An Incoming DEIA Disaster
Recently, the ELCA posted the results of a DEIA (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility) Audit1 which was authorized by the Churchwide Assembly. The audit laid out its findings and made numerous recommendations for the church to implement practically and constitutionally.
It would seem as though a move towards DEIA would be uncontroversial. If you take the traditional meaning of each of those words, arguably every congregation would seek to be: diverse as the Gospel is for all people; equitable as God is just and fair; inclusive as, again, the Gospel is for all people; and accessible as we are called to be hospitable and welcoming. However, one of the great tricks of the postmodern world is to take common words and redefine them to mean something different. DEIA in the current secular fashion is less about including everyone and more about pushing out those who are labeled oppressors—usually heterosexual, white men. And while the audit does go to great pains to try and urge a DEIA policy which is rooted in biblical thought2, I cannot help but see a Trojan horse which seeks to formalize secular DEIA within the church.
I believe this to be the case as I see these recommendations centering the church’s focus on DEIA and moving it completely away from its God-given mission to spread the gospel. I hope to show this in four points.
#1. The approach is top down. Don’t take my word for it. I quote the DEIA report itself, “ELCA’s leadership needs to be more vocal, consistent and strong on expressing commitment to, and visibly advancing, DEIA, from the top down.”3 Right off the bat, we see that this implementation is not a grass roots movement which most lay people embrace and are calling for. This is an imposition of thought and practice that begins at the top and is forced upon the whole church, including recommendations for punitive measures for those who do not comply.4 Such practice does not exactly have a good track record of success historically and actually ends up being divisive and counter-productive.
#2. It shifts the primary focus of the church inward instead of outward. Not that many churches have escaped the problem of naval gazing, but this movement reinforces the tendency to focus on “us.” What do we look like? Are we making sure we have proper representation across all groups within our church? One might argue that this will force the church to look outward in order to check the appropriate boxes. It is a legitimate argument, but its practical application has been an abject failure within the ELCA for decades already. What makes us think it will change this time?
#3. It’s the wrong metric to measure congregation viability and engagement. Here is a suggestion from the audit: “Those incentives might include granting congregations with stellar DEIA achievements greater voting power at the Assemblies, as a form of enhanced membership, or conditioning any grants or other financial assistance to congregations on compliance with the Recommended Minimum DEIA Standards.5” Grant incentives to congregations with stellar DEIA scores, but not to congregations who are actively feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, giving drink to the thirsty, and visiting the prisoners? Granting incentives to congregations with stellar DEIA scores instead of congregations who are growing in number? Granting incentives to congregations with stellar DEIA scores but not to congregations who are actively engaged in their communities and truly making an impact in those communities through their ministries? This is a bit more worldly, but…granting incentives to congregations with stellar DEIA scores but not to congregations who give big benevolence dollars to the synod? Need I go on?
#4 And probably the most damning. When the prophet Samuel went to anoint a son of Jesse to be the next king of Israel, a very interesting scenario plays out. As Samuel approaches the sons, he gazes upon their appearance and makes judgments. Time and again, Samuel is met with this response or a similar one, “Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for the Lord does not see as mortals see; they look on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.” This is not simply a truism of the Old Testament. It particularly is emphasized in the New Testament as the result of encountering the overwhelming grace and love of God. The human heart changes from looking inward (classical definition of sin) to looking outward towards God and neighbor–in that order. DEIA does not look upon the human heart, but upon outward characteristics. It completely reverses the stance God takes throughout the Scriptures. It must be rejected on this basis alone. To continue down the path of implementation will resort to nothing less than a disaster.