Eboo Patel on Religious Pluralism

I sometimes struggle with things that are interfaith.

Let me say from the beginning here that I have the deepest respect for faith traditions other than Christianity and for people who reject traditional faiths in favor of other spiritual paths or agnosticism or atheism.

My problem with things interfaith is that I think there's a whole group of folks who are engaged in "interfaith" or "multifaith" work out there for whom "interfaith" means "let's get together and see how the faith traditions are really the same at bottom."

I don't believe that. I do believe in inextricable connections between Judaism, Islam, and Christianity--shared texts, shared figures, and even shared values and goals. But they are markedly different religions--they are different paths, not reducible to a common denominator.

This thread was sparked by a radio interview I listened to with Eboo Patel on the Brian Lehrer show a few weeks back. Patel, a Muslim interfaith youth leader, was talking about the role of religion in the Obama inauguration and administration. He talked about the importance of focusing on religious pluralism, which he defines as 1) respect between faith traditions, 2) positive relations between faith traditions, and 3) shared work toward the common good.

I loved Patel's definition of pluralism, because of what it doesn't do--it doesn't try to suggest that religious differences aren't important. It seeks common ground where it can be found, but doesn't try to smooth over the unwieldy particularities of each tradition. Patel used his own emerging relationship with Rick Warren as an example of how people from different backgrounds can disagree on something as meaningful as salvation, but still agree on the 3 points of pluralism and find constructive ways to share life.

This matters for me because I'm preaching a series on the Kingdom of God for Wednesday worship at Marble. And I came across a quote from JD Crossan on Jesus' Kingdom teachings, which says that Jesus' Kingdom teachings are as absolute in their call as they are undefined in their content. Jesus says that we have to be "all in"--he just doesn't say what that means. My own experience is that for me to be true to Jesus is to be "all in." I experience that call as exclusive of other religious truths. It means that I am committed body, mind, and spirit to the Way of Jesus.

But I insist that my commitment to the truth in Jesus does not preclude sincere respect for and even require my humble engagement with people of other faith traditions.

I know the criticism: that if you believe, for example, that "Jesus is the only way" that you've already done some kind of mental violence to others who don't share that claim. But I disagree. I've not said that Jesus is the only way, period. I've decided that Jesus is the only way for me. There's no implied judgment on others. In fact, I would say that the "Jesus way" as I understand it requires me to approach others with an embracing and inclusive love--the opposite of judgment.

Would love to hear how others approach this subject.