






























Ecclesial Futures
2025 – Volume 6 – Issue 1

62
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef22183

A R T I C L E

DOI: 10.54195/ef22183

Fostering Diversity in Congregations: 
A practical framework for local churches to 
reflect and improve accessibility

Hanna Kauhaus

Abstract
Diversity, understood as the extent to which the members of a group or organization 
differ from one another, is fundamental for the Church, but often not given to a great 
extent in local congregations, at least not in the Evangelical Church in Germany. This 
article wants to support practitioners in a diversity-oriented development process for 
their local churches.
In the first part, the concept of diversity management is introduced and some ideas 
pointed out and adapted for congregational development. Taking these basic ideas and 
additionally systematizing some suggestions from tools for diversity-oriented organ-
izational development, in the second part a practical framework is presented. It has 
been created for identifying barriers and finding starting points for enhancing diversity 
in local protestant churches in Germany. Based on a model of four levels of accessibility 
and exclusion, the core is a framework of five areas of church activities in which uncon-
scious barriers can be found regarding these different levels of accessibility. The aim 
is to help congregations to take some manageable steps to better include all who are 
already present and to become more accessible for others who are different in certain 
dimensions of diversity.

Keywords: Diversity management, Congregational development, Inclusion and exclusion, 
Accessibility, Participation

Diversity is at the roots of the Church (Eckhold 2017: 12–13). On Pentecost, when 
the apostle Peter first got the courage and inspiration to preach the gospel of Jesus 
Christ, the listeners were a diverse crowd, having come to Jerusalem from different 
nations and cultural backgrounds (Acts 2.4-11). This is programmatic: From the very 
beginning, the Church is built with an astonishing diversity of people (Frey, 2014: 
36). That mirrors the group of the twelve disciples and the larger group of Jesus’ 



63
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef22183

63

followers, where cultural, economic, political, social and gender differences were 
struggled with, but somehow made less relevant by the charisma and teachings of 
Jesus. There are passages in the New Testament letters that can be understood as 
a plea for accepting diversity: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave 
nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 3.28, 
ESV). The gospel is for everyone (Mt. 28.20; 1 Tim. 2.4). The eschatological perspec-
tive also emphasizes the diversity of those who will cherish God’s presence together 
(Lk. 13.28; Rev. 7.9).

This biblical opening is a bit one-sided and maybe even naïve. Within the same 
New Testament scriptures, there are passages that speak of exclusion, of “in” and 
“out”, of the tolerable and the not tolerable, and of the struggles and developments 
regarding the norms and ground rules. Is diversity to be allowed regarding circum-
cision? Regarding the attendance of heathen festivities? Regarding sexual activity? 
The interdependence of ethics and culture is only one of the difficulties when making 
these decisions. And even though the vision for inclusiveness and diversity regarding 
race, sex, culture, religious background, socio-economic or family status and other 
dimensions is remarkable, the inclusiveness is not all-encompassing. There are 
certain shared beliefs and ethics that raise boundaries between “in” and “out”, and 
at the same time these beliefs and ethics seem to serve as an anchor for unity – a 
unity that can then include many differences.

And yet, even with these shared beliefs and ethics, unity in diversity might be 
more of an ideal than a reality (Krieg 2017: 540–2) – at least when we jump into present 
times and walk into a Sunday morning service in most churches in Germany,1 or look 
at data on participation in church activities, or at correlations between a felt connec-
tion with Church and the socio-economic status of church members (see below). 
Surely there is diversity among churchgoers, but the chances for positive encoun-
ters or even for belonging are by no means equal – even though equal opportunities, 
inclusion and being a church for all are strong values for the Protestant Churches 
in Germany (EKD 2015; https://www.landeskirche-hannovers.de/gesellschaft-und-
leben/zusammenleben/vielfalt, accessed on 29.04.2025).

With this mixed background of New Testament visions, current values that are 
broadly shared in Church and society, and a few indicators of tensions and problems, 
I want to step into the topic of diversity in local congregations. “Diversity” basically 
means “the extent in which members of an entity, such as a group or organization, 
differ from one another” (Gonzales and Zamanian 2015: 595). How diverse are local 
congregations typically? Or: How homogenous is each of them? Who is more or less 
likely to show up for any church activities? Who, comparing those who are somehow 

1 The focus in this article is on local churches of the Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD).

https://www.landeskirche-hannovers.de/gesellschaft-und-leben/zusammenleben/vielfalt
https://www.landeskirche-hannovers.de/gesellschaft-und-leben/zusammenleben/vielfalt


64
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef22183

64

involved in a congregation to all the local church members or even all the local 
people, is missing?

