Response to Os Guinness
David Scaer
The subtitle of Dr. Guinness's paper, "A Common Vision for the Common Good," is so American and patriotic that unless one is willing to forfeit his citizenship, he has no choice but to endorse it wholeheartedly. On the other side of the coin, we might be reluctant to guild the lily. Since the Christian church has flourished here in the United States, we should permit the secularization of society and forgo any alliance of like-minded people. The point is not that we should promote evil in order that good may come out of it (a type of legitimate Pauline argument), but that as churches we should ignore it. Now that is overstating the argument, but the point is made. The God who is revealed in the Gospel is also the God who is working in the world for the benefit of the church. The only really good work of God of which we can be certain in this world is that of the church with its proclamation of the Gospel and administration of the Sacraments. God works behind masks in history; and no one, not even the church, can predict his action or trace his steps.
Chartered pluralism is attractive because it wants to be understood as a reaffirmation of those principles which were operative in the formation of the American Constitution and wants to assure the retention of these principles for posterity. I think that it can be said that ideological pluralism as a basis of society
Page 500
was not so much on the minds of the founding fathers as was the idea of a society which already required cooperation. Thus the pluralism of American society came from a sense of self-preservation and self-advancement rather than from an ideal of establishing a pluralistic society. Politics makes strange bed fellows.
Chartered pluralism does not depend on the motives of the founding fathers. Regardless, the end result of allowing divergent opinions is the same. Stated in these terms, we are dealing more with a political manifesto for the nation and not with a religious document, though there are certain fundamental principles which evangelicals are said to have in common with others. It is assumed without argumentation that these principles, which are foundational for American society, evangelicalism, other religions and philosophical interest groups, can be identified and interpreted in the same way. It is also assumed that others are willing to be instructed by evangelicals or at least let them have the lead. Chartered pluralism is an attempt to have the component parts of American society elevate this pluralism to an acknowledged principle enshrined on tablets. It is the evangelical counterpart of canon law.
Guinness's approach is not the first attempt to establish a coalition among opposing or at least differing forces to accomplish a common good. In 1960, the late Professor Ernst Kinder of the University of Muenster told me of a similar plan for uniting Christian denominations under one umbrella, modeled after the (British) Commonwealth of Nations. Each church would be responsible for its own internal governance without any compromise of its own beliefs and procedures. His enthusiasm for the idea may have come from his own personal conflict of being a
Page 501
confessional Lutheran in the Evangelical Church of Westphalia, which had inherited the Prussian Union where Lutherans and Reformed were put on an equal footing. His proposal coincided with the post World War II formation of the Evangelical Church of Germany in which Lutheran, Reformed and Union, all state related churches, could live side by side. Kinder's proposal for a commonwealth of churches would effectively remove the right of one church to offer a meaningful critique of another and would also effectively render ineffective one church's condemnation of another. I am not so sure that the proper paradigm for Kinder's plan was the United Nations or the Commonwealth, a vestige of the old British Empire which was always in the state of perpetual dying but never quite managed to breathe its last breath. Chartered pluralism, if it is successful, effectively deprives its members of making the critique demanded by the Gospel. If it is unsuccessful, it will be as effective or rather as ineffective as the United Nations and the Commonwealth.
I do not make this analogy to rehearse history but to find a paradigm for the "notion of chartered pluralism." As far as I can determine, it is a clarion call for any number of religious organizations and philosophical interest groups to form a loose association for the expressed purpose of preserving society in which the church can achieve not only its vision for society but its distinctive goals as church. While chartered pluralism is ambitious in mobilizing diverse forces in society for the common good, it is a declaration by evangelicals that their attempt to be the prime force in American society is a failing dream. 1976, the year of the evangelicals, has come and gone and is not likely to return. The best that can be hoped for is an alliance not only with other
Page 502
Christian religions but nonChristian ones and certain secular forces with men of good will. The goal is now "a common vision for the common good." The bugle call for retreat is sounded. Half a loaf is better than none.
Chartered pluralism is not a completely new idea, but rather a codification of principles which have been part of the American fiber since the founding of the nation. A variety of beliefs have been tolerated since the beginning of the republic and the failure to let one group have its rightful place is seen as potentially threatening to the existence of all other groups. Thus self-survival, a negative goal, exists along with the positive goal of making changes in society, which the groups would recognize as beneficial or at least necessary: "a common vision for a common good." What is new about the chartered pluralism is that it is chartered. It is a type of codicil on the American constitution, detailing certain fundamental principles, which are already accepted practice through a kind of common law. It centers around organizations and groups of people and not simply individuals, as was the case in the framing of the Constitution. Without denying the religious influences in that document, these came through individuals and not groups. Churches, synagogues, and lodges were not represented, people with diverse backgrounds were. Religious influence was indirect. Chartered pluralism operates with groups. Whether pluralism was, is, or ever will be equivalent to utopia is questionable. An unresolved pluralism in regard to slavery brought the nation to its knees in less than eighty years. On both sides of the issue were men of good will, committed to the same principles of Christ and the Bible as are evangelicals today.
Page 503
Chartered pluralism works on assumptions which, when carefully examined, may reveal that the unity necessary for concerted action is lacking. Unity may exist more in appearances than in substance. Evangelicals have to ask themselves whether in their attempt to remain or become a leading voice in American society, they are masquerading their principles under other guises. Or have they adopted "the American promise of democratic liberty and justice" as their own? There may be a case of self delusion. While foundational principles may be common to any number of diverse ideologies, they are never so in the same way. Jesus and the Pharisees believed in one God and in the Law, but their understanding of them was so entirely different that any type of chartered pluralism would have been impossible. Where evangelicals come to a common vision with others, they must ask themselves if they have lost the offense of the cross as the totality of their mission or whether it is central at all. Are the foundational principles so general as to be without substantive meaning? Without knowing what the common principles are and how they are to be interpreted, chartered pluralism is first of all without serious content and consequently and eventually inoperative.
