Equality Over Affinity

A Case for Ethnic Impartiality in the Church

Evangelicals in America continue to find themselves divided over how best to seek racial and ethnic unity in the church. In recent years, some congregations have begun hosting ministries and events that center certain ethnicities over others. Although these ministries do not necessarily exclude other ethnicities from attendance, their goal is to create spaces where minorities can be the dominant voice.

Proponents argue that such ministries in the church are sometimes necessary, so that minorities can experience mutual support and relief from the difficulties of enduring spaces dominated by the ethnic majority. These minority spaces are commonly called “affinity groups.”

Although the term itself is relatively recent—it goes back to 1960s anti-Vietnam War organizations like Black Mask and secular corporations like Xerox—proponents argue that the concept of affinity groups is a valid application of biblical teaching. But is that really the case?

What’s the Question?

First, we need to clarify what the issue is and is not. We are not here dealing with the question of “reverse segregation.” Many ethnic affinity ministries only seek to center minorities in some limited or temporary way, rather than excluding other ethnicities altogether. Further, congregations with affinity ministries often seek to encourage interaction across ethnic and racial lines in their church life more generally. So although overtly segregating on the basis of ethnicity would certainly be a more serious problem than merely centering one ethnicity over another, that’s a separate matter.

Nor are we here dealing with the question of ethnic-focused missions, which I take to be biblically justified. Paul was specifically called to evangelize the Gentiles, just as Peter was called to evangelize the Jews (Gal. 2:7). The Great Commission likewise commands us to make disciples of “all nations” (panta ta ethnê, Matt. 28:19), and surely this implies reaching the nations as nations, with appropriate recognition of their ethnic particularity. A missionary focus on under-reached ethnic groups is fully consistent with ethnic equality within the church.

On the other hand, the issue of affinity groups touches on rules that govern the internal life of the local church. The question we are dealing with here is, may such rules extend certain rights and privileges to some ethnic groups but not to others? My answer is no. Because ethnic affinity groups hold different ethnicities to unequal standards, they should have no place in the church.

Philosophy professor Andre Archie writes concerning affinity groups:

These groups exist to foster divisiveness, mainly along the lines of race, gender, and sexuality. The race- or ethnic-based affinity groups for African Americans, Native Americans, [and] Hispanic Americans are particularly problematic because of the historical backdrop of marginalization that competes, psychologically, with the factual progress each of these groups has realized over the past half century in terms of material well-being and perceived status. Racial and ethnic affinity groups, with the endorsement of institutional administration, foster a sense of separateness and, ultimately, grievance on the part of those inside the group toward those outside the group, and resentment toward those in the group from those outside of it who don’t share the identity of the group in question. (85)

One caveat here: when Dr. Archie says that these groups “exist to foster divisiveness,” I would take this as a judgment about effects, not motives. Many advocates of affinity groups may honestly desire to promote ethnic unity and compassion in the church. However, despite their sincere intentions, I believe that they will have the opposite effect. Dr. Alexander Jun similarly highlights the problem of “unintentional” racism in Heal Us, Emmanuel (White Blackbird Books,

2016). He writes, “I wonder what it will take to move away from intent and begin to focus on impact” (25). Although Dr. Jun’s argument deals specifically with treatment of ethnic minorities, I believe that this principle is relevant for the treatment of all ethnicities. So my focus here is on the impact of ethnic affinity groups rather than the intent of its proponents.

Against Ethnic Partiality

One of the most compelling arguments against ethnic affinity groups in the church is a consideration of our end goal. If we are aiming for justice, then what would ethnic relations look like in a perfectly just church? If the goal is equal treatment for all, then how do we reach that goal? Can it be achieved by unequal treatment in the present? If so, how? A just rule is one that is aimed at a just goal, achieved through just and effective means, and at a reasonable cost relative to the alternatives. I do not see how ethnic affinity groups meet these criteria.

Instead, I believe that churches should strive to practice ethnic impartiality. Now this does not mean that Christians should simply ignore race, racism, ethnicity, and ethnic prejudice (and I recognize that race and ethnicity are distinct but overlapping categories). Rather, it means that all races and ethnicities should be treated equally in the church and held to the same standard.

This approach to ethnic relations finds support in both the Old and New Testaments. The Pentateuch commanded that, with respect to the Passover and the sacrificial system, there should be “one law” for both the Israelite and the sojourner (Ex. 12:49; Num. 15:15–16).

