# data[].attributes.body
If you are using these resources outside school, you will need to log in for the EPIC ones. Use this link to get the username and password

# data[].attributes.headline
Religious and Cultural Identity in DEI: Navigating Diversity Beyond the Workplace

# data[].attributes.subject
Religious and Cultural Identity in DEI: Navigating Diversity Beyond the Workplace

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Religious and Cultural Identity in DEI: Navigating Diversity Beyond the Workplace

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Religious and cultural inclusion is essential in DEI. Learn how companies can create inclusive workplaces that respect faith and cultural diversity.

# data[].attributes.headline
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) & the Gospel

# data[].attributes.subject
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) & the Gospel

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The topic of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, or D.E.I., has become increasingly prevalent in the last decade. Especially in the business world, many companies are engaging in DEI training in an effort to develop a fairer and more equitable workplace. The larger concepts of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion resonate with Christ followers because they speak to unity, justice, fairness, and acceptance as scripture teaches. ¹ But since these concepts are often defined and taught in a secular world, there is sometimes tension for the Christian in the way they are applied and in the conclusions that are reached.

As Christ followers, we need to recognize the value of D.E.I., but then reframe the issues based on the truth of the Gospel, and then respond to the world around us with the love of Christ.

Recognize the Value of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion are Christian Concepts

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion have always been Christian values. We see examples of these concepts in creation, in Jesus' teaching, and in the unfolding of God's plan for salvation. God's creation reveals an amazing diversity of human beings from "every tribe, and tongue, and nation" who all have equal value and dignity in His eyes.

But as Christians, we have to realize that many conflicts between our Christian perspectives and worldly perspectives arise from usage of language. Differences are often magnified because of the way we define words and the way we use language that is filtered by a certain political or ideological lens. Compare the following definitions of D.E.I. terms (Secular definitions are from Wikipedia):

DIVERSITY (Secular Perspective)

Diversity describes a wide variety of differences that may exist amongst people in any community, including race, ethnicity, nationality, gender and sexual identity, disability, neurodiversity, and others.

DIVERSITY (Christian Perspective)

Diversity refers to our unique creation as God's children - that as people we are His image bearers who reflect the amazing breadth of His qualities and character. God's love for diversity is also seen in His commission for our lives on Earth ² and in His ultimate vision for His Kingdom. ³

The secular definition emphasizes the personal identity of the individual, while the Christian definition places more importance on the variety of people who make up God's Kingdom and exist for His glory.

EQUITY (Secular Perspective)

Equity is the practice of providing fair opportunities via personalized approaches based on individual needs, thus aiming to "level the playing field" by taking into account the different starting points of different individuals. Therefore, "equity" aims to achieve fairness by considering each individual's trajectory and context and should not be confused with the notion of "equality" which aims to treat everyone the same.

EQUITY (Christian Perspective)

Equity refers to God's love for justice and fairness, and the value He places on individuals. God looks beyond earthly status, and we are promised that His ultimate judgement will reflect His righteous character. ⁴

In the secular definition, equity goes beyond equal opportunity since the desire for equal outcomes is the ultimate goal. As a result, systems or conditions that do not lead to equal outcomes are seen as unacceptable. There is an implication that as humans we need to take control and create justice by our own power. The Christian definition implies that our value comes from God, and His love for us binds us together with a spirit of unity regardless of social status. ⁵

INCLUSION (Secular Perspective)

Inclusion specifies the desired outcome, namely, ensuring that individuals find opportunities and spaces to participate, regardless of their differences.

INCLUSION (Christian Perspective)

Inclusion refers to the way that God invites everyone to pursue His Kingdom work, as He calls His Church to sacrificially love one another in unity. In Paul's letters he exhorts the Church to lay aside our earthly differences to find unity in the cross of Christ. ⁶
The secular definition goes beyond welcoming, respecting, support, and value and demands approval of all choices as right and good. Once again, there is more emphasis on the self, with everyone realizing their own potential as the ultimate goal. The Christian definition speaks of unity and interdependence and implies the importance of serving each other. ⁷

Reframe the Issues Based on God's Truth

DEI in a Secular Context

For many believers, our experience with Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion falls outside the church within a secular context, such as a workplace or educational institution. These issues start to center around how Christians should interact with non-believers. There is particular sensitivity around issues of gender identity and sexual orientation where there are clear differences between a Christian perspective and a worldly perspective. As Christ followers, how do we react when Christian concepts such as Diversity, Equity and Inclusion are applied in non-biblical ways? How can we be accepting of others without celebrating a view that we do not share?

Different Worldviews

When we engage the non-believing world it is tempting to dive right in, and argue about specific issues relating to D.E.I. But it is important to take a step back to understand the fundamental differences between a Christian worldview and a more mainstream secular worldview. A Few of the main contrasts are listed below:
Christian Worldview:
Truth from God is absolute ⁸

People are born with a sin nature ⁹

We deserve judgment from God ¹⁰

Our purpose is bringing glory to God ¹¹
Secular Worldview:
Truth is relative

People are basically good

We deserve good things from life

Our purpose is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

When we encounter expressions of D.E.I. from a secular worldview, we notice that even though many biblical ideals are reflected in secular views (such as fairness, equal opportunity, and respect), these secular views lean heavily into cultural relativism. In a secular society we have to accept a certain amount of relativism - we can't expect everyone in the world around us to live by Christian principles. ¹² Whereas some would see a relativist world as an ideal place where people don't judge each other, believers are reminded of the phrase that echoes through the book of Judges - "everyone did what was right in his own eyes." Sadly, we see from God's Word that this individualistic, self-centered worldview leads to isolation, emptiness, and separation from God. Philosophically, relativism also begs the question of what makes any of those high ideals right or true? Without God's truth even lofty principles lose their meaning.

Some might argue that God's Kingdom is not really inclusive unless everyone is accepted just as they are. It is true that joining God's family is not a free-for-all - it requires us to submit to His authority. However, we submit to one "who did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, and being found in human form, He humbled Himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross." (Phil. 2:6-8) His humility reminds us that God's family is not an exclusive club, but open to the poor, the weak, and marginalized who are so often overlooked. ¹³ Jesus reached out to everyone where they were, but He called them to denial of self, purity, obedience, and holiness: "If anyone would come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me." (Matt 16:24)

Within the Church, we are called to value diversity, equity, and inclusion as Jesus did. Throughout His ministry Jesus cut through the physical and social boundaries of His day to engage a world in need of spiritual healing. He looked beyond earthly characteristics and saw into the hearts of the people He encountered. As always, Jesus provides us with the perfect example of how we should engage that world.

