Diversity Equity and Inclusion (D E I) a Biblical principle

Diversity Equity and Inclusion (D E I) a Biblical principle

This op-ed is not written from a standpoint of someone claiming to be an expert on policy or politics but from a perspective of a seasoned minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ who is alarmed by the seeming attempts of some to disenfranchise those whom the Bible clearly says we need to befriend as servants of God. When Jesus walked this earth and traversed among men, He often found Himself at odds with the religious and political elites of the day for His willingness to engage with the common man and His refusal to condemn even those whom the society had maligned. The title ‘friend of publicans and sinners’ applied to Jesus in Matthew 11:19 and Luke 7:34 was not a sociable endearing but a derogatory term used to describe that association He had with those who were considered outcasts by the religious establishment. This included, the tax collectors, prostitutes, wine bibbers and other people deemed to be morally corrupt. Yet Jesus persisted in His friendship and empathy towards this group even though it repeatedly drew the anger of His opponents. In response Jesus constantly and consistently reminded those in His hearing, that He did not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance. Those that are well, have no need of a physician, but rather it’s those that are sick. However, the term ‘friend’ in this context doesn't imply a relationship of approval or endorsement of their actions but rather a demonstration of Jesus' compassion and willingness to interact with those who needed His grace. If it does nothing else, this character trait of Jesus should at least compel those of us called by His name to stand where He stood in defence of the things He stood for. It is in our honest Christlike interactions with sinners that we often find a way of offering them a path to repentance and salvation. 

Message Portion: Galatians 2. ⁸ (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) ⁹ And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. ¹⁰ Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.

Diversity Equity and Inclusion (D E I) a Biblical principle

Theme: Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Matthew 25:40

A report by Stacy Liberatore for Dailymail.com stated that NASA staff were calling on Elon Musk to 'clean house'. The report added that the agency blew millions of taxpayer money on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs. The article said: ‘Spending reports from 2020 to 2024 showed NASA- National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the U.S. government agency that is responsible for science and technology related to air and space, awarded grants to universities and consulting firms to support 'environmental justice' and initiatives that 'embrace greater diversity and inclusive practices.'

Before proceeding further, permit me to pause and clarify the term ‘Environmental Justice’ emphasised in the reporting. I will do so mainly by highlighting some of the definitions and characteristics of the term found on the internet as it relates to daily use of the term. Environmental justice is a social movement addressing inequitable distribution of environmental burdens and benefits, particularly impacting marginalized and impoverished communities. It aims to ensure that everyone has equal access to a healthy environment and protection from environmental and health hazards. It also seeks to ensure that no group bears a disproportionate burden of negative environmental impacts. For example, environmental justice seeks to ensure that toxic waste is not dumped in a remote area away from big development but an area which is in the heart of some remote tribe or group who doesn’t have a voice in the country’s parliament. It also seeks to safeguard communities by ensuring that they are not disproportionately exposed to environmental hazards like pollution or the impacts of resource extraction. In a London context, environmental justice deals with ensuring equitable access to parks, green spaces, and other natural areas, particularly in areas with high levels of poverty or pollution. 

The report went on quoting sources highlighting that a company LMI consulting received over $2 million in 2023 for NASA to 'embark on a venture to incorporate and deeply engrain diversity, inclusion, equity and accessibility in the culture and business.' Another $3 million went to Booze Allen Hamilton in March to support NASA's 'office of diversity and equal opportunity DEI data analytic specialty,' and $ 7 million was announced last month for six 'minority-serving institutions.'

What the report also made clear was that NASA receives, on average, about 0.4 percent of what the US government spends each year, but is still given a budget of at least $20 billion, and while the space agency has dished out millions for DEI, its data showed it generated more than $75.6 billion in economic output across all 50 states and Washington, D.C., in fiscal year 2023.

Rudy Ridolfi, former Space System Commander in the US military, is reported to have told DailyMail.com that '[the DEI funding] is a small amount relative to [NASA's]research budget,' but with' the Artemis Program overruns, NASA should be conserving every dollar of their budget.'

