A Few Thoughts On Pluralism

By Chaplain (First Lieutenant) Stephen Feinstein

As most of you know, I just recently spent 6 weeks at Ft. Jackson, SC going through the first half of the Chaplain Officer Basic Leadership Course (CHBOLC) for the U.S. Army. I must say that it was a great experience and I learned a lot of things and got to do a lot of things that my civilian counterparts most likely will never get to do. There are definitely some perks to the military.

However, one thing that many may not know is that the Army is probably the most pluralistic subgroup in the United States. Over 40% of its members are minorities, which means a large number of cultures and religions are represented. It is not the same Army of 100 years ago. As a result, chaplains have to provide religious support to a large variety of people. With that stated, I bet those who know me most are scratching their heads right about now. After all, I’m the guy who seems to always be looking for a debate with people of false faiths to set them on the right path and also to protect the flock from their teachings. How could a guy like me ever survive in the Army chaplaincy? This is a good question because the Army chaplaincy holds the official position of pluralism.

Two or three months ago, I would have probably said that I couldn’t handle it and I would have quit the Army. However, I will admit a few of my thoughts have changed on the subject. I think the big mistake comes in definitions. People often see pluralism as being ecumenism, but they are not the same thing. Ecumenism is the idea of all religions (or a particular set of religions) setting aside their differences and affirming the similarities so that they may become one body either in name or generally in practice. Pluralism, in contrast, is the idea of various religious groups working together within a society in peace, maintaining their uniqueness or differences, but showing mutual respect understanding that legally each faith group has the right to exist. I do understand that it is possible to find other definitions for these words, but spending the last six weeks in a fully religiously pluralistic environment and seeing its operations on a day-to-day basis in a totally real operational environment is enough for me to disregard theory and call things as they are in practice. So unless you believe in taking up the sword to purge all non-Christians from America, you are a pluralist to some extent.

In the first century, the Roman Empire was perhaps as religiously diverse (if not more) than the United States is today. Yet, there are many exhortations to be at peace with all men, to work diligently for your earthly masters, and to pray for and obey earthly rulers who were not Christians. The reason being is that our faith is spread by the gospel, not by the sword. The Lord calls His sheep through regeneration, not through forced conversions by men. As a result, the exhortation was to work hard in society, have a good reputation, make few enemies, and to pay your taxes to the pagan empire. The reason for this is clear. It facilitates the preaching of the gospel when people of every faith respect your faith because of the honesty and diligence of its adherents. American pluralism, then, is nothing new for the Christian. Act and live like a Christian, and work in peace with other people and create a good reputation for the church. Preach the gospel in season and out of season. I think the problem today is the church has lost so much credibility because people do not live to Biblical standards. There is nothing more that I hate than seeing a non-believer live a moral life and then look to my right and see a Christian enslaved to sin.

When I was at CHBOLC I was assigned to a Roman Catholic (working to be a priest) as my Battle Buddy (we have to watch out for each other). In my platoon there were Baptists, Pentecostals, Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Unitarian Universalists, and other smaller Christian groups. It was always interesting when I tried to describe my faith tradition to them. The best I could say was, “I’m a nondenominational Calvinist Dispensationalist.” Fortunately, these people all had masters degrees in their particular faith group and so most of them knew exactly what that meant. Given this environment I enjoyed the most fruitful conversations in religion that I have had in a long time. I tried to get along with most people as I realized fighting them would have made a difficult 6 weeks. I quickly befriended the Baptists and conservative Lutherans and Presbyterians. They became my core group in the first week since we all held to the same essentials.

Yet, as time progressed I befriended some of these other folks who do not hold to my views. The Army environment made it impossible to do otherwise. The Army showed me where pluralism works and where it doesn’t. For example, in the Army we have what is called the Army mission, and successfully accomplishing it takes full teamwork. In those situations, you don’t really care what religion the guy to your left and right are. When I repelled down a 50 foot wall, I did not care if the person holding my rope on the ground for leverage was an imam. When we were doing nighttime land navigation, I did not care if the person doing the pace count was a Lutheran, the compass holder a liberal, the radio man a Pentecostal, and the map reader a Catholic. I simply cared that each person did their part right so we would not get lost in the middle of a forest with dangerous animals living in it. I did not care what religion the person was who had to stick my arm with a needle as we learned to set up IVs in each other, and they did not care that I was a nondenominational Calvinist Dispensationalist. The Russian Orthodox fellow did not worry that I the Calvinist was wrapping his arm in a tourniquet during the testing on Combat Life Saving Skills. Examples of this can go on an on.

