"Contemporary Religious Pluralism" CT7

In today's culture, instead of religion in general and Christian religion in particular influencing the culture in which it is to serve, in reality, it is influenced by culture.  The whole notion of contemporary religious pluralism is an example of such influencing.

HISTORICAL RELIGIOUS PLURALISM

Looking back, historic religious pluralism could be roughly defined as "believe" and "cooperate."  Of course there have always been exceptions and those who did not want to "play."  The point was that no one was asked to violate their own belief system and so no common belief was exacted from its members.  Then too there was an emphasis upon cooperation.  Such lead many of the Mainline Denominations to participate in the Ecumenical Movements of the 50's and 60's.  

But there was a change forthcoming.  Just as notions like sensitivity, diversity, tolerance, etc. gained traction in the culture so too they gained traction in the church and there became a certain preoccupation with being non-offensive.  That non-offensive doctrine became so pronounced that it was no long "believe" and "cooperate" but now "what can we all believe together."  

The importance of Historical Religious Pluralism is that it allowed for one to maintain his belief system and even gave room to personal convictions, that is personal theological conviction.  There was no demand for universal truth and one might even embrace subjective truth.  One might sum up the position in the notion of unity not uniformity.

The unity of "believe" and "cooperate" was how historic or classic Religious Pluralism. However, there was a change and it now placed stress on the notion of "unity" but now it is based on "commonly held belief."  

CONTEMPORARY RELIGIOUS PLURALISM

It is a certain  pseudo-unity in that it can only come as one is completely tolerant of those with divergent doctrinal positions, thus Contemporary Religious Pluralism.  In many ways Contemporary Religious Pluralism is a reflection of the post modern mindset in that it dismisses all that might mitigate against difference and disagreement.

The primary doctrine of the position is contained in the question, "What are the things upon which there is no disagreement?"  Of course there is very little, even among those who claim the title, "Christian."  Add in those of other major religions and the list grows ever shorter with the greater the inclusion.

The outcome is that cardinal doctrinal differences compromised, set aside, negated, etc.It is a certain  pseudo-unity in that it can only come as one is completely tolerant of those with divergent doctrinal positions.
In extreme cases divergent religions are called upon to cooperate.

As with most any position that is largely indefensible, the arguments tendered are not based upon ethical principles but the mores of that particular religious sub-culture.  The likely arguments are

• Reactionary in that they react against those who have an exclusionary doctrine, e.g. the eternal outcomes of the saved differing from those of the unsaved.
• Generalizing in that they move from a specific example to a general belief.
• Discriminating in that it embraces all except those of deep conviction which would include those with ethical truth claims and those with exclusive truth claims, etc.
• Devaluing in that those who hold to ethical truth are often named as uneducated, without compassion, irrelevant, and intolerant.
• Universal in that all religions contain elements of truth
• Inconsistent in that tolerance is one of the mantras, however as already noted, such belief allows for "correct" discrimination.

THE TENSION

The culture including the sub-culture of religion is in a state of tension.  Such tension occasions the opportunity for the individual to choose.  One can choose the Contemporary Religious Pluralism track or one can choose the more traditional approach.  One is untenable unless one is willing to give up almost all of what one believes for the sake of "unity."  Then based upon that foundation of "unity" one's belief system is built back.  The problem is that the outcome of course is some kind of a "group think" theology.

The other choice in terms of religious pluralism is the more tradition approach.  Such says that each believes as he will, each allows the other to believe as he will, but we join together in what we can, accept our differences, and move forward in what we can jointly support.  In this kind of relationship there is no "Mush God" for each serves Him as they understand Him to be!