These questions have been researched and discussed in the context of the Evan-
gelical Church in Germany (EKD) for some relevant dimensions where people differ 
from one another, especially in age ( Jacobi 2024), sex (Wunder 2024), milieus (Schulz 
2014; Ahrens and Wegner 2008), and educational and socio-economic backgrounds 
(Kläden and Wunder 2024). In the context of missionary church development, 
especially the dimension of (non)-religious upbringing has often been considered, 
and churches have been called to lower thresholds and remove barriers for those 
without a church background (Herbst 2018: 180-89). Regarding the dimension of (dis)
abilities, there are lots of publications, usually connected to inclusion discourses (e.g. 
Eurich and Lob-Hüdepohl, 2011; EKD 2022). The cultural and national background of 
people has received special attention in the discussions and projects of international 
churches (so-called “migrant” churches) and intercultural churches (Etzelmüller and 
Rammelt, 2022).

All these different aspects and discourses can be linked to diversity,an umbrella 
term that can include lots of dimensions of difference. Diversity can be used as a 
descriptive category – regarding any specific attributes, the range of diversity can 
be analysed and described. Yet, diversity isn’t just a descriptive term. It also implies 
normativity, seeing diversity as a goal and a resource (Grümme, 2017: 595–6). 
Concepts of diversity emphasize the value of diversity. And they are linked to inclu-
sion2 traditions, thereby pointing to questions of participation and belonging. 
Therefore, when reflecting the diversity of local churches, two questions need to 
be considered together: What variety of people show up? And how well are those 
present actually included and given the chance to participate and contribute?

If limited diversity is diagnosed for a local church congregation, how can they act 
upon that? How can a local church start a process of diversifying and ensuring that 
different people can fully participate? There are instruments that are used in diver-
sity-oriented organizational development, like questions for self-evaluation and 
suggestions of how to work on communication, structures, hiring policies etc. Some 
of these are also reflected in church policies and evaluation tools.

In this article, I will first give a short introduction to diversity management, and 
ask what could be learnt from the main concepts for fostering diversity in congre-
gations. Based on that, a practical framework has been developed from diversity 
management concepts and instruments. This framework has two parts: one helps 
to reflect levels of inclusion or exclusion, and the other shows areas of accessibility 
and structures the process of recognizing biases and barriers. Both parts will be 

2 For an overview on the discourses on inclusion in protestant theology in Germany see Brunn 2021.



65
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef22183

65

presented, with the aim of supporting practitioners in reflecting and taking some 
steps towards a diversity strategy that fits their profile.

1 Diversity management: Introduction and 
conceptual learnings for local congregations

Diversity management (DiM) is a concept for actively dealing with diversity in an 
organization. It is used in profit and non-profit organisations (see Bendl, Hanap-
pi-Egger and Hofmann 2012: 13–14). It comes from two traditions and combines them: 
One is the equal opportunities movement, the fight for social justice.3 This tradition 
is closely related to affirmative action and legal frameworks on equal opportunities. 
The other tradition, which comes directly from business management, is the realiza-
tion that diversity is a vital resource for organizational performance (Cox 1993). DiM 
combines these two traditions and motivations. In theory and empirical research, 
there are different approaches and disciplines involved (see Yadav and Lenka 2020). 
From the beginning, it has a strong practical output, being used in consulting and 
training (Bendl, Hanappi-Egger and Hofmann 2012: 13). One reason for its increasing 
popularity is the “appeal of the idea that social justice and performance goals are not 
necessarily incompatible” (Gonzalez and Zamanian 2015: 595).

Since DiM is often used in institutions and organizations in education, social 
work and politics, it might also have something to offer for the church, in so far as 
the church has, amongst others, an organizational dimension (Hermelink 2011). If 
a church wants to deal positively with diversity and even increase diversity, what 
insights can it get from DiM?

DiM appreciates diversity in itself, as being a great resource for the group or 
organisation. Diversity helps both to complement and to challenge each other within 
a team or organization. This appreciation of diversity creates a proactive attitude. 
Instead of just asking “What needs to change in the organization for the people that 
are already here?”, DiM asks the question “What needs to change so that people 
want to join? And how can we attract people from those groups that are not repre-
sented equally in the organization yet?”

DiM focuses on group attributes rather than individual attributes (Grümme 
2017). This has the negative potential to reproduce stereotypes, but it can also be a 
necessary tool to think about accessibility and barriers for different people – even 
though each person is more than just part of different social groups (e.g. a woman, 
a mother, someone with migration background). Taking group attributes into 

3 For basic information on Diversity Management and its origins, see e.g. Gonzalez and Zamanian 2015; 
Bendl, Hanappi-Egger and Hofmann 2012: 12–13; Aschenbrenner-Wellmann and Geldner 2021.



