Paul F.

Knitter's Proposal for

Relational Uniqueness of Jesus
K.P. ALEAZ*

Paul F. Knitter now propagates correlational theology of

religions as well as relational uniqueness of Jesus and we in
this paper look at these critically. The first section discusses
the five theses on the uniqueness of Jesus proposed by Knitter.
The second ~ection is on the emerging issues such as exclusive
statements of the Bible, Correlational dialogue, Jesus as Savior
and Divine as well as the suggestion for simultaneous
resistance and embrace. An evaluation of Paul F. Knitter by
select theologians such as S.J. Samartha, Raimon Panikk.ar,
John Hick as well as by the present author is the subject
matter of the third section. Section four has indicated the
concluding findings.

1. The five Theses

Knitter assumes that the five theses proposed by him can
bring some clarity and direction to the debated issue of the
uniqueness of Christ in a world of religious pluralism. 1
Thesis 1 is given as: Given the nature and history of Christology,
previous understandings of the uniqueness of Jesus can be
reinterpreted. 2 Interpreting this thesis it is said that in
grasping, describing and proclaiming the person and work of
Jesus, Christians can be open to new ways of talking,. new
images, deeper insights, even re-visions of how God has acted
and is acting through him. Because throughout their history,
Christian communities have moved around the hermeneutical
circle of experience and interpretation or interpretation and
experience. 3 The criterion for determining whether a new
understanding of Jesus is valid or not is that the new
understanding should flow from and nurture a saving
experience of and commitment to Jesus (devotion) and a
resolute following of him in the world}
*The Rev. Dr. K P. Aleaz is Professor of Religions at Bishop's College, Calcutta.
 RELATIONAL UNIQUENESS OF JESUS 41
Thesis 2 reads as follows: Given the ethical imperative of
dialogue, previous understandings of the uniqueness of Jesus
must be reinterpreted. 5 The imperatives can be both external
(threats to glob and life in it) and internal (loving neighbours
,which is the first commission includes dialogue). Here
surprisingly Knitter says that "not just the exclusivist but
also the mclusivist understandings of the uniqueness of Jesus
are impediments to real dialogue"6 while his own position as
per the five theses is criticised by others as inclusivism. 7
Thesis 3 is : The uniqueness of Jesus' salvific role can be
reinterpreted in terms of truly but not only. 8 It is not necessary
to proclaim God's revelation in Jesus as full, definitive, or
unsurpassable9 , rather "Christians must announce Jesus to
all people as God's universal, decisive, and indispensable
manifestation of saving truth and grace"10 God's manifestation
in Jesus is universal as it is meaningful not just for Christians
b.ut for peoples of all times. The revelation given in Jesus is
decisive and normative as it shakes and challenges and calls
one to change ones's perspective and conduct. "11 Jesus is
normative in the sense "while Christians can imagine that
God may have more to reveal to humankind than what has
been made known in Jesus, they cannot imagine that such a
revelation would contradict the central ingredients of the truth
they have found in Jesus." 12 Knitter's exposition that the truth
made known in Jesus as indispensable is problematic according
to John Hick because if the meaning implied is indispensable
for salvation. It makes Knitter exclusivist. 13 Paul Knitter in
his response has clarified further what he means by
indispensable saying that it is like a skill or insight like
learning how to read and write or like a friendship that
enriches our life, but which we know is not necessary to lead
an adequate contented human existence. 14 Also he admits that
Buddha may be as indispensable as Jesus. 15 Again we should
remember here that he rejects the terms full, definitive and
unsurpassable in explaining God's revelation in Jesus. 16 It is
true that Knitter has also said thus:
If we Christians are deeply convinced that whatever truth
there may be in other traditions can be transformed and
fulfilled in the word that has been given to us, we must
42

