Pluralism
Sometimes when I hear Christians defame pluralism, I wonder to myself if they have ever read the Bible. Considering that the Bible is a document that begins its discussion with an entire pantheon of gods, and then, at a much later date, proceeds to inform us that those others were just figments of their predecessors imaginations. It seems likely, that if we were to sit Abraham and second Isaiah in a room they would both deem the other an idiot. When we read Esther it is impressive that God is barely mentioned, yet at other points in the Old Testament God would appear to be involved in even the most minute details of life. Which then are we to assume is right in their attitude?
As for the New Testament we have four separate accounts of Jesus. Most of similarities between them seem to be the result of plagiarism rather than coinciding accounts. And, even insofar as they share the same material, the Gospels seem to have vastly different interests for which they are writing their accounts.
The untold truth is that the variety of interpretations and accounts of the Christian story were amazingly varied. The weeding out process that occurred within "Christianity" took hundreds of years before the process of sifting "heresies" for "orthodoxy" was sufficient to pass on the religion that we all seem to know today. The funny thing is that, quite literally, according to our definitions the earliest disciples, and indeed Jesus himself, were all heretics who erred greatly from proper Christian doctrine. Even Paul on whom all our orthodoxy is based would border on false teaching and be eyed with suspicion. If the Canon contains such conflicting and even contradictory material, imagine what kind of plurality must have existed before the "inferior" books were denied and frequently burned.
At its origins, whether in the voices of the Biblical writers, or in the history of early Christian thought, our faith is a pluralistic faith. That is simply a fact. The Bible itself is a pluralistic document. Granted, it does place some constraints on this, but not many. Many of the voices in the Bible dance precariously close to atheism, and in my opinion this is a vital part of our tradition; a vital part that is too often negated its right to be heard.
Most preachers I've heard malign pluralism appeal to fear in order to rally their congregations against it. Supposedly it makes truth irrelevant and misleads the youth. Granted, it does make it hard to give concrete moral answers to 7th graders. Thus, why the theology of 99% of churches in America has never passed the 7th grade level. I would assume that 30 year olds should be fully capable of handling the diversity of thought that pluralism presents us with, but perhaps on this one issue I am the rare optimist in a sea of skeptics.
.
posted by Joe @ 9.10.08
5 Comments
5 Comments:
Joe,
I'm a little confused about how you are using the word Pluralism here. What definition are you starting from?
Here's a thought:
Preachers and Christians that defame Pluralism are usually doing so out of fear that their "flock" or those that they can influence will not take their faith seriously if there remains other valid options. This unfortunately results in a hyped up heaven hunt sermon that plays out the gruesome consequences of permitting other faiths to exist as expressions of God because they don't get us to heaven.
I'm not a pluralist. I think assenting to an idea that all religions are equal or something like that is disrespectful of all religions. But I also think that the question of are all religions equal etc. etc. is simply asking the wrong question. I try to operate under the assumption that the greatest respect one can give to those who are committed to other faith traditions is friendship. While that might at sometimes look like advocating pluralism, it is really just an admission that those pluralism questions are not mine to answer.
In writing this I didn't feel like getting into the varied definitions, so I left it rather vague, which would make it quite an easy blog to critique.
Personally of late, I have felt that I am increasingly a pluralist, since as I expressed a few blogs down, I feel that I'm as much an agnostic as a Christian. I agree that radical pluralism does potentially cheapen all faiths as Kung (my favorite theologian) is quick to point out. Yet, I've begun to wonder if such devaluation isn't more the result of general social nonchalance towards faith, which may or may not be caused by pluralism.
Pluralism to me is a stance taken that assumes that all faiths are founded on truths and fallacies, and as such no faith is in a 'better' position by which to pass judgment on another. The reason this appeals to me is that, if it doesn't make all faiths equal, it certainly makes all adherents equal. Dialogue is a farce when we approach it with the assumption that one of us (the believers) will be right and the other wrong, since after all we assume more often than not that we will be on the winning side. The idea that we know God and therefore must be right on any issue has horrid consequences. Thus what I said in the blog: within our own Scripture the gamut of conceptions of God is staggering. So, a better paraphrase would be that the Bible represents a vast plurality spiritualities.
Anyway, thanks for the comment, and forcing me to elucidate a rather ill-defined post.
Joe, I liked this post, I thought it was rather tame compared to what I was expecting when I saw the title. And I really like your point that the Bible is a document with many voices from many different perspectives. I think a lot of that is that the Hebrew concept of truth is that it is not stagnant, but unfolding. e.g. polygamy is okay, war is sanctioned, slavery is not condemned, but as history progressed God uses people to lead the charge against these very things.
With that said, I was going to call you and talk about this. I have been chewing on this because of a book I am reading that tries to reframe this whole concept. I just wrote a blog about it, and am awaiting your deconstruction of it. Please be gentle.
Joe, I appreciate your comment, and I have been checking back at your blog for another post. Your fans await the profundity that is labelmeplease.
Here's my thought about your comment, I don't know how possible it is to seperate the two worlds of consumer pluralism and our concept of God/ultimate reality. It's seems that as much as we would like to be able to compartmentalize life it's impossible. And if our primary identities are shaped by consumerism that would shape the way we approach faith. My point isn't that pluralism is evil, but that God isn't reducable to an option.
I'm struggling to understand how this addresses what I've said. Inasmuch as I do follow what you're saying here, I am still at a loss for how we can choose to be rooted in God (contra market/consumer identities) when all those who describe/display how to be God-centered are equally invested in the Empire of Market. As such I find that the God they advocate (whom strangely they often address as "Jesus") just gives them a thumbs up to do whatever they would have done anyway . . . and grants them moral authority as they go.
As such I find this particular God/"Jesus" to be quite optional - and I, like all-too-many of our friends, have opted against him. I am looking for a God who actually manages to give me sufficient cause to realign my identity away from consumer culture, and when I look at churches it is blatantly apparent that God/"Jesus" is not that God. In short, I see churches as a place where the Lordship of Market is more prevalent than in society at large, not less. As such why would I ever opt for their God? (this is not rhetorical, I'm sincere)
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home