Respond to the World Around Us

Love but not Affirm

One challenge we see in our world today is a prevailing view that either "you must affirm me" or "you hate me." This is especially seen in the areas of homosexuality and gender fluidity. As Christians, we must engage relationships around us, and love all people with the eyes of Christ. No matter who He encountered, Jesus always acknowledged their humanity. He treated others with dignity as valued creations of God. Yet with all of the love that Christ showed, He did not affirm sinful lifestyles - He called on others to "go and sin no more." ¹⁴ As Christians we have to stay true to the Word of God, and say, "I love you," but "I cannot affirm you." Believers cannot sit passively by in conversations and not speak to the realities of these concepts. It is unloving not to speak to God's design and how it was meant for us to flourish as individuals and together. This is especially true when addressing fellow believers that have sought to embrace current views to be more appealing to the world. Unfortunately, there is no formula or easy answer for the way we respond - we have to ask the Holy Spirit to give us wisdom and provide us the words we need to engage a hurting world around us. ¹⁵

Opportunity to Seek Common Ground

As Christians, we sometimes get caught up in efforts to "defend" Christianity, whether it be in the laws of our communities, the practices of our companies, or the rules of our organizations. We sometimes forget that God's truth is stronger than the laws of men - our lack of faith can lead us to "take control" of the situation on our own power. When we look to scripture we see Christ followers as bold witnesses, more often than not from positions of weakness or conditions of oppression. God is in control of His plans even in a seemingly un-godly world.

Because of the biblical nature of D.E.I. concepts, we may be able to find agreement with secular colleagues and friends around making people feel valued, standing up for the under-represented, and striving for fairness of opportunity for all. We may have a stronger witness if we are less worried about proving that we are right, and more focused on finding common ground with non-believers around us and trusting God to work on their hearts.

We often avoid conversations about subjects that are culturally sensitive because we want to avoid conflict. In fact, open dialogue and communication may provide ways to overcome stereotypes and prejudices as we walk the line between speaking God's truth and showing compassion for others around us. As Christians we need to see our differences with the world not as a barrier, but as an open door to challenge our culture to see diversity, equity, and inclusion from a biblical perspective.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) & The Gospel | Fellowship Bible Church

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) & the Gospel The topic of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, or D.E.I., has become increasingly prev…

# data[].attributes.headline
What Faith-Oriented DEI Contributes to “Belonging”

# data[].attributes.subject
What Faith-Oriented DEI Contributes to “Belonging”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Kent Johnson | See more at Authenticity & Connection

The now-widespread focus on "belonging" as integral to Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) is a signal that the time has now come for religion to be included as a full-fledged part of DEI.

Beginning around 2019, "Belonging" emerged as a hot topic in DEI circles. Many leaders began wrestling with the fact that some DEI programs can have a tendency to alienate employees to the point that they feel unwelcome; that they don't "belong." This warrants more thought.

Here's a common Venn diagram from Krys Burnette that seeks to illustrate the interrelations between DEI and Belonging:

The lower center section highlights an important insight, that emphasizing equity and diversity WITHOUT a corresponding emphasis on "inclusion for all" causes disengagement and low retention. If the overall message is perceived as pushing cultural assimilation - a melting pot that disregards distinctives - many employees will feel excluded, diminished and alienated.

Often in the DEI world, "inclusion" is measured predominantly to ensure that people in recognized diversity categories are represented in management, salary scale and "seats at the table" in numbers that mirror the ratios their categories bear to the general population of the community, the country or the world. If a DEI program is seen as mainly dedicated to achieving that mathematical outcome, it can appear to pit employees against one another. It feels like a zero-sum game; "them" against "us." The "ins" versus the "outs." Without a concurrent focus on "belonging" for all, the benefits to be derived from proportional representation tend to get lost in the math.

DEI's adoption of the goal of "belonging" begins to address this matter. Unlike "inclusion," which often is treated as a fact corroborated by mathematical ratios applied to specific groups, belonging entails a highly subjective element. And it begs a key question: "Belonging to WHAT?"

In this context, I suggest that a concerted focus on RELIGIOUS diversity, done well, can mitigate a zero-sum-gamed ethos and strengthen the sense of belonging for everyone in the organization, without compromising traditional diversity goals.

Over 80% of the global population identifies as "religiously affiliated" and this number is projected to increase to over 85 percent by 2050. It's clear that the overlap between religious diversity and traditional diversity categories is huge. Many people across the diversity spectrum are religiously affiliated. The reach of religious diversity is even greater if one applies the following common sweeping definition of religion: "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." Especially with that definition in mind, a concerted focus on religious diversity avoids the exclusivity of many other diversity categories. It speaks to all of us.

Religious diversity doesn't seek to advance one group in relation to any other. Its goal, instead, is to serve other celebrated goals of DEI: to free employees, first, to "be themselves," second, to openly share their richly diverse business-related ideas, views and philosophies, and third, to advance a culture of "full engagement" of all. A purposeful focus on religious diversity promotes meaningful and warm connections across all diversity categories. It welcomes people of all faiths, atheists and agnostics, for the specific purpose of promoting a culture of listening, mutual respect and cross-cultural friendship. And, importantly, belonging.

As can be seen in the following linked summary, companies across the spectrum of industries have eagerly embraced religious diversity, with powerfully positive results. Employee resource groups (ERGs) representing specific beliefs (and atheism) have sprung up, leaving the door open for additional beliefs. In some companies, faith-oriented groups fall under an umbrella diversity category referred to in various ways including "Interfaith," "Inter Belief," etc.

Many of these faith-oriented ERGs offer informational sessions to all interested coworkers, describing the relevance of their respective religious views and practices to their work. These sessions often feature multiple faiths, and include discussion of unifying themes, including values they hold in common. These ERGs also engage in joint projects to help communities with food banks, tutoring, elimination of human trafficking and many other positive outreach works. All these activities strengthen participants' sense of belonging and connection, across sectarian lines. More information about faith-oriented ERGs is available here.

The result is a deep and wide sense of BELONGING - not just belonging to particular diversity groups (though that is important), but, profoundly, belonging to the entire enterprise - the whole of the company's work.

HR professionals: This is worth pursuing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Faith-Oriented DEI Contributes to "Belonging"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Kent Johnson | See more at Authenticity & Connection The now-widespread focus on "belonging" as integral to Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) is a signal that the time has now come for religion to be included as a full-fledged part of DEI. Beginning around 2019, "Belonging" emerged as a hot topic in DEI circles.

# data[].attributes.headline
Where Does Religious Identity Fit Into DEI?

# data[].attributes.subject
Where Does Religious Identity Fit Into DEI?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Where Does Religious Identity Fit Into DEI? - YW Boston

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
At YW Boston, when we are discussing social identities and [...]

