out before the knowledge

of the gospel and serves as a sign to legitimize the preaching to those who receive Him (Acts

10: 44-47), etc. Therefore, it is a theological illusion to categorically say that the work of one

is this, and the work of another is that, because human redemption is the work of God.

However, there is also no biblical support for the cleavage between the works of the

Spirit and the Son, as defended by Yong. The Word, the Spirit and the Father work in concert.

It was like that at the beginning of creation, when the Spirit hovered over the primordial

chaotic waters and God created the world by the Word or Logos (Jesus) of His power. It also

occurred at the foundation of the Church, where Trinity mutuality ruled, to use a word dear to

Yong. The freedom of the Spirit defended by various texts does not mean that the Spirit works

dissociated from the Son, it means that the Spirit does not depend on human elements to carry

out His work. It is the Church that is used by the Spirit and not the opposite. The Church does

not work without the Spirit, but the Spirit does what pleases Him with the Church. The work

of the Church belongs to the history of salvation (if the Church follows His mild influence);

the work of the Spirit belongs to the unknown God:

If the church (with all its tasks and faculties) understands itself in the Spirit and from
its history, it will also understand its particularity as a moment of the Spirit's activity
and will not need to affirm its concrete form and its special mission with demands
for an absolute destructive, Nor will he look with suspicion or with envy to the
saving activity of the Spirit, which takes place outside himself; rather, he gratefully
accepts them as a sign that the Spirit's field of action is broader than the Church and
that God's saving will exceeds its limits664.

664
Jürgen Moltmann. La iglesia fuerza del Espíritu. Hacia una eclesiología mesiánica (Salamanca: Ediciones
Sígueme, 1978), 88.
 234

Actually, the Spirit can act outside the Church, and here the importance of the emphatic

note of Yong and other theologians who valued pneumatology, bringing to light the

mysterious action of the Spirit. But it is theologically incorrect to turn this 'may' into a 'must',

forgetting that acting 'outside the limits of the Church' is only a suppletive action for the

Spirit, as His main action takes place within the Church. The work of the Spirit can distance

itself from commissioned human instruments when they fail, but this is not a prescription.

When it is said that the work of the Spirit can occur outside the Church's boundaries, it is

orthodox to think that He can act and speak in a way that people understand (Acts 2: 5-11), in

a sense that even goes beyond the linguistic issue (Rom 8:26). It can contradict and transform

elements of peoples' religious expectations, as happened to the mistaken messianic

expectations of the disciples (John 16: 13). It was only after the outpouring of the Spirit, that

these expectations were removed, and that means that the good-fellowship with Jesus was not

enough to change their minds. And He can also dispel religious ideas inconsistent with

biblical truth665. However, to admit that the Spirit guides certain cultures and certain religions

to divine truths is to come dangerously close to a doctrine of inspiration on other Scriptures,

something that, in effect, Yong suggests: “Christian theologians must also recognize the

possibility of other canonical traditions. to be somehow also divinely inspired” 666.

It is better to think, following Paul's lesson in the Letter to the Romans, in its first three

chapters, that divine action in the hearts of the unevangelized is more negative, regarding the

orientation of what not to do regarding the sins of the flesh. Regarding the divine nature and

salvation, there is no scriptural authorization to admit other canonical texts besides the

Scriptures. According to Paul, the Spirit works preferentially within the Church. It is through

the circumcision of the heart through the Spirit that each person becomes a member of God's

people (Rom. 2:29; Gal. 3:28). A common baptism in the Spirit and a shared experience in the

665
Steve Studebaker. From Pentecost to Triune God, p. 226.
666
Amos Yong. Discerning Spirit (s), p. 317 e 318.
 235

same Spirit is what unites the people of God (I Cor 12:13; Eph. 4:4). God pours love into the

hearts of believers by the Spirit (Rom 5:5). For Paul, the Christian life is understood as life in

the Spirit. The Spirit distributes gifts (Rom 12: 6-8; I Cor 12: 1-8; Eph 4: 10-13), knowledge

about God can only come through His Spirit (I Cor. 2: 10), etc.

Therefore, the rescue of the importance of the work of the Spirit for the salvation of

men of all races and creeds, is praiseworthy and welcome; in the same way, the warning

regarding our intention to enclose the Spirit in the Church is opportune. Yong deserves our

applause for this. However, the idea of making the Spirit work directly in religions as an

inspiring agent of other Scriptures is a dangerous and heterodox doctrine that favors

relativism and reduces religions (including Christianity) to the condition of spiritualities that

have nothing to say about the divine reality and human, about the factual world, about where

we came from and where we are going to. Neither religions nor Christianity gain from this.

This speech only favors unbelievers and agnostics.

3.e.3. S. Mark Heim

Mark Heim is a professor of Christian theology at Newton Seminary, at Yale Divinity

School. He is an ordained American Baptist minister, representing his denomination on the

Faith and Order Commission at WCC, and other specific inter-Faith commissions, like

Christian-Muslim Relations Committee667. Fruitful writer, Heim has been currently appointed

as “one of the most innovative and intriguing Trinitarian theologies of religions to have

appeared in decades and so deserves fuller attention”668, in the style of St. Augustine, Heim

deserves “to be commended for a robust Trinitarianism that argues for union with the Trinity

as the fullest human end”669. However, it should be noted that the use of a trinitarian model in

his theology of religions should not be considered a certificate of orthodoxy, since about his

667
Yale Divinity School: S. Mark Heim. Website.
668
Gerald R. McDermott; Harold A. Netland. A Trinitarian Theology of Religions, p. 77.
669
Ibid., p. 82.
 236

ideas remains a lot questions, one of them could be: in what sense salvation among religions

would be something that can be perfected by Christianity, given the fact that the other

religions have just a partial participation in the trinitarian life? Is that for being understood

idealistically, in Plato’s fashion; or realistically, as a hierarchical salvation, something like

Mormonism believes? This is the first problem in approaching Heim ideas, that is, the high

level of abstraction and the consequent question about how it can be applied.

The starting point of Heim is a dissatisfaction with the inclusivist and pluralistic

approach of Hick and other philosophers of religion, for, according to him, neither of these

approaches take the others religions’ beliefs seriously enough, The first for making the

religions wanting an end they do not (anonymous Christian), the second, for not being really

pluralistic, since it eliminates the differences, replacing it with the vision of a fictious

religious essence that stand underneath the apparent differences670, that is, according to his

own metaphor, the different doctrines among religions are different flavor of an ice cream, but

religion itself is one unique thing: ice cream 671 . Summing up, Pluralism is an intolerant

discourse against all religions in the name of an elimination of religious intolerance, which in

the sight of them, constitutes an enormous gain to human beings’ coexistence. But not.

Heim rejects relativism and tries to substitute it with a real difference of a “true

pluralism”. For Heim, the Early Christians saw the others religions of their times as

something real, “Christians […] took other gods seriously enough not to patronize them but to

deny them” and were willing to die in defense of their faith 672, so the relativism that underlies

the current Pluralism cannot be a correct assumption according to the sources. Exclusivism

must be a general principle and must have the singularity and exclusivity of Christ’s salvation

670
S. Mark Heim. Is Christ the Only Way? Christian Faith in a Pluralistic World (Valley Forge, PA: Judson
Press, 1985), p. 29.
671
Ibid., p. 30.
672
Ibid., p. 36.
 237

as foundation. Although recognizing it, he cannot help the assumption that God has others

ways to bring people to Him, secondary, fragmentary, but true and sufficient. God has

“parallel paths”. Not all “good or virtuous come through Jesus”. Contrariwise, still according

to him, we must abandon Christ idolatry and its exclusivism and embrace all good and truth in

the world because they also come from God673.

It seems that Heim sees as solution to the problem of Christianism facing world

religions is shifting the theological Christocentrism to a Theocentrism approach, and he does

it thinking to be strengthening monotheism. But instead, this kind of reasoning is not new. To

weaken Jesus is to belittle the Triune God and enter the Arian heresy, since it is thinking of

two gods, one great and the other lesser; or else thinking like the Ebionites or current

Nazarenes in one God and a man greatly enlightened and blessed by God. Furthermore,

accepting this theory is the same to say that Scripture lies in all the exclusive claims it makes

about Jesus. Thus, Heim’s reasoning reveals an Achilles heel of his theology: the limited

scriptural basis, which makes him more akin to Hick's philosophy of religion than to

evangelical theologians, who try to keep themselves within the limits of “it is written”.

Heim’s searching has as target to make clearer his first attempt of formulating an

integral trinitarian approach to world religions, being careful to keep what they say, being

actually pluralistic and Christian at the same time. As already demonstrated in his first work,

he was not satisfied with the limitations imposed by the Christological approach of the

inclusivists, which deprived inclusivist theologies of taking seriously other religions

experiences and beliefs. Hence why he changed the axis of his theology from Christocentric

to Theocentric, developing a plural and trinitarian concept of salvation, which for Him does

673
Ibid., p. 142.
 238

not mean the endorsement of a Christian salvation’s exclusivity, for it “cannot embody all

possible goods”674.

His first step, thus, was to conceptualize salvation so broadly and abstractly that it can

contemplate all world religions. His likely inspiration for that was the Indian Vedanta

philosophy, which is essentially pluralist, seeing all religions searching the same good: the

union of the soul with God, whatever we call it. Vedantin systematize it in three ways or

stages in the journey to accomplish this goal:

The first is the way of duty, of good works – the karma marga. Beyond this is the
way of faith and devotion, the bhakti marga, the stage at which one relies on no
good works but wholly on the grace and mercy of a loving personal God, to whom
one clings with total devotion. But even this does not take one to the end of the
journey. That is reached only by following the way of wisdom, the gnana marga, a
way of total renunciation, a ‘journey inwards’ to the still centre of the soul where all
duality disappears and the soul is at one with the ultimate reality [the highlighted
bolds are mine]675.

Accordingly, he thinks salvation as “an integrate set of relations. Relation with God is

the heart of this network of interactions” 676 and this relation is communion in the most

intimate sense of the word. Because the essence of God himself is communion, what can be

deduced from the relationship that exists inside the Trinity, since there are three persons that

form one unique God 677 . Heim’s conclusion is that all religions had partial intuitions of

salvation (since they do not know the idea of a Triune God), but they are not mistakes. For

making it clearer Heim classifies religions within a twofold type of salvation, relating them

with Trinity: an impersonal dimension and personal dimension of Trinity, and relates it to two

674
S. Mark Heim. The Depth of the Riches: A Trinitarian Theology of Religious End (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B.
Eerdmans, 2001), p. 19.
675
Lesslie Newbigin. “The Christian Faith and the World Religion”. In John Hick; Brian Hebblethwate (ed.).
Christianity and Other Religions (Oxford: Oneworld, 2001), p. 99.
676
Ibid., p. 59.
677
Idem, ibid.
 239

kinds of world religions’ salvations. To the first one, are linked Buddhism and Hinduism; to

the second, the Abrahamic religions678.

Theravada Buddhism, with its conception of nirvana, which defines beatitude as the

total absence of desires, as well as the breaking of the cycles of dharma and karma, is not far

from the Christian idea of salvation. In God's relationship with himself (relationship of the

persons of the Trinity) there is also an emptying whereby God promotes the existence of the

other intrinsically679.

Likewise, the Vedanta tradition of Hinduism express a powerful idea of salvation.

According to it, “Brahman, the one unshakable reality, sustains all things by pervading all

things” 680 , which is called panentheism. Because of the veil of maya we cannot see this

unique reality subsisting in the Being that sustains all beings. Salvation in this tradition occurs

when “the small "I" of the particular creature resolves into a perfect identity with the one

existing "I" of the absolute being”681. Bible stress this same idea in several places, when Paul

says, as example, “because in Him we live, we move, we exist” (Acts 17: 28), expressing the

idea that God sustains everything in Himself. But according to the Bible, He does it without

losing its transcendence.

As assessment of Heim’s theology of religions, it can be said that its proper name

perhaps should not be a theology of religions, but a pluralist philosophy of religions, because

its biblical base is weak and not committed to the sacred text. One cannot simply dismiss the

texts that speak of the exclusivity of salvation in Jesus (John 1:9, 3: 36, 14:6; Acts 4:12; I

John 5: 12). They are simply there and will remain there, no matter how great his desire to

formulate a synthesis of religions based on the Trinitarian teaching of Scripture. it is possible

678
S. Mark Heim. “A Trinitarian View of Religious Pluralism”. In Religion Online
679
Idem, ibid.
680
Idem, ibid.
681
Idem, ibid.
 240

to articulate the world religions of the Far East with the idea of a Triune God, it is possible to

draw elements from that for interfaith dialogue. But one question makes all this irrelevant. Is

this partial knowledge of the Trinity sufficient for real salvation? To solve the problem of

human fragility, precariousness and transience of the existence? All human beings are

somehow in contact with the Trinity, since God is the foundation of life, but does this mean

that everyone is saved or will they be saved, through that partial knowledge of the Trinity? If

the answer is no, what we have is just an “abstract speculation”682 that will serve to bring

people together, but not to save people. If the answer is yes, then we are dealing with a

universalist doctrine, as the author himself made clear: “The Christian gospel is not about a

God who stints on goodness. It is like that first of Jesus’ miracles, when the guests look up in

surprise: You have kept good wine till last” 683 . And it’s not orthodox according to the

Scriptures, whatever the number of isolated passages someone can find saying the opposite.

3.f. Conclusion

This group is the most difficult to make a final abstract because of all types it is the

most varied, being composed of Evangelicals and Catholics, and among these, three

approaches, from a methodological point of view, are completely different. Catholic prefer

philosophical grounding, Evangelicals scriptural reasoning and Protestants ambiguously try to

stay at the middle. As for the means of salvation, Catholics have the church and its

sacraments, Evangelicals the Scriptures, Protestants remain ambiguously in the middle.

Talented theologians tried to expand these milestones, but they didn't go much further.

Among Catholics Karl Rahner works in the field of fundamental theology and

anthropological philosophy, his aim is not exactly to build a theology of religions, but to

provide possibilities for its birth from an update of the philosophical bases, necessary for the

682
Gerald R. McDermott; Harold A. Netland. A Trinitarian Theology of Religions, p. 82.
683
S. Mark Heim. “A Trinitarian View of Religious Pluralism”. In Religion Online.
 241

operation. His hermeneutics is more solid than that of the others, but he makes little progress

in relation to what was before him because he emphasizes the athematic, the apophatic

religion and not its content. As a man of Vatican II, the word aggiornamento defines his

project well.

Jacques Dupuis on his turn, bears the marks of inconsistency, since he was unable to

bring his thought to a faithful conclusion regarding to his ideas due to the ecclesial pressures

he suffered. Edward Schillebeeckx also failed to be consistent, but he has in his favor an

attempt to construct a phenomenology of Christian religious experience. Like Rahner, in

terms of theology of religions, he was just laying the foundations, not a theory builder.

Therefore, from the point of view of interreligious dialogue, everyone was left to do it. From

the perspective of a new formulation of Roman Catholicism in a multi-religious environment;

K. Rahner, in my view, made the greatest contribution.

On evangelical side, has the quality, as expected, of laying better biblical foundations,

Clark Pinnock and Amos Yong, both in their own way, try to recover from History of

Christianism texts and ideas that favors the Inclusivist position. They find in the Fathers of the

Church arguments, but implant in them an anachronistic mark they take from their own times,

especially if we consider the Apologetic Fathers, which belong to Pinnock’s ground

arguments. Amos Yong is the less anachronistic but goes slightly further the Cappadocians go

as he intended to see the Holy Spirit blowing on the creation of doctrines within the non-

Christian religions. Mark Heim is out of this evangelical curve because his approach is just

generic theology as he tries to synthetize the world religions in an overall view. No doubt his

approach is creative, however, the synthesis produced is artificial, since the differences

between the religions compared there are swept under the rug.
 242

It is impossible for the word Inclusivism to be fully adequate in relation to all these

theological strands. Except if we think about this label in a very superficial way. Just as a way

of precariously classifying an immense quantity of theories, which bear some resemblance to

each other. The degree and way in which its two theoretical pillars vary casts serious doubts

on its usefulness. However, to maintain its typological relevance, we must add to the (a)

exclusivity of salvation in Christ and (b) the universal salvific will of God, the (c) idea that

especial revelation (to a greater or lesser degree) is not restricted to the Church. The next step

is the pluralist approach, when the first item, the exclusivity of salvation in Jesus, is avoided

to open room to interregious dialogue.

 243

CAPÍTULO IV

Pluralism

4.a. Introduction

There is a large number of pluralists, so large that the number of thinkers classified so is

equal to or even greater than that of the two former typologies combined, which denotes the

existence of a current cultural tendency towards pluralism, certainly related to the ideological

prevalence of post-modernism. In this sense, a distinction must be made here between

plurality and pluralism. Plurality is the factual reality of these times of diversity in which we

live; pluralism, is the ethical-epistemological demand for maintaining and stimulating this

plurality, given its ethical-epistemological superiority over monism and dualism, as contrary

options. In shorter words, “pluralism is an appreciation of plurality” 684.

Religious pluralism, among the three groups discussed here, it is the most complex and

the one with the most congested traffic of players. Nevertheless, despite the methodological

idiosyncrasies that single out each of its debaters, they can be subdivided into three major

strands: (a) the synthetic pluralists, who seek to make a religious synthesis of

contemporaneity, generally adopting elements of Christianity and Western Philosophy

Juvénal Ilunga Muya. “La teologia delle religioni”. In Giuseppe Lorizio (ed.). Teologia Fondamentale.
684

Contesti (Roma: Cittá Nuova, 2005), p. 54.

 244

combined. Using a neologism, it can be said that as far as religious oikumene is concerned, the

goal of this project is a planetary religion; and, contrary to what their theorists intend, the

result of that is a monologue, not a synthesis. (b) Particularistic pluralists agree with the need

for religious dialogue, but reject the necessity of synthesis. Every participant of the inter-faith

dialogue enters into it from his own religion tradition, and search the others to dialogue on

common religious elements. In other words, dialogue might exist, not as a trans-religious

undertaking, but as an inter-religious conversation. This conversation occurs in neutral public

space, and intends to produce collaboration and human enrichment. (c) Apophatic pluralists

are those pluralist theologians that think the unique way to build a consistent pluralism is

through an apophatic theology, that is, a negating theology, which unlike affirmative

theology, rejects all parables, similes, comparisons used to approach the divinity, and assumes

to be capable of meaningful discourse on God through it685. Indeed, saying which God is not

throws light on the reasoning and instills humility in the hearts of the adherents of the

religion, being an antidote to religious violence.

All pluralists recognize the universal salvific will of God, to the detriment of Christian

uniqueness of Jesus and an exclusive human agent for salvation: the Church. They call this a

shift way of paradigm. According to Hick, “a Copernican revolution in the theology of

religions”686, that is, theological and philosophical abandoning of Christian Church and Jesus

centrality amidst the religious world, and adopting the religious experience instead 687 ;

according to Knitter the shift of paradigms is a theology of religions that substitutes a

Christocentric and ecclesiocentric approach for a theocentric one, which is shared by all world

religions 688 . Christianity in this context is just one among many manifestations of the

685
Kenneth Rose. Pluralism: The Future of Religion, p. 7.
686
John Hick. God and the Universe of Faiths. Essays in the Philosophy of Religions (Oxford: One World,
1993), p. 125.
687
Ibid., p. 134.
688
Paul Knitter. No other Name? (Maryknoll, NY, Orbis Books, 1985), p. 167.
 245

experience with the sacred, losing its salvific-epistemological privileges. Even so, synthetic

pluralists tend to think of salvation abstractly and secularly, as an improvement of our

humanity, and to extend to all religions the right of being participant in the saving space of

God, therefore, in a secular way. For them, considering God’s saving universal will, does not

make sense to exclude billions of people of salvation, for the sole fault of being born in a non-

Christian cultural environment689.

Particularistic Pluralists, in turn, assume that the action of the Holy Spirit cannot be

limited to the Christian Churches realm, and base this idea on the freedom of the Spirit in the

classic passage of John 3:8 it is described. Thus, there must be other Holy Scriptures among

the other faiths, other sacred books as much inspired by God as our Bible. Besides, Jesus loses

his singularity, he is one among other avatares God uses to visit humankind, when times for

human are especially dire. Despite the reasonableness of their speech, the great impediment to

the persuasion of pluralist dispositions, trying to convince those who do not think like them, it

is the exclusivist statements of Scripture itself and the contortionist exegesis they use to

support their pluralist ideas. One of them is the theology of Logos, which will be discussed at

length in the following pages.

4.b. Particularistic Pluralism

The solution of this problem for particularists is relatively complex, as they argue based

on a kind of interreligious agnosticism. It was natural for them that exclusivism occurred in

the early Church, because Christians at that time did not have the knowledge we have. They

did not live in a postmodern world, although they had a cultural experience similar to ours.

Coexisting with other religions of the Greco-Roman multi-religious world, and with hundreds

of philosophical sects from all over the ancient world. However, Christianity can only

689
Gavin D’Costa. “The Pluralist Paradigm in the Christian Theology of Religions”, SJT (vol. 39), p. 212. See
also in John Hick. God and the Universe of Faiths, p. 122.
 246

successfully face the transformations and changes that the ancient world had undergone with

the fall of Rome because of the ideological stability conferred by the Scriptures. The church

could cope with these external ethical and metaphysical models, remaining unchanged in the

face of the march of times and customs because its basis was the Scriptures. And,

surprisingly, it is this anchor that saved Christianity in the ancient world from an irremediable

wreck that has been criticized by particularistic pluralists for their suggestion that we adopt

more malleable immanent values that enable cooperation with other religions.

The influence of postmodern thinkers, such as L. Wittgenstein, has generated an

insurmountable agnosticism in relation to the religious 'other'. Language games immersed in

the specificity of life are epistemologically incompatible. As suggested elsewhere, they are

complete and closed systems and semantically self-reported, hence there is no possibility of

an external approach that produces a compatible synthesis of the different religions. They are

mutually incomprehensible and incapable of arguing each other. The basis of what users of

religious languages make their statements are “forms of life”, which result from different

'linguistic-pragmatic' experiences. A linguistic experience for Wittgenstein has a much

broader and deeper meaning than the mere exchange of information through written or oral

linguistic signs, it involves the surroundings of the users of language, from where the meaning

also comes. Communication exists because there is a complicated context in which social,

linguistic and extralinguistic actions are related690. Language without these actions loses its

frame of reference. In short, like language, religions are incompatible “language games”.

Following L. Wittgenstein, a little further, it is even difficult to make comparisons

between apparently similar religious experiences belonging to different religions. They are

"family resemblances", that is, just as members of the same family are unequally similar

690
L. Wittgenstein. Philosophical Investigations / Philosophische Untersuchungen (G. E. M. Anscombe & R.
Rhees (eds.), U. S. A., The Macmillan company, 1969), paragraph: 205.
 247

through similar morphological aspects and not coincident in all cases: a type of nose, mouth,

hair color, etc. So, religions can be related only if considered in isolated aspects. In the

general picture what exists is an irreducible diversity691. For example, the Christian rejection

of the materiality of the world as its ultimate reality resembles the Hindu rejection of the same

reality, and this may be a family resemblance between them. In fact, but the rest of the

religious physiognomy of each of these religions does not coincide. In Christianity worldly

materiality is but the accomplishment of God's creative work. Reality is not monistic in its

depth and diverse in its surface, as Brahmin philosophy teaches. In Christianity there is no

monism, because God is never confused with his creation; He transcends it. This is how the

first verse of the Bible teaches: “[...] and the Spirit of God hovered over the face of the

waters” (Gen. 1:1).

Also consider one of the most universal religious concepts: salvation692. Salvation for

Christians means the resurrection of the flesh, new heavens and a new earth where justice

dwells and a closer communion with the Creator, that is, a state of beatitude with which no

worldly happiness can be compared. The way for her is Jesus Christ, the hope of glory. For a

Buddhist salvation is nirvana, liberation from the wheel of samsara, the cessation of

incarnation cycles. It is anatman (not me), an immersion in the immensity of the cosmos, with

the consequent loss of subjectivity and with it the extinction of pain and desire, sources of all

human unhappiness; that is, and in a word, serenity. For a Hindu, salvation is moksha, which

in the bahkti tradition means stepping out of the law of karma, stepping out of the constant

cycle of birth and death, and sinking forever into Brahman; to complete his mission in the

universe (dharma), and in the after-death attain supreme happiness, viz., final rest in oneness

with Brahman. Within Hinduism this “can be obtained by three paths (margas): (1) the path of

691
L. Wittgenstein. Philosophical Investigations / Philosophische Untersuchungen, paragraph 67; Cf. Zettel, (G.
E. M. Anscombe e G. H. von Wright (ogs.), Lisboa, Edições 70, 2000), paragraph 646.
692
Paul Hedges. Controversies in interreligious dialogue and the theology of religions, pp. 187 e 188.
 248

knowledge (jnanamarga), (2) the path of devotion (bhaktimarga), (3) the path of action

(karmamarga)” 693.

In short, nothing can be more different than these theological concepts. They carry an

immense semiotic load of centuries of discussions and reflections in their respective schools

of thought on the understand of the Supreme Being in three very distinct ways: in Christianity

God is positive, He is the supreme force that moves and at the same time also the destiny of

that is moved, because it is triune; it is exalted, holy and transcendent. In Hinduism Vedanta

Brahman is neutral, the cement that holds reality together; the ultimate force is karma, it is

this that determines when one will attain moksha. In Theravada Buddhism there is no God,

because the divine is negative, as is the concept of happiness: absence of pain, desire, anguish,

need; and the ultimate force is also karma; the means is the karmic cleansing of all negative

feelings. Also, according to Wittgenstein, no conversation is possible between these religious

modalities on the metaphysical level, although there can and should be cooperation on the

practical level. The only way for one of these modalities to convince the other is through a

conversion, which consists in the total resignification of the internal and external reality by

accepting the other's system694. Obviously, here we think on the individual plane, collectively

it is possible and probable syncretism, but in this case the ideas of F. Saussure are more useful

for clarification.

When we introduced these philosophical considerations in this topic, we managed to

avoid all the epistemological contentions placed on Synthetic Pluralism. Although, as we will

see later, particularistic pluralism deserves other reservations, which are of a different nature –

theological contentions, it appears more coherent and cohesive; and despite all the great
693
Chad Meister. Philosophy of Religion (Abingdon, UK/ New York: Routledge, 2006), p. 25.
694
“Toda verificação, confirmação e invalidação de uma hipótese ocorrem já no interior de um sistema. E este
sistema não é mais ou menos arbitrário ou duvidoso para os nossos argumentos; ao contrário, ele pertence à
essência do que chamamos de argumento. O sistema não é tanto o ponto de partida, como é o elemento no qual
os argumentos têm sua existência.” Ludwig Wittgenstein. Da Certeza / Über Gewissheit (Lisboa: Edições 70,
1990), parag. 105.
 249

differences that exist between the supporters of this group, some common points can be

highlighted:

1. Every faith is unique. Otherness is emphasized rather than similarity.

Consequently, common elements of religious experience or doctrines are considered
superficial.

2. It is only possible to speak of religious experience from a specific tradition; there

can be no pluralist interpretation.

3. The Holy Spirit must be working in other religions, thus deserving respect and
dignity.

4. There is no saving power in other religions, notwithstanding they are included in

God's plans for humanity, but in ways we do not know.

5. We need to work [missiology] from a position based on postmodernity and the

postliberal worldview.

6. Orthodox doctrines about Christ and the Trinity are the basic points from which
our approach to other religions must proceed695.

The World Council of Churches (WCC), founded in 1948, fully adopts these six points.

It was not a decision that came through easy consensus; on the contrary, after a reluctant and

slow walk. First, delegates agreed to make an addendum to the policy statement on the

relationship with other religions in 1971. After a decade of difficult internal controversies, the

WCC agreed to include in the council documents, specifically in the Guidelines on Dialogue,

the theological statement: “we feel the need for to assure our dialogue partners that we do not

approach as manipulators, but as fellow pilgrims” 696.

Particularistic skepticism preserves practically all the fundamental doctrinal points of

Christianity, as can be seen from the list presented, except one: the obligation to fulfill the

mandate to evangelize the world. Because in this missiological modality the missionary

impetus weakens and becomes secularized, given that the objective of preaching is no longer

a transcendent kingdom of God that invades human reality from outside it, coming from the

695
Paul Hedges. Controversies in Interreligious Dialogue and the Theology of Religions, pp. 146-147.
Apud Stanley Samartha. “The Cross and the Rainbow – Christ in a Multireligious Culture” in John Hick and
696

Paul Knitter (eds.) The Myth of Christian Uniqueness, p. 70.

 250

divine reality; it is just an immanent kingdom of God that grows among us as we reach out to

the poor and needy, release the oppressed, and preserve the planet. Jüngen Moltmann is a

typical example of this type of missiologist, to him we will dedicate the next lines.

4.b.1. Jürgen Moltmann

Along with W. Pannenberg, J. Moltmann is currently the most representative figure in

Protestant theology after the disappearance of its great names (K. Barth, P. Tillich, D.

Bonhoeffer and O. Cullmann). In a sense he is Barth's heir, as he “insists on abandoning all

'natural theology' and just looking at God's action from the perspective of a Heilsgeschichte”

[Story of salvation]” 697. Still following in the footsteps of the dialectical theology of Barth

and Brunner, the typological model used by Moltmann to classify as religions, making a

distinction between Christianity and as religions: (a) a biblical religion characterized by being

a religion of promise and (b) a Canaanite and Greco-Roman are religions of epiphany, that is,

two opposite and irreconcilable religious models, which do not admit synthetics to each

other698.

On the other hand, while the starting point of Moltmann's theology of religions

maintains the so-called scandal of particularity, he equally does not fail to deny the fact that

we live in a multi-religious world and that the relationship between religions can no longer be

the same from a century ago. Pluralism cannot be denied because, first, the ecclesiastical

model is no longer the same, the Constantinian Church is on the brink of extinction, for

Moltmann in Asia699, but he can be perfectly repaired, since also in Europe secularism and

post-modernity are gradually burying the Constantinian ecclesial model. Similarly, the

globalized world imposes on all inhabitants of the planet the condition of cohabitants in an
697
Per Lonning. Is Christ a Christian? On interreligious dialogue and intra-religious horizon (Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2002), p. 132.
698
Jüngen Moltmann. Teologia da Esperança. Estudos sobre os fundamentos e as consequências de uma
escatologia cristã (São Paulo: Teológica/Loyola, 2005), p. 62.
699
Jüngen Moltmann. “The Future of Theology”, World Council of Churches (2016), p. 8.
 251

increasingly limited and shared space, and there cannot be coexistence without dialogue700.

