Listening to the Spirit

In April, I was blessed to spend four days hearing Ahmad, a Muslim follower of Jesus from South Asia, describe the birth and growth of a movement that has spanned multiple Muslim groups and traditions in South Asia. Ahmad originally came to Jesus in the traditional extractionist model: Christians converted him, his family disowned him because of the dishonor he caused them, and he became a Christian worker to make a living.

One day, a leader of the Christian ministry Ahmad served brought him six young Muslim men who had indicated interest in following Jesus. He was told to instruct them how to become Christians. He introduced them to Jesus and his teaching. A er a week of instruction, they asked him what they should do next.

Ahmad says that at that moment the Holy Spirit challenged him to give them radically di erent instructions than those he had been taught to give by the Christian mission. He felt deeply convicted by the Lord that he should tell these six young men, “Go home to your families and do not say anything immediately. Pray to Jesus for what he wants you to do and then obey him.” So Ahmad listened to the Spirit’s voice sent them back home as followers of Jesus, but not converted to Christianity.

Ahmad’s boss was disappointed, even angry, that he had squandered such a prime chance to convert six young men. He had wasted a golden opportunity for Christ, one that rarely happened in their Muslim country. Ahmad’s disregard for traditional methodology looked like failure and irresponsibility from the traditional Christian mission paradigm. In fact, the instruction to “keep quiet” could even be characterized as disobedience and unfaithfulness to Jesus from the standard Christian perspective.

e prompting that Ahmad listened to that day, however, was actually in line with Peter’s instructions to believers who lived in a context of persecution. Peter directed them to live honorable and faithful lives, to do their work, to shut their mouths, and to be ready to answer when people asked about their hope. Instead of inculcating a “loud and proud” faith that is o en more a product of Western (especially American) aggressive and confrontational religious tradition, Peter actually encouraged exactly the same quiet approach that Ahmad heard from the Spirit.

So was Ahmad a failed evangelist and missionary? Yes, by standard measures of strategy, methodology, and success.

One week later, though, the six young men returned, accompanied by een elders of their Muslim community. ese men said, “We have seen the di erence that Isa has made in these young men. Teach us to follow Isa also.” Never in the history of this mission (or of mission work in general in their Muslim country) had a group of elders come asking to learn about and to follow Isa.

Because Ahmad listened carefully to the Spirit, not to Christian tradition, the Lord was able to start a new thing. A er a week of teaching about Jesus and his life, Ahmad sent these elders home with the same instructions. One month later they returned with een more elders who also wanted to follow Isa. And for the next two years, groups of een to twenty elders came each month seeking to learn about the one who had changed their friends’ lives.

In year three, a Su leader came to Ahmad’s house a er being directed in a dream to do so. He too met and began to follow Isa. Today most of his community are followers also.

As I talked with Ahmad over four days, listening and learning from him, he repeatedly emphasized that he had not been strategizing or seeking new methods for reaching Muslims. He didn’t come up with a new missiology and implement it. In that moment, with those six young men, he heard and listened to the prompting of the Holy Spirit to disregard generations of Christian mission tradition and methodology and to do something that amounted to disruptive innovation—send them away, don’t convert them.

Today, as a result of his listening, this movement to Jesus crosses Sunni, Shiite, and Su lines and represents 1% of the population of their country. Rather than the Christian hubris of assuming that Jesus must always work through our established methodologies, Ahmad demonstrated the epistemological humility Rynkiewich alluded to in my introduction. He listened to the prompting of the Spirit, and a new methodology developed that has seen tens of thousands of Muslims come to follow and love Isa deeply.

So let me say at the outset that innovative missiology needs to teach the next generation to listen more carefully to the Spirit and his leading, rather than simply mastering the paradigms and methodologies that have been standardized and institutionalized within Christian mission as “the way to serve Jesus.”

How Can We Help You?

At the end of Ahmad’s presentations over three days, an exchange took place that highlighted the need of Westerners to cultivate more epistemological humility and less Christian mission hubris—in other words, to spend more time listening and learning than talking and “serving.”

During a question and answer time one retreat participant asked, “We recruit people to serve. How can we help you?”

Need for Humility

Ahmad sat quietly for a long time, pondering how to politely respond.

