Pluralism And Relativism?

[GeorgeW]

Pluralism is good when done right. And just like all potentially good things, it can be done wrong.

If a path isn't distinctive enough to be meaningful, then there's an issue, though it could be a lot of different things. At the same time, tribalism and hard boundaries are at least as problematic.

 

Nick, a couple of questions about this.

 

At risk of putting you on the spot (but knowing that you are careful in what you write), can you cite a concrete example of where pluralism was negative?

 

Secondly, more rhetorically, can tolerance flourish in the absence of pluralism?

 

George

[Nick the Nevermet]

I'll writ more later, but quickly:

 

1) No, but I have for diversity as a negative

2) IMO, yes, but only as tokenism or exitcicism

[JenellYB]

I keep coming back to the idea of "moderation" in all the afore-mentioned sets of dichotomies and aparant opposite polarities. To me, "moderation" represents something quite different from either pluralism or relativism. It is a willingness to find common ground through balance.

 

Yvonne, you used the term "watered-down." And, if I'm understanding you correctly, that is related to what you also noted about having come to feel less comfortable here that you once were, for that there may be such a concern here for offending some other in their differring beliefs, there seems no solid ground upon which to base any belief.

 

Now, I must admit upfront, "watered-down" beliefs, "watered-down religion", are for me, personally, because of some of my personal history, very negatively "loaded" terms. It was used basically to state I am right, and any departure from what I beleive is right, is departure from "rightness," So with that said upfront, I am going to try to speak to them in as reasonable manner as I can, please forgive if any of the negative connotations those terms hold for me taint it.

 

It seems to me in refering to "watered-down', we are not talking about, or thinking about, respect for the idea that we may not ourselves hold the only "right" beliefs, that our own positions might legitamately be moderated by things we haven't fully considered yet, but rather that those we hold are, in their purest form, "the only" or the "most" right ones, and any departure from the full strength of them is toward weakness. I may be misunderstanding, but this seems you are expressing some level of belief that while you may be willing to accept some other's "failure" to hold those right beliefs strongly enough, willing to accept some degree of "weakness" or "error" in others and their beliefs, you are not granting that those other ideas just might be as valid as those you are holding in that light, and not error at all.

 

As a real example, I was raised in a culture that absolutely condemned such things as divorce and remarriage, considering remarriage even as adultery. When my life life took the turn it did early on in an early unwed pregnancy, early brief and turbulent marriage, and later remarriage, to raise my 4 children, 2 from my first and 2 from my second, that religious tradtion and culture rejected me. As times changed a bit and I discovered not all churches or Christians were so totally condemning, accepted there are circumstances that happen in people's lives that make the 'ideal' not always possible, those of that 'old school' considered those moderated ideas to be "watered-down" versions of their pure religious truth.

 

When we think of something "watered-down", we think of something of a pure strength that has been diluted, made weaker, less. We don't think of that something else being just different, and perhaps even as good or strong as that being "watered down." To be "watered-down" suggests to me an adulteration of the purity of simething with nothingness, making it a weaker version ofwhatever the pure "good stuff" was we started with. Example, if we mix pure orange juice with an aqual part of water, or pure pineapple juice, with an equal part of plain water, we have "watered down" juice of which ever variety. But, if we mix equal parts of pure orange juice and pinapple juice, we haven't "watered down" anything, we still have full strength juice, and quite a tasty blend of flavors that doesn't dishonor either original in the mix.

 

I see being open to considering ideas and beliefs other than what I've held, or hold now, and any moderation and/or adjustments I may make accordingly, not as watering-down my "original" beliefs, but growing toward a more full-bodied and even stronger belief system.

 

Jenell

Edited November 24, 2011 by JenellYB

[Nick the Nevermet]

Nick, a couple of questions about this.

 

At risk of putting you on the spot (but knowing that you are careful in what you write), can you cite a concrete example of where pluralism was negative?

