The Intolerance of Religious Pluralism

Author(s): Peter Donovan

Source: Religious Studies, Vol. 29, No. 2 (Jun., 1993), pp. 217-229
Published by: Cambridge University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20019607 .
Accessed: 25/06/2014 07:51
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Religious
Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.81 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 07:51:48 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Rel. Stud. 29, pp.

217-229.

Copyright

1993 Cambridge

University

Press

PETER DONOVAN

THE

INTOLERANCE OF RELIGIOUS
PLURALISM

to religions has come in for some serious criticism

pluralistic
approach
two examples
in particular.
I shall consider
in recent writings.
The first is the
a
The Myth
Pluralistic
book Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered:
of
of
Theology
a collection
in
This
Gavin
is
of
edited
offered
D'Costa.1
essays
Religions,
by
The

response
Knitter.2
Pluralism:
Unbelief,
Gavin

to The Myth
The
second

of Christian

and Paul
by John Hick
Paul
and
Morris,
'Judaism
by
in Religious Pluralism
and
Freedom"',

Uniqueness,
is an essay

example
of "Religious
Ian Hamnett.3

the Price
edited
D'Costa

by
and

the other defenders

edited

of Christian

in framing
do not
diversity',

uniqueness,

on
reflection
they call 'a proper Christian
religious
set out, as well,
to
offer
reaffirmations.
customary
theological
They
simply
some
cases
most
in
attack pluralism
the
of
itself, using
weapons,
up-to-date
a postmodernist
tradition of intellectual
critique of the whole Enlightenment

what

liberalism.

Paul Morris,

to religious
objections
pluralism,
as
a
and pro?
particularly
political
ideology
with
their
by postmodernist
writings
suspicion

in framing

criticizes

his

liberalism,
similarly
gramme. He, too, is impressed
of Western
and its claims to universality.
rationality
some main
to clarify
I shall attempt
elements
consider what
implications
they may
as a liberal, pluralist
enterprise.

OBJECTIONS

Since

the early 1970s, writers

in particular)
have commonly
the possible
attitudes
people

have

TO

in these

for the academic

and
critiques,
of
study
religions

PLURALISM

on religious diversity
and plurality
(John Hick
into exclusivist, inclusivist, and pluralist
classified
hold towards religions
other than their
might

own. The

has been, for most,

that these attitudes
range from the
implication
or tolerant
more
so
to
less generous
the
(i.e. exclusivist)
('Plural?
{i.e.pluralist).
ism' here means
the world's
faiths as being more or less equally
regarding
to an
their contribution
valid, or at least equally capable of making
on-going
search for common
religious
insight and understanding.)
What
is being
of writing
critical
of such a
by the new wave
alleged,
position,

is that genuine

tolerance

of differences

and

for otherness

respect

1
Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis,
2
The Myth
SCM Press, 1988).
of Christian Uniqueness
(London:
3
Religious Pluralism and Unbelief
(London: Routledge,
1990), pp.

1990).
179-201.

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.81 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 07:51:48 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

is

2l8

PETER

an assured outcome
by no means
is coercive.
It does not
pluralism
game
play the pluralist
radical reinterpretations

DONOVAN

of a pluralist
attitude.
On
the contrary,
allow others simply to be themselves.
To
are
to
countenance
parties
expected
quite

properly,
and amendments

to their own positions

involves
liberalism, which

being made

as those

as well

of others. Pluralism
presupposes
and
of distinctive
the
traditional
accommodation,
compromise,
dismantling
to arrive at,
The common
features and agreed truths it purports
convictions.
a wide range of
are in fact simply reinforce?
through embracing
viewpoints,

ments

for the political

and

economic

interests

of a dominant

ideology.
as found in writers
like John Hick, Wilfred
Cantwell
pluralism,
Religious
a
is
Smith and Ninian
with
of the
Smart,
charged
being
similarly
product
a
form of European
cultural
'Enlightenment
mentality',
lingering
imperial?
more
seen
intellectuals
have
ism which
today's
politically
perceptive
through
are

to live without.
learning
as it is formulated
look first at this critique
the book, Gavin D'Costa
Reconsidered. In introducing
and

us

Let

seems

to hinder

rather

Christoph
plurality'.4
to its avowed
intentions,

Schw?bel

'often

theology
religious
contrary
noumenal

or a common

focus

than

aid

notes

how

in Christian

Uniqueness
how pluralistic
of
recognition

remarks

a proper
the pluralist

approach,
to rest on the picture of an ultimate
'
basis of all religions
which
anthropological
seems

and preliminary
only a penultimate
particularity
out
that
the
under discussion
DiNoia
A.
status'.5 J.
points
pluralist proposals
and Knitter's
of Christian Uniqueness]
Myth
[i.e. those in Hick

allows

do

their

distinctive

so much

not

account

for

some important

suggest
Christian
entertain

Lesslie
liberalism

of paganism
J?rgen Moltmann
Western
society,

which
also
and

featured

diversely

by
implication,
revisions
of

accuses

they

other
their

communities

religious
doctrines...6

observe

as

inviting

the

as well,

to

as akin

to the competitive
economic
'
a
at the moment
is hell-bent...

