Preamble

Modernism, Western Culture and the Christian Worldview

The Cultural Mandate.

The real beginning of the story took place a long, long time ago in a land not so very far away. "God blessed them and said to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.'" (Gen. 1:28, NIV). Some faith traditions refer to this command as the "Cultural Mandate." It is the very first command God gave to His newly-minted image-bearers. We have been trying to fulfill this charge ever since.
 
 

Religion a product of culture, or culture a product of religion?

It is significant that the Bible begins with a command to humans to develop culture. The significant thing about this is that the relationship with God occurs before the development of culture. This means that any cultural practices, such as holidays, foods, style of dress (there wasn't any at this point, you'll recall), and all other cultural facets of life would come about from a religious origin. In other words, religion would be the formative influence over culture. I think it may be true that religious beliefs always exert their influence over culture, whatever those beliefs might be.
 
 

The intertwining of Christian theology and western culture

Let's enumerate some Christian beliefs that were foundational in the development of the Western European cultural view. The reason for stating these beliefs that may seem to be self-evident is to enable an analysis, and particularly a contrast with the more recent cultural belief system that is in competition with this view.

The Christian view is that there is one God and that He is sovereign over the universe He created. The Christian view is that God is loving. He is orderly and He embedded order into the created universe. The Christian view is that humans were created in God's image and that they are fallen and yet are redeemed by Christ. Being made in God's image, humans are capable of discovering and understanding the order that God embedded into His creation. Truth exists in an absolute sense, and this truth is available to humans who seek it. As is the case with truth, "The Good" exists in the character of God, and God has made it known through the Bible. From a Christian perspective, not only can "The Good" be known, but, by the redemptive power of God, humans can live lives that conform increasingly to "The Good." The Christian view is that God has a purpose and a plan for this created universe, and history is the unfolding of that purpose and plan. And, of course, the Christian view is that God has commanded humans to do certain things, such as subdue the earth and make disciples of all nations.

A society that is made up almost entirely of people who hold this constellation of beliefs can be expected to behave in ways that express those beliefs. Such people would seek to discover, understand and use natural laws to cultivate and rule over the creation. Such people would look for ways to explore unknown (to them) areas of the world and extend their influence over the areas they discovered. Such people would value progress as the evidence of the unfolding of God's plan and purpose. (They would see this as the fulfillment of the Cultural Mandate.) Such people would understand the fallibility of humans and look for ways to accommodate to that fallibility in their search for truth. Since each person who responds to the Christian gospel is affected by it, the dignity and importance of each individual member of a community would be stressed by these people. Creativity in various forms of art would be abundant, and the creative works would be used to glorify God. There are probably many more characteristics of a culture built on Biblical beliefs, but this list serves our purposes well. These activities did, in fact, arise in western European culture, particularly during and after the time of the Reformation. This cultural milieu became the major influence on the developing "New World," and it was the cultural ground on which the United States of America eventually arose.
 
 

A belief in the rationality of the universe and the created ability of humans to comprehend.

One of the most striking features of the "modern era" of western European culture is its view of knowledge and truth. By the time of the eighteenth century there was a pervasive belief in the rationality of the universe and in the scientific method as a way of unlocking nature's secrets. In a sense, the Christian view of the world was put to the test, and this view passed the test. If the created world was governed by natural law, and if humans were made in God’s image, then we should be able to discover and use natural law. We should be able to use our discoveries to help fulfill the Cultural Mandate. When humans endeavored to do this, discoveries were made, and the discoveries were put to use. The concept of scientific progress was born.

It seems that most of the great scientists and mathematicians of Europe in the 16th through 18th century were believers. They seem to have been motivated to do their work by their love of God and their belief in His purposes. They seem to have been engaged in worship of God as they carried out their work. Consider Isaac Newton as an example. Newton's accomplishments seem to be nothing short of extraordinary. Gottfried Leibniz describes the mathematical accomplishments of Newton this way, "Taking mathematics from the beginning of the world to the time when Newton lived, what he did was much the better half." (cited in Moritz, 1958, p. 170). Einstein said of Newton that, "his great and lucid ideas will retain their unique significance for all time as the foundation of our whole modern conceptual structure in the sphere of natural philosophy." (Einstein, 1934)

Imagine being able to observe natural phenomena such as motion of objects and then being able to formulate mathematical relationships that describe and accurately predict those motions. Imagine having the perception and insight to be the first to describe acceleration due to gravity in a mathematical formula. Imagine inventing calculus! (Enough said?) Rather than go on and on about his accomplishments, let's turn to his motivation and his beliefs about God. Listen to what Newton said about God in Opticks, Book 3, Part 1: The following is what he said after wondering why there is order and beauty in the world, why the planets and comets move as they do and why there is so much art in the bodies of animals.

