D.A. Carson, an evangelical theologian, has provided much discussion and theories on pluralism as it relates to Christianity. In this particular ~600 page book of his, he strives to cover much of what pluralism is as a modern discussion within Christianity and a bigger society. As much as I wanted to go deeper into Carson’s writings in “The Gagging of God” my schedule did not permit me as in-depth a time with the materials as I would have preferred. Probably evident in this lengthy review as well. Nonetheless, from what I did garner, he counters and sparks arguments for pluralism and what he defines as globalization with the evangelical Christian.

In his opening chapter, Carson plainly sets out the purpose behind this book and what many of his writings seems to be about. He also proposes the idea of three types of pluralism: empirical, cherished, and philosophical (a.k.a. hermeneutic). Being ever ambitious, Carson defines and categorizes each type in relation to society; the impact pluralism has throughout Western culture. As well as provides an interesting thought: that by being politically correct we mask intolerance with tolerance. I for one could not decipher his intention behind the statement – for it was framed by what I’ve learned and would call counter arguments but, then he also seems to fully believe it: tolerance has “contributed to the deconstruction of gratitude, and turned not a few women and men into chronic whiners and finger-pointers.” I am quick to defend political correctness, but once again, I don’t know what exactly he is saying.

Yet, Carson makes certain that his purpose to understand and evaluate elements in society that deal with pluralism is well understood by his readers. However, he also makes sure the reader knows he wishes to spark intellectual challenges (arguments) within this text as well. And these arguments, have practical implications for church and society. As example, he points to Don Feder’s claims that PC nature / pluralism leads to a culture without civility, without discipline, legislatures brothels. And Another Charles Colson, who says: Tolerance, (as he defines) a belief in nothing, seeks to nothing, finds purpose in nothing, and remains alive for there is nothing for which is will die. While this seems mainly off-topic, these points drew my attention for how the rest of the book was to go.

Carson points out how this generation (written in 1996) is the first generation to believe that there is no objective truth out there, or that there is no access to it. So, as he writes it, pluralism is more about not really believing in their faith (say Chrisitianity) and instead allowing all religions to be true. An equal-ness that shouldn’t be allowed under the interpretation of Christianity’s God.

Another of Carson’s chapters that I read focused on drawing lines within religion. The chapter works on understanding on contemporary pluralism and wishes to prove just how careful we should be in declaring what ‘is and isn’t’ right, providing support of relativism as a main component of pluralism. Carson analyzes contemporary features such as: followers and scholars focusing on meta-questions (what is believing?) ahead of the discipline itself, the already existing regulation within religion (programmatic secularism, the idea that religion should be left behind closed doors), and the question of revelation. Revelation being an individual choosing what to worship, that any religion is “in the judgement of some, not [a] very agreeable religion, is all the more reason for resistance to the notion that all religions are essentially the same”

Carson – like what I’m learning to be a large portion of pluralistic scholars – seems to contradict himself with the ideas he proposes and the solutions he offers. He demands that drawing lines it utterly crucial. That we should watch because truth demands it, because there’s a distinction between orthodoxy and heresy. That our errors calls for it and the entailments of gospel confront our culture and we must face that. Yet. He insists that elementary faithfulness demands nurturing and protecting the faithful as well as showing what Christian living looks like. And that because of this nature, this innate sharing, it will alienate some and draw others into the religion.

In his closing chapter, Carson encapsulates all his previous points to strengthen his intention of contextualizing pluralism and it’s use on a global scale. Carson argues finally that pluralism and postmodernism can strengthen the Church if implemented correctly. Pluralism isn’t restrictive, as he points out in the previous two-thirds of his book, we’ve learned, “human beings can know objective truth – doubtless not exhaustively and absolutely, but truth nonetheless.” And he believes this uncertain truth can be reinforced with pluralism – as long as it’s within the Christian faith. At least that how he presents his perspective; he believes, “each major strand must be woven into the fabric that finds its climax and ultimate significance in the person and work of Jesus Christ.” But even so, that his perspective supposes a revelation, a truth standard, that cannot be ignored by other faiths. And on top of that, that even with the ‘given’, we understand and are willing to learn the culture we live and serve.

All in all, he concludes that religion has inappropriate and appropriate contextualization. Carson proposes leaving the original scripture unedited for others to learn, for he definitely recognizes, “the importance of studying the history of interpretation.” Referencing C.S. Lewis, Carson supports that we can’t know the future, but we can know the past and learn from it. We can learn how to interpret the world and words around us; to not fall for non-sense for globalization would provide an “instant history.” With the combination and working of cultures, we can understand and learn parts of The Truth. Human beings would be eager to do so, to correct and learn what’s right only with God and the Scripture and Jesus Christ as the Absolute Truth gleamed from the partial truths each culture has. He firmly believes this is the correct way to go about living life, and something we should strive for. This purpose is his belief, theory, and truth summarized in the title of his work set within his text, we can’t go ”Far from vainly trying to gag God by revitalizing all he has said, an informed grasp of the diversities of culture will sharpen our proclamation."