world

to "the market'".7
authority
to
in
of
the
consumerism
religion
pluralism
a
which
allows
it of
tolerance',
'repressive

surrenders
likens

world

religious

can be read as in effect

in it. They

sees pluralism
the developed

Newbigin
on which

form

changes

and,
certain

community
and
adopt

the

ultimate

but is sceptical about any objective

reality
subjective possibility
mediated
by religious
symbols.8
being adequately
that
and Kenneth
It is in the chapters by John Milbank
Surin, however,
in the postmodernist
the most pointed
idiom, are offered. Milbank
criticisms,
everything

are in fact
that pluralist
by a rhetoric of liberalism
theologies
pervaded
assumes the propriety
and theWest
nation-state
of theWest-inspired
'9
the global preten?
And Surin, after comparing
economy.
inspired capitalist
to the marketing
of the Macdonald's
liberalism
sions of Enlightenment

alleges
'which

hamburger,
4
7

concludes:

Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered,

Ibid. p.
147.

p. xi.
8
Ibid. p.

5
152.

Ibid. p. 33.
9
Ibid.

Ibid.

p.
p.

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.81 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 07:51:48 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

175.

121.

RELIGIOUS

PLURALISM

210,

liberal intellectuals pride themselves on acknowledging

Traditional
heterogeneity
and plurality, but this acknowledgement
is always fatally compromised
by a de?
- a
ployment of homogeneous
logic
logic which irons out the heterogeneous
precisely
and totalizing global and
by subsuming it under the categories of comprehensive
world

theologies...

'I am

he continues,
'that the time of this modernist
convinced',
general
is over, even in the philosophy
intellectual
and theology
of religions.'10
in these attacks on pluralism
The heat at times evident
is partly explained,
no doubt,
the
fact
that
the
writers
criticized
(i.e. the contributors
by
being
in the even more
and those elsewhere
of Christian Uniqueness,
some
titled Myth
very radical
of God Incarnate) contemplate
provocatively
doctrines
of the Incarnation
revisions of the central Christian
and the Trin?
to The Myth

on the
that exclusivism
this partly
based on such
grounds
source
of much
has been the
A radical
injustice and oppression.
a
remove
of
those
would
serious
beliefs,
believe,
rethinking
they
impediment
to inter-religious
and reconciliation.
It is not surprising
that de?
harmony

ity. They
doctrines

do

however
Christianity,
ready they may be to look with
than in the past on the other faiths of the world,
will
greater
sympathy
seem
to
such
if
involve
massive
vigorously
they
reject
theologies
departures
tenets.
from central Christian
fenders

of traditional

It is also,

of course,
to complain

a shrewd

tactical

move

for confessional

Christian

that pluralism
of other faiths
puts the distinctives
theologians
'
at
stance
A
risk.
conservative
which
also
the
equally
champions
right of the
to be left alone can thus be seen to take over the moral high ground,
other'
in the area of inter-faith
and co-operation.
if the rhetoric of
And
dialogue
to the chastening
lends itself, temporarily
of liberals,
anyway,
a
seem.
the better
it would
well be
(Though
cynic might
to see the descendants
of Calvin and of the Inquisition
intrigued
joining forces
to give lessons on tolerance
of Nietzsche
to the children
the disciples
with
of
postmodernism
then so much

the Enlightenment!)
we must
that irony aside for a moment,
consider
the possibility
Leaving
that these critics of pluralism,
their theological
whatever
agenda may be, are
with
issues
serious
and
for
the
of aca?
raising
theory
implications
practice
demic

studies itself. Does

this discipline's
commitment
religious
high-minded
to freedom
a
of thought
in
its
for
contain,
implicit
assumptions,
capacity
coerciveness
which
its would-be
and makes
it through
destroys
neutrality,
intolerant
and
and-through
ideological,
intrinsically
culturally
hegemonic?
THE

POSTMODERNIST

CRITIQUE

The

can be
The value placed
postmodernist
critique
simply expressed.
by
in
on
the
tradition
of
freedom
toler?
philosophers
Enlightenment
thought,
ance of dissent, and the search for truth through agreed empirical methods,
10

Ibid. p. 210.

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.81 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 07:51:48 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

PETER

220

was

because

an

such

approach

of entrenched

nation

(intellectual,
character
and become
the coercive

success

whose

economies

such a system

just
in his essay says, commenting
:
powers of liberalism

As Morris

state

an escape-route
provided
tradition.
and authoritarian

from

in terms

is measured
the management

requires

of

the resulting
to it
committed

of

of power-structures.
on Michel
Foucault's

the

of modern

introduction

individuals,

goods,

the domi?