All the technological resources that shorten distances and bring people and cultures closer

together contribute to the creation of an inescapable plural environment: “communication

creates communion” 701. Bringing these two ends together, particularism and pluralism, the

type of pluralism adopted by Moltmann is designed, a particularistic pluralism, maintaining in

the religious field the tension between these two antagonistic poles: particularity and plurality.

Moltmann cannot properly be called a theologian of religions, since his theological

interests are not exactly directed towards this debate and we can only know Moltmann's

opinion on the subject in indirect and/or punctual sites. The author of Theology of Hope

dedicates, unfortunately, only few chapters from some of his works on the topic. The topic

Christianity and religions, in the chapter “the Church and the kingdom of God”, which

appears in the book The church, power of the Spirit, already mentioned; and from the chapter

“Theology in Interreligious Dialogue”, from the work Experiences of theological reflection702.

In addition to these titles, there is also an article by Moltmann, whose appearance occurred in

a collection edited by G. D'Costa: The myth of Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered 703 , an

article in which he directs his most vehement criticisms of relativism arising from the

arguments of synthetic pluralists. In short, despite being small and punctual, Moltmann's

contribution is coherent and decisive, especially when criticizing J. Hick and P. Knitter; we

appeal to it at various points in our own assessment of these authors, discussed further below.

In the article mentioned above Moltmann points out three main problems in the

Pluralism of these authors: (a) the question of truth is displaced from its centrality, and this

700
Jüngen Moltmann. La iglesia fuerza del Espíritu (Salamanca: Ediciones Sígueme, 1978), p. 186.
701
Jüngen Moltmann. “A Common Earth Religion: World Religion from an Ecological Perspective”, World
Council of Churches (2011), p. 16.
702
Jürgen Moltmann. Experiences in theology. Ways and forms of Christian Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1980).
703
Jürgen Moltmann. “Is pluralistic theology useful for the dialogue of world religions?”. D’Costa, The Myth of
Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered (Maryknoll, NY, Orbis books, 1990), pp. 149-156.
 252

cannot happen if the debate does not completely lose its relevance; (b) interreligious dialogue

cannot be conducted as if it were a methodological criterion: interreligious dialogue is the

result and not the starting point of a theology of religions; and (c) as seen in the modality of

Hick and Knitter, a pluralistic theology of religions can be as imperialistic as a Christological

or ecclesiological theology of religions.

In the article mentioned above Moltmann points out three main problems in the

Pluralism of these authors: (a) the question of truth is displaced from its centrality, and this

cannot happen if the debate does not completely lose its relevance; (b) interreligious dialogue

cannot be conducted as if it were a methodological criterion: interreligious dialogue is the

result and not the starting point of a theology of religions; and (c) as seen in the modality of

Hick and Knitter, a pluralistic theology of religions can be as imperialistic as a Christological

or ecclesiological theology of religions.

As for the question of truth, it is quite obvious that nothing is gained by excluding it in

favor of a relativism inspired by Kant's philosophy. This is neither good for Christians nor for

non-Christians. For Christians it is not useful because the dialogue that ensues will be at the

price of their own faith; for non-Christians, the secularism underlying these ideas also ends up

hitting them. Hence, Moltmann concluded, “representatives of other religions do not want to

talk to modern religious relativists. They are interested in convinced Christians and Jews [...]”
704
. Because interreligious dialogue occurs not by relativizing the debaters' discourse, but as

everyone submits their own discourse to the criticism of the other and avoiding the

assumption that they will leave the dialogue as they entered it, without having learned

anything from each other705. Furthermore, the inter-religious dialogue is not about any of the

debaters, but about a third issue: peace between human beings and between them and the

704
Jürgen Moltmann. Experiences in theology. Ways and forms of Christian Theology, p. 19.
705
Jürgen Moltamann. “Is pluralistic theology useful for the dialogue of world religions”, p. 153.
 253

planet706, the struggle so that there is no oppression of man by man and neither of nature by

man707.

According to Moltmann, the salvific role of religions stems first from the fact that all

men are capable of turning to the transcendent, as evidenced by the large number of religions

existing in the world. On the other hand, salvation in religions can even be thought of, that

Jesus died for everyone, reconciling the whole world to himself. This issue is not very clear in

Moltmann, nor does he apparently see a need to clarify it, being completely dominated by

pragmatic reasons, in view of the preservation of life and the planet (which leads us to think

that his concept of salvation is immanent): "In fact, to be accepted in the world, that is, to

become world religions, religions need to promote and guarantee the safety and well-being of

human beings, who depend on the survival of the earth and other creatures” 708 .

Interreligious dialogue should not be guided, therefore, by a thought of fatalistic

consummation, but by a “focus and valuations based on the peculiar promise made to

Christianity and oriented towards the universal future of humanity in the kingdom of God” 709,

under whose abode all religions could be sheltered710. In this context, the role of the Christian

mission completely changes its purpose. It is no longer a quantitative and colonial mission,

aimed at planting and growing churches in the mission fields where people of other religions

live, but its new role “consists in catching men, whatever their religion, with the spirit of

hope, love and responsibility towards the world” 711, serving as the caravanserais in ancient

706
There is an interesting Moltmann's eco-ecumenist conception, by which he rejects Darwin's evolutionism that
is based on conflict and competition, adopting another principle, that of cooperation and mutual recognition.
Humanity only needs to be reconciled with the world, because the natural world is already experiencing a perfect
oikumene. Jürgen Moltmann. Sun of Righteousness, Arise! God’s Future for Humanity and the Earth
(Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2010).
707
Jüngen Moltmann. Experiences in Theology, p. 20.
708
Jüngen Moltmann. Experiences in Theology, p. 21.
709
Jüngen Moltmann. La iglesia, fuerza del Espíritu, p. 185.
710
Jüngen Moltmann. The Coming of God: Christian Eschatology (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press,
1996), p. 250-255.
711
Jürgen Moltmann, La iglesia, fuerza del Espíritu, p. 188.
 254

world to the caravans of pilgrims; having abandoned the conception of absolute truth,

Christianity's new role is that of the world's religious “catalyst”:

The mere presence of Christians in environments that have other religious beliefs
causes these effects, as Christians live, think and act differently. This can be called
indirect contagion from other religions, brought about by Christian ideas, values and
principles. If it is true that Hindu religions have an ahistorical mentality, the
experience of reality as the story that Christians present to them will transform their
image of the world712.

This explains Moltmann's enthusiasm about the theological approach between

Buddhism and Christianity that Masao Abe undertook. The Japanese Buddhist demonstrates

that the idea of kenosis present in the NT (Phi. 2: 5-8) and extended to the Creator by

Moltmann713 can be approximated to that of sunyata in Zen Buddhism. which creates, when

understood as a self-limitation in the face of the necessary adoption of an immanence in

relation to the world, can be approximated to the concept of self-denial, of absolute negativity,

present in the notion of the divine nishida714. This same conception of God also appears in

Judaism, specifically in the cabbalistic tradition and is called Tzimtzum, basically means that

that the creation of the world somehow limited the Creator:

But even if this world is not pleasing to God, he can no longer destroy it, for three
reasons: because after he began to create the world under the attribute of severity
(expressed by the name Elohim in Genesis 1), he then decided to add the attribute of
mercy (expressed by the name Jhwh in Genesis 2), as Rashi states about Gen. 1:1;
because in the covenant with Noah He promised not to send another flood (Gen.
9:11); because He is a Mother God, in addition to being Father God, (Isa. 46:3;
49:15; 66:13; Oseah 11:1 – 4) 715.

This example seems to summarize Moltmann's ecclesiological project for the new times

we live in, namely, that each religion from its own traditions works to approach the others,

seeking common foundations. The contemporary spirit is no longer disjunctive like that of the

712
Jürgen Moltmann, La iglesia, fuerza del Espíritu, p. 195.
713
Jürgen Moltmann. God in Creation. A New Theology of Creation and the Spirit of God (San Francisco:
Harper and Row Publishers, 1985).
714
Hisazaku Inagaki e Nelson Jennigs. Philosophical theology and East-West dialogue (Amsterdam: Editions
Rodopi B. V., 2000), p. 39.
715
Paolo de Benedetti. Quale Dio? Una domanda dalla storia (Brescia: Morcelliana, 2004), p. 10.
 255

past, but conjunctive. He finds reasons to support it even when he studies the Trinity, using a

kind of theomorphism, which he learned from K. Barth:

The unity of the triune God is no longer seen in an aspect of divine homogeneity or
as divine identity, but as an eternal perichoresis of the Father, the Son and the Spirit
[...]. The monarchical, hierarchical and patriarchal ideas used to legitimize the
concept of God are therefore becoming obsolete. Community, fellowship, is the
nature and purpose of the triune God716.

Moltmann concludes by invoking a new Trinitarian paradigm over the future of the

Church, different from all the previous ones that were based on just one of the persons of the

Trinity: the hierarchical paradigm of the Father, implemented by the Roman Catholic Church;

the paradigm of fraternity, from the Protestant missionary century (19th century) 717; and the

paradigm of the Spirit, of the charismatic movements of the 20th century. The future will be

trinitarian, as the new paradigm is that of the trinitarian unity of Father, Son and Spirit, since

the Christian world will become increasingly ecumenical and dialogical, thus fulfilling Jesus'

plea that it be the experience of the disciples in their priestly prayer: “That they may be all

one, even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us” (Jo. 17: 21)718.

But the future of Christianity is more than the Church. It’s the seed of kingdom of God on

earth, encompassing all religions, as fellows of journey: “They will work to see the

emergence in society and politics, in economics life and culture, of correspondences and

anticipations of the kingdom of God and his righteousness which they expect in the world”719.

4.c. Synthetic Pluralist

The hermeneutical resources that synthetic pluralists use to invalidate Biblical

Exclusivism, as is to be expected, are much more dangerous to the future of Christian faith

716
Jürgen Moltmann. History of Triune God: Contributions to Trinitarian Theology (New York: Crossroad,
1992), p. xii.
717
Jürgen Moltmann. Sun of Righteousness, Arise, pp. 25-26.
718
Ibid., p. 26.
719
Ibid., p. 29.
 256

and any other religion. They treat them as they had childish world views that need to be

patiently discouraged, so that they can see clearly. The reason why synthetic pluralists act like

that are twofold: (a) metaphysical reasons, given the conclusion that religious metaphysics is

one of bad kind and the best one is that of their own; (b) the second reason is based in ethical

reasons; religious dogmatism has made too much harm to world peace. The synthetic

arguments against both presumptions are: (A) the emptying of the concept of truth; (B) the

emptying of concepts peculiar to Scripture, such as sin, revelation and salvation; (C) the

emptying of the salvific relevance of religious institutions; (D) the emptying of the saving

function of the Jesus.

(A) The emptying of the concept of truth

The question of truth is of fundamental importance so that positions regarding to the

theology of religions are also defined by it. Exclusivism attests that there is only one true

faith, the others being, therefore, falsehoods or untruths; Inclusivism is linked to the idea of

crowning, that is, all religions have truths, but only one of them is the complete and final

truth: Christianity; Synthetic Pluralism teaches that all religions have partial and imperfect

truths and that they should, therefore, seek dialogue with each other to improve themselves,

expanding their spiritual base720: interreligious dialogue “is a common pilgrimage towards the

truth, each one within their respective tradition, sharing the path with the other, in regard to

what they have come to understand in order to respond to this truth”721 .

Obviously, these three positions reflect the hermeneutic priority of each one in relation

to what kind of commitment each sustains: Exclusivism committed to the Bible; Inclusivism

committed to both Bible and pluralist social context; Pluralism, just concerned with pluralist

Galvin D’Costa. “The impossibility of a pluralist view of religions” (RS, June – 1996), pp. 223-226.
720
721
Nicholas Lossky (et.al.). Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement (Geneve/Grand Rapids: WCC
Publications/William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991), p. 285.
 257

context. But, saying this way does not suffice, because all of them are committed to some sort

of truth. So that the problem is not truth, but which truth is preferable, religious truth or social

and philosophical ones? 722 This reveals that the Enlightenment is still an important player in

these times of revenge for the sacred.

The gradual and constant erosion of the concept of 'truth' in Christian theological

discourse dates back to the nineteenth century. However, the beginning of this process goes

back to even more remote times. It began when Protestantism prepared the cradle to house the

secular baby in Christianism, when Luther, for having placed his own conscience above his

political and social obligations unleashed a revolution in Western thought, which later came

to be called the Enlightenment. Not that this radical idea of Christian freedom is wrong in

essence, but its ulterior developments shook the foundations of the Christianity as far as

Lutheran conscience became a powerful ideology in Germany, when it was transformed into

an ethical base that replaced the religious one. The supreme value of man's intellectual and

moral honesty took the place of Scripture, being transferred its religious password to the

secular academy and science, giving birth to its supposed neutrality, which when compared to

Christianism made it seem partial and compromised to conservative and retrograde forces that

tried to detain the advancement of science and was responsible for the European religious

wars.

The skepticism of Descartes, French and Catholic thinker, but always more at ease

among Dutch and Swedish Protestants; the skepticism of Spinoza who was born and nurtured

on Dutch free soil; and Kant's skepticism in Protestant Germany. All these thinkers fostered

with their ideas the principle that true knowledge about God was only possible when obtained

by exclusively rational means, the only knowledge that, due to its truth and methodological

722
See the diverse kinds of truth used today in this discussion in Carl A. Raschke. “Religious Pluralism and
Truth: From Theology to Hermeneutical Dialogue”, JAAR (vol. 50, no. 1, mar. 1982), pp. 35-48.
 258

guarantees, dispensed the religious arguments from Scripture and other religious authority.

Hence, the conclusion that modernity is the offspring of European Protestantism and a natural

development of the secular emphasis of its theology (Liberal Theology) 723 .

With the concept of provisional truth, relative truths that arise in response to divine

absolute truth, pluralists intend to escape the charge of succumbing to reasoning tertium non

datur (the excluded third), which is the basis of A. Race's conclusion, for example: “if all

religions are equally true, then all are equally false” 724. For these last-generation pluralists,

therefore, what religions intend to offer is not exclusive access to the absolute, but only a

path, an absolute – relative (if that can exist), in which the object is absolute, but the means to

achieve it are relative, so it can never be fully achieved. Using a Jasperian language, religions

are just ciphers of the absolute725. There is ample philosophical foundation for carrying out

this operation. Both in the West – as we've seen to be the case with Kant, and in the East –

especially the Hindu philosophies. However, it must be recognized that these views are at

odds with what the Scriptures say.

(B) the emptying of concepts peculiar to Scripture: sin, revelation and salvation

It was this same alleged search for 'truth' that made the so-called High Criticism apply

the methods of literary studies to the analysis of the Scriptures, destroying the trust so far

placed in them. The result was the shifting of the foundations of Theology from Scriptures to

Philosophy, which could not assume this task, since to a large extent it was nurtured from

Christian bosom. However, Kantian criticism, Hegelian historicism and German romanticism

accepted the task, only to fail and be reduced to rubble when the masters of suspicion (Marx.

Nietzsche and Freud) came to do philosophy with a hammer, demonstrating how fragile

723
S. Mcfague. Metaphorical theology, models of God in religious language (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1982), p. 13.
724
A. Race. Christians and religious pluralism, p. 78.
725
Karl Jaspers. La fe filosófica ante la revelación (Madrid: Gredos, 1968).
 259

would be the results of these bourgeois philosophies. As these philosophers claimed to be free

thinkers but were not, since they remained linked to Christian ethics, they both fell, victims of

the same fate. All systematic theologies built on this false foundation suddenly found

themselves without support, which justified the reaction against them by Karl Barth and other

dialecticians.

Currently, the continuators of the three masters of suspicion multiply tenfold, as the

singularity takes hold of contemporary society. Current critical readings make early

Enlightenment critics look like amateurs. With the aim of revealing in the Scriptures the

authoritarianism of some voices and the disturbing silence of others, critical readings are

currently proliferating: feminists, womanists, ecofeminists, post-colonialists, blacks, Latin

American theologians, post-moderns, LBGTQ readers, post-Christians, etc. All came looking

for their booty in the humanity of the Scriptures, aiming at a composition of a new

hermeneutics that dismiss the scriptural original unity, and seeks in its text elements for a

more sensitive reading to differences and diversity.

But it still wasn't rock bottom. Even the most conservative theologians – at least those

not adept to the biblical inerrancy – recognize that the writers of the Bible, in addition to

being inspired, are human and for that they often allow themselves to be influenced by the

uses and customs of their time, justifying unacceptable practices of the ethical point of view.

For example, the psalmist's angry and vengeful expression against his Babylonian captors:

“Happy is he who takes thy children, and fling them to the walls” (Psalm. 137:9). Critical

theologies could scour the pages of Scripture and multiply as their objects and presuppositions

also multiplied, but, in no way did this wanton endanger the Christian faith, due to two

hermeneutical principles that safeguarded it: (a) Scripture is the result of an evolutionary

revelation, which is perfected until it reaches its fullness in the word of Jesus Christ (Gal. 1:8;

Heb. 1: 2); (b) Biblical inerrancy is not to be understood in absolute terms, as it concerns only
 260

the salvific aspect of the text and not incompatible historical details or lower manifestations of

humanity.

However, in this new theological context that marks the birth of the theology of

religions, this safeguard can no longer be counted on. In this case, it is not some elements of

Scripture that are called into question, but it is its entirety. In this environment, the Bible is no

longer a sacred, revelation of God and a definitive text; summing up, a text that gives access

to the absolute. In present days Scripture becomes, on a lower rung, just a “spiritual” writing,

contingent, the perspective view of a time. Revelation loses the harsh concept of the

manifestation of propositional truths and in its place a fluid and secularized idea is attached to

them: “revelation occurs when humans who are open to the divine have a vivid awareness of

God” 726. That is, anyone can receive a divine revelation, but it loses all relevance; according

to that Christian faith approaches the oriental spirituality.

Indeed, we speak now of “Spiritual” and “spirituality” as the mere indication of a

deeper human experience, permeated by a symbolic polysemy, from whose richness can one

come to a human improvement. The idea of salvation, which revelation is intended for, in the

classical sense, is reinterpreted and emptied of its propositional and factual nature:

It is a meaning of salvation that avoids the extrinsic character of many Christian

soteriologies. Salvation here is not reality one that can simply affect outwardly.
Rather, it is something that touches on the archetypal search for people's innermost
being, which shakes, invades, and completely renews subjectivity. Such is the power
of symbol and myth. Without this there is no rescue727.

The biblical text, therefore, is at best a repository of symbols and experiences that

pedagogically leads its readers to an inner transformation, to become better and more

complete human beings. The new concept of salvation that arises from there can be

summarized as "the totality and fullness of a process of liberation of the human being, which

726
John Hick apud Todd Miles. God of many understandings? (Nashville: B & H publishing group, 2010), p. 33.
727
Paul Knitter. “Jesus – Buddha – Krishna: still present”, JES, (12, 1975), p. 657.
 261

involves a series of levels"728, thus dispelling the concept of a supernatural salvation coming

to the man from outside of history from the transcendent, because now “the world and history

are constituted as the basis of all divine salvific reality” 729, and nothing else. That is well

summarized in the motto coined by E. Schillebeeckx: “outside the world there is no

salvation”, which points to an expansion of revelation previously reduced to religious

experience. Now this experience is not even sufficiently broad and inclusive: “one cannot

experience God only in prayer and in the liturgy, for the 'immediate' experience of God

presupposes the mediation of the human world” 730.

Therefore, the Theology of Religions, especially the pluralistic one, of all critical

theologies, is the most potentially dangerous for the future of Christianity, since it deprives its

message of relevance and consequently also its theological uniqueness. His sacred book is a

mere source of spirituality, the same quality shared by other religions, and for that it has no

epistemological or theological privilege.

This emptying of the specific content of Christianity appears as a structural change, a

new ecumenical paradigm 731 , which is born and grows in the shadow of interreligious

dialogue732, which in itself is not negative, but depends on the way this dialogue can take

place. For example, it can be that, in the eagerness to erase a sense of guilt for a past of

728
F. Teixeira. “A teologia do pluralismo religioso em Claude Geffré” (Númen, v.1, no. 1), p. 53.
729
Ibid.
730
Rosino Gibellini. A teologia do século XX, p. 339.
731
H. Küng. Christianity. The religious situation of our time (London: SCM Press, 1995).
732
After the formation of the World Council of Churches (1948), an inter-denominational body created to foster
dialogue among Christians, and the Second Vatican Council, convened by Pope John XXIII to make official
what many Catholic theologians were already doing, Ecumenism overflowed from the Christian environment
towards all forms of religiosity on Earth, to embrace them as sisters. In the conciliar declaration Nostra aetate of
October 28, 1965, for the first time in its history, the Catholic Church solemnly acknowledged that non-Christian
religions produce rays of truth that enlighten all men and urge their faithful to dialogue and collaborate with
them, “for recognition, preservation, and to advance the spiritual, moral and sociocultural values they carry”.
And so that this would not remain a dead letter, two decades later, Pope John Paul II invited the heads of the
main religions of the world to a meeting in Assisi, Italy. The chosen place has a symbolic meaning. As the
birthplace of St. Francis of Assisi, it means that the Catholic Church abandons its spiritual arrogance and adopts
a humbler attitude towards other religions.
 262

symbolic violence and complicity with the social injustice of the world733, and in an attempt

to conquer the graces of a pluricultural world in the present, Christianity practices pure and

simple discarding or the relativization of its most fundamental theological concepts, such as

revelation, sin, inspiration and salvation, turning them into pious metaphors. But to what

extent does it remain Christian message to claim, for example, that Jesus Christ was

symbolically incarnated? Or, that God symbolically intervened in Israel's history, when under

the yoke of bondage in Egypt? Evidently, to deny the facticity of these events is to enter a

faith that is no longer Christian734.

In the opposite side of the arena, however, that's not the opinion. Panikkar, for example,

in his analysis, prefers to see not an emptying in the relevance of Christian faith, but a

paradigmatic change in the relationship of Christianity with the rest of the religious world735,

whereby, in contemporary times, the Christian faith has abandoned two previous paradigms:

the doctrinal paradigm (“Christianism”) that prevailed in the pre-Constantinian Church; and

the political paradigm of the Constantinian Church (“Christianity”). The third and current

733
David Bosch. Missão transformadora. Mudança de paradigma na teologia da missão (São Leopoldo:
Sinodal, 2002), p. 20.
734
“Many students of the history of religions highlight three main currents in which such developments take
place. One is the Semitic current, which begins with the Hebrew belief in a tribal God who delivers freedom
from oppression, and develops a prophetic tradition of judging the injustice of liberation towards a truly just and
compassionate society. In this current, the idea of God as a moral and transforming authority in history becomes
the dominant image of the Hebrew Bible. The ideal of humanity is seen as establishing a society of justice and
mercy, where individuals can complement their distinctive personalities by relating to one another. The Indian
current develops a different path, from sacrificial rituals to gods and nature spirits and from there to a supreme
reality of wisdom and bliss that diversifies into a finite universe, a unity that can only be imagined by the mind if
the senses are withdrawn. In this current the idea of Brahman as the innermost reality of things, to be known
through the renunciation of action and desire, becomes the dominant image of the Upanishads. The universe is
under the influence of the law of karma, and the dominant aim of religion is to obtain liberation from this cosmic
law, not returning to be reborn in this world. The Eastern current, in which Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism
interact, developed from forms of animism to the idea of a cosmic order, a path of balance and harmony,
following which stability and calm of mind are achieved, and peace and correct social order. In this current there
is little emphasis on absolute being or God. Emphasis is placed on living amidst an endless stream of beings, not
settling on any of them, but with care and compassion for all suffering beings. The goal is to abandon any idea of
ego, of object-subject duality, and experience the vibrant flow of being, beyond passion and attachment.” Keith
Ward. God, faith and the new millennium. Christian belief in an age of science (Oxford: One World
Publications, 2002), pp. 153 e 154.
735
Sobre esta questão da mudança paradigmática vide Márcio Fabri dos Anjos (org.). Teologia e novos
paradigmas (São Paulo: Soter/Loyola, 1996).
 263

paradigm is that he calls “Christiania” 736

, which focuses on the capacity of Christian

spirituality to attract and unite all other spiritualities. We will come back to this question later

in the specific discussion on Panikkar’s ideas.

A third opinion on this is P. Phan’s prognosis. For Phan religious Pluralism will

produce “a re-interpretation” of Christianism’s foundations, entailing changes in its three

main groups of doctrines: God, Christ and Church737. I am inclined to Phan’s assessment. The

future is a synthetic Pluralism, but not that of J. Hick, that is, based in Kantian philosophy.

This kind of synthesis is a monologue; in this context, the claim of religions to the absolute

must be understood more as an intention than as an achievement. The Pluralism that will be

prevalent is a religious synthesis. Another kind of absolute will be adopted, other kind of

salvation, revelation, church, other vision of God and Christ, half Christian, half Buddhist-

Hinduist. Something similar to what happened in the 2nd Century of this era, with

Gnosticism’s rise. The same pluralism prevailed in those times, with some differences.

secularism was present in milder forms as there was no political requirement that state and

religion be separate domains; on the contrary, the state religion regulated the others. Another

difference occurs in the institutional field. At that time there was a proliferation of religious,

civil and professional institutions, whereas today institutions are decaying, including the

Church.

(C) The emptying of religious institutions

The emptying of the hard theological concepts mentioned (salvation, sin, revelation) has

as a corollary the emptying of the institutions that claim to be their mediators. Thus, the

illuminist repudiation of religion, motivated by the religious wars that swept Europe in the

736
Raymond Panikkar. “Cristiania, dimensione nascosta del Cristianesimo”, Micromega (2, 2001), p. 274.
737
Peter C. Phan. “Doing Theology in the Context of Cultural and Religious Pluralism: An Asian Perspective”,
LS (27, 2002), p. 42.
 264

17th century, is joined in contemporary times by another historical factors: globalization,

pluricultural context, secularism, etc. The postmodern environment no longer proposes the

replacement of religion by quasi-religious political ideologies (Communism, Nazism,

Anarchism, etc.), as it was in the time of modernity. On the contrary, it considers religion as

something positive and defends it, even though abhorring it in the institutional sense. In short,

the experience of the sacred that unites all human beings must be preserved and fomented;

yet, the institutions that house it are disposable. Indeed, the pluralist context ended religion's

monopoly on symbolic goods738. Since the middle of the last century, religious institutions

have been suffering an erosion that in recent times, precisely for the reason mentioned by

Berger, has reached its climax. In this context the doctrinal and dogmatic character of

religions and denominations comes to be seen as a manifestation of an oppressive system of

religious power, which uses religious symbols as a bargaining tool, to fill a hagiocracy that

manipulates them; or else, as a mere reflection of cultural and ethnocentric particularities. The

concept of spirituality is the antidote to all these distortions:

While religion involves a system of beliefs and practices related to an institutional

body, spirituality concerns “qualities of the human spirit”, including compassion,
care, delicacy, courtesy, tolerance and hospitality. These are qualities that can be
present in religion, but also elsewhere. Religion is not essential for people to develop
such qualities. These can shine, even to a high degree, outside of religious
experiences739.

By defining spirituality in this wide way, Teixeira calls for interreligious dialogue, in

the best Rahnerian and Tillichian tradition, also the Western secularized world, that is, those

who do not believe in Christian faith (but don't campaign against), expanding as much as

possible the circle of subjects involved in this conversation about the sacred 740 , in which

Christians are invited to participate, not to make speeches, as in the past, but to learn. if

738
Peter Berger. O dossel sagrado. Elementos para uma teoria sociológica da religião (São Paulo: Paulinas,
1985), p. 149.
739
Faustino Teixeira. Teologia e pluralismo religioso (São Bernardo do Campo: Nhanduti Editora), p. 176.
740
Idem, ibid.
 265

someone disagrees with Tillich for theological reasons, he will at least do so for sociological

motives. Religion has definitely left the enclosure of religious institutions and can be found

very comfortable in the market too, taught as spirituality by all kinds of people of all kinds of

professions and occupations. This context is what has been called “the postmodern return of

religion after religion”, which means that it is allowed “to religion to reappear in the [rational]

process, albeit in a changed form, differing from prior understandings of its societal role”741,

there is a shift in the main bearers of religious discourses from religious institutions to secular

ones.

Among so numbered crowd of rivals that have been getting stronger as time goes on, as

opponents: atheists, unchurched, human rights supporters, demanding for the liberation of

abortion, drugs, gay marriage, etc.; as rival spiritual proponents, marketers, spiritual coachs,

psychologists, pop stars, etc. Christian institutions have to face in addition the internal

competition between the different denominations that make up the Christian world, and, as

well, the non-Christian religions that begins to compound the natural landscapes of the

Western cities. This adverse social context shoves Christian churches to the survival strategy

of dialogue among all human being of good will, including the non-Christians. Some social

values for being supported need the collaborative actions of all religion’s adherents for the

sake of peace and liberty742. Something like ‘to hand over the rings to save the fingers”. The

Western great religious institutions, such as Methodists, Anglicans, Lutherans, Reformed,

etc., all present themselves today very willing to make doctrinal concessions to keep together

the various regional and national variations of their confession, as evidenced by the very name

used to designate the meeting of these regional churches: communion, used by Anglicans,

Methodists and Reformed to assign its integration, also called “globe-Christianity”, a new

741
Thomas G. Guarino. “The Return of Religion in Europe? The Postmodern Christianity of Gianni Vattimo”,
Logos (vol. 14, no. 2, Spring, 2011), p. 16.
742
Anna Köers; Wolfram Weisse; Jean-Paul Willaime (eds.). Religious Diversity and Interreligious Dialogue
(Switzerland: Springer, 2020), introduction, p. 2
 266

form of Catholic faith, since it deals with a universal Christ 743. But is that Christ the same

preached by Christian faith since the antiquity to the current days?

(D) The emptying of salvific role of the historical Jesus

In general, all synthetic pluralists deflate the salvific importance of the Jesus of history,

and only differ on the degree of that. In fact, virtually all pluralistic approaches have some

pluralistic Christology that generally values the Logos doctrine or simply dismisses the

incarnation. It is not surprising that New Testament Christology is today the citadel of

orthodoxy, against it the strongest pluralist arguments are directed and the most explicit

Christological declarations of the exceptionality and exclusivity of the atonement of Jesus

Christ resist it. Elsewhere we relate this tendency to dehistorized Jesus with a kind of neo-

Gnosticism. Obviously, the reasons for the emergence of this new heresy are not the same of

the ancient homonymous. In the 2nd Century, what led to the devaluation of the historical

Jesus was the Neoplatonic valorization of knowledge as a means of salvation and the

discarding of everything connected with the sub-lunar world, for Plato the abode of all deceit

and lies. In current times, the problem of Jesus in history becomes the very singularity of this

event, which is not well regarded by today's pluralist and postmodern ideology, which

considers every great story an attempt to rid human history of its perspective condition.