This is where I take my departure from the report but not without noticing, that overall, the money spent on DEI programs was significant yet small when compared to the money spent on ‘other things’, but for some it was still too much.  For them, spending money to help people who may be disenfranchised isn’t a worthwhile use of resources.  And so even though most DEI programs mainly aim to correct prevailing imbalances left back by previous colonial mindsets, DEI opponents still oppose their enactment.

But this narrative ought not to be surprising given that the current thinking which dominates our world and world systems is that elites should run everything and ordinary people should just know their place and take what is handed to them. This idea of how things should run, coined elsewhere as ‘The Davos man’ is one deeply embedded in our notions of western civilization.

In the western world, the ruling/controlling class of elites is made up almost entirely of self-appointed macho male figures with large amounts of wealth/capital, especially billionaires and multi-millionaires. It also boasts of Forbes magazine rated company CEOs and other well connected/ fraternity affiliated western influencers. Rather Interestingly, the majority of these individuals just happen to be from a fair skin blue-eyed class. This is, in spite of the fact that mankind’s greatest resources are extracted from among large swatches of people of non-European descent whose interest and well-being have never been and probably will never be the primary or secondary goal of western civilization.

But on the subject of DEI, it is funny how many Christian believers have joined a secular world in scorning a principle such as DEI which has its genesis as one of the core principles of scripture. How and when did it become improper to say to the would-be masters of our universe: As we go forward, let us not just have concern for one sect of humanity, but rather, let us initiate and develop programs especially those geared towards helping the less fortunate that allow everyone to take part?

Interestingly this idea, which is today rejected by some believers in North America is the same idea I find embedded in scripture. It is the important idea of deliberately and purposefully looking out for ways to meet, protect and minister to the needs of the neglected and unrepresented in society. In the Bible we find these sentiments in the words/ dialogue between Paul and the governing apostles. In Galatians chapter 2: 10, as Paul recounts, after he was extended the right hand of fellowship by the governing apostles as he was about to leave their request and desire was: ¹⁰ Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.

The caution from the leaders to Paul was that as he undertook his ministry, he should remember the poor. It is believed that in this case, the poor being referenced were probably the poor Jewish saints in Jerusalem, whom Paul should encourage his Gentile audience to consider. In fact, scripture confirms that Paul certainly did remember the poor in Jerusalem. In fact, Paul invested a lot of effort towards gathering a contribution among the Gentile churches for the sake of the saints in Jerusalem.

If this is the thrust of scripture, how can we in all good conscience turn a blind eye or turn our backs on the creating, development and implementation of DEI programs that help people deal with the challenges of life they are facing, even when that assistance is geared towards a carefully analysed and selected group?

Unfortunately, there are those whose primary understanding of DEI programs is all about transgenderism and the like, but is it really? And while there may be some legitimate concerns to address in this area, time and space at present does not permit me to fully ventilate all the aspects of any particular program. What I propose to do however, notwithstanding the concerns about excesses, is to deal with the principle of DEI as found in scripture. In doing so, I want to begin by looking as the whole question of DEI as it was incorporated as a western concept in our modern era.   

According to Wikipedia: ‘Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) are organizational frameworks which seek to promote the fair treatment and full participation of all people, particularly groups who have historically been underrepresented or subject to discrimination on the basis of identity or disability’ 

It also rightly links the notions diversity, equity, and inclusion with concepts of fairness and justice. And while as Christians we ought to cautiously approach secular definitions based on hidden nuances of meaning, the broader concept remains true. The Bible has an inherent interest in issues of justice and fairness.  

                                                       Defining the terms in modern times

Diversity refers to the ‘presence’ of variety within the organizational workforce, such as in identity and identity politics. It includes gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, age, culture, class, religion, or opinion. 

Equity refers to concepts of fairness and justice, such as fair compensation and substantive equality. More specifically, equity usually also includes a focus on societal disparities and allocating resources and ‘decision making authority to groups that have historically been disadvantaged’, and taking ‘into consideration a person's unique circumstances, adjusting treatment accordingly so that the end result is equal.’  

