Download DEFINING PLURALISM - Second Baptist Church

DEFINING PLURALISM
__________________
A Paper
Presented to
Dr. Brian Bohlman
Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary
__________________
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for CHPL 500
__________________
by
James R. Brooks
February 18, 2010
Defining Pluralism
The American Heritage Dictionary defines pluralism as “a condition in which
numerous distinct ethnic, religious, or cultural groups are present and tolerated within a
society.”1 Within the context of the subject matter under discussion, as it relates to military
chaplaincy, religious pluralism will be the focal point of what will be examined. To begin this
process, one must identify the source or basis of authority in asserting propositional claims
regarding the pluralistic view. What this brief exercise will seek to demonstrate is that unless one
presupposes a Christian theistic worldview as the starting point for defending ethical notions,
which pluralism can not do, justifying one’s ethics are not even possible.
While the term pluralism seeks to advocate tolerance in competing worldviews within
an organizational matrix, such as the military, one must eventually ask if competing views within
a pluralistic dimension are not self defeating. For example, without appealing to a utilitarian
form of ethics, such as the Uniform Code of Military Justice, how does one who advocates
pluralism justify any ethical notion? To appeal, for example, to the UCMJ, is to simply beg the
question because one must eventually ask, what is that system of ethics based upon? If this is the
case then one must search for an ultimate standard or starting point by which ethics may
determine right and wrong.
For example, Corporal Smith might think that it is okay to kill or rape an enemy,
female, combatant. If one were to adhere to a strict form of pluralism, then one has no moral
argument for repudiating Smith’s views or actions regarding the killing or raping of females.
Why, because in a pluralistic society one or even many people’s personal view’s of ethics and
1
Houghton Mifflin, "Pluralism," Yahoo Education, 2009, www.education.yahoo.com/
(accessed February 16, 2010).
1
2
personal freedoms are just as valid as another’s. Smith could easily state that within his system
of ethics, killing or raping women is acceptable. If pluralism is accepted, then there is no
universal standard by which one may make an ethically righteous appeal. Only the Christian
worldview has an absolute standard which is consistent “with the teachings of Scripture [in
pointing] society to a higher standard of righteousness…” in determining moral or ethical
absolutes.2
Another view accepted within the pluralistic schema that presents ethical dilemmas is
the view that the Church and State should be separate.3 Proponents of this view espouse that
separation of Church and State would allow room for both Christians and non-Christians to
equally coexist in an organization without impeding each group’s views.4 While in theory this
proposition sounds feasible and appears to be the majority view, even within Christendom, it
again does not address the most basic issue. By what standard is the group, organization or
Country going to use. If not using a biblical view for legislating morality, then again, all ethical
notions must be viewed as equally valid or based upon a utilitarian standard. What will
eventually occur, given time and circumstances, is conflict. This is due to there being no unified
standard for the basis of ethics that can be soundly justified.5 The pluralists however, may charge
the Christian with the same thing, a circular argument.
2
John Jefferson Davis, Evangelical Ethics (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2004), 26.
3
Scott B. Rae, Moral Choices (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 268.
4
Ibid., 268.
5
It is beyond the scope of this exercise to present the vast array of the theological and
philosophical arguments to support the Christian theistic perspective against pluralism. However,
for a detailed analysis of how to justify and defend Christian theism using the transcendental
argument see: Greg L. Bahnsen, Van Til's Apologetic (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1998).
3
How does one reconcile this? The answer is the workable worldview. Christian theism
is the only worldview that can make sense out of logic, morality, science and universal abstract
entities such as love and ethics. A brief example of this, only for the sake of time and the
restraints placed upon this exercise is the atheistic worldview.
Atheism espouses that there are no abstract universal entities and that the only thing
that is real is the material Universe, determined by empirical observation and experience. Given
this presupposition, one must eventually ask the atheist if the conclusion itself is based upon
empirical observation and experience. The answer of course is no. This is but a glimpse of what
could fully be laid and the pluralist’s door step when pressing the antitheses regarding one
having a workable and cogent worldview. Pluralism does not.
What can be concluded from this brief exercise is that pluralism, because of its appeal
to being tolerant, is a good idea but is a fleeting illusion. This is because when one gets behind
the idea of pluralism to the working mechanisms of its ethics, the only thing present is conflict
and self refutation. This exercise has demonstrated that pluralistic views do not have a proper
foundation by which ethical propositions can be defended or universally applied. Therefore,
adhering to pluralism as a worldview is not possible if one seeks to remain rational.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Rae, Scott B. Moral Choices. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000.
Davis, John Jefferson. Evangelical Ethics. Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2004.
Mifflin, Houghton. "Pluralism." Yahoo Education, 2009. www.education.yahoo.com/
(accessed February 16, 2010).
4