Because I have an advanced degree in theology, I read stuff that many normal people want nothing to do with. I don’t say this to be funny or to make fun of myself or anyone else. I think it is true. We can turn the tables and say the same thing about scientists or maybe even auto mechanics. I am sure they read stuff that I don’t want to read or even know about. However, I do appreciate what they know and what they bring to me. Scientists have created medicines that probably account for the fact that I am still alive. And I bless the auto mechanic every time my vehicle won’t even start.
I have often read about pluralism. In fact, I have even tried to teach some aspects of it in my classes. I know not everyone cares about that term. And I know some people would be downright hostile to it. And so it was with some real interest when I read a recent David Brooks’ essay that, in effect, was an argument for pluralism. He also offered some insight into the wretched mayhem in our country and some of the terrorism we see both in this country and abroad. I want to share some of his insights and take them in my own direction.
Pluralism means what it implies: there are differences. In our own country we can apply it in two ways: with respect to race and religion. Everyone knows we are a pluralistic land when it comes to races. Growing up in rural Indiana did not make that apparent to me, but just a little travel opened my world. Go to any major city and you can see folks of many different colored skin walking the streets.
Statistically, we know that whites have been the major racial group in America. But those days are waning. We are at the point where more non-white babies are born than Caucasians. Our land is changing slowly but surely. That is fact; how one feels about it is a choice. And obviously, some folks are not happy.
The pluralism perspective affirms that this racial diversity is a good thing. I count myself in this camp. However, anti-pluralists can see this as a threat to identity. This is one point that Brooks raises, which is significant. Brooks says that some folks see identity as primarily in racial terms. “The most important thing you can know about a person is his or her race. A white sees the world as a white and a Latino sees it as a Latino. Identity is racial.”
While we don’t have time now to describe how people determine their identity, it is a worthwhile thing to ponder. Depending on how you define your identity, you can decide whether identity is a given---you are born that way---or whether identity is chosen. In fact, it may be a combination deal for many of us. But we certainly know that identity can be one of those markers that distinguish us. And if race is a key marker, difference might be threatening to me. And if it is threatening, that will probably determine how I see things and act. Pluralists welcome this difference.
The other issue I want to address is religion. Here again is a topic pluralism and its opposites deal with very differently. Once again, religion can play a key role in identity. For example, I identify as a Christian. Most of my friends and acquaintances probably are Christian. In this country it is quite easy to be a Christian. In fact, it seems perfectly normal, if not natural. This was how I grew up. I simply didn’t know anything otherwise. Of course, there were a few around who did not care about religion and maybe an atheist or two. But I didn’t know them!
No one living in this country today understands this world this simplistically. Religious diversity abounds. I can go to a major hospital in my city and just as likely be treated by a Jewish doctor or a Hindu. For all I know, the physician is an atheist. On the operating table, I might not care. But in “real life” on the streets, it might matter a great deal. Again, the pluralist welcomes this diversity. And the anti-pluralist is troubled by it.
As a spiritual pilgrim, all this matters very much. The fact that the world is diverse is something I personally have to grapple with, understand and allow to govern how I act. I like how Brooks puts it: “Pluralists are always expanding the definition of “us,” not constricting it. I choose to celebrate how God has evolved our world this way. I am confident God is in this mix with us and that God celebrates a diverse culture because of the myriad of possibilities afforded by that mix.
We can’t stop this evolving. Our mission and ministry is to be glad we are part of it and to serve every part of it. Our ministry is to serve the challenge of helping our culture thrive and all the people within it to thrive. They all are our brothers and sisters. Brooks insightfully sums it up. “All cultures define and renew themselves through encounter. A pure culture is a dead culture while an amalgam culture is a creative culture.”
At least, this is my way and my faith.
I have often read about pluralism. In fact, I have even tried to teach some aspects of it in my classes. I know not everyone cares about that term. And I know some people would be downright hostile to it. And so it was with some real interest when I read a recent David Brooks’ essay that, in effect, was an argument for pluralism. He also offered some insight into the wretched mayhem in our country and some of the terrorism we see both in this country and abroad. I want to share some of his insights and take them in my own direction.
Pluralism means what it implies: there are differences. In our own country we can apply it in two ways: with respect to race and religion. Everyone knows we are a pluralistic land when it comes to races. Growing up in rural Indiana did not make that apparent to me, but just a little travel opened my world. Go to any major city and you can see folks of many different colored skin walking the streets.
Statistically, we know that whites have been the major racial group in America. But those days are waning. We are at the point where more non-white babies are born than Caucasians. Our land is changing slowly but surely. That is fact; how one feels about it is a choice. And obviously, some folks are not happy.
The pluralism perspective affirms that this racial diversity is a good thing. I count myself in this camp. However, anti-pluralists can see this as a threat to identity. This is one point that Brooks raises, which is significant. Brooks says that some folks see identity as primarily in racial terms. “The most important thing you can know about a person is his or her race. A white sees the world as a white and a Latino sees it as a Latino. Identity is racial.”
While we don’t have time now to describe how people determine their identity, it is a worthwhile thing to ponder. Depending on how you define your identity, you can decide whether identity is a given---you are born that way---or whether identity is chosen. In fact, it may be a combination deal for many of us. But we certainly know that identity can be one of those markers that distinguish us. And if race is a key marker, difference might be threatening to me. And if it is threatening, that will probably determine how I see things and act. Pluralists welcome this difference.
The other issue I want to address is religion. Here again is a topic pluralism and its opposites deal with very differently. Once again, religion can play a key role in identity. For example, I identify as a Christian. Most of my friends and acquaintances probably are Christian. In this country it is quite easy to be a Christian. In fact, it seems perfectly normal, if not natural. This was how I grew up. I simply didn’t know anything otherwise. Of course, there were a few around who did not care about religion and maybe an atheist or two. But I didn’t know them!
No one living in this country today understands this world this simplistically. Religious diversity abounds. I can go to a major hospital in my city and just as likely be treated by a Jewish doctor or a Hindu. For all I know, the physician is an atheist. On the operating table, I might not care. But in “real life” on the streets, it might matter a great deal. Again, the pluralist welcomes this diversity. And the anti-pluralist is troubled by it.
As a spiritual pilgrim, all this matters very much. The fact that the world is diverse is something I personally have to grapple with, understand and allow to govern how I act. I like how Brooks puts it: “Pluralists are always expanding the definition of “us,” not constricting it. I choose to celebrate how God has evolved our world this way. I am confident God is in this mix with us and that God celebrates a diverse culture because of the myriad of possibilities afforded by that mix.
We can’t stop this evolving. Our mission and ministry is to be glad we are part of it and to serve every part of it. Our ministry is to serve the challenge of helping our culture thrive and all the people within it to thrive. They all are our brothers and sisters. Brooks insightfully sums it up. “All cultures define and renew themselves through encounter. A pure culture is a dead culture while an amalgam culture is a creative culture.”
At least, this is my way and my faith.
Comments
Post a Comment