While in hospital, I attempted to read “The Gagging of God – Christianity confronts pluralism” by Don Carson, where pluralism in this context is
the stance that any notion that a particular ideological or religious claim is intrinsically superior to another is necessarily wrong.
To be honest, I gave up – I found it extremely tough going. However, buried on page 415, I did discover a gem of a footnote. In the context, of a discussion about democracy, Carson says:
[T]houghtful Christians can never assign to democracy the same sort of value that a secularist might. Democracy for us can never be an ultimate good…
The primary reason why Christians will want to support democracy is because in a fallen world it is usually* the best way to ensure long-lived freedom, dignity for the individual human being (who is, after all, God’s image-bearer), forms of legislative and judicial redress, equitable taxation (or at least the means of reforming the system now and then) and above all freedoms of conscience and of speech.
And the footnote is:
* I say “usually” because the sad record of imposed democracies shows that when there is little heritage of freedom, little access to information and opportunity for open discussion and free debate, little experience at compromise and respect for law, little loyalty to promulgated constitutions, and deep tribal loyalties, democracies quickly break down, sometimes in barbaric, catastrophic fashion.
That was written in 1996.
Heh, that’s a beaut. Not funny today, of course, but he wrote it in such a poetic way as to make you think about what he said just a little to understand it.
Gerv, you really need to select lighter reading when you’re recovering from surgery :-)
Also, I suspect that there are many non-Christians who would agree that “democracy” in and of itself is not an ultimate good, and that the reasons cited by Carson for supporting democracy are more salient. Churchill is claimed to have said that democracy was the worst form of government, except for all the others, and I don’t think he was speaking from a specifically Christian perspective.
One of your religious debate posts made it onto the mozillaZine page again. Can you please keep these to your own blog?
monk.e.boy
The early church seemed to operate largely as a communist organisation. Each was given to according to their need. The difference being (I assume) that this was a community that had chosen to come together without being forced, and also (I believe) was enabled to love each other with God’s help.
Frank: I’m sure there are many non-Christians who would say democracy is not an ultimate good. It does say that “a secularist might”, not “a secularist would”.
Your post has the underlying assumption that all religious belief is equally false. In the Old Testament, those who led people away from the true God (e.g. the priests of Baal in 1 Kings) met a sticky end. If you postulate a holy no-nonsense God who demands faithfulness from his people, that’s entirely reasonable. Many countries today have the death penalty or lifetime imprisonment for treason, and no-one seems to think that this is odd.
Rhyuso: You yourself have put your finger on the massive difference between the early church and Communism. This reminds me of an exchange I witnessed during a lecture in Cuba:
“In the Old Testament, those who led people away from the true God (e.g. the priests of Baal in 1 Kings) met a sticky end. If you postulate a holy no-nonsense God who demands faithfulness from his people, that’s entirely reasonable.”
Unfortunately Gerv (and you know this as well as I do) there are all too many people willing to hasten that “sticky end” in God’s name. In this respect, not all religions /are/ equal: Christianity has an appalling record of violence, intimidation and murder, all in the name of peace, of course.
What you mean by that is that “some people who claim to be Christians have been violent, intimidatory and murderous”. That’s certainly true. But is it right to lay those crimes at the door of Christianity if the example of Jesus leaves no room for such behaviour?
If I murder someone “in the name of PF”, is it your fault?
Yes, I thought you’d soon get around to saying that it wasn’t “real Christianity” which is responsible for that sort of thing.
PF: I assume you are claiming it is. If you want to make that claim, surely (like any accusation of murder and violence) you need to provide evidence to back it up? Specifically in this case, evidence that Christianity teaches that such behaviour was an acceptable course of action for those people at that time.
If you can provide that, I’ll accept your point. Otherwise, it’s just another unfounded libel.
“The primary reason why Christians will want to support democracy is …”
He omits freedom to practice religion as you choose; I would think that would be very important to him.