# data[].attributes.headline
Religion Influences the Mental Health of LGBTQ+ Individuals

# data[].attributes.subject
Religion Influences the Mental Health of LGBTQ+ Individuals

# data[].attributes.headline
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Faith-Oriented Institutions

# data[].attributes.subject
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Faith-Oriented Institutions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Faith-Oriented Institutions - Ithaka S+R

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fostering diversity, equity, and inclusion is an issue of ever-growing importance in libraries and archives but to what extent can these principles be

# data[].attributes.headline
Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity: What are They and Why Do They Matter to Us?

# data[].attributes.subject
Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity: What are They and Why Do They Matter to Us?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity: What are They and Why Do They Matter to Us?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Judaism and social justice are inseparable. The pursuit of justice is not an elective we can shrug off as optional; the Torah literally tells us, “Justice, justice, you shall pursue” (Deut. 16:20).

# data[].attributes.headline
DEI Done Right: Disentangling Christian Community from Critical Theory

# data[].attributes.subject
DEI Done Right: Disentangling Christian Community from Critical Theory

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This talk was originally given to Life Pacific University. The video can be found here. The slides can be found here (ppt) and here (pdf).

The phrase "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion" elicits vastly different responses from different people. Liberals tend to view DEI as a crucial component of any institution truly committed to "social justice" - there's another buzzword. Conservatives tend to view DEI as empty virtue-signaling at best and a wholly corrupted enterprise at worst. So which is it?

Well, here's the bad news. I'm going to argue that most DEI programs are rooted in contemporary critical theory, a deeply unbiblical ideology that Christians must reject. This fundamentally unbiblical understanding of "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion" is so ubiquitous that I'm not very comfortable with Christians even using the phrase "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion."

Now, since Marcus invited me and since he's the director of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion at Life Pacific University, I have about ten seconds to turn this talk around before he shuts off my mic and cuts the video, right? Yeah, maybe. But hear me out. My claim is that while most DEI programs are rooted in critical theory, we can think about these concepts in ways that are compatible with Christianity. In other words, we can see our churches, universities, and institutions as places where diversity, equity, and inclusion can be fostered provided that we define these terms in a biblical way and explicitly reject definitions rooted in critical theory. My aim here today is to show you how to do that.

Here's my outline. First, I'd like to show you that something is happening to our culture, impacting everything from social media, to entertainment, to education, to DEI training.
Second, I'd like to give that "Something" a name: contemporary critical theory. I'll explain the four central tenets of contemporary critical theory without offering any critique and I'll even show that secular DEI programs are attempting to address some real problems. But third, I'll show that a pursuit of diversity, equity, and inclusion based on critical theory is fundamentally flawed. As Christians, we simply cannot accept critical theorists' understanding of oppression, justice, diversity, equity, inclusion, and a host of other concepts. Fourth, I'll offer some biblical guiderails for thinking about DEI. And finally, I'll offer a way forward in terms of having fruitful dialogue about these issues.

I. What is going on with our culture?

Let's start with some data, since I'm a scientist and I love data. Here's a chart of word usage frequency from the NYTimes. Around 2014, you can see the beginning of an event which some cultural commentators have dubbed "The Great Awokening." Words like "racism" "privilege" "whiteness" and "intersectionality" suddenly exploded all over the pages of the NYTimes.

Another example: In 2020, the Smithsonian Institute published an infographic on "The Aspects and Assumptions of Whiteness and White Culture." It listed things like "objective, rational linear thinking" and "cause and effect relationships" and ideas like "hard work is the key to success" as elements of "whiteness." Now, we might expect to see statements like that on a Neo-nazi manifesto, but on an infographic published by the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture? What in the world is going on? And are these ideas only related to race? No.

Listen to a few quotes from the statement of beliefs page on the official Black Lives Matter website. They say that they want to "do the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege and uplift Black trans folk." And that they 'foster a queer‐affirming network" and want to free themselves from "the tight grip of heteronormative thinking." They sell T-shirts that say "Black Future is Queer."

A 2021 CNN news article states: "It's not possible to know a person's gender identity at birth, and there is no consensus criteria for assigning sex at birth." Note: this is not an opinion piece. This is supposedly news. The highlighted sentence stayed in the piece for 24 hours before it was eventually removed.

Finally, the television show Blue's Clues, which is targeted at preschoolers, released a Pride Month sing-along video last year set to the tune of "The Ants Go Marching." The lyrics included these stanzas "These babas are non-binary / They love each other so proudly.../Ace, bi and pan grown-ups you see can love each other so proudly / And they all go marching in the Big Parade." Ace-, bi-, and pan- refers to asexual, bisexual, and pansexual, for those who aren't sure. And notice that one of the beavers in the video was portrayed with double-mastectomy scars. In other words, this character represents a biological female who had her breasts removed by gender reassignment surgery.

We can see these same ideas in dozens of books by scholars like Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X. Kendi. And we can also see these ideas in DEI training programs all over the country. Conservative activist Chris Rufo has provided hundreds of pages of primary source documents from DEI trainings at major corporations and schools.

For example, at a Walmart Training program. Employees were told that racism is a "system of racial advantage that benefits white people," that POC can suffer from "internalized racial oppression," and that "white supremacy culture" includes things like "worship of the written word," "individualism," and "objectivity."

AT&T recommended books like DiAngelo's White Fragility, and Kendi's Stamped from the Beginning.

A middle-school teachers training program in Missouri asked attendees to locate themselves on an "oppression matrix" listing "racism," "sexism," "classism," "heterosexism," "ableism," and "adultism" as various forms of oppression.

These artifacts are just the tip of the iceberg. So: what is the iceberg? In other words, where are these ideas coming from? That's what I want to explain in the next section.

II. What is critical theory?

Critical theory today is an umbrella term which encompasses many different critical social theories including entire disciplines like cultural studies, postcolonialism, critical pedagogy, postmodernism, feminism, black feminism, queer theory, and critical race theory. So what are the ideas at the heart of contemporary critical theory?

I'll list four: the social binary, oppression through ideology, lived experience, and social justice.

A. The Social Binary

First, contemporary critical theory is based on the idea of the social binary.

The "social binary" is the claim that society can be divided into dominant, oppressor groups and subordinate, oppressed groups along lines of race, class, gender, sexuality, and a host of other factors. Here are Sensoy and DiAngelo in their book Is Everyone Really Equal?: "For every social group, there is an opposite group... the primary groups that we name here are: race, class, gender, sexuality, ability status/exceptionality, religion, and nationality." Consequently, "sexism, racism, classism, and heterosexism are specific forms of oppression."