In that silence, I cringed. e question itself assumed that Western Christians and missionaries were somehow needed for this movement among Muslims that numbers over one million believers. e common mission paradigm includes a subtle (if not blatant) assumption that the e orts of believers in other parts of the world are not su cient, are not complete, unless Western missionaries or missions somehow come on board and “help” or “partner” with them.

Ahmad’s rst response, once he collected his thought, was, “We could bene t from people who can listen to what is happening among us and work with us to develop solutions to our growing leadership training needs from within.” e ensuing discussion was telling. Western mission practitioners wrestled with how di cult it would be to nd workers who would commit themselves to deep listening and who would not bring pre-packaged, external models as “the way to do leadership training” in this very di erent context.

Ahmad’s response again highlighted the need for our missiological training to foster incarnational innovation and adaptation in challenging contexts—for the need to listen and learn and then work with believers and the Spirit of Jesus to shape the most appropriate forms of maturing and multiplying both believers and leaders, to teach the methodological exibility of Paul instead of standardizing “disciple-making” strategies that package a one-size- ts-all solution for all contexts and cultures.

Reconsider Denominational Allegiance

A er discussing the need for workers who could listen and truly be colleagues, Ahmad added another consideration that I believe we need to listen to carefully: “Your workers bring their ‘gospel’, but they always have something hidden that is before that: Your denomination.” is movement, by the way, has spent considerable time in deep, extended inductive study of whole books of the Bible in order to deeply immerse themselves in scriptural teaching. As a result they could tell the di erence between what scripture says and this man’s foreign, EuroAmerican denominational tradition. If believers adopted or imbibed that foreign expression and interpretation, they would sound and “smell” foreign to their own people. e voices of these incarnational believers can challenge Christian assumptions and traditions. ey force us, if we listen respectfully and carefully, to reconsider what is essential for following Jesus and what it means to be faithful to scripture. More than anything, their stories challenge the hubris that Rynkiewich decried. It was his conclusion that, “rather than operating from a command center in America that dictates strategy, perhaps the American church should be listening more closely to local indigenous Christians [I would add, non-Christian Jesus followers] to discover what God is doing in the world” (Rynkiewich, 2007: 232–33).

He then provided an example. A certain missionary wanted to “work with them.” Ahmad was speci c about the denominational a liation, but I don’t want to appear to target anyone, so I will be imprecise in my representation. is man kept insinuating his denominational theology and practice as essential for understanding the Bible and following Jesus. Ahmad then said, “We had to protect scripture and our people.” In order to do so they had to ask the missionary to stay away from their movement. He could not separate the human traditions of his denomination from what scripture teaches.

So in order to listen deeply to scripture and the Spirit for their context, these believers have had to be discerning about what Christian voices they listen to.

True innovation and reimagination in missiology will be impossible without deeply listening to the Spirit of the incarnational Jesus speak to us through these believers who incarnate the Way of Jesus within their own society, rather than imitating someone else’s expression of that way.

Conclusion

If we want to be used e ectively by Jesus to help shape the new wineskins in the remaining frontiers, our future missiological training will challenge students to listen deeply to Jesus, Scripture, and the Spirit in fresh ways. At the same time it will expose students to and encourage them to listen to the voices of believers who follow Jesus outside of traditional Christianity and church.

Combine those two voices, and the incarnational Jesus will call his servants to imagine, envision, and shape disruptive innovations in mission, radical new wineskins that are called for in the remaining and challenging fringes, edges, margins, and frontiers.

References

Bharati D (2019) Dayanand Bharati: Dialogue of Life. Blog of Dayanand Bharati (http://dayanandbharati.com/).

Bharati D (2004) Living Water and Indian Bowl. Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library.

Breen M (2013) e Great Disappearance. Exponential Resources. Available at:https://exponential.org/resource-ebooks/the-greatdisappearance/ (accessed 23 August 2015).

Eusebius (1989) e History of the Church. Revised. London, UK: Penguin Books.

Pennington JP (2017a) Christian Barriers to Jesus: Conversations and Questions from the Indian Context. Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library.

Pennington JP (2017b) Mandali (Fellowship): Bharati on Bhakta Expressions of Ekklesia. International Journal of Frontier Missiology 34(1–4). Pasadena, CA: 59–65. Available at: http://www.ijfm.org/PDFs_IJFM/34_1-4_PDFs/ IJFM_34_1-4-Pennington.pdf (accessed 19 September 2018).

