Is the DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) movement helpful, and why does the church care? That’s a complicated question. The church should care because the church cares about the equality of all people (James 2:1–9). The church should be the first to value the character of a person and not discriminate based on a person’s ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic status. You would hope the church would be first to help heal a world fractured and wounded by bias. Still, the church’s methods of healing are different than the government’s methods. So, let’s get started.
Unity in Diversity in the New Testament Church
In the New Testament church, we see a diversity of cultural backgrounds, ethnic groups, and social distinctions that come together in the unity of worship and table fellowship. Jesus challenged His disciples to go outside the ethnic clan and befriend other people groups (Matthew 5:43–48). He warned the Pharisees that “the subjects of the kingdom (Jews who did not believe in Jesus) will be thrown outside,” but the Gentile Centurion would be included in God’s family in Heaven (Matthew 8:5-13).
In Acts 2:9–11, people from all around the world heard the disciples preaching the good news of the gospel in their diverse tongues through the power of the Holy Spirit. God’s message of salvation was for “all people to be saved…For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind” (1 Timothy 2:4–5). Paul preached that “From one man (God) made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth…so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him” (Acts 17:26–27). After witnessing the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Cornelius’s house, Peter reported to the Jewish believers that “God does not show favoritism but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right” (Acts 10:34–35).
Unfortunately, divisiveness cuts through the heart of humanity. Jealousy and prejudice aren’t just an ethnic problem. The earliest stories in Scripture depict the rupture of unity between male and female, then again between brother and brother. The virus of sin’s self-centeredness makes it easy for us to misjudge, fear, resent, and oppress people who are different from ourselves. Even so, God’s plan, since those earliest days, has been to reunite all peoples under the love and leadership of His Son (Genesis 12:3–4, 7). God’s dream is ultimately fulfilled in Revelation 5:9 when a beautiful mosaic of ethnic cultures, languages, and people gather to worship Jesus, “You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased for God persons from every tribe and language and people and nation” (Revelation 5:9).
Paul’s famous line in Galatians 3:28, “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus,” is echoed again in Colossians 3:11. It’s not that cultural differences cease to exist, but that they should cease being divisive. All people stand equally before the Creator and Redeemer. Paul incites the Galatians to stop letting their cultural differences divide their communities. And Peter exhorts the community to love one another deeply. Repent. Forgive. Walk in unity. The government can’t force people to do that. That’s a relational, cultural, social, and spiritual issue. Still, the depth of woundedness caused by racism is unspeakable. We need laws to correct the evil behavior, but only Jesus can heal our prejudice, suspicion, and jealousy and rebuild communities that practice humility, generosity, and compassion. Laws won’t heal wounded hearts; they can only stop evil behaviors.
American History: Government Stopping Discrimination
After the U.S. military abolishment of racial enslavement in 1865, segregation was again legally promoted under the Jim Crow laws for another ninety years. This discrimination preserved prejudice within the social infrastructure of the South. Unfortunately, Roosevelt’s New Deal continued to institute racism in the Federal Housing Administration, creating red zones where blacks were prohibited from buying property or where whites could not resell property to blacks. The tides did finally turn.
- In 1948, Truman signed Executive Orders 9980 and 9981, integrating the U.S. military and the federal government workforce.
- In 1954, the (state-sponsored) segregation of public schools was finally declared unconstitutional in the U.S. Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka.
- In 1961, J.F.K. signed Executive Order 10925, which first mandated government contractors to ensure non-discriminatory hiring; “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed…without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.”
- And the Civil Rights Act of 1964 unraveled the remaining legal apparatus of discrimination. Specifically, Title VII prohibited employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Affirmative Action – Government’s “Reverse Discrimination”
It was in 1965 that the United States Government legally advanced its “affirmative action” policies in an effort to “improve employment or educational opportunities for minority groups as a remedy to the effects of long-standing discrimination against such groups.” [1] President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Executive Order 11246 required federal contractors to develop specific plans and timetables to ensure equal opportunity. Britannica calls affirmative action the active effort to improve employment or educational opportunities for minority groups as a remedy to the effects of long-standing discrimination against such groups.
However, over the next forty years, a series of court decisions dismantled the affirmative action program, ruling that it was a form of reverse discrimination against whites. That process culminated in June 2023 when the Supreme Court ruled (6–3) that the admissions programs of both Harvard and the University of North Carolina violated the “equal protection clause.” The Court’s decision was widely understood as marking the effective end of all race-based affirmative action programs in college and university admissions in the United States.
The DEI Controversy
The DEI movement seems to have gathered steam as affirmative action was breathing its final breath. The early 2020’s witnessed a surge of DEI initiatives after the notorious killings of several black citizens. Rather than a legal movement enforcing affirmative action, DEI now seems to function as a cultural movement that pressures businesses to endorse certain policies. Some of these include mandatory training, promoting the hiring and retention of a diverse workforce, collecting pay gap data, and more. DEI has become a polarizing topic on both the right and the left sides of the political spectrum and is used to club people as either “racist” or “Marxist.” But if we listen carefully, we may learn something from responses on both sides of the issue.
