Thoughts on pluralism

What is pluralism and how do we account for it in Christian public theology?

It was barely a generation after Massachusetts was founded as a “Bible Commonwealth” that Quakers led by George Fox began making their way through the colony and preaching their message of the Inner Light of Christ. Their message, so different from that of the Puritans in  Plymouth, along with their criticisms of exterior religion, was initially met with a type of exile. But as the Quakers returned again and again, the punishments grew more severe. By 1659, the patience of Massachusetts officials had run out. Between the years 1659-1661 “four Quakers were hanged in Massachusetts for sedition, blasphemy, and persistent disturbance of the peace.”¹ 

For us living in the America of 2023, such an outcome is nearly unfathomable. Not only is it difficult for us to imagine a minister receiving corporal punishment for preaching a religious tradition different from the majority, but to be unwelcoming to a person or group of persons strikes us as rude or even unbiblical. It seems that the comprehension and concern about pluralism was vastly different for the early settlers of this country than it is for us. Indeed, how many of us today would even consider the coexistence of Quakers, Baptists, Presbyterians, Roman Catholics, etc. an actual example of pluralism lived out? Aren’t they all just Christians? Isn’t real, actual pluralism the coexistence of Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, atheists, etc? But to avoid violence and promote flourishing, perhaps we should figure out how to think through this thing called pluralism. 

Given these questions, and the accompanying unmentioned hoard that follows, it seems that we have our work cut out for us. Though difficult, such a discussion is certainly worthwhile. For as we discuss our life in common, few topics are more pressing than pluralism. In a country as ethnically diverse, geographically broad, and religiously varied as ours, approaching pluralism in America holds its own unique challenges. But to paraphrase Uncle Ben and the Dalai Lama, and perhaps demonstrate a thin form of pluralistic engagement, with great challenge comes great opportunity. 

 For the remainder of this essay, I would like to offer a definition of pluralism, demonstrate the three different forms of plurality, and outline a sketch of where we are today. 

There seems to be no one set definition for what people mean by the term “pluralism.” It has been used both descriptively and normatively. At times the word is used metaphysically in making claims about ultimate reality. At others it is used to describe the mere existence of a plurality of things in the same space. The Pluralism Project at Harvard University defines pluralism as, “an ethic for living together in a diverse society: not mere tolerance or relativism, but the real encounter of commitments.”² 

Because I believe using the term pluralism as an ethic assumes too much, I would like to simply offer this definition for the  purposes of this essay: a state of society in which members of diverse ethnic, racial, religious, or social groups maintain and develop their traditional culture or special interest within the confines of a common civilization. Since we are considering and discussing Christian ethics and public theology, I believe this definition will be most helpful. 

With that definition in place, we will now turn to three different types of plurality, which together make up  the current pluralism we encounter today. They are: structural plurality, cultural plurality, and directional plurality. This taxonomy is taken from James K.A. Smith in his work Awaiting the King. Since Smith offers a description of each, I will simply quote from him at length. 

Structural plurality “‘refers to the plurality of qualitatively distinct, functionally specific associations, institutions or communities populating a modern society.’ In other words, in a healthy society we will find an array of institutions, associations, and communities--schools, art guilds, labor unions, families, churches, mosques, bowling leagues, and so forth--that make up what political scientists describe as ‘civil society.’ This plurality of social structures is rooted in creational calling. Families and schools and businesses aren’t just ‘good ideas’ that we came up with; they are forged in response to something creation itself calls for.”³

Cultural plurality “refers to the diverse expressions realized in human culture across history and around the globe. The realization of ontological structures like families and businesses takes on different vibes, flavors, and looks, depending on cultural contest. These different expressions can be ‘equally expressive of the potential for human diversity rooted in divinely created potentials’ … The divine calls folded into creation can be unfurled with a different flair in Indonesia or Indiana.”⁴

Directional plurality “names ‘the plurality of religions, worldviews, or other fundamental spiritual orientations’ that animate people and communities in diverse societies. This form of plurality is ‘directional’ insofar as these spiritual orientations and fundamental conceptions of the good direct and govern what we pursue, what we value, and how we act in society - which is precisely why it is this plurality that poses our most fundamental challenge, since it strikes at the very possibility of imagining ourselves having a common life together. We might call this ‘confessional’ plurality. This, as you should expect, is the most challenging form of pluralism for living in common since this sort of pluralism means we disagree about the very shape of the good life.”⁵

As we engage our conversation regarding pluralism, one of the things we will need to come to terms with is the reality that Christians may not treat each form of plurality the same. Our theology of missions does not allow it. 