Richard HL (2016) What Is An Alongsider? Available at: https:// margnetwork.org/what-is-an-alongsider/ (accessed 17 July 2019).

Richards ER and O’Brien BJ (2012) Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes. IVP Books.

Rynkiewich MA (2007) Corporate metaphors and strategic thinking: ‘ e 10/40 Window’ in the American evangelical worldview. Missiology: An International Review 35(2): 217–241.

Rynkiewich MA (2016) ‘Do Not Remember the Former ings’. International Bulletin of Mission Research 40(4): 308–317.

Stroope MW (2017) Transcending Mission : e Eclipse of a Modern Tradition. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.

Tiénou T (2016) Re ections on Michael A. Rynkiewich’s “Do Not Remember the Former ings.” International Bulletin of Mission Research 40(4): 318–324.

Twiss R (2015) Rescuing the Gospel from the Cowboys. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Envisioning Possibilities: Nurturing Components for Multiethnic Interaction in Mission Classrooms

Jane Rhoades1

Abstract e increasing diversity of mission teams across most mission organizations calls for attending more closely to preparing mission students for the complexities of working in multicultural teams. e diverse classroom provides the ideal place to model a healthy multiethnic community and to nurture components of interaction needed for co-constructing strategies and solutions to problems for future service in multicultural teams. Research ndings describe six critical components and literature supports the ongoing impact of these learned strategies: cultural humility, intellectual humility, mutual acculturation, cognitive engagement of others’ ideas, strategies for communicating and responding to alternative ideas, and a participative stance.

Envisioning Preparation for Future Service in Multicultural Teams

Most mission organizations are experiencing increased diversity of team members from across the globe working side by side. Westerners work hand in hand with nonWesterners, o en in settings strange to all of them. While Scripture o ers the positive bene ts of multicultural teams who demonstrate the strength of God’s love and project the promised hope of a global throng before the throne, one true test of e ective multicultural teams is how e ective they are in dialoguing across di erences at a deep enough level to co-construct strategies and solutions to problems (Brown 2011). is increasing diversity across the globe calls for attending more closely to preparing mission students for the complexities of working together in multicultural teams. e increased diversity of students in university classrooms provides the ideal place to model a healthy multicultural community that pleases God and to nurture in students the attitudes and abilities to engage in deep interaction that can produce patterns for future service with multicultural teams.

Findings from research conducted in 2016 suggest critical components to be nurtured for preparing students for interaction across di erences (Rhoades 2018). ese ndings are supported by current literature that suggests the ongoing impact of these qualities for intercultural discussions.

Research of Multiethnic Students’ Participation in Case Study Discussion

I conducted an ethnographic analysis of classroom interaction to understand what and how sociocultural factors impacted multiethnic students’ participation in case study discussions in an African higher education classroom setting. All of the students were missionaries being trained in member care skills. Fi een of the participants were Africans and ve of the six facilitators were Africans. I recorded and analyzed videos of thirty-two case study discussions and conducted video-simulated recall interviews and semi-structured interviews with seventeen participants. Students described numerous factors that in uenced their participation. However, for this paper, I will focus on a number of ways the sociocultural factors impacted students’ interaction in their multicultural case study group.

rough analysis of the videos and their interviews I identi ed two features that distinguished the four discussion groups: the level of inclusiveness and the complexity of their cognitive processing of ideas. One group stood out because their inclusion extended from all-encompassing verbal participation to cognitive engagement of multiple perspectives that resulted in complex engagement of ideas. By the end of their eighth discussion this complex extended inclusion group was readily engaging underlying assumptions related to the case and totally satis ed with their discussion, in spite of obvious disagreements. One participant concluded that their group “was inclusive. It was wow! Especially the last case study we did. It was very beautiful.”

Even as I rejoiced in my discoveries, I realized that this observed depth of engagement is not always evident in multiethnic mission teams that must solve problems together. But ndings from this study revealed speci c components that contributed to the development of this level of inclusiveness, complex cognitive engagement, and dialogue of ideas across di erences.

Critical Components

I will explore six critical components that seemed to distinguish the groups with more inclusive participation and complex engagement of ideas. I present these as components that could be nurtured within students in multiethnic mission classrooms as they prepare for lives of service in diverse teams.

