A Theology of Cultural Diversity - Christian College and ...



Biblical Materials for a Theology of Cultural Diversity: A Proposal

Frank Chan, Ph.D.

The world is a different place than it was a generation ago. The forces of postmodernism, postcolonialism, pluralism, multiculturalism and globalization have created in our collective mindset a greater awareness of the disharmony within the human race. The church is also affected by these changes, especially as the face of Christianity gradually becomes less white and more non-white worldwide. Theologians from a previous era who assumed a more homogeneous world felt no need to address the fact of diversity, but times have changed. A church that does not know how to speak intelligently about, say, the existence of multiple perspectives, or the struggles of a minority culture within a dominant culture, or the polarization of competing people-groups within a society, will be ill-equipped to take leadership in the twenty-first century. It is necessary, then, for theologians in this generation to outline a theology of cultural diversity, which would help address questions like, “How do we interpret the cultural diversity in the world and in Christ’s church? Are the many colors harmonious like a rainbow or fragmented like a shattered stained glass window? Is heterogeneity a blessing or a curse? Ought cultural differences be celebrated or downplayed? How ought diversity be best managed?”

While several works have addressed the theology of culture,[1] few have focused specifically on cultural diversity.[2] Our goal here is not to offer a full treatise, but to (a) gather the main biblical passages and themes with which any theology of cultural diversity must deal and (b) sketch out a few suggestions as to what such a theology might say. We see at least nine important ideas.

1. The Cultural Mandate in Genesis 1-2

The theology of cultural diversity, as with any aspect of the theology of humankind, must begin with the creation of human beings in God’s “image” and “likeness” (Gen 1:26). Closely associated with the imago dei is what has been called humanity’s “cultural mandate,” a charge to imitate the Creator by creating civilization.[3] In the biblical worldview, the universal drive to forge and advance human culture is rooted in God’s command to rule over and subdue the earth (Gen 1:26, 28; cf. Ps 8:4-8), to work and take care of the Garden of Eden (Gen 2:15)[4] and to name the animals (Gen 2:19-20).[5] In other words, Christianity interprets the innate impulse within people-groups to express themselves distinctively in art and architecture, music and theater, science and engineering, agriculture and industry, philosophy and religion, education and medicine, sports and entertainment, law and government, as a natural extension of the human spirit’s likeness to God’s.[6] Christianity says the reason human beings tend to impose order over the chaos they see is because God desired to bring his creation order to the primordial chaos (Gen 1). In short, when we act as cultural beings, we imitate God.

But what does humanity’s “cultural mandate” mean for our theology of cultural diversity? We see three implications. First, God’s declaration that his creation of humankind was “very good” (Gen 1:31) indicates that he takes pleasure in empowering human beings to express themselves culturally. As an architect delights in seeing his toddler stack toy blocks, so also our heavenly Father delights in seeing human beings in his own image rule over creation.[7]

Second, since God chose not to specify from which among the permissible trees to eat (Gen 2:16-17), nor to dictate what names to give the animals (Gen 2:19), he obviously granted Adam and his offspring a great deal of flexibility in exercising their “dominion.” They were free to “subdue the earth” as they saw fit. Is it not reasonable to assume that within this freedom was the built-in capacity for variation? As the human race grew, diverse choices over time would eventually generate different ways of solving problems, different forms of work and play, different approaches to the arts and sciences, etc. Given this dynamic, is it likely that human culture would have remained homogeneous forever? Or would cultural diversity have arisen on its own (considered apart from the fragmenting effects of, say, the Tower of Babel incident), as a matter of course? We are inclined to think the latter—diversification was inevitable.

Third, the cultural mandate means that human culture by itself is neither evil nor ethically neutral—it is good. And given the freedom the cultural mandate presupposes, cultural diversity by itself would appear to be neither evil nor ethically neutral—it too is good. If, as we have said, God delights in human culture, he must delight in its diversity.[8] He enjoys the many “colors” of the human race and the many “flavors” of human culture.

