Copyright holder: Tyndale University, 3377 Bayview Ave., Toronto, Ontario, Canada M2M 3S4 Att.: Library Director, J. William Horsey Library Copyright: This Work has been made available by the authority of the copyright owner solely for the purpose of private study and research and may not be copied or reproduced except as permitted by the copyright laws of Canada without the written authority from the copyright owner. Copyright license: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License Citation: Cousins, Robert. "Developing Competencies for the Intercultural Journey: Designing, Facilitating, and Evaluating a Program to Develop Intercultural Competencies for Culturally Diverse Missional Leaders in a Multicultural Urban Context." D. Min., Tyndale University College & Seminary, 2014. ***** Begin Content ****** Tyndale University College and Seminary Developing Competencies for the Intercultural Journey: Designing, Facilitating, and Evaluating a Program to Develop Intercultural Competencies for Culturally Diverse Missional Leaders in a Multicultural Urban Context A Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Ministry Tyndale Seminary by Robert Cousins Toronto, Canada February 2014 Tyndale University College and Seminary Thesis Approval The academic requirements for this Doctor of Ministry thesis have been satisfactorily completed. Approval Date: February 18, 2014 Student’s Name: Robert Cousins First Reader: Floyd Grunau, DMin Project-Thesis Advisor Second Reader: Mark Chapman, PhD Assistant Professor of Research Methods; DMin Project-Thesis Coordinator Third Reader: Paul Bramer, PhD Professor of Christian Formation and Leadership; DMin Director Copyright © 2014 by Robert Cousins All rights reserved iii DECLARATION AND DISCLAIMER Tyndale Seminary, Toronto, Canada Statement 1 This work has not previously been accepted in substance for any degree and is not being concurrently submitted in candidature for any degree. (Signed)______________________________________________(candidate) (Date)________________________________________________ Statement 2 This thesis is the result of my own independent work/ investigation, except where otherwise stated. Other sources are acknowledged with explicit references. (Signed)______________________________________________(candidate) (Date)________________________________________________ Statement 3 The views expressed in this thesis are my own and do not necessarily express the views of the thesis readers or Tyndale Seminary. (Signed)______________________________________________(candidate) (Date)________________________________________________ iv TYNDALE • UNIVERSITY COLLEGE & SEMINARY • LIBRARY RELEASE FORM FOR THESES DATE: February 18,2014 CANDIDATE’S NAME: Robert Cousins THESIS TITLE: Developing Competencies for the Intercultural Journey: Designing, Facilitating, and Evaluating a Program to Develop Intercultural Competencies for Culturally Diverse Missional Leaders in a Multicultural Urban Context. DEGREE GRANTED: DMin YEAR DEGREE GRANTED: 2014 Permission is hereby granted to the Tyndale University College & Seminary Library to reproduce single copies of this work and to lend or sell such copies for private, scholarly, or research purposes only. A digital copy may also be made by the Library for preservation, and/or lending purposes. The author reserves all other publication and other rights in association with the copyright of this work, and except as hereinbefore provided, neither this work nor any substantial portion thereof may be printed or otherwise reproduced in any material form whatever without the author’s prior written permission. Candidate’s signature Date Tyndale University College and Seminary 25 Ballyconnor Court, Toronto, ON Canada M2M 4B3 v ABSTRACT The urban landscape of Toronto is radically changing. People from around the world with different customs, values, and beliefs are now living in close proximity to each other. To effectively engage in ministry in such a multicultural context will require leaders to intentionally develop competencies for their intercultural journey. This research project examined how ten three-hour sessions of training delivered over a 16-week period impacted the intercultural competency of eighteen Christian leaders from diverse cultural backgrounds. Three conceptual models that were foundational in designing this training: Bennett’s “Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity” (Bennett 1998), Deardorffs “Process Model of Intercultural Competence” (Deardorff 2006), and Berry’s “Model of Acculturation” (Berry 2005). This action research project utilized a mixed method research approach. The primary quantitative data regarding the participant’s intercultural development was gathered using the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) as a pre-post assessment instrument. Qualitative data was collected through personal interviews, focus groups, facilitators’, observations, and mid-term and final evaluations. Both the IDI assessment and participant feedback suggested a significant development of intercultural competency of the members of the study group, indicating that a training intervention such as this could increase a leader’s motivation, cultural self-awareness, knowledge and skills enabling them to vi navigate the complexities of intercultural ministry. The findings also suggest the most effective components of the training and how they might be transferable to other intercultural training programs. vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are many people who played a special role in making this project possible. Space will not allow me to mention them all by name. I owe a special thanks to Gary Nelson and Janet Clark who challenged me to consider entering this program. A word of thanks and appreciation goes to the people and organizations that contributed financially to make this venture become a reality. To my fellow facilitators Chis, Carmen and Ivana a big thank you! I could not have completed this training project without your dedication and commitment. Thanks and appreciation to the 18 participants who went through this learning process with me. I was truly inspired by you and believe that you will make a huge missional impact in the years ahead. Thanks also to Peter Dickens and the TIM Centre team whose support and encouragement motivated me to complete the task. Much appreciation goes to my DMin cohort as well as to Paul Bramer, Mark Chapman and Floyd Grunau. Your wise counsel truly guided me through this three-year process. My wholehearted thanks must go to my wife Sheila whose love and support sustained and encouraged me throughout the project. Finally I thank God for his grace and sustaining presence throughout my intercultural journey in the past as well as in the days ahead. viii CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES......................................................xii LIST OF TABLES.......................................................xii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS...............................................xiii CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION..............................................1 Personal Intercultural Journey......................................1 Ministry Context....................................................2 Opportunity.........................................................4 Innovation..........................................................5 Delimitations.......................................................6 Definition of Key Terms.............................................7 Chapter Outlines....................................................9 CHAPTER TWO: THEOLOGICAL RATIONALE....................................11 A Missional Hermeneutic for Interpreting the Bible.................12 Mission and the Triune God.......................................12 Abraham, Israel and the Missional Mandate........................14 Incarnation and the Missional Mandate............................17 Blessing The Nations Requires Crossing Cultural Boundaries.........19 In-Group, Out-Group Mindset......................................20 Unity in Diversity - Not Unity in Uniformity.....................23 Diaspora: The Biblical Motif of Scattering.......................27 Diaspora Movements: Six Lessons................................29 Biblical Case Studies of Cross-Cultural Mission....................31 Paul: From Hostility to Hospitality..............................31 Paul’s Kingdom Vision..........................................32 Paul’s Cultural Adaptation.....................................33 Peter: From Exclusion to Embrace.................................33 Peter’s God Given Motivation...................................34 Peter’s Intercultural Journey..................................35 Philip: From Church Conflict to Cross-Cultural Witness...........35 Historical Case Study of Effective Cross-Cultural Mission: St Patrick and Celtic Christianity................................................36 The Character of the Leader......................................37 Context, Culture and the Gospel..................................38 The Church as Community..........................................40 Summary and Conclusion of Theological Rationale..................42 CHAPTER THREE: PRECEDENT LITERATURE...................................43 Defining Culture and Intercultural Competence......................44 What is Culture?.................................................44 What is Intercultural Competence?................................45 Models of Intercultural Competence.................................46 Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS)..........47 IX Process Model of Intercultural Competence.........................50 Acculturation Model...............................................52 Components of Intercultural Competence..............................54 Intercultural Competency Myths....................................54 Core Intercultural Competencies.....................................55 Motivation........................................................56 Identity Security.................................................56 Anxiety-Uncertainty Management....................................57 Stress in the Adaptation Process..................................57 Empathy, Mindfulness, and Self-awareness,.........................57 Design, Delivery and Assessment of Intercultural Training...........58 Innovation and Complexity.........................................58 The Intercultural Training Context................................59 Facilitator’s Intercultural Competencies..........................60 Training Program Outcomes.........................................60 Culture-General and Culture-Specific Learning.....................61 Delivery of Intercultural Training................................64 Didactic and Experiential Methods.................................65 Assessment and Evaluation of Intercultural Competence.............67 Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI).........................68 Summary and Conclusion............................................71 CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH METHODS.........................................72 Research Methodology.................................................73 Action Research....................................................73 Culturally Competent Research......................................74 A Mixed Methods Approach to Research...............................75 Program Development................................................77 Facilitator Training.............................................77 Facilitation Team................................................79 Researcher Assumptions...........................................80 Curriculum Development...........................................81 Data Collection.....................................................82 The Data Collection Process.......................................82 The Pre and Post IDI Online Assessment..........................82 Personal Interviews.............................................83 Group Interviews................................................85 Midterm and Final Evaluations...................................86 Participant Journaling..........................................88 Data Analysis.....................................................88 Ethical Consideration...............................................89 CHAPTER FIVE: RESEARCH FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS...........................91 Mixed Method Research................................................91 IDI Pre-Post Assessments...........................................92 Analysis of Data from Final Questionnaire and Group Interviews.....97 Intercultural Self-awareness.....................................98 x Intercultural Attitudes.........................................101 Intercultural Knowledge.........................................103 Intercultural Skill.............................................105 Analysis of the Demographics of Participants.......................107 Specific Demographic............................................109 Independent Variables and IDI Assessment........................111 Monocultural and Multicultural Church.........................Ill Years in Another Country......................................113 Participant Case Studies.......................................114 Case Study: Ming..............................................114 Program Evaluation...............................................116 Training Framework and Intercultural Models....................117 Promotion of a Missional Framework............................117 Intercultural Development Models..............................119 Reflection using Intercultural Concepts and Tools.............121 The Training Pedagogy..........................................124 The Facilitation Team.........................................125 The Iterative Process.........................................126 Most Effective Aspects of the Pedagogy........................127 Participants: A Diverse Learning Laboratory..................127 Challenge and Support........................................128 Class Lectures, Discussion & Facilitators....................129 Least Effective Aspects of the Pedagogy........................130 Online Training Component....................................130 Adult Educational Focus......................................131 Language Proficiency and Intercultural Learning..............132 Application to Life, Work and Ministry.......................133 CHAPTER SIX: OUTCOMES AND CONCLUSION..................................136 Outcomes...........................................................136 The Missional Framework is Important.............................138 A Diverse Learning Laboratory....................................139 The Intercultural Journey........................................140 Rethinking the Monocultural Church...............................141 Intercultural Bridge Leaders.....................................142 The Gospel and Culture...........................................143 Future Study and Action..........................................144 Insights for Future Research.....................................146 Potential Applications...........................................147 Personal Reflections.............................................148 Conclusion.......................................................148 xi Appendix 1: Participant Consent Form..................................150 Appendix 2: Course Syllabus...........................................153 Appendix 3: Course Curriculum.........................................158 Appendix 4: Midterm Evaluation........................................166 Appendix 5: Final Evaluation..........................................168 Appendix 6: Intercultural Concept Exercise............................172 REFERENCE LIST........................................................174 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity.............48 Figure 2: Deardorff's Process Model....................................51 Figure 3: Berry’s Acculturation Model..................................53 Figure 4: Pre and Post Training Comparison.............................95 Figure 5: Developmental Orientation....................................96 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Project Time Line.............................................79 Table 2: Pre-IDI Assessment............................................93 Table 3: Post IDI Assessment...........................................94 Table 4: Self-Awareness................................................98 Table 5: Attitudes....................................................101 Table 6: Intercultural Knowledge......................................104 Table 7: Intercultural Skills.........................................106 Table 8: Participants Demographics....................................109 Table 9: Independent Variable: Mono-Multi-Cultural....................112 Table 10: Independent Variable: Years in Another Country..............113 Table 11: IDI Assessment..............................................119 Table 12: Most Important Training Topics..............................122 Table 13: Bi-weekly Journaling........................................126 Table 14: Class Lectures, Discussion & Facilitator....................129 xii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS D.I.E: Describe, Interpret and Evaluate. An intercultural training exercise to help participants develop skills in making accurate assumption within a cross-cultural context. DMIS: Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity. A conceptual model to understand the intercultural developmental stages a person goes through. IDI: The Intercultural Development Inventory. A 50-item questionnaire that assesses where an individual or group is place on the DMIS development continuum. NIV: The New International Version Bible. Unless otherwise indicated all Bible quotations in this paper are from NIV (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973). SEITAR: The Society for Intercultural Education Training and Research. An international organization seeking to promote intercultural development in many professional contexts. TIM: Tyndale Intercultural Ministries Centre. A centre located at Tyndale University College and Seminary dedicated to equipping the church to engage effectively in intercultural ministry in Toronto, Canada and the world. xiii CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION The focus of this thesis is the evaluation of a 16-week intercultural training program. The project was designed to develop the intercultural competencies of leaders engaged in missional ministry in the multicultural context of Toronto. The urban landscape of Toronto is radically changing. People from around the world with different customs, values, and beliefs are now often living in close proximity to each other. According to Statistics Canada, 50% of the population of Toronto is foreign born (Statistics Canada 2006). To effectively engage in service and ministry in such a multicultural context, leaders will need to learn to navigate cross-cultural boundaries within their own geographical context (Sheffield 2005; Livermore 2009). This will require leaders to intentionally develop competencies for their intercultural journey. Personal Intercultural Journey My intercultural journey began in Northern Ireland where I was born and raised. There I experienced firsthand the cultural and religious clash between Catholics and Protestants. The journey continued when, as a young adult, I 1 immigrated to Canada where I was exposed to a mosaic of cultures living in Toronto. Marrying Sheila, a third generation Caucasian Canadian, and 12 years of living and serving in Kenya and Tanzania enhanced my intercultural journey. Directing MissionPREP (http://www.missionprep.ca), an organization committed to training leaders for cross-cultural global living and ministry provided many more intercultural insights along the way. As director of Tyndale Intercultural Ministries Centre (TIM) I have had many opportunities to interact and learn from leaders from around the world. These intercultural experiences have been an instrumental part of what I as the researcher brought to this research project. Ministry Context I have served as Director of Tyndale Intercultural Ministries Centre (https://www.tyndale.ca/tim), which is part of Tyndale University College & Seminary located in Toronto, Canada. Tyndale’s community reflects the multicultural mosaic of Toronto with students and faculty coming from sixty ethnicities. TIM Centre recognizes that immigration has radically changed the demographic and religious diversity of Canada’s urban centres. As Peter Beyer notes: Before 1961, 85% of immigrants were Christian and only 4% were from other religions, at that time mostly Judaism. That proportion shifted progressively over the next decades such that, during the decade from 1991-2001, only 40% of immigrants were Christian, 32% were adherents of other world religions. (Beyer 2008, 22) 2 In light of such demographic changes, training the next generation of leaders cannot simply repeat what has proven effective in the past. Engaging in missional ministry will require crossing cultural boundaries within one’s own urban context. TIM Centre’s vision statement, “The church from all nations bringing Christ to all nations” (Tyndale 2013), challenges the traditional paradigm which views mission as originating from the West to the rest of the world. Instead, mission in Canada, is now seen as from everywhere to everywhere and begins by engaging in intercultural mission on our doorstep to the ends of the earth. A key part of TIM Centre’s mandate is providing research and resources for assisting churches in understanding and engaging more effectively in the changing demographic ministry context of Toronto. In 2008 the TIM Centre launched the “Diaspora Initiative.” The goal was to identify the felt needs of the immigrant church and to seek to partner in ways that would empower new Canadian leaders to engage more effectively in missional ministry. One such partnership was developed with Narry Santos, Pastor of Green Hills Christian Fellowship, Toronto. Santos was sent from Manila to Toronto as a church- planting missionary in 2007. In less than six years, his ministry has planted six churches. In January 2010 Santos approached the TIM Centre with a request to develop a training program for 16 of his key leaders. He was especially concerned that these church leaders would be equipped to be missional with the goal of planting intentionally intercultural churches in the metropolitan hubs in Canada. 3 TIM Centre recognized this as a need in the broader immigrant church community and agreed to explore this possibility if it could be inclusive of other leaders with different denominational affiliation. Santos and TIM Centre brokered a partnership with Greenhill’s denominational affiliate, Canadian Baptist of Ontario and Quebec (CBOQ). In September 2010, TIM Centre’s diploma program, “Foundations in Missional Ministry and Church Leadership” was officially launched. Twenty-four leaders from a variety of ethno-cultural backgrounds participated including: Filipino, Rwandan, Burundian, Indian, Iranian and Caucasian Canadian. The second cohort grew to thirty participants coming from ten different ethnicities. The growing Diploma program of the TIM Centre provides the context and opportunity for this research project. Opportunity The TIM Centre believes that every Christian is mandated to be a witness for Christ to people from every nation and cultural background (Acts 1:8). This requires a training program that is both innovative and adaptive in addressing the complexity of our multicultural context. Leaders will need to learn how to effectively navigate cultural boundaries in urban centers’ like Toronto. This will necessitate intentionality in training and equipping Christians for effective intercultural ministry. The increasingly diverse cultural context of Toronto provides the opportunity for developing an intentional intercultural training intervention. The 4 fact that 90% of TIM Centre’s Diploma participants are new Canadians, born outside of Canada, presents an intriguing challenge. The creation and evaluation of this training program for developing intercultural competencies demonstrated four commitments of the TIM Centre. First, it shows that TIM Centre is taking seriously the multicultural ministry context of Toronto. Second, it demonstrates intentionality in our training to develop skills for intercultural ministry. Third, through innovation, evaluation, and ongoing adaption of the training program we are demonstrating to our participants and the broader community that the TIM Centre is a learning organization. Finally, by demonstrating intercultural competency development in our participants, we will have made a significant contribution not only to the Diploma program, but also in the effectiveness of these leaders as they engage in missional ministry in Toronto. Innovation In this research project I give evidence and analysis of how an intentional training program intervention, created for the TIM Centre’s Diploma program, helped to develop intercultural competencies in our participants. Key research questions were: • What are core benchmarks for determining intercultural competence? • How do we measure the development of intercultural competence? • How did this training intervention develop intercultural competencies? • What kind of training is most appropriate for leaders from diverse cultural backgrounds seeking to develop intercultural competencies? 5 Delimitations The following are descriptors of the delimitations of this training project. 1. Location - research was limited to the Greater Toronto Area, which is the primary geographical location for TIM Centre ministries. 2. Participants - the subjects of the training were TIM Centre diploma participants. 3. Cultural Diversity - the fact that 80% of the participants are new Canadians will give a definitive intercultural shaping to the project. 4. Assessment Instrument - the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) was the key quantitative assessment instrument. There have been many critical reviews of the IDI in the research literature attesting to its validity and reliability within a multicultural context. (Hammer 2011; Paige 2003). 5. Models of Intercultural Competence - three key models helped to conceptualize and frame this training program. Milton Bennett’s Development Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (Bennett 1998), the Intercultural Process Model of Darla Deardorff (Deardorff 2008), and the Acculturation Model of John Berry (Berry 2005). 6. Duration - the training program ran from 15th January to 7th May 2013. Each session was three hours and was conducted on alternate Tuesday evenings from 6:30-9:30 pm. This resulted in nearly 30 hours of in-class training. Participants were also expected to engage in intercultural assignments outside of the classroom training. 6 7. One Iteration - While this research was focused on this training program repetition of this course and further iterations will take place in the future. 8. Language Proficiency - this course was conducted exclusively in English which was not the first language spoken by many of the participants. 9. Transferability - because of the cultural diversity of the participants it would be extremely difficult to transfer a similar course into a more homogenous context. 10. Time frame - this program was conducted exclusively in a classroom context. More time would be needed to apply and process intercultural principles into a real life context. Definition of Key Terms Some of the key terms used in this project are defined and clarified below. 1. Diaspora - a term originally referring to the dispersion or scattering of Jewish people. In its contemporary use diaspora refers to the scattering of people from their homelands and the gathering of such people in countries like Canada and cities like Toronto, and Vancouver (Payne 2012). 2. Culture - the learned values, beliefs, worldview, and practices of a group of people. Culture gives a sense of identity, purpose, security, order, and meaning to life (Hiebert 1984; MissionPREP training Manual, 2012). 7 3. Intercultural - cross-cultural communication emphasizes geographical distance when crossing cultural boundaries. Intercultural communication recognizes the world as a global village where distance and geography no longer play such a significant role in the intercultural communication process (Lustig 2012). 4. Intercultural Competencies - in the intercultural context this refers to a person’s attentiveness, self-awareness, knowledge and skills to accurately interpret cultural meaning and adjust one’s behaviour in adapting to different cultural contexts (Thomas 2009). 5. Missional - refers to the church engaged in God’s mission, of redeeming and restoring all of creation. It is at the heart of everything the church seeks to be and do. Missional is often contrasted with the word attractional. An attractional church seeks primarily to invite non- church people to the church, which is the focus of ministry programs. The missional church is one that goes to the community in an act of identification and service (Roxburgh 2011). 6. Multicultural Context - a place where all people can celebrate their unique cultural identity and are welcomed, accepted, and encouraged to practice their respective traditions without having to assimilate to one dominant culture (Rhodes 1998). 7. Cultural Boundaries - every human being is shaped by a particular culture, which provides a unique way of seeing and living in the world. 8 In the past crossing cultural boundaries involved geographical distance. Today in our culturally diverse urban centers’ people will be required to cross cultural boundaries without leaving their own neighbourhood (Branson 2011). Chapter Outlines Chapter one explored the ministry context highlighting the changing cultural demographics, the opportunity to partner with new Canadians in intercultural missional opportunities, the scope and limitations of this project, and definitions of terms that are essential in understanding the content of this research project. In chapter two, three theological assumptions, with biblical underpinnings will be discussed. An historical account of the life and ministry of St. Patrick illustrates how a key Christian leader embodied all three of these biblical assumptions. Chapter three examines precedent literature pertaining to developing intercultural competence. It includes definitions of intercultural competence and culture, key intercultural models as a framework for intercultural training, a delineation of key components of intercultural competence, principles for design, and delivery of an intercultural training program. Chapter four describes the mixed method quantitative and qualitative research approach that was utilized for data collection throughout this project. 9 Attention will be given to: program development, participants, facilitation team, delivery of the program, data collection, data analysis, and an ethical review. Chapter five examines the findings of the mixed method research data. The data is evaluated to see if the training intervention developed the intercultural competencies of the participant over the duration of the training program. Chapter six concludes with what specific lessons were learned that could be applied to the ongoing development of this training program and includes the researcher’s reflections of how this project impacted his life and ministry. 10 CHAPTER TWO: THEOLOGICAL RATIONALE This chapter provides a biblical and theological rationale for developing an intentional intercultural training program for Christian leaders. A missional hermeneutic for interpreting the Bible. From Genesis to Revelation, the Bible portrays God’s passion and plan for the nations of this world to participate in his blessing (Wright 2004). The unfolding of God’s purpose to bless the nations will be viewed through the lens of a missional hospitality (Yong 2008; Richard 2000). Intentionally crossing cultural boundaries to bless the nations. Cultural diversity is reflected in God’s creation and among the nations of the world. To cross cultural boundaries to bless the nations will require Christian leaders to be intentional in leaving the safety and security of their own culture. This will mean becoming the stranger in a new culture as well as being a host in welcoming the stranger into the community of the church. Developing intercultural leaders for cross-cultural mission. The biblical narrative sets forth examples of intercultural leaders who effectively equipped the church in communicating the gospel cross-culturally. This provides a model to intentionally develop leaders with intercultural competence to fulfill God’s plan and purpose of blessing the nations of our world. 11 Patrick - an exemplar of intercultural mission. The chapter will conclude by focusing on an historical case study of the life and mission of St. Patrick. This will demonstrate how one leader, with an intentional cross-cultural vision, brought God’s blessing and transformation to the Celtic people of Ireland. A Missional Hermeneutic for Interpreting the Bible In this section the following themes will be explored: (1) mission and the triune God. (2) mission through Abraham and Israel. (3) mission through Jesus’ incarnation. Is there a common lens through which we can interpret the biblical narrative? Christopher Wright, an Old Testament scholar, suggests this integrative lens is a missional hermeneutic for interpreting scripture. He comments: “A missional hermeneutic proceeds from the assumption that the whole Bible renders to us the story of God’s mission through God’s people in their engagement with God’s world for the sake of the whole of God’s creation” (Wright 2004, 122). From the beginning of Genesis we see the purpose and plan for creation was that it should be reconciled to the triune God who spoke it into existence. By practicing a missional hospitality we as God’s people are participating in his ministry of reconciliation and blessing. Mission and the Triune God When Adam and Eve rebelled in the Garden of Eden it was God who called out, “Where are you?” (Genesis 3:9). Here God took the initiative to reach out and restore the broken relationship between himself and his creation. As 12 theologian John R. Franke concludes: God is missional by nature. The love of God lived out and expressed in the eternal community of love gives rise to the missional character of God, who seeks to extend the love shared by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit into the created order. (Franke 2009, 119) Missiologist David Bosch likewise observes, “mission was to be understood as being derived from the very nature of God. It was thus put in the context of the doctrine of the Trinity, not ecclesiology or soteriology” (Bosch 1991,390). From this Trinitarian perspective, mission has been reframed as missio Dei, God’s mission of reaching out to restore his creation (Goheen 2008). Amos Yong, a Pentecostal theologian, argues that the study of a missional hermeneutic should also include a theology of hospitality, welcoming the stranger. He remarks, “Christian mission is the embodiment of divine hospitality that loves strangers (philoxenia), to the point of giving up our lives on behalf of others as to be reconciled to them, that they might in turn be reconciled to God” (Yong 2008, 131). It was the triune God who was the first to reach out to welcome and embrace the stranger. As theologian Miroslav Volf states: When the Trinity turns toward the world, the Son and the Spirit become the two arms of God by which humanity was made and taken into God’s embrace. We the others, we the enemies, are embraced by the divine persons who love us with the same love with which they love each other and therefore make space for us within their eternal embrace. (Volf 1996, 128) As the people of the triune God, we likewise are called to open ourselves, to create a safe and loving space where the stranger is unconditionally accepted and embraced. 