Welcome to this week’s blog; especially if you have the privilege and challenge of either leading a church, or preparing to lead one. I hope you find this blog useful; even forwarding it to others and encouraging them to subscribe.
Becoming a ‘Culturally Intelligent’ Minister
Introduction – Some Background
Christian responses to ‘race’ cover two broad areas, separable but closely related: on the one hand theological/ethical issues, and on the other pastoral/evangelistic issues. In turn these emphases relate to the two broad areas that gather under the umbrella term ‘race’: that is, race as a question of socio-economic and political difference, and race as cultural difference; characterised by the black American conservative sociologist Thomas Sowell as ‘external’ and ‘internal’ influences. The distinction of course is not hard and fast; in the church’s present context particularly, it is worth emphasising that neglecting a people’s ‘internal’ culture is a form of ‘external’ power abuse.
Over the past sixty years the focus has swung between the two emphases. Early discussions of race centred on the cultural, and questions raised by the integration of the new immigrant cultures into the established culture(s) of indigenous British people. By the 70s, under the impact of Marxist analysis, emphasis shifted to race as social construct and the racist exploitation and oppression of migrant communities. Awareness of the diversifying trajectories of the different ethnic minority groups in Britain by the 1990s led to a renewed emphasis on culture as a salient component behind very different outcomes. But the strong influence of radical or left-wing views in academic circles has kept the economic and political view to the fore, which has meant that in the heightened attention to race following the murder of George Floyd and the internationalisation of the Black Lives Matter movement it is this understanding of ‘race’ that has dominated discussion, at times to the virtual exclusion of considering the role of cultural differences at all in our understanding of race.
An example of the outworking of the different emphases in highlighted by the contested Sewell Report’s rejection of the BAME acronym (and its remarkably sudden re-emergence with the identical but clumsier UKME/GMH acronym - ‘a thorn by any other name’ to borrow a felicitous phrase) because both terms focus on the across-the-board ‘external’ impact of racism on ethnic minorities, and obscure the clear evidence that specific ‘internal’ cultural differences lead to substantial differences in outcome for Britain’s different ethnic minorities.
In this blog I seek to cover both the pastoral/evangelistic and the theological/ethical areas, though the turbulence of the past year, and the flurry of programmes and documents that reflect it, have meant a strong emphasis on the latter. However, part of my background thinking in these blogs is that it is the church’s failure to give serious attention to training and practice for pastoral on-the-ground engagement with a racially diverse society that has enfeebled our capacity to be able to go on to write and speak with well rooted authority on issues of racism and racial justice.
All of which is a roundabout introduction to this week’s blog being on an area of pastoral practice, specifically on the potential of ‘Cultural Intelligence’for the church’s ministry. The term has developed to identify the sort of attitudes and skills needed to work effectively in cross-cultural situations. Whilst it has been applied particularly to business, government and academic activities, it is significant that one of the leading theorists and writers, David Livermore, first developed his understanding whilst teaching in a seminary. One of his earliest writings was an article on ‘The Fifteen Year Old Missionary’, where he courageously revisits a diary he wrote when he went on his church youth group’s mission trip to Latin America, highlighting his naivety and unquestioned sense of cultural superiority. The realisation that such young people often ‘fled from social Others (eg Latino class-mates) at home and simultaneously exoticised those living in distant lands’ was part of the process that led him to conceptualise how people might develop authentic cross-cultural competence.
In Britain the most serious treatment so far is by ‘The Culturally Intelligent Leader’ by Hirpo Kumbi (Instant Apostle 2017), an Ethiopian background church planter with the Fellowship of Churches of Christ.
Livermore and others identify four capabilities of Cultural Intelligence (CI, or sometimes CQ – Cultural Quotient) as presented on Wikipedia, and featured in Livermore’s book of that name, from which unidentified quotations below are taken:
1. Drive
Here they identify such factors as ‘intrinsic interest’, that is the zest, passion and desire to relate cross-culturally, which in Christian ministry means the centrality of love, and the consequent valuing of all people of every background. A section in Kumbi’s book is appropriately headed ‘Passion’. Allied to this is extrinsic interest– the benefits that come from culturally diverse experiences; in clergy terms that it means your congregation is likely to grow. The consequence is self-efficacy - that is a growing confidence and ease in culturally diverse situations, such that CI is ‘not only effective but invigorating and fulfilling’ (p 21).
