The Problem of Pluralism

Please give my Amazon review a helpful vote - https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R2YQDGGDEZ76K2?ref=pf_ov_at_pdctrvw_srp

This is a slim, readable text on the state of the United Methodist Church (“UMC”) in 1986. Initially, it may seem like very much “inside baseball,” but thirty years later it has a substantial explanatory power in capturing a significant moment in one mainline Protestant church and revealing how we got where we are in 2020.

I became involved in UMC disputes in the late 1990s as an attorney representing small UMC “local churches” who had grown tired of how the UMC had departed traditional Christianity. At that time, there were samizdat xeroxed copies of dissident UMC members recording how UMC gatherings had incorporated ceremonies to Sophia, the divine feminine. Likewise, although the UMC's “Book of Discipline” - basically, the constitution/theological foundation of the UMC - forbade same-sex bishops and marriages, these rules were regularly breached. When conservative members and religious raised the issue, the UMC would bring those pastors who had tried to get the UMC to comply with its own rules up on charges. The net result of the adoption of the ideology of inclusiveness (regulated by fierce intolerance to traditional Christians) was that my clients walked out as a church. Many other churches did as well.

When I got involved in the late 1990s, I did not hear any discussion of “doctrinal pluralism.” At that time, the language involved “inclusiveness,” except toward people who insisted on traditional Christianity. As author Jerry Walls notes in this book, true tolerance is incoherent; the single overriding commitment of a regime that is committed to the name of “tolerance is an overriding intolerance to anyone that challenges tolerance.

Walls book is from a moment about 15 years prior to my involvement when the future disruption of the UMC was a cloud perhaps slightly larger than a man's hand on the horizon. The problem that Walls points to as the problem he was dealing with was “doctrinal pluralism.” In its 1972 General Conference, the UMC incorporated language into the Book of Discipline (the “Discipline”) which paid lip service to the traditional doctrines of the UMC but also incorporated language that adopted “theological pluralism” as its “guiding principle” in the interest of reviving and updating Methodist doctrine for the modern world. (See p. 6-7.) In 1980, the Discipline stated that “we recognize the presence of theological pluralism.” (p. 7.) In 1984, the Discipline incorporated the word salad that “we recognize under the guidance of our doctrinal standards and guidelines the presence of theological pluralism.” (p. 7.) Doubts set in about “theological pluralism,” namely that it was “used to allow or condone almost any theological or ethical position - provided that position is within the psychological framework of a liberal and humanistic interpretation of faith and life.” (p. 8.) Over time, some began to suspect that the “core of doctrine” was simply pluralism, as if pluralism held Methodists together. (p. 9.)

Walls notes in his introduction that pluralism seems biased. Everything is tolerated under pluralism except traditional Christian doctrine. He also notes that pluralism is a phenomenon in other traditions. He points to a 1985 New York Times advertisement where leftwing pro-abortion Catholics offered a Catholic Statement on Pluralism and Abortion. (Although noting the different trajectories of the UMC and Catholicism on abortion, one would hope that a more mature Walls would see that there is difference in the two traditions concerning the “problem of pluralism.”)

In Chapter 1 - The Many Faces of Pluralism - Walls clears out the underbrush concerning the many uses of pluralism, e.g., politcal pluralism, human diversity, the diversity of the gifts in the church, etc. These concepts are appealed to under the heading of “pluralism” as if they make “theological pluralism” unavoidable. The focuse is on theological pluralism which Walls introduces in a discussion of John Hick's views on the pluralism among the world religions, where the views of each world religion is viewed as “a perception and a response to the ultimate divine reality which they all in their different ways affirm.” (p. 24.) However, if all views are to be accorded respect as approaches to truth, then Christianity becomes problematic since it makes definite claims about the truth of certain propositions, such as the Incarnation. (p. 25.) The answer to this problem for Hicks is to reinterpret propositions like the Incarnation and the Resurrection “metaphorically or mythically.” (p. 25.) Thus, Jesus was gradually deified over time “largely under the impact of the early Christians' experience of finding reconciliation with God through encountering Christ.” (p. 26.) The Incarnation is “not indicative but expressive; suggesting a response rather than asserting a fact. (p. 26.)

Walls notes that “theological pluralism” is not the same as Hicks' “religious pluralism.” (p. 27.) Theological pluralism is restricted to the internal theological diversity within Christianity rather than to the relationship of one religion to another. (p. 27.)

In Chapter 2 - “What is Theological Pluralism?” - Walls points out that the Discipline never codified a definition of “theological pluralism.” (p. 29.) “Doctrinal Pluralism” is defined in a fairly convoluted structure of clauses that recognize the limitation of language, allow for more than one non-exhaustive verbal statement of truth, maintain continuity and identity of the Christian message but allows legitimate expression in various theological “systems” and “special interest theologies that may be “argued fruitfully in terms of evidence and cogency.” (p. 30-31.)

In the remainder of the chapter, Walls dismantles this word salad. Walls recognizes the ambiguity of language, but ultimately upholds the ability of language to get the job done. “The Nicene Creed is a major example of theologizing which recognizes that the limitations of language not only allow but sometimes even require, more than one verbal statement if the truth in question is to be accurately expressed.” (p. 35.) True statements must complement each other and be consistent with each other. (p. 35.)

