Sunday! Sunday! Sunday! Japes VS. Koyzis. The Padre Takes the Professor in an Un-for-get-able showdown! Only on Pay-Per-View.

Now with a new and improved conclusion.

I have been reading Father Jape’s conversation with Dr. Koyzis and have had a great crisis of conscience. While I agree with the good padre’s assessment of the fundamental problem of the exclusivity of religious, philosophical, and ideological claims, I like Koyzis proposed alternative to the liberal order, even if it function like a modified form of liberalism in the present dispensation.

Unfortunately they are talking past each other. Japes critiques Koyzis for letting a more pervasive pluralism than principled pluralism would allow in the back door. Koyzis responds by describing the shape of a principled pluralist state. And Japes rounds off the event with a rebuttal of principled pluralism’s theoretical allowance for co-existence of other faith’s in the public square. To recap: 1) Japes brings epistemological concerns to a political philosophical position. 2) Koyzis expounds on his political philosophical position. And 3) Japes roundly criticizes Koyzis for even letting alternative religious perspective into the public square, a social concern, citing the mutual exclusivity of religious perspectives—again, an epistemological concern. Let today’s lesson be: Not dealing with people on their own terms is not how we make friends.

First train of thought: We cannot compel everyone to serve the same God, nor the same construction crafted by the hands of men; nor will we ever be able to do so. I am not taking a theoretical position here on how far human rights should extend. No. This I believe is a historically verifiable truth. It never has happened; nor will it until Kingdom Come. God can compel humanity to believe, of course; but herein lies a mystery. There were conscientious objectors to Hilter's rule, Bonhoffer among them, just as there were conscientious objectors to the order of greatest of Christian kingdoms or nations in history, though we usually refer to the later as immoral or criminal while praising the former for their moral stance.

Second train of thought: I have considered the impressive edifice of the Neocalvinist tradition, in particular Dooyeweerd’s philosophy—which should be no surprise to anyone who has spoken with me—I received at Redeemer University College, though valuable, ultimately dissatisfying, given my love for history, historical interpretation, and philosophy of history, for reasons that relate to the discussion in question. In my mind, Neocalvinists kept on trying to do the impossible—principled pluralism is a good example of that effort. Namely this, a principled pluralism is necessarily an unmaintainable political order. Each religious, philosophic, and ideological perspective structures the world differently—and therefore, wrongly, relative to the perspective one takes. Principled pluralism wants to leave a space in the public square for a multiplicity of perspective, which is exactly like handing a corner of the rug you are standing on to your enemy while taunting him (or her).

But this is not enough to make me consider submission to God synonymous with submission to the Japes’ version of Roman authority. In his haste to expose the presumptive epistemic arrogance entrenched in Koyzis position, he missed something. Principled pluralism is a Christian attempt to be better at playing the pluralist ballgame than those secular pluralists who strike out badly every time the question of religious exclusivity gets pitched at them. It is not an attempt to do Christ’s work for him, to end all religious dispute, to finally and conclusively cut the root of sin out of the hearts of men (and women). As I spoke about in my first train of thought, this is simply not possible through efforts made by human hands.

Third train of thought. In this same vein of considering the character of principled pluralism, I take note of the point that the idea of principled pluralism along with its allowance for the existence of other religions developed within a Christian tradition. You don’t hear secular ideologues offering a similar proposal. Nor is there much by way of comparison among the world’s traditional religions. (Islam is a notable exception, though traditionally concessions are made only to fellow monotheists and come with a long list of political and social restrictions.) Not to mince words here, but…Who in their right mind would offer an enemy of God a place at God’s table? Who in their right mind would pull up chairs for secular ideologues bent on denying a place for the Gospel and unseating Christians—even if only in a theoretical exercise, as principled pluralism still is? Is this Paul’s skanalon? something so hard for the human mind to accept that even the Jews were scandalized while the Greeks considered it sheer folly?

They may not believe as we do, yet they still bear God’s image. There may yet be a time for the sort of submission Japes’ calls for; as the Teacher says in Ecclesiastes, there is a time for everything. Modernity, they say, is on the way out; and with it is going pretensions to wondrous virtuous of an a-religious and amoral existence. Religion seems poised to make a comeback on the international political scene. There may yet come a time for us to create a religious enclave.

But I do not believe that time is now. Christians are instructed to bear Christ’s message of grace and truth to the nations. Should we not be trying to create room for constructive dialogue between different religious groups? Granted constructive dialogue is ultimately an impossibility, but are we not called to try? That a Christian should want others at the table regardless of their inclinations towards what Christian hold to be true does not seem so far-fetched to me. After all, the Lord has prepared a place for the likes of us. We are told the rain of God's grace falls on the just and unjust alike. Here is a claim, and you might even call it a promise, with no strings attached; no conversion is required. Why not address the welfare of my fellow man by making a place for his voice as well. The Lord may ransom souls from hell in the process. (It seems I've inadvertently put on a pair of fundy-pants.) So I say this of Jape: I grant you every theoretical point you’ve made; and ask him this: but why not give principled pluralism a second look? Or do we envision forcing feeding the Gospel to the masses on pain of mortal death and eternal damnation? (Forgive me for the hyperbolic conclusion.) rich