DEI and the Local Church
DEI in the Local Church?
The discussion about Equity and Inclusion has been a roller coaster ride for the last eight years. The conversation usually centers on work, education, and government, and this election has revealed a huge nationwide backlash against the concept.
But what about the concepts of equity and inclusion in the local church? Is there anything biblical or unbiblical about what might look like DEI in the local church? Maybe DEI is the wrong designation, but the term diversity should apply.
There are moral non-negotiables
Any public discussion of DEI includes diversity of sexual and gender orientation. Regarding same-sex marriage and sexual relationships, the Bible is very clear. We have written extensively about this both on Proclaimanddefend.org and in FrontLine Magazine. We reiterate that the Bible defines marriage as between one man and one woman and that sexual relationships outside of the marriage bond are identified as sin.
The Bible also addresses the transgender controversy. We recently published an entire FrontLine Magazine issue on this subject. Scripture demands the purity of the church on these issues and we would sin against God to declare a behavior acceptable to God that He identifies as sin.
The Bible condemns partiality.
James 2:1-4 addresses the issue of respect of persons in the local church. No individual church participant should be treated as superior to another. In the James context, rich people should not be considered superior to poor people. In the same way, the color of skin, language, ethnicity, gender, or caste should not identify any believer as superior to any other believer. We are all equal before God, and the local church should reflect the diversity of its community.
Gender is a biblical issue.
The Bible does not present men as superior to women or women as superior to men. Galatians 3:28 identifies the genders equally in Christ (along with ethnic background, and social status). Women are not intended by the New Testament to be second-class members of the local church. However, God did set up relationships in the home that specifically identified roles. Husbands are required by God to be leaders and sacrificial protectors (Ephesians 5). Women are commanded to be submissive to husbands as God’s chosen leaders in the home while also being keepers and nurturers within the home. God did it this way based upon His created order so that the family unit can be an effective environment to raise children.
The commands regarding women in the church, I believe, are extensions of that home order (1 Corinthians 14:34-35, 1 Timothy 2:12), so that church relationships do not violate home relationships. It would be impossible for a woman to be submissive to her husband and be his pastor at the same time.
Does the command to abstain from partiality mean that we should be completely color-blind?
Social and cultural differences often make it more difficult for a church to reach one ethnic group over another. This often becomes evident in transitioning neighborhoods. We often see neighborhoods in Phoenix transition from predominantly white communities to Hispanic or other cultures. As those neighborhoods transition, churches often find it difficult to do the same. The churches that do not make the changes to reach their community usually shrivel and die over time.
It does not violate the “respecter of persons” command to make specific choices to reach specific cultural groups in a target community. In fact, it is often a necessity. In such situations, a church might realize that a black or Hispanic pastor will be much more effective in a corresponding neighborhood. This is not just because of the color of his skin or background, but also because of his familiarity with the people to whom he is ministering, especially where languages and culture are diverse. The cultural emotion on both sides of the political spectrum sometimes makes wise biblical choices difficult. It should not be. This is not DEI, it’s just biblical wisdom. No decision regarding church leadership should be made solely on language or cultural background, but we would be foolish not to consider it relevant depending on the local church context.
God can use anyone anywhere he chooses. He can use a white English-speaking minister to pastor a church in Kenya, and he can use a black pastor to effectively guide a church in a predominantly white mid-west neighborhood. But just because God CAN use anyone anywhere He chooses does not mean that issues such as race, language, and ethnicity should not be a consideration when looking for an effective pastor or church leader.
Our outreach pastor is Iraqi in cultural background. This was not our main consideration when hiring him, but it has been tremendously helpful to him in reaching our increasingly diverse community. The leaders of our Spanish language ministry are Hispanic. The leader of our ESL ministry speaks Chinese as his first language. These people are precious gifts to our congregation and allow us opportunities to reach people that we might not otherwise have known.
Diverse churches are not new or historically exceptional. The first church in Jerusalem (Acts 2:8-10) church began by reaching people who spoke no less than 16 different languages or dialects. Paul constantly dealt with the issues of people from differing ethnic backgrounds (Jews, gentiles, barbarians, etc) and economic backgrounds (slaves and free) in the churches that he planted. The church in heaven will be as diverse as humanity itself (Revelation 5:9).
If this is how the church looks, both at its beginning and in its final state, it only makes sense that it is appropriate for churches to look the same now in the diverse communities that surround most of us.