MULTICULTURAL DIVERSITY AND MISSIONARY TEAM DYNAMICS

JEFFREY DAVID MARLOWE

B.A., PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, 1973 Licence en Théologie, FACULTÉ JEAN CALVIN, 1987 M.Ed., TEMPLE UNIVERSITY, 1998

Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Ministry

Acadia Divinity College Acadia University Spring Convocation 2018

© JEFFREY DAVID MARLOWE, 2018 This thesis by Jeffrey David Marlowe was defended successfully in an oral examination on 27 March 2018.

The examining committee for the thesis was:

Dr. Anna Robbins, Chair

Dr. Mary Evans, External Examiner

Dr. Stephen McMullin, Internal Examiner

Dr. Andrew Kirk, Supervisor

Dr. John McNally, DMin Representative

This thesis is accepted in its present form by Acadia Divinity College, the Faculty of Theology of Acadia University, as satisfying the thesis requirements for the degree of Doctor of Ministry.

ii

I, Jeffrey David Marlowe, hereby grant permission to the University Librarian at Acadia University to provide copies of my thesis, upon request, on a non-profit basis.

Jeffrey David Marlowe Author

Dr. Andrew Kirk Supervisor

27 March 2018 Date

iii

Contents ABSTRACT ...... vi ABBREVIATIONS...... vii DEDICATION ...... viii INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Rationale ...... 2 Research Question and Design ...... 4 Complexity of Multicultural Teams ...... 5 Overview of Project ...... 7 CHAPTER ONE: BIBLICAL FOUNDATIONS ...... 9 God’s Plan to Bless Creation ...... 11 The Table of Nations: Genesis 10:1-32 ...... 13 The Call of Abraham and the Blessing of the Nations: Genesis 12:1-9 ...... 20 A Prophet to the Nations: Jonah ...... 27 Beginnings of Christian Community: Acts 2:41-47 ...... 29 Multicultural Mission in Antioch: Acts 11:19-30 ...... 35 Cultural and Community Dynamics in the New Testament ...... 42 Conclusion ...... 50 CHAPTER TWO: THEOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS ...... 54 Community Life in the Early House Churches ...... 54 Missio Dei ...... 69 Diversity, Culture, and Multiculturalism ...... 80 Conclusion ...... 90 CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...... 93 Overview ...... 94 Research Design ...... 95 Selection of Participants ...... 98 Data Saturation ...... 106 Data Coding and Analysis ...... 108 Conclusion ...... 111 CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS ...... 112

iv

Overview ...... 112 Action Research: Background and Observations ...... 116 Student Y in Cape Town ...... 117 Behind the Scenes in Cyprus ...... 121 Polis Project in Athens ...... 123 GospelHaus in Berlin ...... 126 Interview Data ...... 128 Spiritual Dynamics ...... 130 Kingdom Witness ...... 134 Team Processes ...... 138 Cultural Awareness ...... 143 Leadership and Power ...... 148 Synergy and Creativity ...... 154 Community ...... 155 Communication ...... 157 CHAPTER FIVE: PRACTICAL PROJECT ...... 162 Team Leader Competency Model ...... 164 Team Member Competency Model ...... 169 Training Design ...... 172 Conclusion ...... 177 CONCLUSION ...... 178 APPENDIX A: RESEARCH INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ...... 187 APPENDIX B: MULTICULTURAL TEAM BEST PRACTICES ...... 188 APPENDIX C: COMPETENCY MODEL - MULTICULTURAL TEAM LEADER ...... 191 APPENDIX D: COMPETENCY MODEL - MULTICULTURAL TEAM MEMBER ...... 192 APPENDIX E: TRAINING DESIGN ...... 193 APPENDIX F: SAMPLE INTERVIEW RESPONSES FROM SELECT QUESTIONS ....196 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 200

v

Abstract

MULTICULTURAL DIVERSITY AND MISSIONARY TEAM DYNAMICS Jeffrey David Marlowe

The research project evaluated four multicultural missionary teams ministering in four international sites. The guiding question focused on identifying best practices and competencies for multicultural missionary teams seeking to be cohesive, minister successfully, and represent Christian community which transcends culture. In order to lay the underpinnings of multicultural ministry, the study examined biblical foundations primarily from Genesis and the book of Acts in order to present an overview of God’s love for and inclusion of the nations as participants in the kingdom and as ministers in the extension of the kingdom. In addition, a theological discussion emerging from community life in the early house churches, the concept of missio Dei, and the notions of culture and diversity further contributed to the significance of multicultural missionary teams. The research project used a combination of action research and interviews of twenty-seven participants and, through the data gathered, proposed eight best practice categories for effective multicultural missionary teams. As to conclusions determining what contributes to a functional multicultural team, several items emerged consistently including a spiritual emphasis focusing on commonalities in Christ; cultural awareness and discussions around issues of worldview, values, and behaviors; and leadership that promoted cultural awareness, spiritual dynamics, and community life.

vi

Abbreviations

Old Testament

Genesis Gen Ecclesiastes Eccl Exodus Exod Song of Solomon Song Leviticus Lev Isaiah Isa Numbers Num Jeremiah Jer Deuteronomy Deut Lamentations Lam Joshua Josh Ezekiel Ezek Judges Judg Daniel Dan Ruth Ruth Hosea Hos 1 Samuel 1 Sam Joel Joel 2 Samuel 2 Sam Amos Amos 1 Kings 1 Kgs Obadiah Obad 2 Kings 2 Kgs Jonah Jon 1 Chr 1 Chr Micah Mic 2 Chr 2 Chr Nahum Nah Ezra Ezra Habakkuk Hab Nehemiah Neh Zephaniah Zeph Esther Esth Haggai Hag Job Job Zechariah Zech Psalms Ps Malachi Mal Proverbs Prov

New Testament

Matthew Matt 2 Timothy 2 Tim Mark Mark Titus Titus Luke Luke Philemon Phlm John John Hebrews Heb Acts Acts James Jas Romans Rom 1 Peter 1 Pet 1 Corinthians 1 Cor 2 Peter 2 Pet 2 Corinthians 2 Cor 1 John 1 John Galatians Gal 2 John 2 John Ephesians Eph 3 John 3 John Philippians Phil Jude Jude Colossians Col Revelation Rev 1 Thessalonians 1 Thess 2 Thessalonians 2 Thess 1 Timothy 1 Tim

vii

Dedication

This work is dedicated to my wife, Mischa, who has been my partner in cross-cultural mission for many years as we walked together in ministry in Quebec, France, and Senegal. Her encouragement, wisdom, companionship, and nurture of five children has brought happiness, comfort, and a desire to grow in Christ to us all.

viii

Introduction

The twenty-first century world is changing at a rapid rate as the cultural landscapes of many nations are being reshaped. As globalization1 affects the world economy, expands technology, and allows unlimited accessibility to information, it has equally revealed new patterns of people movements, immigration, and increasingly diverse societies. Western nations as well as a number of majority world countries are becoming more diverse, adding complexity to how cultures live together, work together, and relate to each other. Moreover, cultures themselves are becoming more fluid. Generational differences within cultures can vary depending on influences of a majority culture as well as the influences of the family of origin and individual personalities.

In similar fashion, the backdrop of Christian mission and how it is accomplished today is shifting. The era of western domination in mission, the norm since the era of modern mission began several centuries ago, is giving way to a multicultural approach of how missionaries and local Christian bodies organize themselves. Today the center of Christianity has moved south to Africa, Latin America, and Asia. Although power, finances, and personnel issues may still be present, those to whom the gospel was brought years ago are increasingly taking the reins of gospel outreach in their respective cultures and beyond and, most importantly, seeing themselves as equal partners in the mission task. Moreover, there is a growing

1. I have opted to use the term globalization since it is most understood in today’s changing world although internationalization could have been used as well. The International Monetary Fund has identified four aspects of globalization including trade, capital investments, people migration, and the dissemination of information or knowledge. Globalization is essentially a movement from the west to the rest of the world. Thomas Friedman in The World is Flat (2005) describes the latest wave of globalization as “shrinking the world from a small size to a size tiny and flattening the playing field at the same time.” Friedman contends that the current phase of globalization is the “newfound power for individuals to collaborate and compete globally.” Of course there are consequences as marketplace forces impact all areas of the world and cultures (western and majority worlds) both positively and negatively.

1 movement of western missionary endeavors to develop partnership initiatives where both national and missionary plan together or where western missionaries come under the authority of national leadership. The issue of authority and to whom belongs ultimate authority in matters of cross-cultural mission is pertinent in this discussion about mission.

We will discuss this matter more fully in chapter two under the theme of missio Dei. Suffice it to say now that the western church has at times overstepped its understanding of authority in matters of mission. Consequently, cultural patterns of dominance have inculcated the western church for several centuries during the period of the modern mission movement.2

Rationale

The rationale for the study focuses on the rising need for multicultural teams that incorporate North American and national workers on an equal footing in the context of a

North American mission agency. In light of the work in which American missionaries have been engaged, local partners have signaled the necessity of having an equal seat at the table.

A new era of mission endeavor is increasingly characterized by partnership between host culture Christians and missionaries. As a result, a new complexity has taken root and, positively, reciprocal discussions about context and translation of the gospel are occurring.

2. The scriptures inform us that authority was and is always to be exercised in the sense of serving others. In Paul’s writings, the word authority (exousia) carries the sense of faithful transmission of the gospel and, hence, guarantor, rather than innovator of church tradition. Although apostolic authority was given (Matthew 28:18-20), the New Testament makes clear that all authority is derived from the presence of Christ’s power with those gathered in his name. In order to understand how authority is to be exercised in any culture or among cultures, the scriptures give us a continual picture from the life and teaching of Christ. In Matthew 18, the disciples came to Jesus to ask him who would be the greatest in the kingdom. Jesus answers that to be great, one must be like a little child. In John 13, one of the most poignant moments occurs when Jesus washed the feet of his disciples to the consternation of Peter. The one who wishes to have authority over others must be the servant of all.

2

In addition, as multicultural partners work together to present the gospel, cross-cultural team dynamics and group processes become all the more significant if the work of advancing the gospel is to be effective. Although working multiculturally has become common in many sectors of society, cross-cultural misunderstandings are recurrent, leading to negative interpersonal and team dynamics associated at times with frustration, disappointment, and anger.3 Hence, the challenge for multicultural mission teams is to assure that team processes are in place that recognize cultural differences and values while all the time focusing on commonalities in Christ. We hope to demonstrate that as a multicultural team focuses on unity in Christ, develops community, and functions in a context of mutual respect, the world notices. Multicultural mission teams are a witness in and of themselves.

The study was conducted in the context of the ministry of Mission to the World, the mission agency of the Presbyterian Church in America. The overarching objective was to enable the mission agency, as well as other Christian organizations, to leverage multicultural teams in ways that reflect kingdom and missiological values in the task of accomplishing gospel ministry through church planting, theological education, evangelism, discipleship, and social engagement. For our purposes, a multicultural team entails two or more cultures working together. It should be noted that the practical portion of this study that analyzed four mission teams was limited to Americans from the mission agency as they worked alongside other cultures. Although a more robust study involving interactions with a multiplicity of cultures, including solely non-western cultures, would produce even richer data, this research project focused on the needs of an American mission agency and was thus limited in scope.

3. Sheryl Takagi Silzer, Biblical Multicultural Teams: Applying Biblical Truth to Cultural Differences (Pasadena: William Carey International University Press, 2011), 1.

3

Research Question and Design

The research question addressed in this project was to identify best practices and competencies that will help in the creation, training, and deployment of multicultural mission teams for effective ministry primarily in the context of Mission to the World, but with applications for other cross-cultural mission agencies. The information gathered was used to create best practices and competency models to enhance selection of team members and leaders as well as design training to help global teams assimilate new ways of functioning.

The study project was limited to global mission teams having a multicultural composition.

The biblical and theological foundations provided background, perspective and the validation for why multicultural teams are important. The practical research conducted with four mission teams was qualitative4 in nature, emphasizing descriptive methodology.5 The study made use of action research, interviews, and focus groups. Through interviews and action research with four cross-cultural mission teams, this project intended to identify what makes an effective cross-cultural mission team as well as detect where the same teams experience challenges. From the data gathered, we intended to demonstrate what is needed to thrive as a multicultural team in the areas of spiritual dynamics, kingdom witness, team

4. Joan Sargeant, “Qualitative Research Part II: Participants, Analysis, and Quality Assurance,” Journal of Graduate Medical Education (March 2012), 1. The research conducted was qualitative in nature. Sargeant makes the distinction between quantitative and qualitative research and notes that while quantitative research focuses predominantly on the impact of an intervention and generally answers questions like ‘‘did it work?’’ and ‘‘what was the outcome?’’, qualitative research focuses on understanding the intervention or phenomenon and exploring questions like ‘‘why was this effective or not?’’ and ‘‘how is this helpful for learning?’’ Moreover, quantitative research measures numerically the results of an intervention whereas qualitative research describes the process and results. 5. Tim Sensing, Qualitative Research: A Multi-Methods Approach to Projects for Doctor of Ministry Theses (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2011), 50.

4 processes, cultural dynamics, leadership skills, community life, synergy, and communication and conflict management.

Complexity of Multicultural Teams

Research has shown that functioning as a monocultural team is hard enough. An abundance of studies on monocultural teams has existed since the mid-twentieth century.

However, research on multicultural mission teams is fairly recent. As far as team dynamics and performance are concerned, multicultural teams report many of the same problems as monocultural teams. When a team fails to develop norms, common objectives, team processes, or effective team leadership, the same problems will occur, whether monocultural or multicultural. So the multicultural team does well to adhere to much of the research findings from the past fifty years regarding teams.

However, the multicultural team adds further complexity that focuses on the understanding of cultural values such as how people view time, relationship versus task orientation, how decisions are made, how to approach conflict, and whether the approach to leadership is to be understood as hierarchical or egalitarian. Moreover, this study will attempt to show that because of cultural diversity, the multicultural team will have to decide on what we will call throughout this study shared meaning, or shared values, in order to create a sense of cohesion and, hopefully, community. For the multicultural missionary or ministry team, this study points to the importance of commonalities in Christ and a spiritual connection among team members in order to manage the cultural obstacles in order to move forward.

The gospel message always remains the same. But cultural context becomes the vehicle through which the communication of the gospel is proclaimed and assimilated into each

5 cultural setting. If the gospel is to remain consistent and faithfully proclaimed in changing contexts, then missionaries from all cultures will be students first of all of the gospel as found in the scriptures, but also of cultural differences in order to not only contextualize it effectively, but to minister alongside one another in Christian love and mutual understanding.

Cross-cultural missionaries will do well to not only understand the ones they are reaching, but also the cultures of those alongside whom they minister.

The creation of multicultural teams does not guarantee that cultural conflicts and power struggles will no longer exist. In reality, those struggles may intensify. However, multicultural ministry teams, if guided well, will benefit from an understanding of cultural differences, cross-cultural communication, cross-cultural conflict management, skilled multicultural leadership, and multicultural team dynamics, while at the same time growing as a community built on the unity that members have in Christ. Unity in Christ is the bond in multicultural teams that this project hopes to establish as foundational.

Despite the challenges, multicultural teams have the potential to demonstrate a broader range of perspectives and viewpoints regarding gospel contextualization and proclamation.

Although individual cultural values and behaviors do not disappear, diversity has the potential to enhance productivity, creativity, and a witness of gospel reconciliation to a watching world.

6

Overview of Project

The present study begins with an analysis of biblical foundations for the practice of multicultural missionary teams. In the midst of current discussion about diversity, we desire to lay the groundwork on the premise that the multicultural people of God has been the goal from the very beginning, as evidenced first of all in God’s care for the nations to the promise made to Abraham to the final culmination witnessed in Revelation 5:5-9. The plan of God moves progressively to a new people comprised of every tribe, tongue, and nation.

Throughout this study, we hope to demonstrate that we are not proposing another social construct, but a model based on the promise to make the nations one people as revealed in scripture. Along with ministry success and viable team processes, the underpinning of multicultural ministry teams is unity in Christ centered on the new people of God.

Secondly, through an analysis of the practices of the early house churches, we intend to show how the early churches learned to form community in a new faith and social context. In a new era of faith, the early house churches committed themselves to the apostolic deposit and to announcing the gospel of Jesus Christ to the nations. The new cause brought dynamism, spiritual growth, and, at the same time, suffering and persecution in the midst of hostile socio-political systems. In spite of what was happening around them, the new

Christians lived counter-culturally. The unity found in the early communities as they managed cultural differences (Acts 15:1-21) will hopefully provide a model for how modern- day multicultural mission teams can function. Cultural differences will always be present, but the ministry focused on living for the kingdom of God will hopefully learn to manage them for the greater cause of Christ and the advancement of the gospel.

7

Next, the modern mission movement, emanating from the West, preached the gospel to the nations for the last few centuries. It has proclaimed Christ, planted churches, and trained national brothers and sisters to lead in their own cultures. But the pivotal discussions of the mid-twentieth century reframing mission in terms of God in Trinity who acts to advance his plan, continues to shape new mission initiatives. In this study, the overarching role of God in

Trinity will hopefully be demonstrated.

As for the practical research component of the study, we note that while cross-cultural team research has been conducted in recent years in for-profit and non-profit organizations, the impetus for this study is to expand knowledge and applications for the church, specifically multicultural mission and ministry teams. Several laudable works stand out already as helpful in the arena of multicultural mission teams (Hibbert and Hibbert 2014,

Silzer 2011, Roemke 2000). In addition, a number of research studies from non-ministry related fields have been helpful in focusing on specific aspects of multicultural team work including such themes as shared meaning (Shokef and Erez 2006), structural holes (Balkundi,

Kilduff, Barsness, and Michael 2007), cultural identity (Lustig 2009, Aritz and Walker

2010), cross-cultural leadership (Hibbert and Hibbert 2014; Plueddemann 2009, 2011), group dynamics (Wheelan 2004, French and Bell 1999, Katzenbach and Smith 1993)), cultural intelligence (Livermore 2009), intercultural communication (Lustig 2009, Soong-Chan

2010), cross-cultural collaboration (Halverson and Tirmizi 2008), cross-cultural conflict

(Behfar, Kern, and Brett 2006), and cultural measures and values (Gorringe 2004, Hofstede and Hofstede 2010, Silzer 2011). These themes have been assimilated into the present work and will be discussed further in the research findings of chapter four.

8

Chapter One: Biblical Foundations

Multicultural ministry reflects the biblical progression of the mission of God, emphasizing God’s movement in history as it advances from the particular, as realized in

Abraham, to the universal, as witnessed in the inclusion of the Gentiles. Diverse ministry teams demonstrate that those from all people groups and cultures engage one another as part of the people of God as they form together new community in Christ. Cross-cultural ministry teams are a picture of the inclusive Body of Christ as they break down barriers and bring shalom to the nations, fulfilling what the prophet Zechariah declared: “God will cut off the chariot from Ephraim and the war-horse from Jerusalem; and the battle bow shall be cut off, and he shall command peace to the nations; his dominion shall be from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth” (Zech 9:10). That peace will finally be realized in the new creation.

In anticipating the new creation, the Church is called to reflect the new community united to Christ from all nations6, cultures, and languages. In Galatians 3:27-29, Paul writes: “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 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.” The multicultural ministry team, the microcosm of the overarching vision of Christian

6. D.I. Block, “Nation,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1986, 492-493. The meaning of nation in the scriptures differs from what one would understand today. Today, one defines a nation as a geopolitical entity having its own borders, laws, customs, and primary language, usually with political recognition. While some of these characteristics would overlap in the scriptural use of the term nation, Block notes that ancient perceptions of nationality were diverse and quite often different from modern notions in which political considerations predominate. The factors in ancient perceptions of nationhood centered mainly on ethnicity as well at times on territory. Several words in the Old Testament are used for nation (‘am, goy, l’om, and ‘umma), but the word ‘am is used extensively in referring to people- groups or nations.

9 community, exhibits the peace of God and is reflected as cultures interact with each other, work together, and work through the dynamics of ministering together based on common values and belongingness to Christ.

This chapter will lay the biblical foundations for God’s plan to reach the nations and of

God’s plan of blessing in the book of Genesis that will touch all of humanity and will take shape in the outworking of Christian community, multicultural community, and mission to the Gentiles as shown in the book of Acts. Moreover, we will examine the promise of blessing to all peoples through creation, the significance of the spread of the nations in

Genesis 10, the blessing to all peoples given to Abraham in Genesis 12, the culmination of

God’s blessing in the life and ministry of Jesus, the establishment of the new church in Acts

2, the emergence of the multicultural church that takes root at Antioch in Acts 11, and early community dynamics in the book of Acts and the Pauline epistles.

It should be noted that the biblical foundations portion of this work that follows is written from a western context, citing and engaging for the most part a number of western scholars.

Hence, there is undoubtedly a western feel to the overall presentation and understanding of the biblical narrative. In order to enhance this presentation, it would have been useful to engage a number of non-western scholars to perceive how differing cultures understand such pericopes as the table of nations (Gen 10), the call of Abraham (Gen 12), early church community (Acts 2), the spread of church to Antioch (Acts 11) and to the Gentiles, as well as to have a broader picture of how the Christian community formed as found in the texts of

James, 1 Corinthians, and Matthew.7

7. In complementing the present list of scholars used in this chapter, several theologians come to mind as a place to start. Before his untimely death, Kwame Bediako was well-known as a Ghanian Protestant scholar and theologian. Among his works are Jesus and the Gospe in Africa: History and Experience (2004) and

10

God’s Plan to Bless Creation

God’s overarching plan for the world is permeated with diversity. Creation demonstrates the variety of God’s design. As Israel heard the creation story and looked back in retrospect, it became clear that the covenant making God of Israel was also the creator.8 As creator, God brought order in the midst of chaos and uncertainty which always threatens creation. While precise details about how creation happened are not present, the opening chapters of Genesis indicate that God is the author and takes pleasure in creation and in its diversity. The creation narrative makes detailed statements about God’s creation asserting that nothing is there by chance.9 Von Rad writes that all of creation is good and carries with it a sense of purpose.10

In my view, Andrew Kirk enhances the discussion and rightly notes that “God begins by establishing a covenant with the entire universe, and especially with that minute portion of it that we refer to the planet earth.”11 Diversity permeates the creation narrative. The earth sprouted “vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind…and God saw that it was good” (Gen 1:11-13). The “earth brought forth living creatures according to their kinds…and God saw that it was good” (Gen

Christianity in Africa: The Renewal of Non-western Religion (1996). Bediako explores the influence of indigenous cultures on Christianity. Next, from a Roman Catholic perspective, Robert Sarah, archbishop of Conakry, Guinea, has had a prominent voice in theological circles, both African and western. Two of his works, God or Nothing: A Conversation of Faith (2015) and The Power of Silence: Against the Dictatorship of Noise (2017) address African issues in light of western dominance in the past and refers to what he calls a new “reverse colonialism” from the western church concerning social, consumerist, and sexuality issues. From an eastern perspective, Vahan Hovhanessian, Armenian Orthodox bishop and editor of Exegesis and Hermeneutics in the Churches of the East (2009), examines biblical issues from an eastern and orthodox point of view. Finally, from a Latin American and liberation theology perspective, Gustavo Guitierrez, author of a number of volumes including We Drink From Our Own Wells: A Spiritual Journey of a People (2003), provides a complementary perspective to the biblical narrative. 8. Gerhard Von Rad, Genesis (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 46. 9. Von Rad, 48. 10. Von Rad, 52. 11. J. Andrew Kirk, The Church and the World: Understanding the Relevance of Mission (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2014), Kindle Location 886.

11

1:24). And then at the apex of creation, God created male and female, celebrating the completeness of humanity through both man and woman (Gen 2:18-25).

Tragically, creation and the beauty of its variety became spoiled. The consequences of the first act of disobedience had taken its toll. Baldwin notes that “three times in the first eleven chapters [of Genesis] God’s judgment had fallen: mankind was banished from the garden of God (3:23-24), destroyed by the flood (chapters 6-9), and divided by diverse languages (11:1-9).”12 Turning from God led to shame, violence, murder, corruption, and further rebellion. Because every intention of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil continually (Gen 6:5), the flood marked God’s most devastating judgment thus far.

Following the destruction by the flood, God established a covenant with Noah and paved the way for his design to again bless the nations in moving forward with the plan for redeeming the earth. But inserted right after the covenant to Noah, another judgment, the judgment of culture, took place at Babel as God “confuse[s] their language, so that they may not understand one another’s speech” (Gen 11:7).

Even so, the book of Genesis reveals God’s love for the diversity of cultures that comprise creation. Despite the rebellion of humankind in the flood and Babel narratives, the table of nations in Genesis 10 brings a glimmer of hope as we see God’s validation and commitment to the nations as they disperse and settle the ends of the known earth.

12. Joyce Baldwin, The Message of Genesis 12-50: From Abraham to Joseph (Leicester: Intervarsity Press, 1986), 28.

12

The Table of Nations: Genesis 10:1-32

The table of nations is a reminder to the hearers of the biblical narrative at all times that despite humanity’s fallen nature, worsened by the rebellion prior to the flood, God is still committed to all of humanity as evidenced in the nations. Situated at the end of the section referred to as primeval history (Gen 1:1-11:26), the genealogy of the sons of Noah focuses on the diversity of humanity. The table of nations underscores the unity of the tribes and nations while emphasizing the range of languages and geographic settlements. Geographic locality and language are key concepts in this section.

Genesis 10 presents the record of the sons of Noah that follows the flood narrative and the subsequent Noahic covenant. The larger context informs the reader that after the covenant with Noah, God blessed Noah and his sons by saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.” (Gen 9:1). In addition, Genesis 9:2 indicates that in this blessing, the descendants of the sons of Noah would have value and significance. Fear and dread would be upon all creation because of them. Animals would provide food for humankind, demonstrating God’s concern and blessing for all peoples and nations.

Blessing in the Old Testament sense meant a “bestowal of vitality,” and signified an increase of life in the physical sense.13 Allusion is made to the magnificence of God’s love for the nations, something we hear again much later in Acts 17:26 at Mars Hill by the apostle

Paul: “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.” But along with temporal blessing, the nations will in turn become future beneficiaries of

13. Von Rad, 144.

13 salvation. The table of nations is a structured account that completes primeval history in anticipation of God’s call to Abraham and subsequently to Israel. The table elevates God’s overall work in creation and the nations as beneficiaries of redemption.

In considering the canonical shape of Genesis, the table of nations account adheres to a repeated structure found in the entire book of Genesis by means of a literary device that repeats a genealogical formula (Gen 10:1).14 With slight variations, the genealogical formula also appears in 2:4, 5:1, 6:9, 11:10, 11:27, 25:12, 25:19, 36:1, and 37:2. The genealogical formula provides the framework and structure of Genesis from beginning to end. In my assessment, Childs introduces a fresh approach to Old Testament analysis and suggests that passages such as the table of nations should be read from the “shape accorded it by the community of faith as its canonical scriptures.”15 For example, the genealogical repetition would have theological significance to the hearers of the text as they settled and then lived in the land. In the case of Israel, the genealogy would confirm the foundation of how God worked with the nations climaxing with the call of Abraham and the choice of Israel.

Moreover, Israel would see herself in the line of all of humanity whom God chose. But Israel would nonetheless know that the nations were always a part of God’s plan.16

The table of nations reveals a positive relationship among the nations. All are related to each other through the sons of Noah. The narrative falls into three main sections describing the descendants of Japheth, Ham, and Shem. Wenham writes that this table does not list all

14. Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), 145. 15. Childs, 128. 16. Childs, 73. Childs underscores that the canonical approach not only adds the perspective of the community of faith to the text, but this approach enables the literature to be considered in its own integrity by analyzing the features of the text as they relate to the historical community of ancient Israel.

14 the nations known to ancient Israel.17 Von Rad concurs by stating that the table of nations does not identify humanity according to race or language in their entirety.18 Rather they were nations that were politically and historically distinct or related to one another. However, they were nations that original hearers of the text most likely recognized. Migrations had occurred and certain nations at the time of the final redaction no longer existed such as the Hittite kingdom that had been subsequently replaced by a “colorful society of the most diverse origin and way of life.”19 Nonetheless, the nations recorded in the table represented to Israel a cross-section of known peoples and cultures. As recipients of the text, it seems accurate that this was Israel’s known world. Seventy nations are listed: fourteen from Japheth, thirty from Ham, and twenty-six from Shem. Structurally in the larger context of the book of

Genesis, Waltke notes that the number seventy (Gen 46:27) compares with the number of

Abraham’s seed at the end of the book and at the time of the descent into Egypt.20

In the table, the sons of Japheth are mentioned first (10:2-5) probably because they are the farthest removed from Israel. Aside from their names, little detail is given about the descendants of Japheth. The second list of names records the sons of Ham and includes nations of consequence to Israel. There is a structural climax in the text that taints the entire passage and focuses on the sons of Ham, and ultimately Canaan. The nations mentioned under Ham are of consequence and include some of Israel’s most dangerous rivals in the ancient world including the Babylonians, the Egyptians, and the Canaanites. Although on the grounds of race and language some of the nations listed under the descendents of Ham would

17. Gordon Wenham, Genesis 1-15, Word Biblical Commentary Volume 1 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987), 242. 18. Von Rad, 140. 19. Von Rad, 141. 20. Bruce K. Waltke, Genesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 164.

15 appear to be Semitic, race and language seem less important than the fact that the Hamidic nations are under God’s curse (Gen 9:26-27), exemplified by Canaan in whom the author takes particular interest. Von Rad contends that the emphasis on Ham and Canaan would present a political-historical perspective to the hearers of the table since the land was still under Hamidic control at the time of the settlement.21 Lastly, the author presents the line of

Shem, peoples with whom Israel has good relations. The structure of the passage brackets the descendants of Ham in between the list of Japhephites and Semites, adding emphasis to the woeful history and role of the Hamites in the history of the people of Israel.

Most importantly, the table of nations passage tells a story that brings resolution to the place of the nations in the plan of God, as demonstrated by the inclusio that delimits the passage. The inclusio of the passage begins with 10:1, “These are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Sons were born to them after the flood,” and concludes with the final verse of the account (v. 32), “These are the clans of the sons of Noah, according to their genealogies, in their nations, and from these nations spread abroad on the earth after the flood.” The entire list of the three genealogies concludes with the positive statement that the nations spread abroad, settled, and in a creational fashion, were blessed by

God. The dispersion of the nations abroad foreshadows future dispersions, that of Israel in being taken into captivity (2 Chr 36:17-21), the post-exilic diaspora (2 Chr 36:22-23; 1 Pet

1:1), and the scattering of the church as a result of persecution (Acts 8:1; 11:19; Jas 1:1). As with these three dispersions, the prefiguring dispersion in Genesis 10 suggests that God is not finished with humanity, nor is his love taken away from the nations. Waltke emphasizes that the inclusio structure focuses on the unity of all people as well as the relationship of the

21. Von Rad, 142.

16 people groups one to another.22 The nations would be included in the redemptive plan that begins in Genesis 12 that ultimately will conclude in Christ and the new creation (Rev 5:9-

10).

The nations are included in God’s overarching plan and called to submit to God. Even before the beginning of patriarchal history in Genesis 12, all humanity was called to worship and obey God. Van Gemeren notes correctly, in my understanding, that the revelation of God in Genesis 2:4-11:26 required all humanity to uphold God’s ordinances, worship the creator, support marriage and the family, work and develop culture, and respect human life.23 God’s design for all humanity from the beginning required allegiance to the creator. Blessing would accrue to those who followed the ordinances of God and malediction would come upon individuals as well as nations who ignored God’s ordinances (Gen 9:25-27). More importantly, although God would work specifically and for a time with the people of Israel, the table of nations narrative foreshadows the fact that all nations had an equal standing before God, equal standing of in terms of blessing, but also equal standing in terms of responsibility toward God, his commandments, and the other nations.

Lastly, and of importance to understand the shaping of the text, God’s concern for the nations in the table of nations passage is nonetheless tainted by the Babel event which immediately follows (Gen 11:1-9), a contrast to the rendering of the history of the nations found in the table. Both Von Rad and Waltke contend that the table of nations section and the

Babel story form a coherent pericope, albeit a stark contrast. Waltke, Von Rad, and Wenham hold that the Babel story that comes after the record of the table of nations is most likely a

22. Waltke, 163. 23. Willem Van Gemeren, The Progress of Redemption: The Story of Salvation from Creation to the New Jerusalem (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 95.

17 flashback to a time preceding the delineation of the nations.24 Wenham contends that the two accounts of the origin of the nations and languages seem incongruous, but “the very fact that the author of Genesis included both shows that he regarded the material as complementary, not contradictory.”25 Von Rad adds that the narrator has intentionally paid more attention to the inner theological fabric of the whole than to a careful rendering of the details.26 This seems plausible if one examines the structure of chapters 9-11. Waltke states that although the table and the Babel accounts differ structurally and thematically, there are connecting key words that join the two accounts indicating that the two accounts were meant to be read as one book.27 Two key words bind the two accounts together: “territories/earth” (eres 10:5, 20,

31-32; 11:1, 8-9) and “language” (lason and its equivalent sapa 10:5, 20,31; 11:1, 6-7, 9).28

Again, territory and language are principal themes in the two accounts.

In terms of the broader structure and theological context, the climax of primeval history in the Babel account paints a bleak picture of the condition of humankind into which the call of Abraham will generate hope as biblical patriarchal history will begin the movement toward eventual redemption and inclusion of the nations. There is no more radical contrast than the judgment at Babel and the subsequent call of Abraham, through whom the nations will be blessed (Gen 12:1-3). The Babel account is a story of the nations coming together in one place to arrogate their strength and power and are subsequently judged by God by the confusion of languages and forced dispersion. Blough takes a unique approach on the dispersion at Babel, calling it “negative globalization” resulting from an imperialistic society

24. Waltke, 161. 25. Wenham, 242. 26. Von Rad, 148. 27. Waltke, 163. 28. Waltke, 163.

18 based on “technological prowess and a unique language.”29 In contrast, the table of nations account speaks of blessing and fruitfulness as the nations (both blessed and cursed) disperse and settle the known world. In the table of nations account, the paradox of dispersion and the resultant blessing in the scattering is a salient irony for the hearer of the section. The original hearers who were settling the land would have understood not only holy history, but the blessings associated with settling the land and taking hold of a geographical location now as

God’s covenant people.

Were the primeval history section of Genesis to end with the table of nations, a somewhat positive endorsement of post-flood humanity, the contrast with what would follow in the

Abraham narrative might be diminished. All things considered, the scattering of the nations is a preparation for the redemption narrative starting with Abraham which will ultimately touch all nations and cultures. Nonetheless, both accounts of dispersion, one from blessing and the other from judgment, portray fittingly the state of humanity in the balance that the call of Abraham will begin to address. The dispersion sets up the next phase of God’s redemption of the nations and cultures. It is evident that God is moving toward a world where nations and cultures will be blessed, worship God, and eventually work together to advance God’s plan.

29. Neal Blough, “From the Tower of Babel to the Peace of Christ: Christological, Ecclesiological and Missiological Foundations for Peacemaking,” Mennonite Missions Quarterly (January 2002), 1, www.goshen.edu/mqr/pastissues/jan02blough.html, accessed January 19, 2016.

19

The Call of Abraham and the Blessing of the Nations: Genesis 12:1-9

The plan of God for the nations appears implicitly at the beginning of scriptural history

(Gen 1:28; 3:15), but becomes clearer in the call of Abraham. As the author or final redactor of Genesis ends the section on primeval history (Gen 1-11), it becomes clearer that God’s plan will now focus on the descendants of the family of Shem and the subsequent story of

God’s covenant people. Notwithstanding, the entire story of the nations prior to Genesis 12 is a build-up for the hearers of the story in order to understand that the creator of all things, individuals, and cultures is indeed the covenant God who will redeem creation and the nations. In other words, primeval history sets the stage and it becomes clear that the God who called Abraham was no local god, but the creator of the whole universe.30 The overarching design of the creator God is also a covenant-making God whose mission concerns not just

Israel, but all the nations.

God’s plan has always had a universal trajectory, working with humanity through a series of covenants from the beginning. God’s plan for working with humanity has traditionally been divided into two predominant covenants: the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. With Adam, God entered into a covenant whereby Adam was required to obey God in order to secure God’s blessing. Berkhof aptly writes that “God is absolutely sovereign in His dealings with [all humanity], and has the perfect right to lay down the conditions which the latter must meet, in order to enjoy His favor.”31 The covenant of works had universal implications for the totality of creation and humanity. When Adam failed to keep the covenant, all of creation and humanity was drawn in and affected by the fall. Despite the

30. Wenham, xxii. 31. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 4th edition (Grand Rapids Eerdmans, 1941), 213.

20 devastating effects of the fall, one sees in the Abraham narrative that the universal and inclusive scope of God’s mission had not been frustrated. However, the pathway to bless all of humanity would now be narrowed by the covenant of grace to one person, one family, one people, and, ultimately, the Messiah. Whereby Adam was the head of the failed covenant of works, a new covenant, ultimately fulfilled by Christ, moves into action. Christ becomes the guarantor.32 Christ freely took on the requirements of the original covenant of works.

Whereas in Adam all sinned, “how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many” (Rom 5:15). So as the fall affected all, the many would be redeemed by Christ’s work on their behalf. In my view, Kirk summarizes commendably the overall design of God for the salvation of the nations:

Both emphases are crucial to understanding how God shapes history to fulfill his purposes to bring his justice and salvation to all he has made…If it is true that humankind in general has abandoned the purpose of its creation – to belong to God, to glorify him and to enjoy his benefits according to his laws – in order that God may re- enter into dialogue with people in general, he must choose one people in particular who will hear his voice and convey his message to the rest. There is no specific revelation of God that does not come through a specific channel that needs special provisions to be made so that the message is transmitted faithfully and accurately.33

We note here that although Israel was reluctant to convey God’s message to the nations, the ultimate Israelite, Jesus Christ, did obey God in the eventual witness to the nations.

So the post-flood design for salvation of the nations begins with Abraham. Structurally, the call of Abraham text (12:1-9) introduces patriarchal history and consequently a new narrative in the second half of the book of Genesis (Gen 12-50). The immediate context is found in the preceding chapter where we find more specificity about Abraham’s father,

32. Berkhof, 214. 33. Kirk, Location 1152.

21

Terah, (11:27-32) which serves as background information to connect with the Genesis 12 passage. In chiastic structure, 11:30 serves as the climax of this preparatory narrative: “Now

Sarai was barren she had no child,”34 giving the hearer a clue of what would predominate moving forward. Waltke indicates that the call of Abraham in 12:1-9 is situated in the larger context of Genesis 12:1-15:21 portraying five scenes all related to the Promised Land.35 The larger context ends in 15:1-21 where God makes a covenant with Abraham to give him the land of the Canaanittes.