Take a look at 5.1 from their book. As you can see, it lists various forms of oppression: racism, classism, sexism, heterosexism, anti-Semitism, ableism, nationalism, colonialism. It lists the minoritized group: people of color, the poor, women, LGBTQ+ individuals. And it lists the dominant group: whites, the rich, men, heterosexuals, etc...

B. Oppression through ideology

Second, we have the idea of oppression through hegemonic power. What is "hegemonic power"?

Here are Sensoy and DiAngelo again: "Hegemony refers to the control of the ideology of society. The dominant group maintains power by imposing their ideology on everyone." This is crucial. Traditionally, "oppression" is understood to refer to acts of cruelty, injustice, violence, and coercion. But critical theorists expand this definition of oppression to include the ways in which the dominant social group, imposes its norms, values, and ideas on society to justify its own interests. Iris Young writes: "In its new usage, oppression designates the disadvantage and injustice some people suffer not because a tyrannical power coerces them, but because of the everyday practices of a well-intentioned liberal society... Its causes are embedded in unquestioned norms, habits, and symbols."

If you understand that dominance and oppression are produced not by numerical size, but by hegemonic power, you'll understand why "old white men" are the canonical oppressor group. Demographically, only about 15% of the U.S. is "old white men." So they're actually a minority. But, according to contemporary critical theory, they are a dominant group because they have the power to impose their old white male values on society. We all accept these values as natural, objective, and common sense when actually, they serve old white male interests.

C. Lived Experience

Third: lived experience. Contemporary critical theory argues that "lived experience" gives oppressed people special access to truths about their oppression

Here's an incredible quote from Anderson and Collins in their book Race, Class, and Gender. They write "The idea that objectivity is best reached only through rational thought is a specifically Western and masculine way of thinking - one that we will challenge throughout this book."

To put it simply, critical theorists believe that privileged groups tend to be blinded by their privilege. They have both conscious and subconscious reasons to avoid or ignore the reality of oppression. In contrast, by virtue of their "social location," oppressed people have the possibility of "seeing through" the hegemonic discourse imposed on them by the ruling class. They can recognize that dominant social norms are really attempts to justify oppression and can thereby achieve what's called a "liberatory consciousness" or a "critical consciousness." Colloquially, they can "get woke," by waking up to invisible systems of oppression all around them.

But that's not automatic. Because we're all socialized into the dominant group's ideology, these oppressive ideas appear to be "natural" and "common sense" to all of us. So even oppressed people can experience "internalized oppression" when they embrace the ideology of the dominant group, failing to see it for what it is: a bid for power.

D. Social justice

Finally, the motive force behind critical theory since its inception is the achievement of "social justice."

Listen to how feminist scholar Mary McClintock defines that term. She writes that "social justice" is "the elimination of all forms of social oppression" where that oppression can be based on "a person's gender, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, physical or mental ability, or economic class." In other words, critical theorists define "social justice" to mean the elimination of the oppressor-oppressed social binary by dismantling the systems and structures used to justify the hegemonic power of the ruling class: whether it's the hegemonic power of whites, men, heterosexuals, or the rich.

Now, if anyone has experience with diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, you'll realize that these ideas are pervasive. DEI initiatives often simply assume critical theory's conceptualizations of the social binary, hegemonic power, lived experience, and social justice. That's why it's so important to understand critical theory when we're trying to evaluate DEI initiatives. It's crucial to understand the basic assumptions on which they're built.

But before I offer any critique of critical theory-based DEI programs, let me call attention to some of the positive aspects of these initiatives. Even if we strongly disagree with their ideological foundations, like I do, we should recognize that they're trying to solve real problems that Christians can acknowledge.

E. Positive goals of DEI

First, let's talk about diversity. Is diversity always bad? Is it always godless and "worldly"? Well, no. Some kinds of diversity are God-ordained and can be celebrated. Think about Paul's entire argument in 1 Cor. 12 about how God gives a diversity of spiritual gifts to the local church. One of his main points is that the church would be impoverished if everyone had the same gifts. Similarly, a local church that providentially includes people from multiple tribes, nations, and tongues is one that looks more like the picture of God's Kingdom that we see in Rev. 7. So certain kinds of diversity are good and God-ordained.

Second, let's talk about "equity" which is often contrasted with "formal equality." "Formal equality" or "procedural equality" means that laws and policies treat everyone exactly the same. But does that guarantee actual equality of opportunity? Not necessarily. Simple example: after the Civil War and the 13 th and 14 th Amendments, former slaves had all the formal, legal rights and privileges of other American citizens in theory. Does it follow that they had the same opportunities? Or even the same legal rights in practice? Absolutely not. Many of them ended up as sharecroppers whose lives were only marginally better than they had been under slavery. So formal equality under law does not guarantee equality of opportunity.

Third, DEI programs argue that because formal equality is not enough, therefore we need to embrace "equity" which means explicitly embracing unequal treatment. That's rightly controversial, but is it always wrong? No. There are many cases where unequal treatment is actually good and just. For example, wheelchair ramps. Are those unfair? Can't people in wheelchairs use stairs. Well, no, they can't. That's exactly the point. What about handicapped parking spaces? What about free school lunches for children in poverty? In all these cases, almost everyone recognizes that unequal treatment is justified because the goal is equal opportunity. We want to ensure that everyone has access to the same public goods. So there are cases where unequal treatment is just and fair.

Fourth, institutional culture can sometimes unintentionally exclude or marginalize people and DEI tries to fix that. And that can be fine. Where the Bible is silent, we can be flexible about our own cultural traditions, out of love for our brothers and sisters outside our culture.

So these are all problems that DEI initiatives are trying to address and we can appreciate these issues as Christians.

That said, there are a number of places where DEI programs go fundamentally wrong, from a Christian perspective.

DEI Done Wrong

A. Redefining oppression

First, DEI programs rooted in critical theory redefine oppression, which leads to a false view of inclusion. In an earlier slide, I showed an "Oppression Matrix" used at a teacher training session in Missouri. That table probably came from the "Matrix of Oppression" in Appendix C of Adams' Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice. Notice that racism and sexism are listed as oppressions right alongside heterosexism. Why? Because critical theorists have redefined the word "oppression."

Here are some quotes from Adams' book. She writes: ""We do not use traditional or popular meanings of oppression (such as a ruler's tyrannical rule or a nation's conquest and colonial domination of other peoples)... Oppression is 'structural' and 'systemic,' and usually operates under the radar because it is part of an unequal society's 'unquestioned norms, habits, and symbols'; its 'normal processes of everyday life'" and " oppression is manifested through racism, white privilege, and immigrant status; sexism, heterosexism, and transgender experiences; religious oppression and antisemitism; and classism, ableism, and ageism/adultism...eradicating oppression ultimately requires struggle against all its forms. " Note here that critical theorists will not allow you to claim that you are going to fight against racism while continuing to believe that heterosexuality and the gender binary are good, God-ordained norms for humanity. They will insist that if you are truly against oppression, then you must oppose racism, and sexism, and heterosexism, and cisgenderism.

