Q & R: You lost me already … Pluralism?

Here’s the Q:
A friend of mine just turned me onto your book, “A New Kind of Christian”.  I’m dealing with grief and depression since the sudden death of my fiance, and my friend and I started talking about faith and religion.  He’s been of faith his whole life so he recommended that book (said it changed his life).  I, however, have always struggled, so I’ve backtracked to “Finding Faith – A Search for What Makes Sense”, but you’ve already lost me.  As you recommended, I jumped to my most burning question and already can’t reconcile your message.  Specifically, your take on Pluralism is to show how that view lacks sustainable logic, more or less.  However, the diagram in that chapter suggests that NO religion has a grasp of the entire truth.  Indeed, it suggests that different religions embrace different aspects of truth.  This is pretty much how I’ve always viewed it….truth/God is a diamond…any one religion is merely a facet of the same jewel.   So, can you please reconcile your diagram with your discussion of Pluralism?  To me, this is a contradiction.
I’m not trying to pick your work apart…I’m trying to overcome the barriers that have kept faith and I on uneasy terms.  This is a time in my life when I need faith, and it stays beyond my grasp.
Here’s the R:
First, please know that my heart (along with the hearts of so many readers) goes out to you … nothing can be said except a thank you for letting me know the context for your question.
Second, thank you for raising this. I wrote Finding Faith (in its various incarnations) quite a while ago, and the terms of conversation have changed a lot over these years since it came out. I think what I was saying there will make more sense if you substitute another term for “pluralism.” What I’m critiquing is not the fundamental truth of pluralism – that we both share, 100% – that no single human group or system holds all the truth, or only truth. What I’m critiquing is the old statement (maybe said a lot 15-20 years ago, but less so now, I hope) that all religions are equally true. This was a kind of popular and somewhat careless relativism that was expressed a lot back in those days for a good reason – to counter absolutism (the idea that one group or system can claim absolute objective truth). That claim, I was trying to suggest, is highly problematic. But as you rightly see from the diagram, I am not a fan of absolutism.
BTW – I wrote a book several years ago to more directly address the kind of pluralism you rightly value. It’s called Why Did Jesus, Moses, the Buddha, and Mohammed Cross the Road? I think you’d find it helpful in addressing this question of how we can in any way affirm any single path when each path is so obviously full of falsehood, and how we can reject any path when seemingly, at least, every path has at least some grains of truth or facets into the diamond, as you say.
These days, with so many Christians in America making harmful and ridiculous statements and defending indefensible actions and attitudes, it’s a good time to reaffirm, as your question implies, that we need a big dose of humility … in the presence of each other, other religions, the mystery of life, and the mystery of God … humility that leads to, not arrogant and ignorant overconfidence on the one hand, and not to paralyzing lack of confidence on the other, but to a gentle, teachable, proper confidence that helps us can live this day, doing kindness, seeking justice, and walking humbly with the mystery of life and God. Thanks again for your excellent question and for the spirit in which you ask it … and again, many hearts go out to you today.
One more thanks … Thanks for so beautifully articulating how so many people feel these days: “… trying to overcome the barriers that have kept faith and I on uneasy terms.”