STRATEGY & a #3MinuteStrategy video from my personal story about why churches shouldn’t be using the word “assimilation” in their #GuestServices.

Commentary by Dr. Whitesel: Click the picture below to see my latest “3-minute strategy” video on Biblical Leadership Magazine that just dropped on their website. Learn what the building behind me (Chicagoans – do you know it) can represent in the minds of Gen. X (and how we should adjust our guest services in response).

Read more at … https://www.biblicalleadership.com/videos/video-a-church-consultants-story-about-assimilation-and-how-it-relates-to-the-borg/

#3MinuteStrategies #ChurchVisitors101 #GuestServices

ACCULTURATION & How It Can Make Out-group Members Feel Included

by Bob Whitesel, D.Min., Ph.D., 11/2/15.

Out-group members are people who are members of your church or organization, but feel like they are not being included in decision-making or being heard.  Northouse states in Strategy Four “Help Out-group Members Feel Included” that because “their members are on the sidelines and peripheral to the action” we must help them feel included (2012, p. 160).  But, there are two major (and widely divergent) ways to go about it.  This is because we must be careful to respect their differences (i.e. the things that make out-group members unique).

Let me give you an illustration.  If a new and young family feels like out-group members in an aging church, we will want to make them feel included. But, we could go about this in two very different ways.

Tactic 1 could be to try to teach them about all of the church’s history and get them to become friends with all of the aging church leaders, in hopes of getting them to become one of our in-group (this process is called “assimilation” – but more about that in a minute).

Tactic 2 could be to have long-standing leaders teach them about the church’s history in a small group setting with other newcomers.  There they would learn about our church culture, meeting long-standing leaders … but could stay part of their culture which might be younger and with small children (such a process is called “acculturation”).

In the field of missional leadership, it is important to understand the difference between “assimilation” and “acculturation.”  While there is some authors who use the terms interchangeably, classic research by Teske and Nelson ( 1974: pp. 351-367) found that assimilation and acculturation are widely divergent.  They found that most scholars were consistent in saying that “assimilation” forces others to leave their culture and become like the dominant culture.  And they found that “acculturation” allows out-group members to adapt parts of their culture with the in-group culture and form a new hybrid culture.

Let me explain what Teske and Nelson found.

Assimilation

  • Is unidirectional. Change only happens within one culture and this culture becomes a clone of the dominant culture.
  • The out-group members have to change their values and embrace the values of the dominant in-group. Out-group members must now value the things the dominant in-group values. While this may be necessary with theology, it does not respect their culture when they are forced to adopt the dominant culture’s methodology too.
  • Out-group members must accept the dominant culture as superior.

Acculturation

  • Is “two-way, that is, may occur in both directions” (p. 365). In other words, the dominant culture may change too by its interaction with the out-group. The out-group may bring some new and/or outside perspective that helps expand the awareness of the in-group.  For example, new young people coming into our churches can help the choir or the traditional order of worship employ a contemporary chorus (but the choir may rewrite the chorus to make it more consistent with their musical genre).  The idea is that in acculturation both sides influence one other for good (and hopefully not for bad).
  • Does not require change in what the out-group values.  Out-group members can value the same things as before, where these values do not conflict with the values God wishes for His offspring.
  • Out-group and in-group members see both cultures as having value. Reconciliation between cultures occurs.

Now, acculturation does not mean accepting all elements of a culture. For some elements of every culture run counter to God’s Good News.  Here is how I have stated, this (Spiritual Waypoints, 2010, p. 74):

When elements of a culture run counter to the Good News, and others are in agreement with it, what should be done? Eddie Gibbs has provided a helpful metaphor in the image of cultural “sifting” (Gibbs, I Believe in Church Growth, 1981, p. 120). Sifting separates out unwanted elements from wanted elements, most notably in cooking where a mesh strainer such as a colander will sift out impurities. The task of explaining the Good News to wayfarers at Waypoint 13, also carries the requirement that we sift between elements of a culture that go against Christ’s news and those that do not.  To not fully explain God’s expectations is to misinform and ill prepare the traveler.  Some Christians avoid the task of doing this, perhaps because championing God’s requirements is awkward in comparison to lauding His rewards.  But both must be undertaken.  A leader who is not ready to sift elements of a culture and tactfully explain what can be retained and what must be abandoned, is not ready to travel forward with the wayfarer.

As you can see, the term “acculturation” is technically the better term, for what we often refer to in our churches as “assimilation.”  Now, while most people in out-groups (e.g. visitors, displaced volunteers, ignored leaders, etc.) will never know the difference between these two terms; it will be important for you as up-and-coming leaders to understand (and be able to articulate among each other) the difference.

Thus, we should use the more correct “acculturation” in lieu of “assimilation” for it reminds us that getting out-group and in-group members together will usually mean preserving both cultures, while also allowing God to transform each with His Good News.

Gibbs, E. (1981). I believe in church growth. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Teske, R. H.C. & Nelson, B. H. (1974). Acculturation and assimilation: A clarification. American Ethnologist, Vol 1, No. 2. pp. 351-367.
Whitesel, B. (2010). Spiritual waypoints: Helping others navigate the journey. Indianapolis: The Wesleyan Publishing House.

CULTURE & The Important Difference Between Assimilation & Acculturation

by Bob Whitesel D.Min. Ph.D.