But

ideology
it is alleged, with
the institutions
and disciplines
an equally
has developed
and economic),
political,

Liberalism,

DONOVAN

totalitarian

mercantile
etc.

wealth,

family

of

analysis

to

this economy. No aspect of life, customs, traditions, ways of thinking and

is
exempt from this end and its attendant disciplines.11
doing,
'
this abuse of power by the state is the liberal discourse
of
Underlying
reason and progress
from
'.Using
Morris
demon?
Jewish experience,
examples
'
strates ways
in which
the supposed
notion
of liberal rationality
universal
can and does have grave consequences
in the context
for religious
traditions
facilitate

of the modern

state'.12

to answer
could be made
the critique
this point a preliminary
attempt
so far. We might
a
liberalism
outlined
distinction
by drawing
begin
an
as
for
of
and
between
respect
liberty
epistemological
principle,
opinion
we
a
as
and political
total belief-system
liberalism
may
policy. The former
At

of

call epistemic liberalism

; the latter, ideological. Not all liberal thinkers by any
'
'
we
to a modernist
committed
means,
argue, have been ideologically
might
of others are to be progressively
the beliefs and practices
project whereby
to
and humanistic
into line with a secular,
scientific,
world-view,
brought
in the
of most
liberals involved
form a uniform global culture. The intentions
: the conscientious
application
study of religion have been far more modest
to
the
before them. Only when
of the best scholarship
knew
they
questions
or provoked
response
by the reactionary
urged on by secular voices, perhaps,
on
the role
have they found themselves
of orthodoxy,
of the guardians
taking
could
be
it
for a new world
order. The modernist
of crusaders
ideology,
has

argued,

in many

ways been
bound up with

inevitably
being
Such a fundamental

about

confusion

when

of

cussion

thrust upon
it.

liberal

scholarship,

rather

than

infect the dis?

may well
to distinguish
pluralistic
as a faith
ideological
pluralism

liberalism
critics

religious
pluralism,
as an epistemic
from
requirement,
or universal way
commitment,
super-theology,
tolerance

fail

It is clearly one
to say
to finding
is a way
truth, and quite another
thing to say pluralism
to
that
is
the
If
main
the
is the Truth.
Pluralism
religious pluralists
objection
they have been too ready to suggest what must be the truth of the matter,
on that truth by carrying out
to manufacture
and have attempted
agreement
on
the
then
criticisms
the
radical
may be sound ones.
traditions,
surgery
as
their efforts
theologians
only, pluralist
Despite
describing
'hypotheses'
11

In Hamnett,

ed., Religious

Pluralism

and Unbelief,

of salvation.

12
p.

192.

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.81 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 07:51:48 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Ibid. p.

193.

RELIGIOUS
such as the contributors
well,
some

at times, have
new,

to volumes

laid themselves

all-embracing,

global

Theology.
If this is so, then it is of course
that a clear distinction
studies

PLURALISM

221

like The Myth

of Christian Uniqueness may
to
the charge of seeking to promote
open
ideology,

a universal

faith

or World

of religious
for the practice
vitally
important
to
The
be preserved.
pluralist
approach
and methodological
is quite a dif?
grounds

on epistemic
religions
adopted
or theologies
offered
from pluralistic
ferent matter
soteriologies
hypotheses,
or
reasons.
the subject-matter
Both fall within
for ideological
confessional
concerns
But
studies
itself.
the
difference
with which
profound
religious
so owing

do

it may be to
be clearly recognized
(however difficult
on the part of scholars,
to the frequent
institutions,
overlap
audiences
with an interest in both activities).
and wider

the two must

between

publishers,

LIBERALISM,

TOLERANCE,

AND

FALLIBILITY

between
go,
epistemic and ideological pluralism
I believe
it is
the
above?
critique outlined
answering
postmodernist
seem to be only the
of a much
but it may well
crucial,
larger
beginning
it not be claimed
that it is in fact at the epistemic level that
debate. For might
at fault, when
to complicity
in the prevailing
is most
it comes
liberalism

How

far does

the distinction

towards

and structures
of power?
Is it not on this count,
the
ideology
of knowledge
and truth with
and
that
identification
domination,
power
their most penetrating
writers
such as Foucault
and Lyotard make
analyses?