Inclusion refers to creating an organizational culture that creates an experience where ‘all employees feel their voices will be heard’ and a sense of belonging and integration.

Thus, DEI as most often used in today’s language is used to describe certain training efforts, such as diversity training in the corporate field. However, it also finds expression and implementation within academia, schools, and other institutions. History suggest that coming in into the 2020s, DEI efforts and policies have generated criticism, primarily because of its effects on free speech and academic freedom. It has also, faced opposition on political or philosophical grounds where especially in the United States of America, the term ‘DEI’ hire, has gained popularity as an ethnic slur, hurled at minorities.

                                History of DEI in the United States (Wikipedia)

DEI policy emerged from Affirmative Action in the United States. The legal term "affirmative action" was first used in "Executive Order No. 10925", signed by President John F. Kennedy on 6 March 1961, which included a provision that government contractors "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated [fairly] during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin". It was used to promote actions that achieve non-discrimination. In September 1965, President Lyndon Johnson issued Executive Order 11246 which required government employers to "hire without regard to race, religion and national origin" and "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin." The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Neither executive order nor The Civil Rights Act authorized group preferences. The Senate floor manager of the bill, Senator Hubert Humphrey, declared that the bill “would prohibit preferential treatment for any particular group” adding “I will eat my hat if this leads to racial quotas.” However affirmative action in practice would eventually become synonymous with preferences, goals and quotas as upheld or struck down by Supreme Court decisions even though no law had been passed explicitly permitting discrimination in favor of disadvantaged groups. Some state laws explicitly banned racial preferences, and in response some laws have failed attempting to explicitly legalise race preferences.

Affirmative action is intended to alleviate under-representation and to promote the opportunities of defined minority groups within a society to give them equal access similar to that of the majority population. The philosophical basis of the policy has various rationales, including but not limited to compensation for past discrimination, correction of current discrimination, and the diversification of society. It is often implemented in governmental and educational settings to ensure that designated groups within a society can participate in all promotional, educational, and training opportunities.

The stated justification for affirmative action by its proponents is to help compensate for past discrimination, persecution or exploitation by the ruling class of a culture, and to address existing discrimination. More recently concepts have moved beyond discrimination to include diversity, equity and inclusion as motives for preferring historically underrepresented groups. In the famous Bakke decision of 1978, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, diversity now became a factor in constitutional law. The Supreme Court ruled quotas were illegal but it was allowable to consider race as a plus factor when trying to foster "diversity" in their classes.

There is a very valid reason why I inserted this long extract taken from Wikipedia on the History of DEI in the United States stretching back 60 years or more. It is intended to show, that even prior to the 2020’s where the concept received intense pushback, there already existed a clear understanding of the need to address issues of fairness and justice in society. During the period I highlighted, the presence and influence of civil rights activist the likes of the late, Rev Dr. Martin Luther King Junior, American society was not allowed to forget its moral responsibility in accordance with scripture. This is not to say that the struggle was easy, or that back then, everyone agreed with Dr King and his fellow advocates. Nonetheless, the influence of Dr. king and others had a profound effect upon American society and the stirring of the public’s conscience towards the need for social justice. The fact that many of the issues raised during the King era still have not been addressed underscores the need for continued reform. Regrettably however, because genderism, rightly or wrongly, has become part of the DEI debate, some consider the whole concept of Diversity, Equity and inclusion or DEI, including issues of social justice to be now null and void.