Cultural Humility

Cultural humility was the rst component that became obvious in the two most inclusive groups in my study. Cultural humility is described in literature as a stance in which individuals recognize the limits of their own knowledge about others’ cultures or worldviews (Hockett, Samek, and Headley 2012, 3; Hook 2014, 278). As a result of this culturally humble posture, individuals take a learning stance toward others with an open mindedness and curiosity to keep learning from them so as to understand their perspectives (Foronda et al. 2016, 211; Hockett, Samek, and Headley 2012, 10). According to the earliest cultural humility proponents, another key attribute is ongoing self-critique and re ection that leads to self-awareness and mindfulness in cultural relationships and power issues (Danso 2018; Foronda et al. 2016; Tervalon and Murray-Garcia 1998). ese attributes of cultural humility can have a powerful impact on how individuals interact within multiethnic groups.

Students in the most inclusive groups in my study had an eagerness to hear diverse cultural perspectives from others. Several students, in fact, were proactive in prompting peers to speak up so as to hear all perspectives. Furthermore, students demonstrated their learning stance as they described how they mentally collected diverse ideas from members of the group and attempted to synthesize the ideas with their own. Several students speci cally explained mindfulness of power issues, taking a minimizing stance by not disclosing higher social status so everyone would feel free to learn together.

Not all participants in my study exhibited the same stance of eagerly learning from others across di erences or critiquing themselves in relationships and power issues. Some students repeatedly emphasized perspectives from their cultural setting rather than inviting or exploring perspectives from those of other cultures and contexts. Cultural humility is a critical virtue for avoiding the danger of ethnocentric judgements or making quick assessments based on previous cultural knowledge or experience. According to Danso (2018). “A stance of informed not knowing can provide a bu er against essentialism and stereotyping” (416).

In wonderful contrast to ethnocentrism, Foronda and her colleagues (2016) found that the attributes of cultural humility expressed in diverse situations resulted in mutual bene t for all involved and the creation of “mutually respectful dynamic partnerships” that included healthy communication and decision making (212). is describes beautifully the kind of healthy partnerships we long for in multiethnic mission teams. It is worth nurturing cultural humility in our students in the context of diverse classrooms.

Intellectual Humility

Intellectual humility was the second component that came to light in analysis of the participant interviews. Students expressed appreciation for hearing others’ alternative ideas because of their awareness of their limited ability to conceive of all the factors they needed to consider in a case. One student stated this so clearly, “ e person who is bringing a di erent perspective than what I have will help me widen my horizon of thinking and then be able to move deeper with that . . . ere are certain things that haven’t crossed your mind, but somebody may just try to point it out from his or her own perspective” (177).

e participants really appreciated the input from others for the process of making a plan to address the issues in the case study. For example, one student stated, “I love the challenging ideas, I love di ering opinions... and seeing how we can solve an issue from multiple angles” (178). eir expressed perspectives are in line with a current surge of interest in the virtue of intellectual humility. e literature on intellectual humility addresses a wide array of expressions of this virtue related to an individual’s relationship to knowledge and in academic settings. Jones (2012) asserts, “ e virtue of intellectual humility ows out of a proper grasp of the limit, boundary, or weakness of one’s epistemic position” (696). is solid understanding of epistemic limitations provides the basis for appropriate responses to others and “the praiseworthy disposition to withhold his or her voice when and because it is appropriate to do so” (Jones 2012, 697). Other authors expand on the impact of intellectual humility on interaction: mindfulness of one’s real and expressed con dence in speaking (Kidd 2016, 399), responding to opposing views (Porter and Schumann 2018, 148, 153), and interacting across di erences (Ritchhart 2004). e participants in my study varied in expressions of intellectual humility. ose most vocal in describing their openness to alternative ideas were more inclusive in inviting the participation of others and in cognitively and verbally engaging their ideas, while others were more likely to contribute their ideas rather than inviting input from others di erent than themselves. Educating for intellectual humility falls in the realm of character development, making such education a rather lo y but sometimes elusive goal in missions training. However, this character quality has a distinct impact on how individuals interact in the context of discussion and problem solving and would be well worth prioritization.

