FIGHT DIVERSITY. BUILD COMMUNITY.

The 'Encyclopedia of Science and Religion' reads: “The term ‘pluralism’ is applied to philosophical positions emphasizing diversity and multiplicity over homogeneity and unity.” [1]

When approached from a political, social, or cultural perspective the pluralistic emphasis is demonstrably untenable. [2] How is it possible for a community of people to unite around differences rather than similarities? Such a communion could only be defined by negatives, and if the society was large even this would not work.

By “uniting” around diversity our society is antagonizing differences and producing conflict and hate. Christians need to fight diversity and produce peaceful united communities.

Human society has never been united on differences. Such an idea is comparable to logical fallacies like “can God create a round square.” As Amos 3:3 reads: “How can two men walk together unless they agree.” No society can form, much less thrive, without a positive identity and common goals. If two men are traveling in opposite directions how can they walk together? Answer: only by abandoning their present courses and deciding upon a new direction. Likewise, a diverse society can only thrive by abandoning diversity and creating a new identity.

GOD AND RELIGIOUS PLURALISM

Is it desirable to set a new course or create a new identity? Religiously speaking, I would argue it is impossible. If a Christian abandoned Christianity to unite themselves with Muslims they would become apostates and earn eternal damnation. A Christian pluralist must inevitably sacrifice some of his beliefs if he hopes to live in unity with Muslims. Even the act of evangelism signifies conquest, and represents movement towards religious homogeneity.

Christianity cannot be pluralistic because its claims are inherently intolerant. Jesus said: “No man comes to the Father but by me,” and orthodox Christians have always believed the religious “other” is destined for Hell. A failure to religiously colonize souls (i.e. evangelize) amounts to a shirking of God’s divine mandate. Paganism is ideally pluralistic because its pantheons are never exclusive. One more god is easy to believe in. The Christian God, however, demands unadulterated devotion: “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve,” “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” Christians are obligated to fight religious pluralism by proclaiming monotheism.

Famed Egyptologist James Henry Breasted remarked, “Monotheism is but imperialism in religion.” [3] Christianity must dominate. All non-Christian faiths will be annihilated at Christ’s return.

If some cultures possess knowledge of the one true God, while others remain steeped in paganism, civilizational inequality is inevitable. The Christian culture is right, and pagan cultures are wrong. Cultural pluralism is repudiated by monotheism. God’s culture is superior. The Euroethnic West, constructed as it was on Christianity, remains superior to all other world cultures. The truth of its foundation elevates it above its rivals. Cultural pluralism is impossible when one culture is clearly superior.

GOD AND ETHNIC PLURALISM

Ethnic pluralism and equality has never been achieved in mankind’s history, and it never will be achieved. In the only state ever explicitly designed by God, the Nation of Israel, the ethnic “other” was not permitted to practice their religion or participate in politics. [4] In Acts, Paul said that God organizes ethnicities into land areas with respective borders. [5] Noticeably, he never organized humanity into one giant ethnically pluralistic blob.

Some will object that the church is an ethnically pluralistic organization containing people from every “tribe, tongue, and nation,” but they forget that this pluralism is only possible because of a more fundamental unity, namely, God’s desire to save all of humanity.

CONCENTRIC CIRCLES OF SOCIAL ORGANIZATION

Diversity can increase only with each concentric circle of loosening social organization outward. In other words, the more cooperation required in a given institution, the less diversity is possible. The closest, and least diverse, social organization is the biological family. The broadest social organization is the world church (i.e. religious affiliation). Diversity is extremely low in the biological family, but high amongst the global church.

The global church relies very little upon cooperation amongst its members. Two Christians living on different continents will probably never speak to one another or have any interaction whatsoever. In such a situation, diversity becomes nearly irrelevant.

In the family, however, the members interact every single day, and the diversity represented within the family can have an extremely negative impact on their cooperation. To avoid dysfunction, God has united family members with common DNA that effects their culture, experiences, behavior, and intelligence. This reduces friction.

As the level of diversity increases the level of possible cooperation declines. [6] [7] The most obvious examples are language barriers. An organization divided by language is inevitably dysfunctional. The members cannot understand one another nor work together effectively.

It is best to think of human social interaction as a giant circle with smaller circles inside one another.

The smallest first circle, the human family, is tiny and fits within every other circle. Within this tiny circle of close interaction significant diversity becomes destructive. If parents do not share cultural, ethnic, linguistic, or religious similarities the family is probably doomed to dysfunction. Even tiny levels of diversity in a family such as differing opinions about how to raise children or prioritize money can have devastating results. Exceptions exist, but they are exceptions because they are rare and unnatural.