66
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef22183

66

consideration might serve as an auxiliary structure, because it can help to imagine, 
research and spell out different perspectives.

DiM generally focuses on underrepresented and marginalized groups. For 
pragmatic and legal reasons, in organizational development it often focuses on those 
dimensions of diversity that are part of antidiscrimination law, like race/ethnicity, 
sex/gender, religion and worldview, disability, age or sexual identity (Bendl, Hanap-
pi-Egger and Hofmann 2012: 12–14). But each organization has to decide which 
dimensions are especially relevant for exclusion and inclusion and which underrep-
resented groups are most painfully missing. It also has to reflect where diversity 
has to be limited due to organisational goals. At a university for example, a certain 
exclusion of people without sufficient school education might be necessary – but the 
university should still make sure that as few secondary attributes as possible have 
an influence on the educational outcome. The university can use DiM programmes 
to help ensure that people from non-academic families have equal opportunities, 
or that there are second-chance degree programmes for those who are only able 
to discover or follow their academic abilities at a later stage of life. In the same 
way, churches have to do with religion and worldview – they cannot promise that 
inclusion has nothing to do with these attributes, but they should make sure that 
no secondary attributes are decisive, like a religious family background or a certain 
degree of sociability.

DiM knows that a balance is needed between diversity and cohesion (see 
Aschbrenner-Wellmann and Geldner 2021: 202–4). For the cohesion, relationships 
need to be built, communication skills need to be trained, and a sense of unity and 
togetherness needs to be strengthened, in order to deal with a broad diversity. An 
organization, a team or a group needs a certain amount of cohesive and unifying 
dimensions. The question for a realistic approach to the diversity of a congregation 
is: How much difference can it include? How can the sense of unity and belonging be 
strengthened, without making too many assumptions about equity? And when does 
more diversity in one direction lead to less diversity in another, to losing some people 
while trying to include others? In my experience, no congregation (or any organiza-
tion or group) can be inclusive for everyone. Trying to accommodate some people 
will put others off. A sensible approach for practical purposes might be to seek to 
expand from the status quo towards just some people who are a bit different (Haus-
childt and Pohl-Patalong 2013: 351–3), but still have quite a few overlapping attrib-
utes with those who are already well integrated. A congregation could focus on just 
one or two group attributes that they want to accommodate – and use an intersec-
tional approach for that. For instance, if a congregation already has lots of families 
with similar secondary attributes, it could try to remove barriers for single-parent 



67
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef22183

67

families4 or reach out to international families. A tool for expanding diversity will be 
presented below.

DiM often combines two approaches: One is to work on a general culture of 
openness and acceptance, the other to work on the accessibility and inclusion 
for certain groups of people (Warmuth 2012). One approach might actually lead to 
the other, in both directions.

Growing a general culture of openness and acceptance in a congregation is a 
huge undertaking in itself. I can only give some basic ideas on relevant aspects and 
possible approaches here.
a. Welcome and hospitality, especially for newcomers: To naturally expect visi-

tors and create processes for people who come for the first time is a helpful basis 
for DiM. Clear signage, a welcome team with people who live hospitality, slides or 
leaflets that help to follow the liturgy, a good cup of tea or coffee – these are just 
some practical aspects that might help to create a general atmosphere of hospi-
tality in the congregation.

b. General diversity within the staff and volunteer leadership: Even before there 
are thoughts on specific diversity attributes, it is generally helpful if the staff and 
core volunteers do not all look and think alike. Men and women, different ages 
and family status, different styles and talents – if they respect and complement 
each other and are able to work well together, it can be a model and invitation 
for others.

c. Appreciation of differences instead of rigid ideas about what’s right and 
what’s wrong: If there is a sense that there is the one right style and tradition 
(and lots of wrong ones), the one right way to behave, the one right set of thoughts 
and beliefs – this is the opposite of a general culture of openness. Instead, differ-
ences and ambiguities can be communicated as a positive thing. Programmes 
and events can include a variety of styles of worship, music, language, use of 
media etc. A variety in behaviour, styles, opinions, beliefs within the core commu-
nity creates space for more diversity. This openness and variety needs to be 
balanced with profile and orientation, but the balance should be reflected on and 
discussed carefully.

d. Fewer assumptions, less taking for granted that everyone thinks or feels or 
wants the same: Sometimes the use of “we” isn’t inclusive, but shows how one 
approach or perspective is represented and others are neglected. To avoid that, 
different realities and perspectives should be reflected in sermons and other 

4 The barriers that a single parent family might face in a congregation are well described in Lange, 
2022.



68
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef22183

68

public communication – and the rhetoric should leave space for a listener to 
silently agree or disagree, to identify or not.

