Christian flourishing in a pluralistic setting

[public hermit]

The Roman Empire certainly had pluralism. But how did Christianity relate to it?

There are, I think, differing approaches to how we related to the world. which to some extent correspond to differing understandings of the Gospel:

• Christ came to save the world. Our job is to serve others and reconcile people to Christ.
• Christ came to save us out of the world. Our job is to maintain our purity in a corrupted world.

Both elements are there in the NT, and in most Christian practice. But I think historically the emphasis has been on the second. Most movements, whether religious or political, maintain member commitment by setting themselves up in opposition to outsiders, in a war of light against darkness. It's far from clear that a mass movement like Christianity can maintain itself without enemies. Indeed when there weren't obvious enemies outside, the Church found them inside, making war on heretics and other unacceptable Christians.

Versions of Christianity that take the first approach have found it hard to retain members, as the boundaries with more humane portions of the outside culture become pretty weak.

I don't disagree with your historical analysis, but I do reject the unspoken premise that we can't do it differently, and do it better. In significant ways, this is an unprecedented time. I see no reason why our Lord can't bring about unprecedented change within the Christian community. How are we going to have a living hope that we assume will actually be realized, and yet doubt that we can embody something new (and yet, always old) in this sorry old world?

There have been seminal events that have changed the face of Christianity in this world, e.g Constantine, the monastic reforms, the Reformation. What the authors are suggesting is not terribly outside the realm of live possibility. I agree with @zippy2006, that what they are suggesting deserves caution. But, with all due respect, I don't think it is necessarily doomed to the failures of the past, if it were sincerely tried.

 

[hedrick]

I tend to read Luke as basically hopeful about the world. Yes, Jesus experiences plenty of opposition. But in his version of "how many will be saved," metaphorically the Jewish leaders fail to find the narrow gate, but then God pulls the whole reset of the world in. In Matthew, the latter half is missing, and the emphasis in the book as a whole is on remaining faithful among all the challenges of the world.

 

[hedrick]

I don't disagree with your historical analysis, but I do reject the unspoken premise that we can't do it differently, and do it better. In significant ways, this is an unprecedented time. I see no reason why our Lord can't bring about unprecedented change within the Christian community. How are we going to have a living hope that we assume will actually be realized, and yet doubt that we can embody something new (and yet, always old) in this sorry old world?

There have been seminal events that have changed the face of Christianity in this world, e.g Constantine, the monastic reforms, the Reformation. What the authors are suggesting is not terribly outside the realm of live possibility. I agree with @zippy2006, that what they are suggesting deserves caution. But, with all due respect, I don't think it is necessarily doomed to the failures of the past, if it were sincerely tried.

I would love to see this. But so far a message of openness has problems maintaining membership.

 

[public hermit]

I tend to read Luke as basically hopeful about the world. Yes, Jesus experiences plenty of opposition. But in his version of "how many will be saved," metaphorically the Jewish leaders fail to find the narrow gate, but then God pulls the whole world in. In Matthew, the latter half is missing, and the emphasis in the book as a whole is on remaining faithful among all the challenges of the world.

To be clear, I don't take the OP as being so much hopeful about the world, as being hopeful about the church in the world, i.e. in a pluralistic world. And, perhaps having a better influence in the world as a result.

 

[zippy2006]

There are, I think, differing approaches to how we related to the world. which to some extent correspond to differing understandings of the Gospel:

• Christ came to save the world. Our job is to serve others and reconcile people to Christ.
• Christ came to save us out of the world. Our job is to maintain our purity in a corrupted world.

True, and yet even within the first approach there are sub-approaches about how Christianity relates to non-Christian religions. I can't help but think that those sub-approaches are particularly important for this thread. For example, do people of other religions need to convert to Christianity in order to be saved? That question will very much influence the way Christians abide in a pluralistic culture.

Most all of the points of the OP seem to point towards a negative answer to that question. Or more precisely, on the spectrum between religious pluralism and religious exclusivism, the points of the OP tend very much towards the former. An opposite approach might emphasize different points:

1. The uniqueness (and divinity) of Jesus
2. God as jealous and opposed to idolatry
3. etc.

Historically we have been moving towards the left, towards religious pluralism.

 

[zippy2006]

There have been seminal events that have changed the face of Christianity in this world, e.g Constantine, the monastic reforms, the Reformation. What the authors are suggesting is not terribly outside the realm of live possibility. I agree with @zippy2006, that what they are suggesting deserves caution. But, with all due respect, I don't think it is necessarily doomed to the failures of the past, if it were sincerely tried.

