A word has found new meaning in today’s culture. It sounds benign and harmless—even appealing. The word is “pluralism.” No, it’s not exactly new, but today’s application of the word appears to be quite new, and its wide acceptance is very new.
My 30 year old Random House American College Dictionary defines it this way:
A theory or system that recognizes more than one ultimate substance or principle.
As is often the case, we may need a dictionary to define this dictionary. Random House could not foresee today’s use of the word. Its definition is accurate, but limited. In research I discovered the term is used to describe many facets of society, but as it is commonly used it means: A denial of objective truths or standards of behavior; tolerance of all views; pluralism grants quality and viability to views counter to one’s own.
Did that muddy the water? You can tell what that means; it means if you think something is wrong, keep it to yourself. It means that “right” is what you think it is, and “wrong” is what you think it is. It also means no one has the right to say someone or some thing is wrong, for that would be “intolerant.”
Certainly there is a place for being tolerant of others’ views. No, we will not try to throw someone in jail if they are Democrats or Republicans. Yes, the religious and ethical views of others have a perfect right, under our Constitution, to be accepted.
For example, an American woman has the right to believe abortion to be legal and right. I have the right to believe abortion is wrong. We both have the right to try to convince the other that their view is wrong. But neither has the right to murder the other because of their viewpoint.
Another illustration: Any American has the legal right to reject the existence of God. And I have the right to believe in the omnipotence, love and mercy of God. We both have the right to try to convince the other that he/she is wrong. But they still have the right to their opinion.
One more example: You go to the pharmacy for medicine your doctor has prescribed. You have confidence in both pharmacist and doctor that the right drug has been prescribed and filled. But your confidence does not guarantee that the ingredients are the right ones. Even if both of you agree the prescription is “right,” if the ingredients are “wrong,” they are wrong whether you believe it or do not believe it.
What do these examples have to do with pluralism? Think about one’s views on religious and ethical matters. Are some things wrong, while others are right? Are some beliefs right even if men do not agree with them? Such as: Jesus IS the Son of God? The Bible IS God’s Inspired Word? Adultery IS sin?
Or—are the opposite views equally “right”? Jesus is NOT the Son of God? The Bible is NOT God’s Word? Adultery is NOT sin? That is the natural consequence of the pluralistic view. In other words, if you believe it, it’s right. If you don’t believe it, then it’s not right. Right?
Logic and its academic systems say an entity cannot both be and not be at the same time. It either exists or does not exist. Some things are true whether or not man thinks they are true. Some things are false whether or not man agrees. If being narrow-minded includes accepting as fact what God has declared is His truth (and He has, John 17:17, 8:32), are we intolerant if we believe and teach that truth?
When the apostle Paul spoke of the Christians in Berea, he said: “They received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so,” Acts 17:11.
So, what source should we seek in order to find God’s Truth? With “all readiness of mind,” we should search “the scriptures.” This means scripture settles the issue! This also means that a view opposing what the Bible says is “wrong”! Should we first consult our own minds, and then decide what we “think”? No, it is settled by God’s Word. It is truth whether or not men believe it.
The following, written by an author unknown to me, needs our attention:
There is no room for broad-mindedness in the chemical laboratory. Water is composed of two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. The slightest deviation from that formula is forbidden, There is no room for broad-mindedness in the mathematics classroom. Neither geometry, calculus, nor trigonometry allows any variation from accuracy, even for old time’s sake. The solution of the problem is either right or it is wrong—no tolerance there. There is no room for broad-mindedness in the garage. The mechanic says the piston rings must fit in the cylinder walls within one one-thousandth part of an inch. Even between friends there cannot be any variation if the motor is to run smoothly. How, then, shall we expect that broad-mindedness shall rule in the realm of ethics and morals?
Narrow minded? Just as narrow as the Bible; and just as broad as the mind of God. Will you trade your soul for pluralism’s views?
