Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Philosophies of Christianity pp 67–95Cite as

The Limits of Univocity in Interreligious Relationality

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 256 Accesses

Abstract

Richard Schenk’s chapter is a critical review of four main strands in contemporary pluralist theology of religions. First, Schenk points to weaknesses in Perry Schmidt-Leukel’s articulation of the now standard exclusivist—inclusivist—pluralist classification of religious systems. Schmidt-Leukel claims that these three classifications are ‘comprehensive and unavoidable’, meaning that they exhaust all logical possibilities, and that religious theories as wholes should be forced to choose one and only one of the three, on pain of logical inconsistency. Schmidt-Leukel also calls the threefold classification theologically ‘adequate’; i.e., the possibility that no one of the three positions can fully describe a theory is excluded. The only valid theological view of the relationships between religions will be one, and only one, of the three positions. Schenk responds by arguing that no one of the three genera of models describes the optimal theory of religions, and no one of the three genera is without some partial justification. One ought, therefore, to look for the possibility of combining these three genera of arguments within a single theory which can apply different standards of judgments to different phenomena of any given religion. The inadequacy of Schmidt-Leukel’s classificatory scheme is clear, e.g., in those classical patristic and medieval views on non-Christian religions in which exclusivist and inclusivist dimensions coexist. Secondly, Schenk points to the exclusivist line of argumentation intrinsic to John Hick’s form of pluralism, which is based on a univocal concept of truth. Hick’s pluralism has an exclusivist definition of true religion as the transition from ego-centeredness to Reality-centeredness. Thirdly, those pluralistic forms which reject the univocal notion of truth in Hick (most successfully, Raimundo Panikkar’s) encounter the further problem of a coherent notion of plural truths. Fourthly, Schenk considers pluralist theologies focused upon social justice (notably those of Paul Knitter and Langdon Gilkey), which seek in the criteria of just action a non-relativist grounding for pluralism. Finally, Schenk offers three aspects of successful interreligious dialogue.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   74.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Robert Kilwardby, Quaestiones in librum IV Sententiarum, q. 22; see edition by Richard Schenk, Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für die Herausgabe ungedruckter Texte aus der mittelalterlichen Geisteswelt 17 (Munich: Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1993), p. 89.l, and pp. 143–147. ‘Et contra hoc … dici potest quod postquam semel homo convertit se ad bonum vel ad malum, non fuit status innocentiae, sed immediate se habuit semper humana natura in omni persona ad gratiam vel culpam. Unde quamvis fuerit ille status forte in primordio naturae institutae, deinceps tamen non fuit.’

  2. 2.

    For an earlier and longer version of this paper, set in the context of the relations between the science, philosophy, and theology of religions, cf. R. Schenk, ‘Debatable Ambiguity: Paradigms of Truth as a Measure of the Differences among Christian Theologies of Religion’, in Richard Schenk, Vittorio Hösle, Peter Koslowski, eds., Jahrbuch für Philosophie des Forschungsinstituts für Philosophie Hannover, vol. 11 (Vienna: Passagen, 2000), pp. 53–85.

  3. 3.

    For an example of a philosophy of religion that programatically respects the place of the sciences and the theology of religions, cf. the work of Richard Schaeffler, Religionsphilosophie, Studienausgabe, 2nd ed. (Freiburg: Alber, 2010); as well as Philosophische Einübung in der Theologie, Studienausgabe, 3 Bände (Freiburg: Alber, 2008).

  4. 4.

    Der Wissenschaftsrat (ed.), Recommendations on the Advancement of Theologies and Sciences concerned with Religions at German Universities (Köln: Sutorius, 2010), p. 51, http://www.wissenschaftsrat.de/download/archiv/9678-10_engl.pdf

  5. 5.

    Cf. Recommendations, p. 56: The position-paper ‘… urgently pleads in favor of demand-based adjustments [Umbau] to the Christian theologies …’

  6. 6.

    Recommendations, p. 51.

  7. 7.