Ibram X. Kendi says the same thing in his book How to Be An Antiracist. For example, he writes: " We cannot be antiracist if we are homophobic or transphobic ... To be queer antiracist is to understand the privileges of my cisgender, of my masculinity, of my heterosexuality, of their intersections."

And it's not just race, class, gender, and sexuality that are seen through the lens of power and oppression. Even the parent-child relationship is problematized by critical theorists. Did anyone notice the entry for "ageism/adultism" in the oppression matrix I showed? Adultism occurs when adults oppress children by imposing their adult values on them and depriving them of agency (even their own children). For example, in their essay "Understanding and fighting sexism: a call to men," Blood, Tuttle, and Lakey write: "People are just beginning to have a glimpse of what oppression based on age involves... Children are ... being considered helpless, dependent, and cute - creatures to be cherished and taken are of... but not full human beings to be deeply respected... and trusted with significant power. They experience 10-15 years of unpaid labor and brainwashing in our current form of education."

Unfortunately, it gets worse. Within Queer Theory, it is an open question whether "intergenerational sex" or "pedophilia" or "man-boy love" can be moral. In her book, Queer Theory, an Introduction, Jagose writes: "the issue of intergenerational sex continues to be debated vigorously in many gay and lesbian communities. The protection of children is deemed by some to be ethically crucial to the development of gay identity, but is dismissed by others as 'erotic hysteria' (Rubin, 1993:6). What is the status of different, and arbitrary, age-of-consent laws? Do children have a sexuality and a right to sexual agency? Why is age -unlike, say, race or class- understood as a sexualized power-differential protected by law? Is it possible to eroticise children in an ethical way? These are the questions commonly raised-and by no means yet resolved- in the controversy over intergenerational sex"

I spent a lot of time on this section, because Christians seem to still think they can adopt critical theory's redefinition of the word "oppression" and yet only apply it to racism. That simply isn't true. Biblically speaking (and according to most dictionaries), "oppression" refers to violence, cruel treatment, unjust control, and tyranny. It does not refer to "socially dominant groups imposing their values on culture." If you adopt critical theory's definition, you'll have to apply it consistently to all socially dominant groups, whether whites, men, heterosexuals, Christians, or cisgendered people. And you'll have to commit to dismantling not just whiteness, but patriarchy, heteronormativity, the gender binary, ableism and a host of other purported systemic oppressions. "Inclusion" in DEI initiatives will demand that you include not just people of different races and ethnicities, but people who emphatically reject a biblical sexual ethic. Again, that's not something Christians can embrace. So we have to reject critical theory's redefinition of "oppression" at the very outset.

B. Equalizing outcomes

Second, critical theorists adopt the word "equity" rather than "equality" even though the two are synonyms in most dictionaries.

Here's a popular cartoon that explains how "equity" is reconceptualized by critical theory. "Equality" refers to everyone being treated exactly the same, whereas "equity" refers to some people being treated differently in order to offset their disadvantages. Now, critical theorists will sometimes insist that "equity" merely seeks "equality of opportunity" rather than "equality of outcome," as in the case on wheelchair ramps.

However, that's usually misleading. What advocates of equity usually assume is that if there are unequal outcomes, then there must not have been equality of opportunity. So, effectively, they're committed to "equality of outcome," even wouldn't explicitly say that.

Here's an example from a short video posted to Twitter by Vice Presidential candidate Kamala Harris. She explains that the problem with "equality" is that not everyone starts in the same place. Consequently, some people need extra help or resources to overcome their initial disadvantages. So how can well tell how much help they need? How can we tell when "equity" has been achieved? She explains "equitable treatment means we all end up at the same place." Did you catch that? She's assuming that if there aren't equal outcomes, then there must not have been equity.

So be very careful here of the bait-and-switch. On paper, equity might look like it is merely an attempt to achieve equal opportunity. But in practice, it assumes that unequal outcomes are all attributable to "lack of equity."

Antiracist activist Ibram X. Kendi says this extremely clearly in his books. For example, he writes "racial discrimination is the sole cause of racial disparities in this country and in the world at large. " Think about that for a second. Do we really think that -say- disparities between North Korea and Sweden or between Africa and Australia or between Asian Americans and Native Americans are solely the result of discrimination? Do we really believe that 75% of players in the NBA are black because of racial discrimination against whites? But this is exactly what Kendi's claims entail. In fact, he says elsewhere that if you think that racial disparities are caused even partially by anything other than discrimination, then you are -in his words- "an assimilationist racist."

So how should we respond to this redefinition of the word "equity" to effectively refer to unequal outcomes? First, we need to recognize that group-level disparities often conceal tremendous individual-level differences. For example, recall the picture of the three children trying to watch the baseball game. The short child who can't see over the fence is supposed to represent "underprivileged" groups like Blacks, Hispanics, women, disabled people, etc. But is that accurate when it comes to individuals? Think about it. Do you really think Barack Obama's two girls need a box to stand on? That's actually incredibly insulting. Thinking purely in terms of groups will obscure the fact that it would actually be unfair to divert resources from, say, a poor white student whose parents never graduated high school to a rich Black student whose parents are both doctors based solely on their races.

Second, we need to recognize that good and just systems produce disparities. Take education. One study found that Asian high school students spend about 2 hours per day doing homework compared to around 1 hours per day for whites. Now, imagine you have a perfectly unbiased, fair educational system. Do you really think that whites and Asians will get the same grades on average when one group studies twice as much, on average? Of course not. Now, are our systems perfect and just? By no means. But we can't simply assume that disparities are necessarily evidence of injustice.

I'll skip the next three points for the sake of time, but the bottom line here is: it's complicated. An equity-based "disparity equals discrimination" model is too simplistic. It may end up doing more harm than good and it may end up implementing unjust policies in the name of "social justice."

C. Centering experience

Finally, DEI programs and critical theory in general tend to center the "lived experience" of marginalized groups, whether women, or people of color, or LGBTQ people, or disabled people. Now, I have no problem with including the voices of groups that may have been ignored in the past. But critical theorists have something very different in mind.

For example, recall that Andersen and Collins wrote "The idea that objectivity is best reached only through rational thought is a specifically Western and masculine way of thinking- one that we will challenge throughout this book."

