The Theological Basis for Cultural Diversity

David K. Clark, Professor of Theology Bethel Seminary

"I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you."

With these words, God established a covenant with Abraham and formed the Jewish nation. In this covenant God also declared the divine purpose in calling Israel to become Yahweh's people:

"All peoples on earth will be blessed through you" (Genesis 12:2, 3).

In a grand vision of the end of history, as recorded in Revelation 5:9, John witnessed twenty-four elders singing a new song:

"You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation."

In another vision, the apostle John saw:

"a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb" (Revelation 7:9).

Between these two bookends of history, the people of God have repeatedly failed to live out the biblical theme of covenantal relationships among all peoples. There are exceptions. Because of his Christian conscience, William Wilberforce stood up for justice and opposed slavery in early nineteenth century England. His public stand cost him the Prime Minister's position. He spent the rest of his life fighting this evil. On his deathbed, he received news that parliament had abolished slavery. The abolition movement of mid-nineteenth century America (which not only eliminated slavery but also birthed feminism) was a profoundly biblical and Christian movement. Yet in spite of these and other successes, the dream of reconciliation, in the turn of the millennium evangelical church of North America, among those from "every nation, tribe, people and language" is largely unfulfilled.

The Promise and Peril of Multiculturalism

At this time in history, some see signs of hope. A new view on cross-cultural relationships, a philosophy called "multiculturalism," is gaining prominence. Multiculturalism promotes harmony among ethnic groups and tolerance of differences among peoples. Social science research indicates a significant rise in the value of tolerance.¹ Significant legal and economic clout supports multiculturalism. Schools, corporations, and non-profit institutions of various kinds provide multicultural workshops for their employees. Many believe that initiatives like these could bring the peace and justice among ethnic groups that American society needs.

Multicultural education uses a variety of strategies to promote core ideas like these:

We live in a pluralistic and radically diverse society.
Every culture is good, so society should celebrate and affirm all cultures.
Since culture makes people what they are, affirming multiculturalism will assure that persons of all cultures will flourish.
Monoculturalism hurts those who are not part of the dominant culture, and the monoculturalism of European peoples has oppressed non-European peoples.
The oppression caused by European monoculturalism has held back non-European peoples in North America both culturally and economically.
In a pluralistic culture, monoculturalism breeds an intolerance that is evil because it oppresses those who are outside the dominant culture.
Holding to ultimate truth (as some Christians do) leads to intolerance.
Achieving a tolerant society requires abandoning any notion of ultimate truth, for truth is true to the person who believes it based on that person's culture.
Religion must teach toleranc—that all people are God's children—not indoctrinate believers into thinking that they are God's special, chosen children.
A dominant culture oppresses other cultures by writing history that highlights its own cultural values and achievements while it obscures the histories of others.
To overcome oppression, the histories of those who were overlooked should be emphasized.
In the best interest of society, all people should abandon monocultural ways of thinking and relating and adopt multiculturalism.
Accepting multiculturalism and becoming a tolerant member of society requires supporting three dominant causes: feminism, ethnic equality, and gay rights.

Many evangelical Christians long for a culturally and ethnically reconciled church and society. When I talk to people at Bethel about these issues, I find widespread support for this value. Many Bethel people want to weave into the fabric of this community a set of relationships that build on biblical truths such as: God loves those of every culture; salvation is for all peoples; heaven will be a delightful multicultural neighborhood; and Christ-followers should stand out because of their love for others. If Bethel would build a community that incarnates these truths, the Holy Spirit must develop proper attitudes and behaviors. In response to the Spirit's work, it would help to develop common understandings on what a reconciled community looks like, why it is desirable and good, and how best to work toward it.

Multiculturalism offers understandings intended to promote reconciled communities. But as an evangelical believer, I sense that the cluster of themes typical of multiculturalism paints me into a corner. Many of its themes are right. But from a biblical viewpoint, other multicultural themes are ambiguous or false. In seeking to integrate faith with learning on this issue, I choose a transformationist approach.² Multiculturalism, as it is typically portrayed today, does not fit with the biblical world view. Thus, while the philosophy of multiculturalism does offer some valid insights, it does not by itself provide a conceptual framework upon which to build a biblically-oriented reconciled community.

