Equality over Affinity: The Case against Ethnic Affinity Groups

Reprinted from Presbyterian Polity, written by Kyle Dillon on May 6, 2025.

As the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) approaches its next annual General Assembly this June, the question of ethnic “affinity groups” is sure to be at the center of much debate. Controversy was recently sparked when Dr. Irwyn Ince, coordinator of the PCA’s Mission to North America (MNA), participated in an ethnic-focused ministry event hosted by a PCA church in Oakland, California, for Black History Month. This event was advertised as specifically “for Black worshippers at ResOak and their families,” in contrast to the following day’s event advertised as, “All are welcome.”

In a subsequent public statement, MNA’s Permanent Committee defended Dr. Ince’s actions and clarified, “The organizers of this event did not prohibit or turn away anyone from attending.” Regardless of whether anyone was actually turned away, one may question whether the wording of the event’s advertisement avoided the implication of ethnic exclusion. Nevertheless, MNA’s statement went on to affirm, “Fellowship gatherings or events that center on the shared cultural experiences of ethnic minority brothers and sisters can be a great blessing and serve to enable a strong sense of welcome and belonging.”

It is sometimes argued that ethnic minorities in the church need safe spaces where they can experience mutual support and relief from the difficulties of enduring spaces dominated by the ethnic majority. Such minority spaces are commonly called “affinity groups.” Although the term itself is relatively recent—it goes back to 1960s-era 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?

First, we need to clarify what the issue is and is not. We are not here dealing with the question of “reverse segregation.” MNA’s statement explicitly repudiates ethnic segregation and exclusion, and we should take them at their word. Overtly segregating on the basis of ethnicity would certainly be a more serious problem than merely centering one ethnicity over another, but 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 necessarily hold ethnic minorities and majorities 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 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 shows no favoritism (Rom. 2:11), and James’s warnings against partiality between rich and poor (Jas. 2:1–7) applies 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?

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?

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 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 is sufficient to justify the practice of ethnic affinity groups today. After all, the Jerusalem church did not establish a ministry centered on 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.

Yet another objection would be that a refusal to support ethnic affinity groups demonstrates a lack of empathy for ethnic minorities in the church. Providing safe spaces in the church for minorities, it is claimed, 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, but simply because most societies naturally tend toward ethnic homogeneity over time (mass transportation and immigration make us the exception today). Now it certainly would be sinful for churches to exclude or segregate on the basis of ethnicity, but this does not mean that any church has a duty to institutionalize ethnic diversity among its members.

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. But it is worth bearing in mind that every local church will inevitably have certain cultural norms set by its majority (whatever their ethnicity may be), and this is not sinful in itself. The needs and sensibilities of the minority ought 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), not to draw fixed lines between each other.

It’s a natural human tendency to associate with others on the basis of shared affinities. Those affinities could be anything: sports teams, childhood education methods, political parties, shared hobbies or interests. However, it’s not necessary to formalize such differences in the church. It may be legitimate for a church to form ministries on the basis of shared natural physiological realities (such as sex or age), practical necessity (such as native language; see WCF 1.8), or seasons of life (such as divorce care, singles ministry, addiction recovery), because none of these requires setting permanent divisions between church members, except those that God has naturally ordained. But let us not rebuild walls that Christ came to tear down.

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.