13 Abraham, Israel and the Missional Mandate That God’s people are to engage in the missio Dei is demonstrated in the calling and sending of Abraham, the Patriarch of Israel and the exemplar for the Christian faith, to be a blessing to the nations as recorded in Genesis 12:1-3. The Lord had said to Abram, “Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you. I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you. (my italicize) ("Genesis 12:1-3 TNIV) God did not abandon his creation despite his judgment through the flood and the tower of Babel. Instead, he chose to fulfill his missional vision through Abraham who was willing to be separated from his family and their idols. In turn Abraham was blessed by God and given the promise to become a great nation, bringing blessing to the nations of the world. This missional vision is firmly rooted in the Old Testament narrative. Paul, for example, looking back on this historic Abrahamic mandate, concluded: “the scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: All nations will be blessed through you” (Galatians 3:8). Likewise Jesus, on the Emmaus road, gave two disciples a lesson from the Old Testament showing how God’s missional mandate (Wright 2004, 107) was to redeem and bless the nations of the world through his death and resurrection (Luke 24:25-27). Both of these biblical examples support theologian N.T. Wright’s conclusion that, “God’s self-revelation is always to be understood within the category of God’s mission to the world, God’s saving sovereignty let loose 14 through Jesus and the Spirit and aimed at the healing and renewal of the creation” (Wright 2005, 32). God’s promise to bless Abraham and make him into a great nation for the blessing of the nations was to be fulfilled in and through the people of Israel. Then Moses went up to God, and the Lord called to him from the mountain and said, “This is what you are to say to the house of Jacob and what you are to tell the people of Israel: ‘You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession because the whole earth is mine. You will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. (Exodus 19:3-6) God’s redemptive act of bringing Israel out of Egypt was not based on their own self-importance. Rather they were a treasured possession for the purpose of becoming a kingdom of priests, a holy nation on behalf of the nations of the world (Wright 2004). As Goheen argues: God’s electing purpose of Israel is fundamentally missional, not just soteriological. God’s calling and election of Abraham was not merely so he could be saved.... it was rather, and more explicitly, that he and his people should be instruments through whom God would gather the multinational multitude that no man or woman can number.... It is election into mission. (Goheen 2008, 68) The prophet Isaiah states God’s intention in choosing Israel: “I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth” (Isaiah 49:6). As a light to the nations Israel was to live and embody the Torah as an example of God’s redeemed creation. This missional counter-cultural lifestyle was intended to draw the surrounding nations back to their creator God. 15 The Psalms contain some of the most missional and prophetic messages in the Bible with over 175 references to God’s focus on the nations of the world (Goheen 2008, 78). One beautiful example of a missional song is Psalm 67: May God be gracious to us and bless us and make his face shine on us so that your ways may be known on earth, your salvation among all nations. May all the peoples praise you, God; may all the peoples praise you. (Psalm 67:1-2 TNiv) Here we see the Aaronic blessing resting on Israel, not for their self-gratification, but for the blessing of the nations, resulting in the worship of the one true and living God. A missional theme in the Old Testament is the challenge for Israel to demonstrate hospitality by welcoming the stranger. The Torah made clear Israel’s responsibility: “When a stranger dwells with you in your land you shall not oppress him. Like a home born among you shall the stranger who dwells with you be, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Leviticus 19.34). Just as God was the generous host in redeeming and welcoming Israel to himself, so now Israel was to be the generous host welcoming and protecting the stranger in their midst. Such hospitality to the stranger reminded Israel that her identity was grounded, not in her own power or ability, but in the free gift of life given by God, their generous host. Israel, however, not only experienced the role of host towards the alien from a position of power, but also from a place of marginality. As historian Christine Pohl argues, even in marginality “alien status allowed them to recognize the importance of making a home on earth and of nurturing the 16 practice of hospitality, but it also relativized and transformed the experience of ‘home.’ While home was important, it was also provisional” (Pohl 1999,105). This is demonstrated in God taking Israel from their homeland into exile with the purpose of blessing their captors, the Babylonians (Jeremiah 29). Because Israel failed to keep the covenant with their God, they were sent as strangers into exile in Babylon. The surprising outcome of this forced exile was how God used it as a missional opportunity. Jeremiah, speaking to God’s people going into exile, challenged them “to seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the Lord for it, because if it prospers you too shall prosper” (Jeremiah 29:7). Commenting on Israel’s exile Christopher Wright says: In the mysterious purpose of God, the descendants of the one called out of Babylon in order to be the fount of blessing to the nations now returns to Babylon in captivity and instructed to fulfill the promise there... Jeremiah’s letter turned victims into visionaries. Israel not only had a hope for the future, they also had a mission in the present. (Wright 2006, 100) It is during this time of exile that leaders like Daniel and Nehemiah developed a passion and ability of engaging people in a foreign culture (Daniel 1- 2; Nehemiah 1-3). Through their positions of influence they became part of God’s missional vision to reconcile and bless the nations among whom they lived (Jeremiah 29). This missional vision, demonstrated through Abraham and Israel, is brought to fulfillment through the sending of Jesus into the world. Incarnation and the Missional Mandate Having traced God’s missional purpose in the calling of Abraham and 17 Israel, I turn to the incarnation, which becomes the embodiment of God’s missio Dei and the ultimate demonstration of self-giving hospitality in welcoming the stranger. A hallmark of Jesus’ life and ministry was his desire to be a generous host, welcoming the outcasts and marginalized of society. As Catholic theologian, Lucien Richard remarks: Jesus’ meals with publicans and sinners were not only events on a social level, an expression of his unusual humanity and social generosity, but they express his mission and his message. The inclusion of sinners in the community of salvation, symbolized in table fellowship, is the most meaningful expression of the redeeming love of God. (Richard 2000, 66) One of the clearest examples of Jesus’ engaging in cross-cultural mission and demonstrating hospitality was his transgressive actions in challenging societal norms when talking to the woman at the well in Samaria (John 4). In this encounter he was not just a stranger in need of water, he was also the host welcoming an estranged woman to experience the living water of eternal life. Jesus builds bridges of love to overcome the barriers of gender, ethnicity, religion, class and moral superiority. In this cross-cultural encounter, Jesus provides a missional case study demonstrating the necessity of building trusting relationships in order to bless the nations. Although the self-giving, redeeming love of God is seen in Jesus’ life and ministry, it is ultimately demonstrated in his willingness to endure the shame and suffering of the cross. Miroslav Volf concludes: At the heart of the cross is Christ’s stance of not letting the other remain an enemy and of creating space in himself for the offended to come in.... The cross is the giving up of God’s self in order not to give up on humanity... The arms of the crucified are open - a sign of a space in God’s self and an invitation for the enemy to come in. (Volf 1996, 126) 18 What at first appears to be a senseless act of violence becomes the good news that God’s salvation, his long awaited kingdom, has been fulfilled through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah. Just as the exile of God’s people to Babylon was part of God’s missional mandate, so also the disillusionment and disorientation of the cross ultimately led the disciples and the church to see the death and resurrection of Jesus as their missional mandate. God’s intent to engage the nations is clearly expressed in Jesus’ commissioning his disciples and the church to “go and make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19). The scope of this command is universal, “beginning in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Actsl:8). A caution needs to be noted as we, God’s people, seek to engage in his mission in the world. History has shown, when the church engages in mission as part of a colonial or post-colonial expansion, the “power and authority” of the great commission can sometimes become a form of western cultural imperialism (Russell 2009). The challenge to go in the power and authority of Christ must always be seen in the context of Jesus words, “as the Father has sent me so I send you” (John 20:21). Like Jesus, God’s people are called to bless the nations through an incamational self-giving love on behalf of the world. Blessing The Nations Requires Crossing Cultural Boundaries We have seen through the lives of Abraham, the nation of Israel, and Jesus, God’s desire to bless the nations of this world. For this blessing to be fulfilled it required God’s people to cross cultural boundaries to open paths for the 19 sharing of the gospel. This chapter will also consider how in God’s sovereignty the scattering of people, through diaspora, can be seen as an opportunity to celebrate diversity and engage in cross-cultural ministry right on our doorstep. To better understand the challenges of cross-cultural mission we must ask the question, “what is culture?” Trying to describe culture would be like asking a fish to describe water. Like fish we are so immersed in our own culture it is often difficult to be aware of its influence upon our thinking and behaviour. One definition of culture is: “culture is the learned values and behaviors shared by a group that is passed from one generation to another, and that changes over time. Culture creates a sense of belonging and identity and provides stability and security for individuals in social relationships” (MissionPREP training Manual, 2012). A familiar metaphor used in describing culture is a set of glasses (Berardo 2012). All people wear cultural glasses, however we are not born with cultural glasses. As we internalize our cultural norms and values our glasses become the perceptional lens for making sense of the world. Through the enculturation process our cultural glasses become “tinted” according to our unique cultural background. Every person’s assumptions in viewing the world are filtered through a specific set of culturally tinted glasses. The challenge is becoming more aware of the assumptions, which unconsciously influence and impact our daily lives. In-Group, Out-Group Mindset One way of understanding our hidden assumptions is to reflect on the socialization process that takes place in developing our cultural identity. Lustig 20 comments on this enculturation process: People are taught about groups to which they do not belong, and they often learn that certain groups should be avoided. This tendency to identify as members of some groups, called in-groups, and to distinguish these in-groups from out-groups is so prevalent in human thinking that it has been described as a universal tendency. (Lustig 2010, 130) A classic biblical illustration of the in-group mentality, resulting in the refusal to engage in cross-cultural mission, is found in the story of Jonah. God challenged Jonah to go to Nineveh and preach a prophetic word against the evil of the city. Because the people of Nineveh were cultural outsiders and the enemy of Israel, Jonah refused to obey God and took flight in the opposite direction. Jonah’s refusal to enter the city of Nineveh was an outright denial that these people were worthy of being welcomed into the divine embrace. For Jonah his personal boundary identity was impenetrable, fixated on his own ethnic and cultural purity by maintaining “in-group” exclusiveness. Rather than risk embracing the stranger, he recoiled and ran seeking to distance himself from the “other.” He was unaware of his own cultural idolatry in making his ethnicity the only one acceptable to receive God’s forgiveness and embrace. This judgmental spirit of Jonah towards cultural outsiders can also be seen in the way James and John, the disciples of Jesus, wanted God to destroy their enemies the Samaritans (Luke 9:54). Because the Samaritans were from the cultural out-group, they were deemed worthy only of God’s judgment, but not His blessing. In the life and ministry of Jesus, we see a distinct contrast to the oppositional understanding of culture that Jonah, James, and John practiced. In 21 contrast, Jesus practiced radical inclusiveness, embracing the marginalized of society. In this demonstration of missional hospitality, Jesus welcomed the outsiders and invited them to become insiders. In contrast to Jesus, the religious elite of his culture was resistant and fearful to embrace the outsider or stranger. They feared that by doing so it might compromise their purity and their own culture. This spirit of exclusivism can also be seen in the church in Jerusalem as recorded in the book of Acts 1-5. This church appeared to be more concerned with maintaining its “in-group” identity than in crossing cultural boundaries to bless the Gentiles. In contrast, the church in Antioch grasped God’s missional mandate and was willing to break down the cultural barriers that divided Jew and Gentile. As a result, it was the church in Antioch, not Jerusalem, which became a multicultural missional hub for taking the gospel to the nations (Acts 11). This demonstration of accepting the stranger was a public testimony that they were Christ followers, thereafter called Christians (Acts 11.26). If Christians are to engage in intercultural ministry they must always ensure that their primary identity is grounded in being a new creation in Christ and not in their own particular cultural group. Volf reminds us that: “the distance from our own culture, which is born of the spirit of the new creation, should loosen the grip of our culture on us and enable us to live with its fluidity and affirm its hybridity” (Volf 1996, 52). Christians will need to recognize and accept the reality that stepping out of their cultural safety zone into the ambiguity and uncertainty of embracing the 22 stranger will result in emotional anxiety and discomfort. Even the Apostle Paul, when visiting Athens, was “greatly distressed to see the city was full of idols” (Acts 17: 16). Cultural isolationism, fear, and anxiety of embracing the stranger are not insurmountable barriers to crossing cultural boundaries. They are, however, valid reasons why there is a need for intentionality in training leaders and the church to develop intercultural awareness and skills for effective cross- cultural ministry. Unity in Diversity - Not Unity in Uniformity The missional mandate is to bless the nations in every culture and to be ready to embrace God’s diverse creation rather than retreat into the security of a monocultural world. The story of Jonah illustrated that being confronted with difference often leads to fear and anxiety resulting in a fight or flight reaction. Parker Palmer reminds us that “we have developed a variety of strategies to evade our differences, strategies that only deepen our fear, such as associating exclusively ‘with our own kind’ or using one of our well-tested methods to dismiss, marginalize, demonize, or eliminate the stranger” (Palmer 2011, 13). One of the well tested, but subtler methods, is making the false assumption that unity and uniformity are one and the same. For example, in our western context, where liberal democracy strives for universal liberty and freedom, the expectation is for ethnic minorities to assimilate into the value system of the dominant culture resulting in cultural homogeneity (Sheffield 2005). In this way difference is diminished and unity is sought in uniformity. As historian Glanville quotes Jonathan Sacks: 23 The world is not a single machine. It is a complex interactive ecology in which diversity - biological, personal, cultural, and religious - is of the essence. Any proposed reduction of that diversity through the many forms of fundamentalism that exist - market, scientific or religious - would result in a diminution of the rich texture of our shared life, a potentially disastrous narrowing of the horizons of possibility. (Glanville 2009, 22) From the first chapter of Genesis we learn that God celebrates unity in diversity rather than unity in uniformity. We see a plethora of diversity in the way God created plants, animals, and even humans (Genesis 1-2). That God would create a diverse world should not surprise us, for even before this world was created, diversity existed within the triune Godhead. The mystery of the Trinity is one God in three persons; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Reciprocal self-giving love flows from God’s triune being demonstrating unity in diversity. The overflow of God’s love is seen in his creating, what theologian Letty Russell describes as “a world full of riotous difference” (Russell 2009,54). The creational account in Genesis shows God delighting in diversity. Diversity was part and parcel of the creational DNA and God pronounced, “It is good” (Genesis 1:10). As if God’s inherent design of diversity in creation was not sufficient, he gave the creational mandate for Adam and Eve to “be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it” (Genesis 1: 28). Thus begins the motif of diaspora - scattering that runs throughout the biblical narrative. This initial scattering is not related in any negative way to sin, the fall, or Babel, as it occurs before any of those took place. This creational mandate to disperse and fill the earth resulted in the development of cultural and linguistic diversity, which is 24 seen in Genesis 10:5: “From these coastland peoples spread... in their lands, with their own language, by their families, in their nations.” It follows that the resulting heterogeneity was part of God’s creational blessing pronounced to Adam and Eve. The context of the story of the tower of Babel is humankind’s deliberate rejection of God’s blessing and mandate to scatter and fill the earth. This is stated in Genesis 11.4: “then they said, come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.” Their motives for building the tower appear to be twofold: to make a name for themselves and not to be scattered. The former was a direct attempt to live autonomously from God’s rule, while the latter was a way of seeking power and prestige in cultural and linguistic homogeneity rather than in diversity. Letty Russell argues: In the Babel story the scattering of peoples and the confusion of language are God’s response to those who seek to triumph over others by means of domination.. .We, like the tower builders, continue to struggle with difference - differences of race, ethnicity, gender, age and so on... God’s response to the tower builders’ pride and lust for power is, once more, to create the gift of difference! (Russell 2009, 55) In considering unity in uniformity and unity in diversity we must be sensitive to two forms of polarization. One is the danger of homogeneity in a globalizing world whereby people are forced to adapt to one universal language and culture, resulting in a modern version of Babel. The second danger is reverting to a form of tribalization where security and self-preservation become the goals of every ethnic minority. The resolution to both forms of polarization can be found in the drama of Pentecost in Acts 2. At Pentecost, we do not see a world where unity in uniformity is imposed as in the modern vision of 25 globalization or the ancient vision of Babel. Neither do we see a self-centered form of tribalization resulting in Babel and linguistic confusion. Instead we see unity in diversity where every culture is relativized and every language is respected and valued in creating mutual understanding. Pentecost becomes a window into God’s vision for the church in the present and of heaven in the future. The multi-lingual and multicultural experience of the Church at Pentecost is a foretaste of the eschatological vision of heaven as recorded by the apostle John in Revelation. After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!” This vision of heaven should not be interpreted as an afterthought where God decided to restore unity in diversity after the rebellion of Adam and Eve and the people at the tower of Babel. Instead, the picture of heaven is the fulfillment of God’s creational mandate where all of creation, in all of its rich diversity was created and designed to worship the one true and living God. This eschatological vision will only be fully realized in heaven. Yet, as theologian Daniel Hays reminds us: This multiethnic image, where people of all races and ethnic groups are shoulder to shoulder worshipping God.. .is a picture of the reality that will exist in the climatic kingdom of Christ, and as such, provides a model for us to strive toward.. .For the church to oppose such a reality in the life of the Christian community here and now is to oppose the direction towards which the Kingdom is designed to move. (Hays 2003, 205) 26 As we will see in the next section the demographic movement of people in our world today is bringing people from every nation, ethnicity, and language to live in our urban Canadian centres. This is an opportunity for the God’s people to live out the Kingdom and demonstrate that in Christ the Church can truly model and celebrate unity in all its diversity. Diaspora: The Biblical Motif of Scattering The enculturation process often results in a form of isolationism from those different from us. This can lead to seeking one’s identity and security in a form of unity in uniformity. In contrast, God is calling his people to a celebration of unity in diversity. When God commanded Adam and Eve to “be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth” (Genesis 1:28) this scattering was part of celebrating unity in diversity. By scattering, cultural diversity would have become a natural part of the development process. Because mankind refused to be scattered and did not embrace diversity as part of God’s missional mandate, they were forced by God to be scattered among the nations of the world (Genesis 11). The term diaspora in the Biblical narrative refers to the: “Jewish .. .dispersion in the deportations by the Assyrians (722 BC) and Babylon (586/7 BC) and later spread throughout the Roman Empire, to Egypt, Asia Minor, Greece, and Italy. Thus “diaspora” generally refers to Jews living outside Palestine” (Santos 2004, 53). This theme of scattering is seen throughout scripture as God’s people, living as pilgrims, aliens, and foreigners in a strange land. Diaspora, or scattering, should not be automatically interpreted as a result of disobedience. Abraham for example is described as “the wandering Aramean” 27 (Deuteronomy 26:5). He and his descendants were not forced to leave their homeland but left in obedience to God’s call. Abraham, like future generations, fulfilled the missional mandate of blessing the nations, not from positions of power or affluence, but as strangers dependent on the hospitality of others. Dislocation and scattering can however result from the evil intentions of others, as in the cases of Joseph’s exile, into Egypt and Daniel’s deportation by the Babylonians. Yet even in exile God would fulfill his missional mandate through leaders who knew how to live as the people of God, and as strangers in a foreign land. Although the term “diaspora” has been historically used to describe the dispersion of Jews throughout the world it is also used in our contemporary context to explain the movement of peoples from their homelands to reside in other cultures. For some it is the “pull” of seeking a better life in an economically developed country. For others it is the “push” out of their country of origin due to famine, conflict, and natural disaster or some other calamity. Whatever the cause, the contemporary diaspora is bringing people from diverse cultures from around the world to live in close proximity to each other. This diaspora becomes an opportunity to cross cultural boundaries to incarnate the gospel in word and deed. If we are going to partner with God in his mission of blessing the nations gathered in our urban centers’ in Canada, then we must learn the important lessons from previous diaspora people as narrated in the Old and New Testaments 28 Diaspora Movements: Six Lessons Contemporary diaspora movements’ can be seen as a missional opportunity in our Canadian urban centres’. We have much to learn from the apostle Paul who looking back over the history of the movement of peoples, concluded, “God determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him” (Acts 17 :26-27). A contemporary example of this is the intentional missional strategy of the Christian Filipino global diaspora. Santos is but one example of this modem Filipino diaspora becoming an intentional cross- cultural missionary strategy (Pantoja 2004). Diaspora movements may also be viewed as part of God’s sovereign plan to bless the nations of this world. God is never an accomplice to evil, especially as it relates to injustice and the oppression of innocent people. Yet like Joseph, we need to understand what others meant for harm “God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives” (Genesis 50:20). Just as God brought blessing for Israel out of Joseph’s misfortune and blessing for Ireland out of Patrick’s dislocation, so today acts of injustice may ultimately lead to unforeseen blessing. Diaspora movements are an opportunity for a follower of Jesus to become a stranger on behalf of the world. The incarnation is a reminder that Jesus became the stranger for the sake of loving the world. As is often the case the stranger can be shown hostility rather than hospitality. Being the stranger puts people in a 29 position of vulnerability where they must learn to serve from the margins of society instead of from a place of power and privilege. Diaspora movements give the followers of Jesus an opportunity to create space for welcoming the stranger. The church can become a welcoming community where genuine hospitality and love is shown. In our multicultural urban centres the public place is where strangers learn to live in mutual respect of their differences. As Amos Yong reminds us: “A stranger-centred theology opens up a “free space”, where people of other faiths can enter, where strangers, even enemies, might be transformed into friends, where hosts do not dictate how guests must change but rather provide a safe forum for changes to occur” (Yong 2008, 132). Diaspora movements provide the followers of Jesus opportunities to depend on the hospitality of others. Jesus set an example of diaspora mission when he sent the seventy disciples on their first missional adventure. Rather than becoming the hosts they became the strangers, the guests of others dependent on the generosity of their hosts. The disciples did not control the menu but had to “eat whatever is set before them.” (Luke 10:8). They, like their master, were willing to accept rejection for the sake of the gospel. Diaspora movements give the followers of Jesus opportunities to see Christ in those they welcome. Being open to show hospitality and to receive the stranger brings a measure of uncertainty and fear. This is doubly so when the host is also a stranger living on the margins of society. Abraham became a classic example of hospitality when he lavished abundant hospitality on the three 30 strangers by the oaks at Mamre (Genesis 18). Unbeknown to Abraham, in his self- giving hospitality, he was welcoming God’s messengers bearing the good news that Sarah, his barren wife, would bear him a son. Likewise Jesus exhorts us to welcome the stranger for in doing so we are welcoming himself who is present in the stranger (Matthew 25:45). This contemporary diaspora has resulted in a representation of the nations gathering in urban centers’ like Toronto. It is provides the church an extraordinary opportunity to join God in His missional vision of blessing the nations without leaving their own geographical context. Biblical Case Studies of Cross-Cultural Mission This biblical and theological rationale has sought to demonstrate the missional hermeneutic that is central to the biblical narrative. God is on a mission to bless the nations of the world and to restore his wayward creation to himself (Wright 2006). Partnering in God’s mission will require Christians to engage the cultural differences that exist between the diverse peoples of this world. This next section focuses on the intercultural journey of three New Testament leaders: Paul, Peter and Philip. We will see how they overcame personal and cultural barriers and developed intercultural skills for taking the gospel across cultural boundaries to bring God’s blessing to the nations. Paul: From Hostility to Hospitality Acts 9:1-16, 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 Paul’s life was influenced and shaped by many cultures. His strict 31 upbringing in Judaism, as well as living in a Greek and Roman world, made him aware of the cultural differences that surrounded him. Yet it was his Jewish worldview that shaped his primary identity and relationships with outsiders. Prior to the Damascus road encounter, Paul was in a defensive and oppositional posture towards people holding divergent religious worldviews. His religious and cultural captivity resulted in the approval of the stoning and death of Stephen (Acts 7:59- 60). Having encountered the risen Christ on the road to Damascus, Paul was transformed from a persecutor of the Church to one of its most committed cross- cultural missionaries. He moved from hostility to hospitality (Nouwen 1986, pt 2). Paul’s Kingdom Vision The apostle Paul is one of the best examples of a leader who was passionate about communicating the gospel to people from different cultural backgrounds. Paul was motivated by a vision of God’s new creation, comprising of Jew and Gentile: a present possibility and a foretaste of God’s coming kingdom. Writing to the church in Ephesus Paul declares: “He made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment - to bring all things in heaven and earth together under one head, even Christ” (Ephesians 1:9-10). Paul discovered that this mystery, revealed in and through Christ’s death on the cross, resulted in the removal of the dividing wall of hostility between Jew and Gentile. Now Jew and Gentile, instead of remaining enemies, could become one new creation in Christ allowing hostility to be 32 replaced by hospitality (Ephesians 2:14). Paul saw that what God had promised through Abraham, the blessing of the nations, was now being fulfilled through the gospel and the mission of the Church (Galatians 3:8). Paul’s Cultural Adaptation When Paul understood the kingdom vision of a new humanity, reconciled to God through the cross, he was able to adapt not only himself but also the gospel into different cultural contexts. He explained to the church in Corinth how an incamational approach to ministry required adapting the communication of the gospel to the cultural context of the receptor culture (1 Corinthians 9:19-23). The key to Paul’s adaptability into different cultural contexts was his unshakeable sense that his identity was now not primarily in his culture of origin, but rather rooted in his relationship with Christ. Paul also had a clear grasp of the unchangeable essence of the gospel, which was translatable into the cultural forms of every culture (Sanneh 1999). Peter: From Exclusion to Embrace Acts 10:1 -34, Galatians 2:11-16 Peter, unlike Paul, grew up in Judea and was likely more mono-cultural in his outlook. Yet, like Paul, he was in a defensive posture towards those who were outside of his cultural in-group. Chapters 10 and 11 of Acts are pivotal in showing how the church moved from a mono-cultural ethos to one that became intentional in crossing cultures to bless the nations. Peter becomes the central figure in this unfolding drama. 33 Peter’s God Given Motivation In Acts 10 we observe that the radical change of direction of the church from an inward to a more outward focus of blessing the nations came about because of the personal transformation of Peter. Although a follower of Jesus the Messiah, he was not ready or motivated to take the gospel to Cornelius, the Gentile Roman centurion. That Peter was residing in Joppa (Acts 10:8), the place where Jonah ran to escape God’s call to go to preach to the people of Nineveh, adds to the drama of this story. Would Peter follow Jonah’s example or would he take the bold step of engaging in cross-cultural mission? The vision which God gave Peter at the house of Simon the Tanner, challenged his ethnocentrism and his cultural in-group exclusivism. Peter’s enculturation into the Jewish culture taught him that he should not eat or associate with a Gentile (Acts 10:28). It was only through the transforming power of the Holy Spirit that Peter grasped the vision of the gospel for all nations, which in turn motivated him to see Cornelius no longer through ethnocentric eyes, but through the heart of God who, “accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right (Acts 10:35). Little wonder some have described Acts 10 as not just the conversion of Cornelius, but also the conversion of Peter. Not a conversion unto salvation, but one that changed Peter’s heart to align with God’s passion and desire to bless the nations. It was in the act of accepting Cornelius’s hospitality, by sharing a meal at his table that Peter portrayed “a clear message - that of equality, transformed relations, and a common life” within the church (Pohl 1999, 20). 34 Peter’s Intercultural Journey Peter is also a good case study in showing that the intercultural journey is an ongoing process of challenging our ethnocentric perspective on life. Perhaps because of his mono-cultural background, Peter, under pressure from the proponents of cultural homogeneity from Jerusalem, withdrew into the safety of his cultural in-group. The more bi-cultural and spiritually mature Paul was quick to point out to Peter that his actions were not only culturally inappropriate, but also undermining the true inclusive nature of the gospel message itself (Galatians 2:11-16). Philip: From Church Conflict to Cross-Cultural Witness Acts 6:1-7 Acts 8:4-8. One might conclude from the Apostle Paul and Peter’s stories that a radical, supernatural, and transformative experience must always precede one’s development in intercultural leadership. When we examine the life of Philip, however, we see intercultural engagement flowing from a life filled and controlled by the Holy Spirit. Philip demonstrated intercultural conflict resolution skills when he mediated a community disagreement between Hellenistic and Judean Jews over food distribution (Acts 6:1-7). An important lesson we learn from Philip’s life is his sensitivity to the direction of God. He also showed boldness and cross-cultural adaptability in taking the gospel into what would have been hostile Samaria. Even though Philip was in the midst of a great mission movement in Samaria he 35 was obedient and willing to travel to a desert road to witness to a lone traveller. Philip’s sensitivity to the Holy Spirit’s direction and his willingness to engage in cross-cultural witness resulted in the gospel being carried for the first time to Africa (Acts 8:26-40). Philip’s life is a testimony to the fact that a person does not have to have an extraordinary supernatural encounter to develop intercultural competency. It does support the view that as Christians we will need a quiet dependence on the Holy Spirit to develop the character and sensitivity, which are the prerequisites for engaging in intercultural ministry. As my mentor Dr. Floyd Grunau so succinctly stated: “becoming interculturally competent in our ministries happens as we effectively use the skills and knowledge we have learned in dependence on the Holy Spirit” (email 30 September, 2013). Historical Case Study of Effective Cross-Cultural Mission: St Patrick and Celtic Christianity This biblical and theological rationale has sought to explain the missional hermeneutic that permeates scripture. It has shown God calling his people to engage in his mission by taking the gospel to every culture in every nation of the world. It has focused on the necessity for leaders to have missional characteristics such as: a kingdom vision, a God centred motivation, and a desire to develop intercultural skills. In this final section, key principles for intercultural ministry will be highlighted from the life of St. Patrick and Celtic Christianity in Ireland. Anthropological insights of missiologist Paul Hiebert will be integrated throughout this historical case study. 