You write, "Christian institutions of higher education can 'embrace pluralism as a social good' and hold to an exclusivist understanding of faith." But doesn't a Christian in the very nature of the term reject pluralism by making exclusive faith claims? It doesn't seem like we can section these two things off. If Christ is truly Lord, how can we say pluralism in the public square is good while claiming every aspect of life must be brought under Christ's authority? As Abraham Kuyper says, "There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry, Mine!"
The best social good, then, would be specific and singular, with Christianity taking over the entire world "as the waters cover the seas" (Hab 2:14). Thanks for the post, and I'm interested in your thoughts!
I write about this in greater detail in Chapter 7 of my book (shameless plug, I know). Basically, I'm convinced that we can acknowledge (and enjoy!) the lordship of Christ in our lives--and work toward the flourishing of our communities--without binding the consciences of our neighbors who have yet to make a positive response to the good news. There's a fine but clear line, I think, between this approach and establishing a system of politics/governance that rejects the rights of our neighbors to freely accept or reject Jesus.
A Kuyperian worldview, I think, can acknowledge the sovereignty of Christ and a pluralist account of politics -- in fact, Kuyper's political views as PM seem to align with this.
I'm curious where you see the clear line. Are we binding consciences by refusing to allow transgender men into female locker rooms? What about abortion? Would you say that's okay to legislate against?
To some extent *any* law ends up binding people's consciences. I would say legislation of this sort, moving through democratic and institutional processes, is consistent with pluralism. It's when we disregard the systems and processes that would start to worry me.
You write, "Christian institutions of higher education can 'embrace pluralism as a social good' and hold to an exclusivist understanding of faith." But doesn't a Christian in the very nature of the term reject pluralism by making exclusive faith claims? It doesn't seem like we can section these two things off. If Christ is truly Lord, how can we say pluralism in the public square is good while claiming every aspect of life must be brought under Christ's authority? As Abraham Kuyper says, "There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry, Mine!"
The best social good, then, would be specific and singular, with Christianity taking over the entire world "as the waters cover the seas" (Hab 2:14). Thanks for the post, and I'm interested in your thoughts!
I write about this in greater detail in Chapter 7 of my book (shameless plug, I know). Basically, I'm convinced that we can acknowledge (and enjoy!) the lordship of Christ in our lives--and work toward the flourishing of our communities--without binding the consciences of our neighbors who have yet to make a positive response to the good news. There's a fine but clear line, I think, between this approach and establishing a system of politics/governance that rejects the rights of our neighbors to freely accept or reject Jesus.
A Kuyperian worldview, I think, can acknowledge the sovereignty of Christ and a pluralist account of politics -- in fact, Kuyper's political views as PM seem to align with this.
I'm curious where you see the clear line. Are we binding consciences by refusing to allow transgender men into female locker rooms? What about abortion? Would you say that's okay to legislate against?
To some extent *any* law ends up binding people's consciences. I would say legislation of this sort, moving through democratic and institutional processes, is consistent with pluralism. It's when we disregard the systems and processes that would start to worry me.