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.

Please note that the Editorial Board of Presbyterian Polity does not necessarily endorse all views expressed on the blog of this site, but the editors are pleased to present well-crafted position papers on issues facing Presbyterian churches and denominations. What follows is one such paper for our readers’ consideration. The views expressed in it are the author’s own, and do not necessarily represent the official position of any organization or body of which he is a member. ~ The Editors

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.

Read More