The second smallest circle might be a peer group or local church congregation. In this circle, there is greater room for diversity because the members do not have to cooperate on an intimate level. However, homogeneity and unity are still necessary. In the case of congregations, the members must share the same basic doctrinal beliefs, worship styles, cultural norms, and language. Usually they must share ethnic and political identity. Normally, they share economic class. Liberal literature abounds bemoaning the lack of diversity in Christian churches across America. [8]

Having attended numerous congregations in my lifetime, I can personally vouch for this lack of ethnic diversity. Functional congregations are homogeneous in the ways discussed. While exceptional individuals can participate in a congregation that does not fit their personal profile, the congregation functions only as a result of the homogeneity which exists despite the exceptional individual. Multiethnic congregations cannot thrive across generations even if they sometimes manage to form because of the sheer will of liberal members.

In a healthy society, the third circle might be a city, but in contemporary America the metropolis means little. One’s city of residence often indicates nothing considering that Upper Middle class Euroethnics normally have no meaningful interaction with inner city African Americans.

I would argue that the third circle is still the national state even if their remains no logical connection between its citizens. The country being the third circle despite pluralism’s effects on it merely serves to explain America’s present dysfunction.

The twenty-first century United States is a balkanized partially Third World conglomeration of disparate peoples from every corner of the globe. The polite term for this is “multicultural,” the impolite term is “dysfunctional.” The United States has always suffered from horrible ethnic conflict, but this violence has been largely relegated to the fringe because the European American super-majority maintained a homogeneous dominant First World culture. In recent decades, however, this consensus culture and ethnic stock has weakened. Euroethnic Americans barely constitute a majority of the population, [9] and we have lost control of the culture. The third circle of social organization in America is both diverse and hemorrhaging. It will not be long until the United States becomes a “free for all” semi-dystopian environment for a significant percentage of lower and middle class residents.

In an organic nation, diversity of regions, families, and religious organizations is natural. Individual peer groups do not have to associate with one another regularly, and many people within a nation never meet. Nevertheless, diversity must be limited politically, religiously, linguistically, and ethnically. If a political state does not share a language (as modern America does not) the citizens cease to be reasonably connected. Differences of ethnicity and religion produce different worldviews, genetic averages in intelligence and temperament, identities, and value systems. Politically, the population must at least agree on a form of legitimate government even if they do not agree on how it should operate; otherwise, civil war should be expected.

The fourth and largest circle is religious affiliation. In this circle broad disparate groups of people agree upon serving a particular god, or how they will attend to the spiritual needs of humanity. In this circle almost every form of diversity can be found except religious diversity. Even in this circle there will always be human sub-groups regarded as “other.”

In each larger circle of social organization more diversity can be allowed because the individuals involved in the circle will have incrementally less interaction with one another, and the need for their cooperation will be more limited by degree.

One of the clearest examples of diversity management can be experienced when choosing a spouse. There are numerous people each individual is capable of maintaining friendship with, but there are few people compatible for marriage. Typically, diversity runs in opposition to compatibility. The more homogeneous a boy and girl are the greater the chance they will be compatible. Some romantics protest this fact, but the research is definitive. [10] Similarity contributes to successful marriages.

CONCLUSION

Despite the modern fixation with diversity as a positive good, there remains no convincing line of argument that it has any positive social effect. Diversity is something to be tolerated rather than encouraged.

God demands religious homogeneity within humanity. God has created ethnic homogeneity among the first three circles of the four discussed.

Furthermore, social science research has revealed that diversity destroys community trust and cooperation. The following two block quotes are from Big Ten and Ivy League researchers:
“recent… work… has uncovered a community diversity dialectic wherein the contextual conditions that foster respect for diversity run in opposition to those that foster sense of community. More specifically, within neighborhoods, residential integration provides opportunities for intergroup contact that are necessary to promote respect of diversity but may prevent the formation of dense interpersonal networks that are necessary to promote sense of community.” [6]
“inhabitants of diverse communities tend to withdraw from collective life, distrust their neighbors, regardless of the color of their skin, to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, to give less to charity and work on community projects less, to agitate for social reform more, but have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television.” [7]
As Christians, it should be our goal to form strong communities and families in which to exhibit love and generosity towards one another. God wants us to live in harmony with each other. By encouraging diversity our enemies are creating unnecessary strife and violence.

Christians must fight diversity to build loving communities.


NOTES

[1] Bielfeldt, Dennis. “Pluralism.” Encyclopedia of Science and Religion. 2003. Accessed December 21, 2015. http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/pluralism.aspx#5.

[2] In this article, I use “pluralism” and “diversity” as synonyms. When I use these terms I am primarily referring to macro-diversity (ethnicity, politics, language, religion, culture, worldview, etc.). I am not generally referring to interpersonal-diversity or minor differences in talents and interests which occur between individuals.

