A pluralist society is a diverse society, and a diverse society is one characterized by differences: religious differences, cultural differences, gender and sexual differences, economic differences, political differences, racial and ethnic differences, etc.  Accompanying these and other forms of differences are differences in fundamental values and ideas: what religious truth is and what role it should play in individuals’ lives and the broader society; the best form of government and how leaders should relate to the governed; the uses of money, what counts as fair and ethical economic practices, and how the economy can best be structured for society’s benefit; how race and ethnicity are defined and how different racial or ethnic groups should relate to one another; how gender and sexuality are thought of, what are proper relations between the sexes, and what forms of sexuality are acceptable; what cultural practices should and shouldn’t be allowed; and a whole host of other fundamental issues that shape how humans relate to each other.

Liberals often like to celebrate diversity as a wonderful and enriching aspect of our society, and conservatives frequently seem to want to eradicate diversity in favor of the hegemony of straight, white, American males.  Both positions miss out on something.  Not only is conservative opposition to diversity often mean-spirited and bigoted, it’s also mistaken in its view of the possibilities of the future.  American cannot, even if it wanted to, go back to the traditional, white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant mainstream of the 1950s.  Diversity will not just stick around, it will increase in this country for demographic, economic, and political reasons that would be nigh impossible to reverse.  Yet this increasing diversity is not just a cause for celebration, but a cause for reflection on the social makeup of our country because, contrary to what some liberals seem to think, diversity is not just a source of enriching broadening of our horizons, but is also a big source of conflict in society.

The tensions that come out of a pluralist, diverse society aren’t just tensions within the framework of that society (for instance, racial or class struggles over the extent to which different groups get to participate in an agreed-upon definition of political and economic rights) but tensions with the framework of that society (in which some groups in society reject the validity of the political systems or cultural ideas that define the society).  It’s fine for socially separate groups to have their own ideas about every topic you can think of, but in order to have a social system, there must be something (or some things) that bind groups together, whether it’s participation in capitalism, belief in liberal democracy and the rule of law, shared cultural values, shared religious practices, or simply a shared commitment to keep engaging with the other despite differences.  Without some shared basis, things fall apart, and there is no center to hold groups together.  Anarchy and conflict are indeed loosed upon the world.

Arguably, it’s more important to have shared values in some areas than others.  Without shared values upon which to build political or economic systems, force is unregulated and the exchange of goods is not possible.  People kill each other and starve for lack of food, and that’s bad.  On the other hand, if there are cultural differences but a shared political and economic system, then there’s still likely to be a lot of conflict, but fewer people dying (though probably still some).

That doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s not important to think through the problem of pluralism in areas beyond politics and economics.  To assume that these two areas of life are all that matter is reductionist in a way I find unacceptable.  Furthermore, the problem of pluralism is more pressing in areas beyond politics and economics.  In these two areas, liberal democratic capitalism has enough buy-in to keep the world from engulfing itself in flames thoroughly or quickly, but what ties should bind us in other areas is anything but clear.

Globalization makes the question of pluralism all the more pressing, as additional cultural, religious, and ethnic groups plug in to a common global economic and political system.  How does the system handle these types of diversity in a way that respects the rights of groups and individuals to have diverse values and identities while at the same type promoting enough commonalities so that the system does break down into too much open conflict?  This question is one of the most pressing of our times.  Thus, as we look at the increasingly pluralist society in which we live on both a national and global level, in addition to noticing and appreciating the differences between groups, we also need to think about what binds us together.

At first blush, it might seem like Global Christianity, being primarily a non-Western phenomenon, and (post)modernity, being primarily a Western phenomenon, might not have a lot to do with each other, but I think there are at least two ways to connect them.  I would like to suggest that both can be tied to the trends of globalization and pluralism.

One way of answering how World Christianity fits into a narrative of modernity is to talk about the relationship between World Christianity and globalization, assuming that globalization is an outgrowth or full flowering of modernity or (as I would probably argue) an important part of the context of postmodernity.

Christian mission has a long history as both a form of globalization and as a force that’s been tied to other forms of globalization.  In fact, that’s what I’m writing my dissertation about.  Religion has long been something that’s bound people together across the globe.  In addition, there have been close (though complicated) connections between Christian missions and other globalizing forces, like commerce and colonialism.

But where I think Christianity and especially World Christianity ties best into globalization is that it reflects the same global/local (or glocal) nature one sees in secular forms of globalization.  Christianity is at the same time a pre-eminently global religion and a pre-eminently local religion.  It is global by virtue of the catholicity of the faith.  It is local by the propensity of the faith to adapt itself to local cultures (a process called inculturation).

Furthermore, scholars have argued that conversion from traditional religions to Christianity is a means of establishing new, stable, global connections in a world where destabilizing global connections are threatening traditional ways of life.  Yet at the same time, Christianity can be a way of preserving (though at the same time changing or reinterpreting) elements of traditional ways of life, from language to ethnicity to cultural habits to social structures.

So there’s a dialectic between Christianity as a global religion and Christianity as a local religion, where there are tensions between the two, but in which the two feed into each other – Christianity’s global connections are often what generate local appeal, but without the ability to adapt locally, Christianity wouldn’t grow globally.

Another way is to tie the story of World Christianity into (post)modernity is to talk about World Christianity as another form of pluralism or diversity which undercuts the sorts of grand narratives that modernity wants to construct and thus fits with the postmodern world.  Here, I’m using pluralism not as a value to be promoted, but rather as a term describing the diversity of the world around us.  Often, pluralism causes tension and conflict, and I think the question of how to live in a pluralistic setting is one of the most pressing questions of postmodernity/what comes next.

World Christianity reflects the pluralism of our world in several ways.  First, when examining World Christianity, you find a lot of pluralism within Christianity.  There is denominational pluralism.  Catholics, Evangelicals, Pentecostals, Independents, Orthodox, and Protestants think, believe, worship, and practice differently.  There is an abundance of cultural pluralism within World Christianity.  This cultural pluralism within Christianity can lead to misunderstanding and conflict, both within and between cultures.  There are theological differences, differences in worship, differences is ecclesiology, etc.  In particular, there are differences in theologies and in access to resources between Western and non-Western Christianity.

World Christianity also reflects pluralism between religions.  Christians outside the West often live in situations where they share societies with a significant number of non-Christians and in many instances (especially in Asia) are minority populations in predominantly non-Christian contexts.  This raises the question for Christians of how one reacts theologically, ethically, politically, etc. to people from other faiths, especially other world religions such as Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism.  How should Christians deal with certain eastern religious settings were religion is additive rather than exclusive, and Jesus can be another god in the pantheon?  How should Christians deal with violence or political restrictions imposed on them by other religious groups?

This question of political restrictions raises another form in which World Christianity reflects the postmodern problem of pluralism.  Many nation-state governments see pluralism as a problem and seek to repress ethnic or religious diversity out of fear that it will destabilize the state.  Brian Grim recently released a study saying that 70% of the world’s population lives in countries with high or very high levels of political or social restrictions on religion.  Not only are Christians persecuted for being Christians, they are also in many places persecuted for being ethnic minorities, like the Karen in Myanmar.

Interestingly, both of these connections between World Christianity and (post)modernity also tie in to the theme of the contextualization of Christianity – of recognizing that theology is developed from within social and cultural contexts.  When people talk about contextuality, they are also often seeking to promote the development of indigenous theologies from within non-Western contexts.  But contextuality isn’t only non-Western.  We in the West have a context, too, and connecting Christianity and that context is part of why I blog.