A belief in "progress."

Newton justifies his work on the grounds that it contributed to a developing understanding of nature and the "first Cause." The idea of progress seems to be almost uniquely a Western European / American concept. (A possible exception might be the ancient Hebrew culture.) As my education students surely know, education around the world and throughout history has been almost always used for cultural continuity rather than for progress. The idea of continual progress is so deeply engrained in us that it would be hard to imagine life without it. What if the "normal" state of affairs would be for life for you to be on exactly the same conditions as your parents, grandparents, and other ancestors? What if you could never expect any improvement in life from one generation to the next? What if you could not hope for a time when a particular incurable disease might be eradicated? This kind of life, which we find almost unimaginable, has been normal throughout most of history in most parts of the world. Our pursuit of ideals such as justice, truth, liberty, peace, and happiness is characteristic of our culture.

It seems likely that this expectation of continual progress is a biblical concept. Once again, the Cultural Mandate seems to be reflected in this. It has been said that the Bible begins with a garden and ends with a city. History, seen through the eyes of Biblical faith, has a purpose, has a goal, has an end. The developments and changes in the world over time are seen as evidence of God's sovereign activities leading toward His ultimate good purpose and end.
 
 

Postmodernism: A Threat to Western Modernism?

The drift toward uncertainty: metaphysical, epistemological, and axiological

The success of the modern, scientific approach to generating knowledge and to understanding reality has been remarkable. It was so successful, and in the early days this success was so unprecedented, that it may have sowed the seeds for its own undoing. Whereas at first, human rationality was seen in a Biblical light, before long people began to place human rationality in an exalted position. Rather than seeing human rationality as a God-given gift to be used for fulfilling His purposes, people began to see human rationality as autonomous and self-serving. Rather than using science to worship the Creator, people began to worship the creation itself (human rationality and nature). Borrowing the apostle Paul's technique in Hebrews 11, let me say that "time does not permit me to tell of" the effects of the ideas of people such as Descartes, Locke, Hume, and Kant. Suffice it to say that step-by-step, confidence in human rationality and our ability to know the truth was eroded. What began as healthy skepticism conditioned upon a Christian view of the fallibility of humans, grew into a despair of our ability to know anything with certainty. By the time we come to the twentieth century, although the applied sciences flourished, the philosophy of science faced grave difficulties. The consensus of many 20th-century thinkers is that knowledge is entirely subjective; there is opinion, but no truth.
 
 

Social construction of reality

Today, a "postmodern" view has become common that "truth" is anything but certain. Today, in almost every academic endeavor there is a belief that truth, if it exists, is beyond our reach. This view promotes the idea that even if there were such a thing as absolute truth we would have access only to our thoughts about it and our language about it, which are not adequate. Alongside this is the understanding that our perception of reality is profoundly influenced by a number of cultural lenses and filters. In fact, many assert, there is no ultimate reality, because as humans we have access only to our perceived realities. The modern ideal of objectivity of knowledge has been challenged and rejected. Postmodern scholars and critical theorists have described limitations and flaws in the notion of empirical knowledge. Efforts to uncover a basis for truth have resulted in the realization that theories of knowledge cannot be grounded in themselves; we cannot prove any knowledge to be true. Feminist scholars have alerted us to the fact that knowledge is always subjective. Even the value that the western tradition places on objectivity is someone's subjective value, they say.

All of our philosophical and religious explanations of reality, truth, and goodness are said to be nothing more than "metanarratives," grand explanatory stories in which we place our trust. Since each culture has its own metanarratives, reality, truth and values differ from culture-to-culture. The study of ethics has been reduced to an affirmation of tolerance. Since no one's beliefs can be any more correct than anyone else's, we must exercise tolerance toward all, according to today's value-system.