According to Battaly (2017), developing intellectual humility involves the process of acquiring a tendency toward “appropriate intellectual action, motivation, emotion, and perception” that make up the moral quality of intellectual humility (172). Individuals learn these tendencies primarily by seeing the virtue exempli ed in others, imitating what they see and being given su cient opportunity to practice perceiving and responding to intellectual situations that call forth learned intellectual actions, motivations, and emotions (Battaly 2017; Ritchhart 2004). us, teachers who model intellectual humility through appropriate intellectual actions, attitudes, and perspectives in the classroom can play a signi cant role in nurturing this critical component in students. Providing su cient opportunities for challenging discussion across di erences also provides repeated opportunities for students to practice appropriate actions and attitudes of intellectual humility needed for serving with diverse mission teams.

Mutual Acculturation

A third component that seemed to play a signi cant role in the most inclusive groups during my data collection was mutual acculturation. e students described speci c ways in which they observed fellow students so they could step into the conversation and could shape their responses appropriately for the group and even for speci c group members. Some students moderated cultural patterns of respect by extending respect across boundaries of ethnicity, gender, age, and organization. Participants also had to make accommodations for turn taking and clarifying behavior in order to participate in discussion with diverse others.

Most of the students in my study were from Africa and constantly attributed these attitudes and actions to showing respect, a value deeply ingrained from childhood. Nonetheless, not all team members equally demonstrated mutual acculturation. Without mutual e orts at accommodating one another, participants felt dissatis ed, disrespected, and excluded. One participant especially voiced frustration when their e orts at accommodation were not reciprocated:

We’ve been taught from my experience . . . that we need to respect our elders and respect the culture that we are in . . . and everything is founded on relationship . . . But I feel like sometimes there is not an understanding that there are di erent people here from di erent contexts so then they shouldn’t necessarily apply things that they do in their country.

More recent studies of acculturation have put emphasis on the impact of attitudes of both sides of a cross-cultural encounter, making all parties accountable for accommodating each other in mutually bene cial ways (Azghari, Hooghiemstra, and Vijver 2017, 21–22; Bourhis et al. 1997).

Many studies address the acculturation e orts primarily of international students in new academic settings (Jiang et al. 2009; Kormos,

Csizér, and Iwaniec 2014; Xia 2009; Yang, Noels, and Saumure 2006). A few authors allude to the mutuality needed by both host and sojourners (Du , Patricia A. 2008; Lam 1994; Zhou, Knoke, and Sakamoto 2005). Lam (1994), for example, concluded from her study that “native culture plays a vital part in shaping non-native students’ ability to acquire interactional competence” putting mutual responsibility on host and sojourners (abstract). Du (2008) used the term “bidirectional – or multidirectional” to describe how participants taught and learned from one another about communication needs in discussions in her study (311). Such intentional mutual accommodation in diverse discussion groups seems to be congruent with biblical injunctions for mutual esteem and submission (Phil. 2:3, Eph. 5:21). Discussions in the classroom across di erences are ideal for addressing and nurturing the respect that can be demonstrated by making appropriate accommodation adjustments to one another behavior and attitudes that can make a huge di erence in multicultural mission teams.

Cognitive Engagement of Others’ Ideas

A fourth component that emerged from my study of the two most successful discussion groups was cognitive engagement of others’ ideas. Individuals in these two groups described how they mentally engaged others’ ideas in a way that they pulled ideas apart, selected the best parts and combined them with their own ideas, and sometimes even synthesized ideas from multiple participants into a careful response. ese participants, in fact, described inclusion that went beyond inviting others to speak, to incorporating other’s ideas into their thinking processes. For example, one participant explained his silence: “I am really processing a lot, and that time of listening, you are just processing. And see this one—can this really t here?” is cognitive inclusion, or extended inclusion, when expressed in carefully shaped words, was intentionally honoring others.

Participants expressed their desire to have their ideas considered. For example, one participant explained, “When someone is pouring out their heart on his idea ... the people are showing they are not considering. Maybe I tell these things again but consider it. Even if it’s not the answer, but to consider the person who speaks it out.” Participants who recognized components of their ideas being communicated were encouraged, felt respected, and were motivated to continue participating. In contrast, several participants in the two other groups described feeling marginalized and perceiving that their ideas were not even considered and thereby excluded from further discussion. is inclusive cognitive engagement of others’ ideas (extended inclusion) clearly di erentiated the four groups. Cognitive engagement was strongest in the group that reached the deepest level of discussion over di erences. e literature most helpful to discussion of this component is Tadmor, Tetlock, and Peng’s (2009) discussion of how acculturation strategies result in cognitive integrative complexity. e authors attempt to address the gap in understanding of socio-cognitive skills that come to play in intercultural relationships. In their words,

