Exclusivism, Inclusivism or Pluralism: where does the Bible stand?

In my Religion 100 class our first assignment was to read 30 or so pages out of a book titled Encountering God: A Spiritual Journey from Bozeman to Banaras by Diana L. Eck. The chapter was titled "Is Our God Listening?" and explains exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism through the lenses of major world religions. Before I can get to my inquiring thought, here's a summary of the 30 pages (keep in mind I have just learned these terms. I am by no means an expert, so I will try to use quotes as much as possible. And I realize this is a longer post, but I think it's necessary):

Exclusivism:
"Our own community, our tradition, our understanding of reality, our encounter with God, is the one and only truth, excluding all others" (168).
"Exclusivism is more than simply a conviction about the transofamtive power of the particular visioin one has; it is a conviction about its finality and its absolute priority over competing views. Exclusivism may therefore be the ideological foundation for isolationism. The exclusivist response to diversity, whether theological, social, or political, is to mark ever more clearly the boundaries and borders separating 'us' from 'them'. It is little wonder that exclusion has been one of the tools of racism and ethnocentrism" (174).

Inclusivism:
"the presupposition [of inclusivism] is that in the end ours is the truth wide enough to include all. Ours are the terms in which truth is stated" (179).
"The Catholic church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in [other] religions. she has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct, the precepts and doctrines which, although differing in many ways from her own teaching, nevertheless often reflet a ray of that truth which enlightens all men. Yet she proclaims and is in duty bound to proclaim without fail, Christ who is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6). In him, in whom God reconciled all things to himself (2 Cor. 5:18-19), men find the fulness of their religious life" (182)
**The main difference definitively between the exclusivist "there is only one right answer, and ours is it" and this apparent admission that parts of other religions could be correct is the following:
"[in Karl] Rahner's inclusivist scheme my Hindu friends are baptized "anonymous Christians" and Muslims are save by the meditation and grace of Christ, even though this certainly violates their self-understanding" (183). In other words, my religion is right, but the Superior Being's love and grace is wide enough to accept/forgive/save those of different religions.

Pluralism:
"Religious pluralism requires active positive engagement with the claims of religion and he facts of religious diversity. . . [it is] the seeking of understanding" (192). Eck asserts that it is not relativism, but it assumes a real commitment to a particular religion. Basically, I may be Jewish but I must realize that my beliefs are founded on my experiences. Therefore, they are true for me. "Matters of truth and value are relative to our conceptual framework and worldview, even those matters of truth that we speak of as divinely ordained" (193). There are type of relativism that deny any concrete religious absolutes (nihilistic relativism) or lack commitment, but Eck asserts that true pluralism has both openness AND commitment. It is based on respect for differences and interreligious dialogue that would bring "mutual transformation".


Here's my quandary: Where do I fit in and where SHOULD the Bible fit in?
I am an exclusivist, because I believe that it is only possible for there to be one truth. Pluralism doesn't make sense to me, because if other religions are correct, than why should I tie myself down to one? Why not learn something from all of them and say "we'll all be saved. It's fine". Not to mention that THIS belief would be the ultimate truth.... BUT I am not an exclusivist, because Eck assigns exclusivism a negative feeling. As if by believing there is one explanation to it all, I will shut myself off from the world, isolate myself, judge others, and not listen to anything they have to say. The language of "saved" and "unsaved" does draw lines, but they are not necessarily walls. Not to mention the fact that they are lines that I believe God alone can draw.

So, in that sense, I am an inclusivist. I believe that because of humankind's common experience (spiritual beings, utter chaos and depravity, need for a superior being, etc) it would make sense for different religions have commonalities. Since other religions could have parts of truth in it, I can learn from them. In dialogue, I could be challenged to pursuit a train of thought I had not explored. Statements like the following make sense to me: "Truth is one, but the wise call it by many names" (a Hindu quote that I agree with: God is Truth, and he has many names. Not only that, but our finite minds cannot comprehend his vastness, so we describe his many facets in many ways).
However, I am not an inclusivist, because while I may be hesitant to draw the line between the "saved" and "unsaved" (completely different topic as to why that's in quotes. Maybe another time.), I believe that a line needs to be drawn. Jesus talks about separating the sheep from the goats--his followers from those pretending. He talks about those who will get to heaven and be turned away. It is clear, according to the Bible, that some will chose to abandon God and will therefore spend eternity apart from Him.
I am a pluralist in the sense that I believe we need to understand other religions, but not just the religions, the people. The Bible tells us to love one another. It says to love our enemies as we love ourselves. So, we need to do more than tolerate differences; we need to love the people. We need to respect them, and we need to talk to them to do so! All of these attributes which seem to be a no-brainer to me (understanding, respecting, talking, etc), are assigned by Eck to the pluralist and no one else. So, according to Eck, I am a pluralism. Except I'm not, because I don't think pluralism makes sense.

So, where does that leave me? I have some exclusivist beliefs, but I think Christians, and all people, should relate to the world in a more pluralistic manner. And yet, inclusivism makes the most sense. But it doesn't. The Bible clearly says that some will perish, but it also says that God is the judge and we are to love each other.
Maybe the answer isn't which category we fall into or which category we should fall into. Maybe it's not Where does the Bible stand? or How can I prove I am right? but rather that the categories are wrong. While helpful to understand worldviews, I don't believe that the categories can actually apply to religious persons. Example: If Christianity falls, let's just say, in the inclusivist category. Than would it be possible for a Christian to be an exclusivist? no. That person would be using an inappropriate label, that of the "Christian". Personally, I think that it's not either/or. Is it either inclusivist OR pluralist? Should I be either an exclusivist or something else? I think it's AND. Christ teaches that there is a definitive right and wrong, but we need to love all with the crazy, selfless love with which he loves us. So, the labels might be helpful to explain belief systems, but it's completely off when trying to describe Christ. and what is Christianity without Christ?