Although ancient Israel did discriminate between natives and foreigners in its civil laws, all were treated equally when it came to corporate worship. The law similarly condemned showing partiality between great and small (Deut. 1:17) and between rich and poor (Lev. 19:15).

The New Testament is equally clear in its teaching on ethnic impartiality. God himself is said to show no favoritism (Rom. 2:11), and James’s warnings against partiality between rich and poor (Jas. 2:1–7) would apply equally to ethnicities.

Perhaps most relevant is the New Testament teaching on relations between Jews and Gentiles in the early church. Paul declares that Christ “has made us both [Jews and Gentiles] one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of

hostility” (Eph. 2:14). So in Christ “there is neither Jew nor Greek” (Gal. 3:28). Given Paul’s teaching, is it remotely conceivable that there could have been separate Jewish or Gentile affinity groups in the early church? Although believers may experience a natural and legitimate sense of affinity with others of the same culture or ethnicity, Scripture gives no warrant for reinforcing ethnic differences in the formal practices of the church.

Answering Objections

Now several objections might be raised in defense of affinity groups. Some might argue that such ministries are a valid extension of the Bible’s teaching on gender-based ministry. For example, Titus 2:3–5 commands older women in the church to teach younger women. On this reasoning, ethnic affinity groups are said to be as legitimate as churches hosting a men’s retreat or a women’s brunch. Surely if gender-based ministries can promote the church’s flourishing while avoiding divisiveness, then ethnic-based ministries can as well?

The problem with this comparison is that, whereas gender-based ministries are permissible for both genders, ethnic affinity ministries are generally not viewed as permissible for all ethnicities.

Minorities may have them, but not the (white) majority. Further, even in contexts where whites are a minority, few would be willing to extend them such a right. For example, what if a South African church were to host a ministry event centered on the shared cultural experiences of the Boer ethnic minority? Or what about churches in the United States in twenty years from now, when non-Hispanic whites are projected to become an ethnic minority?

Now one might respond that such cases fail to take into account the historical oppression committed by whites against non-whites. But this qualification implies (whether intended or not) that affinity groups are not just about centering ethnic minorities, but de-centering historically oppressive ethnicities. Framed in these terms, Dr. Archie’s concerns about grievance and resentment become more evident. In effect, whites are held to a different standard because of their past injustice. Even apart from the questionable assumption that historical guilt can be

imputed on the basis of race, one may still ask, what conditions would whites need to fulfill so that the past is no longer held against them? And what would be the biblical warrant for setting such conditions?

Another potential objection comes from Acts 6:1–7, which recounts the problem of Greek-speaking Hellenistic widows being neglected in the daily food distribution in the early church in Jerusalem. In response to this problem, the disciples appointed seven deacons to ensure just distribution of food for the Hebrew and Hellenistic widows. Interestingly, all of the deacons had Greek names, indicating that they were likely chosen specifically because they were Hellenists. So wouldn’t this lend support to the idea of ethnic-focused ministries?

Now it should be noted that the problem addressed in this story may have been due simply to a language barrier. We do not know whether ethnic prejudice was a factor. Either way, although ethnic consciousness was admittedly part of the solution, I don’t believe this justifies the practice of ethnic affinity groups today. After all, the Jerusalem church was not just responding to subjectively felt needs, nor did it establish a ministry centering the shared cultural experiences of Hellenistic widows. Rather, they were dealing with a specific, measurable problem of unequal treatment, and their goal was to restore equal treatment.

In their book Critical Dilemma (2023, Harvest House), Neil Shenvi and Pat Sawyer raise certain potential exceptions to the principle of strict color-blindness (220–228). One such exception is the hypothetical scenario of a US general stationed in Germany in 1945, just after the liberation of the concentration camps. Would these generals be guilty of ethnic partiality if they granted Jews but not non-Jews special permission to ride on US convoys? The authors argue no, and I

would agree. Ethnic consciousness is certainly involved here; however, it is limited to dealing with a specific problem, through temporary means, and for the purpose of restoring equal treatment. And these are precisely the principles to be derived from Acts 6. Even in exceptional cases where ethnicity must be taken into consideration to deal with ethnic injustice, equal treatment should still be our default and our goal.