 

Secondly, more rhetorically, can tolerance flourish in the absence of pluralism?

 

ok, I'm in between festive activities with family, so I can type

 

To answer the first question, I can rely on three scholars: Robert Putnam, Morris Fiorina, and Rodney Stark. In different works, all three come to a similar conclusion: increased diversity involving distinct groups does not necessarily lead to toleration and acceptance. Stark wrote a book about American religiosity where he argues that America experienced a higher level of religiosity precisely because we had countless denominations (and no established church) competing with one another for members. As a general rule, this competition lead to sharper dividing lines and a stronger religious identity than it did in Europe. Multiplicity of faiths may mean the lack of domination by one, but Stark suggests it may make people dig their heels in a bit more. (You'd like this book; his data is amazing)

 

Morris Fiorina wrote a chapter for an edited volume where he partly questions the standard (and generally true) story that the more people are civically engaged (vote, volunteer, join clubs, etc.) the better off both individuals and society seem to be. The problem is that this isn't a perfectly good story. He points out that getting involved in politics may create stronger divisions in society as people become opposing activists. So, if there is an active pluralism (as opposed to a pluralistic society full of sloths?), there is a possibility of stronger division & conflict. He uses anecdotal evidence to illustrate the point, but it's not the most empirical article ever.

 

In Bowling Alone, Putnam makes the argument that democratic society (at least the American version) runs of civic engagement. Civic engagement creates non-work based "social capital", the amount of connectedness in a society. More connectedness is useful, as it not only gives you more specific contacts, but societies with high levels of social capital tend to have higher levels of trust, and that's useful for a lot of things. So far, so good.

 

One thing he doesn't emphasize that much in Bowling Alone is the difference between bridging and bonding social capital. In short, bonding social capital creates a unified community, and bridging capital connects disparate communities together. This means one can envision situations where there is high bonding but low bridging, societies where there are strong communities, but a deep distrust of non-members. Diversity, by itself, does not seem to necessarily create bridging capital. In American Grace, he apparently explores this theme more, and worries that as diversity increases, society needs to actively try and establish more and more bridging capital, or else people will simply retreat to their one neighborhood and only trust "their own kind", whatever that is.

 

None of this is about pluralism exactly, but it is about diversity. And I suppose pluralism = diversity + sufficient bridging capital, which would mean that tolerance is also a product, rather than a causal variable.

 

This of course begs the question what in our society creates bridging capital, and I'm not sure, though I assume a pessimistic stance is safer.

[Nick the Nevermet]

Good post, Jennell. Toleration and inclusiveness does not necessarily mean a weakening of community.

[JenellYB]

Nic, you present some very valid ideas, and I'm familiar with at least the first 2 authors you mention...what you present in your post about diversity actually creating polarization and strengthening of cultural'religious distinctions with communities was one of the various perspectives covered in a Religious Studies course I took, "Clash of Civilizations." (core text was Huntington's book by that name)

When diversity and increasing contact between cultures and religions create a sense of various groups "losing distinct identity",they tend to become MORE fundamentalist and extremely devoted to cultural/religious traditions of their own cultures. Another excellent work in this direction, from a different perspective than we are as Americans more accustomed to, that, I was introducted to connected to that element of unrest in the world is "The Clash of Fundamentalisms- Crusades, Jihads and Modernity" by Tariq Ali.

 

Jenell

 

Nickposted" "ok, I'm in between festive activities with family, so I can type

 

This is a somewhat different and relaxing afternoon and evening for me in connection to the holiday, as well...I'm doing a major part of the cooking for Thanksgiving dinner here, to transport to one of my daughter's homes in the morning, sparing her most of it as she get her home ready for our family to descend upon tomorrow...So I'm typing here between putting this and on to cook, checking and stirring, in my little house all cozy warm with delicious smells and heat from the kitchen.

Edited November 24, 2011 by JenellYB

[Nick the Nevermet]

Yeah, there is a whole mess of other factors at play in these situations, and I'd look sideways at anyone who claimed to have made an effective predictive model.

