Not D, Not E , Not I

We will assume those reading here are familiar with the acronym “DEI.” Though the proliferation of acronyms strains even the best patience, we can’t avoid them. Just to make sure we all know what we are talking about here: diversity, equity, and inclusion. An article I read this past summer attempted to offer another take on DEI. 

The author reviews the cultural phenomenon of DEI, pointing out how many companies and organizations that once championed it are now backing away. When he attempts to answer the question, “Where did DEI go wrong?” his answer is “overreach.” He defines the overreach in terms of “common sense” vs. “radical ideologies.” He concedes there is a radical ideological version of DEI, but his main point is that there is also a commonsense version of DEI that can be found in the Christian faith. He says it was not common sense to allow men to compete in women’s sports. Common sense rejects racial quotas. Speech codes violate common sense. His common sense has no place for intersectionality, in which the more “marginalized” groups you belong to, the more your view deserves to be heard. 

However, he is worried there is now a determined overreaction to DEI. As he states this, “DEI advocates lost their cultural ascendancy because they were unable to distinguish between initiatives that were more and less reasonable. It looks like the anti-DEI wave is going to make the same mistake on the opposite extreme.” In other words, we cannot simply reject DEI; we need to have a Christian version. 

Our author then attempts to present “a uniquely Christian” version of DEI. This is an approach that has become almost expected from Christians in recent decades. A cultural fad arises and is influential, but instead of rejecting it on biblical grounds, an attempt is made to try to show you it was a good idea that just went too far. He claims “diversity, equity, and inclusion have value for Christians.” He is convinced “there is a uniquely Christian approach to DEI.” He then presents “four irreducible minimums regarding DEI that all Christians might agree on.” 

The first of these irreducible minimums is that there is truth about DEI, and whatever that is, Christians should not first be for it and then against it, as so many companies seem to be recently. Well, there is truth about DEI, but it’s impossible to reconcile DEI with the Scriptures. 

The second minimum is “Heaven will be extraordinarily diverse … [and] the early church was, too.” He appeals to the fact that in the New Testament, “the zealous Pharisee, wealthy homeowner, city official, and former slaves were co-laboring together (sic).” However, there is no indication in the New Testament that this was because a goal of the church was to have the proper mix of different classes of people. The point that those who attempt to create a Christian strain of DEI should have noticed is that individuals of any background who receive the gospel should be included in your congregation because of their faith, not because of whatever group from which they might come. 

In his last two irreducible minimums, our author tries to find support for his ideas in the Bible. His first is an appeal to the parable of the vineyard workers in Matthew 20. He claims that here, “Jesus employs the principle of equal-outcomes-equity” and thus, “Equity can’t be all bad if Jesus uses it.” He thinks he can get this from the parable where those who work all day are paid the same as those who work much less. However, this parable cannot make the author’s point that since God always makes sure outcomes are equal, we should too. For one big counterexample, when the New Testament talks about rewards beyond salvation, they are presented as being unequal. 

Jewish tradition had a story about the day of judgment that Jesus is addressing here. They contended that Israel, who had worked hard, would receive high wages, but Gentiles would receive little. Jesus is clearly countering that idea here regarding salvation and God’s kingdom. 

His final minimum is that Jesus included people of all sorts, so inclusion is a Christian virtue “to a point.” He doesn’t believe God saves everyone, but he does think that the fact of God inviting everyone from all categories to salvation shows us how inclusion is a Christian virtue. The fact that God invites everyone is no support for DEI. The mere fact that God does not bestow universal salvation shows that God is not “inclusive” in the DEI sense. If inclusion were part of the essence of God’s plan, how could God allow anyone not to be saved? Not only does this violate the “I” of DEI, but it flies in the face of the “E.” God allows for the most radical of unequal outcomes—some are saved, others are not. 

Ultimately, what we see is that these so-called irreducible minimums do not define anything at all like a DEI somehow corrected by Christianity. The problem here is that no real version of DEI is satisfied with the fact that somewhere there is a mixture of whatever groups you might be worried about mixing. DEI is not just about being nice to people or even helping people. Versions of DEI worthy of the name call for not just encouraging but forcing and requiring its D, E, and I. It calls for constant action to require what it demands, usually by force of law or at least company policy. It insists that certain numbers of certain favored groups be included by law or policy in any human undertaking. This very often requires members of some disfavored group to be excluded to make room for the favored ones. Also, equity requires everyone to perform equally well. In other words, actions must be taken to ensure, at whatever cost, that outcomes are equal — even though this always turns out to be impossible. 

Here is where we can identify an indispensable element of DEI: the assumption and insistence that groups are more important than individuals. You cannot even begin to think about any version of DEI without this assumption. There is no way to proceed in the world of DEI unless groups always trump individuals. Put another way, the worldview of DEI requires that groups are all important, and individuals must be sacrificed to groups. The worldview of Christianity rejects this completely. This means there is no way to find a moderate DEI approach. This key element of DEI cannot be abandoned or even compromised. If you do, you have left DEI behind. 

What many miss, perhaps in a desperate attempt to defend some aspects of DEI, is that Christianity is radically individualistic in important respects. The word “each” (referring to individuals) stands out in the New Testament: 

Matthew 16:27, “For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done.” 

Romans 2:6, “God will give to each person according to what he has done.” 

Revelation 20:13-15, “each person was judged according to what he had done . . . If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.” 

2 Peter 3:9, “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise … He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” 

The words “each” and “everyone” point clearly to individuals, not groups. You cannot remove this from Christianity without corrupting it beyond recognition. 

All in all, DEI is an ungodly philosophy. Taken on its own terms, it is both ugly and quite unholy. If the key elements of DEI are corrected, it is no longer DEI. What is left simply collapses.