Here are some of my own. Most of us have probably heard this type of thinking in some form and have either been attracted to it or vehemently opposed to it. It seems attractive to take and assemble my own custom-tailored version of faith. Why can't I take the best parts of all faiths? Is this not much better than being an exclusivist that ultimately leads only to fundamentalist naivety and exclusivism and that leads to Crusades or 9/11? This type of thinking has completely infiltrated popular thinking. Take a quick look at the Oprah-endorsed writing of Deepak Chopra or Eckhart Tolle and you will see that indeed that is their attempt. Jesus, according to these writers, actually pointed to the same "inner light" that did many other positive religious thinkers. So why would we not take Jesus, Muhammed, Buddha, Mother Teresa, and the Cookie Monster at their best and simply all get along as followers of some type of "buffet religion?"
Of course, they wouldn't put it that bluntly but that is in essence what they are getting at. (Except of course they put a much more narcissistic twist on it. Life is about me after all.) But we need to debunk this lie for what it actually is. To believe that all religions are essentially the same is to believe in a perpetual lie. Each of these religions is, in fact, different. Each of these religions does, in fact, make different (and often contradictory) claims. Jesus did not (contrary to Chopra) tell us to look to our inward divinity. So, the reality remains, we must choose what we will believe. To profess that "all religions are the same or equally true" is simply to profess a complete paradox.
That being said, I think I have just described a fear that most people have about "inter-faith bridge building". Many people fear that inter-faith peace work for example, is the same thing as professing that "all religions are equal." Let me suggest a fundamental difference between those two views. Now, those of you familiar with Mennonite Central Committee will know that they have been accused of this very thing. Some believe that their stance toward bridging gaps between people of different faiths is a commitment to a heretical popular complacency. However, it is crucial to see a difference here. If we believe that bringing peace and stability to all people (not just in order to keep me or Canada or the USA safe) is a positive good, then we must also realize that MCC is not in a position to evangelize. Their role (along with others) is to create stable, nurturing, self-sufficient cultures. Again, if we believe that this is a common good for all people, then MCC must work alongside Muslims (and people of any other faith) to make that happen.
I think that is where the distinction needs to be made. If we see our call (as Christians or as generic humans) as simply to evangelize madly so that we can save as many souls as possible, then MCC is most certainly wrong to not do that. But, if our call is to make peace, wholeness, goodness, and love in the world, then we should commend MCC for going and doing that in very difficult circumstances. And if there are Muslims, Hindus, New Agers, and others that have a similar vision...PRAISE GOD!! Let's work alongside them to make it happen.
It seems to me there is a profound difference here that needs to be distinguished before the word "tolerance" gets uttered from our lips. I am not an expert on the peacemaking affairs of MCC by any stretch, but from what I gather, that is the trajectory of some of their work. We must be clear about what kind of a conversation we are having before we plug our ears and say "la la la la."
