{"id":907,"date":"2009-11-12T08:22:43","date_gmt":"2009-11-12T08:22:43","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/bibleandculture\/2009\/11\/e-pluribus-unum--social-identity-and-diversity-in-acts.html"},"modified":"2009-11-12T08:22:43","modified_gmt":"2009-11-12T08:22:43","slug":"e-pluribus-unum-social-identity-and-diversity-in-acts","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2009\/11\/e-pluribus-unum-social-identity-and-diversity-in-acts.html","title":{"rendered":"E Pluribus Unum– Social Identity and Diversity in Acts"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"hunt.jpg\"<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

(My friend Mark Fairchild, who is a professor of Bible at Huntington University invited me to come give some lectures at his school in Indiana. What follows here is the Forrester Lecture on Diversity delivered Nov. 4, 2009.Kudos to Mark and his colleagues for a good time at Huntington).
BW3
——-
<\/p>\n

E PLURIBUS UNUM:  <\/span>THE ONE AND THE MANY IN LUKE-ACTS<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

                                    <\/span>Ben
\nWitherington, III<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

                                                            <\/span>I<\/p>\n

            <\/span>Diversity,
\nor put another way pluralism, is a difficult topic to tackle from a Biblical
\npoint of view, not least because the Bible doesn’t inherently reify the
\ncategory ‘diversity’ in the way that our culture does.  <\/span>And of course the discussion suffers from a
\nlack of definition.  <\/span>What sort of
\ndiversity are we talking about?  <\/span>Racial,
\nethnic, cultural diversity?  <\/span>Religious
\ndiversity?  <\/span>Political diversity?  <\/span>Diversity of views about sexual
\nidentity?  <\/span>What does it mean to have a
\ncommitment to diversity, not further defined? 
\n<\/span>And yet there it is on our money— “out of the many, one”–e pluribus
\nunum.  <\/span>But how is that oneness created
\nout of diversity?   <\/span>And does the American
\nvision of how to go about it (liberty and justice and democracy and tolerance
\nfor all) and the Biblical vision of unity cohere, or at least comport with one
\nanother?  <\/span>Inquiring minds want to know. <\/span> Within the Evangelical world there are rumblings about the problems created by ‘tolerance’ these days (see D.A. Carson’s new ‘The Intolerance of Tolerance’), and so it would be good for us to reflect on these matters at this juncture. <\/p>\n

            <\/span>What
\nfurther complicates this whole discussion from a sociological point of view is
\nthe fact that diversity is not a category that stands alone.  <\/span>It is defined over against some sort of
\nnotion of unity or oneness.  <\/span>Put
\nphilosophically, it is the old problem of the one and the many.  <\/span>Perhaps you will remember the old joke about
\nmarriage–when the two become one, the only question thereafter is ‘which
\none’?  Sometimes it seems in America that we are being asked to choose ‘which one’ when there is a debate involving diverse points of view.   <\/span><\/p>\n

Further
\ncomplicating the matter in the 21rst century is that in America what
\nseems to come with a commitment to diversity is also a commitment to relativism
\nand universalism.  <\/span>Some in the
\nconservative Christian community have even spoken of the ‘unholy Trinity’–the
\nintertwined notions of pluralism, relativism, and universalism.  <\/span>On this showing a commitment to diversity or
\npluralism necessarily entails the presupposition that there is no such thing as
\nabsolute truth (all things being relative) and thus that whatever truth there
\nis requires a commitment to universalism, that all equally have it, or at least
\nhave equal access to it, through whatever religious, philosophical, or
\ntheological system. <\/p>\n

            <\/span>Obviously
\nChristians cannot simply sign off on the ‘unholy Trinity’, not least because of
\ntheir commitment to the holy Trinity and to absolute truth.  <\/span>So the question for the Christian becomes— what sorts of commitments to diversity or
\npluralism and to universalism comport with our commitment to Christ and the
\nChristian faith?<\/i>  <\/span>Here I think Luke
\nthe chronicler of salvation history has much to teach us, and so
\nwe must turn to him at this juncture.<\/p>\n

                                                            <\/span>II<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

            <\/span>I
\nhave had the privilege recently to direct a doctoral dissertation at St. Andrews University dealing with the application
\nof social identity theory to Luke-Acts. 
\n<\/span>Aaron Kuecker, who is now a professor in the upper Midwest in the U.S.
\nshows in this dissertation just how fruitful such an analysis can prove to be
\nwhen applied carefully to Luke’s two volume work.  <\/span>I will be following and building upon some of
\nhis insights.  <\/span>But first a few
\ndefinitions are in order. <\/p>\n

            <\/span>Social
\nidentity theory is a theory about the ways group identity is formed and works.
\nIn some ways it can be set over against theories about how individual identity
\nis formed, and I need not tell you that in America, individual identity is
\nexalted to such a degree that sometimes it is hard to even discuss the notion
\nof group identity. What is it that holds America together beyond a
\ncommitment to individual identity and individual rights and the necessary
\nsystem to promote such commitments–i.e. freedom, democracy, so-called free
\nmarket capitalism?  <\/span>A moment’s
\nreflection will show that ultimate commitments to individualism, especially in
\nextreme forms makes it difficult, if not impossible to form a group identity.  <\/span>Luke is already concerned about these issues
\nin Luke-Acts.   <\/span><\/p>\n

