The Multicultural Leader

The Inclusive Nonprofit Boardroom: Leveraging the Transformative Potential of Diversity

The Inclusive Nonprofit Boardroom: Leveraging the Transformative Potential of Diversity.

Transitioning to a multicultural congregation

Thanks to Missio Dei, the online journal of Tyndale Seminary in Toronto for publishing an article I wrote on the process of transitioning to a multicultural congregation.

In the 1980s a new church was ini­ti­ated in the north-​​west Greater Toronto Area. It was devel­oped as an essen­tially white, Anglo-​​European back­ground con­gre­ga­tion. Early on, how­ever, peo­ple from other cul­tural back­grounds began to attend largely because of a per­ceived com­mon denom­i­na­tional her­itage. In the mid-​​90s the con­gre­ga­tion went through a lead­er­ship hem­or­rhage that left the group with a largely Caribbean-​​background mem­ber­ship. For almost a decade they have been led by an Anglo-​​European back­ground pas­tor with a degree of inter­cul­tural sen­si­tiv­ity. Now their con­gre­ga­tion is at a cross­roads and the pas­tor is won­der­ing how to engage his lead­er­ship team in a dia­logue about becom­ing an inten­tion­ally mul­ti­cul­tural com­mu­nity. One leader spelled it out: “we are multi-​​ethnic in com­po­si­tion, but it’s really only one cul­ture group that influ­ences the decision-​​making.”

look here for the rest of the article

the future of Hamilton will not look more and more like me

Here are some opening thoughts from an article published in Urbanicity this month

I’m a white male, in my early fifties, living in downtown Hamilton, born and raised in Ontario with roots going back more than two centuries in Canada. But the Canada I live in will continue to become increasingly diverse, and noticeably so.

From 2001 to 2006, more than 4000 immigrants settled in Hamilton each year. One half of those newcomers to Hamilton were born in Asia or the Middle East. Only 23% were born in Europe. This pattern is true across Canada, particularly in urban areas.

This means that the complexion of “Hamiltonians” over the next decades will continue to change. And the values and worldviews of new Canadians will gradually cause changes and adjustments to what it means to be “a Canadian.”

My first “Canadian” ancestors migrated to Canada from the United States as ‘loyalists’ to the British monarch at the time of the Revolutionary War (1780s). That means they were fleeing as political refugees. The next grouping of ancestors arrived in Vaughan (“Pennsylvania Dutch” 1792) as religious and political refugees, originally from Switzerland, then from the United States.

My Irish ancestors arrived in eastern Ontario in the 1820s as part of the fallout from the Irish Rebellion of 1798, some having only been recently released from prison. Scottish settlers (1830s) seeking the promise of a more prosperous life in Lanark County arrived only to be disappointed with the story they had been sold by immigration recruiters.

Each of those sets of ancestors brought values and worldviews that have shaped Canadian society. The monarchist United Empire Loyalists, the pacifist Anabaptists who were fined for refusing to contribute to the war effort in 1812, the fighting Irish calling for representative government, and the stern Presbyterian farmers from Scotland who eked out a living on the edge of the Canadian Shield.

What can be said of how Italian, Portuguese, Dutch, Ukrainian and Hungarian values and worldviews have shaped Hamilton over the last half century or more of immigration?

What will be said of how the values and worldviews of Indians, Sri Lankans, Iranians, Assyrians, Rwandans, Congolese, Chinese, Philipinos and Vietnamese will shape the Hamilton that my children and grandchildren will live in?

For the rest of the article look here... (p.4)

on 'trusting our guts'

David Livermore has another good article about "trusting our guts." He says when it comes to cross/inter-cultural settings -- don't!!

I find this often with pastors who work in culturally-diverse congregations; there is a tendency to trust their gut, their intuition. The problem is our intuition is the sum total of our experience and reflection on that experience. If we have limited experience of real engagement between cultures, or limited reflection on that experience -- we will be making assumptions about common ground that just aren't there. "Working across cultures does not accord with our intuition. People with cultural intelligence deliberately test their intuitions."

another myth he addresses is regarding 'return on investment' (ROI) for the development of intercultural competence -- it's a soft skill with limited value for the bottom line!

I find very few pastors who lead culturally-diverse congregations are willing to invest in developing their intercultural skills.  Church-growth, yes! Small groups, yes! Management by objective, yes! Willow Creek, yes! John Maxwell, yes! Learn how to work on the cultural challenges of leading a diverse congregation -- what do you mean? That won't pay our bills. The development of intercultural skills affirms giftings, values and worldviews that contribute to a diverse congregation being all that God intends. Just as we invest in discerning spiritual gifts (time, training, inventories, materials, releasing), we should give the same energy to releasing the 'identity gifts' that God has blessed a culturally-diverse congregation with.

a third issue Livermore raises is that people overestimate their skill because they have cross/inter-cultural experience. "I did a short-term assignment." "I was raised in multicultural Toronto." "I grew up in an immigrant family." I have met long-time cross-cultural workers with very limited cultural intelligence.

