As an inclusivist of some kind myself, I find myself noting in passing that I don't think that the criticism works (hoping students will be intrigued by that suggestion and follow it up). Here I'm going to outline why I think that this particular criticism fails.
The Wikipedia article on anonymous Christians points up the criticism in the words of two heavyweight theologians.
as Hans Küng put it, "It would be impossible to find anywhere in the world a sincere Jew, Muslim or atheist who would not regard the assertion that he is an 'anonymous Christian' as presumptuous".[13] John Hick states that this notion is paternalistic because it is "honorary status granted unilaterally to people who have not expressed any desire for it."[13] Hick further rejects the notion because the majority of people are born into non-Christian families.[14] Anonymous Christianity, per this group, denigrates the beliefs of others by supposing that they are really Christians without realizing itI think that it is not unfair to characterise Kung's criticism as "they wouldn't like being labelled like that". And Hick, in a sense, says why 'they' wouldn't like it -it is paternalistic and denigrates the beliefs of the other. 'They' in this case is a shorthand way to refer to believers in other religions (and presumably other, non-religious, life stances).
I'm sympathetic to the issue of people finding odious a way of being referred to. We do recognise this in the arena of race where certain terms are considered derogatory and as hate speech. And I can understand that being, in effect, labelled in a way that makes one 'really a Christian' when there are things about that which are offensive in cultural/religious context, will be very problematic. So let's note for the moment that perhaps the way that Rahner has expressed himself here is itself difficult and may not be eirenic or felicitous. However, let us also note that simply because a way of trying to convey the idea is problematic, doesn't have to imply that something about the idea is incorrect; there may be ways to express the fundamental point that do not offend in that way.
I guess I might put this in a popular vein this way: just because he's said something that we find offensive, doesn't mean he's wrong. Perhaps our offence, at least in part, is because it upsets a notion we have which is nevertheless wrong. I as (say) a humanist might not like the idea that I'm 'saved by the Christ event', but that belief of mine does not make it necessarily wrong. I might even find the idea offensive, but (again) my offence does not on its own invalidate the assertion.
Or to put it in another frame: I (as a Christian) have been sat down by a Muslim and told, in no uncertain terms, that I'm destined for hellfire unless I recognise the prophethood of Mohammed and cease the idolatry of believing in the Incarnation (that's my characterising of his position). Now, I could be offended: how dare he say such things! But my offence neither proves him wrong nor demonstrates I'm right (or any other position in between or beyond these). On the other hand, I've been told by other Muslims that 'you guys' (ie Christians) will also be in paradise -presumably as 'people of the Book'. Again I could be offended that they seemingly presume that my faith in Christ is not decisive after all, and that a sincere monotheism is all that is needed. And again my offence would not arbitrate between our respective positions.
To Hick and Kung, I think I would say that if my claim as a Christian -that there is no salvation which is not made possible by Christ- then we have to find a way to state that conviction, or at least to be able to have a space to defend and maintain it. We may have to untangle it from a history of colonialism and (in some cases) racism but if it might be in some significant sense true, then we have to be able to put it out there. Just as we have to be prepared to recognise that others may make assertions which call into question some of our truth claims. And the way to deal with that is not to bat it away aggressively and refuse engagement. Rather the way to respond is to recognise and explore the challenge properly and give the other persons the dignity of taking them seriously where they are sincere.
In Kung's terms, I would have to say that that a Muslim take on Christian faith which includes me in their understanding salvation is as 'presumptuous' as Rahner's idea. Similarly a Buddhist having a theory about Christian faith which includes it as a positive remedy against bad karma and perhaps even having within it the precursors of Enlightenment. It would be ridiculous for any of us to be offended by any of the others' good-faith attempts to understand each other within our own frames of thinking. In fact, surely we should be expecting this of each other?
In all of this, offence, surely, merely indicates that a treasured belief or perspective is being challenged by one which relativises or negates it. Actually that is maybe not quite right: to say 'merely' could be overlooking a difference in cultural power context where a supposed superior faith condescends to another 'less developed' or 'less enlightened' one. In which case there are two things to disentangle. One is the sense of superiority and the other the shock of contradiction. Of the former we, as Christians, should repent when we do it. For the other we should work to establish the kinds of relationships where disagreement can be handled well and differences explored without rancour and with self-aware understanding.
Inclusivism is not a way to try to co-opt the stances and beliefs of others into our own. It is an attempt to understand others within the parameters or trajectories of our own convictions. So, if it is the case that no-one comes to the Father except through Christ (John 14:6), then if someone comes to rest on the Father's bosom, then they have got there because of Christ -whether or not they have got there via an explicit confession of faith and baptism (of course, exclusivism would deny that is possible). We can discuss just how that happens (and we do, endlessly), but those are the data we're trying to do justice by.
So, perhaps after all, I don't want to defend 'anonymous Christians' as a phrase because it can indeed be condescending and dismissive and even prejudicial. But I do want to defend the idea that Christ might just be essential for 'salvation' (and defining that is a whole big other thing) including that of those who don't 'get' him.
I would say that this position is a claim that there is something objective about what Christ did. "Objective" implying in this case that whether or not we know about it, it still affects us, whether or not we understand it, it remains a given. Gravity still affects us whether or not we have a theory about it. Gravity will still hold/draw us to the earth whether or not we 'believe' in it. We may have to think a bit more carefully about how it works when something is in orbit or when someone is attached to a large helium balloon or taking off in an aircraft, but actually that's about thinking it through rather than denying it. And it isn't denigrating an airline company to say that their passengers are subject to gravity. It is not presumptuous or paternalistic with regard to astronauts if we say that gravity is still a thing even in weightless conditions.
'via Blog this'