    But cf. also Schmidt-Leukel, ‘Zur Klassifikation religionstheologischer Modelle’, Catholica 47 (1993): pp. 163–183. He points to the development of the triadic scheme especially by two of John Hick’s students, Alan Race and Gavin D’Costa (p. 165). See D’Costa, ed., Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered. The Myth of a Pluralistic theology of Religions (New York: Maryknoll, 1990). On the subsequent and longer study, in which the Christological implications of a pluralistic theology of religions are openly discussed from a sympathiser’s point of view (pp. 493–575), cf. Schmidt-Leukel, Theologie der Religionen. Probleme, Optionen, Argumente (Neuried: Ars Una, 1997). Cf. R. Schenk, ‘In universum mundum. Das Zeugnis des Evangeliums im Zeitalter pluralistischer Religionstheorien’, in W. Schreer, G. Steins, eds., Auf neue Art Kirche sein. Wirklichkeiten- Herausforderungen- Wandlungen (Festschrift Josef Homeyer) (Munich: Don Bosco Verlag, 1999), pp. 507–523.

  8. 8.

    Cf. U. Ruh, ‘Selbstrelativierung kein Ausweg. Ansatz und Probleme einer pluralistischen Religionstheologie’, Herder Korrespondenz 48 (1994): pp. 576–580.

  9. 9.

    ‘Zur Klassifikation’, p. 163 and 172.

  10. 10.

    ‘Zur Klassifikation’, pp. 163 and 178.

  11. 11.

    Bernhardt, Der Absolutheitsanspruch des Christentums. Von der Aufklärung bis zur Pluralistischen Religionstheologie (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn, 1990).

  12. 12.

    Schmidt-Leukel, ‘Zur Klassifikation’, p. 174.

  13. 13.

    ‘Zur Klassifikation’, p. 179.

  14. 14.

    ‘Zur Klassifikation’, p. 175.

  15. 15.

    Cf. E. Herms, ‘Offenbarung und Glaube als Gegenstand des ökumenischen Dialogs’, in P. Koslowski and R. Schenk, eds., Jahrbuch für Philosophie des Forschungsinstituts für Philosophie Hannover 7 (Vienna: Bernward, 1995), pp. 251–286; and P. Eicher, Offenbarung. Prinzip neuzeitlicher Theologie (Munich: Kösel, 1977).

  16. 16.

    M. Seckler, ‘Wohin driftet man in der Theologie der Religionen? Kritische Beobachtungen zu einer Dokumentation’, Theologische Quartalsschrift 172 (1992): pp. 126–130.

  17. 17.

    Schmidt-Leukel, ‘Zur Klassifikation’, p. 183, footnote 45.

  18. 18.

    Cf. Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae II-II, q. 81.

  19. 19.

    Thomas, Summa theologiae, II-II, q. 81, a. 5: ‘Et ideo religio non est virtus theologica cuius obiectum est ultimus finis, sed virtus moralis cuius est esse circa ea. quae sunt ad finem.’

  20. 20.

    John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Part II, Chapter V, Section 2, § 3 (New York, NY: Garden City, 1960), p. 185. ‘Pagans may have, heretics cannot have, the same principle as Catholics; if the latter have the same, they are not real heretics, but in ignorance. Principle is a better test of heresy than doctrine.’

  21. 21.

    Schmidt-Leukel, ‘Zur Klassifikation’, p. 174, with reference to Bernhardt, p. 224.

  22. 22.

    In his most recent works, Schmidt-Leukel has proposed alternatives to his earlier binding, threefold classification of entire religions and theories of interreligious relationality; cf. especially Perry Schmidt-Leukel, Religious Pluralism and Interreligious Theology. The Gifford Lectures – An Extended Edition (Maryknoll: Orbis, 2017). These alternatives address more intentionally the complex structure of similarities and dissimilarities of religious forms. The analysis of the earlier approach remains important due both to the influence it has exercised on the philosophy of religions since the 1980s and to the abiding contribution it can offer for analysing simpler entities like arguments, themes and symbols, within complex wholes with heterogeneous elements, differing interpretations and uneven histories.

  23. 23.

    Hans Küng, ‘Zu einer ökumenischen Theologie der Religionen’, Concilium 22 (1986): pp. 76–80.

  24. 24.

    Schmidt-Leukel, ‘Zur Klassifikation’, p. 181, note 4.

  25. 25.

    Schmidt-Leukel, ‘Exclusivism, Inclusivism, Pluralism. The Tripolar Typology—Clarified and Reaffirmed’, in Paul F. Knitter, ed., The Myth of Religous Superiority. Multifaith Explorations of Religious Pluralism (Maryknoll: Orbis, 2005), pp. 13–27; here, p. 25. Schmidt-Leukel assigns no merit here to any of the recent criticisms, even by former proponents of the adequacy, comprehensiveness and inevitability of the typology and its pluralistic aim.

  26. 26.