First reaction: I have written and read much of Carson. His work has greatly influenced my own, and while the paragraphs above are lengthy, they barely scratch the work he has on pluralism. What was once supposed to be a summary may seem like something more like an unabridged retelling, but it my understanding of Carson in relation to my own stance. His work is very encompassing and something I wish to go "tit-for-tat" for. Hence the length.

Jonathan Haidt’s main purpose of his TED talk seems to be to simply draw on ideas of a sense of community by using scientific rhetoric, compared to the religious allegory mostly associated with pluralism / co-operation within religions. Haidt refers to a multitude of historical scholars and scientists like William James and Charles Darwin. He alludes to William James' own example of a man’s experience with religious and spiritual awakening. A means of becoming a more loving and forgiving person. Which is something Haidt further illustrates using sociologist Emile Durkheim's theory of a two leveled man: Homo-duplex. Durkheim claims there is two levels to a person, the ordinary and the sacred. The ordinary fulfills their needs as it retains to itself, while the sacred (2nd level) comes from a person working with others - either for a movement, or war or faith. The second level is the sacredness of man and in turn the purpose of religion - or so he argues. For the most part, he defers to group evolution defined by Darwin.

By modeling evolution with hypothetical scientific organisms, he argues that people who adapt to be more kind and accepting would in turn be exploited by selfish organisms and then destroyed - but if the two worked together, a super organism would be created. This super-organism is used as a metaphor for the second level spiritualism, and from this spiritualism, religion is a byproduct; that humans evolved to see sacredness, that we joined together for a set sense of morals. Haidt seems to simply set up a conversation, to set a stage for further discussion of religion as an evolutionary standpoint than to form his own opinion on the matter.To his credit though, he does purposely reiterate that, “the capacity of self transcendence is just a basic part of being human.” As well as counters the argument of, “How can it be adaptive for any organism to overcome self interest?” But maybe I struggle to see his opinion for his use of seemingly impersonal language. At one point he does say (summarily): politics are partly profane, partly self-interest but, also of a sacredness; politics are about joining together for a set morals. We are homo-duplex, but modern society is built in only such a way to satisfy our lower, profane selves.

First reaction: Haidt does pose an interesting theory on religion being a result of working together, a trait in humans to survive, however I currently struggle to know exactly how his work fits within my own. I wish to talk and analyze pluralism related to politics and not just the broad sense of humanity. I would like to either be inspired by his opinion or to counter them myself with my own research, but so far I can only find his ideas interesting rather than personally provocative. Again, to me, it seems he simply stages or rather pokes at embers of something that could be a larger discussion.

Posted on Theology Network (a peer-reviewed website featuring a collection of articles and discussions by theologians and scholars), Jonathan Chaplin’s article is an argument over religious reasoning in politics. He doesn’t directly use the worlds pluralism or exclusivism, but his argument directly questions politics in religion. He states, “There is no longer any universally shared public language that everyone" - of all faiths including secular, - "can equally appeal to”. More so he contends that both secular and religious reason should be left out of politic justification completely, to have a “confessional silence”. Chaplin states that he understands government to use a “programmatic secularism” - which basically constitutes an idea of a civil religion - and that we shouldn't do so. Going further to comment on civil religion: “To impose a restraint on reasons that are motivated by religious faith is arbitrary and illiberal. It has the effect of either silencing religious speakers, or...branding them second-class citizens.” I understood Chaplin’s stance to be either: allow a person to fully express their reliance on religion in politics, or allow no religious reasoning in politics whatsoever; that secular reasoning is seen as a rational and valid source of evidence in democracy yet religious reasoning is still viewed as invalid and irrational. He doesn’t necessarily call for a shift to exclusively religious reasoning, but to exclude it is undemocratic. He then offers - hypocritically - a Christian model of how the government can function.

First reaction: I personally found his stance of all or nothing to be unique instead of a compromise that would disappoint all participants. I'm interested in using his stance of all or nothing in comparison to other's which try to incorporate, to pluralize, our communities as related to politics. Conversely, comparing Chaplin's and Rowan William's arguments, they seem to be on the same side - yet - Chaplin's argument speaks mainly from his perspective of a Christian.

In an attempt to define Chaplin's use of programmatic and procedural structuralism, I referred to former archbishop Rowan William's lecture, and got yet another informative opinion on secularism and religion in politics.

