Pomomusings Is Talking Plurality

Adam has convened a great conversation at Pomomusings called Plurality 2.0. My friend, Phillip Clayton posted last week.  Money quote:

I’m guessing that most readers of this post in fact already live in
Pluralism 2.0. If you’re one of those people, interwoven identities is

second-nature to you, like the air we breathe. Of course our Christian
identities are not rigid and fully definable in “essentialist” fashion.
All important identities weave their roots in, around, and through
everything that we are. Does this mean that we have to listen really
hard to understand another’s identity? Yes. Does it make judging
others, whatever labels they use of themselves, more difficult? You
better believe it. Does Pluralism 2.0 make us relativists who could
never be Jesus’ disciples with our entire heart, soul, strength, and
mind? By no means! (If I had another post, I would walk through the
major moments in Jesus’ ministry when he showed incredible awareness of
the complexity of human identities, like John 4, Luke 7, and Luke 10.)

"Have you considered professional online editing services like www.CogitoEditing.com ?"

The Writing Life
"I'm not missing out on anything - it's rather condescending for you to assume that ..."

Is It Time for Christians to ..."
"I really don't understand what you want to say.Your http://europe-yachts.com/ya..."

Would John Piper Excommunicate His Son?

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Ben Cheney

    It’s utterly non-controversial and non-innovative to recognise that we all see and interpret truth through different “interwoven identities”, even for a very-conservative Christian, I would suggest. To recognise our different identities does not answer the question of whether or not one is a moral/spiritual relativist. In my opinion, the real question is, do you believe that some of those different identities are more in step with God’s capital-T Truth than others?

  • Ted Seeber

    One can recognize the identity of another, even if it contains behaviors which rightly should be condemned, without condemning the individual and without condoning the behavior.