Because this postmodern view of reality is so diametrically opposed to a Christian view of the world, Christians have tended to take a strong stand against it. Arguments made by Christians against postmodernism have focused largely on the failure of postmodernism to provide any grounding for a system of ethics. Without an appeal to the transcendent, postmodernists are left with nothing but relativism in establishing ethics, say the Christian apologists (Lewis, 1947, for example). If Christians were to let the arguments of postmodernists stand unchallenged, the entire basis for Christian belief would be undermined. (In order to be born again, a person must see the need for Christ. If the demands of a righteous God are not "real," then neither is the need for a savior.) Therefore, for these and other reasons, Christians have found a formidable and worthy foe in postmodernism.
 
 

Postmodernism and Christianity: Where do we Agree?

While we must resist some of the claims of postmodernism, Christians might also benefit from a receptiveness to some of its positions. Soden and Storm (1996) even suggest that "postmodernism, properly understood, while not without challenges to a Christian worldview, is certainly as hospitable if not more so than modernism has been to the expression of Christian convictions." (P. 439, italics added). In what ways might postmodernism be "more hospitable" to the Christian worldview than modernism has been?

What might be the result if Christians can look beyond their conflict with postmodernism? What might happen if, instead of positioning ourselves on the side of modernism against postmodernism, we place ourselves in a third position? What if we look at both postmodernism and modernism through Christian eyes? Might there be some aspects of modernism that are revealed to be at odds with the Christian mind? Might there be some aspects of postmodernism that are shown to be less anti-Christian than we had supposed?
 
 

A Biblical view of the limits of human rationality?

Postmodernism alerts us to the fact that human rationality is limited. For centuries the western, modern, Enlightenment mind sought to prove otherwise. The naïve belief of the modernists was that logic could form the basis of certainty in the pursuit of truth. Through disciplined reasoning we should be able to analyze any problem and come to definite agreement on the best answers. Which view of human capabilities is more consistent with the Biblical view? If we focus on the Biblical notion of imago dei, perhaps we will conclude that the modernists had it right. However, this downplays the effects of the fall. In light of the fall, perhaps we should conclude that the postmodernists are more Biblical (Soden & Storm, 1996). Human rationality is limited; we cannot trust our minds to give us perfect truth. "For now we know in part … we see but a poor reflection" (NIV I Cor. 13:9a and 12a)

Perhaps, in agreement with the teachings of postmodernists, we should readily acknowledge that human knowledge is always perspectival and culture-bound. Christians, of all people, should seek out the different perspectives of other people. If we look for commonalities and differences between people in various places and across time, we can perhaps gain a deeper understanding of Him who transcends place and time.

A diagrammatic interpretation (from Haddad, 1999) of this claim may help to make it more clear. Figure 1 represents all of God's knowledge. (We're not simply talking about theoretical knowledge here; we're talking about knowledge that is united with action. There's a moral dimension to it.) Figure 2 shows the extent of my "knowledge." Clearly, in the region designated as my knowledge there is some truth and some error. Obviously I don't know which is which: only God knows. Now let's add to the diagram the knowledge of my Buddhist friend. (Figure 3.) This makes things interesting. It becomes evident that there are some true things that both my friend and I know "in common." We also each have our own areas of falsehood. But most interesting to me are those areas where my friend has some truth that I do not have. Perhaps this would be his sense of peace or one-ness with nature. Perhaps it would be his view of material possessions. In any event, there are things I can learn from my Buddhist friend. There are perspectives on truth that he has that I lack. In this sense, I need my friend's perspectives.

Figure 1: What God "Knows."

Figure 2: What I Know.

Figure 3: What my Buddhist Friend Knows.

While there is nothing uniquely postmodern about this view of human knowledge, it does nicely emphasize a postmodernist perspective of human knowledge.

Legitimacy of Faith?

Let's examine the role of faith, from modern and postmodern perspectives. Christians who attempted to bring faith to the table of modernity found that their contribution was unwelcome. Faith was personal and unexamined. Rationality demanded that the foundations of knowledge be public, examinable, and provable. In this way modernism was less friendly to the Christian worldview than is postmodernism. In theory, at least, postmodernism highlights the personal and cultural sources of knowledge. Faith is not rejected out-of-hand as a source of knowledge. In this way postmodernism may be said to be friendlier to Christianity than was modernism.

Even if we find postmodernists opposing the legitimacy of faith, we have grounds for a counter-argument. When postmodernists claim that there is no legitimate objective source of knowledge, and that everyone's subjective knowledge is legitimate, we can turn this very argument to our advantage in claiming that faith is legitimate. Postmodernists may not want to hear this, but they cannot deny it without violating their own principles. Such was not the case as we tried to justify faith to the modernists.
 