They're not merely saying "listening to more people's perspectives will help us overcome our biases." They're saying that we need to be skeptical of the supposed objectivity of "rational thought," which tends to be deployed to justify the power of cis-het white men.

Or listen to Oluo from her book So You Want to Talk About Race? She asks "When is a particular incident like a police shooting actually about race and when is it about something else?" She writes: " It is about race if a person of color thinks it is about race... whether or not someone is fallible is beside the point. We are, each and every one of us, a collection of our lived experiences...And our experiences are valid."

Closer to home, Latasha Morrison is the founder of Be The Bridge a Christian organization whose mission is "to empower people and culture toward racial healing, equity and reconciliation." Yet the Whiteness 101 document from their Facebook group instructs whites: Don't equate impact with intent...your words or behavior had a negative impact on those around you, and that's what matters. Apologize and do better next time. Don't demand proof of a POC's lived experience or try to counter their narrative with the experience of another POC... Provide space for POCs to wail, cuss, or even yell at you... When a POC tells you that your words/tone/behavior are racist/oppressive/triggering, you stop. Don't try to explain yourself.

In all these cases, we see how a person of color's "lived experience" takes a priority over objective evidence, reasoned discussion, or even over Scripture's commands about how we are speak to our brothers and sisters in Christ. That's bad.

As Christians, we have to insist: that our compassion must be grounded in truth. That our emotions must be reformed to Scripture. And that our experiences must be recognized as fallible. We dare not allow anyone, whether they're White or Black or purple, to place their lived experience beyond the scrutiny of Scripture, objective evidence, or open dialogue.

IV. Reclaiming Christian community

I've just offered a strident critique of DEI programs based on critical theory, but I certainly don't want to stop there. As Christians, we need to have something better to offer. It's fine to reject the poison. It's crucial. But we also want to offer people food. So in this section, let me quickly lay our five basic principles that need to guide any Christian diversity program.

A. Scripture over everything

First, for the Christian, Scripture has to be the foundation of all we do and think. Take the very concept of "diversity." People love to appeal to the glorious vision of heaven in Rev. 7. And they're right. In heaven, we will see "a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages." That should shape how we think about ethnic diversity. However, let's not forget what comes next. That great multitude was doing what? "standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, ` Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb'" In other words, let's not miss what brings this great multitude together: the adoration of God as revealed in Jesus Christ. This is not an encomium to "diversity for diversity's sake." Here, the goal is worship and diversity is a by-product of that worship.

To put it another way, listen to the words of Shai Linne from his excellent book The New Reformation: " Ethnic diversity is not virtuous in and of itself. Hell is also a very diverse place. . . . Unity is not virtuous in itself. Hell is also a very unified place."

What about "equity"? How does Scripture shape our views on "equity"? Well, in numerous places in Scripture, we're commanded to judge impartially and without favoritism. In particular, the Israelites were forbidden from showing partiality either to the rich or to the poor. Yet, at the same time, the Mosaic Law makes explicit provision for poverty when it comes to sacrificial requirements (see Leviticus 12:6-8). The take-away is that we can't offer a blanket condemnation of unequal treatment, but we also have to be exceptionally careful when applying unequal treatment. Wheelchair ramps? Sure. Race-based grading (and yes, that has actually been requested). No.

Finally, what are we to think about "lived experience"? Like everything else, it has to be subjected to the scrutiny of Scripture and to objective evidence. None of us is infallible and we dare not let anyone's opinions become unchallengeable.

What are some other guardrails?

B. Mission over diversity

Second: mission over diversity. Listen: I think diversity is generally a good thing because we live in a diverse country. It's good to personally know people who are brothers and sisters in Christ with different ethnic backgrounds, different jobs, different educations, different socio-economic statuses. That's a blow to our ethnocentrism, our clannishness, our intellectual snobbery. But all that diversity is a byproduct of the gospel. What? Do we not believe in the sovereignty and power of God? Has not God elected people from every tribe, nation, and tongue? Has not God given us a mission to reach the world? So friends, preach the gospel because it will unite people across lines of race, class, and gender. Let's stop the navel-gazing and look outward. You want to see diverse people united? Preach the gospel that unites them. Preach the finished work of Christ. Preach him breaking down the dividing wall of hostility. Preach sin, redemption, and regeneration and you will find people who used to hate each other now worshipping before the throne.

C. Opportunity over equity

Third, opportunity over equity.

I apologize for the grizzly nature of this cartoon, but it illustrates the problem with "equity" well. If "equity" is our only goal, then what is the limiting principle? If we're allowed to treat some people unequally, then what exactly is disallowed? Let's say I want to attain "test score equity." Am I allowed to just abolish tests? Am I allowed to give a few people in a particular racial group an "F" to even out the averages? If "equity" is our only measure of what is just, then what's to stop someone from implementing clearly unjust policies in the name of equity?

So here's my suggestion: focus on procedures not on outcomes and on individuals rather than on groups. Ask whether a particular procedure limits access to particular individuals. For example, online-only applications might limit access to people without the internet. In-person campus interviews might limit access to people who can't afford a flight. If a particular procedure limits access, then remedy it and see if access is improved. But don't make sweeping policy changes based on nothing more than vague notions of "equity."

D. Charity over inclusion

Fourth, we should recognize that institutional cultures can marginalize certain groups.

For example, the only female student in an all-male engineering program or the only male student in an all-male nursing may ( may) feel uncomfortable, not only because of sinful discrimination but also simply because they're different. Paul shows us the response in 1 Cor. 8: love. Lay down your preferences to build others up. And that principle actually goes in both directions. People in the majority culture needs to be asking, how can we sacrifice our preferences to make others feel welcome. But people in the minority culture need to remind themselves that they should be willing to forego their preferences as well for the sake of their brothers and sisters.

E. Truth over feelings

Finally, truth over feelings. Look at these pictures. The alt-right rally in Charlottesville. A Hands Up-Don't Shoot sign from the Michael Brown protests. Ahmaud Arbery. The 1898 Wilmington Race Riot. Jussie Smollet. The 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre. They probably call up strong emotions. But are all those emotions necessarily correct? No. Sometimes our emotions are appropriate and grounded in truth. Sometimes they are inappropriate because they are based on error. We're called to offer people truth in love and to reform our own feelings to the truth when there's a disconnect. Our feelings don't determine truth.

V. A Way Forward

Finally, let me suggest a model for how the church can approach conversations around diversity, equity, and inclusion. I'm going to rely heavily on the work of George Yancey, a Black evangelical sociologist.

