The Limits and Promise of Exclusivism and Inclusivism

This chapter surveys major exclusivist and inclusivist theologies of religious diversity. The central question that the author brings to bear in assessing any theology of religious diversity is, “Does this theory make interreligious learning possible?” The author proposes four major criteria: 1) The difference without incommensurability criterion: does this theology of religious diversity affirm that traditions are genuinely different such that real learning is possible but not so different as to be incommensurable? 2) The truth criterion: does this theology of religious diversity affirm that at least some strands of other traditions grant access to religious truth? 3) The critical theory of religion criterion: does this theology of religious diversity offer a sophisticated theory of religion that makes interreligious learning possible? 4) The intrinsic religious interest criterion: can I be interested in another tradition’s own religious ends, while remaining a member of my own? The author shows that when theologies of religious diversity fail, they do so most often because of an inadequate theory of religion. The author also shows that, surprisingly, even some exclusivist leave room for interreligious learning.

The truth of metaphorical God-talk

This article tries to show that metaphorical God-talk can be descriptive and true. First, it is established that true metaphorical descriptions of reality are possible. No special theory of ‘metaphorical truth’ is required for metaphorical descriptions. Next, it is argued that a realistic metaphorical description of God is possible because we can know the transcendent creator in the experience of being addressed by him in Jesus Christ. God-talk is an extension of our response to God's address. The truth-condition of metaphorical God-talk is God's self-revelation; its truth-criterion is biblical God-talk.

The 1978 Truth Criterion Controversy

It is a truism that in politics words often count for as much as deeds. What is surprising about politics in the People's Republic of China, given the Chinese Communist Party's professed commitment to materialism, is how often words count for more than deeds. Disputes concerning the proper order of things are resolved not by reference to what is, but to what ought to be. The right to affect political change is argued first of all on the basis of scriptural authority, and only secondly on the basis of empirical evidence. Acts that cannot be immediately sanctioned on the basis of arguments contained in canonical texts will be kept secret until the obstacles preventing such sanction have been eliminated.