Isn’t religion just cultural? Straight answers to curly questions #2

In the first article in this series, we looked at the commonly raised objection that all religions are basically the same, and developed a logical response. In this article, we continue to explore common objections. The second feeling that people have revolves around the ‘lottery factor’—the feeling that a person's religion is largely a product of the country they happen to be born in—that it's all just cultural.

You've no doubt heard it said that if you are born in the middle east, you are likely to be a Muslim; if you are born in China, you are likely to be a Buddhist; and if you are born in a western country, you are likely to be a Christian. The implication is that being a Christian is largely an accident of birth, and believing in Jesus simply shows we are products of our western upbringing.

And if our beliefs are little more than cultural norms, then how can anyone know whether they really have the truth? And if Christ is the truth, isn't God being unfair on those who, through no fault of their own, are born in the ‘wrong country’?

To respond to this, we need to employ a second apologetic: the empirical argument. This involves explaining the missionary purposes of God and demonstrating that, in actual fact, Christ's saving mission involves all countries, that through this one individual, God's plan is to bless all nations, and that he “desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim 2:4). In God's sovereign purposes, there is, therefore, no such thing as being ‘born in the wrong country’.

This idea that Christ's kingdom is for people of every tribe and every tongue (Isa 66:18) is one of the central themes in the Bible. As the Bible opens, ‘God's people’ encompasses the whole of humanity. At that stage, in the garden of Eden, humanity consists of just two people: Adam and Eve. But that does not alter the fact that God's purposes begin with the whole human race in view. By the time of the flood, a distinction has arisen within humanity between those who belong to God's rule and those who do not, and the number of those outside the kingdom now far exceeds those inside it: Noah and his family are the only ones in a right relationship with God. By the time we get to Genesis chapter 11, it appears that there is no identifiable ‘people of God’ as such, for nobody acknowledges God.

In Genesis 12, God then chooses one man—Abraham—and makes the following promise to him:

_

Now the Lord said to Abram, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonours you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” (12:1-3)

_

Here is the juxtaposition of two apparently contradictory ideas: God is promising to build a single great ‘nation’, and yet, at the same time, involves all the nations (‘families’ = races/tribes/communities/people groups). God will bring about a singular unity of the human race, yet this will incorporate a profound ethnic diversity.

Paradoxically, this purpose of God is by means of sovereign election. We learn that God's way of blessing the world is the way of particularity, that he draws lines of distinction within the human race (“I will bless those who bless you and him who dishonours you I will curse”), and that (ironically) God will use certain select individuals to accomplish his good purposes of reuniting the whole human race (“I will make of you a great nation ... and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed”). There will be blessing for those who are chosen, and God's ultimate purpose is to bless all nations.

At the Genesis 12 stage, God's people actually amounts to God's ‘person’ since there is just one man: Abraham. As time unfolds, the number included in God's kingdom widens, and yet, at the same time, distinctions arise within Abraham's offspring. Isaac, not Ishmael, is blessed. Jacob, not Esau, inherits the promises. This distinction is determined, at one level, by human response, but at a deeper level, it is divine choice that decides. God chooses Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and there does not seem to be any grounds for the choice inherent in the individuals themselves in their merit or character. In particular, being a physical descendent of Abraham does not guarantee inclusion in the promises. It is not the children of the flesh (Abraham's physical offspring) but children of the promise (Abraham's spiritual offspring) who are the true descendants of Abraham.

Whether a person hears the gospel and believes, in other words, is the result of God's divine sovereignty. So there are no ‘accidents of birth’ when viewed from this perspective.

This point continues to be played out in the rest of the Old Testament. The prophets draw a distinction between Israel in the broad sense as those who are physical descendants of Jacob, versus Israel in the narrow sense of the faithful remnant (Isa 10:20). For example, Isaiah likens this ‘true Israel’ to pure metal, free from impurities (Isa 1:25) and a pleasant vineyard devoid of thorns (27:3-4). Equally important is the fact that, while Israel retains a special place in God's plan, there are indications that his promises extend beyond Israel to encompass the Gentile nations. Rahab the harlot from Jericho is saved (Josh 2:1, Heb 11:31). The Queen of Sheba sits under the preaching of Solomon. Jonah is sent by God to preach the gospel to the Ninevites. Psalm 117:1 calls on all nations to praise the Lord.

Importantly, therefore, as the expectation builds up that a Messiah will be sent into the world by God, there is an unmistakable message that his role will be international. For instance, in the key ‘Son of Man’ passage in Daniel chapter 7, we read that “to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations and languages should serve him” (7:14).

In the New Testament, the multicultural nature of God's kingdom in Christ becomes fully articulated. Although the Lord Jesus is descended from Abraham as demonstrated by the genealogy in Matthew 1 (thus fulfilling the Genesis 12 promises), and despite his ministry being conducted firstly to the Jews, it is also clear that he has come to the Gentiles as well. In John 10:16, for instance, Jesus says “I have other sheep that are not of this fold”, a reference to sheep outside the house of Israel. In John 19:11, Jesus claims his authority extends over even Pontius Pilate (and, by implication, Caesar himself, the ultimate human authority of the day), which goes beyond any Old Testament figure in claiming to have dominion far beyond the house of Israel.