36 The Character of the Leader Michael Mitton describes how the life of St. Patrick illustrates how a tragic diaspora experience can become an opportunity for cross-cultural engagement. As a young boy Patrick was kidnapped and held as a slave for six years in Ireland. The initial years of hardship and suffering in Ireland moulded Patrick’s personal life, character, and Christian faith. During this time Patrick, along with many others, learned the language and local customs of the Irish people and developed a deep love for his captors as well as an understanding of their culture and traditions. This would become instrumental in his later mission to Ireland (Mitton 1996). During these early years Patrick was a stranger in the midst of a hostile environment. As he tended the flocks on the hillsides of rural Ireland he experienced God as his loving host welcoming him into the fellowship of the triune God. In his confessions Patrick describes these early years. After I arrived in Ireland, I found myself pasturing flocks daily, and I prayed a number of times each day. More and more the love of God came to me, and faith grew, and my spirit was exercised, until I was praying up to a hundred times every day and in the night nearly as often. (Hunter 2000, 14) Patrick’s life reminds us of the plight of many Christians who are part of the contemporary diaspora. Like Patrick, they have been forced to leave their homeland, living as strangers in foreign lands. Yet, as we learn from the life of Patrick, even in such circumstances God can take personal suffering and hardship to develop the vision, character, and motivation, which is foundational for developing effective cross-cultural ministry. 37 Context, Culture and the Gospel Every person engaged in taking the gospel to people of another culture must be acutely aware of the changing cultural context and adapt accordingly. Celtic Christianity was planted and nurtured in a much different cultural soil than that of the Roman Church in England. A unique indigenous culture and religion flourished among the non-colonialized people of the island. The Roman church, which commissioned Patrick as a missionary to Ireland viewed them as illiterate “barbarians.” They believed for barbarians to become Christian, they first needed to be civilized and taught to speak, read and write Latin, the official language of the Roman church. (Hunter 2000). They, like the Judaizers of the early church, sought to absolutize one cultural form and impose it on all other cultures (Sanneh 1999,24). A hallmark of Patrick’s mission to Ireland was his continual striving to find the good in the local culture and to build upon that foundation a strong indigenized Christian expression of the gospel. In contemporary missiological terminology this is called contextualization. Darrell Whiteman defines contextualization. To communicate the Gospel in word and deed to establish the church in ways that make sense to people within their local cultural context, presenting Christianity in such a way that it meets people's deepest needs and penetrates their worldview, thus allowing them to follow Christ and remain within their culture. (Whiteman 1997, 2) Although contextualization is a relatively new term, it is not a new concept. Paul Hiebert, a missionary and anthropologist, helped to further clarify the concept when he published an influential article entitled “Critical Contextualization” (Hiebert 1984). Hiebert believed that missionaries often went 38 to two extremes in engaging the local culture. Some rejected all of the local culture as “pagan”, imposing on it foreign cultural forms. Others uncritically accepted all of the local culture often resulting in syncretism. Critical contextualization rejected both these extremes and sought to train the indigenous church to engage and evaluate the local culture in light of biblical norms. Through this process some of the local culture was affirmed and kept, while other parts were rejected as unbiblical. Other parts of local cultural forms were kept but were reinterpreted with Christian meaning (Hiebert 1984,291). One illustration of Patrick’s contextualization was the Celtic symbol of the cross. The indigenous Celtic religion worshipped around tall standing stones representing the joining of earth to heaven. Rather than demolish such stones as pagan, Patrick and the Celtic church transformed them into the symbol of the cross. Likewise, when a local community turned to follow Christ, the pagan sacred grove was often transformed into the place where the church was built for Christian worship. Hunter remarks, “Celtic Christianity preferred continuity rather than discontinuity, inclusion rather than exclusion (Hunter 2000, 93). Another key aspect of St Patrick’s mission strategy was his holistic view of ministry. The indigenous Irish culture was animistic, believing that good and evil spirits controlled all of life. The Druid shaman was sought by people to deliver them from such evil spirits. Patrick and Celtic Christianity did not ignore the power and place of folk religion in the lives of the local people (Mitton 1996, 128). 39 Paul Hiebert has critiqued western missions for being entrapped in an enlightenment view of the world. This worldview ignores folk religion and creates what Hiebert termed “the excluded middle” (Hiebert 1994). In the folk religion of many cultures it is in the “excluded middle” that the powers of “spells, omens, evil eye...ghosts, ancestors, angels, demons” (Hunter 2000, 31) dwell and hold power over the lives of the people. Patrick’s gospel did not ignore this “excluded middle” of Celtic folk religion. There was no sacred-secular divide in his worldview. Instead he demonstrated the power of the gospel to defeat evil in every aspect of the culture. Hunter explains: “Celtic Christians had no need to seek out a shaman. Their Christian faith and community addressed life as a whole and may have addressed the middle level more specifically, comprehensively, and powerfully than any other Christian movement ever has” (Hunter 2000, 32). The Church as Community One of the unique features of the growth of the Celtic church was its monastic movement. Whereas much of the monastic movement outside of Ireland stressed separation, escaping the evils of the world, the Celtic expression was much more incamational, living in and serving the local community. The Celtic monastic community was a place where the stranger, the non-believer, was welcomed and embraced. These communities became places where Christian witness was not compartmentalized into sacred and secular, but was modeled as part of the daily cycle of living out life in a real world context (Mittonl996, 38). Celtic monastic communities were not places with walls to keep the stranger out, 40 but rather open spaces where hostility was transformed into genuine hospitality (Nouwen 1986). Paul Hiebert brings fresh insights to such a discussion through his concepts of “bounded and centred sets.” Just as culture creates categories of in- group and out-group, so the “bounded set” seeks to create strong boundaries to categorize who is inside or outside a particular community. Hiebert suggests: “If we think of “Christian” as a bounded set, we must decide what are the definitive characteristics that set a Christian apart from a non-Christian” (Hiebert 1983, 423). The “centred set” is less concerned about maintaining who is inside or outside the preset boundary markers. Here the concern is movement towards the centre. Hiebert would argue that the Christian community should be focused not on creating boundaries to keep “the other” out, but on welcoming the “other” to move towards the centre to embrace Christ. Celtic monastic communities lived out a radical Christ-centred community where the stranger, the non-Christian, was welcomed and embraced and encouraged to move towards a loving intimate relationship with the triune God (Mitton 1996, 82). This historical case study of St. Patrick, combined with the insights of anthropologist Paul Hiebert, provides rich examples of how Christians and the church are called to engage contemporary culture. Patrick’s vision, motivation and ability to leave his own cultural context to engage the Celtic people are key factor needed for effective intercultural ministry. His openness to seek the good of the receptor culture and to build an indigenous church is a model for contemporary contextualization. For these things to be replicated today there must 41 be intentionality in training leaders to develop intercultural competencies that will equip them for effective ministry in whatever cultural context they find themselves. Summary and Conclusion of Theological Rationale This chapter described a theological rationale for developing intercultural leaders for missional ministry in our urban centres in Canada. This theological rationale is based on three assumptions. First, there is a clear missional hermeneutic, a missio Dei, where God’s mission through His church, is seeking to bless the nations and to reconcile them to himself. Second, as followers of Christ we are to partner in God’s mission to cross cultural boundaries in order to bring God’s blessing to the nations. Third, to cross cultural boundaries it will require leaders like Paul, Peter, and Philip who have the intercultural knowledge and skills to effectively equip the church for ministry in our multicultural context. Finally, the historical case study of St. Patrick demonstrated how one man, empowered by God’s missional mandate, crossed cultural boundaries for the blessing and transformation of the people of Ireland. 42 CHAPTER THREE: PRECEDENT LITERATURE This chapter will focus on the following: definitions of intercultural competence and culture, three intercultural models as a conceptual framework for training, key components of intercultural competence, principles for design and delivery of an intercultural training program, and assessment and evaluation of intercultural training. The subject of developing intercultural competence is broad and complex involving many different facets. With the demographics in North America indicating a move away from its European ethnic origins, there has been much academic research regarding the role of intercultural competencies in a plethora of professional settings including: global business (Caligiuri 2006; Mendenhall 2006), educational institutions, (Deardorff 2006), K-12 educators, (Banks 2006; Dejaeghere and Cao 2009), and government and social services (McGrath and Axelson 1999). There is a growing awareness that professionals need intercultural competencies to effectively engage in diverse cultural contexts whether domestically or abroad. A review of the literature, focusing on Christian ministry, shows a similar interest in developing intercultural competencies for a broad range of ministries including leadership in church ministry locally and globally (Livermore 2009), 43 developing intercultural leaders (Sheffield 2005), leading across cultures (Plueddemann 2009; Lingenfelter 2008), teaching cross-culturally (Lingenfelter 2003), addressing cross-cultural conflict (Elmer 1993), cross-cultural counselling (Augsburger 1986), missional ministry in a multicultural context (Branson 2011; Law 1993; Lane 2002), campus ministry (Dong 2012), and overseas missions (Heibert 1984). Defining Culture and Intercultural Competence A robust definition of intercultural competence is needed to provide focus and clarity for the intercultural training and assessment process (Fantini 2009; Deardorff 2009). What is Culture? There is little agreement in the literature in adopting a singular definition of culture. Lustig, an intercultural researcher, remarks that John R. Baldwin’s research shows that over three hundred definitions of culture presently exist (Lustig 2012). There is, however, a growing consensus that the concept of culture has two distinct dimensions described as objective and subjective. Objective culture, sometimes referred to as capital “C” culture, consists of more visible aspects such as: language, politics, economics, architecture, food, fashion, and artifacts. Subjective culture, or small “c” culture, relates more to the invisible aspects of culture such as: norms, beliefs, values, and worldview (Paige 2004; Bennett 1998). The invisible and subjective dimension of culture carries the most significance in developing one’s intercultural competence. 44 The literature frequently describes culture as an iceberg, depicting 90 percent of culture as hidden beneath the surface (Thomas 2009). The iceberg analogy helps to illustrate that much of culture is “submerged” at an unconscious level of awareness in human thinking. Edward T. Hall argues that, “humans must also take into account the existence of the out-of-awareness features of communication... culture hides much more than it reveals and strangely enough, what it hides, it hides most effectively from its own participants” (Hall 1998, 59). An important component in intercultural training is helping participants develop critical skills in exploring the hidden dimensions of culture. Two definitions of culture, from two leading scholars, Myron W. Lustig, and Milton J. Bennett seem especially helpful in emphasizing the invisible and subjective view of culture which impacts all of life: Culture is a learned set of shared interpretations about beliefs, values, norms and social practices, which affect the behaviour of a relatively large group of people. (Lustig 2012, 25) Culture is the learned and shared patterns of beliefs, behaviors, and values of groups of interacting people. (Bennett 1998, 3) What is Intercultural Competence? In 2004 educator and researcher Darla Deardorff gathered twenty-three internationally known intercultural scholars with the goal of defining the concept of intercultural competence. These scholars reached a consensus in defining intercultural competence as “the ability to communicate effectively and appropriately in intercultural situations based on one’s knowledge, skills and attitude” (Deardorff 2008, 33). I have chosen Deardorff s definition of 45 intercultural competence for this research project with the knowledge that the literature cites a number of shortcomings. Researchers participating in Deardorff s study were mostly North American (Berardo 2012). There appears to be no similar consensus regarding a definition from a European perspective (Byram 2009). Deardorff herself would like to see more non-western perspectives in ongoing research in order to bring a more global and holistic perspective to the study and practice of intercultural competence (Deardorff 2008). In the TIM Centre’s training the portfolio approach and an ethnically diverse facilitation team helped to address some of the concerns raised by the European commentators. Despite its shortcomings Deardorff's definition is presently being used widely in the field of Intercultural competency research and as such it was used as a bench mark for this research project. Having explored the definitions of culture and intercultural competence I will now explain the conceptual framework and models highlighted in the literature, which were used in this training program. Models of Intercultural Competence Deardorff and Bennett argue that good intercultural training should be grounded in a well-tested theory and conceptual framework (Bennett 2009, 97; Deardorff 2009). Janet Bennett, a leading intercultural educator uses the global positioning system (GPS) as a metaphor to describe the role models can play in developing intercultural competencies. Bennett comments, “We routinely rely on this helpful technology to discover not only where we are, but also where we are 46 going” (Bennett 2009, 125). In this section I will use the GPS metaphor in considering three key conceptual models that are highlighted in the literature in regards to developing intercultural competencies. The first is Milton Bennett’s Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS). Using the GPS metaphor, we can describe the DMIS model as primarily concerned with where a person is located and where he or she should be going on the intercultural journey. The second is Darla Deardorff's process model of intercultural competence (Deardorff 2006). This model helps to answer the question: “How do I get from where I am presently located to where I should be going on my intercultural journey?” The third is John Berry’s acculturation model which helps a person understand the challenges faced in the adaptation process of going from where he or she is presently, to where he or she should be going in their intercultural journey (Berry 2005). These three models have one thing in common; they focus on intercultural development as a long term, ongoing process. Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) Milton Bennett’s “Development Model of Intercultural Sensitivity” (Bennett 1993) is built on the constructionist view that we create meaning through social interaction and experience. Bennett argues, “the underlying assumption of the model is that as one’s experience of cultural difference becomes more sophisticated, one’s competence in intercultural relations increases” (Bennett 2004, 150). This model has been extensively analyzed both in its theoretical 47 construct and in its application to multiple intercultural contexts (Paige 2009; Pedersen 2010). The DMIS model views intercultural competencies as part of a developmental process from ethnocentrism, where a person sees his or her culture as “central to reality”, to ethnorelativism, “the experience of one’s beliefs and behavior as just one organization of reality among many viable possibilities” (Bennett 2004, 62). As shown in figure 1 below, Bennett suggests three stages in the ethnocentric continuum: denial, defence, and minimization. The ethnorelative stages are: acceptance, adaptation, and integration (Bennett 1998). The following overview of the DMIS stages is drawn from two main sources, Milton Bennett (Bennett 1998, 26-30), and Michael Paige (Paige 2004,81-89). Figure 1: Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (Adapted from Bennett 1998,26). Experience of Difference [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Figure 1 details. ] Denial of Difference: In this stage people see life only from their own particular cultural perspective. They have not developed the cultural categories to construe and understand cultural differences. Often this results in intentionally living in isolation or separation from people of other cultures. 48 Defense against Difference: People can now see cultural differences but they transfer them into an “us versus them” mentality. This can result in an attitude of superiority, which often is seen in dominant culture attitudes towards minority cultures. Defense can also become a form of reversal where the person fully adopts the host culture and is hyper critical of his or her own culture. Minimization of Difference: People at this stage recognize cultural differences but often only at the objective not the subjective aspect of culture. There is a need to move from surface similarities to beneath the surface differences. This is an important transitional stage from ethnocentrism to ethnorelativism whereby people have the capacity to view life from other cultural perspectives. Acceptance of Difference: At this stage people have reached the developmental process of recognizing and accepting cultural differences. This is the first step into “cultural relativism” where one culture is not seen as inherently better or worse than another. It is simply different” (Paige 2004, 85). Adaptation to Difference: Having recognized and accepted cultural differences a person is now able to adapt his or her behavior when entering a different cultural frame of reference. This requires empathy towards different cultural perspectives. Integration of Difference: At this stage a person is able to transcend any one given culture. Such a person will have a bicultural sense of identity. He or she is able to feel at home in different cultural contexts. 49 The DMIS has a number of significant benefits for developing intercultural competency training. Paige suggests the following applications (Paige 2009, 339). It helps the trainer ascertain where the learner is in regards to his/her intercultural competence development. It enables the trainer to sequence training events in a way that will provide the right balance of challenge and support to the participant. The DMIS provides the learner with a conceptual framework for understanding intercultural competence from a developmental perspective. It provides a shared intercultural framework whereby the trainer and the learner can discuss coaching goals in achieving greater intercultural competence Although the DMIS model helps to give a conceptual framework for discussing and evaluating intercultural competence, it should not be used in an absolutistic manner, as this would undermine the constructionist philosophy on which it is built. The DMIS is more of a guide to an intercultural developmental process and as such is an approximation and not 100% accurate in every case. Process Model of Intercultural Competence If the DMIS model helps to locate where a person is on the intercultural development continuum, Deardorff's intercultural process model becomes the conceptual map, guiding the intercultural sojourner from where they are to where they should be. 50 Figure 2: Deardorff's Process Model Used with permission from Darla Deardorff (Deardorff 2009) [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Figure 2 details. ] Margaret D. Push, an intercultural historian remarks, “the Deardorff model is a succinct visual research-based display of what has largely been discussed in other texts” (Deardorff 2009, 68). In Figure: 2, Deardorffs model identifies attitudes such as respect, openness, curiosity, and discovery as foundational 51 components of intercultural competence (Deardorff 2008). Knowledge of self and others, together with skills of listening, observing, and evaluating are essential intercultural components leading to “appropriate and effective” intercultural competence outcomes (Spitzberg and Changon 2009, 32). Deardorff sees intentionality as an essential component in developing intercultural competence and cautions not to use the model as a quick fix solution in seeking to become interculturally competent. This model is meant as a conceptual framework or map to guide a person on his or her lifelong intercultural journey (Berardo 2012, 47; Hall 2012, 24). Acculturation Model The GPS metaphor demonstrated how the DMIS model locates where a person is on the intercultural journey. Deardorff's model builds on the DMIS by describing the cultural maps needed to guide a person on the intercultural journey. Berry, a Canadian cross-cultural psychologist, developed the Acculturation Model. This helps a person understand the challenges he or she may experience in the acculturation and adaptation process in reaching his or her intercultural destination. This model is especially important for new immigrants who are adapting to a new dominant cultural context (Spitzberg 2009). Berry’s model captures the dialectical tension of adjusting to a new culture by suggesting two postures one can take in the adaptation process. One can choose to “maintain one’s heritage, culture, and identity” or have “a preference for having contact with and 52 participating in the larger society along with other ethno-cultural groups” (Berry 2005, 704). Figure 3: Berry’s Acculturation Model Adapted from (Lustig 2012, 296). [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Figure 3 details. ] These two postures, according to Berry, will result in four acculturation strategies. The first is assimilation. Here a person is not concerned with maintaining his or her own cultural identity but with taking on the culture of the dominant group. This has been commonly referred to by the metaphor “the melting pot” (Lustig 2012, 295). The second acculturation strategy is separation. Here an individual or group puts such a high premium on maintaining their own distinct cultural identity that they live in a parallel world to the dominant culture. The third strategy is integration. The individual or group seeks to celebrate their own cultural identity while being willing to respect and participate with all other cultures in that society. This is generally referred to as multiculturalism. The 53 fourth strategy is marginalization. The individual or group does not maintain either their own cultural identity or that of the host culture. This will often result in a sense of confusion and alienation (Berry 2005; Lustig 2012). Components of Intercultural Competence The previous two sections explained intercultural definitions and three conceptual models widely recognized in the literature. This section will investigate what the literature says regarding common intercultural competency myths, and key components of intercultural competence. Intercultural Competency Myths Learning the language of the dominant culture, eating at international potluck dinners, and being a member of a multicultural church does not automatically transfer into intercultural competency development. Milton Bennett argues that these are popular myths regarding intercultural competency. Becoming fluent in a host culture’s language does not make one automatically interculturally competent. Bennett purports that an individual can be a “fluent fool” by overestimating one’s ability in speaking the language without understanding the hidden dimension of cultural values, beliefs, and worldview (Bennett 1997, 16). The literature agrees that acquiring cultural knowledge, especially of the objective culture, does not automatically lead to the development of intercultural competencies (Bennett 1998, 3). Immediate contact with different cultures does not necessarily transfer 54 into intercultural competence. In this regard scholars often quote psychologist George Kelly who suggested that, “learning from experience requires more than being in the vicinity of events that occur. Learning emerges from our capacity to construe those events and then to reconstrue them in transformative ways” (Bennett 2008, 17). Such intercultural competency myths are often unacknowledged in the multicultural context. As will be discussed in the next section, without developing core competencies a person will not progress from holding such myths to travelling on his or her intercultural journey. Core Intercultural Competencies A review of the literature indicates a general agreement with Deardorff's research that the most important components in developing intercultural competencies are: self-awareness, attitudes, knowledge, and skills (Spitzberg 2009; Fowler 2004; Byram 1997). Bennett (2004, 149) further elaborates these key components as: Mindset (Knowledge): Cultural self-awareness, culture- general knowledge, culture specific knowledge, and interaction analysis. Skillset (Skills): Relationship building skills, behavioural skills, listening, problem solving, empathy, and information gathering. Heartset (Attitudes): Curiosity, cognitive flexibility, motivation, and open-mindedness. Berardo argues that it is attitude or “heartset” which is the most critical in developing intercultural competence even though they are the most difficult to develop and assess (Berardo 2004, 23). Paula Caligiuri’s research postulates that 55 because personal attitudes are so difficult to change organizations “should consider selection on the basis of personality as the precursor to leadership training and development programs” (Caligiuri 2006, 226). Motivation The literature also indicates motivation to be a key factor in developing intercultural competence (Spitzberg 2009, 32; Bennett 2009, 127; Push 2008, 67). Without motivation a person will have little desire to understand and engage those who are culturally different. Livermore, writing from a Christian perspective, argues that our motivation should be grounded in love. He concludes: “That’s our destination. We’re on a journey from the desire to love the other, to a place where we effectively express that love of Jesus to people of difference” (Livermore 2009, 17). Identity Security Toomey and Kim argue that personal identity is a key factor related to motivation and developing intercultural competence (Toomey 2009, 101). Young Yun Kim remarks: “Identity security” is a necessity if one is to become interculturally competent. Her research indicates identity security as an “inner resource that allows for qualities of flexibility and relaxedness in one’s behavior, that is, the ability to “bend” and empathize with others” (Kim 2009, 57). 56 Anxiety-Uncertainty Management Gudykunst argues that, “the amount of diffuse anxiety we experience influences our motivation to communicate with strangers. If our diffuse anxiety is too high or too low, we are not motivated to communicate” (Gudykunst 2003, 34). As a person gains more knowledge and skills in engaging cultural differences it should result in a reduction of anxiety and an increase in one’s motivational level (Gudykunst 2003, 40). Stress in the Adaptation Process Many theories and models of intercultural competence lack attention to the physiological and emotional stress involved in adaptation and engaging cultural difference (Gudykunst 1996). Paige developed a model illustrating intensity factors that can increase the stress in adapting to a new cultural context. The intensity factors described by Paige are: cultural differences, ethnocentrism, cultural immersion, cultural isolation, language, prior intercultural experience, expectations, visibility and invisibility, status, power, and control (Paige 2009, 337). Although the model of intensity factors was developed for international internship programs, it can also be adapted and revised for training programs assisting new immigrants in their acculturation process to Canada. Empathy, Mindfulness, and Self-awareness, Empathy and mindfulness were the two most mentioned skills in the literature review. In Deardorff's Delphi study it was empathy that received the 57 highest endorsement (Deardorff 2008, 33). Empathy and mindfulness have overlapping foci. Stella Ting-Toomey describes mindfulness as “attending to one’s internal communication assumptions, cognitions, and emotions, at the same time becoming exquisitely attuned to the other’s communication assumptions, cognitions, and emotions” (Toomey 2009,104). Michael Byram, a leading intercultural researcher from Europe, puts critical self-awareness at the core of his intercultural competence model. He describes it as “an ability to evaluate critically.... on the basis of explicit criteria, perspectives, practices and products in one’s own and other cultures and countries” (Byram 2009, 323). This became a key component of TIM Centre’s training program. Participants were given multiple opportunities of engaging in exercises’ that helped develop skills in critical awareness in an intercultural context. Design, Delivery and Assessment of Intercultural Training Having discussed intercultural myths and key components of intercultural competence, the focus of this section will be guiding principles found in the research literature related to the design, delivery and evaluation of intercultural training. Innovation and Complexity Designing a training intervention for a culturally diverse group of people is a complex and innovative endeavor (Hermans 2012). Michael Patton, an educator in developmental research asserts: “Identifying clear, specific, and 58 measurable outcomes at the very start of an innovative project, for example, may be not only difficult but counterproductive (Patton 2011, 5). The literature suggests a high degree of flexibility both in the design and delivery of intercultural training programs (Hermans 2012; Deardorff 2009). As Patton proposes: “Methods can be emergent and flexible; designs can be dynamic. Contrary to the usual practice in evaluation of fixed designs that are implemented as planned, developmental evaluation designs can change as the innovation unfolds and changes” (Patton 2011, 336). The Intercultural Training Context Designing intercultural training begins by understanding the needs of the participants and the expectations they bring to the learning process (Hermans 2012, 27). The context of the participants and their expectations will greatly influence the program design and learning outcomes. A training program for students embarking on an international internship to another country will be framed in a different way to one seeking to engage participants in missional ministry in a multicultural city like Toronto. Matthew Hall’s research found that much of the literature has focused on learning from a cross-cultural “overseas” perspective with little by way of intercultural learning for a local multicultural context (Hall 2012, 24). Because the context of this training program is primarily for new Canadian immigrants, the intercultural competency focus will also need to relate to the acculturation and adaptation process of adjusting to life and ministry in Canada (Berry 2005; Lustig 2012). 59 Facilitator’s Intercultural Competencies Developing intercultural competencies should not be limited to participants in the training program. Paige argues that more attention needs to be given to trainer competencies (Paige 1993). Matthew Hall postulates that the trainer’s intercultural competence “is a prerequisite for designing effective training which develops the intercultural competence in others” (Hall 2012, 24). It is recommended that trainers should have reached an advanced stage in the intercultural developmental process before attempting to facilitate training programs. Bennett remarks that although the term “facilitation" suggests “having a guide on the side rather than a sage on the stage,” the facilitators must engage in both roles (Bennett 2012, 14). Paige’s contribution concerning the competencies of intercultural facilitators is quoted extensively in the research literature. He argues that the trainer’s personal competencies should consist of the following: Tolerance of ambiguity, cognitive and behavioural flexibility, personal self-awareness, strong personal identity, cultural self-awareness and patience, enthusiasm and commitment, interpersonal sensitivity, tolerance of differences, openness to new experiences and to people who are different, empathy, sense of humility, and sense of humor. (Paige 1993, 190-191) Training Program Outcomes The content and learning outcomes of intercultural training should reflect the conceptual models chosen for the training program. In this case I have chosen: Bennett’s Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (Bennett 1994), Deardorff's Process Model of Intercultural Competence (Deardorff 2006), and Berry’s Model of Acculturation (Berry 2005). Rather that using a random 60 approach to training these models provides a more comprehensive, integrated, and sequenced approach to training content and its delivery. Bennett makes the point that intercultural training content should be carefully developed and delivered to take into consideration the learner’s stage of development as reflected in the DMIS and IDI assessment. Training content should also be delivered in a manner that balances the challenge and support that are optimum for participant engagement and learning (Bennett 2009, 167). Although the literature provides a rich resource of conceptual models (Deardorff 2012; Byram 1997; Bennett 2012), there appears a paucity of research related to the application of such models to curriculum development for intercultural training programs. Paige and Bennett have made some progress in relating the DMIS to the core intercultural competencies of attitudes (heartset), knowledge (mindset), and skills (skillset). Paige gives some helpful insights as to how the DMIS stages can be utilized in developing learning outcomes (Paige 2004, 82). Culture-General and Culture-Specific Learning The literature stresses differentiating between culture general and culture specific components when designing a training program. Culture-specific learning refers to ethnographic information about a specific culture while culture-general learning refers to maps or frameworks that help to contrast and compare all cultures (Fowler 2004, 61; Bennett 1998, 9). Bennett suggests “using multiple culture maps as a tool to assess our cultural views relative to others in what we call an intercultural positioning 61 system” (Bennett 2009, 125). The cultural maps, which explore culture-general variables in any culture include: “nonverbal behavior, communication styles, values, interaction rituals, conflict styles, cognitive learning styles, identity, and development” (Bennett 2009,126). The intercultural literature puts great emphasis on how training programs can utilize culture values in contrasting and understanding different cultural groups. There are a plethora of taxonomies available that describe and contrast value patterns of different cultures. Edward Hall’s concept of high context and low context cultures is a staple in the training literature. This contrasts such concepts as direct and indirect communication as well as verbal and non-verbal communication (Hall 1998). The Society for Intercultural Education Training and Research (Seitar) conducted a survey in 2004 indicating that Geert Hofstede’s five dimensions of cultural values came first in the category of the most popular culture model and second in the category of cultural profiling instrument (Berardo 2004, 44). Hofstede’s research of over 100,000 global employees of IBM in fifty countries resulted in five cultural comparisons: individualism versus collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity versus femininity, and future orientation (Lustig 2012; Thomas 2009). Given that Hodstede’s model is widely used in intercultural training and is focused on describing cultural value differences it was used as a core tool in assisting participants map their own and other cultural values. 