What is the difference between Religious Diversity and Religious Pluralism?
What do you as global citizens think distinguishes Religious Diversity and Religious Pluralism? What is the framework that global citizens need to work from to support and encourage either?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Helen Spector on
-
Exclusivism to Parallelism--Part 1--Long message:
Hello, friends
Last year I participated in a 4-session interfaith dialogue sponsored by the Inter-religious Action Network of Washington County, in the Portland Oregon area. Our group included Protestant Christians, Catholics, Muslims, Baha'is, Unitarians,and Jews, and we focused on 4 topics: why your faith is important to you, revelation or how you know G-d, salvation or truth and consequences, and from exclusivism to parallelism.
For the final session we used the 4-part framework from the Interfaith Conference of Greater Washington DC, which describes a continuum moving from exclusivism (my faith is the only true faith) to inclusivism (your faith has enough similarities to my faith for me to include you in salvation) to pluralism (one common truth, many paths to it) to parallelism (many truths, many paths, not one final, common truth).
This final session proved to be very challenging to us all, and helped me see how my sense of faith has changed over the past years of moving ever more deeply into the interreligious movement. It showed me the big difference between pluralism (which I think many people find acceptable and somewhat comforting) and parallelism (which introduces the idea that there are many truths and they do not lead to the same ends and you cannot reach them by the same paths.
I think that it is easy for most people in the interfaith movement to get to pluralism: if we all are actually working to get closer to the same truth or at least to some complementary aspects of the same truth, then we don't have to give up the notion that there IS one truth and it is knowable by us all. And that we can find ways of connecting with others without having to give up the notion that our tradition is enough for us and that others can relate to it as well.
However, if there are different truths, ones that do not begin from or end at the same point as our own, then to make space for those who believe in those truths, and to build relationships with people who believe in those truths, requires that I challenge my own world view and all the structures of belief that I have spent a lifetime developing.
-
Permalink Reply by Robert Tulip on -
Hello Helen, thank you for your message.
I was struck by your definition of inclusivism in terms of salvation, whether we consider others as 'saved',. It could be read to imply that our opinion determines if we will be saved. It seems rather arrogant for any faith to claim access to salvation, seen against the Christian claim that salvation is by the grace of God and not by works.
If a gracious God is acting in the universe to secure the salvation of humanity, as Christianity suggests, then finding a path of connection to this source of grace becomes a common theme for salvation. The test for rival faiths then becomes whether they connect to the real God.
Parallelism, like inclusivism, also seems to have real problems in this regard, in that it is hard to see how contradictory claims can be equally salvific, unless we consider the rival faiths as presenting a compatible underlying message. Such parallelism must view the rival claims as metaphor or analogy for a deeper truth which people struggle to articulate.
One way I have considered helpful is to read John 14:6 "I am the way the truth and the life" as saying that Christ is the way of life in truth, so where ever people live truthfully they are on the path to God, All human thought is partial, so this rereading of John helps to give rival faiths credit for being authentic ways of life in truth, without insisting on an exclusive dogma.
With prayers for love and peace at Christmas.
-
-
Good morning Robert, and thanks for your holiday wishes. Peace to you and a healthy new year as well for you and your family.
I appreciate your gentle and gracious explanation of how you feel that God’s grace includes us all, whether we are Christian or whether we have a different path of belief. And I particularly feel grateful for your pointing out my inadvertent description of inclusivism in Christian terms by using the word “salvation”. The original text was much more “meta” in its description of the four terms that I introduced here.
I have attached the original text from which we worked in our dialogue group, for better understanding than the quick summary version I included in my original message provides for these important concepts.
At the same time, I am wondering how we can continue to explore in this discussion the possibility that there are different world views and associated belief systems, without delving into the theology of one or another tradition and treating them as if they are in competition with each other. The possibility that you and I can agree on many things but not on our beliefs is, I believe, a worthy topic for discussion in and of itself. - Attachments:
-
Permalink Reply by kathryn julyan on -
Helen and All,
I really appreciate your response. I teach Introduction to Religion at Eastern Washington University. I used to cling to my own vision of "pluralism" which is more Hindu based! But I have learned to create space for appreciating other visions of "pluralism" that do not include the vision of there being equally true religions. However, this helped me recognize that "pluralism" is much more about how we relate to one another and apply the values of our tradition, then about different theologies. I may believe that Jesus's phrase, "I am the way, truth, and the light' means he was firmly rooted in truth and showing us the way to be rooted in this same truth. But for many, the physical body of Jesus Christ is the truth and I have leared to appreciate that view. There is a beauty in it even if I do not believe this. The only problem is if this vision of Christianity leads to oppression, violence, prejudice, etc. This is why I believe the best way to work toward 'unity in diversity' is in vour shared alues which are the same regardless of theology! Much peace.