 

A Biblical concern for justice for all?

A third area of "hospitality" between postmodernism and Biblical Christianity is in the area of justice. Throughout the Bible, God's concern for the oppressed is clearly seen. So typical of God's heart is what he says in Micah 6:8: "He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God." (NIV, italics added). This Biblical concern for justice for the oppressed is very consistent with the writings of many postmodernists. It is typical of postmodernists to write of the power of knowledge and the use of that power by the dominant elite to subject the "people" to oppression in a systematic way in order to maintain the status quo. In the latter part of the twentieth century this theme has not resounded with many evangelical Christians, but there is an authenticity to this message. There was even a time when the political "left" were primarily religious people whose primary concern was social justice.
 
 

A Biblical view of community?

A fourth area in which there is overlap between the Christian worldview and postmodernism is in relation to the concept of community. Postmodernism stresses the fact that reality is a social construction. The communities in which we find ourselves construct reality for their members. Cultural norms define values and ethics, and these are seen to be different from community to community. The traditions of communities are acknowledged to be authoritative and normative. This emphasis on community is in contrast to the individualism that is subtly promoted by western, Enlightenment ideals. The western, Enlightenment mind placed a high value on skepticism and on questioning authority and tradition. While there was not an outright rejection of the notion of community, the effect of practicing these ideals was to isolate and individualize people.

Biblical Christians, however, are encouraged to function as a community. In fact, the word "body" is used to describe the Christian community. A body is a living, organic whole that functions as a result of the coordinated and collective functioning of each of its diverse parts. Each part is unique and different from each other part, and yet each contributes to the functioning of the whole.

Certainly there are major differences between the Biblical view of community and the postmodernist view of community. Christian communities, for example, strive to find and practice the transcendent ethics that God desires for us. Postmodernists reject the notion of transcendent ethics. But postmodernists and Biblical Christians understand the important role community must play in human life. Christians can agree with postmodernists concerning the value and importance of community.
 
 

A Multicultural Church?

This Biblical, Christian community is not to be confused with a cultural group. Peter makes it clear that the early church was not made up of members of one culture, but many. "Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God." (NIV, I Peter 2:10). The early Christian church was clearly a multicultural community. Rather than this multiculturalism being the result of empire-building and assimilation of conquered cultures, the church's multiculturalism was a result of God's design to include all the people of the earth in His grand and overarching plan. The fact that this was a difficult idea for even God's people to understand is seen in the story of Peter and the unclean beasts. God had to enlighten Peter through special revelation to enable him to understand that the gospel was available to the Gentiles and not just to the Jews. John also received some special insight from God concerning the multicultural nature of the church. In Revelation 7 he reports seeing a great multitude of worshippers "that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb." (NIV, Rev. 7:9b). Christians, in agreement with postmodernists, must embrace multiculturalism.
 
 

Our Challenge: Can we Critically Embrace Postmodernism and a Multicultural Agenda?

What it Means to Have a Voice (and what it means to silence one)

One of the things postmodernists talk a lot about, particularly in relation to multiculturalism, is something they call "voice." Parker (1999) urges us to articulate a Christian voice in regard to multiculturalism. In order to fully understand what postmodernists mean by voice, we need to review two essential elements of postmodernism. First of all, reality is subjective: it is not fixed; it is malleable and definable by what we say and by what we do. Secondly, knowledge and virtue are thought to be determined democratically. That which the community determines to be true is true; that which the community determines to be good is good. Now, if reality, truth, and goodness are open to definition, then the implication is that some people within a community have access to the power of definition while others do not. Those who are in the inner circle, those with power, are said to have a voice. Since having a voice is the key to definition of reality, truth, and virtue, it is extremely important to have a voice. Having a voice is much more powerful than having a vote. Having a vote simply means being able to affirm or deny a proposal or a candidate that someone offers you. Having a voice means having real and legitimate influence over a multitude of issues that may or may not ever come to a vote. All communities are very guarded about who has a voice. Only those who gain the approval and trust of the powerful members of a community can ever hope to have a voice.
 
 

Particular Critiques of Western "Modernism."