62 Another recent research project on culture-general taxonomies, building on Hofstede’s research, is found in the literature. These include Shalom Schwart’s research of fifty-seven nationalities resulting in seven culture value dimensions: egalitarianism, harmony, embeddedness, hierarchy, mastery of environment, affective autonomy, and intellectual autonomy (Thomas 2009, 35). The most contemporary research on culture values is the GLOBE project. In 1993, a team of 170 researchers collected information from nearly 22,000 middle managers in 61 cultures (Lustig 2012, 116). The findings of this research project contrasted culture values using the following nine dimensions: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, in-group collectivism, institutional collectivism, gender egalitarianism, assertiveness, performance orientation, future orientation, and humane orientation (Plueddemann 2009, 94-99). With so many culture-value taxonomies available a caution needs to be made in not overwhelming participants with too much cognitive information. Both the Schwart and Globe research build on the introductory research of Hofstede, which will be used to introduce culture-general values orientations in the TIM Centre training program. As will be discussed in the following section facilitators need to strike a balance in the didactic and experiential methods used in the training program. Having discussed the complexity, context, facilitators’ competencies, culture-general, and culture-specific principles in designing training I will now focus on the delivery, assessment, and evaluation aspects of the training program. 63 Delivery of Intercultural Training Hermans and Push argue that a good training environment requires “a perceived relevance in terms of actual content, learning activities, and level of challenge” (Hermans 2012, 34). The classroom should become the intercultural learning laboratory providing participants the opportunity of taking risks and facing their uncertainties and anxieties in a safe supportive learning environment (Byram 1997). In the early stage of the training program facilitators should utilize experiential exercises where participants can explore ways of gathering and sharing information that will build mutual trust and support in the learning environment (Bernardo 2012). A key factor in the delivery of intercultural training is creating a pedagogy where the focus becomes “learning how to learn” rather than simply a depositing of information which creates passive and dependent learners. James McCaffery remarks that the aim of training programs should be “to move people toward developing and enhancing the skills they need to become independently effective cross-cultural sojourners” (McCaffery 1993, 226). This goal should be reflected in learning outcomes that assist participants not only to process information, but to also develop skills that can be utilized in multiple intercultural contexts after the training has ended (Byram 1997). One such skill is the ability to distinguish between cultural stereotyping and generalization, which is at the heart of culture comparisons (Paige 2009). Whereas stereotyping is often a negative assumption of others based on limited information, a generalization is an “initial hypotheses...recognizing there may be 64 a tendency for people within a culture group to share certain values, beliefs, and behaviours” (Paige 2009, 57). Having this knowledge and skill will give the participants more confidence in new cultural settings. It will also increase their critical awareness in discerning the difference between ethnocentric stereotyping and insights that are more accurately researched generalizations of a particular culture (Bennett 2004, 151). Another example of “learning how to learn” is the Describe-Interpret- Evaluate (D.I.E.) concept developed by Janet Bennett (Bennett 1997). A key component of intercultural competence is the ability to construe and reflect on cultural differences. The D.I.E. is a three-step process for developing skills in understanding the hidden assumptions in any culture. The first step is to describe what you see as objectively as possible and to withhold any form of judgment of that incident. The second step allows the person to make several interpretations as to the possible meaning of what has been described. Finally, with the help of a cultural insider, the person evaluates which of the interpretations are most accurate and how they would apply in that particular cultural context. This exercise is intended to develop skills in becoming more aware of our culturally biased value judgments. It also illustrates how meaning is often culturally relative to how we interpret and evaluate what we see (Bennett 1997; Savicki 2008). Didactic and Experiential Methods The intercultural literature highlights the most effective training methods. Didactic and experiential refers to the process by which the training is delivered rather than to its content. Fowler argues that a balance in using didactic and 65 experiential methods is needed when conducting intercultural training programs (Fowler 2004, 61). There are considerable references in the literature to Kolb’s learning preference cycle, especially as it relates to developing an experiential adult educational pedagogy (McCaffery 1993; Fowler 2004). A well designed and delivered training program should engage all four of Kolb’s stages of learning (Fowler 2004, 65; Savicki 2008). Fowler and Blohm (Fowler 2004, 65) highlighted Bennett’s instructional activities for each of Kolb’s learning cycle as: 1) Concrete Experience: Small group discussion, examples, autobiography, trigger films, exercises, introductions, guided imagery, music, video graphics, and peer teaching. 2) Reflective Observation: Journals, discussion, brainstorming, thought questions, reflection papers, observations, checklists, worksheets, and structured tasks. 3) Abstract Conceptualization: Lectures, papers, projects, analogies, model building, theory construction, references, research and reading. 4) Active Experimentation: Projects, fieldwork, homework, laboratory, case study, simulations and games. Practice assignments, self-paced learning, and demonstrations. Having discussed intercultural models as a conceptual framework for training, key components of intercultural competence, principles for design and delivery of an intercultural training program this chapter will conclude by considering the assessment and evaluation of intercultural training. 66 Assessment and Evaluation of Intercultural Competence Developing intercultural competencies of participants from diverse cultural backgrounds living in one of the most multicultural cities of the world is a complex undertaking. Patton cautions educators of the dangers of oversimplifying assessment and evaluation. He remarks: Traditional evaluation aims to control and predict, to bring order out of chaos. Developmental evaluation accepts such turbulence as the way the world of social innovation unfolds in the face of complexity. Development evaluation adapts to the realities of complex nonlinear dynamics rather than trying to impose order and certainty on a disorderly uncertain world.” (Patton 2011, 5) Central to the western scientific worldview is the quest to measure and quantify the complexity of our world. The belief of modernity that we can be objective observers of the world we inhabit has been radically challenged in our post-modern world. Caroline Gipps, a European educationalist, calls for a paradigm shift in how we view assessment. “Assessment is not an exact science, and we must stop presenting it as such. This is of course part of the post-modern condition - a suspension of belief in the absolute status of “scientific” knowledge” (Gipps 1994, 167). Given the complexity of intercultural competence, assessment will require “a multi-dimensional, multi-method, and multi-team approach” (Deardorff 2009, 486; Byram 1997, 110). In assessing intercultural competence it is important to be clear on what is being measured. This should begin with a clear definition of what is meant by intercultural competence (Fantini 2009). Bennett’s DMIS model and Deardorff's process model of competence provide a credible and reliable baseline for assessment and evaluation (Spitzberg 2009). 67 Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) Within the field of intercultural competence development there are a growing number of assessment instruments. Paige defines an intercultural instrument as “any measurement device that identifies, describes, assesses, categorizes, or evaluates the cultural characteristics of individuals, groups, and organizations” (Paige 2004, 86). He postulates that instruments such as the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) can be used “to provide a baseline measure of skills and attitudes that the training is designed to improve (Paige 2004, 90). The Society for Intercultural Education Training and Research (Seitar) survey rated the IDI as one of the top two instruments used in intercultural assessment and training (Berardo 2004). The IDI is being utilized as an assessment instrument in a diverse range of intercultural contexts: K-12 education (Dejaeghere 2009), physician training (Altshuler 2003), international internships (Pedersen 2010), global leaders (Mendenhall 2006), and missionary candidates (Sheffield 2007). Hammer and Bennett co-developed the initial IDI assessment instrument and see it as a tool that has “greatly expanded” the intercultural competence toolkit (Hammer 2008, 246). The 50-item questionnaire can be completed online and has been translated into 12 languages. Open-ended questions provide further insights into how the individual deals with relationships in a variety of different cultural contexts. The resulting assessment gives both a group and individual profile as to where the person or groups are positioned on the DMIS continuum. 68 The IDI seeks to assist the individual and group to understand where “their primary orientation is towards cultural differences” (Hammer 2008, 248). The IDI assessment profile provides key insights called “trailing issues.” These potentially help the individual or group understand what may be preventing them from moving to the next developmental stage of intercultural competence. The IDI will also help identify “leading issues” which, when intentionally addressed by the learner, can help move the individual and group to the next stage of intercultural competence (Hammer 2008, 248). A key aspect of the IDI assessment is its recognition of the gap between one’s Perceived Orientation (PO) and Development Orientation (DO) in regards to understanding and differentiating cultural differences on the DMIS continuum. The IDI also assesses Cultural Disengagement (CD). This is “the degree to which an individual is experiencing a sense of alienation from his or her own cultural community” (Hammer 2008, 251). Intercultural practitioners give a number of reasons why the IDI is a relevant assessment tool: 1. It can be used as a training intervention to assist learners to understand their developmental level of intercultural competence (Hammer 2008). 2. It can be used as a coaching tool in helping learners in the developmental process (Mendenhall 2006, 3; Hammer 2008, 215). 3. It can be used for learner needs assessment, (Hammer 2008, 214) with the goal of designing developmentally appropriate intercultural training (Dejaeghere 2009, 446). 69 4. It can help the trainer to choose and sequence effective training content and methods. 5. It can be utilized to evaluate the effectiveness of the intercultural training being delivered (Paige 2004, 86). There were also a number of cautions noted in the literature concerning the use of the IDI as an assessment instrument. The most pertinent of these were: (a) it should not be used as a measure of a person’s success or failure regarding intercultural competence (Dejaeghere 2009, 446), (b) it is recommended that the IDI be used as one of a number of assessment strategies in any given training program. This will create a more holistic approach to evaluation, which includes the learner in the process of evaluation (Deardorff 2009). In the TIM program we addressed both of these concerns by using a portfolio assessment approach and by not stressing the IDI assessment as an indicator of success or failure in one’s intercultural development. Instead as facilitators we used the IDI as a frame of reference for discussing where one is on his or intercultural journey and how they could develop intercultural competencies for the road ahead. Michael Bryam calls this multi method approach “the portfolio” assessment method. The portfolio method allows the learner to gather evidence to document his or her intercultural competence development, which can be shared with the facilitator as part of the overall assessment process. Such assessment strategies may include: participant observation, participant journaling, personal interviews, and reflection papers (Byram 1997, 106-107). 70 Deardorff argues that it is important to prioritize what aspects of intercultural competence will be assessed. Because of its complexity, it is advisable not to attempt assessing too many aspects of the intercultural competence spectrum at one time (Deardorff 2009, 476). Summary and Conclusion This literature review confirms the growing interest in the subject of developing intercultural competence. It is a broad, diverse, and often complex subject that is evolving and developing. Research into intercultural competence appears to be still a predominately western construct (Deardorff 2009, 43). As such, its models and frameworks must be held as hypotheses rather than absolutistic, universally accepted theories to be rigidly imposed on all cultural contexts. The definitions of intercultural competence and culture, together with the developmental, process and adaptation models of Bennett, Deardorff and Berry provided researched-based models as benchmarks for this intercultural research project. This literature review has reinforced and supported my choice of Janet Bennett (2012), Milton Bennett (1998), Michael Paige (2004), Darla Deardorff (2012), and Michael Byram (1997) as respected scholars and practitioners in the field of developing intercultural competencies. Researchers and practitioners such as, Livermore (2009), Sheffield (2007), Lingenfelter (2008), Plueddemann (2009) and Law (1993) bring a contemporary Christian perspective to this growing field of research. 71 CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH METHODS The focus of this project was to evaluate the effectiveness of an intercultural training intervention. Its purpose was to develop intercultural competencies of Christian leaders engaged in missional ministry in the multicultural context of Toronto. Chapter two described how God desires to bless the nations of this world. This mandate, given to the Church, will require intentionality in crossing cultural boundaries. This will require leaders with intercultural knowledge and skills who are able to effectively navigate the cultural diversity of our urban centres. The literature review in chapter three showed how the field of intercultural studies is rapidly expanding in our globalized and urbanized world. The literature reviewed the definitions of intercultural competence and culture, key conceptual models, components of intercultural competence, and design and assessment of intercultural training. This chapter will discuss the following: the research methodology, program development, participants, facilitation team, delivery of the program, data collection, data analysis, and program evaluation. The chapter will conclude with a brief overview of the ethical criteria guiding the research throughout this project. 72 Research Methodology In this section the following will be discussed: (a) action based research methodology, (b) cultural competent research, (c) a mixed methods approach to data collection, (d) tools and techniques. Action Research The research framework for this project was an action based methodology. Educator Valsa Koshy describes action research as: A constructive enquiry, during which the researcher constructs his or her knowledge of specific issues through planning, acting, evaluating, refining and learning from the experience. It is a continuous learning process in which the researcher learns and also shares the newly generated knowledge with those who may benefit from it. (Koshy 2005, 9) Philosophically this research methodology is based on a constructionist view of knowledge. This states that meaning is socially constructed when people interact in different social and cultural contexts. The focus of the research was to engage, understand, and collect information during a 16-week program about people engaging within their unique social and cultural context. Action research utilizes a participatory approach where the researcher and stakeholders work in collaboration to achieve a common goal. It also involves an iterative process whereby the researcher and stakeholders work through a series of action stages such as: planning, acting, observing, and reflecting on the problem or question being studied (Stringer 2007, 6). As Stringer rightly observes, in action research the researcher is not the only expert. He or she is, however, more of a facilitator seeking to discover, understand, and learn together with the stakeholders in order to find a solution to a problem knowing that “all social 73 events are subject to ongoing construction and negotiation” (Stringer 2007, 20). Rather than propose and impose a generalized theory for all contexts using a deductive approach, action research seeks to discover meaning by engaging people in a local community. When the researcher and stakeholders come from culturally diverse backgrounds and are located in one of the most multicultural cities in North America, attention must be given to how culture impacts the overall research process. Culturally Competent Research In our Canadian multicultural context there needs to be greater awareness and sensitivity as to how culture impacts research methods because as Lee and Zaharlick explain: The complexity and fluidity of culture challenges the researcher in each step of the research process, from defining the scope of the study, acquiring access to a range of participants, obtaining and managing data, developing measurements to capture the studied phenomena, to interpreting and disseminating research findings. (Lee 2013,12) Culturally competent research begins with the researcher becoming more aware of his or her personal life narrative and how it has shaped his or her perceptions of self and others. Deardorff stresses that research and evaluation of intercultural training, conducted in a culturally diverse and complex context, requires a multicultural team rather than a single individual from one particular cultural perspective (Deardorff 2009). This was a key strategy in this research project leading to the formation of an intercultural facilitation team made up of four people formerly from Sri Lanka, Ireland, Hong Kong, and Venezuela. On 74 more than one occasion team members challenged some aspect of our training project. One team member suggested that some aspects were “overly westernized” in their philosophy and methodology. Another team member questioned the amount of time spent on the cognitive dimension rather than the affective and interpersonal dimensions. Such feedback was not interpreted as criticism, but was rather recognized as being part of a healthy interactive process seeking to bring cultural sensitivity to the research project. This ongoing dialogue became a strategic part of the iterative process, which is core to the action based research methodology. A Mixed Methods Approach to Research Throughout this project a mixed method approach was used for gathering relevant research data. This approach to data collection utilizes the strengths of quantitative and qualitative research methods in the same project. In the former, the researcher is usually testing a particular theory using a predetermined instrument that provides numeric statistical data. In the latter, the researcher is using methods that help to gather relevant data that will explain the insights and perspectives of the people involved in the project. In this mixed method research a concurrent triangulation approach was utilized. Creswell argues that this model is selected “when a researcher uses two different methods in an attempt to confirm, cross-validate, or corroborate findings within a single study” (Creswell 2003, 217). Using a mixed method approach was supported by Deardorff s research findings, which concluded: “In measuring intercultural competence a multi- 75 method, multi-beyond perspective (beyond self-report instruments) assessment approach must be used to adequately assess intercultural competence (Deardorff 2009, 483). Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected at the same time throughout the project. The data from both methods was used to bring a more comprehensive explanation to the research findings (Creswell 2003). The Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) was the primary quantitative instrument used in this project. All participants were given a pre and post IDI assessment by the researcher who is a qualified IDI consultant. The goal in using the IDI assessment as a quantitative instrument was to determine what, if any, intercultural development took place in the participants over a 16-week period as a result of the training intervention. Qualitative data was collected using a number of techniques including: participant observation, participant journaling, individual interviews, small focus groups, and facilitators’ feedback. This provided triangulation in assessing the research findings. As Deardorff notes: In measuring intercultural competence a multi-method multi-perspective (beyond self-report instruments ) assessment approach must be used to adequately assess intercultural competence. One tool or method alone is not sufficient to measure the complexity of intercultural competence. (Deardorff 2009, 283) The qualitative method was used to understand how the participants experienced the training intervention and to help clarify which aspects of the training program contributed significantly to their journey in developing intercultural competency (Lee and Zaharlick 2013). 76 Program Development In this section the process of designing and developing the training curriculum will be examined. This will include (a) facilitator training (b) facilitation Team, (c) researcher assumptions, (d) facilitator’s training and (d) the curriculum design process. Facilitator Training To design, deliver and evaluate a high quality intercultural training program, I attended a number of seminars. In order to become a qualified administrator of the Intercultural Development Inventory® (IDI v3®) I attended a three day training seminar held in Kingston Ontario in. Upon successful completion of the IDI Qualifying seminar I received a licensing agreement, which allowed the administration of the IDI assessment. This was a core part of the intercultural training program. As discussed in chapter three, the literature affirms Milton Bennett’s Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) as a key conceptual framework for developing an intercultural training program. In July of 2012, I had the opportunity and privilege of being selected as a “Fellow” in the Summer Institute of Intercultural Communication (SIIC) in Portland, Oregon. During the three weeks at SIIC I was able to participate in a one-week course, “Training Design for Intercultural Learning.” Janet Bennett and Michael Paige facilitated this training. These two leading intercultural experts provided many insights into implementing the DMIS model as a core conceptual framework for intercultural 77 learning. This enhanced my ability to design, develop, and deliver the intercultural training program. The overall time frame for personal preparation, design, delivery and evaluation of the program was ten months (June 2012-April 2013). Table 1 shows the time line for the key components of the training project. Although the majority of the participants were already enrolled in the TIM Centre diploma program careful attention was given to selecting participants with a working knowledge of English as well as being committed to attending all classes. Both of these factors contributed to the success of the training program. Throughout the remainder of this thesis, for confidentiality purposes, I will use pseudonym names when referring to comments made by participants. Instead of referring to specific countries of origin of the participants I will provide a general reference to the region of the world from which they come. 78 Table 1: Project Time Line Project Time line Date Event June 2012 IDI - Assessment training July 2012 SIIC - Summer Institute of Intercultural Communication Sept. - Dec. 2012 Development of Training Curriculum Jan 15,2013 Training program begins Jan 16-21,2013 Pre IDI Assessment Jan 23 -31,2013 First IDI individual interviews April 2,2013 Mid-term and group interviews April 24 -30, 2013 Post IDI Assessment May 7,2013 Final questionnaire, group discussion and course conclusion May 8 -24, 2013 Second IDI individual interviews Facilitation Team A key priority of this project was the intentionality in assuring cultural diversity of the facilitation team. All four team members attended each training session performing various roles. Chris and I were primarily concerned with the design and delivery of the training modules. Carmen was responsible for making sure all the materials including the online resources were in order for each class. Ivana took primary responsibility for table arrangement, refreshments, and leading table discussions. Team members were also coached in participant observation and encouraged to make notes of what they observed. Within two days of completion of each class the facilitation team submitted their observations to myself as lead facilitator. The following questions were used to guide the reflection process: (a) “what went well in this training module?” (b) “how could this module have been improved?” (c) “what can we do to make the next module even better?” and (d) 79 “in what ways are you observing intercultural development among the participants?” The feedback from each team member provided rich qualitative data for this research project. During the 16-week training period six debrief team meetings were held. Five of the six meetings utilized Skype to ensure the participation of all team members. These Skype discussions were audio recorded and later transcribed as part of the qualitative data gathered for this project. Researcher Assumptions Every researcher must be aware of his or her assumptions, which he or she brings to the research project (Lee and Zaharlick 2013). Such assumptions can impact the relationship between the researcher and stakeholders as well as the credibility of data collected and one’s interpretation of it. Having a research team approach provided a check and balance approach to underlying assumptions which we as facilitators’ brought to the training program. The following two assumptions helped me, as the lead researcher and facilitator, to become more sensitive to my role-played in the research process. First, the fact that I am a white Caucasian male in his sixties would certainly have some impact on such a culturally diverse group of people. Most of the participants came from non- western countries where hierarchical power distance is often associated with age. As facilitators’ Chris and I had to be sensitive to the role of deference in the intercultural dynamics of the training program. Having a diverse intercultural team was important in identifying such potential challenges (Deardorff 2009). 80 A second assumption that impacted my perceptions of the training program was although this was a non-credit course my expectation was the participants would complete assignments according to the academic requirements of Tyndale Seminary. Chris, my co-facilitator was extremely helpful in bringing a more balanced perspective to the training process. Together as a team we had to readjust our assumptions and expectations of the participants learning outcomes. This became a key part of the iterative process, which is core to the philosophy, and practice of action based research methodology. Curriculum Development One of the strategic decisions made in the planning stage was to recruit a co-lead facilitator who would bring cultural diversity to the team. It was also essential that this person be an educator who could assist in developing learning outcomes that could be achieved by utilizing an adult educational pedagogy. As co-lead facilitator Chris was instrumental in assisting in the development and implementation of the overall training program. Using the DMIS as the intercultural framework Chris and I met on a regular basis over a three-month period from September to December 2013 to develop the learning outcomes of the intercultural training curriculum (Appendix 2 and 3). During this same time frame team member Carmen assisted in developing the online component of the training program. 81 Data Collection In this section, I will explain the process whereby the research data was collected. The following data sets will be considered: (a) the Pre-post IDI online assessment, (b) the Individual interviews, (c) the focus groups, (d) the midterm and final course evaluations, (e) participant reflection papers, and (f) facilitation team observations. The Data Collection Process The majority of the research data was collected during the months of January to May 2013.The intercultural training program began on the 15th January and concluded on 7th May. In total, there were ten three hour training sessions from 6:30-9:30 on alternate Tuesday evenings. The majority of classes were held alternate weeks at Peoples Church in Toronto which provided a church based context for TIM Centre training. The Pre and Post IDI Online Assessment A mixed method approach was utilized in collecting the data. The quantitative data was gathered by having participants complete the online Intercultural Development Inventory® (IDI v3®). After the first class each student was given a password that enabled him or her to access the online IDI assessment instrument. The results of this assessment were sent in electronic form to me as the qualified IDI administrator. Results were treated with the utmost confidentiality and stored in a safe secure location at Tyndale. 82 The IDI quantitative data was recorded in two forms. In the first, each participant was given a detailed analysis of where they were assessed on the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) continuum. The second form was a group report showing the overall assessment of all participants. In accordance with IDI guidelines as a qualified administrator, I was permitted to give feedback to all participants in class using the group profile. This group feedback was given during the third class. According to IDI guidelines, the individual profile reports could not be returned to the participants without first arranging a specific date and time to conduct a personal interview. The above process was repeated in a second assessment, which was administered the week before the last class of the course. The second IDI group profile feedback was given in the final session of the program. The time interval between the first IDI assessment and the second was approximately a 12-week period. Personal Interviews Personal interviews were a key part of gathering the qualitative data. Patton comments that: “qualitative interviewing begins with the assumption that the perspective of others is meaningful, knowable, and able to be made explicit. We interview to find out what is in and on someone else’s mind, to gather their stories” (Patton 2002, 341). In the qualitative data collection process two personal interviews were conducted with all eighteen participants. Both interviews were related to and guided by the feedback of their individual IDI profile. Each 83 interview lasted approximately one hour and was conducted in a quiet location that facilitated the audio recording of parts of the conversation. Notes were also recorded for each interview. After each interview the audio recording was transcribed into a word document that was later coded for categories and themes. The first interview had a number of specific goals: (a) to build trust between the participant and the interviewer, (b) to gather personal data relevant to understanding the intercultural journey of the participant, (c) to explain the IDI profile report and the individuals personal assessment, (d) to observe the emotional response of the participant to the IDI assessment (e) to clarify any questions arising from the IDI report, (f) to discuss ways that the assessment could facilitate intercultural development both during and after the training program. A final open-ended question was asked as to their overall impression of the training up to that point in the program. The second interview was conducted with all eighteen participants. All but two of the interviews took place within one month after the program ended. The second interview had five specific goals: (a) to present the second IDI profile report, (b) to listen and record their responses, both in the emotional and comprehension dimensions, (c) to ascertain whether they thought the report represented the reality of how they perceived their intercultural development during this time period, (d) to receive feedback as to what aspects of the course they found most beneficial in contributing to their intercultural development or lack thereof, and (e) to gain insights as to how they intended to use principles and tools from the intercultural training in their life, work, and ministry 84 Group Interviews Throughout the course two opportunities were given for group interviews. The first group discussion was held during the mid-term evaluation. The second group interview took place as part of the final evaluation during the last training session. On each occasion there were three groups comprising of six participants. A TIM Centre team member facilitated each group and the data was audio recorded and later transcribed. Patton suggests one key benefit of the group interviews is, “interaction among participants enhances data quality. Participants tend to provide checks and balances on each other, which weeds false or extreme views” (Patton 2002, 386). The purpose of the first group interview was to have the participants reflect on the principles taught in the previous six classes and to determine which were the most relevant and important for their life and ministry. Each student was given a list of the sixteen key topics that were part of the training curriculum already delivered in class. Participants were asked to individually rate the top ten (Appendix 6). They were then asked to prioritize the top three topics. In the group discussion each participant shared his or her top three topics. The group then had a forty-minute discussion to determine what they considered to be the most important and impactful topics. After all groups had adequate discussion time, participants gathered as a whole class to share their findings. This provided rich data, giving insight as to how the participants were processing, prioritizing, and applying the training to their life and ministry. 85 The final group discussion was conducted during the last class and centred around three key questions, (a) “what did you find the most valuable part of this course?” (b) “describe two specific ways you will apply what you have learned in this course?” and (c) “what suggestions do you have on how this course could be improved?” A TIM Centre team member facilitated each small group discussion. Data from the group interviews was audio recorded and later transcribed. Midterm and Final Evaluations During the training course, midterm and final evaluations were conducted as a means of gathering research data concerning the participants’ experiences of the class. The facilitation team designed two-course assessment questionnaires utilizing intercultural competency components found in the literature (Brake 1995; Deardorff 2013; Fantini 1995). These questionnaires were pretested and revised by the facilitation team before being used as part of the mid-term and final program evaluations. Participants’ responses provided both quantitative and qualitative data. The quantitative data was gathered using a five point Likert-type scale. This data was interpreted by contrasting the mode or frequency of the answers of participants to a particular question. This quantitative instrument was designed to provide triangulation when comparing the IDI assessments to other research data. The focus of the midterm questionnaire was to obtain data regarding the effectiveness of key components of the training course. These were: (a) bi-weekly readings, (c) class lectures and discussion, (d) bi-weekly Journaling, (e) IDI 86 assessment, and (f) online resources. Participants were also given the opportunity to express in writing how they would apply this training to life and ministry and how the course could be improved. Using intercultural categories derived from the literature (chapter two- self-awareness, attitudes, knowledge, and skills), participants answered a series of questions using a five point Likert-type scale. To provide greater validity and reliability in the questionnaire a reverse scale configuration was utilized for some questions. Consistent with the mixed method approach participants were also given an opportunity to write their own comments at the end of each major category. Utilizing a broader “portfolio” approach to evaluation provided a more balanced quantitative and qualitative data set for assessing the intercultural competency development of the participants. In the final part of the evaluation opportunity was given for participants to provide a written response to the following questions: (a) “what did you find was the most valuable part of this course?” (b) “describe two specific ways you will apply what you have learned in this course in your life, work or ministry?” and (c) “what suggestions do you have on how this course could be improved? Upon completion of the survey the participants then divided into three groups. This was an opportunity for group discussion where further qualitative data could be gathered. The group interviews were guided by TIM team members using the above three questions as the topics of discussion. This data was audio recorded and later transcribed. Both the mid-term and final questionnaires’ are in the appendixes (APPENDIX 4 and 5). 