Expanded Version

Introduction: The Image of God and Cultures

Some time ago, we published here on our web-site and in hard copy for our church, a small brochure outlining our understanding of the relationship between race, religion and culture. At the time, we wanted to make it clear that racism has no place in our church; that the key issue that separates men has always been religion, not race – and that the only really important distinction is whether or not men bend the knee to King Jesus.

At the same time, we also wanted to recognize God’s providential work in time. In His sovereignty, the Lord God brings His gospel to various peoples with their own history, culture and values. Then, as that gospel is believed and its implications worked out, the culture and its values change to reflect His unchanging moral law. Yet, we also recognize that even the most pagan and idolatrous cultures still retain some remnants of the image of God – for “in Him we live and breathe and have our being.” And under the gospel, those remnants are invigorated, renewed, and transformed with the entire world enriched.

Our God created all things to reflect His image and glory. Man is His supreme image bearer in His creation. Therefore, everything we do, everything we are, in some way, is an expression of that image. Granted, since sin entered the creation, God’s image has been distorted; but everything that is good, noble, and praiseworthy about Man, including the cultures he builds, is a result of that image.

However, sometimes we forget that God is far greater than we imagine. There is a tendency to assume that the expression of His image in our culture is the only expression! This was the error of some naive 19^th century European missionaries who believed that it was not enough for converts in Africa, India or China to become Christians, but they had to become good Englishmen as well! After all, England had 1400 years of Christian influence – influence that changed their laws, customs and institutions. Much of Victorian English culture was a legitimate expression of Biblical Christianity – but much of it was not. It is a solemn duty to separate what is truly Biblical (i.e., that which is required by God) from what is incidental (what may simply be a pragmatic response to some environmental condition). Thus, the same universal Biblical principle may be worked out differently, by different people, due to different circumstances.

Let us take just one, admittedly over-generalized example. Great Britain is one island, settled primarily by Celtic peoples (whether the Picts were a Celtic tribe is hotly debated). After the Romans, Britain was then invaded by other Celtic/Germanic peoples, the Angles, Jutes, Saxons, etc. Five hundred years later, they were conquered by the Normans, another Celtic/Germanic people (the word “Norman” is from “Norse men”). Hence, some places such as Cornwall and Wales retained much Celtic influence, while the Scots (after trading home lands with the Irish) had a different strain, with different traditions, customs and practices. East Anglia and Southern England had much more influence from the Germanic and Norman peoples (as well as being “civilized” by the Romans). The result is that though Britain was Christianized very early on, there remained distinct cultural differences between all these various groups. Highland Scots had a different culture than lowland Scots. Northern Englishmen have a different culture than those in the South (and if you are from London, then the rest of the country is composed of yobs, nobs and yahoos). The point here is that on one island, with one faith for over fifteen hundred years, each local area had distinct cultural variations. Today, due to mass communication and easy transportation, those local differences have been homogenized with the last real distinctions being regional accents and different sorts of cheese. But the point is that there is nothing inherently wrong with different people creating different cultures – to the contrary, cultural variation within the context of Christian orthodoxy is in fact a good thing.

In short, the nature of God is so rich, so complex and so wondrous, that no single human cultural manifestation can possibly encompass it all.  The basic nature of God is unity in diversity – there is one God, but three distinct persons. Therefore, we ought to see this expressed in distinct and various Christian cultures; one Lord, one faith, one baptism – but working itself out differently within the confines of Biblical Law.

The Danger of Human Tyranny

Here I must plead personal prejudice; everything I have experienced since coming to faith in Christ has convinced me that one of the greatest threats to godly dominion is human tyranny. It can be shown that Humanist, Pagan, or idolatrous religions inevitably lead to top down, dictatorial political and social systems.  However, even the best-intentioned Christian, with the soundest theology, is at risk of becoming an ecclesiastical fascist if not restrained. As a Calvinist, I have come to see the truth of total depravity affecting every area of life, but especially in men’s ability to rationalize, justify and excuse their own sin. It is my firmest belief that the path to righteousness, and victory in the world, comes with allowing maximum freedom under God’s Law. Whenever power and wealth are allowed to accumulate in any institution, then those motivated by power and wealth will flock to control them. The greatest degree of political and religious freedom is always based on a decentralization of power. This begins when Christians allow other Christians to live their own lives before God.

