Biblical Materials for a Theology of Cultural Diversity: A Proposal

Frank Chan, Ph.D.

The world is a different place than it was a generation ago. The forces of

postmodernism, postcolonialism, pluralism, multiculturalism and globalization have

created in our collective mindset a greater awareness of the disharmony within the

human race. The church is also affected by these changes, especially as the face of

Christianity gradually becomes less white and more non-white worldwide. Theologians

from a previous era who assumed a more homogeneous world felt no need to address

the fact of diversity, but times have changed. A church that does not know how to speak

intelligently about, say, the existence of multiple perspectives, or the struggles of a

minority culture within a dominant culture, or the polarization of competing people-

groups within a society, will be ill-equipped to take leadership in the twenty-first century.

It is necessary, then, for theologians in this generation to outline a theology of cultural

diversity, which would help address questions like, “How do we interpret the cultural

diversity in the world and in Christ’s church? Are the many colors harmonious like a

rainbow or fragmented like a shattered stained glass window? Is heterogeneity a

blessing or a curse? Ought cultural differences be celebrated or downplayed? How

ought diversity be best managed?”

While several works have addressed the theology of culture, 1 few have focused

specifically on cultural diversity.2 Our goal here is not to offer a full treatise, but to (a)
1
The most well-known theology of culture is H. Richard Niebuhr’s Christ and Culture (San
Francisco: Harper & Row, 1951). See also John R. W. Stott and Robert T. Coote, eds., Down to Earth:
Studies in Christianity and Culture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980) and Robert E. Webber, The Secular
Saint: The Role of the Christian in the Secular World (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979).
2
Among the better attempts are Daniel F. Romero, “The Church’s Struggle with Diversity,”
International Review of Mission 85 (Apr 1996): 189-204; Rose Dowsett, Rainbow Theology: Grace in
Diversity. The Blessing and the Challenge of a Global Church Family” (Global Connections Occasional
Paper no. 18), Evangel 22, no. 3 (Autumn 2004); J. Daniel Hays, From Every People and Nation: A

1
gather the main biblical passages and themes with which any theology of cultural

diversity must deal and (b) sketch out a few suggestions as to what such a theology

might say. We see at least nine important ideas.

1. The Cultural Mandate in Genesis 1-2

The theology of cultural diversity, as with any aspect of the theology of

humankind, must begin with the creation of human beings in God’s “image” and

“likeness” (Gen 1:26). Closely associated with the imago dei is what has been called

humanity’s “cultural mandate,” a charge to imitate the Creator by creating civilization. 3

In the biblical worldview, the universal drive to forge and advance human culture is

rooted in God’s command to rule over and subdue the earth (Gen 1:26, 28; cf. Ps 8:4-

8), to work and take care of the Garden of Eden (Gen 2:15) 4 and to name the animals

(Gen 2:19-20).5 In other words, Christianity interprets the innate impulse within people-

groups to express themselves distinctively in art and architecture, music and theater,

science and engineering, agriculture and industry, philosophy and religion, education

and medicine, sports and entertainment, law and government, as a natural extension of

the human spirit’s likeness to God’s.6 Christianity says the reason human beings tend
Biblical Theology of Race (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003).
3
Webber, The Secular Saint, 36-38.
4
The word “culture” comes from the Latin colore, which means to “till” or “cultivate.” The directive
to work the garden in Gen 2:15 is therefore particularly relevant to the notion of a cultural mandate for
humankind. As Webber puts it, “culture is the result of ‘tilling’ God’s creation” (Secular Saint, 18).
5
Leonard Verduin, Somewhat Less Than God: The Biblical View of Man (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1970), 31-32, sees within Gen 2:15,19-20 the tendencies of advanced cultures of the world
today to domesticate plants and animals.
6
Some of cultural activities we mentioned involve the direct subjugation of the earth’s natural
resources— “working the garden” (Gen 2:15): science, engineering, architecture, agriculture, medicine,
etc. Other cultural activities involve the exercise of the intellect, which sets human beings apart from
lower creatures and epitomizes their “dominion” (Gen 1:28)-- art, music, theatre, sports, entertainment,

2
to impose order over the chaos they see is because God desired to bring his creation

order to the primordial chaos (Gen 1). In short, when we act as cultural beings, we

imitate God.