be as deeply open to being transformed and fulfilled by

the word spoken and embodied for us in persons of other
paths. This new interpretation of Jesus' uniqueness seeks
to promote the transformation of both other religions and
of Christianity. 17
It is mentioned that this mutual transformation is through
dialogue, but the aspects of transformation are not identified. 18
Thesis 4, reads thus: The content of Jesus' uniqueness must
be made clear in Christian life and witness. This content,
however, will be understood and proclaimed differently in
different contexts and periods of history. Today, the uniqueness
of Jesus can be found in his insistence that salvation or the
Reign of God must be realized in this world through human
actions of love and justice. 19 In explaining this thesis Knitter
agrees that other religious traditions may have their own
unique ingredients from which Christians must learn and
perhaps be transformed such as Hinduism's insight into the
non-duality between the ultimate and the finite; Buddhism's
insistence that a transformation of our mindfulness through
meditation is essential for any kind of genuine transformation
on other levels; the insights of Native American spirituality
into the sacredness of the earth; Islam's conviction that what
is true in the spiritual - interior realm must be translated
into the socio-political arena.l1D Here it may be pointed out that
Christianity's unique ingredient for today can vary as per the
diverse contents of the world, there is no one inclusive
ingredient, a point Knitter who claims to be a pluralist has to
learn. Salvation or well being for the world is just one aspect
of the salvation announced by Jesus. Other religious
experiences have to help us in arriving at the very content of
the gospel of God in Jesus for a particular context. 21
Thesis 5 says: The orthodoxy of this pluralistic
reinterpretation of the uniqueness of Jesus must be grounded
primarily in the ability of such a reinterpretation to nurture a
holistic Christian spirituality that is,. a devotion to and a
following of Jesus. The proposed understanding of Jesus as
God's truly but not only saving word does meet this criterion. 22
Knitter has the ~rience of Jesus as the place in which one
encounters God, the pl~ce in which one's life is transformed. 23
 RELATIONAL UNIQUENESS OF JESUS 43
"AB a pluralist Christian, even though I do not feel it possible
or necessary to affirm that Jesus is the only Savior, I still
experience him to be so truly a Savior that I feel impelled to
cast my lot with him.":u What the pluralist Christians find in
Jesus, the way he reveals God and God's reign to them, leads
them to expect that there are other ways and other words.
The God of unbounded love in speaking truly in Jesus, reveals
that God cannot speak only in Jesus. 25 Jesus' uniqueness is
not a matter of superiority or arrogation of privilege, but a
matter of distinctness, of specialness that will surely be
different from but not necessarily better than the other. 26 "To
feel and proclaim that Jesus is divine is to encounter him, as
God's sacrament - as the embodiment, the historical reality,
the symbol, the story that makes God real and effective for
me". 27 He also says that he can endorse that explanations of
what it means to call Jesus divine that. have been proposed by
Christian theologians such as Karl Rahner, Paul Tillich,
Edward Schillebeeckx, Hans Kling and Monika Hellwig. 28

2. The Emerging Issues

a. Exclusive Statements of the Bible:
In his response to responses Knitter addresses to six areas
or general issues namely the Bible, the nature of dialogue,
Jesu8 as Savior and Son of God, the Reign of God, mission
and the Spirit. 29 On the Bible he sugg~sts that we can best
interpret the 'one and only' statements about Jesus in the
Bible by using a hermeneutic of discipleship, the truth of such
passages lies primarily in calling us to discipleship rather
than in giving us a definitive, philosophical definition of who
Jesus was and how he lines up with other religious figures. 30
According to Knitter the exclusive statements in the Bible
are telling us that we run a great risk if we do not listen to
and follow c!esus; there is a positive element in this negative
language.
'No other name' as performative, action language, is really
a positive statement in its negative couching; it tells us
that all peoples must listen to this Jesus; it does not tell
us that no one else should be listened to or learned from.
The stress, then, is on the saving power mediated by the
44 INDIAN JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY

name of Jesus, not on the exclusivity of the name: If in

our dialogue we find that this power of liberation is
experienced through other names then the spirit of this
passage in Acts would call us to be open to them. 31
The early Christians excluded other religious options or figures
because such options were opposed to Jesus' vision of the Reign
of God; if other visions could either enhance or be enhanced
by the Christians vision of how all may have life and have it
more abundantly, then they are "with us" and not to be
excluded or stopped (Mk.. 9.40).32 There are two central norms
in Christianity namely the Bible and the ongoing presence of
the Holy Spirit within the experience of the community. Though
the Bible says that in Christ Jesus God is indeed revealed
'fully'; we should never think that we have grasped the fullness
of who God is. 33
b. Correlational Dialogue:
Regarding dialogue, Knitter suggests to make a distinction
between heart and mind, between act of faith or act of religious
experience and the content of faith, between religious
commitments and religious doctrines; at the level of the former,
the claims made may be definitive and unsurpassable, but at
the level of the latter those claims are made in a rela.ti,ve
manner. 34 This he calls as a 'correlational model for interfaith
dialogue', claiming that correlational is a much better adjective
than pluralistic to describe a viable dialogue or theology of
religions. 35 To quote:
A correlational model for interfaith dialogue calls upon all
to view and approach other religious believers in such a
way that !ill authentic co-relation can exist among them.
The goal is to maintain real relationship, to do all one can
to keep from cutting off the relationship or maintaining it
by subordinating one participant to another. This means
that while I will speak my convictions and my mind clearly
and strongly, I will do so in such a way that allows you to
do the same. This reflects... making absolute claims in a
relative manner. In such a correlational model, all religions
are viewed from the beginning of the conversation, not as
necessarily, being equal or the same in their truth claims
(whether that is so can be known only in dialogue) but as
 RELATIONAL UNIQUENESS OF JESUS 45

