Remembrance of the crucified Christ makes [public theology] critical towards political religions and idolatries. It thinks critically about the religious and moral values of the societies in which it exists, and presents its reflections as a reasoned position. But it refuses to fall into the modern trap of pluralism, where it is supposed to be reduced to its particular sphere and limited to its own religious society. Because today these restrictions to one's own particular reserve in Western multi-religious society can be felt everywhere, and are actually welcomed by certain church leaders and theologians, I hope that these contribution may demonstrate and reinforce the public relevance of theology.[emphasis added]
I do not know if Moltmann is being coy here, or ignorant. I do so hope it is not the latter, because the definition he gives of "pluralism" is hardly my understanding of it. On the contrary, liberal pluralism accepts the diverse ways human beings go about the task of living out a fully human life; it also accepts the incommensurability and incompatibility of this variety, and accepts, with sadness, the reality of conflict that will arise because of these differences. The hope that liberal pluralism holds out is that these differences, and the ensuing conflict, can be settled via negotiation rather than violent confrontation.
By defining "pluralism" as restricting Christian theological reflection to a Christian ghetto, Moltmann may be reacting to the on-going marginalization of mainstream Christianity in Western Europe. His position, however, is just not tenable in more vibrantly religious places of the world, which make his apologia for the "public relevance of theology" absurd on its face, whether in a religiously diverse place like the United States, or robust Roman Catholic states such as Mexico (which, ironically, has an even greater constitutional stricture on the place of the church in public life than the US).
While I could be heartened by learning from a different perspective, I cannot move forward because Moltmann's position - that Christian theology needs to fight for relevance in the public sphere - is one I just don't take seriously. For my part, I really don't care that other scholars find theology a joke, or that most leaders don't listen to what the Church has to say on this or that issue. All that really matters is that the Church does say it. The rest, well, that's up to God.
If you begin your argument by spending a whole lot of intellectual energy attempting to prove to other people that what you have to say isn't nonsense, you've already lost. Just say it; if they don't like it, or laugh at it, well they laughed at Noah, they tried to kill Elijah, and we all know what happened to Jesus.
It might also be important, along the way, to not set up straw obstacles like the "pluralism" that Moltmann seems to have invented.