Western

One way
of epistemic
the liberty
The peculiar
human

race

to approach
this question might
be to consider
the classic defence
liberalism
found in J. S. Mill's
essay On Liberty, in the chapter on
:
Mill writes
of thought
and discussion.
evil of silencing
; posterity

as well

the expression
as

the

existing

of an opinion
generation

is, that it is robbing

; those

who

dissent

from

the
the

still more

than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived
opinion,
error for truth ; ifwrong, they lose, what is almost
of the opportunity
of exchanging
as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced
by its collision with error.13
Tolerance
truth will
the basis

of free

is the best guarantee

there is that
argues,
thought, Mill
on
from
and
that
will
be
maintained
debate,
emerge
knowledge
not of authority
assurance
and prejudice,
of
but
rational
arising

the continuing
need to withstand
refutation.
no attempt
to disguise
himself makes
the paradox
in such a
implicit
error
out
When
truth
does
of
of
is
emerge
position.
diversity
opinion,
thereby
as to truth, the less the
excluded.
And
the greater
the degree of agreement
- or so
seem. Mill
of disagreement
it would
scope for tolerance
puts it thus:
from

Mill

13
man

'On Liberty'
John Stuart Mill,
(1859), in Utilitarianism,
Liberty, and Representative Government, Every?
edn (London: J. M. Dent & Sons, 1910), p. 79.
Library

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.81 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 07:51:48 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

PETER

222

As mankind

improve,

doubted

be

will

of
another,
of
opinion...14

the number
on

constantly

serious

DONOVAN

of doctrines

the

increase...

is one

controversy,

of

are no

which

The

cessation,

the necessary

incidents

or

longer disputed

on

one
of

question
consolidation

the

after

'
this would
be no trifling draw?
that, on his own argument,
as it would
an aid to the
'the loss of so important
back',
involving
intelligent
and living apprehension
of a truth, as is afforded by the necessity
of explain?
it against,
ing it to, or defending
opponents_'15
Mill

admits

in this admission
the
Perhaps we can find confirmed
by an arch-liberal,
to which
are drawing
the critics of pluralism
spectre of totalitarianism
attention
with
such alarm. Liberalism's
tolerance
is provisional
only and
in the end, at a closure;
the arrival
of all other possibilities.
Not only
negation
as the
if
liberalism
taken
too,
epistemic

at one

aims,

universal

ideological
'royal road

truth

liberalism
to

and

then, but
ends up

truth',

itself in an ultimate
involving
imperialism.
outcome
But is this an inevitable
of the liberal

path? Mill has already

It is the principle
of fallibility,
and

a fundamental

in place

the

set

the
safeguard.
even
to
when
beliefs
and
criticism,
openness
opinions
the point of being uncontested.
If they are justifiably
held as
so far in
be only because
refu?
they have succeeded
resisting

of continued

necessity
have reached

it will

truths,

to do so. ('The beliefs which we have

tation, and for the time being continue
most warrant
to rest on, but a standing
to
for have no safeguard
invitation
to prove
the whole world
them unfounded.')16
to refutation,
to radical
of fallibility,
and invitation
openness
Acceptance
in
essence
Mill's
critical
view
of
the
of
liberalism.
is,
anyway,
scrutiny
it provides
the needed
liberalism's
against
Consistently
protection
applied,
a
totalitarian
that is to say,
into
understood,
ideology.
developing
Properly
a plurality
not so as to absorb them all into
of opinions,
liberalism welcomes
a rational
presently

uniformity,
held as the

so as

but
truth

to guarantee

that

constantly

open

remains

any belief or opinion

to challenge
and cor?

rection.

this being utterly at odds with

the postmodernist
viewpoint,
with
The
consistent
it.
ironist, rhe?
deconstructionist,
entirely
a fallibilist
stance inevitably
such as Mill's,
presupposes
epistemology

Now

far from

it is in fact
torical

and could
however

function

hardly
radical,

criticism?

Indeed,

it. For what

without

unless

there

Mill

himself

are

those who

truth is one-sided,
long as popular
truth should have one-sided
unpopular
energetic,

and

wisdom

which

He

goes
14

the

most

likely

they proclaim

103.

that
than otherwise
it is more desirable
assertors too; such being usually the most

compel

as if it were

reluctant

15

Ibid.

attention

to

the

of

fragment

the whole.17

such a one-sided

on to commend

Ibid. p.

to

voice.

the radical

welcomes

explicitly

So

is there in a critique,
power
to take notice
of
feel bound

16

radical,
Ibid. p. 83.

whose

Rousseau,
17

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.81 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 07:51:48 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Ibid. p.

para
106.

PLURALISM
RELIGIOUS
223
'
those of the eighteenth
like bombshells
doxes exploded
century
amongst
and of the marvels
is called civilisation,
of what
who
'were lost in admiration
'

of modern
Thus

science,
the extreme

literature,
opposition

and philosophy...'.18
mounted
apparently

to liberalism,

by radical thinkers with

the Enlightenment
their some?
heritage,
insinuations
and ruthless de
devastating

and

rationality
overstatements,
may be recognized
by the perceptive
it is claimed
intent. When
rhetorical

regard
times outrageous
constructions,
ary to their

as entirely

liberal

necess?