Genesis 12:1ff is the continuation of the beginning of the journey of Terah, his son

Abram, Lot, and Sarai from Ur to the land of Canaan, settling prematurely in Haran. The section is divided into two parts: the divine word or call (12:1-3) and Abram’s response

(12:4-9).36. Each part begins with the word “go” (“go from your country” v. 1; “so Abraham went” v. 4). The word “go” also appears as the verb at the end of the text (“still going on toward the Negeb” v. 9). Wenham notes that grammatically “the main verbs ‘make,’ ‘bless,’

‘make great,’ ‘be,’ ‘bless,’ ‘curse,’, [and] ‘find blessing,’ are all subordinate to the imperative

‘go’ (v. 1).”37 The inclusio underscores the significance of the “going”: Genesis 12:1 begins with “Now the Lord said to Abram, ‘Go from your country and your kindred and you father’s house to the land that I will show you’” and finishes the bracket at verse 9: “And Abram journeyed on, still going toward the Negeb.” The notion of going ultimately culminates in the

Great Commission of Matthew 28:19 where the church is instructed to “go therefore and make disciples of all the nations.”

34. Waltke, 199. 35. Waltke, 202. 36. Wenham, 269. 37. Wenham, 269.

22

So to begin the progression from one person, and consequently the nation of Israel, back to the many, God revealed himself to Abram. As Abram responded to God’s call, a first glimpse of the nations and multicultural purposes of God is revealed. Whereas previously

Abram had been included in Terah’s family, now as God calls Abram to leave Haran, he will take the lead. The author makes clear to the hearers that there are hardships and that the

Canaanites are in the land, the cursed descendants of Ham from Genesis 9-10. Abraham will be the father of God’s people, but he will live out the call among the nations. Kirk notes:

“The call of Abraham to leave his settled way of life and move to an altogether different land has great significance for the rest of the biblical narrative.”38 In this sense, God’s call to

Abraham is a call to become a separate people, but the call, unexpectedly, will ultimately bless the nations. The blessings that would accrue to Abraham “signified his role in being an agent by whom God would reverse the curse that followed Adam and Eve’s act of folly in thinking they could be free from the limits of self-will set by God’s purpose for them.”39

While Abraham is the precursor, the role of reversing the fall will ultimately be accomplished by Christ (Rom 5:1-5).

The call of Abraham is a turning point in God’s mission to remedy the effects of the fall.

With the call of Abraham comes the first movement of the covenant of grace, already implicit after the fall (Gen 3:15). The great reversal begins as Abram is called to leave his country, clan, and father’s house and “a new departure is about to be made which will remove the doubt about God’s intention to bridge the gulf between himself and mankind.”40

38. Kirk, Location 919. 39. Kirk, Location 919. 40. Baldwin, 28.

23

God promises a land and announces that Abraham will become a great nation (Gen 12:1).

God promises blessing so as to be a blessing to others. Baldwin writes:

Blessing was not restricted narrowly to the one to whom it was promised. It overflowed to others. In the first place, those who happened to come into contact with Abram were to have a share in the blessing; simply by meeting and knowing him, because he lived close to his God, others would become aware of the living reality of the Lord.41

In my judgment, Baldwin convincingly states that blessing would accrue to all those linked to God’s designated channel of blessing, Abraham. The blessing would eventually increase since it would embrace all the families of the earth.42 Oswalt states that in the Old

Testament, “to bless…means to endue with power for success, prosperity, fecundity, longevity.”43 Oswalt further writes:

The transposition of blessing and cursing with life and death in Deuteronomy 30:19 reaches the heart of the [Old Testament] concept of blessing. From Adam mankind has been under the curse of death in all his works, in all his relationships…God demonstrates from Genesis 12 onward that he alone has the power to bestow this blessing.44

From my point of view, Oswalt appropriately writes that a new way forward is now revealed in Abraham for a world under judgment. As Abraham would be blessed, so the nations would now be blessed because God gives life. In Genesis 12:1-9, the word blessing is mentioned five times indicating the importance of the theme that through one individual, universal blessing and salvation would ensue.45 The nations would become participants in

41. Baldwin, 32. 42. Kidner, 114. “Grammatically, the last clause of verse 3…could be taken as either passive (AV, RV, RSVmg, be blessed) or reflexive (RSV, bless themselves, i.e. ‘may I/you be blessed like Abram…’); but the New Testament, following LXX, understands it as passive (Acts 3:25; Galatians 3:8)…” 43. J.N. Oswalt, “Barak,” in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Vol. 1, ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr, Bruce K. Waltke (Chicago: Moody, 1980), 132. 44. Oswalt, 132. 45. Waltke, 203.

24 life and “from this base the understanding of God as the life-giver is expanded to its ultimate expression in [John] 3:16f; 10:10.”46 The realization of the promise to Abraham evolves throughout biblical history finding its conclusion in Revelation 5:9-10 where those from every tribe and language and people and nation are ransomed by God in Christ and will be made a kingdom and priests serving our God.

The concept of blessing permeates the scriptures. The Abrahamic blessing is initiated in

Genesis 12:1-3, reiterated in Genesis 13:14-17, ratified in Genesis 15 and sealed in Genesis

17.47 Isaiah 65:17-25 sums up the Old Testament gift of blessing in the word shalom and describes what blessing would look like. Blessing signifies not just salvation, but also refers to prosperity and success on the earth. Both concepts are significant. Van Gemeren sees in

Genesis 12 four blessings: seed (12:2a), land (12:7), personal blessing (12:2b), and blessing to the nations (12:3). Toryough and Okalawon summarize the blessing to Abraham as twofold: the first (12:1-2a) is the promise of nationhood, destined to the descendants of

Abraham and the people of Israel; the second (12:2b-3) enlarges the blessing and demonstrates that Abraham will not just be blessed, but will be a mediator of blessings to others.48 Alexander rightfully contends that the promise to become a great nation is subservient to God’s ultimate desire to bless all the families of the world.49 Abraham is to be both father of Israel and father of many nations, the source of blessing for all humanity.50

46. Oswalt, 132. 47. G.N. Toryough and Samuel O. Okanlawon, “The Blessing of Abraham: Seeking an Interpretative Link Between Genesis 12:1-3 and Galatians 3:13-16,” Ilorin Journal of Religious Studies, 4, 1 (2014), 124. 48. Toryough and Okanlawon, 125. 49. Desmond T. Alexander, From Paradise to the Promised Land: An Introduction to the Main Themes of the Pentateuch (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997), 51. 50. James Chukwuma Okoye, Israel and the Nations: A Mission Theology of the Old Testament, American Society of Missiology Series, 39 (Maryknoll: Orbis, 2006), 3.

25

As history progresses and the nation of Israel develops, it becomes evident that as a people in covenant with God, Israel was not to exist for herself, but was to be a light to the nations (Isa 2:3, Jer 16:19-20). The Old Testament is replete with hints of movement toward the nations as those from outside of the nation were incorporated into Israel, indicating blessing in terms of becoming a part of God’s people. In Joshua 2, the author recounts the story of Rahab who helped the spies in the land and is blessed by being spared destruction.

The book of Ruth relates the story of Ruth, the Moabite, who through an ostensibly tragic story, is incorporated into the people of Israel. Moreover, Matthew 1:5 places Rahab and

Ruth, both from outside of Israel, in the ancestry of Jesus. As history continues, the post- exilic restoration makes clear that the nations are now beneficiaries of the promises of God as the diaspora of the nation of Israel places people strategically throughout the known world

(Hag 2:6-7, Mal 1:11). Zechariah 2:11 declares that “many nations shall join themselves to the Lord in that day, and shall be my people. And I will dwell in your midst.” Those who were a part of Israel would live in foreign lands, speak other languages, and, at times, intermarry.

The mission of God was at work and we note that at Pentecost, those who had lived in the diaspora came from the then known world to experience the supernatural event. The

Pentecost event brought together those from many cultures who would experience faith together and minister side by side to take the gospel to the ends of the earth. The blessing given to Abraham, through whom the nations would be blessed, would come to fruition. The plan unfolds through the people of Israel and comes to its apex in Jesus Christ through whom a new community comprised of all cultures would emerge. Jesus is the blessing promised

26 through Abraham in Genesis 12. Through him, all humanity will be included in the promises of God.

A Prophet to the Nations: Jonah

God was to be Lord of all the nations. Israel, the vehicle through whom God would give blessings, was to be a light to the nations. Psalm 67:2 states: “May God be gracious to us and bless us and make his face shine upon us, that your ways may be known on earth, your salvation among all nations.” Similarly, Isaiah 42:6 declares: “I am the Lord; I have called you in righteousness; I will take you by the hand and keep you; I will give you as a covenant for the people, a light for the nations.” Kaiser writes that “Yahveh was truly calling all the families of the earth - even one’s enemies - to the same Savior and salvation.”51 But as we have seen, Israel was reluctant to share God’s blessings with the surrounding nations.

However, a number of Old Testament prophets made personal appearances to foreign nations. For instance, Elisha prophesied in Syria through the Gentile Namaan (2 Kgs 5:1-26).

The Jonah narrative provides another striking example of the mandate for Israel to go to the nations, albeit unwillingly in this instance. The overarching purpose of the book of Jonah was a call for Israel to adopt God’s plan to extend his mercy and love to the nations. But Jonah is portrayed as the “ardent nationalist, pro-Israel, and anti-foreign; at least anti-Assyrian.”52 The

Jonah account curiously reflects ethnocentrism and exclusion. From 2 Kings 14:25, we assume that the Jonah story takes place in the eighth century BCE, the period of Jeroboam II

(786-746 BCE) of the northern kingdom of Israel.

51. Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. Mission in the Old Testament: Israel as a Light to the Nations (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 50. 52. Douglas Stuart, Word Biblical Commentary: Hosea-Jonah, (Waco: Word, 1987), 431.

27

The book of Jonah is included in the minor prophets, although scholars have debated as to whether Jonah is a midrash, parable, allegory, or historical narrative. Stuart aptly indicates that the form and style resemble more closely the historical books, such as Kings, while at the same time encapsulating prophetic narrative.53 Although Jeroboam II is considered one of the evil kings in the long line of the northern monarchy, he nonetheless was somewhat successful. According to 2 Kings 14:25-28, Jonah seems to have embraced the policies of

Jeroboam by prophesying blessings on the northern kingdom and the expansion of its territory into Damascus and Hamath (2 Kgs 14:25). The expansion initiative would have been an attempt to restore Israel’s northern boundary to the place it had been (and beyond) in the days of Solomon (1 Kgs 8:65).

Throughout the book of Jonah, there is a certain ambivalence on the part of the prophet who, on one hand, desires to receive from God mercy and blessing for himself or for his nation while, on the other hand, an unwillingness to see the enemies of Israel, the Assyrians, receive the same mercy and blessing. Stuart notes that “in ancient Judaism, the book served as a bulwark against the narrow particularism that allowed Jews to think they alone were worthy of God’s blessing while other peoples were not.”54 Consequently, the tone of the message of Jonah appears in my estimation to hold forth a warning to the hearer to not be like Jonah. Going beyond a simple “love your enemies” theme, we come face to face with the fact that God’s character is powerful and yet patient both with Jonah as well as the Ninevites.

Moreover, in the Jonah story, God is shown to be forgiving and eager to withhold harm, both toward Jonah and the people of Nineveh. The climax of the book, found in Jonah 4:2,

53. Stuart, 435 54. Stuart, 434.

28 declares: “I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity.” However, Jonah continues to brood, asking for the Lord to take away his life (Jon 4:3), struggling to understand how God can be the same to all people, especially those whose sin and evil toward Israel was so obvious. God responds by saying that the people of Nineveh cannot tell their right hand from their left. So should not God be concerned about them? God’s love goes beyond particularism and exclusiveness, a precursor of the emergence of the Christian church centuries later in which the nations would begin to be included en masse as a part of God’s people.

Beginnings of Christian Community: Acts 2:41-47

Moving forward to the New Testament, the book of Acts describes how the emerging

Chrisitan communities began to develop and, as a result, how cultures began to interrelate as the gospel erupted and spread. The first glimpse of the new Christian community after

Pentecost appears in the summary passage of Acts 2:41-47. The passage provides a clear and concise account of the early church upon which the apostolic mission was built as the gospel spread from Jerusalem to the known world. As the church spread, it became increasingly more diverse as non-Jews were added to the Christian communities.

In the two-volume work of Luke, Longenecker notes that the post-Pentecost portion of the book of Acts is divided into two constitutive events of the new Christian mission. First,

Acts 2:42 through 12:24 recounts the Christian mission to the Jewish world and gives a clue as to the inclusion of the Gentiles.55 Included in this are the early days in Jerusalem (2:42-

55. Richard Longenecker, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), 234.

29

6:7). The summary statement for this section is found in Acts 6:7: “The word of God continued to spread; the number of disciples increased greatly in Jerusalem; and a great many of the priests became obedient to the faith.” The next section comprises Acts 6:8 through

9:31 and describes the critical events in Jerusalem. Lastly Acts 9:32 through 12:24 describes the advance of the gospel in Palestine and Syria. The end of this entire section is summarized by 12:24: “But the word of God continued to advance and gain adherents.”56 The largest section of the book of Acts narrates the Christian mission to the Gentile world (12:25 –

28:31)57, highlighting the church at Antioch in its ministry of sending out missionaries beginning with Paul and Barnabas.

Acts 2:41-47 is one of Luke’s summary passages of the book of Acts and serves as the thesis paragraph or thematic account of the state of the early church.58 The passage describes the earliest days of the church in Jerusalem, covering the first three to five years of the new community.59 The Pentecost event had fostered a rapid shift. Apostolic leaders had to work quickly. New believers needed to be cared for; a plan for worship was required; and a steady transfer of allegiance from Judaism along with an increasing number of proselytes and

Gentiles had to be managed, not least of which is the narrative of the distribution of food to the Jews and the Hellenists whose widows were neglected (Acts 6:1). The passage presents a set of norms as to how the early Christian community lived and worshiped together. The four

56. Longenecker, 234. 57. Longenecker, 234. 58. Longenecker, 234. 59. Longenecker, 288.

30 elements of church practice included the teaching received from the apostles, koinonia or fellowship, the breaking of bread, and prayer.60

Starting with Acts 2:41-47, Luke unfolds what the new community looked like. It becomes clear that the expanding community was a supernatural community. The acts that

Luke recount are not simply the acts of the Apostles, but the overriding work of the Holy

Spirit as the church is initiated and established. The Acts 2 passage demonstrates a markedly spiritual community that differs dramatically from pre-Pentecost Judaism in terms of life, membership, and vitality. A new era had emerged with the coming of the Holy Spirit. A vibrant paradigm shift had taken place as everyday believers were empowered to live a counter-cultural life committed to the risen Jesus and enabled to witness boldly for him in a hostile environment.

The author of Acts strategically placed this thematic statement to indicate the pivotal place of the Christian community in nurturing the believers and assuring the fulfillment of the new

Christian community’s mission. In addition, the early mention of the new community marks a clear break with Judaism and its practices. In addition to preaching and teaching, emphasis is placed on fellowship, the breaking of bread and prayer as is given to the apostles’ teaching.

Further in Acts 4, Luke repeats the idea of the caring community. As in Acts 2, the author of the book of Acts reiterates the importance of sharing within the community of faith.

McDonald states that this type of sharing

was not a requirement of the fellowship, and not all gave up all their possessions to the church…some Christians continued to own their own homes and those became the

60. John Alsup, “Prayer, Consciousness, and the Early Church: A Look at Acts 2:41-47 for Today,” Austin Seminary Bulletin (1985): 32.

31

meeting places for the church…but Luke tells how much the church cared for the needs of its community through sacrificial gifts to the church.61

In my opinion, the new emphasis on sharing each other’s goods and the ongoing importance of fellowship and Christian community is significant in the book of Acts and sets the stage for the inclusion of non-Jews.

In the immediate context of the Pentecost sermon, Larkin writes that “the miraculous events and the Spirit-filled preaching (2:17, 20-21, 38-40) worked a continuing fear (phobos) in those who had received the word. God intensified this sense of awe as he consistently worked miraculous signs through the apostles.”62 Larkin fittingly notes that the working of signs and wonders describes some of the unique practices of the new community and are a reminder of how God in the past used signs and wonders during the exodus.63

The Acts 2:41-47 summary text is strategically couched between the Pentecost sermon followed by a resumption of the ministry of Peter in healing of the crippled beggar (3:1-10) and the delivery of a prominent speech in Solomon’s portico (3:11-26). The description of

Christian community is an indication of the new kingdom community that was to replace the old system. To set the tone, it comes early on in the book of Acts.

Certain implications for church planting, church growth, and cross-cultural mission emerge from the text regarding early Christian community in Acts 2. Through the literary structure, the passage highlights the critical nature of community in missional endeavor and initiatives. Effective ministry does not stop at bringing people into the church or even simply

61. McDonald, 43. 62. William J. Larkin, “Acts,” The Gospel of Luke and Acts, ed. Philip W. Comfort, (Carol Stream: Tyndale House, 2006), 399. Micah 2:12 says: “I will surely assemble all of you, O Jacob; I will gather the remnant of Israel; I will set them together like sheep in a fold, like a flock in its pasture, a noisy multitude of men.” 63. Larkin, 399.

32 teaching them. Rather, a crucial goal, along with the proclamation of the gospel, is the creation of dynamic community that not only cares for and provides for its members in whatever ways that may be appropriate, but community also becomes the face of the church or mission point to the unbelieving world.

The core features of Christian community in Acts are noted in 2:41-47. Certain elements are crucial and remain central throughout the book of Acts. In my opinion, Philip Berryman summarizes well what has happened and what would normally happen by means of the progression of the presentation of the gospel:

Schematizing we can summarize the Pentecost event: Proclamation – it is now the last age, for God has raised Jesus, made him Lord of all, and sent his Spirit among us. Conversion - decision to enter a new life, symbolized by baptism. Life in fraternal community - continued formation, prayer, thanksgiving, breaking of bread, mutual service, and common life.64

Thompson rightfully notes the impact of the progression of gospel proclamation and writes that “a quick perusal of Acts indicates that groups of believers or churches in a more localized sense have more than a negligible role in the narrative…we find such groups from the opening chapter until Paul’s arrest in chapter 21.”65 The new community took on new demographics. Thompson mentions that, although the believers received only a brief mention in Acts 2:41-47, at other times the church seemed to garner the center of attention as is demonstrated in the church of Antioch of Syria.66 At the beginning of Acts, the Christian community is primarily Jewish. Later on, there is a mix of Jewish and non-Jewish members as evidenced in the Antioch church. Thompson convincingly notes that after the first mention

64. Philip Berryman, “The Christian Community at Pentecost,” Continuum (1968): 32. 65. Richard P. Thompson, “Keeping the Church in its Place: Revisiting the Churches in Acts,” Wesleyan Theological Journal (2006): 98. 66. Thompson, 98.

33 of community in Acts 2, Luke links the different stages of church growth. The narrative goes from simple in Acts 2 to more complex as the church experiences growing pains: leadership changes because of the need for new ways of addressing needs as a result of a clash of cultures (Acts 6); issues of church discipline (Acts 5); new ways of understanding cross- cultural community (Acts11); missionary focus (Acts 13); and theological solutions as the

Council of Jerusalem settles the weighty, and potentially divisive, matter of the place of the

Gentiles in the new people of God (Acts 15).

The summary statement of Acts 2 is pivotal as the church grew and dealt with problems from within and without. The Acts 2 summary sets the stage for what the new Christian community would do to maintain integrity and expand in fulfillment of the apostolic mandate. The church had to come to grips with three issues at all times. Trites pertinently notes that first of all, “when the issues that divided the Christian community were squarely faced and constructive action taken, church growth resulted.” 67 Conflict needed to be addressed. At times the conflict resulted from cultural differences. At other times, it did not.

Secondly, idolatry needed to be addressed and is evidenced in Acts 12:22 where Herod

Agrippa is immediately struck down. And lastly, opposition was rampant as evidenced in

Acts 19:17. When opposition was not avoided, the church grew.68 The book of Acts witnesses the spiritual growth of the early church. Acts 2:42-47 is a “beautiful cameo of the inner life of the church.”69 Throughout the book of Acts, the church would flourish when conflict, idolatry, and opposition were appropriately addressed. Acts 2:42-47 serves as a prototype of what the new community would look like. McDonald contends that as much

67. Trites, 163. 68. Trites, 163. 69. Trites, 166.

34 emphasis is placed on fellowship, the breaking of bread, and prayer, as is given to the apostles’ teaching. Further in Acts 4, Luke repeats the idea of the caring community.

The ongoing importance of fellowship and Christian community is significant in the book of Acts. McDonald emphasizes that the new kingdom community in its frailty and smallness was now the restoration, renewal, and, more significantly, expansion of the previous Israelite community (cf. Deut 7:1-2670) exhibiting grace and inviting participation to all regardless of ethnicity, religious background, and status. Christian community based on the apostolic teaching was essential if the Gentiles were to be assimilated.

Multicultural Mission in Antioch: Acts 11:19-30

The mission to the Gentile world, the emphasis of Acts, is narrated in the main section of the book of Acts (12:25 – 28:31), beginning with the cross-cultural church at Antioch in its community and ministry of sending out missionaries beginning with Paul and Barnabas. The emphasis of this portion of the book of Acts is the inclusion of the Gentiles in its expansion beyond the Jews. The missionary focus in Antioch was heralded by other missionaries, notably the believers from Cyprus and Cyrene, who spoke boldly to the Gentiles of Jesus. A diverse church was beginning to form in Antioch. The universalistic nature of the gospel is prominent in this latter section. What Israel had failed to do by keeping the faith exclusively to itself, the missionaries in the book of Acts were now doing. There would be no more exclusivity. The plan of God from the beginning was now being realized.

70. As the precursor to the new community in Christ, Deuternomy 7 calls the Israelites a chosen people, warns them to defeat their enemies and idolatry, reminds them of the grace of God’s choosing (Deut 7:7), and lists the blessings that would come about as a result of their obedience.

35

The church in Jerusalem and then Antioch became the focal points in Luke’s writings, emphasizing that God intended the gospel to reach the Gentiles.71 The inclusiveness of the gospel emerged as one of the principal themes of the book of Acts. As a result, the church in

Acts would transcend barriers of discrimination and prejudice, a gospel that Stagg calls the

“unhindered gospel.”72 Trites’s use of the term “unhindered gospel” has significance in that gospel would no longer be hindered by ethnicity. Moreover, the gospel would be unhindered because no longer would there be a procedure to follow whereby Gentiles would have to become Jews.

Antioch had become a storm center in the midst of Jewish-Gentile relations.73 Seccombe notes that in Acts 15, the issue at stake was not the evangelisation of the Gentiles, but their obligation to the law. Previously in Acts 11 and 12, the concern was to justify evangelism towards Gentiles as well as fellowship with uncircumcised Gentiles.74 That Barnabas was sent to make sure all was in order is evidence that there was nonetheless suspicion on the part of the mother church in Jerusalem. However, Barnabas saw the hand of God and, as Luke notes, “he was glad” (11:23).

The emerging church was entering new territory both geographically and missiologically.

The Acts 11 and 12 narrative would spark the need for the Jerusalem Council to resolve ongoing issues of inclusion of Gentiles as full members. However, even at the Council, it was still ambiguous as to what should be the relationship between primarily Gentile Christian

71. Stephen J. Strauss, “The Significance of Acts 11:26 for the Church at Antioch and Today,” Biblotheca Sacra (July-September 2011), 292. 72. Polhill, 68. 73. Jonathan A. Draper, Review of “The Church in Antioch in the the First Century C.E.: Communion and Conflict,” Neotestamentica (2005), 215. 74. Seccombe, 365.

36 communities and Jewish communities.75 The problem of Gentile entry into the church was ongoing and touched the related problem of Jewish-Gentile fellowship.76 Draper notes that

“if the eschatological age had arrived, and the Gentiles were understood as already saved apart from observance of the law, then what was the role of the Torah for Jews and Gentiles?

The resolution of these issues took the followers of Jesus into new and previously unexplored territory.”77 But in the midst of the ongoing Jewish-Gentile debate, the church in Antioch took the extraordinary step of accepting Gentiles into the community and sharing the

Eucharistic table with them.78 This led to the conflict recorded in Acts 15:1-5 in which the

Judean leaders sent a group to Antioch in an attempt to impose their authority. To the

Antioch church, this imposition of authority was unacceptable and the presence of Paul and

Barnabas at the Council achieved an appropriate resolution.

Relationships between Jew and Gentile had posed a number of problems for a long time and from each group there were prejudices that had accrued one toward the other. De Lacey notes that neither the Hebrew Bible nor the Septuagint developed an exact definition for the term Gentile.79 Common words used include ethne (1 Pet 2:9-12)), laos (Rom 15:11), hellen

(Acts 11:20; Rom 1:16, 2:9; Gal 3:28), and barbaros (Rom 1:14). In Acts 11:20, the word used to describe Gentiles is hellenistas (Greek speakers – both Jewish and non-Jewish) in some manuscripts and hellenas (Gentiles) in others. Since both terms refers to Greeks or

Greek speakers, Larkin and De Lacey note that the immediate context informs that the focus on the mission to the Gentiles is clear and fits into Luke’s ongoing narrative of the mission to

75. D.R. de Lacey, “Gentiles,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (Downers Grove: IVP, 1993), 335. 76. Draper, 215. 77. Draper, 215. 78. Draper, 215. 79. De Lacey, 339.

37 non-Jews. In similar fashion, Bock contends that the Greek word in verse 20 does not refer to

Hellenistic Jews, but those possessing “a largely racial, cultural sense, equal to Gentiles.80

Hence, the preferable word is hellenas, referring to Greek speaking non-Jews.81

Much has been said about Jewish attitudes toward Gentiles, but Gentiles had assimilated a number of prejudices toward Jews as well. Concerning anti-Semitism in the Greco-Roman world, De Lacey writes:

The conventional picture (based on comments by writers such as Juvenal and Seneca) is that Jews were perceived as arrogant and foolish: they refused to work on the Sabbath (which was a sign of laziness); they circumcised their sons (which was revolting); they had strict food laws and they kept themselves to themselves and rejected the gods (which was misanthropy).82

This was not necessarily the official view, since Jews were often not only tolerated, but granted special privileges.83 As for Jewish attitudes toward Gentiles, Jews were “because of the nature of the Torah’s purity laws, almost always bound to regard Gentiles as ritually unclean.”84 However this did not necessarily impede some friendships and cooperation between Jew and Gentile, especially outside of Jerusalem and outside the ranks of the

Pharisees.

As for the broader context, Acts 11:19-30 follows the anointing of the Gentiles by the

Holy Spirit (Acts 10:44-48) and the summary statement in Acts 11:1 that officially declares that the Gentiles had received the word of God. Previously there had been several inroads into Gentile territory by Philip (Acts 8:4-8) as well as the encounter between Peter and

80. Darrell L. Bock, Acts (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 414. 81. Larkin, 485 and De Lacy, 337. 82. De Lacey, 335. 83. De Lacey, 336. 84. De Lacey, 336.

38

Cornelius (Acts 10:1-33). However for the first time, the emphasis in Acts 11:19-21 is on the mission to the Gentiles in Antioch. Acts 11:22-26 recounts how the involvement of the

Jerusalem Christians comes about by the sending of Barnabas to review the new church.85

The church at Antioch had its origins in the scattering of the Christians from Jerusalem and Judea beginning with the stoning of Stephen and the resulting persecution. Persecutions instigated by Stephen’s speech accelerated the spread of the gospel beyond Palestine to places like Antioch, Damascus, and Alexandria. Antioch was a center that attracted refugees from Palestine.86 Consequently, Antioch would become a major church outside of Jerusalem.

The city was located near the Phoenician coastline of Syria. Some of the scattered Christians ministered only to Jews, while some were engaging Greeks.87 A church in Antioch was established in the fourth decade of the first century.88 Acts 11:20 relates that it was in

Antioch that the Gentiles heard the preaching of the gospel.

As for historical context, there seems to have been a rising tension between the Jewish and Gentile populations of Antioch that divided the allegiances of Gentile adherents to the

Jewish community, including Christian Gentiles.89 Moreover, this was happening about the time that the emperor Caligua had ordered that a statue of himself be placed in the Temple, provoking visceral reaction and nationalism among the Jews. However, the problem was considered less severe in Antioch, separated by quite a distance from Rome by its Syrian location. In reality, the church in Antioch had already started blurring the distinction between

85. Darrell L. Bock, Acts (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 411. 86. Taylor, 7. 87. Bock, 412. 88. Nicholas H. Taylor, “Caligula, the Church of Antioch and the Gentile Mission,” Religion and Theology (July 2000), 7. 89. Taylor, 9.

39

Jew and Gentile.90 Even after the Caligua crisis, it appears that the church had a great deal of support from many Gentile converts. Because of distance and culture, it may be that the church may have even been somewhat marginalized by the wider Christian community.

The cross-cultural nature of the city of Antioch was evident to all and began to permeate the church. Bock notes that Antioch reflected a “marriage of oriental and Hellenistic life with

Greeks, Syrians, Phoenicians, Jews, Arabs, Persians, Egyptians, and Indians making up the population.”91 In addition, it was a city where Zeus, Apollos, Poseidon, Adonis, and Tyche were worshipped. The city itself was a large mission field for the church in Antioch. Because of the cosmopolitan nature of the city, the church with its community life, practice, and doctrine represented a counter-cultural way of life in a city known for its immorality.92

Polhill notes that Antioch was a natural setting for the Gentile mission, being the third largest city in the empire after Rome and Alexandria.93 The author of Luke-Acts recounts that those from Cyprus and Cyrene had come to speak to the Greeks. Cyprus and Cyrene were comprised of sizable Jewish populations. But what is striking is the shift from speaking just to Jews to engaging Greeks. Hence, the mission in Antioch became a vibrant mission independent in its focus and demographics from the church in Jerusalem. Large numbers of

Greeks turned to Christ and believed (Acts 11:21).

The second major theme of the passage focuses on the sending of Barnabas from the

Jerusalem church. This could be the result of concerns about Gentile expansion in Acts11:1-8 that were not completely reconciled until the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15.94 However,

90. Taylor, 9. 91. Bock, 413. 92. Polhill, 269. 93. Polhill, 268. 94. Bock, 414.

40

Barnabas witnessed God’s grace and rejoiced with the events transpiring in Antioch (11:23).

The church grew and disciples needed teaching and training, for which reason Barnabas brought in Saul. For one year, the two ministered to the church with large numbers (11:26).

The approbation and reception by the Jerusalem church was a sign of unity and cohesion.

It was at Antioch that the believers were first called Christians (christianoi). The term was not so much adopted by the Christian community but was given to it by outsiders.95

Strauss contends that the word christianoi does not seem to have been a legal title, but notes that the Latinized suffix –ianos was “commonly given to the supporters of a popular individual who was highly significant.”96 The name was most likely coined by the wider population of Antioch. Other groups, such as the Heriodians or Caesarians, had named their followers similarly. However, Strauss notes that Luke’s main point in recording this incident is that the title christianoi “marked out the disciples as being, above all, the people, the followers, [and] the servants of Christ.”97 In any event, it was clear that the adherents of the

Antioch church, Gentiles and Jews together, were noticed and that the inhabitants were aware that the Christians had made a mark. Strauss notes that the new title indicated a new paradigm for mission to the Gentiles.

Lastly, in Acts 11:27-30, we read of the coming famine announced by Agabus. The famine would affect the entire empire and occurred during the days of Claudius (41-54

CE).98 What is striking is that for the first time, the Gentile church moved to help its Judean brothers and sisters. The phrase “to send service” (diakonia) is the root of the term deacon or

95. McDonald, 81. 96. Strauss, 290. 97. Strauss, 291. See also Stott, The Message of Acts, 205 and Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles, 371. 98. Bock, 417.

41 one who serves. In terms of mutual multicultural ministry, the famine relief indicates not only a reversal of roles between Jewish and Gentile believers, but partnership and reconciliation that begins to occur across cultural boundaries. The formation and impact of the church at Antioch signals that the nations that had been dispersed in Genesis 10 and 11 are now converging with their Jewish counterparts as the gospel begins to build bridges.

Moreover, nations and cultures that had been judged and scattered would now experience the blessing promised in Genesis 12:3. The descendants of Abraham had become a blessing to the nations. Now the nations would continue to bless other nations.

Cultural and Community Dynamics in the New Testament

The Great Commission in Matthew 28.18-21 declared officially that the apostolic messengers were to go, make disciples of all nations, baptize, and teach. Consequently, the early church had to deal with cultural differences from the beginning as diversity began to permeate the new communities. Paul’s own mission teams were culturally mixed (Timothy,

Titus, and Luke) and his missionary endeavors went beyond the Jews to the Romans and

Greeks as well as to Scythians99 and barbarians (Col 3:11).100 As time went on, it is clear that multiculturalism would become the new norm as other cultures and nations worshiped and ministered together as multicultural teams went out and evangelized together. As the new church began to spread, Wright accurately notes:

99. Edwin Yamauchi, “The Scythians—Who Were They? And Why Did Paul Include Them in Colossians 3:11?” Priscilla Papers: The Academic Journal of CBE International (2007): 21. The Scythians were originally from the Eurasian steppes and the Black Sea area. That they were “savages” is the unanimous testimony of Jewish texts such as 2 Maccabees 4:47; 3 Maccabees 7:6; 4 Maccabees 10:7; Philo, Legat. 10; and Josephus, Contra Apion 2.269. The church fathers also seemed to understand the word in this sense. They were also referred to as simply barbarians; they were non-Jews, although assimiliated in varying degrees to Greco- Roman culture. 100. Roembke, 14.

42

At the very beginning of this book (Acts) we observe how Luke, at the end of the Gospel, portrays the risen Jesus insisting that his disciples must now read their Scriptures (the Old Testament), both messianically and missiologically. The same Scriptures that point inexorably to the Messiah also point to the good news going to the nations. Luke continues this angle in his second volume, again and again showing how the Gentile mission is nothing more nor less than a fulfillment of the Scriptures.101

Luke’s history in its ensemble of the spread of the early church in the book of Acts recounts the assimilation of the nations into the church. Cornelius and the Ethiopian eunuch serve as examples of recipients of the gospel from outside the mono-cultural religion of

Israel. That Luke devotes several chapters of Acts to the Cornelius story demonstrates the profound significance that it had on Peter’s companions and the Jerusalem church.

The passages recounting the beginnings of new community in the book of Acts (2:42-47;

4:32-5:17) reveal that a new people was formed and that God was truly present among them.

The apostolic leaders were “empowered to perform signs and wonders and fear, such as commonly accompanies the presence of God, [which] fell upon the believers and those around them (Acts 3:43; 5:11,13).”102 The new community was characterized by holiness as is seen in the story of Ananias and Sapphira. Seccombe notes that “the degree of fellowship among the community of believers and the generosity of their sharing, evidenced the grace of

God among them and signaled, particularly to Luke’s Hellenistic readers, the presence of something remarkable happening in Jerusalem.”103 Seccombe notes that God’s plan had moved from the Jewish community to a “non-racial world-wide fellowship composed of

Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles.”104 The new community in Christ was governed by

101. Wright, 514. 102. David Seccombe, “The New People of God,” Witness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts, ed. I. Howard Marshall and David Peterson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 355. 103. Seccombe, 355. 104. Seccombe, 349.

43 principles that proposed new norms for relationships and ways of addressing differences as life in the new Christian community shifted priorities and allegiances. The new community had emerged as a new entity altogether. On one hand it would become indigenized, so that the gospel would find its home in every culture. But on the other hand, the new church everywhere became a pilgrim community because community members would often be out of step with society.105

Although cultural distinctions remained, a new unity based on the work of the Holy Spirit began to characterize the new community. The church in every generation participates in the life and glory of the Trinity. Hence Christians enjoyed two kinds of unity: with God and with one another. It was obvious that the latter flowed from the former. In the high priestly prayer,

Jesus had prayed that his followers would experience a new reality as they reflected the oneness of the Trinity in their unity in Christ:

…that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given to me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me (John 17:21-23).

Through the empowering of the Holy Spirit, believers in community experienced the love of God which would translate into love of neighbor. In fact, love of neighbor was a sign of one’s love for God (1 John 2:9-11). Consequently, as cultural and personal differences arose, there were new guidelines and promptings from the Holy Spirit for how Christians were to relate to God, treat each other, and deal with differences.

105. Andrew Walls, The Missionary Movement in Christian History (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1996), 6-7 in David W. Boshart, “Revisioning Mission in Postchristendom: Story, Hospitality and New Humanity,” The Journal of Applied Christian Leadership (Fall 2010): 20.

44

The beatitudes present a set of kingdom values and standards for new life in Christian community and propose a kingdom alternative to cultural patterns of personal advancement, personal rights, obsession with wealth, and self-importance. The beatitudes shaped the lives of those who turned to God when they heard the message of his rule.106 The blessings are part and parcel of new life as the church looks forward to the new heaven and new earth. Lived out in Christian community, the beatitudes are gifts resulting from God’s approval, and not requirements to merit God’s approval.107 The beatitudes are introduced in Matthew 5:3-16108 in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7) and describe the “divinely approved lifestyle of those who have repented at the arrival of the rule of God in Jesus’ words and works.”109 The blessings promised in the beatitudes refer to more than happiness or being fortunate.110 They are in fact “divine blessing [that] produces joy and genuine happiness…but the focus is on the originator of the blessing.”111

In the Matthew version, four beatitudes relate to one’s relationship with God and four relate to how believers relate to one another other. The first beatitude sets the tone: “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 5:3). Morris describes this spiritual poverty as “pointing to the reality that they can bring nothing to God…and that they are completely and utterly destitute in the realm of the spirit.”112 Such dependence on God established the foundation of diverse Christian community both in its relationship to God as well as in interpersonal relationships that superseded the cultural particularities of social

106. David L. Turner, “Whom Does God Approve? The Context, Structure, Purpose, and Exegesis of Matthew’s Beatitudes”, Criswell Theological Review (June 1992): 29. 107. Turner, 30. 108. Luke 6:20-23 contains four beatitudes. 109. Turner, 33. 110. Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 95. 111. Turner, 39. 112. Morris, 95.

45 relationships. Guelich notes that as one hears the proclamation of Jesus, “one experiences his desperate need (Matt 5:3); one experiences and reflects God-like mercy (Matt 5:7); one experiences a new allegiance of his person (Matt 5:8) and, in experiencing the undeserved and unexpected shalom, becomes himself an agent of the same (Matt 5:9).”113 The Epistles and Acts provide specific examples of how Christian community manifested the beatitudes.