It is also true as well as Aaron Kuecker points out
\nin his thesis that at the other end of the spectrum  <\/span>“Groups [and consciousness of group identity] provide a ready base from which to
\ncreate stereotypes, manipulate resources and all too often to cultivate social
\nbarriers that negatively impact the ‘other’. 
\n<\/span>All group identities are open to these harmful mutations, but it is not
\nimprobable to suggest that ethnic identity has proved capable of creating some
\nof the most vexing and intractable cleavages in human society.”  <\/span>(p. 2 Chapter 1 of Kuecker thesis– N.B. accepted for publication this week by T+T Clark).  <\/span>The examples of ethnic and religious
\ncleansing in recent history in Bosnia,
\nAfrica and elsewhere are too numerous for us
\nnot to be painfully aware that certain kinds of group or social identities can
\nbe toxic (see M. Volf’s key study ‘Exclusion and Embrace’).   <\/span>But we need not look overseas
\nto see what happens when ‘the other’ is stigmatized and stereotyped.  <\/span>It happens all too often right here in the U.S. and sadly
\nall too often in the church.  <\/span>Kuecker
\nputs it this way.<\/p>\n

“But the problem moves even closer to home. Jokes are
\ntold in factory break<\/p>\n

rooms. Pulses and paces quicken on poorly lit roads when
\nsomeone meets a<\/p>\n

passerby who is obviously an ethnic other.  <\/span>Marriages between people of different<\/p>\n

ethnic identities still cause no small amount of angst in
\nmany quarters, not to<\/p>\n

mention the difficulties faced by the children of these marriages.
\nPeople are frozen<\/p>\n

out of neighborhoods, social clubs and schools because
\nthey are ‘not one of us’. In<\/p>\n

the USA
\nat least, the well-known claim that 11 AM on Sunday mornings is ‘the most<\/p>\n

segregated hour in America’ remains tragically
\ntrue.”  <\/span>(p. 3 Chapter One).<\/p>\n

            <\/span>The
\nproblem of social identity formation in the church is a pressing one, not least
\nbecause all too often a person’s Christian identity is their secondary
\nidentity, and their national or ethnic identity is de facto their primary
\nidentity.   <\/span>Let me illustrate what I
\nmean.  <\/span>On the Sunday after 9-11 in 2001 in
\na church in California
\nan Evangelical minister got up into the pulpit and said “I’m an American first
\nand a Christian second, lets bomb those ***** back into the stone age.”   <\/span>When the minister was called on this by one
\nof his elders as they were leaving the church he was asked “You meant you were
\na Christian first and an American second–right?”  <\/span>To which the minister replied “I meant what I
\nsaid.”   <\/span>Crises tend to bring to the
\nsurface what our real defaults are, what our real primary commitments and
\nidentities are.  <\/span>And this leads to some
\npainful revelations.  <\/span>All too many church
\ngoers seem to have been innoculated with a slight case of Christian identity,
\nand in some cases it is preventing them from getting the real thing. <\/p>\n

            <\/span>A
\ncomplicating factor in using the NT to help us in our quest to deal with and
\ndefine diversity is that the Biblical cultures reflect what is called dyadic
\npersonality, namely they are cultures where the group identity is primary, and
\nthe individual identity is secondary. 
\n<\/span>This is the exact opposite of our own culture.  <\/span><\/p>\n

It should have seemed strange to us that those NT
\nfigures have NO LAST NAMES, the very basis of individual identity in our own
\nculture.  <\/span>Jesus is Jesus of
\nNazareth,  <\/span>Saul is Saul of Tarsus, and
\neven Mary Magdalene doesn’t have Magdalene as a last name–she is Miryam of
\nMigdol, a little fishing village on the sea of Galilee.  <\/span>In that culture geography, gender, and
\ngeneration, and religious commitments largely defined group identity. Where you came from, what sex you were, and
\nwho your father was, were thought to determine your identity from birth.  <\/span><\/p>\n

Consider the example of Simon bar Jonah.   <\/span>Bar Jonah is a patronymic–it means ‘son of
\nJonah\/John’.  <\/span>But of course Jesus gave
\nthe man a nickname–Cephas–the rock\/rocky. 
\n<\/span>So we would call him Rocky Johnson! 
\n<\/span>But in fact he had no last name in the modern sense.  <\/span>His identity was defined by who he was
\nrelated to— his father.   <\/span> <\/span>Of course one could add to your primary social
\nidentity in that world by becoming a Pharisee, or a Qumranite, or a Zealot, but
\nyou did not leave behind that primary social identity in the process. This was
\nnot a matter of conversion. 
<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span>Luke however
\nclearly believes in conversion, and how that changes things when it comes to
\none’s previous social identity, however primary.  <\/span>So a cautionary word— it is hard to build a
\nmodern theory of diversity and social identity out of a document where various
\nsorts of group identities were already primary. What established identity in
\nantiquity was not how you stood out from the crowd but rather what crowd you
\nwere a part of, or which ethnic, social, religious, kin group you came
\nfrom.   <\/span>As hard as it may be for us to
\nunderstand, most ancient peoples did not believe in conversion or developmental
\nmodels of personality. You were born with a certain identity and personality
\nand though it was revealed over time, it did not develop, and it certainly did
\nnot change.  If you are wondering why our Gospels do not tell much about Jesus as a child or young man (in fact with the exception of Lk. 2.41-52 we hear nothing), its because the Evangelists didn’t believe that early childhood experiences or traumas were all that formative for adult human personality.  <\/span><\/p>\n