William suffers from use of long sentences and Really Big words to explain his opinion, so from my tentative understanding of his lecture, the archbishop took a though-provoking and ideal stance on secularism and religion within politics. He says, ”The pursuit of positive liberty” - which he explains as a ‘romantic’ idolization of government promoting it's own ideals - “ leads to ideological tyranny, to the closing-down of argument and the ironing-out of plurality.” To say, intelligent liberals should follow individual ('negative') liberty, which is “government allow[ing] a maximal level of individual choice” - compared to the former, more often executed function of government promoting a set agenda (the positive liberty). All to say, he believes people should have the freedom to voice and follow their own opinions without censorship (mainly religious censorship) from government. He speaks mostly in terms of Christianity - that Christianity should be just as powerful, as influential, as valid a reason for motivation as empirical reasoning - reasoning based off of science and evidence.

And to say further, he doesn’t necessarily only mean religion. We should reflect on, “how a society deals with the actual variety and potential collision of understandings of what is properly human.” Which means, the dissenting driving purposes behind humanity - which may or may not be secular; he puts it: “political freedom is more complex than the license to pursue a set of individual or group projects with minimal interference.” He believes government can’t assure complete independence on opinions, government will always manipulate with its economic and political power. William holds that the complexity of humans and our morality is too intricate to allow for complete unbiased vocalization in politics, but even so, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to achieve cohesion. He argues as well, that the government's attempt to 'not be biased by being neutral' goes further to just silence different opinions.

I would love to analyze even more of William stances, but to keep it brief (not really), he believes that programmatic secularism only allows one broad and unspecific voice to be heard, that by reducing religious difference to an individual preference, it denies the serious of this separation: “In other words there is nothing fundamental to argue about in public.” He continues still with a strong argument for procedural secularism. Procedural secularism being: a “legal system which is always open to being persuaded by confessional or ideological argument on particular issues, but is not committed to privileging permanently any one confessional group.” - For, while messy, everyone would get a voice. He analyzes how procedural secularism is a result of religion; of - what I understood based on this research - to be an attempt at what we have defined as pluralism: “ [society] flourishing depend[s] closely and strictly on the flourishing of every other” and that this stated fundamental religious ideal cannot be destroyed by external circumstances (read: politics). I’ll include the following quote for although long, it perfectly summarizes his entire purpose that none of my writing or vocabulary could accurately convey with the same level of his depth and ideals as he did:

”To put it more dramatically, I am arguing that the sphere of public and political negotiation flourishes only in the context of larger commitments and visions, and that if this is forgotten or repressed by a supposedly neutral ideology of the public sphere, immense damage is done to the moral energy of a liberal society...but without [religious] dimension, the liberal ideal becomes deeply anti-humanist. And, like it or not, we need a theology to arrest this degeneration.”

First reaction: Probably evident in how large a summary I wrote, I exceptionally appreciate William's ideals about (left unstated) pluralism with politics. I found William's lecture to be refreshing, as it comes from an arguably highly religious figure holding a position in favor of a sort of secularism in politics. He alludes to empirical reasoning to be just as valid as religious reasoning compared to just speaking in religious terms.

D.A. Carson, again, wrote two articles about the idea of religious pluralism as it pertains to the church. For my purposes, I merely skimmed both articles - but, at the core of his teachings, he pushes to evaluate the effect of pluralism in a philosophical sense as related to gospel and the sermon; a sort of culture of religion.

Mainly in his first article (Pluralism to Preaching), he evaluates how each person’s different background can radically affect the interpretation of spirituality, and how this differentiation of spirituality should be accepted - or at the very least - accepted into the Christian church. From my understanding, he believes, "plurality is celebrated as things to be approved and cherished", but has yet to be a strict set of morality that we as a society have yet to perfect in following or even truly begun to practice.

In his secondary article (Preaching to Pluralism), he further outlines just how Christianity can afford to be more pluralistic, suggesting different ways to achieve this; a response to how the church should change and the challenges of implementing pluralism rather than just if pluralism should be a part of church. “Each of us is finite; none of us displays the attribute of omniscience. Our beliefs are shaped in part by our culture, language, heritage, and community.”, going further to say none of our interpretations are without some distortion, without some influence of the church - that we cannot be unbiased individuals. Carson spends the majority of the article deconstructing Christian religion as it relates to it's follower's own definition of religion. He dissects five major themes (and those themes into even smaller themes) in order to explain the understanding of hermeneutics and deconstruction in relation to Christianity. He forms his argument mainly following the idea of, ”[linguistics] has taught us that whatever can be said in one language can be said in another, even if not in the same way and brevity.” To interpret in our terms: pluralism is effective because there is no difference between religion, however, pluralism will struggle for he believes it is demanded of Christians to change their fundamental thinking to allow for pluralism.

”But the content [of God’s word] itself is objectively true, a subset of what Omniscience knows, and cast in culture-laden forms that demand of modern readers that we attempt to fuse the horizon of our own understandings with that of the culture and language in which the deposit was given”

First reaction: I found Carson's view of pluralism in connotation with Christianity and it's church to be mainly how I view Pluralism and a good summary and analysis of pluralism being this idea of culture as the only thing causing a separation of religion; that we should attempt to achieve homogeneity in a co-operative sense.