I'm working on a paper refuting Heather Meacock's An Anthropological Approach To Theology: A Study of John Hick's Theology of Religious Pluralism, towards ethical criteria for a Global Theology of Religions (yes, that really is the title). Meacock doesn't say anything terribly useful beyond what John Hick himself has said already, so I could basically say I'm simply refuting Hickian Religious Pluralism.
At any rate, I'm trying to demonstrate how Hickian Religious Pluralism defeats itself through its own arguments. If all goes well, I'll have the paper finished up in the next few days, after which it may appear here as a multi-part series, for anyone interested. The paper defends Exclusivism and Inclusivism (arguing for a particular one of those two camps is beyond its scope) and shows why those two schools of thought are inherently more stable than Pluralism, despite Hick's claim of the opposite.
I'm having fun! I've been reading bits of this book for a month or two now, and today was the first day I actually put any response down on paper (well, on the magnetic platter of my hard disk, actually). So far, I have about eight double spaced pages of analysis; it will likely enlarge to ten to twelve by the time I finish.