e. Ease of faults and errors: Openness and acceptance is also influenced and 
mirrored by the way a congregation deals with faults, errors and disturbances. 
How does the congregation react if there are apparent mistakes made in the 
music or the spoken words, if a baby cries right in the middle of a quiet time of 
reflection, if the pastor forgets the Lord’s Prayer? How willing are leaders to let 
volunteers try out different tasks, even if the first steps aren’t always totally satis-
fying? This again needs to be balanced with a certain quality and professional 
approach.

f. Ability to find compromises and to deal with and resolve conflict: Conflict 
management is a necessary competence when trying to create this culture of 
openness and acceptance without the risk of disintegration. If different styles, 
habits and opinions are encouraged to be in the open, it is all the more important 
that this is twinned with the willingness to find compromises, and a positive atti-
tude towards conflict.

2 Practical approach: A Framework for fostering 
diversity in a congregation

To put some of the learnings from DiM into practice for local congregations, I have 
developed a framework with two parts: One is about raising awareness that (non)
accessibility and exclusion go much further than one might think at first. The other 
is about areas of church activities where actual barriers can be found and removed. 
For both parts, ideas from research outcomes, policy papers and practical instru-
ments5 are combined, adapted and systematized.

2.1 Levels of accessibility and exclusion
While talking about diversity, a church leader once said to me: “But we don’t exclude 
anyone! Everyone is welcome and can take part!” This is what most congregations 
want, and how they would describe themselves. To raise sensitivity for actual exclu-
sion mechanisms, people first need to understand that there are different levels of 
inclusion and exclusion. The issue involves much more than a basic form of acces-
sibility. For this purpose, a model of four levels of accessibility and exclusion is 

5 https://www.aktion-mensch.de/kommune-inklusiv/praxis-handbuch-inklusion/planung/partizipation, 
accessed on 29.04.2025 (for local civil communities), https://www.stifterverband.org/diversity-check, 
accessed on 29.04.2025 (for universities and research institutes), https://www.diakonie-vielfalt.de/, 
accessed on 29.04.2025 (for diaconal and similar organisations), https://www.serviceportal-nordkirche.
de/gemeinde-leiten/vielfalt, accessed on 29.04.2025 (for churches, but little information yet).

https://www.aktion-mensch.de/kommune-inklusiv/praxis-handbuch-inklusion/planung/partizipation
https://www.stifterverband.org/diversity-check
https://www.diakonie-vielfalt.de/
https://www.serviceportal-nordkirche.de/gemeinde-leiten/vielfalt
https://www.serviceportal-nordkirche.de/gemeinde-leiten/vielfalt
file:///P:/Radboud%20University%20Press/Ecclesial%20Futures/2025/01/1%20Originelen/3%20Voorbereid%20-%20finished\h


69
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef22183

69

introduced. On all four levels people can experience barriers. The levels build on 
each other, so if someone is excluded on the first level, he or she usually doesn’t 
even get to the next. And yet, all of them are vital and crucial for full inclusion and 
participation.
a. There is a first level of basic accessibility. Can people actually find and reach 

the place? Can they get into the building? Is information available in a medium 
that they can receive? Are events or meetings at a time when they can possibly 
attend? On this level, we suppose that people actually want to attend. Typical 
barriers for this basic level of accessibility could be physical stairs to the building, 
no toilets, costly fees or that information is only distributed in print to members 
or only available digitally.

b. The second level is understanding. Of course, understanding itself can be basic 
or profound, but here I am talking about a quite basic understanding. It implies 
the acoustics, the language, the media used and any required prior knowledge. 
Typical barriers are the use of insider-language and specialist terms, a compli-
cated grammar, thoughts that demand a lot of shared knowledge or experiences, 
or noisy surroundings or bad acoustics that make it hard for people with hearing 
aids. For internationals or migrants, an altogether foreign language might prevent 
understanding.

c. The third level is a positive experience. This implies basic accessibility and 
understanding, but demands more than that. It is about people feeling welcome 
and comfortable, about people liking the atmosphere, the programme, the 
aesthetics, the people around them. Typical barriers could be that people feel 
insecure about the do’s and don’ts, that they feel uncomfortable with a room, 
that they feel bored or overwhelmed, that they feel left out in communication, or 
that they have to do things they don’t feel comfortable with. On this level it does 
get really tricky, because different people are used to and like different styles 
and programmes, and the different demands might seem to exclude each other. 
Aiming for a mainstream approach might be one option, or, when working with 
an existing congregation, trying to make the experience more positive for those 
who are already there plus bearing in mind others that are somehow similar and 
somehow different, in order to broaden the diversity of those who could have a 
positive experience.

d. The fourth level is belonging. There are different forms and needs. Belonging 
can, on the one side, be to visit now and then and to feel at the right place when 
it happens. Or, on the other side, it can be to have personal contacts, be part 
of a group and to take ownership. What can stand in the way of belonging, if 
basic accessibility, understanding and a positive experience are given? Barriers 
could be the feeling that everyone is different from oneself, that one’s own situ-
ation and concerns are never mentioned, or that one’s own culture is not repre-



70
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef22183

70

sented at all. Exclusion from certain volunteer positions, whether by rules or by 
soft factors, can also obstruct a full sense of belonging.