Walls points to the “reductionist” game played by theologians like Hicks. These theologians reduce every problematic Christian doctrine to psychology. So, Christians say that Christ rose from the dead? Actually, what happened was that Christians had a subjective experience of God's mercy, and from that they formed a story that would communicate that experience. (p. 37.)

The criteria of “continuity and identity” take a beating in “doctrinal pluralism.” There may be disagreement about what really is “core” in Christianity but generations of Christians have been in remarkable agreement on the doctrines that pluralist now “mythologize.” Walls asks:

“If the Church catholic has been mistaken for centuries in its insistence on the doctrines of the creeds, are we not driven to the conclusion that the meaning God's revelation, which the creeds attempt to state is hopelessly beyond us?” (p. 40.)

[Walls mentions the creedal affirmation of the “Virgin Conception,” and notes that “what is definitive is the truth expressed by the creeds, not the particular expressions used to convey that truth.” (p. 41.)]

Finally, Walls notes the “witness” of various “expressions” including “naturalism.” (p. 44.) By this time, the game is up. Naturalism, of course, posits an anti-supernaturalism. The Discipline is effectively affirming both supernaturalism – traditional Christianity – and anti-Supernaturalism – which is sure sign of incoherence. (p. 45-46.) Presumably, it might be if religion was merely about the human response to the psychological effect of a belief. Thus, the question is whether religion is about a truth “out there” or a psychological experience ‘in here.” (See p. 47.)

Chapter 3 – John Wesley and Theological Pluralism – Pluralists put a lot of weight on Wesley's reputation for not drawing hard and bright lines on doctrinal issues. While this was true with respect to “smaller” issues, Walls allows, Wesley was not afraid to defend the large issues over which there had been longstanding agreement. “United Methodists, on the other hand, need to learn that some doctrines are essential and that these define the limits of tolerance.” (p. 67.)

Chapter 4 – A Problem of Coherence – I may have anticipated some of the arguments made int his chapter. Walls begins by noting that there is evidence that “liberal pluralists” were forming their own orthodoxy by excluding evangelicals from participation in the church. (15 years later, this had reached its terminal condition.)

Walls provides a tour de force for the proposition that a condition of “pure pluralism” inevitably becomes a regime of intolerance because “pure pluralism” is incoherent. Thus, to sum up the argument: Pluralism says that ALL positions should be subjected to criticism and possible overthrow. This commitment should include the idea of Pluralism itself. But overthrowing pluralism would deny pluralism. Pluralism is therefore an exclusivist position. Walls writes:

“Pluralism masquerades as tolerance. It appears to guarantee fairness and equal treatment for all serious opinions. The problem, to reiterate, is that some serious views claim more than a tentative status and are therefore exclusive in a way that puts definite stricture on pluralism. In such cases, it is impossible to recognize the validity of both the exclusive claim and the views with it excludes. A Standoff is inevitable, and the advocates of pluralism must side against all exclusive claims which are not content to accept a tentative status.” (p. 75.)

I think in 2020, we've seen the terminal end of pluralism in this conclusion. It was certainly the experience of my clients who were treated as dangerous Fascists for asserting their own values that conflicted with “pluralistic” values.

Chapter 5 – Pluralism and the Problem of Authority – Walls argues that there has to be some basis for finding an authority higher than pluralism. He argues that the answer is in the Scripture which, after all, is revelation. Revelation chiefly reveals things; if it fails to do that, then it isn't much good as “revelation.” This then answers the concern about the inadequacy of language which looms so large in the pluralists' psyche.

Chapter 6 – Pluralism, Doctrinal Standards, and the Nature of Theology – The issue becomes a matter of “finality.” Theology is never final since it necessarily must continue – as law has to continue – to deal with new issues and find new solutions to new problems. Doctrines, though, can be final. (p. 109.) A problem of the “theological pluralism” is that theology replaces doctrine and denies finality. (p. 108.) Walls observes:

“If doctrinal standards are to have any real authority among us, we cannot accept the notion that all doctrinal statements are mere landmarks. Rather, we must insist that some doctrinal statements express truth, and are thus final.” (p. 111.)

Thus, the Nicene Creed can be rephrased, but the truth it states are true and final as doctrine. (p. 111.)

Walls discusses the archaism fallacy and the futurist fallacy. The former rests on the notion that doctrines must be phrased in Scriptural terms; the latter rests on the notion that the affirmations of Christian faith never have a final sense. (p. 110.) (Interestingly, in “Christianity's Dangerous Idea,” Alister McGrath identifies the futurist fallacy as the sine qua non of Protestantism.)

I liked Walls point that learning theology is like grammar or logic. (p. 112.) The end is not the grammar or logic but what you can do with the grammar or logic. That has been my experience of law and of learning Thomism.

Walls closes the book with a hope that Bishops will reign in theologians. We know that didn't happen. In fact, the Bishops supercharged the movement away from traditional Christianity. My late partner took the deposition of one UMC bishop, who justified ignoring the Discipline on the grounds that he answered to something higher than the Discipline (and the Bible.)

Although the language of theological pluralism had been explicitly taken out of the Discipline, the ethos remained, but not the ethos of tolerance; rather the ethos of intolerance.

So, this is a valuable book to understand the world we inhabit in the early 21st century, the foundations were laid 50 years before.