Despite its complexity and so many disputes, synthetic pluralist Christologies can be

classified into three groups: (a) J. Hick's mythological or metaphorical Christology, (b) P.

Knitter's, C. Geffré's and theologians' logocentric Christologies. Asians R. Panikkar, M.

Amaladoss (c) the basilocentric Christologies (centered on the kingdom of God) of H. Küng

and S. Samartha. As is apparent from the names and the order in which they appear, we have

made a separation of Stanley Samartha from the group of Asian theologians within which he

Carl Raschke. GloboChrist. The Great Commission Takes a Postmodern Turn (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker,
743

2008), p. 25.
 267

is generally classified. We justify ourselves. Samartha's Christology rejects the concept of the

Johannine Logos and is constituted exclusively on the basis of the Synoptics, which,

methodologically, makes him much closer to Küng than to other Asian theologians.

Having made this brief introduction to synthetic pluralism, we now present its main

proponents. Many of the points presented here are taken up in the text below, with the

necessary details.

4.c.1. John Hick

John H. Hick is one of the most controversial and distinguished pluralists. English by

birth, an ecclesiastical connected to the Presbyterian Church, Hick is not exactly a theologian,

but rather a philosopher of religion744. Having passed through at least half a dozen major

universities in the old and new English-speaking world, he has contributed in the areas of

theodicy, epistemology, philosophy of religion and interreligious dialogue. He is a prolific

writer who has put his signature on numerous and important works on the subject under

discussion, which has placed him in pluralism as a leading figure in recent decades. of the

world's foremost pluralists, The Myth of Christian Peculiarity.

J. Hick's path of reflection begins with the Christological problem. For him, the first

major obstacle to an effective interreligious dialogue is the exclusivity and uniqueness of the

Christic mediation between God and men. Like other pluralists, he finds it necessary to

abandon the doctrine of the central role of Jesus in the salvation of humanity:

if Jesus was literally God incarnate, and if it is by his death alone that men can be
saved, and by their response to him alone that they can appropriate that salvation,
then the only doorway to eternal life is Christian faith. It would follow from this that
the large majority of the human race so far have not been saved. But is it credible
that the loving God and Father of all men has decreed that only those born within
one particular thread of human history shall be saved? Is not such an idea

Cf. C. Gillis. “Radical Christologies? An analysis of the Christologies of John Hick and Paul Knitter”. In T.
744

Merrigan e J. Haers (edt.). The myriad Christ (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2000.
 268

excessively parochial, presenting God in effect as the tribal deity of the

predominantly Christian West?745

It was with a work written in 1973 that Hick began his journey towards a broad

pluralism746. In it, he intends to remove the salvific role of Jesus and hand it over to God. The

operation is called by him the "Copernican revolution" in theology, that is, the necessary

renunciation of the dogma that Christianity, because it was founded by Jesus, is the religious

center of the world, and that it holds a monopoly on truth and of eternal life. And even more

than this, it should lead us to abandon even the 'inclusive' perspective, also discarding any

need for a participation in the saving ministry of Jesus for the validation of non-Christian

religions. Religions save by themselves and not because of the mystical action of Jesus in

them, as taught, for example, by the documents of Vatican II.

The “Copernican turn” to which Hick refers was borrowed from the history of science.

Through this expression Hick compares his mission in theology to transfer the central axis

from Jesus to God, just like was with Copernicus' achievement in demonstrating that the

center of the solar system was not the earth but the sun. The expression has been used as a

metaphor ever since and has been applied in the history of philosophy several times,

whenever a paradigm shift occurred. It was applied to the Kantian turn of taking interest from

the philosophy of the object and bringing it to the subject; was applied to the linguistic turn

with Wittgenstein. And now Hick pretends to be ushering in a new era in theology: “We have

to understand,” he says, “that the religious universe is centered on God, not Christianity or

another religion. He is the Sun, the source from which light and life come, He is what all

religions reflect, each in its own way” 747.

745
J. Hick. “Jesus and the World Religions”. In John Hick. God has many Names. Britain’s New Religious
Pluralism (London: McMillan, 1980), pp. 73-74.
746
J. Hick. God and the Universe of Religions (Oxford: One World, 1993).
747
John Hick. God has many names, (Philadelphia, PN: The Westminster Press, 1982), pp. 70-71.
 269

In this step, one must abandon belief in the uniqueness of Christ and the entire New

Testament Christological doctrine that supports it748. The Christological hymns (Eph 1:3-13

and Col 1:15-20) are not to be taken literally. Neither are the categorical statements about

Jesus' unique divine-human mediation in relation to humanity (1 Tim 2:5-6; Acts 4:12; John

3.17; Acts 5:31, 10:44-48, 17:24- 31). Everything is just poems and metaphors, transformed

into literal language by the Christians who follow the Greek dogmatic philosophy (Plato and

Aristotle) and by the councils, since Jesus himself would never have taught these things749.

Furthermore, in this new religious context it is unacceptable for Christianity to claim to be a

religion founded by God Himself in the flesh (Acts 13:32-33; Rom 1:1-4; Heb 1:1-5; John

5:18, 8:18 -19, 10:30, 20:30). The incarnation is also a metaphor, a pious myth. The language

of the Gospels when they speak of Jesus as "Son of God" is equally metaphorical. For Hick

Jesus was just an extraordinary prophet, who called the Jewish people to repentance and

proclaimed the kingdom of God 750 . In short, he follows in the footsteps of the dean of

pluralism, Allan Race, making the figure of Jesus irrelevant: “The divinity of Jesus stems

more from his having completely opened access to God, to the Father's love and grace, than [

...] of a personal quality” 751

. Obviously, the resurrection follows the Enlightenment

assessment, being only the result of the daydreams of disciples frustrated by its death.

In short, with Hick the process of deconstructing the fundamental doctrines of

Christianity comes to an end reaching zero balance. The biblical doctrine of the vicarious

death of Jesus, as well as the justification by faith that is based on it, are denied because they

are essentially contradictory: "a forgiveness that should be effected by the full payment of a

748
John Hick. The Metaphor of God Incarnate (Louisville, KT: Westminster / John Knox Press, 1994).
749
John Hick. Disputed Questions in Theology and Philosophy of Religions (New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press, 1993), p. 98.
750
John Hick. The Metaphor of God Incarnate, p. 25.
751
A. Race. Christians and Religious Pluralism, p. 128.
 270

moral debt, in fact is not forgiveness" (emphasis added) 752. But it was not necessary to arrive

at Hick's express statement about the superfluity of gospel proclamation to conclude that his

ideas would take him so far753. It seems that Hick is dominated by an attitude that is extremely

unfriendly to his original religion, perhaps due to the confessional difficulties experienced by

him at this time.

Later, in a work written in 1990, Hick responds to objections that his pluralism is not

sufficiently open, because he is still bound by the theistic concept of a personal God,

incomprehensible to Theravada Buddhism and animist shamanic religions, for instance754. To

solve the problem, he develops the concept of the Real, the ultimate reality synonymous with

the sacred, conception largely inspired by the Kantian noumenon, that is, something that will

never be fully accessible to human knowledge, as to which religions can only rely on myths,

metaphors and parables. The great religions of the world have different ways of embodying

this reality, hence the great religious diversity that exists, as each one will give a different

response to the same manifestation of the sacred call. In short, “the real reveals itself to

humanity and humanity responds to it through a historically and culturally conditioned

way”755, that never can be the noumenon itself.

This approach is not exactly new. Another neo-Kantian scholar of religions, Ernst

Troeltsch, the father of historical relativism, had already proposed something similar in the

19th Century, saying basically the same thing: the absolute manifests itself in the world,

however, all these manifestations are historical, that is, they are conditioned to the

sociocultural structures in which they appear, and therefore cannot be considered absolute and

752
John Hick. Disputed Questions in Theology and Philosophy of Religions, p. 98.
753
John Hick. “A Philosophy of Religious Pluralism”. In R. J. Plantinga, (ed.), Christianity and the Plurality,
(Malden, MS: Blackwell, 1999), p. 339.
754
John Hick. An Interpretation of Religion. Human Responses to the Transcendental (London: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2004).
755
Ibid., p. 240.
 271

universal756. So, the conclusion of Troeltsch and Hick is that all religions are true, but not

absolutely true; only their intention is true, that is, in what they try to translate this absolute

into conditioned terms. Their achievements, however, will always fall short of what they set

out to do; they are always local responses, affected by local conditions, hence the fact that

even religions called theists do not say exactly the same.

The varying phenomenal responses within the different religious traditions, both
theistic and non-theistic, are to be viewed as authentic but different responses to the
noumenal Real. Hence, according to Hick, we cannot say that the “Real an sich (in
itself) has the characteristics displayed by its manifestations, such as (in the case of
heavenly Father), love and justice, or (in the case of Brahman) consciousness and
bliss” (247). So just what does this talk about a heavenly Father amount to? Once
again, the notion of myth is utilized to deal with the problem, but now is Applied not
only to the incarnation, but to the very idea of God; and is further extended to the
ultimate realities designated by the various religions, such as the Hindu Brahman, or
Allah in Islam, Yahweh in Judaism, and so on (343-61)757.

There are at least three major problems with J. Hick's proposal. The first is the

Christological treatment of the NT. His Christology is extremely superficial and selective. He

adopts a Christology from below and rejects that from above entirely. Following Bultmann he

concludes that the Christology from below has its origins in Jesus, and that from above, it was

promoted by the Church and its councils. According to him, Jesus would have preferred the

apocalyptic “Son of man” to the other Christological titles: Son of God. Messiah and Lord758.

Jesus can even be called a Messiah, as long as this does not imply recognizing him as divine

or superhuman, when this is precisely the meaning of the word in the pages of the New

Testament. Hick ignores Daniel and all of the apocalyptic intertestamental literature, which

makes even the title “Son of man” far from having the prosaism intended by him. In short, its

only foundation is the old Enlightenment prejudices, with meagre results in Christology.

756
Ernst Troeltsch. Christian Thought: Its History and Application (London: University of London Press, 1923),
p. 22.
757
Galvin D’Costa. The Meeting of Religions and the Trinity, p. 26.
758
John Hick. Disputed Questions in Theology and Philosophy of Religions, p. 40, 46.
 272

The problem is that Hick relies too heavily on deductive reasoning, which leads him to

neglect sources because of his a priori assumptions. When examining the assertive content, it

restricts itself to a critique of the Christological doctrines of the Council documents and of

Greco-Latin theology759. Hick seems to forget that the basis of these documents, and that all

this later Christology was developed and not created, that is, it would have arisen in response

to the systematic Greek spirit, as it replaced the original Semitic environment, but what these

theologians have always done was to take the New Testament sources as a starting point. This

disregard for sources makes Hick's readers tend to doubt that he ever was a Christian

theologian.

The second problem is the functional approach to the problem of interreligious

dialogue, to which all reasons, contrary or not, are subsumed. Would it be legitimate to simply

discard several passages of Scripture on the grounds that they are pious myths, just so as not

to impede interreligious dialogue on equal terms? This type of approach, however, is not

positive even from a pragmatic point of view, as it ends up producing an effect contrary to the

intended one, as it proposes the permanence of a humanistically acceptable religious residue,

without seriously considering what religions say about themselves. He promotes the reduction

of religions to a specific format – in this case Kant's critical philosophy, which distorts them,

and which in the end becomes as violent from a symbolic point of view as the exclusivism he

decries.

The third problem already anticipated is Hick's extreme dependence on Kantian

philosophy. The 'Real - thing in itself' is always beyond all concepts that can be created to

represent it. Therefore, since only the 'Real - thing as we can know it' is within the reach of

human knowledge, all pretense to the absolute of religions must disappear. In its place will

remain only attempts to reach this absolute, to which all religions refer. Differences between

759
John Hick. “O caráter não absoluto do Cristianismo” (Numen, Out – Dez, 1998), pp. 37 a 42.
 273

religions, therefore, are superfluous and, being the cause of disharmony, must be abandoned

in favor of a praxis of love and compassion. As for the question of truth, as a consequence of

this radical cleavage between the Absolute and the human world, “the concept of

mythological truth predominates, which is not adequate to reality, but simply awakens in the

subject an adequate disposition towards the statement” 760.

However, the same criticism directed at Kant when he ended his first criticism reappears

in Mário de F. Miranda's provocations when the subject is religion: “If ultimate reality is

completely ineffable, how can we know it exists? And how can religious traditions say

anything about it? [touching the heart of Hick's pluralist thesis]. How can I claim that all

religious experiences are equally authentic?”761 In other words, how can I know if there is the

unconditioned if I don't have access to it? The justification that the unconditioned results from

an abstraction of the object in relation to the conditioning elements of reality is not valid

reasoning in the context of Einstein's new theories of relativistic physics: space and time are

not absolute as Kant thought, but relative. In this new scientific context, the Kantian

unconditioned is today nothing more than an ill-founded hypothesis. When we apply these

criticisms to religion, we found more objections. What could support Hick, phenomenology,

proves to be insufficient to demonstrate the genesis of religion in a transcendental feeling,

which would make what they say only variations on it: the unconditioned. We believe that we

have already demonstrated in the previous pages that, as far as religion is concerned, there is

no phenomenological zero square, because all existing religious symbolism is a product of

what the sacred texts say about. And at most it can be said that there is a dialectic relation

between the conditioning sociocultural aspects and these symbols. In short, the sacred text

itself is a conditioning element of fundamental religious experience.

760
H. Hick apud W. H. Capps. Religious studies. The making of a discipline (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995),
p. 272.
761
M. F. Miranda. O Cristianismo em face das religiões (São Paulo: Loyola, 1998), p. 21.
 274

There is no essence behind the actual religions, except the human necessity of God, that

is, people do not enter in a relationship with the sacred for the sake of its knowledge: ‘The

Real, oh my Goodness, I must reach its knowledge’; just on the contrary, our relationship with

God is caused by which we already know about Him.

Thus, Hick is left with no choice but to admit that he has transferred his religious

confidence from Scripture to an unfounded and worn-out hypothesis of Kant, with no other

guarantee than the desirability of a pan-ecumenical generality, which is very little in

epistemological terms. The phenomenology of Hick and others is just a substitute for the

Psychology of Freud and Feuerbach: religion as a projection of the human desire for a great

other who has a face like our own762. All these ideas are plausible only in our Christian or

post-Christian society. We cannot forget that Kant's concepts did not come out of nowhere, he

was certainly influenced by Luther's ideas about the Deus absconditus, which are not

unrelated to the Hindu Advaita philosophy, which in turn was also influenced by Hindu

religion. In short, it is really very difficult to reach a bedrock of religion without taking

religious beliefs into account. Our conclusion could not be simpler: religion is not reducible to

any of its individual qualities. Once again, we come across the veracity of the Wittgensteinian

saying about the irreducibility of language, here also applicable to religion: if we are willing

to go in search of the essence of religion, this will be like peeling the artichoke in search of its

core, we will end with a stalk in the hand763.

In Kantian philosophy the arguments for God's existence appear in the first two

criticisms, and in both they are much weaker than the rest of his argument. In the Critique of

Pure Reason, God “is just the relationship between a being in itself totally unknown to me

and the maximum systematic unity of the universe, [...] scheme of the regulating principle of

762
Ludwig Feuerbach. A essência do Cristianismo (Campinas, SP: Papirus. 1988).
763
Ludwig Wittgenstein. Philosophical Investigations, parag. 164.
 275

the greatest possible empirical use of my reason” 764

, that is, an idea that generates a

presupposition: this illation (of God existence) is natural to human reason. In the Critique of

Practical Reason its existence is probable and even necessary from a practical point of view;

otherwise, moral action would be nonsense. Without these two elements: faith and happiness,

every duty, however self-imposed, dehumanizes the human being, making him, instead of

autonomous, an automaton765. In short, in the first criticism God can be thought of, but he

cannot be known; in the second, God is only “a postulate of reason”, that is, a hypothesis

without which the moral existence of men would lack foundation. In both works, God is just

an essential element to complete a system, a working hypothesis and not a foundational

certainty.

So, the result of all this reasoning supported by Hick is not a more effective

interreligious dialogue, but the destruction of religion, through the practice of a kind of

agnosticism:

Hicks’ pluralism masks the advocation of liberal modernity’s god. In this case a
form of ethical agnosticism. If ethical agnostics were to suggest that the conflict
between religions would be best dealt with by everyone becoming an ethical
agnostic, not only would this fail to deal with plurality, in so much as it fails to take
the plurality seriously, it would also fail to take religious cultures seriously by
dissolving them into instrumental mythical configurations best understood within
modernity master code766.

Hick's latest results are therefore the worst possible. They do not meet the empirical

demand of interreligious dialogue, as they are in no way sensitive to the current multi-

religious reality, nor do they satisfy the textual demand, because their approach to the Bible

was limited to the repetition of theological catchphrases, such as, "it is necessary to give up

764
Crítica da razão pura - do propósito último da dialética natural da razão pura (São Paulo: Nova Fronteira,
1999).
765
I. Kant. Os Progressos da Metafísica (Lisboa: Edições 70, 2000); Cf. também Kant. Crítica da razão prática
(São Paulo: Vitório Civita, 1982) - Dialética da razão prática na determinação do sumo bem, livro V.
766
Galvin D’Costa. The Meeting of Religions and the Trinity (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2000), p. 26.
 276

Jesus as Tribal Deity of Christianity”, without presenting a hermeneutical principle that

substantiates and justifies it.

4.c.2. Paul Knitter

Another important name in pluralism is that of Paul Knitter, a Catholic theologian and

professor at Xavier University and Union Theological Seminary. He began his career as a

student of Karl Rahner and later decided to go a step beyond the master by defending a

modality of pluralism. Knitter's theology of religions has undergone great changes over the

years, having begun in strict Catholic exclusivism, it was later persuaded by its teacher,

Rahner, to become an inclusivist. Then, continuing his researches, he ended up adopting a

soteriocentric pluralism, which is currently based on the concept of the kingdom of God; and

that, by mixing principles of liberation theology and Ecotheology, he ended up called

“pluralist liberation ecotheologist” 767.

His arguments for pluralism evolved as he wrote his texts. In the first ones, he attacks

inclusivism founded on the idea of the crowning of religions in the life and death of Jesus.

Like Hick, he decided to cross the Rubicon of Pluralism, that is, openly defend a break with

Rahnerian Christocentrism, proposing in its place Soteriocentrism, understood as a step

beyond even the pluralist Theocentrism itself, since amidst interreligious dialogue there are

those who do not share theistic beliefs, Theravada Buddhism, for example and for that is not

fair to include them in a theocentric model.

Like J. Hick, P. Knitter's main theoretical concern is interreligious dialogue and for that

all Christian doctrines must submit to it, including the uniqueness and exclusivity of Jesus, his

message and his salvific role, even if is strongly postulated in the Scriptures768. Indeed, he

767
Ibid., p. 30.
768
Traditional Christian statements about Jesus as final, complete and insurmountable is, to say the least, a threat
to dialogue, and is contrary to the moral imperative, which requires cooperation between religions. Anything that
 277

discarded all these biblical declarations. However, unlike Hick, this prioritization of dialogue

over Scripture and its exclusivist Christological statements is not based on completely

empirical or philosophical bases, but also in textual arguments. Incoherently, all texts that

endanger pluralist hermeneutics are carefully avoided:

To avoid political, cultural and religious imperialism in the so-called mission lands,
Knitter indicates what the theology's function should be: just like the theologians
refer to early notions of Yahweh as a “tribal deity” — later “purified” by the Jewish
prophets - the task of theology today is to move, through Christological revision,
from a "tribal Christology" to a universal Christology that allows Christians to see
the work of Christ everywhere without assuming that they have a monopoly on a
supposed unique way revealed Mystery769.

In the context of this critical review of Christology, Jesus “is not the total, definitive

and insuperable truth of God, but brings a universal, decisive and indispensable message” 770.

Knitter makes a long defense in favor of these new concepts, composed to found a new

confession of faith regarding to Jesus’ salvific role. As for the first statement he argues that

Jesus is fully God, but God is not fully Jesus771. In other words, the historical Jesus does not

exhaust divinity nor could do it. God is too great and good to restrict himself to a single

human community, excluding so many others from his saving action.

Therefore, Christians cannot simply announce that that Jesus is the fullness of the
word or of Divinity and leave it at that. Such claims must be qualified to recognize
affirm both the universality and the incomprehensibility of the Divine. Such an
affirmation-with-qualification is expressed, I think, in the often-used distinction:
Christians can and must proclaim that Jesus is Totus Deus – totally divine, but they
cannot claim that Jesus is Totum Dei – the totality of Divine772.

The scriptural basis of this statement is the Logos theology that Knitter shares with

other pluralistic theologians, none of them very faithful to the sources. In effect, what John

1:1 says is that Jesus pre-exists his fleshly manifestation and that he is God with the Father

makes problematic dialogue is itself a problem and must be put aside. P. Knitter citado por G. D’Costa. The
Meeting of Religion and the Trinity, p. 37.
769
Albert Moliner. “A cristologia relacional” (Ciberteologia, ano V, no. 24), p. 28.
770
P. Knitter. Jesus and the other Names. Christian Mission and Global Responsibility (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis
Books, 1996), p. 79.
771
Ibid., p. 73s.
772
P. Knitter. Jesus and the other Names., p. 72.
 278

from the beginning. Against this it can be argued that the presence of a theology of the word,

responsible for the connection of the Johannine Logos with the wisdom (hokmah) of the book

of Proverbs, or with the word (memra) as in the Targumim, is quite speculative, with no

textual elements to prove a connection of Johannine tradition with a rabbinical one,

supposedly originator of these ideas 773 . The text is also silent on the extrapolation of the

Logos in relation to the historical Jesus, with manifestation in other historical and religious

figures, and whoever affirms it makes an inference without a textual basis, whether from John

or anywhere else in the Scriptures. In sum, what the Fourth Gospel affirms is that the word

became flesh and dwelt among us and not that the spirit of the Logos was incarnated, in the

spiritualistic sense of the word, in the baby Jesus. This understanding of the incarnation hurts

good hermeneutics by improperly transposing the sacred history of the banks of the Jordan to

the banks of the Ganges, giving rise to a Neodocetism that, mutatis mutandis, has other

epistemological concerns, but no less heretical.

Another terminological change suggested by Knitter is the substitution of “definitive”

for “decisive”. For him “definitive” is an idolatrous statement774, since the human will never

be able to contain the divine, which is supposed to happen if Jesus were the definitive

revelation of God. This objection is common to the vast majority of pluralists and is based on

the rejection of the traditional incarnational concept defended by the councils, by which Jesus

Christ is understood as God and man simultaneously and in equal measure. The argument is

due to a secular reading of the Scriptures and to an Enlightenment denial of what does not

exist in our daily lives, observable and measurable by science. In short, Jesus may have been

an exceptional man, but he still remained a human being and could not, therefore, be the

definitive revelation of God.

773
K. Armstrong, Uma história de Deus, p. 125.
774
P. Knitter. Jesus and the other Names, p. 74.
 279

Therefore, taking into account the sources, the definitive revelation of Jesus is not

idolatrous for three reasons: (a) This revelation was not given by a mere human being – Heb

1:1-2: “God of old had spoken many times, and in many ways, to the fathers, through the

prophets, in these last days he spoke to us through the Son, whom he made heir of all things,

and through whom he also made the world”; (b) all divine revelation is given in the context of

the economy of salvation, so it is intended only to indicate the path of salvation to human

beings, not having the pretense of exhausting the infinite richness of the divine essence; (c)

the Christ to whom the Church directs its worship is not found in this world, but is the one to

whom the judgment of all things was delivered, as well as the execution of the Judgment

(Psalms 89 and 110; Dan. 7), which is presented in Revelation as the revealer (Rev. 5).

And finally, regarding Knitter's suggestion of changing the qualifier “insurmountable”

to “indispensable”, again under the justification of avoiding idolatry. He evokes the promise

of the Holy Spirit (Paracletos) as an indication that the revelational channel to the world

through the Spirit remains open775, but Jesus restricted the fullness of the gift of the Spirit to

the Christian Church, although He did not forbid it from other religious institutions. In short,

the promise of the fullness of the Spirit is given primarily to the Church, even as the Church is

the culmination of a revelational process that began with the prophets and sacred writers of

the OT, there being no way to think that the Spirit can be a revealing agent to religions.

independent of this chain of revelational actions.

There is no doubt that the receiving agents of revelation were guided to the truth in

many ways as the quoted text states (Heb. 1:1) and this does not exclude persons and

institutions outside Israel and the Church. Prophets like Balaam (Num. 22-24), priests like

Melchizedek (Gen. 14:18), kings like Cyrus (Isa. 44:28); and even religions, such as

Zoroastrianism, from where the prophets seem to have learned about the origin of evil, a

775
P. Knitter. Jesus and the other Names, p. 75.
 280

doctrine that replaced the original tribalist ideas (Isa. 14 and Ezekiel 28), as in the conception

of the scapegoat of the ritual of Yom Kippur (Lev. 16), were special agents of God in

producing this body of truth of which Scripture is composed. In fact, she doesn't seem to care

about the origin of the revelation, as much of what is contained therein came from outside the

confines of Israel. However, one thing is certain, this process is not discretionary, that is, what

determines what is revelation and what is not (canon) is Scripture itself, according to its own

revelatory rationality under the direction of the Spirit. Now the Spirit is not divided against

itself. If He is the guide to truth in the Scripture, how could He, ignoring the very process He

directed, be the agent of new revelation independent of the Word of God. The act of revealing

is not a monocratic action of the Son. The Spirit disciplines the revelation of Jesus, so that the

revelation of the Son is ultimately His, as well. In this context, all this reasoning about another

Spirit’s revelation, different from that of Jesus, makes no sense. God is not split.

To close Knitter's Christological argument, it is important put under consideration his

borrowing from the ideas of liberation theologians, with the aim of avoiding the reduction of

the kingdom of God to the appearance of Jesus in Palestine. The kingdom of God remains a

latent promise guiding the Church's journey to the ends of the earth, not to impose her

confession, but to share it with other beliefs. For the relevance of the gospel has not been lost

nor its normativity, it is just not the only message to be proclaimed nor the only normativity to

be applied. The good news of the gospels defines God but does not confine Him to this

definition 776 . There are others that are necessary to maintain the infinity of the riches of

divinity, and the best image of God is the one that takes all these definitions into account.

But, if all religions said the same about God, or if at least what they say is just a little bit

different, Knitter's claim would be perfect. The problem is that the differences are numerous

and irreconcilable on several matters. It is not possible for all of them to tell the truth, unless

776
P. Knitter. Jesus and the other Names, p. 77.
 281

we understand them metaphorically. But if the teachings of religions are metaphors, then there

is no relevance in them, and it becomes unnecessary to share these teachings. In short,

Knitter's pluralism is a great dead end.

In one of his latest works, One Earth, many Religions777, Knitter seeks, by creating a

normative principle, to respond to those who called him relativist. In this work he reconstructs

with pluralistic elements some basic concepts of Christianity, such as salvation. For him

“soteria [...] should broadly define eco-human well-being” 778. And religion in this framework

can vary enormously, but all agree with the need to seek the well-being of the human

community and the ecological health of the planet 779 . If there is among religions any

exception to this rule, to it must be denied religious legitimacy, because it will not be possible

interreligious dialogue between a religion that seeks to be an agency of salvation and another

that does not. This then becomes the defining criterion for partners in religious dialogue and

the touchstone that gives authenticity to religions 780 . This criterion, however, in the end,

transforms Knitter into an inclusive theologian, as the so-called prophetic religions will be

favored by his ideas and the so-called mystic or devotional ones will be disfavored, Hinduism

would be one of those that would lose importance according to this criterion781, because the

idea of kingdom of God, even if secularized like in Knitter’s theology, does not make any

sense to Hinduist mind, as they does not share the same philosophy of history Christian adopt,

namely, a linear one, since they see history cyclically. Only Christianity, Judaism and Islam

would be skilled to lead this religious dialogue.

Summing up our impressions of P. Knitter's ideas we can say that his theological

evolution actually looks more like the blind groping of someone who seeks to build a new
777
P. Knitter. One Earth, many Religions (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1995).
778
P. Knitter. One Earth, many Religions, p. 58.
779
Ibid., p. 98.
780
James Frederiks. Faith among Faiths. Christian Theology and non-Christian Religions (New Jersey: Paulist
Press, 1999), p. 132.
781
James Fredericks. Faith among Faiths, p. 133.
 282

path, but finds himself lost in a jungle of arguments. He proposed to himself a titanic mission

which is to include all religions – including Christianity – in a universal humanistic project,

however, it does not have a well-defined religious starting point. At the beginning of its

evolution, its pluralism adopts a soteriocentric and logocentric theology in line with

Hinduism's concept of avatar. In the middle, he advocates an eco-liberating theology of

religions that would supposedly rid Christianity of the reproach of the oppressor's religion. In

the West this is even relevant, however, if we are in the East, Middle or Near, then things are

reversed, because the Christian religion is the oppressed minority. The concept of the

kingdom of God that he uses in his last phase is an attempt to approach the prophetic

religions. However, even if these ideas are understood from a perspective of complementarity,

their arguments lack systematicity and therefore seem to be used ad hoc, being there only to

support an argument for interreligious dialogue.

4.c.3. Claude Geffré

Claude Geffré’ bith place is Niort (Deux-Sèvre) in France. A Dominican, in Le

Saulchoir he completed his novitiate and preliminary theological studies, obtaining a

doctorate in Rome in 1957. As a professor, Geffré went through numerous theological

faculties, reaching the peak of his career in 1990 at the Biblical and Archeological School of

Jerusalem, of which was the director. However, his writings and lectures made him suffer

some ecclesiastical sanctions that prevented him from receiving academic distinctions offered

by Catholic educational institutions. For example, an honorary doctorate which he would have

been offered by the Faculty of Theology in Kinshasa never came to pass. The ceremony was

vetoed by the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, probably motivated by the publication

of his latest book, De Babel à Pentecôte, which in its front pages he implicitly recommends a

review of traditional Catholic theology:

 283

At the beginning of the 21st century, theology must face a new challenge, that of
religious pluralism. And, furthermore, it is not just a question of adding a new
chapter to the solidly constructed edifice of classical theology. It is a question of
carrying out a reinterpretation of the faith that enters the most important places
within the fundamental chapters of a Christian dogmatics782.