The diverse Christian community had to learn to live through divisions often brought about by competing allegiances. Paul contended that ultimate allegiance was to Christ and not to human leaders, even though the surrounding culture exerted a strong attraction. In 1

Corinthians 1:10-16, Paul warned the Corinthian Christians of the dangers of factions that were characteristic of the world of philosophical and human loyalty, often prevalent in

Corinthian society. Citizens of Corinth prided themselves in their exceptional culture and

“pretensions to philosophy and letters.”114 Along with Cephas, Paul mentions Apollos (Acts

18:24), an eloquent and rhetorical scholar from Alexandria who would have appealed to the

Corinthian ethos, but was a striking contrast to Paul’s simplicity in presenting the gospel. On one hand, Paul is defending his apostolic call before the Corinthian church. But on the other hand, Paul is contending that the new people of God is “now defined in its membership and its leadership by attachment to Jesus,” not to human leaders.115 Paul pointed the new church to Christ. Grosheide states that “verse 10 pronounces a very decisive verdict…Paul does not want to banish all diversity from the church…but an unbrotherly attitude” that was the result of finding identity in one’s group and leader instead of in Christ, in whom true unity is

113. Robert Guelich, “The Matthean Beatitudes: Entrance Requirements or Eschatological Blessings?” Journal of Biblical Literature (1976): 433. 114. Leon Morris, 1 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 16. 115. Seccombe, 355.

46 found.116 The theme of division is further expanded in 1 Corinthians 3:1-22. Prior describes the situation by noting that “one of the major failures in the Corinthian church was their wrong view of Christian leadership…they were far too ready to put the spotlight on individuals, to play one off another.”117 Unity found in Christ was to take precedence over cultural patterns and biases concerning cultural identity and leadership.

The new community was to consider the final authority for faith and life as coming from

Christ communicated through the apostolic message and not from the surrounding culture.

The occasion of taking other church members to court in 1 Corinthians 6 underscores the importance for the church of settling its conflicts within the church. Prior notes that “the

Corinthians were proud, competitive, and assertive people…concerned for their rights…which inevitably led to grievances between fellow Christians.”118 Paul reproaches the

Corinthian Christians by stating: “When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints?” (1 Cor 6:1). For Paul, the ultimate arbiter was Christ through the church. Paul encourages the new community to even

“suffer wrong and submit to being defrauded” (1 Cor 6:7-8) since they have now become a counter-cultural community whose ultimate loyalty is to Christ. Moreover, Paul is asserting that a law court cannot decide in cases between Christians because the court “is not acquainted with the things of the kingdom of God.”119 New community in Christ had different priorities.

116. F. Grosheide, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), 24. 117. David Prior, The Message of 1 Corinthians (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1985), 55. 118. Prior, 105-106. 119. Grosheide, 133.

47

The Epistle of James brings significant wisdom for life in diverse Christian community.

James is structured as a paranesis, defined as “text that strings together admonitions of general ethical content.”120 The Epistle of James was most likely circulated to Christians living in the diaspora.121 The overarching theme warns that faith in God is not effective unless it is worked out practically in life with others in community.122 In the paranetic structure of the epistle, the author of the epistle lists a number of tests of faith.123 James underscores two practical considerations for life in the churches that form the first two tests of faith: how one attends to God and others in terms of listening (Jas 1:19-26) and of impartiality within the community of faith (Jas 2:1-13).

On this first point, Kistemaker identifies typical Semitic parallelism124 in the James 1:19-

20 passage: “Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to become angry.”

Cultural norms in biblical times as well as today emphasize speaking over listening as recognition, admiration, and acclaim are sought. Today, as in biblical times, listening is an art that is hard to master. The author is pleading with the readers to take an intense interest in the other person. James warns his readers to be cognizant of the words they speak, for they will be held accountable.

As for impartiality, wealth and poverty are also themes covered in the Epistle of James as the author encourages the community to persevere in the faith. James 2:1 makes the contrast between “the glorious Lord” and the attractiveness of earthly riches.125 Partiality, based on

120. John Painter, “James as the First Catholic Epistle,” Interpretation (July 2006): 254. 121. Painter, 253. 122. D. Edmond Hiebert, “The Unifying Theme of the Epistle of James,” Bibliotheca Sacra (July-September 1978): 223. 123. Hiebert, 225. 124. Simon J. Kistemaker, James and I-III John (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986), 56. 125. Kistemaker, 74.

48 wealth and appearance, damages one’s relationship with God and creates barriers in the community. Furthermore, to favor those more prosperous created distinctions between members of the community and promoted a spirit of judgment.

In terms of resolving difficult issues, the dynamics of the new community was thrust into disagreements and conflicts that, if not resolved, would create lasting harm. The Jerusalem

Council in Acts 15 represented a pivotal moment in the realization of a multicultural church.

The success of the mission of the Antioch church in Asia Minor and Cyprus, through Paul and Barnabas, produced a major theological problem.126 At issue in the dispute was not whether the mission to the Gentiles was legitimate, but rather “on what conditions and criteria converting Gentiles could be admitted into the new fellowship of God’s people.”127

Acts 15:3-4 states that the news of the conversion of the Gentiles was received with joy and the missionary apostles were welcomed. In the decision of the council, it was clear that the

Gentile believers did not have to become Jews or be circumcised. They were accepted wholly through their faith in Christ alone. Seccombe notes that “the only requirements made by the

Council were that Gentile Christians should refrain from a few practices which were abhorrent to Jews. The only reason given for them is the existence of Jews in every city (Acts

15:21).”128 It was a pivotal moment in the new multicultural church. During the council, the divergent parties decided on compromise, without sacrificing what was essential. It was a sign of things to come as the new church would at times have to painfully work through significant differences.

126. Wright, 516. 127. Wright, 517. 128. Seccombe, 366.

49

Conclusion

We have presented an overview of the biblical foundations for multicultural ministry teams. The nations had a place from the beginning in God’s overarching plan as evidenced in

Genesis 10. In order to bless the nations tainted by the fall, God pursued one person,

Abraham, through whom blessing would accrue to Israel and ultimately to all the nations.

The ultimate outcome would be the salvation of the nations.

The book of Acts allowed us to understand how the new Christian communities emerged and developed. Acts 2:41-47 is a summary passage of what the new community committed to

Jesus was like with an emphasis on the relationships that existed among believers.

Significant passages in Matthew, Acts, 1 Corinthians, and James emphasized the norms and fundamental values of belonging to Christian community and how believers were to treat each other. Moreover, these passages emphasized that commitment to Christ had predominance over culture, ethnicity, and personal preference. Lastly, Acts 11:19-30 presented the emergence of multicultural community and ministry to the Gentiles in Antioch as a new paradigm took shape and developed outreach initiatives to the Greco-Roman world, flowing out of the Antioch church.

The various passages examined develop a continuum of how God would deal with the nations at first through a combination of judgment, yet physical blessing. The plan was to eventually assimilate the nations into the people of God and we see that as the church grew in the book of Acts, the ministry to the nations takes an important role.

Three conclusions emerge from the biblical record. First, as we read of the progress of the blessing in Genesis starting with God’s love for the nations to the definitive blessing that would ensue, we note that the nations are the ultimate outcome of God’s plan. We see God’s

50 movement toward the nations. In the unfolding of the plan in the Old Testament, for example, we see how God’s working through Jonah demonstrates to what extent the Lord would go to bless and preserve the nations foreign to Israel, reflecting God’s initial calling to

Abraham promising that the nations would be blessed. This movement toward the nations reflects all the more the attribute of God’s love and mercy, often reduced in our minds in our cultural desires to exclude those not like us or who are offensive to us.

Moreover, the diaspora subsequent to the exile is an example of the providential dispersal of the people of God throughout the nations. The scattering to the nations reflects how God would use his people among the nations, ultimately fulfilling the mandate given to Israel to be a light to the nations. For the mission endeavor of the church today, there is a parallel as the church in mission is called to movement and, in cross-cultural partnerships, to go out among the nations, to go to the unreached, and make disciples of all, baptizing them and teaching them.

Secondly, in following the narrative from Genesis to Acts, we see that not only were the nations to become a part of the people of faith, but they became co-equal workers and ministers in reaching the nations. No longer would the Gentiles have to become Jews, but as

Gentiles they were accepted because of their new position in Christ. As an example, the second missionary journey departing from Antioch led Paul and his missionary partners to, among other places, Macedonia with his team of Jews and Gentiles to reach cities along the

Egnatian Way including such cities as Philippi, Berea, and Thessalonica. The Macedonian initiative was a joint cross-cultural partnership based on the call to the Macedonians. The inclusion of Timothy and Luke on the team demonstrated the inclusion and ordaining of

Gentiles to be a part of the spread of the gospel. Paul’s cross-cultural missionary team went

51 systemically to every city of any influence. We read that together they suffered hardship, were shamefully treated, worked day and night to not be a burden to those to whom they were preaching. We read in 1 Thessalonians 2:4 that they did not do their work to please men, but in order to please God. The team’s message to the Thessalonians was concise:

Christ was the messianic fulfillment of God; through him we are delivered from the wrath to come; idol worship, including cultural idols, is evil and a severe impediment to a new life in

Christ; and the importance of living a life of sanctification. Growth in the Trinitarian God was to take precedence (Col 1:21-23; Phil 2:12-13).

Similarly, Paul’s mentorship of Titus, a Gentile, underscores the partnership of Jew and

Gentile in the work of starting churches. Titus accompanies Paul and learns from him. Paul trusts Titus to leave him in Crete as overseer to set things in order (Titus 1:5). Hence, Jew and Gentile were in this together for the glory of God, with the same requirements before

God and the same blessings. This is a call to the present day western church in its mission to the nations to include nationals as co-equal partners as quickly as they can be trained as team members in the spread of the gospel and the discipling of the nations. It is a call to set aside superiority as well as resentment. As the research from the study will demonstrate, multicultural teams benefit from synergy of strategy and method as well as demonstrate that kingdom witness to a watching world is incarnated in diverse teams when barriers are broken down.

Lastly, the new Christian community in the New Testament proved that a new and all- embracing culture, that of identification with Christ and his people, would not necessarily replace individual cultures, but would in fact subordinate them to the overarching goal of forming Christian community as the new creation is reflected. The early Christians believed

52 that the Lord’s return was imminent and therefore sought to live for the eternal kingdom.

Although precarious at times, unity would come about because of a common vision to learn together, worship together, and meet each other’s needs as the new task of kingdom living and ministry took precedence.

53

Chapter Two: Theological Foundations

The previous chapter examined the scriptural foundations for God’s plan for the nations, the call of Abraham, and the fulfillment of the blessing demonstrated in the expanding

Christian community in the book of Acts. In this chapter, we will focus on themes from a theological perspective including historical, missiological, and cultural frameworks. This study will first of all examine the expanding early church in the first three centuries to highlight research into the community dynamics of the emerging Christian churches in order to understand how early church practices produced unity and worked to overcome cultural differences. Next, through an analysis of the concept of missio Dei, we will examine how the notion of the reemergence of God’s mission had an impact in the modern mission movement.

Lastly, the concepts of culture, diversity, and multiculturalism will be analyzed in reference to the ongoing work of the church and its mission.

Community Life in the Early House Churches

Community life and team dynamics in the midst of growing diversity are a significant segment of the present research study. This section will examine community dynamics during the first three hundred years of the Christian era. Historically, the first three hundred years of the church portray a changing paradigm of inclusion of other cultures beginning with the addition of first Gentile believers and a gradual espousal of new values concerning how growing new communities of Jesus were to function. The Christians in the early house church communities understood that a new life had erupted because of Jesus. Consequently, their lives and allegiances were permanently altered. As the plan for redemption had been promised and now was being fulfilled, it was clear that a new pattern was taking shape. Paul states in Ephesians 3:6 that the mystery of Christ and his new people was coming to light:

54

“The mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.” The mystery was not made known to other generations (Eph 3:5), but through the apostles and prophets it was now the sign of the new reality of God’s people.

As various cultures engaged one another, scriptural norms came to supplant cultural behaviors. Consequently, to meet with others in small communities was worth more than anything they had ever known or cherished despite ongoing persecution. The new biblical dynamic of life together was something that differing ethnic groups, socio-economic groups, slave and slave owners, Jews and Gentiles, and men and women meeting together would strive to achieve.

The early Christian community grew primarily through the witness and enthusiasm of people who simply lived out the consequences of their baptismal call (Acts 2:37-42). For the new community, baptism and its full meaning of belonging to Christ’s community now replaced the exclusivity of circumcision as the mark of identification of the new people of

God (Matt 28:18-20, Rom 6:4, 1 Pet 3:21). All, regardless of background, were to receive the sacrament. This sign and seal of the covenant that would mark individuals was now expanded to include all the nations among whom many would come to believe in Christ and identify with his people. Baptism was the mark of God’s regeneration, the washing away of sins, and the giving of a new heart that God had promised through the prophet Ezekiel: “I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh ad give you a heart of flesh” (Ezek 36:26). Moreover, baptism connected all believers into one body and people. In renouncing the demonic powers in their lives through baptism and in abandoning their former ties, they understood as a group their

55 acceptance of the victory of the cross and the power to break demonic bonds.129 Arnold writes that “many came to the Christians, impressed by the possibility of a totally new way of living and looking for a power that would save them from their unworthy lives.”130

In becoming a part of Christ’s body through baptism, believers were in turn united to one another. Community was no longer just a social or cultural contract, but a spiritual union.

Hence, the implications for how believers would form community were significant.

Individual and cultural preferences would give way to a focus on oneness in Christ lived out in preaching and teaching, liturgy, the Eucharist, relationships, and ministry. Peter exhorts the new churches: “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light” (1 Pet 2:9). The believers in the churches were to love

God, but love for God was to be demonstrated by love of neighbor. Love for God was empty unless it was demonstrated in day to day life with others. Along with right belief and worship, the epistles as well as writings of the early church fathers underscored how

Christians were to treat each other (1 Cor 13:4-8).

Care for each other’s good and well-being represented another outworking of life in growing and diverse early communities. 1 Corinthians 8:1-13 and 10:14-23 address the issues of food sacrificed to idols, idol feasts, and living in such a way to respect the consciences of the weaker brothers and sisters in the church. These sections deal primarily with how the Christians in Corinth related to each other in their daily lives and how they conducted themselves in light of the freedom they had acquired in Christ.131 In these

129. Eberhard Arnold, The Early Christians in their Own Words (Farmington, PA: Plough, 1997), 12. 130. Arnold, 12. 131. McDonald, 302.

56 passages, Paul is “advocating freedom of two kinds: absolute freedom in Christ…and the freedom to restrict one’s freedom for the sake of a brother whose conscience is less robust.”132 The point here is that all things were lawful, but members were urged to take into account the overall good of the Christian community and the best interests of each individual.

Prior notes that the prior question to be asked was: “Am I building up the body of Christ.”133

Relationships in Christian community called for mutual love, respect, and refraining from flaunting one’s cultural approach or point of view for the sake of edification of the church.

As a result of apostolic teaching and leadership, evangelism, and unified community, the church spread. Christianity reached Ethiopia in the fourth century and China as early as the seventh century because merchants, diplomats, and even slaves shared the Christian message as they went about their ordinary daily work.134 The early apologists and church fathers wrote a great deal about the early Christian communities in an attempt to defend them. The new communities came together around a cause that had changed their lives and priorities as well as their attitudes toward one another. In describing these small Christian communities,

Tertullian (155 – 240 CE) wrote:

We are charged with being irreligious people and, what is more, irreligious in respect to the emperors since we refuse to pay religious homage to their imperial cult and to their genius and refuse to swear by them. High treason is a crime of offense against the Roman religion. It is a crime of open irreligion, a raising of the hand to injure the deity…Christians are considered to be enemies of the public well-being.135

132. Prior, 142. 133. Prior, 176. 134. Stephen B. Bevans and Roger R. Schroeder, Constants in Context: A Theology of Mission for Today (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2004), Kindle location 173. 135. Tertullian, To the Heathen Nations, 1:17.

57

The early Christians who met in house churches were routinely attacked and vilified.

Tatian, an Assyrian Christian, wrote: “Because we do not make any distinctions in rank and outward appearance, or wealth and education, or age and sex, they devise an accusation against us that we practice cannibalism and sexual perversions.”136 Tatian’s statements on the early Christians are reflected in the exhortations as to how and why Christians should act differently and in solidarity around their baptismal vows. For example, as we have mentioned previously, Paul pleads with the Corinthian believers to not pursue each other in a court of law. Because of their new union with Christ, Paul’s reason for this call to solidarity is based on a greater truth, that the “saints will judge the world” (1 Cor 6:2). Not only were the new

Christians to act differently, but they were to play an eschatological role. In anticipating the resurrection and the new creation, they came to know that they were to rule wisely over the new world to come. Instead of lawsuits and squabbles with each other, the picture is presented of believers using their gifts and vocations for the glory of God now, knowing that these “will be enhanced and ennobled and given back to us to be exercised to his glory.”137

The believers in the new communities were to reflect the ultimate reality of their place as a part of the body of Christ in the kingdom that had arrived and the kingdom that would ultimately be fulfilled in the new creation, of which all nations were now to be a part.

While officials of the imperial government, Jews from the synagogues, and a number of other voluntary associations disparaged and marginalized Christians, the early house church communities created a family atmosphere whereby believers grew in the faith together, practiced new patterns of life and behavior, learned to love one another and those around

136. Tatian, Address to the Greeks, 31:7-35. 137. N.T. Wright, Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church (New York: Harper, 2008, 161.

58 them, and often suffered together. In his letter to the Thessalonians, Paul states that the

Christians in that city had become examples to all the region, turning to God and turning from idols (1 Thess 1:7-9). The witness of the new patterns of life that united the believers spread rapidly. The early house churches were organic groups of committed believers who persevered despite immense challenges and persecution at the hands of Greco-Roman society, the imperial government, the Jewish synagogues, the mystery cults, and from those who often just found them strange. The new community would be called to a new life, but also to a life of suffering at the hands of the enemies of the gospel. Paul writes to Timothy:

“Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord, nor of me his prisoner, but share in suffering for the gospel by the power of God” (2 Tim 1:8). Something cosmic had happened with the coming of Christ, creating community, but quite often a community of suffering due to persecution, targeting those who would not normally associate with each other.

The new believers in the early churches were called to support one another. In the

Didache, we read that in the early churches, believers were instructed to “become long- suffering and merciful and harmless and calm and good…you will not exalt yourself…your soul will not be joined with the lofty, but with the just and the lowly you will dwell.”138 The cohesion displayed the unity that Jesus said would reflect the fact that the Father and Son were one (John 17:20-21) so that the world would believe. This passage reveals to us that the church in every era participates in the life of the Trinity so that Christians enjoy two types of unity: with God and with one another. However, the latter is rooted in the former. Volf adds

138. The Didache 3:8-10 in Aaron Milavec, The Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life in the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 (New York: Newman Press, 2003), 21.

59 that “the Spirit unites the gathered congregation with the triune God and integrates it into a history extending from Christ…from the Old Testament saints, to the eschatological new creation.”139 Hence the early churches were to see themselves as united spiritually to God in

Trinity and to the church of all ages, past, present, and future. The new diverse Christian community was not simply a sociological phenomenon, but a witness to the surrounding society of the new kingdom that had arrived in Christ.

The early house church communities existed for almost three hundred years from the end of the New Testament period through the beginning of the fourth century. The end point came with the Edict of Milan in February 313 CE, contracted between Constantine in the western part of the Roman Empire and Licinius in the Balkans. Both leaders agreed, among other things, to treat the Christians benevolently. From that point on, Christianity became legitimate and began to position itself in an entirely different way than it had for almost three hundred years. Christian communities started coming out of their house churches and into buildings, churches, and, eventually, into an institution. But until the legalization of

Christianity, the house churches developed communities of faith and life that established a foundation that helped shape the future church by the use of phrases like household, family, greetings to the “brothers and sisters,” and a leadership structure that would meet real pastoral as well as missionary concerns.

The early house church movement emerged from the cultural context of associations in

Greco-Roman society, mirroring, to an extent, cultural, religious, and ethnic differences that

139. Miroslav Volf, After Our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 129. Volf’s contention that the Holy Spirit unites the gathered congregation with the triune God and extending it to the new creation is held by the historical church, Roman, Orthodox, and Anglican and seems to have the weight of scripture and church tradition.

60 were already in place. Greco-Roman society had developed a rich tapestry of social organization. Clarke defines the Greek city to include “not only cities that were Greek by origin and blood, but any community organized on the Greek model and using the Greek model and using Greek for its official language.”140 The Greek model of organization – political, professional, social, and religious – had become widespread in lands that had been conquered by Alexander the Great. The later conquest by the Romans did not fundamentally change these models of organization and community. Clarke writes that the word ekklesia was commonly used in Greco-Roman society to indicate any impromptu or official gathering.141 The apostle Paul, in fact, uses the word in the book of Acts when referring to a civic assembly in the city of Ephesus (Acts 19:32).

In the Greco-Roman civic structure, there was no separation between the secular and the religious spheres. Clarke notes that “religion in Rome should be seen not as an independent force, but as an integral part of the system, sharing in its political-social character and in the changes it underwent…we see this no less in the Greek city-state which anchored, legitimated, and mediated all religious activity.”142 The Greek city-state had authority over the religious sphere of civic life. In Athens, for example, the Areopagus, a type of tribunal, directed the religious and moral life of the city (Acts 17) enabling us to understand how

Paul’s message would have been received. Devotion to the gods and goddesses of the city- state provided a focus for allegiance and devotion in the city that created cultural cohesion

140. Andrew D. Clarke, Serve the Community of the Church: Christians as Leaders and Ministers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 11. 141. Clarke, 14. 142. Clarke, 19. Each Greco-Roman city prospered or declined under the perceived patronage or guardianship of its gods or goddesses.

61 and a sense of self-awareness. As the Christian house churches started forming, this would present a significant challenge.

Several layers of community life and organization provided a context for why the early house church movement would not have been considered an anomaly in the Greco-Roman city-state at least at the beginning. Three structures were significant. First of all, the synagogue was a known entity. The synagogue would have provided a natural flow for the establishment of the house churches. Segal writes that the purpose of the synagogue was threefold: “first, a place of assembly, both for public discussion and for the celebration of various meals; second, a place of study; and third, a place of prayer.”143 Synagogues were plentiful in the diaspora. Some were neighborhood-based while others were founded by various trade guilds.144 Hence, the establishment of the early house churches would have fit seamlessly into the Jewish system, had the decision been made to use the synagogue or even a section of the synagogue. But the Jewish system did not look favorably on the use of its synagogues by the new Jesus movement. In addition, the early Christian communities decided early on to differentiate themselves for a number of reasons. For the first century

Christians, their membership was not simply in a society, but in the kingdom145 of God. And something new was happening to which established Judaism could not respond.

143. Alan F. Segal, “The Jewish Experience: Temple, Synagogue, Home, and Fraternal Groups,” in Community Formation in the Early Church and in the Church Today, ed. Richard N. Longenecker (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002), 25. 144. Segal, 25. 145. The idea of the kingdom of God was foundational to the gospel narrative. The terms basileia (reign) and basileuo (to reign) appear fifteen times in the work of Paul and numerous times in the Gospels. The main message of Jesus himself was one of an inaugurated kingdom, one which had already begun in his own life and ministry but which was awaiting fulfillment in the future). Healings, exorcisms, conversions, and miracles were all manifestations of the kingdom that Jesus inaugurated. The power of this eschatological kingdom was also at work in the life of the Christian community. In contrast, although the church was a part of the kingdom, it is not the entirety of the kingdom. Rather, it was the visible organization on earth of the kingdom through preaching, evangelism, discipleship, administration of the sacraments, and the power of the keys (Mt 16:18-

62

The voluntary associations or fraternal associations provided another organizational structural context for the early house churches. The early house churches were considered at first to be one of the many voluntary associations. The socio-economic level of many of their members as well as the religious aspect of the house churches paralleled the voluntary associations. However, it soon became clear that the house churches were different in their associations. The integration of the civic with the religious in Greco-Roman society became problematic for the early Christians. Hussey writes:

Regardless of the length of time involved, for the Greco-Roman Christian, conversion was a new and unique thing. This was so for three reasons: First, for Greco-Romans, conversion was not necessary for belief in the deities worshipped. Second, ethics were not necessarily a part of religion, although they may have been a part of contemporary philosophy. Finally, the idea of Christian conversion would have been surprising to a Greco-Roman because of the exclusive claims it made upon its devotees.146

In my estimation, Hussey’s analysis appears to hold true in light of the biblical narrative.

Explicitly and implicitly, the new Christian community seemed to live and practice its faith counter-culturally in its exclusive allegiance to Christ. Moreover, the imperial cult was a non-negotiable in any organization or association in the Greco-Roman city. The Christian house churches could not adhere to this norm. The new churches were marginalized and quickly became estranged to the culture.

Lastly, the home or household provided strategic structure upon which the early house churches were modeled. There are several reasons for this. First, after the destruction of the

Temple, the synagogue, as well as the Jewish home, took over many of the functions of

19, 18:5ff, 28:18-20; 1 Cor 11:23) “by which the inward realities of grace and truth, of life and light, reach each member” (Carleton, 65). 146. Ian Hussey, “A Theology of Church Engagement: A Reflection on the Practice of the Early Churches,” Colloquium, 44 (February 2012): 211.

63 temple life.147 Segal claims that Judaism “had to evolve in new ways of understanding itself in a Greek environment and explain itself in new contexts.”148 Although the early Jesus followers broke with Judaism, the use of homes would have logically followed in this line of thought. Clarke writes that “the household was both a model and a metaphor which the early

Christians found useful in their attempts not only at self-definition and community organization, but also at describing their relationship with God.”149 Although the Jewish people were already familiar with the idea of God as Father, it was in the context of the house church that the language pertaining to family started to be used. Paul often refers to

God as Father (Rom 1:7, Gal 1:4, Eph 1:2), a reference to the patrifamilias of the Greco-

Roman home.

In the house churches, Christians referred to each other as brothers and sisters since the sibling relationship in the Greco-Roman home was the most intimate, even more important than the relationship of husband to wife or parent to child. For the Romans, familia was a term that would have had legal meanings, but at the same time, a more flexible signification.150 What we understand today as the extended family was the norm in Greco-

Roman society. The households most often included slaves and freed persons as well as lodgers and trade apprentices. Many people lived in one household. The household seemed to have had a significant influence in the concept of diversity that began to characterize the early house churches.

147. Segal, 29. 148. Segal, 29. 149. Clarke, 79. 150. Clarke, 80-81. Familia could include all those under the authority of one head (the father or patrifamilias), including a wife, natural or adopted children, grandchildren, and sometimes also slaves; alternatively, it might be restricted to only those related by blood.

64

Campbell notes that “the patterns of authority inherent in the household determined the organizational and leadership structure of the churches and this contributed greatly to their success.”151 In my view, Campbell’s analysis seems coherent since much of the language that we read in Paul’s epistles and in the writings of the church fathers, such as Clement and

Justin, reflects the perspective of the household and family. 1 Peter 2:5 refers to being “built into a spiritual house.” Paul refers to the Greco-Roman household practice of “greeting one another with a holy kiss” (1 Cor 16:20) and adapted it for the Christian communities. The apostle also admonishes the Corinthians “as my beloved children” (1 Cor 5:14). Paul appeals to his readers as “brothers and sisters by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor 1:10).

Mathetes in his Epistle to Diognetus uses household language to describe the behavior of the

Christian communities: “They share in all things with others…they have a common table”.152

In his epistle to the Philippians, Polycarp exhorts the believing communities as a family to

“be firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood, and being attached to one another, joined together in the truth, exhibiting the meekness of the Lord in your intercourse with one another.”153

Christians met either in large houses owned by wealthy members or in tenement apartment buildings. Petersen suggests that from the mid-first century to the late second or early third century, Christians worshiped in regular private houses when, as of yet, no official ecclesiastical structure had been established.154 In Rome, Christians met in the large homes

151. R. Alastair Campbell, “Review - House Churches and Mission: The Importance of Household Structures in Early Christianity,” Journal of Theological Studies, 58 (February 2007: 667. 152. “Epistle to Diognetus 5:282-282” in Philip Schaff, The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Kindle Electronic Edition, 2010), Location 889. 153. “Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians 10:392-392” in Philip Schaff, The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Kindle Electronic Edition, 2010), Location 1156. 154. Petersen, 266.

65 of wealthy Christians and gathered in large rooms often lavishly decorated with paintings or connected in some way to artisans or craftsmen.155 House church attendance was small - thirty to forty people including children, who were present at all occasions. When a private home was not available, urban apartment buildings were used for the church gatherings, often in poorer areas of the city.156 In Rome, the house of Clement was apparently close to a tenement apartment building in the center of town.157 Often apartments like this had shops or industrial areas located on the first floor with residential rooms upstairs. As the years progressed, certain rooms in each house or apartment would be set aside for worship or the

Eucharist, which was significant in building unity.

What was life like in the house churches? The Didache (4) encouraged the new Christians to “seek out day by day the faces of the saints, in order that you may rest upon their words.”

Relationships, mutual encouragement, and hospitality shaped the life of the early house churches. The meeting of Christians in hospitable homes goes back to the very first days of the church. Acts 1:13ff says that the believers went back to the upper room and “were constantly devoting themselves to prayer, together with certain women, including Mary the mother of Jesus, as well as his brothers.” Acts 2:46 states that “they broke bread at home and ate their food with glad and generous hearts.”

In order to understand how diverse groups and socio-economic classes interacted, and more importantly, worshiped, we know that certain norms were in place. Most agree that the worship event of the synagogue was replicated to an extent in the house churches. Both Jew and Gentile submitted to the structure. The law, the psalms, and prophets were read in the

155. Petersen, 270. 156. Campbell, 669. 157. Petersen, 270.

66

Temple and synagogue. Hence, the church gave priority to the public reading of Scripture and to preaching, along with the Eucharistic meal.158 As early as the first century, Christian worship was known by the term liturgy, which meant “the common work” or “the work of the people.” In the midst of diversity, liturgy would have leveled differences and enabled each disparate group, ethnically or socio-economically, to focus on a common cause, that of worshiping Christ and living for him. A structured liturgy, focused on God working in their midst in word and sacrament, would give security for centuries to come.

Relationship codes looked different in the house churches. In his epistle to the

Corinthians, Clement writes:

Let the members of the church submit themselves, and no one exalt himself above another. Let our whole body then be preserved in Christ Jesus; and let everyone be subject to his neighbor, according to the special gift bestowed upon him. Let the strong not despise the weak, and let the weak show respect unto the strong. Let the rich man provide for the wants of the poor; and let the poor man bless God, because he hath given him one by whom his need may be supplied. Let the wise man display his wisdom not by mere words, but through good deeds.159

As for interaction among people in the house churches, Margaret MacDonald conducted research on the subjects of the Roman family, mixed households, slaves as members of the church, children, and sexuality within the house churches.160 MacDonald contends that each household hosting a church was often composed of believers and non-believers, homeowners, freed men and women, and slaves and their children. The diversity of the large households added to the complexity of the house churches. Because wealthy and poor, slave

158. “Introducing the Church,” The Orthodox Study Bible: Ancient Christianity Speaks to Today’s World (Thomas Nelson, 2008), xxiii. 159. 1 Clement 38, in Philip Schaff, The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Kindle Electronic Edition, 2010), Location 544. 160. Margaret Y. MacDonald, “Slavery, Sexuality and House Churches: A Reassessment of Colossian 3:18- 4:1 in Light of New Research on the Roman Family,” New Testament Studies, 53 (2007): 94.

67 and free, sexually active and celibate, and powerful and weak all converged on the house church, Paul’s teaching and exhortations were directly related to what was not only happening in the individual households, but also in the households hosting the church communities. Sexual relations between master and slave were commonplace in Greco-

Roman society as were other relations. But it was clear that in the house churches, new life in

Christ should look different than the world around them. As the new communities faced the attraction of their former ways of life, Paul exhorts the new believers to not defraud each other sexually. In 1 Corinthians 6:12, he calls them to flee immorality. But the apostle does it for two reasons. First, as we have said in reference to oneness in the Trinity, our bodies and the community itself are members of Christ (1 Cor 6:15); secondly, the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit where God dwells. As cultures mixed together, as multiple generations interacted, as free and slave worshiped together, and as those from different socio-economic strata engaged each other in the church, it became clear that new norms were replacing traditions that had previously created division and resentment. Moreover, the new diverse community was itself the temple of the Holy Spirit.

The first three centuries of the Christian movement set the foundation for the new

Christian community and the assimilation of new believers. The early church experience relied on the Holy Spirit and the wisdom of apostolic leadership in the task of church formation that surprised both leaders and church members as rooms, houses, and tenements took the place of formal structures. The formation of new communities among Jews and

Gentiles, rich and poor, and slave and free called for rapid response to changing demographics and the potential of persecution as the new Christians witnessed a

68 supernatural work. The world around them observed a new dynamic of fellowship in the midst of cultural and socio-economic differences.

In summary, the early house churches provide us with a pattern of how Christians living in community would relate to one another. Allegiances had changed, the church was illegal, and new configurations of individuals came into contact with each other in a way that never had occurred before. Social classes mixed, ethnicities interrelated, men and women ministered together, and family dynamics were changed as all members of the family, slave and free, were included in the new Christ community. The early house churches witnessed two phenomena that were significant to their growth as churches and as community: the power of the Holy Spirit, who broke down barriers and led more individuals to faith; and apostolic leadership that guided, taught, and pastored.

As we consider the present study of multicultural mission teams today, we see through the research conducted that a similar mix of people today requires the same approach that the early churches experienced – that of spiritual formation and power that comes from the Holy

Spirit, as well as leadership keenly prepared spiritually and apostolically to lead, cast vision, and pastor those from different backgrounds.

Missio Dei

The early church set the tone and example of how diverse believers in community should interact. As we move forward to the modern mission era, the formulation of the idea of missio Dei has been significant in rethinking Christian mission in recent times and in answering the question as to who owns the mission enterprise of the church. Moreover, the concept of missio Dei was a call for the church to answer the question: “who is my brother or sister?” Missio Dei was a step in helping liberate mission from the captivity of culture and

69 suggested that it is God who has been and is moving forward with a plan to redeem the nations. In order to grasp the impact of the spread of the gospel across cultures since the mid- twentieth century, the concept of missio Dei gives insight into how the church reflects the entire body of Christ in its multicultural composition.

The mission of God permeates both the Old and New Testaments, demonstrating a missiological continuity from beginning to end as it moves toward the new creation.161 The underlying tenet of the missio Dei posits that it is God who pursues humanity. The focus is theocentric and emphasizes who God is rather than human organizations and their missionary endeavors and programs.162 Christopher Wright notes that the mission of God “flows from the inner dynamic movement of God in personal [Trinitarian] relationship.”163 Wright contends that the mission of God is more than a series of dictates from the scriptures encouraging the church to go out and do mission. Rather, mission defines the overarching narrative of who God is and helps the church to continually ask the question, “whose mission is it anyway?” Volf concurs and states that mission is to be understood in terms of Trinity.

Volf brings more precision to the Trinitarian significance of mission by noting that God in

Trinity draws the church in as participant. Volf states:

When the Trinity turns toward the world, the Son and the Spirit become, in Irenaeus’s beautiful image, the two arms of God by which humanity was made and taken into God’s embrace. That same love that sustains non-self-enclosed identities in the Trinity seeks to make space ‘in God’ for humanity.164

161. Girma Bekele, “The Biblical Narrative of the Missio Dei: Analysis of the Interpretive Framework of David Bosch’s Missional Hermeneutic,” International Bulletin of Missionary Research 35 (July 2011): 155. 162. Timothy C. Tennent, Invitation to World Missions: A Trinitarian Missiology for the Twenty-first Century (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2010), 55. 163. Christopher J.H. Wright, The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2006), 63. 164. Timothy R. Gaines, “Politics, Participation, and the Missio Dei in the Thought of Miroslav Volf and the Wesleyan Tradition.” Wesleyan Theological Journal 47 (Spring 2012): 74. In my opinion, Volf rightly maintains

70

Kirk cogently suggests that missio Dei is the proper place to begin any investigation of mission and to grasp that “its primary reference is to the purposes and activities of God in and for the whole universe.”165 Kirk adds that the term has been used to promote a variety of mission agendas but nonetheless claims that there is agreement about the emphasis on God’s purposes and the fact that we are dealing with a personal God.166

The Bible in its entirety is the missional narrative of God in action. Through the activity of the Trinity, Ewell writes that “God is the author and origin of all mission. It is our missionary God who comes from the very beginning to seek, to save, and to restore all of creation to the fullness of life for which we were created.”167 Although the mission belongs to God, the people of God from all ages have been called to respond and participate by going outside of themselves and their cultures with the message of the gospel of Christ. Whether going out to the nations, as the church did in the New Testament, or coming into the nation of

Israel as God-fearers, the plan of God has always been moving forward to redeem the nations of the earth. The church reflects God’s mission in both its goal and method – that of bringing together into a new community those who had been previously separated by tribe, language, people group, and nation (Rev 5:9). In terms of the ultimate role of Israel and the church,

Isaiah 49:6b asserts: “I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth,” Jesus being the final and obedient servant. Psalm 96:10 resounds with the chant: “Say to the nations, ‘The Lord reigns.’”

the unity and oneness between God in Trinity and the church, giving more importance to the role of the Trinitarian God in mission who is above culture and historical movements. 165. J. Andrew Kirk, What is Mission?: Theological Explorations (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000), 24. 166. Kirk, 25. 167. C. Rosalee Velloso Ewell, “Missio Dei: The Theological Roots of Evangelism,” International Review of Mission 101 (November 2012): 386.

71

The rehabilitation of the word mission is a twentieth century phenomenon. It was shortly after the Willingen conference in 1952 that some participants proposed a new mission standard which suggested that God’s redemptive work in the world preceded the work of the church.168 It should be added that the Willingen conference was a pivotal point in the history of modern mission in the effort to see the church ready to do mission - not as Western churches doing it to others - but as a new commission to all, regardless of cultural origin.

Although the term missio Dei, first coined by Georg Vicedom, was not used during the conference, it came into use by way of a number of post-conference documents. Kirk notes that it was Karl Hartenstein who actually first introduced the phrase into missiological reflection in 1934.169 Hence, a new way of thinking about mission was recaptured in which the western church and, by extension, culture were no longer the starting point for mission in the world.

Vicedom emphasized missio Dei in response to the crisis of missions in the Western church. Haapiainen summarizes Vicedom’s ideas:

Vicedom argues that there were clear marks of a crisis of mission in Western churches. According to Vicedom, one major factor behind this situation was the Corpus Christianum170 ideology. It had drawn unnecessary geographical and theological borders and blurred the way mission had been seen in the churches. Development had led to strong anthropocentrism in mission motives. Vicedom mentions colonial,

168. Tennent, 55. 169. Kirk, Kindle Location 4184. Kirk quotes Jurgen Schuster who states that Hartenstein “called missions toward a critical self-examination of whether she is what she is called to be, namely missio Dei, God’s own sending, expressed in Christ’s command to the apostles” (Schuster, 65). 170. Corpus Christianum refers, in a contemporary sense, to the worldwide community of Christians, adherents of Christianity; or the collectivity of Christian majority countries, or countries in which Chrisitianity dominates or nations in which Christianity is the established religion. In its historical sense, the term usually refers to the medieval and early modern period, during which the Christian world represented a geopolitical power. Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christendom (accessed September 28, 2016).