From only the quote, I’m not sure if Carson objects to pluralism? Pluralism is only a problem for someone who wants to impose their beliefs on others. What other objection could there be? It protects Carson’s beliefs just like everyone else’s.
The idea that imposing democracy fails is much older than Carson’s book and well known to people who study it. I’m not expert but from what I’ve learned, there are at least two problems: 1) Democracy is in large part self-determination; imposing self-determination on someone is a bit of a paradox, and you can’t be surprised if they drop the ball. 2) Democracy is mob rule; the form of gov’t most people mean is Constitutional Democracy, with laws that protect minority rights (e.g. the Bill of Rights including freedom of religion). Someone said, ‘Deomcracy must be more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner’.
I believe that’s what he means by “above all freedoms of conscience and of speech”.
The underlying assumption of your statement is that pluralism is true – i.e. that Carson’s belief is equally as valid or invalid as any other, and so he should be happy with pluralism because it means that no-one will criticise him. However, Christians believe that this view is false – i.e. that there is such a thing as absolute truth, and some ideas can be labelled right and others can be labelled wrong, and that the entire world needs to know that they must have a relationship with God through Jesus Christ.
I disagree: Pluralism just means that Carson should feel free to believe them. I think he’s wrong (nobody asked me, but nobody asked Carson either), but I’m glad pluralism protects his right to believe it and to try to convince (but not compel) others.
To say ‘pluralism’ means everyone’s is equally right is to setup a straw man. If that’s what he means, then it’s a rhetorical argument with nobody. Who thinks everyone is equally right?
Many others agree about the absolute truth and the special status vis-a-vis plurlism that it provides, except they believe other things besides Christianity (and many Christians do not agree, to be fair to them). Unwavering belief is not at all unusual. Carson’s relationship with pluralism is the same as everyone else’s, including his belief that he is the exception.
I would also add, that’s the same argument used against pluralism by many theocratic and ideological dictators (and would-be dictators) around the world: We’re sure we’re right, therefore we won’t allow any to disagree. The interesing question to me is, is that what Carson means to say?
Pluralists :-) Don’t you hear it often? I do. “That’s fine for you; I’m glad your faith helps you. But I have to follow the path that’s right for me.” It’s a common view.
Exactly the opposite. The tenet of pluralism is that everyone is “equally right”; no-one is allowed to disagree and assert that there is such a thing as a unique claim to truth which means that some people must be wrong. (See my definition in the initial post.) Carson is fighting for the right to disagree and to assert absolutely, a right which pluralism stifles.
Through one faith which is in Jesus Christ,the bible is absolute truth. Through each one of the many different faiths which have come since Jesus Christ, the absolute truth from the bible is what each makes it to be….relative.
Pluralists are intolerant to those who disagree. I don’t believe in relative right, and my right is being stifled. For a liberal view, it is rather stringent. In a cost-benefit analysis, in a world where pluralism is not shoved down your throat, one who believes in an absolute Truth is LIBERARTED to say that, in the same way those who don’t agree are LIBERATED to believe in pluralism. The status quo imposes pluralistic view as if the in themselves are absolute, and the rest are left without the freedom to oppose.
Pluralists are intolerant to those who disagree. I don’t believe in relative right, and my right is being stifled. For a liberal view, it is rather stringent. In a cost-benefit analysis, in a world where pluralism is not shoved down your throat, one who believes in an absolute Truth is LIBERARTED to say that, in the same way those who don’t agree are LIBERATED to believe in pluralism. The status quo imposes pluralistic view as if the in themselves are absolute, and the rest are left without the freedom to oppose.
Pluralists are intolerant to those who disagree. I don’t believe in relative right, and my right is being stifled. For a liberal view, it is rather stringent. In a cost-benefit analysis, in a world where pluralism is not shoved down your throat, one who believes in an absolute Truth is LIBERARTED to say that, in the same way those who don’t agree are LIBERATED to believe in pluralism. The status quo imposes pluralistic view as if the in themselves are absolute, and the rest are left without the freedom to oppose.