Temporary and Contingent: Affinity Groups in the Already-Not Yet Church
by Billy Boyce
Author’s note: This article is a response to Teaching Elder Kyle Dillon’s recent post “Equality over Affinity: The Case against Ethnic Affinity Groups.” I’m grateful for Kyle’s friendship and for his invitation to compose this response.)
How can churches live faithfully in Christian unity while respecting the providential contingencies of history and culture? This is the question at the heart of the PCA’s recent debate concerning racial and ethnic affinity groups. All sides agree on the fundamentals: Christ has unified his people by destroying all human-made boundaries of separation (see Ephesians 2-3); and the Church is called to actively embrace that unity as members of the earthly “communion of saints” (see John 17, Romans 15, and Westminster Confession of Faith 26). Our theology is clear. The question regards practice: Are affinity groups acceptable if the church is unified in Christ?
In his recent article “Equality over Affinity: The Case against Ethnic Affinity Groups,” TE Kyle Dillon articulates the position of many in the PCA: No. Kyle draws on philosophers and exegetes to advance the argument that ethnic affinity groups, in essence, “rebuild walls that Christ came to tear down.” I commend Kyle’s article for his summary of the current debate and his fairness toward those involved. At the same time, his arguments are built on a foundation of skepticism, which fosters deeper division rather than healing.
In what follows, I’d like to offer a constructive response that contextualizes affinity groups as a viable ministry strategy for multicultural churches in the “not-yet” of our eschatological church age.
Before we begin, I’d like to outline four assumptions behind the argument that follows. [1]
God’s Word has the final say in church relationships, and Christ’s saving work, applied through the Holy Spirit, provides both the mandate and the power for “redemptive ethnic unity.”[2]
Quoting Kyle, “race and ethnicity are distinct but overlapping categories.” Both involve aspects of culture, location, history, and biology. Both are impacted by sin and salvation. And neither are ultimate in Christ’s economy.
Culture matters. In God’s providence, our location in place and time matters for our experience of the present moment. Therefore, the dynamics of minority and majority cultures are often real factors, though subject to the Lordship of Christ.
This “theologically realist” approach to sociological matters is neither standpoint epistemology nor cultural Marxism. It is a common-sense approach to a common grace human experience.
With that in mind, we can extend a temporary, contingent “yes” to those minority members asking for racial affinity groups.
A Reasonable Purpose
According to the PCA’s Mission to North America, ethnic affinity groups serve a reasonable purpose: “Affinity ministries equip and encourage minority members who worship in so many of our churches. These ministries support shared cultural experiences for the edification of the whole body.” To put it another way, these groups offer minority members a sense of support and relief from the unique pressures of minority life, bringing edification to the whole body.
However, detractors of affinity groups are quick to suggest that there is a sinful shadow side to these meetings: encouraging partiality, preferentialism, or disunity. Kyle quotes the philosopher Andre Archie, who asserts that “these groups exist to foster divisiveness.” Archie isn’t the only one who sees hidden messages or motives in such groups. Speaking with World Magazine, PCA TE Zachary Groff says that “the message that [racial affinity groups] were putting out” was, “white people make black worshipers uncomfortable in the PCA.”
But here’s the problem: these presuppositions assume intent, seemingly driven by a hermeneutic of suspicion. Is it true that all ethnic affinity groups “exist to foster divisiveness” by their very nature? Consider an expat American celebrating a November Thanksgiving with other expat friends. Such celebrations could stoke division, and the event can become a grudge-fest. But as a norm, these events simply enable minority citizens to celebrate their home culture in a stress-free environment.
Here’s the underlying, common-sense truth: it’s hard to be a minority. And it’s a blessing to experience a reprieve from minority pressures. This isn’t racial essentialism, hidden Marxism, or ethnic grumbling. It’s simply a common-sense response to a common-grace reality. Minorities in any culture are encouraged when they gather in community.
Given these realities, it is worth examining the demand for pure impartiality in a church setting. Kyle’s argument asserts that ethnic affinity groups fall short of the “ethnic impartiality” demanded by justice. TE Groff takes a similar line: “Any ministry approach or method that defines and separates people based on the fleshly category of race is astoundingly contrary to the clear teaching of God’s Word.”
But these criticisms fall prey to the trap of putting principle over people. In traditional Christian ethics, justice prompts Christians to ask, “What do I owe my neighbor?” Thus, justice is never impersonal; it requires a contextual application. This observation leads Reformed ethicist Henry Stob to prioritize “Personality or Personhood” over “Equality and Inequality” as “the basic principle of justice.”[3] Read this way, the biblical aim of justice is not bare impartiality, but rather the restoration of fellowship. Combining the relational aims of justice with the common-sense realities of minority experience, we have good reason to reject the suspicions behind these criticisms. The 9th Commandment demands, in part, “a charitable esteem of our neighbors” (Westminster Larger Catechism 144), which moves us toward respecting the stated purpose of ethnic affinity groups in the PCA. They serve a reasonable purpose: allowing minority Christians a chance to relax from the stresses of minority life in a cross-cultural community.
A Temporary Need
This reasonable purpose helps us see these groups as serving a temporary need. Because the group's focus is addressing cross-cultural pressures, it is conceivable that the need for such affinity groups might diminish if the cultural dynamics change.
However, while popular criticisms claim these affinity groups suffer from racial essentialism, critics fail to see the essentialism present in their own presuppositions. To quote Kyle’s article, even though humans naturally self-select into any number of affinity-based groups, “none of these [realities] requires setting permanent divisions between church members.”
But who said these divisions are permanent? As a biological given, racial and ethnic characteristics are enduring. But the purpose of affinity groups aims at the cultural, contingent realities within the “already-not yet” tension of this eschatological age.