    Cf. N. Schwerdtfeger, Gnade und Welt. Zum Grundgefüge Karl Rahners Theorie des ‘anonymen Christen’, Freiburger theologische Studien 123 (Freiburg: Herder, 1982); and R. Schenk, Die Gnade vollendeter Endlichkeit. Zur transzendentaltheologischen Auslegung der thomanischen Anthropologie, Freiburger theologische Studien 135 (Freiburg: Herder, 1986).

  27. 27.

    John Paul II, Redemptoris missio, 29, in Sekretariat der Deutschen Bischofskonferenz, ed., Verlautbarungen des Apostolischen Stuhls 100 (Bonn: Sekretariat der Deutschen Bischofskonferenz, 1990), p. 32.

  28. 28.

    Vorstand der Amoldsheimer Konferenz/Kirchenleitung der Velkd, eds., Religionen, Religiosität und christlicher Glaube. Eine Studie (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1991), pp. 16, 71, 126.

  29. 29.

    Religionen, Religiosität, p. 126.

  30. 30.

    Compare the exclusion of the older Christian tradition on the basis of general judgements, by P. F. Knitter, No Other Name? A Critical Survey of Christian Attitudes Toward the World Religions (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1985), p. 6. See also the far more complicated historical data presented by Y. Congar, Außer der Kirche kein Heil. Wahrheit und Dimensionen des Heils (Essen: Driewer, 1961), pp. 107–171; M. Seckler, Instinkt und Glaubenswille nach Thomas von Aquin (Mainz: Matthias-Grünewald-Verlag, 1961), pp. 232–270; and W. Kern, Außerhalb der Kirche kein Heil? (Freiburg: Herder, 1979).

  31. 31.

    Cf. R. Schenk, Die Deutung vorchristlicher Riten im Frühwerk des Albertus Magnus, Lectio Alberti 15 (Münster: Aschendorff, 2014).

  32. 32.

    As an example for such ambivalence cf. Kilwardby, Quaestiones in librum quartum Sententiarum, q. 37 (in Schenk, p. 160, lin. 187–197), where in reference to Luke 20:17 (Psalm 117:22) and to the ‘Glossa’ on Ephesians 2:14, it is said: ‘Ex his satis patet, quod, sicut duo parietes uniuntur in uno angulo, sic duo populi gentium et Iudaeorum in Christo per conformitatem sacramentorum et morum. Et hoc congruum est, quod tempus gratiae sit tempus unitatis in cultu Dei et tempus praecedens multitudinis, quia ad unam civitatem per multas vias tenditur, sic ad civitatem Christianae religionis quae est finis et complementum omnis religionis in via. Item, primo sunt partes domus segregatae ab invicem et diversas formas habent, donec in unam formam unius domus copulentur, sic in proposito: quia religio Christiana est domus inhabitationis Dei, ad quam sumuntur gentes ex omni ritu quae prius erant in modo venerandi Deum segregatae, sed sub fide catholica in uno modo catholico uniuntur’. Cf. also the introduction to the cited edition, pp. 67–71.

  33. 33.

    Cf. Sacrosanctum Oecumenicum Concilium Vaticanum II, Declaratio de libertate religiosa (Dignitatis humanae), no. 1, Secretaria generalis Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II, ed., (Vatican City: 1966), p. 512; referred to by the Katechismus der katholischen Kirche (Munich: 1993), nos. 2104–2109, p. 542; and J. Hamer, Y. Congar, eds., Die Konzilserklärung über die Religionsfreiheit, Konfessionskundliche und kontroverstheologische Studien 20 (Paderborn: 1967).

  34. 34.

    On the diversity and controversies between Christian medieval theologies of religions, their ambivalent evaluations of religions, and their ambiguous arguments on the relations between them, cf. R. Schenk, ‘Covenant Initiation. Robert Kilwardby and Thomas Aquinas on the Sacrament of Circumcision’, in J.-C. Pinto de Oliveira, ed., Ordo sapientiae et amoris (Fribourg-Paris: Éditions universitaires, 1993), pp. 555–594; and R. Schenk, ‘Opfer und Opferkritik aus der Sicht römisch-katholischer Theologie’, in R. Schenk, ed., Zur Theorie des Opfers (Stuttgart-Bad-Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 1994), pp. 193–250.

  35. 35.