But what does humanity’s “cultural mandate” mean for our theology of cultural

diversity? We see three implications. First, God’s declaration that his creation of

humankind was “very good” (Gen 1:31) indicates that he takes pleasure in empowering

human beings to express themselves culturally. As an architect delights in seeing his

toddler stack toy blocks, so also our heavenly Father delights in seeing human beings in

his own image rule over creation.7

Second, since God chose not to specify from which among the permissible trees

to eat (Gen 2:16-17), nor to dictate what names to give the animals (Gen 2:19), he

obviously granted Adam and his offspring a great deal of flexibility in exercising their

“dominion.” They were free to “subdue the earth” as they saw fit. Is it not reasonable to

assume that within this freedom was the built-in capacity for variation? As the human

race grew, diverse choices over time would eventually generate different ways of

solving problems, different forms of work and play, different approaches to the arts and

sciences, etc. Given this dynamic, is it likely that human culture would have remained

homogeneous forever? Or would cultural diversity have arisen on its own (considered

apart from the fragmenting effects of, say, the Tower of Babel incident), as a matter of

course? We are inclined to think the latter—diversification was inevitable.

philosophy, religion, education, government, etc.

7
In this sense, even “secular” cultural achievements glorify God. Even if Donald Trump, Kofi
Anon and Kobe Bryant were not to recognize God, their skyscraper building, power brokering and slam-
dunking would reflect, however dimly, the image of God stamped within them.

3
 Third, the cultural mandate means that human culture by itself is neither evil nor

ethically neutral—it is good. And given the freedom the cultural mandate presupposes,

cultural diversity by itself would appear to be neither evil nor ethically neutral—it too is

good. If, as we have said, God delights in human culture, he must delight in its

diversity.8 He enjoys the many “colors” of the human race and the many “flavors” of

human culture.

2. The Cultural Impact of the Fall in Genesis 3-4

Adam’s sin and its aftermath described in Gen 3-4 offers two main implications

for our theology of cultural diversity. First, included among the aspects of Adam’s being

that were affected by the fall is his production as a cultural being. 9 Since the curse on

Adam primarily addresses his gardening work on the ground (Gen 3:17), the very

sphere in which his cultural responsibility is to be exercised (Gen 2:15), the implication

is that humankind’s cultural expressions, though ordained of God, are tainted with sin. 10

As Webber puts it, “In the garden man’s cultural activity would have been dependently

creative. . . But man’s assertion of autonomy, his break from God, put him a position

8
Romero, “Church’s Struggle,” 189, calls diversity “a gift from God.” Take, for example, the
familial piety valued in Asian culture versus the rugged individualism valued in Western culture. Does
God favor one tendency as more inherently “Christian” over the other? Did one arise because human sin
was more active in it than in the other? No, these cultural expressions arose though the natural course of
human cultural differentiation. Each is equally as corruptible and redeemable as the other. We believe
God delights equally in both.
9
Other aspects include Adam’s physical life (Gen 2:7) and social life (Gen 2:18), which were each
directly affected by sin (physical death: Gen 3:19, 22; cf. 2:17; social division: 3:12,16).
10
The Lausanne Covenant (1974) puts it this way: “Because man is God’s creature, some of his
culture is rich in beauty and goodness. Because he is fallen, all of it is tainted with sin and some of it is
demonic. The gospel does not presuppose the superiority of any culture according to its own criteria of
truth and righteousness, and insists on moral absolutes in every culture” (Clause Ten).

4
where he became independently creative.”11 Second, the effect of sin on culture

appears immediately in Gen 4, where the descendants of Cain in exile develop

agriculture (4:20), the arts (4:21), craftsmanship (4:22) and possibly law (4:23-24).

However, in the perspective of the author of Genesis, the city culture produced by the

line of Cain is ungodly, as it is presented in contrast to the godly line of Seth (4:26), the

replacement of Cain’s slain brother.12

To summarize, the perspective of Gen 1-4 is that human culture is by itself good,

but it is also fallen and subject to corruption. Just as God delights in every unique

individual he created, yet grieves over his or her sin, so also God delights in the

distinctives of Anglo culture, African-American culture, Latino culture, Asian culture, and

Native-American culture, yet grieves over their distinctive forms of sin.

