Two Faces of Pluralism; or, What does faith look like under conditions of irreducible pluralism?
|
3 May 2009 has been called Pluralism Sunday, when “Progressive Christians thank God for religious diversity!” What we have here is a particular face of pluralism. It is a more limited face that claims that there is one God and many paths to that one God. Or as they put it on the website: “Celebrating the many paths to God.” In another OST post awhile back, I referred to this as a kind of reducible pluralism, where the visible plurality of religions around the world are ultimately reduced to one final destination—all the paths lead to the top of the same mountain, so to speak. While some conservative Christians deny visible plurality by saying simply that all other religions are Wrong, more nuanced conservative leaning Christians take a different stance. They respond to the visible condition of plurality by agreeing that while there may be many paths leading to the top of the mountain—the mountain in question is Jesus Christ. More progressive leaning Christians often respond to limited plurality by saying:
So, conservatives and progressives respond to visible pluralism in similar ways. Ultimately, they reduce pluralism. Conservatives are more exclusive and limiting in their reduction—focusing in on Jesus Christ. Progressives are less limiting in their reduction—focusing in on God. The difference is a matter of degree and not of kind. Both conservatives and progressives reduce the visible condition of religious pluralism to one destination—the question is to what degree of reduction. There is second face of pluralism that presents an alternative response. It is the non-reductionist path, or what John D. Caputo refers to as “irreducible plurality.” On this view, there are many paths leading up many mountains. Ultimately, the visible plurality of religious faiths cannot be reduced—there are many gods. This notion is supported by the biblical text. Throughout much of the OT, including the Ten Commandments, there is talk of ‘household gods’ and other idols that are symbolic of gods that pose a risk to the believers’ commitment to the God of Israel. In the NT, Paul, writing to the Corinthians, says that there are ‘many “gods” and many “lords.’” The question is how to respond to this condition. Why take the visible plurality of religious expressions and then presume or assert that that plurality ultimately points toward the same thing? Why not presume or assert that the plurality ultimately points toward different things? To say that the visible plurality points toward the same thing is a reductionist move that I am uncomfortable with. I am uncomfortable with the move because it fails to see and, in fact, obscures the historical value of others’ experiences and is blind to the possibility the other symbolizes. Perhaps the lesson of the parable of the Good Samaritan is not so much that the Samaritan was following the way of Jesus, but that Jesus saw the possibility and value in the actions of someone who was not following the God of Israel. Instead of reducing visible religious plurality, an alternative move would be to claim that the visible plurality points to many gods that entail many different paths. The visible plurality of religious expressions is irreducible—not everyone is walking toward the same mountaintop. Not everyone is seeking salvation—only Christians are. Buddhists, Hindus and New Agers are after something else that is entirely different. Given this condition of visible plurality and the view that each faith offers a different path toward a different mountaintop: how does faith look from the second face of plurality? Faith is a fearful, trusting commitment that is embodied daily; it is also a generous and open engagement with the others and their expressions of faith that are all around you. We live in a world composed of many gods; my God, our God is the God of Israel, whose only begotten son, Jesus Christ, marks the Way I follow. |
Comments
Re: Two Faces of Pluralism; or, What does faith look like ...
In Old Testament accounts the god of Israel doesn’t get along very well with the other gods. He engages in demonstrations of his superior strength. He carves off pieces of geography as his domain. He commands his followers to insulate themselves from followers of other gods, even to the point of genocide. At some point he claims hegemony: I created the universe and all the other gods who populate it; one day I will destroy that universe and create a new one populated exclusively by my followers.
So, as someone who does not follow the god of Israel, I have reason to be concerned. Has this god been represented accurately by his followers, as documented in the BIble? Has this god subsequently learned to get along better with his peers?
Re: Two Faces of Pluralism; or, What does faith look like ...
I’m wondering if you’re hinting at a fairly radical idea here, Jacob: that a god becomes whoever his followers perceive him to be. If the followers of Yahweh learn to tolerate or even cooperate with followers of other gods, then does Yahweh himself become more tolerant and cooperative as well?
This would be a radically emergent theology, where the theos emerges from the theology. Or perhaps its more bidirectional than that: a god shapes the community of followers, and the community shapes the god they follow.
Re: Two Faces of Pluralism; or, What does faith look like ...
Sorry - YHWH already anticipated this and had it blocked: Malachi 3:6; James 1:17. (Unless of course that’s only what He wanted us to believe . . .)
Re: Two Faces of Pluralism; or, What does faith look like ...
All of this interesting conversation causes me to wonder what kind of acceptance of certain presuppositions and assumptions are being utilized both concerning the points of views themselves and how one should approach the biblical scriptures in the first place. Can we ever really move beyond ourselves to being able to appropriate actual objective truth concerning divine things, or do we never escape our limited, finite and fallible human natures or conditions? I suppose the more open-ended and Progressive stance is probably where I’ll end up in regards to this conversation on religious pluralism. Would this be the case because “I” (that is, all that entails all that I am) am choosing to do so, or because I am merely and purposefully denying the “absolute and unerring revelation of God as found in, say, the more fundamentalist rendering(s) of the Bible (or other sacred writings)?”
