Like many conservatives, I do not think well of the phrase “diversity, equity and inclusion” (commonly referred to as DEI). To be clear, I do not think ill of the terms in and of themselves—unshackled from their 21st century socio-political definitions. To the contrary, I embrace them. As to diversity, for example, I currently attend a very racially diverse church that is a true melting pot and no more than 15-20% white. I attend this church because of the diversity, not in spite of it. I see it as objectively beautiful. As to equity, a top strength of mine per the popular StrengthFinders test is “consistency,” which the results say means that “you are keenly aware of the need to treat people the same, no matter what their station in life, so you do not want to see the scales tipped too far in any one person’s favor. In your view, . . . [i]t leads to a world where some people gain an unfair advantage because of their connections or their background or their greasing of the wheels. This is truly offensive to you.” This definition very much resonates with me and my values. As to inclusion, at parties or in group settings, my eyes and heart often wander to the outsider—I want to make sure they feel noticed and included. Obviously, I do not hold to these values perfectly, but they are very important to me.

So why do I dislike the phrase DEI when it sounds as if I ought to be on the frontlines of championing it? Well, for one, the DEI movement does not like diversity or inclusion when it comes to conservatives or Christians. As admitted by popular NYT columnist Nicholas Kristof in his article titled “A Confession of Liberal Intolerance,” “We progressives believe in diversity, and we want women, blacks, Latinos, gays and Muslims at the table — er, so long as they aren’t conservatives.” He then writes, “the one kind of diversity that [progressives] disregard is ideological and religious. We’re fine with people who don’t look like us, as long as they think like us.”

In his article, Kristof quotes black evangelical sociology professor George Yancey: “Outside of academia I faced more problems as a black. But inside academia, I face more problems as a Christian, and it is not even close.” (Emphasis added). A few paragraphs later, Kristof quotes another black evangelical professor, Jonathan L. Walton, then of Harvard (now of Wake Forest): “Of course there are biases against evangelicals on campuses. The same arguments I hear people make about evangelicals sound so familiar to the ways people often describe folk of color, i.e. politically unsophisticated, lacking education, angry, bitter, emotional, poor.” To his credit, Kristoff highlights (and criticizes) how the problem is particularly bad in academia, where one study showed there are less Republicans among professors (6-11%) than there are self-described Marxists (18%).

In short, the DEI movement is hypocritical as it relates to diversity and inclusion. Admirably, it loves diversity of race (which it admits is a social construct, i.e., skin-deep), yet it does not like diversity of belief or thought (let alone of speech).

Now, to be fair, I tend to think western white Christians are reaping what they have sown on some level. For centuries, much of western white Christianity talked a great game (e.g., Declaration of Independence) but engaged in, or sometimes even spearheaded, horrific practices like slavery and Jim Crow. Thus, DEI proponents may argue that white conservative Christians are finally getting their comeuppance, their just desserts. “Hey, you dished out slavery and Jim Crow for two centuries; you can put up with a little bit of social ostracism, you know. Remember, you reap what you sow. ;)” Shall we say “amen” or “touché” to that, or recognize that “we become what we hate” (apparently, an old yoga maxim). I say the latter.

Okay, so that provides a general overview of my dislike for the D and I, but what about the E? I just typed the terms “what is equity social justice” into my Google search bar and received the following answer atop the search results (per United Way): “Equity, in its simplest terms as it relates to racial and social justice, means . . . allocating resources and opportunities as needed to create equal outcomes for all community members.” (Emphasis added). Whoa. It is definitions like these that generate accusations of cultural (or actual) Marxism.

Now, other search results offered alternative definitions, and undoubtedly there are many folks who support DEI and would disagree with the above-quoted definition. Like me, they may think that the above-quoted definition describes something that is actually inequitable. This is because fairness often requires unequal outcomes (take sporting events, for an obvious example). But we can’t deny that an increasing number of Americans advocate for equality of outcome, including very influential Americans. Case in point, our Vice President Kamala Harris tweeted a video two days before the 2020 presidential election in which she said, “Equality suggests, ‘Oh everyone should get the same amount.’ . . . It’s about giving people the resources and the support they need so that everyone can be on equal footing. Equitable treatment means we all end up at the same place.” This is arguably more extreme than the United Way definition. If American universities applied Vice President Harris’s logic, they would hire just as many Republicans as Democrats/Progressives so that an equal number would “all end up at the same place.”

Thus far, the content of this blog post hasn’t exactly corresponded with its title. But to that point we now turn. Does Christianity advance DEI, or is it DOA (dead on arrival) when held up to the DEI standard? I will now argue that Christianity promotes DEI, in the truest sense.