 

Also, to be clear about something: I like tolerance. I support religious diversity in our society, multicultural concerns in the classroom, etc. I don't want anyone to take my empirical statement that diversity is challenging as a moral claim that diversity is somehow wrong.

[JenellYB]

Nick, exactly. The perspective of that course, by the way, as the subject was handled, was that although Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" was our core text, the instructor drew in texts from many other perpectives, ( that course holdsthe record for number of "required reading texts"--there were NINE of them in addition to Huntington's text!) to present a well rounded and well constructed argument AGAINST Huntington's conclusion. While Huntington focuses on "fracture lines" between cultures and religious tradtions as "source" of division and conflict, and something of an atheistic pessimistic view of the role and future of religion, that course theme was actually about how it might be that the solutions come from WITHIN religions themselves, from common ground in love, human community, to overcome those differences....

 

Jenell

[Neon Genesis]

 

To answer the first question, I can rely on three scholars: Robert Putnam, Morris Fiorina, and Rodney Stark. In different works, all three come to a similar conclusion: increased diversity involving distinct groups does not necessarily lead to toleration and acceptance. Stark wrote a book about American religiosity where he argues that America experienced a higher level of religiosity precisely because we had countless denominations (and no established church) competing with one another for members. As a general rule, this competition lead to sharper dividing lines and a stronger religious identity than it did in Europe. Multiplicity of faiths may mean the lack of domination by one, but Stark suggests it may make people dig their heels in a bit more. (You'd like this book; his data is amazing)

 

 

 

I'm not sure I agree that more diversity leads to greater intolerance and I don't think America would be the best example to use to prove the case. While America may have a high amount of religious diversity, that diversity is mostly of the fundamentalist Christian variety so it's not surprising that a greater amount of fundamentalist diversity leads to a greater increase in intolerance. But compare the U.S. to a nation like Canada where the majority of Canadian Christians accept evolution as a scientific fact and believe in universalism and Canada has far lower rates of crime than the U.S. and is far more progressive in regards to equal rights for minorities. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that an increase of diversity with fundamentalist religion leads to greater intolerance but not necessarily an increase in diversity of moderate religion.

[Yvonne]

I respectfully must disagree - and perhaps "watered down" was a poor choice of words.

 

I am tolerant. I have very dear friends who worship as Muslims, Budhists, and Hindi. I am NOT saying my brand of Christianity is has the exclusive truth. What I am saying is that I do not feel that I should have to eleminate the terms God, Trinity, or Christ in my worship because I DO believe in God, Trinity and Christ. I think when our worship becomes too ecumenical (is that a better word than watered down?) we lose some of our identity. That is has happened to me. I listened to so many voices, I lost my own. I am not being exclusive or elitist. I am being me.

[Yvonne]

Just to clarify - I have nothing but respect for other religions - and when I was married to a Muslim, we celebrated our commonalities.

[JenellYB]

Yvonne wrote: " I think when our worship becomes too ecumenical (is that a better word than watered down?) we lose some of our identity. That is has happened to me. I listened to so many voices, I lost my own. I am not being exclusive or elitist. I am being me."

 

Yes, I think it is, if I'm following what you are trying to express.

 

I had to ponder "ecumencial" a bit here, revisit definitions and applications, as well as implications of this word socommonlyused, and yet so often in different and even conflicting way. In one sense of its meaning, " worldwide or general in extent, influence, or application" I am brought to think about how that is even possible to apply to reality, with so many different cultures, societies, real-world differences in how people must live and function in their particular environment and circumstances. I can only reconcile that meaning with something that must be very elemental, a very foundational building block, that it can effectively underlie so many different structures. It is something "ground up" in nature. Something basic, underlying all,that is the same, upon which are constructed different "buildings."