72

pietistic, cultural and confessional motives. In all these he sees the emphasis on human deeds instead of God’s own action.171

Furthermore, Vicedom proposed that the mission movement had its origin in the Triune

God.172 Vicedom’s understanding of the missio Dei had its roots in the works of Karl

Hartenstein and Karl Barth. Hartenstein’s position was that mission should be considered fundamentally God’s work and not a result of human effort.173 Hartentstein aligned himself with the teaching of Karl Barth, who in a lecture on mission as early as 1928, had also connected mission with the doctrine of the Trinity.174 Barth stressed that mission was primarily God’s activity. Both Barth and Hartenstein contended that “mission is grounded in an intra-Trinitarian movement of God himself and that it expresses the power of God over history.”175 The ultimate goal is the redemption and restoration of creation and humanity.

Hartenstein was not only a theologian but a missionary practitioner and at the time of the

Willingen conference, was director of the Basler Mission. During his tenure, he traveled to various mission fields including India, China, and Africa, enabling him to know them first hand. Because of his knowledge of the field, Hartenstein’s understanding of mission in action allowed him in India to observe tensions between missionaries and the young Indian church.176 Hartenstein believed that the corrective needed was to see God as the prime mover

171. Timo-Matti Haapianinen, “The Development and Outlines of Missio Dei in G.F. Vicedom’s Theology,” Swedish Missiological Themes 100 (January 2012): 49. The critique of the corpus christianum paradigm that favored the west in all matters missional seems to have been a principal factor and driver in the new era of the rediscovery of the missio Dei. 172. Tennent, 55. 173. Haapianinen, 49. 174. Christopher J.H. Wright, The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative (Downers Grove: IVP, 2013), 62. 175. Wright, 63. 176. Jurgen Schuster, “Karl Hartenstein: Mission with a Focus on the End,” Mission Studies (2002): 56.

73 behind mission. He continued his interest in the theology of crisis of Karl Barth which led him to reflect on the impact of Barth’s theology for mission.177

Barth insisted that as wholly Other, God was not dependent or subject to creation and history. This was crucial in formulating the ultimate source of mission.178 The process of history and the programs of the church toward mission do not define God’s plans. On the contrary, cultural presuppositions and worldview are always subject to biblical and theological foundations. Hartenstein spoke of the three dangers if a proper view of God and history were not maintained: pragmatism, secularism, and syncretism, all tendencies stemming from a faulty view of God’s relationship to creation. It is of interest to note how

Hartenstein warns the missionary in this regard: “the life of the missionary is a perilous life.

He is always in danger of losing his way on the right hand by getting a superiority feeling towards others and to lose his way on the left hand by getting an inferiority complex in regard to his message.”179 Hence, the message was to be a God message and not a message from culture.

177. J. Gresham Machen, “Karl Barth and the Theology of Crisis,” Westminster Theological Journal (1991): 197-198. Barth’s theology of crisis is stated by Machen: The teaching of Karl Barth and his associates is commonly called the theology of crisis. The "crisis" or "decision" that is meant in this title is the one that is forced upon a man when he is placed before the dreadful antinomy between time and eternity, the world and God. That antinomy is at the root of the Barthian teaching. At the very foundation of everything that Barth says is the conviction of the awful transcendence of God, the awful separateness between the created world in which man lives and the boundless mystery of the Creator…[there] are just so many efforts of man to transcend the gulf that separates him from God; there are just so many efforts to drag God down into the sphere of this world. Quite different from all such imaginings of man's heart is the living and true God. From such a God, man is never so remote as when he thinks that he has found him; religion as well as civilization comes under the same great condemnation; it is finite, not the infinite; time, not eternity; it is of man, not of God. God is not another name for the totality of this world; and he is not to be found in any experience of man. He is, with respect to this world, the "completely Other," der schlechthin Andere, the One who is incommensurate with anything that can possibly enter into the life of man. 178. Paul D. Molnar, “A Response: Beyond Hegel with Karl Barth and T.F. Torrance,” Pro Ecclesia (2014): 165-167. 179. Schuster, 64.

74

For Hartenstein, “mission is the church in movement, the church on her preaching journey in the whole world.”180 In my estimation, Hartenstein rightly assessed the role of the church whose role is to go to all the nations. To help others bridge the western and non- western gap and to promote a continual unity of purpose for the church and its mission,

“Hartenstein sees a reverse movement: while the church at home is in the process of becoming mission again, mission abroad is in the process of becoming church.”181

Hartenstein notes that in mission, God “is not giving the Church a commission that is added to its other duties; but a commission that belongs to its royal charter.”182 Consequently, the church worldwide is comprised of one people. Schuster notes that “for Hartenstein, the unity of the churches and the unity in mission was made visible in the sacrament of communion.

The unity in communion became the central experience of Christian unity.”183 Hartenstein insisted that, during the various international mission conferences in which he participated, the sacrament needed to be celebrated among the diversity of attendees to solidify unity in

Christ.

Hartenstein began to use the term missio Dei to summarize much of what came out of the

Willingen conference:

The missionary movement, of which we are a part, has its source in the Triune God himself. Out of the depths of His love for us, the Father has sent forth His own beloved Son to reconcile all things to Himself, that we and all men might, through the Spirit, be made one in Him with the Father in that perfect love which is the very nature of God…We who have been chosen in Christ,…[we] are by these very facts committed to full participation in His redeeming mission. There is not participation in Christ without participation in His mission to the world. That by which the Church receives its existence is that by which it is also given its world mission.184

180. Schuster, 66. 181. Schuster, 66. 182. Schuster, 66. 183. Schuster, 61. 184. Richebacher, 590.

75

In my opinion, Hartentein aptly captured the spirit of renewal of mission as flowing from the Trinitarian God. Hence missio Dei denotes the sending by the Triune God. It is rooted in the relationship of persons within the Trinity. The Father sends the Son, the Word of God, to become flesh, dwell among humans, do the works of God, and suffer, die, and rise from the dead. The mission of God continues as the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and the

Son, enlightens and empowers the Church, manifesting what Jesus declares: “As the Father has sent me, so I send you, after which he breathed on them and said to them, ‘Receive the

Holy Spirit.’” (John 20:21). Wright notes that the mission of the church is “participation in and extension of this divine sending.”185

John Flett appropriately gives precision to the concept of missio Dei. Flett’s concern is correctly that of “deficient Trinitarianism” that had begun to emerge during the turbulent

1960s and 1970s.186 Flett insists that the church, in emphasizing God’s mission in the world, must distinguish between God’s being and God’s actions.187 While it may seem a bit unclear as to what Flett was proposing by his dichotomy of being and action, it is true that Flett’s fear was what he called “the projection of idealized political movements onto the being of God,” a tendency that had afflicted missio Dei theology during the 1960s.188 In the fifteen years following the Willingen Conference, several conflicting doctrinal positions competed for legitimacy. One one hand, the salvation history ecclesiology approach posited “the methodical, concerted missionary activity of the church as urgent and justified if the church

185.C. Wright, 63. 186. John Flett, “Missio Dei: A Trinitarian Envisioning of a Non-Trinitarian Theme,” Missiology: An International Review (January 2009): 6 187. Flett, 5-8. 188. Flett, 7.

76 is to become once again the tool of God’s missionary work.”189 The idea here is that the church was to have one limited final period of effective action before the second coming of

Christ.190 Conversely, the other camp, labeled the historical eschatological approach, allowed for “missionary activity of the church to dissolve in God’s universal activity in history and consider[ed] the relationship of God’s redemptive action in the world and the church’s action in the world as being detached from each other.”191 In this perspective, mission had been changed from the “particular saving activity of God in Jesus Christ to a principle of goal-oriented progess.”192 This perspective flows from the interpretation of J.C.

Hoekendijk under the influence of the social gospel theology of Rauschenbusch and Niebuhr who proposed an “optimistic interpretation of direct divine action in world events in order to promote an ever better way of life and increasing democracy.”193

Flett contended that since the missionary intention is rooted in the aseity of God, God remains the subject of all mission and, consequently, “gives humans a share in his act and so a share in his life.”194 The mission of God includes the response of the church in its role as witness as it shares in God’s mission to the world.195 How one conceives of God’s missionary nature in se seems to be a necessary correction to competing cultural and philosophical ideologies. One such theological perspective came from the school of thought of Hoekendijk who posited the missio Dei in Hegelian terms of God and history.196

189. Richebacher, 593. 190. Richebacher, 593. 191. Richebacher, 593. 192. Richebacher, 593. 193. Richebacher, 592. 194. Flett, 15. 195. Flett, 15. 196. Paul Harrison, “Hegel: Philosophy and History as Theology”, www.pantheism.net, http://www.pantheism.net/paul/history/hegel.htm (Accessed September 24, 2016). Harrison writes: “God is present and active in the real world. He acts through humans, and is conscious of himself through humans.

77

Hoekendijk and his colleauges spoke exclusively of mission as movement within the

Trinity, but divergent from the redeeming activity of Jesus Christ.197 Hoekendijk was an influential figure behind what was called “worldly theology,” popular in the ecumenical movement in the 1960’s and considered by many as untenable.198 Hoekendijk seemed to have an aversion to what he called ecclesiocentrism and, consequently, embraced the secular world, as opposed to the church, as the center of God’s actions.199 For Hoekendijk, shalom or peace in the world replaced the church as the primary outcome for God’s activity.

Hoekendijk addressed the 1960 conference of the World Student Christian Federation in

Strasbourg, in which “he urged participants to desacralize the church and to recognize that

Christianity is a secular movement.”200 At issue with the missiology of Hoekendijk was a reversal of the idea of the church and the world. Because of his experience during World War

II, Hoekendijk was deeply suspicious of the notion of church. Thus, instead of the traditional biblical idea of God-church-world, Hoekendijk contended for God-world-church. For

Hoekendijk, the world could be secularized and attentive to how God was embedded in history and would bring benefits that the church had not be able to provide. Richebacher quotes Hoekendijk who proposed that “the structures in the world have been made

Christian…these matters are part of history. They have been transformed into public events on the road to the final cosmic liberation.”201 At stake in the theology and missiology of

God embodies and develops himself first in nature, then in the rising stages of human consciousness and civilization. Human history and culture are God's working out of his self-realization in the world. Individual humans - especially the great heroes of world history - are the principal means of change, while peoples and states are the embodiment of each phase.” 197. Richebacher, 591. 198. Bert Hoedemaker, “The Legacy of J.C. Hoekendijk,” (October 1995), www.thefreelibrary.com/the+legacy+of+J.C.+Hoekendijk.-a017757344 (accessed November 6, 2017),1. 199. Hoedemaker, 1. 200. Hoedemaker, 1. 201. Richebacher, 591 as quoted from J.C. Hoekendijk, Die Kirche im Missionsdenken, EMZ (1952): 1-13.

78

Hoekendijk was a minimizing of Trinitarian understanding of God’s working in the world – creation, incarnation, redemption, and empowerment – culminating in the coming of Christ and the final kingdom. Hoekendijk proposed an historical eschatological approach that would better humanity, but even he was ambivalent in his later years when new historical theologies in the 1970s (black liberation theology and liberation theology) emerged with which he could not align.202 Potential issues emerging from Hoekendijk’s approach were a secular world that could define progress as well as the prerogative to determine what was acceptable culturally and, ultimately, which cultures reflected God’s movement. In my assessment, the problems associated with Hoekendijk’s approach have unfortunately followed us to the present day.

In summary, the Willingen conference proposed that mission begins with God and not the western church. In saying this, the conference did not devalue the global church as the people of God through whom mission had always advanced and would continue to do so. All of humanity finds itself in the same desperate spiritual condition regardless of cultural background. Richebacher clarifies the theocentric missiology coming out of Willinger based on four cornerstones:

1. The sending of the Son to the world through the Father in the Holy Spirit and the sending of the church in the power of God were classified as a fundamental act and a corresponding act…each essesntialy bound to the other. 2. People will only practice mission freely if they know that they are forgiven sinners in the fellowship of the ecclesia iusta et peccatrix…The mission comes out of God’s interest for the Other. 3. These historical insights that nobody at Willingen could or wished to deny any longer showed people that a church of this kind knows it has been freed from the compulsion to exercise its own power over the churches of the South. In its place, in the spirit of the earlier Whitby conference on this theme, there grew a readiness to carry out mission as a commission to all the churches in a worldwide partnership.

202. Hoedemaker, 4.

79

4. Those gathered at Willingen were strengthened in that same trust that the early church had known, that in the midst of crumbling historical and cultural certainties, the risen Christ remained in control, and reached beyond all boundaries even to the places where it seemed that the church had never been active.203

Despite a number of ongoing theological and cultural struggles in future years, the

Willingen conference provided a new understanding of mission that challenged a culturally dominated approach to mission. Until that point, it was true that mission had been active on all six continents through initiatives of indigenous Christians as well as western churches.

But the concept of missio Dei attempted to recover a theocentric view of mission based in the

Trinitarian relationships. Despite a number of divergences, the concept of missio Dei was a necessary corrective to colonialism and cultural dominance. The beginning and the end of

God’s mission happens because of the Trinity working to fulfill the ultimate plan of God.

Both Barth and Hartenstein stated it well by insisting that mission is at its root theologcial, and not a cultural matter.204 For Hartenstein and other Christian leaders, this helped shape the notion of missio Dei and the struggle for the predominance of Trinitarian theology over the cultural captivity of the church and mission, a struggle that continues in every generation of the church.

Diversity, Culture, and Multiculturalism

As we arrive at the present day, God’s mission gives substance and shape to the church and its mission. As we discuss diversity, there is always tension between what flows from the missio Dei and what is culturally popular in terms of diversity and multiculturalism. There is no easy answer to this and, at times, the two approaches can seem conflated. Moreover, we

203. Richebacher, 590-591. 204. Schuster, 56.

80 do well to ask whether diversity is the goal in and of itself or whether it is to be first and foremost a reflection of a greater truth. The church is called to grapple with how to minister in a diverse world so that the unity of the body of Christ is reflected. We do well to remind ourselves that in the eschatological kingdom, God forms his people here and now into what the 1928 Book of Common Prayer calls, in one of the Eucharistic prayers, the mystical body of Christ.205

In order to lay the groundwork for a multicultural approach to ministry, it is beneficial to analyze several terms and how they are currently used. First, diversity can be defined as the differences that exist among peoples based on race, ethnic background, gender, religion, cultural practices, and socio-economic status. Diversity designates differentiated groups in human societies or sub-cultures in a specific region. Cultural diversity exists when there are two or more differentiated groups existing together. Because diversity is related to culture, a diverse group exhibits a variety of particular cultural attitudes, values, and behaviors. Enoch

Wan defines culture as “the context or consequence of patterned interaction between personal beings.”206 Heibert describes culture as an “integrated system of ideas, feelings, and values and their associated patterns of behavior shared by a specific group of people.”207 Heibert notes that “culture affects all dimensions of human experience. It is inculcated into us from birth and profoundly affects the way we interact with other people.”208 Grunlan and Mayers explain culture as “learned and shared attitudes, values and ways of behaving.”209 Schein

205. 1928 Book of Common Prayer (Delray Beach, FL: Deus Publications, 2009), 83. 206. Richard J. Konieczny and Enoch Wan, “An Old Testament Theology of Multiculturalism,” (July 2004), http://www.enochwan.com/english/articles/pdf (accessed April 27, 2016). 207. Konieczny and Wan, 2. 208. Evelyn Hibbert and Richard Hibbert, Leading Multicultural Teams (Pasadena: William Carey Library, 2014), Kindle Location 141. 209. Konieczny and Wan, 2.

81 describes culture, whether national, ethnic, religious, or organizational, as “both a here and now dynamic phenomenon and a coercive background structure that influences us in multiple ways. Culture is constantly reenacted and created by our interactions with others and shaped by our own behavior.”210 Hence, culture is innate to every human being, protecting them and giving them norms and guidelines to proceed through life.

However it should be noted that cultures are not static and may change depending on generational differences, geographical changes, and influences from cultures to which individuals have immigrated. For instance, a second generation Korean living in California will retain many of the patterns and worldview of the home culture, but will also have assimilated ways of thinking and behaving of Americans living in California. The dissonance may specifically occur with what one calls the “1.5 generation,” referring to individuals who immigrate to a new country before or during their teens, “earning the label ‘1.5 generation’ because they bring with them or maintain characteristics from their home country, meanwhile engaging in assimilation and socialization with their new country.”211 Hence, in approaching culture, there is necessarily some fluidity in how culture affects an individual.

Cultural diversity creates, among others factors, a variety of ways of seeing the world, managing interpersonal relationships, exchanging values, dealing with high or low power distance, developing attitudes toward risk and change, and favoring individualism or collectivism. These features can enhance harmony or produce dissonance. The notion of diversity and a closely connected word, inclusion, are often used in modern culture to denote

210. Edgar H. Schein, Organizational Culture and Leadership (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2010), 3. 211. “Immigrant Generations,” Wikipedia, http://en.m.wikipedia.org (accessed December 18, 2017).

82

“an open, egalitarian, and just meritocracy.”212 Reno notes that in an extreme sense, diversity and inclusion can become a “technique of social engineering, not a goal or end for a social group.”213 However, for purposes of this study, diversity will denote ethnic, cultural, or national differences within a ministry or team.

In this work, I have chosen to use the term multicultural diversity instead of multiculturalism. Since the focus of this work is about diverse cultures, it seems that multicultural diversity is less problematic and leads to less confusion since my intended goal is to be descriptive. On the other hand, multiculturalism in today’s world has an ideological connotation. For purposes of comparison, it does seem useful to say a few words about multiculturalism and to present an overview of some of the literature.

Multiculturalism is more complex and can be defined from anthropological and sociological perspectives. In current literature, multiculturalism refers to how one responds to diversity. In today’s world, the term itself can evoke either positive responses or negative reactions. Multiculturalism is not a new phenomenon and multicultural societies have existed throughout history. More recently, from nineteenth century Austria-Hungary to contemporary Iraq, Lebanon, Belgium, the former Yugoslavia, and Rwanda, cultures have lived together. European and North American nations are increasingly multicultural.

However, in many cases multiculturalism has caused havoc as cultures in conflict have attempted to destroy one another. Unfortunately, in many cases, multiculturalism has not succeeded as a sociological phenomenon. The question that arises is whether cultures can

212. R.R. Reno, “While We’re At It,” First Things, December 30, 2016, https://www.firstthings.com/article/2016/12/while-were-at-it (accessed , November 14, 2016). 213. R.R. Reno, “While We’re At It,” First Things, December 30, 2016, https://www.firstthings.com/article/2016/12/while-were-at-it (accessed, November 14, 2016).

83 live separately within a shared space or is there a need for common culture, values, and norms.214

To cite several approaches, Konieczny and Wan propose that multiculturalism can be viewed from three perspectives: descriptively, ideologically, and from the perspective of power.215 Descriptive multiculturalism refers to the variety of cultures that exist both internationally and intranationally, existing side by side in a given context. Ideological multiculturalism moves beyond description and focuses on the “procedural and substantive principles ordering a multicultural society.”216 In this approach, furthering equality and democracy are often proposed outcomes. Implicit in the concept of ideological multiculturalism is the mandate to change the social order in light of the existence of different cultures. Thirdly, multiculturalism based on power takes the concept of equality further and proposes a movement for change to challenge the social and political status quo as it affects cultural minorities.

Terence Turner considers multiculturalism from another perspective by contrasting two versions of multiculturalism: anthropological theory, stemming from the classical tradition of descriptive culture on one hand, and identity politics on the other.217 Related to Konieczvy and Wan’s multiculturalism based on power, identity politics intends to view multiculturalism as a conceptual framework for challenging the cultural hegemony of the dominant ethnic group. For proponents of identity politics, culture is not an end in itself, but

214. Victor Davis Hanson, “Have We Reached A Point of No Return,” National Review Online, (July 2016), http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437668/american-society-brink (accessed July 13, 2016). 215. Konieczvy and Wan, 3. 216. Konieczny and Wan, 3. 217. Terence Turner, “Anthropology and Multiculturalism: What is Anthropology That Multiculturalists Should Be Mindful of?” Cultural Anthropology, 8 (November 1993), 411-412.

84 a means to an end. Culture in this sense refers to collective identities engaged in struggles for social equality.

Turner proposes two other models for the study of multiculturalism which he labels as critical and difference multiculturalism. Critical multiculturalism attempts to use cultural diversity as a basis for “challenging, revising, and relativizing basic notions and principles common to dominant and minority cultures alike so as to construct a more vital, open, and democratic common culture.”218 Critical multiculturalism disputes terms like canon, literature, tradition, artistic value, and common culture. Truth is seen as disputed rather than given.219 Turner claims that this does not mean that cultural standards should be discarded, but that new common standards should emerge out of democratic processes in which a variety of cultures participate equally. Movements to promote critical multiculturalism in the

United States would include African-American and more recently Latino cultures in their quest to promote their own tradition, values, language or dialect, and literature in the midst of life within a Caucasian majority culture.

In contrast to critical multiculturalism, difference multiculturalism proposes separation.

Turner calls proponents of difference multiculturalism “cultural nationalists and fetishists of difference.”220 Difference multiculturalism not only reduces culture to ethnic identity but goes further by moving toward social, political, and intellectual separatism. Difference multiculturalism of this sort actually bears a resemblance to nationalism. But for purposes of this study, we are not referring to nationalism, but cultures. Multiculturalism is an emerging field into which a number of disciplines, including anthropologists, sociologists, and

218. Turner, 413. 219. Turner, 414. 220. Turner, 414.

85 multiculturalists speak. How it actually works in modern society is a matter of great controversy.

From a biblical perspective, the scriptures present multicultural diversity in a varied light. From an anthropological viewpoint, diversity is descriptive. The scriptures abound with descriptions of cultural differences from a creational as well as redemptive perspective. The first sign of human diversity is demonstrated in the creation of humankind (Gen 1:26-27) and the nations. Likewise, the redemptive thread woven throughout scripture reflects a growing unity amidst diversity and ensuing equality because of God’s redemptive plan in Christ that has redeemed the tainted effects of sin that touch creation, individuals and cultures. In this sense, we may say that the scriptures call for a critical multicultural approach that breaks down power distance and communication barriers between dominant and minority cultures

(Matt 20:25-27; Mark 9:35; Gal 3:28-29). However, the focus is always on submission to

Christ and to the plan of God which calls all peoples to follow him. The ultimate equalizer is

Jesus Christ as multicultural groups pursue life together in anticipation of the new heavens and new earth.

Although there is great value in the variety of cultural expressions and perspectives, the definitive call is for diverse peoples to find their ultimate common bond in Christ over and above cultural or sub-cultural norms as they move toward the new creation (Eph 2:13-15).

According to the Ephesians passage, the results of brokenness are two-fold: Gentile from Jew and humanity from God. However, the solution is likewise two-fold. First, the creation of a unified humanity has come about because of the Incarnation. Since God became human and we are thus united with him in baptism, we then experience the Incarnation in our lives, celebrating together our common union with Christ. Secondly, we attain peace with God

86 because of the death and resurrection of Christ. The point here is that Christ in the church is

“forming one new humanity in place of the two, so making peace” (v.15). Consequently, multicultural ministry teams, while not ignoring cultural differences, would develop, as an example, norms and values that transcend cultural particularities in favor of scriptural practices that characterize mutual union with Christ in reciprocated care, love, and humility toward each other regardless of cultural differences.

Lastly, T.J. Gorringe, in Furthering Humanity: A Theology of Culture, frames the discussion of culture and multicultural diversity around the theme of hegemony and its role in society and culture. The hindrance to a truly multicultural church (both interculturally and intraculturally) centers on the notion of dominance and subordination. Gorringe defines hegemony as “the spontaneous consent given by the masses of the population to the general direction imposed on social life by the dominant fundamental group.”221 Hegemony creates power structures that benefit certain classes or cultures. The church is not exempt from this phenomenon. Gorringe examines Jesus’ teaching as he contrasts hegemony and its resultant power with the kingdom of God (Matt 18:1-5; 23:11). Whereas hegemony is the “realm of the taken-for-granted common sense assumptions,” the kingdom of God (basileia tou theou) is “bound up with the doing of God’s will - only this assumption makes sense of Jesus’ ethical teaching.”222 The Old Testament portrays Israel’s ultimate vocation as one of servanthood to the nations. Further on in the New Testament, Jesus’ teaching admonishes the disciples to “constitute a servant community, a community constructed around alternatives:

‘it shall not be so among you’(Matt 20:26). Together they are to live for and to be bound by

221. T.J. Gorringe, Furthering Humanity: A Theology of Culture (Aldershot Hants: Ashgate, 2004), 130. 222. Gorringe, 144.

87 the reign of God.”223 So for the church, its task is to live out this reality corporately “forming a contrast society which will both preach and live out this vision to the ends of the earth.”224

To apply this to multicultural ministry, the church, or the multicultural missionary team, the group will identify and live out the value of servanthood as Christians reflecting a culture counter to the hegemony of society and the dominant culture. Moreover, Gorringe writes that true freedom in Christ is freedom from the “compulsion of sin, from the idols of power, and from godforsakenness.”225

Gorringe states that religion is actually more resistant to assimiliation than is race, citing examples of the Jewish diaspora and Coptic Christians in Egypt throughout history.226 It is plausible that the meaning system that is shared by those participating in a common faith while living in diaspora is more significant at times to the benefits of the host culture in terms of protection from extinction. Nonetheless, the church is often resistant to the assimilation of others and has tended at times to build its own hegemony and power structures. Because of immigration patterns over the past few decades resulting in societal change, the concept of multicultural diversity has provoked a good amount of debate. Gorringe insists that homogenous cultures can lack the conditions for openness, humility, tolerance of differences, critical self-consciousness, powers of intellectual and moral imagination and extensive sympathy.227 Gorringe describes multicultural discourse today as a discourse whereby the

“aim of the good society is not just equality of opportunity for individuals, but equality

223. Gorringe, 144. 224. Gorringe, 145. 225. Gorringe, 145. 226. Gorringe, 240. 227. Gorringe, 242.

88 among socially and culturally differentiated groups which mutually respect one another.”228

A diversity of cultures helps “correct and complement, educate and civilize each other.”229

Shokef and Erez propose a “shared meaning system that would allow members of multicultural groups to understand each other and interpret each other’s intentions and behaviors”230 Likewise, Schein proposes that as cultures, national or organizational, intermingle, they begin to share meanings, and understandings emerge “that are created by group members as they interact with each other.”231 Shared meanings and understandings help promote and solidify cohesiveness among diverse groups who, individually, would focus on embedded patterns, habits of thinking, and mental models, typical of culture in its acculturation process.232 The rules of cultural order make social behavior predictive, help people get along, and “help us find meaning to what we do.”233

Hibbert and Hibbert propose what they call a neutral space for a multicultural ministry team in order “to negotiate its own unique approach.”234 Quoting Homi Bhabha, the authors call this “liminal space,” an anthropological term denoting the “transition between one stage of life and another.”235 Hibbert and Hibbert adopt the notion of liminality to multicultural teams and contend that “multicultural team members need to partially distance themselves

228. Gorringe, 241. 229. Gorringe, 242. 230. Efrat Shokef and Miriam Erez, “Global Work Culture and Global Identity as a Platform for a Shared Understanding in Multicultural Teams” (Haifa: Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, 2006), 3. 231. Schein, 15. 232. Schein, 15. 233. Schein, 3. 234. Evelyn Hibbert and Richard Hibbert, Leading Multicultural Teams (Pasadena, William Carey Library, 2014), Kindle Location 1234. 235. Hibbert and Hibbert, Kindle Location 1240, quoted from Homi Bhabha, “The Third Space: Interview with Homi Bhabha,” in Identity, Community, Culture, Difference, ed. Jonathan Rutherford (London: Routledge, 1990), 209.

89 from their own cultures in order to develop a new and unique team approach.”236 Although it is difficult to completely separate oneself from one’s own culture, liminality proposes holding lightly one’s cultural ways of thinking and behaving in order to become open to new behaviors and ways of thinking.237 To apply the principle of liminality, a multicultural team would develop new team norms unique to the team or adopt ways of interaction based on the

“one another” commands in scripture.

As diverse cultures interact and work together, the development of shared meaning and understanding allows for multicultural groups to transcend their own cultures as they focus on scriptural values and behaviors. The research developed in this study will examine in chapter four how the multicultural teams investigated develop community, synergy, and creativity by focusing on scriptural practices of interpersonal behavior and spiritual community in order to create shared meaning for relationships and ministry partnership.

Conclusion

Wright puts forward what he calls a "missional hermeneutic that sees the whole of scripture as a missional phenomenon in the sense that it reflects the self-giving movement of

God toward his creation and us."238 Hence, the mission work of the church flows out of the mission of God. God, in Trinity, is in movement, forever drawing and bringing humanity to redemption and toward one another. Bosch writes that “our missionary activities are only authentic insofar as they reflect participation in the mission of God".239

236. Hibbert and Hibbert, Kindle Location 1240. 237. Hibbert and Hibbert, Kindle Location 1247. 238. Wright, 48. 239. David J. Bosch, Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1997), 391.

90

Consequently, the church has been called from the beginning to live counter-culturally.

As the early church demonstrated, the unity and bond of the believers, regardless of status or origin, indicated that God was in their midst. God’s mission is not captive to any era or culture, including our western innovative paradigms. Tennent writes that mission “is first and foremost about God and his redemptive purposes and initiatives in the world, quite apart from any actions or tasks or strategies or initiatives the church may undertake…Mission is far more about God and who he is than about us and what we do.”240. Nonetheless, the church participates in God’s mission. Its vision, strategies, and programs notwithstanding, how members of the church in mission live with, adapt to, and love one another in the pursuit of fulfilling God’s mission demonstrates a formidable truth.

The Oxford Dictionary defines mission as “an important assignment carried out for political, religious, or commercial purposes, typically involving travel,” or “the vocation calling of a religious organization, especially a Christian one, to go out into the world and spread its faith.”241 For our purposes, Eckhard Schnabel narrows the definition:

The term "mission" or "missions" refers to the activity of a community of faith that distinguishes itself from its environment in terms of both religious belief (theology) and social behavior (ethics), that is convinced of the truth claims of its faith, and that actively works to win other people to the content of faith and the way of life of whose truth and necessity the members of that community are convinced.242

By definition, the concept of mission implies going elsewhere, whether close by or to another country, with the task of communicating the gospel and the formation of a

240. Timothy Tennent, Introduction to Missions: A Trinitarian Missiology for the Twenty-first Century (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2010), 54-55. 241. “Mission,” http://oxforddictionaries.com (accessed September 7, 2016). 242. Eckhard J. Schnabel. Paul the Missionary: Realities, Strategies and Methods (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2008), Kindle Location 269.

91 community. Schnabel specifies that mission is characterized by intentionality and movement and notes:

Mission proceeds from an authority that sends envoys and a message to other people and to other places. There is no reason to abandon either intentionality or geographical movement in the definition of mission. Intentionality refers to the purpose of the mission as designed by the initiator or sender of the messenger as well as to the purpose of the mission as understood by the messenger.243

Schnabel is clear on his definition of mission. The question for the church is always to understand how mission is to be accomplished so that all stakeholders are considered. In light of the missio Dei, new models of mission have emerged, many of which progress and bear fruit by means of multicultural teams. The following chapter will focus on the methodology of the study project featuring four multicultural teams practicing mission in a variety of ways.

243. Schnabel, Kindle Location 276-279.

92

Chapter Three: Research Methodology

In the preceding chapters, we have proposed scriptural, theological, and missiological foundations to provide a framework for the practice of multicultural ministry teams. The foundations offer a reflection of what Christian community and ministry can look like in the present day of mission as they anticipate the advancing plan of God for humanity and, ultimately, the new creation. Through a study of select passages in chapter one, we established that in the scriptures, the plan of God moves from the one to the many. From the beginning, the plan of God affirms that all people groups have been included in the plan of redemption resulting in peace with God and with others. The place of the nations in the overall plan of redemption is noteworthy with the call of Abraham, through whom all the nations would be blessed (Gen 12:1-9). The resultant new Christian church in the book of

Acts brought the promise of blessing to fruition.

In chapter two, we first of all surveyed the early church during the first three hundred years noting what some of the early church writers and recent scholars have stated regarding relationships in the early churches from a community as well as multicultural perspective.

Next, we examined modern missions from a theological and missiological perspective as it pertains to changes that took root in the last century. In the period of modern mission, we noted a movement from western dominated monocultural mission practice to an era where the practice of mission is increasingly collaborative among Christians from diverse regions of the world as they have begun to minister side by side. We established that the concept of missio Dei has been revived and has been instrumental over the past sixty-five years in reminding the church of God’s plan in the world, the importance of a Trinitarian perspective, the role of the western and non-western church in mission, and how multicultural ministry

93 teams reflect a new understanding of kingdom advancement in mission. Lastly, we defined diversity and multiculturalism and have considered those terms from a missiological perspective. As we move from foundational themes, we turn to the current practice of multicultural mission teams in order to determine how cross-cultural teams function in a ministry context.

Overview

The purpose of the practical research component was to identify best practices and competencies that will help in the creation and deployment of multicultural mission teams.

The present chapter will describe the methodology for how a study of four multicultural teams was conducted in order to answer the research question of this study.

Qualitative research is grounded in the social world of experience and, in this study, was applied to make sense of themes surrounding the practice of multicultural teams.244. The research methodology used in the study of multicultural teams gave structure to the design of the intervention and the methods employed in the study of the four teams.245. According to

Sensing, research methodology encompasses three areas: the rationale, the intervention, and the evaluation, three areas that will be addressed.246 The rationale answered the why and significance of the study by analyzing the context of the question. In this study, the rationale flowed from a felt need to understand how to better form, deploy, and maintain multicultural

244. Sargeant, 1. Sargeant notes that whereas quantitative research requires standardization of procedures and random selection of participants to remove the potential influence of external variables and ensure generalizability of results, subject selection in qualitative research is purposeful; participants are selected who can best inform the research questions and enhance understanding of the phenomenon under study. 245. Tim Sensing, Qualitative Reseach: A Multi-Approach to Projects for Doctor of Ministry Theses (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2011), 26. 246. Sensing, 63.

94 teams for ministry in the context of a mission agency and, specifically, to identify best practices and competencies. The methodology addressed how the research was undertaken and the actions and methods used to address the problem. Included are how the teams were selected and studied, the individuals interviewed, the focus groups conducted, data saturation considered, and observations made.247

In the intervention phase, the researcher became a co-participant with the team and, in some cases, with the ministry for several days at each site. The intervention phase made use of interviews and, on two occasions, focus groups to interact with team members. Lastly, the intervention provided data for evaluation. Sensing notes that “evaluation is the systematic collection, analysis, and interpretation of information”248 which in this study involved determining how members experienced multicultural teams, the optimal best practices and competencies of multicultural teams, and how to encourage the mission agency as well as other agencies to pursue participation in multicultural teams for ministry.

Research Design

There are a variety of ways in which qualitative data differs from quantitative data. Schatt states that qualitative data focuses on meanings and words rather than on quantifiable phenomena. Moreover, qualitative research concentrates on a few cases rather than many participants, conducts research without predetermined categories, remains sensitive to the context rather than seeking universal generalizations, does not pretend to be value-free, and collects a rich array of descriptive data.249 The process of qualitative data collection involves

247. Sensing, 63. 248. Sensing, 70. 249. Russell K. Schatt, Investigating the Social World, 8th Edition (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2014), 324- 325.

95 the documentation of the data through field notes or transcripts, organizing data into categories or concepts, demonstrating how one concept may influence another, and then reporting the findings.250 Schatt contends that conclusions drawn from data collection should be authenticated by determining the credibility of the participant as well as the type of influence the researcher had on the participant and the group in general.251

Since the goal of the project was to identify and study a specific question in order to improve the effectiveness of multicultural teams, the study made use of action research, interviews, and focus groups. Action research is the broad and overarching approach that emphasizes participant observation and physical presence in order for the researcher to become a part of the context even for a limited period of time. Action research is often used in organizational development to identify effectiveness, hindrances, and solutions, as well as formative evaluation used to improve programs.252 Ethnographic practitioners employ action research in studying cultural and sociological themes.

Kurt Lewin is considered the founder of action research as a result of his studies in factory and neighborhood settings to demonstrate the improvements in productivity through democratic participation rather than autocratic coercion.253 Lewin’s studies demonstrated that there was an effective alternative to scientific management in organizations and through action research, “provided details of how to develop social relationships of groups and between groups to sustain communication and cooperation.”254 Adelman suggests that

250. Schatt, 325. 251. Schatt, 331. 252. Sensing, 52. 253. Clem Adelman, “Kurt Lewin and the Origins of Action Research,” Educational Action Research, 1 (January 1993), 7. 254. Adelman, 7.

96

“action research gives credence to the development of powers of reflective thought, discussion, decision and actions by ordinary people participating in collective research.”255

For Lewin, action research “was exemplified by the discussion of problems followed by group decisions on how to proceed.”256 Lewin’s influence remains present in a variety of interventions and research studies today by the emphasis on active participation of those who perform the work in the exploration of problems that they identify and anticipate.257 More recently, French and Bell define action research as a process of an “ongoing series of events and actions.”258 Action research is “the process of systematically collecting research data about an ongoing system relative to some objective, goal, or need of that system.”259 French and Bell recommend feeding the data back into the system, making changes, and evaluating, something that will be done in the research findings and best practices.260

The action research component of this study included spending time in context observing team interaction, ministry events, informal time with team members, and asking questions about team experiences. Conducting interviews and focus groups, providing feedback to each group, and writing field notes was complementary to action research observations. Feedback sessions were conducted to further process the data collected and “feed the data back into the system”. To conduct the study of multicultural teams through action research, it was useful to be present with the four teams studied: Cape Town, South Africa; Nicosia, Cyprus; Athens,

Greece; and Berlin, Germany.

255. Adelman, 8. 256. Adelman, 9. 257. Adelman, 9. 258. Wendell L. French and Cecil H. Bell, Jr, Organization Development: Behavioral Science Interventions for Organization Improvement, 6th Edition (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1999), 138. 259. French and Bell, 138. 260. French and Bell, 138.

97

Selection of Participants

In selecting participants, Sargeant distinguishes between quantitative and qualitative studies:

Quantitative research requires a standardization of procedures and random selection of participants to remove the potential influences of external variables and ensure generalizability of results. In contrast, subject selection in qualitative research is purposeful; participants are selected who can best inform the research questions and enhance understanding of the phenomenon under study. Hence, one of the most important tasks in the study design phase is to identify appropriate participants.261

In this study, teams were explored as to the potential of the team members’ ability to provide information on important facets and perspectives related to the topic of experience in the practice of multicultural teams.262 In qualitative studies, “the number of participants depends upon the number required to inform fully all-important elements of the phenomenon being studied.”263 Hence, the sample size is not predetermined.

Four sites were selected after discussions with team leaders. In all cases, site visits were arranged with the team leader. Each team leader was contacted several months ahead of the visit, the project was described, and the leader consented to having a site visit. In addition, the team leaders convened their team members to obtain buy-in for the project and decide an optimal time frame convenient to each member and ministry project.