87 Participant Journaling The main take home assignment for each class was a two-page reflection paper. This provided participants an opportunity to reflect on what they were learning from their readings, class lectures, and group discussions. This was submitted via email to TIM Centre and each paper was read and returned to the participant with comments. At the end of the course, each reflection paper was reread to gather pertinent research data. Participants’ reflection papers became an important part of the overall date gathered for the coding process. Data Analysis A mixed method approach was used in this project to gather data. The quantitative data consisted of the IDI assessment and the midterm and final evaluation surveys. The IDI instrument was the primary quantitative assessment. These IDI reports were the basis for evaluating the intercultural development of each participant and the group. The reliability and validity of the IDI is well documented in the research literature (Hammer 2011; Paige 2003; Pedersen 2010). The reliability and validity of the midterm and final questionnaires was supported by triangulating the quantitative data results with other qualitative data collected from a variety of sources. The qualitative raw data consisted of participant interviews, journals, group discussions and facilitators observations. All data, including recorded interviews was carefully transcribed in preparation for the coding process. Lee and Zaharlick suggest: “by sorting, organizing, and reducing data coding allows 88 data to become meaningful and quantifiable” (Lee and Zaharlick 2013, 105). The coding process included the following: (a) reading carefully several times all of the transcribed data, (b) assigning descriptive key words throughout the transcripts, (c) key words were reread and analyzed and placed in distinct categories, (d) from these categories major themes were identified. These themed categories became the guiding framework for the research findings in chapter five (Creswell 1993). An important aspect of the coding process was the interaction of the data from a team perspective. This became a crucial part of the triangulation process and provided greater reliability and validity. Ethical Consideration Throughout this project the research followed the “Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans. ” (TCPS 2010). Adequate time was taken to explain to the participants the exact nature of the research project and their participation in it by being a part of the TIM Centre training program. Participants clearly understood that participation was on a voluntary basis and that at any time anyone could withdraw from the research project without any penalty in completing the training program. Before participating in the research, participants signed a consent form acknowledging their permission to collect and report on any data gathered (Appendix 1). Participants were informed that they could withdraw from the research project at any time and continue in the training program without 89 penalization. They were also made aware that any information given would be dealt with the utmost confidentiality with no personal information being shared outside of the program facilitation team. A code was assigned to each interviewee and no personal names were attached to any document. Information was kept secure in a locked office and on a password-protected computer. Physical documents were not be copied and were to be destroyed at the completion of the research project. Because many of our diploma students use English as their second language, any written or oral communication was presented in clear and understandable language. During the interviewing process adequate time was given to receive feedback ensuring accurate communication. Participants were informed that they could contact me personally in order to have full disclosure of the findings related to this research project. 90 CHAPTER FIVE: RESEARCH FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS The focus of this research project was to design, facilitate, and evaluate the effectiveness of a training intervention for developing intercultural competencies of Christian leaders engaged in missional ministry in the multicultural context of Toronto. Both the IDI assessment and participant feedback indicated that the training intervention resulted in a significant increase in the intercultural competency level of the members of the study group. In this chapter we will focus on the evaluation of the mixed method approach used in the data collection process. Mixed Method Research The quantitative data for evaluating this project was collected from January to May of 2013. The primary instrument used for gathering quantitative data was the pre-post Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI). Further quantitative data was gathered through the midterm and final evaluation questionnaires. In discussing the findings of the IDI the facilitation team sought to determine to what degree participants had developed intercultural competencies during the 16-week training intervention. The midterm and final questionnaires 91 provided further quantitative data in an effort to triangulate and affirm the IDI results regarding the participants’ intercultural development. The questionnaires also helped to determine what aspects of the training were most effective and how the program could be improved by subsequent iterations. This chapter will discuss the findings of the qualitative data sets collected through: participant interviews, focus groups, facilitators’ participant observations, and participant biweekly journaling. From this data, through a coding and categorizing process, important themes emerged and were discussed by the facilitation team. A participant’s case study will be presented in an effort to show how this training intervention impacted the lives and ministries of the participants. IDI Pre-Post Assessments The IDIv3 2007-2011 explains how the IDI assessment gathers data according to the following categories: (a) Perceived Orientation (PO): this “reflects where you place yourself along the intercultural development continuum,” (b) Developmental Orientation (DO): this “indicates your primary orientation toward cultural differences and commonalities along the continuum as assessed by the IDI,” (d) Orientation Gap (OG): This is the difference between the PO and the DO scores. A gap greater than 7 points is seen by the IDI as significant indicating an overestimation of one’s intercultural competency, and 4) Cultural Disengagement (CD): This “indicates how connected or disconnected you feel towards your own cultural community” (IDIv3 2007-2011). 92 All 18 participants completed the pre-IDI assessment the week after the first class. A group IDI debriefing session was conducted during the second class followed by individual debriefing interviews during the subsequent two weeks. The results of the pre-IDI following the four categories described are found in Table 2. Table 2: Pre-IDI Assessment Pre-Training N Minimum Maximum Mean SD Perceived Orientation (PO) 18 109.77 128.47 120.25 5.54 Developmental Orientation (DO) 18 63.79 111.48 89.01 15.07 Orientation Gap (OG) 18 16.99 49.67 31.24 9.88 Cultural Disengagement (CD) 18 3.60 5.00 4.46 0.43 The group Perceived Orientation (PO) score ranged from high minimization (109.77 points) to high acceptance (128.47 points) with the mean in mid acceptance (120.25 points). The standard deviation was small (5.54) indicating the group had a generally high perception of their intercultural development. The group’s Developmental Orientation (DO) ranged from denial (63.79 points) to mid minimization (111.48 points) with a mean score in lower minimization (89.01 points). The standard deviation was almost 3 times (15.07) that of the PO score indicating a much broader spread along the intercultural continuum. The Orientation Gap (OG) score was almost 5 times the IDI recommended 7 points (31.24 points). This suggested that the group had a greater estimation of their Perceived Orientation than the actuality of where the IDI assessed their Developmental level. The Cultural Disengagement (CD) score was 4.46 out of 5.0 points, which according to the IDI assessment suggests that the 93 participants had a healthy self-perception of their identity in relation to their own cultural group. The pre-IDI assessments revealed a number of important insights. First, the high OG of 31.24 points indicated, according to the IDI assessment, that the group had a high overestimation of their intercultural competency. Second, it revealed that 33.4%, about one third of the participants were in the monocultural - ethnocentric stages of denial and polarization on the intercultural development continuum (Figure 5). Third, the IDI assessment indicated that none of the class had reached the intercultural mindset of acceptance and adaptation. Fourth, the assessment revealed that 66.7%, approximately two thirds of the participants, were in the transitional developmental stage called minimization (Figure 5). The post-IDI assessment was given 12 weeks later, one week before the last class, enabling the facilitators to debrief the IDI group results during the last class. The overview of the post-IDI is shown in the Table 3 below. Table 3: Post IDI Assessment Pre-Training N Minimum Maximum Mean SD Perceived Orientation (PO) 18 109.77 128.47 120.25 5.54 Developmental Orientation (DO) 18 63.79 111.48 89.01 15.07 Orientation Gap (OG) 18 16.99 49.67 31.24 9.88 Cultural Disengagement (CD) 18 3.60 5.00 4.46 0.43 In comparing the pre-post IDI assessments on the PO scale the mean increased slightly from 120.25 to 125.62 points. This, however, was counter balanced by the increase of the DO score from a mean of 89.01 to 100.71 points, an increase of 11.07 points. This increase in the DO led to an overall decrease of 94 6.44 in the OG moving it from 31.34 to 24.90 points. The Cultural Disengagement (CO) score remained the same in both pre-post IDI assessments. Figure 4 gives a graphic representation of the developmental change experienced by the group over a 12-week period. Figure 4: Pre and Post Training Comparison [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Figure 4 details. ] The pre-post IDI assessments provide some important insights. First, the IDI assessment indicates that the group’s DO score increased 11.07 points on the DMIS developmental scale. Although the group remained in the minimization stage overall, an 11-point increase according to Hammer (26 May 2013), is a significant move in the group’s intercultural journey. Figure 5 graphically illustrates the group’s significant movement along the intercultural developmental continuum between the first and second IDI assessments. Secondly, the IDI indicated that 11.6 % (2) of the participants moved out of the denial stage. 27.8% (5) of the group moved out of the ethnocentric mindset into the ethnorelative stage. 22.2 % (4) of participants moved into acceptance and 5.6 % (1) into adaptation. 95 The fact that the Developmental Orientation of the group increased 11.07 points suggests that something significant took place as a result of the training intervention. Figure 5: Developmental Orientation [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Figure 5 details. ] A subsequent statistical t test of the pre-post IDI Developmental Orientation (DO) assessment scores generated a .001 result. In personal email correspondence with Dr. Hammer (26 May 2013), one of the creators of the IDI assessment, he explained that, What this means is that there is a significant difference between the before and after scores; in this case it is significant at the .001 level; meaning that there is only 1 in 1000 odds that the mean differences between the groups is due to chance alone; or another way of saying it is that 999 times out of 1000 times, the differences you found were due to your intervention. Although the sample size was small the .001 level indicates that the 96 overall movement along the intercultural development continuum was not random, but a result of the training intervention. Hammer, in a subsequent email (24 May 2013), made the following observation: If your intervention reviewed with the 18 participants their group profile and/or reviewed with each participant their individual profile, then it is possible that the gains you show MAY be due to the participants figuring out how to answer the IDI. As stated above each student received an individual debrief of his or her pre-post IDI assessment. The purpose of this debrief was to explain to the participants their IDI results and to offer practical coaching as to how they could implement what they had learned. There was no attempt made to give the participants coaching on how to answer the questions correctly. In regards to the increase in the groups Developmental Orientation resulting from simply wanting to give the right answer, Hammer remarked that “the social desirability testing we did on the IDI indicates that this is not likely.” Although the IDI was chosen as an assessment instrument other quantitative and qualitative research methods provided a more holistic and comprehensive evaluation. Caution should be taken to not overstate, extrapolate or generalize the statistical data found in the IDI assessment. Analysis of Data from Final Questionnaire and Group Interviews In this section we will examine the quantitative data, gathered from the final class questionnaire and qualitative data gathered from open-ended questions on the final questionnaire and group interview sessions. (APPENDIX 5) Deardorff's model of intercultural competence helped focus the survey questions 97 around the key components of developing intercultural competence: self- awareness, attitudes, skills, and knowledge (Deardorff 2006). The purpose of this data analysis was to determine, from the participant’s perspective, if intercultural competency development did take place as a result of the training intervention. Using a five point Likert scale of 1 = strongly disagree.. .2.. .3 = agree 4.. .and 5 = strongly agree, the 18 participants answered a set of questions pertaining to key components of intercultural competence as noted in the literature review (chapter 3). Participants also had an opportunity to add further comments explaining how the training program had helped in developing their intercultural competencies. What follows is a brief interpretation of the data gathered using the mixed method approach. Intercultural Self-awareness Table 4 shows the first set of questions, which focused on self-awareness. This is seen as a key component in developing intercultural competencies (Byram 1997). Table 4: Self-Awareness [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Table 4 details. ] 98 94% of participants ranked between 4-5, indicating they perceived an increased “awareness of cultural value differences between myself and people from different ethnic background.” Felix remarked, This training program has greatly affected my awareness in terms of my own cultural perceptions and assumptions. I realized the cultural differences and values between myself and other people in terms of ethnic backgrounds. I came to figure out my.. .ethnocentrism by judging others based on my own cultural background. The IDI assessment was instrumental in this growing self-awareness. Lee remarked: “as intercultural as I think I am and want to be, I know I am not and it was revealed in the IDI.” For some this new cultural self-awareness reflected a movement from the denial stage to a more open and inquisitive mindset. John, an Asian participant commented that, “before participating in this course I have never thought about the other cultures... even when I lived in Asia I never related to other cultures, I only think about my culture. Through this course I (now) think about the other cultures.” 83% of participants scored between 4-5, indicating that there was a perception of increased awareness of “my own cultural perception and assumptions and how they can impact my relationship with people from different cultures.” Frank, a Canadian participant reflected the polarization stage when he commented: I find that I tend to be very judgmental when it comes to other cultures. I think of myself as being open-minded, but really I’m being ethnocentric. What I mean by being ethnocentric, I was making false assumptions about other people’s behaviour based on my own limited experience. This honest and open self-evaluation was a key part of the intercultural development process. 99 With 80% of the participants’ foreign born and some recent immigrants to Canada, it was no surprise that cultural self-awareness was also applied to the adaptation and acculturation process. Anwar a recent immigrant from the Middle East noted that: “before coming to Canada I had only a media view of West.. .This course put things in the right perspective. It was an eye opener that it was not only the West and me but within the Canadian culture you have so many sub cultures.” Some participants reflected a degree of cultural self-awareness that indicated moving from minimization into acceptance stages of the DMIS. This is shown by the comment of Nicole who concluded that “we all need to realize our cultural preferred ways of living in this world not claiming that one is right and other is wrong, rather it is a preferred orientation of living in a particular cultural context.” Self-awareness was also enhanced by the cultural diversity of the participants. Anwar summed up what was noted many times, in the research data. “I really appreciated the diversity we had in the class it was so much an eye opener... I had good cultural mix of my classmates. Learning and discussing with them facilitated my intercultural learning. And it was a pleasure.” Utilizing the data gathered from this mixed method approach, we can conclude that the participants perceived that this training program increased their intercultural self-awareness. 100 Intercultural Attitudes As noted in the literature, changing one’s attitude can be one of the most difficult challenges of the intercultural development process (Berardo 2004). In this section we will briefly interpret the quantitative and qualitative research data related to attitudinal change. Table 5: Attitudes [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Table 5 details. ] In Table 5 we see that over 94% of the participants scored between 4 -5 that they had a perceived increased motivation to “respect individuals and groups in different cultural contexts.” This was the highest overall score on the final survey and was a key intercultural component that the facilitation team actually witnessed developing among the participants during the 16-week period of the training program. In this research I recognize the possibility of a “social desirability” factor whereby participants may have tended to score higher to please the facilitators. By using a mixed method research approach, together with a broader “portfolio” assessment, I sought to provide a more balanced examination of the participants’ perceptions of their intercultural competency development. 101 One of the places we observed growing respect was within the generational groups of particular ethnic communities. At the beginning of the course Lily, a participant from Asia commented: “I always saw the first generation was wrong.... they’re just old fashioned, they need to be more modem.” As the training progressed the same participant was able to say: “The source of our conflict is a cultural clash ... I never really thought in their shoes... I think this course has taught me to relook at the conflicts I have or had in my life.” Chen an older first generation Asia participant, reciprocated with an attitude of respect when he commented: “The first generation has to learn how to work properly in multicultural settings which means we have cultural knowledge of our 1.5 or 2nd generation. It is a huge calling for first generations to learn more about our children’s culture and how to transfer our belief and faith to them.” Over 70% of participants scored between 4 -5, suggesting that their motivation had significantly increased in “engaging more intentionally in the missional mandate of the church and celebrating cultural diversity.” Some participants had never considered the missional mandate of the Church. As John remarked: “It is a brand new concept for me that our God is a missional God. His desire is to bring all the people from all the nations into His loving relationship.” Many participants had a heightened awareness of Toronto as a multicultural context for missional ministry. Lin a participant from Asia noted that, We have to be aware not only of cultural differences but also of the demographic changes around us. If you do not realize your ethnic demographic is changing and you do not welcome the new minorities or people groups in your church, you may have difficulties accepting changes. 102 Nicole reflects how the missional vision can become a motivational factor in embracing diversity. “Our God delights in diversity. He amazingly brought people here from all around the world. We should make it our effort to embrace the diversity of cultures.” John from South East Asia realized that becoming intentionally intercultural was an integral aspect of being missional. He commented: “If we stay at ethnocentrism the gospel will be locked in us. God wants to break the wall that is standing between each culture. If Peter and Paul staid in Judaism the gospel would have never spread to the world” There was a strong sense of realism among the participants regarding the challenges faced in changing one’s attitude to become a more motivating factor in embracing diversity. Ming remarked, “attitude is more important than skill.. .be comfortable with your own identity and with the differences of other cultures.” A number of the participants confessed that true transformation of one’s attitude required God’s intervention. Lily summed this up by saying that, “attitude is something hard to achieve. I like that the Holy Spirit needs to be involved in the spectrum of being more intercultural.” Utilizing the data gathered from this mixed method approach, we can conclude that the participants perceived that this training program increased their motivation to engage in missional ministry and to respect cultural diversity. Intercultural Knowledge Intercultural researchers agree that acquiring cultural knowledge is the least difficult of all the intercultural competency components (Deardorff 2009). 103 Table 6 shows that over 75% of the participants saw significant increase of their perceived knowledge enabling them to understand how cultural value orientations impacted intercultural communication. Table 6: Intercultural Knowledge [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Table 6 details. ] This observation indicates that participants were moving beyond minimization stage and surface generalizations to a much deeper, subjective understanding of culture. This is illustrated by Chen, who explained the direct versus indirect communication styles in the context of his local church ministry. Understanding the different cultures like East and West (and) the way communication is different i.e. direct and indirect will help me work with people. When I work in the church I will be able to increase my communication ability.. .when Chinese people get some feedback from western people in the church sometimes they feel uncomfortable, they don’t know how to answer. Some western people are waiting for a quick answer.... If you understand this you will have better communication between the people in different cultures. Such real life illustrations from participants indicated a development of critical reflective skills regarding the hidden and subjective dimension of culture. This is further reflected in Lily’s perception of intergenerational conflict. “I think 104 this course has helped me realize the source of our conflict is a cultural clash.. .you can’t just excuse it because they talk direct and we indirect. It’s not even that sometimes, it’s even deeper. (It’s) their values and worldviews.” Getting to this level of critical reflection was part of the learning process, which involved knowledge of key cultural concepts. Kwan noted that “the academic models of intercultural dynamics provided me with tools to observe and understand other cultures. I find some of them highly useful.” Another participant remarked that the training had “helped build a framework and tool set that will enable me to serve amongst people of other cultures as well as my culture.” Intercultural knowledge was not simply a passive transferal of information. One participant insightfully suggested that the training had provided “models to explain what I experience.” This is indeed a key insight and perhaps helps to explain the significant increase between pre-post IDI assessments. As Bennett suggested, developing intercultural sensitivity is not a simple a matter of gaining more knowledge about a specific culture (Bennett 2004). Instead it is the ability to construe cultural difference by critically reflecting on one’s intercultural experience. Utilizing the data gathered from this mixed method approach, we can conclude that the participants perceived that this training program increased their intercultural knowledge. Intercultural Skill The final intercultural component to be examined was intercultural skill development. In Table 7 we see that 77% of participants scored between 4-5, an 105 increase in the skill of “suspending judgment of people when their cultural practices are different from my own” as the most significant. This also relates closely to the 72% of participants who could now demonstrate the ability to be “flexible when interacting with people from different cultures. Table 7: Intercultural Skills [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Table 7 details. ] Chen made this very honest disclosure: “usually I judge the other culture/person in an ethnocentric approach. The disadvantage is my perception, which I think is reality, may be wrongly interpreting, because I do not actually understand the deeper meaning, value, and custom of the other culture/person.” Felix came to the realization that, Everyone is ethnocentric as we tend to judge other cultures. One of the most effective means to recognize our being ethnocentric is to understand and watch our reactions towards other cultures. Don’t suppress negative feelings; we have to acknowledge their existence. Such statements reflect a movement from polarization and minimization into the acceptance stage of intercultural development. This is further seen in the 106 caution of Lily who was concerned that assessing people’s intercultural development might lead to a form of ethnocentrism. I believe a part of becoming more “intercultural” is not to judge those who haven’t reached an intercultural perspective in their lives. If we are to be truly adapted and integrated then we should be able to mix with people within all categories of the IDI. It’s important not to judge and become intercultural-centric. The skill of withholding judgment and checking one’s perceptions is a precursor to developing flexibility in intercultural relationships. This statement reflected the sentiment of many participants. “I became flexible in dealing and interacting in different situations and communicate more effectively with people in different cultures. I will be able to resolve intercultural conflicts and misunderstanding in my church, community and workplace.” Utilizing the data gathered from this mixed method approach we can conclude that the participants perceived that this training program increased their intercultural skills. Although the IDI and questionnaire provided helpful quantitative data, we found the qualitative data from participant feedback greatly helped in providing a more rich and thick description and interpretation of the perspective of the participants Analysis of the Demographics of Participants In this chapter we have examined the findings of the quantitative and qualitative data, which suggests the participants intercultural competencies did develop over the 16-week duration of the training intervention. The demographic data of the participants will now be examined to determine if independent 107 variables such as age, education, cross-cultural experience and mono or multicultural church affiliation impacted their overall intercultural development. When completing the IDI assessment participants were requested to record demographic information around independent variables such as: (a) gender, (b) age, (c) country of origin, (d) years live in another country, (e) education. For this research project we included a sixth category, and (f) mono or multi- cultural church. Participants were asked if the church they belonged to was either mono or multicultural. Table: 8 below gives an overview of the demographic information of the participants. It also shows the post IDI Developmental Orientation (DO) score, the post DMIS stage, and the increase or decrease between the pre and post IDI Developmental Orientation. 108 Table 8: Participants Demographics Person Gender Age Country of Origin Years in other country Edu Church IDI post D.O DO+/- 1M 51-60 Canada 6 HS Multi 83.19 Pol 4.33 + 2F 31-40 E. Asia 2 MA Mono 82.34 Pol 7.65- 3M 31-40 E. Asia 6 MA Mono 86.10 Min 15.28 + 4M 51-60 M. East 30 HS Multi 108.5 Min 2.95- 5M 41-50 M. East 2 MA Multi 116.69 Ac 27.58 + 6M 41-50 E. Asia 13 MA Mono 123.18 Ac 24.41 + 7M 41-50 E. Asia 7 MA Mono 79.06 Pol 13.48 + 8M 60-70 Canada 30 MA Multi 102.99 Min 27.88 + 9M 31-40 M. East 20 BA Mono 92.77 Min 3.79- 10M 41-50 E. Asia 5 BA Multi 130.68 Ad 31.48 + 11F 22- 30 M. East 6 BA Mono 93.13 Min 5.05+ 12F 51-60 S.E. Asia 20 BA Mono 110.07 Min 1.41- 13M 41-50 Canada 2 HS Multi 103.22 Min 5.63 + 14M 60-70 E. Asia 30 HS Mono 117.15 Ac 29.98 + 15M 41-50 E. Asia 11 BA Multi 121.83 Ac 14.61 + 16M 51-60 S.E Asia 25 BA Mono 62.36 Den 1.3- 17M 51-60 S. Asia 10 BA Mono 84.82 Pol 17.14 + 18M 31-40 E. Asia 6 MDiv Mono 114.48 Min 11.48 + Specific Demographic From the participant demographics in table 8 the following observations are made. In regards to age almost 40 % of the class were 50 years and older while 33% were between 40-50 years of age. Only 27 % of participants were between 20-40 years of age. The demographic related to gender indication that the majority of the class (83 %) was male. 109 The country of origin of participants was diverse representing the following countries: Canada, S. Korea, Hong Kong, China, Taiwan, India, Philippines, Iran, Lebanon, Jordon and Ecuador. The demographic data also indicated that participants reflected a high level of cross-cultural experience with 33% of the participants having lived in another country for over 20 years while 39% had lived in another country between 6-15 years. Regarding educational level 22% of the participants had completed high school while 39% had completed an undergraduate degree. The remaining 39% of participants had completed a master’s degree or higher. Participants indicated that 61% presently attend a monocultural church with the remaining 39% attending multicultural churches. In Figure: 8 the IDI assessment indicates that over half of the participants made a significant movement along the Development Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS). 28% (5) of the participants increased their DO more than 24 points. Another 28% (5) of the participants increased their DO from 10-20 points. 16% (3) of participants moved between 4-10 points. The remaining 28% (5) of participants decreased in their DO score between 1.0 - 7.6 points. Five participants IDI score decreased, though three decreased less than 3 points. One participant’s IDI score decreased 7.6 points moved from minimization back to polarization. The participant suggested that the regression in her IDI assessment made sense as the course had raised many issues, at a cognitive and emotional level regarding the generational tensions she had experienced both in her family and church community. Before taking the course she had minimized 110 such differences and now, realizing the tension, she was prepared to find positive ways of moving forward. This is a good illustration that the developmental process is not always a straight linear movement from one stage to the next. In fact, for intercultural growth and development to take place, sometimes a person needs to revisit polarization and deal with the “trailing” cultural issues that are hindering the intercultural development process. In some cases regression may be the result of a more realistic self-evaluation when completing the IDI assessment. Independent Variables and IDI Assessment A key question in interpreting the research data is whether or not there was any correlation between the independent variables and the developmental orientation of participants as assessed by the IDI. From an evaluation of the IDI assessment there did not appear to be any conclusive correlation between variables such as gender, age, and education and the participant’s developmental orientation on the intercultural development continuum. In regards to years in a country and culture outside of one’s homeland and belonging to either a mono or multicultural church, there may be some correlation to an increased Developmental Orientation (DO). Monocultural and Multicultural Church 61 % of the 18 participants were presently attending a monocultural church, while the remaining 39% were attending multicultural churches. As table 9 indicates 39% of those in monocultural churches scored in minimization and above. 1ll Table 9: Independent Variable: Mono-Multi-Cultural [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Table 9 details. ] 33% of those attending a multicultural church scored in minimization and above. Of the 10 participants who had a 10-30 point increase in the IDI assessment 60% were from monocultural churches and 40% from multicultural churches. Because of the small sample size we cannot come to any conclusive correlation between church affiliation and Developmental Orientation (DO). It may suggest, however, that although a person attends a monocultural church, this does not prohibit developing intercultural competencies when exposed to an intentional intercultural training intervention. It is also a caution against making over generalizations that if a person attends a monocultural church they are in the ethnocentric stages of denial and polarization on the intercultural development continuum. As our IDI assessment indicates, a person may have an intercultural mindset and be at the acceptance stage of DMIS and intentionally choose to identify with a monocultural church. When using the IDI as an assessment instrument in a multicultural context one must be careful in explaining its terminology. The IDI equates monocultural with the denial and polarization stages of the DMIS continuum. This correlation is not always automatically the case. As we have seen a person may be attending a monocultural church and be assessed in the acceptance stage and not be in the denial or polarization stages. 112 Years in Another Country A core assumption of the DMIS and IDI is that intercultural competence develops when one has the ability to critically reflect on one’s cultural experience in a way that construes the complexity of cultural differences (Bennett 1993). Table 9 shows that the majority of participants in this training program had significant experience living in a cross-cultural context. 