Respectful and challenging to other faiths

I'm just reading 'The Myth of Religious Uniqueness' [ed by John Hick], which is a plea for principled religious pluralism. I am remaining unpursuaded because, it does seem that the main argument is that anything less than pluralism is disrespectful and liable towards arrogance and violence. I'm not so sure and I think that I'm with Matt Stone on this.

If the EC wants to become seriously missional it must develop a robust theology of other religions that is BOTH respectful AND challenging.

My own coming to faith was through a broadly pluralist route and I don't really think that pluralism can properly account for the missionary impulse in religions, [though one or two of the 'Myth' articles do a not too bad job] or the fact that one tends to hold views because they are thought to be righter in some way than the alternatives. [I'm also not sure of the reason to restrict pluralism to 'ethical' religions]. On the other hand the impetus towards respect that results in these guys going for a pluralist approach is surely good and actually an outworking of core ethical norms in Christianity and many other faiths. We should work on it. And yet there is the challenge too. Interestingly enough, in the 'Myth', many of the people from other faiths actually go for what would be called 'inclusivism' in Christian terms rather than pluralism, when the chips are down ...
Eclectic Itchings: The EC: can it be all it can be?:
Filed in: mission, emerging, religion, Christian, apologetics