 

In another sense of meaning, " a. of, relating to, or representing the whole of a body of churches,

b: promoting or tending toward worldwide Christian unity or cooperation " I percieve the opposite, that of a "top down" concept, that must be all embracing,under one umbrella. Something that represents a whole, that upon closer examination ismade up of many parts.

 

What really catches my attention is that "unity or cooperation"," Unity is not synonmous with homogeniety. Unity is varous parts fitted together to make up awhile, not blended into smooth sameness throughout. Neither is cooperation synonymous with every part marching in lock-set, doing the same thing at the same time in the same way. Cooperation is different, but complimentary actions that together achieve what none alone can. As analogy, whatever I may be doing at any time, each part of my body, my left hand and my right, my left foot and my right, my head and my back and my hips and everything are all doing very different things, moving in different ways, and yet, all my body parts work together to accomplish whatever my intended action is.

 

But I also know it was not always so. As an infant, I had to discover each body part, and what each was capable of doing by itself, long before I would be able to begin coordinating the actions of all those different parts so as to get more than one of them working together to accomplish something that required them to carry out their different actions in a coordinated manner. It took a long time for each of those different body parts to realize they couldn't just do whatever they wanted to, autonomously, whenever they felt like it, without regard or consideration for what the others were doing. Just as my legs, for example, were learning how to support my body weight so as to stand up, if my arms decided to express my excitement by flinging themselves into the air, pulling my hands from their grip on the coffee table, we all went tumbling!

 

As all my different body parts learned and accepted coordinating with the whole of me, to work together, none of them by that lost their distinct identity as separate body parts.

 

In the analogy to ecumenicalism, my various body parts do not have to become just like one another, and function just like one another, carry out exactly the same functions and actions as all the others. In fact, for the sake of "me", as I am the "whole" these different parts both make up (ground up) and at the same time, they are the component parts of "me" (top down).

 

Is this making any sense?

 

I have experienced, in matters of religion, I think, something like you mean, Yvonne. Yes, I can remember a time when it seemed my "old identity" as a believer of a certain of religious ideas that were really all I'd ever known, was being lost, a kind of death, really, of a major part of who/what I had percieved myself to be, it did at times feel like I'd "lost it all." I've mentioned before of a time when if I hadn't found any kind of Christianity other than what I've known, I was to a point of becoming no longer a Christian at all. And to be honest, I still at times have to deal with some of that, re-establish some of my "ground of being" so to speak. Further, there came a point at which I could also no longer accept that if being a Christian was the only way one could know or experence God, then I couldn't continue being a Christian, either.

 

I was learning, and hope to continue learning, that I am not just a hand, or a foot, separate and autonomous from the rest of the body, which is the whole I am just a part of, which is all humanity, all being. I have to respect the importance of other body parts. But I can still be a hand, I don't have to make myself over into a handfootarmlegheadbacketc homogenous lump, either. Together, cooperatively, we can do things none of us can do alone.

 

Jenell

[JenellYB]

Yvonne, you posted the last whileI was typing the above. You and your husband, a Muslim, learned to find and celebrate your commonalities. That is good. But learning to find the cooperation between your differences I think is equally good.

 

Jenell

[JosephM]

I am tolerant. I have very dear friends who worship as Muslims, Budhists, and Hindi. I am NOT saying my brand of Christianity is has the exclusive truth. What I am saying is that I do not feel that I should have to eleminate the terms God, Trinity, or Christ in my worship because I DO believe in God, Trinity and Christ. I think when our worship becomes too ecumenical (is that a better word than watered down?) we lose some of our identity. That is has happened to me. I listened to so many voices, I lost my own. I am not being exclusive or elitist. I am being me.

Yvonne,

 

I think you have a healthy attitude toward your friends. I also think you are entitled to keep the terms you are comfortable with in your worship. Perhaps worship is best left more of an individual thing rather than becoming so ecumenical as a group that it loses its meaning to us personally.