However, sadly, many Christians want to create their own laws, rules and rituals and force others to believe and do the same. They have beliefs, prejudices, or preferences that they then use the Scriptures to rationalize, justify, or excuse. In other words, their beliefs are not derived from a sound, exegetical study of the Scriptures, but rather the Scriptures are “cherry picked” to support their already, pre-existing beliefs.

This appears to be another manifestation of original sin – of wanting to be God and determine good and evil on one’s own. Hence it is not enough for some Christians to say, “This is what I believe God wants of me to glorify Him;” instead, they have to insist “This is what God requires of you to glorify Him in your life.” These people will demand that you worship God in only one way, and that any other way is blasphemous; that there is only one way for Christians to raise or educate their children, spend their money, or use their time –their way (see my essay “It’s None of Your Business!”). If they have the ecclesiastical power, they are often quick to use the courts of the church to harass and oppress dissenters – even if the “dissenters” are holding to a strict understanding of the confessional and constitutional documents. If they are not presbyters, they frequently use slander, gossip, whispering and backbiting to demonize those who do not do what they want them to do. As a result, Christians spend more time fighting with each other than advancing the Kingdom. I think there is a better way.

The Moral Law of God stands as the universal, unchanging standard by which all men are judged. Within that Law, we are to exhort, encourage, rebuke, reprove and correct one another, helping one another become what He has called us to be. However, if the Law does not address an issue, then God has granted men liberty of conscience to “work out their salvation with fear and trembling.”

And if that means that some of my brothers in Christ may have a different understanding of how a certain Biblical principle is to work out in their life, family, or church; then literally, God bless them. We all serve the same God and only He can judge each man’s service. As in Romans 14:1ff, some men believe it is unlawful to eat meat sacrificed to idols – others do not – each man will give an account to God for his actions. How we treat one another when we disagree may be far more important to God than who was technically correct.

Baptized Xenophobia

There is a well documented phenomenon called “xenophobia” which means “hatred” or “fear” of strangers. We tend to like and accept people who look like us, think like us, behave like us and distrust or dislike those who differ. Evolutionary anthropologists offer one explanation for this, but Bible believing Christians need look no further than Original Sin for an explanation. If the taint of Adam’s sin is the desire to be as God, determining good and evil on our own, then therefore, then we would tend to accept and like those whose values, beliefs and appearances resemble our own. On the other hand, the more that others differ from us, the more likely that we would distrust, dislike, or even hate them.

These differences do not have to be great – just recognizable. For example, growing up in mid-coastal Maine, almost all the families in the St. George peninsula had lived there since colonial times. Though church attendance was spotty, everyone would consider themselves, at least theoretically, as a Protestant of some stripe (Roman Catholics were few and far between and considered odd).

Yet, with all the similarities of the above, xenophobia was still rampant. I grew up in Clarke Island and soaked up as a child that those folks in Spruce Head were “strange.”  And as those for those people across the bay in Port Clyde – well, watch your back. And please, don’t get me started on those weird people in Tennant’s Harbor – which was really funny since the town was named after one of my direct ancestors who had died in the War of Independence! You should have heard the howls of outrage when they closed the one room school house in my village and consolidated all the students at one elementary school in Tennant’s Harbor and made the high school kids go to THOMASTON, which wasn’t even in St. George!

The point of course, is that the same people, from the same English and Scots heritage, with the same basic protestant religion (but watch out for those Methodists) still felt that the minor differences in where one lived was enough to make everyone else “strange.”  My family eventually moved to the bustling metropolis of Camden (population, 1500) – which made some of our friends and family accuse us of putting on airs for everyone “knows” that Camden were snooty folk , who looked down their noses at everyone else –especially at those from Rockland! Camden had a motto for the tourist trade –“Camden by the Sea” which soon morphed into a put down of Rockland, which at the time had a number of fish packing plants; “Camden by the sea, Rockland by the smell – Camden goes to Heaven, Rockland goes to He…”

Silly, yes – but it illustrates that even minor geographical differences can be enough to justify some sort of xenophobia. Between Camden and Rockland was a small historical village called, “Rockport.” Before their high schools were combined, teenagers from Camden and Rockport would stand on either side of the sign that separated the two towns throwing rocks at each other. Any difference is enough to justify some sort of animosity.