The four sites selected met certain criteria important for obtaining significant data. First of all, it was important that the team leader be willing to sponsor the site visit and interview process. The team leader was an essential component in the success of the research.

261. Sargean 1. 262. Sargeant, 1. 263. Sargeant, 1.

98

Secondly, it was essential to have teams who considered themselves multicultural. Hibbert and Hibbert note that a multicultural team works well when “people from other cultures are confident in sharing their own opinions…and every member’s assumptions will be challenged.”264

Thirdly, it was valuable in this study that the team leader be a non-North American.

Although this was not a requirement, it helped to have North Americans working under other nationalities. Hibbert and Hibbert write that “one of the major challenges to building effective multicultural teams occurs when the team exists within an organization dominated by one ethnic culture, or when the majority group of one culture on a team.”265 Such teams usually default to the norms of the majority culture. We will discuss this further in chapter four. Since the role of the team leader was significant, “if the team leader is also from the majority culture group, equity will be more difficult to achieve.”266 It was important that the team leader promote the full involvement of all team members. Fourthly, it was important that each team be engaged in significant multicultural ministry as well as for each individual team member to have a role on the multicultural team. In this study, the teams were involved in church planting, evangelism, student ministry, evangelistic video ministry, ministry to refugees, and discipleship. We also note that both women and men were interviewed and participated in the research. We did not ask for a specific number of men or women.267

Lastly, it was vital that each group studied function as an actual team and not just as a loosely formed or virtual group. The only team where this was not necessarily the case was the Polis

264. Hibbert and Hibbert, Kindle Location 1266. 265. Hibbert and Hibbert, Kindle Location 1259. 266. Hibbert and Hibbert, Kindle Location 1259. 267. Women and men participated equally in all four teams studied. Although the four team leaders were men, there was no prohibition by Mission to the World of women as team leaders.

99 group in Athens, who worked together as a group and were geographically co-located, but not necessarily as one intact team.

French and Bell define a team as having the same “characteristics in greater degree than other groups, including a higher commitment to common goals and higher degree of interdependency and interaction.”268 Katzenbach and Smith define team as a “small number of people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, set of performance goals, and approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable.”269

Wheelan describes a team as a “living entity that transcends and cannot be explained by individual experience.”270 Wheelan considers that a team can actually function organically as cooperation and mutual accountability become norms. Bennis promotes the slogan that ‘none of us is as smart as all of us’ to dismiss what he calls the ‘myth of the great man’ in favor of collaborative teams.271 Roembke concurs, adds the cultural and ministry components, and defines a multicultural team as a “group of missionaries from different backgrounds working together in one location.”272 Roembke’s definition of a multicultural mission team was helpful in assuring that the team members were co-located. In order to probe further the question of overall purpose, the question of understanding of team vision and strategy was included in the individual interviews.

In total, four teams were studied and twenty-seven individuals were interviewed, sixteen men and eleven women. The four teams studied included a student ministry, the Student Y,

268. French and Bell, 155. 269. French and Bell, 155. 270. Susan Wheelan, Group Processes: A Developmental Perspective (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1994), 1. 271. Warren Bennis and Patricia Ward Biederman, Organizing Genius: The Secrets of Creative Collaboration (Boston: Addison-Wesley, 1998), 1. 272. Roembke, 3.

100 on the campus of the University of Cape Town in South Africa; a church planting network in

Athens called the Polis; a church planting and immigrant-focused work in Berlin called

GospelHaus; and a evangelistic video production and training ministry in Cyprus focused on

Arab speakers called Behind the Scenes. Ten cultures were represented in the total study:

Greek (2), American (10), Egyptian (1), Cypriot (2), German (2), British (1), English South

African (1), Afrikaner South African (1), Chinese South African (1), and Black South

African (3). The selection of participants focused on the overarching objective of studying an

American mission agency. The practical portion of this study that analyzed four mission teams was limited to Americans from the mission agency as they worked closely with other cultures on teams. As has been mentioned, although a more robust study involving interactions from a multiplicity of cultures, including solely non-western cultures, would produce even richer data, this research project focused primarily on the needs of an American mission agency and was thus limited in scope. The selection of participants was distributed as follows:

• Cape Town: 3 black South Africans, 4 white English South Africans, 1 Chinese South

African, 1 white Afrikaner South African, and 2 Americans.

• Nicosia, Cyprus: 1 Egyptian, 2 Cypriots, and 3 Americans.

• Athens: 2 Greeks and 3 Americans.

• Berlin: 2 Germans, 1 British, and 2 Americans.

As for the team leaders, the Student Y team in Cape Town was led by an Afrikaner South

African; the Behind the Scenes team in Cyprus was led by an Egyptian; the Polis work in

Athens was led by a Greek; and the team leader at GospelHaus was led by a German.

101

Interviews

The study followed Brinkmann and Kvale’s stages for conducting interviews which included reviewing the purpose of the study, identifying what type of information was needed, designing the questions, conducting the interview, documenting the data, analyzing the data by coding and categorizing, and reporting the findings.273 Among the techniques that help the researcher make sense of the data, the present study utilized a mixed-methods approach, but utilized methodology emerging from grounded theory. As opposed to conversation or narrative analysis, where the participant tells a story that focuses on how reality is constructed on a certain theme, grounded theory is “based on responses that are summarized into conceptional categories, reevaluated in the research setting, and gradually refined and linked to other conceptual categories.”274

Interviews were conducted one-on-one with each team member during the site visit. In two instances, focus groups with smaller groups were conducted consisting of team member participants. A focus group is a form of qualitative research in which a group of people are asked about their perceptions, opinions, beliefs, and attitudes.275 In a focus group setting, questions are asked in an interactive group setting where participants are free to talk with other group members. During group interaction, participants can respond to another participant’s opinion. The opportunity to allow and hear counter-ideas gives greater insight into the participants’ real thoughts. Focus groups have limitations in that there may be a tendency toward groupthink. Focus groups were used in two instances, once in Cape Town

273. Svend Brinkmann and Steinar Kvale, Interviews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing, Third Edition (Los Angeles: Sage, 2015), 128-129. 274. Schatt, 341. 275. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_group (accessed May 2, 2017).

102 and once in Nicosia to elicit responses. For the focus group in Cyprus, there was often consultation between the members and it was difficult to elicit individual opinions, perhaps for fear of criticizing the team leader who was Egyptian. It would have been better to mix the cultures up for the focus group. For the Student Y group in Cape Town, the focus group of three people, two black South Africans and one white South African, the dynamic was much more energized with ideas and opinions in a free flow style of communication. There was passion in the answers specifically regarding race relations and the new South Africa.

In addition, feedback sessions with the entire team were held for the teams in Cape

Town, Nicosia, and Berlin. For the team in Athens, a group feedback session did not occur.

Part of this was due to time constraints, but also because of the loose nature of the Polis group in Athens. With all the other teams, the feedback sessions held after the interviews helped gain more information as the entire team could share insight.

The social science interview is markedly different from the job or consultation interview.276 Roulston, deMarrais, and Lewis contend that the “process of interviewing is just as important as the answers to the questions we receive.”277 The purpose of the interview is to “understand themes of the daily lived world from the subjects’ own perspectives.”278

Brinkmann and Kvale concur and write that “the qualitative research interview attempts to understand the world from the subjects’ points of view, to unfold the meaning of their experiences, to uncover their lived world prior to scientific explanations.”279 The qualitative research interview is a form of conversation that is professional and at the same time

276. Kathryn Roulston, Kathleen deMarrais, and Jamie B. Lewis, “Learning to Interview in the Social Sciences,” Qualitative Inquiry (August 2003), 645. 277. Roulston, de Marrais, and Lewis, 646. 278. Brinkmann and Kvale, 27. 279. Brinkmann and Kvale, 3.

103 knowledge producing. However, Brinkmann and Kvale contend that the research interview, although a conversation, is not a conversation between equal partners.280 The research interviewer is often “cast in a power position and sets the stage by determining the topic of the interchange; it is the interviewer who asks and the interviewee who answers.”281 At times, the interview event can reflect a pattern of “contrived collegiality.”282 Thus, in contrast to observations, interview questions reflect what the interviewer wants to know. In this study, the interviewer controlled the direction of the process and needed to be aware of overpowering the person being interviewed. It was obvious that the interviewer was driving the process with all of the participants. In some cases, it was possible to get to know the person before the interview. In most cases, there was some casual time spent building rapport at the beginning of the interview. One corrective would have been to spend more time in small talk before the interview.

As the questions were posed to the participants, the interviewer asked follow-up questions for clarity and precision. Among the twenty-seven participants, there was significant interest on the part of most of the participants. There was a willingness to participate in the interview after hearing the theme of the study and the ethical guidelines. It seemed that in all cases, the physical presence of the interviewer added to the interest and stimulated discussion. Although there was a list of qualitative questions to follow, the interview was semi-structured in nature, allowing for interaction, clarification, and a conversational style.

280. Brinkmann and Kvale, 6. 281. Brinkmann and Kvale, 7. 282. Brinkmann and Kvale, 8.

104

The interview questions sought to elicit responses in everyday language. Although some comments were general in nature, descriptions of specific situations and examples were solicited. As much as possible, the questions were directed to the immediate ministry team context of the participant. Brinkmann and Kvale propose that in this type of interview, it is important to underscore “deliberate naiveté,” a posture that the interviewer takes to exhibit

“openness to new and unexpected phenomena, rather than ready made categories and schemes of interpretation.”283 For example, on the subject of multicultural teams, it was apparent that almost all the participants had a positive interest. At times, however, divergent topics were raised, but the dialogue on divergent topics between the interviewer and participant often added to the information solicited. For example, six participants seemed to want to talk about their team leader and specific problems they had with him or the lack of clear direction. The conversation did help with understanding more about leadership on that team and potential impediments to team life when leadership was not optimal. When necessary, probes were launched to explore further the meaning of what the participant stated. At times, sensitive questions arose that dealt with a number of themes including the lack of certain competencies on the part of the leader, bias felt from other members of the team, lack of progress in ministry initiatives, and fear of change.

The interview design proposed questions that were open-ended and elicited detail. The exceptions were the questions on demographics and team role. Data was collected that identified the purpose and vision of the team of which each participant was a member.

Questions addressing how the participant felt about the multicultural team experience were asked with questions about the benefits and challenges of a multicultural team. These

283. Brinkmann and Kvale, 33.

105 questions addressed the affective aspect of multicultural team participation, but also aided in the development of the competencies and qualities needed for optimal multicultural team members. In addition, it was important to have each participant articulate the cultural differences that affected their team which addressed issues of cultural self-awareness.

Moreover, data was collected that addressed Christian community on the team and how to improve team dynamics, and this data was helpful in the determination of competencies and best practices for multicultural teams.

The interviews were written in the form of field notes and were not recorded. It was the decision of the researcher that the field note process was appropriate for the cross-cultural context. Jotting responses and field notes seemed to create an informal dynamic in the social encounter with each participant.284 The interviewer informed each participant that notes would be taken and made sure that the respondent agreed. A recording device may have interfered with that dynamic. On the other hand, recording the interviews may have allowed a more thorough examination of the interview. As for the written notations, it was easy to make written comments at each question and to review each question following each interview. A copy of each interview was kept and referred to from time to time during the analysis phase.

Data Saturation

Fusch and Ness note that “data saturation is reached when there is enough information to replicate the study when the ability to obtain additional new information has been attained,

284. “Strategies for Qualitative Interviews,” http://sociology.fas.harvard.edu/files/sociology/files/interview_strategies.pdf, (Accessed November 2, 2016).

106 and when further coding is no longer feasible.”285 A smaller study will reach data saturation more rapidly than a larger study.286 Theoretical saturation indicates that researchers reach a point in their analysis of data whereby sampling more data will not lead to more information related to their research question.287 However, since research designs are not universal, “there is no one-size-fits-all method to reach data saturation.”288 Data saturation may be reached by as few as six interviews in some cases depending on the sample size. Dibley suggests that it may be best to think of data in terms of “rich and thick,” rather than the sample size.289

Dibley contends that rich refers to quality and thick denotes quantity.290 Hence, “thick data is a lot of data; rich data is many-layered, intricate, detailed, nuanced....”291.Most researchers propose that one should choose the sample size that has the best opportunity to reach saturation.

In this project, the interviews conducted were an effective method to reach data saturation. The interviews conducted on the four multicultural teams were composed of a fairly large number of participants for a qualitative study. In all, twenty-seven participants were studied from four multicultural teams. After a number of interviews, it was clear that many of the same concepts and themes were repeated or at least restated in similar terms.

Bernard suggests that “the number of interviews needed for a qualitative study to reach data

285. Patricia I. Fusch and Lawrence R. Ness, “Are We There Yet? Data Saturation in Qualitative Research,” The Qualitative Report (2015): 1408. 286. Fusch and Ness, 1408. 287. C. Seale, The Quality of Qualitative Research (London: SAGE, 1999), 87. 288. Fusch and Ness, 1409. 289. L. Dibley, “Analyzing Narrative Data Using McCormack’s Lenses,” Nurse Researcher (2011): 13, as cited in Fusch and Ness, 1409. 290. Fusch and Ness, 1409. 291. Fusch and Ness, 1409.

107 saturation was a number one could not quantify.”292 In interviews, the researcher asks the same questions to multiple interviewees. It is clear that the researcher holds an important role in the determination of data saturation through the use of his or her personal lens.293 Data triangulation is another way to determine saturation. Data triangulation proposes multiple methods of data collection such as interviews, focus groups, questionnaires, and observations, several of the methods employed in this research study.

In terms of the data saturation of this study, it became apparent after about twelve or so interviews that a pattern started to emerge. For example, in responses from the question regarding the benefits of multicultural teams, phrases were mentioned such as “more innovation,” “better brainstorming,” “cultures complement each other,” or “more gifts among the team members,” and so forth. All of these statements, for example, were categorized in this study under the term “synergy.”

Data Coding and Analysis

The data for a qualitiative research study emerges from the field notes during observation or the interview. Schatt writes that data arises from the original comments, observations, and feelings that are then reconstructed, or put in a form to make sense to the researcher.294 Schatt notes that “identifying and refining important concepts is a key part of the iterative process of qualitative research.”295 Chowdhury contends that in qualitiative data analysis, “a significant amount of empirical and theoretical evidences can be presented to show the authenticity,

292. R.H. Bernard, Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, 2nd Edition (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2012), as cited in Fusch and Ness, 1409. 293. Fusch and Ness, 1411. 294. Schatt, 325. 295. Schatt, 328.

108 robustness, validity, and capacity of qualitative research.”296 Sargeant notes that “the purpose of the qualitative study is to interpret the data and the resulting themes to facilitate understanding of the phenomenon being studied.”297

Contrary to quantitative research which is statistical and numeric, qualitative data analysis is interpretive and narrative.298 Sargeant offers an approach that the present study used and modified. The process of coding and categorization helped to visualize and conceptualize the interview data from the twenty-seven participants as the data was read and reread again. Moreover, the process helped to see connections in the data. Sargeant suggests that interpretive data analysis can be considered in three stages: deconstruction, interpretation, and reconstruction.299 These three stages occurred after the interviews, focus groups, and observations were completed.

Deconstruction refers to breaking down the data into component parts and requires reading and rereading interview or focus group notes and then delineating the data into categories that describe the content.300 Schatt adds that it is important to refine certain concepts in the categorization process and then test them against new observations or notes from other data.301 Schatt proposes designing a grid or matrix to facilitate the coding and categorization process.302 The grid is a visual organizer to see how often a concept was mentioned and into which category it belongs. A coding and categorization grid of about twenty-seven pages was constructed for the interviews conducted for this study. Brinkmann

296. Muhammad Faisol Chowdhury, “Coding, Sorting, and Sifting of Qualitative Data Analysis: Debates and Discussion,” Qualitative Quantitative (2015): 1338. 297.Sargeant, 1. 298. Sargeant, 2. 299. Sargeant, 2. 300. Sargeant, 2. 301. Schatt, 328. 302. Schatt, 329.

109 and Kvale note that “a meticulous coding of the transcripts forces the researcher to get acquainted with every possible detail in the materials.”303 It is suggested that the interviewer identify initial categories based on the reading of the notes, write codes alongside the notes, review the notes, and then revise the categories.304 The coding and categorization grid for the study was revised numerous times. Quite often, “coding leads to categorizations, which implies that the meaning of the long interview statements is reduced to a few simple categories.”305 In the present research study, categories were developed for each question.

For instance, categories for benefits and then challenges of the multicultural team emerged from codes for each question. Code phrases for the benefits of a multicultural team would be such items as synergy, diversity of opinion, cultural awareness, and so forth. Codes developed for the challenges of a multicultural team included such items as misunderstandings and conflict, divisiveness, and issues of power.

Interpretation followed deconstruction and helped to make sense of coded data through comparing codes and categories across the notes and variables that seem important to the study. Sargeant proposes:

Techniques for interpreting data and findings include discussion and comparison of codes among research team members while purposefully looking for similarities and differences among themes, comparing findings…and exploring theories, and exploring negative results (those that do not confirm the dominant themes) in more detail.306

During this stage, there was consultation with a colleague with experience in coding and categorization.

303. Brinkmann and Kvale, 228. 304. Brinkmann and Kvale, 228. 305. Brinkmann and Kvale, 229. 306. Sargeant, 2.

110

Reconstruction refers to “recreating or repackaging the prominent codes and themes” in a way that shows relationships and insights. The resconstruction is the reporting and write-up in clear terms which was done in the research findings section in chapter four of this project.

Codes were combined into categories and then categories were combined into major themes.

Conclusion

This chapter has summarized the phases of qualitative research including research design, action research, observations, selection of participants, interviews, data saturation, and data analysis in order to undertake the present study. The material outlined in the chapter has aided in creating and maintaining good navigation and guideposts throughout the research project. The rigors of research are significant and important for a successful study. On the other hand, we mentioned at the beginning of this chapter that the science undertaken in the research project does not exist by and for itself. The purpose of the qualitative study is to also determine how multicultural mission teams today reflect or do not reflect the scriptural, missiological, and theological foundations that we have articulated.

111

Chapter Four: Findings

The first two chapters set forth the scriptural and theological foundations for multicultural ministry teams based on the narrative of God’s plan of redemption moving from one to the many. The narrative began in Genesis and broke forth in the spread of the church among the nations in the book of Acts. The theological chapter addressed practices in the early church, the church in the modern era of mission and its impact, and analysis of diversity, culture, and multiculturalism.

Overview

In this chapter, we will present background and observations from the field visits, followed by the data emerging from the interviews conducted. In addition, we will discuss a number of themes that emerged from the research findings and connect them to current literature.

The qualitative research portion of the study of multicultural mission teams focused on four international field sites. Having outlined a research methodology for the qualitative research in chapter three, the purpose of the practical research component of the study was to identify best practices and competencies that will support the formation and deployment of multicultural mission teams for effective ministry. The desired best practices and competencies identified provide guidelines for the ongoing assessment and training of multicultural ministry teams.

The study made use of observations, interviews, and focus groups. The methodology of the present study consisted first of all of action research which included spending time in context observing team interaction, ministry events, and informal time with team members.

112

Complementary to the observations, data emerged from interviews and, on two occasions, focus groups. The study produced field notes from both the observations and interviews from which was developed a best practices grid.

The teams studied were involved in a variety of ministries including church planting, student university ministry, evangelistic video ministry, ministry to refugees, and discipleship. In light of the multicultural nature of the teams, it was important to understand how the teams functioned in Christian community as well as how they ministered together side by side and the issues that emerged from the interaction among team members. Each team had its own particular feel, norms, and team culture. Moreover, the location, the type of ministry, and the cultural makeup of the teams identified other nuances that were specific to each team. The observations and conversations from the Student Y in Cape Town identified an energetic student ministry with students coming and going, conversations about faith and social justice issues, and socializing due to the extensive facilities owned by the Student Y in proximity to the campus. The Behind the Scenes team in Cyprus producing evangelistic videos demonstrated more of a studio feel with regular hours and structure as well as extensive filming and training sessions. The GospelHaus team in Berlin worked out of a neighborhood church which included a variety of activities and meetings pertaining to church business and ministry to refugees. The Polis ministry in Athens was a multi-location ministry with team members working in various ministries and not necessarily sharing common space on a daily basis and not always meeting together as one team.

In studying the four sites, it became apparent that none of the teams had intentionally decided to become multicultural. All team participants were either nationals of the host country, missionaries, or expatriates from a nearby country living long-term in the host

113 country. Nonetheless the majority of the team members seemed to welcome the opportunity to work with those from other cultures. As one participant from the Student Y ministry in

Cape Town indicated: “This seems like the right and normal thing to do; why wouldn’t we do this?” The responses indicated that the multicultural nature of the teams was nonetheless the result of a common desire to serve the greater cause of gospel outreach to the nations and, in every team, to be a specific type of ministry in a particular place that would reflect a kingdom perspective of going toward those who were different including Muslims, refugees, students, and other nationalities. In addition, the willingness of participants to engage in multicultural team ministry may have indicated a change over the past decade particularly in the western churches to see multicultural ministry teams as not only as a trend, but as the norm as more cultures are brought into churches to follow Christ and live out their faith.

Moreover, although there were continual impediments to team cohesion, the participants interviewed were willing to work through the differences.

Throughout the research, there seemed to be no desire to revert to monocultural ministry teams. This may have been the result, on one hand, of effective cross-cultural training on the part of some of the team participants at each location and, on the other hand, the team culture of a good number of the Christian younger staff and students in the Cape Town student ministry, for whom multiculturalism in all areas of life held a high value. The only comment on this issue came from one of the Greek pastors in the Polis ministry in Athens who agreed with multicultural teams as long as the American missionaries learned culture and submitted to the Greek leadership.

In this vein, Roembke notes that “with missions being the central theme in theology, it follows that the credibility of the missionary message and praxis in a cross-cultural context is

114 a key issue in the theology of missions.”307 Roembke contends that multicultural teams provide a model for cross-cultural ministry. She writes that there is a correlation between multicultural teams and receptiveness to the gospel of those hearing the message.308 As one of the respondents from South Africa stated, multiculturalism is a “picture of the gospel because God cares about all cultures and people groups.” Another South African team member felt strongly that “Christian community was a witness to the world”, and all the more so in a multicultural setting.

In brief, the findings indicated that for almost all the participants it was clear that team members grow in unity centered on their common life in Christ as the central shared value.

As an example, during the feedback session for the team in Cyprus, all the team members felt strongly that the results validated the preeminence of a spiritual foundation. For them, their adherence to biblical norms was imperative to maintaining an intact multicultural team. In other words, there had to be a common bond beyond culture to connect members and develop what we call shared meaning. Moreover, the role of spiritual dynamics helped draw members together to create community as well as cohesion.

The interview findings stressed the important of the team leader in playing a significant role to ensure that team members from diverse cultures managed the processes of learning worldview and value differences. Furthermore, the team leader had a significant role of managing team processes such as decision making, brainstorming, and conflict resolution.

This demonstrated that although multicultural teams were unique, they were nevertheless

307. Roembke, 3. 308. Roembke, 3.

115 teams which required care and intentionality to achieve effectiveness in accomplishing the ministry.

Mentioned several times was the fact that cultural differences were not insurmountable as long as there was adequate guidance and training on the team. Lastly, almost all of the respondents believed that participation on a multicultural ministry team, despite the challenges, was part of their ministry of seeing the kingdom of Christ move forward as barriers are broken down to achieve oneness in the Body of Christ.

Action Research: Background and Observations

We will first of all relate the background of each ministry and summarize the observations made, following which we will summarize the findings from the interviews.

Sensing notes that “participant observation is the primary tool used in ethnography in the study of living human beings in their social and cultural contexts.”309 We observed people as they engaged in their routine activities including team meetings, social interactions, fellowship, worship, and ministry activities. Participant observation allowed the researcher to encounter members of the ministry team who were engaging in the team’s activities as well as focus on multiple perspectives on team life. In this study, it was important to understand the interplay of those multiple perspectives.

Observations varied according to each site. The research in three of the four sites occurred at a ministry center where ministry interaction normally and naturally occurred. The study focused on physical space, activities, interactions, Christian fellowship, ministry equipment, as well as verbal behavior, gestures and body language, and people who stood

309. Sensing, 93.

116 out.310 For the research conducted with the five participants in the Polis ministry in Athens, it was not possible to be on site at the principal sponsoring church. The five team members in

Athens were interviewed at another venue.

Student Y in Cape Town

Time was spent with the leadership team of the Student Y on site at the University of

Cape Town. Most of the team were full-time staff, either those serving long-term or students taking a gap year to serve as interns. In addition, three student leaders were part of a focus group in order to gain insight as to how the team and the entire ministry functioned from a multicultural point of view.

The overarching objective of the Student Y is to make disciples and followers of Jesus of students not only during their student years, but for the rest of their lives as they learn to follow Christ. Almost all the respondants were able to state the objective: Teaching students to follow Jesus for life. One staff member shared that society should be changed as new graduates live for the kingdom of God. The goal of the team was to facilitate the development of whole life disciples, as one staff person indicated. Another explained that it was important for students to see how scripture affects all areas of life in a practical way.

Still another stated the goal succinctly as making disciples and growing them in Christ. In the

Student Y ministry, students grew in their faith through one-on-one Bible studies, Bible studies led in the residences, and large group meetings.

The Student Y ministry was given land and facilities adjoining the campus of the

University of Cape Town and has existed near the campus since 1947. In terms of university

310. Sensing, 96-97.

117 education in South Africa, much has changed since the end of Apartheid. Formerly a white university, the university has changed to reflect more and more black and colored South

African demographics as well as a growing international emphasis. The facilities of the

Student Y were expansive. One staff person stated that through the physical space, the

Student Y was becoming a “learning space” and was creating an environment for peer learning. This seemed to be significant for student ministry in that time and relationships are what fuel this type of ministry. The physical space created a vehicle for the staff and students to create an environment of peer learning in their goal of becoming lifelong disciples of

Christ. One of the staff leaders shared: “since we have a property, let us minister and care for students.” The feel of the facilities with students and staff conversing, studying scripture together, preparing university exams, and socializing seemed very incarnational.

There was housing for a number of students (at present eight) and more housing construction was underway to lodge a larger number of students from the university. Anyone may apply to live in the Student Y residences regardless of faith. Along with the housing, there are a number of offices and meeting spaces for leadership and team members as well as a student center that is open to anyone from the university. One of the white South African staff lived on site and shared accommodations with two Xhosa students. The living situation, although at times not easy, was a growing experience for him as he immersed himself into another culture.

Standing outside the Student Y center which faces the campus, a good number of students were passing by. During non-event hours, there were a several Student Y students or staff in the café of the ministry student center who welcome anyone passing by or coming in to talk.

Students from the university were welcomed to use the internet, the library or help

118 themselves to coffee or tea. Students take turns as receptionist and welcome agents at the café. The Student Y facilities also include a large meeting room for large student meetings, a kitchen for large events, and a place for music and instruments which seemed to be important to the student ministry. As for the main focus of the ministry, most of the staff were involved in conducting bible studies with students and one-on-one discipleship meetings. Weekly meetings for the large group happened once a week.

One of the students offered to take me on a walking tour of the campus. The campus itself is nestled in the mountains of Cape Town. The campus is hilly and that day it was particularly hot, but I was able to see the main part of the campus. It was during the tour that

I noticed the diversity of students. White, black, colored, and international students mingled, studied in small groups, and ate together in the various on-campus snack restaurants. The multicultural mix on campus was reflected in the ministry of the Student Y. Among the students that I spent time in the Student Y café, the various races mingled, joked with ease, helped each other with studies, and found moments to pray with each other. Interaction was lively and seemed to reflect, at least from the narrow perspective of the student ministry, a coming together and a desire to work through issues as Christians. The question that a number of students raised during the interviews was how Christians can influence the new

South Africa. Issues of how Christianity relates to race, oppression from the past, privilege, and justice were all topics of discussion. Perusing the Facebook site for the ministry, most events had to do with transformation in Christ, racial reconciliation, justice and mercy issues, and how to engage such issues as homosexuality and western influence from a Christian perspective. It was just before my visit that the statue of Cecil Rhodes had been removed

119 from the campus at the insistence of the majority of students. The students at the Student Y seemed to agree.

A few of the participants mentioned some of the tensions of working in a multicultural team particularly in South Africa. One white South African indicated being perplexed by an emphasis on culture at times over faith. Another black South African intern found that the whites in the ministry tended to be more conservative and evangelical, while the black South

Africans seemed to be more progressive. In conducting a focus group with three student leaders in the ministry, one participant believed that coming from an oppressive society, the multicultural team at the Student Y presented a model of transition for what should happen overall in South African society. In their words, the kingdom of God was working to set society right again in a country plagued with racism and oppression.311

Observations from the Student Y team in Cape Town indicated that most believed that as

Christians, lasting community on a team came from spiritual dynamics practiced by all members. However, it seemed the notion of community from the diverse cultural perspectives differed and was most notable between white westernized South Africans and black South Africans. Silzer delineates between strong community cultures and weak community cultures.312 Silzer describes strong community cultures as those where the

311. The table of nations discussion in chapter one is foundational to themes such as setting societies, in this case South Africa, right again and informs us that God’s design for all humanity from the beginning required allegiance to the creator. Blessing would accrue to those who followed the ordinances of God and malediction would come upon individuals as well as nations who ignored God’s ordinances (Gen 9:25-27). More importantly, although God would work specifically and for a time with the people of Israel, the table of nations narrative foreshadows the fact that all nations had an equal standing before God, equal standing of in terms of blessing, but also equal standing in terms of responsibility toward God, his commandments, and the other nations. Moreover, as the early church had to work through ethnic conflict (between Jew and Gentile), the resolution of the conflict in Acts 15 gives all cultures a precedence as to equality of standing before God and before others. 312. Silzer, 28.

120 individual is defined by the culture whereas a weak community culture defines the individual by “roles, skills, achievements, and possessions.”313 Moreover, group rights dominate in a strong community culture as opposed to a weak community culture where individual rights take precedence. Lastly, strong community cultures take responsibility for its participants as opposed to weak community cultures where individuals take care of themselves. The polarity of these two worldview paradigms was evident.

Behind the Scenes in Cyprus

The Behind the Scenes team is located in Nicosia, Cyprus. The team vision and mission centers on producing evangelistic, educational, and entertainment videos in Arabic for the

Middle East and North Africa. The high-quality videos are intended for Arab-speakers and are educational and evangelistic in nature with an emphasis on training for Christian discipleship. In addition, the team sponsors a three-month school for those from the Middle

East and North Africa that enables Arab speakers to start their own business or partnership with other groups and to minister to their communities. This media institute gives skills to

Christian background believers as well as Muslim background believers to first of all be disciples as well as learn creative ways to minister. The overarching goal is to develop believers and help grow churches in the Middle East and North Africa.314 The team has been in existence for about five years. During the three days spent with the team, it was evident that the team reflected an intersection of three cultures: Egyptian, Cypriot, and American.

313. Silzer, 28. 314. The focus of the team in Cyprus to be involved in evangelism and discipleship toward the Muslim world is a fitting application to the story of Jonah discussed in chapter one and is a call to the church to go beyond what is comfortable and to those who are “like us.” God’s love goes beyond particularism and exclusiveness, a precursor of the emergence of the Christian church centuries later in which the nations would begin to be included en masse as a part of God’s people.

121

The team leader and founder of the ministry was Egyptian, the three Americans were missionaries assigned to Behind the Scenes on a long-term basis, and two Cypriots functioned in various roles. Cyprus was viable for the establishment of such a ministry and yet provided accessibility to north Africa and the Middle East. Along with video production, the team hosted several discipleship trainings each year for emerging videographers and media specialists from north Africa and the Middle East during which time participants could also learn more video and media skills and, at the same time, go through a discipleship process. Moreover, from time to time, other Arab speakers joined the team and spent extended time with the team to help with technical, editing, and production tasks. Two

Lebanese missionaries had recently left after spending two years working on the team. Along with video production for evangelism and discipleship training, the non-Arab speakers on the team were committed to learning and using Arabic, ministering to Arab speakers in Cyprus, and maintaining connections to Arab churches and partners in the majority Arab world.

Behind the Scenes is an artistic team. The office and studio areas were well equipped and decorated. There was a Middle Eastern aesthetic touch reflected in the work and ministry spaces. The team appeared to be involved in a lot of serious work with deadlines. The ministry seemed successful, as evidenced from the partnership with a Christian television service called SAT-7 that garners 21 million viewers in the Middle East.

Among the team, there was a lot of talk, laughter, coffee, tea, and snacks as the team gathered for meetings. Devotions were conducted during which three Bibles were used:

Greek, English, and Arabic. However, the language for most team communication was

English. The team meetings were polite and cordial. In spending time with the team, it was apparent that there had been team struggles, probably due to personality clashes, and cultural

122 issues, as well as getting used to the team leader’s more directive style of leadership. For the team leader, building relationships was essential in building a solid team. Hence, time spent together socializing and over meals was priority. For some of the Americans, once the work was over, most went home at night. For the Americans, there seemed to be a dichotomy between ministry and the rest of life. For the Middle Easterners, there did not seem to be a dichotomy. One team member felt strongly that it was not possible to do ministry together and grow as a team unless individuals did life together outside of ministry. Another missionary on the team in Nicosia stated that she had to learn to be more community and relationally minded for a multicultural team to flourish. Another stated that being on the team forces one to work hard at community. It is interesting to note that most research on cultural patterns and traits suggests that the majority of cultures are more relationally and community minded. Westerners tend to be in the minority and sheds light on some of the needs for pre- field missionary preparation for those going to work with those from the majority world.

Polis Project in Athens

The Polis Project is a church planting and pastoral training initiative in Greece. Polis is affiliated with the Greek Evangelical Church comprised of twenty churches and ten pastors.

The denomination comprises a number of churches in Athens as well as several located in other regions of Greece. In addition, there are a few churches in other countries where sizeable Greek populations exist. Although the majority are Greek speaking, there has been an intentional outreach and church planting effort to reach other cultural groups. In Athens,

Polis has established churches among Albanian, Iranian, and Armenian populations. At present, there is a new church plant in its embryonic stage that will become a multicultural

123 congregation, specifically reaching refugees.315 The vision of Polis is to preach the gospel in

Athens and, as one Greek team member indicated, create communities in such a way that the

“city comes to church.”

The director and founding pastor of Polis leads a team of Greek pastors and church planters. There are four American missionaries working alongside the Greek leadership team, each assigned to a church and working in partnership with a Greek pastor or church planter.

In the interviews with the Greek nationals as well as the American missionaries, all indicated that the missionaries have progress to make in terms of learning the culture, language acquisition, and cultural approaches to relationship building within a Greek context. In light of the need for cultural adaptation, the missionaries have made intentional decisions to place their children in Greek schools. A number of the respondents indicated that the team leader was highly driven and the missionaries in particular felt at times left out of decisions. Most decisions for the overall direction of Polis are made by the leadership team with First

Church, a church of about 350 members, often setting the direction for church planting and outreach. From the perspective of the Greek team members, it was normal that the Greeks should form an inner core since it was their ministry. In addition, it seemed that the Greek team members wanted the missionaries to adapt and learn the culture before becoming part of the decision-making process. All this seemed normal for a national church desiring to actively drive the ministry. While some of the missionary participants wanted to be in the

315. Mission is always moving toward an overarching goal to reach those from all cultures in need of Christ. In reference to early Christian community discussed in chapter one, the desire of the Polis project to create a number of multicultural churches models the beginning of Christian community at the Pentecost event in Acts 2 where those from numerous languages converged on Jerusalem to begin new communities that would soon extend to Antioch, Asia Minor, Europe, and beyond.

124 decision-making processes and found it hard to not be included, the missionaries felt objectively that the Greek leaders were doing the right thing.

Nonetheless, the missionaries were slowly being integrated into the leadership team. One expatriate missionary, whose facility in Greek was evident, was asked to start a new church plant focused on refugee populations in Athens and will become a part of the leadership team. That missionary has learned the Greek language well. First Church is fairly traditional, using hymnody from the nineteenth century. All pastors and, by extension the missionaries working with each of them, report to the director of Polis who is also the pastor of First

Church. From a cultural point of view, the culture can be described as one with a mid-range to high power distance316, where hierarchy and top down leadership tend to be more common than egalitarian relationships. From the interviews, it became evident that Greek culture in which the church leadership operated was collectivist as opposed to individualist.317 Hofstede and Hofstede contend that collectivist cultures speak more in terms of “we” or “us” and less in terms of “I” and “me.” Moreover, the community is emphasized more than the individual.318 Along with the normal cultural and language adaptation, it seemed that the issues of high versus low power distance as well as collectivism versus individualism were underscored in the interviews on the part of both the Greek nationals and the expatriate missionaries. Two missionaries commented on working with leaders from a high power distance culture, noting that it was difficult to detect whether it was a leadership issue or simply a cultural pattern common to those in Greek culture.

316. Geert Hofstede and Gert Jan Hofstede, Culture and Organizations: Software of the Mind (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005), 43. 317. Hofstede and Hofstede, 104. 318. Hofstede and Hofstede, 97.

125

GospelHaus in Berlin

GospelHaus is an outreach ministry and church in the western sector of Berlin. As one team member shared, GospelHaus has three target groups: young families, international students, and refugees. The refugee ministry has grown steadily since the beginning of the refugee crisis in 2015. The overall vision is to be a place where people from all races, ethnic groups, and professions can meet together in order to reflect the diversity of the Body of

Christ. However, there has been pushback on the refugee ministry from some Germans who question to admission of refugees into the country. Nonetheless, the team itself has solidarity on the refugee issue with one team member mentioning that the refugee ministry is not an addendum to the church, but foundational. It was apparent in the ministry to refugees that the team will have to present a common front to the church and the surrounding culture in which it is ministering requiring more cohesion and more solidarity.

The church strives to be a neighborhood church as well as a ministry to reach the changing demographic of the city with the arrival of refugees. One team member stressed that he hopes that the church will influence its neighborhood for the kingdom in the neighborhood in the southwest sector of Berlin. The church has an average attendance of about thirty-five adults and fifteen children. However, the numbers are growing due to the influx of new refugees and an emerging new ministry initiative toward refugees, many of whom are housed temporarily at a shelter near the church. From interviews with the German leaders, Germans from the western region of Berlin have a Christian heritage and are not necessarily hostile to Christianity. Conversely, Germans from the east were described as majority atheist and hostile toward Christianity, a hostility that dates back to the time of

Hitler and reinforced during the era of communism.

126

The church is about 60% German and 40% international. Because of the new refugee ministry over the past few years, the church demographic itself is quickly becoming multicultural. The ministry team for the church is committed to the dual focus of the church – building a strong local church and intentionally reaching out to refugees. As in any church, worship is a primary focus but building community and discipling members in the Christian life is significant to the growth of the church. The church has a vibrant worship with a charismatic flavor. The leaders merge a combination of reformed theology and charismatic leanings with a sensitivity to the Spirit. Several of the team members emphasized the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit in the church. I asked several of the missionaries, all from reformed and Presbyterian backgrounds, how they engage the charismatic flavor of the church. All of them seemed comfortable and willing to work together to ensure unity in the church. It was evident that for the team members, the greater progress of the kingdom outweighed theological preference or background. This unity of spirit around the notion of theology seemed to validate the need for a set of commonalities that bring the team together despite cultural and, in this case, ecclesiastical differences.