Guinness anchors the evangelical participation in chartered pluralism in the concept of common grace, the belief that God's grace works in all people apart from the grace revealed in the redemption of Christ. I am not so sure how this squares with the total depravity of man who is devoted to seeking first his own interests. Man's depravity and self-preservation can serve, as it does for Luther, as a basis of a common ethical movement. Luther's position should have at least an equal billing with Calvin's common grace. Also problematical is that evangelicalism
Page 504
seems to assume that its basic principles or at least some of them are identical to, or overlap and parallel, certain principles of American society. Is, for example, the pursuit of "the American promise of democratic liberty and justice" really within the church's task? Taken out of context, it sounds like the manifesto of a mainline denomination, a group which would be, at least in some cases, an unwelcome participant in chartered pluralism. I would feel very uncomfortable in making the American experience the judge of history or norm for others. Without denying the extraordinary success of the church in the American experience, can it be overlooked that the church literally grew by leaps and bounds where it was outlawed and persecuted by a government that used taxes paid by Christians to subsidize pagan cults which stood diametrically opposed to the Christian gospel?
When I first came across the term "chartered pluralism," I had a vision of pilgrims putting their signatures to the Mayflower Compact before disembarking in boats on the threatening cold seas around Cape Cod in 1620. Chartered pluralism is another example of Reformed covenant theology, but now extended beyond the church to the respectable groups of people outside the church. Here is a modern revision of the "Half-Way Covenanters." If all people could not be embraced by saving grace, they could at least be embraced by common grace. The concept is intriguing but eventually unsatisfactory. It appeals to me as an American, but not as a Christian. I cannot jump out of my Lutheran skin by becoming a Nestorian so as to live one life in the world and another life in the church. In the world I am completely indiscriminate in my alliances (up to a point) for the improvement
Page 505
of society and my neighbor in particular, but for the church there are boundaries which can not be crossed.
In the 1520s when the cause of the Reformation was at the point of failure, Philip of Hesse attempted a form of chartered pluralism by bringing together Luther and Zwingli at Marburg in October 1529. This chartered pluralism — and this is what it was — was rejected by Luther simply because there was no agreement on the Lord's Supper. Luther could not join Zwingli against the Catholics for the sake of the Protestant Reformation, but Lutheran and Catholic princes joined together in putting down the Anabaptistic revolt in Muenster simply to preserve a civil society. This showed that cooperation among people of differing beliefs for secular purposes was possible, but it proceeded from a common understanding of society and not from common religious beliefs.
Guinness says that unless the public philosophy respects and protects this remarkable American ordering, the civic vitality of the American republic will be sapped. Few would disagree that a pluralistic society is ultimately beneficial for the church or that the church has a vested interest in societal structures; but I am not sure that this has to be raised to an article of evangelical faith. It would appear that God as the Lord of history is left out of the equation. There is a type of arrogance in the assumption, even if it could be proven statistically, that the Holy Spirit makes more or better Christians in a pluralistic society that in others. God's rule over history is ignored or perhaps manipulated in some way. He is moving in history towards his predetermined goals, and by faith we hold that this movement is for the church's benefit. I am uncomfortable with assuming the role of a prophet and claiming that the history of our society and nation is a history of God's work
Page 506
superior to that of any other nation. God worked in the history of ancient Israel, Christ, and the apostles, and has provided an interpretation in the Scriptures. Beyond that I can have no absolute certainty, though I might want to hazard a few opinions. God does work in history and man may learn what God was doing in retrospect, but even then he cannot be absolutely certain. I would feel almost synergistic in manipulating history for the cause of the Gospel.
Consider that the church grew exorbitantly during persecution. Now no one is going to suggest that we arrange for church persecution so that the church can grow more. It would be similar to suggesting that we should sin more so that grace would abound all the more. So we should not put ourselves in God's place to adjust society and history, if by this we believe we are bringing about God's Kingdom. I will work to preserve our form of government, and I support political candidates and parties; but no equation can be made between this work and that of the Gospel. It is God's work, but in a sense totally different from the proclamation of Jesus.
Guinness points to the pluralistic society of the early church as a paradigm for his suggested ordering or reordering of American society. Such pluralism was not created by the church, but was simply a fact of life. The church worked to do away with other ideologies rather than confirming them in such a way that all could become one in Christ. Of course, this abstract goal is never reached, but it will hardly do to suggest that the New Testament situation encourages the church today to promote a pluralistic society.
Page 507
Wherever the Gospel is preached, it must bring division between believer and unbeliever and between believers themselves. By having religious and secular groups dig beyond the sub-soil of their principles to a foundation common to all, we may give the impression that the offense of the Gospel is no longer at the heart of Christianity.
I am assuming that certain groups for whatever reason will not be accepted within the range of chartered pluralism, unless they toe the line. But who will draw the line and who will be the referees? Evangelicals would be happy to assume these responsibilities, but will the others permit this? Mainline denominations which make it a matter of almost public doctrine that abortion is proper could hardly be seen as making a contribution to "the civic vitality of the American republic." Evangelicals may favor public support of their schools, but would they allow the same for Catholics or secular atheists? Certain abstract principles common to any number of groups may be identified, but there is less certainty about their interpretation by groups associated within chartered pluralism. The principles would then be meaningless and their effective operation impossible.
The Christian even more than the non-Christian is going to do everything in his power to improve society and help the neighbor, especially the one in distress. I see fundamental reasons why this cannot be accomplished through chartered pluralism. Its founding principles are undefinable and its operation unworkable.