3. The Unity of Mankind in the Table of the Nations in Genesis 10

The genealogical list of seventy people-groups in Gen 10 according to the three

sons of Noah offers an important perspective on the diversity of humanity. Though

much in the chapter remains enigmatic, its one central theological point is clear: “all

mankind known to Israel is descended from a single stock. All men are sons of Noah as

well as sons of Adam.”13 In contrast to, say, Egyptian mythology, in which the Egyptians
11
Secular Saint, 40. It is not difficult to find “social sin,” sin embedded within the fabric of a
society, within every cultural group in the world: greed and materialism in North America, the mistreatment
of women in fundamentalist Islam, the abortion culture in China, etc.
12
Note the vengeful spirit of Lamach in Gen 4:22-23. Also note that Cain’s city is in the “east”
(Gen 4:17), which in the early chapters of Genesis functions as a place of ruin (Gen 3:24; 11:4; 13:11).
See John H. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 134. Further,
Cain’s line ends without a trace and presumably perishes in the Flood (cf. Jude 11), whereas Seth’s godly
line leads to Noah (Gen 5:32). For more on the contrast between the line of Cain and the line of Seth,
see Sailhamer, Pentateuch, 136.
13
Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (WBC; Dallas: Word, 1987), 215.

5
saw themselves alone as men and everyone one else as descended from the enemies

of the gods, the biblical worldview holds that all racial and ethnic groups share equally in

the image of God.14 This affirms an essential unity amidst the diversity of humankind

and speaks against all thought of racial and cultural superiority.

4. The Impact of the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11 on Diversity

Crucial to one’s theology of diversity is one’s approach to the Tower of Babel

incident in Gen 11. Interpreters have typically viewed the linguistic diversity and the

geographical migrations resulting from Babel as an expression of God’s wrath. Such an

approach assumes that God intended humankind to be homogeneous and that diversity

should be lamented rather than celebrated because it represents God’s judgment on the

builders’ sin of pride (“let us make a name for ourselves,” v. 4).

But is this the only way to read the narrative? Some interpreters have suggested

that the sin God judged was not pride but disobedience to his command in Gen 1:28 to

“fill the earth” (“let us not be scattered over the face of the whole earth,” v. 4). 15 If this is

the case, then God’s confounding of human language and geographical scattering need

not be viewed as an evil that God inflicted as retributive punishment. Rather, it may be

viewed as God’s benevolent act of correction, 16 to keep humankind from remaining in

the one location at Babel.17 This proposed reading might find confirmation in the fact
14
Hays, From Every People, 59.
15
Note the Babel account ends declaring that the Lord “scattered them all over the earth” twice (v.
8, v. 9). Perhaps this emphasis is meant to highlight the echo of Gen 1:28.
16
Though Sailhamer, Pentateuch, 136, focuses on the holy land rather of the entire earth, his
comment about God’s response to Babel is similar to our reading of Gen 11: “God, who saw that their
plans would succeed, moved to rescue them from those very plans and return them to the land and the
blessing that awaited there” (italics mine).
17
Perhaps the apostle Paul hints at this idea in his Mars Hill speech: “From one man he made
every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them

6
that there is no mention of God’s wrath anywhere in Gen 11. Nor is there any indication

that God will eliminate language differences or national boundaries in the eschaton (Rev

7:9; 21:24-26), which would be expected had God imposed linguistic diversity and

geographical dispersion as a curse. This alternative reading of Gen 11 has one

important implication: God is behind ethnic and cultural diversity, not opposed to it,

since he is the one who set such diversity in motion.

5. The Fact of Diversity Within the People of Israel in Exodus 12

A theology of cultural diversity must also draw insight from the ethnic diversity

within the people of Israel. Contrary to popular belief, Israel was never an ethnically

homogeneous group, nor was its covenant of redemption based on physical descent.

