I've been reading Diana Eck's book entitled A New Religious America: How a "Christian Country" Has Become the World's Most Religiously Diverse Nation in preparation for attending the Episcopal Church's Interfaith Education Initiative Seminar in Washington, D.C. Ms. Eck will be one of the keynote speakers at the seminar, but it will not be the first time I have heard her speak. About the time this book came out, she came to Wake Forest and gave a small lecture to a select group of students (of which I was one) and dined with us afterward. Her book, 81 pages into it as I am, promises to be interesting. In the second chapter, she poses an interesting question: diversity or pluralism? She writes about how a member of the Louisville Interfaith Council challenged her on her use of the word pluralism by saying it was a word which indicated "religious correctness" and the giving up of one's own beliefs and "truth claims" for an unconvincing hodge-podge of nothingness. But, Ms. Eck was not quite ready to give up the term pluralism and said by way of response that "first, pluralism is not just another word for diversity" (70). The particulars boil down to engaging difference (pluralism) rather than simply acknowledging difference (diversity). Pluralism goes beyond tolerance, she posits, and some of the best examples of it have come to us from those in the religious minority: the Buddhists, the Hindus, the Sikhs, and the Muslims. It is an interesting thing for me to think about, this difference in diction. Is a truly pluralistic society like what she describes a possible thing in common America? Is it necessary? Is mere diversity not enough? I am persuaded, not wholly by her argument but by a variety of personal experiences, that diversity is not enough for those who truly want to claim for themselves an understanding and friendship with their religious neighbors. Diversity may be all that can be required of broader America, realistically speaking, but for those for whom it is not enough, there needs to be an avenue for more in depth understanding, true dialogue, and developing friendship. A pluralistic approach seems to me to be one way to go about doing that, and there are certainly many very good examples and models for doing so. What will be important for people to understand, especially people of deep-rooted faith, is that to try a pluralistic approach does not mean having to leave your faith at the door! What the hell good is an interfaith dialogue if we have to check our inmost beliefs with our coats? All that accomplishes is a session of logorrhea that leaves us all feeling mighty good about ourselves without really having done any serious work. No, indeed, a true interfaith dialogue is one where I enter a room, scriptures in hand, to meet my Muslim brother or sister, scriptures in hand, and say how do we understand these differences in light of our common life together? Can they be reconciled? In many circumstances, they will not be able to be reconciled, but they can certainly be better understood and that is a fine thing. The important part will be that we had a serious discussion, informed by our faiths, and advanced the notions that we can live side by side, that we can break bread together, that we can respect the difference inherent in our faiths without intolerance, anger, bitterness, or hatred, and that we can all be American as fully as ever! I believe that you will know you've encountered a true interfaith dialogue not by feeling a spreading warmth and sense of conclusion as you walk out of the meeting hall, but rather by having a head full of new and unanswered questions, a comfortable uneasiness, and a sense of unexplained fraternity that will bring you back to the table even if you are unsure that you're ready to be there again. It is my hope that the conference in D.C. will be such a experience.

-R