-
-
Hello, Kathryn
I love your description of "visions of "pluralism" that do not include the vision of there being equally true religions." I find this a very helpful concept. As each of us, in the course of our life experience, develops our own understanding of what is true, we will see some things and miss altogether other things that other people may find essential, and so in that regard, all truth is partial.
I also appreciate your notion of religious pluralism as being about how we relate to each other. For me, interfaith is about how we find ways to live together and make this a better world for all living things--in the broadest sense of what that might mean. And pluralism is the concept that makes it possible to do this across many different traditions.
kathryn julyan said:Helen and All,
I really appreciate your response. I teach Introduction to Religion at Eastern Washington University. I used to cling to my own vision of "pluralism" which is more Hindu based! But I have learned to create space for appreciating other visions of "pluralism" that do not include the vision of there being equally true religions. However, this helped me recognize that "pluralism" is much more about how we relate to one another and apply the values of our tradition, then about different theologies. I may believe that Jesus's phrase, "I am the way, truth, and the light' means he was firmly rooted in truth and showing us the way to be rooted in this same truth. But for many, the physical body of Jesus Christ is the truth and I have leared to appreciate that view. There is a beauty in it even if I do not believe this. The only problem is if this vision of Christianity leads to oppression, violence, prejudice, etc. This is why I believe the best way to work toward 'unity in diversity' is in vour shared alues which are the same regardless of theology! Much peace.
-
Permalink Reply by Reverend Cheen on -
Here's one thought from a member of our interfaith community in Seattle:
In my view, the diverse religions relate to and focus on different aspects of a common experience...humanity's religious and spiritual experience. Pluralism emphasizes the common experience. Diversity emphasizes the different aspects.
Put another way, diversity recognizes the gift that each religion and spiritual practice "brings to the table". Pluralism recognizes the bounty of all the gifts displayed on the table. Interfaith is the conversations we have as we open and compare the gifts and exclaim about their value.
-
-
Many thanks, Rev Cheen, for this wonderful, clear and succinct description of each concept and the interdependence among all three of them. I think I can also find in the spaces between them the way that parallelism works its way into the conversation without challenging in an "either/or" way: Humanity's spiritual experience as the field within which all are working.
My husband Don brought back from this Parliament an appreciation of the difference between those whose religious experiences are separated from other dimensions of their daily living, and those whose spiritual consciousness and all other dimensions of their lives are integrated and not seen or experienced as separate. With the emphasis of separation between "church" and state in many Western and secularist countries, we sometimes lose sight of the reality that exists in other places and within some cultures and peoples that do not make this separation and for whom this is a "foreign" notion or cognitive construction.
Reverend Cheen said:Here's one thought from a member of our interfaith community in Seattle:
In my view, the diverse religions relate to and focus on different aspects of a common experience...humanity's religious and spiritual experience. Pluralism emphasizes the common experience. Diversity emphasizes the different aspects.
Put another way, diversity recognizes the gift that each religion and spiritual practice "brings to the table". Pluralism recognizes the bounty of all the gifts displayed on the table. Interfaith is the conversations we have as we open and compare the gifts and exclaim about their value.
-
Permalink Reply by Malcolm Craig on -
Religion is progressive. The foundations of all the religions are love. "O SON OF MAN!
Veiled in My immemorial being and in the ancient eternity of My essence, I knew My love for thee; therefore I created thee, have engraved on thee Mine image and revealed to thee My beauty." (Baha'u'llah, The Arabic Hidden Words). Differences between religions lie in their secondary characteristics and these relate to the dispensation they refer to - hence animal sacrifices for example are totally inappropriate today - as are other outworn practices. However, mankind does need these secondary practices and new ones are ordained as part of each new Revelation as they are the foundation of justice for all. Today secondary practices in any religion should have as their goal the oneness of mankind. Clinging to outworn secondary practices may be regarded as the biggest obstacle to pluralism and harmony.