Commentators have long recognized that group that left Egypt during the Exodus

contained “a mixed crowd” (Exod 12:38 NRSV). Usage suggests these people were of

foreign descent (non-Israelites).18 Hays believes the “mixed crowd” from Egypt included

Cushites (whom he shows to be black Africans), in light of Egyptian records and Old

Testament indications that the Cushites played a role in the life of Israel later. 19

We should also note that the “mixed crowd” did not merely “tag along,” but

participated fully in the religious life of Israel (Exod 12:43,48-49). 20 Thus, Israel’s

and the exact places where they should live” (Acts 17:26).
18
The Hebrew word ‘ereb (“mixed”) appears also in Neh 13:3; Jer 25:20,24; 50:37.
19
From Every People, 67-68 (see also pp. 34-39). Literary sources from Egypt‘s 18 th and 19th
Dynasties (c.1650-1200BC) indicate that Cush and Syria-Palestine were under Egyptian control, which
enabled foreigners from these lands to be living in Egypt. Moses married a black African Cushite woman
(Num 12:1) and black African Cushites served militarily in the armies of Israel 2 Sam 18:19-33; 2 Chron
14:9-15).
20
Other passages that indicate that aliens and foreigners took part in Israel’s religious life include
Exod 20:10; 23:12; Lev 16:29; 17:8,10; 20:2; 22:18; 24:16; Num 9:14; 15:14-16, 29-30.

7
covenant was inclusive, extending to foreigners and aliens, because the terms for

inclusion were not based on race or ethnicity, but on one’s relationship to Yahweh. But

Israel’s covenant was not merely “colorblind”—it was also “mindful of color,” especially

when it came to protecting the rights of these aliens and foreigners, who made up a

minority culture in Israel.21 A theology of cultural diversity might seek to draw parallels

for the church’s need to be “colorblind” when it comes to matters of salvation, but

“mindful of color” when it comes to sheltering victims of racial or ethnic unfairness.

6. Jesus’ Inclusiveness Towards Samaritans

Perhaps the most important materials from the gospels for a theology of cultural

diversity concern the Samaritans. Though the origin of the Samaritans is not entirely

clear, there is clearly a racial-ethnic component to the Jewish hostility toward them

during the time of Jesus, in addition to the religious. 22 Witherington, reflecting on the

Parable of the Good Samaritan (Lk 10:30-37), likens the relationship to that between

“Whites and Blacks in America, even within the church.” 23 This is why Jesus’

welcoming, inclusive attitude towards Samaritans sets such a timely example for the

church today. Despite pressure from his own people, Jesus chose not to separate but

to reach out to the Samaritan woman and her community (Jn 4:9, 39-40). Despite some

of their theological errors, Jesus did not bar the Samaritans from God’s salvation, as

21
See Exod 22:21; 23:9; Lev 19:33-34; 23:22; 24:22; Deut 1:16; 10:18; 24:14,19,20-21; 26:12-13;
27:19.
22
Traditionally, the Samaritans are believed to have originated through the intermarriage of
foreign settlers with Israelites after the fall of Samaria in 722 BC (see 2 Kgs 17:25,33). For a description
of Jewish-Samaritan violence in the first century, see Hays, From Every People, 166.
23
Ben Witherington, Jesus the Sage: The Pilgrimage of Wisdom (Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
1994) 195.

8
many Jews no doubt would have (Jn 4:22,41; cf. Acts 8:14-17). For Jesus, the

despised Samaritans were worthy of receiving mercy (Lk 9:52-54) and healing (Lk

17:15-16).

For centuries, interpreters allegorized parables and assumed the Good

Samaritan character to be a veiled reference to Jesus. While allegory is not always a

wise approach to biblical interpretation, there is one sense in which this identification is

entirely appropriate: both Jesus and the Good Samaritan modeled racial equality (Lk

10:37)—as Hays puts it, not just thinking racial equality, but doing racial equality.24 Any

theology of cultural diversity must grapple with the call to racial reconciliation implicit in

Jesus’ bridge-building approach to the Jewish-Samaritan conflict.

