My take on pluralism and interfaith dialouge

It has been suggested by some that my particular take on the Christian tradtion might me a bit to broad and loose. That the influence of "other traditions" has diluted my faith to one that has passed outside the pale of "Christian thought". That may be the case but I am of the considered opinion that ones faith is there own and their journey is their's to make. that being said I would like to take this opportunity to speak out upon something near and dear to my heart...Religious Pluralism, and in doing so adress some of the concerncs that have recentley been aired in hopes that perhaps I may better make my perception on this matter better understood.

I'm of the view that as long as we operate under the premise that, "Pluralism is too open an approach and that we should undertake "the more modest task of analyzing Christianities own internal coherence and historical development." we run the risk of only preaching to the choir. And, that choir may only reflect the narrow denominational affinities of our particular faith tradition or personal predelictions.

Pluralistic approaches are the future as the world shrinks around us. When I was growing up pretty much everyone in my home town was either secular humanist (perhaps I'm being overly generous to my more worldly brothers and sisters...be that as it may), Episcopalian, Methodist, or Roman Catholic. Now some decades later I live within a stones throw of all those and more; Buddhists, Taoists, Mormons, Pagans, Hindu's, and others of who's religious tradition I'm uncertain. We should be moved to engage them in dialogs and the exchange of ideas. Everyone can learn something from someone else's tradition. Perhaps, we may even incorporate something we learn into our own beliefs, perhaps they could learn something from us. Theological pluralism must be approached in an intentional manner. without doing so we risk insulating ourselves in what we think we know, and what we choose to believe and in doing so risk missing choice opportunities the spiritual development of our faith.

I guess that it boils down to where one draws lines or maybe even if we should. I don't think you can have a real discussion on faith and spirituality without taking into account the spiritual landscape around us. 1500 years ago you could not talk about Christianity without speaking in the context of Ortho-Catholocism or Heresy. Now days I don't think we can talk about Christianity or any other spiritual path without acknowledging and understanding the religions which surround us. Pluralism is everywhere, its all around us, even inside our own traditions and most of us are influenced to some degree or another by that "otherness" which surrounds us.

For some, admittadly, the us/them boundry lines they have been drawn are stronger than ever as they seek to entrench themselves within the security of what they want to believe. For others, their faith has been intertwined with and has evloved in great part due to the influance exerted upon it by other traditions it has come into contact with.

To exclude from the discussion these important elements and influences is to draw up boundaries that might exclude the Christianity practiced by some whom others have defined outside the pale . It narrows the field of expression to such an extent that some may not be able to express their personal theologies fully, only and a manner that is proscribed by the majority...that is, to me, wrong. Who has the right to define someone out of the Christian tradition or suggest that their practice is not worthy of inclusion in the dialouge. My faith may well have just as much to owe to Buddha and Lao Tzu as anothers does to Calvin.

Some may say that you can not have a discussion of Christianity in any context without lines drawn as to who's perception is valid and shall be permitted to be expressed. But their are many who can not express their personal Christianity without referencing others] traditions who's contribution to their faith development was just as important or perhaps more so than Jesus. Christians need not fear or anathemize those who's Christianity is non-traditional or may have evolved beyond traditional positions to encompass a broader more inclusive worldview.

I accept that my individual theological make up is of mixed ancestry and owes it;s formation to as much eastern and earth-centered traditions as it does to "The Bible" . If we were to proceed along the lines as has been suggested much of who and what I am would have to be excluded from the breadth and depth of the conversation. Why can't we each let everyone express their own faith, Christian or otherwise, in their own fashion. If you want to speak in a Christ centered way, If you consider Jesus your personal savior, or not, or whatever, please do so. If I wish to talk about Dhukka and Sin or compare and contrast the Spirit and the Tao how does that threaten or harm anyone. The Christian tradition has a big enough tent for all of us...really it does. We may well each be enriched by the exchange.


If the "truth" that we are espousing does not stand up to the light of day it deserves to wither and die so a new and more enlightened truth can rise up in it's place.