having equal rights. Thus if I feel impelled to make

normative or absolute truth claims in the conversation, I
will do so in a way that still recognizes and allows for my
partner to do likewise. This means that I am open to the
possibility that my normative claim may be corrected or
'normed' by what my partner has to say. So even though ...
we don't liegin a correlational dialogtie with pre-established
claims of 'superiority', through the dialogue participants
may come to the conclusion that a particular Christian
truth claim is superior to a Hindu claim - or vice versa. 36
According to Knitter Christians should. understand mission
not as something they have to reconcile with dialogue, but as
dialogue. 37 Dialogue is the broder, more inclusive reality and
hence it is not dialogue that is included in mission but it is
mission which is included in dialogue; proclamation and
witness which have always been considered the heart of mission
are an integral part of dialogue. 38 " •• .lri calling upon Christian
is to evangelize in the dialogue, I am also calling upon. them
to be evangelized. If there is a hidden inclusivism in what I
am proposing, it cuts both ways ... This I think, is a determining
difference between a correlational and an inclusivist model for
dialogue; the traditional inclusivist would find it difficult to
allow for this effect. "39
c. Jesus as Savior and Divine:
In what sense should Christians must continue to proclaim
Jesus as Savior and divine? Knitter in explaining Jesus as
Savior, like Schubert Ogden•0 opts for 'representational
Christology': ·"Jesus' life-death-resurrection saves, not by
constituting or causing God's saving love, but rather, insofar
as he re-presents for us the re-creative love of God that is
inherent in the divine nature and is poured out on all
creation."41 If such a perspective is agreeable, then Christians
can be open to the possibility of other representations or
revelations of the love of God.'2 In presenting Jesus as divine
also he continues a representational approach. To quote:
When Christians announce Jesus as divine they are
attempting to articulate two realities, one functional and
the other ontological: (a) Functionally or personally, Jesus
is for them the perfect sacrament of God- to meet Jesus
46 INDIAN JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY
is to meet the Divine; in the way he mediates God to
them, he is God for them, (b) Ontologically in order to
explain the way Jesus functions as such a sacrament, he
must have been, and must be, 'oned' with God in a manner
beyond full human comprehension, his very being must
participate in the being of God.
If such an understanding Of Jesus' divinity ... is valid, then
I believe it allows for the possibility that what happened
in Jesus in order to enable him to function the way he did
(as God's sacrament) can happen, analogously in other,
very different instances or persons ..a
Moreover even in traditional theology the second person of
the Trinity is not identified with the person of Jesus in which
case that Person or the Word of God is free to operate and
take seminal from elsewhere.44
Thus according to Knitter the uniqueness of Jesus is a
'relational uniqueness':
In the view of Jesus' uniqueness we have been discussing,
he has to stand with others. We've been talking about a
relational uniqueJ:\ess, not a solitary uniqueness that
pushes others out of the picture. To affirm Jesus as truly
God's Word is to award him a distinctiveness that is his
own; to add that he is not solely God's Word is also to see
that distinctiveness as one that has to be brought into
relationship with other possible Words. Jesus is a Word
that can be understood only in conversation with other
Words. 45
Here he clarifies his view in relation to other contemporary
thinkers. In the view of Anthony Kelly, the Christian
affirmation of God as Word in history lays the foundations for
a 'global conversation'46 A claim for a definitive revelation is
always a claim for perspectively interpreted revelation, holds
Frans Jozef van Beeck.47
According to William Thompson if God is a self-emptying God,
he/she has disclosed himself/herself in the various religions,
we have to recognize not only the uniqueness and the possible
decisiveness of many religions but also their need to
complement each other.48 Thus relational uniqueness has also
been termed as 'complimentary uniqueness' or 'inclusive
 RELATIONAL UNIQUENESS OF JESUS 47
uniqueness'. 49 John Cobb also points to the same
complementary understanding of uniqueness of his writings.
Jesus according to him is the way open to other ways; we
should strive to share what has been exclusive to Christianity
as we app~oprlate what has been exclusive to other traditions
and there need not be any conflict between the exclusive
claims. 50
d. A stand which Resists and Embraces:
Knitter prefers the term 'relational' rather than
'complementary' or 'inclusive' uniqueness. This is because
Christ can and sometimes must conflict with other unique
claims in the sense Christians may have to be ready to take
strong stands, sometimes in opposition, to the claims of
others. 51 Referring to Charlene Spretnak52 he brings out the
difference between Asian as well as primal religions and
Semitic religions:
For Buddhism, and perhaps generally speaking for the
Asian and primal religions, love of neighbour results from
the experience of the Divine or of Enlightenment. For
Christianity and perhaps generally speaking for the Semitic
religions, such love of neighbour enters into and conditions,
the very experience of the Divine. Such differences are
extremely significant; they are not, however, simply
exclusive of each other. 53
The way Christians diagnose what is wrong with the world,
what the remedy must contain again is distinctive - the cause
of the suffering have to do with the way people treat each
other, have to do with practices and systems of injustice. An
analysis of pain includes the way human greed and ignorance
lead to programs and systems of injustice.54 "Both diagnosis
and medicine must be social; one must examine not just the
human heart but political and economic policies. Besides-·
changing or enlightening the heart, one must address the
Pharaohs, the lawyers and chief priests, the kings, popes and
presidents."55 The distinctive contribution of Christian thought
here is, in the struggle against injustice one is going to suffer
and fail, but this itself is the victory. 56
. In his correlational dialogue he includes the suffering persons
and the suffering Earth. The dialogue is shifting from
48 INDIAN JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY

theocentric approach to soteriocentric approach based on the

common ground of global responsibility for eco-human well-
being. 57 In his book No Other Name ?58 Knitter bad attempted
to assemble a theological case that a person is not at all
abandoning the Christian witness contained in scripture and
tradition but deeply understanding and preserving it when
one sublets the Christocentric approach to other believers with
a theocentric one. As the Divine Mystery we know in Jesus
and call theos or God, is greater than Jesus, we have to be
open to the possibility that other religions may have their
own valid views of and responses to this mystery. Other faiths
would not have to be unHaterally 'included' in Christianity,
rather all faiths need to be included in each other as all of
them continue their efforts to be faithful to the inexhaustible
Mystery or Truth. He had many critics and in his book One
Earth Many religions 59 he considers that the best way to
respond to the many criticisms about the way he is calling
religious persons into correlational dialogue is to include
suffering persons and the suffering Earth in that dialogue,
the most effective way to carry on a correlational dialogue
among religions is to make it a globally responsible dialogue. 60
He says:
In No Other Name? I ended up proposing a 'non-normative,
theocentric' approach to dialogue based on the common
ground of shared religious experience ... Having been
shaken by the voices of the suffering and the voices of
theological critics both from within Christian communities
and the academy, lwould now like to plot the course.... of
what might be called a multi-normed soteriocentric'
(salvation centered) approach to dialogue based on the
co~on ground of global responsibility for eco-human well
being.61
But as we have seen above, his 'Christian' perspective can
come into conflict with other claims and then he has to take
a strong stand of his own, a stand without excluding the other,
a stand which is always 'connected' and nonviolent, a stand
which simultaneously resists and embraces:
In all our liberative dialogues, we must learn to resist
without excluding, to resist and at the same time embrace.
 RELATIONAL UNIQUENESS OF JESUS 49
As necessary and morally imperative as our resistance
and opposition may be, they must also always be 'connected'
and nonviolent. This, I believe, is one of the most complex
and difficult challenges for a globally responsibl~ multi-
faith dialogue. 62 ·

3. An Evaluation by select Theologians

a. The present Author
The paradox is that such a stand point makes Knitter
simultaneously an exclusivist and a pluralist. He would say
that he is still a pluralist, but in reality he is an exclusivist.
It is not yet clear how he is correlating the views of people of
other faiths with his own Christian view. Though he claims
that his project is for a pluralist theology of religions (he prefers
. now the terminology 'correlational theology of religions)63 his
view of the relational uniqueness of Jesus in dealing with the
issue of the love of the neighbour and the earth as pictured in
Jesus and the Other names makes it a non-relational theology
of religions. In his understanding of Jesus he prefers to
maintain conflict with other unique claims. His view does not
even come near 'the relational distinctiveness' about ·which
S.J. Samartha has talked since the mid-eighties,64 though
outwardly they may look alike. The Indian Samartha is :oiuch
more positive in his approach to other faiths. But the pity is
that there is not even one reference to him in Knitter's recent
books. 65 From the relational distinctiveness of Christian faith,
years ago India has advanced to the relational convergence of
religious experiences and Knitter is not aware of these
developments. 66
Rather than projecting a preformulated understanding of
Jesus' uniqueness, why cannot the very meanings related to
the person and function of Jesus emerge in the context of our
receiving insights from other religious experiences?6' Have
Western theologians like Knitter ever thought of such a
possibility? If not, is it not time yet to ponder over such a
possibility? When will theologians like Knitter realise that it
is the hermeneutical context or the contextual socio-politico-
religio-cultur.al realities which decide the content of .tOw-
knowledge and experience of the Gospel? Knowledge is
50 INDIAN JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY

formulated in the very knowing process and understanding

the Gospel of God in Jesus is a continuous integrated non-
dual divine-human process. Nothing is pre-given or pre-
formulated. We cannot accept some timeless interpretation
from somewhere and make it applicable to our context.
Understanding and interpretation belongs exclusively to us
and to our context, and there is the possibility for ·the
emergence of new meanings of the Gospel in the process of
this. 68
b. S.J. Samartha
S.J. Samartha has given three pointS in response to Paul F.
Knitter's interpretation of Jesus 69 and these are worth noting
in this context: (i) The term 'unique' should be reserved, only
for the Absolute or God or Truth or Sat, and the term
'distinctive' can be used to describe (rather than qualify) the
relative responses to the Absolute in the great religious
traditions of humanity. 70 Samartha says:
It is perhaps philosophically more reasonable, theologically
more convincing and ethically more helpful to reserve the
term 'unique' for God or the Absolute or Sat or Ultimate
Reality, and use the adjective 'distinctive' to qualify
different responses to the Mystery of God. This does not
diminish the 'uniqueness' of Christ for Christians, but
provides theological space and philosophical freedom to
recognize the commitments of people of other faiths. Only
God is unique; all human responses to God are 'distinctively
relative. 071
(ii). The criteria to judge the validity of any claim to be
'unique' have to be mutually accepted criteria, not just from
intra-Christian but also from inter-religious experience. 72
Mutually acceptable criteria of philosophical reasonableness,
theological credibility, ethical helpfulness and the possibility
of sharing insights into spiritual life in an inter-religious
context are more important than the criteria of devotion and
discipleship within the intra-Christian context. 73 (iii) In the
increasing tempo of dialogue between cultures, civilizations
and religions in the world today, when so many fundamental
issues touching the future of humanity are at stake it is not
justifiable to spend so much spiritual and theological energy
 RELATIONAL UNIQUENESS OF JESUS 51
on an intra-Christian debate on the 'uniqueness' of Jesus Christ
without at the same time giving serious attention to inter-
religious issues. 74 There is far greater promise in testing the
credibility of any reinterpretation or revision or qualification
of the 'uniqueness' of Christ in the context of a pervasive and
living cultural dialogue with liberal Hindus than in battling
with Christian or Muslini or secular fundamentalists or with
the ecelesiastical authority, is the experience of Samartha. 75
c. Raimon Panikkar
According to Raimon P~ar rather than 'uniqueness' we
may have to talk about 'distinctiveness'76 uniqueness being a
pseudo-problem as others in Christian history such as issues
of nature and grace, prediationation and free will, the Almighty
and the reality of evil, creation in time or for time. 77 Christ's
uniqueness becomes a problem when we link up this concept
with 'universality'78 Panikkar further says:
We face a dilemma. Either we defend the universality of
Christ above, behind, or through all cultures, or we bestow
universal and absolute value to one single culture or group
of cultures, namely, that doctrinal world for which the
statement makes sense.
In the first case we should fall into utter silence and cannot
speak of uniqueness, because the moment we utter a word
we do it within a particular culture. A Kenotic Christ is
neither unique nor not unique, because "it" does not admit
any qualification. In the second case the uniqueness has
been transferred to an entire cultural set. And this, in
fact, was a common belief during many centuries. It is the
very nature of colonialism: Cultural monism.
Indeed, we may find a transcendental relationship between
what Christians call Christ and what other cultures and
religions may express with a set of homeomorphic
equivalents. But in this case the uniqueness of Christ has
been relativized and brought into the field where it has an
accepted meaning. Christ is then the logotype, as it were,
of the Christian language. May I recall that the relativity
I am espousing has· nothing to do with relativisim?79
Pluralism, for Panikkar, is not an attitude which posits that
there are many true religions or many authentic Christs-
52 INDIAN JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY
albeit with different names. Truth is not plural but pluralistic
in the sense that the pluralistic attitude. is fruit of the
experience that we are not the masters oftruth and can thus
only decide about truth in each particular case through
dialogical discourse. 80 Christ's uniqueness lies for him in the
lived experience that one is at once finite and infinite. There
is a link between the two and the Christian name, but only
the Christian name for this link, for such a mediator, is
Christ. 81
d. John Hick:
John Hick is of the view that Knitter's explanations of the
five theses at certain crucial points are ambiguous capable of
being understood in both pluralist and inclusivist ways. 82 His
definition of pluralism as announcing the possibility of many
true religions, both exclusivists and inclusivist may hold with
the addition that actually that is not the case. 83 "Knitter argues
that 'it is probable that God's love will be found in and through
other religions, thus rendering them, at least to some extent,
true'... This is an accurate delineation of Christian
inclusivism."84 According to Hick pluralism, as opposed to this
perspective, holds that we have as much reason to think that
the other great world religions are true and salvific as to
think this of Christianity. 85 From Knitter's position, dialogue
among equals, dialogue as "a level playing field" is not
possible. 86 Knitter's expounding the key word truly (God was
truly at work in Jesus but not only in Jesus) as meaning that
"Christians must announce Jesus to all peoples as God's
universal, decisive and indispensable manifestation of saving
truth and grace" again is problematic.87 Universal and decisive
yes, provided other gospels are also accepted in the same way.
Indispensable is a. problematic word. If the meaning implied·
is indispensable for salvation, Knitter become an exclusivist,
because there cannot be more than one indispensable gospels.86
Knitter's interpretation of Christianity's unique feature as a
concern for social justice reflects only what Christianity ought
to be and not what it really is, as historically Christianity has
validated and is still validating wars, slavery, patriarchy,
immense hierarchical in equalities, colonial exploitation, and
anti-Semitism, 89 "The creation of peace and a rational
 RELATIONAL UNIQUENESS OF JESUS 53
conservation of the earth's limited natural resources in a just
and sustainable world economy ought to be the aim of people
of all religions". 90 Knitter involves in an ambiguous use of
language when on the one hand he says that the recognition
and announcement of Jesus' divinity remains integral and
essential to a pluralist Christology and on the other he also
says that· the divinity of Jesus means that he is 'the symbol,
the story that makes God real and effective for me". 91 Also
Knitter's presentation of Christian pluralism does not take
adequate account of the great non-theistic religions. 92