2. The Cultural Impact of the Fall in Genesis 3-4

Adam’s sin and its aftermath described in Gen 3-4 offers two main implications for our theology of cultural diversity. First, included among the aspects of Adam’s being that were affected by the fall is his production as a cultural being.[9] Since the curse on Adam primarily addresses his gardening work on the ground (Gen 3:17), the very sphere in which his cultural responsibility is to be exercised (Gen 2:15), the implication is that humankind’s cultural expressions, though ordained of God, are tainted with sin.[10] As Webber puts it, “In the garden man’s cultural activity would have been dependently creative. . . But man’s assertion of autonomy, his break from God, put him a position where he became independently creative.”[11] Second, the effect of sin on culture appears immediately in Gen 4, where the descendants of Cain in exile develop agriculture (4:20), the arts (4:21), craftsmanship (4:22) and possibly law (4:23-24). However, in the perspective of the author of Genesis, the city culture produced by the line of Cain is ungodly, as it is presented in contrast to the godly line of Seth (4:26), the replacement of Cain’s slain brother.[12]

To summarize, the perspective of Gen 1-4 is that human culture is by itself good, but it is also fallen and subject to corruption. Just as God delights in every unique individual he created, yet grieves over his or her sin, so also God delights in the distinctives of Anglo culture, African-American culture, Latino culture, Asian culture, and Native-American culture, yet grieves over their distinctive forms of sin.

3. The Unity of Mankind in the Table of the Nations in Genesis 10

The genealogical list of seventy people-groups in Gen 10 according to the three sons of Noah offers an important perspective on the diversity of humanity. Though much in the chapter remains enigmatic, its one central theological point is clear: “all mankind known to Israel is descended from a single stock. All men are sons of Noah as well as sons of Adam.”[13] In contrast to, say, Egyptian mythology, in which the Egyptians saw themselves alone as men and everyone one else as descended from the enemies of the gods, the biblical worldview holds that all racial and ethnic groups share equally in the image of God.[14] This affirms an essential unity amidst the diversity of humankind and speaks against all thought of racial and cultural superiority.

4. The Impact of the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11 on Diversity

Crucial to one’s theology of diversity is one’s approach to the Tower of Babel incident in Gen 11. Interpreters have typically viewed the linguistic diversity and the geographical migrations resulting from Babel as an expression of God’s wrath. Such an approach assumes that God intended humankind to be homogeneous and that diversity should be lamented rather than celebrated because it represents God’s judgment on the builders’ sin of pride (“let us make a name for ourselves,” v. 4).

But is this the only way to read the narrative? Some interpreters have suggested that the sin God judged was not pride but disobedience to his command in Gen 1:28 to “fill the earth” (“let us not be scattered over the face of the whole earth,” v. 4).[15] If this is the case, then God’s confounding of human language and geographical scattering need not be viewed as an evil that God inflicted as retributive punishment. Rather, it may be viewed as God’s benevolent act of correction,[16] to keep humankind from remaining in the one location at Babel.[17] This proposed reading might find confirmation in the fact that there is no mention of God’s wrath anywhere in Gen 11. Nor is there any indication that God will eliminate language differences or national boundaries in the eschaton (Rev 7:9; 21:24-26), which would be expected had God imposed linguistic diversity and geographical dispersion as a curse. This alternative reading of Gen 11 has one important implication: God is behind ethnic and cultural diversity, not opposed to it, since he is the one who set such diversity in motion.

5. The Fact of Diversity Within the People of Israel in Exodus 12

A theology of cultural diversity must also draw insight from the ethnic diversity within the people of Israel. Contrary to popular belief, Israel was never an ethnically homogeneous group, nor was its covenant of redemption based on physical descent. Commentators have long recognized that group that left Egypt during the Exodus contained “a mixed crowd” (Exod 12:38 NRSV). Usage suggests these people were of foreign descent (non-Israelites).[18] Hays believes the “mixed crowd” from Egypt included Cushites (whom he shows to be black Africans), in light of Egyptian records and Old Testament indications that the Cushites played a role in the life of Israel later.[19]

We should also note that the “mixed crowd” did not merely “tag along,” but participated fully in the religious life of Israel (Exod 12:43,48-49).[20] Thus, Israel’s covenant was inclusive, extending to foreigners and aliens, because the terms for inclusion were not based on race or ethnicity, but on one’s relationship to Yahweh. But Israel’s covenant was not merely “colorblind”—it was also “mindful of color,” especially when it came to protecting the rights of these aliens and foreigners, who made up a minority culture in Israel.[21] A theology of cultural diversity might seek to draw parallels for the church’s need to be “colorblind” when it comes to matters of salvation, but “mindful of color” when it comes to sheltering victims of racial or ethnic unfairness.