Suggestion that the import of other issues into the discussion of fairness and justice nullifies the entire issue seems rather high--handed and distressing. I am of the opinion that given the fact that the crucial issues of justice and fairness DEI raises, are in line with scripture and we need to properly address them, rather than dismiss them altogether. I think that it would be remiss of us to do otherwise. We need therefore to search the scriptures to find out whether or not these things are so, and what our response should be. It’s neither mature nor christian when making up our minds, to be influenced purely by rhetoric much of which may be poisoned. In taking the biblical stance, of resorting to the Word of God, we bear a likeness to our biblical counterparts the Bereans. The well-loved phrase ‘searched the Scriptures to see whether or not these things were so’ refers to the Bereans, a group of Jewish people in Berea, who were commended in the Bible for their diligent study of the Scriptures in order to verify the teachings of Paul and Silas. This is highlighted in Acts 17:11, which describes them as ‘more noble than those in Thessalonica’ because they received the word with eagerness and examined the Scriptures daily to confirm the truth and accuracy of Pauls’ teaching. The Thessalonians on the other hand, allowed their feelings to be manipulated by the pomposity of those ‘which believed not’. As a result, they were moved with envy, and banded together with ‘lewd fellows of the baser sort’, and gathered a company, and set all the city on an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason, Paul’s host, demanding to know Paul’s whereabouts. When they didn’t find Paul, they dragged Jason and some other brethren unto the rulers of the city, demanding that they be charged with colluding with Paul and company in turning the world upside down with their teaching. This despicable act of the Thessalonian believers joining the unchurched in emotional anarchy rather than adhering to biblical principles indicates a colossal failure on their part; a failure we should not repeat.   

Thus, in essence, the Bereans who were commended for their thoughtful approach to religious teaching, by demonstrating a proactive and critical engagement with the scriptures to discern the truth, set a clear example which we, the professed children of God, need to follow. I believe that in doing so regarding this matter, we will find that the concepts of; diversity, equity and inclusion, not only predate the modern era but are part of Gods grand design for the universe and therefore are deeply imbedded in scripture. This is not to say however, that all the nuances of the modern concepts inevitably pass the test. Hence the reason we always need to study and research lest we fulfill the proverb of throwing out the baby with the bath water.

                            Jesus’s stance on Diversity Equity and Inclusion  

Jesus spent a long time going against and confronting the traditions of the leaders of His day which made light of the true teaching of scripture. In the parable of the Good Samaritan: Luke 10:25–37 Jesus emphasizes that we should love everyone, including our enemies. Jesus also demonstrated how a despised Samaritan was more humane and praise worthy than a status-oriented priest or Levite. In the parable, both priestly figures, representing official status in ancient Jewish custom and fulfilling functioning roles in the temple, ignored the man who was in desperate need. Thus, both proved unsuitable in meeting the basis needs of humanity. The parable teaches us that God's love extends beyond legal status or country of origin.

As followers of Jesus, God has not given us the responsibility to decide whether or not anyone we encounter is worthy of His love and grace.  All human beings are created in the image and likeness of God (Gen.1:27). As a result, we are commanded to treat all human life with respect and kindness. John was at pains to point out that, if we say we love God yet hate our fellow man who is made in God’s image and likeness, that we are hypocrites and liars: 1 John 4:19-21: ¹⁹ We love him, because he first loved us. ²⁰ If a man says, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? ²¹ And this commandment have we from him, that he who loveth God love his brother also.

Matthew 5:44 King James Version ⁴⁴ But I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you. Line after line of the beatitudes as exemplified by the statements we just read, is replete with references relating to how to treat those with whom we may have the most egregious differences. How then in the face of such scriptural examples can the biblical concepts of diversity, equity and inclusion become such a hated and politically toxic subject? As many become engaged in the rhetoric and enraged to the point where like the Crusades of old, we move to forcibly Christianise the world and rid it of God’s enemies, we must remember that Jesus warns us: ‘except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven’. (Matthew 5:20)

The unbalanced approaches by some Christians on issues of social justice begs the following question: How do we, who fight so hard for the right to life, by rightly protesting against abortion, still have such callous disregard for the wellbeing of the very people we fought to preserve when they don’t conform to our narrative?

The whole purpose of DEI is to spare anyone, no matter what their circumstances are, from being left behind in humanity’s climb to a better life and the creation of a better world. But alas in our modern system, as alluded to earlier, a system in which elites rule the world and might is right, we re-enrich the rich after they have squandered their riches. We give them bail-outs and hand-outs, sorry I meant concessions and tax cuts, loan forgiveness and debt write off and cancellations. We even go further and restore the wealthy to their preferred places. We give them even greater wealth privileges and opportunities in the hope that like Cain, Abel’s brother, in the process of time, when they make money, as they will, that out of the kindness of their hearts, they will allow a few trickles to come down to ordinary men beneath. It may be that we keep entertaining such false optimisms, because we have forgotten from the experience of the beggar Lazarus, whose life was lived beneath the rich man’s table, that scarcely a crumb falls from the table to the poor.

