First response

I am deeply grateful to each of my interlocutors for presenting informative and stimulating accounts of Christianity. I was already acquainted with the work of three of these interlocutors (Kevin Hart, John Bishop, and Michael Rea), and indeed I have long regarded their contributions to philosophy of religion and philosophical theology as representing work of the highest calibre and as a model for my own efforts in these fi elds. Heather Eaton’s writings were not as familiar to me, though I felt her provocative perspec-tive provides a much- needed corrective and challenge to some of the biases and assumptions prevalent in contemporary philosophy of religion. That said, I enter into debate and dialogue with my four interlocutors with great pleasure but also in ‘fear and trembling’. I have been constrained in what follows to respond to only certain aspects of each Position Statement, and I have chosen to focus on some aspects I found to be particularly interesting and challenging though also disputable and contestable. This unavoidably creates a somewhat critical and negative tone, and this needs to be set in the context of (usually) broad agreement and indeed great appreciation for the ways in which my dialogue partners have committed themselves to the task of ‘faith seeking understanding’