C. Geffré's starting point is similar to that of other pluralists, as he also advocates a

“change in theological paradigm” 783, for an expansion of the hermeneutic circle beyond the

scriptural text and for the inclusion in this circle of “human existence in all its dimensions”784.

Geffré, like J. Dupuis, wants to stay within the limits of a triadic hermeneutics that

characterizes Catholic theology, namely, the text, the Church and the historical context of the

listener of the word. As for the text, however, it does not advocate fidelity to the letter and

meaning of the text, but rather that the Christian message be interpreted by the spirit of the

times, which ends up becoming redundant since the listener's historical context is basically the

same: “The faith is only true to its own impulse and what it allows it to believe if it leads to a

creative interpretation of Christianity. The risk of not transmitting more than a dead past, for

lack of audacity and lucidity, is no less serious than that of error”785.

Evidently, it was not possible, maintained this hermeneutic option, to avoid the

confrontation with the Roman curia. Indeed, Geffré's proposal seems to be, in a way, to

rewrite the sources, defending, as he says, the contribution of “new historical figures in the

form of writings or unusual practices” 786. Geffré's concept of revelation easily admits this

process of rewriting the sources for three reasons: first, the divine mystery is woven into the

very structure of the human being, hence the capacity of all religions to reveal something

about God. Second, for him, according to a Tillichian orientation, religion is an experience of

782
Claude Geffré. De Babel à Pentecôte. Essais de théologie interreligieuse (Paris : Éditions du Cerf, 2006), p.
28.
783
Claude Geffré. “Le pluralisme religieux et l’indifférentisme, ou le vrai défi de la théologie chrétienne” (RTL,
31, 2000), p. 9.
784
Idem. Un nouvel âge de la théologie (Cogitatio fidei 68, Paris : Éditions du Cerf, 1972), p. 61.
785
Claude Geffré. Le christianisme au risque de l'interprétation (Paris : Éditions du Cerf, 1983), p. 18.
786
C. Geffré. Le christianisme au risque de l'interprétation, pp. 70-72.
 284

"decentering oneself in favor of an ultimate reality" 787 , that is, anyone who authentically

experiences this process is able to speak of God as the apostles and prophets did. Third,

because the Word of God is not reduced to a book, but exists as part of the history of a

confessing community788.

Unlike other pluralist thinkers who tend to turn Christianity into discourse about an

abstract figure, the Logos, Geffré is aware of the importance of the historical Jesus for

Christian theology, since we depend on its manifestation in first-century Palestine to come to

the knowledge of God: “We can only know the God of Jesus from the particularity of the

story of Jesus” 789. On the other hand, he also does not understand the incarnation as poetry or

pious metaphor. The verb is really God incarnate. However, the historical Jesus does not

exhaust as a “concrete absolute” all the richness of divine manifestation:

After the apostolic age, the Church confessed Jesus as the Son of God. But a prudent
theology must abstain of identifying Jesus' contingent Christ element with his divine
Christ element. The manifestation of the absolute of God in the historical
particularity of Jesus of Nazareth helps us to understand that the oneness of Christ is
not exclusive in relation to other manifestations of God in history. There is an
identification of God with Jesus, according to the strong expression of the Epistle to
the Colossians (2:6): "the fullness of the deity dwells in him bodily." However, this
identification itself sends us back to the inaccessible mystery of God that escapes all
identification. Christianity is not, therefore, does not exclude other religious
traditions that otherwise identify the ultimate reality of the universe790.

Geffré also warns the reader about the danger of the historical Jesus becoming an idol,

because he is thought of as the limit and container of the divine791. Jesus is an icon, he is a

sign, he is the human horizon through which the divine can be glimpsed, but just as heaven

does not fit into the horizon, the Logos is not exhausted in Jesus. Our limitation is not only

ontological, but also historical, given that contingency occurs both in Jesus and in us, given

the historical and geographical circumstances in which all humans are involved. In other

787
C. Geffré. De Babel à Pentecôte. Essais de théologie interreligieuse, p. 19.
788
C. Geffré. De Babel à Pentecôte. Essais de théologie interreligieuse, p. 20.
789
C. Geffré. “O sentido e o não sentido de uma teologia não-metafísica” (Concilium, no. 6, 1972), p. 790.
790
C. Geffré. “La théologie des religions ou le salut d’une humanité plurielle (RP 2001/4), p. 117.
791
Idem. Crer e interpretar. A virada hermenêutica da teologia (Petrópolis: Vozes, 2004), pp. 164-165.
 285

words, the revelation of God in Jesus is complete and definitive, but its full understanding

leads us to the ministry of the Spirit, which for Geffré is a promise for all humanity and not

only for the Church792.

The mediation of salvation, therefore, does not take place only through Christ in the

context of the Christian Church. Other religions are also mediators as their ministry is derived

from the same universal Logos. In short, through the religious practices of other religions,

God also manifests his love and His saving will793. What then is the role of the Christian

Churches in the world, of which proclamation should they become the spokesman? According

to Geffré's hermeneutics and his new concept of relational truth, the role of Christians is to

share an overflowing truth, which is articulated with that of other religions; and that, finally, it

learns more about itself as it approaches those who proclaim and live divine salvation in a

different way794.

The fundamental concept at the service of this new hermeneutics is the kingdom of

God. For Geffré, as well as for other pluralists: “The church as a historical reality does not

have a monopoly on the signs of the kingdom; God is greater than the historical signs through

which he manifests his presence” 795. The universal character of the church no longer depends

on the absolute character of Christianity, it depends on the divine mystery, through the

ministry of the Spirit, which makes the kingdom of God expand in the world. It is up to the

Church to collaborate with this process.

In short, it is difficult to decide whether Geffré is inclusivist or exclusivist, in his

theology of religions there are both elements and perhaps this is due to his own status as a

clergyman who owed loyalty to his hierarchical superiors and to the doctrine of the Catholic
792
C. Geffré. “La verdad del cristianismo en la era del pluralismo religioso” (ST, v. 37, no. 146, 1998), p. 138.
793
C. Geffré. “La place des religions dans le plan du salut” (Spiritus, no. 138, 1995), p. 88.
794
Idem. “Le pluralisme religieux et l’indifférentisme, ou le vrai défi de la théologie chrétienne”, p.32.
795
C. Geffré Apud Giles Langevin e Raphaël Pirro. Le Christ et les cultures. Dans le monde et l’histoire (Québec
: Les Éditions Belarmin, 1991), p. 23.
 286

Church, while trying defend pluralist ideas. What he says, for example, about Jesus is very

symptomatic, due to the lack of coherence: the Logos is not exhausted in the historical Jesus,

while the Jesus of history does not lose its importance, although it is only an icon, a sign of

the presence of God in the history; hence Jesus’ words and message must be rewritten by

current readers. In short, what matters is the plural Logos, which is also manifested in the

founders of the world's religions. The Church's mission in this context is to meet other

religions to share their faith and learn from the faith of others, since the truth is present

wherever there is a religiosity fertilized by the Logos. In short, Christians know themselves

and divine salvation better as they come to know the God who is also present and acting

differently in other religions.

There is no doubt that Geffré carried his revisionism too far. His use of Christian

sources deflates any arguments that might be adduced. An example is his doctrine of the

Logos, completely foreign to Scripture and, moreover, contrary to good hermeneutics,

because biblical doctrines cannot be based on a single passage (it is true that at this point he

relies more on Justin than on the Scriptures, which for Catholic theology is all right). It

doesn't matter to him that this is pointed out in his theology and not only because Justin’s

support. Scripture for Geffré is just a set of metaphors whose meaning is what is pleasing to

the modern reader. Thus, many of the well-known terms that appear there acquire a pluralistic

meaning: Logos, kingdom of God, are just a few examples. Geffré does what was used in the

past as a strategy of Manicheans and Gnostics to subvert Christianity, without the Christians

realizing it, because its apparent concordance to the Christian doctrine. However, they are the

same words with a very different meaning. Scripture in the end only serves as a pretext for his

philosophy of religion: Scripture must submit to the demands of interreligious dialogue and

end of story. If they are mentioned, they only serve to maintain plausible the idea that we are

still treading on evangelical ground.

 287

4.c.4. Raimon Panikkar

Raimon Panikkar was a Roman Catholic religious, the son of a Spanish Catholic mother

and an Indian and Hindu father. Graduated in Philosophy, Chemistry and Theology and Ph.D.

in the three areas (1946, 1958 and 1961, respectively), he was also a deep connoisseur of

Hindu and Buddhist philosophy and religion, which qualified him to attempt to achieve a

great synthesis of contemporary religious thought, bringing together the three world religions:

Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism. His project is not a merely theoretical expedient, but

something that has to do with his inter-religious experience, obtained through birth and

education 796 . He has taught at the most important educational institutions in the world

(Harvard, University of California), having distinguished himself in metaphysics,

hermeneutics, philosophy, interreligious dialogue, science and education 797. A prolific writer

and requested by the most renowned publishers in the world, he has his signature on more

than 40 works, in addition to hundreds of articles, the most important of which being the

aforementioned The Unknown Christ of Hinduism. Towards an ecumenical Christophany,

based on his doctoral thesis in theology798.

It is always difficult to approach Panikkar's thinking. In addition to having transit

through several areas of knowledge, he was not a systematic thinker and never bothered to
796
“There has been a traveling companion on my journeys to the different lands of men. The children of my time
and environment, / thought. I knew well who was the companion in my intellectual and spiritual visions of more
than half a century ago. But a critical moment came when I reached my ancestral home at the height of my life:
my steps to the city of peace, to seek and perhaps find my mate again, I proceeded alone, to the battlefield
riddled with fratricidal wars. Shocked and poisoned I refused to remain fighting either party... I remained a
conscious opponent, rejected by both... Risking my life by offering my services to everyone without accepting
their respective dialectics, I suddenly found myself in the world of time. And from there came the sacredness of
everything, even the secular, dawning on me. So, I am at the confluence (sangam) of four rivers: Hindu,
Christian, Buddhist and Secular traditions.” Raimon Panikkar. The unknown Christ of Hinduism, p. 23.
797
Camilia G. MacPherson. A critical reading of the development of Raimon Panikkar’s thought on the Trinity
(Lanham, MI: University Press of America, 1996), p. 2.
798
This text has two very different editions. The first, from 1964, was in line with the conciliar theology of
Vatican II, the Christ of which it speaks was unknown to Hindus, but known to Christians, and was committed to
an enculturation project in which Hindu concepts were reinterpreted or translated to the platform. Christian
conceptual. The 1981 edition is completely different, the Christ of which it speaks is a universal figure, that the
historical Jesus is just one representation among others. In short, “Panikkar insists […] that Jesus is Christ, but
that Christ is not just Jesus”. Rudolf von Sinner. Confiança e convivência: reflexões éticas e ecumênicas (São
Leopoldo RS: Sinodal, 2007), p. 125.
 288

systematize his ideas. According to Isaiah Berlin's typology799, according to which thinkers

and writers can be divided into two groups: hedgehogs and foxes, Panikkar is a fox thinker 800.

Foxes are thinkers who are comfortable with the multiplicity of reality and always find a way

to adjust it to the framework of their ideas, because their genius lies in their synthetic ability

to relate things; Hedgehogs, on the other hand, are the ones who despise diversity, possessing

a monistic view of the world, however, they analyze this one thing so deeply that they manage

to transform it into a closed and impregnable world of meaning, capable of resisting any

objection.

Hence the difficulty of taking a panoramic view of their ideas; the connections are so

many that the analyst loses the thread of ideas and has no way of synthesizing it. The best way

to study this type of thinker is to choose themes that by the number of appearances indicate

their importance in the total scope of their thought. In the case of Panikkar, we can try to

understand him through a perception that is common to other theologians of religions,

namely, that in our days we live under the aegis of a paradigm shift, according to which our

way of thinking deeper is undergoing irreversible transformations.

Hence the difficulty of taking a panoramic view of Panikkar’s ideas. The connections

are so many that the analyst loses the thread of ideas and has no way amidst the maze of

ideas. Therefore, the best way to study this type of thinker is to choose themes that by the

number of appearances indicate their importance in the total scope of Panikkar’s thought. In

this case, we can try to understand him through highlighting what is common to other

theologians of religions, namely, that for him in our days we live under the aegis of a

paradigm shift, according to which our deeper way of thinking is undergoing irreversible

transformation.

799
Isaiah Berlin. The hedgehog and the fox (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013), p. 2.
800
Berlin used a fragment of Antilochus to create this typology: “the fox has many tricks; the hedgehog, just a
single big trick".
 289

The basis of this concept of paradigm shift is the work of T. Kuhn801, philosopher of

science, who demonstrated that the absolute objectivity of science is a myth. Science does not

evolve because of some intrinsic quality that would lead to continuous refinement, due to an

incessant search for the truth, but because certain theories become untenable in the face of

certain phenomena that repeatedly contradict them 802 , making a new model necessary to

group them coherently, what he calls the “scientific revolution” 803 . For most of the time

science remains stationary and clinging to dogmatism, in which institutional issues outweigh

the supposed commitment to the truth of scientists, so that sociological elements are also

taken into account in the process of validating scientific discoveries.

What has been used as an argumentative basis by the most radical pluralist and

inclusivist theologians is the fact that for them Christianity is going through a moment of

paradigm shift, from exclusivism to pluralism, given the unbearability of the old model. For

some theologians (H. Küng and J. Dupuis) the anomalies that prevent the maintenance of the

previous religious paradigm are: (a) the decay or reflux of Christianity, caused by secularism,

and (b) the efflorescence of other world religions and their expansion even in the West. These

events bore holes in those pre-Vatican II theological systems and forced theology to look at

the world as a multi-religious and multicultural reality. For Panikkar, as well as for P. Knitter,

in addition to these problems, an emphatic note should also be placed on environmental

problems and on the new holistic perception of the planet.

801
Thomas Kuhn. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970).
802
Examples generally cited to endorse this concept are the transition from the geocentric to the heliocentric
system in the time of Copernicus; and the introduction of Einstein's physics where Newtonian physics was
unable to explain astrophysical phenomena.
803
Using the metaphor of civil construction, paradigms are the structures of buildings that support and at the
same time serve as a model in which each brick, window, door must be fitted, defined by the same model, the
place of each one. Paradigms are structures built to receive objects that are still unknown, because science cannot
work with the chaotic, so these models are called theories. Moments of paradigmatic crisis occur when there are
objects, information from the factual world, that do not fit into the previously constructed theoretical structure,
being called as anomalies. When this occurs, it is necessary to replace the paradigm, or the model, in its entirety.
 290

Panikkar views the history of the Christian religion from three successive paradigms:

Christianity, marked by the political and sociocultural unity of the Middle Ages; Christianity,

characterized by doctrinal uniformity in the Modern and Contemporary Age; and Christiania,

marked by a cosmic spiritual solidarity that characterizes postmodern times:

With the name Christiania I want to represent a new Christian consciousness. The
novelty is above all sociological and consists in the passage of an inner mystical
consciousness, reserved for a few, to its manifestation in everyday life (secularity).
[...] It is an ecclesial change in the same Christian self-understanding, a leap in the
history of Being through a new level of consciousness in man and therefore a change
in his own nature, whose essence is self-understanding. Christiania would constitute
the Christian contribution to this cosmic change in the adventure of the universe, in
which we are all involved804.

This contribution of Christianity mentioned in the quote can be, for example, a

trinitarian view of religious reality, called cosmotheandric, in its ontological dimension: "the

totality of reality could be called using Christian language, Father, Son and Holy Spirit"805. In

the religious dimension, the ecumenical-trinitarian structure would be divided into the ways in

which God is worshipped, which he learned from the Hindu tradition, which consist of three

types of spirituality, each corresponding to one of the persons of the Trinity, Father, Son and

Spirit Holy, respectively: Jnana-mag, the spirituality of silence, awareness and meditation;

Bhakti-mag, the spirituality of devotion; and Karma-mag, the spirituality of cultic actions or

rituals806. In the context of interreligious dialogue, according to Panikkar, the same Trinitarian

structure exists, underlying the different spiritualities: “the silence of the Father is expressed

in Buddhism; the Logos can be found in Judaism, Islam and Christianity; and the diversity of

the movements of the Spirit is present in the multiple forms of Hinduism” 807.

804
Raimon Panikkar. “Cristiania, dimensione nascosta del Cristianesimo”, p. 278.
805
Raimon Panikkar. “A Christophany for our Time” (TD, Spring, 1992), p. 37.
806
Apud Francis X. D’Sa. “How Trinitarian is Panikkar’s Trinity (CR, no. 3, supplement), p. 38.
807
Ilia Delio. Christ in Evolution (New Delhi: Logos Press, 2010), p. 140.
 291

In the cosmotheandric or theanthropocosmic formulation808, the unity of reality is seen

through the Christological prism, with Christ being the symbol of a unity, divided into three

inseparable but distinguishable elements: the cosmos, man and God, perceptible by three

human faculties, respectively, sense, mind and consciousness 809 , which in turn are also

inseparable: reality in their relationship810. Behind this Christological formulation, however, is

also the Brahmanical notion of reality, according to monism that understands everything that

exists as subsisting in Brahman, one of the components of the Hindu trinity, which is the

foundation of everything.

Panikkar's intention is clearly to build a fourfold theological synthesis that involves

three world religions (Catholicism, Hinduism and Buddhism) and the secularized irreligious

people. Some theologians have been skeptical about their hermeneutic freedoms, despising

the huge theological differences that separate these traditions, basing themselves only on

circumstantial coincidences, such as their numerical aspect 811 . Because it lacks solid

foundations for his theological argument, something that goes beyond his own mysticism; of

the allegorical method that it borrowed from Greek Patristics, going beyond their creators

because of the breadth with which it is applied; and by the use of Christian theological

concepts used to define religious experiences that are barely compatible with it; for this

reasons it can be said that the pan-ecumenical theology of Panikkar is a project that is still far

from being realized.

808
There would be much to clarify about this concept of Panikkar and its apparent inspired monism, in the Hindu
philosophy (advaita) that rejects the Cartesian trichotomy of man, God and world. Let's leave this chapter aside.
The author warns us, however, that it is a mystical intuition and not an analytical one. In other words, it is not a
rubric subscribed to the chapter on philosophical ontology, since it is not thought of in relation to epistemology,
but rather to theology and mysticism. However, elsewhere it is stated that they are "three dimensions of the real".
R. Panikkar. Entre Dieu et le cosmes. Entretiens avec Gwendoline Jarczyk (Paris : Albin Michel, 1998), p. 135.
809
Many interpreters have pointed to the overly schematic nature of these ideas, in which, for example, the
number three ends up serving as a pretext for these approaches to Christianity and other religions, or rather,
attitudes towards the Real, that is, based on very derisory material data. Like the article already cited in Francis
X. D’SA. “How trinitarian is Panikkar’s Trinity”, p. 40.
810
Raimon Panikkar. The Rhythm of Being. The Glifford Lectures (New York: Orbis Books, 2010), p. 183.
811
Rudolf von Sinner. Confiança e convivência: reflexões éticas e ecumênicas (São Leopoldo RS: Sinodal,
2007), p. 102.
 292

For example, in the relationship between Father and awareness or Jnana-mag, it would

be more correct to substitute the word Father for Brahman812 and awareness for Yoga813, as

the god that is perceptible through meditation is not the biblical God, who listens,

communicates oneself and act, but only the condition of possibility of reality, or even the

power that maintains everything, in which one can have an experience of immersion, but not

communion. The Spirit present in the cult or Karma-mag, is not the one who guides the whole

truth, but what makes everything true. The Christ of Bhakti-mag in Panikkar has a more

complex profile, with some foundation in Pauline theology814. However, he goes beyond Paul

when he presents Christ as the catalyst of the entire material and religious reality of the

planet: (a) of man with other men, (b) of man with himself and with God. (c) of man with the

planet.

(a) Of man with other men, since the basis of cultures is religion, and Christ signifies

unity in the religious field. Christ is the foundation of all the superior spiritual manifestations

(Christophanies) of humanity, called by various names: Rama, Krishna, Ishwara, Purusha,

coming from different cultures and historical moments, but being part of the same indivisible

mystery, each one of them a dimension unknown to Christ815. The basis of this mystery is the

logos theology of the Johannine prologue, however, with a dimension that goes far beyond the

historical Jesus, which is just one of the Christic manifestations in history, just a symbol of

the cosmic Christ, due to all the conditions cultural, historical and geographical aspects that

812
“O “The whole world was seen as divine activity springing from the mysterious Brahman, the hidden
meaning of all existence. The Upanishads encouraged people to cultivate a sense of Brahman in all things. It was
a process of revelation in the literal sense of the word: an unveiling of the sacred basis of all being, everything
that happened constituted a manifestation of Brahman: the true discernment was in the perception of the unity
behind the phenomena". Karen Armstrong. Uma história de Deus, p. 46.
813
“Yoga techniques lead the adepts to awareness of the existence of an inner world, which is Atman, eternal
principle one with Brahman”. (Karen Armstrong. Uma história de Deus, p. 47).
814
II Cor. 5: 19; Gal. 3: 28; Col. 3: 11.
815
Raimon Panikkar. The Unknown Christ of Hinduism, p. 23-30.
 293

are relevant to it816. With this, the salvation of human beings by Christ can be mediated by

other religions, Christianity does not have any sacramental privileges: “The good and bona

fide Hindu, as well as the good and bona fide Christian, are saved by Christ – but not by

Hinduism or Christianity per se, but through their sacraments and, ultimately, through the

mystery active within the two religions” 817.

Continuing his pluralist arguments, Panikkar brings the Christian concept of Logos

closer to the Vedantic concept of Ishwara. There are some points of contact between the two

concepts: Ishwara is the revealer of Brahman, the originating god of all things. And this is the

unoriginated origin of everything, the creating and unifying principle of everything that exists

and that which does not exist. But it is an impersonal god, much like Aristotle's “first

immobile engine”, “pure act” and therefore, because there is no movement in it, since in It

there is no transition from power to act, it is an inert god, incapable of dealing with anything

other than himself. Brahman is the "abstract foundation of being, the mere precondition of

existence"818. Ishwara is the face of Brahman, his personal aspect, the creator, the revealer of

Brahman, which descends to men in avatar form, which is identical and at the same time

different from Brahman819.

If we continue the comparisons these tenuous similarities quickly disappear. For

example, (a) Brahma and Yahweh/Elohim do not coincide at all. Brahman is a typical deus

otiosus (idle god), according to the typology of M. Eliade 820 ; the Judeo-Christian God is

816
The way in which Panikkar's Christology evolved speaks volumes about its own evolution into pan-
ecumenism. In the first edition of his book The Unknown Christ of Hinduism (1964) he wrote: "the place where
Christ is fully revealed is Jesus Christ." Christianity, therefore, "is the place where Christ is fully revealed and is
the fullness of all religions." In the same work, in the 1981 edition, he changed from wine to water when he
states: “when I call Christ the link between the finite and the infinite, I am not presupposing his identification
with Jesus of Nazareth” (p. 27). There he moves away from the scandal of Pauline particularity, with this, in my
opinion, he ceases to be a Christian.
817
Raimon Panikkar. The Unknown Christ of Hinduism, p. 85.
818
Ibid., p. 106.
819
Raimon Panikkar. The Unknown Christ of Hinduism, p. 122-124.
820
Mircea Eliade. Origens (Lisboa: Edições 70, 1989), p. p.66.
 294

completely active and personal, who intervenes in human history, and is always charged with

passions for his creatures: love, repentance, anger, compassion, etc. (b) the mission of Ishwara

and the Johannine Logos also diverge. Jesus' mission is the salvation of men, for inaugurating

the arrival of the kingdom of God to human domains and for his vicarious death being the

price of ransom for every soul; on the other hand, the mission of the Hindu avatars is the

salvation of men by helping them to find their way out of the cycle of karma. Not to mention

other differences such as the definitions of sin and salvation, etc.

Panikkar recognizes the impossibility of a complete symbolic equalization between the

Ishwara and the Logos821. It doesn't matter. All he intends is to remove the Christian religious

emphasis from the historical Jesus and transfer it to the universal Logos. For if Christians

want the figure of Christ to become acceptable to Hindu people, they must put aside the

historical Jesus and allow the ahistorical or transhistorical Logos to enter the theological

limelight as a facilitator of interreligious dialogue. On the other hand, Christians must come to

believe that through a growing self-understanding, human beings can approach themselves

and the divine, that is, another kind of salvation, which is no longer a Christian concept of

salvation: “Christians believe that God became man, but they are afraid to believe that man

can be called to become God. Hindus, on the other hand, have difficulty, not so much that

man can become God, but in believing that God can become man”822.

(b) Man's unity with himself and with God. The self-understanding process suggested

leads man to God and occurs when he makes “a personal discovery of the mystery of life and

existence, in a personal encounter with reality” 823 . The incarnation of the Logos is the

greatest proof of the human possibility for the divine: “He [Christ] reveals to us that we too

821
Raimon Panikkar. The Unknown Christ of Hinduism, p. 132.
822
Raimon Panikkar. “Nove sutra sul Cristo asiatico” (Micromega, 2, 2001), p. 289.
823
Raimon Panikkar. Salvation in Christ. Concreteness and Universality. The Supername (Santa Barbara, CA:
University of California Press, 1972), p. 62.
 295

can become God, for Christ deifies man” 824. First, the presence of God in man is ontological,

and it is also attested in Hindu thought. Brahman being the foundation of being, every man

can say: ahambrahmasni (I am Brahman). Second, supernaturally, there is a deification of the

entire creation in the incarnation of the Logos. When man arrives at this understanding, he

understands his communion with others, with the world and with God.

(c) Man's unity with the cosmos. Christ's mission is cosmotheandric too, therefore, it

implies a more comprehensive understanding of the incarnation, since he came to restore our

relationship with the physical world825. And the restoration of the cosmos and man in Christ

implies human responsibility for the fate of the planet 826 . In this context, environmental

degradation and the exploitation of man by man must be considered religiously, that is, the

socio-environmental issue is an ethical issue and at the same time a religious one.

The interreligious theology of R. Panikkar thus closes its hermeneutic circle, inviting

Christianity and other religions to dialogue and to learn from each other traditions. According

to him, only in this way will the full realization of human evolution and development be

possible: “the true Atman of (or in) each one of us is Brahman. The essence of Buddha lies at

the bottom of every being. We are all called to share the divine nature” 827. The pertinent

question is: Is Panikkar’s proposition an interreligious dialogue or an easternization of

Christianity? I think Panikkar’s synthesis lost its balance, because Christianity, or Christiania

as he prefers, is the great loser in this deal. The problem with Geffré remains here the same.

No matter how many times Panikkar uses the word Logos it does not make him any more

Christian than a Hindu priest, because although we hear him say Christ what he actually

means is Ishwara, when he says God and the Most High, what he really professes is Brahman.

824
Raimon Panikkar. La plenitud del hombre (Madrid: Siruela, 1999), p. 39.
825
Ibid., p. 220.
826
Raimon Panikkar. Ecosofia. Para una espiritualidad de la tierra (Madrid: San Pablo, 1994), p. 45.
827
Raimon Panikkar. Sobre el diálogo intercultural (Salamanca: Editorial San Esteban, 1990), p. 96.
 296

According to Panikkar we might become a sort of Hindu sect, but it is ok. we didn't miss

anything worthwhile, only our own faith.

4.c.5. Michael Amaladoss

A Jesuit, born in 1936 in Tamil Nadu. He studied at India’s schools, but received a

doctorate in Theology from the Institute Catholique in Paris. He is currently Director of the

Graduate Program in Theology at Vidyajyoti College of Theology in Delhi, Visiting Professor

at the University of Virginia, USA, and Director of the Institute for Dialogue with Cultures

and Religions in Chennai, India. Not to mention that he is a speaker much in demand by the

most important educational and political institutions in the world.

Like his colleagues presented above, Amaladoss is a pluralistic theologian of religions,

concerned with the peaceful coexistence of religions in India, where Christianity is a minority

and religious conflicts are common. This concern permeates his entire career as a Catholic

cleric and as a Christian thinker, since the mid-1970s, when he began to gain prominence in

Christian circles in his country. At that time, however, what challenged him was the problem

of inculturation, that is, the need to adapt the gospel to the culture of peoples, so that there

was no mere translation of the words of the gospel, but a non-alienating symbiosis of the new

culture with the old one. The model of Amaladoss at that time was the Pauline churches,

which were not satisfied with the mere replication of the Jewish way of life, but adapted the

gospel to their own Greco-Roman practices and experiences828.

Still linked to the inclusivist perspective, Amaladoss published his most famous work

The Asian Jesus, where he presents the various images of Jesus enculturated on those days, to

justify the task he undertakes: the delineation of the Asian faces of Jesus. From there

Amaladoss reviews several concepts that had consistently been applied to Jesus by other

Hindu thinkers: Jesus as a teacher of morals; Jesus as avatara, incarnation of Vishnu; Jesus as
828
Michael Amaladoss. “Inculturation: Theological Perspectives” (Jeevadhara, 33, 1976), p. 300.
 297

satyagrahi, follower of truth and non-violence (ahimsa); Jesus as advaitin, the one who

understood his relationship with God in a non-dual way: “I and the Father are one”; Jesus in

solidarity with suffering humanity; Jesus as Bodhisattva, the enlightened one who postpones

his entry into nirvana in order to show other human beings the way of liberation 829 .

Amaladoss, so to speak, concludes this first phase of his reflection with the execution of a

project for the Asian enculturation of the figure of Jesus.

However, things would not stop there. The Indian theologian realizes that an

inculturation not only makes possible a gain for the culture that receives the gospel and mixes

it with its own religion and way of life, but the gospel itself also gains from being

enculturated because it is enriched by the manifestation of unprecedented aspects of the truth,

caused by the new cultural situation of coexisting in pluri-religious context. In this step, a few

years later, a work 830 would come to light, by which Amaladoss would break with two

fundamental principles present in his previous works: (a) the a priori definitions of

inculturation, and (b) the control of the process by a scholar of the Christian religion 831 ,

abandoning the necessity of this protagonism, until then adopted in the analysis of

inculturation processes in the field of missions:

[...] Discerning the authenticity and cultural expressions of God or the seeds of the
Word present in other people requires criteria. The danger of building these criteria
from current understandings of the gospel must be avoided. New expressions of faith
should be encouraged. They cannot contradict what Jesus preached and did. It
becomes necessary to return to the values of the kingdom of God such as: freedom,
brotherhood and justice, love of God and others, beatitudes and the gifts of the Spirit
as joy and peace, freedom and community, love and sacrifice (Gal 5: 22 – 23) 832.