The ministry team is a cross-cultural team composed of Germans and American missionaries. The primary leaders are German. The pastor of the church, who is also the team leader for the ministry team, is German. Two American missionary couples have served on the team for a number of years. Having spent some time with the team to help with their team processes, assessments were conducted on how the team members relate to one another. The majority of the team members were introverts, adding complexity to the team not only because of cultural dynamics, but also personality preferences. In observing the team, the atmosphere was polite and cordial. There was some evidence that there was some tension on

127 the team, but not talked about openly. Most of the outward processing came from one

German team member and one American missionary. In light of the discussion, the team members were open to talking about cultural differences, but there seemed to be a lingering politeness, perhaps due to my presence or to the fact that there is an introverted feel to the team and comments were measured. When asked how much time they spent together socially outside of teamwork and church, the answer was not much. The research in general indicates that socialization outside of work enhances team cohesiveness and creates a comfortable environment, a point that we will examine in the interview data.

As for team protocals, each multicultural team had developed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) specifically with Mission to the World. The MOU was signed by both the mission organization and the national partners. Norms and policies as to what was expected of each team member and team leader, overall strategy, participation in meetings, and norms for behavior, had been developed for some of the teams through a team building workshop. However, not all of the teams had gone through that process.

Interview Data

Data was obtained from twenty-seven interviews, twenty-two of which were one-on-one and five of which were conducted via focus groups. The data was coded from each response to the eight questions of the interview. Categories were then built from which a model of eight best practices for multicultural teams was developed. A best practice is defined as a

“procedure that has been shown by research and experience to produce optimal results and that is established or proposed as a standard suitable for widespread adoption”319 or more

319. “Best Practice,” Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d., Accessed August 3, 2017.

128 simply, “the best, most effective way to do something.”320 By categorizing the interview data, a research framework was created for the most effective way to form and maintain multicultural ministry teams. Along with each best practice, a set of descriptors, gleaned from the data, was added to give more detail and examples for each of the eight best practices. The best practices developed from this study include spiritual dynamics, kingdom witness, team processes, cultural awareness, leadership and power, synergy, community, and communication. The best practices grid is found in Appendix B.

Two of the interview questions posed during the interviews elicited responses as to the benefits and the challenges of multicultural teams. As for the benefits, the items with the most responses included a diversity of perspectives, a variety of points of view, better problem-solving strategies, peer learning, and helping members to see their blind spots because of the multicultural makeup of the team. As for the challenges, the items with the most responses included misunderstandings and conflict, differences due to relational versus task orientations, leadership styles especially the notion of culture versus personality, and worldview differences. For sample interview responses to select questions, please refer to

APPENDIX F.

In addition, two competency models were designed, one for team members with the knowledge, skills, and attitudes essential for optimal participation on a multicultural team; and another for the skills, knowledge, and attitudes required for leaders of multicultural ministry teams. In two of the sites, Student Y (Cape Town) and Behind the Scenes

(Cyprus), the team leader was also a full-time team member. In the other two sites, Polis and

320. “Best Practice,” http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/best-practice. Accessed August 3, 2017.

129

GospelHaus, the team leader directed the team in addition to other pastoral and ecclesiastical responsibilities.

Spiritual Dynamics

Spiritual dynamics emerged from the study as a foundational best practice for a multicultural missionary team. Multicultural team members on the whole were committed to spiritual growth individually as well as corporately. A majority of respondents indicated that participation on teams with a variety of cultures promoted spiritual growth when corporate spiritual practices were present. Because multicultural teams are more difficult than monocultural teams, a number of those interviewed believed that it was imperative for multicultural teams to develop a common set of spiritual norms and spiritual practices as a team. Examples of corporate spiritual practices mentioned included praying with each other, worshiping together as a team, conversing as a team about spiritual things, and discussions about faith journeys.321 It was evident from a number of the respondents that for most of the teams, spiritual cohesion was often impeded by time constraints or perhaps cultural preference. One exception was the student ministry in Cape Town where the mixing of cultures with prayer, worship, and conversation was obvious. This could have been because of a largely student population as the heart of the ministry perhaps demonstrating that multiculturalism is practiced more freely in a student population.

321. The responses that contributed to the spiritual dynamics best practice descriptors reflect principles from the study of the new Christian community in Acts 2:41-47 as well as the early house churches discussed in chapter two. In both discussions, it was evident that foundational to new Christian community was an emphasis on the apostles’ teaching, prayer, the Eucharist, Christian fellowship and hospitality, and liturgy that would serve as a basis for the new communities. The spiritual practices produced cohesion in the early communities in an era of persecution and search for new identity.

130

A number of interviewees indicated that commitment to scripture helped unify the team and promoted cohesion. Also mentioned was the significance of grace from a Christian perspective and applying grace not only in one’s individual relationship to God, but demonstrating it in team relationships. Because cultural differences and behaviors often require patience, grace was a significant descriptor in the realm of spiritual dynamics. A team that exhibited grace-giving reflected Christian community.

Although understanding and adapting to other cultural backgrounds was significant in the overall findings, most felt that in light of multicultural teams, there was a need for something that surpassed issues of culture to unify and bind team members together, namely spiritual commonalities. The literature calls this shared meaning or liminality. As diverse cultures interact and work together, the development of shared meaning and understanding allows for multicultural groups to transcend their own cultures as they focus on scriptural values and spiritual practices. For the majority, finding commonalities in Christ was crucial to overcoming barriers due to culture differences.

In addressing the concept of spiritual dynamics, Hibbert and Hibbert discuss the notion of developing common ground in order to enhance cohesiveness. The authors propose a neutral space for multicultural ministry teams in order “to negotiate its own unique approach.”322

Quoting Homi Bhabha, Hibbert and Hibbert call this “liminal space”, an anthropological term denoting the “transition between one stage of life and another.”323 Hibbert and Hibbert adapt the notion of liminality to multicultural teams and propose that “multicultural team

322. Hibbert and Hibbert, Kindle Location 1234. 323. Hibbert and Hibbert, Kindle Location 1240, quoted from Homi Bhabha, “The Third Space: Interview with Homi Bhabha,” in Identity, Community, Culture, Difference, ed. Jonathan Rutherford (London: Routledge, 1990), 209.

131 members need to partially distance themselves from their own cultures in order to develop a new and unique team approach.”324 Although it is difficult to completely separate oneself from one’s own culture, liminality suggests holding lightly one’s cultural ways of thinking and behaving in order to become open to new behaviors and ways of thinking.325 To apply the principle of liminality to a multicultural ministry setting, the team could develop spiritual norms unique to the team or adopt ways of interaction based on the “one another” commands in scripture (John 13:14, 34, 35; Rom 12:10, 16; 1 Cor 11:13; 16:20; Gal 5:13; 6:2; Eph 4:2).

Shokef and Erez likewise propose a “shared meaning system that would allow members of multicultural groups to understand each other and interpret each other’s intentions and behaviors.”326 In their study of global work culture, the authors propose that for multicultural teams to be effective, there needs to be a common team culture. A connection is essential on the part of each multicultural team member to other members in a way that goes beyond each member’s link to his or her national culture.327

Likewise, Schein proposes that as cultures, national or organizational, intermingle, they begin to share meanings, and understandings emerge “that are created by group members as they interact with each other.”328 Shared meanings and understandings help promote and solidify cohesiveness among diverse groups who, individually, would focus on embedded patterns, habits of thinking and mental models, typical of culture in the acculturation process.329 The rules of cultural order make social behavior predictive, help people get along,

324. Hibbert and Hibbert, Kindle Location 1240. 325. Hibbert and Hibbert, Kindle Location 1247. 326. Shokef and Erez, 3. 327. Shokef and Erez, 3-4. 328. Schein, 15. 329. Schein, 15.

132 and “help us find meaning to what we do.”330 Behfar, Kern, and Brett contend that without shared meaning to get beyond differences, cultural diversity can be problematic.331 In addition, Behfar, Kern, and Brett write that culturally diverse teams must get past their differences to get work done. This is not to say that there are no benefits from different cultural approaches as we shall see in the data examining synergy on a team. Neither does this mean that differences are always impediments to successful team performance. In fact, much of the data points to the fact that many of the participants felt enriched by working with people from different cultural backgrounds. This was particularly true in the team in Cape

Town that seemed to not only enjoy the differences in their other team members, but looked for opportunities to spend time together. All in all, for real teaming to take place, there does need to be a common set of norms and ways of relating one to another that enhance team work and team performance and actually go beyond cultural identities.

During the feedback session with the team in Cyprus, there was a sigh of relief when the idea of seeking shared meaning through commonalities in Christ was suggested. It seemed to confirm some of the problems that the team had been experiencing. The team had gone through some troubling times due to cultural differences, not just with American missionaries, but with others from the Middle East who had recently left the team.

In addressing the question of spiritual dynamics as a practice of developing “shared meaning”, Roembke notes that “the early church had to deal with the issue of culture from the very outset of her existence.”332 Roembke writes that in confronting the question of

330. Schein, 3. 331. Kristin Behfar, Mary Kern, and Jeanne Brett, “Managing Challenges in Multicultural Teams,” National Culture and Groups: Research on Managing Groups and Teams, Volume 9 (Elsevier Ltd, 2006), 233-262. 332. Roembke, 14.

133 culture, Paul asserted that “no culture had a right to exert power of conformity over another; all cultures are to conform to the values of the supreme God manifest in Jesus Christ.” 333

Spiritual dynamics allow for team members to coalesce around something bigger than their respective cultures. While most respondents believed that multicultural teams were a challenge, spiritual commonalities through common worship, prayer, fellowship, and living out scripture in relationships helped move team members beyond cultural impediments.

Kingdom Witness

Bevans and Schroeder write that the church is “to be a community that preaches, serves and witnesses to the reign of God.”334 The notion of kingdom in this study pertains to the reign of God and its influence as it becomes evident in the life of the Christian community.

The idea of the kingdom of God is foundational. The terms basileia (reign) and basileuo (to reign) appear fifteen times in the work of Paul and numerous times in the Gospels. The main message of Jesus himself was one of an inaugurated kingdom, one which had already begun in his own life and ministry but which was awaiting fulfillment in the future. Healings, exorcisms, conversions, and miracles were all manifestations of the kingdom that Jesus inaugurated. The power of this eschatological kingdom is also at work in the life of the

Christian community now.

The church, although distinct from the kingdom, is not subordinate to the kingdom. In effect, the church is the body of Christ, of which Christ is the bridegroom, and is the visible organization on earth of the kingdom through preaching, evangelism, discipleship, administration of the sacraments, and the power of the keys (Mt 16:18-19, 18:5ff, 28:18-20;

333. Roembke, 14. 334. Stephen Bevans and Roger Schroeder, Constants in Context: Theology of Mission for Today (Maryknoll: Orbis, 2004), Kindle Location 426.

134

1 Cor 11:23; Eph 4:12). Carleton defines the church as the entity “by which the inward realities of grace and truth, of life and light, reach each member”.335 Moreover, the church is the vehicle through which the people of God are built up (1 Tim 3:1-7; Eph 4:11-14), sanctified, and through which experience communion with God in Trinity.

Almost a third of those interviewed stated that multicultural teams were a witness to the world and a picture of the gospel and the bigger body of Christ. In the interview data collected, not only was the message of the kingdom of God important, but equally important was the incarnation of the kingdom demonstrated in the multicultural team itself.336 Plantega proposes that the kingdom is announced as multicultural team members learn to trust one another.337 Plantega suggests that an environment of trust is foundational.338 Kingdom witness is tied to internal team trust and energized by worship and prayer, fellowship, open dialogue, vulnerability, accountability, forgiveness and grace, characteristics that are noticed by those outside the team.

Ott and Wilson describe kingdom impact as “the church’s influence in all its relationships by reflecting and advancing righteousness, compassion, justice, and restoration of all things under Christ’s reign.”339 The research from the four teams validated these statements. The

335. George D. Carleton, The King’s Highway (Norwich: Canterbury Press, 1973), 65. 336. Kingdom witness is the result of a new way of life that becomes attractive to others. As we discussed in chapter two, the early Christian community grew primarily through the witness and enthusiasm of people who simply lived out the consequences of their baptismal call (Acts 2:37-42). For the new community, baptism and its full meaning of belonging to Christ’s community now replaced the exclusivity of circumcision as the mark of identification of the new people of God (Matt 28:18-20, Rom 6:4, 1 Pet 3:21). All, regardless of background, were to receive the sacrament. This sign and seal of the covenant that would mark individuals was now expanded to include all the nations among whom many would come to believe in Christ and identify with his people. 337. Erik Plantega, “The Trust Factor in Multicultural Teams,” Evangelical Missions Quarterly, wwwemqonline.com/print/2918, accessed August 31, 2015, 1. 338. Plantega, 3. 339. Craig Ott and Gene Wilson, Global Church Planting: Biblical Principles and Best Practices for Multiplication (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011), Kindle Location 4965.

135 data indicated that multicultural teams were aware that the team reflects what God is doing in the world to advance his kingdom and break down barriers. For a number of those interviewed, the mission of announcing the kingdom of God was not just a goal to work toward, but needed to be lived out and demonstrated as the multicultural team ministered and experienced the Christian life together in the midst of their own diversity. A number of respondents indicated that in their team’s witness to non-believers, they drew others in because of the multicultural nature of the team, something that was attractive to outsiders.

Others were witnessing, even in a small way, the breaking down of barriers as team members interacted. This was particularly noticeable with the team in South Africa, who all seemed preoccupied with healing wounds from the past and being participants in the creation of a new South Africa from a kingdom perspective.

The data indicated that participation on multicultural teams helped members grasp what

God is doing to extend the gospel to all of humanity. A number of respondents indicated that making disciples was a central aspect of kingdom growth. Several of those interviewed shared that the understanding and practice of cultural diversity reflected God’s plan of redemption to draw people from all cultures to faith. In addition, a number of respondents believed that multicultural teams reflected the gospel as cultures are reconciled to God and to each other.

Moreover, several indicated that the task of spreading the kingdom was facilitated by the fact that contextualization of the gospel occurred more naturally in multicultural diversity.

Team diversity enhanced creative ideas for making the gospel relevant to those being reached. Bevans and Schroeder address the need for contextual skills by noting:

136

Christian mission is both anchored in fidelity to the past and challenged to fidelity in the present. It must preserve, defend and proclaim the constants of the church’s traditions; at the same time it must respond creatively and boldly to the contexts in which it finds itself.340

The dynamic of multicultural teams, as microcosm of diverse cultures, facilitates the process of making the gospel and kingdom understandable to those being reached for Christ in various contexts while at the same time setting boundaries regarding faithfulness to the past in scripture.

Lastly, a few respondents indicated that the polarity and tension between social engagement and evangelism was decreased in multicultural teams since multicultural teams seemed more open to holistic ministry. The teams in Athens and Berlin in particular mentioned this phenomenon since their ministry vision put a high importance on refugee outreach. Again, the issue at stake was the variety of backgrounds and approaches to ministry. Ott and Wilson describe this sort of kingdom impact by illustrating three dimensions of the kingdom: evangelism and discipleship; love in action; and worship and glorification of God.341 Ott and Wilson write that holistic ministry is demonstrated by “love in action…demonstrated in works of compassion, justice, upholding of human dignity, and meeting needs of the whole person.”342 In the overall composite of the interview data, it seemed that a balance was struck between direct engagement with gospel proclamation and holistic ministry.

340. Bevans and Schroeder, Kindle Location 317. 341. Ott and Wilson, Kindle Location 4969-5008. 342. Ott and Wilson, Kindle Location 4984.

137

Team Processes

The data collected from the interviews related to team processes provided a large number of comments and descriptors. For the majority of respondents, they were convinced that team diversity helped teams function well. The present study demonstrated that although the research questions emphasized cultural diversity, other factors were at play in the areas of organizational and team dynamics. To summarize the findings related to team processes, multicultural teams worked effectively when processes were in place to set vision, establish clear expectations, make decisions, resolve conflict, establish norms, and meet regularly. The literature on multicultural teams seems to conclude that although cultural issues present a unique challenge that need to be addressed, team processes are crucial to the functioning of multicultural as well as monocultural teams.343 In addition to responses regarding culture, most of the respondents were equally concerned with how their teams functioned.

Tirmizi notes that a team is a “collection of individuals who are interdependent, who share responsibility for outcomes…who see themselves and are seen by others as an intact social entity.”344 French and Bell write that teams are foundational to any organization, be it for- profit, non-profit, or mission agency, and are the “building blocks for organizational growth.”345 They note that for teams to be effective, teams “must manage their culture, processes, systems, and relationships.”346 French and Bell write:

343. In our discussion of early Christian community, we posed foundations for what would authentically cause communities and teams to function well. In the early communities, although cultural distinctions remained, a new unity based on the work of the Holy Spirit began to characterize the new church. The church in every generation participates in the life and glory of the Trinity. Hence Christians enjoyed and continue to enjoy two kinds of unity: with God and with one another. The latter flows from the former. 344. Tirmizi, “Towards Understanding Multicultural Teams,” Effective Multicultual Teams: Theory and Practice (Springer, 2008), 4. 345. French and Bell, 91. 346. French and Bell, 91.

138

Teams are important for a number of reasons. First, much individual behavior is rooted in the sociocultural norms and values of the work team. If the team, as a team, changes those norms and values, the effects on individual behavior are immediate and lasting. Second, many tasks are so complex they cannot be performed by individuals; people must work together to accomplish them. Third, teams create synergy, that is, the sum of the efforts of team members is far greater than the sum of the individual efforts of people working alone.347

Moreover, teams shape a common purpose, agree on goals, define how the work will be approached, develop complementary skills, and are mutually accountable.348 However teams in the early stages of development or working directly with a more high-power distance national leader may manifest these traits to a lesser extent. Nonetheless, whether monocultural or multicultural, teams have to learn to grow together. Wheelan claims that teams have a developmental life cycle and “go through stages of development analogous to those of human beings,” moving from dependency to counter-dependency to trust and structure to effective work.349 Thus, specific processes and interventions depend on the stage of team development. For instance, a new team will most likely be led by a team leader who is more directive, while a more mature team will more than likely be facilitated by a team leader who will coach and delegate more easily. What emerged from the research findings was that developing a team and seeing it grow to maturity takes time and requires intentional processes.

Tirmizi agrees with these definitions of teams, but adds:

To assess the impact of multiculturalism on team performance, it is important to consider the organizational context of the team, the nature of the team’s diversity, and the relationship between these factors and the team’s task. Organizational cultures

347. French and Bell, 91. 348. French and Bell, 93. 349. Susan A. Wheelan, Group Processes: A Developmental Perspective (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1994), xiii.

139

derive from the history and experience shared by members of an organization and the individual behaviors formed by the national culture.350

The data collected during the interviews validated the literature on teams and, more specifically, multicultural teams. A number of those interviewed felt in their experience that problems were solved more creatively on a team with a variety of cultural perspectives. Most respondents felt that team processes on multicultural teams were more difficult and required not only buy-in from the team members, but awareness and careful facilitation on the part of the team leader to lead and manage those from different cultures was essential. One respondent indicated that in multicultural teams, lack of efficiency was prevalent in that working on items such as vision and value take longer due to the diverse makeup of the team.

Another respondent indicated that lack of consensus was a problem but felt that his team leader was ill-prepared to lead a group of diverse team members. A number of those interviewed stressed the importance of the need for specific training for team leaders to create an environment conducive to team discussion and to promote buy-in specifically in the areas of vision casting, mission, and team strategy.

Moreover, the majority noted that common values, norms, and goals should be agreed upon by the multicultural team and not decided upon or dictated by the team leader. But again, this was affected by the type of power distance exhibited by the team leader. Several stated that working on vision, values, and strategy takes longer on multicultural teams but that the outcome aids the team’s unity and shapes a common sense of purpose. Several stated that consensus in the midst of diversity promotes team buy-in and more effective work and ministry.

350. Tirmizi, 7.

140

Team conflict surfaced in the interview data.351 Conflict often arose over cultural or worldview differences. About a third of those interviewed felt that worldview and value differences were often the source of conflict. Examples mentioned included the idea of time, finances, task versus relationship orientation, loudness, and food. One participant from South

Africa stated: “we all work with our own cultural assumptions – some cultures are louder than others and some are ‘on time’ at the precise hour while for others, to show up, whether

‘on time’ or not is less important; these can be sources of conflict.”

At the same time, teams experienced conflict due to other factors as well including personality differences, behavioral preferences, and leadership style. On the matter of leadership, one respondent indicated that it was hard for her to distinguish between what was cultural and what was simply personality. Hence, culture was not always at issue. Although conflict resolution is often informed by culture, the data was strong in indicating the need for multicultural team members to intentionally address conflict issues as they arise. But equally important were the comments stressing the need for team leaders to be trained to manage conflict in a biblical way that takes precedence over cultural strategies. Several indicated the need from time to time to bring in a third party to help resolve conflict. Related to the data gathered regarding conflict, Hibbert and Hibbert note that in organizations that place a high value on multicultural and diverse teams, there is a tendency to want to “avoid conflict and make unnecessary compromises for fear that the team unity will be undermined.”352 There may be an underlying belief at times on the multicultural team that unity is to be preserved at

351. As we discussed in the foundations section of this work, the new diverse Christian community, like the multicultural teams studied, had to learn to live through divisions often brought about by competing allegiances. Paul contended that ultimate allegiance was to Christ and not to human leaders, even though the surrounding culture exerted a strong attraction. 352. Hibbert and Hibbert, Kindle Location 1258.

141 any price. The data obtained agreed with the literature that, regardless of cultural diversity, conflict needs to be addressed thoughtfully and not ignored for fear of disunity. Both the research data and the literature state that the primary person in facilitating such discussions is the team leader.

The data also pointed to the importance of defining clear roles for team members and the need to have regular meetings. Defining roles and responsibilities for multicultural team members enhanced team performance, gave members a sense of unity of purpose, and gave members a sense of structure. In addition, the interview data underscored the need for regular team meetings which gave a sense of structure and clarity of purpose to the multicultural team often trying to understand the nuances of cultural differences. One interviewee felt that infrequent meetings tended to inhibit the sharing of information and pertinent discussions.

Lastly, a few respondents stated that common ministry projects shared by team members contributed to community on multicultural teams. Common projects would draw all team members from their sphere of responsibility into a unified initiative such as an evangelism or social engagement.

In summary, the data underscored the need for creating and maintaining teams where members work through processes that aid the team in building cohesion in relationships, tasks, and processes. While this dynamic is intensified as diverse cultures are included in team, those interviewed felt strongly about intentionally establishing processes and procedures to keep the multicultural team on track.

142

Cultural Awareness

It was apparent in the study that cultural awareness, change, and adaptability do not happen naturally. The data highlighted that cultural awareness and cohesion as a team take time and intentionality. In studying multicultural teams, there is a tendency to focus solely on cultural behaviors, but research demonstrates that issues of cultural identity are equally important. In other words, how individuals see themselves and not just how they communicate or their processes of decision making, is significant.

Stahl, Maznevski, Voigt, and Jonsen suggest that cultural adaptability on multicultural teams is influenced by several factors. The authors note:

Diversity, including cultural diversity, influences teams in three potentially opposing ways. First, according to similarity-attraction theory, people are attracted to working with and cooperating with those they find similar in terms of values, beliefs, and attitudes. Second, according to social identity and social categorization theory, people tend to categorize themselves into specific groups, and categorize others as outsiders or part of other groups. People treat members of their own group with favoritism and may judge others according to group traits. Third, according to information-processing theory, diversity brings different contributions to teams. A diverse team thus covers a broader range of networks and perspectives and can have enhanced problem-solving, creativity, innovation, and adaptability.353

The data gathered validated the fact that cultures are different, that cultural members tend to adhere to values of their own group, and that individuals are attracted naturally to those most like them. The research underscored that the greater the difference among cultures, the greater the task for the team of learning to understand each other and employ processes to promote understanding and cohesion. However, the data also highlighted positively that

353. Gunter K. Stahl, Martha L. Maznevski, Andreas Voigt and Karsten Jonsen, “Unraveling the Effects of Cultural Diversity in Teams: A Meta-analysis of Research on Multicultural Work Groups,” Journal of International Business Studies 41, no 4 (May 2010): 691.

143 diversity produces synergy and creativity in team discussion, development of vision and mission, and brainstorming.

Behfar, Kern, and Brett suggest that the literature underscores that “cultural orientations, or dimensions of behaviors that reflect norms in their country of origin, impact their preferences for group processes.”354 Balkundi, Kilduff, Barsness, and Michael in their study on “structural holes” further add to the discussion.355 The authors of the study conclude that where there is an absence of cultural connections or affinities, called “structural holes,” the greater the cultural gaps and the more difficult the task of unifying a multicultural team.

Hence, according to their conclusions pertaining to our study, a multicultural team of

Europeans and Americans would manifest less structural holes than a team of Arabs and

Americans together, or Europeans and black South Africans together. However, as has been noted in chapter three, culture can tend to be fluid with generational and geographical influences at times playing a role. This being said, it does hold that the larger the ethnic and socio-cultural gap, the greater the disparity of cultural similarities. However, the authors likewise consider the benefits of structural holes as greater “knowledge production within different parts of the team,” which promotes more information gathering and innovation.356

Having stated this, it does not necessarily follow that the cultural distance, be it more or less, is always a gauge on whether a team functions well. Added to the mix are issues of team processes, communication, and relational openness to one another.

354. Behfar, Kern, and Brett, 234. 355. Prasd Balkundi, Martin Kilduff, Zoe I. Barsness and Judd H. Michael, “Demographic Antecedents and Performance Consequences of Structural Holes in Work Teams,” Journal of Organizational Behavior 28, no 2 (February 2007): 241-248. 356. Balkundi, Kildruff, Barsness, and Michael, 244.

144

The overall data in the study showed that for a multicultural team to function effectively, it was important that training take place on the team in terms of worldview and values of all the team participants in order to build positive relationships and enable productive ministry.

As we have stated previously, a number of the respondents indicated that most misunderstandings were cultural. One respondent felt that learning team members’ cultures and ways of doing things needed to be a priority. In terms of training, many felt that the team leader should take the lead in areas of enabling cultural awareness on the team. The team leader should possess certain competencies in the area of cultural differences and facilitation of ongoing training and discussions about culture within the team.

Most respondents felt that team members should be intentional about learning other members’ cultures and the host culture in particular. Moreover, it was stated a number of times that worldview and cultural value differences should be avowed and addressed as a team and that team conversations should happen in these areas.357 Some of the values mentioned by the interviewees were understanding of time (long term versus short term orientation), finances, relationships, and hospitality. Furthermore, since team decision- making processes may differ with each culture, it was important that each team as it is formed agree on how to make decisions.

Most agreed that, while there is hope for change on the part of multicultural team participants, cultural values and worldview are deeply entrenched. Hofstede and Hofstede corroborate these findings by noting:

357. In the arena of cultural differences, we discussed in the foundational biblical chapter how the differences of culture were to be dealt with. Paul did not want to banish all diversity from the church…but an unbrotherly attitude that was the result of finding identity in one’s group and leader instead of in Christ, in whom true unity is found.

145

Every person carries within him or herself patterns of thinking, feeling, and potential acting that were learned throughout their lifetime. Much of it has been acquired in early childhood, because at that time a person is most susceptible to learning and assimilating. As soon as certain patterns of thinking, feeling, and acting have established themselves within a person’s mind, he or she must unlearn these before being able to learn something different, and unlearning is more difficult than learning for the first time.358

Through their global research over the past twenty years, Hofstede and Hofstede propose that most value differences are linked to cultural measures that place cultures on a continuum in several areas including individualism and collectivism, or “I, we, or they”; high and low power distance, or “some are more equal than others”; high and low uncertainty avoidance, or “what is different is dangerous”; and quality of life and career success within cultures.359

In our research study of the four teams, Arab culture would be considered a high power distance culture, as would Greek culture; black South African culture would be considered more collectivist, while white South African culture would be more individualist; and

German culture would be be characterized by high uncertainty avoidance, while the opposite would be true of American culture in general. The arena of guilt, shame, and fear did not come up directly in the interview data. If further research were to be conducted, it would be interesting to include these three areas.

Similarly, Silzer, in Biblical Multicultural Teams, has created a model for categorizing cultures. Silzer suggests four areas of cultural variance that she labels individuating cultures, institutionalizing cultures, hierarchical cultures, and interrelating cultures, each based on either a strong or weak cultural correlation of both structure and community.360 In Silzer’s research, individuating cultures are characterized by cultural activities based on individual

358. Hofstede and Hofstede, 2-3. 359. Hofstede and Hofstede, 1-36. 360. Silzer, 23.

146 choice; institutionalizing cultures are categorized by cultural practices based on following the rules of the system and of authority figures; hierarchical cultures are characterized by cultural practices based on loyalty to a hierarchical system or leader; and interrelating cultures are considered by cultural practices based on community principles of equality.361

A number of respondents in our study indicated that awareness of grids of cultural differences was important. They also believed that there was a need for continual training and discussion on the team about how cultural values manifest themselves. Since a number of respondents indicated that building relationships on the team, as opposed to simply accomplishing tasks, was of great importance, understanding how the various cultures perceive task versus relationship orientation took on more significance. A number of respondents underscored the importance of relationships and mentioned ways to enhance it through hospitality, food, and coffee and tea times as a team. African, Arab, Greek, and

Cypriot cultures are considered more relational, whereas American, German, and white

South African are considered more task driven.

A few of those interviewed expressed that the language of the team was important and underscored the importance of selecting a language for meetings and ministry. In some cases, the national language predominated as in the team in Germany; in others, English was used as a common language South Africa and Cyprus. The data also highlighted that language learning of the host culture was important. The importance of learning Greek well in the

Polis ministry was a priority on the part of the Greek team members.

361. Silzer, 29.

147

Lastly, a few of the interview responses mentioned that members of diverse cultures also read and understood scripture passages differently. One respondent in South Africa illustrated this point by indicating that she, as a black South African, read certain passages on freedom and salvation in terms of liberating oppressed peoples whereas some white South

Africans tended to internalize notions of salvation and freedom. It was suggested by several respondents that teams needed to hear from all members and from all perspectives in reading and discussing scripture. Moreover, four interviewees felt that at times denominational differences were sometimes confused with cultural differences. For example, liturgical versus non-liturgical church background could at times be confused with culture differences. In addition, one national pastor felt that the American missionaries on his team tended to be more rational in their approach to theology and less Spirit-driven. Was this cultural or ecclesiological or was this a little of both?

Leadership and Power

The interview data revealed that leading from a position of service, sensitivity, and cultural adaptability enhances team unity and ministry.362 The data surrounding leadership indicated that the best leaders of multicultural teams lead primarily from a spiritual lens and not a business plan. All in all, respondents were concerned that multicultural team leaders have both a spiritual and cultural approach to leadership, but were concerned that the leader of the team be a person of character. By character, several insisted that the leader should be a

362. As we have discussed in chapter one, the New Testament makes clear that all authority derives from the presence of Christ’s power with those gathered in his name. In order to understand how authority is to be exercised in any culture or among cultures, the scriptures give us a continual picture from the life and teaching of Christ. In Matthew 18, the disciples came to Jesus to ask him who would be the greatest in the kingdom. Jesus answers that to be great, one must be like a little child. In John 13, one of the most poignant moments occurs when Jesus washed the feet of his disciples to the consternation of Peter. The one who wishes to have authority over others must be the servant of all.

148 person one can trust and a person of integrity. Humility was another descriptor indicated by several respondents. There are a number of definitions of what character means both in the scriptures as well as in the literature about leadership. In the New Testament, we see that character (dokime) has to do with having been tested and having been approved through testing (Rom 5:4, 2 Cor 2:9). Philippians 2:22 refers to character as having proven worth.

Hence, character is in a sense the result of being tried, purified, and sanctified. Consequently, by true character, one shows who one really is in integrity and moral fiber. In addition,

Plueddemann defines applications of leadership character in every culture as fearing God, interceding for people, and caring deeply for those they lead.363 A number of respondents were concerned that those leading their teams be proven followers of Christ. Lingenfelter validates this data on multicultural leadership and maintains that there is a human propensity to seek power and control that permeates all individuals and cultures and can taint leaders of every kind.364 In his study of the early church, Clarke concurs and states:

Much leadership in that society was dependent on an integrated power base. Paul’s own example and directive were opposed to such models. The nature of the Christian church and the message of the Christian gospel required a quite different style of leadership.365

Current traditions of leadership are often culturally bound and can become obstacles if the issue of character is absent.366 Moreover, Lingenfelter also links character to trust and trustworthiness.367 The notion of trust is pre-eminently desired in multicultural as well as

363.James E. Plueddemann, Leading Across Cultures: Effective Ministry and Mission in the Global Church (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2009), 69. 364. Sherwood G. Lingenfelter, Leading Cross-culturally: Covenant Relationships for Effective Christian Leadership (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 9. 365. Clarke, 247. 366. Lingenfelter, 15. 367. Lingenfelter, 17.

149 monocultural teams. Trust is not simply an abstract trait to add to one’s character, nor is it, as

Plantega notes, “some formula, structure, or step-by-step scheme.”368 Rather it is an attitude

“formed through the grace of God and the Holy Spirit’s working in our hearts. Trust comes through relationship, through conflict and struggle, humility, and time.”369

The GLOBE Study conducted across sixty-one countries identified, from a list of universal leader characteristics, those characteristics that contribute to a person being seen as an outstanding leader; those characteristics that inhibit a person from being seen as an outstanding leader; and leadership characteristics that are culturally contingent.370

Trustworthy was at the top of the list of desirable traits. Other universally desirable traits included just, honest, plans ahead, encouraging, motivational, decisive, excellence-oriented, dependable, intelligent, informed, and communicative. Those traits that inhibit a leader included: loner, asocial, indirect, non-cooperative, irritable, egocentric, ruthless, and dictatorial. Lastly, culturally contingent leadership characteristics included such traits as ambitious, autonomous, cautious, class conscious, evasive, indirect, micro-manager, risk taker, and subdued. The present research study of the four ministry teams identified other desirable leadership traits including: feeding the team spiritually, role model, consensus facilitator, unbiased, not given to political correctness, comfortable with the issue of race, and not threatened.

A number of respondents indicated that they desired the multicultural team leader to be flexible and adaptable. Moreover, the data specified that multicultural team leaders should be

368. Plantega, 6. 369. Plantega, 7. 370. Michael H. Hoppe, “Culture and Leader Effectiveness: The GLOBE Study,” InspireImagineInnovate.com, September 18, 2007, accessed August 22, 2017, www.inspireimagineinnovate.com/PDF/GLOBEsummary-by-Michael-H-Hoppe.pdf, 5.

150 aware of and adapt to a variety of leadership and cultural styles so that leadership is situational and influenced by the context of the team and the various cultures represented. In affirming the need for flexibility, Plueddemann suggests that in multicultural leadership, there is a danger of “both ethnocentrism and cultural relativism in leadership since both approaches tend to overlook sinfulness rampant in every culture.”371 Hence an openness to new approaches of leadership was important for the leader.

Several respondents mentioned that a leader’s personality may differ from their cultural approach to leading. One respondant indicated that it was difficult to ascertain whether the leader’s style of leadership was cultural, his personality, or a combination of the two.

Furthermore, the data indicated that team leaders should take into consideration that team processes may differ from culture to culture and hence it was important to adapt accordingly and hold culture loosely. A number of the respondents listed several team processes that the leader must facilitate well. The team processes mentioned included decision making, brainstorming, and conflict management. A number of the respondents felt that it was important for the team leader to engage the team members and develop consensus in areas of vision casting and goal-setting. The interviewees indicated that the team leader also had a significant role in giving voice to minority cultures on the team. Likewise, a team leader should build community in a way that is sensitive to socio-economic disparity among the cultures represented by the team members. Again, respondents indicated that discussions facilitated by the team leader around issues of socio-economic disparity would be helpful.

The solution is not to solve all such problems, but to have continuing dialogue and conversations among team members.

371. Plueddemann, 66.

151

Power issues are related to multicultural team leadership. How the team leader decides to structure a team can either reinforce cultural differences or help diminish cultural variances and enhance a sense of commonality. Literature on multicultural teams and leadership address the issue of power and dominance on the team. Multicultural teams can be structured in a variety of ways. Hibbert and Hibbert discuss three types of teams with different structures: assimilation, cultural pluralism, and multiculturalism.372 The authors contend that in an assimilation approach, the “cultural group with the greatest power defines the cultural norms, including definitions of difference, and all others are forced to comply with the dominant group or be alienated.”373 The group with the power sets the tone and may depend on the culture of the team leader.

In the second approach, that of cultural pluralism, “different cultural groups are allowed freedom to express their various cultures, but the boundaries between cultural groups are defined and maintained.”374 In this approach, cultural groups maintain specific cultural norms when relating to people from their own culture, but in a team setting use cultural norms of the greater power group when relating to members of other cultural groups on the team.375 In this approach, there is intentionality in trying to manage diversity and to create a team culture to which all could adhere, but the members of specific cultures also want to spend time with those from their own culture. Most of the teams studied in our research seem to fit this second model of pluralism. There seemed to be a desire to break down some of the historical and cultural barriers, while at the same time seeking the comfort and safety at times of one’s own culture outside of the team. Since we are cultural beings and tied to our cultural values

372. Hibbert and Hibbert, Kindle Location 1174. 373. Hibbert and Hibbert, Kindle Location 1181. 374. Hibbert and Hibbert, Kindle Location 1200. 375. Hibbert and Hibber, Kindle Location 1206.

152 and customs, this is not surprising. This seemed to be evident with some of the American missionaries who desired to be in culturally comfortable settings at times outside of ministry and team events.

The third way of approaching multicultural community is “sometimes referred to as a mosaic approach where all the individual parts mesh together to create a new picture that is a single new entity.”376 In this approach, there is intentionality to create a unified and cohesive team both inside and outside of team and ministry functions. It seems that this last approach would be rare since culture retains a significant impact on how we lead our lives. The team that exhibited the most interaction outside of team events and ministry was the team in Cape

Town. But the other variable at play may also be the student focus and the youth of the team in general. Again, whether unconsciously or consciously, the selection of one of these three structures often depends on the team leader, but also on the willingness or readiness of each team member.

Furthermore, Jones notes that “the existence of a cultural majority on a ministry team can disturb the team’s capacity for fellowship and effective cooperation.”377 Tirmizi adds to the discussion of power and contends that most multicultural team issues arise from three possibilities: lack of awareness by the dominant culture of cultural and worldview issues experienced by other groups; assimilation of minorities into one melting pot; and pluralistic instead of common norms developed by the team, which reinforces a monocultural model.378

In summary, data from the research study underscored that leadership should be sensitive to

376. Hibbert and Hibbert, Kindle Location 1219. 377. Larry Jones, “The Problem of Power in Ministry Relationships,” EMQonline.com, www.emqonline.com/emq, accessed January 10, 2017. 378. Tirmizi, 21-22.