that
by postmodernists
are
and liberalism
Western
ideals of rationality
self-interested,
imperialistic,
so
in
that
and
and
when
destructive
of
on,
otherness,
making
hegemonic,
or
are
academic
conventions
flouted
claim the normal philosophical,
literary
an invitation
and assailed,
it is not necessarily
ideals ; nor is it a proof
(as the conservative
such

ideals have

For

to abandon

liberalism's
seem

theologians
at last gone out of fashion.
there are lessons to learn from the social

distortions

suppose
injustices unearthed

critical

to hope)

that
and

and
and the new insights into oppression
by Foucault,
to
of
the
Derrida.
Those
lessons
deconstructions
brought
light by
not through abandoning
of rationality
will be appropriated
notions
and a
common
of the
quest for truth, but through a greatly enhanced
appreciation
otherness

in properly
involved
difficulty
applying
in subtle
of their being compromised,
volvement
with
economic
and political
is not

the inevitability
ways,
by their in?

such notions,

given

and

unsuspected
interests and power-struggles.
in other words,
critical methods,

to overthrow

The

to
rational,
far better.
them up and make
them perform
This
is not, of course,
that postmodernist
ironists and radical
something
can ever admit. To do so would destroy
deconstructionists
the power of their
are
of
the
effectiveness
their
rhetoric,
They
seeking to bring about
paradoxes.
an enlargement
reason
of perception
itself, through
through using
against
intent

but

free

testing to destruction
but
honoured
history,
again

As

and

again

in the old

conventional
first. Their

in

the critical
to maintain

ever-more-extreme

game

a long and
it has to emerge
has

endeavour
process. This
continued
effectiveness
forms.

of out-staring

one's

partner,
radicals

liberals, postmodernist
epistemic
effectiveness
lies in their refusal

in confrontation
cannot

to allow

afford

with
to blink

to get
too
seen
or
that
have
the
lightly, announcing
glibly
got the
they
point
are
For
the
chances
that
much
however
liberals
think
message.
may
they can
are
to
what
the critics
grasp,
convey,
theoretically,
trying
they will barely
very

the liberals

off

at the political
what
itmeans
and pragmatic
levels.
begun to appreciate
as
so
out
assume
must
not
feminist
criticism
Indeed,
brings
clearly,
they
they
ever will have that
however
hard they may
necessarily
try.
capacity,

have

Morris's

paper

to demonstrate,

shows

an

understanding
in the case of Judaism,
18

strategy. He sets out

deficiencies
of liberalism

of this whole
the serious

Ibid.

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.81 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 07:51:48 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

PETER

224
as a

DONOVAN

and the implications

this has for a religious pluralism
ideology,
to
it.
from
of the
support
Drawing
analogous
postmodernism's
scrutiny
'
'
universal
claims of Enlightenment,
he calls for a genuine
which
pluralism
to truth, nor
that 'liberal rationality
has no prior claim
would
recognize
political

for being
the yardstick
by which
and
transformed'.19
judged,

justification

evaluated,
But far from
intensification

of

and

would
and critiques
prevail
scepticism
more
no
than
the arbitrary
carry
weight
of view. Thus Morris
concludes:
have no desire
Nor

undone.

his critical
central

to return
we

should

rationality,

beliefs...

and

secular,
business
its place
embrace

cannot

the Enlightenment
of man's

examination

of our most

be

to use

responsibility

cherished

and

the postmodernist
leads not to any refu?
critique
as a rational,
critical enterprise,
but to a refine?
pluralism
of its scope, particularly
the d?mystification
enlargement
through
with

They
frees

the dominant

AND

ideology

PRAGMATIC

of the West.

TOLERANCE

is very
the matter
however,
uniqueness,
con?
to be one which
the postmodernist
achievement
from
the
conservatism
uncomfortable
of
pressures
theological
of Christian

take

file can now

The

criticism.

rationalist

the Enlightenment.
as representatives
now,
they
on with
the task of getting
strategic,

be closed

on their unfinished

finally put in
opposition
can gladly
of traditional
orthodoxies,
of
other religions,
any number
finding
reasons for at last showing
such tol?

With

with

pragmatic,

political

CONSERVATISM

the defenders

veniently

and

understanding

a relentless

entailing

THEOLOGICAL

different.

reject

expression

shortcomings
of any other point

at least,

of its entanglement

For

to their ghettos,
Kant's

liberalism's

.20

So for Morris,
tation of religious
ment

to be

this being

would

Jews

are

traditions

a rejection
of liberal rationality
and its critical
an
to
the epistemic
it
in
is
fact
level,
them, and an
appeal
as
of them. Without
Morris
is
well
relativism
aware,
these,

at

methods

all other

or missiological

the liberal

erance.