Now, if indeed xenophobia is a real manifestation of original sin, then believers are not immune to it. For example, some Christians will try to create theological or doctrinal excuses to justify their dislikes or to “demonize” other Christians who are different. Consider the enmity of many evangelicals towards the use of alcohol. The Bible clearly teaches that wine is a blessing, to be enjoyed (albeit with caution). However, some churches, deeply influenced by the 19^th century Temperance movement, believe that all drinking of alcohol is inherently sinful. But then they have to deal with all those verses in the Bible that teach that wine is a blessing, and that even the Lord Jesus drank it on occasion. So, they reinterpret the words of the Bible to make wine into grape juice! I do not question the sincerity of such believers; but they in effect begin with a presupposition (all alcohol under other than medicinal purposes is wrong) and then reinterpret the Bible to fit their pre-existing beliefs. They then can feel smugly superior to all those evangelicals who drink while congratulating themselves at their “superior” knowledge (see 1 Corinthians 8:1)!

The same thing happens with xenophobia; we dislike people who are different from us. We then go to the Scriptures to find reasons to justify that dislike. In doing so of course, we have to ignore, or reinterpret the Bible at critical places – and in doing so transform the Bible from God’s word to Man, to Man’s dictates to God.

Now, nobody would ever state it this baldly; and they would insist that THEY are the only ones “properly” interpreting the Scriptures – but the result is that God can no longer tell them anything they do not already accept as true. For every time His word says something contrary to their pre-existing beliefs, they just reinterpret it to mean something altogether different! The Bible then can never correct such people; in effect while affirming their love for God and His Word, they have stopped their ears to both – a not unfamiliar situation; this is what ancient Israel die time, and time again with disastrous consequences.

That Which Cannot Be Named

Now, how does all of the above have to do with race and culture? Well, we are seeing right now a massive change in American society due to the widespread rejection of God. Immorality, fornication and perversity are now widely accepted, even encouraged. Our national government is becoming ever more tyrannical, our economic system is in collapse and with risinc crime, we have to incarcerate the largest percentage of our population of any industrialized nation in the world. The cultural values derived from English Puritan and Scottish Presbyterianism that built our nation are now openly ridiculed and rejected. Meanwhile, unrestricted immigration continues to flood our country with peoples from pagan, idolatrous or sub-Biblical cultures. They are bringing with them their own religious beliefs, and the values that invariably flow from those beliefs, transforming what it means to be an American.

While some Christians seem oblivious to the problems, others Christians are rightly concerned with the kind of society that is being built. While our Dispensational brothers have the hope of the Rapture, the rest of us know that we, and our children and grand-children, are going to have to live in the increasing hostile, tyrannical and economically bankrupt society these new religions are building. It is vital then that we understand what went wrong, and what needs to be done to put things right.

However, if Christians begin with the wrong assumptions, they will reach erroneous conclusions. Some Christians, not many, but some, have begun to explore what was previously unthinkable – that maybe the problem is race and the solution then is to withdraw from or denounce “mixed” culture and retain one’s racial or ethnic “purity.” Such people rightly see the inherent danger of “multiculturalism” as a means of subverting and destroying Christian culture. Their response however is to advocate some sort of race based distinction. Yes, I know – if you have not been exposed to this line of thinking it can seem shocking. But if you look at what is happening to this country, and do not have the hope of an imminent second coming to rescue you out of what is occurring right before your eyes - and no one on “our side” is offering any solutions for the problem - then eventually, even the unthinkable can appear as not so unreasonable.

After all, how many times do your children have to be assaulted, intimidated or violated in public schools by “minorities” before you start thinking that race might be a factor? How many communities must be destroyed, jobs lost, or taxes inflated to raise minority children (or spent to build ever more prisons to house “minority” criminals) before the racial scapegoat begins to sound credible?

And this is why I drew up the below; not as an exhaustive, Biblical summary of the issue of race and religion, but as a first step in trying to help Christians think Biblically about the problem. The basic thesis is that the issue is never race – but always religion (and the culture derived from that religion). People are what they are because of their underlying beliefs about God and the culture that is built around them. Even many Christians have a dysfunctional faith, due to pietism – that the essence of true religion is a deeply sincere, inner experience of God. Hence, for over 150 years, mainstream evangelical Christianity has essentially existed as a thin veneer of religious fervor covering a core of unsanctified, cultural values that were often sub-Biblical in nature. And because they did not have a consistent, comprehensive Biblical worldview, when such Christians tried to rationally think about the world, they inevitably fell into error. They started with erroneous assumptions and they reached erroneous conclusions.