Sadly, our caring for the rich comes at the expense of the poor who we insist must keep afloat and be ever fiscally prudent in spite of his inadequate finances and lack of opportunity. Therefore, we proudly and profoundly continue to champion a system which, while it fully supports elites and big business, takes little or no steps to support or put in place adequate supports for the ordinary people. A system which continually prioritises the interests of the wealthy above societal needs. A system in which a few chosen individuals, with global ambitions, largely seen as stateless, because their wealth and interests extend across national borders, do not want to be hemmed in by social justice issues. Consequently, to those in support of a system pacifying elites, undertaking such things as DEI programs are counterproductive to society’s wellbeing and reinforces the need to shut them down.  

Accordingly, we feel no remorse in saying, Let’s leave the ordinary man to fight for himself, lest we encourage him to be lazy. In espousing this view, opponents of DEI harp back to the famous saying that the ordinary man needs to pull himself up by his boot straps even though a recognized figure among us all, the late Matin Luther King Junior has brought to our attention that the ordinary man in question has no boots:  ‘It’s all right to tell a man to lift himself by his own bootstraps, but it is cruel jest to say to a bootless man that he ought to lift himself by his own bootstraps.’ (MLKJ)

Indeed, the silhouettes we see around his ankles or knees or even his waist are neither boots nor straps by which he can improve himself. They are merely mirages and stubborn stains of his daily toil in the quagmire in which he labours to bring wealth and bounty to the rich and a penny to himself.

So, while we may differ on the actual makeup of different DEI programs, the overall necessity and invaluable nature of DEI must never be questioned.  Whether we want to admit it or not, inequalities surface in life, even in some of the most holy of places and also among those in government which is made up of human beings whose heart, according to scripture, has a propensity to be deceitful and desperately wicked to the point of being undetectable even to the individual himself.     

In no other places is this truism more evident than in the book of Acts in the story of the conflict which arose between the Hellenistic and the Jewish widows. Acts 6: And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. ² Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, it is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. ³ Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. ⁴ But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. ⁵ And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch: ⁶ Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.

 Does anyone here doubt that what happened was not intentional? Scripture does not suggest it and in no way do I believe that it was intentional on the part of those in charge

The daily distribution

The care of widows and orphans was an important part of Jewish life. The early church took the decision to support widows because they often had no other support. Yet based on what we read; it seems that the Christian widows were not cared for by the Jewish leaders. It therefore came to the point where some of the Christians from a Hellenistic background believed that the widows among the Hebrew Christians received better care.

John Stott says: ‘It is not suggested that the oversight was deliberate… more probably the cause was poor administration or supervision.’ (Stott)

‘In a congregation of that size, it was inevitable that someone’s needs would be overlooked.’ (MacArthur)

yet because the Devil is who he is, we all know that he will use even a well-intentioned error or poor judgement to create havoc.  And right here in the midst of the world’s greatest ever spiritual revival prejudice still reigned. Therefore, to avoid what was potentially a revival ending, church splitting situation, the apostles made the necessary move to appoint deacons as the only way to ensure that the correct things was done.

Please note that the apostles did not leave it to chance in the belief that the ‘market would correct itself’ so to speak. For those of us Christians who posit that affirmative action is unnecessary and prejudicial, then your problem is not with the purveyors of affirmative action but your problem is with God and His word. As I said before while there is room to haggle over the specific content of various Affirmative Action or DEI programs, there is no choice when it comes to embracing the concept of DEI as a bedrock of the Christian religion.

In addressing the situation, in Acts 6:3, the apostles said ‘look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business’. Note the phrase: we may appoint over this business.

It was God’s business so it was their business. Diversity equity and inclusion is God’s business so it’s our business. It’s God’s business because He made it so. Therefore, let’s make it our business.