153 and address issues of cultural dominance so that all perspectives are heard and all team members have voice.

Synergy and Creativity

Synergy occurs as multicultural teams add a variety of perspectives and points of view to team relationships and ministry decisions. The majority of respondents felt that they gained from participation on a multicultural team by learning from each other. The data indicated that a variety of gifts emerged in diverse teams including areas of expertise and experience.

One respondent stated that multicultural teams functioned better when members realized that one culture does not have all the answers. Moreover, cultural blind spots became more visible in diverse groups. Because of a multiplicity of cultural perspectives, diversity promoted creative, innovative, and new ways of doing ministry.

Stahl, Maznevski, Voigt, and Jonsen validate these findings in a meta-analysis of 108 empirical studies on processes and performance in multicultural teams. The authors note that

“results suggest that cultural diversity leads to process losses through task conflict and decreased social integration, but to process gains through increased creativity and satisfaction.”379 The authors suggest that while some studies assume that diversity affects groups in the same way, “there is evidence that different types of diversity may influence team outcomes in different ways.”380 Moreover, Stahl et al state:

Cultural diversity tends to increase divergent processes. Divergent processes are those that bring different values and ideas into the team and juxtapose them with each other…they create process gains. They are important in enabling the team to achieve more than individual members could, working on their own. Examples include brainstorming and creativity.381

379. Stahl, Maznevski, Voigt, and Jonsen, 690. 380. Stahl, Maznevski, Voigt, and Jonsen, 691. 381. Stahl, Maznevski, Voigt, and Jonsen, 692.

154

On the other hand, diversity may at times increase conflict and decrease communication.

Samuels concurs, but suggests that diversity and inclusion of other cultures is one of an organization’s greatest strengths because they are the source of new ideas and perspectives, suggesting that “diversity and inclusion will attract better people, nurture, and retain them…”382

In summary, the present study of the four multicultural teams revealed that diversity and inclusion contributed to new ideas, creative solutions, and innovation. These would include new approaches to ministry, new relational ways of being a team, or in new songs and new ways of worshiping as in the case of the team in Cape Town. Moreover, the presence of diverse teams who were open to new ideas and creative solutions attracted others to join.

Community

Psalm 133:1 states: “Behold how good and pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity.” Building community is essential to Christian ministry. The model for Christian community in the church and mission is the small group or team. Bonhoeffer wrote:

The physical presence of other Christians is a source of incomparable joy and strength to the believer…Christianity means community through Jesus Christ and in Jesus Christ. No Christian community is more or less than this. Whether it be a brief, single encounter or the daily fellowship of years, Christian community is only this. We belong to one another only through and in Jesus Christ.383

The research data concerning community on the team revealed that team unity emerged from a relational and a hospitable ethos that enhanced multicultural team life and ministry

382. Neil D. Samuels, “Diversity, Inclusion, and the Ladder of Inference,” OD Practitioner 35, no 2 (2003): 3. 383. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Life Together: The Classic Exploration of Christian Community (New York: Harper, 1954), 19-21.

155 productivity. A number of those interviewed felt that because of their commonalities in

Christ, multicultural teams were by nature more inclusive and do not leave others out.

Hence, building multicultural community on teams was attractive to those on the outside.

Moreover, the data suggested that creating a family atmosphere on the team, and not simply a work environment, promoted community. In a number of instances, the family atmosphere was practiced by mutual care, practicing hospitality including meals and food, and spending social time together. The data indicated that the more relational, social and spiritual time spent together, the more team members felt connected.384

The results also addressed the importance of space. Some of the respondents felt that a multifunctional physical space where team members work and socialize together promoted community. Most of the respondents from the Student Y indicated that the physical building and land added significantly to the development of multicultural relationships. In addition, when asked how to build community on a multicultural ministry team, some of the respondents felt that sharing personal stories, spiritual and cultural, with each other enhanced community as it narrowed the gap and helped create more intimacy.

Finally, several respondents suggested that the more the team leader worked creatively and proactively to ensure team unity, the less divisiveness existed.

The notion of the body of Christ living in community through mutual sharing, common life, and spiritual cohesion was evident in the data. The data suggested that there

384. Foundational to what the responses on community indicated, we discussed in chapter one that the new community in Christ was governed by principles that proposed new norms for relationships and ways of addressing differences as life in the new Christian community shifted priorities and allegiances. The new community had emerged as a new entity altogether. On one hand it would become indigenized, so that the gospel would find its home in every culture. But on the other hand, the new church everywhere became a pilgrim community because community members would often be out of step with society.

156 was a desire for community on the teams, although the question that perplexed some of the respondents was how to create community when people are different. The responses often came back to commonalities in Christ as a starting place to build community. In

Sanctorum Communio, Bonhoeffer notes the dilemma of finding true community.

Bonhoeffer states that real community cannot be imposed. Neither is it a personal aspiration to attain or something to be imposed by a leader.385 Bonhoeffer states that

“common feeling, common willing, and co-responsibility are forces of inmost cohesion.”386 When imposed, community is not possible, or at least not authentic.

However, it seems that authentic rule by Christ makes community possible.

Communication

A number of respondents suggested that in light of cultural differences, multicultural teams needed to be intentional to over-communicate as a team and with each other to ensure understanding and clarity about team and ministry matters. The data demonstrated that multicultural teams were mindful to communicate more than monocultural teams.

Moreover, a number of respondents indicated that they needed to practice active listening skills to ensure that the sending and receiving of messages were accurate. As we discussed in the biblical foundations chapter, James 1:19-20 passage informs us: “Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to become angry.” Cultural norms in biblical times as well as today emphasize speaking over listening as recognition, admiration, and acclaim are sought. Today, as in biblical times, listening is an art that is hard to master. In this text, the author is pleading with the readers to take an intense interest in the other

385. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Sanctorum Communio: A Theological Study of the Sociology of the Church (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2009), 88-91. 386. Bonhoeffer, 90.

157 person. James warns his readers to be cognizant of the words they speak, for they will be held accountable.

Again, the role of the team leader was pivotal in, first of all, serving as role model but also in encouraging honesty and transparency in communication. Furthermore, a culture of openness about team business and processes was seen as crucial to multicultural team performance. Several respondents felt that meeting in social settings tended to enhance communication.

Overall, a number of respondents felt that communication on a multicultural team was difficult. Some attributed it to cultural differences, personalities, and language barriers, and others to leadership power dynamics at play. Aritz and Walker suggest that team dysfunction related to communication is often at play in multicultural teams. The authors validate a number of the responses from the current research study and suggest that studies on multicultural teams indicate that “moderately heterogeneous groups experience significant communication problems, relational conflict, and low team identity” that impact team performance.387 However, Aritz and Walker suggest that cultural differences are complex and there is more at play than issues such as language proficiency or leadership power dynamics, and may be more tied to intergroup identity issues.388 Since cultures and cultural identity are complex, how individual members see themselves as cultural individuals in the multicultural team may be significant.

387. Aritz and Walker, “Cognitive Organization and Identity Maintenance in Multicultural Teams: A Discourse Analysis of Decision-Making Meetings,” Journal of Business Communication 47, no. 1, (January 2010): 21. 388. Aritz and Walker, 24.

158

Conclusion

The project made use of qualitative research to focus on the practical application related to mission and ministry with multicultural teams. The research studied focused on four international field sites to identify best practices for multicultural teams to provide guidelines for the formation and ongoing training of multicultural teams. Along with culture and team dynamics, it was clear that team members grow in unity centered on their shared life in

Christ as the central shared value.

The research data identified eight areas of best practices for multicultural teams.

Spiritual dynamics among team members demonstrated a commitment to grow spiritually, both individually and corporately. Kingdom witness as a characteristic indicated that the multicultural team reflects what God is doing in the world to advance the kingdom and break down barriers. The functional multicultural ministry team is a microcosm of the multicultural kingdom lived out now in preparation for the new creation.

Team processes enabled a multicultural team to work effectively to establish norms, set vision, make decisions, and resolve conflict. Whereas effective team dynamics are difficult in a monocultural team, team processes for a multicultural team required more intentionality specifically in building consensus and making sure that every member was heard. Cultural awareness on the part of the team signified that team members who are trained in the worldviews and values of other team members build positive relationships and enable productive ministry. The data underscored that an effective team is aware of cultural differences and works as a team to build on those differences.

As for multicultural team leadership, the data collected underscored the importance of leading from a position of service and indicated that team members desire leaders who are

159 trustworthy, have integrity, and take the initiative to lead the team spiritually. Whereas many leaders have a unique style of leadership, multicultural team leaders required more adaptability because of cultural variants that reflect the team. The diversity of cultures on a team added a variety of perspectives and enabled synergy and creativity on the team.

Creativity, innovation, and new ideas are benefits that emerge from different cultural points of view.

Community was highly desired on multicultural teams with relationships and hospitality enhancing team life. The multicultural ministry team is a part of the body of

Christ living in community through mutual sharing, common life, and spiritual cohesion.

As we examined earlier in the discussion of community in the early house churches, the

Christians in those communities understood that a new life had erupted because of Jesus.

Consequently, their lives and allegiances were permanently altered. Community dynamics were unique because of a radical transformation by Christ. As various cultures engaged one another, scriptural norms came to supplant cultural behaviors. Those same patterns were demonstrated in the teams that were studied. Nonetheless, because of engrained cultural patterns, community is difficult to attain without intentionality on the part of each team member and the team leader.

Lastly, respondents indicated that effective communication is needed to be intentional to ensure clarity and understanding. Communication and meanings are more difficult on a multicultural team. We can conclude that over-communication and active listening should be the norm for effective understanding among multicultural team members.

The research conducted on multicultural teams suggested that teams work effectively when there is intentionality, discussion, and training on the team. Moreover, the team

160 leader held a significant role in facilitating the processes. The ongoing emphasis on the team’s commonality in Christ was prominent in going beyond cultural differences and creating shared meaning. The next chapter will attempt to apply the research data on best practices for multicultural teams to assessment and training through the use of competency models derived from the study.

161

Chapter Five: Practical Project

The present study focused on multicultural ministry team dynamics and began with biblical and theological analyses that provided foundations for the practice of multicultural ministry teams. Through an investigation of scripture passages, we examined the scriptural mandate through passages in Genesis and Acts, setting the stage for the kingdom in which

Christ has broken down the barrier between God and humanity. We examined how God’s plan for humanity would also begin to break down the resulting hostility among cultures.

Through a study of the scriptures, the early house churches, and, finally, breakthroughs in the modern era of mission, we arrived at a framework to examine from a practical perspective what Christian community on multicultural teams can look like. In order to gain real-world input and application from the foundations, we studied four current missionary teams.

The research question for the thesis project was to identify best practices and competencies that would help in the creation and deployment of multicultural mission teams for effective ministry. The study was conducted using the ministry of Mission to the World, the mission agency of the Presbyterian Church in America. The rationale of the study centered on the rising need for multicultural teams that incorporate North American and national workers on an equal footing for future ministry in a spirit of partnership. The objective was to assist the mission agency, as well as other Christian organizations, leverage multicultural teams in ways that reflect kingdom and missiological values in the task of accomplishing gospel ministry through church planting, transformational ministry, theological education, and social engagement. The study project was limited to global mission teams having a multicultural composition.

162

The practical applied project of the study attempts to answer the overarching question on how multicultural teams should function in terms of selection of team leaders and members as well as ongoing training to further develop multicultural teams to function more effectively by taking into consideration current best practices derived from this study.

Moreover, the objective of the practical portion of the research thesis is to add value to the ministry of Mission to the World. The agency counts about 650 missionaries. The vision statement calls for the gospel of the kingdom to advance throughout the world by making disciples. Moreover, the core values supporting the vision include the centrality of the establishment, growth, and maturity of churches, the presence of a grace-based atmosphere, maintaining reformed and covenantal theology in the planting of churches, and social engagement.

As a result of the recent addition of new priorities and, consequently, a recent redesign of the organization, three new strategic priorities have given shape to the overall vision and mission: mobilization, diversity, and internationalization. The practical portion of this research thesis on multicultural ministry teams addresses all three of the priorities. As the world becomes more diverse, cross-cultural teams are more commonplace.

Internationalization is the result of growing partnerships between mission agencies and national churches, adding to the need for multicultural teams. Lastly, mobilization of new missionaries, both western and national, is an outcome requiring ongoing assessment and training if the work of making disciples and planting churches is to grow.

The practical project consists of two components. The first includes two competency models that form part of an assessment process, one for team leaders and one for team members of multicultural mission teams. The best practices grid discussed in chapter four

163 and created from the research data informs the competency model assessment process as well as content for the training design. The best practices include eight clusters including spiritual dynamics, kingdom witness, team processes, culture, leadership and power, community, synergy, and communication. The best practices along with descriptors for each cluster is found in Appendix B.

Team Leader Competency Model

The research indicated that the team leader is one of the primary determinants of the success of a multicultural team. From the data collected subsequent to the interviews and observations, competencies emerged and were categorized in terms of skills, knowledge, and attitudes as they related to team leaders. The resulting competency model for team leaders appears below and is also found in Appendix C. The competencies would be used in the selection process of team leaders as they are assessed for leadership roles in multicultural teams. As more leadership candidates are being assessed, the assessor teams are becoming more multicultural. In a recent leadership assessment for Mission to the World held in South

Africa, two of the assessors were African. The competency model for multicultural team leaders will be integrated into an already existing assessment process for leaders that all future team and regional leaders, western and majority world, must undergo.

An assessment process is a developmental as well as evaluative process of determining the right fit for, in this instance, team leaders. Competency models are used in organizations, both non-profit and for-profit, when there is a need to develop a credible template for recruiting, hiring, developing, and promoting. Gupta writes that “a competency analysis seeks to identify the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behaviors needed by a person to do a

164 job.”389 The competency model forms an integral part of an assessment and development process since it establishes “qualities and characteristics that distinguish average from exemplary performance.”390 More importantly in the case of ministry teams, the competency model can be used to standardize the process of selection and training as well as establish clear expectations of how a multicultural ministry team should function. Obviously, in future assessments of multicultural leaders, it would be important to have cross-cultural input into the design of the competency model. Along with selection and training, the competency model serves as a position results description for new and current team leaders. For example, in selecting a new multicultural team leader or further developing a current leader, the competency model enables individuals to assess her or his assets as well as deficits in the area of multicultural leadership. It is similar to giving a job description to a potential hire and asking that individual if they are able to perform most of the responsibilities. A competency model is best used through a process of interviews and observations.

Mission to the World has over the past several years created a process for leadership assessment of western missionaries. All those who would be selected as team leaders, regional leaders, or specific ministry leaders are required to go through the assessment process. Leaders are evaluated by several assessors over a period of a day and a half through means of interviews, role play scenarios, case studies, and leadership instruments. The competency grid focuses on leadership in general. The goal of this project would be to include the competency model as an evaluation and development tool in the area of multicultural teams and partnerships to what exists already in the leadership assessment

389. Kavita Gupta, A Practical Guide to Needs Assessment (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1999), 64-65. 390. Gupta, 65.

165 process. The competency model presented here is the result of data from an array of cross- cultural interviews in this study. But continued multicultural input into the process as well as the assessment itself will be imperative. Obviously there will be cultural adjustments, both in content and process.

In the leadership competency model that has been created, there are five dimensions to be assessed and a core cluster of themes related to each dimension. Questions would be created around each item in the core cluster. An effective process would use a rating to evaluate candidates in each area. Questions are best framed by asking for specific critical incidents.

The evaluation would not only confirm one’s ability to lead a multicultural team, but would also identify gaps for which additional development would be indicated. The outcome for the competency model is to identify the individuals whose strengths outweigh weaknesses.

In areas of weaknesses or shortcomings, the assessors or interviewers would need to determine whether the candidate would be able to develop in the areas where gaps are apparent. In addition, since individuals from different cultures would be assessed, it would be important to have assessors from other cultures and for all assessors to have some basic preparation and training in some of the cultural measures that we discussed in In other words, the assessment process itself should reflect a multicultural context.

166

Competency Model: Multicultural Team Leader

Dimensions Core Cluster Spiritual • Character: Exhibits a growing spiritual life that demonstrates integrity, authenticity, and trustworthiness. • Dependence on God: Focuses on the spiritual side of ministry and team and not just the business side. • Spiritual Leadership: Takes the lead in creating an atmosphere of worship and prayer and points team members to the God of all cultures. • Pastors the Team: Able to feed the team spiritually in light of a variety of cultures and builds the team around commonalities in Christ. Culture • Cultural Intelligence: Practices the rudiments of cultural self-awareness and able to articulate various cultural worldviews and values. • Comfortable with Differences: Demonstrates comfort in talking about race, ethnicity, and social justice issues. • Facilitation: Experienced at enabling discussions on cultural differences and misunderstandings. • Language: Exhibits proficient language ability for leading a multicultural team. Team • Team Building: Takes the lead in community building and mutual care on the team. • Process Facilitation: Experienced at leading the team through team processes such as norms, decision-making, brainstorming, conflict resolution, and role development. • Consensus Building: Demonstrates competence to forge vision and mission with the team and facilitate buy-in. Interpersonal • Self-Effacement: Demonstrates humility and transparency in working with others. • Approachable: Exhibits openness to input and feedback from others. • Impartiality: Practices unbiased behavior toward all team members regardless of culture. Leadership • Missional: Leads team from a kingdom mindset, focusing on what God is doing in the world and how the team’s ministry fits in. • Self-Awareness: Articulates own leadership style and able to vary it for other cultures. • Conflict Management: Able to facilitate cross-cultural conflict resolution. • Creates Buy-in: Facilitates innovation and creativity on the team by discussions and brainstorming from various cultural points of view.

167

The following are examples of questions that could be asked of team leader candidates in an assessment setting from the core clusters of each of the five dimensions:

1. Spiritual—Character: Could you give an example in your ministry with others

where your integrity was questioned? How did you respond? Would you tell

me about a time where you needed to demonstrate your trustworthiness in

relating to another person, and, in particular, a person from another culture?

2. Culture—Cultural Intelligence: Could you describe the worldview of an

individual with whom you have worked from other culture? How did you

learn about that worldview? How does it differ from your own culture?

3. Team—Consensus Building: Can you tell me about a time when you had to

facilitate consensus on making team decisions? What was hard about it?

Describe how you developed buy-in?

4. Interpersonal—Approachable: Could you describe a time when someone from

another culture gave you feedback that you did not solicit? How did you

respond?

5. Leadership—Conflict Management: Could you tell me about a cross-cultural

conflict that you were called upon to help resolve. Could you describe the

conflict? What did you do well? What did you not do well?

Lastly, along with assessment interviews, a 360-degree leadership evaluation would be helpful to gain input from those who have worked with the leadership candidate. As for the 360-degree leadership evaluation process, eight to ten individuals would be selected to rate the leadership candidate including supervisors, peers and direct reports. With each core cluster item, the rater would be asked to rate each cluster on a scale of one to five and invited

168 to add comments. The raters scores would be averaged to obtain a baseline. In addition, the candidate would also complete the assessment and self-rate. The scores from the 360 raters and the candidate could be compared. As a result of the interview questions and 360-degree feedback, ample information on the knowledge, skills, and attitudes of the candidate would be available to present a substantial feedback session to the candidate to identify areas of strength and areas of challenge along with a development plan.

Team Member Competency Model

The team member competency model would not necessarily be used in the same manner as the competency for the team leader. Nevertheless, the competency model would be valuable for a team leader recruiting new team members or a national pastor developing a new team composed of nationals and missionaries involved in some type of joint ministry initiative. For the selection of team members, the competency model also serves as a template to present a framework for expectations for new team members. The team leader or national pastor would ask questions of the potential team member based on each of the five dimensions focusing on the core clusters. The team member competency model is found below and in Appendix D. Referring to the model below, examples of questions from each of the five dimensions would include:

1. Spiritual—Grace: Can you tell me about a specific time when you had to

demonstrate grace or patience toward someone from another culture? What

was the outcome?

2. Culture—Openness: Can you describe a time when you had to work closely

either on a team or in a church with an individual from a different culture or

socio-economic level? What went well? What was difficult for you?

169

3. Team—Team Player: Could you describe a time when you had to work

toward accomplishing team objectives with individuals who were difficult to

work with? How did you react? What was the outcome?

4. Interpersonal—Relational: Could you tell me about a close relationship that

you developed with someone from another culture? What was hard? What

was easy?

5. Flexibility—Adaptabililty: From the perspective of your ecclesiastical

background, how do you find working with someone from a very different

church tradition? Can you give me an example?

Finally, along with both competency model models, it is important to understand that the competency model assessment is one data point among several. Wisdom would dictate that multicultural ministry team leaders and members should also be evaluated in terms of spiritual life, previous experience, biblical knowledge, psychological and emotional health, and where applicable, marital and / or singleness well-being.

170

Competency Model: Multicultural Team Member

Dimensions Core Cluster Spiritual • Christ-Centered: Displays dependence on God in personal and community life. • Means of Grace: Demonstrates commitment to scripture and prayer. • Teachable: Exhibits a posture of learning and humility. • Grace: Understands God’s patience and practices it toward others. • Discipleship: Ministers to others by pointing them to Christ and the scriptures Culture • Cultural Intelligence: Displays knowledge of cultural differences and ability to articulate worldview and values differences. • Openness: Able to work with a variety of different cultures and socio-economic levels; worships easily with those from other cultures. • Cross-cultural Processes: Dialogues, brainstorms, and solves problems creatively with those from other cultures. • Language: Demonstrates proficient language ability in the national language or language of the team. Team • Team Player: Displays willingness to work together toward team goals. • Cohesion: Demonstrates a willingness to build community on the team, focusing on commonalities in Christ. • Social: Willingness to spend time socially with the team. Interpersonal • Relational: Able to build relationships with others from different cultures and backgrounds. • Self-Effacement: Demonstrates humility in working with others. • Communication: Displays active listening skills. • Peacemaking: Practices conflict management. Flexibility • Adaptability: Able to work under a variety of leadership styles. • Openness: Demonstrates a willingness to work alongside others from different traditions. • Change: Exhibits openness to ambiguity and to considering new ideas.

171

Training Design

Whereas the competency model assessment is effective for selection and development of multicultural team leaders and members, a training component is beneficial for existing multicultural team ongoing development in order to evaluate effectiveness as well as propose certain correctives to improve team performance and relationships in a guided learning time.

The training component could be used in two ways. First of all, in the context of a larger team dynamics workshop, a segment on multicultural team dynamics would fit naturally into the overall training design for team improvement. As we have noted from the research study, since the multicultural context of the team influences all that transpires in terms of relationships, processes, and performance, taking time for the team to look more closely at multicultural best practices, assess the team’s current situation in light of the best practices, work through case studies, and allow ample time for the team to discuss and address issues emerging from the multicultural aspect of the team would provide benefit. Secondly, for new multicultural team leaders and new missionaries, an initial training in the practice of multicultural teams would signal to the participants the importance of what they are about to embark upon as well as provide some basic tools to begin the process of multicultural team formation. The training design would be presented at two venues including pre-field training for all new missionaries as a part of their introduction to team life on the mission field as well as in leadership trainings for new and current team leaders.

Silberman writes that effective training is “characterized by activity, variety, and participation.”391 Training designs are most effective when objectives are clear and they address all aspects of adult learning including cognitive, affective, and behavioral domains.

391. Mel Silberman, Active Training (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998), 13.

172

Silberman notes that “active training involves a three-pronged approach: fostering attitudes, developing and practicing skills, and promoting understanding of the concepts and models behind the subject.”392

As for the objectives of the training session on multicultural teams, participants at the end of the training session would be able to:

1. Identify personal attitudes pertaining to working with those from other cultures. 2. Articulate the biblical foundations for the practice of multicultural teams. 3. Define the missio Dei and its impact in world mission and, by extension, diverse teams. 4. List the benefits and challenges of multicultural teams. 5. Assess one’s current multicultural team in light of best practices. 6. Explain three approaches to multicultural teams. 7. Identify four cultural measures that inform us of cultural values and practices. 8. Evaluate multicultural teams by means of case studies. 9. Plan next steps in light of the training module.

The outline and presenter’s guide is found below and in Appendix E. The module is prepared to last about two and a half hours. The training module will first of all attempt to probe and identify attitudes about working on multicultural teams through three preliminary questions related to experience on multicultural teams. Next, biblical foundations will serve as the rationale and the “why” of multicultural teams. Participants will discuss the passages and themes in pairs or trios. The bulk of the training will then focus on the practice of multicultural teams by identifying best practices, listing benefits and challenges, providing three possible approaches to multicultural teams, explaining four cultural measures from

Hofstede’s work, and, lastly, giving participants time in small groups to complete a case study in order to apply what they have learned. The case study below is a composite of all the teams researched in this project and does not represent any one team. The module will end

392. Silberman, 13.

173 with conclusions and take-aways from the group. The learning design utilizes active training with a number of experiential activities explained on the outline below.

Training Design: The Practice of Multicultural Teams

1. Introduction (small groups)- 15 min. • Who has worked on a multicultural team? Describe the team. • What went well? • What did not go so well?

2. Why Multicultural Teams? Biblical Foundations (lecturette and trios discussions) – 20

min.

• Shalom • Zech 9:10 • Genesis 12:1-3 • Galatians 3:27-29 • New People of God • Missio Dei

3. Multicultural Teams in Practice – 90 min.

• Best Practices (Pass out best practices document for small groups: read and discuss, identify questions, and give practical examples from participants’ existing teams) o Spiritual Dynamics o Kingdom Witness o Team Processes o Culture o Leadership and Power o Community o Synergy o Communication

• Benefits and Challenges (trios work; ask the question; have participants mark on flip chart; give results of research below to add to participants’ answers) o Benefits of Multicultural Teams o Variety of perspectives o Better problem solving

174

o Peer learning

o Challenges of Multicultural Teams o Managing conflict o Relational vs task orientation o Leadership styles o Worldview differences

• Approaches to Diverse Teams393 (lecturette) o Assimilation o Cultural Pluralism o Multiculturalism ▪ New entity is established from the many cultures ▪ Relationships are negotiated rather than coerced ▪ Flexibility, adaptability, and participation ▪ Intentionality ▪ Multiculturalism is not “how diverse it looks,” but that everyone is valued and has voice. ▪ Liminality

• Cultural Measures (lecturette with examples elicited from participants)

Individualism Collectivism “I, we, they”

“Some are more equal High Power Distance Low Power Distance than others”

“What is different may Low Uncertainty Avoidance High Uncertainty Avoidance be dangerous”

Quality of Life Career Success “What is important?”

393. Hibbert and Hibbert, Kindle Location 1177-1235.

175

4. Case Study (small groups) – 30 min.

Multicultural Team Case Study

All stakeholders were thrilled to be able to form what everyone was calling an “authentic multicultural team.” The time had come for expatriate missionaries and national partners to actually have to form a team and go through the processes of learning to minister together. Up until now, there was a working relationship between the national partners and the team leader, but the entire team and national workers did not work through areas of vision, strategy and building community together.

The team began to come together. Along with the team leader, who came from the host country, two other team members were also recruited from the same African country. The host country missionaries had been involved in church planting for about five years. In addition, two British missionaries, two black South Africans, and four Americans comprised the team. The South Africans had lived in the host country for about five years. And the British and American missionaries arrived at different times, from three years ago to just three months ago.

There was a good sense of call and purpose to the entire team. All were motivated to see God work in the capital city. Prayer and worship times were good as a team. There was a bit of social interaction outside of ministry activities, but it was obvious that everyone had their own cultural ways of meeting personal needs. The host culture missionaries desired to create community. But it was especially evident that the western missionaries tended to spend a lot more time with each other for informal dinners and social times. As one missionary wife said, “we really need to be around our own culture to meet a lot of our needs.”

In addition, two of the American missionaries had started to complain to the others that the team leader did not seem to want to discuss with others the overall vision and strategy of the team. It was as though the other missionaries were there to simply implement the team leader’s vision. Resentment started to set in on the part of the western missionaries. They felt that there was not much discussion or dialogue over issues of vision and goals. And it did not seem that things in the ministry were moving fast enough.

• How would you describe this team?

• What seem to be the most serious issues?

• What would you recommend to this team to help them move forward?

5. Conclusions and Take-Aways (participants identify and discuss two applications from session)– 10 min.

176

Conclusion

The practical applied project of the study attempted to answer the overarching question of how multicultural teams select team leaders and members as well as provide ongoing training to equip multicultural teams to function more effectively by taking into consideration current best practices derived from this study. Moreover, the objective of the practical portion of the research thesis is to add value to the ministry of Mission to the World in its desire to build on the themes of diversity, internationalization, and mobilization.

Two competency models were created for use with team leaders and team members. Both models will be used in the context of assessment processes and interviews by having assessors rate individuals in each core cluster area. Questions were developed to focus those interviewed on critical incidents in order to obtain practical data. In addition, a training module was designed for delivery in pre-field training events as well as with existing multicultural teams to offer ongoing learning for teams as they grow in their practice of multicultural teams.

The competency models and the training design were constructed to reflect the data gleaned from the research but, furthermore, to create processes where multicultural ministry teams focus on the overarching goal of mission which is to grasp God’s plan of reconciliation and of breaking down barriers as they minister to others and live it within their team relationships.

177

Conclusion

The mission landscape of the global church is changing. As internationalization shapes the world economy, expands technology, and allows unlimited accessibility to information, it has equally identified new patterns of people movements, immigration, and increasingly diverse societies that reveal how changing demographics affect nations. But these changes have equally influenced how the church thinks about mission. Changes in the world Christian movement are substantial. Whereas in the past the center of Christianity was located in the west, now the epicenter of the church has moved south. Consequently, those from the majority world are having a say in how the mission of the church is to be accomplished. For the western church to work in many contexts now, it occurs increasingly in partnership with or squarely under the authority of the local ministry of the church. Western missionaries continue to send missionaries, but how they function and to whom they report is gradually changing. And, at the center of this study, those with whom missionaries work closely in teams has changed. As we have seen in the study, there is a growing multicultural mix in mission teams and ministry initiatives.

Biblical Foundations

In chapter one, we began to lay the biblical foundation for multicultural ministry teams and analyzed four passages suggesting that the kingdom of God has always been promised to all peoples. We saw from scripture that the ultimate goal from the start was inclusivity of all nations. The undercurrent of reconciliation among nations and cultures was always a part of the plan.

We surveyed the table of nations in Genesis 10, emphasizing God’s grace and care for the nations and discovered that from the beginning, the nations had a place in God’s overarching

178 plan. The ultimate goal of the biblical narrative was to reach the nations. To the original hearers of Genesis 10, it not only gave an answer as to how the Israelites were to relate to the nations, but also gave understanding as to how God felt about the nations. Moreover, the table of nations revealed a positive relationship among the nations, a foreshadowing of what would eventually happen in the church and finally in the new creation.

As the narrative progresses, we saw that in order to bless the nations tainted by the fall,

God pursued one person, Abraham, through whom blessing would accrue to Israel, but ultimately to all the nations. In Genesis 12, we examined the promise made to Abraham to become the father of many nations. The seed of expansion to all of humanity was ever- present. It would begin with Abraham, move to Israel, focus on the tribe of Judah and the seed of David, from whom came Christ, God incarnate. The inclusion of all the peoples of the earth would now be made possible because of Christ’s redemption of humanity. The veil of separation was now torn.

Moving forward to the book of Acts, we examined the new community of the people of

God that would include the Gentiles. The book of Acts takes us from the Pentecost event to the evangelization of a good portion of the Roman empire. An examination of Acts allowed us to understand how the new Christian communities emerged and developed. Acts 2:41-47 is a summary passage of what the new community committed to the kingdom was like with an emphasis on the relationships that existed among believers as well as on power and the dynamic work of the Holy Spirit. Something was radically different in these new communities. They became the new community through sacrament, the daily teaching of the apostles, fellowship and mutual caring, and reaching out to those around them. We read that

179 day by day new individuals were added to the church (Acts 2:47). A new dynamic of mutual care is revealed in the first church community.

Acts 11:19-30 presented the emergence of multicultural community and ministry to the

Gentiles in Antioch. Through the difficult circumstances of persecution and famine, the church spread, a divine impetus to include non-Jews in Antioch from which the evangelization of the Gentile world would go forth. The missionary focus in Antioch was heralded by other missionaries, notably the believers from Cyprus and Cyrene, who spoke boldly to the Gentiles of Jesus. A diverse church began to form in Antioch and the universalistic nature of the gospel became increasingly prominent. What Israel had failed to do by keeping the faith exclusively to itself, the missionaries in the book of Acts were now doing. There would be no more exclusivity. The plan of God from the beginning was now being realized.

Finally, we examined what the apostolic message had called the new multicultural communities to be and do. Vital passages in Matthew, Acts, 1 Corinthians, and James emphasized the norms and fundamental values of belonging to Christian community. The early church had to deal with cultural differences from the beginning as diversity began to permeate the new communities. Believers came face to face with those whose background, values, and worldviews had been so radically different. Paul’s own mission teams were culturally mixed (Timothy, Titus, and Luke) and his missionary endeavors went beyond the

Jews to the Romans and Greeks. The ultimate arbiter was Christ through the church. The new community was to consider the final authority for faith and life as coming from Christ communicated through the apostolic message and not ultimately from the surrounding culture.

180

As for further research to consider in the biblical foundations, research on the concepts of honor, shame, and fear in Old Testament society in Israelite culture and other cultures of the ancient near east would add further insight. Understanding of these notions and how they influenced the context of ancient near eastern cultures would give perspective into how much of the majority world functions today. In addition, although touched on briefly, further research would be valuable in the area of how worship and the celebration of the sacraments brought unity to the new communities and to the multicultural missionary efforts. It would be interesting to examine more thoroughly the theme of the celebration of the Lord’s Supper to understand how the sacrament unified and enhanced community.

Theological Foundations

In chapter two, we discussed the early house church movement and the dynamics of disparate small communities before the legalization of Christianity. The first three hundred years of the church portray a changing paradigm of gradual inclusion of other cultures beginning with the addition of Gentile believers, and a steady espousal of new values in relation to how growing new communities of Jesus were to function. We noted that for the

Christians in the house communities, their lives and allegiances were permanently altered.

Community dynamics were unique because of a radical transformation by Christ. As various cultures and social classes engaged one another, scriptural norms came to supplant cultural behaviors. The study of the early house church movement demonstrated the primary theme of unity in the body of Christ amidst a variety of differences, including social classes, gender, and ethnic groups.

We noted in chapter two that the missio Dei, a concept emerging in the mid-twentieth century, signified that the mission of the church and the goal of kingdom expansion does not

181 belong to the church, even less to any one cultural expression of the church. The mission of the church and its expansion belongs to God alone in Trinity. From the Willingem

Conference onward, the missio Dei was a step in helping to liberate mission from the captivity of culture and suggested that it is God who has been and is moving forward with a plan to redeem the nations. In order to grasp the impact of the spread of the gospel across cultures since the mid-twentieth century, the concept of missio Dei gave insight into how the church reflects the entire body of Christ in its multicultural composition. This concept has profound implications for how we consider mission and multicultural partnership. It is neither owned by the west, the majority world, nor any ideology. Western churches have woken up slowly to this new reality.

As to further research, it seems that most of the research on mission and missio Dei, except for a few exceptions, has centered on Protestant theology. It would be valuable to add other sources from Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Orthodox perspectives to give more weight to the historic church. Included would be more input from the church fathers as well as Vatican II and other documents.

Lastly, we defined diversity, culture, and multiculturalism. Diversity is defined as the differences that exist among peoples based on race, ethnic background, age, gender, religion, and socio-economic status. Cultural diversity exists when there are two or more differentiated groups existing together. Because diversity is related to culture, a diverse group exhibits a variety of particular cultural attitudes, values, and behaviors. In discussing diversity, a term much used in society today, there is always tension between what flows from the missio Dei and what is culturally popular in terms of diversity and multiculturalism.

182

Culture is a part of human nature from birth and profoundly affects the way we interact with other people and behave in ways that we consider normal. Hence, cultural diversity creates, among other factors, a variety of ways of seeing the world, managing interpersonal relationships, exchanging values, dealing with high or low power distance, developing attitudes toward risk and change, and favoring individualism or collectivism.

Multiculturalism is more complex and can be defined from anthropological and sociological perspectives. In current literature, multiculturalism refers to how one responds to diversity. In today’s world, the term itself can evoke either positive responses or negative reactions. Multiculturalism has multiple significations and can be explained descriptively, ideologically, and from the perspective of power. For purposes of our study, we have focused primarily on descriptive multiculturalism which refers to the variety of cultures that exist both internationally and intra-nationally, existing side by side in a given context.

Research Methodology

In chapter three, we noted that the study of multicultural teams in ministry is a fairly new undertaking. In the past, significant studies were conducted among monocultural teams, focusing primarily on the teaming aspect of the group rather than on cultural issues. Since the goal of the project was to identify and study a specific question in order to improve the effectiveness of multicultural teams, the study made use of action research, interviews, and focus groups. Action research involved spending time in context observing team interaction, ministry events, informal time with team members, and asking questions about team experiences.

We conducted interviews and focus groups from which data was coded and categorized.

For the study project, we selected four international mission teams with a total of twenty-

183 seven participants. The teams included the Student Y in Cape Town, South Africa, Behind the

Scenes in Nicosia, Cyprus, Polis in Athens, Greece, and Gospel Haus in Berlin, Germany.

The interviews, from which a best practices grid was created, included eight questions in one hour to one and a half hour interviews. It seemed that the most robust data came from the team in South Africa, most likely due to the fact that this was the largest team which exhibited the most diversity.

As for future research, it would add value to the study to conduct further research with other ethnic groups not mentioned in this study who work primarily together or work with

North Americans. In addition, it would be beneficial for further research to conduct a study on multicultural teams that do not include North Americans. The study could possibly be enhanced through the use of more focus groups that would include mixed groups. Lastly, questions in the interview process dealing with honor, shame, and fear would have been helpful and would have touched on issues that were not discussed extensively during the site visits.

Research Findings

Observations were recorded for each site visit that included history of each ministry, the uniqueness of each team, and the specific ministry initiative of each team. In categorizing the data from the twenty-seven interviews, the best practices grid identified eight clusters with descriptors for each best practice. The eight dimensions included spiritual dynamics, kingdom witness, team processes, culture, leadership and power, community, synergy, and communication. As to conclusions determining what contributes to a functional multicultural team, several items were mentioned including a spiritual emphasis focusing on commonalities in Christ; the importance of cultural awareness and discussions around issues

184 of worldview, values, and behaviors; and leadership that promoted cultural awareness, spiritual and community life, and intentional discussion around these issues.