    Cf. Y. Congar, ‘Ecclesia ab Abel’, in M. Reding, ed., Abhandlungen über Theologie und Kirche. Festschrift für Karl Adam (Düsseldorf: Patmos-Verlag, 1952), pp. 79–108; and R. Schenk, ‘Die Suche nach dem Bruder Abel. Zum Streit um das analoge Sakramentsverständnis’, in P. Koslowski, R. Löw, and R. Schenk, eds., Jahrbuch für Philosophie des Forschungsinstituts für Philosophie Hannover 5 (Vienna: Passagen Verlag, 1993), pp. 69–87.

  36. 36.

    Cf. R. Schenk, ‘Divina simulatio irae et dissimulatio pietatis. Divine Providence and Natural Religion in Robert Kilwardby’s Quaestiones in librum IV Sententiarum’, in A. Zimmermann, ed., Mensch und Natur im Mittelalter, Miscellanea Mediaevalia, vol. 21/2 (Berlin-New York: De Gruyter, 1991), pp. 431–455.

  37. 37.

    ‘To the one doing what is in himself God does not deny grace.’

  38. 38.

    ‘Et ideo oportuit omni tempore apud homines esse aliquod repraesentativum Dominicae passionis’ (Summa theologiae III, q. 73, a. 5).

  39. 39.

    Cf. Schenk, ‘Opfer und Opferkritik’.

  40. 40.

    Cf. 1 Corinthians 13:8–13; Hebrews 11:1.

  41. 41.

    Jeremiah’s accusation of ‘false prophecy’ is directed not against, say, the pagan neighbors, but against prophets in the school of Isaiah, whose deceptive trust in the invincible status of Jerusalem was so disastrous only because it could call upon a genuine trust in God; cf. T. W. Overholt, The Threat of Falsehood. A Study in the Theology of the Book of Jeremiah, Studies in Biblical Theology U/16 (Naperville, Illinois: Allenson-Breckinridge Books, 1970).

  42. 42.

    For the pluralistic approach to a theological application of T. S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962), p. 2, cf. the following: L. Gilkey, ‘Der Paradigmenwechsel in der Theologie’, in H. Küng and D. Tracy, eds., Das neue Paradigma von Theologie. Strukturen und Dimensionen, Ökumenische Theologie 13 (Gütersloh: Benziger, 1986), pp. 29–143; as well as H. Küng, ‘Paradigmenwechsel in der Theologie. Versuch einer Grundlagenerklärung’, in H. Küng, D. Tracy, eds., Theologie—Wohin? Auf dem Weg zu einem neuen Paradigma, Ökumenische Theologie 11 (Zürich-Cologne: Gutersloher Verlaghaus, 1984), pp. 37–75; D. Tracy, ‘Hermeneutische Überlegungen im neuen Paradigma’, ibid., pp. 76–102; and M. Marty, ‘Paradigma im Übergang von der Moderne zur Postmoderne’, ibid., pp. 204–230. The title of the German translation of Tracy’s Plurality and Ambiguity. Hermeneutics, Religion, Hope underscores this dimension: Theologie als Gespräch. Eine postmoderne Hermeneutik (Mainz: Matthias-Grünewald-Verlag, 1993).

  43. 43.

    ‘Preface’, in J. Hick and P. F. Knitter, eds., The Myth of Christian Uniqueness. Toward a Pluralistic Theology Religions (New York: Maryknoll, 1987), p. viixii.

  44. 44.

    ln light of this conception of pluralism, R. Bernhardt would need to be asked if his attempt at making sense of the claim to an absolute status at least in the sense of a ‘Spirit-Christology’ (Bernhardt, Der Absolutheitsanspruch) with its restriction of the formula solus Christus to Christians of a non-theoretical doxology does not in fact also already cross the Rubicon to pluralism; cf. Bernhardt, ‘Deabsolutierung der Christologie?’ in Reinhold Bernhardt, Michael von Brück and Jürgen Werbick, eds., Der einzige Weg zum Heil?, Quaestiones Disputatae 143 (Freiburg: Herder, 1993), pp. 144–200, especially p. 196.

  45. 45.

    Cf. H. Thielicke, Offenbarung, Vernunft und Existenz. Studien zur Religionsphilosophie Lessings (Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1957); and Lehmann, ‘Absolutheit des Christentums als philosophisches und theologisches Problem’, in Walter Kasper, ed., Absolutheit des Christentums, Quaestiones Disputatae 79 (Freiburg: Herder, 1977), pp. 13–38, especially pp. 15–20.

  46. 46.