A major question for the Church of England is how it can generate this ‘Drive’ in ordinands and clergy, but also in young lay people, so that there is a growing cohort who love and relish the vision of cross-cultural ministry. At present my impression is that it is becoming harder to find suitably motivated clergy to minister cross-culturally. Structural problems here may be the declining number of curacy opportunities in multi-ethnic areas, and also the increasing age of ordinands, who are less flexible in transitioning to culturally different communities. Meanwhile it can be the case that clergy behaviour that is understood as racist stems partly from a lack of ‘cultural agility’ in relating to those who are different. It would be worth analysing the recent Panorama programme in these terms.
2. Knowledge
Identified as ‘a person’s knowledge about how cultures are similar and how cultures are different’; that is, in the context of ministry it requires considerable background knowledge, acquired by both consciously seeking it in ‘homework’ through the internet, books and other means, but especially gleaned through everyday interaction and conversation. (Wikipedia lists this as business).Beyond the factual is the interpersonal – the ‘values, social interaction norms and religious beliefs’; that is the deeper characteristics of a culture which at first sight may seem confusing and over which it is easy to trip. Socio-linguisticsrefers to nuances of verbal expression and non-verbal behaviour (such as, what sort of physical contact is appropriate).
Hirpo Kumbi rightly comments: “Overall, emotional intelligence in cross-cultural communication is not intuitive for most people. If we have not spent time around people of other cultures, then we simply may not have developed the capacity and sensitivity to have empathy with them, to see things from their perspective”.
In this context it is significant that in the earliest book on cross-cultural ministry in England, Clifford Hill’s 1963 book ‘West Indian migrants and the London Churches’, he suggests that it is clergy’s lack of familiarity and understanding of the culture of West Indian migrants that has contributed to the serious lack of impact by the traditional churches, rather than overt racism (despite the widespread anecdotal references to racist responses by clergy!)
3. Strategy
Knowledge leads to awareness,which then proceeds to planning,that is recognising the need to re-orientate oneself to ministering across cultural diversity. How might one’s approach to a request for the baptism of a child be altered by the family coming from a different cultural background? One of Livermore’s concepts that I find helpful is the need ‘to switch off cruise-control’: responses and behaviour that are virtually unconscious or automatic in our own culture, need to be replaced by a conscious, thoughtful reappraisal when relating to the different norms, values and behaviour patterns held by people of a different culture. The substance of our preaching or mid-week material needs to be consistently scrutinised for how much it is shaped by our interaction with cultures that are very different from our own background.
A further aspect is‘checkingassumptions and adjusting mental maps when actual experiences differ from expectations’. Livermore writes ‘Be aware of an over-reliance on cultural stereotypes. They are a good firstguess. But . . . too quickly generalising cultural values to every individual or orgamisation is dangerous’ (p 152). We are all always learning, make mistakes and get things wrong. Just as the power of the wind means that a rifle can’t be aimed directly at the target, but some estimation needs to be made of how far the firer needs to compensate for wind deflection, so living in a multi-ethnic society means developing a sense in every encounter of how much or how little we need to adjust for cultural difference. In a diverse and rapidly changing society we need to learn to readjust. As Livermore writes ‘some of the greatest lessons to be learned happen in our cultural faux pas’ (p 158). At times white people can be too inhibited from taking initiatives out of fear of making mistakes and being convicted of racism.
4. Action
Defined as ‘a person’s capability to adapt verbal and nonverbal behaviour to make it appropriate to diverse cultures. It involves having a flexible repertoire of behavioural responses that suit a variety of situations, for example understanding the role of such matters as compliments, speaking indirectly, eye contact. What Livermore calls ‘paying attention to the appropriate cues’ (p 156). The variety of ethnic groups in many multi-cultural communities is such that we can not ‘master all the norms of the various cultures encountered’ (p 14).
