It is no surprise
that many Western Christians have hopped onto the ‘diversity train’; it is yet
another example of Christians being shaped by culture rather than shaping
culture. The morality of tolerance of
Postmodernity has morphed into the morality of diversity, multiculturalism, and
inclusion in Western Tribalism.
The meaning of the
terms ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion’, of course, goes further for the culture than
it does for culture-laden, Western Christians.
The culture enshrines the diversity of non-binary identity, homosexuality,
and transgenderism. It celebrates the
inclusion of non-Christian religions if they undermine Christianity, and then it
celebrates secularism over against any religion. Intersectionality crowns individuals with the
greatest number of minority identities. Western
woke culture opposes borders, loathes its own history, assumes that the ‘other’
is better, and it believes that any love of one’s own way of life is some sort
of fascist nationalism. It pursues
multiculturalism so that it can be ever more inclusive; anything else is
quickly labelled ‘racist’.
In such a cultural
climate, Western Christians inevitably come under pressure to virtue signal
their own support for the new morality of diversity and inclusion. This decidedly post-Christian ethic gets some
initial support when it is linked to traditional Christian values. Christian mission has sought to take the
Gospel to all nations. It has celebrated
the inclusion of all people in Christ. Christianity
says the division between people is overcome by Christ our peace (Ephesians
2.14), is not racist, and does not disvalue women (despite some unfortunate examples
to the contrary in its history).
Yet some Liberal
Christians have sought to enculturate the Gospel along this tribalist trajectory
of diversity and inclusion. Traditional
Christian evangelism is undermined because, they believe, insisting that Christ is the only way to the
Father (John 14.6) is totalizing, oppressive, and unappreciative of
others. Christian belief that Christ
will come again to judge the living and the dead (as we have said in the Nicene
Creed through the centuries) sounds, well, judgemental and not inclusive.
Other Western
Christians who are more orthodox than such Liberals in their theology have also
come under the influence of cultural diversity and inclusion. They have, like the culture, insisted on an ‘equality
of outcomes’ rather than opportunity.
This means advancing people in institutions on the basis of their contribution
to diversity rather than giving all an equal opportunity to advancement based
on their abilities. Diversity has, in
this way, become a virtue rather than a condition.
While the analysis
of the Church and culture along these lines could be pursued further, the main
point to consider here is that Scripture has been commandeered to support what
is, in fact, a culturally engineered theology of diversity and inclusion. Three passages are often brought into the
spotlight: Galatians 3.28; Colossians 3.11; and Revelation 7.9-10.
Galatians 3:28: There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither
slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ
Jesus.
Colossians 3:11: Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and
uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all.
Revelation 7:9-10: After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude
that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and
languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white
robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, “Salvation
belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!”
Do these passages support—even celebrate—diversity and
inclusion? The first two texts certainly
do not in the sense considered above.
They state that ‘inclusion’ is in Christ, and, therefore,
celebrate unity, not diversity.
They are phrased in the negative: neither … nor, not…. Had Paul wanted to celebrate diversity in the
Church, he would have instead said, ‘In Christ Jesus there are both Jew and
Gentile, both slave and free, and both male and female.’ Had he said so, he would have legitimated the
diverse identities. Note that such a statement
would have meant that slavery would have been valued for contributing to
diversity. But this is not at all what
Paul is saying. In affirming unity in
Christ, Paul relativizes ethnic, social, and gender diversity.
The third passage, from Revelation 7, has a similar
intention. Christian monotheism means
evangelical universalism: One God means One Gospel for all. The passage does not call for religious
pluralism. Quite the contrary; it
insists that salvation belongs to our God and to the Lamb, Jesus
Christ. There is no other way of
salvation. As Richard Bauckham has
argued, Revelation teaches that the victory of the Lamb is worldwide. The author makes this point in several ways. The word ‘Lamb’ occurs 28 times, that is, 7
(a number of completeness) times 4 (a number for the four corners of the earth). The fourfold formula for the earth’s nations—every
people, tribe, language, and nation—occurs seven times ((5.9; 7.9; 10.11;
11.9; 13.7; 14.6; 17.15).[1] The focus of Revelation is on the unity the
world finds in the worldwide victory of the Lamb.
The Lamb’s victory could not be more contrary to Western
culture in its present, post-Christian phase.
As with the passages from Paul, the purpose of mentioning all nations,
tribes, peoples, and languages is to depict the unity that the world’s
diversity finds in the one Lamb. (I have
elsewhere argued that this passage depicts the undoing of the diversity of
Babel in Genesis 11.)[2] This passage, however, is the proof-text of
those who want to advance the multicultural Church. This ecclesiastical multiculturalism is put
forward by its proponents to highlight the ethnic diversity of the Church
rather than the unity of ethnic groups because of their common worship of God
for His salvation through the blood of the Lamb. We—the diverse peoples of the earth—celebrate
God for the salvation He brings to all, not our diversity.
The Church is, of course, made up of great diversity. It is inclusive of ethnic groups, social
groups, and both genders. This is not,
however, itself a virtue. It would be a
vice if some tried to limit the Church and exclude certain peoples on such
grounds. But this diversity is more a condition
of the Church, and it is a condition of the Church because the unity of
the Church is a virtue. This unity is
found in the confession of unity:
Ephesians 4:4-6: There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the
one hope that belongs to your call—one Lord, one faith, one
baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
Whereas Western culture wants to celebrate diversities
of every sort (except, perhaps, white males and persons who do not celebrate the
new, sexual ethic), the Church celebrates unity in Christ. Practically, this makes a significant
difference. We value what brings glory
to God, not to us in our multiculturalism.
We relativise our differences because of all being in Christ rather than
celebrate our differences, thereby stealing the focus from Christ for ourselves. We do not absolutise things that are
indifferent. We do not promote people in
the Church to ministerial positions because we seek an equality in outcomes. Rather, we value the diversity of gifts,
services, and activities in the one Church provided by the Triune
God:
1 Corinthians 12:4-6: Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there
are varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of
activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone.
Is diversity a Christian virtue? It is a condition of the universal
Church. The Christian virtue is rather
found in the Church’s unity in One God.
[1]
Richard Bauckham, The Theology of the
Book of Revelation (New Testament Theology; Cambridge:
Cambridge Univ. Press, 1993), pp. 66-67.
[2] Rollin G. Grams, ‘The Rise of
Identity Ecclesiology,’ blog (10 May, 2019); online at: https://bibleandmission.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-rise-of-identity-ecclesiology.html.
Comments