    Cf. Hick, ‘On Grading Religions’, Religious Studies 17 (1982), cited here according to The John Hick Reader, Paul Badham, ed. (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2011), pp. 178–198; Hick, Problems of Religious Pluralism (Houndmills, UK: Macmillian, 1985), pp. 110–128; Hick, ‘A Possible Conception of Life After Death’, in S. Davis, ed., Death and Afterlife, cited here according to J. Hick, Disputed Questions in Theology and the Philosophy of Religion (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993), pp. 183–196.

  47. 47.

    ‘On Grading Religions’, p. 197: ‘As far as we can tell, they are equally productive of that transition from self to Reality which we see in the saints of all traditions’; cf. Hick, ‘On Conflicting Religious Truth-Claims’, Religious Studies 10 (1983): reprinted in Problems, pp. 88–95.

  48. 48.

    Cf. Hick, The Metaphor of God lncarnate. Christology in a Pluralistic Age (Westminster-Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1993), pp. 1–14.

  49. 49.

    J. B. Cobb, ‘Beyond “Pluralism”’, in G. D’Costa, ed., Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered, pp. 81–95.

  50. 50.

    Leonard Swidler, ed., Towards a Universal Theology of Religion (New York: Orbis Books, 1987); as well as L. Swidler: ‘A Dialogue on Dialogue’, in L. Swidler et al., eds. Death or Dialogue? From the Age of Monologue to the Age of Dialogue (London-Philadelphia, 1990), pp. 56–78; and L. Swidler, After the Absolute. The Dialogical Future of Religious Reflection (Minneapolis: 1990). Cf. the concern for ‘Rationality, Irrationality, and Other Rationality’, in D. J. Krieger, The New Universalism. Foundations for a Global Theology (New York: Wipf and Stock, 1991).

  51. 51.

    Swidler, After the Absolute, p. 7; P. F. Knitter, No Other Name?, p. 217.

  52. 52.

    Swidler, After the Absolute; cf. D. Lochhead, The Dialogical lmperative. A Christian Reflection on Interfaith Encounter (London: Wipf and Stock, 1988).

  53. 53.

    P. F. Knitter, No Other Name?; P. F. Knitter, ‘Nochmals die Absolutheitsfrage’, Evangelische Theologie 49 (1989): pp. 505–516; P. F. Knitter, ‘Interreligious Dialogue: What? Why? How?’, in Swidler et al., eds., Death or Dialogue?, pp. 19–44; P. F. Knitter, ‘Suche nach Einheit in Unterschiedenheit. Jüngste Ansichten zum Religiösen Pluralismus’, Dialog der Religionen I (1991): pp. 230–237.

  54. 54.

    P. F. Knitter, ‘Nochmals die Absolutheitsfrage’, p. 510. Cf. the critique by P. Knitter of J. Hick’s alledged ‘dualism’ in Knitter’s review of J. Hick, ‘An Interpretation of Religion’, Dialog der Religionen 1 (1991): pp. 225–227.

  55. 55.

    P. F. Knitter, ‘Interreligious Dialogue: What? Why? How?’, p. 20.

  56. 56.

    Cf. Raimundo Panikkar, ‘The Jordan, the Tiber, and the Ganges. Three Kairological Moments of Christic Self-Consciousness’, in J. Hick and P. F. Knitter, eds., The Mvth of Christian Uniqueness, pp. 89–116.

  57. 57.

    Ibid., p. 109.

  58. 58.

    Ibid., p. 103.

  59. 59.

    Ibid., p. 109.

  60. 60.

    Cf. S. J. Samartha, ‘The Cross and the Rainbow. Christ in a Multireligious Culture’, in J. Hick and P. F. Knitter, eds., The Myth of Christian Uniqueness, pp. 69–88.

  61. 61.

    Samartha, ‘The Cross and the Rainbow’, p. 75.

  62. 62.

    ‘On what ground can it be claimed that the trinitarian formula offers a “truer” insight into the nature of the Mystery than does sat-cit-ananda? At best, the two formulations can only be symbolic, pointing to the Mystery, affirming the meaning disclosed, but retaining the residual depth’ (Samartha, ‘The Cross and the Rainbow’, p. 76).

  63. 63.

    ‘Mystery lies beyond the theistic/nontheistic debate’ (Samartha, ‘The Cross and the Rainbow’, p. 75). Cf. the same text after p. 73 where, however, religions are treated as superior to secularism.

  64. 64.

    Werbick, ‘Heil durch Jesus Christus allein? Die “Pluralistische Theologie” und ihr Plädoyer für einen Pluralismus der Heilswege’, in Werbick et al., eds., Der einzige Weg zum Heil?, pp. 11–61; here, p. 51.