For me it really depends what they are responding to. I don't find the approach appealing as a systematic theology, but it may be helpful in certain situations or epochs. For example, do the authors have obnoxious, closed-minded Christians in mind, such as the Westboro Baptists? Is it a, "Hey guys, we don't have to condemn everything that doesn't fly under the explicit banner of Christianity," or is it something else?

I have a hard time with the forest-view on these sorts of questions. I think it usually depends on the trees. The birds-eye-view is complex and requires a great deal of balance between exclusivity and pluralism.

 

[hedrick]

True, and yet even within the first approach there are sub-approaches about how Christianity relates to non-Christian religions. I can't help but think that those sub-approaches are particularly important for this thread. For example, do people of other religions need to convert to Christianity in order to be saved? That question will very much influence the way Christians abide in a pluralistic culture.

Most all of the points of the OP seem to point towards a negative answer to that question. Or more precisely, on the spectrum between religious pluralism and religious exclusivism, the points of the OP tend very much towards the former. An opposite approach might emphasize different points:

1. The uniqueness (and divinity) of Jesus
2. God as jealous and opposed to idolatry
3. etc.

Historically we have been moving towards the left, towards religious pluralism.

Right. The mainline churches come the closest to what the OP seems to want. Historically they have been inclusivist but not universalist. However currently, as you note, there is a tendency to move towards universalism, as I think evangelicals are at least to some extent moving from exclusivism.

I don’t think that change needs to compromise either the Trinity nor the uniqueness of Christ. The OP suggests that the Trinity might be a model for diversity in unity. The Eastern tradition has suggested a form of that.

 

[buzuxi02]

I would have thought with the various mystery cults, philosophies, different deities for different cities, and so on, would have been sufficient to amount to pluralism. I suppose it depends on which Christians and in which cities we are considering.

Christian's were considered atheists by many in Pagan Rome. The Roman Empire was tolerant of various cults and philosophies but as long as they were number 2 alongside the official temples. All still had to pay homage to the official deities and partake in their festivals.
Debate between competing philosophies at public squares cettainly occured, but you could not usurp the official deities.
When christians refused to take part in the public spectacles it was viewed as a threat to unity and the civil institutions. They were persecuted over this and considered atheists for refusing to pay homage to the gods.

 

[zippy2006]

In significant ways, this is an unprecedented time. I see no reason why our Lord can't bring about unprecedented change within the Christian community.

What do you see as unprecedented about our own times? Is it something more than interreligious exposure?

 

[public hermit]

What do you see as unprecedented about our own times? Is it something more than interreligious exposure?

Certainly our interreligious exposure, for virtually anyone, is unprecedented. I don't have to be a world traveler or academic to get a sense of what's out there. But, yes, more than that. We are interconnected and in many ways, more interdependent than ever. Perhaps, and I'm just throwing this out there, there are aspects of the faith that will shine brighter, given our context, than they did before.

I see nothing in the six principles that is contrary to the faith. It's just a different emphasis, for a different time. What was emphasised in the early church was needed for that time. What was emphasised during the Reformation and Counter-Reformation was needed for that time. This is a different time, needing a different emphasis, perhaps.

 

[zippy2006]

Certainly our interreligious exposure, for virtually anyone, is unprecedented. I don't have to be a world traveler or academic to get a sense of what's out there. But, yes, more than that. We are interconnected and in many ways, more interdependent than ever. Perhaps, and I'm just throwing this out there, there are aspects of the faith that will shine brighter, given our context, than they did before.

I see nothing in the six principles that is contrary to the faith. It's just a different emphasis, for a different time. What was emphasised in the early church was needed for that time. What was emphasised during the Reformation and Counter-Reformation was needed for that time. This is a different time, needing a different emphasis, perhaps.

Okay. I suppose I would have to hear more about those contexts and the respective emphases. In Catholicism we danced to the tune of the OP 50 years ago at the Second Vatican Council and it didn't go as well as we expected ...to say the least. I may be a bit jaded by that recent history, but Catholics have a sort of innoculation against certain forms of optimism. To quote a recent article:

Likewise, the Council simply whiffed on the matter of modernity’s true ethos, emphasizing a vague and ill-defined “openness” to a “world” that is never defined in any specific detail. [...] And insofar as the Council really was overly optimistic about the latent Christian underpinnings of modernity, which the Council seemed to think were just waiting to be unleashed through a renewed “dialogue” with the Church, then it is at least partially to blame for much of the silliness that came later. (link)
​

Presumably the change of context from the 1st century to the 21st century would be something like society's "latent Christian underpinnings." That is, cooperation is now on the table because the parties in question are much more Christian than they were long ago. I'm not so sure.