A. Mutual accountability

On pages 40-46 of his new book Beyond Racial Division, he describes his "mutual accountability" model in terms of active listening, shared responsibility, and practical focus. First, his model is primarily about dialogue or what he calls "collaborative conversations." It demands that we listen to what the "other side" is saying and then restate their arguments in our own words so that they can say "Yes, that's my argument. You understand what I'm saying." It also demands that we share responsibility. Yes, people from the majority culture will likely have to make more adjustments than people from the minority culture. Why? Because institutional culture was likely created with the majority culture in mind. But whites are not there to simply "shut up and listen." All people are called on to provide input and offer solutions. And finally, George's approach is practical. It doesn't call on people to "adopt an antiracist identity" or "commit their lives to social justice." It focuses on specific problems and seeks to build a consensus, compromise solution that everyone can endorse.

Now, I'm not even sure I agree with everything George writes. But that's ok. That's one of his main points. We don't have to agree on absolutely everyything in order to have fruitful conversations about these topics. He's giving us a model for dialogue that the church desperately needs. So let me try to apply his methodology to a hypothetical example.

1. Hypothetical scenario

Here's the scenario:

A small Bible college has a student body that is 80% white and a faculty that is 90% white. A number of Black students have expressed dissatisfaction at the lack of Black representation. In response, the administration has committed to creating a student body that is 30% non-White and a faculty that is 20% non-White by 2025. A group of anonymous students and parents has written an open letter protesting the adoption of "Critical Race Theory" by the college.

Now, how should we, as Christians, approach this problem? Should students take over the college president's office, hand him a list of 34 demands, and threaten to go to MSNBC unless he meets them all? Should the trustees demand the resignation of all "woke" faculty and set up a tribunal to interrogate prospective students for signs of wokeness? No. We start by listening. What are both "sides" saying?

2. The "progressive" perspective

Here's the "progressive" side of the issue. And notice I didn't call it the "person of color" perspective or the "Black perspective." Why? Because people are individuals. They have their own thoughts. They don't just regurgitate the talking points of their gender or ethnic group. So what concerns do they raise? They point out that this Bible college was founded by whites trying to avoid school integration. At the time, Blacks were explicitly prohibited from attending. Given its history, Blacks are uncomfortable applying to the college. And is it any wonder? When people say "oh, but we got rid of those policies decades ago" ask yourself "how old are the incoming class members parents and grandparents?" If your own father remembers being forbidden to attend, do you really think you'll be eager to apply?

Furthermore, POC on campus feel culturally isolated. Listen, before you start calling people "snowflakes" and demanding that they "grow up" think about how this feels. Imagine you went to a church service in sandals and Birkenstocks and everyone else was wearing a suit and tie. You didn't know any of the songs. You didn't get any of the cultural references in the sermons. After the service, there was a potluck and you didn't like any of the food. Now, if you're a mature Christian, can you overlook all that for the sake of the gospel? Absolutely yes. But if that church is full of mature Christians, how will they respond? Will they sneer at you and tell you to suck it up? Absolutely not. They will say: how can we let him know he's welcomed and beloved as a brother in Christ?

Finally, when George Flloyd and Ahmaud Arbery were murdered, there was largely silence. Not lamentation. Not an expression of concern. Not prayer. Just silence. By the way, I'm not saying we should jump to conclusions. We have due process in the country for a reason. But obviously we can lament that a person was killed and pray that justice would be done without making any pronouncements about guilt or innocence.

3. The "conservative" perspective

Next, let's listen to conservatives. What are they saying? First, they point out that the school has rejected its segregationist origins and no longer discriminates against Blacks. Second, they insist that racial preferences in hiring violates the Bible's prohibitions of partiality. The exclusion of Black students was wrong precisely because it violated God's commands; therefore, we're going to fix the problem by violating these same commands in a different direction? Third, is the college student body disproportionately white relative to the U.S. as a whole? Yes. But is it disproportionately white relative to it's local community? Not really. It actually matches the demographics of local community pretty well. Finally, student protests promoted the Black Lives Matter organization, which suggests that at least some students may be embracing unbiblical ideologies surrounding issues of race and gender. That's concerning.

Ok, so what's the solution? How can we make everyone happy?

I don't know. What do you want from me? I'm a theoretical chemist, not a magician. And, to be fair, George Yancey doesn't give you solutions either. His point is that there's no "one-size-fits-all" solution for every institution. Instead, he gives you a process by which your institution can come up with solutions. But let me at least offer some suggestions to show you how compromise can be possible.

4. Possible compromises

First, create a multi-perspective council on race. This is how we create dialogue. We have to bring people together to discuss these issues in front of an open Bible. Now, let me pause here. I didn't say "create a multi-racial council on race." I said "create a multi-perspective council on race." That was very deliberate.

Here's what too many churches and institutions and corporations do. You get six people on a panel whose views range from ultra-woke to moderately woke and say: "Look, here's our diverse panel on race in America. Look how we're fostering open dialogue." You are not fostering dialogue. You are having a struggle session.

And that can happen on both sides of this discussion. A panel that consists of 6 anti-woke Christians is not a panel, it's a morality play. It's a monologue.

If you're going to have a real panel, you need to include charitable, articulate people who hold vastly different perspectives and let them talk. The third panel shows Life Pacific University, doing it right. Let's be aspirational. You want everyone in your audience to identify with someone on the panel and to be challenged by someone on the panel. Then require everyone to defend their views on the basis of Scripture. No one gets a pass on that.

Second, consider actively recruiting Black students. Note this doesn't involve altering your standards in any way. It simply recognizes that prospective Black students, unlike White students, may be hesitant to apply. Unlike White students, they may not have connections to alumni who would encourage them to apply. Why? Because the institution discriminated against Blacks for decades. You can't go back in time and fix that sin. But you can work to fix the legacy of that sin.

Third, partner with local schools and communities, especially if any have significant minority populations. Look, you say you've changed. Good! But don't just say youv'e changed; show them you've changed. now you can rebuild trust. Send your students in to tutor at the middle and high-school level. Bring kids onto campus for classes. You're not changing your standard; you're just raising awareness.

Now, this list isn't comprehensive. It's not authoritative. The point of the "mutual accountability" model is that Christians need to find solutions to these problems in community. We need to dialogue in front of an open Bible. One side can't impose their solutions on everyone else. And everyone has to submit their ideas and plans to the scrutiny of Scripture.

B. Broad reading

Second, read broadly. Too often, progressives only read progressive books about race and conservatives only read conservative books about race. If anything, people should try to read books that challenge their perspectives rather than merely reinforcing them.