Diagram: Levels of accessibility and exclusion

2.2 Areas of accessibility 
If a congregation wants to drive forward a process of diversifying, it is crucial to iden-
tify the things that put people off, make them feel unwelcome or prevent their partic-
ipation – in short: the barriers that limit basic accessibility, understanding, a positive 
experience and belonging. These barriers are usually unintentional and often lie 
within habits and structures. To realize them is necessary if they are to be minimized.

Since no approach can fully remove barriers for everyone and some needs are 
even in opposition, I suggest to choose just a few group attributes to work with6 
How can such a choice be made? Maybe there are people who have already shown 
interest by visiting once or twice, but you feel it hasn’t gone that well – in which 
dimension might they be different from others who are well included? Maybe some 
of the regular churchgoers have friends, family or other contacts in a specific milieu 
that isn’t well represented in the congregation yet. Might that be a milieu to try to 
reduce barriers for? There might be longstanding members of the congregation 
whose health or family status has recently changed so that long-term illness or 
divorce might be a recent challenge, and a chance to think about those dimensions 
of diversity. Or there might be something in the local context that invites to choose 
a certain diversity perspective.

How can the actual barriers then be recognized? For illustration purposes, let 
us imagine that a congregation would want to expand their range of diversity to 

6 Hauschildt and Pohl-Patalong (2013: 351–53) come to a similar conclusion regarding milieus.



71
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef22183

71

be more accessible for international university students. They already attract native 
university students and want to diversify from there. The best way to spot barriers 
for international students would be to actually ask international students, especially 
if a few are already at the edges of the congregation. Another way would be that 
there might be bridge-builders in the congregation who work or live with interna-
tional students and can put themselves in their shoes especially well. In addition to 
that, the leaders of the congregation should also try to take that perspective and to 
imagine different situations of congregational life from that perspective. Combining 
the different approaches and also hearing stories and reading research about other 
diversity groups might help to overcome the blindness that comes with routine and 
longstanding habituation.

For a structured approach, it is helpful to go through several areas and aspects 
of the congregations’ activities. The following framework can be used for that.7 It 
gives a structure of five areas of congregational activities: Information and public 
communication, buildings and times, content and culture of events and meetings, 
personal contacts and networks, and opportunities for participation and contribu-
tion. I give some ideas for each area, using the four levels of accessibility, and some-
times using examples of the group of international students for illustration. The 
question to ask for each area when using the framework is: What might be barriers 
for a group that you have in mind, and how can they be reduced?
a. Information and public communication: In this area, for basic accessibility and 

understanding the information needs to be easy to find, disseminated in the right 
places and channels, and available in an understandable language. For interna-
tional students, who are often new to a town, online information with appro-
priate keywords and the use of English language would be basic features. For 
a positive experience, the design and choice of words matters – international 
students might like what is generally attractive for young, well-educated and 
globally mobile people. To open up for belonging, visual representation might be 
relevant. International students might feel less excluded if in the pictures there 
are young people and also ethnically mixed groups.

b. Locations, buildings, times: A traditional understanding of accessibility concen-
trates on physically disabled people and the appropriateness of entrance and 
facilities for them. But there are also other needs. For international students, 
basic accessibility could be hindered by inappropriate signage of and in the 
building, or by times of activities that don’t fit with students’ timetables. For inter-

7 Some ideas are taken from guidelines on inclusion, on diversity management or on inclusive church 
services for specific groups. See e.g. Diakonie Deutschland 2019; Evangelische Kirche im Rheinland 
2013; Bieler 2008; EKD 2015; Evangelische Kirche von Westfalen 2016; Kunz 2013. 



