Becoming Multicultural: an Inter(Con)Textual Analysis of the Growing Multiculturalism

Becoming Multicultural: An Inter(con)textual Analysis of the Growing Multiculturalism in U.S. Protestant Churches and the Early Church of Acts

By Bridgett A. Green

Vanderbilt University

This paper provides an inter(con)textual analysis of the growing multiculturalism of U.S. Protestant Churches, particularly the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) (PC(U.S.A.)), and the early church’s transformation into a multicultural movement as related in two stories of integration: the story of Timothy in Acts 16:1-4 and the story of Apollos in Acts 18:24-29.[1]For the purpose of this paper, [i]“multicultural” describes a community that is inclusive of a white racialized majority and a racialized minority group of people representing various ethicized national origins, particularly communities of people whose members are of the African, Asian, Latin American and Indigenous diasporas. The reading together of these texts and of these church contexts facilitates an understanding of the complex and related issues of culture and ideology in the religious movement as it becomes a multicultural group with leaders who intentionally include minority groups into the membership and leadership with the majority population.

Life context:

I write this paper as an African American clergywoman of PC (U.S.A.), who works with the denomination to help it become more multicultural. My work in PC (U.S.A.) has included ecumenical work in multicultural ministries with other mainline denominations. Thus, I offer the particularities of the PC (U.S.A.) as an example of the work of U.S. protestant denominations in becoming multicultural church.

Becoming multicultural is the national priority of PC (U.S.A.), especially withthe steady growth of multicultural congregations and members.[2]A significant factor for becoming multicultural is diversity in leadership with intentionality toward shared power, equality, and justice.[3]Diversity is a professed priority in the denomination as mandated in its constitution, and a declared desire throughout its membership and leadership.[4] Leadership helps to determine and maintain the culture and life of the community. However, the denomination struggles with its diversity in leadership. Its struggle is fraught with socio-political, intercultural, and cultural issues, in part, because of its participation in chattel slavery, racism, imperialism and colonial mission movements. The thick residue of racism, imperialism, and cultural superiority frustrate some people’s ability to welcome and integrate racialized minority groups as leaders and decision-makers in the denomination.

PC (U.S.A.) has difficulty with diversity in leadership because of issues of culture and ideology. In Theories of Culture: A New Agenda for Theology, Kathryn Tanner utilizes an anthropological perspective of culture and explains, “Insofar as it is specific to a particular group of people, a culture tends to be conceived as their entire way of life, everything about the group that distinguishes it from others, including social habits and institutions, rituals, artifacts, categorical schemes, beliefs and values.”[5] Therefore, everyone has a culture, but not every culture is the same.[6] PC (U.S.A.)’s ecclesial culture is the culture of the white, educated, middle-class racial majority.[7] This ecclesial culture does not identify as a cultural group within the denomination, but as the denomination. However, it deems any Presbyterian group whose culture is different as a cultural group. Therefore, many denominational leaders and members of the racialized majority group, experience cultural subgroups of PC (U.S.A.) as not quite Presbyterian,as they do not identify with the various cultural expressions of Presbyterianism.[8]Unfortunately, this myopic understanding of their culture marginalizes, and even oppresses, the identity of people who do not mirror the same cultural markers of the dominant community.

The second issue is ideology. Ideology has a range of meanings, of which I concentrate on two. The first is from Louis Althusser: “Ideology represents the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence.”[9] The second is from Terry Eagleton: “Ideology means more than just, say, the signifying practices associated by a society with food; it involves the relations between the signs and process of political power. It is not coextensive with the general field of ‘culture’, but lights up this field from an angle.”[10] In other words, ideology is a system of rituals and practices that signify and maintain the imaginary relationships of the will of dominant social power over real situations. The power dynamics developed by the residue of racism, imperialism, colonialism, and cultural superiority between the racial majority and minority groups in PC (U.S.A.) attribute to the lack of diversity and equality in denominational leadership and hinder the process of becoming multicultural.[11] Despite the theology, education, denominational loyalty, and continued growth in the number of racialized minorities in PC (U.S.A.), white Presbyterians determine the denominational culture with little influence from the Presbyterian cultural groups. Therefore, intentionally and unintentionally, people have been repressed and oppressed in thinking that there is only one way of being Presbyterian, and that way is the way of the racialized majority.