  65. 65.

    Jürgen Moltmann, ‘Dient die “pluralistische Theologie” dem Dialog der Religionen?’ Evangelische Theologie 49 (1989): pp. 528–536; here, p. 536. This piece appears slightly reworked and translated as ‘Is “Pluralistic Theology” Useful for the Dialogue of World Religions?’, in G. D’Costa, ed., Christian Uniqueness, pp. 149–156.

  66. 66.

    Knitter, ‘Toward a Liberation Theology of Religions’ in Knitter and Hick, eds., The Myth of Christian Uniqueness, pp. 178–202. P. F. Knitter, ‘Religionen und Befreiung. Soteriozentrismus als Antwort an die Kritiker’, in Reinhold Bernhardt, ed., Horizontüberschreitung. Die Pluralistische Theologie der Religionen (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1991), pp. 203–219.

  67. 67.

    Werbick, in Der einzige Weg zum Heil?, p. 28.

  68. 68.

    L. Gilkey, ‘Plurality and Its Theological Implications’, in J. Hick and P. Knitter, eds., The Myth of Christian Uniqueness, pp. 37–50; here, p. 46.

  69. 69.

    The Myth of Christian Uniqueness, p. 47.

  70. 70.

    L. Gilkey, Through the Tempest. Theological Voyages in a Pluralistic Culture (Minneapolis: Wipf and Stock, 1991), p. 31.

  71. 71.

    Gilkey, Through the Tempest, pp. 191–193.

  72. 72.

    On this aporia from the practice of pluralism, cf. H. Küng, ‘Dialogfähigkeit und Standfestigkeit. Über zwei komplementäre Tugenden’, Evangelische Theologie 49 (1989), pp. 492–504; and H. Küng, ‘Gibt es eine wahre Religion? Versuch einer ökumenischen Kriteriologie’, in H. Küng, Theologie im Aufbruch. Eine ökumenische Grundlegung (Munich-Zürich: Piper, 1987), pp. 274–306.

  73. 73.

    Cf. M. K. Hellwig, ‘Christology in the Wider Ecumenism’, in G. D’Costa, ed., Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered, pp. 107–116.

  74. 74.

    On the notion of metaphysical and ideological ‘standpoints’, cf. the remark, directed in good part against Nicolai Hartmann, by Martin Heidegger, Sein und Zeit12 (Tübingen, 1972), § 6, p. 21. Understanding traditions as standpoints ‘… entwurzelt die Geschichtlichkeit des Daseins so weit, daß es sich nur noch im Interesse an der Vielgestaltigkeit möglicher Typen, Richtungen, Standpunkte des Philosophierens in den entlegensten und fremdesten Kulturen bewegt und mit diesem Interesse die eigene Bodenlosigkeit zu verhüllen sucht.’

  75. 75.

    J. Werbick, in Der einzige Weg zum Heil?, p. 12. Cf. Paul Knitter’s plea for the cultivation of a future commonality of praxis between irreducibly other religious (which he compares to Levinas’ sense of the face of the other) to be sought in concerted action for justice, a model of friendship rooted in a novel acknowledgement of religious alterity: Paul Knitter, ‘Is the Pluralist Model a Western Imposition? A Response in Five Voices’, in Paul F. Knitter, ed., The Myth of Religous Superiority, pp. 28–42.

  76. 76.

    Tracy, Plurality and Ambiguity: Hermeneutics, Religion, Hope (Toronto: University of Chicago Press, 1987).

  77. 77.

    David Tracy, The Analogical Imagination: Christian Theology and the Culture of Pluralism (New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1981). Cf. David Tracy, Blessed Rage for Order: The New Pluralism in Theology (New York: University of Chicago Press, 1975).

  78. 78.

    For the locus classicus cf. Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae I, q. 13, aa. 1–12.

  79. 79.

    J. B. Elshtain, Democracy on Trial (New York: Basic Books, 1995), p. xi

Bibliography

  • Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologiae. http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/. Accessed 07/07/2017.

  • Bernhardt, Reinhold. 1990. Der Absolutheitsanspruch des Christentums. Von der Aufklärung bis zur Pluralistischen Religionstheologie. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———, ed. 1991. Horizontüberschreitung. Die Pluralistische Theologie der Religionen. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernhardt, Reinhold, Michael von Brück, and Jürgen Werbick, eds. 1993. Der einzige Weg zum Heil? Quaestiones Disputatae 143. Freiburg: Herder.

