"Pluralism" is a word with plural meanings. In America it refers mainly to the way citizens live with a polity and with practices that recognize diversity and assure civil peace in the face of it. However, in theology in recent years there is also a different, international movement, which finds significant support and impetus in the United States. These American "theological pluralists" jetted to Birmingham, England in September to compare notes with Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and others.

John L. Allen Jr. reports on their conclave in the National Catholic Reporter (September 19). He defines their belligerent-sounding intent to be "smashing what these thinkers regard as the 'idol' of claims to superiority by one religion over others." Birmingham's John Hick, who taught for decades in the United States, is the grand old man of the movement; Allen mentions Paul Knitter of Xavier and Roger Haight, S.J. and Chester Gillis of Georgetown as American Catholic leaders.

Needless to say, the orthodox theologians in all these traditions are nervous, at best, and outraged at worst, since pluralist theology would undercut all claims that a faith, e.g., the Christian, is not only a distinctive, but an exclusive way to God. Pluralism, according to Allen, says that "all the world's great religions are valid paths of salvation." It contrasts itself both to "exclusivism" and even "inclusivism," the view that only one religion saves and followers of others can be included." (Post Vatican II Catholicism takes a measured and guarded inclusivist position.)

Questions raised at Birmingham: "Is it important to persuade religious institutions of the pluralist views, or it better to make the case from the outside, assuming that institutions will catch up?" "Are the pluralists on a frontier where the mainstream will eventually arrive, or is pluralism destined to remain on the margins?" "How far is too far?" Do pluralists want "dialogue" or do they want to "evangelize" people into pluralist views?

Catholic backlash was apparent in Dominus Iesus, a Vatican document of 2000, which warned against relativism in a "gravely deficient situation." Critics fear that relativism, skepticism about objective truth, and a rejection of some basic creedal features of Christian faith will follow. Paul Knitter responds: "pluralists accept universal but not absolute truth -- a doctrine can be true for all, but it cannot be the only truth."

Hick thinks the pluralist view will win; that cultural and religious evolution are on its side. Haight, however, says he has no expectation that pluralism could become official Catholicism. He would "carve out space for it to be accepted as an orthodox Catholic view, even if it's a minority." A Jewish participant, Rabbi Michael Kogan, wrestled thus: "I believe God chose the Jewish people. But who said God can only make one choice?"

This column, necessarily brief and sketchy, cannot begin to begin to resolve the pluralist-anti-pluralist debate. But we can say that it does not take a telescope to sight it: it is becoming one of the most controverted and public themes among world religions, especially where they interact.

Author, Martin E. Marty, is the Fairfax M. Cone Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus of the History of Modern Christianity at the University of Chicago Divinity School. His biography, publications, and contact information can be found at www.memarty.com.