- Vincent Kundukulam
Pluralism follows the logic that Truth is manifested in many and none of its manifestations possess any quality of absoluteness. The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy describes pluralism as a perspective that emphasizes diversity rather than homogeneity, multiplicity rather than unity, difference rather than sameness. Pluralism can be thus explained in varied ways; nonetheless the essential is its belief that different or even contradictory systems, thoughts, behaviour and isms should co-exist without anyone of them having dominance over others.
Can Church, which considers herself as the vector of revealed truth, go with the pluralistic way of thinking? Formerly, Christianity succeeded in setting a model way of being Christian in the public. But in the recent decades, our society moved from a homogenous model of living to a pluralistic one. Therefore, it becomes difficult for the Church to propose ‘one Christian way’ that every individual must adopt in order to become a perfect Christian. In a society, where the faithful are placed in diverse cultural environments, Church has to discover a mechanism by which she can enable believers to live the gospel according to their social and cultural milieus.
In this context, Karl Rahner, one of the German theologians, invites Church to prepare her flock to live gospel in contexts where the visible expressions of faith are prohibited. The best way is to train the conscience; i.e. to inculcate an inner sense of justice and good will in the people. Conscience is not simply an act or a habit of a person; it is something that lies within the depth of human person and determines the very nature of taking decisions in life. The main ways to equip conscience with a right sense of moral judgement are education, experience and practice. Since childhood onwards, individuals must be helped to listen to the interior law hidden in conscience. Yet, conscience may not always make a right judgement. It may be influenced by bad examples, false teachings, lack of courage to stand by the voice of conscience, etc. Periodical self-examination and ongoing accompaniment are necessary to keep the conscience on the right track. And in this life-long task, there must have methods to keep the conscience endlessly active and vigilant.
In this regard, the suggestion of French theologian Francois Varillon (1905-1978) is worth mentioning. According to him, man must receive light mainly from two sources: secular sciences and revelation. His proposal goes in line with the position of Jesus. When Jesus was asked by the Pharisees, “Is it lawful to pay tax to the emperor or not?” he replied “Give therefore to the emperor things that are emperor’s and to God the things that are God’s” (Mt 22, 19-21). If we take into account the recent developments of Cognitive science, the two sources of reason and faith or secular and sacred correspond well to the nature and aspirations of left and right brains in humans.
Some people would then ask whether letting the individuals and groups to live the gospel values in accordance with the exigencies of their environments would create diversified forms of being Christian in the society. Surely, the style of Christian living would be then different from one place to the other. There would be multiple non-simultaneous ways of living the gospel message in the same space. There is nothing to be worried about it. As there are several historically socially and culturally conditioned contexts, there can also have historically culturally and socially distinctive forms of Christian livings provided the core of gospel message is kept intact, says Karl Rahner.