6. Jesus’ Inclusiveness Towards Samaritans

Perhaps the most important materials from the gospels for a theology of cultural diversity concern the Samaritans. Though the origin of the Samaritans is not entirely clear, there is clearly a racial-ethnic component to the Jewish hostility toward them during the time of Jesus, in addition to the religious.[22] Witherington, reflecting on the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Lk 10:30-37), likens the relationship to that between “Whites and Blacks in America, even within the church.”[23] This is why Jesus’ welcoming, inclusive attitude towards Samaritans sets such a timely example for the church today. Despite pressure from his own people, Jesus chose not to separate but to reach out to the Samaritan woman and her community (Jn 4:9, 39-40). Despite some of their theological errors, Jesus did not bar the Samaritans from God’s salvation, as many Jews no doubt would have (Jn 4:22,41; cf. Acts 8:14-17). For Jesus, the despised Samaritans were worthy of receiving mercy (Lk 9:52-54) and healing (Lk 17:15-16).

For centuries, interpreters allegorized parables and assumed the Good Samaritan character to be a veiled reference to Jesus. While allegory is not always a wise approach to biblical interpretation, there is one sense in which this identification is entirely appropriate: both Jesus and the Good Samaritan modeled racial equality (Lk 10:37)—as Hays puts it, not just thinking racial equality, but doing racial equality.[24] Any theology of cultural diversity must grapple with the call to racial reconciliation implicit in Jesus’ bridge-building approach to the Jewish-Samaritan conflict.

7. The Global Scope of the Gospel and the Missionary Character of the Church

A theology of cultural diversity should also draw from biblical material that conveys the global scope of the gospel. Perhaps Gal 3:8 is the key verse, which states that the gospel was first preached to Abraham in the promise that “all nations” would be blessed through him (Gen 12:3). From beginning to end, across both testaments, this theme is reiterated: God’s blessing of redemption expands forever outward—from Abraham, to Israel, to all nations.[25]

It follows that the church should partake of the same universal character of the gospel that gave it birth (cf. Matt 28:19-20).[26] Christians have been confessing the church as “catholic” (i.e. universal) in the Nicene Creed since the fourth century, but it is only in the last half-century or so that theologians have grasped the full implications of this ethnically and culturally. Because the gospel is universal, it must become contextualized to each culture it encounters. And because the church is universal, it must become progressively more diverse as it expands and embraces new cultures.[27] Cultural diversity therefore cannot and must not be avoided if a gospel-centered church is to be faithful to its true nature.

The Jerusalem church’s expansion from Hebraic Jewish culture into Grecian Jewish culture in Acts 6:1-6 shows that an energized local church in a cosmopolitan area will inevitably take on greater diversity as it grows (and, perhaps with it, greater internal conflict). An insulated, homogeneous Christianity that is not crossing any cultural barriers will probably be free of conflict, but it will probably not be dynamic or growing either. Cultural diversity, then, though uncomfortable at times, may be a necessary by-product of a healthy and vital church.[28]

8. New Testament Examples of Cultural Alertness and Sensitivity

A theology of cultural diversity should also draw insight from New Testament leaders who display mature cultural alertness and sensitivity. [29] For example, in the classic examples of “contextualization” the apostles show that they understood the cultural conventions of their target audience and adapted their messages accordingly. John’s description of Christ as God’s “Word” (John 1:1) was a brilliant accommodation to the “logos” concept of Greek Stoic philosophy. Similarly, Paul’s use of “in him we live and move and have our being” in his Mars Hill speech in Athens (Acts 17:28) was an ingenious accommodation to the Greek poets.

