Religious Pluralism in America

can it be Supported from Scripture?

by Byron Snapp
Pluralism It is as American as apple
pie isn't it? "Of course," many in the
church and out of the church would an-
swer. By pluralism we mean that Ameri-
ca is made up of plural (many) faiths;
even people with no faith. All religious
views should be equally protected by
the civil government. After all, it is
part of American religious freedom In
recent days we have seen more discus-
sion of religious pluralism. People
have worried as to what Pat Robertson,
an ordained minister; might do if he
were elected President. With his with-
drawal that question is mute. Yet the
question of whether Or not America
should be a pluralistic society is alive
and well and continues to be discussed.
One Christian who opposes an end to
pluralism is Norman Geisler, a profes-
sor of Systematic Theology at Dallas
Theological Seminary. In an article en-
titled, "A Premillennial View of Law
and Government" (The Best in Theolo-
gy, Vol. 1, Ed. Jl. Packer) he writes
the following: "Premillennialists, un-
like postmillennialists, do not attempt
to set up a distinctly Christian govern-
ment; they work rather for good govern-
ment. Premillennarians need not work
for Christian civil laws but only for fair
ones. Tileir effort is not to achieve reli-
gious superiority for Christianity, but
religious equality before the law for all
religions. In short the premillennial po-.
sition is compatible with a true plural-
ism. It fits well with the First Amend-
ment of the United States Constitution
which is against the state's establishing
(or preferring) one religion over anoth-
er." (p. 258)
Byz:on SnapP. is
Headmaster of the
Covenant Christian
School in Cedar
Bluff, Virginia and
Associate Jlastor at
. . the Covenant
Presbyterian Church.
How is a nation go be governed? Pro-
fessor Geisler believes man is to be gov-.
erned by natural law or "God's general
revelation to all men." (p. 259) He cites
Rom. 1:18-20 and Rom. 2:14-15 as
viding the Scriptural basis for this posi-
tion.
Is pluralism a fact of life for Ameri-
ca? Is this God's will for any nation? I
believe a closer look at Scripture re-
veals a clear answer of "No."
Mr. Geisler should realize where his
proposed solution (if it were true) leads
him. He states that God . has given a
general revelation to all men and man
must use this general revelation as a
basis for national law. In other words,
he believes all men are born with a
basic knowledge of right and wrong and
will choose by nature right laws to
govern . society. Mr. Geisler should
realize that if all men have a general
revelation given them by God then in
essence civil government is to be ruled
by God's law, as expressed in general
terins. Yet he states elsewhere that there
should be no superiority for Christian
laws. Laws that would be considered a
part of God's general revelation to all
men would iriclude, "Thou shalt not
kill" and "Thou shalt not steal." These
laws. come from God alone. Thus, by
supporting general revelation as a basis
for civil government Geisler is
calling for God's law to ultimately
govern man. How does this make those
who are Islamic or Hindu feel? He
supports pluralism and at the same time
states that God's general revelation
must be acknowledged by all as the
basic form of government Doesn't he
realize that many do not believe in God
nor see that He has given a law where-
by man is to be governed? Doesn't he
realize that the evolutionist, for ex-
ample, does not believe in a God's exis-
tence and thus would not believe that
God gives general laws to all men?
While rejecting a Christian law system
Mr. Geisler says God's law must gov-
ern man. Such a position is impossible
to support. "
Without a doubt Scripture clearly
teacheS that all men have a knowledge ,
of right and (Rom. 1:18-20;
2: 14, 15) Man, being created in God's.
image does have a knowledge of right
and wrong. Yet Mr. Geisler does not
mention Rom. 1:21: "For even 'though
they knew God, they did not honor Him
as God, or give thanks; but they
came futile in their speculations; and
their foolish heart was darkened ...
For they exchanged the truth of God for .
a lie, and worshipped and served the
creature rather than the Creator, who is.
blessed forever. Ameti." (v. 25) Sinful
man, according to these verses and else- '
where in Scripture (Gen. 6:5, 8:2i, Ps.
14:13), is totally rebellious against
GOd. He will continually do all that he
can tO cast off God's law. This is often
referred to as "total depravity." Unregen-
erate man is sinful throughout his
ing in thought, word and deed.
The fact that Scripture teaches this
fact is sufficient for the Christian to
realize its truth, yet even. trertds in sbcie-
ty clearly point to the truthfulness of
this Scriptural teaching. Our society re-
cognizes legal murder in the form of
abortion. Homosexuality .is recognized
as an alternate lifestyle and therefore ac"
ceptable. behaviOI'. Divorce on Ufibibli"
cal grounds is a part of. our ctilture
[including that of most
1bere continues to be a . move to re-
move all blue laws that would hinder
stores being open on the Lord's Day. In
these and other similar cases we see not
a support of God's law but a continual
rebelling against it as set fOrth in
Psalm2:l-3.
rn light of this what should the Chris-
tian do? First, the must real-
ize that pluralism is a myth. God and
His law must rule all nations. After for-
bidding incest and other sins that would
be defmed as breaking the 7th
ment, God states: "Do not 'defile youv
selves by any of these things; for by allc
these the nations which I am casting"
out before you have become deflled. For
the land has become deflled; therefore.,!
have visited its punishment upon it, so
'
- Page 14 ___ ;..._ ______________ ..._ ___ ...._ __ ...;_ __ The Counsel of Chalcedon, Juiy, :.
the land has spewed out its inhabi-
tants." Even in the Old Testament it
was not just Israel that was under God's