 

As far as us losing some of our identity, i think that identity is more in content than context and perhaps might not be a such a negative thing as one might suppose. After all , in a search for meaning, one in my view must eventually or inevitably gravitate toward that which is common in us all. In doing so , it seems to me that there is naturally an identity shift to that which is more permanent and cannot be lost and a fading away of any fear of loss of identity to that which can .

 

Just some related thoughts from your comments,

Joseph

[BillM]

I listened to so many voices, I lost my own.

 

That's been my experience also, Yvonne. Metaphorically, when I was in conservative Christianity, I was expected to chant in unison (not to have a difference of opinion or interpretation); then when I went to the other extreme into liberalism, my voice was so small as to be insignificant. Or, to put it another way, conservativism claimed to have all the truth and liberalism claimed that there wasn't any such thing.

 

Although I sometimes talk about the subject of truth here on the TCPC forum, I make very few (if any) actual truth claims about my faith. Rather than talking about my faith being true or right, I would rather talk about it being meaningful. In other words, I find enough meaning in it that I feel it is worthy of building my life around. But then, obviously, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. feel the same way about their faith or path. As long as people in these other religions share with me what is meaningful to them, I enjoy the conversation. But when/if they start with truth claims, I will shut down from my end of the conversation. My view of truth is that it can only be apprehended, not fully comprehended.

 

A real world example of this is that I was asked to author a blog for Christian deism a couple of months back. I was happy and eager to do so. But then the "organization" that was going to sponser it (financially) insisted that I believe that Jesus was a deist, that I hold this to be a truth claim. I couldn't agree to that truth claim any more than I could/would agree that Jesus was a Republican or a Democrat or even a Christian. Jesus was a faithful Jew (as far as I can tell) and Judaism and deism are, obviously, somewhat different. Deism is, to me, a reasonable and sensible religious philosophy, but I just couldn't squeeze Jesus into that package. Jesus is simply too open to interpretation for any one group to claim to own him (including Christians).

 

I suspect that, in relation to what you said, even Jesus had to find his own voice. He didn't take the voice of the Essenes that said that what God wanted was for his people to withdraw from (as they saw it) the compromised Judaism of the first century. He didn't take the voice of the Zealots that said that God's messiah would take up a sword and a war horse to slay God's enemies. He didn't take the voice of the Pharisees that said that what God wanted from his people was slavish obedience to the Law and the Prophets. And he didn't take the voice of the Sadducees that said to compromise with the rulers in order to just get along. He found his own voice which spoke of God's love for everyone, even for enemies, and that it was only love, not violence or hate, that could overcome evil. Amazingly (or maybe not so), the early Christians claimed that Jesus' voice was the voice of the Father, of God himself. They found enough meaning in that voice that they built their lives around his words, even if it cost them their lives. And I think that voice continues to speak today.

 

But I also believe that voice calls for a response. It calls for an echo. It calls for us to find our own voice wherever we are in life. It might even sometimes call for, in a very humble way, for us to "speak for God" where there is so much noise that people just aren't listening. But we have to be aware of the cost of doing so. It may get us crucified. And that voice often calls for action. Otherwise, all we are doing is repeated empty phrases. Although I find metaphysical interpretations of the doctrine of the Trinity to be nonsensical to me, I can certainly agree that God's voice seeks incarnation. We, like Jesus, become God's wisdom "in the flesh" to our hurting and hopeless world - to our families, to our friends, to our workplaces, to our societies. And we continue to find God speaking to us today through the voice of others. It brings meaning and hope to our lives. And that is when I think Christianity is at its best.

[JenellYB]

i think this is much on the concept of finding one's own voice, WD notes, as Jesus himself demonstrated. And yet, of His own voice as he spoke it, wasn't just a disconnected "meism", but grounded in certain foundational core values.

 

Any of our "worship" is our way of contexting the core foundational values we may share, but express in different forms, If liturgy and formalized rituals and services are the outward expressions that move us into reverence forthe sacred, or more exhuberant celebrations, or quiet time for reflection, they are merely forms of expressions, not what is being expressed.