7. The Global Scope of the Gospel and the Missionary Character of the Church

A theology of cultural diversity should also draw from biblical material that

conveys the global scope of the gospel. Perhaps Gal 3:8 is the key verse, which states

that the gospel was first preached to Abraham in the promise that “all nations” would be

blessed through him (Gen 12:3). From beginning to end, across both testaments, this

theme is reiterated: God’s blessing of redemption expands forever outward—from

Abraham, to Israel, to all nations.25

24
From Every People, 172.
25
A quick sketch of this theme will suffice here: Both the psalms and the prophets envisioned joint
worship among all the peoples of the world (Ps 67:1-7; 117:1; Isa 2:1-4; 11:10), which the apostle Paul
saw as fulfilled in his ministry to the Gentiles (Rom 15:8-12). Jesus used universal terms to speak of
God’s fellowship with humanity (Matt 8:11; Mk 11:17). The book of Acts plots the progress of the gospel
through several geographical expansions to the “ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8). Accordingly, the final vision
of the people of God in the New Jerusalem has an international flavor (Rev 22:1-2). For a fuller treatment
of God’s mission to the nations throughout Scripture, see George W. Peters, A Biblical Theology of
Missions (Chicago: Moody, 1972), 83-156.

9
 It follows that the church should partake of the same universal character of the

gospel that gave it birth (cf. Matt 28:19-20).26 Christians have been confessing the

church as “catholic” (i.e. universal) in the Nicene Creed since the fourth century, but it is

only in the last half-century or so that theologians have grasped the full implications of

this ethnically and culturally. Because the gospel is universal, it must become

contextualized to each culture it encounters. And because the church is universal, it

must become progressively more diverse as it expands and embraces new cultures. 27

Cultural diversity therefore cannot and must not be avoided if a gospel-centered church

is to be faithful to its true nature.

The Jerusalem church’s expansion from Hebraic Jewish culture into Grecian

Jewish culture in Acts 6:1-6 shows that an energized local church in a cosmopolitan

area will inevitably take on greater diversity as it grows (and, perhaps with it, greater

internal conflict). An insulated, homogeneous Christianity that is not crossing any

cultural barriers will probably be free of conflict, but it will probably not be dynamic or

growing either. Cultural diversity, then, though uncomfortable at times, may be a

necessary by-product of a healthy and vital church. 28

8. New Testament Examples of Cultural Alertness and Sensitivity

26
For a good discussion of the catholicity of the church, see Thomas C. Oden, Life in the Spirit:
Systematic Theology, vol. 3 (San Francisc: Harper, 1992), 337-45.
27
For more on this “missionary” nature of the church, see Craig Van Gelder, The Essence of the
Church (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 27-44.
28
Although James D. G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Trinity
International Press, 1990), xix, is speaking more about theological diversity than cultural diversity, his
statement is still well taken: “I have come to see that . . . without sufficient diversity Christian unity will be
[heretically] narrow, squeezing out what is also the life of the Spirit. . . “

10
 A theology of cultural diversity should also draw insight from New Testament

leaders who display mature cultural alertness and sensitivity. 29 For example, in the

classic examples of “contextualization” the apostles show that they understood the

cultural conventions of their target audience and adapted their messages accordingly.

John’s description of Christ as God’s “Word” (John 1:1) was a brilliant accommodation

to the “logos” concept of Greek Stoic philosophy. Similarly, Paul’s use of “in him we live

and move and have our being” in his Mars Hill speech in Athens (Acts 17:28) was an

ingenious accommodation to the Greek poets.

Further, the apostles were often alert to cultural dynamics when mediating

conflict. For example, the Twelve made sure the seven Jewish men chosen to care for

the neglected Grecian Jews in Jerusalem all had Greek names (i.e. they were culturally

similar to the widows they served) (Acts 6:5). In a similar way, when the apostles

granted freedom to Gentiles from the necessity of circumcision, they showed admirable

sensitivity to Jewish believers by advising the Gentiles in the same letter to abstain from

other practices offensive to the Jewish mind (Acts 15:19-20). 30 Likewise, Paul gave due

attention to the culturally based convictions of the weak brother in Rome (probably

Jewish) by advising the stronger brother (probably Gentile) to refrain from eating meat

29
The instances cited below are examples of sensitivity to both Greek culture (or Hellenistic
Jewish culture) and Jewish culture equally.
30
Commentators have noted the similarities between the four prohibitions in Acts 15:20 and what
is known in Judaism as the seven “Noachide Laws,” laws that “righteous Gentiles” are asked to observe
For more on this, see David H. Stern, Messianic Jewish Manifesto (Clarksville, MD: Jewish New
Testament Publications, 1988), 154-57. If this is a true connection, then the abstentions requested of
Gentiles by the Jerusalem Council were not pandering concessions to the Jewish community, but a
respectful and culturally appropriate accommodation to the established ways of Judaism.