My point is simple. In an environment like the Army when your goal is to survive a battle, kill your enemy, and take, secure, and control an area of land, pluralism has to work. You have no choice for it not to work. If there is even one shred of disunity, the entire mission will fall apart. This level of pluralism, in my opinion, can only exist and work in an environment like the Army. One reason for this is the Army specifically defines both the ends and the means to any given situation and you simply have to perform it to their standard. During the missions, we were a united team. During downtime, however, I debated a lot of people. The Greek Orthodox guy gave me the most trouble since he had the entire New Testament memorized in Greek. Of course, I was still victorious. LOL. Also, I was afforded the opportunity to be the first real Calvinist representative that the Catholic and Russian Orthodox guys ever met. I cleared up a lot of issues for them that they were ignorant on, and when it was all said and done they actually respected the theology and practice of the Reformers (to a limited extent of course). At the same time, some of my misconceptions were cleared up. In terms of Roman Catholicism, I only learned a little because I had studied it thoroughly. That showed me that I did a decent job in those studies. However, I was wrong on a whole bunch of things concerning Russian Orthodox. After talking with the farting and cussing Orthodox Army Ranger (hence the constant farting and cussing), I came to the conclusion that Russian Orthodox folks possess salvific faith. I would not say such of the Catholics, although I wish I could. I found it sad that I agreed far more with Catholic and Orthodox positions than I would with Pentecostal ones. It is sad because where the Catholics are in error puts them outside of grace. Perhaps the same could be said of some Pentecostals. I found it kind of interesting though that two men of the schism of 1054 (Orthodox and Catholic) and one man of the schism of 1517 (me as a Calvinist) could be in the same room discussing theology and not want to ring each others’ necks. Only in the Army!

Reflecting back on the six weeks, I must say that I am glad that I met these people. I am glad that I was exposed to the pluralism in the Army environment. I think I now see these other religious folks as real people now. Before, I saw their ideas and theological concepts more, and their existence as actual people less. As a result, I did not care too much for Catholics or liberals but instead had a callous attitude toward them. I still have a callous attitude toward their beliefs, but now I can at least say that I care about them as people. It took this experience for that to happen. I am now more concerned with winning them to Biblical Christianity than I am at winning an argument.

Do I like pluralism? Not really. Do I wish everyone was a Calvinist Dispensationalist? Yes. But am I now more prepared to work for the cause of the true Christ in a pluralistic country? Absolutely! Am I more prepared to become a Th.D scholar someday now that I actually know what the actual positions are of these various groups? I would say so. I am prepared to dialogue in a way that does not get heated, but stays on the point. The Lord certainly used this whole situation for good in my life.

It also made me even more convinced that the mega-church pastors that are teaming up with liberals and Muslims in the name of pluralism to tackle “world problems” are misguided fools. Pluralism will not work on such a macro-scale since Muslims, liberals, and Christians should (if they are sincere in their belief systems) have very different ideas and expectations as to how to solve these “world problems.” The liberals will think AIDS is defeated by condom distribution, the Christian will say by abstinence, and a committed Muslim would say the death penalty for fornication would solve the problem. The only way these groups could ever work together would be to downplay their differences, and focus on their similarities. Go back to the beginning of this blog and notice that doing such is much more in line with ecumenicalism, not pluralism! Furthermore, what kind of Christian can downplay the distinctive traits of Christianity just to have peace with pagans? A true Christian is inseparable from his beliefs, especially if the Holy Spirit is guiding him! I cannot make a decision concerning AIDS apart from what the Bible says. How can these mega-church pastors do such and still call themselves pastors? Finally, tackling world problems gains the church nothing if Muslims and liberals get just as much credit for it. However, if the church acts alone in taking care of systemic sin in the world, then who will the world give the credit to? They will give it to the city brightly lit on the top of the hill that made it happen in the name of Christ.

So in conclusion, I think what is often touted as pluralism today is really ecumenicalism. This is why Christians freak out when they hear the word pluralism. However, if you think logically about it, most of us are pluralistic in a limited manner (such as getting along with coworkers). It is right to be angry at mega-church pastors that sell Christ out for their ecumenicalism. If there was one set of points to all of this rambling that I want any reader to take, it is this: See adherents of other faith groups as real people, and engage in respectful dialogue. Show them why Christ is the only way. Live God-honoring, respectable, and reputable lives before the world. Pluralism is nothing more than God bringing the mission field to us right here at home. Let’s take advantage of this and win people for Christ. If we can win these people here, we will already be familiar with their beliefs as we go to their own countries to try to win more for the gospel. Thanks for taking the time to read this. God bless.

Pastor Stephen Feinstein