 

[public hermit]

Okay. I suppose I would have to hear more about those contexts and the respective emphases. In Catholicism we danced to the tune of the OP 50 years ago at the Second Vatican Council and it didn't go as well as we expected ...to say the least. I may be a bit jaded by that recent history, but Catholics have a sort of innoculation against certain forms of optimism. To quote a recent article:

Likewise, the Council simply whiffed on the matter of modernity’s true ethos, emphasizing a vague and ill-defined “openness” to a “world” that is never defined in any specific detail. [...] And insofar as the Council really was overly optimistic about the latent Christian underpinnings of modernity, which the Council seemed to think were just waiting to be unleashed through a renewed “dialogue” with the Church, then it is at least partially to blame for much of the silliness that came later. (link)
​

Presumably the change of context from the 1st century to the 21st century would be something like society's "latent Christian underpinnings." That is, cooperation is now on the table because the parties in question are much more Christian than they were long ago. I'm not so sure.

So, I guess you just needed another opportunity to express your cynicism? Great. Thanks.

 

[zippy2006]

So, I guess you just needed another opportunity to express your cynicism? Great. Thanks.

Sorry, I shouldn't have interrupted the irrational optimism. Carry on.

 

[public hermit]

Sorry, I shouldn't have interrupted the irrational optimism. Carry on.

What is irrational about wanting Christianity to flourish in a pluralistic setting? Is it irrational to think it's possible?

 

[zippy2006]

What is irrational about wanting Christianity to flourish in a pluralistic setting? Is it irrational to think it's possible?

It's not irrational to think it is possible, but the historical counterexamples given throughout this thread indicate that such a position requires positive argument, and that argument has been thin indeed. It is also possible that Marxism could flourish in the 21st century, but to give such an opinion while neglecting the history would constitute irrational optimism. In such cases the historical data erect a burden of proof with respect to the position, and meeting that burden of proof requires more than the assertion of possibility. Vatican II is just the most recent example where such an approach has failed, or at least fell far, far short of expectations.

 

[public hermit]

It's not irrational to think it is possible, but the historical counterexamples given throughout this thread indicate that such a position requires positive argument, and that argument has been thin indeed. It is also possible that Marxism could flourish in the 21st century, but to give such an opinion while neglecting the history would constitute irrational optimism. In such cases the historical data erect a burden of proof with respect to the position, and meeting that burden of proof requires more than the assertion of possibility. Vatican II is just the most recent example where such an approach has failed, or at least fell far, far short of expectations.

If I were a secular academic who relied solely on historical precedent and causal factors that are limited to human agency, then I would agree with you. But I believe the Holy Spirit works through the body of Christ and can bring about states of affairs that are unprecedented. That Christianity could flourish in a pluralistic setting seems a small thing for God who brings things into existence that did not exist and raises the dead. Would it take intentional effort on our part? Sure. But I don't think it irrationally optimistic. If it is, I'm fine with the label.

 

[zippy2006]

If I were a secular academic who relied solely on historical precedent and causal factors that are limited to human agency, then I would agree with you. But I believe the Holy Spirit works through the body of Christ and can bring about states of affairs that are unprecedented. That Christianity could flourish in a pluralistic setting seems a small thing for God who brings things into existence that did not exist and raises the dead. Would it take intentional effort on our part? Sure. But I don't think it irrationally optimistic. If it is, I'm fine with the label.

I don't think you're engaging the issue. It's a matter of ecclesiology, not just history. It doesn't move us anywhere to say, "All things are possible with God. God could cause the Church to flourish in a pluralistic setting. Therefore it is really possible." One could make the same sort of possibility-argument with Marxism, and Christians who favor Marxism do that sort of thing. In both cases if one isn't willing to wrestle with the historical problems then it's nothing more than mere possibility (which has already been granted). The exclusivist has the exact same warrant for their own ecclesiology, namely, "God could do it" (and their position is equally historically fraught).

What is the nature of the Church? What is the nature of the world? How have they related in the past? How do they relate now? What is essential about ecclesiology that would lead us to believe that the Church can or should flourish in a pluralistic setting? If one wants to stake out a position they have to wrestle with these questions. Mere possibility is insufficient.

 

[zippy2006]

The other point is this: do the six points lead to flourishing? I have been trying to use your language of "Christian flourishing," but I'm not so sure. Surely they lead to tolerance, co-existence, respect, and affirmation, but I don't think any of that is flourishing. They may be necessary conditions for flourishing, but they aren't sufficient. Here's what you say:

The authors believe that these six principles are foundational to the Christian faith and if we embrace them we can nurture a culture of respect, live peaceably with others who differ from us, and create a space to live and dispute with other worldviews while flourishing together.