In our context we face the conflicts of pluralism without an agreed upon ethic. An example might serve us well. In the eighteenth century, Immanuel Kant sat down to work out a system of morality that could be prescribed to all people in all places regardless of place or creed. This work turned into his famous Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals and included the categorical imperative: “act in accordance with a maxim that can at the same time make itself into a universal law.”⁶ Part of his motivation was to provide something universalizable, and not dependent upon one particular religion (the Wars of Religion had ended roughly 83 years before he began this philosophical project). His motivation was pure, in all likelihood, but, as Mark Twain quipped, the streets of hell are paved with good intentions. What we ended up with was one more moral project without aim. One ethic indifferent to the purpose of man. One suggestion among many. 

Kant was not alone in the Enlightenment’s attempt to create a system of morality indifferent to the revelation of the divine. Bentham and Mill had their Utilitarianism as well. One result of this treatment by men like Kant, Mill, and even Hume, is that man’s ethic had been severed from the teleological and so the stories in which we find ourselves. To quote from Alasdair MacIntyre, “the individual moral agent, freed from hierarchy and teleology, conceives of himself and is conceived of by moral philosophers as sovereign in his moral authority.”⁷ And while the philosophers mentioned above may not have preferred a divinely instituted ethic, they understood that the state could not exist without it. For the state needs religion, more than religion needs the state. So it is with ethics. 

In acknowledgement of the three types of plurality outlined above, and the difficulty we currently face, John D. Inazu has promoted what he calls “Confident Pluralism” in his book of the same name–a book written specifically for the American context and in light of the Constitution. We do not need to go into specific details of what such a philosophy entails, but listing three elements for living among “deep difference” is helpful. In the conclusion of the book he writes that Confident Pluralism “requires a tolerance for dissent, a skepticism of government orthodoxy, and a willingness to endure strange and even offensive ways of life.”⁸ These are wise words we would do well to heed with the added caveat that some offenses go beyond matters of taste, to actually offending nature and nature’s God. 

We have not even mentioned plurality within Christianity–that being the various denominations and traditions that are each a part of the Christian faith. We have questions about them. Are they good or bad? A necessary evil or a manifestation of finitude? Which are acceptable and which go beyond the pale? Which one is most right? We might not get to all of these, but they are a part of the discussion. 

Finally, in at least one way the post-Christian West is mirroring the pre-Christian West. As Os Guinness writes, “The explosion of pluralism… makes ours a situation that has not been seen since the diversity of the Roman Empire.”⁹ And so we can take great comfort that the problem facing us is not new, but has been with the Church since the days of Pentecost. From that point on, “Christians have had to think through the nature of their relationship with others. Christians soon multiplied in number across an amazing number of racial and social barriers, constituting a church, a fellowship, a body, that transcended the established categories of empire, ethnicity, language, and social status.”¹⁰ 

With this in mind, and as we engage with those who are different from us, let us not forget that what is most important in guiding us and our discussion is what God has revealed to us in his Word. We can look for help outside the pages of Scripture, but we must never go against what Scripture says. May our ethic be shaped by the Sermon on the Mount; our attitude by the Fruit of the Spirit; and our hope in the promises of God.

1. Mark A. Noll, A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada (Grand Rapids, MI: Williams B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1992), 65.

2. You can read more about Harvard’s Pluralism Project at https://pluralism.org/home.

3. James K.A. Smith, Awaiting the King: Reforming Public Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2017), 135-136.

4. Smith, Awaiting the King, 136.

5. Ibid., 136-137.

6. Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy, trans. and ed. Mary Gregor and Jens Timmermann (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 44.

7. Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue (New York, NY: Bloomsbury Academic, 2013), 62.

8. John D. Inazu, Confident Pluralism: Surviving and Thriving through Deep Difference (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2016), 125.

9. Os Guinness, Impossible People: Christian Courage and the Struggle for the Soul of Civilization (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2016), 45.

10. D.A. Carson, Christ and Culture: Revisited (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008), viii.