law. It was true of all nations. That is
the reason the Canaanites were driven
out of the land and the land was given
to the Israelites. Sodom and Gomorrah
were in no way connected to Christian-
ity yet God wiped them out because
"their sin is exceedingly grave." (Gen.
18:20b) What is sin? The Shorter Cate-
chism defines sin in this manner; "Sin
is any want of conformity unto or trans-
gression of the law of God." (Q.A. 13)
The people of Sodom and Gomorrah
had broken God's law; the very law they
were under. Particular sins included ho-
mosexuality. Paul writes in Romans
1:18ffthat when man continually rebels
against God's law homosexuality be-
comes a part of such societies. God sent
Jonah to Nineveh. They were to be
destroyed in 40 days. Why? They had
broken God's law. They repented. God
spared them.
At no point in Scripture do we read
that God teaches, supports or condones
pluralism. To support pluralism is to re-
cognize all religions as equal. Such a
recognition denies God glory that be-
longs uniquely to Him.
Yet I doubt that Prof. Geisler or any
Christian would fully support plural-
ism. Would we allow Satanists to prac-
tice human sacrifices? To deny Satan-
ists this practice is to infringe on their
religious liberty. In 1878 the Supreme
Court refused to uphold the Mormon
practice of having more than one wife
at the same time. Was the Supreme
Court wrong to take this position? Of
course not.
While the civil government cannot re-
cognize the Presbyterian Church or the
Baptist Church as the church citizens
must attend. it must recognize some
moral standard as the basis for law. All
law is some morality by which a nation
denies that another morality is more
beneficial. Thus, by the existence of
laws, pluralism is denied. Laws, by
their nature, forbid what someone else
believes to be right or thinks he can get
away with.
Neither the Declaration of Independ-
ence nor our Constitution allow for
pluralism. Following the Preamble, the
Declaration begins with these words:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal, that they
are endowed by their Creator with cer-
tain unalienable Rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit
of Happiness." Here we see that the lib-
erties Americans were to have were giv-
en to them by their Creator, not by
chance as evolution would teach or
Allah or Islam would teach, or through
some other false god. The statement
clearly points to the God of Scripture.
He is recognized as the God, the
Creator. The authors did not see the
need of including false religious teach-
ings regarding the origin of life. They
had no thought of pluralism.
Article I, Section 7 of the Constitu-
tion states that the President has "10
days (Sunday excepted)" to veto a bill
passed by Congress. Again we see no
pluralism here. Suppose a Jew is elect-
ed president. Their Sabbath remains on
Saturday. Imagine that the tenth day
falls on his Sabbath. He is still con-
sidering whether or not to veto a dif-
ficult piece of legislation. Does he
work on his Sabbath? Can he not wait
until Sunday to make a final decision?
Not according to the Constitution. Sun-
day, not Saturday, is seen as the day of
rest.
Clearly our founding fathers had no
intention of supporting pluralism for
they saw that the Bible tolerates no
such view.
Why can't we have a fair, just govern-
ment as Mr. Geisler argues without it
being Christian? First of all we must
ask who determines what is fair? In
whose sight must something be fair?
For the Christian, God alone determines
what is fair and just. There is no other
standard. How can a government be fair
or just if it is not conducted according
to God's Word? In other words, how can
a government be fair if it is not a Chris-
tian government?
When God gave His law in written
form. He stated the importance and the
high privilege of a civil government im-
plementing His law clearly; "Or what
great nation is there that has statutes
and judgments as righteous as this
whole Jaw which I am setting before
you today?" (Deut. 4:8) There can be no
laws written by man that are as fair as
God's law.
We look around our society today and
we see the results of laws that man
makes. These laws point to man's sin-
ful nature. They often uplift the very
issues against which God speaks and
because of which many societies have
crumbled. Yet rebellious man would by
nature, rather continue in sin than sub-
mit to God.
A call for pluralism is, in essence, a
call for laws that are anti-Christian. Our
own society gives ample evidence of
this as we see laws with a Biblical ba-
sis being assaulted and in many cases
changed. If Biblically based laws are
thrown out, be assured that they will
not be replaced with a neutral law. After
all, how can the abortion issue be
solved with a neutral law? Either it is
legal to kill an unborn baby or it is
not. There is no neutral ground. In our
society with 1.5 million deaths annual-
ly by abortion, it is clear that rebellious
man is not naturally against abortion.
He rebels against the very idea of sup-
porting unborn life that he/she does not
want. There can be no compromise on
this issue or any other issue .to which
Scripture speaks. The issue is simple:
Pluralism is a myth. Men, as well as
civil governments, must make one of
two choices. He must agree with what
God has stated in His word or oppose
it. There is no middle ground
More and more Christians are realiz-
ing this fact and are standing in practi-
cal ways for the lordship of Christ. Let
us pray that this stand will continue and
grow and that the next generation will
do a better job than ours.
Prof. Geisler's article appeared in a
book entitled The Best in Theology. If
this theology is the best the church has
to offer a society drowning in moral
problems, is it any wonder that the
church has such little relevance to mo-
dern man and the problems faced by so-
ciety? D

The Counsel of Chalccdon, July, 1988 15