This is why Jesus’ call to Nicodemus at night to be ‘born
\nagain’ is such a radical thing, which Nicodemus could hardly imagine.  <\/span>Early Jews hardly believed in miraculous
\nconversions to new identities or new personalities.  <\/span>The
\nGospel of Jesus said something dramatic and radical when it came to the
\npossibilities of human change and how identity was affected by such
\nchange.  <\/span>Paul puts it this way— “if
\nanyone is ‘in Christ’ he is already a new creature, the old has passed away”. <\/i> <\/span>This, friends, was social dynamite then, and
\nis social dynamite now.   <\/span>But does one
\nsimple leave the old identity behind or is it transfigured into a part of
\nsomething new?   <\/span>Notice that Paul doesn’t
\ntalk about that new creature standing in isolation–he or she is now ‘in
\nChrist’.  <\/span>That is, he or she is part of a
\nnew group a new social identity–we call them Christians.  <\/span>The individual identity is still secondary
\nand defined by the group one is a part of. 
\n<\/span>    <\/span><\/p>\n

            <\/span>It
\nis Aaron Kuecker’s theory that Luke, especially in his second volume deals with
\nthe issue of ethnic and religious diversity by suggesting that the Holy Spirit
\ncreates a possibility of assuming a new identity, a new way of being human,
\nwhich doesn’t simply jettison the old identity but rather subordinates it to
\nthe new identity.  <\/span>Jews don’t cease to be
\nJews when they become followers of Christ. 
\n<\/span>Women do not cease to be women when they become followers of Christ, and
\neven slaves may not initially cease to be slaves when they become followers of
\nChrist, because when it comes to
\nsalvation or conversion, God intervenes where you are and takes you as you are,
\nbut what happens is that the new identity becomes primary. <\/i> <\/span><\/p>\n

          This I think is exactly what Luke is telling
\nus in Acts.  <\/span>Diversity is not seen as the
\nenemy or a bad thing, but there is a unity a new identity in Christ that
\ntranscends and transfigures it.   <\/span>Paul
\nsays the same thing when he says in Gal. 3.28–“But in Christ there is neither
\nJew nor Gentile, slave nor free, no male and female, but all are one in
\nChrist.”    <\/span>The oneness in Christ becomes
\nthe primary identity which norms the secondary identity, which is retained but
\nat the same time redefined in a way that does not impede or interfere with the
\nprimary identity.   <\/span>We need to consider
\nat this juncture some examples of how this is so in Acts. <\/p>\n

                                                <\/span>III<\/p>\n

            <\/span>The
\nPentecost narrative is indeed a story about origins, the origins of the
\nchurch.  <\/span>In Luke’s view there was no
\nchurch before Pentecost, no Christians in the true sense before the falling of
\nthe Spirit in the Upper Room.  <\/span>Yes, as
\nJohn 20 tells us, Christ promised the Spirit was to come, and yes the disciples
\nneeded to stay in Jerusalem
\nuntil the Promise of the Father fell from on high but, no, there were no
\nChristians before Pentecost.  <\/span>The story
\nof Pentecost then is about new social identity formation by pneumatic means,
\nand about witnessing to the Jewish diversity then present in Jerusalem for the
\nfestival, with hopes of recruiting various new followers of Jesus. <\/p>\n

            <\/span>Several
\npoints about the story call for mention. The miracle of witnessing that occurs
\nis that each person hears <\/i>the Gospel being spoken in their own language. There
\ncould hardly be a clearer piece of evidence that God does not consider ethnic
\nand cultural diversity an inherently bad thing. 
\n<\/span>Language is the gateway of culture, plural languages plural cultures,
\nand it has been rightly said that the thing that stands out about Christianity
\nis that it could be indigenized in any and all sorts of cultures without losing
\nits own substance or character.  <\/span>This was
\nvery, very different from most ancient religions.  <\/span><\/p>\n

          For a Gentile to join early Judaism he or she
\nmust become a Jew.  <\/span>To become a true Roman
\ncitizen in the second half of the first century one had to adopt and adapt to
\nthe Emperor cult, not just accept Roman laws. 
\n<\/span>Ethnicity, culture, language were at the heart of ancient religion, and
\nLuke is here in Acts 2 speaking of something that brings a new religion to a
\npeople without requiring them to adopt a new language, or give up their ethnic
\nidentity.  <\/span>This is something novel.   <\/span><\/p>\n