 

As for "believing in" any particular representation of underlying elements, such as Christ or the Trinity, we can recognize that those are merely the way in which for us we've conceptualized in a way our mind can contemplate, what underlies them. Even using such terms as Christ and The Trinity, there is far from any consistent, unified belief in just what those things actually are....doctrines of Christ and The Trinity vary widely and signficantly even among Christians.

 

To me, for example, I percieve The Trinity as (God The Father) the ground of being out of which our existence emerges, (Holy Spirit) as the activating and animating principle working within that existence, and (God the Son) the expressed existence that is "created", manifested, as the result of those.

 

And I think what underlies those terms are often present in other beleifs systems as well, just categorized differently and called by other words.

 

Jenell

[soma]

Bill thanks for making me think.

 

Pluralism tells me that isolation in the flavor of an ideal is no longer a possibility. For me to have a deeper commitment to the Christian faith and to be in Christ in my own experience I need other people, different ideas, theologies and beliefs. I see the buffet of differences as opportunities given by God. I see spirituality collapsing the old forces of domination. I was captured and enclosed in the old forces of domination like most people in Christianity. It was the first level of my spiritual experience so I had to break out with mythology of expression, which is nonverbal, I then saw the Bible in a different light cast as a myth in the form of narrative. Mythos brought me to the logos in the uttered word and the word remaining within. Now, I had to analyze other mythologies in my culture and religion and in others. This relativism of differences lay bare the roots in my experience and the differing truth claims of others.

 

Traveling I saw that most values are specific to a person’s culture so I had no right to impose the values from my culture onto any other culture or person. In my relativism I could not tell anybody or any culture that their traditional values were false. I saw that the cultures, religions and philosophies that had imprisoned me regarded themselves as the chosen people, the real people, and referred to everyone else as wicked, miserable, treacherous or sub-human.

 

In silence I found the answer to the question I was looking for in dialogue. This silence was not a state of emptiness, but the fruit of my dialogue in which a fresh awareness of the presence of God sharpened and focused the similarities clarifying the common aspirations and common origin in the one God. The differences were not dissolved, but regarded as a mutual good, something necessary for me to experience the here-and-now in the absolute God of my life. I cannot love my neighbor as myself if I make my place higher. God is the unique place where my neighbor and I have common characteristics, consequently the one place that enables me to love my neighbor as God loves without any attempt at molding him.

[JenellYB]

I'm thinking 'pluralism' and 'relativism' might not be so much at different ends of a spectrum, so much as a set of spectrums existing in a perpendicular relationship to one another. If represented on a mathmatical type graph, 'pluralism' as on X axis, 'relativism' as on Y axis, it might be represented in graphing linear equations to locate various points of XY intercept.

 

The relativism axis would be most involved with the development of tribalism, for instance, as as any individual community/group organizes its society in ways that are best adapted to successful survival of the community as a whole and harmonious function within in, in the particular environmental conditions of its existence. It is to be expected as well that even in meeting challenges common to any community, any particular group may do so in different ways, but always however particular single challenges are met must coordinate with ways different challenges are met, so that the result is working as a whole.

 

The pluralism axis would be where various individually developed group, or social unit, exists of a field relative to any others. As long as great distances, where geographically or culturally, separate each distinct unit, there is little interaction or potential for discord between them. When that distance is reduced, two or more distinct units, "tribes", come into closer contact with one another, overlapping to share some of the same ground, or same point on the point of intersect on the XY axis, each is going to effect and change the dynamics of functions within the others' group.

 

This is often a source of considerable discord and dysfunction in the interaction with different groups, when two or more groups that evolved independently of one another begin to mingle and co-habit. The practical social function a certain practice holds within one group may not effectively serve the same function in another, because the effective function or any part is coordinated to the whole. Problems arise for individuals within each group as their accustomed practices, behaviors, responses to those of others, are percieved and responded to differently by those accustomed to a different social structure.

