Holy, But Not Homogenous

A few years ago, a brilliant young post-graduate scientist began attending our church services. She started her journey to explore Christianity. Her upbringing was anything but religious, which made her thoughts on faith fresh—and occasionally conflicted. Before too long she asked if we could sit down and talk. She had questions.

Over coffee we discussed all sorts of things: science, theology, politics, resurrection, and the Portland Trail Blazers. It was enjoyable. But I could see her reaching for the real question as the conversation went on. Finally she asked what had been on her mind the whole time: "Can I be a Christian and still believe in evolution?"

Circumstance and "circumcision"

What would lead us to believe that a scientist must reject evolution before embracing the good news of Jesus? Why wouldn't we expect them to become agents of God's grace in the very tension that many stumble over?

In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul rambles through instructions for those who've recently converted to Christianity. One of his statements should make attentive observers of the text do a double-take. Paul writes, "Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised" (v.18).

Finally she asked what had been on her mind the whole time: "Can I be a Christian and still believe in evolution?"

The latter portion of this teaching makes sense—Paul often admonished Gentile converts, directly opposing the Judaizers, that they shouldn't become cultural Jews (via circumcision) in order to follow Jesus. Circumcision, for Paul, was a cultural conversion rather than a heart conversion. After all, Paul wasn't after circumcision of the penis; Paul was after what he called "circumcision of the heart" (see Rom. 2:28-29). Such theology makes sense to contemporary Protestants and evangelicals, who long ago rejected any kind of work-based salvation. But it's the first half of Paul's assertion that catches the modern reader off guard: Why would Paul instruct circumcised converts to not become uncircumcised?

Quite a story (possibly) hides behind this little verse. Whether out of embarrassment, or fear of persecution, or conversion to Christianity, some first-century Jews were eager to reject Judaism and their Jewish culture. In some cases, circumcised males would actually become uncircumcised to hide their cultural identity. They went through an excruciating practice known as "epispasm." The procedure served as a kind of skin graft to undo circumcision. One could effectively become uncircumcised if they so desired. European Jews even resurrected the practice during the Nazi persecutions to escape death.

Whether epispasm is what Paul had in mind here is unclear. But it's clear that Paul rejected the idea that conversion to Jesus was cultural. If a Jew turned to Christ, he said that they should remain a Jew and follow Jesus. If a Gentile came to Christ, he said that they should remain in their cultural context and follow Jesus. Whoever a convert might be, Paul writes, they should "remain" (v. 20) in their context after their conversion.

Paul's hope was that upon conversion to God's grace, the newly redeemed would "remain" in the very cultural place where they were redeemed. Paul desired sellers of purple dye to remain sellers of purple dye, centurions to remain centurions, virgins to remain virgins, and married people to remain married people. Why? Because it is only as the church remains in the various parts of the world where new Christians resides that the gospel continues to spread.

Converting to Christ or to culture?

As the scientist's question assumed, I think that we've become better at converting people to the culture of Christianity than we have been at converting people to Jesus. True conversion is Jesus reaching us where we are. Unless circumstances are inherently contrary to the gospel, the gospel should keep us in that place as a conduit of God's salvation.

I think that we've become better at converting people to the culture of Christianity than we have been at converting people to Jesus.

I've seen people convert to the culture of American evangelicalism. I've seen them stop talking to their non-Christian families, cut off friendships, start wearing Christian t-shirts, slap on pious bumper stickers, and shift their allegiance for One Republic to The Newsboys. It's awkward. Worse than that, it's dangerously counter-Christian. Conversion to Jesus is not a conversion to the bubble of evangelical sub-culture. If we do this, we say that Jesus loves people but holds their culture at bay, when in fact, Jesus is in the process of redeeming their culture.

This brings me back to my young friend's faith journey. She's still in the process of reconciling what she knows and what she believes. In the end, I believe she can, and I hope will, become a faithful follower of Jesus in her own scientific context. With God's help, I believe that she can be an agent of grace among the scientists of Portland. In the end, it is only as she follows Jesus in her scientific community that others will hear the good news of Jesus spoken and lived in ways that only a scientist can.

Practicing the big-tent gospel

This is a big-tent gospel, but how can we practice it?

1. We must seek a more Christ-centered theology that actually believes that faith alone saves. This exclusivity is entirely undermined by any theology of conversion which says (implicitly or explicitly) that someone is saved by repentance, good works, or participation in Christian sub-culture.

2. We must share the gospel message using other culture's terms. Once, at a conference for British youth workers, C.S. Lewis scolded Christian books. He argued that too many Christians were caught up in the task of writing books about things that were safe for Christians to talk about and failing to speak to non-Christians on their terms. In God in the Dock, he argued that apologetics is only possible when Christians write about non-Christian issues as Christians. Christians talking to Christians about Christian issues is important; just don't, writes Lewis, call it evangelism or apologetics. We need to rediscover this commitment to speaking other cultural languages.

3. We must envision the future in a different way. Theologian Mark Gornik wrote in To Live in Peace that "God's new city, the world to come, is a world of reconciliation, not homogenization." Heaven is a place of radical culture diversity. I recently heard a lecture by Gabriel Salgero of the Evangelical Latino Coalition in which he discusses this idea in Revelation 7. There, Salgero points out, the Apostle John writes, "I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb" (Rev. 7:9).

It's beautiful. Heaven, the place of divine reconciliation, does not annihilate or destroy race. It doesn't obliterate culture. Heaven is where culture is purified and made right with and through the Lamb who was slain. By being assimilated into the new city where the Lamb lives, we are not dissimilated from our culture. Rather, our culture is made holy.

Heaven is a place of radical culture diversity.

Jesus, you see, saves us out of our sin, not out of our culture.

I sensed that we sat on holy ground in that coffee shop as my friend got the question off her chest. She wasn't asking me if I believed the Bible taught evolution or some version of it. She was asking me if she could follow Jesus and continue being a scientist.

I told her, from my point of view, that any theory from anywhere that photoshops God out of creation is a bad theory. Any theory. I pointed out that Genesis 1 through 3, our primary creation text, unequivocally declares that God "made,, "created," "formed," "said," and "did" some 70 times. God has to be the cornerstone of any Christian's theory of creation whether it happened in seven days or billions of years. Any cosmological narrative minus the providential hand of a Creator God just won't fly for a Christian.

But I also told her that at no point does the New Testament suggest that one's grounding in the grace of Jesus Christ and acceptance of his good and merciful love and salvation depend on a particular reading of Genesis 1 through 3. In short, I told her the gospel: salvation comes through faith in Jesus, nothing else. Pointing this out, I reminded her there are many brilliant, Jesus-loving evangelical scientists in the scientific community who believe in some form of evolution. So, I believed, she could stay in her culture. She could be a scientist and love Jesus.

I sensed a sigh of relief from the young, brilliant woman across the table.

Dr. A.J. Swoboda is a pastor, writer, and professor in Portland, Oregon.