72
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef22183

72

national students, the concerns are probably more on the levels of positive expe-
rience and belonging – does the building feel welcoming and a safe space, does 
the interior design mirror the openness for their generation and cultures, do the 
rooms allow for different levels of participation, and does the congregation allow 
for not being strictly on time? For different groups of people, aspects like space, 
ventilation and temperature might be relevant, or lighting, acoustics and other 
things.
Another aspect worth mentioning is drinks and food. Although it is rarely rele-
vant for basic accessibility and understanding, it can be vital for positive experi-
ence and belonging. It adds greatly to the surrounding and overall atmosphere, 
is crucial for hospitality and can have a strong inclusive impact. Drinks and food 
are closely connected with different cultures, milieus and generations – going the 
extra mile here to accommodate certain groups might be well worth it.

c. Content and culture of events and meetings: Depending on the type of event 
or meeting, different aspects come to mind. In a church service, understanding 
might be hindered for certain groups by unfamiliar or complicated language in 
songs, prayers and sermons. In addition, sometimes too much shared knowl-
edge is required – about Christianity in general, but also about specific faith 
traditions or about the congregation. For international students, the altogether 
foreign language might have to be translated – which is easier if the original 
grammar, choice of words and lines of thought are easy to follow. For a positive 
experience and for belonging, it might help to address various senses and also 
to give different options to participate or to follow from a distance –intention-
ally opening the event for different levels of involvement might support diversity. 
Another important question is whether or not people’s situations are mentioned 
in sermons and prayers: if people sense that the speakers only have other groups 
of people in mind, it might also make them feel excluded.
In church services, the music often has a strong impact on the experience of 
those who take part (see Ahrens and Wegner,2008: 36–9). There is no right or 
and wrong way of choosing between different styles of music, or mixing them, 
just as there is no right and wrong of a professional or amateur approach. Lots 
of conflicts arise around the choice of instruments and songs and volume. It is 
about culture, familiarity, faith traditions and personal theology. It seems to be 
closely connected to the dimension of belonging, and needs to be treated with 
great care.
All in all, if a diversity of people is involved in contributing to the event, it enhances 
the chances of representing a variety of perspectives and styles – at least if those 
who contribute are encouraged to bring their own preferences and thoughts to 
the table and act authentically.



73
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef22183

73

d. Personal contacts, networking and community: In this area, opportunities for 
personal contacts and for experiencing a sense of community are fundamental. 
Different ways of interaction are helpful – not just the usual small talk at church 
coffee, but maybe also guided group discussions, communal meals, or joint activ-
ities. What is appropriate depends on the group of people a congregation wants 
to especially include. To foster diversity, the information about and access to joint 
activities and networking opportunities should be transparent and available via 
different channels. If there is a social gathering, the invitation should be clear; if 
there are digital networks or other structures where people can join to connect, 
they should be transparent and accessible. Personal contacts should, on the 
other hand, not be forced on anyone – if someone wants to come and go and not 
talk to anyone, that shouldn’t make that person feel like an outsider. Respecting 
personal space or dealing sensitively with different perceptions of closeness and 
distance are also relevant.
Community isn’t just about personal interaction though. Singing or praying 
together can in itself create the experience of community. Standing together for 
Holy Communion can create a feeling of togetherness and community. If this 
sense of community is not disrupted by some of the barriers mentioned above, 
and if a general atmosphere of welcome and openness is facilitated, that might 
sometimes even be worth more for a positive experience and a sense of belon-
ging than lots of opportunities for personal interaction.

e. Participation and contribution: As much as inclusion is not just about the possi-
bility to passively attend and be cared for, diversifying a congregation is about 
allowing and inviting different people to have an impact and leave their mark. 
The attempt to diversify needs the contribution of diverse people. If people are 
invited to attend, but not listened to and not appreciated for their gifts, it might 
be yet another form of exclusion. Obviously not everyone wants to participate in 
the same way, or even take on an active role in the congregation. But if attempts 
are discouraged or some volunteer positions are principally closed to a group of 
people, that can be a huge barrier for feeling welcome and for belonging (Barron 
2016).
What can be done to open up for active participation and contribution and to 
foster diversity in this area? It is necessary to give opportunities to contribute 
with more or less time commitment. There might be situations where people can 
help or share spontaneously, whether carrying tables or putting forward their 
prayer requests. One-time activities like bringing food or taking part in a garde-
ning day might be easily accessible. A mixture of short-term projects and long-
term voluntary positions can serve different needs and living situations. Offering 
a variety of tasks and roles to include people with different gifts and preferences 
is also crucial. Communication and meetings for volunteers need to be barri-



74
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef22183

74

er-free, just like public communication and events in general (see above). And last 
but not least, the ideal would be transparent information about possible contri-
bution combined with personal approaches by someone who is good at getting 
to know people.

To work with these tools might seem complicated, but in fostering diversity, a 
congregation is dealing with a complex challenge. The different steps – choosing the 
group(s) they want to be easily and fully accessible for, understanding the different 
levels of accessibility, and getting hands-on in the different areas of their activities, 
can help to actually get a grip and start the process.

3 Concluding reflections
The presented framework wants to help practitioners to reflect and develop their 
own ideas for fostering at least one dimension of diversity in their local church. It has 
not been tested and evaluated yet. Research on the impact of using diversity checks 
and diversity-oriented frameworks for church development could be fruitful.