I have

already

the irony

mentioned

to be found

in the appropriation
of a
For what postmodern?

conservatives.
critique by theological
postmodernist
to
is not simply its tendency
the
in
ists most
mentality
Enlightenment
reject
and
but the realism
in ideology
and absolutism,
be embodied
objectivism
a
of truth is
view
Yet
such
its progressivist
which
presupposes.
epistemology
one

to which

theological
committed.

foundly
It is perhaps

19

In Religious

Pluralism

than

liberalism,

is pro?

in writing
their
today's conservatives,
some affinity with
the deconstructionist
not by
and rationality
for meaning,
knowledge,

understandable

theologies,
'post-liberal'
accounts
which
method

even more

conservatism,

will

that

find

and Unbelief,

20
p.

194.

Ibid.

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.81 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 07:51:48 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

p.

195.

RELIGIOUS

PLURALISM

225

to correspondence
with
external
the
but rather within
reality,
domain
'texts'
and
the
'traditions'.
For
confessional
of'narratives',
Christian
these terms can seem rich with revelationist
theologian,
possibilities
and ecclesiastical
associations.
reference
semiotic

But one of the lessons which

can

the fact of religious

diversity

makes

unavoid?

equal justification
(or lack of it) to the
appeal
their
revealed
and
truth
ancestral
and
texts,
narratives,
by
meaning
conveyed
for the essentially
tradition-constituted
rationalities.
And while
pragmatic
able

is that others

with

and relativistic

of texts, narratives
and traditions
is
plurality
postmodernists,
a problem,
more
even
it clearly
is for conservative
They,
theologians.
are in need of a realist, absolutist,
than liberals and modernists,
view of truth,
to be the final word,
if they are to hold
and revelation
their tradition

not

all others
rendering
Thus conservative
And

postmodernists.
all, I suggest,
oppressiveness
they are much

false or incomplete.
in fact have
theologians
their difference

with

the
very little in common with
the liberal pluralists
does not lie at

concern
about
any greater
having
to truth. It is rather
absolutist
claims

in the conservatives'
of totalistic

and

the
that

are to accept
the means
by which
be
ameliorated
that
;
may
is, rig?
and a scrupulous
of one's
acceptance

than liberals
less prepared
of truth-claims
coerciveness

the potential
orous
application
own fallibility.

of critical

that as it may,
do have
uniqueness

methods,

to D'Costa's
book defending
Christian
to give to the advocates
clear message
of religious
to religious pluralism
It is this :a commitment
derived from liberal
and critical principles
is by no means
the most promising
basis on

Be

pluralism.

the contributors

one

epistemic
to promote
which
in practice.
toleration
For it is obvious
that few
religious
are
in
to
the inter-religious
domain
share the liberal's view
participants
likely
over other considerations.
of the priority
of epistemic
'
'
In an everyday
sense, tolerance means
putting up with
something which
one would prefer to be otherwise,
on intellectual
or philosophi?
not primarily
cal grounds,
reasons
so. On
but because
there are prudential
for doing

unshakeable
conservatives
may well be far better placed
religious questions,
to engage
than fallibilist
liberals
in
with
effectively
practical
co-operation
concerns
those holding
can be dealt with more
different
beliefs. Mutual
when
there is no question
of the parties
involved being expected
congenially
to reconsider
or commitments.
their deepest
traditional
convictions
As con?
'
servative folk-wisdom
has always said, strong fences make good neighbours
'.
on the part of
There
is also the further
basis for toleration
religious
conservatives

which

I have

to
'strategic and missiological'.
According
reasons
for
attent?
and
good
being respectful
it is claimed,
faiths, for through such an approach,
best be able to 'receive God's
on
own short?
their
judgement'
'
'
to
to them from within
and
find Christ coming
other cultures and

this argument,
Christians
ive towards non-Christian
they will
comings,

called

have

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.81 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 07:51:48 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

PETER

226

DONOVAN

for tolerance underlies

the Vatican
II statements
argument
with other faiths, and is an
Church's
the Catholic
relationship
of the inclusivist approach
promoted
particularly
by the theo?

This

traditions.21
concerning
application
logian Karl

Rahner.

Such theological
inclusivism
is commonly
criticized
as
and offensive
it involves defining
because
liberal pluralists
patronizing
in terms of one's own interests. But in the political
domain
'other'
and

by
the
the

on the basis of
form of toleration,
of everyday
life, a symbiotic
mutually
as
a
on
be
welcomed
considerable
advance
inclusive
ideologies, might well
most other alternatives.
world

to a number

appeal
to do with
Mill

and

in the face of religious

by no means

of tolerance

Advocates

of arguments,

the epistemic,
so cherished
by

then, can clearly

diversity,
all of which
have anything

of thinking
process
truth-seeking
It is a mistake
liberal intellectuals.

epitomized
to assume

by
that

a philosophical

for diversity
of belief and freedom
of thought
preference
or
to
has any privileged
leads in practice
toleration,
religious
automatically
status over other possible
for
it.
justifications

STUDIES

RELIGIOUS

AND

THE

'WHO'S RIGHT?'