The second thing
\nto note, is that the transformation happens pneumatically, that is it involves
\na miracle of speaking in this case, such that each person hears the Gospel in
\ntheir own language.  <\/span>The miracle happens
\nin the proclaimers in the first instance. The Greek here is clear “we heard
\nthem speaking in our own tongues.<\/i>“   <\/span>This is not an example of glossolalia or the
\nspeaking in angelic tongues. This is what some of my seminary students
\nfervently pray for–that the Holy Spirit will miraculously give them fluency in
\na foreign language— say, Greek or Hebrew. 
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

            <\/span>The
\nsecond thing to notice about this story is that conversion is one thing, which
\ninvolves repentance and acceptance of the Good News by faith.  <\/span>Initiation is another thing.  In early Judaism
\nwhen a non-Jew became a Jew there was a gradual process whereby one was first a
\nGod-fearer, then decided to become a proselyte and was discipled, and then
\ndecided to accept circumcision, the initiation rite, after which juncture one
\nceased to be what one was before.  <\/span>One
\nsimply became a Jew. Perhaps the largest problem for earliest Christianity was
\nthe debate on whether outsiders needed to become Jews in order to become
\ndisciples of Christ.  <\/span>This is the debate
\nat the heart of the Acts 15 story as we shall see and it is the debate which
\ndefined the early ministry of Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles.<\/p>\n

            <\/span>Luke
\nin Acts 2 very carefully tells a story about how Jews from the Diaspora as well
\nas from the Holy Land, came to be followers of
\nJesus.  <\/span>This story is not about the
\nworldwide mission to Gentiles.  <\/span>That was
\nto come later, and at the hands of Paul and Peter and others.  <\/span>Here the story is about the conversion of Jews
\nto the following of Jesus. The radical thing is that Peter here, like Jesus is
\ndepicted in John 3, is calling for Jews<\/i>
\nto repent and receive the Gospel, which when they receive the Spirit involves a
\nconversion of sorts, not merely an upgrade. 
\n<\/span>The assumption was that they were lost or had gone astray from God. But
\na conversion to what?  <\/span>Would Luke have
\ncalled it ‘true Judaism’? Would he have articulated this the same way Paul does
\nin Rom. 9-11 where he speaks of Gentiles and lost Jews being grafted back into
\nthe one people of God?  <\/span><\/p>\n

However he would
\nhave theologically reflected on this, Luke does indeed believe there is only
\none Savior of the world, and only one people of God, and the way diversity is
\ndealt with is by a ‘one for all’ and ‘all for one’ sort of model.   <\/span>The One
\n<\/i>however that binds together the diversity is a person, not concept, nor a
\ncommitment to some sort of philosophical idea. 
\n<\/span>And more to the point the Spirit of the One transforms the many<\/i>, such that their primary identity is found
\nin Christ, and all other identities, are transformed thereby and become
\nsecondary.  <\/span>Diversity continues to exist,
\nbut it is normed by the One and the commitment to that One.  <\/span> <\/span>  <\/span> <\/span><\/i> <\/span><\/p>\n

            <\/span>As
\nfor the universalism in this story, Luke emphasizes that the Spirit fell on all
\nthe disciples, male and female, of high or low status (hence the quoting of
\nJoel 2 here) so that all are empowered to share the Good News, all are equipped
\nfor ministry.  <\/span>Here of course the ‘all’
\nin question in the Upper Room are Jews, and what we see here is a continuation
\nof the theme of reversal found in Luke’s Gospel in which the least, the last
\nand the lost of Jewish society become the first the most and the found in the
\nKingdom. And so Jesus’ ragamuffins, with mere fishermen in the lead, show that
\nthe Gospel is for everyone from the down and out, to the up and in (including a
\nZaccheus or a Joanna the wife of Herod’s estate agent, Chuza).  <\/span>The universalism here is unlike modern
\nreligious pluralism or universalism, it is a universalism up and down the social scale, a vertical universalism which was inaugurated in the ministry of Jesus.  The horizontal universalism, crossing all geographical, ethnic, and cultural boundaries is a tale reversed for Luke’s second book– Acts.  <\/p>\n

As Luke will put
\nit a bit later— “there is no other name under heaven by which one may be
\nsaved”. But at the same time Luke stresses that all persons, not just Jews may and should
\nand must be saved in and through the Good News about Jesus.   <\/span>As a result of Pentecost what happened is not
\na new batch of radical Christian individuals, but rather the swelling of the
\nnumbers in the Jerusalem
\ncommunity of Jewish Christians. 
\n<\/span>Conversion is into a body of believers, not into splendid isolation much
\nless eccentric individualism.  <\/span>Paul was
\nto put it this way “by one Spirit we are all baptized into the one body” (1
\nCor. 12).  <\/span>It is a new group identity, a
\nnew social identity in Christ that becomes primary, not primarily a new
\nindividual identity.  <\/span><\/p>\n