Furthermore, the gospels are peppered with absolute expressions that point to the worldwide scope of Jesus' mission, such as “whoever hears my word and believes” in John 5:24, and “everyone who looks on the Son and believes” in John 6:40. This is epitomized in that famous verse, John 3:16, which tells us that “God so loved the world”; it does not simply say “God so loved the Jews”.

After Jesus' ascension, the unfolding spread of the gospel makes clear that Gentiles are included in the promises to Abraham. Paul and others take the gospel to Rome, Corinth, Ephesus, Thessalonica, Galatia, Philippi, Colossae, Antioch, Athens, Cyprus and Crete. In fact, so profound is this issue that Paul had to confront Peter about it (Gal 2:11-14). In Acts 10, following the encounter with Cornelius, Peter comes to appreciate that the gospel is for all, saying: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him” (10:34-35).

By the time the Bible closes, we are presented with an incredible picture of the international character of the kingdom of God. In Revelation 7, we see pictured “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 ...” (7:9). This is a vision of the future in which the promise to Abraham has been fulfilled in Christ.

This is the Christianity we need to share with our friends and family. The empirical pattern in the Bible is truly multicultural, and it matters not what a person's ethnicity is because you become a child of Abraham not by being born in a particular country, but by believing the promises of God in Christ.

We need to point out that Christianity did not originate in Britain, Australia or the USA. These countries may have a Christian heritage today, but they are relatively recent recruits to a movement that originally started in the Middle East, in a small country called Israel. The cultural roots of the Christian faith are therefore not western at all, but Mediterranean. It was from the East that biblical faith spread, firstly to other middle eastern peoples and eventually across the Roman Empire. It is clear from history that not only westerners but equally non-westerners, notably in the Middle East, have in fact had access to the Christian message and have believed it in large numbers for many centuries.

Next, we need to say that it is God's intention that people from every part of the world, not just English-speaking countries, be blessed by his saving purposes in the Lord Jesus—that from the earliest days, his promises have been open to all, incorporating people like Ruth the Moabite, and Epaenetus, the first convert to Christ in Asia Minor (Romans 16:5)—that Jesus' saving mission is truly international and is intended for everyone, regardless of race or birth—that one day a great multitude from every nation will be gathered in heaven around the throne and the Lamb of God. And we will need to say that, at this very moment, God has his servants working in many and various corners of the globe to that very end.

Then we need to challenge the suggestion that growing up in a country like Australia makes it likely a person will believe in Jesus. While it is probably more likely than for a person growing up in (say) Iran or Saudi Arabia, it is far less likely someone will become Christian in Australia than in (say) South America or Africa. We need to point out that Australia is no longer, by any stretch of the imagination, a Christian country. Far from incubating Christian faith, Australian (or British or European) culture today actually militates against it. Christian beliefs are out of fashion; as few as 1-2% of the population are born-again believers, and Christianity no longer enjoys mainstream status. The fastest growing religions, according to the Australian census, are the Eastern religions.

To be a Christian in Australia today is therefore to join a counter-culture. In this context, it is a miracle that people still are becoming followers of Jesus here. Equally, we know that in China, for instance, despite Christianity being illegal, there are an estimated 50 million underground believers. And if God so chooses, he can save a person in Iran or Saudi Arabia. Ultimately, it is by the sovereignty of God that a person comes to Christ.

Finally, we need to help our friends embrace the paradoxical nature of truth. The truth is that God is building a very particular people through the unique individual known as Jesus Christ, while at the same time, he is drawing those people from every country and culture. The paradox contained in the promise to Abraham is the same paradox we wrestle with: on the one hand, we are telling our friends that Jesus is the unique truth for all humanity, yet on the other hand, only a chosen few seem to have that truth. It is the same in Genesis 12: God says he will bless all nations, yet it will be exclusively through this one individual's descendants.

Both sides of the paradox are true, and the reason people have problems is when they try to say that only one or other side can possibly be true, not both: either God is unfairly putting some nations in a position of privileged access, or else Jesus cannot be the way, the truth and the life for all people in all cultures at all times. When our friends assert this, they are trying to impose a particular view of God and his relationship to people and to the world that is, in fact, unbiblical. As we have seen from our discussion, it is perfectly possible for Christianity to be both particular and multicultural at the same time.

The general line of thought outlined above I call the empirical apologetic.

It uses data from biblical records and combines this with modern day observations. It involves:

_
1. reiterating the middle eastern (not western) origins of Christianity;
_
2. debunking the myth that you are a Christian ‘only because you were born in a Christian country’ by pointing out that living in Australia today militates against Christian conversion as much as for it; and
_
3. pointing to the Bible's big vision of the future, which involves people from every tribe and tongue.
_

Conclusion: being a Christian is not simply a ‘cultural thing’.

There is biblical precedent for the use of this mission-minded line of thought in apologetics. For instance, in Luke 14:15-24, Jesus tells the parable of the great banquet in which those who were initially invited (which equals Israel) spurn the invitation and so the king then throws the banquet open to the outcasts (which means the Gentiles). The implication? God delights in confounding the pundits and their predictions of who is more likely to be saved, and who is less likely. Culture or birth cannot be blithely used to predict whom God will choose to save.