 

A commonly understood example of that was the problems when indigneus peoples of the Americas encountered those of European cultures. Core cultural differences, such as about communal sharing vs exclusive ownership control of property and resources, matriarchal vs patriarchal family and community structures, created major discord and obstacles to comunication and successful co-existence. Because there were simply too many and too great differences in not only how each culture functioned within itself, but in how the percieved appropriate interaction with and between other social groups, there was simply no ground for pluralistic co-existence. There was too little that was shared in common between the different cultures, to allow them to co-exist on the same geographical ground.

 

Jenell

[JenellYB]

Cont from previous...Within our own culture/society, as within many, multiple sub-cultures and sub-societies have developed and exist both at once on a Y axis, individually adapted to its position within the overall cultural/socio-economic structure of "America" as a larger construct, and in proximity to and relationship with other sub-cultures/sub-societies, on an X axis.

 

These sub-cultures/sub-societies exist as distinct units, realitivisms, in adaptation to the particular set of envrionmental condtions within which they have developed. These different envrinomental conditions, presenting a variety of challenges, range from differences in economic and educational resources, lifestyles and income bases ranging from rural/agrarian, industrial, merchant, property owning business, to working class, Each of those classes, for example, working class, are usually further subdivided according to levels of education and skills, social prestige, and income levels.

 

To address specifcally religion and church communities, relative to this line of consideration, I think we miss something very significant when we see differences between denominations and even individual churches within any particular community, as based upon, rooted in, or resulting from, differences in "religious beliefs" per se, ie, theological. I don't think people within a community graviate toward certain churches for how the theological traditions there conform to their own theological beliefs, but rather toward those in which the members of the congregation are similar in their own socio-economic sub-cultural group.

 

I also do not think the particular set of commonly accepted or tradtional theological posistions and doctrines shape the values and beliefs of the people of the congregation, but rather the reverse, the sub-culturally instilled values and beliefs systems shape theology and doctrine. The ways any particular congregation express their religious ideas and values reflect more their real-life socio-economic, sub-cultural group than an overarching theology. Interaction and common fellowship between congregants tend more along those socio-economic, sub-cultural standards than any unfied doctrinal position. Culturally, socially, economically, and politically liberal communities create churches with common doctrines, practices, and interests considtent with their sub-cultural class, the same is true at the church down the road made up of those that are steeped in traditions of a culturally, socially, economically, and polically conservative sub-culture. ie, churches do not create, shape, conform people to a set of doctirnes and beliefs, and values, but the reverse...people of a shared set of common doctrines, beleifs, and values create a church that conforms to who they already were.

 

I think this very much underlies how we might view "catholic" in a sense of "universal" church. The issue is not really rooted in trying to find a plurality between different religious beleifs, but different socio-economic and cultural groups. Consider in NT testament references, particularly the writings of Paul, that individual churches were referenced by geography only. The church at Rome, the church at Corinth, etc. Not churches but the church. There was not one church over here in the upper-class merchant neighborhood, another over there in the common laborer quarters, nor one over here for the Greek community, another over there for the Roman community, etc. Just as in the communal church as Jeruselum, all elements of society cooperated within one church community, without division between rich or poor, priveledged class or under class. This meant all worked together the meet the needs of all. And that's the crux point of our social justice issues now, both within and without the church.

 

Jenell

 

Jenell

[Hornet]

There is a kind of pluralism called "religious pluralism", which says that all religions are equally valid as ways to God. If this is correct, then there is no good reason to do evangelism.

[Yvonne]

There is a kind of pluralism called "religious pluralism", which says that all religions are equally valid as ways to God.

