Over the last 5 years I’ve spent a lot of time thinking, writing, and speaking about the concept of “covenantal pluralism.” From 2020-2023 I had the privilege of serving alongside Chris Seiple as an external advisor to the Templeton Religion Trust’s “Covenantal Pluralism Initiative,” and I also serve as Editor of an ongoing series of research articles about covenantal pluralism in The Review of Faith & International Affairs.
Whenever I have given talks about covenantal pluralism, I’ve always been asked the same question: Why “covenantal”? Why modify the word pluralism with the word “covenantal”?
Granted, “covenantal” is not exactly a household term. However, my response is that, nowadays when “pluralism” is invoked without any specific context or qualifiers, it usually signals only a rather banal appeal for “tolerance.” “Pluralism” is too often used in vague and vacuous ways, as cheap rhetoric. What’s more, “pluralism” is increasingly used as a synonym for mere relativism or even generalized indifference.
As such, the value of attaching a weighty word like “covenantal” to the over-familiar word “pluralism” is that it invites precisely the kind of conversation about pluralism that our polarized times demand. Leading with the word “covenantal” is helpful because it signals from the outset that we are talking about something richer and more relational than casual tolerance alone. It points us to a pluralism of relational engagement, moral commitment, and neighborly solidarity.
To be sure, tolerance is noble and necessary as a general norm of civility. I am not making an argument “against tolerance.” Still, tolerance, in and of itself, is not sufficient if our goal is to build societies in which we all live well with diversity. “Diversity” is simply the presence of difference, without necessarily leading to engagement across lines of difference. Covenantal pluralism requires the principled engagement of difference, enabled by the competencies and skills of cross-cultural religious literacy.
Minimalist and arms-length versions of “tolerance” can even be counterproductive. The problems are threefold.
First, to frame the imperative in terms of “granting tolerance” can suggest a posture and position of privilege, even condescension. But no one wants merely to be “granted toleration,” as if they are a second-class citizen whose presence is only provisionally accepted. Instead, we all want to feel that our equal standing and inherent human dignity are universally respected.
A second difficulty with casual platitudes of “tolerance” is that sometimes they can reveal religious illiteracy, or even naïveté regarding just how deep the differences between religions really are. Mutual respect and civic cooperation across lines of deep difference will not grow sustainably from the soil of ignorance and wishful thinking. All religions are not the same. Some theological disagreements are irreconcilable.
The third and arguably most significant problem with settling for a pluralism of only minimalist tolerance is that it is too easily coupled with indifference and disengagement. Unfortunately, in contemporary culture, religious differences are too often thought of as matters of mere aesthetic preference, or as trivial matters of taste—and consequently not as matters requiring principled engagement. To remain simply aloof and disengaged is a very fragile form of tolerance, since it means that one never actually comes to terms with difference.
A pluralism that aims only for tolerance is not aiming high enough. Our times demand a positive, proactive pluralism—a covenantal pluralism that cannot be mistaken for mere relativism.
The late Jonathan Sacks, who served as Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom, summarized the essence of a “covenant” well in his 2002 book The Dignity of Difference. As he wrote:
Covenants are about the larger groupings in and through which we develop identity. They are about the “We” in which I discover the “I.” Covenantal relationships are those sustained by trust. … Covenant is a bond, not of interest or advantage, but of belonging. … [A covenant is] where we develop the grammar and syntax of reciprocity, where we help others and they help us without calculations of relative advantage—where trust is born. (Sacks 2002, 150–151)
Chris Seiple cites and builds on these ideas in a recent sermon on the meaning and contemporary application of “covenant” from a Christian point of view.
In short, a pluralism that truly meets our moment—that is, a pluralism which can bear the true weight of deep diversity and disagreement in our modern society—needs a covenantal constitution.
*******
About the Author
Dennis R. Hoover (D.Phil. Politics, University of Oxford) is a Senior Fellow at Love Your Neighbor Community (LYNC). He is also Editor in Chief of The Review of Faith & International Affairs and a Senior Fellow at the Institute for Global Engagement (IGE). His recent books include Exploring Religious Diversity and Covenantal Pluralism in Asia, Volumes I and II (2023), and The Routledge Handbook of Religious Literacy, Pluralism, and Global Engagement (2022), co-edited with Chris Seiple.
Join in on the conversation