The usual multicultural perspective creates several specific problems for evangelical Christian thought and life. First, to ground and reinforce tolerance, advocates of multiculturalism often say that truth is relative. This is one kind of relativism. This form of relativism says something like this: "There is no ultimate truth. All truth depends on the knower's viewpoint." According to this kind of relativism, truth is relative either to a person's own paradigm or to a culture's or community's unique perspective.

This form of relativism is deeply flawed. First, the claim, as usually presented, is incoherent. It is offered as ultimately true that there are no ultimate truths.³

Second, this kind of relativism contradicts the Christian claim that God is the ultimate truth. How could Christ be the true way to God for all peoples if truth differs based on cultural perspective?

The Christian conviction that there is an ultimate truth annoys many people. Many believe that the Christian commitment to ultimate truth produces arrogance and intolerance. Although many Christians are indeed arrogant and intolerant, this criticism is inept. The criticism fails because it does not distinguish truth and knowledge. By "truth" I mean "the way reality is." Truth is ultimate. By this I mean that there is an ultimate truth, known by God, that is not relative to anything beyond itself. God's knowledge includes all truth—God knows reality exhaustively. The truth God knows is not relative to some frame of reference that is more ultimate than God.

Human knowledge is not identical to the truth. Knowledge is some person's grasp of truth. My knowledge is partial truth, and it is always limited by my place in history, by the finiteness of my mental capacity, and by my sinful tendency to distort my comprehension of the world. While there is an ultimate truth, human knowledge is always relative. Evangelical Christians can err in claiming that their knowledge is absolute. It isn't. (Read I Corinthians 13:8.) Others can blunder in holding that truth is relative. It isn't. As I said above, those who say that truth is relative often fail to see that they intent their statement ("All truth is relative") as a statement that is true in every point of view, and this shows their claim is false.

Third, using a relativity of truth to undermine absolutist intolerance leaves multiculturalism with no way to provide a rationale for the moral duty to respect others. If all ethical duties are relative to particular cultures, there is no way to show that all people have a moral duty to respect all others. If relativism were true, it cuts down the platform upon which to build a rational case to show that white supremacists ought to love nonwhites. Since relativism puts individual preferences or cultural values in an ultimate position, relativism implies that within white supremacist culture, hating or suppressing ethnic groups is not immoral. In that society, bigotry fulfills social norms and expectations. Using relativism as a strategy for encouraging respect for all persons backfires; it will actually lead to tribalism—love of one's own group or kin. Christians say that the command to love one's neighbor—and even one's enemy—applies to all persons regardless of their personal preference or cultural identity. This could not be so if all truth were relative to culture. As Dostoyevsky wrote, if there is no God, everything is permitted.⁴

Fourth, tolerance is generally applied to three sets of relationships: those between whites and nonwhites, men and women, and homosexuals and heterosexuals. But for biblical reasons, evangelicals assess these three issues differently. Most evangelicals want ethnic reconciliation. They may not completely agree on how to achieve it, but they generally agree that things can and should be better between the ethnic groups. Many believe that women and men should relate as equals. I believe that when people relate in groups or pairs, males should not automatically take all leadership roles simply because of their maleness or women should not fill only subordinate roles purely due to their femaleness. (Of course, sometimes men lead, and sometimes women follow. But that should occur because of whom the persons are as individuals and how they are gifted by the Lord, not merely because of their gender.) No evangelical can condemn homosexual orientation, desire, or temptation. Homophobia, the irrational fear and hatred of homosexuals, is sin. This is obvious given the biblical command to love all persons. But evangelicals do not believe that the homosexual "lifestyle" or homosexual intercourse, even in a permanent relationship, is morally right.

But multiculturalism, in its full-blooded form described above, ties these three issues together. In so doing, it wrongly frames the issues of cross-cultural reconciliation. So when trying to find an appropriate stance toward multiculturalism, evangelicals feel torn. The usual, politically correct approach to multiculturalism paints biblically-minded Christians into a corner. Some want to affirm the diversity of cultures, but cannot accept the relativism. Others want to reject multiculturalism, but want to be cross-culturally sensitive. Thus the dilemma. Evangelicals cannot completely accept or entirely reject multiculturalism's way of framing these issues.