The development of cultural intelligence is related to 1) the depth of our self-awareness regarding differences between our own culture and others; 2) the extent to which we have gained both general knowledge about how cultures functions, as well as knowledge regarding specific cultures; 3) the extent of our personal willingness or motivation to engage with cultural difference; 4) the extent to which I am willing to adjust and adapt my attitudes and behaviours so that others are at ease. 

Anyone can develop these capacities, but they do require development, they are not natural.

culture shapes wiring of our brains

interesting post on David Livermore's blog, about how are brains are wired by our cultural conditioning.

new research conclusions:

1. Culture shapes our neurological wiring but it’s not permanent
2. Cross-cultural experiences can change neurological activations

 

Churches, Cultures and Leadership

Churches, Cultures and Leadership

new book out, haven't read it yet, but think it's going end up on my 'best reads' list...

by Juan Martinez and Mark Lau Branson, both profs at Fuller.

 

Diversity is inefficient

interesting perspective here...

written from an American perspective but raising some key thoughts.

"At least, it is inefficient in the short run. In the long run, to repeat myself, we are not going to win anything anymore if we can’t build racially inclusive coalitions and organizations. That said, here are just a couple ways that diversity takes time and energy:

1. The people who are already in our network tend to have a lot in common with us. Diversity requires us to go further out of our own networks to find new partners for our work or new hires for our organization and that takes time. It definitely takes more time than hiring and working with people we already know.
2. Once we have identified a diverse set of folks to work with, it takes more time and energy to work with them than it does to work with people who are more like us. We are likely to have different communication styles, knowledge bases and points of reference. These points of difference are actually an incredible strength, but in day to day practice they dramatically multiply the potential for miscommunication and misunderstandings. Truth.

And then there is this – it turns out that diversity is not just inefficient, it is insufficient. Getting a diverse set of bodies into a room is not enough. We also have to find a way to hear out all the voices we’ve put in our pretty room and make them count for something. Inclusion = diversity + engagement. That is a time consuming equation.

The thing is, we shouldn’t bother with diversity unless we plan to make the time to be inclusive. Because diversity without inclusion backfires. Almost always. Over and over again I’ve seen people with the best intentions of building racial bridges horrified to see chasms of racial mistrust forming instead. This is usually because they expected diversity alone to get the work done.

Building bridges takes time and focused effort. We have to be ready and willing to give everyone’s voice equal weight, and share power across new alliances. Chasms, unfortunately, seem to form naturally."

Beyond the Welcome -2

Had a chance to attend the Toronto version of the World Vision event,  mentioned in a previous post. Disappointment would have to be the word... I was expecting to go into the actual research data and findings. I kind of think that's what most people in the room were there for too -- some frustration was expressed. [I had brought a group of about 12 leaders from our national movement, specifically hoping to get into the content of the research]

Instead we had a nice introduction to the fact that churches need to engage more with new immigrants... I guess I was thinking that most of the people who would show up for an event like this would, in fact, be people who are already engaged and want more depth of content and reflection to help us with our ongoing work.

I always seem to get suckered into these kinds of things, offered/advertized as an all-encompassing national strategy, by some national org... then I'm always reminded of my basic modus operandi -- small is better, work with those want to be worked with, 'comprehensive' means nobody really deals with on-the-ground stuff; don't be a joiner; do your own thing, in your own place, in your own sphere of influence... see where it leads.

Thankfully the full research document, findings and suggestions (51 pages) are included on the CD takeaway from the event.  Here is the table of contents from the research report.

1. Introduction

1.1 Study Partners
1.2 Study Purpose and Main Research Questions
1.3 Research Approach
1.4 Study Scope and Sites
1.5 Research Methods and Analysis
1.6 How the Report is Organized
2. Why This Research Study
3. How Recent Immigrants Experience Church
3.1 Church Experience Depends on the Context
3.2 Church Experience and a Limited Sense of Belonging
4. How Churches are Responding to Recent Immigrants
4.1 A Positive Trend: A Growing Response
4.2 A Trend Lacking Depth: Limitations in the Response
4.3 What is Hindering the Response of Canadian Churches?
5. Suggestions for Improving How churches Respond
5.1 Promote a Vision for Change
5.2 Create Structures That Support Change
5.3 Develop Processes that Encourage Change
Appendices ....

UReach Toronto is online

UReach Toronto is a unique portal of information -- a resource centre for multicultural ministry in the GTA; with research about communities across the region, interactive maps, news about events and training opportunities. A good place to ask questions or get answers.

Beyond the Welcome

Looking forward to the final report and toolkit from the research conducted by Centre for Community Based Research and Tyndale Intercultural Centre (TIM) and coordinated/funded by World Vision.

Beyond the Welcome: How Canadian Churches are Responding to Canada’s Immigrant Reality

forums across Canada this spring to feedback the research can be found here (scroll down to 2nd event). Bill van Geest is the presenter.