Further, the apostles were often alert to cultural dynamics when mediating conflict. For example, the Twelve made sure the seven Jewish men chosen to care for the neglected Grecian Jews in Jerusalem all had Greek names (i.e. they were culturally similar to the widows they served) (Acts 6:5). In a similar way, when the apostles granted freedom to Gentiles from the necessity of circumcision, they showed admirable sensitivity to Jewish believers by advising the Gentiles in the same letter to abstain from other practices offensive to the Jewish mind (Acts 15:19-20).[30] Likewise, Paul gave due attention to the culturally based convictions of the weak brother in Rome (probably Jewish) by advising the stronger brother (probably Gentile) to refrain from eating meat (a stumbling block to the weak brother; Rom 14:21), even though he was morally free to eat it (Rom 14:6-7,14).[31]

In other words, the bicultural situation of the early church (Jewish and Greek) offers a valuable parallel to today’s multicultural church. A theology of cultural diversity would call upon today’s church leaders to imitate the apostles’ belief that it is worth paying attention to the cultural values and convictions in the body of believers.

9. The Church’s Call to Unity Among its Diverse Members

Finally, a theology of cultural diversity must give serious weight to passages that command church unity among its diverse members.[32] Although there are calls to humility (Phil 2:1-4), love (Gal 5:14) and mutual submission (Eph 5:21), our focus must be on passages that target areas of conflict between believers from different cultural backgrounds, especially, once again, between Jewish and Gentile culture. Ephesians 2 interprets Christ’s death as having cultural significance:[33] at the cross Christ put to death the hostility between Jew and Gentile, so as to create to “one new man” (vv. 14-16). Contrary to the way v. 15 is often read, Christ’s reconciliation does not come at the expense of the Jewish way of life; he did not abolish the Torah for the sake of peace between Jew and Gentile (cf. Matt 5:17). Rather, Christ abolished only the divisiveness of the Torah, the law as a focal point for feelings of superiority or disdain (cf. Rom 2:1; 14:3).[34] In other words, in biblical ecclesiology, no cultural barrier should be the cause for division in the body of Christ.

Paul says something similar in Gal 3:28. Because justification is by faith alone (Gal 2:15), and no one attains greater status in the kingdom because of Torah observance (Gal 2:11-14), Paul is bold to declare that in Christ “there is neither Jew nor Greek” (Gal 3:28). In other words, our unity in Christ should never be negated by cultural differences. Commentators frequently point out that Gal 3:28 does not obliterate cultural differences within the body of Christ, any more than it obliterates socioeconomic or sexual differences (“neither slave nor free, male nor female”). Jews remain Jews, the seed of Abraham and heirs of Abraham’s promise. Gentiles remain Gentiles, but by faith attain the same status as Jews (Gal 3:14,29). Again, cultural diversity is preserved in the midst of an overarching unity.

Conclusion

The theology of cultural diversity we envision would draw from both Old Testament and New Testament. It would learn from the diversity of both Israel and the early church. It would consider the creation of culture to be a divine calling, but would also acknowledge culture’s fallen nature. It would affirm God’s delight in cultural diversity. It would recognize God’s demand for church unity in the midst of diversity. It would denounce racism and ethnic isolationism. It would promote cultural sensitivity and racial reconciliation. Not all would agree with the biblical passages we chose or interpretations we took. Nevertheless, we hope they offer a good starting point for further reflection and discussion.

-----------------------

[1] The most well-known theology of culture is H. Richard Niebuhr’s Christ and Culture (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1951). See also John R. W. Stott and Robert T. Coote, eds., Down to Earth: Studies in Christianity and Culture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980) and Robert E. Webber, The Secular Saint: The Role of the Christian in the Secular World (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979).

[2] Among the better attempts are Daniel F. Romero, “The Church’s Struggle with Diversity,” International Review of Mission 85 (Apr 1996): 189-204; Rose Dowsett, Rainbow Theology: Grace in Diversity. The Blessing and the Challenge of a Global Church Family” (Global Connections Occasional Paper no. 18), Evangel 22, no. 3 (Autumn 2004); J. Daniel Hays, From Every People and Nation: A Biblical Theology of Race (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003).

[3] Webber, The Secular Saint, 36-38.

