Multiculturalism: A Christian Retrieval

Laura Boecker, Web Volunteer

Jonathan Chaplin, Director of the Kirby Laing Institute for Christian Ethics, visited the Hurtado Jesuit Centre in East London on 20 January 2012 for a discussion based on his publication “Multiculturalism: a Christian Retrieval”. It was attended by, amongst others, local curates and teachers of Christian-Muslim relations, who claimed a common interest in how to tackle discomfort with minorities and how to establish an integrated community in a multifaith context.

In his introductive talk, Chaplin discussed the possibilities of Christian responses to the challenges of multiculturalism. He started off with a quotation of Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, stating that the originally “noble idea” of multiculturalism had led to segregation rather than integration and a more “fractured and intolerant” society. Chaplin, who himself had experienced broad cultural diversity when working in Toronto (Canada), stressed that any response to this should necessarily include one’s own faith background – in this way, a Christian notion could be retrieved after having suffered a significant loss of relevance in the public discussion.
As a guiding theme for his talk, he raised the most important, yet most difficult questions of this discussion: What holds a diverse society together, and how should multicultural identities and a national citizenship interact with each other?

Concerning concrete meanings of the term “multiculturalism”, Chaplin emphasised the necessary distinction between ethnic and religious plurality. For Great Britain, which has throughout its history dealt with diversity in many aspects, this term also includes the demand for a public policy for minorities. Chaplin referred with this thesis to Prime Minister Cameron’s speech on the cause of “segregation” from 2011.

Furthermore, he introduced his theses on a “theology of multiculturalism”. Given the common habitation of all cultures in a shared creation, all of them are equally corrupted by sins, which makes it in Chaplin’s view necessary to resist “romanticising” of multiculturalism. Nevertheless, all cultures have equal access to “redemptive uplifting”.
Chaplin stated that these theological theses do not form guidance to concrete policies yet; the question for a Christian perspective on government and its tasks remains unacknowledged. He sees its role in promoting, in accordance with God, justice in public realm. As a part of this, a “multicultural justice” would be significantly relevant, both towards communities and their individuals. The government is responsible for protecting minorities against discrimination and oppression and for enhancing their standing in an inclusive society.

From the audience, the question was raised if the theological principles should better be restated in secular language, aiming to adhere to a common, public register without attempting to conceal one’s underlying religious convictions. In Chaplin’s opinion, theological language would not be appropriate to be used by the governmental institution itself, but for anyone else contributing to a public discussion. He pointed out that a common discussion, e.g. on human rights, is always and necessarily influenced by people’s non-secular identities and convictions. A conversation “stripped” of these identities, whether cultural, ethical or religious, would lack concrete values – therefore, it should come from the reality of who we are as humans. Chaplin remarked that without appropriate policies, religious identity and the citizenship of a national state can certainly become a threat to each other, especially since “Englishness” still lacks clear definitions.

No “Esperanto” should be needed to overcome the gaps, but a common language for communication and exchange.