PC (U.S.A.) already looks to the early Christian church through the Jesus’ movement described in Acts, as an example of becoming a multicultural church, particularly the Pentecost story in chapter 2. In addition to Pentecost story, PC (U.S.A.) could look to Acts, particularly the stories of Timothy (16:1-4) and Apollos (18:24-28), for insight regarding its identity as a dominant community commissioned to be inclusive in its leadership. The Jesus movement started as culturally homogeneous group, as did PC (U.S.A). The stories of Timothy and Apollos illumine the inevitability and significance of multicultural leadership within the ever growing diverse Jesus movement and demonstrate ideology’s use of culture by the dominant group to assimilate and legitimatize the minority group for the sake of inclusion. While the text may serve as a mirror to PC (U.S.A.) in regards to its own practice, PC (U.S.A.) offers a critique of the text in understanding and intending to avoid cultural superiority in determining inclusion in the denomination.

Acts 16:1-4 and Acts 18:24-28

The stories of Timothy (Acts 16:1-4) and of Apollos (Acts 18:24-28) highlight issues of culture and ideology in the Jesus movement as it becomes multicultural. We encounter Timothy and Apollos after the Jesus movement transformed from being a homogenous group of Jerusalem Jewish believers of Jesus as the messiah to a multicultural group with a growing minority of non-Jerusalem Jews and Gentiles who convert to the “Way”. The shift begins with the use of characterization of “the people of God” (Acts 1-4); the persecution and arrests of leaders of Jesus movement by other Jews (beginning in Acts 5); and the conversions of Gentiles as well as Jews (beginning in Acts 8).[12] Cultural and ideological understandings of the people of God in Acts continue to shift and change as the apostles and elders encounter difficulties in their interpretations of who can become the people of God, i.e. believers in Jesus, and the Holy Spirit’s revelation of those who are to be received in the movement. The culture of the early church shifts according to the experiences and decisions of the dominant group of elders and apostles of the Jesus movement, particularly as Gentiles convert to the movement.

In Acts 15, a council of the apostles and elders in Jerusalem decide that Gentiles do not have to be circumcised, but only have to believe in Jesus to receive God’s grace. The council determines what should be the cultural (and religious) markers of the people of God, particularly men, who were not born Jewish. The council determines that circumcision does not facilitate a transformative, and therefore religious, experience. Rather, the Holy Spirit transforms people. Circumcision, a ritual agreed upon by the community, was a signifier, a cultural marker, of the transformation. The council debates whether Gentiles should perform any or all of the cultural traditions of Judaism that would signify their religious experience, and decide upon maintain dietary restrictions and abstinence from fornication. Acts 15:36-41 is the turning point in the book where the narrative focuses until the end solely on the missionary work related to Paul. The story of Timothy immediately follows these two very important stories.

The story of Apollos in 18:24-28 is a narrative unit within the story of Paul’s mission. The stories of Timothy and Apollos convey that cultural particularities do shape the community and that the dominant community makes choices that forces cultural conformity of new leaders that are at times unnecessary and counter-productive.

In this paper, I use a narrative critical approach to analyze the stories of Timothy and Apollos. In the narrative analysis, I focus on the plot development of these stories and analyze the roles of culture and ideology as expressed by representations of power.[13]

I read the story of Timothy in light of Acts 15. The complication in the Timothy story is that Paul decides to circumcise Timothy to ensure his acceptance as a mission partner and a leader in the Jesus movement. The reasoning offered is concern of the opinion of Jews in Timothy’s area who knew his father was Greek. To resolve the tension, Timothy is circumcised. In light of Paul’s mission to share the news of aJerusalem council that it is necessary for Gentiles be circumcised (16:4), it is ironic that Timothy’s uncircumcised status is a problem. Paul’s decision to circumcise Timothy because of the Jews in Timothy’s region elucidates both cultural and ideological influences that judge acceptability of him as a leader in the Jesus movement.