[4] The word “culture” comes from the Latin colore, which means to “till” or “cultivate.” The directive to work the garden in Gen 2:15 is therefore particularly relevant to the notion of a cultural mandate for humankind. As Webber puts it, “culture is the result of ‘tilling’ God’s creation” (Secular Saint, 18).

[5] Leonard Verduin, Somewhat Less Than God: The Biblical View of Man (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 31-32, sees within Gen 2:15,19-20 the tendencies of advanced cultures of the world today to domesticate plants and animals.

[6] Some of cultural activities we mentioned involve the direct subjugation of the earth’s natural resources— “working the garden” (Gen 2:15): science, engineering, architecture, agriculture, medicine, etc. Other cultural activities involve the exercise of the intellect, which sets human beings apart from lower creatures and epitomizes their “dominion” (Gen 1:28)-- art, music, theatre, sports, entertainment, philosophy, religion, education, government, etc.

[7] In this sense, even “secular” cultural achievements glorify God. Even if Donald Trump, Kofi Anon and Kobe Bryant were not to recognize God, their skyscraper building, power brokering and slam-dunking would reflect, however dimly, the image of God stamped within them.

[8] Romero, “Church’s Struggle,” 189, calls diversity “a gift from God.” Take, for example, the familial piety valued in Asian culture versus the rugged individualism valued in Western culture. Does God favor one tendency as more inherently “Christian” over the other? Did one arise because human sin was more active in it than in the other? No, these cultural expressions arose though the natural course of human cultural differentiation. Each is equally as corruptible and redeemable as the other. We believe God delights equally in both.

[9] Other aspects include Adam’s physical life (Gen 2:7) and social life (Gen 2:18), which were each directly affected by sin (physical death: Gen 3:19, 22; cf. 2:17; social division: 3:12,16).

[10] The Lausanne Covenant (1974) puts it this way: “Because man is God’s creature, some of his culture is rich in beauty and goodness. Because he is fallen, all of it is tainted with sin and some of it is demonic. The gospel does not presuppose the superiority of any culture according to its own criteria of truth and righteousness, and insists on moral absolutes in every culture” (Clause Ten).

[11] Secular Saint, 40. It is not difficult to find “social sin,” sin embedded within the fabric of a society, within every cultural group in the world: greed and materialism in North America, the mistreatment of women in fundamentalist Islam, the abortion culture in China, etc.

[12] Note the vengeful spirit of Lamach in Gen 4:22-23. Also note that Cain’s city is in the “east” (Gen 4:17), which in the early chapters of Genesis functions as a place of ruin (Gen 3:24; 11:4; 13:11). See John H. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 134. Further, Cain’s line ends without a trace and presumably perishes in the Flood (cf. Jude 11), whereas Seth’s godly line leads to Noah (Gen 5:32). For more on the contrast between the line of Cain and the line of Seth, see Sailhamer, Pentateuch, 136.

[13] Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (WBC; Dallas: Word, 1987), 215.

[14] Hays, From Every People, 59.

[15] Note the Babel account ends declaring that the Lord “scattered them all over the earth” twice (v. 8, v. 9). Perhaps this emphasis is meant to highlight the echo of Gen 1:28.

[16] Though Sailhamer, Pentateuch, 136, focuses on the holy land rather of the entire earth, his comment about God’s response to Babel is similar to our reading of Gen 11: “God, who saw that their plans would succeed, moved to rescue them from those very plans and return them to the land and the blessing that awaited there” (italics mine).

[17] Perhaps the apostle Paul hints at this idea in his Mars Hill speech: “From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live” (Acts 17:26).

[18] The Hebrew word ‘ereb (“mixed”) appears also in Neh 13:3; Jer 25:20,24; 50:37.

[19] From Every People, 67-68 (see also pp. 34-39). Literary sources from Egypt‘s 18th and 19th Dynasties (c.1650-1200BC) indicate that Cush and Syria-Palestine were under Egyptian control, which enabled foreigners from these lands to be living in Egypt. Moses married a black African Cushite woman (Num 12:1) and black African Cushites served militarily in the armies of Israel 2 Sam 18:19-33; 2 Chron 14:9-15).

