This is an excellent book that I shall be using with my students and would recommend it to all concerned with questions of religious pluralism, especially Christian responses to the world religions. In 1989, John Hick published his ground breaking An Interpretation of Religion arguing for his pluralist hypothesis, whereby all religions should be seen as more or less equal paths to the one divine reality. His position entailed three important elements. First, it epistemologically required that there be a separation between the divine reality in itself, and that reality as known to us variously within the world religions, in both personal and impersonal forms. Second, it required that Christians abandon exclusive ontological claims regarding Jesus Christ as being the second person of the trinity. These claims should be regarded as ‘mythological’, helpful for developing an appropriate disposition whereby Christians try and become like Christ—loving and good. Third, Hick’s criteria for discerning the divine Real known variously through the world religions is thoroughly ethical. By their fruits you shall know them! Hence, Hick argued that in so much as each religion enjoins love, compassion, selflessness, turning away from the ego towards the world, these religions are in touch with the divine Real. Dialogues in the Philosophy of Religion contains Hick’s responses to various criticisms directed at these first two issues and largely ignores the ethical thrust of Hick’s pluralist programme.

In The Rainbow of Faiths (1995) Hick published a reiteration of his position along with an interesting response to a wide number of critics, employing a ‘dialogue’ format to develop his own defence. That book is excellent for showing Hick thinking through the issues as his work received the attention it properly deserves. This book is similar in continuing the dialogue with critics. It is different because here, for about a third of the book, we have the critics actually in interaction with Hick, either replying to him or/and his replies back. When the original critics work is not included in this publication, Hick summarises their positions carefully and accurately before he responds. This means that the present book is dynamic, interactive and extremely fruitful for stimulating further debate.

There is a superb introduction with an intellectual autobiography written by Hick. It helps to locate his thought in terms of his other intellectual interests and also his social context. The book is then divided into four parts. The first is in conversation with contemporary philosophers of religion. This includes four fascinating discussions with William Alston, Alvin Plantinga, Peter van Inwagen, and George I. Mavorodes. Hick is here responding to essays in a festschrift for Alston (‘The Rationality of Belief and the Plurality of Faith’) and after Hick’s response, each philosopher responds, followed by Hick’s response. Then Alston and Mavorodes take up the opportunity to respond further to Hick, while Plantinga and van Inwagen do not. This lack of response is itself telling, for it indicates what Hick perceptively notes in his ‘postscript’: in some cases, ‘the arguments seem to go past each other instead of meeting head on.’ (p. 213) This lack of engagement can be useful, instructive, and frustrating for the reader. It indicates the gulf between those who begin with radically different presuppositions and raises the question: has conversation ended when these divergences become so strong that both sides think the other is almost blind to the most important questions at stake? Hick also notes rightly that some of the most productive dialogues are over very focused and well defined issues, and it is telling that his three examples of such ‘profitable’ exchange (p.213) refer to Alston, Mavorodes, and William Rowe—the latter also within the first philosophical/epistemological section of the book. Hick is at his best with the analytical philosophy of religion. There is also an interesting attempt to respond to D.Z. Phillips. An epistemological battle from very early days continues, with Hick characterising Phillips as a non-realist and himself (despite some of his critics) as a realist. There is also a very brief response to Paul Eddy. In many ways this part of the book is the richest for it highlights some of the most fundamental epistemological problems and difficulties with Hick’s thesis, and his spirited defence. These concern the defence of true belief based on experience, the alleged epistemological privilege criticised by Hick of traditional religions and seen by his critics as operating in his own work, the problem of defining Hick’s (Kantian?) divine ‘Real’ which can not be known in itself.

Part II is a dialogue with evangelicals, but is in fact more of a monologue in Hick outlining why he changed from being an evangelical to a liberal pluralist. He does not take on specific and detailed evangelical critiques made against him and reiterates his own position. This is a shame as there are some important critiques that have been made by evangelical writers such as Chris Sinkinson. Clark Pinnock then writes a liberal evangelical response which is very helpful in highlighting his problems with the three central issues outlined in the opening paragraph of this review (epistemology, Christology, morality). He also honestly expresses ‘annoyance’ with Hick’s essay for ‘talking down’ to evangelicals, as Hick testifies to how he ‘successfully escaped the evangelical faith’. (p. 141) Again, it is good for these aspects of the exchange to be included in the book, as it indicates the depth of feeling on both sides and the subliminal issues that are raised (and not addressed).

In Part III Hick enters into dialogue with Roman Catholics. It is not clear why the essay in dialogue with Paul Knitter (a Roman Catholic) is included in Part IV, and for that matter, the response to Eddy should be included in the evangelical section Part II. Nevertheless, here Hick includes a historic text where Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect for the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith actually criticises Hick. It is historic for two reasons. It is very rare for Ratzinger to publicly criticise by name a Protestant theologian, and secondly, Ratzinger draws on secondary materials on Hick and gets page references incorrect, refers to inappropriate primary materials and fails to properly understand Hick’s position (according to Hick). Hick responds to Ratzinger and the more nuanced 1997 statement of the Roman Catholic International Theological Commission that defends a form of inclusivism. In one sense, there is nothing new in Hick’s response compared to Hick’s earlier criticisms of inclusivism. The final essay responds to this reviewer’s critique of Hick in which I argue that Hick epistemologically is an exclusivist (a point also made by Plantinga and van Inwagen). My own response to Hick’s response is found in my recent book, The Meeting of Religions and the Trinity, and then Hick’s review of it in June 2001 number of Reviews in Religion and Theology. Hence, I shall not comment further, except to say that I am not entirely convinced by Hick’s defence.

The final part of the book is curiously called a dialogue with theologians, and really only contains one proper interactive dialogue chapter with Paul Knitter. Also, Ratzinger, D’Costa and others are theologians, so the clarification employed here is not clear. The other two chapters repeat materials elsewhere in the book and fail to advance the debate in any significant way. His discussion with Knitter is extremely instructive for Knitter is a liberal pluralist and criticised equally by Ratzinger. However, Hick indicates serious misgivings with Knitter’s pluralism which are helpful to indicate real differences between them.

This book has clear strengths and weaknesses. Its primary strength is to show how Hick is responding to some of his most incisive critics in defending and developing his position. Its other great strength is the process of dialogue itself. Readers will gain much from the very dynamics of the engagements: some irritated, some perceptive, some deeply instructive and engaging, some missing each other entirely. Intra-Christian dialogue is like that! Its weakness are repetition of materials that might have been omitted, a failure to really engage in conversation with some critics, and no representation from philosophers of religion or theologians from outside the Christian tradition. This is a curious feature as the book carries a title that implies a more ‘global’ perspective. However, its strengths easily outweigh it weaknesses and I recommend this book.