Changing Roman Catholic Christologies: 
The Case of Hans Kung and Paul Knitter 

Mahmut Aydin 

Abstract 
The person of Jesus Christ does not only play a key role in the Christian 
dialogue with non-Christians, but it is also the central issue in the 
current debate on the Christian theology of religions. Within this 
context, after the 1970's, some individual theologians and thinkers have 
attempted to study the status of Jesus by questioning seriously the 
traditional Christian beliefs and doctrines that this study critically 
evaluates. A number of works which discuss the uniqueness of Jesus 
Christ and the possibility of reinterpreting traditional doctrines in the 
light of new developments and the practical implications of dialogue 
with people of other faiths. 

Introduction 
In 1977 John Hick edited The Myth of God Incarnate' in order to illustrate 
that " ... Jesus was (as he is presented in Acts 2.21) "a man approved 
by God" for a special role within the divine purpose, and that the later 
conception of him as God incarnate, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity 
living a human life, was a mythological or poetic way of expressing his 
significance for us. This recognition is called for in the interests of truth; 
but it also has increasingly practical implications for our relationship to 
other great world religions."2 In 1986, a number of Catholic and Protestant 
theologians gathered at Claremont University in the United States to 
discuss the issue of understanding Jesus Christ within the context of world 

Mahmut Aydin is an Associate Professor in the History of Religions and Interreligious Dialogue at 
the Faculty of Theology, Ondokw Mayis University. SamsunfTurkey. 



18 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 18.3 

religions. The major papers of this gathering were edited by Paul Knitter 
and John Hick under the title The Myth of Christian Uniqueness: Toward a 
Pluralistic Theology of  religion^.^ The contributors to this work agreed that 
the myth of Christian uniqueness must be reconsidered, since it implies 
"the uniqueness, definitiveness, absoluteness, normativeness, superiority 
of Christianity in comparison with other religions of the ~ o r l d . " ~  They 
all rejected this dogmatism and argued for crossing over the shores of 
exclusivism and inclusivism to pluralism. 

In 1991, the first director of the World Council of Churches' Sub-unit for 
Dialogue with People of Other Faiths, Stanley J. Samartha, published his 
One Christ- Many Religions in order to urge Christians to develop a revised 
christology within the context of their relationship with people of other 
faiths. For, according to him, such a christology "is biblically sound, 
spiritually satisfying, theologically credible, and pastorally helpful and both 
necessary and possible - without making exclusive claims for Christianity 
or passing negative judgements on the faiths of our  neighbor^."^ In 1993 
Hick published another work, The Metaphor of God Incarnate6, in order to 
show that "Jesus himself did not teach what was to become the orthodox 
Christian understanding of him; ... the dogma of Jesus' two natures, one 
human and the other divine, has proved to be incapable of being explicat- 
ed in any satisfactory way; ... historically the traditional dogma has been 
used to justify great human evils; ... the idea of divine incarnation is better 
understood as metaphorical than as literal; ... we can rightly take Jesus ... as 
our Lord, the one who has made God real to us and whose life and teach- 
ings challenge us to live in Gods presence; ... a non-traditional Christianity 
based upon this understanding of Jesus can see itself as one among a 
number of different human responses to the ultimate Reality that we call 
God..." In addition to these works, Paul Knitter, whose views will be 
considered below, developed five theses concerning the uniqueness of 
Jesus in order to argue that the Christian affirmation of the uniqueness of 
Jesus need not be abandoned, but can be reinterpreted in such a way that it 
has greater relevance to the contemporary world while deepening Christian 
devotion to Christ and strengthening the followers of Jesus in discipleship. 
In doing so, he concentrates mainly on the uniqueness and the significance 
of Christ without underestimating the uniqueness and significance of other 
religious figures in the process of interreligious dialogue. Recently too, 
J.S. OLeary, in his Religious Pluralism and Christian Truth Claims 
[ 19961, stresses that the more Christians listen to people of other faiths on 



Aydin: Changing Roman Catholic Christologies 19 

their own terms, "the more the claim that God is fully and definitively 
revealed only in Christ seems in need of revision". 

As a critical response to these bold attempts, other theologians have 
produced works which argue for the universality of Jesus, contending that 
Jesus Christ is the unique, normative and definitive revelation of God for 
all people." In this respect, the Catholic theologian J. Dupuis insists on the 
necessity of defending Christ in the process of interreligious dialogue by 
stressing that: 

The uniqueness and universality of Jesus Christ in the order of 
salvation represents the cardinal, key question of every Christian 
theology of religions. As old as christology itself, and reappearing in 
recent times, it is becoming more urgent and more radical in the 
current context of religious pluralism and the blending of the 
various traditions. The current literature testifies to the renewed 
importance of this question.12 

Within the context of these developments, the views of two eminent 
Catholic Christian thinkers, namely Hans Kung and Paul F. Knitter, will 
be examined here in order to observe how those who are interested in 
interreligious dialogue actively consider the position of Jesus with regard to 
the religious figures of other religions. The reason why we chose only 
Catholic theologians, leaving aside the Protestant ones whose works are 
reviewed above, is that the first official attempt to enter into dialogue with 
people of other faiths came out from the Roman Catholic Church during the 
time of the Second Vatican Council. As is well known, in this council, for 
the first time in the history of the Catholic Church, the magisterium 
started to speak about non-Christian religions as entities which the Church 
should respect and with which Christians should enter into dia10gue.l~ 
In the conclusion of this essay we will also discuss to what extent Kung and 
Knitter's views can contribute to the development of intemeligious 
dialogue in general and Christian-Muslim understanding in particular in 
our religiously pluralistic world. 

Hans Kung 
Hans Kung, as an Ecumenical Catholic theologian began his scholarly life 
by dealing with problematic issues within Christianity. But in the course of 
time he became interested in contemporary common issues not only for 
Christians but also for people of other faiths. According to W. G. Jeanrond's 
classification of Kung's theological development, his reflection on 



20 The American Jourml of Islamic Social Sciences 18.3 

theological method and the dialogue between Christianity and world 
religions began in the early 1980s in order to promote interreligious 
dia10gue.l~ So, he began to evolve his dialogical approach towards other 
religions from 1983 onwards. For this reason, when dealing with his views 
on the person of Jesus, we will focus on his writings published 
during that period. But before doing so, it is necessary to recall his earlier 
understanding in order to observe the effect of his dialogical approach on 
his views about the person of Jesus. 

Kung dealt with the issue of the status of Jesus with regard to the world 
religions for the first time in his On Being Christian [ 19771 under the title 
of "The Challenge of World Religions". Here, he emphasised the unique- 
ness of Jesus of Nazareth as the "distinctive" component of the Christian 
faith. He maintained that the question of the distinctiveness of Christianity, 
when viewed on the horizon of the world religions, could be answered only 
by reference to Jesus Christ, since he is the specific element of the Christian 
faith. He further stated that "the special feature, the most fundamental 
characteristic of Christianity is that it considers this Jesus as ultimately 
decisive, definitive, archetypal, for man's relations with God, with his 
fellow man, with society ..."15 Kung stressed that Jesus is unique in the 
sense that his uniqueness surpasses all other religious figures by being 
absolutely and universally normative for others as we11.16 

In his essay "Belief in the Son of God" [1981],17 Kung continued to 
defend the absoluteness and normativeness of Jesus against the religious 
figures of other faiths. He examined the meaning of Jesus of Nazareth as 
the "Son of God" in the light of the biblical infancy narratives and argued 
that the virgin birth, angelic visitations, and temptations from the devil were 
not exclusive to Jesus. What Kung found unique and distinctively Christian 
with regard to Jesus was the cross. Hence, Kung highlighted the 
crucifixion event as the decisive aspect differentiating Jesus from Buddha, 
Confucius, Zarathustra, and Muhammad and claimed that the cross event 
was required in order to understand the infancy narratives and how Jesus 
came to be designated with the title "the Son of God". He stressed the fact 
that this and other similar titles only served to express the unique relation- 
ship that Jesus had with God and God, with Jesus, and not his divinity. He 
claimed that no other religious figure or teacher had this unique relationship 
before or after Jesus.'* 

In almost his every work, Kung ventured to compare Jesus with the other 
religious figures such as Moses, Buddha, Confucius, and Muhammad in 
order to show his uniqueness. In this comparison, he argued that Jesus 



Aydin: Changing Roman Catholic Chistologier 21 

was unique with regard to his Jewish social context, his message, his 
personality, his relationship to God, and his death.19 

In short, in these earlier writings Kung held Jesus as the unique and 
normative revelation of God not only for Christians but also for all 
humanity. He further declared that with regard to the relationship with God, 
Jesus had a superior position to other religious figures. In this sense, Kung 
implied that in one way or another all people should acknowledge Jesus as 
the unique and archetypal revelation of God. This would mean that there 
is no salvation apart from him. 

After starting his dialogical journey towards world religions, he 
published his Christianity and WorZd Religions [ 19841, which is regarded 
as his magnum opus in his dialogue with world religiomm Here, he 
exposes his position, in his relation with people of other faiths, between 
the extremes of absolutism and relativism, and prefers a model which 
depends on mutual understanding, respect, objective study and genuine 
conversation with the other.2l 

Kung criticises those who reject the finality and nonnativity of Christ in 
their theology of religions, by arguing that those theologians have lost the 
Christian criterion by saying that "a religion is true and good when and to 
the extent that it allows traces of Christ to be detached in its teaching and 
practice", by putting him on an equal level with religious figures such as 
Muhammad, Buddha and the others. In order to support his objection, he 
further stresses that a "theologian who is not prepared to give up the 
normativity and finality of Christ does so not because it is only through 
Christ as a critical catalyst that the other religions can "adapt themselves to 
our modem technology", but because otherwise he or she would be 
abandoning the central declaration of the Scriptures that go to make up 
the New Testament." Moreover, he upholds this view by arguing that it 
is in no way "identical with some theological "imperialism" and "neo- 
colonialism", which denies other religions their truth and rejects other 
prophets and seers". From these two arguments, Kung draws the conclusion 
that "there are different ways of salvation ... to the one goal, and these in 
part overlap and can in any case enrich each other. Yet dialogue between 
these religions by no means demands the giving up of the standpoint of 
faith."*2 

After clarifylng his position in this way, Kung attempts to do two things 
in his theology of religions. The first is to apply "Christian self-criticism in 
the light of other religions". The second is to apply "Christian criticism of 
the other religions m the light of the Gospel". Since this second one does 



22 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 18.3 

not directly concern our aim in this article, we will only observe the first 
one with regard to the person of Jesus. We will consider his views on the 
traditional Christian beliefs which are regarded by pluralist theologians 
whose views were reviewed at the beginning as obstacles and barriers for 
better relations and genuine dialogue with people of other faiths. In doing 
so, we will consider Kung's observation of those beliefs in the light of Islam 
and Judaism. 