As a cultural marker, circumcision is not an issue among believing Jews in Lystra and Iconium. There, Timothy is a well-known and highly respected believer whose mother is a “believing Jew” and father is Greek (Acts 16:1).[14] On the grassroots level of his cultural community, believers in the region herald Timothy as a good disciple (Acts 16:2), which motivates Paul to invite him as a mission partner. The lack of circumcision is inconsequential in regards to Timothy’s faithfulness to the movement. However, in order to ensure that of Timothy’s reception as leader among a powerful group of Jews, Paul decides to circumcise him.[15] Timothy adopts a practice of the dominant culture in order to gain approval and be legitimated as a leader with Paul.[16] In Timothy’s region this dominant group of Jews authorizes and enforces their particular culture for demonstrating status as a Jew. The story is unclear about whether the group is concerned with Timothy’s beliefs, as long as he is circumcised. Timothy’s story is not one about conversion or empowerment by the Holy Spirit. Instead, it has a focus on practices of culture and ideology. By following Paul’s guidance, Timothy heteronomously submits to the cultural practice of the community leaders for the growth of the movement, even though the council of Jerusalem deemed circumcision as unnecessary.

To the PC (U.S.A.), the story of Timothy reflects the unnecessary and even oppressive nature in which the dominant community may require the minority groups to assimilate cultural norms for the sake of communal acceptance. Because a Jewish group in the area is powerful, Paul requires Timothy to submit to their culture at the expense of his own. Timothy’s story reflects the stories of many racialized minority individuals and communities that join multicultural congregations and denominations. As Timothy, many who join the dominant group are leaders in their diasporic Presbyterian communities. As they embody different styles of leadership, worship, and ministry concerns that reflect their cultural communities, the dominant group categorizes their style as cultural and therefore different, while not realizing that they too have a culture. Often the minority group either assimilate to the dominant group’s style of leadership, worship, and ministry while discarding their own in order to live into their leadership skills or the majority group discern them as lacking in certain qualifications to be good leaders.

PC (U.S.A.) offers a reading of the text that understands circumcision was a cultural imperative for Timothy’s acceptance as a leader by a powerful group. Although we would celebrate the inclusion of Timothy as a leader, we would be simultaneously critical and accepting of the decision to circumcise him as Paul’s decision is consistent with his proclamation that he would do whatever is necessary to preach the gospel (1 Corinthians 9:19-23).

In the story of Apollos, Acts portrays another scenario of cultural and ideological hegemony. Apollos, like Timothy, is another outsider of the dominant group of believers. The complication in the plot is that Apollos needs further instruction and understanding of the “Way of the Lord” as understood in the Jesus movement (18:24-25). The motivation of the complication is that Priscilla and Aquila, Jewish believers who are friends of Paul, heard something in his instruction that they thought needed improvement. Hence, they take him aside to explain the “Way” more accurately. A valid interpretation of this story is that Priscilla and Aquila is providing a teaching moment to strengthen Apollos’ preaching. Yet, in that teaching moment Priscilla and Aquila assert a claim of having superior knowledge. The story does not describe an exchange of ideas, but a giving of ideas. In addition to more instruction, the story resolves with Apollos receiving the dominant group’s approval to serve in Achaia, where he would powerfully teach about Jesus through scriptures (18:28).

