"Beyond Our Differences"

Bill Moyers Journal aired a documentary on religion entitled "Beyond Our Differences." The film operated from the assumption that all religions have a large degree of commonality and, therefore, we must move "beyond our differences." This religious pluralism is widespread and it is assumed to be the more hospitable approach to religion in a religiously diverse context, particularly given the recent (and not so recent) violence done in the name of religion. In fact, the film was largely a response to this violence.

In the film, Deepak Chopra calls "dogma" and "ideology" the great problems for religion (never mind that this is a dogma itself). These dogmas and ideologies lead to the divisive "my-God-is-better-than-your-God" sort of thinking, says Chopra. At a glance, Chopra's familiar refrain sounds open-minded, peace-inducing, and humble. But there are problems. For starters, all interviewees shared Chopra's assumption on religion. The film did not contain one interviewee who was at variance with Chopra's pluralistic impulse. Sure, there were a range of religions represented (Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc.) but all the adherents were operating from assumptions similar to Chopra. Despite the appearance of diversity, the interviewees were glaringly homogeneous in their religious pluralism. As a result, a significant portion of religious adherents, namely, those believing in some sort of exclusive religious claims, were cut-off from the conversation. A more fruitful discussion would have included religious practitioners that do not presuppose that there are a number of valid paths (Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Sikhism, etc.) to the divine.

Even worse, though, is the religious imperialism inherent in the film. Not only were those maintaining exclusive claims about religion not allowed a voice in the conversation but their views end up being revised by Chopra and others in the film. In the film's relentless effort to maintain religious inclusiveness, it ends up importing its own faith assumptions into the various religions represented. In the film Christianity, for example, is said to be a religion that is just as valid as Buddhism. Many Christians disagree, and for good reasons! To completely neglect those reasons and represent Christianity in this manner is to invade and exploit Christianity to serve one's own idea of what God is like. At the very least, those maintaining more exclusive faith positions are less inclined to tinker with other religions in order to make them fit their preconceived understandings of the divine.

In the end, the film fails to get "beyond our differences" for two interrelated reasons. First, the film stifled diversity because of the homogeneity of the interviewees; they all shared the religious pluralistic inclination. Second, because of the interviewees presuppositional pluralism the film glossed over crucial doctrinal differences between the world's faiths. As a result, any "differences" discussed in the film remained superficial.

The issues discussed in this film are important for Christians to grapple with. With regards to religious pluralism, I have been helped by Tim Keller, Lesslie Newbigin, and Tim Tennent. Also helpful is Stand to Reason. Finally, I have dealt with how our cultural context makes it difficult to maintain the exclusivity of Jesus in a previous post.