            <\/span>Our
\nnext point of entry into Luke’s thinking about diversity is to be found in the
\nthreefold telling of Saul’s conversion in Acts 9,22, and 26. Sometimes the story
\nof Paul’s conversion is read as if it were the story of new individual
\nidentity. Saul of Tarsus becomes Paul the apostle on Damascus Road. Alas for this theory, the
\nchanging of Saul’s name doesn’t come on Damascus
\nroad or through conversion to Christ. 
\n<\/span>The name change happens on Cyprus when
\nSaul bears witness to a high status Roman named Sergius Paulus.   <\/span>His identity transformation took place well
\nbefore the name change. The former took place when he became a part of a body
\nof believers in Christ.  
<\/span><\/p>\n

          <\/span>Despite the
\nclaim sometimes made by modern sociologists, Christianity did not give birth to
\nmodern radical individualism, nor was Paul the first modern individual.  <\/span>No one who, evaluating his conversion, said
\n“I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in
\nme.” (Gal. 2.20), should be seen as the first Western individual and individualist.  <\/span><\/p>\n

Paul, like other
\nearly Christians, finds his primary identity in Christ and through Christ and
\nfrom Christ.  <\/span>Everything else is
\nsecondary, and of less import.  <\/span>This is
\nwhy Paul can sit lightly with his former Jewish identity, recognizing it as
\ngood, but not as indispensible to being a Christian. Indeed, Paul says that
\nhaving become a Christian, he is able to be the Jew to the Jew and the Gentile
\nto the Gentile, as a missionary practice and tactic (1 Cor. 9).  <\/span>But this is not a matter of primary identity,
\nit is a matter of indigenizing the Gospel, and missionary praxis. 
<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span>What is primary for Paul is made abundantly
\nclear in texts like Phil. 3–despite his impressive Jewish pedigree he was
\nprepared to count all of that as skubala
\n(<\/b>that is the stuff you poured out the window from a chamber pot), “in order
\nto be found in Christ” (Phil. 3.9).  <\/span>This
\nis not the jargon of the world’s first radical individualist.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

            <\/span>The
\nstory of Cornelius in Acts 10-11 is another telling port of call when we are
\ntrying to understand what Luke has to say about diversity and unity, diversity
\nand identity formation.  <\/span>Cornelius is
\nseen by Luke as the first litmus test, the first test case, of what would be
\nrequired for Gentiles to become followers of Jesus.  <\/span>Would they need to become full fledged Jews
\nfirst? Was that somehow essential to Christian social identity?  <\/span>This story is both remarkable and humorous in
\nmany ways, not the least of which is that it takes Peter falling asleep at
\nlunch time and having a dream about food whilst he is hungry, for God to get
\nthrough to him that God is impartial, and that what God has declared clean
\n(through the work of Christ and the Spirit) should not be consider common or
\nunclean by Jews like himself.  <\/span><\/p>\n

            <\/span>Cornelius
\nis something of a halfway house example anyway, since he was already a
\nGod-fearer who attended the synagogue (Acts 10.2).  <\/span>He was then already on the porch of Judaism,
\nwith one foot in the synagogue door.  <\/span>But
\nwhat happened when Peter, having been fortified by the dream to accept his new
\nGentile guests in, then agrees to go and be accepted into the household of
\nCornelius?  <\/span>What happened was that God
\ninterrupted Peter’s preaching and the Spirit fell on Cornelius and his family,
\nand as Peter was to remark, if they have and manifest the gifts of the Spirit,
\nthen they are already accepted by God and are a part of this new community, and
\ntherefore there is no good reason to withhold the initiation rite from
\nthem–baptism.   <\/span>Conversion in this story
\ncomes before initiation as in the story of Paul himself (see Acts 9), and
\nbaptism is not seen here as the means of conversion but rather a confirmation
\nthat it had indeed happened and these folks were accepted by the
\ncommunity.  <\/span>Of course Luke elsewhere is
\nperfectly capable of talking about initiation before conversion or reception of
\nthe Spirit as well (see the case of the Samaritans in Acts 8, or in the case of
\nthe disciples of John the baptizer in Acts 19).   <\/span>This new identity in Christ and in the
\nChristian community is not in the first case created by an initiation rite, a
\nrite of passage.  <\/span>It is created by the
\nSpirit accepted through faith, for the Spirit is the change agent, not water
\nbaptism (see my book Troubled Waters<\/i>).
\n  <\/span>The case of Cornelius then becomes the
\nthin edge of the wedge which helps sort out the Gentile controversy in Jerusalem in Acts 15, to
\nwhich we now turn.<\/p>\n

            <\/span><\/p>\n

          Acts
\n15 makes perfectly clear that there was diversity in early Christianity, not
\nmerely of an ethnic or racial sort, or a social or class sort, but also a
\ndiversity of religious opinions on an important matter. At this crucial meeting
\nwere Judaizing Jewish Christians, here called Pharisaic Christians, whose view
\nwas that Gentiles must become full-fledged Jews in order to be true
\nChristians–accepting circumcision and the Law’s 613 commandments.  <\/span>On the other end of the spectrum of the
\ndiscussion was of course Paul, who thought that even for Jewish followers of
\nJesus, keeping the Mosaic Law was no longer required because of the coming of a
\nnew covenant with a new law–the Law of Christ, which was not simply a renewal
\nof the Mosaic covenant.  <\/span><\/p>\n