78% of participants had lived outside of their home country between 4-30 years. The research findings indicates that this training intervention provided participants with conceptual tools and maps which enabled a more critical awareness and appreciation of cultural differences experienced in both their life and ministry context. Table 10: Independent Variable: Years in Another Country Years Denial Polarization Minimalization Acceptance, Adaptation 1-3 1 2 1 4-10 3 3 1 11-20 2 2 21-30 1 1 1 Of the 56% of participants who increased the DO scores 10-30 points, 70% had lived in another country between 6-23 years. The sample size is too small to make a definitive conclusion that there is a direct correlation between cross-cultural experience and intercultural development. We are also unable to conclude from the data set that the longer the cross-cultural experience the greater the intercultural development. The data does suggest that the significant increase in the Development Orientation (DO) seen in the IDI assessment may be related to the cross-cultural 113 experience of those participants. This is an important observation as it relates to training new immigrants in the multicultural context of Toronto. When new immigrants come to live in Canada, the cross-cultural experience they gain, in combination with intentional intercultural training can result in significant intercultural competency development. The data indicates that the training intervention did provide an intercultural framework, providing participants with concepts and tools enabling them to construe cultural differences thereby developing their intercultural competencies? Participant Case Studies We have seen that the IDI assessment and the in-class final survey provides both quantitative and qualitative data suggesting that significant intercultural competency took place as a result of participants taking an intercultural training intervention. To illustrate this developmental process we will look briefly at a case study describing one participant’s intercultural journey. Case Study: Ming Ming (pseudonym name) was born and raised in Mainland China. He moved to Toronto with his wife and son. One of the biggest challenges he faced upon arriving in Canada was becoming fluent in English. To help in the adaptation process Ming attended a multicultural Church where services were conducted in English. Ming was especially concerned that his son would assimilate quickly into the Canadian way of life. 114 On his first IDI assessment Ming scored 126.01 on his P.O. and 107.22 points on his D.O. In the debriefing interview he agreed that minimization was an accurate descriptor of where he was on his intercultural journey. He said he now realized he needed to take more initiative in exploring “beneath the surface” of cultural difference in order to gain more appreciation of a person’s values and beliefs. In the second IDI assessment Ming scored 135.71 P.O. and 121.83 points D.O. This 14.61 point gain in his Developmental Orientation moved him from minimization into acceptance. His O.G. decreased 4.91 points indicating a more realistic self-perception of his intercultural sensitivity. In the post-IDI interview Ming was asked if he was surprised by the positive increase in his assessment score. He replied: “By going through this course I learned a lot about culture.... it encouraged me to learn some cross- cultural skills. I think I have learned a lot and that is why my score is going up a certain degree.” When asked what part of the course was most impactful he replied with great enthusiasm: “Every session had one point that struck me. I said wow! That is good. Like the first session, it pointed out that multicultural is designed by God, it is not a mistake, and it’s God’s design. We are comforted by this.” When asked what impact this training made in his personal life, Ming commented: “we changed because we went through this process and our hearts are changed. We are more open more ready for cross-cultural mission.” When asked how he would apply what he had learned from the training ministry in his church Ming responded: 115 I am happy to tell you that just yesterday I encouraged a Chinese guy unto the (church) board. I said it was time to bring more Chinese people into the leadership and let them become more bridge (people) to let the board hear more Chinese voices. Through this course I know clearly this is right.. .confirmed by the course I have a clear vision that this is right. When you have this motivation you are so determined. This incident reflects Ming’s movement from minimization to acceptance on the DMIS developmental continuum. At minimization Ming’s primary goal was to assimilate into the dominant Canadian culture by minimizing cultural differences. Now at acceptance he understands the validity of cultural differences, and has a greater appreciation of his own Chinese cultural identity. Ming is an illustration of an intercultural bridge leader challenging his Chinese peers to take an active leadership role in the decision making process of his local church. This brief case study highlighting one participant’s intercultural journey supports the case that the training intervention made a significant impact on the participant’s intercultural development. Program Evaluation In this section the quantitative and qualitative data related to the facilitators’ and participants’ evaluation of the training program is examined. The goal is to determine what aspects of the training program were most instrumental in developing the intercultural competencies of the participants. This data was collected by means of: (a) a midterm questionnaire and group feedback, (b) group interviews conducted during session seven. This was to ascertain what the participants perceived were the most helpful topics and, (c) a final questionnaire and group discussion during the last class. 116 This evaluation will first consider the underlying framework and intercultural models which guided the training program. Second, intercultural concepts and specific exercises that are key tools for the intercultural journey are evaluated. Third, an evaluation of the most effective and least effective aspects of the training pedagogy will be conducted. Finally, potential application of the training to life and ministry of the participants will be discussed. Training Framework and Intercultural Models This intercultural training program was framed around two key underlying assumptions: a missional paradigm as described in chapter two, and a developmental paradigm as described in chapter three. Promotion of a Missional Framework This course was designed to develop the intercultural competencies of Christian leaders, and so it was intentionally framed within a missional paradigm. On the final questionnaire we saw that over 70% of participants said their motivation had significantly increased in “engaging more intentionally in the missional mandate of the church and celebrating cultural diversity.” John, a new Canadian from East Asia, caught the essence of the missional focus when he commented: It is a brand new concept for me that our God is a missional God. His desire is to bring all the people from all the nations into His loving relationship. It will be wonderful to see all the nations come together worshipping our loving father with joy forever. 117 A subtheme of the missional focus was the observation that mission engagement to people of other cultures does not happen automatically. Kwan observed that, “this week’s class taught me that unless we become ‘intentional’ in our approach to various people and in our discipleship in Toronto, the meaningful sharing of the gospel and the building of intercultural congregations are less likely to happen.” Participants like Nicole from the South East Asia were quick to connect this missional theme to the development of intercultural competencies. “The principles I have learned during the class really helped me a lot... the missional church and intercultural competence I believe is very important in the sense that this is God’s call for us as we engage in the mission of the Lord and to be a part of His mission.” From participant feedback it became very clear that the missional mandate was also a key motivating factor for engaging in intercultural ministry. As Nicole observed: “I realized when I was taking the course.... Lord you have put me in this place that (everywhere) I look is not my culture.. .this is not an accident there is a purpose here.... How can I start doing this?” Both the quantitative and qualitative data indicates that the participants perceived great value in framing this intercultural training program around a biblical missional paradigm. 118 Intercultural Development Models After much research and consideration the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) and the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) were chosen as the core model and assessment instrument for this training program (chapter 3). The DMIS provided a conceptual framework and common language for understanding the intercultural development process. The IDI provided participants with a guide to where they were in their intercultural journey and how they could move forward along this path. As Lee remarked: “The IDI assessment helped me a lot to understand about myself and set a direction for my intercultural development.” Table 11 indicates that some 80% of the participants scored between 4-5 suggesting that the IDI helped them to understand how they could grow in their intercultural development. Lee suggested: With the IDI we can see there are so many other steps to go through. I was trying without knowing specifically which stage I was at. By this one good tool (IDI) I can see in what stage I have been through and heading to and what kind of efforts I can specifically make. Table 11: IDI Assessment IDI Assessment 1 2 3 4 5 The IDI assessment increased my Intercultural self-awareness 0 2 3 6 4 N = 15 The personal interview helped me understand my IDI assessment 0 0 3 5 7 N = 15 The IDI helps me understand how I can grow in my Intercultural development 1 2 0 6 6 N = 15 Participant feedback indicated that the IDI assessment was of great value in that it gave a person a reference point as to where they were in their 119 intercultural journey as well as guidance in the next steps moving forward. Kwan said that the DMIS helped him “look at myself more closely in terms of my cultural adaptation. I could evaluate where I am at and moreover I could set the goal where I want to be and how I can reach there. This was a very valuable model for me.” The DMIS model was also helpful for some participants in understanding the intergenerational issues in the monocultural church context. Lily concluded: I found that I could use that (DMIS) tool to better understand my parents; to better understand the church and why they are behaving the way they are. How they are making decisions, how they see the world instead of just saying that is wrong and you should be like me. A key part of the IDI assessment was the one-on-one debriefing session intended to assist the participant process where they were on the DMIS intercultural development continuum. 80% of the participants scored between 4-5 that the personal interview helped in understanding the IDI assessment. From my perspective this interpersonal experience gave the participant an opportunity to tell the story of their intercultural journey. It also provided a time of one-on-one coaching to encourage the participant to apply the principles taught in class to their ongoing intercultural development. The research data set related to the DMIS and IDI suggests that this model and assessment instrument contributed to the intercultural development of participants in this training program. 120 Reflection using Intercultural Concepts and Tools In a previous section (chapter three), we suggested that the DMIS and the IDI helped to orientate participants as to where they were positioned on the intercultural development continuum. In contrast, the Deardorff process model sought to show participants the core intercultural competencies that would enable them to move to the next stage of their intercultural journey. Berry’s model of acculturation helped participants to reflect on their adaptation process into the Canadian culture. This was an important factor as the majority of participants were born outside Canada and had little opportunity to critically reflect on their adaptation to life in a multicultural urban city like Toronto. Kwan, a recent immigrant to Canada, remarked: I really appreciated Berry’s model of adaptation. With this model I could understand myself better and more deeply. Iam 1.5 generation from (East Asia). With Berry’s model of adaptation I could look back on myself and how I adapted to different cultural contexts and what kind of process I went through and where I am. During session seven, participants had an opportunity to reflect on 16 intercultural principles taught in the previous six sessions. They were asked individually to rate what they perceived as the 10 most important topics for their life and ministry from the list of 16. In focus groups participants discussed what the group perceived as the top 3 topics. Figure 11 lists the top five topics that were deemed most important and relevant for their life and ministry. 121 Table 12: Most Important Training Topics Highest Ranked Curriculum Topics N=15 Ranked %of N=15 Missional Church 10 # 1 66% Multiculturalsim and the Church 7 #3 46% Understanding Culture - Iceberg Model 8 #2 53% Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity 7 #3 46% Describe-Interpret-Evaluate (D.I.E.) 8 #2 53% Gospel & Culture 7 #3 46% Participants selected the missional church as the topic most helpful. This correlated well with the 70% of participants who also said the training had motivated them to be more “intentionally engaged in the missional mandate of the church.” With such triangulation of the data it suggests that the framing of this intercultural training around a missional paradigm was an important factor in the success of the overall program. The topics of understanding culture and the Describe, Interpret and Evaluate (D.I.E.) are closely related and were chosen as the next most important components of the training. A key challenge in understanding culture was helping participants to grapple with the objective and subjective dimensions of culture. The iceberg model was a key teaching tool in creating greater awareness of the unconscious and hidden dimension of culture. George noted: “I really liked the iceberg model because it is not just the part you see above but also what is behind it and underneath which is the greater part of it.” Felix concurred by stating that, “what goes undetected below the waterline of a culture often creates the 122 conditions for an increasingly healthy or unhealthy environment. What provides the strength and basis for culture is not what is visible but what often goes undetected, unseen and unexamined.” The Describe, Interpret and Evaluate (D.I.E.) exercise helped participants to be more conscious of how they often automatically interpret and evaluate what they are seeing through the filter of their own cultural assumptions. George summed it up well by saying that “it is important to know the difference between describing what you are seeing and interpreting it and not mixing them up otherwise your evaluation will go astray of the situation.” Kwan suggested: The (D.I.E.) is a very simple model. It is simple but profound and very helpful. I had a chance to visit a Buddhist temple. I used this model and I found this model was very helpful. I think I can use it whenever I encounter different cultures. The final three themes that came into third place were: (a) the DMIS, (b) multiculturalism and the church, (d) gospel and culture. That the DMIS was selected suggests a correlation between this data set and the midterm questionnaire. “80% of the participants indicated that the IDI /DMIS “helped them to understand how they could grow in their intercultural development.” This triangulation of data sets suggests that for this training program participants perceived the IDI/DMIS as an important factor in their intercultural development. It is interesting to note how themes such as the Church in a multicultural context as well as gospel and culture were seen as important components of the overall training. This comment from Lee shows the enthusiasm for integrating gospel and culture. “I was so excited to see how this class finally hit the target, 123 the very core or ultimate purpose of all the learning: "how to share the Gospel in a culturally appropriate way? I cannot wait until the next class.” For some the study of gospel and culture was a liberating experience. Lee continued to say that, Somehow I felt I have supressed a lot my own cultural background in the name of Gospel. I thought I did not like our own traditional values. It was a liberating moment since the Gospel was also originally given to those who are more accustomed to honour and shame culture. (The) Gospel also mentions about honour and shame and even restores us with God's honour! It was interesting to see how some participants were integrating other intercultural principles into the gospel and culture theme. Chen made this observation: “If I use my high context communication style, which is indirect and very gentle to preach the gospel to people of a low context communication style which is direct, this people will feel very impatient as to what I tell him for he may want a direct and emotional speech.” In this section we have highlighted from both the quantitative and qualitative data what components of the training were perceived by the participants as most effective in developing intercultural competencies for missional ministry in the multicultural context of Toronto. The Training Pedagogy The training pedagogy will now be examined to determine what aspects were most effective and which were least effective, possibly needing to be revised or omitted in future training programs. First, the training team will be considered. Second, the iterative process will be evaluated. Third, the most effective and least effective aspects of the training pedagogy will be discussed. Finally, the potential 124 impact of the training on life and ministry of the participants and facilitators will be examined. The Facilitation Team From the outset of this project there was intentionality in gathering a culturally diverse facilitation team. This was not only key for the effective facilitation of the training, but also for its ongoing assessment (Deardorff 2008, Fantini 2009). After each training session the four members of the team provided written reflections and participant observations. A team meeting followed this, either face to face or over Skype. During these meetings tensions and polarities were evident especially between the two lead facilitators. One facilitator had a much more adult educational pedagogy while the other was much more comfortable with the lecture and dialogue method. One had a more western, linear and direct perspective while the other had a more non-western cyclical and indirect approach. Such polarities and tensions were not hidden, but became part of the class dynamic. This led Ivana, a fellow team member to comment: “the way Chris and Robert push back creates an atmosphere to explore and not just to accept things.” Carmen, another team member concluded: “I really enjoyed working on this team. We each bring our own cultural background and our own gifts and strengths into the course.” This respectful give and take among the facilitation team led to a number of creative changes during the iterative process. 125 The Iterative Process While the program itself was not repeated during the time frame of this research project certain components did have multiple iterative cycles. One key part of the training program was a 1-2 page reflective paper, which was handed in before each class. The reflective paper was an open-ended question regarding what the participants had learned from their reading and the in- class interaction. After the first two sessions it was observed that few were handing in the reflection papers. As table 13 illustrates, in the mid-term evaluation only 28% of the class scored between 4-5 that the bi-weekly journaling was a helpful exercise. Ari noted that, “reflection is very hard for some people like myself.... it’s hard because if I go back to my childhood it’s hard to reflect, I (would) rather write an assignment that is guided. Table 13: Bi-weekly Journaling Bi-weekly Journaling 1 2 3 4 5 The Bi-weekly journaling helped my understanding of the intercultural development process 1 3 6 2 2 N=14 There was enough time to complete the journaling exercise 0 1 8 4 2 N=15 From participant observation and facilitator feedback a number of strategic changes were implemented through the iterative process. First, instead of open-ended questions, more direct and structured assignments were given. This resulted in an increase of completed reflection papers. Second, the team incorporated a brief 10-15 minute reflection time at the end of each training 126 session. This led one team member to remark: The self-reflection at the end is excellent for getting immediate input and critical thinking. From the verbal feedback at the end of class.... they would like to maybe take 20-mins to review, discuss and apply the big concepts taught in previous weeks. Another iterative process was to assign two participants to give brief five- minute reports at the beginning of each class. This provided more accountability for participants reflecting upon from the principles taught in the previous training session. One team member commented: “I think getting two participants to share at the beginning seems to be working.... (It) shows they are grasping the material and applying it to life work and ministry. I think this becomes a modeling exercise.” Most Effective Aspects of the Pedagogy The multicultural makeup of Toronto is a unique context for delivering an intercultural leadership-training program. It brings a rich mosaic of cultures to live in close proximity. This was reflected in the demographic of the participants. Participants: A Diverse Learning Laboratory The fact that 16 of the 18 participants were born outside of Canada made the class an intercultural learning laboratory. This was a major theme in participant feedback. George, a Caucasian Canadian participant commented: If you taught this course and had 15 or 16 out of 20 white English speaking Canadians it wouldn't be the same course because we wouldn't have different cultures in the room. You would have one culture and a couple of people who would feel they didn't belong. 127 The diversity of the class and the adult educational pedagogy meant that a significant part of the learning took place during table discussions. Anwar a recent immigrant to Canada remarked: I had a good cultural mix of my classmates. Learning and discussing with them facilitated my intercultural learning and it was a pleasure. I was really interested to hear about the 2nd generation. I am relating this to my children. It is an eye opener for me to know we all face the same issues regardless of where we are from. As facilitators we were able to observe changes in the classroom in participant behaviour that indicated intercultural competency development was taking place. For example, one of the highest intercultural competencies reported on the final questionnaire was respect for other cultures. Although this was a self- perception of the majority of the class, we as facilitators also observed it in class interactions. Ivana, a TIM team member, commented: “I think respect was the highest because of the makeup of the class and they got to apply it. Because when you know the person and have a relationship with them and you understand them all of a sudden your awareness comes up and you really respect them.” Challenge and Support The diversity of the class and the mutual trust and respect brought together a good balance of challenge and support, which is essential for a healthy intercultural training environment (Berardo 2012). In this respectful and supportive environment participants were also challenged. As Lin observed: “in this course you learn from other people how they express their own views. (Some) really challenge you in their responses and you have to really think. It’s open 128 discussions and it’s often their thoughts not just your thoughts and you grow from that.” Class Lectures, Discussion & Facilitators As Table: 14 shows, participants had a high degree of satisfaction with how the course was delivered. Over 88% of participants ranked between 4-5 that the facilitators were: “knowledgeable of the subject matter, well prepared for each class, and communicated the material effectively.” Nicole, who had taken four previous TIM Centre courses commented: “one thing that stands out is the format of the course. It was totally different than the previous ones, more discussion.... the audience being involved not just the lecture kind of thing. It helped us to process it and learn more.” Table 14: Class Lectures, Discussion & Facilitator Class Lectures, Discussion and Facilitators 1 2 3 4 5 The facilitators made good use of time to balance lectures and discussion 0 0 4 4 7 N=15 I learned new intercultural principles from lectures 1 0 1 4 9 N=15 The course facilitators were knowledgeable of the subject material 0 0 2 5 11 N=18 The course facilitators were well prepared for each class 0 0 1 5 12 N=18 The course facilitators communicated the materials effectively 0 2 0 3 13 N=18 Not everyone on the facilitation team agreed with the balance between didactic and experiential methods used in the training program. One team member commented: The classroom should be the place where participants apply or discuss 129 what they have learned/info they receive. Instead it has become the place for receiving info. We expected them to read before and come prepared. This is obviously not happening. I guess we have to work with this reality. This healthy push back resulted in yet another significant change through the action-based iterative process. The facilitation team agreed that in the last quarter of the course the final hour of each session would be given not to lecture, but to group discussion, reflection, and feedback. Least Effective Aspects of the Pedagogy Both participants and the facilitation team observed a number of aspects of the training that should be revised or omitted from future programs. Online Training Component In developing this training program I had great optimism that the online component would be a resource for people to access for further study in the two- week interval between class sessions. In Table 15 we see that the online component of the course was not utilized as expected. Less than 25% of class participants scored between 4-5 as to the helpfulness of the online resources and just 20% scored between 4-5 on having enough time to use the online resources. Table l5: Online Resources Online Resources 1 2 3 4 5 I found it easy to access the web site 1 2 5 4 2 N=14 The extra readings online were helpful 2 3 4 1 2 N=12 I did have enough time to use these resources 2 4 5 2 1 N=14 130 One team member insightfully commented: “I think a take away from this is whether we adequately researched the learning styles in terms of whether the reading is only one type of learning.” Ari’s remark may have summarized the class sentiment: “We needed more time to read and understand .. ..so many papers every week. There was so much reading compared to other courses.... especially for people whose English is not their first language.” A final factor impacting the use of online resources was the participants’ time availability. As we discovered new Canadian immigrants are busy with family, work and Church responsibilities. As Antwan noted: For me it's my personal schedule between full time work, family.. Church leadership, and an outside ministry effort I'm leading. My challenges are related to my personal schedule.... I’m just having trouble finding the bandwidth in between classes. At the same time I'm very excited about this program and want to do well. In future training more consideration needs to be given as to how much out of class homework can be realistically completed between training sessions. Adult Educational Focus A tension existed among the facilitation team regarding training methodology used in the classroom. One team member noted: “I personally am not a fan of the academic nature of this course.” The reference to “academic” related to a concern that the didactic method outweighed the experiential. There was general agreement among the facilitators and participants that an excessive amount of cognitive information was given through online resources, class notes, lectures, and homework assignments. In future iterations the program will need to 131 develop a much more balanced training methodology with more focus on the experiential dimension. Language Proficiency and Intercultural Learning With 50% of the population of Toronto foreign born, our participants represented the cultural diversity of the city. Although English is the language of the dominant culture many struggle to speak it fluently. Of the 18 participants 20% were not proficient in English. This impacted their learning process although it did not deter their enthusiasm to develop intercultural competencies. Ari noted, “this course is very helpful for me to understand other cultures. Many times the other cultures I cannot meet. It was good for me to improve (my) English skills.” Without proficiency in English the challenge of engaging people from other cultures is magnified. Lee remarked: It is very difficult for (my culture) to become intercultural without a firm grasp of English. For an older educated (person) not to speak English well is a shameful thing. They would rather not speak English than speak it badly. This could be a reason why there is little in the way of intercultural mission in cities like Toronto. When asked: “Would the people of your church take this course on intercultural development?” Lin replied: No, the reason why, you don't have a lot of people who speak English that well.... it’s a language problem. The majority of them, 80% of them, would speak predominantly (the vernacular) and their bibles are all in (the vernacular) or bilingual. Language is a huge factor. There is no easy solution to the issue of language and intercultural development. In our facilitators’ team meeting one suggestion was “to offer an English Second Language (ESL) TIM program where it would focus more on the 132 language learning process as well as intercultural content.” TIM Centre believes this will be an important strategy if we are to build relationships with new Canadians who are motivated to engage interculturally, but lack the language proficiency in English to do so. Having discussed the most effective and least effective of the training, we will now consider potential ways this training could be applied to the life and ministry of the participants. Application to Life, Work and Ministry Attending a 16-week course on developing intercultural competency is one thing. Practically applying it to one’s life, work, and ministry is quite another matter. It was encouraging to hear participants recount how they were intending to use this training in a variety of ministry contexts. Nicole a member of a mono- cultural church remarked that the course had: Helped me a lot in terms of my dealing with people interculturally. One of the products of this class is the opening of my bible study in my work place, which is very intercultural. Whatever I have learned in the class I begin to put them into practice. Lily was already thinking how she would use principles of contextualization in her ministry with youth in her local church: I take care of a group of high school students. The next time we teach them about evangelism I want to teach them about guilt, shame, and fear. I am hoping I can bring what I have been learning here to teach high school students to brainstorm.. .different ways to approach the gospel through those three lenses. 133 Chen now serving in the leadership of a mono-cultural church was seeking creative ways he could apply what he learned in a new community outreach centre: I think this kind of training will be very useful to me. My church is going to complete a community centre building, (and) we shall start to serve the community. I shall face people of different cultures: people from Canada, immigrants from Asia, Africa, and other parts of the world. With this training in TIM centre, I am more or less equipped to serve them with a diligent and genuine attitude. Ari saw how the new skills he had learned would be transferable into his workplace. He remarked that, “this course opened my eyes.. .it is very helpful for me. The place I am working I have people from 20 different cultures working with me and (now) I know how to deal with them.” At the outset of this training program this DMin project was entitled: “The Art of Intercultural Competency.” By the end of the training the facilitation team concluded that the title should be changed to “The Intercultural Journey.” In response to this change the co-facilitator of the training insightfully commented: If you use the metaphor of a journey what we have given them is a backpack of tools.. .we have given them the language.... a framework, a map that the traveller needs to get going. Whether they go on the journey and how far they will go is (yet) to be seen, at least they are equipped. This intercultural journey motif, seen as a lifetime endeavour, is reflected in the remarks of Felix, who concluded: It will be a lifelong practice for me to learn to understand other’s perspective when it is very different from mine. Out of the love from God, I am willing to step out of my own “comfort zone” learn to adapt myself to the culture of others and serve the Lord and worship him with them together. 134 This chapter evaluated the findings of the mixed method data collection process. The pre-post IDI assessments suggested that the group experienced a significant increase in developing their intercultural competencies. The quantitative and qualitative data gathered from the final questionnaire and focus groups also suggested that the participants perceived a growth in their intercultural development during this 16-week training process. The data collected through the midterm questionnaire, focus groups, and facilitators’ feedback, helped in discerning which aspects of the training program contributed to the group’s overall intercultural development. This process in turn helped to identify the most and least effective components of the training program. In the final chapter, conclusions from this research will be discussed as well as possible ways the research findings might benefit future training programs. 135 CHAPTER SIX: OUTCOMES AND CONCLUSION The focus of this project was to design, facilitate and evaluate an intentional intercultural training course, within the TIM Centre’s diploma program. The purpose was to determine if the training developed the intercultural competencies of the participants, and if so, what aspects of the training were most effective in the training process. Outcomes At the outset of this project the following questions were developed to guide the research. A brief review of the research findings will clarify how these questions were answered throughout this project. • What are core benchmarks for determining intercultural competence? • How do we measure the development of intercultural competence? • How did this training intervention develop intercultural competencies? • What kind of training is most appropriate for leaders from diverse cultural backgrounds seeking to develop intercultural competencies? What are core benchmarks for determining intercultural competence? In chapter three we identified three models that provided the benchmarks for this training project. They were: Bennett’s Developmental Model of Intercultural Competence (DMIS), Deardorff's Process Model of Intercultural Competence, and Berry’s Model of Acculturation and Adaptation. These models are widely 136 recognized in the literature for providing a conceptual framework and benchmark for guiding the intercultural development process (Spitzberg 2009). The research data gathered (chapter 5) suggested that these conceptual models were effective benchmarks for developing intercultural competencies of participants in the TIM Centre training program. 