I’m being very serious here, for I am of the more open-minded sort, and I have met too many others who really seem to need me to be more like them and just agree with the multifarious possibilities that seem to be rampant from the many schools of elitist conjurings. I don’t doubt anyone’s sincerity in their pursuit of such important matters, but isn’t it possible that the many of the conclusions which have been drawn in our postmodern times concerning God reflect quite a bit of who we are and our exposure to whatever religious leanings we may have grown up with?
How do we get to the bottom of things, or do we?
Re: Two Faces of Pluralism; or, What does faith look like ...
Jacob,
You said, “Hence, we live by faith.” I concur very strongly. Sometimes I wonder if many of us in our contemporary times have really spent much time on just what the nature of faith is really about. You see, so many of the religious people I have interacted with have tried explaining to me that they actually have gotten to the bottom of things, and usually this is demonstrated through an already-agreed-upon set of dogmas or biblical doctrines, creedal affirmations, or systematic theology. But, as I understand faith, there most likely should be some kind of rendering of it proferred that deliniates the difference between “placing one’s trust in” the deity being referred to vs. believing by way of cognitive assent that certain things actually are a certain way, or perhaps created, through whatever means were deemed necessary by the particular proponents suggesting that their brand of absolute and indubitable structure and content of faith is actually the case.
What is so interesting to me is how it is that when we are dealing with such a mysterious and ambiguous Topic, that there are so many people (even within fairly particularized subsets of one religion, and I have Christianity in mind) that are “right” to the point that they become willing to separate from or pronounce condemnation on others who are having quite a difficult time getting to where they are at. Should we surmise that a supposed all-loving God is only letting certain people in on “the truth of things” or waiting around to see just who will figure out what “that truth” actually is so that we may gain acceptance by him?
I’m just throwing stuff out there that I’ve been struggling with. This is a great site and I love the evident encouragement in allowing people to interact with one another in an out-of-the-box sort of way on such important theological issues.
Re: Two Faces of Pluralism; or, What does faith look like ...
Thank you Jacob for your post, not only was it stimulating it was well thought out. I think the underlying supposition of the plurality first suggested by plurality Sunday is “We can grow closer to God and deeper in compassion — and we can understand our own traditions better — through a more intimate awareness of the world’s religions.” I see three main components to this view. First, they are prizing intimacy with God as the highest religious calling. Second, acts of kindness and mercy are the universal goal of religion; essentially transformation of the individual’s character. Third, the first two principles rest on the notion that greater contextual awareness of the world’s religious landscape will aid in the development of relationship with God and godly character. I think once these points are looked at honestly, acknowledging the difference in religious goals makes great sense. It is then easier to see the singularity of the Christian mountain set against the ant hills of other religions.
The first supposition, that intimacy with God is a religious universal, is false. Atheistic Jews do not even believe in God, yet they desire to follow their religious history as a means of keeping grounded to their tradition and ethnicity. Interacting with them, could not possible aid you in your journey for intimacy, because they deny it. There would be nothing to glean from such persons in the way of their practical experiences. What about the Jihadist Muslim who believes entrance into heaven can be gained through acts of violence. What can be learned from a person compelled to act in a hateful manner because they believe God can be reached and honored that way.
The second supposition follows the first, that other religions value morality in the same manner as the Christian. The Hindu who allows the caste system to rule their lives and the lives of those around them would not hold to a universal value of human kind that could relate to Christianity. The morality of the Buddhist who does not take a stance on premarital sex cannot lend advice to the young Christian who is seeking to stay pure. The differences are endless, because the way the “other” person views morality has more to do with how they view God. And if our definitions vary greatly, well then so will our morality, and so will how we view the destination.
The beginning of the Proverbs begins with the admonition to wisdom, and its starting point is this: “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge.” (prov. 1:7) When someone looks at the story of Israel something becomes apparently clear, the God of the Israelites wanted them to have nothing to do with those outside their faith. So much so that on various occasions there was intense punishment for those who did not follow this command. Now of course the path of the Christian is different from that of the Jew, and the need to be in the world lends itself to a different set of rules. But how we come to that conclusion has more to do with how we understand the story line of the NT, rather than how we adopt the reasoning of our culture.
What I see in your writing is an acceptance of the culture of diversity, rather than a faithful examination of the people of God and how they interact with those around them. I think it is fair to say that there is interaction in the NT with those who do not believe, but there is in no way shape or form an acceptance of what the NT authors call “the world” or “worldly people”. Meaning those who dwell in darkness, who have not yet been illumined by Christ and His church. Not only that, but the NT authors deride those who they see as being of the world.
Jude is charging all of those who do not believe in Christ as Lord as being godless men. Not only that but Paul writes in Romans 1 about those who know that the Christian God is true but deny it in their lives:
If that is Paul’s summation of those who deny the Trinity, why would anyone go seeking after them for advice or guidance? My goal is to present a storyline, from the people of Israel to the Church, that is reflected both in the Scriptures and historical documents of separation from those who follow other “gods” and other religions. The reason for this separation is clear; least they come to influence you! Separation is the solution to greater intimacy with God and greater godliness, not collusion. Ultimately the authors of plurality Sunday do not respect the differences and thus undermine their own tradition. It is no coincidence that the NT’s climax is the Book of Revelation, Christ’s judgment is to separate those who believed on Him and those who did not. But it is clear from the climax that not everyone will prance up the same mountain. Behold the vision of Revelation 16:
That does not sound to me like everyone is going to end up on top of the same mountain or that multiple mountains will be coexisting.