The previous two chapters were devoted, first, to a critical analysis of ecclesiological proposals generated within a pluralist horizon, and then to a constructive response to issues raised by pluralists and postmoderns regarding debate between traditions, truth, and the responsibility for the other. The present chapter discusses the same issues with regard to the inclusivist horizon and its bearing upon ecclesiology. Towards the end of the chapter, I conclude and summarize my case against the adequacy of the modern ecclesiological method. The guiding questions here are those that have accumulated over the course of the discussion as a whole: Does an inclusivist horizon enable ecclesiology to help the church's witness and its pastoral care within the present ecclesiological context? Specifically, can it help the church perform what I have argued is one of its more significant tasks within the present context, namely to promote genuine particularity among traditions of inquiry and their embodiments? Can an inclusivist ecclesiology help the church act responsibly for the other, for those who are different, even as it embodies its quest for truth?

“Inclusivism” is a term that encompasses a fairly wide range of positions, as J. A. DiNoia notes in his book, The Diversity of Religions. DiNoia's definition is broad enough to encompass both a minimal and a maximal form of inclusivism. The maximal form is asserted by those who believe that “all religious communities implicitly aim at the salvation that the Christian community most adequately commends.”