          Somewhere in
\nbetween were folks like Barnabas and James who thought that Jewish Christians
\nshould still keep the Law, not least for the sake of being a good witness for
\nJesus to their fellow Jews in the synagogues. They did not, however, buy the
\nview that Gentiles had to do likewise. 
\n<\/span>This however created a problem–in order for Jewish and Gentile
\nChristians to fellowship together at table, would Gentiles have to Judaize for
\na period of time?  <\/span>Or was it really true
\nthat God had declared all clean, even the formerly unclean, as Peter’s vision
\nhad suggested?  <\/span>It is interesting how
\nPeter sounds just like Paul when it comes down to cases in this debate in
\nJerusalem, however much he may have previously waffled in Antioch (see Gal.
\n1-2). <\/p>\n

            <\/span>What
\nthen should be made of James compromise ruling? Was he imposing some Jewish
\nfood laws and sexual conduct rules on the Gentiles?  <\/span>Many have thought so, and many have also
\nthought that this was a straightforward contradiction of what Paul believed and
\nargued for.  <\/span>In my view, this is not how
\nthe Decree of James should be read.  <\/span>The
\nterm eidolothuton <\/b>refers to idol
\nstuff, more specifically meat sacrificed and eaten in the presence of
\nidols.  <\/span>The issue James raises in the
\nDecree is whether Gentiles could continue to participate in pagan worship in
\npagan temples or not. The issue is one of venue more than it is of menu, though
\nfood is involved (see now my essay on this in What’s in a Word?)<\/i>.  <\/span><\/p>\n

James says he is
\nconcerned about the ‘pollutions of idols’ 
\n<\/span>which is to say, the negative spiritual influence on Gentiles of eating
\nin the presence of a false god in a pagan temple.  <\/span>Hence he tells Gentiles–no more visiting pagan
\ntemples where idolatry and immorality readily take place, where you find idols,
\nand food offered to idols, and things strangled, and blood, and sexual
\ndalliance with the servers as well, if not sacred prostitution.  <\/span>In short, James, like Paul in 1 Cor. 8-10 is
\ntelling Gentiles that whilst they don’t need to keep kosher, they do need to
\nstay away from the sort of things you find in pagan temples–idol stuff and
\nimmorality. <\/p>\n

As Paul was to
\nshow in 1 Cor. 8-10, he was perfectly happy to endorse and implement this
\nDecree in Corinth
\nand elsewhere.   <\/span>The diversity in
\nearliest Christianity on this issue proved not to be a deal breaker for James,
\nPeter or Paul, because the apostles all agreed on the issue of avoidance of
\nidolatry and immorality, or as Paul was to put it in one of his earliest
\nletters to a largely Gentile group–“you turned to God from idols, to serve this
\nliving and true God” (1 Thess. 1.9). 
\n<\/span>They must not turn back to idols and immorality after their
\nconversion.  <\/span><\/p>\n

Paul, in his
\nletters to his partially socialized, largely Gentile, new Christians worked for
\nan identity formation that involved neither the allowance of a return to
\npaganism nor a conversion to Judaism, but a process by which all might be one
\nin Christ, whether Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female.  <\/span><\/p>\n

No longer would ethnic, social, or sexual
\nidentity be primary in this religious group, but nor would it be ignored or
\ndenied. Rather it would be transformed so that it was not the religious determinant <\/i>in the identity
\nformation.  <\/span>Neither ethnic\/racial, social
\nor sexual identity was the sine qua non for being in Christ, nor would most
\nroles be defined in Christ by such merely human factors. Roles would be decided
\non the basis of calling, gifting, graces and the like.  <\/span>We have ever since had a hard time living up
\nto this radical notion.  <\/span>Indeed we
\nstruggle with it strongly in our own day, as the continuing battle over women in ministry shows.   <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

AND SO? <\/p>\n

            <\/span>  <\/span>There are lessons to be learned from Luke
\nabout the issue of unity and diversity, the one and the many, lessons which
\nsuggest that we must not absolutize<\/i> diversity as if it were an inherent good in
\nitself, nor must we make the mistake of dismissing it as if it were of no
\nconsequence in Christ.  <\/span>The principle of
\nincarnation– the Word becoming a particular kind of flesh–, and thus the
\nderivative principle of indigenization is in fact crucial to the Gospel.  <\/span>Americans do not need to become Israelis to be
\nfollowers of Jesus.  <\/span>Women do not need to
\nbecome men to be followers of Jesus (despite the infamous saying in the Gospel
\nof Thomas that says the contrary).  <\/span>And
\nthe socially less elite do not need to become elite to be saved.   <\/span>The principle here has to do with
\nsalvation.  <\/span><\/p>\n

