Unity, Equality, and Belonging, Not Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

Introduction

?In 2022, President Biden signed into law the CHIPS and Science Act. Designed to enhance the U.S. semiconductor industry, the law includes over $50 billion earmarked to establish a fund to encourage private investment. Sounds reasonable, but there is a catch. All applicants must meet rigid Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) requirements, including “developing an equity strategy” that specifically describes “efforts to promote diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility.” While opponents complain such requirements “discourage foreign investment” and potentially turn away more qualified contractor candidates, the Biden administration insists minority groups are being given opportunities that would not otherwise be available to them.

?The CHIPS and Science Act is just one of dozens of examples of how DEI is negatively portrayed. Corporations, universities, and governments have been roundly criticized for their blatant ideological and political bias regarding the definition, development, and implementation of DEI programs and initiatives. While at the same time DEI is lauded for its attempt to shine light on racial and ethnic disparities in organizations and institutions. Individually, the three values—diversity, equity, and inclusion—are not by themselves without merit, but examined collectively they form a morally neutral and spiritually vacuous framework, steeped in liberal-leaning theories.

We contend DEI fails to reflect or represent a basic understanding of a moral and just society; instead, it promotes a view of society that deliberately supports division over diversity, inequity over equity, and omission over inclusion. Instead of DEI, we advocate UEB (i.e., Unity, Equality, and Belonging).

?Ideological Roots of DEI

?Early 20th century philosophers of the Frankfurt School argued that rational theory failed to address the rise in European political division following WWI, and thus incapable of seeking and achieving radical cultural change. To combat this gap, they argued that cultural freedom and ideological enlightenment were only possible when the leading theories of societal structure and authority were challenged as repressive and controlling; hence, giving rise to Critical Theory (CT).

?By the 1990s, CT evolved to Critical Race Theory (CRT), which argued that all racism is structural or systemic. Led by scholars and activists like Bell, Davis, DiAngelo, and Kendi, CRT proponents argued racist sectionalism must be deconstructed from white class bias. Only the revolutionary overhaul of institutions like education, communication, law and justice, and government would ultimately destroy the hierarchy of racial and ethnic discrimination and oppression.

?Finally, by the 2010s, what became known as wokeism emerged. Flying the banner of “social justice,” wokeism trumpeted the battle cry that all racial and ethnic minorities must remain vigilant, taking care to not only recognize prejudice and discriminatory practices, but to fight against them. Many woke critics, like theologian Thaddeus Williams argued that instead of uniting people, woke justice “judge(ed) people through a group lens,” instead of recognizing the spiritual uniqueness of each person.

?Christian Influence of Unity, Equality, and Belonging (UEB)

?We believe that DEI’s inadequacy gives rise to biblically inspired alternative called Unity, Equality, and Belonging (UEB). In his recent book, Biblical Critical Theory (2023), Christoper Watkin ?describes a spiritually vibrant examination of how God’s character is reflected through people, their relationship with others, and the impact it has on social and cultural issues. Watkin demonstrates the Bible’s philosophical and epistemological relevance and utility “…to inform and shape Christian social and cultural theory,” such as through the lens of UEB.

?He asserts the biblical message is universally applicable, not only for revealing the importance of cultural problems, but for providing possible solutions, too. As St. Augustine “did not merely explain the Bible to Roman culture…” Watkin maintains neither should “Christians explain the Bible to current culture.” Instead, Christians should “explain…culture through the Bible.” Throughout the book, Watkin presents the Bible’s moral richness and ethical appeal, providing a hermeneutical lens to analyze cultural and social problems.

?The Apostle Paul identifies the diversity of people, ideas, and gifts working in the Church, recognizing their distinctive value of character and individual contribution to something greater than themselves (I Cor. 12:7-11). Genuine diversity of thought and action reflects the unique contribution of the individual self. Yet, self, left unchecked or unguarded, will deteriorate into the “atomization of individual at the expense of the welfare of the community.” What effect does this atomization have upon the utility of DEI diversity? What is the moral outcome diversity is seeking to achieve? Unfortunately, DEI has no satisfactory answers.

