Monday, August 06, 2007

Christian Pluralism

I have described myself as a Christian pluralist. I think it's important to say what I mean by that. I do not mean what neil, writing in comments on a thread below said:
But religious pluralism that says "all religions are valid paths to God" is intellectually bankrupt.

Now that is one of the truly stupid things that many people say.

For one thing, to make such a claim is to Christianize other religions. It makes an assumption about other religious beliefs that can be demonstrated as false. Some religions have one God, some have many, some have non at all. To claim that all religions are "path to God" is to reduce the beliefs of others to Christian categories, rather than taking them seriously for and as they are.

For another thing, such a claim assumes that is what religion, specifically Christianity, is about - a "path to God". I'll be honest and say I have no idea what such a phrase means, but it certainly doesn't describe my own faith, or the stated faith of my denomination (the United Methodist Church), so we'll just leave that to one side.

As a Christian pluralist, I believe that all religions are equally valid human expressions of a sense of the depth of reality. There are those, however, probably a majority, who do not adhere to any religious beliefs whatsoever. I believe that, too, is an equally valid way of living one's life. I am not "evangelical" in the sense that I feel it necessary to convince others to live and think as I do. Much of what I write is not so much polemical as it is just me trying to figure things out as I go. I write to make sense for me, not to try and convince other people that I'm right and they're wrong. That's not only highly presumptuous, it implies that I have some key to understanding reality that others are missing. Sorry, but I don't play like that.

I accept and profess the tenets of the Christian faith partly because that was how I was raised, partly because I find it useful for interpreting my own experiences in life, and partly because it reflects my commitment to life outside myself. I can imagine being a Buddhist, say, or Jewish, or Muslim, or Sikh, or even agnostic and still being fully me with the same political, social, and other commitments I have. It just so happens that my life has unfolded in a way in which Christianity has been an aid for understanding my life in a fuller, richer sense. I refuse to make any universal claims for the teachings of Christianity; at the same time, I will defend those claims against those who deride and belittle them precisely because most of the reasons I am a Christian are so personal.

Because I have staked my claim to this little patch of spiritual dirt, I refuse to belittle the religious and faith commitments of those who adhere to other faiths. Why should I? For one thing, I know little about them beyond vague generalities. For another, to say that adherents to other faiths are not just aberrant but actively evading the demands of God ignores the possibility that they're faith commitments may just be true and mine false. I have no assurance that I am right, or that the 2000 year history of Christianity is somehow more true than, say, the five thousand-plus year history of Chinese animism, the 2500 hundred year history of Buddhism, or the 1400 year history of Islam. I am a pluralist out of faithful, intellectual humility.

I refuse to exclude whole sectors of humanity from humanity simply because they live differently from me. How silly is that? I am a pluralist in the broadest sense - while I am committed to a certain way of living, and will defend that way of living against critics who charge me with error, I will also refuse to claim any exclusivity or universality to my own position. That goes for politics, social commitments, and religious belief as well. This isn't "relativism" (to anticipate one possible criticism). It is pluralism. There are multiple, sometimes incongruous, mutually contradictory ways to live a fully human life, and all are equally valid as expressions of a fully human life. Difference is not error. It is always and only just what it says - difference.

10 comments:

Neil said...

Hi Geoffrey,

I meant quite a bit more by my premise than your post noted. I'm ok with differences and I get along great with people from all faiths or non-faiths.

But it is not a wise thing to say that more than one of these religions can be valid when they make mutually exclusive truth claims on essential issues.

For example, we are either reincarnated (e.g., Hinduism), we die once and face judgment (Christianity) or we simply cease to exist (atheism). In a logical universe more than one of these can't be right.

There is plenty of evidence for Christianity and plenty of reasons to want to share the truth of Jesus. I hope you keep searching.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Why search? Good Lord, life isn't about searching for truth. It's about living together as best we can with all the differences and baggage and trying to negotiate those differences. There is no such thing as truth, some metaphysical property that transcends time and space making one set of beliefs correct and all others erroneous. There is only the human commitment to getting along with one another and making the world a bit more tolerable. I have no commitment to truth because it doesn't exist.

Neil said...

Geoffrey, even as you try to dismiss the concept of truth you just made five truth claims. Seriously.

Truth is that which corresponds to reality. You deal with it all day long. You couldn't survive 24 hours without knowing and applying a series of truths. Please don't buy into the false notion that material things have truths and spiritiual things don't.