-
Permalink Reply by Rev.Kastrata Almohnd Maeve on
-
I have read several of these replies since i made my last reply, and a lot of them I can really appreciate the reply, they are in depth and very open minded and not one track minded. However when i read a reply where someone mentions that all paths lead to god as their definition of religious pluralism, then it tells me that they are not quiet getting what religious pluralism as well as what the parliment is all about.
Religious Pluralism is not about all paths leading to god but all paths leading to the same thing..by saying it leads to YOUR god, all that is, is merely a way of sneaking your religion in as the dominate one over anothers, and that is simply rude and close minded of you. The end paths have nothing to do with dieties, but merely a greater purpose as a group of people. That greater purpose is us working as a whole to contribute to our world.
The reason I find it so rude is that if you have a religion that does not believe in a diety but something else, and yet you turn around and say that their path merely leads to your god then that is merely disrespecting their beliefs. Which in my eyes completely tears down the entire idea behind religious pluralism.
So if you want to describe Religious pluralism as leading to the same ends, please try to refrain from saying it leads to god, because that is merely destroying the whole purpose we are trying to create of a more harmonic life for all the religions to get along in.
-
Permalink Reply by kathryn julyan on
-
Rev. Kastrate and All,
I am not sure what response you are speaking to. I went back through the posts and I did not find a post that says all paths lead to God. Perhaps I did not go back far enough. I only say this because I wish to understand your criticism. I think I understand you saying that if we use "God" as opposed to "thing" we sneak "our God" into our vision of pluralism. However, this is only true if we are using "God" in a narrow way. The word "God" has in my opinion become very problematic for this reason. People mean very different things by "God." When I use "God" it is interchangeable with truth of which we are all in relationship with. I am wondering if you believe 'truth" is a better word?
Rev.Kastrata Almohnd Maeve said:I have read several of these replies since i made my last reply, and a lot of them I can really appreciate the reply, they are in depth and very open minded and not one track minded. However when i read a reply where someone mentions that all paths lead to god as their definition of religious pluralism, then it tells me that they are not quiet getting what religious pluralism as well as what the parliment is all about.
Religious Pluralism is not about all paths leading to god but all paths leading to the same thing..by saying it leads to YOUR god, all that is, is merely a way of sneaking your religion in as the dominate one over anothers, and that is simply rude and close minded of you. The end paths have nothing to do with dieties, but merely a greater purpose as a group of people. That greater purpose is us working as a whole to contribute to our world.
The reason I find it so rude is that if you have a religion that does not believe in a diety but something else, and yet you turn around and say that their path merely leads to your god then that is merely disrespecting their beliefs. Which in my eyes completely tears down the entire idea behind religious pluralism.
So if you want to describe Religious pluralism as leading to the same ends, please try to refrain from saying it leads to god, because that is merely destroying the whole purpose we are trying to create of a more harmonic life for all the religions to get along in.
-
Permalink Reply by Maynard on -
My friend,
Rev.Kastrata Almohnd Maeve said:Religious Pluralism is not about all paths leading to god but all paths leading to the same thing..By saying it leads to YOUR god, all that is, is merely a way of sneaking your religion in as the dominate one over anothers,
...
The reason I find it so rude is that if you have a religion that does not believe in a diety but something else, and yet you turn around and say that their path merely leads to your god then that is merely disrespecting their beliefs.
If the paths' ends are the same, they don't belong to either of us exclusively, and perhaps we shouldn't ascribe possession or ownership to such a shared principle, but rather acceptance.
If you'd like to pray, or meditate, or have a beer, I don't have to join you or interrupt you. It'd be your need and I needn't think of it as any kind of imposition upon me whatsoever.
The end paths have nothing to do with dieties, but merely a greater purpose as a group of people. That greater purpose is us working as a whole to contribute to our world.
This greater purpose, which you and I both believe in, may, or may not, have anything to do with deities. We don't need to know or care. One of us may arrive and function at this common place while giving thanks and praise to a deity, while another arrives at the same place giving thanks and praise to something else, or not at all.
I don't think of it as about denial or exclusion; I think of it as about affirmation and inclusion.
Maybe you and I making it to where we are together is the *beginning*, not the "end".
in Peace,
-
Permalink Reply by Maynard on
-
Since it hasn't been mentioned here yet, I note that this question has been undertaken by "The Pluralism Project" at Harvard Univ. .... http://www.pluralism.org/pages/pluralism/meanings
which I would short summarize as Plurality being Diversity actively and cooperatively engaged.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next ›
© 2012 Created by The Parliament of Religions.