So read diverse authors like these. Yes, all these guys are Black men. What? Do you think Black men all have the same ideas about race? Wrong. People are individuals, not avatars of their racial groups. So read Coates, Sowell, Kendi, McWhorter, Loury, and West. Get diverse perspectives. And here are a handful of other suggestions:

First, Prof. George Yancey's Beyond Racial Gridlock. As I've discussed his model for racial unity is based on mutual accountability, open dialogue, and a recognition of our own sinfulness. I prefer his older, longer book to his more recent Beyond Racial Division and George and I don't agree on everything. But I fully endorse his approach to healthy discussion.

Second, Bryan Stevenson's . Stevenson's book is mainly a memoir about his own work as a lawyer working to exonerate the wrongfully incarcerated. It's a beautiful book, touching, heartfelt, and redemptive. If nothing else, it will spark good conversations about race and justice.

Third, Shai Linne's The New Reformation. Deeply grounded in the gospel and biblical theology. Linne has clearly listened carefully to both sides of this discussion.

Fourth, Thaddeus Williams' Confronting Injustice Without Compromising Truth. A very accessible comparison of biblical justice and the secular social justice movement.

C. Unity in Christ

Finally, any Christian DEI initiative has to be grounded in our unity in Christ. We don't create this unity. We don't manufacture it. We don't work for it. It was purchased for us by Jesus on the cross 2,000 years ago. It is a fact. All we're called to do is to live it out. To maintain it. To display it. Critical theory divides the world up into oppressed groups and their oppressors along lines of race, class, and gender. Christianity says: "no. You are all made in the Image of God. You are all fallen, corrupt rebels who were dead in sin. And you have now been brought into the family of God through the life, death, and Resurrection of Jesus. The walls between Jew and Greek, male and female, slave and free have all been broken down. You are all one now in Christ Jesus."

Shai Linne writes: "I, as a Black, dreaded, hip-hop head from West Philly, have fundamentally more in common with a White coal miner from the mountains of West Virginia, a White stay-at-home mom from South Dakota, or an aging Chinese-American doctor from the Bay Area -if they are Christians- than I have with my Black, hip-hop head cousin from South Philly who doesn't know Christ! This is the glory and beauty of the new humanity" Amen. Let's live like this.

Related articles:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
DEI Done Right: Disentangling Christian Community from Critical Theory

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This talk was originally given to Life Pacific University. The video can be found here. The slides can be found here (ppt) and here (pdf). The phrase "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion" elicits vastly different responses from different people. Liberals tend to view DEI as a crucial component of any institution truly committed to "social justice" -...

# data[].attributes.headline
6 Ways the Bible Changed My Perspective on Ethnic Diversity

# data[].attributes.subject
6 Ways the Bible Changed My Perspective on Ethnic Diversity

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
6 Ways the Bible Changed My Perspective on Ethnic Diversity

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The first non-Jewish believer in the New Testament was a Black African.

# data[].attributes.headline
Does the Bible Teach Diversity and Inclusion?

# data[].attributes.subject
Does the Bible Teach Diversity and Inclusion?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Brother Pastor

Jun 21, 2023

6 min read

Updated: Aug 9, 2024

What Does the Bible Teach About Diversity and Inclusion

Therefore, anyone teaching that "God loves everyone" and "we should love everyone" no matter what, is not providing accurate biblical context. There is a saying I find appropriate, however: "love the Sinner and hate the sin".

6. Elymas the Sorcerer (Acts 13:6-12): This Jewish sorcerer opposed the preaching of Paul. Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, pronounced a judgment which resulted in this wicked man becoming blind. This was a sign of God's disapproval in opposition to his inclusive evil agenda. The Bible does ask: " what fellowship (inclusion) does light have with darkness" after all.

Why the LGBTQ Inclusive View is Unscientific

1. Sexual inclusiveness stands in contrast to universal order . These couples are the only ones on Earth with "procreative" organs yet cannot procreate (as a couple). God's plan for all life was to "produce after their own kind" and "be fruitful and multiply ". If their lifestyle choice are right with the Universe, why would it result in the extinction of the human race were they the dominant lifestyle ?

More Bible Teachings on Diversity and Inclusion

1. Romans 12:4-6 : This passage emphasizes the idea that within the body of Christ, Believers have different spiritual gifts. Further, it indicates the importance of appreciating such diversity. In our modern language: "Christians should appreciate spiritual diversity which is pleasing to the Lord God" .

In summary, Christian diversity and inclusion is about spiritual gifts given by the Lord God of Armies. It is the source of our strength (faith). Anything else is a wanton spiritual abuse of the Holy Bible. This same concept has been polluted both by the world and worldly churches. More plainly - they use Jesus's Name to gather but do not gather in His Name .

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I. What Does the Bible Teach about Diversity and Inclusion II. Why the LGBTQ Inclusive View is Unscientific III. More Bible Teachings on Diversity and Inclusion What Does the Bible Teach About Diversity and InclusionThe Bible teaches that inclusion, although desirable, is not always Holy Ghost.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Explore the theological foundation and practical implications of God’s vision for a multicultural kingdom on Earth. Discover how cross-cultural competence and the embrace of multiple cultures are essential for the Church to image God’s love across differences and counteract the default human experience of tribalism.

# data[].attributes.headline
Diversity and Unity in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

# data[].attributes.subject
Diversity and Unity in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Diversity and Unity in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a religion that transcends every culture, race, nationality, and language.

# data[].attributes.headline
Homosexuality Causes Religious Discrimination Within the Episcopal Church

# data[].attributes.subject
Homosexuality Causes Religious Discrimination Within the Episcopal Church

# data[].attributes.headline
Representing NZ Religious Diversity? The Removal of the Words “True Religion” and“Jesus Christ” from the Parliamentary Prayer

# data[].attributes.subject
Representing NZ Religious Diversity? The Removal of the Words “True Religion” and“Jesus Christ” from the Parliamentary Prayer

# data[].attributes.body
Religious Diversity? The Removal

of the Words “True Religion” and

“Jesus Christ” from the

Parliamentary Prayer

# data[].attributes.headline
Political opportunity structures, evangelical Christians and morality politics in Canada, Australia and New Zealand

# data[].attributes.subject
Political opportunity structures, evangelical Christians and morality politics in Canada, Australia and New Zealand

# data[].attributes.headline
Secular New Zealand and Religious Diversity: From Cultural Evolution to Societal Affirmation

# data[].attributes.subject
Secular New Zealand and Religious Diversity: From Cultural Evolution to Societal Affirmation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Religious Diversity Centre in Aotearoa New Zealand Trust

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We are a national centre of educational research excellence dedicated to fostering appreciation and understanding of religious diversity among all New Zealanders

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As New Zealand increasingly backs queer rights, are our Christian churches evolving or standing firm that homosexuality is sinful? Max Towle investigates.