Theology and Cultural Diversity

These dilemmas motivate a search for an alternative. The way to begin is to frame the question using the resources of the Christian world view. Evangelical people, committed to the finality of Scripture for thought and life, ought to ground their understanding and practice of cross-cultural reconciliation in biblical teaching. All thinking and action that moves toward reconciliation must integrate valid insights about culture with the Christian world view.

Evangelical theological convictions can ground an appreciation of all peoples in their cultural diversity and the moral duty to pursue reconciled relationships. First, God is the creator of diversity. The descriptions in Genesis 1 and the repeated pronouncement, "It is good," imply that God delights in variety in the natural and human worlds. Esthetically, Christians may revel in artistic expressions from diverse cultures. Heartfelt worship that incorporates either the refined simplicity of Japanese art or the energetic rhythms of African tribal dance certainly brings glory to the Lord.

Second, God values human persons because each is an imager of God. The prohibition against murder is tied to the fact that each human being images God (Genesis 9:6). While God gave animals for food, God forbade taking human life. James points to an irony: humans use the tongue both to praise God and to curse human beings who are God-imagers (James 3:9). Not only is murder wrong, so is character assassination! The existence of human beings as God-imagers grounds their value; for this reason all persons deserve respect.

Third, according to the Genesis account, all human persons descend from Adam and Eve. Theologians consider the unity of the human race important. The unity of the human race is the ground both of the sinfulness of all human persons and of the potential for their salvation (Romans 5:12-19). As all are descended from Adam and therefore mired in sin, so all may become one in the second Adam, Jesus Christ, and thus find release from sin. From the unity of the race, ancient rabbis rightly inferred equality: "Why was [humanity] created a single, solitary human being?" they asked. "So that it might not be said that some races are better than others."⁵

Fourth, God invites persons of every cultural group to receive salvation. The book of Acts chronicles the spread of the gospel through several cultural boundaries. In Acts 1:8, Jesus declares that the apostles would witness to their faith "in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth." The rest of the book reflects this pattern. At Pentecost, the church begins in Jerusalem as God-fearing Jews from many nations experience the Holy Spirit's coming. Several chapters later, when Philip travels to Samaria, the Samaritans experience the Spirit's presence (8:4-25) and the African eunuch receives the message with joy (8:26-40). Then, after Paul is converted (9:1-19), Peter receives a vision which prompts him to visit the Roman military officer, Cornelius. The Spirit's coming to Cornelius' home convinces the believers in Jerusalem that the gospel is indeed for all peoples—even Gentiles (11:1-18). Thereafter, Paul begins his Gentile mission. Acts 6 and 15 chronicle the work of the Spirit leading the early church as it negotiated cross-cultural relationships within the Body of Christ. Clearly, the impulse in Acts is God's passion to share the blessing promised to Abraham with all cultures.

Fifth, God works for the unity of diverse persons in covenant community. Frequently in the New Testament, the unity of the church is emphasized in spite of superficial diversity. The teaching of Paul regarding spiritual gifts emphasizes the variety among Christian individuals. The willingness of Jesus to teach women (unheard of among the rabbis of the day) and the gospel mission to the Gentiles both ensured a church body composed of many different kinds of people. Yet in Christ "there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28). In typical Pauline fashion, the fact supports the command: "make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit . . . one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all" (Ephesians 4:3-6).

Finally, the greatest commands summarize Christian ethics: to love God and to love neighbor as oneself. If there were any doubt as to what Jesus meant by "neighbor," he reinforced the command with the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). Its obvious point is that genuine love of neighbor crosses ecclesiastical and cultural lines. Christ explicitly taught his followers to love their enemies (Matthew 5:44). Lest anyone start thinking that, in loving some of those around him, he is actually fulfilling the Lord's command, the words of Jesus are forceful and direct:

"If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matthew 5:46-48).

For this reason, James commands Christ-followers to show no favoritism (James 2:1-9). Indeed, the distinguishing mark of Christian vitality is love: "all . . . will know you are my disciples, if you love one another" (John 13:35).