Jesus said, "Seek and ye shall find." He claimed to be God (and demonstrated that fact to my satisfaction) so I think that is true and valid advice.

Democracy Lover said...

This is another interesting post and thread, thanks Geoffrey (and Neil).

I rather doubt that it can be proven that Jesus actually said "Seek and ye shall find", and virtually all the claims to be God put into Jesus' mouth in the Gospels have been shown to be later interpolations. They are highly unlikely to be his actual words or to be more precise, they are not consistent with the earliest versions of Jesus' sayings.

I rather doubt that Geoffrey believes that material things have truths either, but I'll let him make that case. I will say that if one wants to believe in a "logical universe" and seeks for "evidence" for one or another religious belief, one will only be frustrated.

Scientists continue to postulate logical explanations for phenomena in the universe and every few years, they have to replace those theories with new ones as more evidence becomes available.

There is no evidence that any particular religious belief is "true". Each religion makes claims about the nature of God and the universe that are only "proven" by recourse to the very religious texts that make the claims in the first place.

Parklife said...

Put this conversation next to this post about Art / Truth. Or even this one featuring Geoffrey and Marshall talking about greed. On one had Geoffrey is backhandly accused of supporting material things. On the other, he battles against capitalism. Either way, I dont really see how Neil has "truth". For that matter, its mildly offensive to suggest that western thought or Christians have some sort of superior belief than the rest of the hoards. Most of the time we seem to stumble through life with a false notion of how infinitely important we are.

Neil said...

If you re-read my example about eternal life you'll see that in it I'm not claiming the Christian view is correct. I do think it is correct, of course, but that wasn't the point of the example.

My point was that under no circumstances could more than one of those views be correct (reincarnation, death and judgment, non-existence). Unless, of course, someone is making the claim that when you die "God" becomes whatever you wanted him to be. They would then need to support that new truth claim.

I really don't see how making a truth claim is mildly offensive. You all just made a bunch more and I'm not offended. You think you are right and I think I'm right. Why do people find that so offensive? I find postmodern thinking to be intellectually bankrupt and passive-aggressive in the extreme.

Peace,
Neil

Parklife said...

“I'm not claiming the Christian view is correct. I do think it is correct..”
Yes.. we all noted that you commented about no more than one view can be “true”. But, if anything’s possible… Why not? Even better you present an example. I say, go for it!

“intellectually bankrupt”
Umm...

“passive-aggressive”
But…

“mildly offensive”
Suggesting that only one way is the “true” way is mildly offensive. Esp. when that way happens, just by chance, to be your way. Whatever, I got your point.. and not actually “offended”. I guess baffled by your suggestion that somehow you know “truth”. You don’t seem to allow space for the rest of us. That’s about all I ask. In my experience, people/humans are wrong every now and then:)

Neil said...

Do you realize how you are contradicting yourself? You criticize me for thinking my view is true. But you obviously think your view is true. What is so hard about that? You think it is true that I am wrong. Is that arrogant of you? Should I be baffled that you think you are right? Are you not allowing me any space because you think your view is correct?

If you guys don't think your view is correct, why spend so much time writing about it?

Yes, we are all wrong now and then. I've been wrong plenty of times. But your implication that I'm claiming I'm always right is without merit. It is a truly passive-aggressive way of sounding tolerant and open-minded while not be tolerant at all.

I have plenty of examples to share regarding why I think Christianity is true. But why would I bother to share them with someone who will dismiss everything I say as, "Well, that is true for you but not for me?" I save my apologetics for those who understand the concept that some things are true and some are not.

Parklife said...

"you obviously think"
hugh? News to me. Umm.. just what is my view?

Parklife said...

"why spend so much time writing about it?"
two posts? I think this is for somebody else.

"passive-aggressive"
well I never!

"sounding tolerant and open-minded while not be tolerant at all"
Yes.. your onto me.. just a little trick of the progressives out there. Despite being tolerant.. we're actually not tolerant. See how that works. I like to call it logic.

"why would I bother to share them"
um.. ok. Really, its upto you.

"I save my apologetics"
... Would hate to waste some of your allotted apologetics on lil' ol' me.

"that some things are true and some are not."
Just in this example, youve proven yourself wrong. Ehe.. such is life. My experience has shown that life / time / knowledge is not static.. sorry. Thanks for playing.

Now, this fair trade, organic coffee is just begging for attention.

Virtual Tin Cup

Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay Learn More