There are lots of open questions and critical reflections in my mind: Isn’t the 
learning process of an organization far too complex to even suggest using this frame-
work? Doesn’t the process of linking this with the organisational vision and values 
deserve much closer attention? (see Warmuth 2012: 210). Isn’t a professional process 
necessary, analysing the status quo, creating future goals and a strategy, imple-
menting and evaluating this strategy? (Warmuth 2012: 210–30). Where should the 
resources in time and attention and emotional investment come from, when many 
local churches are struggling already? Still, the needs of churches deserve attempts 
to apply theories to practice, even though there are still open questions and reser-
vations.

Last but not least: Any process of church development, whether diversity- 
oriented or with another approach, needs to be rooted in prayer and inspired by 
scripture. Dwelling in the image of Jesus and the early church, in God’s calling of the 
marginalized and the perspective of heaven where all will feast together – that can 
encourage and enrich any diversity-oriented church development. When using the 
presented framework to grow the sensitivity for diverse perspectives, this rooting 
in prayer and scripture can help to balance the load of details and the demands for 
organizational activities with a spiritual approach and personal growth.

About the Author
Dr Hanna Kauhaus has a background in Protestant theology and educational 
sciences. She holds a doctorate in historical theology. Currently she is working at 



75
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef22183

75

Martin-Luther-University in Halle, heading a research group on church theory and 
church development with ecumenical and international perspectives. Contact: 
hanna.kauhaus@theologie.uni-halle.de

References
Ahrens, Petra-Angela, and Gerhard Wegner. 2008. “Hier Ist Nicht Jude Noch Grieche, Hier Ist Nicht 

Sklave Noch Freier…”: Erkundungen Der Affinität Sozialer Milieus zu Kirche und Religion in Der 
Evangelisch-Lutherischen Landeskirche Hannovers. Hannover: Sozialwissenschaftliches Institut 
der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland.

Aschenbrenner-Wellmann, Beate, and Lea Geldner. 2021. Diversität in der Sozialen Arbeit: Theorien, 
Konzepte, Praxismodelle. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer Verlag.

Barron, Jessica M. 2016. “Managed Diversity: Race, Place, and an Urban Church”, Sociology of Religion 
77 (1): 18–36.

Bendl, Regine, Edeltraud Hanappi-Egger and Roswitha Hofmann. 2012. “Diversität und Diversitäts-
management: Ein Vielschichtiges Thema” in Bendl, Hanappi-Egger and Hofmann (eds). Diversität 
und Diversitätsmanagement. Wien: facultas; Stuttgart: UTB: 11–22.

Bieler, Andrea. 2008. Gottesdienst interkulturell: Predigen und Gottesdienst feiern im Zwisenraum. Stutt-
gart: Kohlhammer.

Brunn, Frank Martin. 2021. “Das Thema Inklusion in der Evangelischen Theologie” in Nicola 
Hericks (ed.). Inklusion, Diversität und Heterogenität: Begriffsverwendung und Praxisbeispiele aus 
 multidisziplinärer Perspektive. Wiesbaden: Springer VS: 95–111.

Cox, Taylor. 1993. Cultural Diversity in Organizations: Theory, Research, and Practice. San Francisco, CA: 
Berrett-Koehler.

Diakonie Deutschland. 2019. Vielfaltcheck Diakonie Und Kirchen. Projektbericht Und Ergebnisse, Berlin.
Eckholt, Margit. 2017. “Kirche im Zeichen der Diversität: systemtisch-theologische Perspektiven”, 

Zeitschrift für Pastoraltheologie 37 (2): 9–24.
EKD. 2015. Es ist normal, verschieden zu sein: Inklusion leben in Kirche und Gesellschaft: Eine 

 Orientierungshilfe des Rates der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland (EKD). 2nd ed. Gütersloh: 
Gütersloher Verl.-Haus.

———. 2022. EKD-Fachforum “Inklusive Kirche gestalten” 2021: Aktionspläne Inklusive Kirche: 11.-12: 
Oktober 2021 (digital), vol. 2022, Nr. 19, Dokumentation. Frankfurt am Main: Gemeinschaftswerk d. 
Evangelischen Publizistik (GEP).

Etzelmüller, Gregor, and Claudiaa Rammelt (eds). 2022. Migrationskirchen: Internationalisierung und 
Pluralisierung des Christentums vor Ort. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt.

Eurich, Johannes, and Andreas Lob-Hüdepohl (eds). 2011. Inklusive Kirche, vol. 1, Behinderung - 
 Theologie – Kirche. Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer.