The text suggests that Apollos, who the narrator describes as eloquent, well-versed, an accurate in his instructions of the “Way,” is a believing Alexandrian Jew. He was strong leader. The text suggests that the problem with Apollos is that he knew only the baptism of John.[17] Knowing the baptism of John does not preclude the presence of the Holy Spirit. First, Apollos speaks burning in the spirit (18:25). Although not described as the Holy Spirit, the spirit that engulfed Apollos was an acceptable one as it inspires his powerful and persuasive teaching.[18] Thus, Apollos seems to be set apart from the brothers who knew the baptism of John and had not received the Holy Spirit (19:1-7). Second, Apollos’ knowledge of the baptism of John does not make him a deficient believer. In his Acts commentary, Richard Pervo describes Luke’s issue of the baptism of John as an issue of right doctrine and practice and not an issue of false or wrong teaching.[19] Priscilla and Aquila seek to expand Apollos’ knowledge. They do not rebaptize him with the baptism of Jesus as Paul rebaptizes the brothers in the following narrative. Joseph Fitzmyer interprets the Lucan concern with the baptism of John as a multicultural concern. He writes, “In both instances Luke is concerned to incorporate the ‘Johannine Christians’ into the mainstream Christian fold.”[20]

In this story, the cultural issue is in regards to types of disciples of the Jesus movement, i.e. those who know the baptism of John or the baptism of Jesus. Apollos is a Jew who believes in Jesus and knew the baptism of John. In this text, the type of baptism is not a religious matter because Apollos experiences and preaches through the power of the Holy Spirit. The text suggests that the Holy Spirit empowers both baptisms.[21] The ideological issue is that the narrator does not legitimate Apollos’ gifts of leadership until after the members of dominant group teaches him about the baptism of Jesus, even though he was an itinerant, passionate, and accurate teacher of Jesus before meeting Priscilla and Aquila.[22] With Paul being the narrative focus of the second half of Acts, Priscilla and Aquila represent his mission (Acts 18) and teaching that dominates the Jesus’ movement and later Christianity. Through them, Paul’s teaching corrects Apollo’s knowledge. Furthermore, the ideology of Jerusalem, geocultural center of the Jesus movement, prevails. As an Alexandrian Jew, Apollos learned about Jesus from the disciples who live in Alexandria. However, the council of believing Jews in Jerusalem are culturally forming and dominating the mainstream Jesus movement.

Apollos’ story addresses issues of culture and ideology in PC (U.S.A.) by describing the act of a dominant group legitimatizing the leadership of a minority individual, who has already proven effective leadership before entering the mainstream. Although Priscilla and Aquila improved Apollos’ teaching, even in its great accuracy, the text suggests that the couple’s knowledge was complete. Priscilla, Aquila, and Apollos do not discuss theology or exchange ideas about the meaning of scriptures. The more accurate version is one that comes from the geocultural center of Jerusalem. This Jesus-following Jewish community of Jerusalem is the dominant culture in Acts, which forces all others to assimilate in order to be identified with the Jesus movement. The story suggests that all dominant groups of multicultural denominations consider the ways in which it forces other minority groups to assimilate in order to identified as legitimately Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran, etc.

PC (U.S.A.)’s commitment to becoming a multicultural community understands the existence of diverse theological perspectives of its individuals and congregations. It allows a limited plurality within the Presbyterian theological tradition that incorporates different teachings without de-legitimatizing them as anti-Presbyterian. Unlike Priscilla and Aquila, PC (U.S.A.) has a commitment to an exchange of theological ideas. Unfortunately, most of the ideas exchanged are those espoused by the racialized majority.

Understanding the active roles that culture and ideology play in the becoming of a multicultural denomination facilitates an environment where the racialized majority and minority groups can rejoice about its synchronicity and be honest about cultural hegemony. Having a dominant cultural group is not negative; rather a dominant cultural group that reserves the power to legitimatize cultural subgroups, compels assimilation, and refuses to incorporate cultural differences is negative. Although the stories of Timothy and Apollos do not explicitly claim that cultural hegemony was a problem in the Jesus movement becoming multicultural, the complications in each story reveal evidence regarding issues of culture and ideology in the inclusion of the new leaders.