It would be misleading to see Cultural Intelligence as mere technique – another means to exercising power. Livermore rightly emphasises that the purpose is always relational, and that power imbalance and manipulation can undermine a respectful, humane interaction. Writing primarily for a business context he urges; “Challenge your team to embrace a transcendent motivation for treating people with dignity and respect and for making the world a better place’ (p 185). In his more ‘Christian’ book, ‘Improving your CQ to Engage our Multi-Cultural World’ (Baker, 2009) he argues for ‘an approach to cross-cultural interaction that stems from inward transformation rather than from information or, worse still, artificial political correctness. . . We must actually become more multi-cultural people so that we might better express love cross-culturally’ (p 12).
Some David Livermore Quotations to Consider
* ‘educational level is also positively related to cultural intelligence. . . . University level and postgraduate education in particular, nurture an ability to critically engage with more complex ways of seeing the world’ (p171). Is this so? What does it say about the cross-cultural leaders we need?
* ‘ignoring the impact of ethnocentrism on how we lead is the single greatest obstacle to CQ knowledge’ (p 64). In what ways is my leadership style ethnocentric?
* ‘the sarcastic humour that seems to enhance informality and collegiality in one organizational culture might erode that trust in another’ (p 121). So beware!
* ‘CQ strategy includes accepting confusion and maintaining a willingness to not know something’ (p 127). Can you make a list of what’s confusing you at present?
* ‘What kind of perceptions do other individuals have given our cultural background or previous experiences? How will we need to compensate for those perceptions?’ (p152). Do I have trusted friends of other cultures who can help me here?
* ‘With experience and growing levels of cultural intelligence, some of our adaptive behaviour may become so well learned that we will adapt naturally without much conscious thought. That’s the goal. . . Getting there might be as simple as trial and error’ (p 156). Am I growing through my errors?
A similar model to the above
is offered by Carver Anderson’s lecture ‘Youth Culture: Friend or Foe?’ in ‘Challenges of Black Pentecostal Leadership in the 21stCentury (ed Phyllis Thompson, p 119); using a draft by the National Centre for Cultural Competence, which speaks of the need for organisations to:
* value diversity
* conduct self-assessment [particularly to scrutinise for racism]
* manage the dynamics of difference [at times diversity needs emphasising; at other times unity]
* acquire and institutionalize cultural knowledge [note the C of E has NO mechanism for doing this]
* adapt to the diversity and cultural contexts of the individuals and communities served [ie need for fine tuning for the very various cross-cultural contexts in this country].
***************************
Add-On
We are the natives now.
The three-day battle by football fans (plus Boris Johnson) to fight the proposal of twelve of Europe’s elite football teams to form an exclusive super-league may have been successful, but as many commentators have observed, the war is probably not over. And its full significance needs to be recognised
The similarity between Manchester United football fans invasion of Old Trafford on 2ndMay and Donald Trump’s supporters invading the Capital on January 6thwas not just visual. Unwelcome as the comparison maybe, they were both nativist, populist protests against what is seen as a globalist, international juggernaut bent on eliminating local pride and significance.
One aggrieved Spurs supporter has commented ‘I’d rather Spurs-Bolton in the pouring rain over Spurs-Barcelona every week. That’s what football’s about’. I agree. I too am an Old Believer, loyal to the heroic legends about playing at Middlesbrough on a freezing Tuesday evening in February. But maybe, to use a much misused phrase, we are on the wrong side of history. The president of Real Madrid - who stuck to his post when all the American investors saw how the battle was turning, and fled - argued that young people (plus the burgeoning East Asian market) may be losing interest. What they want, American style, is continuous, exciting, high intensity entertainment – Juventus v Man City, not West Brom v Burnley.
So are the Spurs supporter and I like characters in a Chinua Achebe novel? The ground is inexorably slipping beneath our feet, our loved and familiar old culture disappearing. Despite occasional setbacks and violent protests, the imperial reach of American and international capital is changing our world; and changing football to a transatlantic model with owners having untrammelled power to reshape the game to maximise profits. Instead of traditional loyalties, and with success being limited largely to teams in just Manchester, London and Liverpool, why should they not therefore redistribute the franchises: North London justifies only one team, so move Arsenal to Bristol. And where the hell is Everton anyway?
At least we too now have a little taste of what colonisation feels like.