The data indicated what interview participants listed as the benefits and challenges of multicultural teams. As to the benefits of multicultural teams, remarks that emerged the most included: a variety of perspectives; better problem solving as the result of more diverse input; and peer learning that not only informed others, but established a process that helped shape each other’s lives through differences, including seeing each other’s blind spots. As to the challenges, the following items came up a number of times: cross-cultural conflict; the seeming dichotomy between relational and task orientation on the part of team members primarily due to cultural background; leadership style on the part of the team leader; and worldview differences that translated into behaviors and values regarding time, hospitality, relationships, and community.

Practical Project

The research study produced two practical applications from the research findings for use among missionaries working in multicultural teams. The overarching goal of the practical portion of this study was to provide an ever-increasing multicultural church and mission teams with tools to help them form well and function optimally. The project focused on two initiatives, one for selection and one for ongoing training and development. As for selection, two competency models were created for use in assessments and interviews of team leaders and team members. Secondly, the training module, developed in an interactive and adult learning style, focused on gaining as much information for those already having worked on multicultural teams in able to create a practical learning event for those working in the context of multicultural teams.

185

I entered into this research project drawn by the missional trends I perceived around me to promote multicultural ministry as a means of sharing the gospel to all the nations. It seemed like the right thing to do and relevant in a changing world. However, after delving into the scriptures, examining mission history, and finally experiencing first-hand four multicultural ministry teams, I have learned much about culture, ministry, and team relationships. Moreover, the research study has confirmed that multicultural ministry teams are not simply a reflection of current trends, but the plan of God whose narrative from

Genesis onward has been for a people from all tribes, tongues, and nations to surround his throne together in constant worship for the reconciliation of ourselves to God and to each other.

186

APPENDIX A: RESEARCH INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

1. How long have you been a member of this ministry team?

2. What is your background?

3. What is the ministry vision and mission of your team?

4. What are the benefits of working on a multicultural team? Could you give some

examples?

5. What are the challenges of working on a multicultural mission team? Could you give

some examples?

6. What are cultural differences that affect your team?

7. In light of a variety of cultures, how do you build Christian community on your team?

8. What suggestions do you have for improving the team dynamics of your multicultural

team?

187

APPENDIX B: MULTICULTURAL TEAM BEST PRACTICES

Best Practices Descriptors Clusters Spiritual Dynamics • Participation with those from different cultures promotes Multicultural team spiritual growth. Members follow Christ individually and members are corporately. committed to • Multicultural teams develop a common set of norms and spiritual growth behaviors as a team. individually and • Team prays together, worships together, and converses corporately. about spiritual things. • Commitment to scripture is foundational for team ministry and multicultural team life. • Understanding and application of grace is demonstrated to others on the team. Kingdom Witness • Participation on multicultural teams helps members grasp Multicultural teams what God is doing to extend the kingdom to all of are aware that the humanity. team reflects what • Understanding and practice of cultural diversity reflects God is doing in the God’s plan of redemption and draws people to faith. world to advance his • Multicultural teams reflect the gospel as cultures are kingdom and break reconciled to God and to each other. down barriers. • Contextualization of the gospel occurs more naturally in multicultural diversity. • Polarity between social engagement and evangelism is decreased with multicultural teams as holistic ministry is promoted. Team Processes • Problems are solved more creatively with a variety of Multicultural teams cultural perspectives. work effectively • Working on vision, values, and strategy takes longer on when processes are multicultural teams, but consensus in the midst of diversity in place to set vision, promotes team buy-in and effective ministry. establish • Multicultural teams are careful to develop realistic expectations, make expectations about how communication, decision making, decisions, resolve and conflict resolution should function. conflict, establish • Team leaders are trained to facilitate buy-in for vision and norms, and meet mission on the team for ministry strategy. regularly • Common values, norms, and goals are agreed upon by the multicultural team. • Effective multicultural teams have regular team meetings. • Common goals and group projects build community on multicultural teams. • Multicultural team members address conflict issues and team leaders train teams to manage conflict biblically. • Defining roles brings structure to multicultural teams It is helpful on occasion to bring in an outside party to help teams work through issues relating to cultural differences.

188

Culture • Commonality in Christ aids in dealing with cultural Multicultural team differences. members are trained • Multicultural team members are intentional about learning in the worldviews other members’ cultures or the host culture. and values of other • Worldview and cultural value differences are avowed and team members in addressed to enhance team functioning (time, finances, order to build relationships, hospitality). positive relationships • Denominational and liturgical differences may or may not and enable be related to cultural differences. productive ministry • Since decision-making processes may differ with each culture, multicultural teams will agree on how to make decisions. • Language barriers are admitted and a common language is selected for team business and ministry. • Building relationships is important in multicultural team building. • Multicultural teams are aware that each culture may read certain scriptures differently; teams hear from all members. Leadership and • Leaders of multicultural teams lead primarily from a Power spiritual lens and not a business plan. Leading from a • Multicultural team leaders are aware of and adapt to the position of service, variety of leadership styles represented by the cultures on sensitivity, and the team. cultural adaptability • Multicultural team leaders submit to an accountability plan enhances team unity • Leaders create agreed-upon goals with the team. and ministry • Team members are aware that one’s leadership personality may differ from one’s cultural approach to leading. • Multicultural team leaders lead in a way that validates minority and oppressed cultures and find ways to give them voice. • Leaders build team community in a way that is sensitive to socio-economic disparity among team member cultures. • Team leaders take into consideration team processes that differ from culture to culture such as decision making, brainstorming, and conflict management. • Ongoing encouragement of the team by the leader builds trust. Community • Building multicultural diversity on teams is attractive to Team unity emerging those on the outside. from a relational and • Multicultural teams are by nature more inclusive and do a hospitable ethos not leave others out. enhances • Believing the best of others develops community. multicultural team • Family atmosphere, as opposed to solely a work culture, life and productivity promotes community. • Caring for each other, practicing hospitality with food, and life together help team members feel connected. • A multifunctional physical space where multicultural team members work and socialize promotes community.

189

• Relational approach to ministry and team life develops community. • Serving one another and practicing humility are elements of multicultural community. • Sharing personal stories from diverse backgrounds enhances community. • Team leader works creatively and proactively to ensure team unity and minimize divisiveness due to cultural differences. Synergy • Multicultural teams benefit from a diversity of points of Multicultural teams view and perspectives enabling members to learn from add a diversity of each other. perspectives and • A variety of gifts emerge in diverse teams including points of view to expertise, experience, and materials for ministry. team relationships • Multicultural teams function better when members realize and ministry that one culture does not have all the answers. decisions • Cultural blind-spots become more visible in diverse groups. • Diversity promotes creative and innovative ways of doing ministry. Communication • Multicultural teams are mindful to communicate more than Multicultural teams monocultural teams to ensure clarity. are intentional to • Team members learn and practice active listening. over-communicate to • Team leader encourages honesty and transparency in the ensure understanding practice of multicultural team communication. and clarity about • A culture of openness about team business and processes team and ministry characterizes the multicultural team. matters • Multicultural teams will at times meet in social settings to enhance communication.

190

APPENDIX C: COMPETENCY MODEL - MULTICULTURAL TEAM LEADER

Dimensions Core Cluster Spiritual • Character: Exhibits a growing spiritual life that demonstrates integrity, authenticity, and trustworthiness. • Dependence on God: Focuses on the spiritual side of ministry and team and not just the business side. • Spiritual Leadership: Takes the lead in creating an atmosphere of worship and prayer and points team members to the God of all cultures. • Pastors the Team: Able to feed the team spiritually in light of a variety of cultures and builds the team around commonalities in Christ. Culture • Cultural Intelligence: Practices the rudiments of cultural self-awareness and able to articulate various cultural worldviews and values. • Comfortable with Differences: Demonstrates comfort in talking about race, ethnicity, and social justice issues. • Facilitation: Experienced at enabling discussions on cultural differences and misunderstandings. • Language: Exhibits proficient language ability for leading a multicultural team. Team • Team Building: Takes the lead in community building and mutual care on the team. • Process Facilitation: Experienced at leading the team through team processes such as norms, decision- making, brainstorming, conflict resolution, and role development. • Consensus Building: Demonstrates competence to forge vision and mission with the team and facilitate buy-in. Interpersonal • Self-Effacement: Demonstrates humility and transparency in working with others. • Approachable: Exhibits openness to input and feedback from others. • Impartiality: Practices unbiased behavior toward all team members regardless of culture. Leadership • Missional: Leads team from a kingdom mindset, focusing on what God is doing in the world and how the team’s ministry fits in. • Self-Awareness: Articulates own leadership style and able to vary it for other cultures. • Conflict Management: Able to facilitate cross-cultural conflict resolution. • Creates Buy-in: Facilitates innovation and creativity on the team by discussions and brainstorming from various cultural points of view.

191

APPENDIX D: COMPETENCY MODEL - MULTICULTURAL TEAM MEMBER

Dimensions Core Cluster Spiritual • Christ-Centered: Displays dependence on God in personal and community life. • Means of Grace: Demonstrates commitment to scripture and prayer. • Teachable: Exhibits a posture of learning and humility. • Grace: Understands God’s patience and practices it toward others. • Discipleship: Ministers to others by pointing them to Christ and the scriptures Culture • Cultural Intelligence: Displays knowledge of cultural differences and ability to articulate worldview and values differences. • Openness: Able to work with a variety of different cultures and socio-economic levels; worships easily with those from other cultures. • Cross-cultural Processes: Dialogues, brainstorms, and solves problems creatively with those from other cultures. • Language: Demonstrates proficient language ability in the national language or language of the team. Team • Team Player: Displays willingness to work together toward team goals. • Cohesion: Demonstrates a willingness to build community on the team, focusing on commonalities in Christ. • Social: Willingness to spend time socially with the team. Interpersonal • Relational: Able to build relationships with others from different cultures and backgrounds. • Self-Effacement: Demonstrates humility in working with others. • Communication: Displays active listening skills. • Peacemaking: Practices conflict management. Flexibility • Adaptability: Able to work under a variety of leadership styles. • Openness: Demonstrates a willingness to work alongside others from different traditions. • Change: Exhibits openness to ambiguity and to considering new ideas.

192

APPENDIX E: TRAINING DESIGN

Introduction (small groups)- 15 min.

• Who has worked on a multicultural team? Describe the team. • What went well? • What did not go so well?

Why Multicultural Teams? Biblical Foundations (lecturette) – 20 min.

• Shalom • Zech 9:10 • Genesis 12:1-3 • Galatians 3:27-29 • New People of God • Mission Dei

Multicultural Teams in Practice – 90 min.

• Best Practices (Pass out Best Practices document for trios: read and discuss, identify questions, and give practical examples) o Spiritual Dynamics o Kingdom Witness o Team Processes o Culture o Leadership and Power o Community o Synergy o Communication

• Benefits and Challenges (trios work; ask the question; have participants mark on flip chart; give results of research below to add to participants’ answers) o Benefits of Multicultural Teams o Variety of perspectives o Better problem solving o Peer learning

o Challenges of Multicultural Teams o Managing conflict o Relational vs task orientation o Leadership styles o Worldview differences

193

• Approaches to Diverse Teams394 (lecturette) o Assimilation – “Melting Pot” o Cultural Pluralism – “Salad Bowl” o Multiculturalism – “Mosaic” ▪ New entity is established from the many cultures ▪ Relationships are negotiated rather than coerced ▪ Flexibility, adaptability, and participation ▪ Intentionality ▪ Multiculturalism is not “how diverse it looks,” but that everyone is valued and has voice. ▪ Liminality ▪ • Cultural Measures (lecturette with examples elicited from participants)

Individualism Collectivism “I, we, they”

“Some are more equal than High Power Distance Low Power Distance others”

“What is different may be Low Uncertainty Avoidance High Uncertainty Avoidance dangerous”

Quality of Life Career Success “What is important?”

• Case Study (small groups) – 30 min.

Multicultural Team Case Study

All stakeholders were thrilled to be able to form what everyone was calling an “authentic multicultural team.” The time had come for expatriate missionaries and national partners to actually have to form a team and go through the processes of learning to minister together. Up until now, there was a working relationship between the national partners and the team leader, but the entire team and national workers did not work through areas of vision, strategy and building community together.

The team began to come together. Along with the team leader, who came from the host country, two other team members were also recruited from the same African country. The host country missionaries had been involved in church planting for about five years. In addition, two British missionaries, two black South Africans, and four Americans comprised the team. The South Africans had lived in the host country for about five years. And the British and American missionaries arrived at different times, from three years ago to just three months ago.

394. Hibbert and Hibbert, Kindle Location 1177-1235.

194

There was a good sense of call and purpose to the entire team. All were motivated to see God work in the capital city. Prayer and worship times were good as a team. There was a bit of social interaction outside of ministry activities, but it was obvious that everyone had their own cultural ways of meeting personal needs. The host culture missionaries desired to create community. But it was especially evident that the western missionaries tended to spend a lot more time with each other for informal dinners and social times. As one missionary wife said, “we really need to be around our own culture to meet a lot of our needs.”

In addition, two of the American missionaries had started to complain to the others that the team leader did not seem to want to discuss with others the overall vision and strategy of the team. It was as though the other missionaries were there to simply implement the team leader’s vision. Resentment started to set in on the part of the western missionaries. They felt that there was not much discussion or dialogue over issues of vision and goals. And it did not seem that things in the ministry were moving fast enough.

How would you describe this team?

What seem to be the most serious issues?

What would you recommend to this team to help them move forward?

Conclusions and Take-Aways (participants identify two applications from session)– 10 min.

195

APPENDIX F: SAMPLE INTERVIEW RESPONSES FROM SELECT QUESTIONS

• What are the benefits of working on a multicultural team? o Multicultural teams are essential to our growth as believers; the converse stunts growth. One of the benefits is our witness as the new humanity. o White students in South Africa are mono-cultural and inept cross-culturally and at a loss to operate in a diverse society; in the context of a multicultural team we can help them, value them, and disciple them in skills and maturity in this regard. o Multicultural teams see a much vaster image of who God is; all of us together reflect in our particular way part of who God is. We see what other cultures value; every culture sees life very differently. For example, cultures in South Africa have time consciousness differences and we have to talk about them as a team. o Multicultural teams expose us to different points of view and create different approaches to ministry and life. For example, we have some Type A task- oriented westerners who are confronted with more relational types on the team. o Multicultural teams are a picture of the gospel, that God cares about all cultures and people groups. As a white South African, I learned this in living with two black South Africans this year. It even comes down to eating food we are not used to or the new worship songs we learn to sing. o Coming from an oppressive society, the multicultural ministry team is a model of transition of how things should be. But in our life together we always have commonality in Christ. o On the team, there are different perspectives and insights. I always see fresh ideas with fresh eyes. As a team, we are able to read scripture with different eyes and interpret scripture in community through dialogue.” o We need people from different cultures who know the issues that Christians face where we are working. o In our video production ministry, the cross-cultural team is a good blend of relationships and ‘getting the job done’. As a team, we experience different aspects of other cultures including meals and customs, such as eating an Egyptian meal together. o As a multicultural team, it helps us in the creative process of media production which means reaching more people. o Our team works well; the Americans are positive and encouraging, while the Germans are analytical and critical and this works well together. o I always have a broader perspective. As an American, I need Germans to tell me if I am off and then to help me understand the needs of Germans. I find that contextualization is better with Germans on the team. To do the work of a missionary, I need the Germans on this team. o It helps our team in problem solving when there are more “eyes” from different cultures.

196

• What are the challenges of working on a multicultural team? o Everything takes longer because of more discussion and the process of understanding underlying values. For example, in our vision statement, the words may mean something different depending on culture. Efficiency diminishes and it’s hard to adjust to how long projects and discussions will take. Leadership styles vary; some are more directive, some are more consultative. Sometimes it is cultural; sometimes it is personality. o There is always potential for misunderstanding. Conflict can increase and can lead to divisiveness. Cultures at times never quite feel at home. For example, there are two worldviews at play on this team: western and African. At the same time, people get tired of being labeled. Power dynamics are always at play. o Consensus is harder to reach and that requires more work by the team and leader. Ideological differences can cause friction. At times, it is more difficult to just get along with each other. o There is lack of unity at times particularly as to how we approach ministry. There are at times disagreements as to how things should be done. For example, I am more used to a western system which includes numbers and a leadership selection process. It seems that in African culture, the view of sin is a bit different – less black and white and more confrontational; the western view of sin is more confrontational. o There is frustration on a multicultural team when you see something and others don’t see what you see. The westerners and whites are more conservative about social issues. Whites are a part of the dominant culture; Africans are the non-dominant culture. o Values tend to be different: time consciousness, finances, response to authority, and how conflict is resolved. o People from different cultures don’t understand each other and have not spent the time to trust each other. o Arabs tend to come across harsh and impolite, whereas the Americans on the team have more “niceities” in their approach. o Cultures always think that their view is best. My culture is more relational, whereas Americans are much more task oriented. Language barriers present a problem at times. o There are different approaches to authority on this multicultural team. As a German, I think Germans are more direct and want clear answers (as do Americans). I find the British to be less direct. o The potential for conflict is higher and communication skills vary among cultures. Berliners are very direct. It takes a very long time to develop vision and values on our team.

197

• Are there cultural differences that affect your team? o The decision-making process affects our team. For some, the process is very important, but for others, making the decision and just getting on with it is important. o White people on our team don’t talk about race; for the majority, it’s hard that they don’t address race. o Socio-economic contexts affect the team – advantaged versus disadvantaged; how time is managed; individual versus communal approach to team and life. o A lot of problems arise when one attributes everything to culture. For instance, some are seeing themselves as victimized. o Culture tends to affect how people read scripture and interpret it. Cultural readings of perceptions of the passage differ. o Leadership style affects the team. Some people like the consultative style of the team leader, but some want more decisiveness; likewise, some are very passionate about social justice while others are more passionate about evangelism. o Conflict tends to be avoided on the team. o The idea of time and schedule are examples of cultural differences. o The leader on our team has a high-power distance as an Egyptian. I feel that I don’t get to use my gifts since he decides everything. o Germans don’t ever encourage and this tends to discourage people. On the other hand, Americans need to learn that the ministry does not belong to them. • In light of a variety of cultures, how do you build Christian community on your team? o Praying together is key to developing community; honesty with each other about needs and expectations. o Spend free time together as a team; prayer together and encourage one another. o Incorporate as many shared real-life experiences that are non-work related: go to the beach together, hospitality; learn to love each other’s family. o Worship and pray together – this cuts through a lot of cultural frustration; it’s very unifying to worship the same Savior. Also, being willing to share what you have both tangibly and intangibly. o Say the truth to each other; build relationships with each other; pray with each other; have a sense of mutual brokenness. o As a Greek leadership team, we need to give roles and responsibilities to different nationalities. o We all need to have a larger view of the cross and a compelling view of the kingdom and a deep understanding of grace – this is how we work out our relationships. o As an American on the team in Berlin, I need to figure out what I need to teach, but also what I need to learn. o The community aspect of our team has been neglected due to limited time and a desire to simply emphasize outreach goals; in my opinion, the more you minister together in outreach, that’s how you build Christian community. o We build community by learning from others and not being so rigid in our ideas; have a posture of listening and not always having to say something.

198 o Regular devotions as a team. o We need as a team to start again the 9 AM prayer as a team. o Compassion and finding a platform for the minority. o Prayer weekly as a team. o We need to define Christ and scripture as the center of our ultimate allegiance; all cultures need to be critiqued by scripture. o As a team, we need to talk more about each other’s personal walks; we need more transparency to know each other better. We need to hear each other’s personal stories and how God is working in each other’s lives. o We need a leader who listens well, facilitates discussions about worldview and promotes spiritual practices.

199

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1928 Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and Other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church. Delray Beach, FL: Deus Publications, 2009. Adelman, Clem. "Kurt Lewin and the Origins of Action Research." Educational Action Research, 1993: 7-24. Alexander, Desmond T. . From Paradise to the Promised Land: An Introduction to the Main Themes of the Pentateuch . Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997. Aritz, Jolanta, and Robyn C. Walker. "Cognitive Organization and Identity Maintenance in Multicultural Teams." Journal of Business Communication 47, no. 1 (January 2010): 20-41. Arnold, Eberhard. The Early Christians in their Own Words. Farmington, PA: Plough Publishing, 1997. Augustine, Saint. The Trinity. Edited by O.S.A. John E. Rotelle. Translated by O.P. Edmund Hill. Hyde Park: New City Press, 2010. Baldwin, Joyce G. The Message of Genesis 12-50: From Abraham to Joseph. Leicester: Intervarsity Press, 1986. Balkundi, Prasad, Martin Kilduff, Zoe I. Barsness, and Judd H. Michael. "Demographic Antecedents and Performance Consequences of Structural Holes in Work Teams." Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2007: 241-260. Banks, Robert J. Paul's Idea of Community, Revised Edition. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994. Beaver, R. Pierce. "International, Interdenominational, Interracial Teams." International Review of Mission, 1953: 406-412. Behfar, Kristin, Mary Kern, and Jeanne Brett. Managing Challenges in Multicultural Teams. Research on Managing Groups and Teams, National Culture and Groups, Elsevier, Ltd., 2006, 233-262. Bekele, Girma. "The Biblical Narrative of the Missio Dei: Analysis of the Interpretive Framework of David Bosch's Missional Hermeneutic." International Bulletin of Missionary Research, July 2011: 153-158. Berryman, Philip. "The Christian Community As Pentecost." Continuum, 1968: 31-40. Bevans, Stephen B., and Roger R. Schroeder. Constants in context: A Theology of Mission for Today. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2004. Block, D. I. "Nations." In The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, 492-495. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986. Block, Peter. Community: The Structure of Belonging. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2008. Blough, Neal. From the Tower of Babel to the Peace of Jesus Christ: Christological, Ecclesiological and Missiological Foundations for Peacemaking. December 13, 2001. Bock, Darrell L. Acts. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007. Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Life Together: The Classic Exploration of Christian Community. New York: Harper, 1954.

200

—. Santorum Communio: A Theological Study of the Sociology of the Church. Translated by Joachim von Soosten. Vol. 1. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2006. Bosch, David. Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1991. Boshart, David W. "Revisioning Mission in Postchristendom: Story, Hospitality and New Humanity." The Journal of Applied Christian Leadership, 2010: 16-31. Bowers, W. P. "Mission." In Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, & Daniel G. Reid, 608-619. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1993. Briggs Myers, Isabel, Mary H. McCaulley, Naomi L. Quenk, and Allen J. Hammer. MBTI Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, 3rd Edition. Mountainview: CPP, 2003. Brinkmann, Svend, and Steinar Kvale. Interviews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing. Third Edition. Los Angeles: Sage, 2015. Carleton, George D. . The King's Highway. London: The Church Union, 1959. Childs, Brevard S. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979. Chowdhury, Muhammad Faisol. "Coding, Sorting and Sifting of Qualitative Data Analysis: Debates and Discussion." Qualitative Quantitative , 2015: 1135-1143. Cuartas, Victor Hugo. The Power of Diversity in Global Missions. October 2013. http://www.emqonline.com/emq/Issue-325-2874? (accessed January 2015). de Lacey, D. R. "Gentiles." In Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, & Daniel G. Reid, 335-339. Downers Grove: IVP, 1993. Dean, Marcus W. "Mutuality and Missions: The Western Christian in Global Ministry." Missiology, 2013: 273-285. Deeks, Michele. "Cross-Cultural Team Working Within the Cochrane Collaboration." The Cochrane Collaboration, 2004. Douglas, Mary. Risk and Blame: Essays in Cultural Theory. London and New York: Routledge, 1992. Draper, Jonathan A. "Review of The Church in Antioch in the First Century C.E.: Communion and Conflict by Michelle Slee." Neotestamentica, 2005: 215-218. Dunetz, David. "Good Teams, Bad Teams: Under What Conditions Do Missionary Teams Function Effectively?" Evangelical Missions Quarterly, 2010: 442-449. Flett, John G. "Missio Dei: A Trinitarian Envisioning of a Non-Trinitarian Theme." Missiology: An International Review, 2009: 5-18. —. The Witness of God: The Trinity, Missio Dei, Karl Barth, and the Nature of Christian Community. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. French, Wendell L., and Cecil H. Bell, Jr. Organization Development: Behavioral Science Interventions for Organization Improvement. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1999. Friedman, Thomas L. . The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2005.

201

Fusch, Patricia I., and Lawrence R. Ness. "Are We There Yet? Data Saturation in Qualitative Research." The Qualitative Report, 2015: 1408-1416. Gaines, Timothy R. "Politics, Participation, and the Missio Dei in the Thought of Miroslav Volf and the Wesleyan Tradition." Wesleyan Theological Journal, Spring 2012: 72-89. Gorringe, T.J. Furthering Humanity: A Theology of Culture. Hants: Ashgate, 2004. Goulder, M.D. Type and History in Acts. London: SPCK Publishing, 1964. Grosheide, F. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953. Guder, Darrell. "Missio Dei: Integrating Theological Formation for Apostolic Vocation." Missiology: An International Review, January 2009: 63-74. Gupta, Kavita. A Practical Guide to Needs Assessment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1999. Halverson, Claire B, and S. Aqeel Tirmizi, . Effective Multicultural Teams: Theory and Practice. Springer, 2008. Hanson, Victor Davis. National Review Online. July 12, 2016. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437668/american-society-brink (accessed July 13, 2016). Hardy, Andy, and Dan Yarnell. Forming Multicultural Partnerships: Church Planting in a Divided Society. Instant Apostle, 2015. Henderson, Effenus. "The Universal Case for Diversity, Inclusion and Intercultural Collaboration in Organizational and Societal Change." OD Practitioner, October-December 2008: 18-20. Hendriksen, William. Romans. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980. Hibbert, Evelyn, and Richard Hibbert. Leading Multicultural Teams. Pasadena: William Carey Library, 2014. Hiebert, D. Edmond. "The Unifying Theme of the Epistle of James." Bibliotheca Sacra, 1978: 221-231. Hoedemaker, Bert. "The Legacy of J.C. Hoekendijk." Free Library Online. October 1, 1995. www.thefreelibrary.com/the+legacy+of+J.C.+Hoekendijk.-a017757344 (accessed November 6, 2017). Hofstede, Geert, Gert Jan Hofstede, and Michael Minkov. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. 3rd. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2010. Holmes, Stephen R. The Quest for the Trinity: The Doctrine of God in Scripture, History, and Modernity. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2012. Holmes, Stephen R. "Trinitarian Missiology: Towards a Theology of God as Missionary." International Journal of Systematic Theology, 2006: 72-90. Hoppe, Michael H. "Culture and Leader Effectiveness: The GLOBE Study." InspireImagineInnovate. September 9, 2007. http://www.inspireimagineinnovate.com/PDF/GLOBEsummary-by- Michael-H-Hoppe.pdf (accessed August 22, 2017). Icenogle, Gareth Weldon. Biblical Foundations for Small Group Ministry: An Integrational Approach. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Connect, 1994. Johnson, Robin Denise, Ph.D. Multicultural Teams. Robin Denise Johnson, 2013.

202

Jones, Larry. "The Problem of Power in Ministry Relationships." emqonline.com. October 2009. www.emqonline/emq/issue-309/2341? (accessed November 8, 2014). Kaiser, Jr., Walter C. Mission in the Old Testament: Israel as a Light to the Nations. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000. Katzenbach, Jon R. , and Douglas K. Smith. The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High Performance Organization. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1993. Katzenbach, Jon R., and Douglas K. Smith. "The Discipline of Teams." In Harvard Business Review: Teams That Succeed, 1-26. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation, 2004. Kee, Howard Clark. Who Are the People of God? Early Christian Models of Community. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995. Kelly, Joseph F. The World of the Early Christians. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1997. Kidner, Derek. Genesis. Leicester: Intervarsity Press, 1967. Kim, Hansung. "Rereading Acts 6:1-7: Lessons for Multicultural Mission Organizations." www.emqonline.com. January 2009. www.emqonline.com/emq/issue-306/2213? (accessed September 26, 2014). Kirk, J. Andrew. The Church and the World: Understanding the Relevance of Mission. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2014. —. What is Mission?: Theological Explorations. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000. Kistemaker, Simon J. James and I-III John. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986. Konieczny, Richard J., and Enoch Wan. An Old Testament Theology of Multiculturalism. July 2004. http://www.enochwan.com/english/articles/pdf/An%20Old%20Testament%20Theology%20 of%20Multiculturalism.pdf (accessed April 27, 2016). Kreitzer, L. J. "Kingdom of God/Christ." In Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, & Daniel G. Reid, 524-526. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1993. Lectionary.org. 2015. http://www.lectionary.org/EXEG_Engl_WEB/NT/04-John-WEB/John%2012.20- 33.htm (accessed October 2, 2015). Lederach, John Paul. The Journey Toward Reconciliation. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1999. Lederleitner, Mary T. Cross-Cultural Partnerships: Navigating the Complexities of Money and Mission. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2010. Lewin, Kurt. "Frontiers in Group Dynamics." Human Relations, 1947: 143-153. Lincoln, Charles Fred. "The Message of the Epistle of James." Bibliotheca Sacra, 1937: 479-489. Lingenfelter, Sherwood G. Leading Cross-culturally: Covenant Relationships for Effective Christian Leadership. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008. Lingenfelter, Sherwood G. Ministering Cross-Culturally: An Incarnational Model for Personal Relationships. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986. Livermore, David A. Cultural Intelligence: Improving Your CQ to Engage Our Multicultural World. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009.

203

Longenecker, Richard N., ed. Community Formation in the Early Church and the Church Today. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002. Lustig, Myron W. Intercultural Competence: Interpersonal Communication Across Cultures. 4th Edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2003. MacDonald, Margaret Y. "Children in House Churches in Light of New Research on Families in the Roman World." In The World of Jesus and the Early Church, edited by Craig A. Evans, 69-85. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2011. Machen, J. Gresham. "Karl Barth and the Theology of Crisis." Westminster Theological Journal, 1991: 197-207. McDonald, Lee Martin. "Introduction to First Corinthians." In The Bible Knowledge Background Commentary: Acts - Philemon, edited by Craig A. Evans. Colorado Springs: Victor, 2004. Meyer, Erin. Managing Confrontation in Multicultural Teams. April 2012. blogs.hbr.org/cs/2012/04 (accessed January 30, 2015). Milavec, Aaron. The Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. New York: Newman Press, 2003. "Mission." Oxford Dictionary. Oxford University Press. 2016. http://oxforddictionaries.com (accessed September 7, 2016). Modern Reformation. "Who Should the Church Look Like?" May-June 2015: 44-49. Molinsky, Andy. Leveling the Playing Field on Cross-Cultural Teams. April 11, 2012. blogs.hbr.org/cs2012/04 (accessed December 4, 2014). Molnar, Paul D. "A Response: Beyond Hegel with Karl Barth and T.F. Torrance." Pro Ecclesia, 2014: 165-173. Morris, Leon. 1 Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983. —. The Gospel According to Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992. "Multiculturalism." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. September 24, 2010. Murphy, Edward F. "The Missionary Society as an Apostolic Team." Missiology, 1976: 103-118. Nelson, Scott. Community: Living as the People of God. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2013. Nickoloff, James B., ed. Gustavo Gutierrez: Essential Writings. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996. Okoye, James Chukwuma. Israel and the Nations: A Mission Theology of the Old Testament. Maryknoll: Orbis, 2006. Ott, Craig, and Gene Wilson. Global Church Planting: Biblical Principles and Best Practices for Multiplication. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011. Painter, John. "James as the First Catholic Epistle." Interpretation, 2006: 245-259. Plantega, Erik. "The Trust Factor in Multicultural Teams." emqonline.com. January 2014. www.emqonline.com/emq/Issue-326/2918? (accessed November 8, 2014). Plueddemann, James E. "Diversity and Leadership: The Challenge of Leadership in Multicultural Missions." emqonline.com. January 2011. www.emqonline.com/emq/issue-314/2503? (accessed November 8, 2014).

204

—. Leading Across Cultures: Effective Ministry and Mission in the Global Church. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009. Polhill, John B. Acts. Nashville: B&H Publishing, 1992. Prior, David. The Message of 1 Corinthians. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1985. Rah, Soong-Chan. Many Colors: Cultural Intelligence for a Changing Church. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2010. Reed, MistiDawn. "Cal State Los Angeles Offering 'Segregated' Housing." KUTV.com. September 8, 2016. http://kutv.com/news/nation-world/cal-state-los-angeles-offering-segregated- housing (accessed September 8, 2016). Richebacher, Wilhelm. "Missio Dei: The Basis of Mission Theology or a Wrong Path?" International Review of Mission, 2003: 588-605. Rod, Anne. "Working with Intercultural Teams to Optimize Performance." OD Practitioner, January- March 2012: 28-33. Roembke, Lianne. Building Credible Multicultural Teams. Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 2000. Roulston, Kathryn, Kathleen deMarrais, and James B. Lewis. "Learning to Interview in the Social Sciences." Qualitative Inquiry, 2003: 643-668. Samovar, Larry A., and Richard E. Porter. Communication Between Cultures. 4th Edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 2001. Samuels, Neil D. "Diversity, Inclusion, and the Ladder of Influence." OD Practitioner, April-June 2003: 3-30. Sargeant, Joan. "Qualitative Research Part 2: Participants, Analysis, and Quality Assurance." Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 2012: 1-3. Schatt, Russell K. Investigating the Social World. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2014. Schein, Edgar H. . Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2010. Schippers, Michaela C., Deanne N. Den Hartog, Paul L. Koopman, and Janique A. Wienk. "Diversity and Team Outcomes: The Moderating Effect of Outcome Interdependence and Group Longevity and the Mediating Effect of Reflexivity." Journal of Organizational Behavior 24, no. 6 (September 2003): 779-802. Schuster, Jurgen. "Karl Hartenstein: Mission with a Focus on the End." Mission Studies, 2002: 53-81. Schuster, Jurgen. "Karl Hartenstein: Mission with a Focus on the End." Mission Studies XIX, no. 1 (2002): 65. Schutt, Russell K. Investigating the Social World. Los Angeles: Sage, 2015. Schwartz, Christian. The 3 Colors of Community. 1st Edition. Churchsmart Resources, 2012. Schwarz, Gerold. "The Legacy of Karl Hartenstein." International Bulletin of Missionary Research, 1984: 125-131. Seale, C. The Quality of Qualitative Research. London: SAGE, 1999. Seccombe, David. "The New People of God." In Witness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts, edited by I. Howard Marshall, & David Peterson, 349-372. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.

205

Sensing, Tim. Qualitative Research: A Multi-Methods Approach to Projects for Doctor of Ministry Theses. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2011. Shokef, Efrat; Erez, Miriam;. "Global Work Culture and Global Identity as a Platform for a Shared Understanding of Multicultural Teams." Faculty of Industrial Engineering and Management, Technion - Israel Institute of Techology, Haifa, 2006. Silberman, Mel. Active Training: A Handbook of Techniques, Designs, Case Examples and Tips. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998. Silzer, Sheryl Takagi. Biblical Multicultural Teams: Applying Biblical Truth to Cultural Differences. Pasadena: William Carey International University Press, 2011. Smith, Rich, and Kittie W. Watson. "The A.R.T. of Diversity." OD Practitioner, 2009: 25-30. Sofield, Loughlan, Rosine Hammett, and Carroll Juliano. Building Community: Christian, Caring, Vital. Notre Dame, IN: Ave Maria Press, 1998. St. Pierre, Elizabeth A., and Alecia Y. Jackson. "Qualitative Data Analysis After Coding." Qualitative Inquiry, 2014: 715-719. Stahl, Gunter K., Martha L. Maznevski, Andreas Voigt, and Karsten Jonsen. "Unraveling the Effects of Cultural Diversity in Teams: A Meta-analysis of Research on Multicultural Work Groups." Journal of International Business Studies 41, no. 4 (May 2010): 690-709. Stetzer, Ed. "Multi-cultural Teams in Church Planting." Evangelical Missions Quarterly, October 2003: 498-505. "Strategies for Qualitative Interviews." n.d. http://sociology.fas.harvard.edu/files/sociology/files/interview_strategies.pdf (accessed April 21, 2017). Strauss, Stephen J. "The Significance of Acts 11:26 for the Church at Antioch and Today." Bibliotheca Sacra, Jully-September 2011: 283-300. Stryker, Sheldon, and Peter J. Burke. "The Past, Present, and Future of Identity Theory." Social Psychology 63, no. 4 (December 2000): 284-297. Stuart, Douglas. Word Biblical Commentary: Hosea-Jonah. Edited by David A. Hubbard, & Glenn W. Barker. Vol. 31. Waco, TX: Word, 1987. Takagi Silzer, Sheryl. Building Multicultural Teams: Applying Biblical Truth to Cultural Differences. Pasadena, CA: Willilam Carey International University Press, 2011. Taylor, Nicholas H. "Caligula, the Church of Antioch and the Gentile Mission." Religion and Theology, 2000: 1-23. Tennent, Timothy C. Invitation to World Missions: A Trinitarian Missiology for the the Twenty-first Century. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2010. The Didache. Kindle Electronic Edition, 2009. Thompson, Richard P. "Keeping the Church in its Place: Revisiting the Churches in Acts." Wesleyan Theological Journal, 2006: 96-115. Toryough, G N, and Samuel O Okanlawon. "The Blessing of Abraham: Seeking an Interpretive Link Between Genesis 12:1-3 and Galatians 3:13-16." Ilorin Journal of Religious Studies 4, no. 1 (2014): 123-136.

206

Tuckman, Bruce. "Developmental Sequence in Small Groups." Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal, 2001: 70-71. Turner, David L. "Whom Does God Approve? The Context, Structure, Purpose, and Exegesis of Matthew's Beatitudes." Criswell Theological Review, 1992: 29-42. Turner, Terence. "Anthropology and Multiculturalism: What is Anthropology That Multiculturalists Should be Mindful of?" Cultural Anthropology 8, no. 4 (November 1993): 411-429. Velloso Ewell, C. Rosalee. "Missio Dei: The Theological Roots of Evangelism." International Review of Mission, November 2012: 385-387. Velloso Ewell, C. Rosalee. "Participating in God's Mission: Learning to Shine Like Stars." Evangelical Missions, October 2014: 405-407. Volf, Miroslav. After Our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Von Rad, Gerhard. Genesis. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1972. Waltke, Bruce K. Genesis: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001. Wenham, Gordon J. Word Biblical Commentary: Genesis 1-15. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987. Wheaton, Byron. "Focus and Structure in the Abraham Narratives." Trinity Journal, 2006: 143-162. Wheelan, Susan A. Group Processes: A Developmental Perspective. Boston: Pearson, 2004. Willimon, William H. Acts. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2010. Wright, Christopher J.H. The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible's Grand Narrative. Downers Grove: IVP, 2013. Wright, N.T. Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church. New York: HarperOne, 2008. Yamauchi, Edwin. "The Scythians—Who Were They? And Why Did Paul Include Them in Colossians 3:11?" Priscilla Papers: The Academic Journal of CBE International, 2007. Yong Joong, David Greenlee. "Avoiding Pitfalls on Multicultural Mission Teams." International Journal of Frontier Missions, 1995: 179-183. Zizioulas, John D. The One and the Many: Studies on God, Man, the Church, and the World Today. Alhambra, CA: Sebastian Press, 2010.

207