None of the usual identity
\ndefining social categories–social, sexual, ethnic, racial, class, national have
\nany salvific import in Christ.  <\/span>This does
\nnot mean they are of no import, but it does mean they are not requirements for
\nsalvation or redemption. Whatever good there is in human diversity, it is
\nalways a mistake to deify a particular culture or or social or racial
\nidentity and make that the means or necessary pre-requisite for salvation or
\nfor being a true Christian.  <\/span>Luke would
\ninsist that arguing that way would in no way do justice to the Gospel, the
\nGospel of one Savior for all the various social groups in the world.  <\/span>He is the One out of which the Many can find
\ntheir true, their permanent, their everlasting identity— in Christ.
<\/span><\/p>\n

At this juncture I should tell you a story of how indigenization should and should not be done. Some years ago I was asked to preach at a worship service in Bulawayo in Zimbabwe.  I was honored to do so, and it was in fact the first joint service bringing together the Indebele and the Shona Christians in that city. Now these two tribal groups had been converted to Christ by two very different missionary groups and missionary practices. One set of missionaries had tried to Westernize these Africans and so they dressed more like Westerners and sang Western hymns though in their own language. The other tribe by contrast came to the service in their native garb, and sang and danced to Christian tunes they had themselves written, with African rhythms and rhymes.  Which of these two examples could not be accused of imperialism, or the imposing of Western culture on Africans? Only the second I am afraid. It would be hard for the former tribe to distinguish between Western culture and Christianity, but not so difficult for the latter tribe.  All here were Christians, but some were practicing Christianity in a more indigenous way than others.  It is the beauty and miracle of Christianity that it can be indigenized without loss of spiritual identity, without loss of theological and ethical substance across all cultural boundaries.  We always need to find ways to make that happen. <\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

            <\/span>Luke would tell us equally that our secondary identity as Americans, or males
\nor females, or belongers to one subculture or another is not of no importance.
\nThere is indeed a goodness to diversity, perhaps especially in the body of
\nChrist.  <\/span>Luke does indeed dream a big
\ndream of a community that is a rainbow coalition of races, genders, ethnic
\ngroups, social statuses.  <\/span>But their
\noneness is not created by a mere common commitment to diversity and its potential
\ngoodness nor is it created by the fact that we are all human.  <\/span>That oneness is created by the Spirit of God
\nwho transforms and transfigures our previous identities. <\/p>\n

            <\/span>And
\nLuke would tell us as well, that in Christ we are not called to radical individualism,
\nrather we are called to a new group identity as our primary identity— to be ‘in
\nChrist’, in the body of Christ.  <\/span>This is
\na timely emphasis for us, perhaps especially for low church Evangelicals or
\nProtestants who have such a hard time creating community without it splintering
\nand dividing, or nurturing family without it becoming broken in pieces.  <\/span>At the end of the day Luke would insist that
\nevery Christians’ primary family is the family of faith (the body of Christ),
\nwhereas one’s physical family is entirely secondary to that primary family.  <\/span>Luke would call us to a day where what the
\nphrase ‘family church’ means is a church that knows how to be a family to one
\nand all who are a part of it, not merely an entity which nurtures nuclear or
\nphysical families.  <\/span><\/p>\n

‘E pluribus unum’
\nsays the coins of our realm,  <\/span>‘out of the
\nmany one’.  <\/span>But this philosophy suggests
\nthat group formation happens mainly through human effort, as our metal is
\ntested, so to speak.  But what the Bible says is that from the One the many can
\nfind their eternal identity in community, when he comes by his Spirit to
\nindwell us.  <\/span>And this is an identity not
\nfound in a mere common commitment to diversity or respecting difference, though
\nboth of those values are worth affirming. 
<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span>Luke tells us that the earliest Christian social identity involved the
\nfollowing–” They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the
\nfellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43<\/sup>Everyone was
\nfilled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the
\napostles. 44<\/sup>All the believers were together and had everything in
\ncommon. 45<\/sup>Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone
\nas he had need. 46<\/sup>Every day they continued to meet together in the
\ntemple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and
\nsincere hearts, 47<\/sup>praising God and enjoying the favor of all the
\npeople. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.”
\n(Acts 2.42-47).  <\/span><\/p>\n

Luke would tell us that this
\nsort of identity forming and culture making enterprise should still
\ncharacterize the church today.  <\/span>Unity in
\nthe midst of diversity,  <\/span>unity which
\ntransforms without eliminating diversity, unity as a more primary value than diversity
\nor a commitment thereto, these are the values of Luke.  <\/span>In my judgment they should be ours as well.  
\nIf it is true we become what we admire, then it is time for us to admire Christ
\nmore, emulate him more and share his vision of unity that transforms and
\ntransfigures diversity so that social, sexual, ethnic, racial, class
\ndifferences no longer chiefly define us, nor do they any longer divide us from
\none another.  <\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