Kung first of all applies the self-criticism of the doctrine of the Trinity in 
the light of Qur'anic accounts. He states that this doctrine has been a great 
obstacle for Christian-Muslim understanding from the advent of Islam. In 
order to rescue it from being a barrier, Kung concedes that Jesus never 
proclaimed that God is one nature but in three persons, or he is one person 
but in two natures. He did not put his own person, role, and dignity at the 
center of his teaching, but rather God's Kingdom, God's Name, and God's 
Will, which man is to fulfil through service to his fellow men and women. 
On this point, Kung asks how Christians look upon Jesus' relationship to 
God. In the answer to this question, he refers to the origin of Jesus. He notes 
that Jesus himself was a Jew and much closer to present-day Palestinian 
Arabs than to all westem images of Jesus, and he tried to establish the belief 
in one God during his lifetime just as Muslims do in our present dayF3 
Kung, also, admits that modem historico-critical studies on the New 
Testament have shown that Jesus did not use the title "Son of Godl for him- 
self, but after his death his followers began to use this title, basing it on their 
Easter experience. However, he puts forwards the idea that Jesus was more 
than a prophet, since he assumed God's authority especially with respect to 
the Law and the forgiveness of sins. 

In light of these points, Kung concludes that the title "Son" was given to 
Jesus not in a sense of "a physical divine sonship, as Islam always assumed 
and rightly rejected (because it awakened associations of intercourse 
between a god and a mortal women), but God's choosing Jesus and 
granting him full authority."24 To support this conclusion, he points out that 
from the perspective of Jewish monotheism there would not be a problem 
in this kind of belief conceming the status of Jesus, and "the primitive 
Christian community, made up entirely of Jews, would have no difficulty 
holding this view. Nor would I ~ l a m . " ~  

Kung suggests three ways of understanding the doctrine of the Trinity 
from the perspective of Christian-Muslim dialogue. Firstly, he notes that 
believing in God the Father in the New Testament means believing in the 
one God whom Judaism, Christianity and Islam all share. Kung indicates 



Aydin: Changing Roman Catholic Christologier 23 

that the "Father" in this expression should not be understood literally but 
symbolically. Secondly, the term "Son of Godl should be understood in the 
revelation of the one God in the man Jesus of Nazareth. And also, Jesus 
Christ should not be recognised as an eternal and intrusive hypostasis but 
as a human and historical person concretely related to God. Thirdly, 
believing in the Holy Spirit should be understood as God's power and might 
which is working among human beings in this world. Further, Kung points 
out that the doctrine of the Trinity is not the criterion for being a Christian 
but belief in One God, the practical imitation of Christ and trust in the 
power of God's Spirit all work together in the life of a ChristianF6 

Kung maintains that this redefining of the doctrine of the Trinity will 
really help in promoting dialogue between Muslims and Christians. He 
believes that if Christians try to understand the doctrine of the Trinity by 
going back to the New Testament, they may understand Muslims better. He 
advises both Muslims and Christians, if they want to understand each other 
better, to go back to their Holy Books and try to understand their 
doctrines in the light of these Holy Books. For instance, according to Kung, 
if Christians go back to the New Testament, they will discover what great 
differences there are between original expressions concerning the Father, 
Son, and Spirit, and the subsequent dogmatic teachings of the church on the 
doctrine of the Trinity." 

In one of his recent essays, "Christian self-criticism in the Light of 
Judaism" [ 1993]:* Kung criticises the title "Son of God", and the doctrine 
of the Incarnation in order to make them intelligible for better dialogue with 
people of other faiths. He states that in the dialogue process Christians do 
not any longer underestimate the objection of Jews and Muslims to the 
doctrine of the Trinity, which is unintelligible to them because, according 
to them, that doctrine destroys the belief in one God. Also, Kung notes that 
after the Enlightenment period more and more Christian intellectuals have 
raised similar objections to the doctrine as a consequence of historical-crit- 
ical exegesis and the subsequent development of critical analysis of 
Christian d0gma.2~ In the light of these objections, Kung tries to make "cen- 
tral Christian dogmas" intelligible to avoid false confrontations in the 
process of interreligious dialogue. To fulfil this objective he scrutinises the 
meaning for Jesus of being a "Son of God". 

After pointing out the fact that before Jesus, the term "Son of G o d  had 
been used in the Old Testament for human beings in general and for the 
people of Israel Kung underlines that Jesus himself did not 
use the term "Son of Godl for himself, since his message was not to 



24 The American Jourml of Islamic Social Sciences 18.3 

present his own person, his role or status, but was to proclaim God and His 
Kingdom to people in a simple way by using short stories and parables 
from daily life?l Then, he moves to explain the relation of Jesus to God 
within the context of the New Testament as follows: Firstry, according the 
Kung, it is a well known fact that "Jesus himself spoke, prayed, and 
struggled out of an ultimately inexplicable experience of God, a sense of 
God's presence, yes, even a sense of unity with God as his father". 
Secondly, he maintains that the historical-critical scholarship has proved 
that Jesus himself did not describe himself as "Son of God". Thirdly, he 
draws a conclusion from Jesus' authority against the teaching and practice 
of the religious establishment of his time that he was "more than Moses", 
and "more than the prophets". 

Thus, it is obvious that only after the event of the crucifixion and the 
resurrection of Jesus, the title of "Son of God" was used to describe him. 
Kung argues that this attempt to designate Jesus as "Son of God" did not 
cause any problem among Jews until the Councils of Nicea and Chalcedon, 
in which Jesus was described as "the same nature as the father" and the 
classical Trinitarian doctrine was developed as "one God in three persons". 
Up to that time this title was not formulated or understood as a dogmatic 
doctrine but as an exaltation of his status?2 In his Credo [1993], Kung 
maintains that if the sonship of Jesus is not understood as a physical divine 
Sonship but as an expression of election and empowerment of Jesus, "there 
would be few objections to it ... from Jewish and Islamic monotheism.1133 

In short, according to Kung, Christians should take into account the 
Jewishness and Jewish environment of Jesus together with the New 
Testament, leaving aside the dogmatic developments which came out from 
the Councils of Nicea and Chalcedon to make comprehensible the meaning 
of the title "Son of God" both for themselves and others. In this same sense, 
Kung remgnises the Prophet Muhammad as a "prophetic corrective" and 
"prophetic Warner" for Christians in order to inform them that "the one 
incomparable God has to stand in the absolute centre of faith; That 
associating with him any other gods or goddesses is out of the question; 
That faith and life, orthodoxy and orthopraxy, belong together everywhere, 
including  politic^."^ 

Kung further points out that after the dogmatic formulation of the 
classical Trinitarian dogma in the Councils of Nicea and Chalcedon, the 
more theologians have attempted to explain the relation between God, Son 
and the Holy Spirit by using Hellenistic arguments, the more problems 
have come out in ''harmonizing faith in the one God with belief in the 



Aydk Changing Roman Catholic Christologier 25 

divine Sonship. And the more problems they have had in distinguishing the 
Son of God from God while at the same time affirming the oneness of 
God'. Therefore, argues Kung, it is very difficult for Christians to explain 
the relation between God and Jesus to the Jews and Muslims who believe 
in the same God. For that reason, Kung maintains that in the process of 
interreligious dialogue for Christians, the question should be to explain "the 
unity of God and Jesus, of Father and Son (and then also of the Spirit) ... in 
such a way that the unity and uniqueness of God are preserved, as well as 
the identity of the person Jesus Christ", instead of elucidating the question 
of "how are three persons in the Godhead related in the one divine nature? 
Or, how do the two natures in Christ function in one 

After this explanation, Kung urges Christians to understand the meaning 
of the incamation by taking into account the life of Jesus, since he argues 
that if this is done correctly, then the concept of incarnation "refers to the 
total earthly life and death and new life of Jesus", not to the dogmatic 
statements of the Councils, such as that he has the same hypothesis or the 
same nature with the Father. Further, the above explanation of the mean- 
ing of the title "Son of God" and the doctrine of incarnation led Kung to re- 
articulate the Christian faith in Father, Son, and Spirit by taking into 
account other prophetic religions such as Judaism and Islam in the process 
of interreligious dialogue. He states, "To believe in God the father means, 
according to the New Testament, to believe in the one God. Judaism, 
Christianity, and Islam have this belief in common. To believe in the Holy 
Spirit means to believe in God's effective power and strength in humankind 
and in the world. Again, Jews, Christians, and Muslims have this belief 
in common. To believe in the Son of God means to believe in God's 
revelation in the man Jesus of Nazareth. This is the area of decisive 
difference among the three prophetic  religion^."^^ 

As has been observed so far, although Kung's views on the status of Jesus 
have slightly changed in the process of his dialogical approach towards 
other religions, he has not moved in the direction of a non-absolutist chris- 
tology by leaving aside the uniqueness and normativeness of Jesus. For, 
according to him, the move from the uniqueness and normativeness of 
Jesus to non-uniqueness and non-normativeness of Jesus "would alienate 
him from his faith community and it would tend to diminish the depth and 
firmness of his personal commitment to Jesus Christ."37 