If we grant that churches are imperfect, that sanctification is progressive, and that history and culture matter to a degree, such groups are not automatically reasserting permanent boundaries. Similarly, such groups are not, as TE Groff would claim, “defin[ing] and separat[ing] people based on the fleshly category of race” in an ultimate way. Instead, they exist within this moment of redemptive history to meet a specific, providential need. And this need can change with time and intention. As churches grow in their capacity to exhibit cultural hospitality, the burdens of minority life will lessen and old wounds can find healing through grace. When growth like this happens, the felt needs of minority members would shift, allowing the purpose of ethnic affinity groups to change.
In this way, affinity groups can actually help the church “[deal] with a specific problem, through temporary means, and for the purpose of restoring equal treatment,” as Kyle puts it. (Or, as I would argue, restoring “koinonia” and intimacy, given my prior comments about the scope of justice). Our current “not-yet” eschatological moment allows us to view affinity groups with flexibility and hope, rather than ecclesiological fatalism or racial essentialism.
A Better Name
That said, I also understand how the term “affinity group” itself raises concerns. In popular lingo, an affinity group is either a voluntary group based on personal preference, or a defined group based on kinship. Either way, “affinity” raises concerns for Christian identity and church unity.
If our goal is common-grace, common-sense, communal blessing for minority members, the name of such groups ought to include a sense of ecclesiological purpose and eschatological contingency. A possible substitute might be “cross-cultural cohort.” The term cohort communicates both the reasonable purpose of such groups (helping minority members flourish amidst a majority culture) and their temporary need (coping with the contingencies of fallen history for the moment). By reenvisioning such groups within an ecclesiological and functional framework, we can avoid accusations of redemptive-historical regression or racial essentialism, and instead focus on the actual goal: “redemptive ethnic unity.”
A Biblical Example
If this proposal sounds contrary to Scripture, let me offer a brief biblical example that supports the vision of a healthy, hopeful minority affinity group (or “cross-cultural cohort”) operating within a majority-culture church. In Colossians 4, the Apostle Paul includes a fascinating aside in his final greetings. After listing several ministry partners, Paul says of Aristarchus, Mark, and Justus, “these are the only men of the circumcision among my fellow workers for the kingdom of God, and they have been a comfort to me.” (Colossians 4:11) Why would Paul highlight the ethnic background of these co-workers, when Paul said earlier that “there is not Greek and Jew” in Christ (Colossians 3:11)? Multiple reasons have been advanced, but I find Nijay Gupta’s argument to be the most compelling:
“It is possible that he was trying to clarify that, while the gospel does not discriminate based on ethnicity or circumcision status (3:11), that does not mean that Paul feels no sense of identification or association with fellow Jews. While he has clearly committed himself to a ministry and lifestyle of open fellowship with Gentiles, he still identifies himself with his kinsmen (see Romans 9:2-3). In a sense, then, he reminds the Colossians that openness and ‘inclusiveness’ does not eradicate any kind of group association.”[4]
If we follow Gupta’s reasoning, Paul’s Jewish co-workers comforted him, in part, because they shared his Jewishness in a cross-cultural ministry environment where they were all ethnic minorities. They would uniquely sympathize with Paul’s longing for Jewish conversion (Romans 9:1-3), and they could uniquely walk through the complications of cross-cultural ministry together. And if the Apostle to the Gentiles was free to draw comfort from his fellow ethnic minorities, why should PCA elders scrutinize similar efforts by our minority brothers and sisters?
A Pastoral Appeal
To reiterate my argument, “ethnic affinity groups” offer a reasonable, practical solution to a temporary need within our churches. They are not, by their very nature, divisive; nor are they inherently against Scripture. Instead, within the framework of practical ecclesiology, they help perpetuate the cross-cultural, intercultural congregations the PCA has desired since its inception.[5]
Could such groups be more explicit about their temporary, contingent purpose? Likely. Can we envision a more helpful name, fitting with these more practical ecclesial goals? Sure. But ought we continue to scrutinize such groups from afar, on the internet? No.
This is my pastoral appeal: stop acting as if these groups are the most pernicious threat to our church.
I believe that our debate divides the church more than the existence of these groups in the PCA. Consider this statement again: these groups communicate that “white people make black worshipers uncomfortable in the PCA.” Given our discussion of minority cultural dynamics, this may be true. But if it is, naming it, in public, as an accusation laden with suspicion, does nothing to make those brothers and sisters in Christ more comfortable. And it does nothing to help our white congregants understand the common-sense, common-grace dynamics in their congregations. Even the dispassionate phrase “the case against ethnic affinity groups” disenfranchises people with real pastoral concerns. Instead, the path forward needs to involve trust and conversation, as (quoting Kyle) “minority and majority to learn to bear with one another in love.”
To return to the opening question, how can churches live faithfully in Christian unity while also respecting the providential contingencies of history and culture? There’s no easy answer. But any strategy will try to hold together common-grace, common-sense wisdom with theological rigor and soteriological hope. To that end, I urge us to view these affinity groups as temporary and contingent options within this eschatological age, a church growing toward “redemptive ethnic unity,” but not there yet.
Notes:
[1] I’ve written about these dynamics at length in my book Outsiders on the Inside: Understanding Racial Fatigue, Racial Resilience, and Racial Hospitality in Our Churches.
[2] This helpful phrase comes from TE Lance Lewis.
[3] Henry Stob, “Observations on the Concept of Justice,” Calvin Theological Journal, 9 (1974): 143.
[4] Nijay Gupta, Colossians, 192.
[5] Resolution 47 of the denomination-forming steering committee states “All Races Welcome: It was resolved that the Continuing Presbyterian Church movement welcome fellow believers in Christ regardless of race.”
Billy - Thanks so much for your thoughtful approach; very much appreciated
Keith