This confidence and optimism towards human communities regarding inculturation,

assuming that the divine message would always be properly enculturated, is due to the

conviction that God's saving action through his Spirit also acts outside the limits of the
829
See Jacques Dupuis. Jésus-Christ à la rencontre des religions (Paris : Desclée, 1989).
830
Michael Amaladoss. Beyond Inculturation. Can the many Be One (Delhi: ISPCK, 1998).
831
Ibid., pp. xii a xiv.
832
Idem. “Inculturation and Internationality” (EAPR, 28, 1981), p. 248.
 298

Church, in the realm of non-Christian religions. That is, these communities, regardless of the

religious confession they profess and the culture that underlies them, will always be under the

action of the Spirit of God and the divine Word: “the Word that became human in Jesus has

been active in various ways through history. The different religions should be seen as

expressions of the different manifestations of the word through the Spirit” 833.

There is, however, in Amaladoss' Christological thought no equalization of all these

manifestations of the Word. The incarnate manifestation of the Logos in the historical Jesus is

special, as it has a remarkable function in humility, that is, to be at the service of the mystery

and its manifestations wherever they arise 834 , so that, with no discrimination regarding

religions, the Church intend to help them to see the kingdom of God as the final goal of all

religions. The role of the Church, therefore, is to reveal to religions the epilogue of human

history, “the kingdom of God”, urging them to become collaborators in this project that was

born with the historical Jesus and with the Church” 835 .

Obviously, Amaladoss' concept of mission is no longer that of Orthodoxy. In fact, the

Church in this new context is called to collaborate with the kingdom of God and with the

work of the Spirit, active where men and women are opening themselves to the mystery of

God. The mission of the Christian Church is to dialogue and collaborate, mainly on three

fronts: with the multitude of the poor, with the cultural richness and with the active religions

of Asia 836 . Ultimately, therefore, to promote harmony and peace among peoples and not

necessarily teach them a doctrine. Of course, other concepts related to the mission will also

change. For example, conversion in this new context becomes secondary in the life of the

Asian Catholic Church. In other words, those who feel called by God are welcome to abandon

833
Idem. “O Deus de todos os nomes e o diálogo inter-religioso” (CTP, ano 2, no. 10, 2005), p. 17.
834
Ibid.
835
Michael Amaladoss. “O Deus de todos os nomes e o diálogo inter-religioso”, p. 15.
836
Michael Amaladoss. “Nuevas imágenes de misión” (PI, 94, 2007-1), p. 23.
 299

their original religion and join the Church, but the opposite is also true. If someone wants to

leave the Church and join Hinduism, for example, he can do so. The freedom of the Spirit of

God cannot be hindered837.

And Amaladoss' revisionism does not stop there. The idea of sin and fall also seems to

have disappeared from its theological horizon, because the assumption that from any religious

or cultural interaction something blessed by the presence of the Holy Spirit will emerge

ignores that the planet is in rebellion against God and that there are other agents spiritual, and

that the human propensity after the entrance of sin is towards evil and sin. In this context, the

role of theology is not to promote religious dialogue, but to apply the revealed word to new

cultural situations without distorting the Word of God. In short, Amaladoss' theology suffers

from the same problem that affects other pluralists when they try to base their ideas on

Scripture. They cut out what interests them, considering it canonical and inspired; as for the

part they don't like, it is simply omitted and considered a remnant of the misogynist,

xenophobic, and prejudiced culture of the biblical writers. In short, there is a bad culture in

the Bible, but there is not in the Contemporain world.

4.c.6. Hans Küng

Hans Küng is a Roman Catholic priest and theologian, with a doctorate from the

Catholic Institute of Paris (1957); from 1962 to 1965 he was a consultant to the Second

Vatican Council. But in 1979 his license to teach Catholic theology was withdrawn, after

making some criticisms against Church administration (papal infallibility, non-ordination of

women and celibacy). From then on, he began to work with Roman Catholics only in the

secular higher education, since in Europe, especially in Germany, theology is scientific and

university knowledge not necessarily linked to religious confession. His defection from the

837
Michael Amaladoss. “Religions: An Indian Christian Point of View of Conversions” (JHCS, vol. 15, 2002), p.
4.
 300

Catholic Church occurred little by little, but the break was definitive; Küng would never

renounce his ideas, diverging on several other points besides those mentioned, first in the

methodological field, and then in the Christological one.

In fact, Küng does theology almost as a liberal Protestant would, that is, without any

dogmatic ties; considering only the supreme norm of Holy Scripture, regardless of “the

tradition of any historical church” 838. Accordingly, the ministry of the Catholic Church would

exercise no function in tipping the scales as was normally the case among Catholic

theologians. Küng's familiarity with Protestant theology certainly facilitated this approach.

His doctoral thesis was a comparison of the doctrine of justification according to Karl Barth

with the understanding of Catholicism on the subject839. Of course, their understanding of

Scripture does not coincide with that of most evangelicals. The concept of Scripture includes

the modern contributions of exegetical science, with the construction, for example, of a

Christology “from below” 840, related to the researches of the historical Jesus, by which it also

rejects the ontological conclusions of the Council of Chalcedon 841 . It also includes

contributions from the history of religions, philosophy and sociology of religion, which

helped him to build his fundamental theology on the doctrine of God in a well-known work,

where these sciences were used extensively842.

As for the relationship of these sciences, called sciences of religion, with theology,

Küng seems to adopt a middle way, neither admitting an irreconcilable separation between

theology and these sciences (as Karl Barth and his aprioristic theology preferred), but neither

thinking it was adequate to reduction of theology to these sciences (as do John Hick, Paul

838
Giampietro Ziviani; Valentino Maraldi. “Ecclesiologia”. In Giacomo Canobbio; Piero Coda. La teologia del
XX secolo. Un bilancio. Prospettivi Sistematiche (Roma: Città Nuova, 2003), p. 324.
839
Hans Küng. Justification. The Doctrine of Karl Barth and a Catholic Reflection (Louisville, KT: Westminster
John Knox Press, 2004.
840
Hans Küng. On Being Christian, p. 133.
841
Ibid., p. 131.
842
Hans Küng. Does God Exists? An Answer for Today (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2006).
 301

Knitter, Ninian Smart, Leonard Swidler, etc., who subordinated theology to the philosophy of

religion), and there must be a critical cooperation between the two” 843. This methodology is

not new, Küng is only taking up a project by P. Tillich, which unfortunately did not reach the

execution stage because of the death of the German-American theologian844.

Küng's method has three moments: the text, the context and the constants of

Christianity, that is, its essence. The text is fundamental. He is the raw material for obtaining

what is essential in Christianity. The sources thought by him, however, are not what we

commonly call the Bible, but the sources purified by historical-critical research; Küng's Jesus

is not the one we find in the gospels, but the Jesus who emerges from the sieve of the

historical Jesus’ Research. That is why Küng does not accept the inclusion of the magisterium

of the Catholic Church among the primary sources, nor the conciliar decisions, from

Chalcedon onwards to Vatican II. For him there was a deviation from the route from there,

because either the conciliar declarations move away from the Christology and Ecclesiology of

the NT, or they establish the parity and indissolubility between the Scriptures, Tradition and

the Magisterium. For Küng, the precedence is of the Scriptures “supreme criterion and

definitive instance for the reform of the Church” 845 , and the conciliar decisions end up

producing a “vicious circle”, which prevents the Catholic Church from breaking with the

dogmatic thinking that characterizes it, since it establishes as “Word of God” not only the

Scriptures, but also the Tradition (thus also the papal definitions) 846.

In reality, Küng's target is onto-Christology, which constitutes the greatest obstacle to

the emergence of a more consistent pan-ecumenism. He believes that this type of Christology

arose as a result of the influence of Greek thought on the NT text, that is, under the influence

843
Hans Küng. Teologia a caminho. Fundamentação para o diálogo ecumênico, p. 287.
844
Hans Küng. Proyecto de una ética mundial (Madrid; Planeta-Agostini, 1994), p. 149.
845
H. Küng. Teologia a caminho, p. 70.
846
Idem, ibid.
 302

of Hellenism, the name of Jesus began to be associated with the divine 847 (the Christological

hymns in Paul). For this reason, Küng recognizes the need to apply the inductive method also

in Christological studies848, that is, to think Christology from below, from the NT witness

about Jesus of Nazareth and from there to ascend to the understanding of God's work in

him849.

Küng believes the NT proceeds christologically in the same way. Central to his message

is the death and resurrection of Jesus, not the "incarnational motive." Also, following their

interpretation, nowhere in the NT is there any mention of becoming a man or being born of

God 850 . These concepts stem from an increasing process of Hellenization that led to an

ontologizing of the functional Christology of the NT. The culmination of this process is the

conciliar formula “truly man and truly God” is interpreted by Küng as “the true man Jesus of

Nazareth who is, by faith, the true revelation of the one true God” 851 . The incarnation,

therefore, does not presuppose a pre-existing Logos nor is it a factual reality. It's just a

mythical definition that means Jesus represents God.

If on the one hand Küng does not accept talking about the uniqueness of the Christic

event, because the founders of other religions play similar role to that of Jesus in their

cultures; on the other hand, he does not give up the definitiveness and normativity of Jesus'

mission. His argument, however, is not anchored in the doctrine of the incarnation, but in the

centrality and peculiarity of the ministry of Jesus, which because of its ethical and religious

excelence completes and perfects all the others, experienced by the founders of other

religions. Küng calls Jesus "the critical catalyst of all human religiosity" 852 . And this is

because the ministry of Jesus was the full realization and therefore also critical of the religious
847
Hans Küng. On Being Christian, p. 440.
848
C. LaCugna. Theological methodology of Hans Küng (New York: Scholars Press, 1982), p. 28.
849
Ibid., p, 29.
850
C. LaCugna. Theological methodology of Hans Küng, p. 44.
851
H. Küng apud C. LaCugna. Theological methodology of Hans Küng, p. 44.
852
H. Küng. Proyecto de una ética mundial, p. 125.
 303

qualities of all the founders of non-Christian universal religions. Confucius' wisdom, which

leads to a moral ordering of the world (harmony); the enlightenment of the Buddha, which

leads to a renunciation of the world (meditation); the prophetic fervor of Muhammad, which

leads to the religious conquest of the world (theocracy); and the prophetic ministry of Moses,

which leads to the moral teaching of the world (Torah) 853 . All these characteristics were

superlatively and definitively present in the ministry of Jesus and therefore can be judged in

the light of his words and deeds.

Küng attacks the fossilization of Christian theology, demanding that it adapt to new

times:

It would not be appropriate in a new age, instead of simply repeating the old
Hellenistic dogmas, to focus again on the New Testament message and reinterpret it
for contemporary Christians, as the Hellenistic theologians once rightly did to their
time854.

In my view on three points Küng's theology of religions is open to criticism. (1) Firstly,

a hermeneutic contention, namely, his thesis on paradigms, especially on the paradigm shift

underway today. Küng's hermeneutics is very loose, even discretionary, since there is no

argument adduced for disciplining the hermeneutic updates he speaks of. Although he does

not admit it, this amounts to relativism. That is, in Greco-Roman times we must emphasize

the Logos, the Christologies from above, as the Apologetic Fathers did; in times of

secularism, as today, the historical Jesus, the Christologies from below, must prevail. From

that a disquieting question: the paradigm shift merely means following the ideological

changes in the world, adapting the interpretation of sources to these requirements? This being

true, we have been off the rails for a good while, since the church refused to endorse the

Gnosticism of Marcion, Valentino and Nag Hammadi, the predominant ideology of the time;

or else, since the Arianism of the courts of the emperors of Eastern Rome start to prevail. If

853
Hans Küng. Christianity. The religious situation of our time, p. 35.
854
Ibid., p. 195.
 304

we must adapt the sources to contemporary man, must we do it always or only in some

historical situations? If so, then Küng still needs to clarify for us why the secularism of our

day is preferable to the 1st Century’s Platonism or the 4th Century’s Arianism?

(2) Secondly, there is a methodological contention regarding the use of the Sciences of

Religions in consortium with Theology. Küng claims to have taken a middle course,

preferring a methodological mix between these areas. Küng's merit was that he did not

subordinate Theology to the Philosophy of Religion, as many other scholars do; his problem,

to have adopted equivocal conclusions from the History of Religions to compose his

Christology “from below”. Making use of a comparative study between the Christian

communities of the Hellenistic world and this context, and assuming syncretism, Küng

concluded that the Christologies "from above", which tend to deify the figure of Jesus,

resulted from the influence of the Greco-Roman doctrine of a divine man, used by the

Hellenistic society to divine its heroes, such as Heracles, Asclepius, among others 855 .

According to Küng there is no indication in the NT and outside of this Hellenistic

environment that Jesus would also have been God. Küng seems to ignore the messianic

psalms and the abundant quotations about the Danielic Son of Man, which speak, among

other things, of Jesus' pre-existence and his attribute of being the judge of all things. In short,

it is not necessary to invoke Plato or Homer to recognize the deity of Jesus in the NT, Judaism

already provides sufficient elements for this 856 . In short, if Küng wants to revise the NT

Christology he will either have to reform the entire NT, or perhaps throw it in the dustbin, for

his inability to pluralism. In other words, this means abandoning this project of combining the

855
See Martin Hengel. The Son of God. The Origin of Christology and the History of Jewish Hellenistic Religion
(Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2007), chap. “The meaning of Son of Man and History of Religions”.
856
The book of Similitudes in 1Enoch (39: 5-12; 46: 3-8; 48: 2-7) is an example of the idea of messianic
exaltation (even with pre-existence) that Paul and John would have shared, since this, having Daniel as its
primary source, was part of the common theological foundation of the Apocalyptic. See Maurice Casey. “The
Use of Term Son of Man in the Similitudes of Enoch”, JSJPHRP (vol. 7, no. 1, 1976), pp. 11-29.
 305

systematic study of sources (theology) with other sciences of Religions if the intention is to

create a pluralistic “Theology” of Religions.

(3) The third contention concerns the practical results of Küng's Pan-ecumenism. The

normativity and definitiveness of Christianity maintained are counterproductive in relation to

what they propose, since in the end their conclusion is that there is only one true religion: the

Christian; the others are “provisionally true” 857 (even though its salvific condition is

preserved)858, which basically respond to general criteria (both ethical and religious)” 859. The

problem is obvious. His intention to maintain a dialectic between the normativity and

definitiveness of Christ and a self-criticism of Christianity is not pluralistic enough so as not

to reach the interreligious dialogue. Christian self-criticism and Jesus' normativity are not

symmetrical in terms of interreligious relations. Criticism of religions reaches the paradigms

of Christianity and makes it, in Küng's version, give up the doctrine of the incarnation and the

pre-existing verb. However, maintaining the normativity of the figure of Jesus, the very core

of non-Christian religions is reached, since the life and death of Christ is a criticism of them,

since he criticizes their founders. Thus, in interreligious dialogue non-Christians lose more

than Christians. However, everyone loses and interfaith dialogue does not win.

4.c.7. Stanley Samartha

Stanley Samartha is an Indian Reformed theologian, born in Karkalla, Karnataka

Province, “a peaceful multireligious society” in South India, where he also completed his

basic education up to university (United Theological College), studying theology under the

guidance of Fr. Devanandan, a Christian religious pioneer of interreligious dialogue in

857
Hans Küng. Proyecto para una ética mundial, p. 126.
858
According to Bordoni's typology, three types of Christology appear in the theology of religions: (a) normative
model, (b) relative model, and (c) anthropological model. The model adopted by Küng is the first one, which
recognizes to non-Christian religions "an intrinsic saving value independent of Christ". Christianity has the
function of correcting and bringing to completion all religions. Marcelo Bordoni. “Cristologia: Lettura
Sistemática”. In Giacomo Canobbio; Piero Codda (edi.). La Teologia del XX Secolo. Propettive Sistematiche, p.
38.
859
Hans Küng. Proyecto para una ética mundial, p. 126.
 306

India 860 . Son of Christian parents, evangelized by the Evangelical Mission of Basel,

Switzerland, both later serving this same institution in Bangalore, his father as a pastor, his

mother as a primary school teacher. Later, Samartha would study with P. Tillich at the Union

Theological Seminary in New York, finishing her master's degree there. Later, on another trip

to the United States, he would complete his doctorate at Hartford Theological Seminary,

under orientation of Reinhold Niebuhr861.

The evolution of Samartha's thinking is not difficult to follow. Between 1970 and 1991

he was already occupied with interreligious dialogue, but still on inclusivist and conservative

bases. However, from then on there was an important change in his ideas and he went from

Inclusivism of the early years - especially in the work Hindus before the universal Christ 862,

to pluralist thereafter, writing a work that marks this second phase of his thought863, where he

abandons universalist statements about Jesus "in order not to disturb those people who seek

and also find their way of salvation in other religions, unrelated to Christ"864. In his second

phase, Samartha demonstrates to be deeply marked by post-colonial ideas, associating both

exclusivism and inclusivism with the project of colonialist domination of the West,

accordingly he affirms: “plurality is a way to fight against this persistent tendency. Religious

Pluralism provides resources for the survival of peoples and nations, against forces that

openly try to impose uniformity in a plural world”865.

With this in mind, it is easy to conclude why Samartha advocates a Christology based

on the Synoptics and those seen through the perspectives of the Historical Jesus’ researches,

discarding all Christological statements of the Pauline and Johannine traditions, as well as the

860
Konrad Raiser. “Tribute to Dr. Stanley J. Samartha”, World Council of Churches, website.
861
Idem, ibid.
862
Stanley J. Samartha. Hindus vor dem universalen Christus (Stuttgart: Evangelischer Verlag, 1970).
863
Stanley J. Samartha. One Christ, many Religions: Towards a Revised Christology (Maryknoll NY: Orbis
Books, 1991).
864
Christine Lienemann-Perrin. Missão e diálogo inter-religioso (São Leopoldo: Sinodal/EST, 2005), p. 122.
865
Stanley J. Samartha. One Christ, many Religions, p. 3.
 307

conciliar statements that defend the divinity of Jesus. Samartha welcomes the results of

historical criticism of European Protestant theology and uses it as the basis for this

discrimination that has no congruence with NT. For him there is no sign of the doctrine of the

incarnation, the pre-existence, the second component of the Trinity, in the reports linked to

the historical Jesus, therefore, all this must be eliminated. There is only the reference here to a

man, imbued with a prophetic spirit, set apart by the Holy Spirit for a special mission in

Israel866. According to the theological liberalism, Jesus also did not perform miracles, did not

actually rise from the dead, nor did he ascend to heaven. All these theological ornaments are

the product of the Church post-Eastern kerygma (Bultmann). In the synoptic accounts what

Jesus preached was a theocentric faith867. His awareness of God and the kingdom is more

useful in establishing new relationships with neighbors of other religions 868 than the Christ-

centered ones in the Pauline Christological hymns and the Johannine Logos, which attach to

him something he never intended.

Having emptied the NT Christology of its exclusivist content, turning it into a

Theocentrism Christology (Christocentrism without Theocentrism is idolatry 869 ), Samartha

turns to other elements to the construction of a theocentric theology, basing it on the doctrine

of the Holy Spirit and the kingdom of God. The announce of the kingdom of God’s coming

was the first and unique message of the Historical Jesus, all other theological development on

the nature of the man Jesus and on his relationship with God, was Church emphasis that was

not part of Jesus’ original message870. Otherwise, the Holy Spirit works cannot be restricted to

Christocentric and ecclesiocentric channels. The Spirit cannot be limited to a certain time,

866
Stanley J. Samartha. One Christ, many Religions, p. 120.
867
Stanley J. Samartha. “The Cross and the Rainbow – Christ in a Multireligious Culture”. In John Hick and
Paul Knitter. The Myth of Christian Uniqueness, p. 86.
868
Stanley J. Samartha. One Christ, many Religions, p. 77.
869
Stanley J. Samartha. “The Cross and the Rainbow”, p. 81.
870
Ibid., p. 80.
 308

place and people871 and the famous clause of Filioque that was once one of the motives to the

East-West schism of Christian Church, must be put aside. There is no subordination of the

Spirit to the Son872. The Spirit is free to fulfill God's mandate to act and bring salvation to

everyone, including those who believe in God according to different ways873. This means that

other religions’ sacred books might be examined in order to see the Holy Spirit actions in

other religions874:

It is the same Spirit who hovered over the waters of all creation, who spoke through
the prophets in the Old Testament, who was present with Jesus at the critical
moments of his life and ministry, and who manifested himself by being poured out
in Acts, is what also activated Yajnavalkya, Buddha, the prophet Mohammed and
(why not?) Gandhi, Karl Marx and Mao Tse Tung875.

In this context, the mission of Christians must not be an isolated fact in the religious

world, but something shared with other religions. It has nothing to do with the statistical

expansion of Christianity in the world, but with the fight against misery, exploitation,

intolerance, disease, and everything that denies the ultimate plan of God, which is the

(secular) salvation of humanity. All religions that have this same agenda are called to share

their spiritual vocation with Christians. We must recognize that God's saving action also takes

place outside the confines of the Church and the gospel876.

The same problems that were raised when the other pluralistic theologians were

discussed fit here. (a) One-sided hermeneutics that eliminates all scriptural elements (NT

Christology) incompatible with pluralism; (b) the phenomenological reductionism on the

doctrine of God: God is the mystery, to facilitate interreligious dialogue; (c) the biblically

undue inflation of pneumatology to make the Spirit a universal agent; (d) the secularization of

871
Stanley J. Samartha. One Christ, many Religions. p. 97.
872
Stanley J. Samartha. “The Cross and the Rainbow”, p. 81.
873
Stanley J. Samartha. “The Holy Spirit and People of other Faiths” (ER, 42, 1990), p. 255.
874
Stanley J. Samartha. Courage for Dialogue: Ecumenical Issues in Inter-Religions Relationships (Geneva:
World Council of Churches), p. 72.
875
Ibid., p. 11.
876
S. Samartha. “The Quest for Salvation and the Dialogue between Religions”, IRM (October, 1968), p. 425.
 309

religious salvation that actually does not serve the interests of any of the participants in the

dialogue; (e) the replacement of evangelical and Catholic exclusivism by another, the

exclusivism of Liberal Protestantism. Not to mention that in Samartha the analysis of

Christian sources takes place by parameters that are completely outdated today, since the

distinction between high and low Christology has become inadequate in the face of current

biblical research, which is born from a better knowledge available today of Jesus’ Judaism.

4.d. Conclusion

In the Introduction, the common elements and methodological differences of pluralist

theologians were presented, now the same is done with Christology, which is also a

fundamental chapter to understand how pluralists think. A fundamental aspect that unites all

synthetic pluralists is the distinction between the Logos and the historical Jesus, in flagrant

opposition to the conciliar decision of Chalcedon, with the exception of St. Samartha, all

Asian and non-Asian pluralist shared this feature. Not by chance Samartha is the only one that

is not of Catholic origin, and that, therefore, does not belong to the list of those influenced by

Greek Patristics. The rejection of this logocentric starting point is something that also

characterizes Küng, but not because he thinks it is wrong, but because his emphasis is on the

normativity of Jesus' prophetic ministry. Both, however, rejecting the doctrine of Logos and

adopting a “Christology from below”, they consequently transfer the bases of interreligious

dialogue to the concepts of the Kingdom of God and the Holy Spirit.

By the way, this is a methodological procedure common to all pluralists that rely on the

Bible: to dispel the sources that make the pluralist interpretation of the NT impossible.

Samartha and Küng distance the divinity from the Historical Jesus, the others avoid to attach

to Historical Jesus the divinity. What matters in this type of approach is to avoid sources when

they are not useful to the pluralist perception of religious reality. For all of them, although
 310

they do not admit it, the sources play a secondary role when compared to the multi-religious

empirical demand. In this sense, their hermeneutical procedure is very similar to that of the

heretics through the centuries (Marcion, Valentine, etc.), who tried to revise the canon,

excluding parts of it that were not to their advantage. Summing up, all pluralists involved call

themselves NT Christology revisionists, but they are actually proponents of a deeper change,

from Christian to post-Christian religion.

Still linked to the mutilation of NT Christology, among the defenders of the Christology

of the Logos, “the Christology from below” is denied, or better said, separated from the

“Christology from above”, taking for granted that the Logos and the historical Jesus does not

coincide fully, as if they were adept of a kind of Neo-Nestorianism). Otherwise, among its

proponents there is an inflation of Pneumatology and Ecclesiology of the kingdom of God.

The filioque clause being denied, the Spirit no longer proceeds from the Son, but from the

Father and acts in all those who open themselves to the divine mystery. The concept of the

kingdom of God is used to expand and absorb that of the Church, with the understanding that

it encompasses all the world's religions:

Christian theology has always recognized that people belonging to other religions
could be saved by God if they were sincere to their conscience. What's new is that
today we believe that God is reaching out to people, not despite their religion, but in
and through their religions877.

The deity of Jesus is thus resolved. For Hick, Samartha and Küng it is a symbol of

Jesus' high spirituality and his deep understanding of "Mystery" or "Reality". Everything the

NT says about his divine credentials must be interpreted metaphorically. For others, it is the

hierophanic description of a sacred reality that is not restricted to the uniqueness of the

Historical Jesus. The Logos has manifested itself in several avatars in human history and the

salvation preached by them, although referring to different problems, all produce the same

877
M. Amaladoss. “O Deus de todos os nomes e o diálogo inter-religioso”, p. 13.
 311

effect; salvation, whatever that means, it overcomes sin (Christianity), ignorance (Hinduism)

or suffering (Buddhism); and considering the three Abrahamic religions, salvation means

deliverance from the divine punishment of the Last Judgment. No one bothers to explain to

the poor reader how such diverse things can be equally true; except Hick, who says that all

religions teach pious lies.

It cannot be denied that the Logos doctrine has the merit of making Christianity less

scandalous to Hindu mind, the religious context where all the theologians mentioned work or

worked, but NT does not teach Christian to fear to be scandalous to the world. Otherwise, in

the Hindu religious world there are two fundamental characteristics, one favors the acceptance

not only of Christianity, but also of other religions; the other disfavors the acceptance of

Christianity, respectively: (a) a long syncretic religious history, which has undergone several

stages, reforms, and which has thousands of gods in its pantheon and hundreds of beliefs; (b)

a natural tendency to abstract the supreme god (Brahman) from any palpable reality. The

Vedas already spoke of this world as maya (veil), which in its multiplicity hinders the vision

of the One, being, therefore, an obstacle to the understanding of the divine. Thus, it is

perplexing to the Hindu understanding to say that God can enter history and thus be part of

this illusory multiplicity of the world, but to Christian that means that God so much loved the

world to the point of sending His Son to die for that (John 3: 16). So, a question remains,

Christianity to become acceptable to Hindus and to build a path to the interreligious faith must

give this doctrine up, considering that it is the essence of Christian faith? If your answer is

yes, there is no any longer dialogue because of the undoing of the one of participant of the

dialogue. If your answer is no, you must search another religious point to start the dialogue.

The essence of Christianity is not the doctrine of Logos. Theologians who say that God

loves the whole world (God's universal saving will) and dismiss the greatest proof of that

love, do their own thesis a disservice. Secondary cannot replace primary just because Logos is
 312

an interesting concept for Hinduism. The Logos of Scripture is not a theological concept

independent of this fundamental truth: "for God loved the world." If this is removed, it no

longer makes sense for the Christian to believe that the divine was manifested among men.

The greatest meaning of the incarnation is not that Jesus came to teach how to seek God, as all

avatars do; it was that Jesus came to teach how God seeks man and is capable of the greatest

sufferings to save him. Therefore, the logocentric pluralist approach does not do justice to the

intent of the sources. Because of the above religious and cultural reference, one is trying to

sacrifice the earthly story of Jesus on the altar of interreligious dialogue, but actually one is

sacrificing Christianity itself.

Furthermore, the ability to accommodate new religious ideas within it is a quality of

Hinduism, not Christianity. So, would it not be truer to say that Logos’ theology, as

understood by pluralists, has only a Christian appearance and should be better understood as

an important chapter in the theology of religions from a Hindu perspective? Something

similar have happened in the history of Christianity when Gnosticism, based on Neoplatonism

and the mystery religions, presented themselves to the ancient world with a Christian face? If

we don't see, practically all the characteristics of the Gnostic cooptation of Christianity are

present in Panikkar's project: (a) the use of Christian vocabulary to designate foreign

concepts, (b) the defense of a type of esoteric knowledge, (c) attempt at synthesis between

religions, (d) devaluation of the ministry of the historical Jesus, (d) devaluation of Christian

New Testament sources.

And, as a last criticism, the concept of the enlarged kingdom of God seems to be much

more a veiled criticism of Christian religious institutions and a compliment to non-Christian

religious organizations than the correction of a Christian doctrine misused by the Church. To

think that the Spirit has free passage amidst religions and is inspiring their Scriptures as much

as it does the sacred texts of Christianity is actually an implicit denial of a fundamental

 313

Christian doctrine, namely, the post-Lapsarian wickedness and sinfulness of mankind,

replacing it with an unwarranted optimism about humanity. In a sense these theologians are

being consistent. Peculiar concepts of Christianity, such as sin and evil, have been swept

under their hermeneutical carpet, so that in the empirical reality they contemplate is no longer

any of these things, but a peaceful humanity having its peace disturbed by a group of

contentious and pretentious Christians, insisting on criticizing human societies and religions

that serve as a support platform. In what sense can this be called a Christian theology of

religions?

In the end, Paul Knitter is the only inconsistent among these thinkers, but actually also

the most lucid. He suggested criteria for evaluating the religious world, recognizing the

perniciousness of general and unrestricted relativism, but in doing so he destroyed his own

pluralism, recovering a fundamental aspect of Christianity: its prophetic vocation, and the

realization that not everything is all right in the world of non-Christian religions; and that

humanity's need is not so much the apophatic Logos, but the historical Jesus, the preacher and

herald of judgment.

Other scholars of theology of religions have also perceived the need to recover Christian

sources in relation to the current hermeneutical project of interreligious dialogue. The sources

must be consulted seriously as to what ails us today as Christians. These sources cannot be

merely used as a pretext to defend this or that pluralistic point of view. Veli-Matti

Kärkkläinen has undertaken something in this direction. In his latest work878, he undertakes a

project that recovers several Christian font elements that have been ignored or overlooked. In

short, one cannot be a Christian theologian of religions without considering what Christian

sources say, and this does not mean using mutilated sources or making a general reading of

Veli-Matti Kärkkläinen. Christian Theology in Pluralistic World. A Global Introduction (Grand Rapids, MI:
878

Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2019).