However, in doing so, he limits the uniqueness and normativeness of 
Jesus to Christians by stressing that Jesus 'I... is for us [Christians] the way, 
the truth, and the life! ... Jesus Christ is for Christians the decisive 



26 The Amuican Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 18.3 

and regulative norm" as the Torah is for Jews and the Qur'an is 
for Muslims.38 He repeats his f m  and steadfast conviction about the 
uniqueness and normativity of Jesus in his "Foreword" to Knitter's work 
One Earth Many Religions [ 19953 as follows: 

... a Christian theologian, even in dialogue with followers of other 
religions, must defend the normativity and finality of Jesus Christ as 
God's revelatory event for Christians without, however, making any 
arrogant claims of superiority over other religions ... Christians can 
accept the truth claims of other religions only 'conditionally' 
(that is, conditioned by the norm of Jesus Christ), just as followers of 
other religions can accept the truth-claims of Christianity only 
conditionally. 39 

Here, although Kung still considers Jesus as the unique and normative 
revelation of God, he limits this to Christians by asking them not to use it 
as a tool to announce his superiority over other religious figures. In this 
sense, he gives the impression that he moves away from his previous view 
that Jesus is superior to other religious figures in terms of his birth, life, 
message and death. Also Kung's employment of three different criteria to 
evaluate truth in religions seems to support this conclusion. For he 
considers Jesus Christ as the specifically Christian criterion directly for 
Christians, not for people of other faiths, to determine "whether and to what 
extent the Christian religion is Christian at 

Parallel to this relativistic understanding of the status of Jesus, Kung 
developed his views on the possibility of the salvific value of non-Christian 
religions in general and Islam in particular during this period. For instance 
in his Christianity and World Religions [1985] and Global Responsibility 
[1991], Kung considers world religions in general and Islam, in 
particular, as ways of salvation by arguing that just as the different rivers of 
the earth have similar profiles and patterns of flow, the world religions, too, 
have different systems but in many respects have "similar profiles, 
regularities and effects." Kung states that: 

Confusingly different though all the religions are, they all respond to 
similar basic human questions. Where dixs the world and its order 
come from? Why are we born and why must we die? What determines 
the destiny of individual and humankind? What is the foundation for 
moral awareness and the presence of ethical form? And they all offer 
similar ways of salvation over and above their interpretation of 



Aydin: Changing Roman Catholic Christologicr 27 

the world: ways out of the distress, suffering and guilt of existence- 
through meaningful and responsible action in this life to a permanent, 
abiding, eternal salvation!’ 

Here, Kung seems to take a further step towards acknowledging the 
world religions as independent ways of salvation apart from Jesus Christ. 
He explicitly states that all religions including Christianity offer their 
followers similar ways of salvation. He also acknowledges Islam as a way 
of salvation for Muslims in the same way that Christianity is for Christians 
by stressing that ‘I... Muslims need no longer “be subject to the everlasting 
fire which has been prepared for the Devil and his angels”; they “can win 
eternal salvation”. This means that Islam, too, can be a way of salvation; 
perhaps not the normal, the “ordinary” way, so to speak, but perhaps a 
histerically “extraordinary” 

In our opinion, by this conclusion Kung implies that Jesus Christ, as the 
unique and normative revelation of God, is directly the savior of Christians, 
not Muslims or others, since they attain salvation through their own 
religious figures independently from him. 

Evaluation 
As has been considered so far, Kung as one of the distinguished theologians 
of the twentieth century and a pioneer of interreligious dialogue has 
developed his theology of religions as a parallel to his dialogue with world 
religions. In so doing, unlike Knitter, he has avoided making suchclaims 
as would alienate him from his faith community and diminish his 
personal commitment to Jesus Christ. Now, we will turn to discuss Kung’s 
views on the status of Jesus from the perspective of Christian-Muslim 
dialogue. 

Kung reconsiders the traditional doctrines such as the Trinity and 
Incarnation in light of current Christian-Muslim dialogue and new 
scientific developments in order to make those doctrines acceptable to 
Muslims and comprehensible for Christians in our present day. This 
attempt of Kung seems to be helpful for the development of Christian- 
Muslim dialogue, since it urges dialogue partners to consider critically their 
own beliefs and doctrines which imply the superiority of one religious fig- 
ure to another. As has been observed above, by following this approach 
Kung himself moved from holding Jesus as the normative and final Word 
of God not only for Christians but also others to recognising him as Gods 
normative and final revelation only for Chri~tians.4~ By this shift, Kung 



28 The American J o d  of Islamic Social Sciences 18.3 

seems to do justice to his own faith while recognising the normativeness of 
other religious figures for their followers. This approach of Kung's certain- 
ly contributes more to promoting Christian-Muslim dialogue than Knitter's 
approach which we will elaborate below because, of the following 

Firstly, this approach allows the Christian dialogue partner to keep the 
particular element of hisher faith which separates it from others 
without rejecting the particularities of others. As is well known, one 
becomes a Christian by hisher belief in Jesus Christ through whom 
Christians know God. So, from the perspective of a committed Christian, 
this approach is more beneficial than other approaches. 

Secondly, through this approach, dialogue will be rescued from being 
restricted to those who seem ready to abandon the particularity of their 
faith, and open to everyone. In terms of Christian-Muslim dialogue, this 
means that a genuine dialogue does not occur only between liberal-minded 
Christians and Muslims but between those Christians who hold Jesus to be 
the normative and final element for their beliefs and those Muslims who 
consider the Qur'an as the Word of God and the Prophet Muhammad 
(SAWS) as the seal of the prophets. 

Thirdly, to adopt an approach in which, while retaining one's own 
particularity, one is also open to the particularities of other faiths, rescues 
one from being accused of being imperialistic. This approach "sees various 
traditions, their origins and their bearers of salvation in their context and 
according to the standing they enjoin". With regard to Christian-Muslim 
dialogue, while this approach provides Christians the opportunity to 
evaluate the Qur'an and the Prophet Muhammad (SAWS) in light of an 
Islamic context, it provides Muslims with the opportunity to understand 
the person of Jesus from a Christian perspective. 
As has been shown so far, although Kung's understanding of the status of 

Jesus seems to contribute to the development of Christian-Muslim dialogue 
by doing justice to both the Christian and the Islamic faiths, he could not 
rescue himself from the criticism of some theologians. For example, while 
some of them are charging him not to cross the theological Rubicon4, 
others criticise him for not taking the traditional Christian perception of 
Jesus seriously en0ugh.4~ It seems that Kung does not deserve these 
criticisms. As a committed Christian who wants to create a suitable 
environment for better dialogue between people of different faiths in 

specifics. 



Ay& Chmgmg Roman Catholic Chrirtologicr 29 

general and Christians and Muslims in particular, he has tried very 
sincerely to be faithful to his own faith and open to the faiths of others. 

We may conclude that Kung cannot be put in the same category as 
Knitter and other pluralists, since he does not ask Christians to give up the 
normativeness and uniqueness of Jesus Christ. Also, he cannot be regarded 
on the same level as those who acknowledge Jesus as the normative and 
unique revelation of God not only for Christians but for those who belong 
to other religions. But he can be considered "mid-way between the full 
pluralist theology and the inclusivism of the post-Vatican II Catholic 
approach exemplified by Rahner", as Alan Race correctly located him.& 

Paul Knitter 
Paul Knitter was a member of the American Word Missionary Society. 
During his preparation as a missionary, an interest in questions relating to 
world religions and their followers began to arise in his mind. His main 
focus was on the kind of approach Christians needed to develop towards the 
followers of other religions in order to convert them. Thus, we may say that 
Knitter commenced his theological pilgrimage by adopting an exclusivist 
attitude to people of other faiths. He states that during his service in this 
Society, the religious other affected his theology. When he came across 
Rahner's theory of "anonymous Christians"47 and the positive statements of 
the Second Vatican Council about non-Christiansa, during his study at the 
Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, the question of the religious other 
became a very important issue for his theology. Rahner's theory especially 
influenced him to move from exclusivism to inclusivism. During his 
doctoral studies in Germany, his meeting with a devout Muslim student led 
him to think about the theological and ethical meaning of Rahner's 
theory and in the end brought him to regard it not "as a new paradigm, but 
a bridge" for his later development. While he was teaching at the Catholic 
Theological Union in Chicago, he continued his interest in studying other 
religions and entering into dialogue with their followers. As a result, the 
focus of his theological journey shifted from inclusivism to pluralism with 
the publication of his No Other Name? [1985]49, in which he made a 
critical survey of Christian attitudes towards those who belong to other 
religions. 

His theological odyssey continued. During his work with refugee 
families in Cincinnati, the suffering other affected his theology as well. 
Liberation theology now became for him a new interest area and brought 
him to connect his pluralistic theology of religions with a theology of 



30 The Amuican Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 183 

liberation, and he published his essay "Towards a Liberation Theology of 
Religions" [ 1987]?O Thus, he moved from theocentrism to soteriocentrism, 
and by continuing to progress in his theology of religions within this 
perspective, Knitter developed his "Correlational Globally Responsible 
Model" in One Earth Many Religions [ 19951. He explained the theological 
meaning of this new model in his Jesus and the other Names [1996] in 
order to show Christians how "to live out traditional beliefs in the 
uniqueness of Jesus and the mission of his church and at the same time 
affirm the validity of other religious paths."51 

So, within the context of a pluralist theology of religions, there are three 
significant stages, namely the theocentric, soteriocentric and the 
correlational globally responsible model. We will examine Knitter's views 
on the status of Jesus by following these three stages, since in all of them 
he explained the status of Jesus in slightly different ways. In doing so, we 
will focus on his understanding of the traditional Christian doctrine which 
announces Jesus as the Son of God and the universally normative and 
constitutive revelation of God. 