These theological themes ought to fuel in Christian believers a delight in cultural diversity and a passion for all peoples to be reconciled in Christ. The Christian world view grounds in a variety of significant ways the ethical command that the church be the multiethnic body of those reconciled to Christ. Commitment to reconciliation among diverse peoples, then, does not flow from any concession to political correctness, but from deep, biblically-grounded convictions.

Given this, Christians may agree with much that multiculturalism says. Consider some examples from among the common multicultural themes listed above:

"We live in a pluralistic culture." This is obviously true descriptively. From this obvious point, however, some people make an erroneous inference. Some claim that this obviously correct description of cultures proves that, for example, all religious viewpoints are true. I see this as a confusion and reject the inference.
"Every culture is good, so society should celebrate and affirm all cultures." This needs unpacking. From an esthetic viewpoint, the styles of one culture are not inherently more beautiful than another. Beethoven's music is neither more beautiful nor less beautiful simply because Ludwig was European. From the perspective of everyday patterns of life, non-Western cultures are not better or worse merely because they are non-Western. For instance, different expectations about time are just different, not better or worse by some absolute scale. From an ethical perspective, however, certain non-conventional practices embedded in certain cultures are ultimately right or wrong. "Every culture is good" does not entail that wife-burning in India or narcissistic materialism in contemporary America are morally acceptable simply because those practices are norms in those cultures. It may be that people in those cultures do (or did) accept those values, but from a biblical viewpoint, their mores are not right. So the statement, "every culture is good" is too ambiguous to be helpful.
"Monocultural approaches hurt others, and the monoculturalism of Euro-culture has oppressed non-European peoples." This seems obvious. Look what happened to Native Americans.
"To achieve tolerance, one must abandon the notion of ultimate truth, for truth is only true for the person who believes it based on that person's culture." This is seriously confused. Achieving tolerance requires the ultimate moral dictum, "Love your enemies." Of course, evangelicals should cultivate humility about all knowledge, including theological knowledge. No one grasps truth in its fullness or entirety. In a free society, Christians should, at a minimum, tolerate those with whom they differ. But this does not even suggest, let alone require, abandoning the notion of ultimate truth as the goal toward which the search for understanding progresses. Presumably, God's knowledge is ultimate.
"Religion must teach tolerance—that all people are God's children—not indoctrinate believers into thinking that they are God's special, chosen children." This too is seriously convoluted. In one sense, the ideal of tolerance is too weak. Christ commanded his disciples to love—a much higher and more difficult calling. In another sense, this idea of toleration is too strong. To tolerate a person's religious view is not to agree with her view, as is commonly supposed. Tolerance implies disagreement. To tolerate a person is to take a stance of openness toward another, to accept her right to defend a point of view, to respect the other as a full human being. At a minimum, Christians must take this stance as one part of loving neighbor.⁶
"To overcome oppression, the histories of those who were overlooked should be emphasized." The stories of those who have been oppressed should be told. They should not be told in propagandistic ways, but honestly and with integrity. If the histories of dominant cultures did in fact amount to propaganda, it is no solution to counter that with propaganda from another viewpoint. Honest telling on all sides is best.
"Accepting multiculturalism and becoming a tolerant member of society requires supporting three dominant causes: feminism, ethnic equality, and gay rights." Evangelical Christians cannot accept bundling these three political agendas together. Each issue deserves its own distinctive analysis. This complicates matters, but such issues are unavoidably complex and simply require careful and detailed thinking.

The typical package of themes labeled "multiculturalism" does not fit biblical and evangelical theological perspectives very well. Some multicultural themes seem right, some are just unacceptable, and others need unpacking and transformation. Evangelical Christians should simply start with the richness of theological tradition to think through and live out God's obvious passion for ethnic and cultural reconciliation. To signal this fresh start, this theological way of framing the question, I prefer to speak of the theological basis for cultural diversity. This entails an appreciation of the diversity of cultures in all their wonder and beauty. It means a willingness to criticize all cultures, including one's own culture, honestly acknowledging the brokenness that is due to sin wherever it is found. It also means God-honoring responses to the fact of multiple cultures in a community for theological reasons—precisely because the Father created all peoples, the Lord died for all persons, and the Holy Spirit indwells all who trust in Christ regardless of their cultural identity. (It does not mean pursuing these issues because it is the politically correct thing to do.) And it means working for a positively humane vision of becoming a covenantal community in which all persons are honored and respected. Christians of all people have reason to delight in cultural diversity and to pursue reconciliation among peoples of multiple cultures in a community.