4. Conclusion
Thus Paul F. Knitter prefers to call his position as
correlational theology of religions, rather than pluralist
theology of religions. He prefers the usage 'relational
uniqueness' of Jesus to 'complementary' or 'inclusive'
uniqueness. This is because his understanding of Christ can
and sometimes must conflict with other unique claims in the
sense Christians may have to be ready to take strong stands,
sometimes in opposition to the claims of others. For example
if for Asian and Primal religions love of neighbour results
from the experience of the Djvine, for Christir-nity such love
of neighbour enters into and conditions, the very experience of
the Divine. But it should be noted that Knitter's interpretation
of Christianity's unique feature as a concern for social justice ·
reflects only what Christianity ought to be and not what it
really is, as historically Christianity has validated and is· still
validating wars, slavery, patriarchy, immense hierarchical
inequalities, colonial exploitation and anti-.Semitism. Rather
than projecting a preformulated uniqueness for Jesus, the very
meanings related to the person and function of Jesus may
have to emerge in the context of our receiving insights from
other religious-experiences. Also we should note that only God
is unique; all human responses to God are 'distinctively
relative'. The criteria to judge the validity of any claim to be
'unique' have to be mutually accepted criteria, not just from
intra-Christian but also from inter-religious, experience. Rather
than 'uniqueness' we may have to talk about 'distinctiveness',
uniqueness being a pseudo-problem. A Kenotic Christ does
54 INDIAN JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY

not admit any qualification. Christ belongs to Christian

language; people of other faiths may have equivalents.
Paul F. Knitter through his five theses has shown that the
uniqueness of Jesus' salvi:fic role can be reinterpreted in terms
of truly but not only. According to him it is not necessary to
proclaim God's revelation in Jesus as full, definitive or
unsurpassable, rather Jesus is God's universal, decisive and
indispensable manifestation of saving truth and grace. Such a
reinterpretation nurtures a holistic Christian spirituality i.e.,
a devotion to and a following of Jesus. The truth of the exclusive
statements in the. Bible lies primarily in calling us to
discipleship rather than defining who Jesus was. A
correlational model for interfaith dialogue calls for making
absolute claims in a relative manner. In it all religions are
viewed not as necessarily being equal or the same in their
truth claims but as having equal rights. Jesus' life-death-
resurrection saves not by constituting or causing God's saving
love, but, rather, in so far as he represents for us the love of
God. In such representational Christology Christians can be
open to other representations or revelations of God's love. In
presenting Jesus as divine also, Knitter follows a
representational approach. Functionally in the way Jesus
mediates God to us, he is God for us and ontologically Jesus
must have been one with God in a manner beyond full human
comprehension. But analogously what happened to Jesus can
happen to other persons. Still the truth is that even though
Knitter, speaks about equal rights for all religions and for
Jesus and other representations of God's love, these are mere
words only, we are. yet to see him really meaning them, as he
in his understanding of Jesus, we saw, prefers to maintain
conflict with other unique claims.