 314

them. Both types of theology do the gospel a disservice by telling the world that its message

has lost its relevance just because in the past economic interests prevailed over those of

Christ's message. What should be done is to look for the sources again, correct the mistakes,

and not do as most pluralists: throw away the dirty water from the basin where the child was

bathed with the child inside.

 315

CAPÍTULO VI

Last Words

The Christian world has radically changed in this century that keep falling behind us. It

is any longer white and Euro-American and has become global. In addition to the evident

heterogeneity resulting from this, today Christians worship God in more than two thousand

different linguistic groups, there are deeper divergences between two broad categories of

Christianity: (a) a Western Christianity, in frank decay, that tries to become relevant in a

secular and postmodern environment; and (b) a globalized Christianity that feels the growing

pains in some places, and in others struggles not to succumb to the pressures of those who are

uncomfortable with its survival.

Western theologians, as they use to do, try to guide their non-Western pupils towards a

more 'open' theology, accordingly to what they see in Europe and the United States.

Theologians from the third world and emerging countries find themselves at a crossroads:

either they accompany their northern hemisphere mentors in adopting a relativistic

postmodern thinking (supposedly pro interreligious agenda), or they reinforce their Christian

heritage, which, from a sociological point of view, it is perhaps more suited to their status as a

minority in their own countries. What they themselves see is that the theologians who defend

religious relativism, under the pretext of favoring interreligious dialogue, actually do them a

disservice, reinforcing the discourse of those who consider themselves enemies of the gospel

and under whom Christians live submitted. These Western theologians, always very active in

protecting minority cultures and religions and threatened by the expansion of Christianity,
 316

forget that it is the very ones who are now under threat in the 10/40 window, for example,

where Islamic fundamentalism bothers. even with its timid growth, imposing new prohibitions

and limitations on the profession of Christian faith.

Furthermore, the ideology of Hindu and Buddhist countries has happily adopted

pluralistic (synthetic) dispositions, as they have been doing for centuries, and do that now

without giving up their own religious theories (Christians must adapt). As a result, Christians

in these countries, in addition to being pressured by non-Christian religious majorities, are

now also victims of the “friendly fire” of synthetic Pan-ecumenism, whose teachings and

lectures relativize Christianity, strip it of its religious relevance and still become benefactors

of humanity, as they see themselves collaborating with world peace. In reality, they do not

collaborate with the subjugated Christians of Islamic countries and discriminating in the Far

East, nor do they satisfy those with whom they presumptively intend to enter into dialogue,

because the leaders of non-Christian religions do not want to hear that the teachings of their

religions are pious metaphors, without truth value background. In short, on both sides the

minority Christians in these countries are harmed and the non-Christian religions as a whole.

Considering the third block of Christianity, that which concerns the Americas, where

prevails the freedom spirit; and Africa, where secularism does not exist, but neither does

religious persecution, the reasons against relativism are no less blunt. There they have no

benefits with the contemporary contextualizing the gospel. Postmodern ecumenism reaches a

cultural environment where faith is already weakened by the prevailing secular ideology, built

over the course of the 20th century by urbanization and the jettisoning of Christianity from the

public space (by way of secularism). In any of the great cities of the planet, churches

increasingly fragmented, ideologically and institutionally, give birth to the new socio-
 317

religious phenomenon: the double religious affiliation – especially in the big cities of South

America879.

The name of this is religious syncretism although, for the time only in the sphere of

individuals880. Postmodern religiosity favors and feeds it, as it is built on the foundations of

consumerism; religion is another product offered to the masses and individuals choose items

of religiosity as a consumer who customizes the products they will consume. They choose the

items of each religion to compose their own religiosity, without respecting institutional limits.

By looking for the total, holistic reality, postmodern spirituality tends to mix everything

indiscriminately, what Pierre Sanchis calls “bricolage” 881, because the religious elements are

not only syncretically brought together, but also 'recycled', in a way that no longer remain the

same. The extreme freedom with which this mixture is made also reflects the idea that all

creeds describe the same divine reality, only taken from another angle. The divine is the

irreducible multifarious reality and at the same time a non-fractional one. This paradox is only

understandable when faced in the light of the spirituality-institution polarity, that is, it is

multifarious in the face of attempts to reduce the divine to a single type of discourse, and it is

one insofar as it relativizes the various self-excluded 'isms'.

What does Christianity gain from succumbing to these relativistic and ideological

pressures, which those postmodern theologians want it to subscribe to? Ideologies come and

go, but the gospel is eternal (Rev. 14:6). Other crises have already arisen, because of other

hermeneutical demands as or more pressing than the current ones: Gnosticism in the 2nd

Century C. E., Enlightenment, from the second half of the 19th Century to the first half of the

20th. And now are these new eternal ideologies, ultimate truths to which the Scriptures must
879
Franz Damen. “Panorama das religiões no mundo e na América Latina”, in Pelos muitos caminhos de Deus
(Goiás: Editora Rede, 2003), pp. 45 e 46.
880
Pierre Sanchis. “Religião, religiões… Alguns problemas do sincretismo no campo religioso brasileiro.”. In
Pierre Sanchis (org.). Fieis & cidadãos: percursos de sincretismos no Brasil (Rio de Janeiro: Eduerj, 2001).
881
Pierre Sanchis. “O campo religioso será ainda hoje o campo das religiões?”. In Eduardo Hoornaert. História
da Igreja na América Latina e no Caribe (Petrópolis, RJ: Vozes, 1995), p. 88.
 318

bow? And yet it is undeniable that our crisis is more insidious and sneakier. It undermines

foundations like innocent water, without fanfare. To be fought against, firmer decisions will

be needed, which does not mean turning away from the world: adaptation, contextualization,

but not negotiating the principles: (1) Jesus is the only Savior, (2) the Church owes this

message to the world.

The middle term solution of J. Moltmann's pluralism, contradicting the idea that balance

is in the middle, because it does not serve us either. His theses have an axial weakness that

does not reach the second principle, that is, no missiological impulse is possible in it. There is

no reason to preach, because deep down it adopts as its philosophical basis the

Wittgensteinian thesis of the immanence of the subject and the consequent impossibility of

composing a great narrative of universal relevance. Those born into a Buddhist or Hindu

culture cannot understand the world from a Christian perspective so cooperation between

religions will take place without any of the participants being able to abandon their

particularity. Seeking each one, in his own religion, for points of contact with the religion of

others. This seems more an academic endeavor than a truly missiological vision of the

Christian message.

As for the inclusivist modality, there is nothing more to add beyond what has been said

already. It is only disguised exclusivism, using a theological or philosophical garb to maintain

in the symbolic field the prestige and hegemony of certain religious institutions; at the same

time subscribing to the current hermeneutical program to give him a more human face despite

his violent past. As we have already had the opportunity to defend, inclusivism as a generic

missiological vision is only possible for hegemonic religious institutions or pretenders to this,

in no way concerning evangelical religious minorities.

 319

As for exclusivism, depending on how it is presented (whether it emphasizes the

Christian message or the vehicle of the message – the Church), it is biblical and inevitable,

although in our days it is also hermeneutically problematic. Its ecclesiastical modality has

snags and drawbacks also recognized in inclusivism, namely, the problem of ecclesiastical

power and its tendency to manipulate the religious behavior of those who do not adhere to it

willingly. Nowadays, however, this kind of exclusivism referred to Christianity has less and

less conditions to be practiced, in view of secularism in the West and the increase in the

economic power of non-Christian religions in the countries where they are practiced.

Postcolonial arguments today are perhaps only applicable to Africa. In other regions of the

globe, such as the 10/40 window and the Far East (especially China), economic forces have

reversed and another type of discourse is needed.

The globalized world where the Christian message must be proclaimed is a multicultural

and multi-religious context, if we have renounced the political-economic hegemony,

interreligious dialogue imposes itself on the Christian missiological agenda as a priority. The

question is how can it occur in view of everything that has been discussed so far? The study

of religions as a mere missiological strategy with the aim of erecting waiting stones for the

evangelization of non-Christians can no longer satisfy this agenda, as Jason Barker concludes

(though so some persist in thinking):

Interfaith dialogue is not evangelism, nor should it be a prelude to two-stage

evangelism: Christians must practice dialogue with non-Christians (1) to understand
the plight of non-Christians and how the gospel to respond to their needs; (2) answer
questions raised by people to involve them in a personal encounter with the claims
of God882.

“The question is no longer whether we should enter into dialogue or not, but what kind

of dialogue should we entertain” 883 . In the first chapter of this research, the position of

882
Apud Douglas Cowan. Bearing False Witness? An Introduction to the Christian Countercult (Westport, CT:
Praeger Publishers, 2003), p. 108.
883
David J. Hesselgrave. “Interreligious Dialogue – Biblical and Contemporary Perspectives”. In David J.
Hesselgrave. Theology and Mission (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1979), p. 235.
 320

theorists who defend as one of the objectives of the dialogue between religions the

development of a kind of religious Esperanto has already been discussed. Leonard Swidler

has been one of its most ardent supporters since the early 1980s, with the publication of

several articles in which he proposed a kind of decalogue for dialogue between religions884.

True to its relativistic and philosophical position, the first precept of its “dialogue decalogue”

is: inter-religious dialogue must mean that its participants must first of all seek “a change and

a growth in the understanding of reality” 885.

It is undeniable that dialogue between religions cannot be thought of as a mere

conversation between different religious adepts. There must be a common goal, there must be

a shared project (second precept) 886. However, as we have seen, to expect the creation of a

religious Esperanto is an epistemological and theological mistake, which does nothing to

strengthen religions, except the hegemonic and oppressive universal Enlightenment religion.

Dialogue is an empirical need arising from the multiculturality and multi-religiosity of human

societies in the contemporary globalized world.

As Martin Forward clarifies, the etymological meaning of the word dialogue is not a

mere conversation between two, as if the Greek radical dia referred to the two participants in

a chat. The radical dia does not come from di (two), rather it means through, emphasizing a

means and an objective of a rational conversation (logos). “Dialogue means worldviews being

884
Leonard Swidler. “The Dialogue Decalogue: Ground Rules for Interreligious Dialogue” (Horizons, vol. 10,
1983), p. 350.
885
The other commandments are: (2) a bilateral project carried out within two religious communities, (3)
complete honesty and sincerity on the part of each participant, (4) each participant assumes complete honesty
and sincerity on the part of the other, ( 5) each participant must define himself, (6) each participant must come to
the dialogue without prejudice and superficial concepts about the other, (7) dialogue can only occur between
equals (par cum pari), (8) the Dialogue can only take place in an environment of mutual trust, (9) each
participant must be self-critical in relation to their religious tradition, and (10) each participant must eventually
try to experience the religion of the partner in the dialogue. Idem, ibid.
886
Ibid, p. 351.
 321

argued until reaching potentially transformative conclusions” 887 , as occurs in Platonic

dialogues. The etymological clarification is welcome, but the conclusion seems to me still

vague in practical terms, being rejected the possibility of doctrinal inter-influence between the

parties involved.

Hans Küng, in turn, has a more realistic proposition than Swidler, as he recognizes that

interfaith understandings should be aimed at efforts to develop a global ethic. As we had the

opportunity to examine, for Küng the role of Jesus' teachings in the multi-religious context is

normative, hence the directives or bases of dialogue between religions are based on their

teachings, summarized in four major prescriptions: “(1) non-violence and respect for life, (2)

solidarity and just economic order, (3) tolerance and a life of truthfulness, and (4) equal rights

and partnership between men and women”888.

Küng's repair is welcome, but his project still raises concerns about feasibility. First,

because your overly ambitious project continues to propose milestones beyond what is

possible. The diversity of human religiosity is such that a global ethic seems a utopian project;

none of the principles he proposed could include all participants in this world ethic. The first

precept is peaceful, but would still exclude animistic religions (because of non-human

sacrificial practices). The second precept seems to presuppose a capitalism with better income

distribution as the just economic order, which would not be so peaceful either because of the

collectivism of archaic peoples and other forms of economic organization that do not endorse

the “conquests” of the Enlightenment. Social organization sometimes has profound religious

implications as in the case of castes in Hinduism889, where social status (varna) is linked to the

887
Apud Paul Hedges. Controversies in interreligious dialogue and theology of religions (London: SCM Press,
2010), p. 63.
888
Hans Küng e Karl-Josef Kuschel (eds.). A Global Ethic. The Declaration of the Parliament of the World’s
Religions (New York: The Continuum International Publishing Group Inc., 2006), pp. 24-33. See also Hans
Küng. Proyecto de una ética mundial (Madrid: Planeta – Agostini, 1994).
889
Paul Hedges. Controversies in Interreligious Dialogue and Theology of Religions, p. 259.
 322

dharma 890 . The third prescription is the least contentious: tolerance and truthfulness are

universal religious values. The fourth and final precept clashes with traditional patriarchal

societies in the Near and Far East.

It must be recognized that Küng's project has as its starting point the teachings of Jesus,

but the appropriate question is: why are the teachings of Jesus with a secularized bias better

suited to interreligious dialogue than His eschatology? Wouldn't this project be suitable only

politically and not necessarily from a religious perspective? The suspicion that rises and

swells as the pages of Küng and Kuschel's project turn, is that it is an extension of well-

known Enlightenment ethics, which come with the same defect: “they cannot generate a

moral and social transformation” 891with their prescription; and, furthermore, they cannot even

convince everyone in the philosophical field.

David J. Hesselgrave, in a not-so-recent article, makes some suggestions that remain

current on the issue of how Christians can enter into a cooperative process with religions

without giving up their religious values: (1) before entering into dialogue with non-Christian

religions it is necessary to know what kind of dialogue you want to form, with what

objectives; (2) interreligious dialogue may concern freedom of worship and profession of

faith, which in the case of Christians also means witnessing with the aim of winning others to

the faith; (3) inter-religious dialogue may refer to cooperation to limit and prohibit

dehumanizing actions in society: wars, drugs, abortion, human trafficking, slave labor, etc., as

well as actions that produce negative environmental impacts: against nuclear tests and

pollution, against deforestation, against animal and human trafficking, pro food security for

890
According to Hindu beliefs, it is the spiritual law that should govern the actions of those under the cosmic law
of karma, which, in turn, determines the fate of all living beings. To be obedient to the dharma is to accept the
social conditions, the caste where one was born, and make it your mission to return in another incarnation in a
higher position and continue evolving until the end of the cycle.
891
Bas de Graay Fortman e Berma Kleein Goldewijk. Dios y las cosas. La economía global desde una
perspectiva de civilización (Santander: Sal Terrae, 1999), p. 130.
 323

children and vulnerable people, etc.; (4) dialogue to break down barriers of prejudice and

promote a deeper understanding and appreciation of religious practices892.

Certainly, the most urgent need for interreligious dialogue is related to reason (4). In the

past and even today, after so many debates on the subject, the emphasis of comparative

studies between Christianity and other world religions was “the uniqueness of Christianity

and not the common basis of religions” 893. The disinterest in this type of study seems to be

founded on an extremely Manichean basic presupposition: God on the Christian side and the

Devil on the other side; though there is nothing in Scripture to recommend it. Rather, as we

have seen, Scripture speaks of a divine plan to save everyone, from the covenants of Adam,

Noah, and Abraham to Jesus' inclusive missiological program, which will only end at the ends

of the earth (Acts 1:8).

In the Gospel of John Jesus prays for sheep that are not of the fold under his direct care

(John 10:16) and at the beginning of the same book he had already said that God does not

give His Spirit by human measures (John 3:34); in Acts the Spirit is poured out on Gentiles

(Acts 10: 47), which was certainly an event interpreted by the apostles eschatologically in the

light of Joel 2: 28: “and it shall come to pass afterward that I will pour out my Spirit on all

flesh”. We know, however, that no matter how inclusive these texts seem, nothing in them

authorizes us to conclude a religious or secular apokatastasis (universal salvation) declared at

the end of the history of this world to all human beings, or even a theological undertaking in

search of the signs of the Spirit in the doctrines and practices of the world religions. This kind

of scrutiny does not belong to us nor has it been required of any Christian. The work of

preaching does not place on Christians the duty to interfere or judge non-Christian

892
David J. Hesselgrave. “Interreligious dialogue – biblical and contemporary perspectives”, pp. 227-240.
893
William A. Dyrness. Learning about Theology from the Third World (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1990),
p. 156.
 324

institutions, but to reach their adherents, among those who are willing to hear the gospel (in

the globalized world the Constantinian Church passed away without any regrets).

On the other hand, the ministry of the Spirit cannot be restricted to the Church, for the

very work of preaching would be impossible if this were true. For as Paul writes, without the

work of the Spirit no one could reach the conclusion that Jesus is Lord (1 Cor. 12:3) and,

therefore, be saved, hence the conclusion that the Spirit works primarily with those who are

outside, although His action is linked to the preaching of the Church. We must, therefore,

abandon the Manichaeism that makes us see gospel hearers from the world's religions as if the

moment they hear the Word of God for the first time is the ground zero of their spirituality.

As if, before they came across the message of the cross, they had not been guided in their

spiritual journey to Christ, about whom by the same Spirit we are also impelled to preach.

This is the great news that these new winds blow on the Christian world, especially the

evangelical one: a religious modesty. The Spirit works in the Church because it is God's goal

to save everyone, not the aggrandizement of the Church and its leaders. The Church is only an

instrument, an agency, not the raison d'être of the mission. The spiritual pride once so easily

developed in Christian circles, because of the caricatured portraits of other religions and

because of the many retouchings on its own, must now give way to spiritual humility of being

one among others religions in the multi-religious world. And for the certainty that the golden

verse will be the middle term between Exclusivism and Pluralism: "God so loved the world"

(not a small number of believers) "so that He gave His only begotten Son (not an avatar or a

bodhisattva), that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life" (John 3: 16),

will be able to give its message the correct hermeneutical tone.

 325

References

Reference Works and Institutional Documents

Apócrifos del Antíguo Testamento, A. Díez Macho (ed.), Madrid, Cristianidad, 1987.

Baylor University. Institute for Studies of Religion. “Gerald R. McDermott”. Available at:
https://www.baylorisr.org/scholars/m/gerald-mcdermott/ Accessed at 18/09/2020.

Bible. King James Version on line. Available at http://thekingsbible.com/ accessed at 23/04/2017

Cambridge Annotated Study Apocrypha, Howard Clark Kee (ed.) Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1989.

Carta Encíclica Mystici Corporis, do Sumo Pontífice Pio XII Available at:
https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/pt/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-
corporis-christi.html Accessed at 05/08/2021.

Congregação para a Doutrina da Fé. Notificação a propósito do livro de Jacques Dupuis “Para uma teologia
cristã do pluralismo religioso" (Brescia, Queriniana, 1997). Available at:
https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20010124_dupu
is_po.html Accessed at 05/08/2020.

Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement, Nicholas Lossky et al. (eds.), Genève, Suisse/Grand Rapids, MI,
WCC/W/Wm. B. Eerdemans, 2002.

Documents of Vatican II, Augustin P. Flannery W.B. (ed.), Grand Rapids, MI, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishers,
1975.

Documents of Vatican II, City of Vatican, Vatican Publishing House, 2014.

Enchiridion symbolorum in Cesare CANTONE. A reviravolta cósmica de Deus, in these references.

Enciclica Quanto Conficiamur, del Sommo Potefice Pio IX, available at: https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-
ix/it/documents/enciclica-quanto-conficiamur-10-agosto-1863.html Accessed at 21/07/2018

Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity, Angelo di Bernardino (ed.), Downers Grove, IL, InterVarsity, 2014.

Global Dictionary of Theology. A Resource for the Worldwide Church, William Dyrness and Veli-Matti
Kärkkläinen (eds.), Downers Grove, IL/ Nottingham, UK, InterVarsity Press, 2008.

Jehovah’s Witnesses. “Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Practice Interfaith?” Available at

https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/interfaith/ Accessed at 10/07/ 2017

Loeb Classical Library, Josephus. Thackeray, H., Marcus, R., Wingren, A., Feldman, L.H. (trads.), Cambridge,
Harvard University Press, 1926 e 1965.
 326

Non canonical Writings and New Testament Interpretation, Craig Evans (ed.), Peabody, MS, Hendrikson
Publishers, 1992.

Nuovo Dizionario Patristico e di Antichità Cristiane, Angelo di Bernardino (ed.), 3 volumi, Genova, Marietti,
2006.

PCUSA. “Presbyterian Principals for Inter-Faith Dialogue” Available at:

https://www.pcusa.org/resource/presbyterian-principals-interfaith-dialogue/ Accessed at: 25/08/2020.

Psalms of Solomon. Montague R. James e Herbert E. Ryle (eds.). Psalms of Pharisees commonly called the
Psalms of Solomon, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1891.

Saint Augustin. Jean Chené e Jacques Pintard (eds.). Bibliothèque augustinien, Paris, Desclée de Brower, 1962.

Singularem quadam in J. DUPUIS. Rumo a uma teologia cristã do pluralismo religioso, in these references.

The Central Board of Finance of the Church of England. Towards a Theology for Inter-Faith Dialogue, London,
Church House Publishing, 1988.

The Dead Sea Scrolls Today. James VanderKan (ed.), Grand Rapids, MI, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishers, 1994.

Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. Peace and Security. How Can You Find it? New York, 1986.

Wikipedia. “Anglicanism”. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglicanism Accessed 07/08/2021.

_________________. “Fate of the Unlearned”. Available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fate_of_the_unlearned

Accessed at 25/08/2017.

_________________. “Methodism”. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodism Accessed

07/08/2021.

_________________. “World Methodist Council”. Available at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Methodist_Council Accessed at 11/08/2021.

World Council of Churches. Baar Statement: Theological Perspective on Plurality. Available at

https://www.oikoumene.org/resources/documents/baar-statement-theological-perspectives-on-plurality .
Accessed at 04/07/2019.

_________________. Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement Article on Interfaith Dialogue. Available at

https://www.oikoumene.org/resources/documents/dictionary-of-the-ecumenical-movement-article-on-
interfaith-dialogue Accessed at 04/07/2019.

_________________. From Harare to Porto Alegre (1998-2006) (Genève, 2005).

World Scripture. A Comparative Anthology of Sacred Texts, Andrew Wilson (ed.), U.S.A., International religion
foundation, 1991.

Yale Divinity School Website: S. Mark Heim Available at https://divinity.yale.edu/faculty-and-research/yds-

faculty/stephen-mark-heim Accessed at 27/07/2018

Books:

ABDUL-MASIH, Marguerite. Edward Schillebeeckx and Hans Frei. A Conversation on Method and
Christology, Waterloo, Wilfred Laurier University Press, 2001.
 327

ADAMSON, Peter; Jonardon GANERI. Classical Indian Philosophers. A History of Philosophy without any
Gap, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2020.

AUGUSTINE OF HIPPONA, Saint. De Corretione et Gratia. In Jean Chené e Jacques Pintard (orgs.). Œuvres
de Saint Augustin. Bibliothèque augustinien, Paris, Desclée de Brower, 1962.

_________________. De Trinitate, Roma, Città Nuova Editrice, 1987.

ALLEN, Ronald J. A Faith of Your Own. Naming What You Really Believe, Louisville, KT,
Westminster John Knox Press, 2010.

ALLERT, Craig D. Revelation, Truth, Canon and Interpretation. Studies in Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho,
Leiden, Brill, 2002.

ALVAR, Jaime. “Cultos sírios”. In Jaime ALVAR et al. Cristianismo primitivo y religiones mistéricas, in these
references.

________________. “El misterio de Mitra”. In Jaime ALVAR et al. Cristianismo primitivo y religiones
mistéricas, in these references.

ALVAR, Jaime et al. Cristianismo primitivo y religiones mistéricas, Madrid, Cátedra, 1995.

AMALADOSS, Michel. The Asian Jesus, Maryknoll, NY, Orbis Books, 2006.

________________. Beyond Inculturation. Can the many Be One, Delhi, ISPCK, 1998.

________________. “Double Religious Belonging and Liminality: An Anthropo-Theological Reflection”,

Journal of Theological Reflection, Jan, 2002.

________________. “O Deus de todos os nomes e o diálogo inter-religioso”, Cadernos de Teologia Pública, ano
2, no. 10, 2005, pp. 5-23.

________________. “Inculturation and Internationality”, East Asian Pastoral Review, 28, 1981, pp. 239-249.

________________. “Inculturation: theological perspectives”, Jeevadhara, 33, 1976.

________________. “Nuevas imagénes de misión”, Promotio Iustitiae, 94, 2007-1, pp. 21-29.

________________. “Religions: An Indian Christian point of view” conversions, Journal of Hindu-Christian

Studies, vol. 15, 2002, pp. 3-5.

________________. “Théologie indienne”, Études, n. 3783, 1993, pp. 341-350.

ANJOS, Márcio Fabri dos (org.). Teologia e novos paradigmas, São Paulo, Soter/Loyola, 1996.

ANDERSON, James N. Christianity and Comparative Religions, Downers Grove, IL, InterVarsity Press, 1970.

ANTON, John. “Theourgia – Demiourgia: A Controversial Issue in Hellenistic Thought and Religion”. In
Richard T. WALLIS (ed.). Neoplatonism and Gnosticism, in these references.

ARIARAJAH, Wesley, entry: “Interfaith Dialogue” in Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement, in these
references.

ARMSTRONG, Karen. Uma história de Deus. Quatro milênios de busca do Judaísmo, Cristianismo e
Islamismo. Marcos Santarrita (trans.), São Paulo, Companhia das Letras, 2008.

ATKINSON, Keneth. I Cried to the Lord: A Study of the Psalms of Solomon’s Historical Background and Social
Setting, Leiden, Brill, 2004.
 328

ATTRIDGE, Harold W. e Gohei HATA (eds.). Eusebius, Christianity and Judaism, Detroit, MI, Wayne State
University Press, 1992.

AVIS, Paul. Anglicanism and the Christian Church. Theological Resources in Historical Perspectives, London,
T & T Clark, 2002.

BAKER, Daniel W. Biblical Faith and other Religions. An Evangelical Assessment, Grand Rapids, MI, Kregel
Publications, 2004.

BALKE, Willem. Calvin and the Anaptist Radicals, William Heynen (trans.), Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans,
1981.

BALIA Daryl; Kirsteen KIM. “Experimenting with a Multi-Regional, Cross-Denominational, Poly-Centric

Study Process”. In Daryl BALIA; Kirsteen KIM (eds.). Edinburgh 2010. Witnessing to Christ Today,
Oxford, Regnum Books International, 2010.

BARNES, Michel. Theology and the Dialogue of Religions, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2002.

BARRET, David B.; Todd M. JOHNSON. World Christian Trends. Interpreting the Annual Christian
Megacensus, Pasadena, CA, William Carey Library, 2001.

BARRET, David B.; George KURIAN and Todd JOHNSON (eds.). World Christian Encyclopedia: A
Comparative Survey of Churches and Religions in Modern World, New York, Oxford University Press,
2001.

BARTH, Karl. The Epistle to the Romans, Edwyn C. Hoskins (trad.), New York, Oxford University Press, 1968.

________________. Church Dogmatics, 12 vols., Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1961.

________________. Dádiva e Louvor, São Leopoldo, Brasil, Sinodal, 1989.

BARTHES, Roland. O rumor da língua, Mário Laranjeira (trans.), Brasília, Editora Brasiliense, 1988.

BAUMGARTEN, Albert. The Flourishing of Jewish Sects in the Maccabean Era: An Interpretation,
Leiden/Köln, Brill, 1997.

BAYLOR, Michael G. The German Reformation and the Peasant War. A Brief History with Documents,
Boston/New York, Bedford/St. Martin, 2012.

BEEKE, Jonathan D. Duplex Regnum Christi. Christ’s Twofold Kingdom in Reformed Theology, Leiden, Brill,
2021.

BENEDETTI, Paolo de. Quale Dio? Una domanda dalla storia, Brescia, Morcelliana, 2004.

BENT, Ans Joachim van der. Historical Dictionary of Ecumenic Christianity, Metuchen, NJ, The Scarecrow
Press, 1994.

BERGER, Peter. The Heretical Imperative. Contemporary Possibilities of Religion Affirmation, London, Collins,
1980.

_________________. Rumor of Angels. Modern Society and the Rediscovery of the Supernatural, New York,
Doubleday & Company, 1970.

_________________. O dossel sagrado. Elementos para uma teoria sociológica da religião, José Carlos
Barcellos (trad.), São Paulo: Paulinas, 1985.

BERKHOF, Louis. Introductory Volume to Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, MI, William B. Eerdmans,
1996.
 329

BERLIN, Isaiah. The Hedgehog and the Fox, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2013.

BERNARD, Robert W. “The Hermeneutics of the Early Church Fathers”. Bruce CORLEY; Steve W. LEMKE;
Grant I. LOVEJOY. Biblical Hermeneutics, in these references.

BERTENS, Hans. “The Detective”. In Hans BERTENS; Dowe FOKKEMA. International Postmodernism.
Theory and Literary Practice, Philadelphia/Amsterdam, John Benjamin Publishing, 1997.

BEUTTLER, Fred W. “Evangelical Mission in Modern America“. In Martin I. KLAUBER; Scott M.

MANETSCH (eds.). The Great Commission. Evangelical and the History of World Missions, in these
references.

BIERINGER, Reymond, Didier POLLEFEYT e Frederique VANDECASTEELE-VANNEUVILLE (eds.). Anti-

Judaísm and the Fourth Gospel, Louisville, KT, Westminster John Knox Press, 2001.

BIFFI, Giacomo. La Chiesa Cattolica e il Problema della Salvezza, Torino, Elledici, 2000.
BIRD, Michel F. Jesus and the Origins of the Gentiles Mission, London, T&T Clark, 1988.
BIRI, Kudzai. African Pentecostalism, the Bible and Cultural Resilience, Bamberg, Germany, University of
Bamberg Press, 2020.

BLEEKER, C. J. The Sacred Bridge, Leiden, Brill, 1963.

BLIESE, Richard H.; Craig van GELDER. The Evangelizing Church. A Lutheran Contribution, Minneapolis,
MN: Augsburg Fortress, 1989.

BOERSMA, Hans. “Ressourcement of Mystery: The Ecclesiology of St. Thomas Aquinas and the Letter to the
Romans”. In Matthew LEVERING; Michael DAUPHINAIS. Reading Romans with St. Thomas Aquinas,
in these references.

BORDEIANU, Radu. Dimitru Staniloae : An Ecumenical Ecclesiology, London : T & T Clark, 2011.

BORG, Marcus. Jesus in Contemporary Scholarship, Harrisburg, PA, Trinity Press International, 1994.

