My project here is to lay bare the various dimensions of this core-issue and point out some of the possible directions or possibilities that are available for either reinterpretation or rejection. I argue that there are at least eight such dimensions to be considered: historical, theological, soteriological, eschatological, hermeneutical, ecclesiological, psychological and epistemological.

Historical Dimension:
The exclusive claim of Christ is always made in concrete historical settings. It is not an idea held up in the sky somewhere, but is maintained in the concrete realities of history. Therefore, we must admit right away that the exclusivity of this claim simply cannot be maintained because there are in fact, right in front of our eyes, a multiplicity of competing claims for other ways to God and human flourishing. Our contemporary historical experience does not allow us to contradict that. To do so would be to simply write off Tikva, Anantanand, and Mahinda (the Jewish, Hindu, and Buddhist representatives in this Consultation) from our discussion. Our historical experience of people of other faiths, and of interfaith dialogue tells us that it is becoming more and more difficult to affirm the exclusivity of Christ in a multi-religious setting. There are, in fact, many ways to God and many paths to human flourishing. In addition, we are increasingly aware that our visions of God and human flourishing are OUR visions and they are products of our history and our imaginative and creative construction. Once we recognize that they are products of such a kind of human historical creativity, they are instantly relativized and removed from the venue of absolutes. One might even say that what Christians in a multifaith setting need is a strong dose of historical consciousness!

Theological Dimension:
The vision of Jesus as the Christ functions as a normative category in Christian thinking about and understanding of God. We have come to think of "God in Christ" as our peculiar and proper talk about God. The normative character of Jesus the Christ cannot be sacrificed if Christian thinking and acting desires to be "Christian." Yet such a claim to normativity often fails to recognize and appreciate other religions’ understandings of God. At the same time, are there ways in which we can talk about this normative category in non-exclusive terms? I have myself used the idea of "window" to address this issue. The vision of Jesus as the Christ is our window into God, and as such it is one of many windows available through which to gain a vision of God. Another way I have adopted is to use phrases, such as, "formative vision" and "transformative orientation" to understand the centrality of Christ in Christian life (See: The Crucified Guru: An Experiment in Cross Cultural Christology, Nashville, Abingdon Press, 1994, chapter 6). Jesus the Christ offers us a formative vision of God, a vision that does not frame God but rather forms us in our particular, Christian orientation to God. It also offers us a "transformative orientation" for our daily living and acting, not a restrictive regimentation. Exploring the idea of Trinity is another way to expose an aspect of Christian thought that has been consistently unwilling to limit the history of God to the narrative of Jesus the Christ. In affirming the Trinity, Christians are acknowledging that there is more to God than the vision of God in Jesus as the Christ. This affirmation necessitates further exploration of the idea of God as creator and the role of Holy Spirit in the history of the universe as possible venues for a fresh understanding of the christological dimension.

Soteriological Dimension:
Talk about the uniqueness of Christ is closely related to how Christians view the salvation of humanity and the universe. The primary affirmation is that Christ is the only way to human flourishing or salvation. God’s salvific activity in the world has traditionally been restricted to, constitutive of, and/or defined by that which has been accomplished by Jesus the Christ, and quite often narrowed even further to only what he accomplished on the cross. There are two tasks at hand here. First, our discussion on the various views of reconciliation exposed how certain views on the salvation offered in Christ make better sense in a multi-religious setting than others. One needs to explore this area and work on pictures of salvation that accommodate less absolutist claims. Second, we can move in the direction of Mark Heim who uses the word "salvation" in the plural. In his book, Salvations (New York: Orbis Books, 1995), he radically pluralizes Christian talk about salvation. In his latest book, The Depth of the Riches: A Trinitarian Theology of Religious Ends (Grand Rapids, Michigan: W. B. Eerdmans, 2001), he uses the phrase "plurality of religious ends" as a way to deal with the plurality of understandings of the goal of religious life, privileging "salvation" as a peculiar Christian understanding of a religious end. According to Heim, salvation as defined in the Christian tradition is available in Jesus the Christ and him alone. Each religion has a different destination and therefore the multiplicity of religious paths is due to the multiplicity of ends or intended destinations. Yet, these different destinations can all find their place in the Trinitarian plentitude of God. Admittedly, this needs much more nuanced discussion than I go into here, except to point out that Heim’s approach is one option, among many, in reinterpreting the exclusive claim of salvation in Christ.

Eschatological Dimension:
The claim that Christ is the only way to God and salvation is undergirded by certain eschatological visions, while at the same time informing and shaping those same eschatological visions. How do we proceed in addressing this dimension? One has to accept that there is no single eschatological view within the Christian tradition. There are, in fact, at least two major views. One view sees the eschaton, or the end, as a time of division when the sheep and goats, or believers and unbelievers will be separated for eternity. The other view holds that in the end all will come together in a community of justice and peace, perhaps beyond history, which means that everything will cohere in God at the end. Quite often the exclusive claim about Christ is maintained by the view of the end as eternal separation. However, there are possibilities in the unitive view of the end for alternative ways of dealing with the claim of Christ. Perhaps we should abandon the eschatological talk altogether and concern ourselves with the here and now, joining hands with our Buddhist friends’ skepticism regarding speculations about either origin or end. In any case, a reinterpretation of eschaton is required to re-envision the Christian claim to exclusivity.

Hermeneutical Dimension:
I find that many Christians often base their claim of the exclusivity of Christ and Christianity on two Bible verses. "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6), and "There is no other name given under heaven by which humans can be saved (except Jesus)" (Acts 4:12). There are two ways in which Christians approach these verses. There are those in our congregations and parishes who see these texts to be so clear and straightforward that any attempt to question these texts’ claim to the uniqueness of Christ is seen as totally unwarranted. For these Christians, the two texts are clear markers of the need to shy away from any trace of dialogical engagement with the other religionists. On the other hand, some Christians find that their positive and appreciative experience of people of other faiths contradicts the traditional interpretations of these verses. In response, they seek ways to reinterpret these texts in light of their experience of goodness, truth, and beauty among people of other faiths. In addressing this issue, it becomes clear that a reinterpretation of these texts cannot be done either by simply tweaking these texts or by bringing in other biblical verses that contradict this position. For example, one can say that the word "the" in John 14:6 has been unduly emphasized, or another can escape to a text in Acts that claims universal access to God’s favor (Acts 10:34). Yet these explanations do not satisfy a Bible-lover’s demand for clarity. One needs, in fact, to address a much more fundamental question regarding the nature, place, and authority of the Bible in Christian reflection and action.

Ecclesiological Dimension:
The role of the institutional church in the divine scheme of human well-being is an important dimension of this core-issue. If the church, as it now exists, is an integral part of the divine economy, then exclusivist claims about Christ will lead to particular understandings of mission as evangelism and church growth. Wesley Ariarajah’s discussion of religion in bipolar categories of established/prophetic or movement/institution has raised some important issues to be looked at in detail. There is yet another dimension to this discussion too. Even if Christ is the only way, it does not necessarily follow that we need to have a church like the one we have now. On the other hand, if Christ’s claim to exclusivity does not include a vision of a community of faith like the church, do we not then end up as disjointed individuals who are attached, singly, to Christ? These are questions to ponder. M. M. Thomas, a 20th century Indian Christian theologian, maps a way forward in his vision of the church as a "Christ-centered fellowship" that is not limited to the organized institutional church alone.

Psychological Dimension:
As an Indian Christian myself, I am aware that an exclusive claim about Christ is foundational for defining one’s Christian identity in a predominantly Hindu society. Given the understanding of multiple ways to God in Hinduism, Christians in India have always needed to have some pretty good reasons to be Christians. The exclusive claim of Christ is therefore very helpful in defining one’s Christian identity, because it offers a great sense of security to, and centered-ness for, the individual Christian in India. Indian Christians experience intense pressure to define themselves over against the Hindu and Muslim communities, because if they declare Jesus the Christ to be only one of the ways to God, their demand to be a separate ecclesial community would appear totally unwarranted. It is, in some ways, much easier to claim Christ as simply one among many ways to God in a predominantly Christian culture than to do so in a minority situation. Therefore, any evaluation of a universally exclusive claim must raise honest questions regarding identity, community, and belonging.

Epistemological Dimension:BR> Many have operated with a relativization of the claims of Christ by appealing to the principle that truth is always relative to historical, geographical, psychological and socio-political settings. In this sense, truth is always truth for us. This begs many questions, such as: Can there be both relative and absolute truth? To what category does the exclusivity of Christ belong? If Christ cannot be "universalized" can it be absolute truth? Can one live with relative truth when it comes to matters of "ultimate concerns?" I am leaving these simply as questions because I need the collective wisdom of this group to be able to address these questions.

As you can see, I have sought here to uncover and expose some of the dimensions of the Christian claim that Christ is the only way to God and human flourishing. It is clear to me that, given the religious plurality of today and our awareness of it in ever more novel ways, we cannot simply hold on to this claim in its received form. It demands either rejection or reinterpretation. If one does not wish to reject it in toto, what options remain? I have hinted, in the eight dimensions discussed above, at some possible directions to take. These directions point to one thing: Christians must engage in conversation with people of other religious traditions to constructively and creatively deal with the exclusive claim that only in Jesus the Christ can one avail one’s self of the true and full knowledge of God and access the best of human flourishing.

Mr Thomas Thangaraj is Professor of theology at Chandler School of Theology, Emory University, Atalanta, Georgia, U.S.A.