References
1. Paul F. Knitter, "l''ive Theses on the Uniqueness of Jesus" in The
Uniqueness of Jesus A Dialogue with Paul F. Knitter, ed. by Leonard
Swidler and Paul Mojzes, Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1997. pp. 3-16. A former
member of the society of Divine Word Missionaries, Paul F. Knitter is
currently Professor of Theology at Xavier University, Cincinnati, U.S.A
He also serves as General Editor of Orbis Books' new series 'Faith Meets
Faith'.
 RELATIONAL UNIQUENESS OF JESUS 55
2. Ibid., p.4
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid., p.5
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid., pp. 6-7.
7. Cf. John Hick, 'Five Misgivings' in Ibid., pp. 79-84.
8. Paul F. Knitter, "Five Theses on the uniqueness of Jesus' in Ibid., p.7
9. Ibid., pp. 7-8
10. Ibid., p.8
11. Ibid., pp. 8-10
12. Ibid., pp. 9-10
13. cf, John Hick op.cit., pp. 81-82
14. Paul F. Knitter, •can our 'one and only' also be a 'one among many'? A
Response to Responses• in The Uniqueness of Jesus op.cit., p.l17
15. Ibid.
16. Paul F. Knitter, Jesus and the Other names. Christian Mission and Global
Responsibility, Oxford: One World, 1996, pp. 73-76. For his elaboration
of Jesus as universal, decisive and indispensable cf. Ibid., pp. 76-80. Thesis
3 is thus elaborated in Ibid., pp. 72-83.
17. Paul F. Knitter, "Five Theses on the Uniqueness of Jesus•, op.cit.,-pp. 101-
11
18. Ibid., p.ll
19. Ibid.
20. Ibid., p. 13. He cites Charlene Spretnak States of Grace: The Recovery of
Meaning in the Postmodern Age, San Francisco : Harper, 1991 in this
context.
21. cf. K.P. Aleaz, An Indian Jesus from Sankara's thought, Calcutta : Punthi
Pustak, 1997.
22. Paul F. Knitter, "Five Theses on the Uniqueness of Jesus•, op.cit., p.14.
23. Ibid.
24. Ibid., p.15
25. Ibid.
26. Ibid., p. 16 Here he cites Gabriel Morgan, Uniqueness, MaryKnoll : Orbis
Books, 1992.
27. Paul Knitter, "Five theses on the Uniqueness of Jesus•, op.cit., p.15.
28. Ibid., pp.14-15.
29. Paul F. Knitter, "Can our 'one and only' also be a 'one among many'? A
Response to Responses• in Ibid., pp. 145-182.
30. Ibid., p.149.
31. Paul F. Knitter, Jesus and the Other Names. Christian Mission and Global
Responsibility, Oxford: One World, 1996, p.70.
32. Paul F. Knitter, •can our 'one and only' also be a 'one among many'? A
Response to Responses• op.cit., p.150.
33. Ibid., p.148.
34. Ibid., pp. 151-155.
35. Ibid., pp. 154-155.
36. Ibid.
37. Ibid., p.176.
56
38. Ibid.
39. Ibid., cf. also Paul F. Knitter, Jesus and the Other names. Christian
Mission and Global Responsibility, Oxford : One World, 1996, pp. 136-
164.
40. cf. Schubert Ogden, The Point of Christology, New York : Harper and
Row, 1982, pp. 148-49; Is there only one Religion or Are There Many?
Dallas : Southern Methodist Press, 1992, pp. 84-104.
41. Paul F. Knitter, "Can our 'one and Only' also be a. 'one among many'? A
Response to Responses", op.cit., pp.156-157.
42. Ibid., p.157.
43. Ibid., p.158.
44. Ibid., p.159.
45. Paul F. Knitter, Jesus and the Other names. Christian Mission and Global
Responsibility, op.cit., p.80.
46. Anthonly Kelly, A Trinity of Love. A Theology of the Christian God,
Wilmington : M. Glazier, 1989, pp.233-234.
47. Frans Jozef Van Beeck, "Professing the Creed among the World's
Religions", The Thornist, 55, 1991, p.559.