    Google Scholar 

  • Congar, Yves. 1961. Außer der Kirche kein Heil. Wahrheit und Dimensionen des Heils. Essen: Driewer.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Costa, Gavin. 1990. Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered. The Myth of a Pluralistic Theology of Religions. New York: Maryknoll.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eggensperger, Thomas, and Ulrich Engel. 1995. Wahrheit. Recherchen zwischen Hochscholastik und Postmoderne. Mainz: Matthias-Grünewald-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eicher, Peter. 1977. Offenbarung. Prinzip neuzeitlicher Theologie. Munich: Kösel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elshtain, Jean Bethke. 1995. Democracy on Trial. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilkey, Langdon. 1991. Through the Tempest. Theological Voyages in a Pluralistic Culture. Minneapolis: Wipf and Stock.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamer, Jerome, and Yves Congar. 1967. Die Konzilserklärung über die Religionsfreiheit, Konfessionskundliche und kontroverstheologische Studien 20. Paderborn: Bonifatius-Druckerei.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hick, John. 1991. An Interpretation of Religion. Dialog der Religionen 1: 225–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1993a. Disputed Questions in Theology and the Philosophy of Religion. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1993b. The Metaphor of God Lncarnate. Christology in a Pluralistic Age. Westminster/Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hick, John, and Paul F. Knitter, eds. 1987. The Myth of Christian Uniqueness. Toward a Pluralistic Theology Religions. New York: Maryknoll.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hösle, Vittorio, and Peter Koslowski, eds. 2000. Jahrbuch für Philosophie des Forschungsinstituts für Philosophie Hannover. Vol. 11. Vienna: Passagen.

    Google Scholar 

  • John Paul, I.I. 1990. Redemptoris missio. In Verlautbarungen des Apostolischen Stuhls, ed. Sekretariat der Deutschen Bischofskonferenz, 100. Bonn: Sekretariat der Deutschen Bischofskonferenz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasper, Walter, ed. 1977. Absolutheit des Christentums, Quaestiones Disputatae 79. Freiburg: Mohr.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kern, Walter. 1979. Außerhalb der Kirche kein Heil? Freiburg: Herder.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilwardby, Robert. 1992. Quaestiones in librum IV Sententiarum, Q. 22, ed. Richard Schenk. Munich: Bayerische Akademie.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1993. Quaestiones in librum quartum Sententiarum. In Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für die Herausgabe ungedruckter Texte aus der mittelalterlichen Geisteswelt 17, ed. Richard Schenk. Munich: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knitter, Paul F. 1985. No Other Name? A Critical Survey of Christian Attitudes Toward the World Religions. Maryknoll: Orbis Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1991. Suche nach Einheit in Unterschiedenheit. Jüngste Ansichten zum Religiösen Pluralismus. Dialog der Religionen I: 230–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———., ed. 2005. The Myth of Religous Superiority. Multifaith Explorations of Religious Pluralism. Maryknoll: Orbis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koslowski, Peter, Reinhard Löw, and Richard Schenk, eds. 1993. Jahrbuch für Philosophie des Forschungsinstituts für Philosophie Hannover 5. Vienna: Passagen Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koslowski, Peter, and Richard Schenk, eds. 1995. Jahrbuch für Philosophie des Forschungsinstituts für Philosophie Hannover 7. Vienna: Bernward.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krieger, David J. 1991. The New Universalism. Foundations for a Global Theology. New York: Wipf and Stock.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, Thomas S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Küng, Hans. 1986. Zu einer ökumenischen Theologie der Religionen. Concilium 22: 76–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1987. Theologie im Aufbruch. Eine ökumenische Grundlegung. Munich/Zürich: Piper.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1989. Dialogfähigkeit und Standfestigkeit Über zwei komplementäre Tugenden. Evangelische Theologie 49: 492–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Küng, Hans, and David Tracy. 1984. eds. Theologie—Wohin? Auf dem Weg zu einem neuen Paradigma, Ökumenische Theologie 11. Zürich/Cologne: Gutersloher Verlaghaus.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1986. Das neue Paradigma von Theologie. Strukturen und Dimensionen, Ökumenische Theologie 13. Gütersloh: Benziger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moltmann, Jürgen. 1989. Dient die “pluralistische Theologie” dem Dialog der Religionen? Evangelische Theologie 49: 528–536.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, John Henry. 1960. An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. New York: Garden City.