 

True, and this is something I've been discussing with my "spirit partner" (a good friend who is also PC). I do not say that my path is only right path. I have borrowed a bit from other religions (particularly Budhism and Jewish mystics) I cannot say, however, that all religions are equally valid. Does that make me less of a PC? Pluralism at its best is inclusive, it challenges us, it helps us learn and grow. Yet I cannot help but go back to my previous sentiment - pluralism, if that's the right word for it, at its worst, can cause entropy. Yes?

[GeorgeW]

As is common in discussions such as this, there are different definitions and understandings. The following seem to have some common ideas.

 

My Merriam-Webster defines ‘pluralism’ as follows: "A state of society in which members of diverse ethnic, racial, religious, or social groups maintain an autonomous participation in and development of their traditional culture or special interest within the confines of a common civilization."

 

Nick (in #2 above) says, "Pluralism is the acceptance that those who differ from you have a right to their difference, even if you disagree."

 

Neon (in #4 above says, "Pluralism accepts that everybody has different opinions, beliefs, and cultures and we can all co-exist with each other in spite of our differences."

 

All of these have some important similarities; difference, commonality, acceptance, co-existence. None express ideas about equality or hierarchy.

 

George

[JenellYB]

I think these definitions of pluralism ignore the interconnection between religion, cultural and social practice. Of it were merely a matter of each different group observing and practicing their religion behind the doors of their churches, synagues, whatever designated sacred places, and their own homes, that works. But people go out into daily life, acting out of that intertwined mix of religion, cultural and social practices, and there is going to be discord between how one groups accustomed behaviors and attitudes interact and even interfere with those of others.

 

To use the example I mentioned above, of pre-European native culture and society, particularly as it existed in North America, ideas and practices pertaining to differing views toward property ownership and control and distribution of resources were entirely interwoven with spiritual and religious beliefs. Co-existence with respect for the different cultural traditions and beleifs simply was literally not possible.

When we consider religious pluralism based on mutual acceptance and respect for different religions, for example, that very idea infringes upon some very core beliefs and practices of those in evangelical oriented traditions....going out and trying to convert others is an intregal part of their religion and religious tradtions.

 

Jenell

[BillM]

You guys make me think, a good thing at my advance age and limited 256k of RAM (very volatile memory that dumps every night).

 

I would use an cosmological analogy.

 

Relativity is like our universe - there is no "center" or "middle point". Things are flying away from each other, but distances and relationships are only relative to each particular object without any central anchor.

 

Pluralism is like our solar system - there is a center, the sun, around which everything revolves. Nevertheless, no two planets are exactly alike. Similarities? Yes. But lots of differences also. It is not that one planet is wrong and that another planet is right, it is just that they all circle a central reality that keeps them together and sharing some commonality without losing their individual distinctivinesses (is that a word?). Therefore, distances, speeds, mass, etc. is usually made in reference to the central point, the sun.

 

In religion and philosophy, relativism would then be the notion that there is no center or anchor. Nothing is really tied together by anything else and, therefore, the only meaning to be discovered is within that religion or philosophy itself for its adherants and it really has no impact on anything or anyone else.

 

Pluralism would then be the notion that there is some kind of center or anchor. There is something Bigger or Larger or Transcendant that ties things together without making them uniform. Though they have internal meaning, they are also part of a larger Picture which can be discussed an appreciated from different points-of-view. Now, as to what, in pluralism, this center or anchor or Bigger might be, I'll leave that to you professional theologians and philosophers to figure out. It's getting late and I have to go take a brain dump so that I can have enough memory available to both walk and breath tomorrow.

 

As always, my opinons are relatively pluralistic.

[Neon Genesis]

There is a kind of pluralism called "religious pluralism", which says that all religions are equally valid as ways to God. If this is correct, then there is no good reason to do evangelism.

If you define evangelism as merely being "agree with everything I say or else" then yes, that form of popular evangelism is meaningless. But if we define evangelism as fighting for social justice and focusing on good deeds instead of right beliefs as in the gospel message of the liberation gospel, then evangelism is still an important duty for Christians to do regardless of what happens to us when we die.