A New Religious Pluralism? Let's Hope Not

I have elsewhere discussed the failures of a weak ecumenism which slides into pluralism. Here is an excerpt from my review of Diana Eck's book, "A New Religious America."


However, on the other hand, the presupposition that religious pluralism (advocated by Eck), as understood as a level playing field of truth in all religions, leads to the neglect of real, tangible differences in propositional statements of reality. There are in fact very real, philosophical and theological differences between orthodox (and yes, even liberal) Christianity and that of Hinduism, Buddhism and the Abrahamic faiths of Islam and Judaism. These differences in articulating what each position believes is reality should not be held at arms length or tossed aside for the sake of a new "American pluralism." To do such would be a detrimental activity to both sides of the discussion, it would be to undermine the belief systems of both religions in dialogue. One need not reduce the world’s religious differences to societal context, nor rationalize them away as needless obstacles to inclusion, in order to engage in interreligious dialogue, nor to have fruitful exchange of ideas, even where both parties vigorously disagree. Pluralism, especially the one advocated here, attempts to equate religions as having the same ontological status of each other, as merely different, yet equal, approaches to the one reality, as if these differences are not really differences. This pluralism ignores the real, tangible differences on both sides of the religious divide. On purely logical grounds (I'm not necessarily advocating this myself, but on a purely logical level) a stronger pluralism would recognize those differences and instead of rationalizing them as obstacles that need to be removed, rather embrace them as real differences, ones that do not have to cease in order to have dialogue. Would such a pluralism still be a pluralism or would that enter the realm of what we loosely and vacuously call ecumenism? I do not know, and here I am not interested in that. Rather, in this particular case I argue against Eck who encourages a religious pluralism that is a ghastly combination and mixing of different religions (the image of America as the great melting pot should come to mind here). If this doesn't disgust you, then you probably aren't a member of one of those religions, in which case why do you care? As someone invested in a religion I know that true dialogue must at the least include the defining parameters of each religion in discussion, and only then can one have fruitful exchange of ideas. To empty the real, tangible differences of each religion and prop up what is left as a representation of a religious enterprise does neither side any good.

Can you imagine having a political debate with your friend on the other side of the political spectrum and telling him or her that what she really believes doesn't matter, what truly matters is only the few superficial things you and they agree on? Your friend would be right in pointing out your utter arrogance, if not your out right naivety. Why, then, would we expect that of all things on the planet, something as important and controversial as religion would be something where such gutting of beliefs could occur? The proclamation of truth on both sides of the religious divide should be articulated and not shied away from. A religious position void of the truth on which it believes it stands loses any significance. And from this position, truth is lost in the attempt at unity in the midst of diversity, where those who seek unity drown out diversity in their very attempt at inclusion. In reality what Eck is actually arguing for is the creation of a new religion, the great American Religion.

There really is nothing quite as exclusivist as a pluralist demanding inclusion is there?