Does any of that constitute Christian flourishing? To take one primary criterion, Christian flourishing would seem to require evangelization and conversion. At the very least it would need to provide others with some attraction towards Christianity and reason to be drawn to it. I don't see much of anything like that in the six points. Tolerance is mildly but not overly attractive. It is more of a secular virtue and flourishing than a Christian one. The points read more like, "We are not a threat to you; we will not make you uncomfortable."

(Since I'm a cynic I thought I might as well pile on. )

 

[public hermit]

To take one primary criterion, Christian flourishing would seem to require evangelization and conversion. At the very least it would need to provide others with some attraction towards Christianity and reason to be drawn to it

Principle 6 would not make sense unless we were evangelizing. Yes, they assume we are sharing our faith

Principle 6: "The call of Jesus Christ "Come, follow me!" presumes that an individual who hears it is free to follow or not. From the earliest beginnings, it was clear that faith is either embraced freely or not at all: one believes with the heart, which is to say not by outward conformity to ambient influences or in reaction to outside dictates backed by overwhelming force but with the very core of one's being. Behind the stress on embracing faith freely lies the conviction that every person has the responsibility for the basic direction of his or her life."

The points read more like, "We are not a threat to you; we will not make you uncomfortable."

That's seems like a caricature. Does "create a space to live and dispute" sound like avoiding the possibility of making someone uncomfortable? It doesn't to me.

Evangelism and disagreement with others is not precluded by the six principles. It seems to me they assume as much and that is why the six principles are even needed. It is precisely because we are going to be living out our faith and proclaiming the gospel, in a pluralistic context, that it helps to keep them in mind.

I'm curious. What do you think we should do in a pluralistic context? It is easy enough to bash another's account. What is your positive account and how is it different from what is being suggested in the OP?

Edit: I don't know why I'm saying, "It seems to me they assume as much." They do and I can provide quotes if needed.

 

[zippy2006]

Principle 6 would not make sense unless we were evangelizing. Yes, they assume we are sharing our faith

Principle 6: "The call of Jesus Christ "Come, follow me!" presumes that an individual who hears it is free to follow or not. From the earliest beginnings, it was clear that faith is either embraced freely or not at all: one believes with the heart, which is to say not by outward conformity to ambient influences or in reaction to outside dictates backed by overwhelming force but with the very core of one's being. Behind the stress on embracing faith freely lies the conviction that every person has the responsibility for the basic direction of his or her life."

I read principle 6 as, "Thou shalt not coerce; thou shalt not convert by the sword." It emphasizes free choice, not evangelization. It is explicitly directionless: "freedom of religion and areligion," "responsibility for the basic direction," etc. That particular emphasis never increases evangelization, it always decreases it.

That's seems like a caricature. Does "create a space to live and dispute" sound like avoiding the possibility of making someone uncomfortable? It doesn't to me.

You are quoting yourself, not the authors, but if that concept of space for disputation and disagreement is central to their thesis, then sure.

Evangelism and disagreement with others is not precluded by the six principles.

Not precluded, but absent and mitigated.

It seems to me they assume as much and that is why the six principles are even needed. It is precisely because we are going to be living out our faith and proclaiming the gospel, in a pluralistic context, that it helps to keep them in mind.

That could be, but pluralists would rely on the exact same principles. See my post here.

I'm curious. What do you think we should do in a pluralistic context? It is easy enough to bash another's account. What is your positive account and how is it different from what is being suggested in the OP?

I think that the early Christians were in a similar situation to our own. There was a dominant religious and cultural scheme that was tolerant of many ideas and groups, but was more or less intolerant of Christianity. Rather than conform to the culture the early Christians suffered persecution and martyrdom until they were finally allowed to practice their religion in its fulness.

I would say that Christians should follow that example and live out the faith in its fulness. Some will be attracted, some will be repelled; there may be some persecution, but there will also be victories. Rather than camouflage themselves in secular garb and values Christians should allow the distinctiveness of Christianity shine out. Rather than enter into odd treaties of tolerance and co-existence Christians should live the faith and apply internal principles on a case-by-case basis. Rather than take up a defensive position that tries to avoid conflict at all costs, they should take up their cross and follow Christ. In a word: be Christians, not pluralists. Sometimes the principles of the OP will be applicable and relevant, and sometimes they won't be. There is nothing a priori about them. But unless Christ was hopelessly ignorant of such points, it would seem that the goal of such peace treaties is a misplaced hope.