Theocentric Model: Knitter's starting point in his theology of religions is 
that the new consciousness of religious pluralism is an ongoing fact of life, 
since there never has been, and probably never will be a time when there 
will be just one religion in the world. There will always be many religions 
because reality itself is pluriform. Knitter maintains that followers of 
different religions must come together "not in order to obliterate or absorb 
each other but to learn from and help each other"52, and then suggests a new 
concept called "unitive pluralism"53 to facilitate this coming together and 
to encompass the ongoing situation of religious pluralism. However, he 
stresses that many Christians still have a serious hesitation and an unwill- 
ingness to enter into dialogue with others because of "the central Christian 
belief in the uniqueness of Christ", which holds Jesus as a normative and 
constitutive of any true encounter with God, not only for Christians but also 
for all people.% 

Knitter considers this sort of understanding of Jesus as an obstacle and an 
unnecessary barrier that stands in the way of authentic dialogue. Thus he 
proposes to abandon traditional conceptions about the uniqueness of Christ 
and develops a theology of religions which does not put Christ or the 
Church but God at the center. Then, he proposes a relational uniqueness for 
Jesus which: 



Aydk Changing Roman Catholic Christologies 31 

... affirms that Jesus is unique, but with a uniqueness defined by its 
ability to relate - that is, to include and be included by - other unique 
religious figures. Such an understanding of Jesus views him not as 
exclusive or even as normative but as theocentric, as a universally 
relevant manifestation (sacrament, incarnation) of divine revelation 
and salvati0n.5~ 

He maintains that, contrary to what many Christians claim, his 
theocentric and non-normative understanding of Jesus does not stand in 
opposition to New Testament teaching about Jesus, since it stresses that 
Jesus himself made no claim to divinity and that the language of 
incarnation is only one of a number of models by which Christians could 
have conceptualised their experience and understanding of him. He argues 
that if the direction of Christian expansion had been eastward into India 
instead of Westward into the Graeco-Roman world, it is very unlikely that 
Jesus would have been interpreted in categories which would have led to 
the kind of claims to uniqueness and finality that have so long been 
predominant in Christian theology. He further underlines that the time has 
come to recognise that although such beliefs may have served a useful 
purpose in the past, they have now become a hindrance to the very faith. 
Therefore, they ought to be abandoned. 

Knitter continues to maintain that what is basic to the Christian 
experience and understanding of Jesus is not the culturally conditioned 
doctrine that affirms his finality and his uniqueness, but what he terms the 
fact that through Jesus men and women have encountered God. It does not 
necessarily follow from this, however, that a total personal commitment of 
a Christian to Jesus depends on the assertion that God can only be 
encountered through Jesus. Of course, he says, the revelation of God in 
Jesus Christ is unique, but also there are the revelations of God through 
Krishna and through the Buddha or through the Prophet Muhammad." 
In this sense, what Knitter indicates is that in terms of transforming people 
to God not only Jesus but also all other religious figures are unique. 

Knitter concludes that Jesus most likely experienced himself as the 
eschatological prophet who was anointed specially by God's Spirit, who 
was to complete the mission of the earlier prophets by announcing and 
enacting the good news of God's final rule. Knitter stresses that whenever 
Christians forget this role of Jesus and open their consciousness to a 
"myopic christocentrism", to a "jesusology", to a reductionism that absorbs 
God into Jesus, their understanding of Jesus easily becomes an idolatry that 



32 The Amuicaa Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 18.3 

violates not only Christians but the revelation found in other faiths?7 By 
arguing this, it seems that Knitter puts Jesus on an equal level with other 
prophets and religious figures. 

Finally, in light of this conclusion, Knitter proposes the following 
guidelines to understand the status of Jesus anew within the context of 
interreligious dialogue: (1) The titles of Jesus are not absolute expressions 
but only interpretations of who he was for his early followers. For that 
reason they should be understood by taking into account their "historical 
context and concerns, each makes use of mythic or symbolic images drawn 
from the Jewish and Hellenistic en~ironment"~~; (2) All the different New 
Testament descriptions of Jesus should be preserved without absolutising 
one or rejecting the other, since there would be a time for every description 
in the course of time59; (3) The plurality of the New Testament depiction of 
Jesus does not allow today's Christians to argue that everythmg about the 
person of Jesus - who he was and what he means for Christians and for the 
world - was said and set up by the first community. For that reason, 
Christians continue to develop new images "in continuity with what went 
before, preserving the past without embalming it, faithful to the past 
without being limited by it."60 (4) This continuous and evolutionary 
character of the description of Jesus in the Christian tradition can lead 
today's theologians to develop '#new images of Jesus that will make him 
more meaningful to them as well as to persons of other faiths" in the 
process of dialogue.61 
As has been seen so far, in his theocentsic model, leaving the traditional 

Christian understanding of Jesus as an absolute and normative revelation of 
God for all people, Knitter considers him as a God-conscious figure 
through whom men and women have encountered God and as an eschoto- 
logical prophet who came to fulfil the mission of earlier prophets. 

Soteriocentric Model: After shifting to this model, Knitter addressed the 
issue of the status of Jesus in a new way by indicating that: 

The primary concern of a soteriocentric liberation theology of 
religions is not "right belief" about the uniqueness of Christ, but the 
"right practice", with other religions, of furthering the Kingdom and 
its Soteria. Clarity about whether and how Christ is one lord and 
savior, as well as clarity about any other doctrine, may be important, 
but it is subordinate to carrying out the preferential option for the poor 
and nonpersons.62 



Aydin: Changmg Roman Catholic Chrirtologier 33 

Within this context, firstly Knitter calls Christians to evaluate the status 
of Jesus not in the light of their a priori knowledge, but as the centrality of 
praxis. He states that: 

... the Christian conviction and proclamation that Jesus is God's f d  
and normative word for all religions cannot rest only on traditional 
doctrine or on personal, individual experience. We cannot know that 
Jesus is God's last or normative statement only on the basis of being 
told so or on the basis of having experienced him to be such in our 
own lives. Rather, the uniqueness of Jesus can be known and then 
affirmed only 'in its concrete embodiment', only in the praxis of 
historical, social inv0lvement.6~ 

And he continues that unless Christians enter into dialogue with people 
of other faiths by following Jesus and applying his message to their life, 
they cannot understand and experience what the uniqueness and 
normativity of Jesus means to them. 

Secondly, he offers the preferential option for the poor and oppressed as 
a criterion through which one can evaluate and revise the traditional 
understanding of the uniqueness of Christ, as well as "grade" other salvific 
figures in the world's religions. In this approach all religious paths and their 
saviors are judged on the basis of how much or how little they contribute 
to promoting global justice. Within the context of this criterion, Knitter 
concludes "Jesus would ... be unique - together with other unique libera- 
tors. He would be universal savior - with other universal saviors. His 
universality and uniqueness would be not exclusive nor inclusive, but 
complementary."64 By developing this argument, Knitter indicates that the 
claim to uniqueness of any religious figure or religious tradition can be 
settled only by asking how much they bring liberation to the poor and how 
much they contribute to Gods kingdom of justice. 

Thirdly, Knitter maintains, "right practice" in furthering the salvific 
message and deeds of Jesus takes precedence over "right belief" in light of 
the urgent needs of the world's poor and oppressed. He insists that by 
challenging the faithful to affirm the primacy of orthopraxis, this new view 
of Jesus' "complementary uniqueness" can enable Christians to deepen 
their Christian commitment. This is possible, he argues, because most 
Christians recognise that the essence of being a Christian is doing God's 
will rather than simply believing in Jesus as the definitive revelation of 
G0d.6~ He further argues that recognizing the primacy of orthopraxis over 



34 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 17.3 

public life, while maintaining an Islamic dress code that includes the cov- 
ering of the head. 

Wearing hijub can give a woman a sense of power and hence self-esteem. 
Zuhur noted that “denying men the ability to comment on their figures or 
silencing the “eyes of wolves” gave the younger respondents some satis- 
fa~tion.”~’ Halah told Hoodfar that covering had helped her be more 
assertive in the office: 

I used to dream of the day I would finish my studies and work to earn 
enough money to buy the nice clothes I never had because we were 
poor. When finally I had a good wardrobe and managed to look nice 
after years of waiting I had to take, up the veil. I did it because in the 
office men teased us women and expected no answering back. If we 
answered they would start to think we were after an affair or some- 
thing. That was difficult. All my life I always returned any remark a 
man made to me without being accused of immorality. In the office, 
whenever I would do that, my husband would get upset because he 
would hear what other men said amongst themselves [he was her col- 
league too]. But my veiled colleagues were always outspoken and 
joked with our male colleagues, and they were never taken wrong or 
treated disrespectfully. So I took up the veil. It has made my life eas- 
ier and I feel freer to answer back, express my opinion, argue or even 
chit-chat with men. My husband is also much happier.68 

Givechian, looking at post-revolutionary Iran, concludes similarly that 
many working women are pleased with wearing hijab because not only has 
it saved them from the expenses and hassles of trying to dress fashionably, 
wearing hijub can also “materialize their abilities and potential, without too 
much worry about their clothing or appearance:” 

The unveiling of women . . . imprisoned women in their look and 
clothing thus exaggerating their ascribed status as women, [while] the 
veiling of women has given rise to expectation of achievement and 
work. It has freed women from fascination of men with their look and 
also has forced them to compete if they are to enjoy their rights as 
human beings. The aggressiveness and professionalities of many of 
the new veiled women generation are a pleasant welcome to the pas- 
sive and patronized unveiled women of modernized generat i~n.~~ 

Western women often bridle at the suggestion that in order to counteract 
male harassment, women have to cover up. Certainly, it is unfair to have 
women cover while not tackling the issue of male harassment. Zuhur 
reports that leaders of the Islamic movement in Egypt, as well as many of 



Aydin: Changing Roman Catholic Christologier 35 

saving power of God is universally available in other religious figures. 
This sort of understanding of Jesus provides the following benefits for 
individual Christians as well as Churches in the process of dialogue. For 
example, it enables individuals to be committed totally to Jesus while being 
open to the religious figures of other religious traditions. And it means that 
the Churches have a universally meaningful message to proclaim to the 
whole world but are ready to hear other universally meaningful messages. 