11
(a stumbling block to the weak brother; Rom 14:21), even though he was morally free to

eat it (Rom 14:6-7,14).31

In other words, the bicultural situation of the early church (Jewish and Greek)

offers a valuable parallel to today’s multicultural church. A theology of cultural diversity

would call upon today’s church leaders to imitate the apostles’ belief that it is worth

paying attention to the cultural values and convictions in the body of believers.

9. The Church’s Call to Unity Among its Diverse Members

Finally, a theology of cultural diversity must give serious weight to passages that

command church unity among its diverse members. 32 Although there are calls to

humility (Phil 2:1-4), love (Gal 5:14) and mutual submission (Eph 5:21), our focus must

be on passages that target areas of conflict between believers from different cultural

backgrounds, especially, once again, between Jewish and Gentile culture. Ephesians 2

interprets Christ’s death as having cultural significance:33 at the cross Christ put to death

the hostility between Jew and Gentile, so as to create to “one new man” (vv. 14-16).

Contrary to the way v. 15 is often read, Christ’s reconciliation does not come at the

expense of the Jewish way of life; he did not abolish the Torah for the sake of peace

between Jew and Gentile (cf. Matt 5:17). Rather, Christ abolished only the divisiveness

31
James D. G. Dunn, Romans 9-16 (Dallas: Word, 1988), 834, sums up the matter this way:
“Basic too is the recognition that liberty means diversity, that Christian liberty is a spectrum embracing a
range of options, not all of which can be held by a single person, but all of which may be held within a
Christian congregation without destroying its unity. . . Unless there is acceptance along that spectrum of
the different possibilities with that spectrum, there can be no real liberty.”
32
Although the head-body metaphor in 1 Cor 12 refers primarily to the diversity of spiritual gifting,
there is real applicability to the issue of cultural diversity, especially since Paul reiterates the unity of Jew
and Greek in v. 13. In this section we will discuss primarily Eph 2 and Gal 3, but a theology of cultural
diversity should also draw from 1 Cor 12.
33
As the fall had cultural consequences (Gen 3:17), so also the cross has cultural consequences.
.

12
of the Torah, the law as a focal point for feelings of superiority or disdain (cf. Rom 2:1;

14:3).34 In other words, in biblical ecclesiology, no cultural barrier should be the cause

for division in the body of Christ.

Paul says something similar in Gal 3:28. Because justification is by faith alone

(Gal 2:15), and no one attains greater status in the kingdom because of Torah

observance (Gal 2:11-14), Paul is bold to declare that in Christ “there is neither Jew nor

Greek” (Gal 3:28). In other words, our unity in Christ should never be negated by

cultural differences. Commentators frequently point out that Gal 3:28 does not

obliterate cultural differences within the body of Christ, any more than it obliterates

socioeconomic or sexual differences (“neither slave nor free, male nor female”). Jews

remain Jews, the seed of Abraham and heirs of Abraham’s promise. Gentiles remain

Gentiles, but by faith attain the same status as Jews (Gal 3:14,29). Again, cultural

diversity is preserved in the midst of an overarching unity.

Conclusion

The theology of cultural diversity we envision would draw from both Old

Testament and New Testament. It would learn from the diversity of both Israel and the

early church. It would consider the creation of culture to be a divine calling, but would

also acknowledge culture’s fallen nature. It would affirm God’s delight in cultural

diversity. It would recognize God’s demand for church unity in the midst of diversity. It

would denounce racism and ethnic isolationism. It would promote cultural sensitivity

and racial reconciliation. Not all would agree with the biblical passages we chose or
34
Marcus Barth, Ephesians 1-3 (Anchor Bible 34A; new York: Doubleday, 1974), 290. The
thought in Eph 2:17-19 is that Gentiles have been ingrafted with the Jews as “fellow citizens” in God’s
kingdom. Paul’s language presupposes that the Jewish community, way of life and covenant with God
continues (Barth, Ephesians 1-3, 269). In this instance, no culture needed to be sacrificed as a way of
eliminating conflict.

13
interpretations we took. Nevertheless, we hope they offer a good starting point for

further reflection and discussion.

14