The challenge of pluralism

Pluralism is a word that reflects what most of us already know: the makeup of Canadian society is becoming more and more diverse. Minority ethnic, cultural, and religious perspectives are becoming increasingly visible and the trend is likely to continue.

Pluralism is also a word that, for better or worse, helps us talk about questions that are emerging. Is it reasonable to affirm the uniqueness of the Christian faith, given so many options? How should we talk about the claims of Christ in this context? What is our responsibility to our neighbour who may have an entirely different worldview?

Reactions to pluralism vary within evangelical circles. Some see it as the dominant contemporary threat to the purity of the gospel, for it challenges the supremacy of Christ. It threatens to reduce Christ’s claims to one path among many, to simply one more option at the great smorgasbord of religious belief.

For others, this religious climate offers a unique opportunity to make contact and have conversations with people of other faiths. It forces us to rub shoulders with “different” people. It could break down walls of hostility that have traditionally divided us.

Before attempting any evaluation of pluralism, however, we need to understand that the definition of the word is in the midst of a significant shift, one that has serious implications for how we understand our role as a church within this context.

Pluralism as description

Historically the term “pluralism” has had a fairly fixed meaning. It has been used to describe the “fact” of a variety of cultural or religious groups living side-by-side. This reality has been evident in many societies throughout human history and is by no means an exclusively contemporary phenomenon.

It is, however, an especially accurate descriptor within Western countries since these were either populated by immigrants (as in the case of Canada and the United States)* or are currently dependent on immigrants to support declining “national” birthrates (as in the case of many western European countries).

The shift that has taken place is in the origin of the immigrants. Historically, Canada was populated by European immigrants; in 1961, 97 percent of immigrants to Canada still came from Europe.

Immigrants today, however, increasingly come from non-Western backgrounds. In 2004, 20 percent of new immigrants came from Europe and nearly 50 percent came from countries like China, India, Pakistan, the Philippines, Korea, and Japan. In Western European countries the largest trend is toward immigration from Middle-Eastern and North African countries. In both cases the religious makeup of countries traditionally considered Christian is looking more and more diverse.

In the recent Western context, then, pluralism has served to describe the reality of different cultures (and faiths) existing alongside one another in relative peace within a larger political structure. There is no effort to make value judgments about these cultures; pluralism simply describes the reality that they be allowed to coexist peacefully within the same environment. The assumption is that no perspective ought to be given a privileged position within the broader public conversation.

Pluralism as ideology

But the meaning of the word pluralism has proven slippery. In contemporary usage the term has changed from a descriptive to a prescriptive term. Instead of recognizing the reality of different faiths coexisting and agreeing not to harm each other, pluralism has become an ideological position that sees this plurality as something to be approved of, even celebrated.

It is no longer enough to recognize diversity in matters of religious faith. Instead we must advocate that diversity; we must strive to encourage and promote differing religious viewpoints based on the assumption that each one is a valid means by which individual citizens can “find meaning” for their lives.

Lesslie Newbigin has described our context as, “Not merely a society which is in fact plural in the variety of cultures, religions and lifestyles which it embraces, but pluralist in the sense that this plurality is celebrated as things to be approved and cherished” (emphasis added).

This is where many of us, as Christians, begin to feel uncomfortable. We sense there’s something wrong with this view but we’re not sure how to articulate it. Could it actually be that the Christian faith is simply one view among many? Is it possible that our cherished beliefs are merely one attempt to make sense out of the world, an attempt that’s viable only insofar as it enhances our lives and provides us with a sense of meaning?

Worldview or private values?

As with any complex (and potentially controversial) issue, it’s important that we consider carefully what we can affirm and what we find objectionable. Many evangelicals view pluralism as a threat but are unclear on what exactly we are threatened by.

Is it simply that we are increasingly surrounded by people who do not share our basic religious convictions? If so, what would the remedy be? None of us would advocate banning future immigrants on the grounds that they don’t believe the same things we do. This would surely be a gross failure to love our neighbour (particularly when our neighbour wants to join us in hope of finding a better future).

Some of us object to pluralism on the grounds that it is a threat to some of our central theological convictions. Pluralism is an enemy because it challenges our belief that Jesus provides the exclusive way to a restored relationship with God.

In the past we encountered opposition from those who disagreed with our conclusions. Today our neighbours are more likely to express mild interest in our particular brand of spirituality, along with a cheerful indication that they have found meaning elsewhere. Pluralism in this scenario reduces our ability to make truth claims and promote the gospel.

But there is another and more subtle problem with the ideology of pluralism. Perhaps its real danger is how it tempts us to think about ourselves. The hallmark of pluralist dogma is the belief that religion belongs exclusively to the realm of private values. Religion’s business, pluralism says, is individuals seeking to add a bit of sacred meaning to their otherwise secular lives.

This is why it’s so easy to allow for and encourage diversity in this realm – there’s no real possibility that our differences can have any real impact on public affairs. Any religious trespass into the public square is met by howls of righteous indignation, whether from a Christian politician who allows religious beliefs to influence decision-making or a Muslim group that wants to judge disputes according to Sharia law.

Both are decidedly out of order in a pluralist society. The question has nothing to do with religious beliefs in and of themselves, but with the central pluralist assumption that religion has no business answering any question that does not concern an individual’s private spirituality.

British historian Meic Pearse describes the effects this has had on our perception of the role of religion in our context: “Religion as a personal spiritual technique and consolation (like, say, meditation) survives in the West; religious doctrine as a guide to action in the world and to the shape of ultimate reality is considered crazy, even dangerous.”

Could it be that we’ve swallowed a camel while straining out our pluralistic gnats? Have we conceded on the basic question of whether Christianity is an all-encompassing worldview or a spiritual plug-in that accessorizes our otherwise secular lives?

The real danger of living in a pluralist society may have little to do with our efforts at evangelism and still less to do with how our particular faith community fares within the broader arena of religious dialogue.

Rather, this particular historical moment may be offering us a reminder that the Christian vision of the world has always been a comprehensive vision and may not easily accommodate itself to the level of compartmentalization that contemporary pluralism seems to call for.

Some first steps

So what now? How on earth do we begin to make this comprehensive vision a reality? Are there ways we can resist the temptation to restrict our faith to the private, religious corner of our lives?

A starting point might be to ask the question: are there ways our current church culture is reinforcing the private values version of faith that pluralism seems to call for?

Do we, for example, reinforce the idea that “professional ministry” is the ideal vocation for truly committed Christians or do we help people see the spiritual significance of a broad spectrum of career choices? What is our working definition of “ministry”? Does it relate exclusively to church-related activities like preaching, teaching, and evangelism?

Could a conversation with a neighbour at a daughter’s soccer game be ministry even if that conversation makes no reference to “things spiritual”? Could it be that our work is God-honouring when we do it well, not only when we find ways to talk about God with our co-workers?

Is it possible to offer genuine love and care to those around us even while believing they are (at least partially) mistaken on some of the most basic questions we humans face?

These are only a few of the questions that emerge as we consider the implications of resisting pluralism’s private values approach to faith.

In the final analysis, the challenge for churches and individuals living in a pluralistic context is to believe what Christians in all times and places are called to believe: that all of life is meant to be lived in submission to God and that – because of that decision – all of life is spiritually significant.

Gil Dueck is an instructor at Bethany College, Hepburn, Sask. He blogs at Just Wondering.

* Obviously North America was already populated at the time of European colonization and I do not mean to minimize the injustice that took place. Dealing with that issue, however, is beyond the scope of this article. The composition of contemporary Canadian society cannot be explained without talking about the massive European immigration that produced it.