Newbigin ( Faith and Power: Christianity and Islam in ‘Secular’ Britain ) endorses Os Guinness’s idea of “chartered pluralism,” but argues vigorously that the gospel provides the only framework within which it can be realized.

“What is unique about the Christian gospel,” he says, “is that those who are called to be its witnesses are committed to the public affirmation that it is true - true for all peoples and at all times - and are at the same time forbidden to use coercion to enforce it. There are therefore required to be tolerant of denial, not in the agnostic sense in which the word ‘tolerant’ is often used; not in the sense that we must tolerate all believes because truth is unknowable and all have equal rights. The toleration which a Christian is required to exercise is not something which must exercise in spite of his or her belief that the gospel is true, but precisely because of that belief” (148-9).

He clarifies that “because of” by a contrast with Islam:

“For Islam it is impossible that the cause of Allah should be humiliated and defeated. That is why Muslims, who venerate Jesus, must deny the crucifixion. It would be an inconceivable humiliation of Allah. God must vindicate his honour here within this world’s history, even if it takes a long time for this to happen. God’s rule must be visibly establish and no room must be left for its denial” (149).

Newbigin thus claims that “pluralism cannot be sustained if one of these belief systems, namely ‘secular humanism,’ uses its hegemony to exclude . . . the belief system which is embodied in the Bible. It is only the gospel which enables us to affirm both that the Sovereign Lord of all has made his will and purpose known in Jesus Christ for the whole of our life, private and public, and yet at the same time, and not in spite of this but because of this, to affirm that God has ordained a space in which disbelief can have the freedom to flourish” (159). Thus for Newbigin, it’s the “gospel itself which authorizes freedom of practice of beliefs which are contrary to the gospel” (161).

I don’t find the penultimate paragraph entirely compelling. The cross is the crux of Christian politics, as it is the crux of all and everything. And it does mean that Christians recognize that humiliation and defeat is the form that victory takes, the veil behind which Christ’s triumph hides. But the cross is followed by the resurrection, a vindication in history, and God does act to make Himself known “in this world’s history.” Because of Jesus, He raises His crucified people from the dead too. Even then, Newbigin is right that there is a space for denial. The resurrection is witnessed by a handful, whose witness, however, compelling, is widely disbelieved. Yet, I’m afraid Newbigin’s argument is rooted in somewhat under-realized eschatology.