[20] Other passages that indicate that aliens and foreigners took part in Israel’s religious life include Exod 20:10; 23:12; Lev 16:29; 17:8,10; 20:2; 22:18; 24:16; Num 9:14; 15:14-16, 29-30.

[21] See Exod 22:21; 23:9; Lev 19:33-34; 23:22; 24:22; Deut 1:16; 10:18; 24:14,19,20-21; 26:12-13; 27:19.

[22] Traditionally, the Samaritans are believed to have originated through the intermarriage of foreign settlers with Israelites after the fall of Samaria in 722 BC (see 2 Kgs 17:25,33). For a description of Jewish-Samaritan violence in the first century, see Hays, From Every People, 166.

[23] Ben Witherington, Jesus the Sage: The Pilgrimage of Wisdom (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994) 195.

[24] From Every People, 172.

[25] A quick sketch of this theme will suffice here: Both the psalms and the prophets envisioned joint worship among all the peoples of the world (Ps 67:1-7; 117:1; Isa 2:1-4; 11:10), which the apostle Paul saw as fulfilled in his ministry to the Gentiles (Rom 15:8-12). Jesus used universal terms to speak of God’s fellowship with humanity (Matt 8:11; Mk 11:17). The book of Acts plots the progress of the gospel through several geographical expansions to the “ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8). Accordingly, the final vision of the people of God in the New Jerusalem has an international flavor (Rev 22:1-2). For a fuller treatment of God’s mission to the nations throughout Scripture, see George W. Peters, A Biblical Theology of Missions (Chicago: Moody, 1972), 83-156.

[26] For a good discussion of the catholicity of the church, see Thomas C. Oden, Life in the Spirit: Systematic Theology, vol. 3 (San Francisc: Harper, 1992), 337-45.

[27] For more on this “missionary” nature of the church, see Craig Van Gelder, The Essence of the Church (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 27-44.

[28] Although James D. G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Trinity International Press, 1990), xix, is speaking more about theological diversity than cultural diversity, his statement is still well taken: “I have come to see that . . . without sufficient diversity Christian unity will be [heretically] narrow, squeezing out what is also the life of the Spirit. . . “

[29] The instances cited below are examples of sensitivity to both Greek culture (or Hellenistic Jewish culture) and Jewish culture equally.

[30] Commentators have noted the similarities between the four prohibitions in Acts 15:20 and what is known in Judaism as the seven “Noachide Laws,” laws that “righteous Gentiles” are asked to observe For more on this, see David H. Stern, Messianic Jewish Manifesto (Clarksville, MD: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1988), 154-57. If this is a true connection, then the abstentions requested of Gentiles by the Jerusalem Council were not pandering concessions to the Jewish community, but a respectful and culturally appropriate accommodation to the established ways of Judaism.

[31] James D. G. Dunn, Romans 9-16 (Dallas: Word, 1988), 834, sums up the matter this way: “Basic too is the recognition that liberty means diversity, that Christian liberty is a spectrum embracing a range of options, not all of which can be held by a single person, but all of which may be held within a Christian congregation without destroying its unity. . . Unless there is acceptance along that spectrum of the different possibilities with that spectrum, there can be no real liberty.”

[32] Although the head-body metaphor in 1 Cor 12 refers primarily to the diversity of spiritual gifting, there is real applicability to the issue of cultural diversity, especially since Paul reiterates the unity of Jew and Greek in v. 13. In this section we will discuss primarily Eph 2 and Gal 3, but a theology of cultural diversity should also draw from 1 Cor 12.

[33] As the fall had cultural consequences (Gen 3:17), so also the cross has cultural consequences.

.

[34] Marcus Barth, Ephesians 1-3 (Anchor Bible 34A; new York: Doubleday, 1974), 290. The thought in Eph 2:17-19 is that Gentiles have been ingrafted with the Jews as “fellow citizens” in God’s kingdom. Paul’s language presupposes that the Jewish community, way of life and covenant with God continues (Barth, Ephesians 1-3, 269). In this instance, no culture needed to be sacrificed as a way of eliminating conflict.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download