80% of the participants indicated that the DMIS model helped them in developing intercultural competencies. How do we measure the development of intercultural competence? In chapters three and four we discussed the methodology for assessing intercultural development. Although the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) was the primary assessment instrument, it was not the only one utilized. In this project the facilitation team attempted to implement a broader “portfolio” assessment approach (Byram 1997). This mixed method assessment included the IDI, as well as other quantitative and qualitative methods including: midterm and final questionnaires, participant interviews, group interviews, journaling and facilitators’ participant observations. This provided a rich and holistic resource of information for assessing the intercultural developmental process of the participants. How did this training intervention develop intercultural competencies? In chapter five the findings indicated that as a group, the participants experienced significant development in their intercultural competencies over the 16-week training process. The data suggested a possible correlation between the participants’ cross-cultural experiences in another country and the intercultural development outcomes of the training intervention. We also noted that the 137 findings suggested that the impact of the training was evident in people belonging to both monocultural and multi cultural churches. What kind of training is most appropriate for leaders from diverse cultural backgrounds seeking to develop intercultural competencies? The quantitative and qualitative data (chapter five) also helped to clarify the participants’ perspective of the most effective aspects of training. These included the following: (a) the missional church, (b) understanding culture (iceberg model), (d) D.I.E., and, (e) the DMIS-IDI models. Of all the factors, the most salient was the cultural diversity of the participants themselves, which turned the classroom into an intercultural laboratory. In the remainder of this chapter six conclusions from this research project will be highlighted. Ways this training project might have been improved and what areas could be addressed in future research will be examined. A discussion of ways this research project and its findings can impact other ministry contexts will be explored. Finally I will share some personal reflections on how this project impacted my life and ministry. The Missional Framework is Important The research findings indicated that over 70% of the participants rated the missional theme as the most important for their life and ministry (chapter 5). This affirmed the decision by facilitators to design this training within a missional framework (chapter two). As facilitators, we quickly learned not to assume that a missional concept was understood and accepted by the participants. As John 138 remarked, “It is a brand new concept for me that our God is a missional God. His desire is to bring all the people from all the nations into His loving relationship.” The findings suggested that a missional vision is also a strong motivating factor for engaging and serving people from diverse cultural backgrounds. It challenges the natural tendency to stay in one’s own cultural comfort zone. As Kwan observed: We need to challenge our thoughts and assumptions about missions. When (my culture) thinks about mission we usually think of abroad or a distant mission. But we don't want to deal with people around us. Implementing a missional vision in some distant land does not challenge our bias for homogeneity. Practicing a missional vision locally will not only challenge us to open ourselves to embrace the stranger but in doing so, be changed in the process. Framing an intercultural training program around a missional framework is not without its challenges. For some it might appear to be the imposition of a culturally absolutistic worldview onto an intercultural construct, rooted within a relativistic perspective of life. As the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 so clearly illustrates however, being missional deconstructs cultural hegemony replacing it with the freedom to celebrate in Christ unity in diversity as demonstrated in and through the Pentecost event. A Diverse Learning Laboratory The multicultural learning context of Toronto left an indelible mark on the mindset of the participants. This impacted the participants as they reflected on a missional vision within the multicultural context of Toronto. As Nicole noted: “You (God) have strategically positioned me in this place. This is not an accident. There is a purpose in this.” 139 The cultural diversity of the class also made a significant impact on the learning process. As Anwar observed, “I had a good cultural mix of my classmates. Learning and discussing with them facilitated my intercultural learning.” This cultural diversity turned the classroom into a non-formal intercultural learning laboratory. Here intercultural concepts could be experienced and reflected upon in a concrete learning environment. This was a real life application of Kolb’s learning styles as discussed in chapter three. The Intercultural Journey At the beginning of this training project this DMin thesis was entitled: “The Art of Intercultural Competence.” After observing and listening to the stories of participants, the thesis title was revised to “Developing Competencies for the Intercultural Journey.” Kwan captured this emerging theme when he remarked: “even while I was studying intercultural studies I never got to think about my own journey as an immigrant to a different place; how I adapted to a different culture; and what process I have been going through.” For some participants lack of language fluency made this intercultural journey even more challenging. As facilitators, we became more aware that for some the intercultural journey would not begin without intentionality in developing fluency in the language of the dominant culture. This has challenged the TIM Centre to discern how it might assist new Canadians in learning English in order to launch into their intercultural journey. The GPS metaphor took on greater meaning and impact when used in the overall context of “The Intercultural Journey.” This allowed the conceptual 140 models discussed in chapter three to be viewed as maps for the intercultural journey. Many of the training exercises could be considered as the traveller’s “backpack” for the intercultural journey. Such concrete descriptors greatly assisted participants in understanding the narrative underlying the intercultural developmental process. Rethinking the Monocultural Church At the beginning of the training the following question was raised by a facilitator: “Why would participants from monocultural churches enroll in a course on developing intercultural leaders?” This query perhaps reflected the facilitation team’s biased assumptions about monocultural churches. By the end of the training, as facilitators we had learned the following important lessons: As the research findings suggest, belonging to a monocultural church does not automatically prevent a person from developing intercultural competencies (chapter 5). A person may have an intercultural mindset and choose to identify with his or her language specific culture of origin or with a multicultural church. The qualitative findings suggested that even monocultural churches face intercultural challenges such as generational conflict. Monocultural churches like multicultural churches need to be intentional in training for the intercultural journey. Monocultural churches need bridge leaders to facilitate the intercultural development process. In using the DMIS and IDI as training tools, facilitators must be careful not to automatically equate monocultural with the Denial and Polarization stages. This may be perceived as a 141 form of stereotyping the monocultural church, which for many is a safe place in navigating the stressful intercultural journey into a multicultural society. As facilitators we learned to be more careful in equating missional only in the context of the intentionally intercultural church. As Mansur observed: “I think that it is important to separate the "missional" from the "intercultural" because we may conclude that the monocultural church cannot be missional. I do not think that missional must be multicultural but rather it is required to be sent-out, in other words, not focus on internal programs.” Intercultural Bridge Leaders Crossing cultural boundaries can be a fearful and daunting endeavour. In chapter 2 we saw positive models in Paul, Peter, and Philip, and a negative example in the life and ministry of Jonah. Leaders will need coaching and training if they are to effectively engage in crossing cultural boundaries. As facilitators we had a growing awareness that a big part of the purpose of the training was the equipping of intercultural bridge leaders. As Lin suggested: “We have to become bridges. The seeds have to be planted somewhere. The thing about this class is you are planting little seeds all over the place.” Participants like Ming will become bridge leaders by encouraging fellow Asian leaders to allow their voice to be heard on the board of a multicultural church. Others like Chen will become bridge leaders in their monocultural church by seeking to be missional through a new outreach community centre. Some like Ari will be bridge leaders in sponsoring other leaders to be trained in the TIM Centre’s “Foundations in Missional Ministry and Church Leadership course.” In 142 planting intercultural seeds, participants as bridge leaders, began to think strategically. Nicole observed that “being in a monocultural church I think the vision of the multicultural church should come from the head. If it comes from the Pastor then it is going to filter down to the congregation.” Nicole’s observation alerts one to the challenge of bringing transformational change within a church context. Although advantageous to initiate change from the senior leaders it is also possible for our TIM alumni to initiate change from the grassroots level. It remains to be seen how these bridge leaders will influence the leaders of their churches to become more intentionally intercultural. The Gospel and Culture The findings in the qualitative data indicated a high interest in seeing how the gospel intersects with culture. Throughout the training participants became more self-aware as to how everyone interprets the bible through his or her own cultural assumptions. Perhaps this was why so many participants were impacted by the discussion on guilt, shame, and fear worldviews. As Lee commented: “I really got a lot out of the three cultural expressions of guilt, shame, and fear. My mind constantly goes back to that because you meet people from these different cultures.” In a multicultural context like Toronto the church has an incredible opportunity to see, hear, and interpret the biblical narrative through the cultural lens of others. This can be a challenging process especially for those who take a culturally specific interpretation making it a normative absolute to be imposed on 143 all cultures. This is perhaps another reason why the DMIS model can have a useful application. Too often theologically we operate out of an ethnocentric- theological mindset. Influenced by a western enlightenment worldview, we fail to see the non-Western perspective. As we engage in gospel and culture reflections we can become more discerning and sensitive in how we apply our interpretation of the bible to people from different cultures. As we reflected on I Corinthians 9:19-22 we saw Paul, a bridge leader, on his intercultural journey. His missional vision was to “win as many as possible” to become followers of Jesus. Paul was able to adapt his ministry and the gospel to different cultural contexts without losing his own self-identity or the essence of the gospel in the process. What a contrast Paul was to his former self, Saul of Tarsus. As Saul he was a man on a mission; a mission to condemn and judge with a polarized perspective of “us versus them.” It is our hope that the participants of this training program will continue as bridge leaders, having a clear missional vision and the ability to adapt the gospel within different cultural contexts, without compromising its essence or losing their own cultural identity. Future Study and Action This project has raised some important issues that warrant further study and research. Three areas that could be pursued for ongoing research are: 1. The Monocultural Church and the Intercultural Journey As we discovered in our training the monocultural church is not a static entity but something dynamic and changing. The term monocultural is somewhat 144 misleading in describing the dynamic and hybrid nature of such communities. More research needs to take place to understand how the intercultural journey is already taking place in these communities and how intercultural training can assist in navigating the mosaic of cultures in a multicultural city like Toronto. 2. Intergenerational Issues Although not a formal part of the training curriculum the intergenerational issues experienced in monocultural churches became a highly emotive part of seminar table discussions. More research needs to take place to discover the relationship of these intergenerational issues to the intercultural developmental process. Such research may help bring greater sensitivity to a more mutual understanding of intergenerational issues that often divide both families and church leadership. 3. Training Bridge Leaders As facilitators we had a strong sense that we were training future intercultural bridge leaders. In complex intercultural contexts like Toronto more research needs to take place to discover how bridge leaders can adapt and implement transformative change within their organizations. TIM Centre’s facilitation team believes there is a consultative and coaching role to be played in assisting our graduates become more effective bridge leaders within either a mono or multi cultural church context. Ongoing research would greatly assist in understanding how intercultural bridge leaders can play an effective transformative role in complex adaptive systems like the mono-multicultural church. 145 Insights for Future Research As discussed in chapter 4, a fundamental part of action-based research is the iterative process of reflection, change, and modification. Although this training program had a conclusion related to this research project, the iterative process will continue long after this thesis is completed. In future iterations I would review the following: Needs Assessment: I believe a thorough needs assessment, conducted at the outset of this project, would have greatly assisted in the design and delivery of the training. For example, through a needs assessment we may have discovered the limited time participants had to complete out of class homework. Online Resources: Both facilitators and participants agreed that the online component overly stressed the cognitive, didactic, and informational side of the training. In future iterations more care will be given to understanding the learning styles of the participants and seeking greater balance between the didactic and experiential components of the training. Reflection Papers: The learning styles of participants should have been given more consideration. For most of the students, critical reflection was not something they had been exposed to in their prior educational experience. In future, a more structured approach to reflection would need to be designed in order to be more effective. Less is More: Throughout this training, facilitators intentionally sought to apply an adult educational approach to learning. Participant and facilitators’ feedback, however, clearly suggested that too much cognitive information was 146 delivered through a didactic methodology. In future iterations there should be more time given for participants to reflect and apply intercultural concepts to their lives and ministries by utilizing a more experiential methodology. Potential Applications The applications of this intercultural training project are many. Anwar’s remarks give some insightful suggestions: “this course should not only be for missionaries, (but) for newcomers; for first and second generations; even for Canadians... things are changing.... Even from a secular point of view this course is important.. ..here comes the church as an outreach using this as a tool” Moving forward, the three important venues for the training programs are: TIM Centre, Tyndale Seminary, and the Church in the Greater Toronto Area. First, this intercultural training program will become an integral part of TIM Centre’s vision to equip Christian leaders for effective missional ministry in the multicultural context of Toronto. Second, there is also intentionality to see a similar intercultural program become an integral part of Tyndale’s efforts in equipping leaders to serve in the urban multicultural cities of Canada. Through the ministry of TIM Centre we are already preparing and introducing new training seminars entitled “The Intercultural Journey,” for churches in Toronto and beyond. My desire is to bring a more integrated vision of global mission by training short term mission leaders for overseas ministry with the goal of making that experience an integral part of their life long intercultural journey when they return to Toronto. 147 There are also broader ways in which such training can be applied. Intercultural training can be applied to leaders seeking to engage in Business as Mission (BAM). It will also help language specific churches explore the intercultural challenges facing inter-generations. The DMIS/IDI can become be effective tools for coaching church planters engaged in ministry in culturally diverse contexts. Personal Reflections This project was not just an academic exercise, but also an exploration and application of my own intercultural journey. It provided an opportunity to reflect on God’s missional heart and to discern my place and involvement in it. The intercultural concepts that I researched and taught helped make sense of the challenges and opportunities I faced immigrating to Canada, living in Africa, and now serving in Toronto. Although I am well down the journey of life, I am still learning and enjoying my own intercultural journey. I believe the principles, which I have learned, will greatly enhance my ongoing ministry as I mentor and coach new Canadians adjusting to life and ministry in Canada. It is my belief that the intercultural journey should never be taken alone, but in the company of fellow sojourners. It is my sincere prayer that my life and intercultural journey will be a blessing to others travelling this same pathway. Conclusion Urban centres like Toronto are being populated with people from many different cultural backgrounds. We pride ourselves that we are a “mosaic” not a 148 “melting pot,” yet often we live a life of exclusion rather than inclusion; we need to move from exclusion to embrace (Volf 1986). Crossing cultural boundaries in Toronto doesn’t require a visa or passport. You do need vision, motivation, and intercultural competency to bridge the cultural divide that often separates us from the stranger in our midst. At TIM Centre we believe that God is on a mission to bless the nations of this world and he calls His people to join him in that mission. This will require leaders who are willing to develop intercultural knowledge and skills to effectively and appropriately engage in diverse cultural contexts. This does not come naturally; it requires intentionality. It is not a quick fix seminar, but a lifelong process. It is not about reaching a destination as much as being on an intercultural journey. This is both a journey into self-discovery as well as a discovering of the “other.” The “other” may not live in some distant land, but may be a neighbor, a work mate, or a stranger. The intercultural journey is both daunting, and exhilarating, but if taken, it will open us up to a new reality, “a reality that is more important than the culture to which we belong. It is God and the new world he is creating, a world in which people from every nation, and every tribe with their cultural goods will gather around the triune God” (Volf 1996, 50). This exciting journey of crossing cultural boundaries is ever present as we seek to live out God’s missional purpose in our world. 149 Appendix 1: Participant Consent Form Action Based Research for Developing Intercultural Leaders Researcher: Robert Cousins, DMin (candidate), Tyndale University College and Seminary, Doctor of Ministry Program. TIM Centre Facilitation Team: I have been informed that Chris Pullenayegem, Carmen Yeung and Ivana Piscione will participate in this research as part of the TIM Centre facilitation team. Purpose of the Study: This DMIN research project will focus on intercultural leadership development. The goal is to create a training curriculum which will assess and develop intercultural competencies for Christian leaders, enabling them to be more effective in missional ministry in the multicultural context of Toronto. Invitation to Participate: The following are the expectations for participating in this project: 1) Attend and participate in ten Tuesday evening sessions held at Peoples Church from 6:30 - 9:30pm. 2) Participate in a pre and post intercultural assessment using the Intercultural Development Inventory instrument (IDI). 3) Submit online journal/reflection papers for each class 4) Participate in a final exit interview & survey Voluntary and Informed Consent I fully understand that participation in this project is of a voluntary nature. As a participant of this training course, I have the option whether or not to be a part of 150 the research project. There will be no negative consequence for dropping out of the research at any time during the training program. Confidentiality & Anonymity The researcher has assured me that any information collected in any form will be dealt with in the strictest of confidentiality. A code will be assigned to each participant and no personal names will be attached to any document. Information will be held secure in a locked office and on a password-protected computer. Physical documents will not be copied and will be destroyed at the completion of the research project. Risks Involved: By completing the IDI assessments you may be challenged to critically look at your intercultural competencies. This may prove uncomfortable and result in some stress. This course will challenge you to step outside of your cultural comfort zone. This may lead to uncertainty and some anxiety. The researcher has assured me of his support in this learning process. Accessibility to Research Finding: All participants are welcome to contact the researcher personally in order to have full disclosure of the findings of this research project. 151 Consent Form Acceptance I,_________________________________(Print name), have agreed to be a participant in the above described research project conducted by Robert Cousins as part of the fulfillment of his DMin program at Tyndale Seminary. If I have any questions regarding this DMIN project I may contact the researcher directly (416-606-9757) or Dr. Paul Bramer, Director of The Doctor of Ministry Program. (416-226-6380). Two copies will be signed of this consent form, one for the researcher, and one for my own records. Participant’s Signature:_____________________________________ Date:_________________ Researcher’s Signature:________________________________Date:_________________ 152 Appendix 2: Course Syllabus Developing Intercultural Leaders Department of Life-Long Learning for Non-credit, Church-based Training TIM Centre Diploma: Foundations of Missional Ministry & Church Leadership FACILITATORS: Robert Cousins and Chris Pullenayegem I. COURSE DESCRIPTION God’s people are called to participate in God’s mission of blessing the nations of this world. With the movement of peoples, Toronto has become one of the most multicultural cities of the world. If we are going to engage in missional ministry in Toronto and beyond, it will mean having to cross cultural boundaries to build trusting relationships. This course seeks to develop intercultural competencies for Christian leaders engaged in intercultural ministry. IL COURSE OBJECTIVES Upon completion of this course, one should be able to: • Understand the developmental model of intercultural sensitivity • Understand the process of intercultural communication • Be aware of how his or her own cultural values influence communication • Understand cultural differences and how they impact communication • Appreciate the adaptation process of entering another cultural context • Have some skills for effective intercultural relationships • Develop skills for handling intercultural conflict • Have developed self-awareness regarding his or her intercultural leadership capacity • e able to articulate a biblical theology of cultural diversity III. COURSE REQUIREMENTS A. Required Reading: 20% There will be no assigned textbook for this class. Each class will have required reading that will be given to you in a binder. There will also be extra reading assignments that will be available online. You will need to turn in a completed reading assignment form indicating which readings you have completed. 153 Due Date: B. Required Online Lectures 20 % This course will have required online lectures that should be assessed on the Tyndale moodle site. You should have listened to these lectures, made notes of what you have learned, and bring this to class. We are doing this so that the bulk of the class time will be spent in group discussion around the topics covered during the online lecture. C. Required attendance and Class Participation 20 % Participants should be ready for each class and participate in class discussions by being prepared, asking questions, and interacting with other classmates. Each class missed reduces the participation mark by 50% (i.e. 10% of total mark). More than two missed classes results in an incomplete grade. C. Personal Journaling Value: 25% A two-page (double spaced) journal should be handed in for each class. This will include: One page regarding your reflections from what you are learning from your readings, and on-line lectures and class discussion. One page reflecting on how you are applying this to your interpersonal relationships you are developing with 2-3 people from a different culture and religion, or other situations arising from church ministry or work. Due Date: 2 page reflection paper handed in for each class D. In Class Presentation Value: 25% You will be assigned a group to work with regarding this in-class presentation. You will be asked to hand in a 4-5 page report from your personal perspective of what you learned in completing this project Due Date: Final Class. 154 E. SUMMARY OF ASSIGNMENTS AND GRADING Evaluation is based upon the completion of the following assignments: Required reading and reflection 20% Required online lectures 20% Attendance and Participation 15% Journaling for each class 25% In-class presentation 20% Total grade 100 % F. SCHEDULE OF CLASSES: Session One - God’s Vision for humanity • To understand intercultural diversity from a missional perspective • To understand the key components in developing Intercultural competence (Deardorff Model) • To explore the intensity factors in the adaptation process (M. Paige) • To Develop skills in Journaling intercultural learning Session Two - What is Culture? • To explore the theory and personal application of cultural engagement and adaptation - Berry’s Model of Adaptation • To state the strengths and weaknesses of churches’ responses to multiculturalism - Four models of church and culture • To explore the meaning and construct of culture Session Three - Developing Intercultural Competence (DMIS - Bennett) • To understand and interpret the Development Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) • To explore biblical examples of intercultural competency development • To develop skills in using, Describe-Interpret-Evaluate tool (DIE- J. Bennett) 155 Session Four - Culture Submerged • To understand perception as a cultural lens for interpreting meaning • To examine the different models of Culture - Iceberg/Onion • To investigate how ethnocentrism and stereotypes impact intercultural relations • To reflect and apply the lessons learned from Peter’s engagement with Cornelius in Act 10 Session Five - Cultural Value Orientation and Intercultural Dissonance • To gain insights as to how your identity formation will impact how you relate to others different from yourself • To reflect on biblical passages related to our identity in Christ • To explore how these styles are applied to different intercultural contexts • To recognize the effects of non-verbal communications Session Six - Intercultural Communication Styles • To understand the relationship between gospel and culture • To examine key cultural value orientations (CVO) • To understand how CVO impacts intercultural relationships Session Seven - Intercultural Conflict Resolution • To understand conflict resolution styles (Hammer) • To apply conflict styles in solving intercultural conflict case studies • Review and apply principles from previous classes Session Eight - Exploring Worldviews • To examine the concept of worldview • To explore the worldview perspectives of “Guilt, Shame & Fear” • To discern a biblical response to a particular worldview • To develop communication skills in communicating to different worldviews Session Nine Communicating the Gospel in Differing Contexts • To understand the concept of contextualization • To examine biblical examples of contextualization • To apply principles of contextualization to the Canadian urban context 156 Session Ten Class Presentations • Review and apply training principles to personal life, work & Church Ministry • Cultural Celebration: Respecting and celebrating cultural diversity Developing Intercultural Leaders -Assignments (1) Reading Log There are two types of readings: recommended and additional. Recommended readings are to be read before class sessions to equip you with background to that session’s topic. Additional readings will be posted online and you can read at your leisure. To provide you accountability, you will log the articles you read and hand in at the end of the semester. (2) Journal Submit by email: Due: Every Tuesday before next class Write a 1-2 page single spaced reflection about each session. The journal is to help you to process and apply class material. This process produces self- awareness to past and present experiences you’ve had, in relation to class topics. Please submit your journals by email to the above email address, every Tuesday before the next class. (Note that classes are not always every Thursday evening). (3) Group Presentation At the end of the semester, you and a few other classmates, as a group assignment, make a presentation of the things you’ve learned. The presentation will be approximately 10-15 minutes. This assignment will help you digest the things you’ve learned this semester and share your findings with the rest of the class. 157 Appendix 3: Course Curriculum Introduction This training program is part of TIM Centre’s Diploma program: “Foundations of Missional Ministry and Church Leadership.” The course was conducted on 10 Tuesday evenings from 6:30 - 9:30. There were eighteen participants, mostly lay leaders of new immigrant churches. 80% of participants were born outside of Canada coming from the following countries: Korea, Hong Kong, Mainland China, Taiwan, Philippines, Lebanon, Jordon, India, Iran, and Canada. The TIM Centre team consisted of four people all born outside of Canada from the following countries: Hong Kong, Venezuela, Sri Lanka and Northern Ireland. Outcomes for training Program Overall Program Outcome “To develop intercultural competencies of Christian leaders serving in Canadian urban contexts ” Session One - God’s Vision for humanity To understand Intercultural Diversity from a Missional Perspective a) This course was framed within the missional mandate that God has given His church. We stressed being on God’s mission to bless the nations of our world. b) Being missional is at the heart of God’s vision for the church and that missions should not be just an extra program. To understand the key components in developing Intercultural Competence (Deardorff's Model) The training was built upon key models of developing intercultural competence. Key components of such models include: 158 Attitudes: Such as openness, respect, curiosity. We believe love must replace fear and hospitality must replace hostility in engaging cultural differences Knowledge: Self-awareness: cultural-general and cultural-specific knowledge of cultural difference. Skills: Ability to gather information about other cultures; how to investigate and discern the unseen cultural assumption; ability to change frame of reference and to adapt appropriately in different cultural context To explore the intensity factors in the adaptation process (M. Paige) Because many of the participants were new Canadians we took time to listen and to discuss intensity factors that are a challenge in adapting to a new cultural context. To develop skills in Journaling intercultural learning Session Two - What is Culture? To explore the theory and personal application of cultural engagement and adaptation - Berry’s Model of Adaptation We live in a multicultural context where people adapt to the dominant culture in different ways. John Berry, a Canadian sociologist, suggests that how we respond to culture will result in four different adaptation responses: (a) Assimilation, (b) Separation, (c) Integration, (d) Marginalization. Participants were given an opportunity to discuss how they and their community have adapted and if one of these four responses corresponds to their community. To state the strengths and weaknesses of churches ’ response to multiculturalism — Four models of church and culture Mono-cultural Model These are people who want to maintain their own cultural identity including, language, customs and values. Usually focused on first generation immigrants. 159 Multi-Ethnic/Multi-Congregational Different immigrant ethnic groups share the space of a church, which is often a declining mainline church. Although each church meets and worships separately they may form a umbrella coalition and have periodic united services. Mono-Cultural - Multi-Ethnic This represents a more assimilationist approach. In this church there is one dominant culture i.e. Caucasian, but the congregation is ethnically diverse. Intentionally Intercultural Church This represents Berry’s integration approach. Here there is an intentionality to reflect the diversity of customs and values of each ethnic community while maintaining a common sense of unity and purpose To explore the meaning and construct of culture In this session we sought to define culture and intercultural competence. We looked at different facets of culture with an emphasis on distinguishing between the visible and invisible aspect of culture. We also examined culture from the personal, cultural-group and universal aspects. Finally, there was a theological discussion around the issue “is culture good, bad and Neutral” Session Three - Developing Intercultural Competence (DMIS - Bennett) To understand and interpret the Development Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) A key part of this training was the Development Model for Intercultural sensitivity developed by Milton Bennett. This looked at where the participants were in their intercultural journey i.e. Denial, Polarization, Minimization, Acceptance, and Adaptation. Students completed the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) and the group received feedback on its profile. Depending on the course, students may be given an individual interview and an initial coaching session. 160 To explore biblical examples of intercultural competency development In this session we explored biblical examples of leaders in the bible who experienced growth in their intercultural development. Special attention was given to Paul, Peter, and Philip. Jonah was used as an example of a person in “ethnocentrism” To develop skills in using, Describe-Interpret-Evaluate tool (DIE- J. Bennett) This was a very practical “hands-on” exercise helping the students to Describe, Interpret and Evaluate different social scenes and contexts. On one occasion a group of participants attended a multicultural service in a Lutheran church. The next class we took the time to use the D.I.E to evaluate that as an intercultural learning experience. Session Four - Culture Submerged To understand perception as a cultural lense for interpreting meaning In this session we explored how culture shapes every persons perceptions in different ways. We utilized an exercise that gave certain cultural behaviours and explored how such behaviours could be interpreted differently from their cultural perception. We drew from this exercise principles that are important in intercultural communication. To examine the different models of Culture - Iceberg/Onion The focus of this session was to explore how the visible aspects of culture, the material artefacts, and behaviour are connected to the hidden assumptions of culture. It is this “deep” aspect of culture that is at the heart of understanding another culture. We also combined this exercise with the D.I.E. in that when we describe and interpret we need to be aware of the unseen aspects that drive the visible dimensions of culture. To investigate how ethnocentrism and stereotypes impact intercultural relations Here we explored the in-group and out-group dimension of culture. Through video and interactive exercises we explored ethnocentrism and stereotyping. The focus is making participants aware that we all have a tendency towards seeing our own culture as best and the need to be sensitive not to impose our view of life upon others. 