In the field of missional leadership, it is important to understand the difference between “assimilation” and “acculturation.”  While there is some authors who use the terms interchangeably, classic research by Teske and Nelson ( 1974: pp. 351-367) found that assimilation and acculturation are widely divergent.

They found that most scholars were consistent in saying that “assimilation” forces others to leave their culture and become like the dominant culture.  And they found that “acculturation” allows out-group members to adapt parts of their culture with the in-group culture and form a new hybrid culture.

Let me explain what Teske and Nelson found.

Assimilation

  • Is unidirectional. Change only happens within one culture and this culture becomes a clone of the dominant culture.
  • The out-group members have to change their values and embrace the values of the dominant in-group. Out-group members must now value the things the dominant in-group values. While this may be necessary with theology, it does not respect their culture when they are forced to adopt the dominant culture’s methodology too.
  • Out-group members must accept the dominant culture as superior.

Acculturation

  • Is “two-way, that is, may occur in both directions” (p. 365). In other words, the dominant culture may change too by its interaction with the out-group. The out-group may bring some new and/or outside perspective that helps expand the awareness of the in-group.  For example, new young people coming into our churches can help the choir or the traditional order of worship employ a contemporary chorus (but the choir may rewrite the chorus to make it more consistent with their musical genre).  The idea is that in acculturation both sides influence one other for good (and hopefully not for bad).
  • Does not require change in what the out-group values.  Out-group members can value the same things as before, where these values do not conflict with the values God wishes for His offspring.
  • Out-group and in-group members see both cultures as having value. Reconciliation between cultures occurs.

Now, acculturation does not mean accepting all elements of a culture. For some elements of every culture run counter to God’s Good News.  Here is how I have stated, this (Spiritual Waypoints, 2010, p. 74):

When elements of a culture run counter to the Good News, and others are in agreement with it, what should be done? Eddie Gibbs has provided a helpful metaphor in the image of cultural “sifting” (Gibbs, I Believe in Church Growth, 1981, p. 120). Sifting separates out unwanted elements from wanted elements, most notably in cooking where a mesh strainer such as a colander will sift out impurities. The task of explaining the Good News to wayfarers at Waypoint 13, also carries the requirement that we sift between elements of a culture that go against Christ’s news and those that do not.  To not fully explain God’s expectations is to misinform and ill prepare the traveler.  Some Christians avoid the task of doing this, perhaps because championing God’s requirements is awkward in comparison to lauding His rewards.  But both must be undertaken.  A leader who is not ready to sift elements of a culture and tactfully explain what can be retained and what must be abandoned, is not ready to travel forward with the wayfarer.

As you can see, the term “acculturation” is technically the better term, for what we often refer to in our churches as “assimilation.”

Now, while most people in out-groups (e.g. visitors, displaced volunteers, ignored leaders, etc.) will never know the difference between these two terms; it will be important for up-and-coming missional leaders to understand (and be able to articulate) the difference.

Footnotes:
Gibbs, E. (1981). I believe in church growth. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Teske, R. H.C. & Nelson, B. H. (1974). Acculturation and assimilation: A clarification. American Ethnologist, Vol 1, No. 2. pp. 351-367.
Whitesel, B. (2010). Spiritual waypoints: Helping others navigate the journey. Indianapolis: The Wesleyan Publishing House.

MULTICULTURAL & Four leadership behaviors that promote inclusion. #ReMIXbook

Commentary by Dr. Whitesel: “Research shows that building a multicultural team requires special effort in making everyone feel included. Four leadership behaviors were linked to inclusion:

1) empowerment,

2) accountability (which together have been described as ‘high accountability, low control’),

3) courage which means ‘you put personal interests aside to achieve what needs to be done,’ and

4) humility, i.e. ‘you admit mistakes, you accept and learn from criticism.’

Also interesting is that employees from some cultures (e.g. Mexico, China) are over twice as innovative and cohesive when extra effort is expended to include them.  Plus, this research points out that American leaders usually feel less than half the need for inclusion than do their other cultural counterparts. Therefore it’s important for leaders raised in American culture to expand the extra effort to include others, even though they may not feel the need as acutely themselves.”

Inclusive Leadership: The View From Six Countries
by the staff of the Catalyst Knowledge Center, part of: Inclusive Leadership: The View From Six Countries, Date: May 7, 2014
Download

How much do the very definitions of inclusion vary from culture to culture? Are there gender differences in what makes employees feel included? What leadership behaviors can promote inclusion? And how much do these behaviors need to be adapted for different cultural contexts?

This study delves into the striking similarities across most countries in how employees characterize inclusion and the leadership behaviors that help to foster it.

Findings in all six countries include:

  • The more included employees felt, the more innovative they reported being in their jobs.
  • The more included employees felt, the more they reported engaging in team citizenship behaviors—going above and beyond the “call of duty” to help other team members and meet workgroup objectives.
  • Perceiving similarities with coworkers engendered a feeling of belongingness while perceiving differences led to feelings of uniqueness.

Download the complete report or view the infographic to see how inclusion was linked both to employees’ self-reported innovation and team citizenship—behaviors that have a profound impact on overall team productivity and product innovation…

Read more at … http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/inclusive-leadership-view-six-countries