After explaining the nature of the Correlational Globally Responsible 
model in this way, Knitter attempts to explain how Christians should under- 
stand the exclusive statements of the New Testament concerning the status 
of Jesus . Firstly, he maintains the titles "Son of God", "Savior", "Word of 
God" were not used by Jesus himself but given to him by the early Christian 
community and used to make him superior to all other religious founders 
and leaders. Secondly, he argues that the language which is used in the 
following exclusive statements of the New Testament-Mt. 11:27; 1Cor. 
8:6; Jn. 1:14, 18; 1Tim. 25; Heb. 9:12; Acts. 4:1269 - can be described as 
"love language". By using this language, he maintains, the followers of 
Jesus wanted to share the message of Jesus with others. For that reason it 
must be understood metaphorically, not literally. He stresses that if these 
expressions are transformed by Christians into purely doctrinal or 
theological assertions, and if they are used to exclude others rather than to 
proclaim the saving power of Jesus, then they will be definitely abused. 
For, "when the early Christians gave Jesus such lofty titles ... they were not 
out primarily to present the world with a philosophical or dogmatic 
definition; rather they were declaring themselves, and inviting all others, to 
be disciples of this Jesus, to follow him in loving God and neighbor and 
working for what Jesus called the "Reign of God."70 Thirdly, he applies the 
above guidelines to a specific text, Act 4: 12, which is used by conservative 
Christians to support their argument that there is no salvation apart from 
Jesus Christ. Knitter argues that in this verse the question was "not one of 
comparative religions but of faith-healing; that is, in whose power had 
Peter and John just healed the crippled man". It expresses a clear answer to 
this question by saying that Peter and John healed that man not by their own 
power, but the power contained in the name and reality of Jesus. Therefore, 
the intent of this title is not philosophically or theologically to define Jesus 
in relation to other religious figures but to call others to recognise and 
acknowledge the power that is available to them in Jesus. It is performative 
and action language which expresses the belief that all people must listen 



36 The Amuicvl Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 18.3 

to this Jesus without indicating that no one else should be listened to. So, 
Knitter stresses that in this verse "the stress is on the saving power mediat- 
ed by the name of Jesus, not on the exclusivity of the name."71 

Finally, in light of the above explanations, Knitter develops the 
following argument, that although Christians cannot regard Jesus as full, 
definitive and unsurpassable, they do acknowledge that he brought a 
universal, decisive, and indispensable message. Now, we will turn to 
explain what Knitter means by this argument. 

God's revelation in Jesus is not "full, definitive and unsurpassable". By 
arguing this Knitter indicates three things. Firstly, Christians cannot claim 
that they possess the fullness of the totality of divine revelation in Jesus as 
if he exhausted all the truth that God has to reveal, since theologically no 
finite medium can exhaust the fullness of the Infinite. In this sense, Knitter 
argues that to identify the Infinite God with the finite Jesus becomes 
idolatry. In order to avoid this, he proposes to understand the doctrine of 
incarnation to mean "that Divinity has assumed the fullness of humanity, 
not humanity has taken on the fullness of Divinity". This means that the 
Divine was truly incarnated in Jesus not fully and there is the possibility 
that the Divine can be incarnated in other religious figures. 

Secondly, Christians cannot consider Jesus as the "definitive Word of 
God as if there could not be other norms for divine truth outside of him". 
This means that Jesus is a Word of God, not the Word of God, in the sense 
that there are no other Words of God which hold essentially new and 
different things. On this point, in a response to objections that this kind of 
explanation of the definitiveness of Jesus can be a threat to the central 
Christian belief in the Trinity," Knitter points out that on the contrary, it 
expands it by continuing to a f f i i  the authenticity and reliability of the 
Divine Word's powerful presence in Jesus. 

Thirdly, Christians cannot consider God's saving word in Jesus as 
unsurpassable in the sense that God could not reveal more of his fullness in 
other ways apart from Jesus at other times. On this point Knitter stresses 
that if Christians believe that Gods revelation to them in Jesus contains the 
whole truth of God without allowing other revelations, this would 
contradict the Christian belief that God is an unsurpassable Mystery, 
"one which can never totally be comprehended or contained in human 
thought ...I1, and would dismiss the role of the Holy Spirit which is testified 
to by Jesus himself in Jn. 16:12-13?3 



Aydk Changing Roman Catholic Cbristologies 37 

Jesus' message is universal, decisive, and indispensable. By maintaining 
this Knitter proposes to do three things to proclaim Jesus as God's 
saving presence in history. Firstly, Christians should announce Jesus as a 
universal revelation and experience him as a call not just for them but for 
all people of all time. For, according to Knitter, if Jesus represents the 
saving presence of God for Christians by showing them how to live their 
lives, this knowledge cannot be limited to Christians but should be made 
available for all people. This thesis of Knitter indicates that Gods work 
through Jesus is relevant to everyone without restriction and this is also true 
for other religious figures and divine revelations. 

Secondly, Christians should regard the revelation granted in Jesus as 
decisive because when people follow this revelation, it makes a difference 
in their life by transforming them from self-centerdness to God-centerdness 
or Kingdom-centerdness. Knitter further holds that If Jesus' message is 
universal and decisive, it should also be normative not only for Christians 
but also for others. On this point, in order not to contradict his pluralistic 
view, Knitter clarifies that "if the norm I have embraced is decisive and 
calls me ... to a clear decision and way of acting, it does not at all rule out 
the possibility that I can also come to other insights and other decisions 
which, although they do not contradict my original decision, are very 
different from it. A decisive norm, in other words, may rule out some other 
norms, but it need not exclude all other norms. It is decisive, but not final 
or un~urpassable."~~ 

Thirdly, Christians need to continue to announce the revelation in Jesus 
as indispensable in the sense that just as the truth represented by Jesus has 
enriched and transformed the lives of Christians, it should also do the same 
for others. 

By arguing this last point, Knitter appears to tend towards the inclusivism 
which holds Jesus Christ to be a necessary element not only for Christians 
but also for people of other faiths. For, he claims that " ... to know Jesus 
Christ is to feel that Buddhists and Hindus and Muslims need to know him 
too; this means they need to recognize and accept the truth he reveals (even 
through this does not necessarily mean that they will become members of 
the Chnstian c ~ m m u n i t y ) . " ~ ~  Hick rightly objected to this argument by 
asking in what way Jesus is indispensable. Is it the way pencillin is 
necessary for the dying person or the way vitamins are necessary for 
better health?76 Knitter answers this question by stressing that the 
indispensability of Jesus lies somewhere between being pencillin and 



38 The American J o d  of Islamic Social Sciences 18.3 

vitamin. "Maybe it is something like the illiterate person who is living a 
happy, satisfymg life; when he learns to read, something is added to his life 
that was not there Further, he adds that this is also the same for other 
religious figures. By making this point, it seems that Knitter points to a very 
significant principle, that in the process of dialogue participants can 
benefit from each other's faiths in order to enrich their own spirituality. 
Since, as Hick truly points out, "we have no reason to restrict ourselves to 
the spiritual resources of our own tradit i~n."~~ 

As has been observed so far, in his reinterpretation of the status of Jesus 
Knitter encourages Christians to see Jesus as a universally relevant, 
decisive and indispensable revelation of God not only for themselves but 
for all people without insisting that it is full, definitive and unsurpassable; 
there are also other universally relevant, decisive and indispensable revela- 
tions of God. 

whose 
views are given very briefly at the beginning of this paper, adopts a 
pluralistic view of salvation. In this respect, he points out that God's plan of 
salvation is available in all religions through the particularities of those 
religions. For instance, in Christianity God saves people not through 
general principles but through Jesus Christ.8O This argument implies that, 
according to Knitter, people of other faiths attain salvation through their 
own religious traditions. For example, Muslims can be saved through the 
Qur'an or Buddhists can be saved through Buddha. Knitter develops this 
argument by arguing that the particularity of Christianity [Jesus Christ] 
teaches Christians the universality of God's love and presence. But he says 
this does not mean that God's love and presence are limited to Jesus, since 
other particularities, too, can teach the same thing. He states this as follows: 
"While Christians must insist that God has acted in Jesus and that this 
action is universally meaningful for all people, they must do this in such a 
way that the universality of God's saving power for all people is not 
jeopardised."81 In this way Knitter implies that in the dialogue process 
Christians should accept the possibility that there may be other saviors 
apart from Christ and these are as important as Christ or the Christian faith 
in God's plan of salvation. 

In short, according to Knitter, Jesus is a unique revelation of God but not 
in a sense that is absolute and f i a l  but in a sense that God's Word in Jesus 
is universal and indispensable for all peoples. This means that 
"the Christian Word is vitally meaningful for all peoples of all times, and 

Parallel to his views of the status of Jesus, Knitter, like 



Aydin: C b g  Roman Catholic Christologier 39 

not to have heard this Word is to have missed a 'saving' vision of truk, but 
it does not mean that this Word is the normative fulfiient of all other 
Words."82 

Evaluation 
As has been observed, as a result of his dialogue with people of other faiths, 
Knitter saw the traditional Christian beliefs which hold Jesus as uniquely 
divine, the absolute and final Word of God in history, as roadblocks to 
genuine dialogue. For that reason, he attempted to remove these 
roadblocks by reconstructing the status of Jesus in the light of current 
developments in Christian theology and his own interreligious dialogue. 
In the end, he concluded that in our religiously pluralistic age Christians 
cannot consider the status of Jesus as the "full, definitive and 
unsurpassable" revelation of God, but as a universal, decisive and indis- 
pensable message of God. We will discuss whether Knitter's reconstruction 
of the status of Jesus can contribute to the development of Christian- 
Muslim understanding. While doing this, we need to take into account the 
fact that although Knitter as a theologian seems to observe the New 
Testament accounts concerning the status of Jesus even more closely than 
some pluralists such as Hick, hk views too are not accepted by the major- 
ity of Christians today. A number of theologians have objected to Knitter's 
views by saying they are not Christian and have criticized him for selling 
out the Christian 

As has been pointed out above, Knitter's starting point is that coming to 
know the religious other and observing his religious life can affect one's 
own beliefs. This point led him to rethink his own beliefs and doctrines 
which put Jesus in a superior position to other religious figures by 
announcing him as the absolute and fmal revelation of God. According to 
him, this sort of understanding prevents Christians from establishing a 
genuine and fruitful dialogue with people of other faiths. For that reason, 
by reinterpreting these beliefs and doctrines, Knitter develops a theology 
of religions which does not put Jesus but God at the center. Through this 
understanding of Jesus the Christian partner in dialogue can rescue 
himself/herself from exclusivism by putting himselfherself on an equal 
footing with others. In other words, to put God, not one's own religion or 
religious figure, at the center in the dialogue process can create an equal 
opportunity for all dialogue partners. 