This should make it clear that biblical impartiality, while not an absolute end in itself (cf. Mark 2:27), is a necessary means for achieving biblical justice. It therefore has the force of a divine command, and such commands cannot be suspended merely for the sake of subjective feelings. One of the central problems with ethnic affinity groups today is that, since they are based largely on the subjectively felt needs of individuals, they provide no objective criteria for achieving their eventual expiration and restoring equal treatment. So although advocates of affinity groups may or may not formally be essentialists (treating race and ethnicity as immutable identity traits), their practices still have the effect of indefinitely reinforcing racial and ethnic partiality in the church.

This point also helps answer the objection that a refusal to support ethnic affinity groups demonstrates a lack of empathy for ethnic minorities in the church. Some might claim that providing safe spaces in the church for minorities is simply putting into practice the command of Romans 12:15 to “rejoice with those who rejoice” and “weep with those who weep.” However, there are limits to proper and biblical empathy, which must always be tethered to truth and justice. For example, the Jewish chief priests “rejoiced” (chairô) when Judas agreed to betray

Jesus (Mark 14:11), and the kings of the earth will “weep” (klaiô) at the fall of Babylon (Rev. 18:9). Does Romans 12:15 apply in these cases? Of course not.

Others might appeal to the eschatological vision of an ethnically diverse church in Revelation 7:9–12 and other passages. If the glorified church in heaven consists of saints called from every tongue, tribe, and nation, should we not seek to foster that kind of diversity in our churches now? The problem with this sort of argument is that it rests on the logical fallacy of division: just because something is true of the whole does not mean that it is true of all the parts. Now it is true that the church triumphant will be a beautiful tapestry of diverse ethnicities and cultures, but it does not follow that every local church can or must be such as well. In fact, throughout history, most local churches have been monoethnic, not necessarily due to any intentional discrimination or segregation (which would indeed be sinful), but simply because most societies naturally tend toward ethnic homogeneity over time (mass transportation and immigration make us the exception today). Now it is not necessarily wrong for local churches to seek greater ethnic diversity—especially in ethnically diverse ministry contexts—but such a goal must not conflict with the biblical commands on ethnic impartiality.

Lastly, what about the objection that ethnic minorities are already treated unequally in the church, simply by virtue of being in the minority? As the argument goes, they are subjected to the majority’s cultural norms and can frequently experience various forms of hostility, even if only subtly or unintentionally. Now here we need to acknowledge the real difficulties that minorities may experience when their cultural background differs from the dominant culture in their church.

But it is worth bearing in mind that every local church will inevitably have certain cultural norms informally set by its majority (whatever their ethnicity may be), and this is not sinful in itself. The needs and sensibilities of the minority ought always to be taken into account, but in such cases it is the mutual duty of the minority and majority to learn to bear with one another in love (Eph. 4:2). In doing so, we should seek to relativize our ethnic differences rather than reinforce them.

Conclusion

It’s a natural human tendency to associate with others on the basis of shared affinities. Those affinities could be anything from sports teams, to childhood education methods, to political parties. However, formalizing such differences in the church would undermine the goal of living out our unity in Christ. Now it may be legitimate for a church to form ministries on the basis of shared natural biological traits (such as gender or age), or practical necessity (such as native language), or seasons of life (such as divorce care), because none of these requires reinforcing boundaries between church members, except those that God has naturally ordained. But ministries that reinforce differences on the basis of socially constructed identities do more harm than good. Let us not rebuild walls that Christ came to tear down.

I’d like to conclude with an appeal to those who are concerned that the debate over affinity groups is causing more division than the practice itself. From the perspective of us critics, a biblical principle of justice is at stake, and therefore we believe it would be wrong for us to stay silent. If our reasoning on this issue is somehow mistaken, then we would ask to be shown exactly how we’ve gone wrong. But for the sake of the health and unity of the church, we should let the debate happen. If done in a spirit of Christian love and commitment to Scripture, the truth will shine all the more brightly because of it.

--

Kyle Dillon (MDiv, Covenant Theological Seminary) is a PCA Teaching Elder serving as Assistant Pastor of Theological Instruction at Riveroaks Reformed Presbyterian Church in Germantown, TN. He blogs occasionally at The Gospel Coalition and on his personal blog, Allkirk Network.

Note: This article is a revised and expanded version of a previously published article by the author on the website, PCA Polity.