    Google Scholar 

  • Overholt, Thomas W. 1970. The Threat of Falsehood. A Study in the Theology of the Book of Jeremiah. Naperville: Allenson-Breckinridge Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinto de Oliveira, Carlos-Josaphat, ed. 1993. Ordo sapientiae et amoris. Fribourg/Paris: Éditions universitaires.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reding, Marcel, ed. 1952. Abhandlungen über Theologie und Kirche. Festschrift für Karl Adam. Düsseldorf: Patmos/Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruh, Ulrich. 1994. Selbstrelativierung kein Ausweg. Ansatz und Probleme einer pluralistischen Religionstheologie. Herder Korrespondenz 48: 576–580.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacrosanctum Oecumenicum Concilium Vaticanum II. 1966. Declaratio de libertate religiosa (Dignitatis humanae). No. I, ed. Secretaria generalis Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II. Vatican City.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaeffler, Richard. 2008. Philosophische Einübung in der Theologie. Studienausgabe. 3 Bände. Freiburg: Alber.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2010. Religionsphilosophie. Studenausgabe. 2nd ed. Freiburg: Alber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schenk, Richard. 1986. Die Gnade vollendeter Endlichkeit. Zur transzendentaltheologischen Auslegung der thomanischen Anthropologie. Freiburg: Herder.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———, ed. 1994. Zur Theorie des Opfers. Stuttgart-Bad-Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2014. Die Deutung vorchristlicher Riten im Frühwerk des Albertus Magnus, Lectio Alberti 15. Münster: Aschendorff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt-Leukel, Perry. 1993. Zur Klassifikation religionstheologischer Modelle. Catholica 47: 163–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1997. Theologie der Religionen. Probleme, Optionen, Argumente. Neuried: Ars Una.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schreer, Werner, and Georg Steins. 1999. eds. Auf neue Art Kirche sein. Wirklichkeiten— Herausforderungen—Wandlungen. Festschrift für Bischof Dr. Josef Homeyer. Munich: Don Bosco Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwerdtfeger, Nicolaus. 1982. Gnade und Welt. Zum Grundgefüge Karl Rahners Theorie des ‘anonymen Christen. Freiburg: Herder.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seckler, Max. 1961. Instinkt und Glaubenswille nach Thomas von Aquin. Mainz: Matthias-Grünewald-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1992. Wohin driftet man in der Theologie der Religionen? Kritische Beobachtungen zu einer Dokumentation. Theologische Quartalsschrift 172: 126–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swidler, Leonard, ed. 1987. Towards a Universal Theology of Religion. New York: Orbis Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1990. After the Absolute. The Dialogical Future of Religious Reflection. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swidler, Leonard, et al., eds. 1990. Death or Dialogue? From the Age of Monologue to the Age of Dialogue. London/Philadelphia: SCM Press and Trinity Press International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thielicke, Helmut. 1957. Offenbarung, Vernunft und Existenz. Studien zur Religionsphilosophie Lessings. Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tracy, David. 1975. Blessed Rage for Order: The New Pluralism in Theology. New York: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1981. The Analogical Imagination: Christian Theology and the Culture of Pluralism. New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1987. Plurality and Ambiguity: Hermeneutics, Religion, Hope. Toronto: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1993. Theologie als Gespräch. Eine postmoderne Hermeneutik. Mainz: Matthias-Grünewald-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vorstand der Amoldsheimer Konferenz/Kirchenleitung der Velkd, ed. 1991. Religionen, Religiosität und christlicher Glaube. Eine Studie. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wissenschaftsrat, Der, ed. 2010. Recommendations on the Advancement of Theologies and Sciences concerned with Religions at German Universities. Köln: Sutorius. http://www.wissenschaftsrat.de/download/archiv/9678-10_engl.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann, Albert, ed. 1991. Mensch und Natur im Mittelalter, Miscellanea Medievalia 21/2. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Albert-Ludwigs-University, Honorary Professor, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany

    Richard Schenk

Authors
  1. Richard Schenk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard Schenk .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Pázmány Péter Catholic University, Budapest, Hungary

    Balázs M. Mezei

  2. University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, USA

    Matthew Z. Vale

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Schenk, R. (2019). The Limits of Univocity in Interreligious Relationality. In: Mezei, B., Vale, M. (eds) Philosophies of Christianity. Sophia Studies in Cross-cultural Philosophy of Traditions and Cultures, vol 31. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22632-9_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation