Over the past forty years or so, innumerable books have been published in the subfield of Christian theology of religions. What distinguishes this volume from others is its inherently dialogical approach: at its core is an ecumenical conversation between an Evangelical Christian scholar (Harold Netland) and a non-Evangelical Christian scholar (Paul Knitter) on the question, “Can only one religion be true?” The dialogue was held before a live audience at the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary in 2009. All the other essays in the volume respond in various ways to the Netland-Knitter dialogue, and are written by scholars from a variety of denominational backgrounds, including Terrence Tilley, a Catholic theologian; S. Mark Heim, an American Baptist minister; Nancy Fuchs Kreimer, a Reconstructionist Jew; Paul Copan, an Evangelical Christian philosopher; and the late John Hick, one of the pioneers in the field of the theology of religions.

Editor Robert B. Stewart introduces the subject matter on a personal note by describing how his own experience of religious diversity in college led him, an Evangelical Christian, to wonder if only one religion can be true. Stewart then defines theology of religions and some of the field's central questions. The introduction is followed by a transcript of the Netland-Knitter dialogue. Netland sums up his own answer to the question by quoting the 1992 Manila statement of the World Evangelical Fellowship, which he believes is “rooted in the conviction that the central claims of the Christian faith are distinctively true and yet is also open to the presence and work of the Triune God throughout the world” (27). Knitter's answer to the question is an unequivocal no, and he gives four reasons why: history (Christian beliefs have changed over time); ethics (absolutism prevents dialogue and fosters violence); theology (to be Christian is to be a pluralist, and the Trinity is egalitarian); and Scripture (exclusive language is confessional and performative). Knitter's theological and scriptural arguments are more compelling than his historical and ethical arguments. For example, does believing that my own religion is true necessarily inhibit dialogue or lead to violence against those whose religion I think is false?

The other essays in the volume respond to the Netland-Knitter dialogue in various ways: some more directly, some less so. There is something here for every reader: for those new to the theology of religions, basic topics are covered, such as the concept of multiple religious ends and the inadequacy of Alan Race's classic threefold typology (exclusivism-inclusivism-pluralism). For those who are more versed in the field, new angles are discussed, such as the role of postmodernism in the theology of religions and a critique of Hick's “cryptomonotheism.”

Framing this topic ecumenically is an eminently useful approach, given that the theology of religions is first and foremost an internal Christian question. And since Evangelicals have often been left out of the theology of religions debate, this volume fills a lacuna by providing a spectrum of Evangelical perspectives on the subject. However, other voices are missing, such as the Eastern Orthodox. Also, it would have been worthwhile to present a wider range of Catholic views; Tilley and Knitter are the only two Catholics here, but they agree on most points. Finally, Knitter's personal religious identity adds an interesting dimension to this otherwise mostly ecumenical discussion (minus Kreimer), for while Knitter self-identifies as a Catholic numerous times during the dialogue, he is also a professed Buddhist and therefore an example of multiple religious belonging. This unique identity obviously affects his perspective on the Christian theology of religions, yet it is mentioned only briefly in the volume (on the first page, by the editor), and is not explicitly discussed by Knitter himself at all. Knitter should have acknowledged this point, since it makes the foundational dialogue between Netland and Knitter not only ecumenical, but interreligious too.