(My friend Mark Fairchild, who is a professor of Bible at Huntington University invited me to come give some lectures at his school in Indiana. What follows here is the Forrester Lecture on Diversity delivered Nov. 4, 2009.Kudos to Mark and his colleagues for a good time at Huntington).BW3——- E PLURIBUS UNUM:  THE ONE AND…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":199,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-907","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"yoast_head":"\nE Pluribus Unum- Social Identity and Diversity in Acts - The Bible and Culture<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2009\/11\/e-pluribus-unum-social-identity-and-diversity-in-acts.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"E Pluribus Unum- Social Identity and Diversity in Acts - The Bible and Culture\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"(My friend Mark Fairchild, who is a professor of Bible at Huntington University invited me to come give some lectures at his school in Indiana. What follows here is the Forrester Lecture on Diversity delivered Nov. 4, 2009.Kudos to Mark and his colleagues for a good time at Huntington).BW3——- E PLURIBUS UNUM:  THE ONE AND…\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2009\/11\/e-pluribus-unum-social-identity-and-diversity-in-acts.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"The Bible and Culture\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-11-12T08:22:43+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/bibleandculture\/files\/import\/assets_c\/2009\/11\/hunt-thumb-500x400-9223.jpg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Ben Witherington\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"E Pluribus Unum- Social Identity and Diversity in Acts - The Bible and Culture","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2009\/11\/e-pluribus-unum-social-identity-and-diversity-in-acts.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"E Pluribus Unum- Social Identity and Diversity in Acts - The Bible and Culture","og_description":"(My friend Mark Fairchild, who is a professor of Bible at Huntington University invited me to come give some lectures at his school in Indiana. What follows here is the Forrester Lecture on Diversity delivered Nov. 4, 2009.Kudos to Mark and his colleagues for a good time at Huntington).BW3——- E PLURIBUS UNUM:  THE ONE AND…","og_url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2009\/11\/e-pluribus-unum-social-identity-and-diversity-in-acts.html","og_site_name":"The Bible and Culture","article_published_time":"2009-11-12T08:22:43+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/bibleandculture\/files\/import\/assets_c\/2009\/11\/hunt-thumb-500x400-9223.jpg"}],"author":"Ben Witherington","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2009\/11\/e-pluribus-unum-social-identity-and-diversity-in-acts.html","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2009\/11\/e-pluribus-unum-social-identity-and-diversity-in-acts.html","name":"E Pluribus Unum- Social Identity and Diversity in Acts - The Bible and Culture","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2009\/11\/e-pluribus-unum-social-identity-and-diversity-in-acts.html#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2009\/11\/e-pluribus-unum-social-identity-and-diversity-in-acts.html#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/bibleandculture\/files\/import\/assets_c\/2009\/11\/hunt-thumb-500x400-9223.jpg","datePublished":"2009-11-12T08:22:43+00:00","dateModified":"2009-11-12T08:22:43+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/#\/schema\/person\/d1fd6c7893819eabc624db38ecfd8426"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2009\/11\/e-pluribus-unum-social-identity-and-diversity-in-acts.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2009\/11\/e-pluribus-unum-social-identity-and-diversity-in-acts.html"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2009\/11\/e-pluribus-unum-social-identity-and-diversity-in-acts.html#primaryimage","url":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/bibleandculture\/files\/import\/assets_c\/2009\/11\/hunt-thumb-500x400-9223.jpg","contentUrl":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/bibleandculture\/files\/import\/assets_c\/2009\/11\/hunt-thumb-500x400-9223.jpg"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/2009\/11\/e-pluribus-unum-social-identity-and-diversity-in-acts.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"E Pluribus Unum– Social Identity and Diversity in Acts"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/","name":"The Bible and Culture","description":"All Things Biblical and Christian","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/#\/schema\/person\/d1fd6c7893819eabc624db38ecfd8426","name":"Ben Witherington","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/wp-content\/wphb-cache\/gravatar\/75e\/75ec11e1916a2008bc4cc638a0a0de2fx96.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/wp-content\/wphb-cache\/gravatar\/75e\/75ec11e1916a2008bc4cc638a0a0de2fx96.jpg","caption":"Ben Witherington"},"description":"Bible scholar Ben Witherington is Amos Professor of New Testament for Doctoral Studies at Asbury Theological Seminary and on the doctoral faculty at St. Andrews University in Scotland. A graduate of UNC, Chapel Hill, he went on to receive the M.Div. degree from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and a Ph.D. from the University of Durham in England. He is now considered one of the top evangelical scholars in the world, and is an elected member of the prestigious SNTS, a society dedicated to New Testament studies. Witherington has also taught at Ashland Theological Seminary, Vanderbilt University, Duke Divinity School and Gordon-Conwell. A popular lecturer, Witherington has presented seminars for churches, colleges and biblical meetings not only in the United States but also in England, Estonia, Russia, Europe, South Africa, Zimbabwe and Australia. He has also led tours to Italy, Greece, Turkey, Israel, Jordan, and Egypt. Witherington has written over thirty books, including The Jesus Quest and The Paul Quest, both of which were selected as top biblical studies works by Christianity Today. He also writes for many church and scholarly publications, and is a frequent contributor to the Beliefnet website. Along with many interviews on radio networks across the country, Witherington has been seen on the History Channel, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, The Discovery Channel, A&E, and the PAX Network.","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/author\/bwitherington"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/907","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/199"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=907"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/907\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=907"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=907"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/bibleandculture\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=907"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}