Our social disintegration that rightly deserves a Christian response is not a result of the massive influx of black, brown or yellow people leaving their traditional homelands – but because the gospel of Jesus Christ has not yet sufficiently changed people’s lives – neither theirs, nor “ours.” The cultures these people come from either have not received the gospel, or worked out its implications consistently in family, work, recreation, charity, etc. However, the United States would not have decayed into a socialist monstrosity unless Christians had lost sight of a full-orbed gospel. The solution then is not playing the “race card” – but rather in rediscovering a truly consistent Christian faith, and aggressive evangelism, verified by one’s own transformed life.

The man, who confesses with me that Jesus is Lord, is my brother –regardless of the language he speaks, the lands where his ancestors lived, the amount of melanin in his skin, or the folds in his eyes. As my brother in Christ, he has every right to call on my love, and service – and I have a duty before God to stand beside him in adversity, encourage him in his sanctification and work with him in subduing the earth to the glory of God. As my beloved brother in Christ, he is welcome in my church and my home. When we stand together, united by ties stronger than blood, we have God’s own promise of victory (Eph 6:10ff).

The Bible and Race

All men are descended from Adam through Noah, giving them common ancestors which makes all people related to one another, in some manner (Gen 1:28, 10:1ff).

God divided men at Babel into various linguistic/cultural groups (Gen 11:1, 8-9).

The promise of the Gospel given to Abraham was that all nations would be blessed in him—not just those directly descended from him (Gen 12:3).

Throughout the Old Testament the dividing line between men was never race but religion—between those who worshipped and served the one true God from those who worshipped and served idols (e.g., Gen 3:16, 4:16ff, 12:1, etc.)

During this time, occasionally, even pagan kings and peoples repented of their sins and acknowledged that the Lord was God (e.g., Ruth, Jonah, Daniel, etc.).

The Lord Jesus declared that His gospel was for all men, all nations, all tribes and all languages (Matt 28:19ff).

Within His Church, there was to be no distinctions between Jew, Greek or Roman for all had access to God the Father through Jesus the Son (Gal 3:28, Rms 10:12, Jas 2:4).

One day, every knee shall bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord to the glory of God the Father (Phil 2:10-11).

Therefore the Gospel is to be freely offered to all men, regardless of ethnic, cultural or national origin (Matt 24:14, 35:32, Rms 9:23, 16:26, etc.).

The Church is to “disciple” these “nations” to obey Christ in everything (Matt 28:19ff).

The distinguishing mark of being a disciple of Jesus Christ is love for the brethren—the commitment to do what is right and good for another regardless of personal cost (John 13:35, 15:12, Rms 5:8). Therefore, any doctrine or practice that makes unlawful distinctions between Christians based on race, ethnicity or national origin is a violation of the Lord’s most basic commandment to be as one and love one another and hence, a disciplinable offense (Gal 3:28, Rms 14:10,19 Phil 2:1ff).

Final Comments on Culture and Religion

All culture is religion externalized; i.e., the outward manifestation of a peoples’ most basic values and beliefs. As the Gospel penetrates a culture, it will change that culture to reflect God’s unchanging Moral Law. This may take many generations to achieve. A culture that has not been significantly affected by the Gospel may retain many unbiblical and even immoral values and practices. These unsanctified cultural traits can and should be lovingly, kindly and gently examined, rebuked and corrected as a normal part of Christian growth (Hebs 10:24, Col 3:16, etc.).

However, Christians are allowed to retain certain aspects of their  cultural and ethnic customs (e.g., food, styles of music, art, literature, language, architecture, etc.) provided that such practices do not contradict the doctrine of love and the Moral Law (cf. Acts 15:1ff, Rms 14:1ff).

The only distinction that matters is between those who acknowledge Jesus as Lord, from those who do not. Those who confess His Lordship, regardless of ethnicity, language or race, have been adopted into God’s family and are to be united with all other believers in love and service (1 Peter 2:9).

Because the Bible insists that there are no ontological distinctions between believers (Galatians 3:23-29), there cannot be an inherent moral objection to marriage between Christians of different ethnic or racial backgrounds. However, since Biblical marriage demands that the “two become one flesh” there may be pragmatic reasons why such marriages might be unwise; i.e., the more different the individuals are in culture, education, interests and values, the more difficult it might be for them to achieve the unity demanded by God in Christian marriage. However, such decisions are left by God to the families and individuals involved – they are no one else’s business or concern.

All Christians retain the right of “free association” in that it is lawful for them to choose the people with whom they wish to associate on a regular basis. However, they may not exclude other Christians from their fellowship, encouragement or love based on non-Biblical criteria such as race or ethnicity.