There are many aspects of western culture that could come under the microscope of critique from a postmodern perspective. It would probably be a fruitful exercise to extend the topic of this lecture into areas such as the loss of community, the abuse of the environment, and the consumerism and materialism that have accompanied development of the "modern" world. However, in order to maintain a focus, I have chosen to develop examples using only two aspects of the critique of postmodernists: treatment of people of color, and treatment of women.
 
 

People of Color

Many postmodernists are either people of color or they are advocates of people of color. The postmodernist tells us that a person's membership in a racial group, particularly a minority racial group, is a powerful determinant of who that person is. A person's experiences as a member of a minority racial group are said to define reality for such a person.

I was raised to believe that skin color was of no consequence. While it may have been true that some white families promoted racism, my family intentionally tried to train me that people were all the same, regardless of their skin color. I was taught that racism was something of the past, and that it was primarily something that had occurred in the South. Here in western New York, people of color were happy and equal. Of course, I had no childhood friends who were of color, so this was all quite theoretical. The race riots of the mid 1960's in Northern cities were quite puzzling to me. Also quite puzzling to me was the fact that so many people of color continued to live in poverty. Why was this the case?

In my adult life it wasn't until I gained friends from the African-American community that I began to see life from a different perspective. The night that I attended church with my African-American friend and found myself to be the only white face in the place launched a whole new perspective for me. For the first time I felt self-conscious about my own race. This was something that had not occurred to any great extent previously. When my friend described to me what it was like to be routinely stopped by police who just wanted to make sure all his papers were in order, I didn't understand. He actually had to explain to me that black young men simply arouse the suspicion of police, because they are black young men. At first I couldn't believe it. I began to wonder about my own responses to race. Did I feel more uncomfortable if found myself alone on a city street with an African-American that I didn't know than with a Caucasian that I didn't know? I began to realize that a person's race does make a difference in the reality that he experiences. We know that people of color are imprisoned at a higher rate than is proportional to their numbers in the population. We know that school test scores differ from one racial group to another, with people of color having lower scores, as a group. We know that unemployment rates are higher among people of color than among whites. Rather than concluding from these facts that there are racial differences between groups, we must face the unpleasant truth that our institutions treat members of minority racial groups unjustly.

When institutions within society treat people differently on the basis of race, this is an injustice. This can occur even when "good" people (people who are appalled by racism) populate the institutions. How would we all benefit by eliminating this injustice? Is God concerned about it? What can we do to combat it?
 
 

Women

In a similar way, the women in my life have helped me to see that gender makes a difference in the way people experience reality. I am proud of the fact that one of the major social reforms initiated by evangelical Christians (primarily Wesleyans!) in the nineteenth century was the issue of justice for women. This is a very different issue from the question of justice for people of color. Women's suffrage and economic rights for women have been issues that have seen some major victories. At least some in the western cultural tradition have had a history of seeking equality for women. In most ways, the situation for women in western countries is better than it is in any other culture. At least our cultural traditions have made it possible for women to fight for their rights.

There are other, more subtle, issues related to gender equality that remain unresolved, however. Women rarely hold positions of leadership in businesses and institutions. Often women who do succeed in obtaining leadership positions do so by adopting the leadership styles that are more typical of men. Consider the insights of Wink (2000):

If we listen carefully to what feminist scholars are telling us, then we may begin to realize that we have yet to experience the full gifts and contributions that women can make to our society. Women can learn to be like men in the ways that they act, talk, and think. But, what if they are not required to do so? What if women were encouraged to fully develop their own contribution to scholarship in every academic endeavor, and what if this perspective were valued and respected? In recent years educational research has evolved from being quantitative and statistical to being qualitative and holistic. This is a change that has come about, in part, because women in the field of education have asserted their way of viewing the world. Educational research today is much more rich and contextual than it was ten or fifteen years ago. I believe Jesus would be pleased if we opened our minds and our institutions to these kinds of changes. The way that He treated women in the first century was seen as quite radical compared to the way women were treated in his culture. Can we follow his lead?
 
 

Voices of Women and People of Color

Western Christians have a rich cultural heritage in which their religion and their cultural traditions are deeply intertwined. Because of this, and because of our sinful nature, it can be difficult for us to critically evaluate our own cultural heritage. We see so much good that has come down to us from this heritage that we may find it difficult to acknowledge the shortcomings, failures, and blind spots that are inherent within it. Our opponent, the postmodern mind, goes beyond constructive criticism in its reaction to the Christian perspective and the western cultural heritage. Postmodernism seeks to destroy the western tradition, and it does not make a distinction between Christianity and the western tradition. We need to be able to make a distinction between our Christian belief and the western cultural heritage. We need to selectively listen to the critiques of the postmodernists, and we need to respond to the parts of their critiques that are legitimate.