I wish to consider how academic

In conclusion,
use of some of the distinctions
I have mapped
and
tolerance.
of religious pluralism
In a recent
number

the Spectator, columnist

debates have
of recent Jewish/Christian
copy

of

religious
above,

QUESTION
studies might
with

in dealing

A. N. Wilson
led him

make
issues
a

tells how

to ask again

'Who's

right?'.

and the Founder of

Christians
[he writes] claim that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah
the Catholic Church. Jews believe that Jesus was a Galilean holy man who repre?
that was sublime in his ancestral prophetic
sented much
tradition, and who died
Common
the
in
the
of
Era.22
about
30
year
tragically
that he is
for years, Wilson
says, he now admits
is
Christian
belief
that the
drawn
by
unsupported
reluctantly
'
a Decade
to convert
the Jews
of Evangelism
Far from proclaiming
evidence.
'
admit that they had
I wish the Christians
would
and infidels', he concludes,
ever
to
hear
of such a thing,
lived
matter
had
he
and
that,
wrong,
got this
studied

Having

the matter

to the view

would

have

been

horrified

by "Christianity"'.
to comment
of
studies were called upon
religious
Suppose
re?
What
on the question
'Who's
appropriate
right?'.
posed by Wilson,
to
one
which
are
How would
available?
decide,
morally,
reasonably,
sponses

Jesus

a practitioner

choose?
(i) A
rejecting
21

on
could be offered
strong argument,
grounds,
postmodernist
level
At the epistemic
'Who's right?' altogether.
the question

See especially Gavin D'Costa's

Uniqueness Reconsidered, pp. 16?29.

own chapter
22

'
and Religious
Christ, the Trinity
Plurality'
The Spectator, 4 January
1992, p. 6.

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.81 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 07:51:48 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

for
it is

in Christian

PLURALISM

RELIGIOUS

unintelligible,
presupposing
to arbitrate
which
between
solute

reference-points,
once and for all.

matter

as it does

some

227

superior

different

from
reference-point
are no such ab?
There

belief-systems.
no metanarratives
in terms of which

to answer

the

to press the question

the political
'Who's right, as
level, moreover,
an
to
im?
is
risk exploiting
between Jews and Christians?'
already
glaring
At

balance
arly

and fragile minority

interests.
powerful majority
to settle the matter
'in the interests of truth', could

between

crusade

the collapse

not

schol?
take

are the

vacuum.
These
place in a political
in waiting.
Christian
lurk always
ever with

and its allies

1990s. Antisemitism
is more
selfconfident
than
triumphalism

of its communist

enemies.

fantasies
Popular millenialist
over Jesus, a global confrontation
and
Islamic
(and, of course
protagonists

a showdown

are

Fermenting
widespread.
between
and Christian
Jewish
be inviting
secular ones) would
while

the world's

offering
a media
coup matching
One might
indeed

diplomatic

news, propaganda
the Gulf War.

chaos

and

and public

international
relations

disaster,
companies

about
the motivation
of a
strong
suspicions
so
at
in
the
this
time.
journalist
provocatively
posing
question
publisher,
Can anyone put pen to paper, on such a subject, without
vested
betraying
a branch of the Western
interests of some sort? Likewise,
liberal education
have

or

to facilitate
itself religious
claimed
academic
studies, which
industry calling
on such
in
of
debate
the
interests
would
be
'pure scholarship',
questions
if not criminally
if it failed to recognize
the
naive,
ludicrously
incompetent,
of promoting
such an illusory ideal, in today's world.
implications
to repudiate
like
the 'Who's right?' ques?
(ii) Choosing
postmodernism
tion itself would
be congenial
also to conservative
thinkers amongst Jews and

political

that the true answer was known only by

being convinced
in obedient
received
faith, they could well agree that for
reasons
an
and
issue was best left alone, or taken
such
pragmatic
strategic
so
as
was
at
to define
far
needed
the scholarly
level
the areas of their
only

Christians.
divine

Each

revelation

fundamental
An

differences.

'agreement

much

pragmatic
can
the parties
for shared moral

adversaries.
oppressed,

on this crucial matter

can be seen to have
to disagree'
on its side. Freed from the pressures of a
wisdom
rift,
major
a respectable
still maintain
degree of judicious
cooperation
and humanitarian
action against mutual
goals and common
as oppressor
or as
about
the past, whether
be dissolved,
little by little, through
gracious
mutual
and tacit forgetfulness.
for
other?
restraint,
Respect
on
out
and
neither
is
coerced
into
party
throughout,
selling

Embarrassment
can meanwhile

understatement,
ness is preserved
their heritage.
Loyal
delicate
superficial

Jewish

and Christian

in this profound
traditionalists,
engaged
to doubt whether
an eclectic
be inclined

may well
subject like religious

business,

studies

(as they regard

it) can have

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.81 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 07:51:48 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

and
and

anything

228

PETER

useful

to contribute.

right?'