Secondly, Knitter urges Christian participants of dialogue not to enter 
into dialogue by holding Jesus as "the final word", "definitive revelation", 



40 The Amaican J o d  of Islamic Social Sciences 18.3 

"absolute truth" and "absolute savior", arguing that there is no place at the 
dialogue table for these sorts of beliefs. He further generalizes this demand 
by saying that, "It would seem ... that the revision of traditional understand- 
ings of 'the uniqueness of Christ and Christianity' (together with similar 
understandings of the uniqueness of the Qur'an or of Krishna or of Buddha) 
is a condition for the possibility of fruitful dialogue."84 Although this 
demand would contribute to the development of Christian-Muslim 
dialogue, it seems that it is rather problematic, since Knitter considers it as 
a necessary condition, not a possible outcome of a genuine dialogue. When 
we take this demand as a necessary condition of dialogue, we mean that we 
do not want to enter into dialogue with those who believe the uniqueness of 
the Qur'an or the uniqueness of Jesus. In today's world in which the major- 
ity of Muslims and Christians are holding the Qur'an and Jesus as the 
unique revelation of God, this means that dialogue is confiied to those who 
have already abandoned these beliefs. For that reason, it would seem to be 
better to consider this demand not as a necessary condition but a possible 
outcome of dial0gue.8~ Because of this demand, Knitter cannot escape 
being accused of being, in DCosta's word, imperialistic.86 

Thirdly, Knitter emphasises that the signtficant point of the Christ event 
is not his fiality or uniqueness but his consciousness of God. For, 
according to him, those who follow his message encounter God not through 
his finality or uniqueness but through his consciousness of Him. It seems 
that the application of this point to religious figures can contribute to the 
understanding of those religious figures by others much more positively 
than before. For example in this case, if a Christian witnesses to hisher 
dialogue parfner how they encountered God through Jesus rather than 
emphasizing his finality and uniqueness, his partner will understand the 
significance of Jesus more readily, since he may have had the same 
encounter with God through the Qur'an and the Prophet M~hammad.8~ 

Fourthly, Knitter emphasises that whether Jesus is unique and absolute 
and the normative revelation of God cannot be known without living his 
message while engaging in dialogue with other believers. By following this 
argument, Knitter concluded that the uniqueness of Jesus depends on how 
much or how little his message contributes to promoting global 
justice. This argument would seem to contribute to the development of 
Christian-Muslim understanding. This conclusion of Knitter has correctly 
been criticised by Kung. He states that "practice should not be made the 
norm of theory undialectically and social questions be expounded as the 
basis and center of the theology of religions."88 However, positively it 



Aydk Changing Roman Catholic ChriPtologier 41 

means that both Christians and Muslims need to put aside the claim that 
Jesus or the Qur'an is the unique revelation of God as an a priori principle. 
Instead, according to Knitter, they need to show the uniqueness of Jesus 
and the Qur'an by applying their message to their lives and then sharing 
them with people of other faiths in the dialogue process. This further means 
that what is important is not Jesus as a person or the Qur'an as a text but 
their message. Briefly, what this argument of Knitter stresses is that in the 
dialogue process we need to practise what our religious figures have 
brought us rather than to absolutise that religious figure. 

Fiftly, Knitter reconstructed the status of Jesus without underestimating 
the New Testament accounts. As has been seen above, he considered those 
accounts seriously without sharing their tight or literal interpretation. 
Instead, by using a hermeneutic of discipleship, he considered those 
accounts as religious confessions of the disciples of Jesus. Although this 
sort of understanding seems to reduce the value of the Bible in the eyes of 
not only non-Christians but also Christians, in reality it may encourage 
them to reread the Bible in order to understand the significance of Jesus. 
Also the non-absolutist interpretation of sacred scriptures can urge people 
of other faiths to evaluate those scripture more positively. 

In short, although Knitter's views do not represent the mainstream 
Christian perception of the person of Jesus, and for that reason do not seem 
very beneficial for Christian-Muslim dialogue at this stage, they deserve to 
be taken into account seriously by the Christian dialogue partner. For in 
developing those views, Knitter, both as a committed Christian and 
dialogue activist, tries to seek a way through which Christians can establish 
a genuine dialogue with people of other faiths. 

Conclusion 
Our examination of the views of two renowned Catholic Christian scholars 
on the status of Jesus has shown that the influence of current interreligious 
dialogue is encouraging Christians to develop a new Christian theology of 
religions by reconsidering the status of Jesus. Generally speaking, we may 
say that both Kung and Knitter have agreed on abandoning the exclusivis- 
tic understanding of the status of Jesus which holds him as the absolute 
savior apart from whom there is simply no salvation. But they disagreed on 
how his new status should be understood. Concerning this point, while 
Kung prefers to do self-criticism of the traditional Christian beliefs about 
the person of Jesus by holding him unique and normative for Christians, 
Knitter argues for the reconsideration and revision of the traditional 



42 The American J o d  of I s h i c  Social Sciences 18.3 

Christian perception of Jesus for the sake of better relations with people of 
other faiths. 

As we pointed out, Knitter encourages Christians to revise and reinterpret 
their traditional beliefs and doctrines concerning the status of Jesus. In 
doing so, he attempts to understand Jesus as an eschatological and 
spirit-filled prophet with a unique God-consciousness through whom 
Christians could experience God. He also feels that this idea of Jesus might 
facilitate dialogue between Christians and non-Christians. It seems that by 
doing this he underestimates the faith of those who observe their prayers 
and worship of God through the uniqueness and normativity of the Christ- 
event for them. In the same way, Knitter also encourages Muslims to 
underestimate their own distinctive beliefs such as the finality of the 
Prophet Muhammad and the uniqueness of the Qur'an, for a genuine 
dialogue with non-Muslims. As DCosta remarks, Knitter's position 
logically is a form of exclusivi~m~~ in the sense that for the sake of better 
dialogue both Christian and Muslim partner should put aside the 
particularities of their faiths. This sort of demand can rule out one of the 
most important rules of interreligious dialogue, that no one partner can or 
should step outside of his or her religion and suspend his or her own 
religious experience and beliefs.go 

Kung's self-criticism of the Christian faith in light of other faiths by 
holding Jesus as the unique and normative revelation of God seems to 
represent the mediating position. It neither absolutises nor abandons the 
uniqueness of the Christ event but it relativises it by restricting it to 
Christians. It seems that this position would help dialogue more than 
o*ers, since it urges Christians to consider Jesus as God's normative 
revelation and savior for them and also to be open to acknowledge other 
religions and their religious figures as real mediations of God's grace. 
By doing this, it stimulates Christians to approach non-Christians religions 
with "openness and eagerness to learn more of God's ways in the world."91 

As has been seen so far, Kung's views on the status of Jesus seems to 
contribute to promoting Christians' relation with people of other faiths in 
general and Muslims in particular. This approach certainly retains the 
balance which is necessary between positive Christian appreciation of non- 
Christian religions and Christian commitment which comes to a focus in 
Jesus. 

From the point of view of Christian-Muslim dialogue, this approach can 
be regarded as a very significant development, since it provides a great 



Aydin: Changing Roman Catholic Christologicr 43 

opportunity for a theological dialogue. For, a more positive Christian 
theological evaluation of the status of the Qur'an and the prophethood of 
Muhammad is closely related to the status of Jesus and the question of 
salvation. In this respect, in the process of dialogue, as long as Christians 
consider Jesus as decisive and normative for those who have chosen to 
follow him, and not in any universal sense for others, Christians can 
acknowledge that Muslims can obtain salvation by following the Qur'an 
and their own prophet. It seems that such an understanding does not 
underestimate the centrality of Jesus for Christians, but it relativises it in 
relation to religious figures of other religions. This means that Christians 
can still retain the absoluteness of Christ for themselves, but they do not 
assert it in relation to people of other faiths.= Or, as A. Race remarks, 
"Jesus is 'decisive' not because he is the focus for the light everywhere in 
the world, but for the vision he has brought in one cultural setting ... Jesus 
would still remain centi-al for the Christian faith."93 Also, as Swidler 
emphasises, if this line of thought continues to develop, "then many of the 
disagreements between Christians, Jews, Muslims and others in this area 
will disappear. Jews and Muslims, and other religious persons will not 
thereby become Christians, of course, for Yeshua [Jesus] for them is not the 
door to the divine that he is for Christians, but perhaps their charges of 
blashemy and idolatry against Christians will thereby be dissipated. But 
most important, the Christian tradition will thereby much more likely make 
sense to many contemporary Chri~tians."~~ In the light of the findings of 
this chapter, we may conclude that in the dialogue process what we need is 
a full commitment to our own faith and its mediator, and yet at the same 
time an openness toward other faiths and their mediators, in the sense of 
acknowledging that God has made himself known and has made salvation 
available through those mediators als0.9~ In this sense, we may conclude 
that openness to dialogue cannot be used as a reason for abandoning the 
normativity of Jesus for Christians, since to demand this is against the 
nature of dialogue itself. 