?Unity is affirmed throughout the Bible (Ephesians 4:3), recognizing human relationships are to be one in moral purpose. Watkin validates the presence of unity, or what he calls “societal integration,” through the doctrine of the Trinity (John 1:1-5). He contends Christian trinitarianism reflects an integration of the concentric relationship among God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit (Genesis 1:1-3). There is one God (e.g., unity), but three persons (e.g., biblical diversity).

?Trinitarian unity reflects a binding relationship between God and his people. Setting aside personal interests, desires, and wants unity elevates the needs of all people, not just those of racial or ethnic identities. Humility of service is bound to the wellbeing of others, or as Watkin puts it, “drawing from the many to support the one.” Watkin contends the spirit of unity is not limited by cultural context; instead, unity is transcultural, connecting diverse elements of society into a meaningful and moral whole (Acts 2:5-11).

?DEI equity is ideologically and politically driven, embracing results over opportunity, and demanding distinctions instead of seeking harmony. It rejects objective truth claims regarding what is right, fair, and just. Rather, it bases what is acceptable and real on individuals’ lived experiences. However, for Watkin equality embodies the essence of equity. Forged in the reality of sin and the cross, equality has a much deeper and richer meaning.

?All humans are equal before God because people are created in His image (Ge. 1:27). Sin is unavoidable. No one is exempt from its effects, regardless of identity or standing (Eph. 6:5-9). Only when people recognize the unmitigated truth that “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God…” (Romans 3:23) will people understand that “social differences and hierarchies are moot.”

?Watkin cautions this does not mean differences between people and groups don’t exist; they do exist, and their consequences are often disagreeable, discriminatory, and painful. But when people fuel these differences, laying blame on others, and using the levers of economic, political, and governmental power to punish others, they miss the spiritual reality of the cross (Jn. 19:28-30). It is the cross itself, its very presence and purpose, “that rights all wrongs, rendering redemption to all.”

?Finally, for proponents, inclusion is the heart of DEI. It embraces the essence of all that diversity and equity hope to embody: a lively belief that all people, especially racial and ethnic minorities, are part of the cultural whole. To this end, DEI programs and initiatives are launched and embedded in the bureaucracy of public and private institutions. But people are not looking for more programs or bureaucracy; instead, they seek deeper and more enduring relationships, relationships that positively affect their heart, spirit, and intellect (Rom. 8:28).

?Belonging acknowledges the moral worth of each person and group. Belonging is morally grounded, purposefully guided, and reflective of a spiritual connection to live and work in harmony with others (Mr. 9:41). To demonstrate, Watkin invokes the biblical doctrine of eschatology (Matt. 24: 27-39), which describes the culminating series of events in human history. For him, the end times are the manifestation of the eternal desire for belonging. Instead of remaining “possessed” by their individuality, Watkin believes Christians will be fully “disposed” to socially embrace eternal goodness (Rev. 7:9-12), while being forever joined in heart, mind, and soul (John 8:35).

?The social and symbolic significance of this celestial event is the desire for all people, whether Christian or non-Christian, to belong in communities, both large and small, seeking out and engaging each other with united moral purpose. This desire to belong is engraved on all our hearts. ?With courageous character, people can break the cycle of exclusivity of identity and engender a spirit of belonging.

?Conclusion

?DEI dissolves unity between individuals and groups, using a structural power model that marks them as oppressed and oppressors. Politics and policy alone will not solve the problem of racial or ethnic division, or any division for that matter. Only a changed heart and renewed mind can do that. UEB reflects the need for orienting all people around common principles and virtues, inhabiting a space responsive to moral worth and individual dignity, while uniting around a mutual acceptance of differences.

Watkin’s socio-biblical model recognizes people’s spiritual immutability through their Creator’s covenantal relationship. People should not think any less of those different than themselves, nor think any more of those who act, and look like them. Differences between people should not be threatening, or their similarities elitist. People should not strive for a utopia, but for community of heart and purpose.