So I advocate some of what multiculturalism says. But I do so, not because of multiculturalism, but primarily because it permeates the biblical and theological world view. I also reject some of what multiculturalism often says. Among other things, I say this includes standing against the current epidemic of relativism. Relativism regarding truth cannot ground a binding moral duty even to do the minimum, to tolerate cultural diversity, let alone to do what Christ commands, to love an enemy. Evangelicals should affirm, rather, what is ultimately true for all persons: God honors those who "act justly and . . . love mercy and . . . walk humbly with [their] God" (Micah 6:8).

Conclusion

Conversations with people at Bethel lead me to think that many do have deep desire to become a reconciled community, even at personal cost. Other discussions lead me to understand that many feel an acute sense of unease about multiculturalism. This unease arises, in part, from a sense that multiculturalism, as it is usually portrayed in secular society, undercuts core Christian convictions. Unfortunately, this unease with contemporary forms of multicultural thinking leads some Christians to resist the deeply biblical idea of a reconciled community because that idea feels "liberal," "politically correct," or "unbiblical."

The theological basis for cultural diversity is an antidote for this unease. It shows that the impulse to become a reconciled community is not in any way rooted in pressure to be politically correct. It is thoroughly biblical for it arises out of God's own will for the consummation of all human history! Indeed, more than anyone, Bible-affirming Christians have reason to seek lasting relationships of reconciliation among peoples of different cultures. The secular relativism and ideological visions of multiculturalism so common today simply do not inspire me to acknowledge cultural differences in healthy ways and to seek reconciled relationships. I much prefer to mine the evangelical heritage to find resources for living out the biblical world view by delighting in cultural diversity, inviting all peoples to be reconciled within the covenant community, and then sacrificing my personal agendas to help make the vision for God-honoring, covenant community a reality.

Notes

According to the "World Values Survey" conducted by Ronald Inglehart, Professor of Political Science at the Institute for Social Research of the University of Michigan, and others, "Tolerance and respect for other people is especially important" brought a 38% agreement rating in 1980, and a 80% agreement rating in 2000. See http://wvs.lsr.umich.edu.

²The transformationist approach to faith-learning integration recognizes that though a particular field of study possesses a certain validity and integrity, it does not completely cohere with the biblical world view. The transformationist approach requires a Christian rethink that area of study, incorporating valid insights, but also remaking the analysis along biblical lines. This requires more radical rethinking than a compatibilist method, but less radical reworking than a reconstructionist approach. See William Hasker, "Faith-Learning Integration: An Overview," Christian Scholar's Review 21 (1992): 234-48.

³Consider p: "All truth depends on cultural perspective." If p is true, then like every other statement, p itself must depend on cultural perspective. If so, then, presumably, p is true in some perspectives, but p is false in others. But it's hard to know what this could even mean. If p does not depend on cultural perspective, then p would be false because p would be a counter-example to itself.

⁴There are some who claim that multiculturalism does not lead to tribalization. (See, e.g., Alice Kessler-Harris, "Multiculturalism Can Strengthen, Not Undermine, a Common Culture," Chronicle of Higher Education (October 21, 1992), B3, B7.) Without fully developing the point here, I believe that the ground of moral values must transcend community standards. The communal approach to ethics fails for several fundamental reasons. Among other things, it fails to recognize the difference between the source of moral beliefs (the fact that people learn them from others in their community) and the ground of moral beliefs (the metaphysical reality in which these beliefs are rooted). I learned that God exists from my mother (source), but that's not why I believe in God (ground). My mother's say-so is in this case insufficient ground for such believing. If this is a godless universe, community agreement does not support an ought that obligates anyone to love an enemy from another community.

⁵Talmud, Sanhedrin, 37a.

⁶See Daniel Taylor, "Are You Tolerant (Should You Be?): Deconstructing the Gospel of Tolerance," Christianity Today, 11 January 1999, 42-48, 50, 52.