Notes 
1. 
2. 
3. 

John Hick, ed., The Myth of God Incarnate (London: SCM Press, 1977). 
Hick, "Preface", in The Myth of God Incarnate, p. ix. 
Paul Knitter & John Hick, eds., The Myth of Christian Uniqueness (London: SCM 
Press, 1987). 
Paul Knitter, "Preface", in The Myth of Christian Uniqueness, p. vii. 4. 



44 

5. 

6. 
7. 
8. 

9. 

10. 
11. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

15. 
16. 

17. 

The America J o d  of Islamic Social Sciences 18.3 

Stanley J.Samartha, One Christ-Many Religions (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1991), p. 
ix; Samartha "In Search of a Revised Christology: A Response to Knitter", Current 
Dialogue, 21 (1991), pp. 30-37; For similar views see Leonard Swidler, Afer the 
Absolute: The Dialogical Future of Religious Reflection (Minneapolis: Augsburg 

Hick, The Metaphor of God Incarnate (London: SCM Press, 1993). 
Hick, The Metaphor of God Incarnate, p.ix. 
This is published together with the responses of nineteen theologians in L. Swidler 
& P. Mojzes, eds., The Uniqueness of Jesus: A Dialogue with Paul Knitter (Maryknoll: 
Orbis Books, 1997). 
J. Stephen O w ,  Religious Pluralism and Christian Truth (Edinburgh Edinburgh 
University Press, 1996). 
O'Leary, Religious Pluralism and Christian Truth, p. 205. 
See Gavin D'Costa, ed., Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered: The Myth of a Pluralistic 
Theology of Religions (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1990); Harold Netland, Dissonant 
Voices: Religious Pluralism and the Question of Truth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 
1991); Joseph DiNoia, The Diversity of Religions: A Christian Perspective 
(Washington: Catholic University Press, 1992); John Sanders, No Other Name: Can 
Only Christians Be Saved? (London: SPCK, 1992); S. Mark Heim, Salvations; Truth 
and Difference in Religion (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1995); Daniel B. Clendenin, 
Many Gods- Many Religions; Christianity Encounters World Religions (Grand 
Rapids: Baker Books, 1995). 
Jacques Dupuis, Jesus Christ at the Encounter of World Religions (Maryknoll: Orbis 
Books, 1991), p. 191. 
Especially see, "Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian 
Religions", in A. Flennery, ed., Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post-Conciliar 
Documents (Dublin: Dominican Publication, 1975), ss. 738-742. 
See Werner G. Jeanrond, "The Rationality of Faith: On Theological Methodology", 
Karl-Josef Kuschel & Hemann Haring, eds., Hans Kung: New Horizons for faith and 
Thought (London: SCM Press, 1993), p. 105. 
Hans Kung, On Being a Christian (London: Collins, 1977), p.123. 
Knitter stressed that this sort of understanding of the status of Jesus is not helpful for a 
genuine dialogue with people of other faiths (Knitter, "World Religions and the 
Finality of Christ: A Critique of Hans Kung's 'On Being A Christian"', in R.W. 
Rousseau, ed., Christianity and Islam: The Struggling Dialogue (Scranton: Ridge Row 
Press, 1985), pp.202-221. 
Kung, "Belief in a Son of God?", in Paul Bums & John Cumming, eds., The Bible 
Now: Its Nature, Meaning and Use Today ( Dublin: Gill and MacMillan, 1981), 

Fortress, 1990), pp. 73-113. 



Aydk Changtug Romaa Catholic Christologies 45 

18. Kung, "Belief in a Son of God?", pp. 143-151. 
19. See Kung, On Being a Christian; Kng, Credo: The Apostles' Creed Eqdained For 

Today; Christianity: The Religious Situation of Our Time (London: SCM Press, 1993). 
When we deeply examined Kung's comparison of Jesus with the other religious figures 
in terms of his death in his young age, his suffering on the Cross, being an unmarried 
person and being as non-Victorian as the Prophet Muhammad, we can easly conclude 
that this comparison is rather unfair. Because as a Muslim I can compare the 
Prophet Muhammad with Jesus in tems of his victory over his opponents, and his other 
specialities, and conclude that he is superior to Jesus or Jesus was a poor man. For this 
reason we need to abstain from making this kind of comparisions in order to show the 

20. See John Cobb, "Inter-religious Dialogue, World Ethics and the Problem of the 
Humanum", in K.J. Kuschel& H. Haring, eds., Hans Kung, New Horizons for Faith 
and Thought (London: SCM Press, 1993), pp. 283-293. 

21. Kung maintains that while as a "narrow-minded" and "conceited" position the 
absolutist regards his own truth as correct and all other claims to truth as simply wrong 
and leads to contempt and proselytising of other religions, the relativist considers all 
religions and their truth as relative or equally true, and "leads only to cheap tolerance, 
to 'any thing goes', to a falsely understood liberalism in which one trivialises the 
question of truth or no longer even dares to ask it" (Kung, Christianity and World 
Religions, pp. xviii-xix; Kung, "Towards an Ecumenical Theology of Religions: 
Some Theses for Clarification", in Kung & Moltmann, eds., Christianity Among World 
Religions (Edinburgh T&T Clark, 1986), pp. 120-121). 

22. Kung, "Towards an Ecumenical Theology of Religions", p. 122. 
23. Kung, Christianity and World Religions, p. 117. 
24. Ibid., p. 118. 
25. Ibid., p. 118. 
26. Ibid., p. 121; Kung, Chrisfiunity, pp. 28ff. 
27. In this point, Kung refers to the Finnish New Testament scholar H. Raisanen's view 

concerning the significance of going back to the New Testament to reexpress the 
doctrine of Trinity to promote Christian-Muslim understanding. Raisanen argues that 
"today, it is clear for the New Testament scholarship that there is hardly anything in 
the NewTestament that resembles even remotely the doctrine of the Trinity. This 
insight might in itself provide a fresh starting-point for dialogue. But perhaps even 
more interesting is the fact that some layers of the New Testament bear a striking 
resemblance to the Qur'anic portrait of Jesus." (Raisanen, "The Portrait of Jesus in the 
Qur'an: Reflection of A Biblical Scholar", The Muslim Worki, 70 (1980), pp. 122-133. 

28. Kung, "Christian self-criticism in the Light of Judaism", in R.F. Berkey & S.A. 
Edwards, eds., Chrisfology in Dialogue, (Ohio: The Pilgrim Press, 1993), pp. 229-247. 

superiority of our relgious figures. 



46 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 18.3 

29. Kung, Ibid., p. 230. 
30. See, Exod. 4:22f; Hos. 11:l; Jer. 31:9; h u t .  14:l; Hos. 1:lO. 
31. Kung, "Christian Self-Criticism in the Light of Judaism", pp. 232-233; 
32. Kung, bid., pp. 234-235. 
33. Kung, Credo: The Apostles' Creed Explained for Today (London: SCM Press, 1993), 

34. Kung, Christianity and World Religions, p. 129. 
35. Kung, "Christian Self-criticism in the Light of Judaism", p. 238. 
36. Kung, Ibid., p. 238. 
37. Knitter, "Towards a Liberation Theology of Religions", in The Myth of Christian 

Uniqueness, pp. 194-195. These comments were made by Kung personally to Knitter. 
38. Kung, "What is true Religion? Toward an Ecumenical Christology", in L. Swidler, ed., 

Towards the Universal Theology of Religions (Maryknoll, New York Orbis Books, 
1987), p. 247; Kung, "Towards an Ecumenical Theology of Religions", 119-125; 
Kung, Global Responsibility. pp. 98-99. In these works, Kung always qualifies his 
defending the uniqueness and normativity of Jesus with the phrase "for us'' or "for 
Christians". 

39. Kung, "Foreword", in Knitter, One Earth Many Religions (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 
1995), p. ix. 

40. Kung, Global Responsibility: In Search of A New World Ethics (London: SCM Press, 
1991), pp. 97-98; Kung spells out three different criteria to evaluate truth in 
religions. His fmt criterion is the humanum. According to this criterion, "a religion is 
true and good if and insofar as it is human, does not suppress and destroy 
humanity, but protects and furthers it. His second criterion is the general religious 
criterion. According to this criterion, "a religion is true and good if and insofar as it 
remains true to its own origin or canon, to its authentic 'nature', its normative scripture 
or figure, and constantly refers to it". His third criterion is the specifically Christian 
criterion. According to this criterion, "a religion is true and good if and insofar as it 
shows the spirit of Jesus Christ in its theory and praxis". Then he clarifies that this last 
criterion can only be applied directly to Christianity, not other religions: "on the basis 
of the self-critical question whether and to what extent the Christian religion is 
Christian at all" (Kung, Global Responsibility, pp. 97-98; Kung, "What is true 
Religion", pp. 244-245). 

41. Kung, Global Responsibility, pp. 128-129 
42. Kung, Christianity and the World Religions, pp. 23-24. 
43. This shift occurred in three stages. Firstly, he moves away from his consideration of 

Jesus as the norma normans for not only Christians but also for those who belong to 
other religions, to the assertion that although he is directly the norma nomans for 

p.59. 