________________. Conflict, Holiness and Politics in the Teachings of Jesus, New York/London, Continuum
International Publishing Group, 1998.

BORGMAN, Erik. Edward Schillebeeckx. A Theologian in his History, John Bowden (trans.), London,
Continuum, 2004.

BORNKAMM, Gunter. Jesus of Nazareth, New York, Harper & Row, 1960.

BOSCH, David. Missão transformadora. Mudança de paradigma na teologia da missão, São Leopoldo, Brasil,
Sinodal, 2002.

BOUYER, Louis. « Où en est la théologie du Corps mystique ? » Revue des Sciences Religieuses, tome 22,
fascicule 3-4, 1948, pp. 313-333.

BRAATEN, Carl E. No other Gospel. Christianity among the World Religions, Minneapolis, MN, Fortress,
1992.

BRAMBILLA, Franco. Edward Schillebeeckx, São Paulo, Loyola, 2006.

BRANDON, S. G. F. Jesus and the Zealots, Machester, University of Manchester, 1967.

BREECH, James. The Silence of Jesus: The Authentic Voice of the Historical Man, Philadelphia, Fortress Press,
1985.
 330

BRIGGMAN, Anthony. Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of Holy Spirit, Oxford, Oxford University Press,
2012.

BROWN, Michel L. What do Jewish People Think about Jesus? And other Questions Christians Ask about
Jewish Beliefs, Practices and History, Grand Rapids, MI, Baker, 2007.

BROWN, Raymond S. The Community of the Beloved Disciple. The Life, Loves, and Hates of an Individual
Church in New Testament, Mahwah, NJ, Paulist Press, 1979.

BRUNNER, Emil. Natural Theology, London, Blackwell, 1951.

________________. Revelation and Reason, Olive Wyon (trans.), London/Philadelphia, SCM

Press/Westminster Press, 1947.

________________. Truth as Encounter, Louisville, KY, Westminster John Knox Press, 2000.

BUCHANAN, Colin. A to Z of Anglicanism, Laham, ML, Scarecrow Press, 2009.

BULTMANN, Rudolf. Jesus and Paul in Existence and Faith, London, Hodder & Stoughton, 1961.
_______________. Jesus and the Word, London, Nicholson & Watson, 1935.

_______________. Historia de la tradición sinóptica, Salamanca, Ediciones Sígueme, 2000.

_______________. Teología del Nuevo Testamento, Salamanca, Ediciones Sígueme, 1981.

BURKETT, Delbert. The Son of Man Debate, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1999.

BYERS, Jaco (ed.). Perspectives on Theology of Religions, Durbanville, South Africa, Aosis, 2017.

CAIRD, George B. Jesus and the Jewish Nation, London, Athlone Press, 1965.

CALVIN, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion, Henry Beveridge (trans.), Peabody, MS, Hendrickson, 2009.

CANOBBIO, Giacomo; Piero CODA. La teologia del XX secolo. Un bilancio, tre volumi, Roma, Città Nuova,
2003.

CANSDELE, Lena. Qumran and Essenes: a re-Evaluation of the Evidence, Tübigen, Mohr, 1997.

CANTONE, Carlos (org.). A reviravolta planetária de Deus, São Paulo, Paulinas, 1995.

CAPPS, Walter H. Religious Studies. The Making of a Discipline, Minneapolis, MN, Fortress Press, 1995.

CARSON, D. A. The Gaging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism, Grand Rapids, MI, Zondervan, 1996.

CASEY, Maurice. “The Use of Term Son of Man in the Similitudes of Enoch”, Journal of Studies of Judaism in
the Persian Hellenistic Roman Period, vol. 7, no. 1, 1976, pp. 11-29.

CHAPMAN, David M. “Methodism, Ecumenism and Inter-Faith Relations”. In William GIBSON; Peter
FORSAITH; Martin WELLINGS (eds.). The Ashgate Research Companion to World Methodism, in these
references.

CHARDIN, Pierre T. de. The Phenomenon of Man, New York, Harper, 1959.

CHARLESWORTH, James. Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls, New York, Doubleday, 1992.
CHENÚ, Marie-Dominique. Une école de théologie : Le Saulchoir. Avec les études de Giuseppe Alberigo,
Étienne Fouilloux, Jean Ladrière et Jean-Pierre Jossua, Paris, Éd. du Cerf, 1985.

CHIU-LAI, Pan. Towards a Trinitarian Theology of Religions: A Study of Paul Tillich Thought, Kampen, the
Netherlands Kok Pharos, 1994.
 331

CHURCH, F. Forrest (ed.). The Essential Tillich. An Anthology of the Writings of Paul Tillich, Chicago, Chicago
University Press, 1987.

CIPRIANI, Roberto. Manual de sociologia da religião, Ivo Storniolo (trans.), São Paulo, Paulus, 2007.

COHEN, Shaye J. D. (ed.). New Testament Early Christianity and Magic, vol. 2, Leiden, Brill, 1996.

COLE, Alan. Galatians. The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Leicester, UK/Grand Rapids, MI,
InterVarsity Press/Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1989.

________________. Daniel with an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature, Grand Rapids, MI, Wm. B.
Eerdmans, 1984.

COLLINS, John J. Between Athens and Jerusalem. Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora, Grand Rapids,
MI, Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2000.

CONESA, Francisco. “Sobre la religión verdadera: aproximación al significado de la expresión”, Scripta

Theologica, vol. XXX, Enero –Abril, 1998, pp. 39 a 85.

CONGAR. Yves. Chrétiens Désunis : Principes d'un 'oecuménisme' catholique, Paris : du Cerf, 1937.

________________. Jalons pour une théologie du laicat, Paris : du Cerf, 1953. Lay People in the Church. A
Study for the Theology of Laity, Donald Atwater (trans.), Westminster MD: Newman Press 1965.

________________. Vraie et fausse réforme dans l'Eglise (Paris : du Cerf, 1950) ; True and False Reform in the
Church, Paul Philibert (trans.), Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 2011.

CONZELMANN, Hans. The Theology of St. Luke, Geoffrey Buswell (trad.), New York, Harper and Row. 1961.

CORLEY, Bruce. “A Student’s Primes for Exegesis”. In Bruce CORLEY; Steve W. LEMKE; Grant I.
LOVEJOY. Biblical Hermeneutics, in these references.

CORLEY, Bruce; Steve W. LEMKE; Grant I. LOVEJOY. Biblical Hermeneutics. A Comprehensive

Introduction to Interpreting the Scripture, Nashville, TN, Broadman & Holman, 2002.

CORNILLE, Catherine. “On Interreligious Dialogue and Cultural Change”. In Catherine CORNILLE; Stephanie
CORIGLIANO. Interreligious Dialogue and Cultural Change, Eugene, OR, Wipf and Stock, 2012.

CORNU, Daniel. Karl Barth et la Politique, Genève, Éditions Labor et Fides, 1967.

COTHINGHAM, John. The Spiritual Dimension. Religion, Philosophy, and Human Value, Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press, 2005.

COWAN, Douglas. Bearing false witness? An Introduction to the Christian Countercult, Westport, CT: Praeger
Publishers, 2003.

COWARD, H. Pluralism: Challenge to World Religions, Maryknoll, NY, Orbis books, 1985.

COWLES, C. S., Daniel L. GARD, Eugene H. MERRIL, Tremper LONGMAN III. Show Them no Mercy. Four
Views on God and Canaanite Genocide, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003.

COX, James L. “Jerusalem 1928. It’s Message for Today”, Missiology, 9, no. 139, 1981, pp. 139-153.

CRACKNELL, Kenneth. Towards a New Relationship: Christian and the People of other Faiths, London,
Epworth Press, 1986.

CROSSAN, John D. The Birth of Christianity, San Francisco/New York, Harper, 1998.

_______________. Jesus a Revolutionary Biography, New York, Harper Collins Publishers, 1995.
 332

CROSSAN, John D. Crossan e Marcus BORG. The Last Week. A Day-by-Day Account of Jesus’ Final Week in
Jerusalem, San Francisco, Harper San Francisco, 2006.

DAGGERS, Jenny. Post-Colonial Theology of Religions. Particularity and Pluralism in World Christianity,
Abingdon, U.K./New York, Routledge, 2013.

DALEY, Brian E. God Visible – Patristic Christology Reconsidered, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2018.

DAMEN Franz. “Panorama das religiões no mundo e na América Latina”, in Franz DAMEN Pelos muitos
caminhos de Deus, Goiás: Editora Rede, 2003.

DANIÉLOU, Jean. God and the Ways of Knowing, Walter Roberts (trans.), San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 1957.

________________. Holy Pagans of the Old Testament, Felix Faber (trans.), London, Longmans/Green & Co.,
1957.

DAVIES, Douglas. The Mormon Culture of Salvation, Aldershot, UK, Ashgate, 2000.
DAVISON, Anne. “The Church of England’s Response to Religious Pluralism”. At Anglicanism.org. A
Resource for Study. Available at: https://anglicanism.org/the-church-of-englands-response-to-religious-
pluralism Accessed at 12/08/2021.

D’COSTA, Gavin. (ed.). Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered. The Myth of Pluralistic Theology of Religions,
Maryknoll, NY, Orbis books, 1990.

________________. Christianity and World Religion. Disputed Questions in the Theology of Religions, Malden
MA/Oxford, Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.

________________. “The Impossibility of a Pluralistic View of Religion”, Religious Studies, no. 32, pp. 223-
232.

________________. “Is pluralistic theology useful for the dialogue of world religions?” in Gavin D’COSTA
(ed.). Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered. The Myth of Pluralistic Theology of Religions, in these
references.

________________. The Meeting of Religions and the Trinity, New York, Maryknoll, 2000.

________________. “The Pluralist Paradigm in the Christian Theology of Religions”, Scottish Journal of
Theology, vol. 39, pp. 211-224.

_______________. Theology and Religious Pluralism: The Challenge of Other Religions, Oxford, Basil
Blackwell, 1986.

DELIO, Ilia. Christ in Evolution, New Delhi, Logos Press, 2010.

DENNIS, James S. Foreign Missions after a Century, London, Oliphant Anderson & Ferrier, 1984.

DHAVAMONY, Mariasusai. Christian Theology of Religions. A Systematic Reflection on the Christian

Understand of World Religions, Berne, Peter Lang, 1988.

DINOIA, John. The Diversity of Religions: A Christian Perspective, Washington DC, The Catholic University of
America Press, 1992.

DOSS, Gorden R. Introduction to Adventist Mission, Silver Spring, ML/Berrien Spring, MI, Institute of World
Mission/Department of World Mission, 2018.

D’SA, Francis X. “How Trinitarian is Panikkar’s Trinity, Cerpit Review, no. 3, supplement, pp. 33-50.

DUPUIS, Jacques. Introdução à Cristologia, São Paulo, Loyola, 1999.

 333

_______________. Jésus-Christ à la rencontre des religions, Paris, Desclée, 1989.

_______________. Rumo a uma teologia cristã do pluralismo religioso, São Paulo, Paulinas, 1999.

_______________. “The truth Will Make You Free. The theology of Religious. Pluralism Revisited, Louvain
Studies, vol. 24, Fall, 1999, pp. 211-263.

DURKHEIM, Émille. Formas elementales de la vida religiosa, Ramón Ramos (trans.), Madrid, Akal Editor,
1982.

DUERKSEN, Darren T.; William A. DYRNESS. Seeking Church. Emerging Witnesses to the Kingdom,
Downers Grove, IL, InterVarsity, 2019.

DYRNESS, William A. Learning about theology from the third world, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1990.

ECK, Diana. A New Religious America: How a Christian Country Has Become the World most Religiously
Diverse Nation, New York, Harpercollins, 2001.

EDWARDS, David e John STOTT. Evangelical Essentials: a Liberal-Evangelical Dialogue, Downers Grove,
IL, InterVarsity Press, 1988.

ELIADE, Mircea. Origens, Lisboa, Edições 70, 1989.

ENGEN, Charles R. van. “What is Theology of Missions”, Teología y Cultura, año 1, vol. 1, Ago, 2004, pp. 45-
54.

ENGEBRETSON, Kath et al. (eds.). International Handbook of Interreligious Education, New York, Springer,
2010.

ENSMINGER, Sven. Karl Barth’s Theology as Resource for a Christian Theology of Religions, London,
Bloomsburry T & T Clark, 2014.

ERICKSON, Millard. “Hope for those who haven’t heard? Yes, but…”, Evangelical Mission Quarterly, 11, no.
2, April, 1975 –, pp. 122-126.

ESLER, Phillip. Community and Gospels in Luke-Acts; The Social and Political Motivations of Lucan Theology,
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1987.

ESTES, Jack. Anglican Manifesto. A Christian Response to Oneworld Religion, Eugene, OR, Wipf and Stock,
2014.

EVANS, Helen C. e William D. WIXOM. The Glory of Byzantium. Art and Culture of the Middle Bizantine Era,
New York, The metropolitan museum of art, 1997.

FACKRE, Gabriel, Ronald NASH, John SANDERS. What About Those Who that Have Never Heard? Three
Views on the Destiny of the Unevangelized, Downer Grove, IL, InterVarsity Press, 1995.

FÉDOU, Michel. The Fathers of the Church in Christian Theology, Peggy M. Meyers (trans.), Washington, DC,
The Catholic University Press, 2019.

FERNANDO, Leonard e G. Gilpert SAUCH. Christianity in India. Two Thousand years of faith, New Delhi,
Penguins Book India, 2004.

FERNANDO, Ajith. The Christians Attitude toward World Religions, Wheaton III, Tyndale House, 1987.

FEUERBACH, Ludwig. A essência do Cristianismo, Campinas, SP, Papirus. 1988.

FREDERICKS, James. Faith among Faiths. Christian Theology and non-Christianity Religions, New
York/Mahwah, NJ, Paulist Press, 1999.
 334

FORSYTH, Alexander C. Mission by the People: Rediscovering the Dynamic Missiology of Tom Allan and His
Scottish Contemporaries, Eugene, OR, Wipf and Stock, 2017.

FORTMAN, Bas de Graay; Berna K. GOLDENWIJK. Dios y las cosas. La economía global desde una
perspectiva de civilización, Santander: Sal Terrae, 1999.

FOWLER, James. Estágios da fé: psicologia do desenvolvimento humano e a busca do sentido, São Leopoldo,
Sinodal, 1992.

GASSMAN, Günther; Duane H. LARSON; Mark W. OOLDENBURG. Historical Dictionary of Lutheranism,

Lanham, ML, Scarecrow Press, 2011.

GEDEREN, J. van; W. H. VALEMA. Concise Reformed Dogmatics, Phillipsburg, NJ, P&R Publishing, 2008.

GEFFRÉ, Claude. De Babel à Pentecôte : Essais de théologie interreligieuse, Paris, Cerf, 2006.

________________. Le Christianisme au risque de l’interprétation, Paris, Cerf, 1988.

________________. Crer e interpretar. A virada hermenêutica da Teologia, Petrópolis, Brasil, Vozes, 2004.

________________. Un nouvel âge de la théologie, Cogitatio fidei 68, Paris, Cerf, 1972.

________________. “La place des religions dans le plan du salut”, Spiritus, no. 138, 1995, pp. 78-97.

________________. “Le pluralisme religieux et l’indifférentisme, ou le vrai défi de la théologie chrétienne”,

Revue théologique de Louvain, 31, 2000, pp. 3-32.

________________. “O sentido e o não sentido de uma teologia não-metafísica”, Concilium, no. 6, 1972.

________________. “La théologie des religions ou le salut d’une humanité plurielle”, Raisons Politiques,
2001/4, pp. 104-120.

________________. “La verdad del cristianismo en la era del pluralismo religioso”, Selecciones de Teología, v.
37, no. 146, 1998, pp. 135-144.

GESCHÉ, Adolphe. “O cristianismo e as outras religiões”, in: Faustino TEIXEIRA (Org.), Diálogo de pássaros,
in these references.

GIBELLINI, Rosino. A teologia do século XX, São Paulo, Loyola, 1998.

GIBSON, William; Peter FORSAITH; Martin WELLINGS (eds.). The Ashgate Research Companion to World
Methodism, Abingdon, U.K./New York, Routledge, 2013.

GILL, David e Conrad GEMPF (eds.). The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting, Grand Rapids, MI, Wm. B.
Eerdmans, 1994.

GILLIS, Chester. “Radical Christologies? An Analysis of the Christologies of John Hick and Paul Knitter”. In T.
MERRIGAN e J. HAERS (eds.). The myriad Christ, in these references.

GONZALEZ, Justo. Uma história ilustrada do Cristianismo, 11 vols., São Paulo, Vida Nova, 1991.

________________. Mañana: Christian Theology from Hispanic perspective, Nashville, TS, Abingdon, 1990.

GLOVER, Robert H. The Progress of World-Wide Missions, New York, Dorna, 1924.

GRASSIE, William. The New Sciences of Religion. Exploring Spirituality from the Outside in and bottom up,
New York, Palgrave McMillan, 2010.

GREEMAN, Jeffrey P. e GREEN, Gene L. Global Theology in Evangelical Perspective. Exploring the
Contextual Nature of Theology and Mission, Downers Grove, IL, Intervarsity Press, 2012.
 335

GRITSCH, Eric W. Martin Luther’s anti-Semitism: Against his Better Judgment, Grand Rapids, MI, Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing, 2012.

GROSS, Jeffrey; Harding MEYER; William G. RUSCH (eds.). Growth in Agreement II. Reports and Agreed
Statements of Ecumenical Conversations on a World Level, 1982-1998, Genève/Grand Rapids, MI:
WCC/Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2000.

Thomas G. Guarino. “The Return of Religion in Europe? The Postmodern Christianity of Gianni Vattimo”,
Logos: A Journal of Catholic Thought and Culture, vol. 14, no. 2, Spring, 2011), pp. 15-36

HAIGHT, Roger. Christian Community in History. Historical Ecclesiology, New York, The Continuum
International, 2004.

HAIGHT, Roger. Jesus, Symbol of God, Maryknoll, NY, Orbis Books, 1999.

HAMMES, Érico J. “Conceito e missão da teologia em Karl Rahner”, Cadernos de Teologia Pública, ano 1, no.
5, 2004, pp. 5 - 34.

________________. “La tipología de las religiones en el pensamiento católico”, Concilium, no. 203, 1986, pp.
123-184.

HAMPEL, Benedikt. Geist des Konzils oder Geist von 1968? Katholische Studentengemeinden im geteilten
Deutschland der 1960er Jahre, Berlin, Lit Verlag, 2017.

HARRIS, R. Baines (ed.). Neoplatonism and Indian Thought, Norfolk, VI, International Society for Neoplatonic
Studies, 1982.

HEBBELEWAITE. The New Inquisition? The Case of Edward Schillebeeckx and Hans Küng, New York,
Harper Row, 1980.

HEDGES, Paul. Controversies in Interreligious Dialogue and the Theology of Religions, London, SCM Press,
2010.

HEIM, S. Mark. “Accounts of Our Hope: An Overview of Themes in the Presentation”. In S. Mark HEIM (ed.).
Grounds for Understanding. Ecumenical Resources for Responses to Religious Pluralism (Grand Rapids,
MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1998.

________________. The Depth of the Riches. A Trinitarian Theology of Religious Ends, Grand Rapids, MI,
Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2001.

________________. Is Christ the Only Way? Christian Faith in a Pluralistic World, Valley Forge, PA, Judson
Press, 1985.

________________. Salvations. Truth and Differences in Religions, Maryknoll, NY, Orbis books, 1995.

____________________.“A Trinitarian View of Religious Pluralism”. In Religion Online Available at

https://www.religion-online.org/article/a-trinitarian-view-of-religious-pluralism/ Accessed at 27?07/2018

HENGEL, Martin. The Son of God. The Origin of Christology and the History of Jewish Hellenistic Religion,
Eugene, OR, Wipf and Stock, 2007.

HESSELGRAVE, David J. “Interreligious dialogue – biblical and contemporary perspectives”. In

HESSELGRAVE, David J. Theology and mission, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1979.

HICK, John. An Interpretation of Religions. Human Responses to the Transcendental, London, Palgrave
Macmillan, 2004.

_______________. “O caráter não absoluto do Cristianismo”, Númen, Out – Dez, 1998, pp. 10-44.
 336

_______________. A Christian Theology of Religions. The Rainbow of Faiths, Louisville, KT, Westminster
John Knox Press, 1995.

_______________. Disputed Questions in Theology and Philosophy of Religions, New Haven, CT, Yale
University Press, 1993.

_______________. God Has many Names, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press, 1982.

_______________. God and the Universe of Religions, Oxford, One World, 1993.

_______________. “Jesus and the world religions”. in HICK, John (ed.). The Myth of God Incarnate, in these
references.

_______________. The Metaphor of God Incarnate, Louisville, KT, Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994.

_______________. The Myth of God Incarnate, London, SCM Press, 1977.

_______________. “A Philosophy of Religious Pluralism”. In R. J. PLATINGA, (ed.), Christianity and the

Plurality, in these references.

_______________. “The non-Absoluteness of Christianity”. In J. HICK and Paul KNITTER. The myth of
Christian Uniqueness: Toward a Pluralistic Theology of Religions, in these references.

HICK, John; Brian HEBBLEWATE (ed.). Christianity and Other Religions, Oxford: Oneworld, 2001.

HICK, John e Paul KNITTER. The Myth of Christian Uniqueness: Toward a Pluralistic Theology of Religions,
New York, Orbis Books, 1987.

HILLEBERT, Jordan (ed.). T & T Clark Companion to Henri de Lubac, London, Bloomsbury T & T Clark,
2017.

HODGSON, Peter C. Winds of Spirit. A Constructive Christian Theology, Louisville, KT, Westminster John
Knox Press.

HOOFT, W. Visser’t. No Other Name: The Choice between Syncretism and Christian Universalism, London,
SCM Press, 1963.

HOORNART, Eduardo. História da Igreja na América Latina e no Caribe, Petrópolis, RJ, Vozes, 1995.

HORKHEIMER, Max. O Conceito de Iluminismo, São Paulo, Editora Abril Cultural, 1983.

HÖSCHELE, Stefan. Interchurch and Interfaith Relations. Seventh-day Adventist Statements and Documents,
Frankfurt am Main, Peter Lang, 2010.

HYUN, Yung Hoon. Redemptive-Historical Hermeneutics and Homiletics. Debates in Holland, America and
Korea from 1930 to 2012, Eugene, OR, Wipf and Stock, 2015.

INAGAKI, Hisazaku e Nelson JENNIGS. Philosophical Theology and East-West Dialogue, Amsterdam:
Editions Rodopi B. V., 2000.

INGRAM, Paul O. Living without a Why. Mysticism, Pluralism and the Way of Grace, Eugene, OR, Wipf and
Stock, 2014.

IRINEU de LIÃO. Contra as Heresias. Denúncia e Refutação da Falsa Gnose, São Paulo, Paulus, 2000.

IRVIN, Dale T. “Mission in Protestant Theology”. In Dale T. IRVIN; Peter C. PHAN. Christian Mission,
Contextual Theology, Prophetic Dialogue, in these references.

IRVIN, Dale T.; Peter C. PHAN. Christian Mission, Contextual Theology, Prophetic Dialogue, Maryknoll, NY,
Orbis Books, 2018.
 337

JAMES, William. The Varieties of Religious Experience. A Study in Human Nature, Oxford, Oxford University
Press, 2012.

JASPERS, Karl. La fe filosófica ante la revelación, Gonzalo Dias (trans.), Madrid, Gredos, 1968.

JEFFERS, James S. The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era. Exploring the Backgrounds of Early
Christianity, Downers Grove. IL, InterVarsity Press, 1999.

JENKINS, Phillip. God’s Continent: Christianity, Islam and Europe’s Religious Crisis, Oxford, Oxford
University Press, 2005.

JIANG, Lian. Visiting Parents from China: their Conversion Experiences in America and Contribution to
Christianity at Home, Doctorate Thesis, Faculty of Bright Divinity School, 2006.

JONES, Christopher P. Pagan and Christian, Cambridge, MS, Harvard University Press, 2014.

JOHNSON, Luke T. Among the Gentiles. Greco-Roman Religion and Christianity, New Haven\ London, Yale
University Press, 2009.

JUN, Ho Jin. “Evangelical challenges to religious pluralism in Asian context”, Torch Trinity Journal, no. 2,
2007, pp. 29-61.

JUNG, Carl Gustav. The Archetypes and Collective Unconscious, London, Routledge, 2012.

JUSTINO de ROMA. I, II Apologia e Diálogo com Trifon, São Paulo, Paulus, 2000.

KAENNEL, Lucy. L’antisémitisme de Luther, Genève, Labor et Fides, 1997.

KANT, Immanuel. Critica da razão prática, São Paulo, Vitório Civita, 1982,

________________. Crítica da razão pura, São Paulo, Nova Cultural, 1999.

________________. Os progressos da metafísica, Lisboa, Edições 70, 2000.

KÄRKKÄINEN, Veli-Matti. Christ and Reconciliation, Grand Rapids, MI, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2013.

______________. Christian Theology in Pluralistic World. A Global Introduction (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm.
B. Eerdmans, 2019.

_________________. Christology. A Global Introduction. An Ecumenical International and Contextual

Perspective, Grand Rapids, MI, Baker Publishing Group, 2007.

_________________. “Evangelical theology and the religions”. In Timothy Larsen e Daniel J. Treier (eds.). The
Cambridge companion to evangelical theology, in these references.

_________________. An Introduction to Ecclesiology, Downers Grove, IL, InterVarsity, 2002.

_________________. An Introduction to the Theology of Religions, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,
2003.

_________________. Trinity. Global Perspectives, London/Louisville, KT, Westminster John Knox Press, 2007.

KAYE, Bruce. An Introduction to the World Anglicanism, New York, Cambridge University Press, 2008.

KEE, H. C. Community of the New Age. Studies in Mark's Gospel, London, SCM Press, 1977.

KELLY, Patricia. Ressourcement Theology. A Sourcebook, London, Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2021.

KENNEDY, Phillip. Schillebeeckx, Collegeville, MN, Liturgical Press, 1993.

 338

KERR, Fergus. Twentieth Century Catholic Theologians. From Neo-Scholasticism to Nuptial Mysticism, Oxford,
Blackwell, 2007.

KESLER, Diane. “Together on the Way. Harare 1998: An Introduction and Personal Perspective”. World
Council of Churches. Eighth Assembly. Available at: http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/assembly/or-int-
e.html . Accessed at 28/06/2019.

KLAUBER, Martin I.; Scott M. MANETSCH. The Great Commission. Evangelical and the History of World
Missions, Nashville, TN, B & H, 2008.

KNITTER, Paul. No other Name? Maryknoll, NY, Orbis Books, 1985.

_______________. Introducing Theologies of Religions, Maryknoll, Orbis Books, NY, 2002,

_______________. Jesus and the other Names, Maryknoll, NY, Orbis Books, 1996.

_______________. “Jesus – Buddha – Krishna: Still Present?” Journal of Ecumenical Studies, pp. 651-671.

_______________. “Mission and Dialogue”, Missiology, Vol XXXIII, no. 2, April 2005, pp. 200-210.

_______________. One Earth, many Religions, Maryknoll, NY, Orbis Books, 1995.

_______________. “Religious Pluralism and Religious Imagination: Can a Pluralistic Theology Sustain
Christian Faith?” Louvain Studies, 27, 2002, pp. 240-264.

KOLAKOWSKI, Leszek. “A revanche do sagrado na cultura profana”, Religião e Sociedade, Maio (1), 1977,
pp. 153-162.

KOLB, Robert; Irene DINGEL; L’ubomír BATKA. The Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther’s Theology, Oxford,
Oxford University Press, 2014.

KÖERS, Anna; Wolfham WEISSES; Jean-Paul WILLAIME (eds.). Religious Diversity and Interreligious
Dialogue, Switzerland, Springer, 2020.

KOSOMO, Daniel. “An Investigation of Sin and Evil in African Cosmology”, International Journal of
Sociology and Anthropology, vol. 1(8), Dez, 2009, pp. 145-155.

KRAEMER, Hendrik. Religion and Christian Faith, Cambridge, James Clark, 1956.

KUHN, Thomas. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1970.

KÜNG, Hans. Christianity. On Being Christian, Edward Quinn (trans.), New York: Doubleday, 1976.

________________. Justification. The Doctrine of Karl Barth and a Catholic Reflection, Louisville, KT,
Westminster John Knox Press, 2004.

________________. Proyecto de una ética mundial, Madrid, Planeta – Agostini, 1994.

________________. The Religious Situation of our Time, London, SCM Press, 1995.

________________. Teologia a caminho. Fundamentação para o diálogo ecumênico, São Paulo, Edições
Paulinas, 1999.

________________. “What is True Religion? Toward an Ecumenical Criteriology”. In Leonard Swidler (edt.).
Toward a universal theology of religion, nestas referências.

KÜNG, Hans e Karl-Josef KUSCHEL. A global ethic. The declaration of the Parliament of World Religions,
New York: The Continuum International Publishing Group Inc., 2006.
 339

KURTZ, Lestor R. Gods in the Global Village. The World’s Religion in Sociological Perspective, Thousand
Oaks, CA, Pine Forge Press, 1995.

LACUGNA, C. Theological Methodology of Hans Küng, New York, Scholars Press, 1982.

LANE, Dermot. The Experience of God: An Invitation to Do Theology, New York, Paulist Press, 1981).

LANGEVIN, Giles e Raphaël PIRRO. Le Christ et les cultures. Dans le monde et l’histoire, Québec, Les
Éditions Belarmin, 1991.

LANGFORD, Andy; Sally LANGFORD. Living as United Methodist Christians. Our stories, Our Beliefs, Our
Lives, Nashville, TN, Abingdon Press, 2011.

LARSEN, Timothy e Daniel J. TREIER (eds.). The Cambridge Companion to Evangelical Theology,
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2007.

LAVERDIERE, Eugene L. e THOMPSON, William G. “New Testament Communities in Transition: A Study of

Matthew and Luke”, Theological Studies, no. 37.4, 1976, pp. 567 a 597.

LEVERING, Matthew; Michael DAUPHINAIS. Reading Romans with St. Thomas Aquinas, Washington, D.C.,
the Catholic University of America Press, 2012.

LEVINE, Amy-Jill, Dale C. ALLISON Jr., John Dominic CROSSAN. The Historical Jesus in Context,
Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2006.

LIN, Jan van. Shaking the Fundamentals. Religious Plurality and Ecumenical Movement, Amsterdam, Rodopi B.
V., 2002.

LIENEMANN-PERRIN, Christine. Missão e diálogo inter-religioso, São Leopoldo, Brasil, Sinodal/EST, 2005.