Conservative Blacks Against DEI
Conservative black voices have raised serious objections about the deficiencies of the DEI movement as a solution to inequity. Here are some of their arguments.
DEI is racist.
DEI assumes that disparity is the result of systemic racism or bias instead of from differences in skills, behavior, or culture. It begins with the prejudicial assumption that racism is embedded in American institutions and that the historical mistreatment of black people largely explains current disparities. Thomas Sowell notes, “Black advancement is said to depend on policies that counter anti-black bias with anti-white bias.” The word “equity” has been twisted to mean “applying unequal standards to ensure preferential outcomes for individuals and groups based on race, sex, and gender identity,” writes Christian Watson of Pensive Politics.
DEI has proved to be flawed.
History shows that black people made greater strides under colorblind policies than under affirmative action. Education gaps narrowed, incomes rose, and poverty declined, Jason Riley, author of The Affirmative Action Myth, argues. Another critic of DEI has warned about the difference between policies that work and those that make us feel good or alleviate guilt. He warns the public to stop trying to feel better about the past through present legislation. Legislation has to function practically, which leads us to the next point.
DEI is not specific enough.
The DEI strategy’s success fails to answer several simple questions. How far back should the government or society be obligated to make reparations for? And how far into the future does a community make discriminations to advantage the underprivileged? And who decides exactly when society has arrived at an “equitable” level? The idealism is too speculative; you’ll never be diverse enough, equitable enough, or inclusive enough.
DEI advocates victimhood and government intervention.
Five decades of racial preferences—under affirmative action—created the impression that black advancement is impossible without biased criteria for hiring. DEI manufactures and perpetuates victimhood, according to conservative voices. DEI assumes black people, women, and LGBTQ people can’t make it on their own. Conservatives like Ben Carson or Larry Elder, in contrast, emphasize personal choice and responsibilities above socioeconomic status.
Affirmative action has disincentivized the black community, not empowered it.
Prior to his endorsement of Affirmative Action programs, Prof. Derek Bell argued that affirmative action robs black students of the confidence and credit that they earned the hard way. The reverse discrimination of DEI devalues the legitimate accomplishments of those who have deserved praise or have furthered an entitlement mentality in the minority community. Individuals must rise above difficulties rather than blame others for them.
What Social Conservatives Can Learn from DEI
Even if the social apparatus of DEI is flawed or its techniques are prejudiced, if we are careful to listen, it still teaches us something.
There’s more to be done.
Listen beneath the surface; there is still a sense of deep pain and injustice felt by many minorities. Healing and rebuilding don’t happen in one generation or because the government passed a few laws. Repentance, forgiveness, sacrifice, humility, honor, and the rebuilding of trust are still vital for relational communities to move forward together.
Equality and equity are two different things.
Giving people equal opportunities does not overcome systemic flaws. Good intentions aren’t enough. It takes effort to break out of insulating habits or previously limiting structures. Businesses tend to operate through existing social networks. They feed on previous successes or assumptions. These may unintentionally exclude capable people. Systems need to change.
Diversity has subjective advantages that can’t always be measured.
- Diversity can improve decision-making and problem-solving. Groupthink can set in among homogenous cultures, whereas different experiences, cultures, and genders offer a wider variety of perspectives.
- Developing a diverse team may reinforce that you value people for their qualities and skills and are not turned away by implicit bias.
- Expanding the diversity of your team may expand your employee and clientele reach.
Inclusivity is more than hiring.
The sense of inclusion is exactly that, a “sense.” It is a subjective impression that accounts for how individuals feel in their workplace, school, or other environments. Being a healthy community involves more than just hiring people; it includes how we treat them. Honoring their strengths and giving them a place at the table helps repair the relational, emotional, and spiritual side of historical discrimination.
Do we have a responsibility?
There’s a deeper question to ask: If members of the present community still suffer from the effects of past discrimination, what kind of responsibility does the present community bear? As we’ve noted earlier, there doesn’t seem to be any way of legally imposing the cost of guilt on others or making financial reparations for things done a century ago. But perhaps individuals and privately owned businesses may choose to take their own initiative to help raise awareness or encourage some of these softer approaches to the issue.
Conclusion
Christians play an important role in helping society heal in ways that governments cannot. Though DEI may be flawed as a social and political movement, social conservatives should still pay attention to the emotional, social, and institutional damages influencing our present, from our nation’s past. A sense of unity, healing, honor, and communal health doesn’t come from completely dismissing people we disagree with, even if their arguments are flawed. The church should care because the church cares about the equality of all people and wants to see all of us succeed together in our civic and spiritual health.
[1] Britannica
Login To Leave Comment