Keller, in this section, is answering the charge that Christianity is culturally rigid, or stifling. He does so by suggesting that Christianity is culturally diverse and has spread to many varied cultures on the globe. He says the fact that it has done so is evidence that it is culturally tolerant, at least compared to other religions. He cites rapid increases in the number of Christians in Africa and Asia in the last half century. He also quotes a Christian and African author, Sanneh, who agrees with his notions and says that existing cultures are incorporated into Christianity, at least, in the case of Africa. Keller also references his own congregation, in New York City, heavily in this section, as an example of Christianity molded to a local culture.
I will assume that Keller ignores the vast cultural diversity within Africa and Asia and lumps them together for the sake of brevity, and I will do the same. The fact that Christianity has and is spreading is questionable evidence for it’s cultural flexibility. An alternative explanation would be that Christianity has the greatest combination of proselytization mandate and resources. It seems like this would be a large contributor, at the very least.
That said I think I mostly agree with Keller here. Christianity is pretty varied around the globe, and the things required to be a Christian (belief that Jesus is/was the son of God, died for sins, resurrection, etc.) don’t actually impact daily life terribly often. Religion is important to culture, but people, at least with Christianity, do have some flexibility in the way they express their Christianity.
The main problem in regards to culture, with Christianity, is shared by all religions, which is that they encourage people to act as if they know, with 100% certainty, things that they do not, and cannot, know. This sometimes leads to destructive behavior with regard to culture. Religious fervor can drive people to do terrible things, like genocide and war, which is definitely not good for the cultures involved. More intimate examples are those of “witches” and homosexuals. People considered witches (and this is actually still a problem in Africa) were almost always those outside the mainstream of the majority Christian culture. Their cultural freedom may have been limited anyway, by human nature, and they may have been insulted and shunned, but they probably would not have been burned alive if not for Christianity. The more apparent example, in the U.S., is homosexuality, or gay culture, which is certainly being repressed all over the globe, but most intensely in places with religious traditions against homosexuality, namely Christian and Muslim nations. Minority cultures are not treated well in general, but religions, Christianity included, give people certainty, which can lead to terrible extremes.
As I mentioned in the last post, people are diverse enough, and we have plenty of reasons to distinguish the in group from the out group without the added layer of religion. Religion is an unnecessary level on top of human nature and culture that can cause problems, and, in fact, likely will, for the reasons argued above. The level of cultural tolerance between religious people is actually evidence of how little people really believe in their religions. If people truly believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, then they have a divine obligation to murder adulterers and those who work on the sabbath(s)(Leviticus 20:13 and Exodus 35:2). My point in mentioning this is that Christianity is actually more culturally insensitive than Christians are.
My stance is that religion is rarely the root cause of cultural problems, since religion is so esoteric. It is, however, capable of being an accelerant to any animosity. Religions, Christianity included, do not stomp out cultures, but one culture might be emboldened by the messages of religion, Christianity included, to stomp out another.