Evangelische Kirche im Rheinland. 2013. Da kann ja jede(r) kommen – Inklusion und kirchliche Praxis: 
Eine Orientierungshilfe der Evangelischen Kirche im Rheinland. Düsseldorf: Abteilung Bildung im 
Landeskirchenamt und Pädagogisch-Theologisches Institut der EkiR.

Evangelische Kirche von Westfalen. 2016. Gemeinsam Kirche Sein: Gottesdienst Feiern Mit Internation-
aler Beteiligung: Materialien Für Den Dienst. Bielefeld: Evangelische Kirche von Westfalen.

Frey, Jörg. 2014. “Neutestamentliche Perspektiven” in Ralph Kunz and Tomas Schlag (eds). Handbuch 
für Kirchen- und Gemeindeentwicklung. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Theologie: 31–41.

Gonzalez, Jorge A., and Azadeh Zamanian. 2015. “Diversity in Organizations” in James D. Wright (ed.), 
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second Edition). Oxford: Elsevier: 
595–600.

Grümme, Bernhard. 2017. “‘Diversity” in Mirjam Zimmermann and Heike Lindner (eds). Wissenschaft-
lich-Religionspädagogisches Lexikon (WiReLex). Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.

mailto:hanna.kauhaus@theologie.uni-halle.de


76
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef22183

76

Hauschildt, Eberhard, and Uta Pohl-Patalong. 2013. “Kirche” in Albrecht Grözinger, Christoph 
Morgenthaler and Friedrich Schweitzer (eds). Lehrbuch praktische Theologie 4. Gütersloh: Güter-
sloher Verlagshaus.

Herbst, Michael. 2018. Aufbruch im Umbruch: Beiträge zu aktuellen Fragen der Kirchentheorie: Beiträge 
zu Evangelisation und Gemeindeentwicklung. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht; Bristol, CT: 
Neukirchener Theologie.

Hermelink, Jan. 2011. Kirchliche Organisation und das Jenseits des Glaubens: eine praktisch-theologische 
Theorie der evangelischen Kirche. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verl.-Haus.

Jacobi, Christopher. 2024. “Religiosität und Kirchlichkeit im Alters- und Generationenvergleich” in 
Sozialwissenschaftliches Institut der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland (EKD) and Katholische 
Arbeitsstelle für missionarische Pastoral (KAMP), Wie hältst du’s mit der Kirche? Zur Relevanz von 
Religion und Kirche in der pluralen Gesellschaft: Analysen zur 6. Kirchenmitgliedschaftsuntersuchung. 
Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt GmbH: 208–29.

Kläden, Tobias, and Edgar Wunder. 2024. “Sozialstrukturelle Ungleichheiten und ihre Beziehungen 
zur Religiosität” in Sozialwissenschaftliches Institut der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland 
(EKD) and Katholische Arbeitsstelle für missionarische Pastoral (KAMP): 243–54.

Krieg, Matthias. 2017. “‘Seid umschlungen Millionen! Diesen Kuss der ganzen Welt!’: Neun Thesen 
zu Milieuorientierung oder Inklusion”, Praktische Theologie im reformierten Kontext 15: 536–48.

Kunz, Ralph (ed.). 2013. Handbuch Inklusion in der Kirchengemeinde. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & 
Ruprecht.

Lange, Katarina. 2022. “The Christian Message for Single Parents – Challenges for Mission and 
Diakonia” in Motte, Parlindugan and Hübner. Building Inclusive Communities: How can Churches 
fight against Discrimination, Exclusion and Violence? Contributions of Young People from Africa, Asia 
and Europe (Für Menschenrechte, vol. 22). Solingen: foedus: 36–43.

Schulz, Claudia. 2014. “Sozialstrukturelle Vielfalt, Lebensstile Und Milieus” in Ralph Kunz and Thomas 
Schlag (eds). Handbuch Für Kirchen- Und Gemeindeentwicklung. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener 
Verlag: 117–24.

Warmuth, Gloria-Sophia. 2012. “Die Strategische Implementierung von Diversitätsmanagement in 
Organisationen” in Bendl, Hanappi-Egger and Hofmann (eds), Diversität und Diversitätsmanage-
ment. Wien: facultas: 203–36.

Wunder, Edgar. 2024. “Macht Geschlecht einen Unterschied? Die Schließung des Gender Gap bei der 
Religiosität als Säkularisierungsindikator” in Sozialwissenschaftliches Institut der Evangelischen 
Kirche in Deutschland (EKD) and Katholische Arbeitsstelle für missionarische Pastoral (KAMP), 
230–42.

Yadav, Shatrughan, and Usha Lenka. 2020. “Diversity Management: A Systematic Review”, Equality, 
Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal 39 (8): 901–29.


	Hanna Kauhaus
	Fostering Diversity in Congregations: A practical framework for local churches to reflect and improve accessibility