Aydin: Chaaging Roman Catholic Christologies 47 

Christians, he is only indirectly the norma normans for non-Christians. Secondly, in his 
most recent essay, too, Kung seems to give up the indirect normativity of Christ for 
non-Christians by arguing that Christians must regard Jesus as God's normative and 
final revelation for themselves without "making any arrogant claims of superiority over 
other religions"( See Scott Cowdell, "Hans Kung and World Religions: Emergence of 
a Pluralist Theology", Theology 92 (1989), pp. 85-92; Kenneth W. Brewer, "The 
Uniqueness of Christ and the Challenge of the Pluralist Theology of Religions", in 
Kuschel & Haring, eds., Hans Kung: New Horizons for Faith and Thought, 

44. Knitter asserts that although there are significant changes in Kung's thoughts 
concerning the nornativity and uniqueness of Jesus Christ, he has not crossed the 
theological Rubicon yet. For according to Knitter, 'To cross it means to recognize 
clearly, unambiguously, the possibility that other religions exercise a role in salvation 
history that is not only valuable and salvific but perhaps equal to that of Christianity; 
it is to affii that there may be other saviors and revealers besides Jesus Christ and 
equal to Jesus Christ. It is to admit that if other religions must be fulfilled in 
Christianity, Christianity must, just as well, find fulfilment in them". Knitter, Hans 
Kung's Theological Rubicon", in Swidler, ed., Towards a Universal Theology of 
Religions, pp. 224-230. But it seems to me that Kung no longer stands on the 
theological Rubicon as Knitter has argued. Because according to Knitter to cross the 
theological Rubicon means to acknowledge the salvific value of other religious 
traditions without any reservations. So, in the light of the above views of Kung, we can 
easily conclude that he has already passed the theological Rubicon. 

45. Brewer, "The Uniqueness of Christ and the Challenge of the Pluralist Theology of 
Religions", in Hans Kung: New Horizons for Faith and Thought, p. 198. 

46. Alan Race, Christians and Religious Pluralism (London: SCM Press, 1983), p. 67; 
Brewer, "The Uniqueness of Christ and the Challenge of Pluralistic Theology of 
Religions", p. 206. 

47. See, Karl Rahner, "Christianity and Non-Christian Religions", in Theological 
Investigation, vol5 (London: Longman Todd, 1966), ss. 115-134. 

48. Concerning the teaching of the Second Vatican Council see, "Declaration on the 
Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions", ss. 738-742; For the examination 
of the Counciliar theaching of the Roman Catholic Church see also, Mahmut Aydin, 
Modern Western Christian Theological Understandings of Muslims, ss.26ff. 

49. concerning the theological development of Knitter, see Knitter, One Earth Many 
Religions, pp. 2-8 ; Knitter, Jesus and the Other Names, pp. 3-9; also see Paul R. Eddy, 
"Paul Knitter's Theology of Religions: A Survey and Evangelical Response", EQ, 63/3, 

pp. 198-215). 

1993, pp. 225-245. 



48 

50. 

51. 
52. 

53. 

54. 
55. 
56. 
57. 
58. 
59. 
60. 

61. 
62. 
63. 
64. 
65. 
66. 

67. 
68. 
69. 

The Amaicvl J o d  of Islamic Social Sciences 18.3 

Knitter, 'Towards a Liberation Theology of Religions", Knitter& Hick, eds., The Myth 
of Christian Uniqueness, pp. 178-200; Also see Knitter "Dialogue and Liberation: 
Foundation for a Pluralist Theology of Religions", The Drew Gateway, 58/1(1988), 
pp. 53. 
Knitter, Jesus and the Other Names, p. xvii. 
Knitter, No Other Name?: A Critical Survey of Christian Attituaks Toward the World 
Religions (London: SCM Press, 1985), p. 6. 
This concept is defined by Knitter as follows: "Unitive pluralism is a unity in which 
each religion, although losing some of its individualism (its separate age) will 
intens@- its personality (its self-awareness through relationship). Each religion will 
retain its own uniqueness, but this uniqueness will develop and take on new depths by 
relating to other religions in mutual dependence." Knitter, No Other Name?, p. 9. 
Knitter, No Other Name?, p. 17. 

Ibid., p. 172. 
Ibid., pp. 174-175. 
bid.. p. 180. 
Ibid., p. 181. 
On the contrary, Knitter maintains that: "The evolutionary process of interpretation that 
makes up the New Testament must continue today in the same manner in which it took 
place then: in continuity with what went before, preserving the past without 
embalming it, faithful to the past without being limited by it. Christians will be 
faithful to the New Testament images of Jesus, they will truly believe in these images, 
by allowing them to give birth to new symbols and models of who this Jesus is and how 
he saves. Knitter, No Other Name?, p. 181. 
Knitter, No OtherName?, p. 181. 
Knitter, Towardr a Liberation Theology of Religions, p. 192. 

Ibid.. p. 194. 

Knitter, Towards a Liberation Theology of Religions, p. 1%; Also see Knitter, 
Interreligious Dialogue; What? Why? How?, in L. Swidler et al, eds., Death or 
Dialogue: From the Age of Monologue to the Age of Dialogue (London: SCM Press, 

Knitter. One Earth Many Religions, pp. 29-30. 
Ibid.. p. 35. 
This verse number is referred in Jesus and the Other Names mistakenly as Acts. 12:4. 

Ibid, p ~ .  171-172. 

b i d ,  p ~ .  191-192. 

Ibid.. p ~ .  195-1%. 

1990). p. 40. 



Ayditx Chaaging Roman Catholic Chrirtologier 49 

70. Knitter, Jesus and the Other Names, p. 68; in a similar vein Cracknell and Ariarajah 
maintain that these kinds of exclusive verses can be understood within the development 
of Christian thought and historical context (see Cracknell, Towards a New 
Relationship, pp. 69-109 and Ariarajah, The Bible and People of Other Faiths (Geneva: 

71. Knitter, Jesus and the Other Names, pp.  69-70. 
72. See Karl Braaten, "Interreligious Dialogue in the Pluralistic Situation", Dialogue, 

73. Knitter, Jesus and the Other Names, pp. 73-75; Knitter, "Five Theses on the 
Uniqueness of Jesus", pp. 7-8. 

74. Knitter, J e w  and Other Names, pp. 76-77; "Five Theses on the Uniqueness of Jesus", 

75. Knitter, Jesus and the Other Names, p. 78. 
76. Hick, "Five Misgivings", in Swidler & Mojez, eds., The Uniqueness of Jesus: A 

Dialogue with Paul Knitter, pp. 79-84. 
77. Knitter, Jesus and the Other Names, p. 79. 
78. Hick, The Rainbow of Faiths (London: SCM Press, 1995), s. 139. 
79. For Hick's views on the status of Jesus Christ see, Aydin, Modern Western Christian 

Theological Understandings of Muslims, ss. 266-279. 
80. Knitter, "Christian Salvation: Its Nature and Uniqueness- Interreligious Proposal", 

New Theology Review, 714 (1994), p. 40. 
81. Knitter, "Christian Salvation", p. 41. 
82. Knitter, "Response II", in Swidler, et al., eds., Death orDialogue, pp. 124-133. 
83. For these critics see Mark Heim, Is Christ the Only Way? Christian Faith in a 

Pluralistic World, (Philadelphia: Judson Press, 1985); Heim, 'Thinking about 
Theocentric Christology", Journal of Ecumenical Studies, 24(1987), pp. 1-16; Heim, 
Salvations: Truth and Direrence in Religion (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1995), pp, 71- 
98; J.Moltmann, "Is 'Pluralistic Theology' Useful for the Dialogue of World 
Religions", in Gavin DCosta, ed., Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered (Maryknoll: 
Orbis Books, 1990), pp. 149-156; Griffiths, "The Uniqueness of Christian Doctrine 
Defended" in DCosta, ed., Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered, pp. 157- 173; 
Pannenberg, "Religious Pluralism and Conflicting Truth Claims", in DCosta, ed., 
Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered, pp. 96-106; D'Costa, "Christian Theology and 
Other Religions: An Evaluation of John Hick and Paul Knitter", Studi Missionalia, 
42(1993), pp. 168e for further criticism of Knitter views Michael Amaladoss, "A 
Simple Solution", in Swidler & Mojez, ed., The Uniqueness of Jesus: A Dialogue with 
Paul F. Knitter, pp.25-28; Denise and John Carmody, "Do Knitter's Theses Take 
Christ's Divinity Seriously?", in Swidler & Mojez, eds., The Uniqueness of Jesus, pp. 

WCC, 1985), pp. 19-28). 

33 (1994), pp.294-298. 

pp. 10-11. 



50 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 18.3 

44-49; Karl- Josef Kuschel, "'Faithful' to the New Testament", in Swidler & Mojez., 
eds., The Uniqueness of Jesus, pp. 85-93; Clark H. h o c k ,  "An Evangelical Response 
to Knittefs Five Theses", in Swidler & Mojez., eds., The Uniqueness of Jesus, pp. 116- 
120; J. Sanders, "Idolater Indeed!", in Swidler & Mojez, eds., The Uniqueness ofJesus, 

84. Knitter, Interreligious Dialogue, p. 32. 
85. See Cobb, "Response I" in Swidler, et al., eds., Death or Dialogue, pp. 79-84. 
86. DCosta, Christian Theology and Other Religions: An Evaluation of John Hick and 

Paul Knitter, pp. 168-178. 
87. Contemporary Christian views on the status of the Qur'an and the Prophet Muhammad 

see, Aydin, Modem Western Christian Theological Understandings of Muslims, 
chapters 4 and 5. 

88. Kung, Towards Ecumenical Theology of Religions, p. 123. 
89. DCosta, "The Impossibility of A Pluralist View of Religions", Religious Studies, 32 

90. See Swidler, 'The Dialogue Decalogue: Ground Rules for Interreligious, 
Interideological Dialogue", Journal of Ecumenical Stradies, 20/1 (1983), pp. 1-4. 

91. Haight, "Jesus and World Religions", Modem Theology, 12/3 (1996), p. 337. 
92. See Mary A. Stenger, "The Understanding of Christ as Final Revelation", in Phan, ed., 

Christianity und the Wider Ecumenism (New York Paragon House, 1990). pp. 191- 
205. 

93. Race, Christians and Religious Pluralism, pp. 135-136. 
94. Swidler, Afer the Absolute, p. 113. 
95. See Macquanie, "Revisiting the Christological Dimensions of Uniqueness", in Swidler 

& Mojez, eds., The Uniqueness of Jesus: A Dialogue with Paul Knitter, pp. 94-99. 

pp. 121-125. 

(1996), p ~ .  223-232.