Volume 8, Issue 1: Non Est
In many crevices and plains of academia, goose-stepping grad students and intro-course prophets genuinely believe that an argument ends when their student opponent confesses to embracing in his bosom that most heinous of crimes—the belief in truth, the view that dares to murmur that another’s view might be false or immoral. Oh, what wrath and insult awaits such deer-eyed students who unsuspectingly hold to the intolerant barbarism of objective truth. They usually crumple. Crumpled Christians are a common sight—twisted and blown about on most secular campuses. (What are they doing there anyway?) Wouldn’t it be nice, just once or twice, to see some freshman devour such insults and boldly confess to more evils; “I think some people are objectively ugly too,” they might propose.
The source of this hostility to truth and Christianity, in particular, is multiple
(e.g., different forms of postmod-ernism), and it deserves to be undermined,
even if only in part. One line of attack has come from increasingly overused
features of multiculturalism. Like any outlook, multiculturalism has its selected
decent insights, sickening extremes, and infighting. A claim common to several
prominent expressions of multiculturalism is the view that no one cultural outlook
or worldview is true or even superior to any other. One defender of multiculturalism,
Jorge Valadez, describes it as the view in which "an adequate understanding of
reality is one which emerges as the result of an open, mutually liberated dialogue
between the participants of different cultural traditions."  He adds that
"none of the perspectives would have an initial or a priori privileged status,
nor would there be an initial hierarchical differentiation between perspectives
or between elements of perspectives."  All views are equal.
One argument Valadez offers in support of multi-culturalism is an appeal to
morality; multiculturalism fosters justice, and "we should have the moral courage
to strive for economic and social justice, for this is the ethically correct
thing to do."  A second and related argument is an appeal to practicalityadopting
a multicultural perspective will enable us to better understand and thus solve
the problems of poverty and oppression throughout world.
In particular, Valadez claims multiculturalism could better solve the problems
of poverty and oppression since a genuinely multicultural dialogue"free from ideological
distortions"would politically require that its participants have "an approximate
parity in educational preparation . . . as well as an elimination of economic
restrictions that would impose arbitrary limitations"  on them. In other words,
political institutions should supply participants with the requisite education
and resources. Furthermore, a proper multicultural understanding of the information
in the dialogue "presupposes an absence of sexist, racist, classist, and other
ideological factors that may distort its meaning and interpretation."
Three problems with this approach spring to mind.
First, claims of philosophical neutrality and tolerance always mask deep ideological
commitments. Valadez, for example, assumes numerous absolute ethical norms throughout
his discussion. How can multiculturalism seriously claim philosophical neutrality
and yet declare a priori that sexism, racism, and classism are ideological
distortions? How can multiculturalism claim neutrality and declare that a redistribution
of wealth is "the ethically correct thing to do"? This is deep-seated ideology
and metaphysics, not pristine neutrality.
Second, claims of neutrality are always a hidden stab in the back to opposing
claims of truth. As one thinker noted, if I claim that there is a black cat
in the closet, and you make the more neutral claim that no one knows whether
there is a black cat in the closet, you are calling me a liar. Multiculturalism
calls Christ a liar. What more anti-multicultural, ideologically tyrannical
statement can you find than "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes
to the Father except through Me" (Jn. 14:6). Multicultural "tolerance" doesn't merely
give Christ an equal place at the table of worldviews, it assumes from the start
that His claims cannot be true.
Third, multicultural "tolerance" is politically oppressive. It doesn't just assume
some benign values; it assumes egalitarian (equalizing) political values that
have led the pack in destroying cultures and enslaving peoples throughout the
centuries. Just do a body count. More directly, Valadez recommends a political
redistribution of wealth and education, but how is this coercion and use of some
groups for the sake of others any less exploitative than the Third World poverty
he decries? As King David said, "Redeem me from the oppression of man, that I
may keep Your statutes" (Ps. 119:134).
Non-Christian approaches to ethnicity and race will always reflect the non-Christian's
hatred of God. God's revelation teaches us that only one cultural line is central
to life, that deep spiritual division between Christian faith and anti-Christian
faith. Non-Christians always seek to erase this divine division between the two
groups because it enables them to deny their responsibility for their sin before
God. Multiculturalists try to erase this scriptural line by huddling around
claims of tolerance, futilely drawing many lines between cultures, denying any
one truth. Fascists and ethnic nationalists seek to draw the line between one
superior race and all other inferior races. But God will not be mocked. Multiculturalists
and their fascist bed-fellows will each give an account for their rebellion.
Those given the moral courage to reject these rebellious facades are welcome
to Christ's kingdom, the only truly multicultural society at peace with God, a
culture purchased for God "from every tribe and tongue and people and nation" (Rev.