[3] Breasted, James Henry. “Development of Religion and Thought in Ancient Egypt.” Chapter: “Lecture IX: The Imperial Age – The world-State Makes Its Impression on Religion – Triumph of RE – Earliest Monotheism – Ikhnation (Amenhotep IV).“ (Page: 315). Sacred Texts. Accessed December 22, 2015. http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/rtae/rtae13.htm.

[4] Deuteronomy 17:15: “You may indeed set a king over you whom the Lord your God will choose. One from among your brothers you shall set as king over you. You may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother.” (ESV)

[5] Acts 17:26: “And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place.” (ESV)

Deuteronomy 32:8: “When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.” (ESV)

[6] Neal, Zachary, and Jennifer Neal. “The (In)compatibility of Diversity and Sense of Community.” Michigan State University. November 1, 2013. Accessed November 1, 2015. https://www.msu.edu/~zpneal/publications/nealdiversitysoc.pdf.

[7] Putnam, Robert. “E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture.” Wiley Online Library. June 1, 2007. Accessed November 19, 2015. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.14679477.2007.00176.x/abstract.

[8] Smietana, Bob. “Research: Racial Diversity at Church More Dream Than Reality.” Lifeway Research. January, 2014. Accessed December 22, 2015.http://www.lifewayresearch.com/2014/01/17/research-racial-diversity-at-church-more-dream-than-reality/.
EXTRACT: “Having a racially diverse church remains more dream than reality for most Protestant pastors. More than eight in ten (85 percent) say every church should strive for racial diversity, according to a survey from Nashville-based LifeWay Research. But few have diverse flocks. Most (86 percent) say their congregation is predominately one racial or ethnic group.”

[9] Smietana, Bob. “Research: Racial Diversity at Church More Dream Than Reality.” Lifeway Research. January, 2014. Accessed December 22, 2015.http://www.lifewayresearch.com/2014/01/17/research-racial-diversity-at-church-more-dream-than-reality/.
EXTRACT: “Non-Hispanic whites make up 63 percent of the population. That number drops to about 49 percent for children under 5 years old, according to a recent report from the Associated Press.”

[10] Lehrer, Jonah. “Opposites Don’t Attract (And That’s Bad News).” Wired. January, 2012. Accessed December 22, 2015. http://www.wired.com/2012/01/opposites-dont-attract-and-thats-bad-news/.
EXTRACT: “Opposites attract. Although we love to repeat this optimistic cliche about human nature, decades of psychological research have demonstrated that the truism isn’t true. Rather, people seek out people who are just like them. This is known as the similarity-attraction effect, or SAE. Although there is slight variation in the strength of the effect, the SAE has been shown to exist in nearly every culture, from Western Europe to the remote tribes of the Brazilian rainforest. It doesn’t matter where we live or how we grew up or which language we speak – we still want to spend time with people who feel similar. It’s simply more comfortable.”
EXTRACT: “Bahns et al. found that students at the huge state school tended to spend time with people who were much more similar to them than students at the small, rural colleges. According to the scientists, the level of correlation between friends on the survey was higher on 80 percent of the questions at the University of Kansas, suggesting that the undergraduates were using the size of the campus to identify those who shared their precise set of beliefs, habits and attitudes. Instead of learning from people who were extremely different – who disagreed with their stance on abortion, or didn’t like ultimate frisbee, or never attended football games – the students were obeying the similarity-attraction effect, sifting through the vast population to find the most homologous possible circle of friends. As the researchers put it, ‘the larger social contexts afford better opportunity for fine-grained assortment.’”

Reeves, Richard and Joanna Venator. “Opposites Don’t Attract: Assortive Mating and Social Mobility.” Brookings Institute. February, 2010. Accessed December 22, 2015. http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/social-mobility-memos/posts/2014/02/10-opposites-dont-attract-assortative-mating-reeves.
EXTRACT: “A recent NBER paper finds that Americans increasingly practice ‘positive assortative mating’ when picking their spouse. That is to say, ‘like marries like.’”

Law, Sally. “Actually Opposites Don’t Attract, Study Finds.” NBC News. March, 2013. Accessed December 22, 2015. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/29918403/ns/health-behavior/t/actually-opposites-dont-attract-study-finds/#.VnkBfY9OLIU.
EXTRACT: “Do opposites really attract? A new study finds that when it comes to personality, people seek partners with their same qualities — but claim to want someone who is different… ‘Although many individuals occasionally feel attracted to ‘opposites,’ attractions between opposites often do not develop into serious intimate relationships and, when they do, these relationships often end prematurely.’”