161 To reflect and apply the lessons learned from Peter’s engagement -with Cornelius in Acts 10 In this biblical reflection we discussed how God was dealing with the ethnocentrism of Peter and his unwillingness to go to Cornelius. We related this story to the need for the Holy Spirit to change our attitudes towards the outsiders in our life. Session Five - Cultural Identity and Communication Styles To gain insights as to how your identity formation will impact how you relate to others different from yourself In this session participants explored factors that have shaped their personal identity. We then explored the difference in our personal and cultural identities and how that would impact intercultural communication. To reflect on biblical passages related to our identity in Christ In this session participants reflected on two key biblical passages: Galatians 3:6-9, and Ephesians 2:12-14. Participants then discussed the implications of these passages as they relate to one’s identity. The focus was to show that our primary identity should always be rooted in our identity in Christ. Students also had an opportunity to reflect on Miroslav’s analogy of “Embrace”. To explore how Communication styles are applied to different intercultural contexts Here participants had the opportunity to explore how communication styles can differ according to one’s cultural orientation. Concepts such as: high and low context, direct and indirect, linear and circular, emotionally expressive, and restrained were discussed. This was then applied to ways these cultural preference can impact the communication process. To recognize the effects of Non-verbal Communications In this session participants had the opportunity to be part of a brief simulation, which involved enacting non-verbal communication of four different cultures. Time was taken to debrief the simulation and to apply principles of non-verbal communication to living and relating in an intercultural context. 162 Session Six - Cultural Value Orientations To understand the relationship between Gospel and Culture This session introduced participants to the concept that the bible and the gospel is always communicated using cultural forms. Participants reflected on Paul’s experience recorded in I Corinthians 9:19-23 showing how Paul adapted his communication to different cultural contexts. Participants also reflected on an exercise that helped them to discern what are principles that can be applied in all cultures and what are culturally applied principles. To examine key Cultural Value Orientations (CVO) Cultural Value Orientation is a key part of any discussion on intercultural competence. In this session we discussed value differences between: individualism and collectivism, high & low power distance, task v relationship, achieved and Ascribed status, monochromic and polychromic. To understand how CVO impacts intercultural relationships Time was spent considering the intercultural implications when people from different orientations come into contact with each other. We used the diversity of the class as well as case studies to apply cultural value orientations to real life situations Session Seven - Intercultural Conflict Resolution To understand conflict resolution styles (Hammer) In this session we considers Mitch Hammer’s paradigm of conflict styles: direct and indirect, emotionally expressive and emotionally restrained. We also considered five conflict approaches represented by: the Turtle (withdrawing), Shark (confronting), the Teddy Bear (accommodating), the Fox (compromising), and the Owl (collaborating). To apply conflict styles in solving intercultural conflict case studies For this course we developed four case studies of conflict within a ministry context. Each student was assigned a conflict style ie Shark or Turtle, and asked to role play this conflict situation each using a different conflict style. 163 Review and apply principles from previous classes This training program sought to use an adult educational approach with fewer lectures and more discussion and interaction drawing upon the rich cultural diversity of the participants. As our training team reflected on the training, we concluded we were packing too much content into each class. Session Eight - Exploring Worldviews To examine the concept of worldview In this session we introduced the concept of worldview. Through discussion and lecture we looked at topics such as defining worldview, and three main worldviews a) secular-scientific, b) animistic, and c) theistic. The function of worldview was also discussed. To explore the worldview perspectives of “Guilt, Shame & Fear” Participants were exposed to the concepts of “Guilt, Shame, and Fear” and how cultures can have a primary orientation in either of these positions. We discussed how these three worldviews are seen in the bible and how a different approach was used to communicate into each particular worldview. To discern a biblical response to a particular worldview Participants were given the opportunity to watch a video describing a culture with an animistic worldview. This led to a discussion of folk religion and how in many cultures folk religion underpins religions such as Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. To develop communication skills in communicating to different worldviews In this session students were put into three groups and each assigned one of the three worldviews of “Guilt, Shame, and Fear.” They were then asked to discuss how that particular worldview would impact how they would explain the core beliefs of Christianity. Each group was given an opportunity to report back to the large group for further discussion. Session Nine: Communicating the Gospel in Different cultural contexts To understand the concept of contextualization In this session students were introduced to the concept of 164 contextualization. After defining the concept, an explanation was given to the historical context that gave rise to the concept. To examine biblical examples of contextualization Through lecture and group discussion participants explored contextualization as a biblical concept. The case study of Paul presenting the gospel in Antioch, Lystra and Athens was used to show how, although we have one gospel, it could be applied differently in cultural contexts. Jesus and the Samaritan women, John 4, was used as a case study for participants to identify barriers and bridges in communicating the gospel in a different context. To apply principles of contextualization to the Canadian urban context In this session students were given the opportunity to explore the cultural context of Toronto with the goal of understanding how context would impact intercultural relations and communication. They continued to explore how the missional message and ministry could be contextualized to this context. Session Ten Class Presentations Review and apply training principles to personal life, work, and Church Ministry This was our final session and we intentionally did not introduce any new teaching material. We used the time to reflect on the learning that had taken place in previous sessions and how they could apply what they had learned to their life, work, and ministry. Cultural Celebration: Respecting and celebrating cultural diversity This was an opportunity for participants to experience food and customs of other cultures. For many participants this was one of the few safe places where they could explore cultural differences. 165 Appendix 4: Midterm Evaluation We would like to receive your feedback for this course. Your comments are essential in helping the TIM Centre’s facilitation team understand your response to the course. By completing this course survey you are granting permission that this information may be used for course evaluation purposes in the DMIN research of Robert Cousins. Your feedback will be kept confidential and anonymous. Please answer each question according to the following scale. Circle a number then add comments. 1 = Strongly disagree 2 3 = Agree 4 5 = Strongly Agree 1. Bi-weekly Readings The bi-weekly readings were necessary in order to 1 2 3 4 5 participate effectively in class discussions. I found the printed readings too lengthy to complete. 1 2 3 4 5 The level of English in the readings made it difficult to 1 2 3 4 5 understand. Comments: 2. Class lectures & Discussion The facilitators made good use of time to balance class lectures 1 2 3 4 5 & discussion. I learned new intercultural principles from the class lectures. 1 2 3 4 5 I learned how to apply intercultural principles from the group 1 2 3 4 5 discussion in class. Comments: 3. Bi-weekly Journaling The bi-weekly journaling helped my understanding of the 1 2 3 4 5 intercultural development process. There was enough time to complete the journaling exercise. 1 2 3 4 5 I needed more facilitation guidance to begin my journaling. 1 2 3 4 5 Comments 166 4 IDI Assessment The IDI assessment increased my intercultural self-awareness. 1 2 3 4 5 The personal interview helped to understand my IDI assessment. 1 2 3 4 5 The IDI helps me understand how I can grow in my intercultural 1 2 3 4 5 Development. Comments 5. Online Resources • I found it easy to access the web site. 1 2 3 4 5 • The extra readings online were helpful. 1 2 3 4 5 • I did have enough time to use these resources. 1 2 3 4 Comments 6. Application to Life & Ministry This course has been very relevant to my life and ministry. 1 2 3 4 5 I have already applied principles of this course to my life 1 2 3 4 5 and ministry. Please give an example below. I have greater confidence in dealing with intercultural 1 2 3 4 5 conflicts. Comments: 7. What are one or two ways this course could be improved? Thank you for your time ...the TIM Centre Team! 167 Appendix 5: Final Evaluation Final Course Evaluation - Developing Intercultural leaders We would like to receive your feedback for this course. Your comments are essential in helping the TIM Centre’s facilitation team understand your response to the course. By completing this course survey you are granting permission that this information may be used for course evaluation purposes and in the DMIN research of Robert Cousins. Your feedback will be kept confidential and anonymous. Please answer each question according to the following scale. Circle a number then add comments. 1 = Strongly Disagree 2 3 = Agree 4 5 = Strongly Agree SELF-AWARENESS This training program has increased my awareness of: 1. My own cultural perceptions and assumptions and how they 1 2 3 4 5 can impact my relationship with people from different cultures 2. Cultural value differences between myself and people from other 1 2 3 4 5 ethnic backgrounds 3. How I judge others by my own cultural preferences 1 2 3 4 5 4. How I interpret the bible through my cultural perceptions 1 2 3 4 5 Other Comments or Explanations: ATTITUDES This training program has increased my motivation to: 5. Engage more intentionally in the missional mandate of the church 1 2 3 4 5 6. Be more open to celebrating cultural diversity in the local church 1 2 3 4 5 7. Deal with negative emotions when engaging in intercultural 1 2 3 4 5 relationships 8. Adapt my behavior when I enter a different cultural context 1 2 3 4 5 (e.g., non-verbal behaviors, sensitivity to behavioral adjustments appropriate for different contexts) 168 9. Explore cultural differences of behavior, values, beliefs, and worldview 1 2 3 4 5 of people living in my neighbourhood 1 10. Respect individuals and groups in different cultural contexts 1 2 3 4 5 Other Comments or Explanations: SKILLS This training program has increased my ability to demonstrate: 11. The ability to suspend judgment of people when their cultural 1 2 3 4 5 practices are different from my own 12. Flexibility when interacting with people from different cultures 1 2 3 4 5 13. that I am able to contrast cultural values orientations differences 1 2 3 4 5 between my own culture and other cultures with whom I interact. 14. that I communicate more effectively with people from various 1 2 3 4 5 cultures, considering such things as power distance, direct and indirect communication, and nonverbal behaviour 15. that I can explain several models for understanding culture and the 1 2 3 4 5 theories which underpin them i.e., onion & iceberg models 16. Skills to resolve intercultural conflicts and misunderstandings 1 2 3 4 5 17. The difference between biblical principles and their application 1 2 3 4 5 in different cultural contexts 18. How to communicate the gospel into different cultural contexts 1 2 3 4 5 such as, “Guilt, Shame, and Fear” based worldviews Other Comments or Explanations: 169 KNOWLEDGE This training program has increased my knowledge enabling me to: 19. Explain the concept of culture in both its objective (visible) and 1 2 3 4 5 subjective (invisible) dimensions 20. Contrast aspects of another person’s culture with my own 1 2 3 4 5 21. Utilize some techniques to maximize my learning within a different 1 2 3 4 5 cultural context (e.g., using the D.I.E.) 22. Explain the Developmental stages in Bennett’s model (DMIS) 1 2 3 4 5 (e.g., Denial, Polarization etc.) 23. Describe the components of intercultural communication styles 1 2 3 4 5 (e.g., Direct & Indirect; Emotional Restrained-Expressive) 24. Explain the four models of how churches adapt to the dominant 1 2 3 4 5 Canadian culture (e.g., Mono-culture - Intercultural church) 25. Describe a range of value orientations and how they can impact 1 2 3 4 5 Intercultural communication (e.g., Individualism v Collectivism; High & Low Power Distance) 26. Explain and utilize several approaches for mediating and resolving 1 2 3 4 5 conflict among peoples of different cultures (e.g., Shark Turtle etc.) Other Comments or Explanations: 27. The location of the course was accessible 1 2 3 4 5 28. The amount of course content covered was manageable 1 2 3 4 5 29. The pace of the class was acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 30. The Course facilitators: a) Were knowledgeable of the subject material 1 2 3 4 5 b) Were well prepared for each class 1 2 3 4 5 c) Communicated the material effectively 1 2 3 4 5 170 GENERAL COURSE EVALUATION Additional Questions 31. What did you find was the most valuable part of this course? Why? 32. Describe two specific ways you will apply what you have learned in this course in your life, work or ministry. 32. What suggestions do you have on how this course could be improved? Thank you for your time .. .the TIM Centre Team Resources consulted: (Brake 1992; Deardorff 2013; Fantini 1995) 171 Appendix 6: Intercultural Concept Exercise Principles and Key Concepts of Intercultural Competence Take a few minutes individually to consider these principles and concepts we have been discussing in our last few sessions... 1. Missional Church: Intercultural competence must be considered within the context of the church engaging in the mission of God. 2. Four Levels of Cultural Competence: Developing a) open attitudes b) Self and Other awareness c) Cultural knowledge & d) Cross-cultural skills which are essential components in IC. 3. Berry’s model of Adaptation: a) Separation, b) Assimilation c) Segregation and d) integration are helpful ways of understanding the adaptation process. 4. Multiculturalism and the Church: a) Mono-cultural b) Multi- ethnic/multi -congregational c) Mono-cultural - Multi-ethnic d) Intentionally intercultural. 5. Understanding Culture: The onion & iceberg models in helped in understanding the visible and invisible aspects of culture and how they impact intercultural communication 6. Is Culture Good, Bad or Neutral? Helpful in clarifying culture from a Christian perspective. 7. The Developmental model of culture: The DMIS Model of Denial, Polarization, Minimization, Acceptance, adaptation and integration. 8. Biblical Case Studies: Understanding the intercultural journey of Paul, Peter, and Philip - helpful in illustrating the concepts of the DMIS. 9. The Describe, Interpret, and Evaluate (D.I.E.) as a tool to understand intercultural contexts. 10. Cultural Perceptions: Ethnocentrism and engaging others from a different cultural perspective 11. Understanding Values: Going beneath the surface of the iceberg in exploring cultural values 172 12. Self-awareness: understanding my identity 13. Communication Styles 14. Non-Verbal Communication (NVC) 15. Gospel & Culture: Identifying the difference between the core of the gospel and our cultural baggage attached to the presentation of the gospel 16. Cultural Value Orientations: power distance, space, shame, time orientation etc. Task: Order (1, 2, 3 etc. in terms of importance) the topics (1 being most important) below by how important and relevant they are to your life & ministry context. Missional Church ______Four Levels of Competence __________ Berry’s model of adaptation ______Multiculturalism & Church __________ Understanding Culture ____________Culture, Good, Bad, Neutral ________ DMIS Model ______ Biblical Case Studies ______ D.I.E. ______ Cultural Perceptions ______ Values - Proverbs/Behaviour_______ Self-awareness ______ Communication Styles _____________Nonverbal behavior ______ Gospel & Culture _______ Culture Value Orientations ________ Choose what you identified as the top three that are most relevant to your life and ministry context. Discuss in your group ways in which you see these intercultural principles and concepts being applied in your personal life and ministry context. Each group will report back to the larger group their top three principles and 1-2 ways they can be applied to life and ministry. 173 REFERENCE LIST Altshuler, Lisa. Nan Sussman, and Elizabeth Kachur. 2003. Assessing changes in intercultural sensitivity among physician trainees using the intercultural development inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27:387-401. Augsburger, David W. 1986. Pastoral counseling across cultures. Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox Press. Banks, James A. 2006. Cultural diversity and education: Foundations, curriculum, and teaching. 5th ed. Boston: Pearson. Bennett, Milton. 1993. Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity, In Education for the intercultural experience, ed. Michael R. Paige, 21-71.Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Bennett, M. J. 1993. How not to be a fluent fool: Understanding the cultural dimensions of language. The Language Teacher 27 (9), 16-21. Bennett, J. M, Bennett. M.J., and Stillings, K. 1997. The description, interpretation, and evaluation exercise: Facilitators guideline. http://www.intercultural.org/die.php (accessed December 17, 2012). Bennett, Milton J., ed. 1998. Basic concepts of intercultural communication: Selected readings. Boston: Intercultural Press. Bennett, Janet. and Milton J. Bennett. 2004. Developing intercultural sensitivity. In Handbook of intercultural training 3rd ed. Eds. Dan Landis, Janet M. Bennett, and Milton J. Bennett, 147-165.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Bennett, Milton J. 2004. Becoming interculturally competent. In Towards multicultural education, Ed. J. Wurzel, 66-77 2nd ed. Newton, MA: Intercultural Resource Corporation. Bennett, Janet M. 2009. Transformative training: Designing programs from culture learning. In Contemporary leadership and intercultural competence: Exploring the cross-cultural dynamics within organizations, ed. Michael A. Moodian, 95-110. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc. 174 Bennett, Janet M. 2009b. Cultivating intercultural competence: A process perspective. In The Sage handbook of intercultural competence, ed. Darla K. Deardorff, 121-140. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Bennett, Janet M. 2012. The developing art of intercultural facilitation. In Building cultural competence: Innovative activities and models, ed. Kate Berardo, and Darla K. Deardorff, 13-22. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. Berardo, K., and G. Simons. 2004. The Intercultural Profession; Its profile, practices and challenges, survey report presented to the 2004 SIETAR USA Congress. Berardo, Kate, and Darla K. Deardorff, Eds. 2012. Building Cultural Competence: Innovative Activities and Models. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. Berry, John. 2001. A Psychology of Immigration. Journal of Social Issues 57 (3) 615-31. Berry, J.W. 2005. Acculturation: living successfully in two cultures. International Journal of Intercultural Relations Vol. 29 (6) November: 697-712. Beyer, Peter. 2008. “From far and wide: Canadian religious and cultural diversity in global/local Context.” In Religion and Diversity in Canada, Eds. Lori G. Beaman and Peter Beyer, 9-39. Boston: Brill, Hotei Publishing. Bosch, David J. 1991. Transforming mission: Paradigm shifts in theology of mission. Maryknoll, N.Y: Orbis Books. Bush, Victoria D., and Thomas N. Ingram. 2001. Building and assessing cultural diversity skills: Implications for sales training. Industrial Marketing Management 30: 65-76. Brake, Terrance. 1992. Doing business internationally: The cross-cultural challenges. Seminar and course book. Training Management Corporation. Princeton: NJ. Brake, Terrence, Danielle Medina Walker, and Thomas Walker. 1995. Doing business internationally: The guide to cross-cultural success. Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin Professional Publishing. Branson, Mark L., and Juan F. Martinez. 2011. Churches cultures and leadership. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic. 175 Brislin, Richard, and Tomoko Yoshida. 1994. Improving intercultural interactions: Modules for cross-cultural programs. London: Thousand Oaks. Byram, Michael. 1997. Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Byram, Michael. 2009. Intercultural competence in foreign languages: The intercultural speaker and the pedagogy of foreign language education. In The Sage handbook of intercultural competence, ed. Darla K. Deardorff, 321-332. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Caligiuri, Paula. 2006. Developing global leaders. Human Resource Management Review Vol 16 (2) June: 219-228. Creswell, John W. 2003. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Deardorff, Darla K. 2006. Identification and assessment of intercultural competence as a student outcome of internationalization. Journal of Studies in International Education Vol. 10, No 3: 241-266. Deardorff, Darla K. 2008. Intercultural Competence: A definition, model and implications for education abroad. In Developing intercultural competence and transformation: theory, research, and application in international education, ed. Victor Savicki, 32-52. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. Deardorff, Darla K. ed. 2009. The Sage handbook of intercultural competence. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Deardorff, Darla K. 2013. Succeeding in diverse classrooms: Developing intercultural competent teachers, http://www.ncpublicschools.org/ docs/academicservices/conference/2011/presentations/intercultural. (accessed August 12, 2013). Dejaeghere, G. Joan and Yi Cao. 2009. Developing US teachers' intercultural competence: Does professional development matter? International Journal of Intercultural Relations 33. No.5 September: 437-447. Dong, Donna C.W. 2012. Towards multicultural Christian community: Developing, implementing, and evaluating an intercultural training model with campus ministry staff leaders in Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship of Canada. D.MIN. Thesis, Tyndale Seminary. Toronto, Canada. Elmer, Duane. 1993. Cross-cultural conflict: Relationship for effective ministry. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press. 176 Fantini, Alvino E.1995. Report by the intercultural communicative competence task force. World Learning, Brattleboro, VT: USA. Fantini, Alvino E. Assessing intercultural competence. In The Sage handbook of intercultural competence, ed. Darla K. Deardorff, 2009. 456-466. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Fowler, Sandra M., and Judith M. Blohm. 2004. An analysis of methods for intercultural training: Handbook of intercultural training. In Dan Landis, Janet M. Bennett and Milton J. Bennett Eds. 37-85. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Franke, John R. 2009. God is love: The social trinity and the mission of God. In Trinitarian theology for the church, eds. Daniel J. Tereier, and David Lauber, 104-199. Downers Grove. IL: IVP Academic. Gipps, Caroline V. 1994. Beyond testing: Towards a theory of educational assessment. London: Routledge. Glanville, Elizabeth. 2009. Missiological reflections on difference: Foundations in the gospel of Luke. Mission Studies 26: 64-79. Goheen, Michael W. 2008. Continuing steps towards a missional hermeneutic. Fideles: A Journal of Redeemer Pacific College 3:49-99. Gudykunst, William B., Ruth M. Ruth and Mitchell R. Hammer. 1996. Designing intercultural training. In: Handbook of intercultural training, Eds. Dan Landis and Rabi S. Bhakat, Eds, 2nd Edition. 61-79. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Gudykunst, William B., and Young Yun Kim. 2003. Communicating with strangers: an approach to intercultural communication. 4th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill. Hall. Edward T. 1998. The power of hidden difference. In Basic concepts of intercultural communication: selected readings, ed. Milton J. Bennett, 53- 68. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press Inc. Hall, Matthew, Kathryn Ainsworth, and Selena Teeling. 2012. Training and assessment in intercultural competence: A critical review of contemporary practice in business education. page 1-27 http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/ assets/Documents/disciplines/business/Aston%20intercultural%20compete nce%20review.pdf (accessed December 31, 2012). 177 Hammer, Mitchell R., Milton Bennett, and R. L. Wiseman. 2003. Measuring intercultural sensitivity: The intercultural development inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 23, no. 4: 421-43. Hammer, Mitchell R. 2011. The IDI v.3 Berlin, Maryland, USA. Hammer, Mitchell R. 2008. The Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI): An Approach for assessing and building intercultural competence. In Contemporary leadership and intercultural competence: exploring the cross-cultural dynamics within organizations, ed. Michael A. Moodian, 203-207. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc. Hammer, Mitchell R. 2011. Additional cross-cultural validity testing of the Intercultural Development Inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 35, no. 4 (July): 474-87. Hammer, Mitchell R. e-mail message to author, May 22, 2013. Hays, Daniel J. 2003. From every people and nation: A Biblical theology of race. Downers Grove, IL. IVP Academic. Hermans, Jeanine G., and Margaret D. Push. 2012. How to design and assess an intercultural learning experience. In Building cultural competence: innovative activities and models, ed. Kate Berardo and Darla K. Deardorff, 23-41, Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing. Hiebert, Paul G.1983. The category “Christian” in the mission task. International Review of Mission 12:287-96. ___________. 1984. Critical contextualization, Missiology: an International Review 12: 287-96. ___________. 1994. The flaw of the excluded middle. In Anthropological reflections on missiological issues. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. Hunter, George G. 2000. The Celtic way of evangelism: How Christianity can reach the west again. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press. Kim, Young Y. 2009. The identity factor in intercultural competence. In The Sage handbook of intercultural competence, ed. Darla K. Deardorff, 53-65. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Koenig, John. 1985. New testament hospitality: Partnership with strangers as promise and mission. Philadelphia. PA: Fortress Press. 178 Kohls, L. Robert, and John M. Knight. 1994. Developing intercultural awareness: A Cross-cultural training handbook, 2nd Edition. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Koshy, Valsa. 2010. Action research for improving educational practice: A step- by-step guide. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd. Landis, Dan, and Rabi S. Bhagat, Eds. 1996. Handbook of intercultural training. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Landis, Daniel, Janet M. Bennett, and Milton Bennett. 2004. Handbook of intercultural training. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Lane, Patty. 2002. A beginner's guide to crossing cultures: Making friends in a multicultural world. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books. Law, Eric H. F.1993. The wolf shall dwell with the lamb: Spirituality for leadership in a multicultural community. St. Louis, MO: Chalice Press. Lee, Mo Yee, and Amy Zaharlick. 2013. Culturally competent research: Using ethnography as a meta-framework. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Lingenfelter, Judith E., and Sherwood G. Lingenfelter. 2003. Teaching cross- culturally: An incarnation model for learning and teaching. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. Lingenfelter, Sherwood G. 2008. Leading cross-culturally: Covenant relationships for effective Christian leadership. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. Littrell, Lisa N., and Eduardo Salas. 2005. A review of cross-cultural training; Best practices, guidelines and research needs. Human Resource Development Review 4 (September): 305-34. Livermore, David A. 2009. Cultural intelligence. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House. Lustig, Myron W., and Jolene Koester. 2010. Intercultural competence: Intercultural communication across cultures. New York. NY: Pearson. Lustig, Myron W., and Jolene Koester. 2012. Intercultural Competence. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson. McCaffery, James A. 1993. Independent effectiveness and unintended outcomes of cross-cultural orientation and training. In Education for the intercultural experience, ed. Michael R. Paige, 219-240. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. McGrath, Patrick and John A. Axelson. 1999. Accessing awareness and developing knowledge: foundations for skill in a multicultural society. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. Mendenhall, Mark E. 2006. The elusive, yet critical challenge of developing global leaders. European Management Journal 24 (6) (December): 422- 29. MissionPREP. 2012. Training manual: COPE: Cultural orientation for personal effectiveness. Toronto. ON. Canada Mitton, Michael. 1996. The Soul of Celtic Spirituality in the Lives of Its Saints. Mystic. CT: Twenty-Third Publications. Moodian, Michael A. ed. 2009. Contemporary leadership and intercultural competence: Exploring the cross-cultural dynamics within organizations. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc. Nouwen, Henri J. M. 1986. Reaching out: The three movements of the spiritual life. Garden City, NY: Image. Ortiz, Manuel. 1996. One new people: Models for developing a multiethnic church. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic. Paige, R. Michael, ed. 1993. Education for the intercultural experience. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Paige, R. M., Jacobs-Cassuto M, Yershova, Y. A., and J. De Jaeghere. 2003. Assessing intercultural sensitivity: An empirical analysis of the Intercultural Development Inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27(4), pp. 467-486. Paige, R.M. 2004. The intercultural in teaching and learning: A developmental perspective. Models in intercultural learning and development. Paper presented at a seminar: The intercultural in teaching and learning at the university of South Australia. http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/leamingconnection/staff/practice/intema tionalisation/documents/models.pdf. (Accessed November 28, 2012). 180 Paige, Michael R. 2006. Maximizing study abroad a student's guide to strategies for language and culture learning and use. 2 ed. Minneapolis, MN: Board of Regents University of Minnesota. Paige, Michael R., and Matthew L. Goode. 2009. Intercultural competence in international education administration. In The Sage handbook of intercultural competence, ed. Darla K. Deardorff, 333-349. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Palmer, Parker J. 1983. The company of strangers: Christians and the renewal of America's public life. New York. NY: The Crossroad Publishing Company. Palmer, Parker J. 2011. Healing the heart of democracy: The courage to create a politics worthy of the human spirit. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Pantoja, Luis Jr., Sadiri Joy Tira, and Enoch Wan. Eds. 2004. Scattered: The Filipino global presence. Manila: Life Change Publishing. Patton, Michael Quinn. 2001. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Patton, Michael Quinn. 2011. Developmental evaluation: Applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use. New York: The Guilford Press. Payne, J. D. 2012. Strangers next door: Immigration, migration, and mission. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books. Pedersen, Paula J. 2010. Assessing intercultural effectiveness outcomes in a year- long study abroad program. International Journal of Intercultural Relations Vol. 34 (1) January 2010, 70-80. Pohl, Christine D. 1999. Making room: Recovering hospitality as a Christian tradition. Grand Rapids. MI: Eerdmans. Plueddemann, James E. 2009. Leading across cultures: Effective ministry and mission in the global church. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic. Pusch, M.D., and Martha Merrill. 2008. Reflection, reciprocity, responsibility and committed relativism. In Developing intercultural competence and transformation: Theory, research, and application in international education, Victor Savicki, ed. Sterling. VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC. Richard, Lucien. 2000. Living the hospitality of God. New York: Paulist Press. 181 Rhodes, Stephen A. 1998. Where the nations meet: The church in a multicultural world. Downers Grove. IL: IVP Academic. Roxburgh, Alan J. 2011. Missional: Joining God in the neighborhood. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books. Russell, Letty M. 2009. Just hospitality: God’s welcome in a world of difference. Louisville. KY: Westminister. John Knox Press. Santos, Narry. 2004. Survey of the diaspora occurrences in the Bible and of their contexts in Christian mission in the Bible. In Scattered: The Filipino global presence. Eds. Lius Pantoja Jr., Sadiri Joy Tira, and Enoch Wan. 53-66. Manila, Philippines: Life Change Publishing, Inc. Sanneh, Lamin. 1999. Translating the message: The missionary impact on culture. MaryKnoll. NY: Orbis. Savicki, Victor, ed. 2008. Developing intercultural competence and transformation: Theory, research, and application in international education. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC. Sheffield, Daniel. 2005. The multicultural leader: Developing a catholic personality. Toronto, ON: Clements Publishing. Sheffield, Daniel. 2007. Assessing intercultural sensitivity in mission candidates and personnel. Evangelical Missions Quarterly 43.1:22-28. Spitzberg Brian H., and Gabrielle Changnon. 2009. Conceptualizing intercultural competence. In The Sage handbook of intercultural competence, ed. Darla K. Deardorff, 2-52. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Statistics Canada, 2006 and 2001 Census of Population. www.statcan.gc.ca (accessed June, 2013) Stringer, Ernest T. 2007. Action Research. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc. Tereier, Daniel J., and David Lauber. 2009. Trinitarian theology for the Church. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic. Thomas, David C., and Kerr Inkson. 2009. Cultural intelligence: Living and working globally. 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. 182 Toomey-Ting, Stella. 2009. Intercultural conflict competence as a facet of intercultural competence development: Multiple conceptual approaches. In The Sage handbook of intercultural competence, ed. Darla K. Deardorff, 100-120. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Tyndale Seminary. 2013. Tyndale Intercultural Ministries Centre, pamphlet, Toronto, ON. Vanier, Jean. 1998. Becoming human. New York, NJ: Paulist Press. Volf, Miroslav. 1996. Exclusion and embrace: A theological exploration of identity, otherness, and reconciliation. Nashville: Abingdon Press. Whiteman, Darrall.1997. Contextualization: The theory, the gap, the challenge. International Bulletin of Missionary Research 21 (1): 2-7. Wright, Christopher J.H. 2004. Mission as a matrix for hermeneutics and Biblical theology. In Out of Egypt: Biblical theology and Biblical interpretation. Craig Bartholomew, Mary Healy, Karl Moller, and Robin Parry, Eds. 102- 143. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. Wright, Christopher J.H. 2006. The mission of God: Unlocking the Bible's grand narrative. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic. Wright, N.T. 2005. The last word: Scripture and the authority of God-getting beyond the Bible wars. New York, NY: Harper Collins. Yong, Amos. 2008. Hospitality and the other: Pentecost, Christian practices, and the neighbor. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books. 183 ***** This is the end of the e-text. This e-text was brought to you by Tyndale University, J. William Horsey Library - Tyndale Digital Collections *****