We will begin with diversity. In the west, Christianity is increasingly labeled a colonialistic, patriarchal white man’s religion. In reality, this is far from the truth. “When you mock Christians, you’re not mocking who you think you are,” says Yale law professor and leading black public intellectual Stephen Carter.

What is Professor Carter talking about? According to Pew Research Center’s research, roughly 80% of both African Americans and Latino Americans identify as Christian, whereas just 70% of white Americans do. Globally, the stats are more supportive of Professor Carter’s point: worldwide, 26% of Christians reside in Sub-Sharan Africa, 25% in Latin America, and 13% in Asia-Pacific. Less than 35% reside in Western Europe and North America. By 2060, it is expected that close to 80% of all Christians will reside outside of North America and Western Europe.

Now compare Christianity’s racial diversity to that of Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, or the Nones (a new term referring to the religiously unaffiliated). Christianity is exceedingly more racially diverse. It is not even close—it’s a landslide. This is a natural outcome of Christianity’s teaching. Jesus’s final words to his disciples were to “go make disciples of all nations”; in the original language, the last word is “ἔθνος” (from which we derive the term ethnos). As author Rebecca McLaughlin (PhD, Cambridge) notes:

Contrary to popular conceptions, the Christian movement was multicultural and multiethnic from the outset. Jesus scandalized his fellow Jews by tearing through racial and cultural boundaries. For instance, his famous parable of the good Samaritan was shocking to its first hearing because it casts a Samaritan—a member of a hated ethno-religious group—as a moral example. Today’s equivalent would be telling a white Christian who had been raised with unbiblical, racist assumptions a story in which the hero was a black Muslim.

For a more thorough exploration of this subject, read McLaughlin’s book Confronting Christianity and specifically chapter 2, titled “Doesn’t Christianity Crush Diversity?” Needless to say, the answer is no.

Next, we turn to equity. No one can dispute that Jesus’s treatment of women, lepers, tax collectors, and other second-class citizens or social outcasts was revolutionary. As outlined by non-Christian historian Tom Holland (a graduate of both Oxford and Cambridge) in his recent book “Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World,” many of our western, secular human rights can actually be traced to Christianity, even if they are not all commensurate with it. In reviewing Holland’s book, Cambridge Professor James Orr notes, “this remarkable book does convince us that the moral grammar of self-consciously secular progressives would be unintelligible in a world in which Jesus of Nazareth had never existed.”

Now, if you want equity in the sense advocated for by the likes of United Way and Vice President Harris (i.e., equal outcomes), the Bible offers you something, too. Just read Jesus’s Parable of the Vineyard Workers in which a landowner (representative of God) gives equal pay to all his workers, regardless of whether they started work in the morning or simply “worked only one hour.” The workers who had labored all day “began to grumble against the landowner” because he unfairly “made [the other workers] equal to [them].” (Mt. 20:11-12). (This may beg the question, “Doesn’t this lend itself to some form of socialism?” Well, the landowner (God) defended himself on the basis that, “Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money. Or are you envious because I am generous.” (Mt. 20:15). With socialism and other similar forms of government, the government’s money is arguably not its own, nor is a government inherently good, unlike God.)

Finally, we turn to inclusion. Arguably, Christianity is the most inclusive religion, not just in terms of diversity, but in terms of what theologians call soteriology (the means to salvation). Muslims, for example, believe that you must earn your way to salvation by repeatedly practicing the five pillars, but that salvation can never be assured, as Mohammed himself noted. Hindus believe you must eliminate all evil in your life. Buddhists believe you must eliminate all desire in your life. Some refer to wokeism as a religion, with its “idea of original sin (being born white and/or male), rituals (including self-flagellation), symbols, heretics (hello, JK Rowling), and de facto priests and prophets,” like Ibram X. Kendi and Robin DiAngelo. I do not know if that is entirely fair, but there is some truth there and there is arguably a lack of grace in the movement, too. Christianity, meanwhile, says “it is by grace you have been saved, through faith” in Jesus and not by your own efforts or works. (Eph. 2:8-9). Christianity says come as you are. I think to the opening lyrics from Lecrae’s song “Take Me As I Am”:

Christ through faith
I talked to a cat the other day
And he was like;
“Man I really wanna come to Christ
But I gotta clean my life up first, get my sins together”
I told em, I used to think that way too
I thought I had to change myself before I could come to Christ
But Christ changed me
Let me tell you my story, it starts like this

Below is a video featuring a discussion between English New Testament scholar NT Wright and non-Christian British author and political commentator Douglas Murray about forgiveness in the current cultural moment vs. Christian forgiveness. It’s only seven minutes long. Check it out.