48. William M. Thompson, The Jesus Debate, New York: Paulist Press, 1985,
pp. 388-93.
49. cf. also Gabriel Morgan, Uniqueness, MaryKnoll : Orbis Books, 1992.
50. John Cobb Jr., "The Meaning of Pluralism for Christian self-
understanding" in Religious Pluralism ed. by Leroy S. Rouner, Nortre
Dame : University of Nortre Dame Press, 1984, pp. 161-179; "Beyond
"Pluralism" in Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered. The Myth of a
Pluralistic Theology of Religions, MaryKnoll : Orbis Books, 1990, pp. 81-
95.
51. Paul F. Knitter, Jesus and the Other Names Christian Mission and Global
Responsibility, op.cit., pp.81-82.
52. cf. Charlene Spretnak, State of Grace : The Recovery of Meaning in the
Postmodern Age, San Fransisco : Harper 1991, Chapter 5.
53. Paul F. Knitter, Jesus and the Other Names, Christian Mission and Global
Responsibility, op.cit., p.99. In Paul Knitter, One Earth Many Religions.
Multfaith Dialogue & Global Responsibility, MaryKnoll : Orbis Books,
1995, pp. 104-112, he is but not denying the possibility of religions working
together for eco-human wellbeing.
54. Ibid., pp. 99-100
55. Ibid., p.:idL
56. Ibid.
57. Ibid., pp. 18-19.
58. cf. Paul F. Knitter, No Other Name? A Critical Survey of Christian
Attitudes Toward the World Religions, London : SCM Press, 1985.
59. cf. Paul F. Knitter, One Earth Many Religions, Multifaith Dialogue and
Global Responsibility op.cit.
60. Ibid., p.17.
61. Ibid.
62. Ibid., p.166.
63. Ibid., p.l6.
64. S.J. Samartha, "The Cross and the Rainbow. Christ in a Multi-religious
 RELATIONAL UNIQUENESS OF JESUS 57
Culture" in the Myth of Christian Uniqueness, ed. by John Hick and Paul
F. Knitter, MaryKnoll : Orbis, 1985, pp.70, 79-82.
65. In many cases Ignorance and in other cases deliberate neglect of the
theologians of the South by those of North is my recent experience in
U.K. and the American Paul F. Knitter is not an exception here.
66. cf. KP. Aleaz, The Role of Pramanas, in Hindu-Christian Epistemology,
Calcutta : Punthi Pustak, 1991; Harmony of Religions. The Relevance of
Swami Vivekananda, Calcutta : Punthi Pustak, 1993; The Gospel of Indian
Culture, Calcutta : Punthi Pustak, 1994; Jesus in Neo-Vedanta. A Meeting
of Hinduism and Christianity, Delhi: Kant Publications, 1995; Dimensipns
of Indian Religion. Study, Experience and Interaction, Calcutta : Punthi
Pustak, 1995; Christian Thought Through Advaita Vedanta, Delhi :
ISPCK, 1996; An Indian Jesus from Sankara's Thought, Calcutta; Punthi
Pustak, 1997.
67. Ibid.
68. Theology of Religions, Birmingham Papers and Other Essays, Calcutta:
Monmita, 1998.
69. Samartha is responding to a 1993 essay of Knitter entitled 'Five Theses
on the Uniqueness of Jesus' in his book Between Two Cultures. Ecumenical
Ministry in a Pluralist World, Geneva: WCC Publications, 1996, pp.157-
166.
70. Ibid., pp. 159-160.
71. Ibid., p.165.
72. Ibid., pp. 160-165.
73. Ibid., p.165
74. Ibid., pp. 165-166.
75. Ibid., pp. 160-165.
76. Raimon Panikkar, "Whose Uniqueness" in The Uniqueness of Jesus. A
Dialogue with Paul F. Knitter, op.cit., p.112.
77. Ibid., p.111.
78. Ibid., p.113.
79. Ibid., pp. 113-114.
80. Ibid., p.114.
81. Ibid., p.115.
82. John Hick, "Five Misgivings", in Ibid., p.79.
83. Ibid.
84. Ibid., p.80.
85. Ibid.
86. Ibid., p.81.
87. Ibid.
88. Ibid., pp. 81-82.
89. Ibid., p.82.
90. Ibid., p.83.
91. Ibid., pp.83-84.
92. Ibid., p.84.