On the basis of our desire for truth, and on the basis of our commitment to justice, we need to allow some of the perspectives of the postmodernists to penetrate. In particular, we need to embrace the idea that the church, as God sees it and as God is building it, is multicultural. Also, we need to understand that women have not yet achieved the full measure of dignity and respect with which Christ treated them. In these two areas, at least, we need to hear the postmodern perspective, and we need to respond. We need to acknowledge that these groups have not been given a voice, and we need to commit ourselves to ensuring that they have a voice. To do so is not to abandon or discard our western, Christian heritage, but rather, it is to allow our ideals of truth and justice to modify our cultural traditions.

Our commitment to listening to the voices of women and minorities needs to manifest itself in a number of ways. In our institutions we need to see the value of multiculturalism and our need for diversity in our community. Once we understand our need, then we will take steps to ensure, in our hiring and in our admissions policies, that our community becomes more multicultural. As we seek to bring more diversity into our community we will surely make some discoveries about facets of our institutional life that act as barriers to this goal. For example, we may discover that a heavy emphasis on western culture in our curriculum communicates to minorities that they will have to sacrifice their non-western heritage if they become a part of our community. Surely we don't intend to communicate that, but it may be that that is what is communicated nevertheless. We need to listen to members of minority groups in order to determine what barriers we may have inadvertently constructed to turn them away.

In regard to the voices and contributions of women in our institutions we need to be committed to seeking the full expression of women's perspectives in all that we do. This may entail seeking more women for our faculty, and it may entail examining our reward structures to determine whether women are expected to act like men in order to advance. Most importantly, we need to understand the importance of listening to the women themselves in regard to these issues.
 
 

Why the Postmodernists Disagree with This

By now, perhaps some of you have branded me as a postmodernist multiculturalist, and you're already beginning question whether these ideas are truly an asset to the Houghton community. Yes, there are some parts of what I've said that sound a lot like the postmodern multiculturalists. However, I can assure you that they would reject the arguments of this lecture in a most fundamental way. My arguments are rooted in a commitment to the dual ideals of truth and justice. Truth, to a postmodernist, is a non-entity. Beyond a being non-entity, truth, if it is held to be transcendent and absolute, is a severe threat to a postmodernist. In fact, it is the number one threat. My appeal to truth violates their number one virtue: tolerance. And yet, in an ironic twist, my commitment to justice ensures that I will treat them with dignity and respect. It ensures that I must afford to them the same rights that I claim for myself. In another paper (Schwartz, 1997) I've referred to this way of life as the "Golden-Rule Truth-Seeker." I permit them to claim that there is no truth, while I claim that the truth compels me to do justice. I do not accept their argument that there is no truth, but I extend to them the right to think as they do. There is a big difference between postmodernist multiculturalism and what we might call Christian multiculturalism. As Davis (1996) notes, the agenda of the multiculturalists is primarily secular and political, while the agenda of the Christian is primarily spiritual and social.
 
 

A Closing

Why can't I see God's image in my mirror?

So, why can't I see God's image in my mirror? I think there are many answers to this. We could say that my lack of holiness mars God's image, and that's the reason. There is certainly truth in this, but that hasn't been the primary focus tonight. We could say that my faith is lacking. If I truly believe the gospel, then I will see, by faith, God's image in my mirror. While this perspective is helpful in building my self-esteem, I think it has its limitations in building a long-term answer to the question.

I have another proposal. Maybe I can't see God's image in my mirror, simply because God wasn't referring to a single person alone when He said that He created humans in His image. Maybe God meant that He created humans, all of us collectively, in His image. Maybe the fact that I am a member of one racial group, one gender, one ethnic group, one nationality, places such limitations on me that I cannot, alone, reflect God's image. If so, then I can't see God's image in my mirror unless you join me and we look into the mirror together. Of course, to the extent that you are like me, then even together, you and I have severe limitations. I think there's a good probability that a truly multicultural church community is what is needed in order for God's image to be seen. And, of course, if we can see God's image when we look into our mirror, those who are currently on the outside of God's kingdom will also see God's image when they look at us. And if they see God's image, don't you think they'll be drawn to Him?