will

Certainly,

not be

DONOVAN

for answers
pressing
at all helpful.
in liberal
traditions
of

to the question

'Who's

thought
it remains
(iii) For those schooled
scholarship,
to give up the conviction
that their primary
difficult
task, indeed their moral
'
to
to
facts
the
best
is
the
available means,
try
get
straight ', by
humanly
duty,
even in matters
If this involves un?
of religious history
and interpretation.
or fuelling
the faithful,
the fires of
exacerbating
long-time
injustices,
are
to
costs
but
inevitable
and
be borne.
these
hatred,
regrettable
prejudice
to go on living in a world
is to allow people
of errors and
The alternative
settling

delusions.
Even

when

due

is made

allowance

for

the

and
distortions
ideological
has
and
been
rationality
again
again
colonizing
a task for it to do, so long as there are any
there remains
contaminated,
on claim and counterclaim,
matters
of fact at all, any lasting constraints
with which

ambitions

interpretation
and
honesty

critical

to some basic principles

Adherence
re-interpretation.
to any form
must
it
is
be
fundamental
truthfulness,
felt,
and

of
of

communication.

the question
about the rival Jewish
so, the liberal will argue,
views of Jesus, and the many
and shades of
possible positions
an
one
of those views,
is
within
the articulation
entirely
meaning
legitimate
to be pursued
for scholarly debate,
and it ought
by all available
empirical
That being
and Christian

themselves,
(such methods
If the result of such
criticism).

and critical methods

going

rational

of course,

being open to on?

as A. N. Wilson

scholarship,
one
in
view
rather
than
the other, there is a scholarly
fact
claims,
support
that conclusion
known.
and (the liberal will argue) a religious duty to make
will
be
for
that
reform
of
incorrect
then
there
the
opinion,
Only
opportunity
on which all human knowing
rests.
in understanding,
and consequent
growth
does

to tra?
and almost
inconceivable
If, in the process, massive
adjustments
seem called for, it will not be for the first time,
creeds and institutions
ditional
of adjustment
the liberal will point out. And as in the past, the experience
to
the
the
rather
than
be
for
overall
destruction,
enhancement,
may prove
'Great is truth', after all, and surely 'it shall
of the faith of those involved.
prevail'.

Liberal
should
many

thinkers

stand with

will
them

of the resources

take

it for granted

studies
religious
a
forum
and
with
them

that academic

in this enterprise,
providing
it can best be furthered.
which

with

or theo?
in the ideological
the Pluralists,
there remain
(iv) Meanwhile
to
committed
the
'Who's
who
will
right?'
approach
question
logical sense,
a
a place for both views. Rejecting
relativism
('all views
pragmatist
finding
are right if they work for those who hold them')
the pluralist will seek an
to be, in Hick's
and Christian
allows Jewish
which
responses
interpretation
'
'
some
which
each
under
virtue
of
salvific
term, equally
higher principle
by
to
can be subsumed.
If the suggested
seems, to the faithful,
reinterpretation

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.81 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 07:51:48 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

PLURALISM

RELIGIOUS

be a denial

229

that is because
distinctives,
they are in thrall to the
of the past. The world's
future
exclusivisms
safety and
to leave such ways behind
be re-educated
that believers

of traditional
and

antagonisms
security demands
them.

Pluralists,
assuming
to mutual

see religious
studies as their natural
may
faiths to one another will inevitably
that the exposure of many
harmonization.
and
gradual
adjustment
like

liberals,

ally,
lead

CONCLUSION

to be said for
Pluralist
there ismuch
Liberal,
Postmodernist,
Conservative,
to questions
in relation
of religious diversity,
each of those positions,
toler?
But so far as academic
studies is
ance, and respect for difference.
religious
I suggest, no one of these options
above
the
should be favoured
concerned,
a
to
studies
should
commit
itself
others. At most,
based
religious
pluralism
on
human
that
the
of
;
is,
strictly
recognition
fallibility
principles
epistemic
to take account
and the responsibility
of all sides of an issue. By doing
this
it can continue

to foster

that precious human

for informed,
respon?
capacity
sible judgement.
And at the same time it can help keep the way open for the
comes
of spirit which
the interaction
of competing
through
enlargement
not
and
between
diverse
traditions
but
ideas,
institutions,
merely
religious
men
women
above all within
the minds
of individual
and
As
themselves.
'
:
to
Ashoka
is
Concord
meritorious,
wit,
Emperor
proclaimed
hearkening,
'23
to the Law of Piety as accepted
and hearkening
by other people.
willingly,
John

Stuart Mill

Department

could

of Religious

not have

put

it better.

Studies,

Massey
University,
Palmerston Morth,
Mew Zealand
23
Ashoka,
and Jean W.

Rock Edict XII, trans, by Vincent A. Smith,

Sedlar
(New York: OUP,
1969), p. 106.

in Classical

India, edited

by William

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.81 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 07:51:48 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

H. McNeill