LINDBERG, G. The Nature of Doctrine, Philadelphia, Fortress, 1984.

LONNING, Per. Is Christ a Christian? On Interreligious Dialogue and Intra-Religious Horizon, Göttingen,
Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2002.

LOSSKY, Nicholas (et al.). Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement. Genève/Grand Rapids, WCC
Publications/Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1991.

LUBAC, Henri de. Catholicism. A History of Dogma in Relation to the Corporate Destiny of Mankind, New
York, Sheed and Ward, 1958.

________________. Sur les chemins de Dieu, Paris, Aubier, 1956.

LUDLOW, Daniel H.(ed.). Encyclopedia of Mormonism, New York, Macmillan, 1992.

LUKHARDT, C. G. (ed.). Wittgenstein, Sources and Perspectives, Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press, 1979.

LUTHER, Martin. Concerning the Jews and their Lies, New York, Ephraim Talmage editor, 1975.

LYOTARD, Jean-François. La condición postmoderna, Madrid, Ediciones Cátedra, 1987.

MAFFESOLI, Michel. O tempo das tribos. O declínio do individualismo nas sociedades de massa, Rio de
Janeiro, Forense Universitária, 1998.

MANSINI, Guy. Fundamental Theology, Washington, DC, The Catholic University of America Press, 2018.

MAREBON, John. Pagans and Philosophers. The Problem of Paganism from Augustine to Leibniz, Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 2015.
 340

MARGOLIS, Joseph. Interpretation Radical but not Unruly. The New Puzzle of the Arts and History, Berkeley,
CA, University of California Press, 1995.

MCDERMOTT, Gerard R. Can Evangelicals Learn from World’s Religions? Downers Grove, IL, InterVarsity
Press, 2000.

________________. God’s Rivals. Why has God Allowed Different Religions? Insights from the Bible and the
Early Church, Downers Grove, IL, interVarsity Press, 2007.

________________. Religiones del mundo. Una introducción indispensable, Nashville, TN, Thomas Nelson,
2013.

MCDERMOTT, Gerald R.; Harold A. NETLAND. A Trinitarian Theology of Religions. An Evangelical

Proposal, New York, Oxford University Press, 2014.

MCFAGUE, Sally. Metaphorical Theology, Models of God in Religious Language, Philadelphia, Fortress Press,
1982.

MCGOLDRICK, James E. Presbyterian and Reformed Churches. A Global History, Grand Rapids, MI,
Reformation Heritage Books, 2012.

MCGRATH, Alister E. Christian Theology. An Introduction, Oxford/Malden, MA, Willey-Blackwell, 2011.

MCGRAW, Ryan M. The Ark of Safety. Is There Salvation Outside the Church? (Grand Rapids, MI:
Reformation Heritage Books, 2018.

MCPHERSON, Camilia G. A Critical Reading of the Development of Raimon Panikkar’s Thought on the
Trinity, Lanham, MI, University Press of America, 1996.

MEAD. Sidney E. The Lively Experiment. The Shaping of Christianity in America, Eugene, OR, Wipf & Stock
Publishers, 2007.

MEISTER, Chade. Philosophy of Religion, Abingdon, UK/New York, Routledge, 2006.

________________. Introducing Philosophy of Religion, London/New York, Routledge, 2009.

MERRIGAN, Terrence e Jacques HAERS (eds.). The Myriad Christ, Leuven, Leuven University Press, 2000.

MESKAROZ, Andrew. “Yves Congar: The birth of Catholic Ecumenism”. In Paul S. PETERSON (ed.).
Generous Orthodoxies. Essays on the History and Future of Ecumenical Theology, in these references.

METTEPENNIGEN, Jurgen. Nouvelle Théologie. New Theology. Inheritor of Modernism, Precursor of Vatican
II, London, T & T Clark, 2010.

METZ, Johann B. Passion for God. The Mystical-political Dimension of Christianity, J. Matthew Ashley (trad.),
Mahwah, NJ, Paulist Press, 1997.

MILES, Todd. God of many Understandings? Nashville, TN, B & H publishing group, 2010.

MIN, Anselm Kiong S. The Solidarity of Others in a Divided World: A Postmodern Theology after
Postmodernism, London, T & T Clark, 2004.

MIRANDA, Mário F. O Cristianismo em face das religiões, São Paulo, Loyola, 1998.

MOLINER, Albert. “A cristologia relacional”, Ciberteologia, ano V, no. 24, pp. 26-45.

MOLTMANN, Jürgen. The Coming of God: Christian Eschatology. Margareth Kohl (trad.), Minneapolis, MN,
Augsburg Fortress Press, 1996.
 341

_________________. The Church in the Power of the Holy Spirit, London, SCM Press, 1977.

_________________. Experiências de reflexão teológica: caminhos e formas da teologia cristã, São Leopoldo,
Brasil, 2004.

_________________. Experiences in Theology. Ways and Forms of Christian Theology, Philadelphia, Fortress
Press, 1980.

_________________. “The Future of Theology”, World Council of Churches, 2016.

_________________. God in Creation. A New Theology of Creation and the Spirit of God, Margareth Kohl
(trans.), San Francisco, Harper and Row Publishers, 1985.

_________________. History of Triune God: Contributions to Trinitarian Theology. John Bowden (trans.), New
York, Crossroad, 1992.

_________________. La iglesia fuerza del Espíritu, Salamanca, Ediciones Sígueme, 1978.

_________________. “Is Pluralistic Theology Useful for the Dialogue of World Religions”. In G. D’COSTA.
The Myth of Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered, in these references.

_________________. Sun of Righteousness, Arise! God’s Future for Humanity and the Earth, Minneapolis, MN,
Fortress Press, 2010.

_________________. Teologia da Esperança. Estudos sobre os fundamentos e as consequências de uma

escatologia cristã, Alfredo Simons (trans.), São Paulo, Teológica/Loyola, 2005.

MORALES, José. “La teología de las religiones”, Scripta Theologica, vol. XXX, Sept.-Dec., 1998, pp. 405-438.

MORALI, Ilaria. Henri de Lubac, Silva Debetto C. Reis (trans.), São Paulo, Loyola, 2006.

MORGAN, Christopher W.; Robert A. PETERSON (eds.). Faith Comes by Hearing. A Response to Inclusivism,
Downers Grove, IL/Nottingham, U.K. IVP Academic/Apollos, 2008.

MOYART, Marianne. Fragile Identities: Towards a Theology of Interreligious Hospitality, Henry Jansen (trad.),
Amsterdam, Rodopi, 2011.

________________. God’s Rivals. Why has God Allowed Different Religions? Insights from the Bible and the
Early Church, Downers Grove, IL, intervarsity Press, 2006.

MUCK, Terry; Francis S. ADENEY (eds.). Christianity Encountering the World Religions. The Practice of
Mission in the Twenty-First Century, Grand Rapids, MI, Baker, 2009.

MULLINS, Mark. “The Empire Strikes Back. Korean Pentecostal Mission to Japan”. In Karla POWE (ed.).
Charismatic Christianity as a global culture, in these references.

MUYA, Juvénal Ilunga. “La teologia delle religioni”. In Giuseppe Lorizio (ed.). Teologia Fondamentale.
Contesti, Roma, Cittá Nuova, 2005.

NASH, Ronald. Is Jesus de Only Savior? Grand Rapids, MI, Zondervan, 1994.

NETLAND, Harold. Encountering Religious Pluralism. The Challenge to Christian Faith and Mission, Downers
Grove, IL, InterVarsity, 2001.

NETLAND, Harold e Edward ROMMEM (eds.). Christianity and the Religions. A Biblical Theology of World
Religions, Pasadena, CA, Evangelical Missiological Society, 1995.

NEWBIGIN, Lesslie. “The Christian Faith and the World Religion”. In John Hick; Brian Hebblethwate (ed.).
Christianity and Other Religions, in these references.
 342

________________. The Open Secret. An Introduction to the Theology of Missions, Grand Rapids, MI, Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing, 1995.

NICHOLS, Bruce J. “Nairobi 1975: A Crisis of Faith for WCC”, Themelios, vol. 1, issue 3, Summer, 1976, pp.
63-93.

NIEBUHR, H. R. Christ and Cultures, New York, Harper Sanfrancisco, 2001.

OKHOLM, Dennis L. Okholm; Timothy R. Phillips (eds.). More than One Way? Four Views of Salvation in a
Pluralistic World, Grand Rapids, MI, Zondervan, 1995.

OLIVEIRA, Pedro R. F. e Cláudio PAUL. Karl Rahner em perspectiva, São Paulo, Loyola, 2004.

OLKOWSKY, Dorothea E. Postmodern Philosophy and Scientific Turn, Bloomington, IN, Indiana University
Press, 2012.

OSBORN, Eric. Clement of Alexandria, New York, Cambridge University Press, 2005.

________________. “Justin Martyr and the Logos Spermatikos”, Studia Missionalia, vol. 42, 1993, pp. 143-159.

OTT, Craig e Harold NETLAND. Globalizing Theology: Belief and practice in an Era of World Christianity,
Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2006.

OTTO, Rudolf. The Idea of the Holy, New York, Oxford University Press, 1958.
OVERMAN, Andrew. O evangelho de Mateus e o Judaísmo formativo. O mundo social da comunidade de
Mateus, São Paulo, Loyola, 1997.

PACHPORE, Virag. The Indian Church, Nagpur, India, Nachiket Prakashan, 2015.

PANIKKAR, Raimon. “Cristiania, dimensione nascosta del Cristianesimo”, Micromega, 2, 2001, pp. 274-283.

______________. “A Christophany for our Time”, Theology Digest, Spring, 1992, pp. 3-21.

_______________. Dwelling Place for Wisdom, Annemarie S. Kidder (trad.) Delhi, Motilal Banarsidas, 1993.

_______________. Ecosofia. Para una espiritualidad de la tierra, Madrid, San Pablo, 1994.

_______________. Entre Dieu et le cosmes. Entretiens avec Gwendoline Jarczyk, Paris, Albin Michel, 1998.

_______________. “Nove sutra sul Cristo asiatico”, Micromega, 2, 2001, pp. 284-287.

_______________. La plenitud del hombre, Madrid, Siruela, 1999.

_______________. “The Pluralism of Truth”, World’s Faiths Insight, no. 26, 1990, pp. 7-16.

_______________. The Rhythm of Being. The Glifford Lectures, New York, Orbis Books, 2010.

_______________. Salvation in Christ. Concreteness and Universality. The Supername, Santa Bárbara, CA,
University of California Press, 1972.

_______________. Sobre el diálogo intercultural, Salamanca, Editorial San Esteban, 1990.

_______________. The Unknown Christ of Hinduism: Towards an Ecumenical Christophany, London, Darton,
1964.

PARK, Han Soo. A Study of Missional Structures for the Korean Church for its Postmodern Context, Benton
Harbor, MI, Umi dissertation publishing, 2008, p. 42.

PEACORE, L. “Theology of Experience” in Global Dictionary of Theology, in these references.

 343

PEARSON. Robert A. Introduction in Christopher W. MORGAN, (org.). Faith Comes by Hearing, in these
references.

PECORARO, Rossano. Niilismo e (pós) modernidade: a introdução ao “pensamento fraco” de Gianni Vattimo,
Rio de Janeiro, Editora da Puc, 2005.

PETERSON, Paul (ed.). Generous Orthodoxies. Essays on the History and Future of Ecumenical Theology,
Eugene, OR, Pick Wick, 2020.

PHAN, Peter C. “Doing Theology in the Context of Cultural and Religious Pluralism: An Asian Perspective”,
Louvain Studies, no. 27, 2002, pp. 39-68.

PICKEN, Stuart D. B. Historical Dictionary of Calvinism, Lanham, ML, Scarecrow, 2012.

PIERIS, Aloysio. An Asian Theology of Liberation, New York, Orbis Books, 1988.

________________. Fire and Water: Basic Issues in Asian Buddhism and Christianity, New York, Orbis Books,
1996.

PINNOCK, Clark. Flame of Love. A Theology of the Holy Spirit, Downers Grove, IL, InterVarsity Press, 1996.

________________. “An Inclusivist View”. In Dennis L. OKHOLM; Timothy R. PHILLIPS (eds.). More than
One Way? Four Views of Salvation in a Pluralistic World, in these references.

_________________. “Toward an Evangelical Theology of Religion”, Journal of the Evangelical Theological

Society, no. 33/3, September – 1990, pp. 359-368.

________________. Wideness in God’s Mercy: The Finality of Jesus Christ in a World of Religions, Grand
Rapids, MI, Zondervan, 1992.

PINNOCK, Clark et al. The Openness of God. A Biblical Challenge to Traditional Understanding of God,
Downers Grove, IL/Carlyle, U.K., InterVarsity/Paternoster, 1994.

PIPER, John. Let the Nations be Glad, Grand Rapids, MI, Baker, 1993.

PITMAN, David. Twentieth Century Christian Responses to Religious Pluralism, Abingdon, UK/New York,
Routledge, 2016.

PLATINGA, R. J. (ed.), Christianity and the Plurality, Malden, MS, Blackwell, 1999.

POWE, Karla (ed.). Charismatic Christianity as a Global Culture, Columbia, SC, University of South Carolina
Press, 1994.

PRATT, Douglas. The Church and Other Faiths. The World Council of Churches, the Vatican and Interreligious
Dialogue, Bern, Peter Lang, 2010.

_________________. “Interreligious Dialogue: Ecumenical Engagement in Interfaith Action”. In Kath

ENGEBRETSON et al. (eds.). International Handbook of Interreligious Education, in these references.

QUEIRUGA, Andres T. O diálogo das religiões, São Paulo, Paulus, 1997.

_________________. Fin del Cristianismo premoderno. Retos a un nuevo horizonte, Bilbao, España: Editorial
Sal Terrae, 2000.

_________________. Repensar a cristologia, sondagens para um novo paradigma, São Paulo, Paulinas, 1999.

RACE, Alan. Christians and Religious Pluralism; Patterns in the Christian Theology of Religions, Maryknoll,
NY, Orbis books, 1986.
 344

RAHNER, Karl. Curso fundamental da fé, São Paulo, Paulinas, 1989.

_______________. Spirit in the World, London, Bloomsbury, 1964.

_______________. Theological Investigations, 22 Volumes, London, Darton, Longman & Todd, 1965-1991.

RAISER, Konrad. “Tribute to Dr. Stanley J. Samartha”, World Council of Churches, Available at: http://wcc-
coe.org/wcc/what/interreligious/cd38-02.html Accessed at 05/10/2020.

RAJASHEKAR, J. Paul. “Luther as a Resource for Christian Dialogue with other World Religions”. In Robert
KOLB; Irene DINGEL; L’ubomír BATKA. The Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther’s Theology, in these
references.

RASCHKE, Carl A. GloboChrist. The Great Commission Takes a Postmodern Turn, Grand Rapids, MI, Baker,
2008.

________________. “Religious Pluralism and Truth: From Theology to Hermeneutical Dialogue”, Journal of
the American Academy of Religion, vol. 50, no. 1, mar. 1982, pp. 35-48.

RICHARD, Ramseh. The Population of Heaven: A Biblical Response to the Inclusivist Position on Who Will Be
Saved, Chicago, Moody Press, 1994.

RICHEY, Russell E. Denominationalism. Illustrated and Explained, Eugene, OR, Cascade Books, 2013.

RICOEUR, Paul. O conflito das interpretações. Ensaios de Hermenêutica, Porto, Rés Editora, s. d.

_______________. Interpretação e ideologias, Rio de Janeiro, Francisco Alves, 1990.

RIES, Julien. Incontro e Dialogo. Cristianesimo, Religioni e Culture, Milano, Jaca Book, 2009.

ROBERTS, Alexander; James DONALDSON (eds.). Ante Nicene Christian Library. Writing of Clement,
William Wilson (trans.,) Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1844.

RODE, Daniel. “El Todopoderoso en la misión de bendecir a todas las etnias”. In Elias B. SOUZA. Teologia e
metodologia da missão, nestas referências.

RORTY, Richard. “Habermas, Lyotard e a Pós-modernidade”, Educação e Filosofia, 4 (8), Jan – Jun, pp. 75 –
95.

ROSE, Kenneth. Pluralism: The Future of Religion, London/New York, Bloomsbury, 2013.

SACHS, William L. The Transformation of Anglicanism. From State Church to Global Communion, London,
Cambridge University Press, 20020.

SAMARTHA, Stanley J. Hindus vor dem universalen Christus, Stuttgart, Evangelischer Verlag, 1970.

________________. Courage for dialogue: Ecumenical Issues in Inter-Religions Relationships, Genève, World
Council of Churches, 1981.

________________. “The Cross and the Rainbow”, HICK, John e KNITTER, Paul in The Myth of Christian
Uniqueness – Towards a Pluralistic Theology of Religions, nestas referências.

________________. “The Holy Spirit and People of other Faiths”, Ecumenical Review, 42, 1990, pp. 250-263.

________________. One Christ, many Religions: Towards a Revised Christology, Maryknoll, NY, Orbis Books,
1991.

________________. “The Quest for Salvation and the Dialogue between Religions”, International Review of
Mission, October 1968, pp. 419- 432.
 345

SANCHIS, Pierre. “Religião, religiões…Alguns problemas do sincretismo no campo religioso brasileiro.”. In

Pierre SANCHIS (org.). Fieis & cidadãos: percursos de sincretismos no Brasil, nestas referências.

______________. SANCHIS, Pierre (ed.). Fieis & cidadãos: percursos de sincretismos no Brasil, Rio de
Janeiro: Eduerj, 2001.

_________________. “O campo religioso será ainda hoje o campo das religiões?”. In HOORNART, Eduardo.
História da Igreja na América Latina e no Caribe, nestas referências.

SANDERS, John. No others Name: An Investigation into the Destiny of the Unevangelized, Grand Rapids, MI,
Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1992.

__________________. The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence, Downers Grove, IL, InterVarsity Press,
1998.

__________________. “Historical Considerations”. In Clark PINNOCK et al. The Openness of God. A Biblical
Challenge to Traditional Understanding of God, in these references.

SANNEH, Lamin. Whose Religion is Christianity? The Gospel beyond the West, Grand Rapids, MI, Wm. B.
Eerdmans, 2003.

SANTOS, Eduardo S. “Considerações sobre a escatologia em Karl Rahner”, Teocomunicação, v. 35, no. 150,
Dez. 2005, pp. 775-782.

SAUSSURE, Ferdinand. Curso de Linguística Geral, Charles Bally; Albert Sechehaye; Albert Riedlinger (orgs.),
Antônio Chelini, José Paulo Paes e Izidoro Blikstein (trads.), São Paulo, Cultrix, 2006.

SEGUNDO, Juan Luis. Historia perdida y recuperada de Jesús de Nazaret: de los Sinópticos a Pablo,
Santander, España, Sal Terrae, 1991.

SESBOÜÉ, Bernard. Karl Rahner. Itinerário Teológico, Nicolás N. Campanário (trans.), São Paulo, Loyola,
2004.

SCHAFF, Philip. Creeds of Christendom. With a History and Critical Notes, vol. 1, Grand Rapids, MI, Baker,
1993.

SCHELKENS, Karim. Catholic Theology of Revelation on the Eve of Vatican II. A Redaction History of the
Schema De fontibus revelationis (1960-1962), Leiden, Brill, 2010.

SCHLEIERMACHER, Friedrich D. E. Sobre a religião: discursos aos seus menosprezadores eruditos. São
Paulo, Novo Século/Fonte Editorial, 2000.

SCHILLEBEECKX, Edward. História humana, revelação de Deus, São Paulo, Paulus, 1994.

_______________. Jesús, la historia de um viviente, Madrid, Ediciones Cristianidad, 1981.

_______________. Jesus and the Christ, New York, Crossroads, 1981.

SCHICKENDANTZ, Carlos. “Una relación entre Martin Heidegger y Karl Rahner. Una recepción y
diferenciación todavía por escribir, Teología y Vida, XLIX, 2008, pp. 371-397.

SCHOTTROFF, L.; W. STEGEMANN: Jesús de Nazaret, esperanza de los pobres, Salamanca, Sígueme, 1981.

SHAW, Wilhelmina M. “Theology of Religions in Martin Luther”. In Jaco BYERS (ed.). Perspectives on
Theology of Religions, in these references.
SIMUT, Ramona. “Reinterpreting Traditional Theology. An Interview with Edward Schillebeeckx”,
Perichoresis, 5/2, 2007, pp. 275-283.
 346

SINNER, Rudolf von. Confiança e convivência: reflexões éticas e ecumênicas, São Leopoldo, Brasil, Sinodal,
2007.

SMART, Ninian. The World’s Religions, Cambridge, the Press of Syndicate of University of Cambridge, 1998.

SMYLIE, James H. A Brief History of Presbyterians, Louisville, KT, Geneva Press, 1996.

SMITH, Joseph. Doctrines and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Days Saints, Whitefish, MO,
Kessinger Publishing, 2010.

SMITH, Joseph J. “Primal Revelation and the Natural Knowledge of God: Brunner and Catholic theology”,
Theological Studies, no. 27, vol. 3, 1966, pp. 339-357.

SMITH, Wilfred C. Towards a World Theology: Faith and the Comparative History of Religion, Maryknoll,
NY, Orbis, 1981.

SOUZA, Elias Brasil de. Teologia e metodologia da missão, Cachoeira, BA, Ceplib, 2011.

SPROUL, Robert C. Chosen by God: Know God's Perfect Plan for His Glory and His Children (Carol Stream,
IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1994.

_________________. Reason to Believe, Grand Rapids, MI, Zondervan, 1978.

STANILOAE, Dimitru. The Experience of God, Ioan Ionita and Robert Barringer (trans.), Brookline, MS, Holy
Cross Orthodox Press, 1998.

STEPHENSON, Christopher A. Types of Pentecostal Theology. Method, System, Spirit, Oxford, Oxford
University Press, 2013.

STERKEN, Carl. Interreligious Learning. The Problem of Interreligious Dialogue in Primary Education,
Leiden, Brill, 2001.

STOTT, John. The Contemporary Christians: Applying God’s Word to Today’s World, Downers Grove, IL,
InterVarsity Press, 1992.

STRANGE, Daniel. The Possibility of Salvation among the Unevangelized: An Analysis of Inclusivism in Recent
Evangelical Theology, Waynesboro, GA, Paternoster, 2002.

STUDEBAKER, Steve. From Pentecost to the Triune God, Grand Rapids, MI, Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2012.

SWIDLER, Leonard. “The Dialogue Decalogue: Ground Rules for Interreligious Dialogue”, Horizons, vol. 10,
1983, pp. 348-356.

________________. (ed.). Toward a Universal Theology of Religion, Maryknoll, NY, Orbis, 1987.

THEISSEN, Gerd. Colorido local y contexto histórico en los evangelios. Una contribución a la historia de la
tradición sinóptica, Salamanca, Ediciones Sígueme, 1997.

TEIXEIRA, Faustino (Org.), Diálogo de pássaros, São Paulo, Paulinas, 1993.

_______________. “Karl Rahner e as religiões”. In Pedro R. F. OLIVEIRA e Cláudio PAUL. Karl Rahner em
perspectiva, in these references.

_______________. Teologia e pluralismo religioso, São Bernardo do Campo, SP, Nhaduti Editora, 2012.

TILLICH, Paul. Le Christianisme et le Rencontre des Religions, Marc Boss, André Gounelle, Jean Richard
(trans.), Paris, Labor et Fides, 2015.

_______________. Dinâmica da fé, Walter Schulupp (trans.), São Leopoldo, Brasil, Sinodal, 1970.
 347

_______________. El futuro de las religiones, Buenos Aires, Ed. La Aurora, 1976.

_______________. The New Being, New York, Scribner, 1955.

_______________. The Protestant Era, James L. Adams (trans.), Chicago, The University of Chicago Press,
1948.
_______________. Systematic Theology, 3 vols., Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1953.

_______________. Theology of Culture, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1959.

_______________. What’s Religion, New York/Evanston/London/San Francisco, Harper & Row Publishers,
1973.

THEISSEN, Gerd. In Epiloge de R. BULTMANN. História de la tradición sinóptica, in these references.

THOMAS, Owen C. “Religious Plurality and Contemporary Philosophy: A Critical Survey” Harvard
Theological Review, April, 1994, pp. 193-213.

THOMPSON, Daniel S. The language of Dissent: Edward Schillebeeckx and the Crisis of Authority in the
Catholic Church, Notre Dame, ID, University of Notre Dame Press, 2003.

TIESSEN, Terrance. Who can Be Saved? Reassessing Salvation in Christ and World Religion, Downers Grove,
IL, InterVarsity, 2004.

TODOROV, Tzvetan. The Conquest of America. The Question of the Other, New York, Harper Collins, 1999.

TOURAINE, Allain. Crítica da modernidade, Elias Ferreira Edel (trad.), Petrópolis, RJ, Vozes, 2002.

TRIPATHI, C. L. “The Influence of Indian Philosophy on Neoplatonism”. In R. Baines HARRIS (ed.).

Neoplatonism and Indian Thought, in these references.

TROELTSCH, Ernst. Christian Thought: Its History and Application, London, University of London Press,
1923.

TURNEY, Rodney. “Sons of Perdition”. In Daniel H. LUDLOW (ed.). Encyclopedia of Mormonism, in these
references.

VALLE, Edênio. Psicologia e experiência religiosa, São Paulo, Loyola, 1998.

VAZ, Henrique C. de Lima. Escritos de Filosofia III. Filosofia e Cultura, São Paulo, Edições Loyola, 1997.

VILJOEN, François. “Mathew, the Church and anti-Semitism”, Veritas e Ecclesia, vol. 28, 2o. semester, 2007,
pp. 698-718.

VOLF, Miroslav. After our Likeness: The Church as Image of the Trinity, Grand Rapids, MI, Wm. B. Eerdmans,
1998.

WAINWRIGHT, Geoffrey. Lesslie Newbigin. A Theological Life, New York, Oxford University Press, 2000.

WAISMANN, Friedrich e B. F. MCGUINESS (orgs.). Wittgenstein und die Wiener Kreis, Gespräche, Schriften
3, Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp Verlag, 1969.

WALLS, Andrew. “The Rise of Global Theologies”. In J. GREENMAN e G. GREEN. Global Theology in
Evangelical Perspective. Exploring the Contextual Nature of Theology and Mission, in these references.

WALLIS, Richard T. (ed.). Neoplatonism and Gnosticism, Albany, NY, State University of New York Press,
1992.

WARD, Keith. God, Faith and the New Millennium. Christian Belief in an Age of Science, Oxford, One World
Publications, 2002.
 348

_______________. Religion and Creation, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2002.

_______________. Religion and Community, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2000.

_______________. Religion and Human Nature, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2002.

WEBER, Max. Essays in Sociology, H. H. Gerth; C. Wright Mills (eds. and trans.), New York, Oxford
University Press, 1946.

______________. A ética protestante e o “espírito” do Capitalismo, São Paulo, Companhia das Letras, 2007.

WERNER, Jaeger. Early Christianity and Greek Paideia, Cambridge, Belknap Press/ Harvard University Press,
1961.

WESLEY, John. Letter to a Roman Catholic. At John Wesley and Me webpage. Available at:
https://johnwesley.wordpress.com/john-wesleys-letter-to-a-roman-catholic/ Accessed at 07/08/2021.

WHITE, Ellen G. Educação, São Paulo, Casa Publicadora Brasileira, 2001.

WIKIPEDIA, word: Christians in India, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Census commissions,
Census 2001.

WICKS, Jared. Investigating Vatican II. Its Theological Ecumenical Turn, and Biblical Commitment,
Washington, DC, Catholic University of America Press, 2018.

WILSON, Andrew (ed.). World Scripture. A Comparative Anthology of Sacred Texts, New York, International
Religious Foundation/Paragon House Publishers, 1991.

WITTGENSTEIN, Ludwig. Das Blaue Buch und Eine Philosophische Betrachtung (Frankfurt am Main,
Suhrkamp Verlag, 1982.

________________. Da Certeza / Über Gewissheit, G. E. M. Anscombe e G. H. von Wright (orgs.), Lisboa,

Edições 70, 1990.

________________. Philosophical Investigations / Philosophische Untersuchungen, U. S. A., The Macmillan

company, 1969.

________________. R. Rhees (org.). Remarks on Frazer's Golden Bough. In C. G. LUKHARDT. Wittgenstein,

Sources and Perspectives in these references.

________________. Últimos Escritos sobre Filosofía de la Psicología II, Lo interno y lo exteno, L. M. V.

Villanueva (trad.), Madrid, Tecnos, 1996.

________________. Zettel, G. E. M. Anscombe e G. H. von Wright (ogs.), Lisboa, Edições 70, 2000.

WOOD, Jacob H. “Ressourcement”. In Jordan HILLEBERT (ed.). T & T Clark Companion to Henri de Lubac,
in these references.

WONG, J. “O Deus de Jesus Cristo em perspectiva pneumatológica”. In C. Cantone. A reviravolta planetária de

Deus, nestas referências.

WYK, I. W. C. van. “God and the Gods: Faith and Human-Made Idols in the Theology of Karl Barth”,
Hervormde Teologiese Studies, 63(4) 2007, pp. 1587-1612.

YATES, Timothy. Christian Mission in the Twentieth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

YONG, Amos. Beyond the Impasse: Towards a Pneumatological Theology of Religions, Grand Rapids, MI,
Baker Academic, 2003.
 349

_______________. Discerning of the Spirit(s). A Pentecostal-Charismatic Contribution to Christian Theology of

Religions, Sheffield, UK, Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.

_______________. Pneumatology and the Christian-Buddhist dialogue. Does the Spirit blow through the middle
way, Leiden, Brill, 2012.

_______________. “A P(new)matological Paradigm for Christian Mission in a Religiously Plural World”. In

Missiology: An International Review, XXXIII no. 2 (April, 2005): 175-191.

_______________. The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh. Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology,
Grand Rapids, MI, Baker Academics, 2005.

_____________. “The Turn to Pneumatology in Christian Theology of Religions: Conduit or Detour?” Journal
of Ecumenical Studies (Summer-Fall, 1998), 437-454.

ZAVIANI, Giampietro; Valentino MARALDI. “Ecclesiologia”. In Giacomo CANOBIO; Piero CODA. La

teologia del XX secolo. Un bilancio, in these references.

ZIELINSKA, Katarzyna. “Concepts of Religion in Debates on Secularization”, Approaching Religion, vol. 3, no.
1, 2013, pp. 25-35.

ZWINGLI, Ulrich. Commentary on True and False Religion, Eugene, OR, Wipf and Stock, 2015.