Integrative complexity re ects the degree to which people accept the reasonableness of clashing cultural perspectives on how to live and, consequently, the degree to which they are motivated to develop cognitive schemas that integrate these competing worldviews by explaining how di erent people can come to such divergent conclusions or by specifying ways of blending potentially discordant norms and values. (106) e participants in my study seemed to be describing cognitive acculturation as they attempted to include others’ ideas cognitively and to ponder adjustments in thinking related to countercultural ideas they were hearing. According to Crisp and Turner and Tadmor et al., such adjustment strategies may result in integrative complexity that can serve them well in future cross-culture encounters (Crisp and Turner 2011, 245; Tadmor, Tetlock, and Peng 2009, 107–8, 230). is possibility lends support to the bene t of facilitating and nurturing inclusive cognitive engagement of others’ ideas in challenging peer discussions in the classroom as a means of developing cognitive integrative complexity for future service.

Strategies for Communicating and Responding to Alternative Ideas

Another component that emerged as signi cant in my study was strategies individuals developed for communicating and responding to alternative ideas. Since every group was made of individuals from multiple cultures, students were challenged with diverse ideas, diverse viewpoints of the place of con ict in discussion, and even diverse patterns of responding to divergent ideas. e students’ viewpoints ranged from traditional views of avoiding disagreement as disrespectful disharmony to a few that embraced di erences as highly bene cial and invited disagreement. Students described various shi s in their perspectives over the three weeks together and described evolving strategies for handling divergent ideas in their groups. e question could be asked how willing any student is to make modi cations of communication or con ict behavior for the sake of relationships and discussion with diverse others, regardless of whether they are in their home culture or crossing into another’s domain. According to Tadmor et al., (2009) engaging divergent viewpoints facilitates the development of the “capacity and willingness to acknowledge the legitimacy of competing perspectives on the same issue” (2009, 106). is development can contribute to critical preparation for future cross-cultural encounters and provides a challenge for missions educators to utilize classroom discussion for developing prowess and attitudes needed in discussing competing perspectives across cultures.

According to the participants, a primary impetus for developing strategies for handling divergent ideas was a recognition of the need to disagree for the sake of advocacy of people in the case studies! ey also described development of respectful ways to respond to ideas they disagreed with by identifying things they could agree with and building on those ideas or framing their own divergent idea as an alternative to consider for problem-solving. e considerable cognitive processing and pre-verbal shaping of ideas before speaking contributed to respectful discussions.

Tadmor et al. (2009) discuss how helpful it is for individuals to be required to explain their unique viewpoint to those of other cultures when ideas seem to collide. According to Tadmor et al. (2009), the act of explanation is fruitful in creating links between an individuals’ conceptual framework and those of others (106).

A signi cant factor in my study that seemed to account for developing strategies for discussing across di erences was students’ willingness to modify their traditional perspectives and practices for the sake of discussion with others. Acculturation literature identi es two factors that impact acculturation strategies: how important it is for individuals to maintain their own heritage culture and how important it is to build or maintain relationship with those of other cultures (Berry et al. 1987). ese two factors impact potential e orts to adapt to others and impact social and psychological adjustments. A third potential factor related to epistemic stance seemed to emerge from my study — how important it is to individuals to engage the ideas of diverse others. Together, the three factors seemed critical in my study for determining the strategies individuals took in accommodating values or behavior towards diverse others within a classroom setting and more so when confronting divergent viewpoints.

Participative Stance

e last component that seemed to make a signi cant impact in my study on inclusive participation and complex engagement of ideas was the participative stance each student took in their discussion group. Students’ willingness to participate was critical to the success of the group discussion.

e factor that seemed to make the most critical impact on their participation was their stance toward hierarchical status. My attention was rst drawn to several students who described how they minimized their status for the sake of relating to others in their group. For example, several students minimized drawing attention to their age, their leadership position, education level, or nationality that would traditionally give them status in a group setting. ey described a mental decision to minimize their status so they could learn from and with others, but they also refrained from drawing attention to or utilizing their status for the right to speak or make decisions.

At the same time some students maintained social hierarchical status as knowledge holders by drawing attention to their status or utilizing their status to speak rst or last, and others maintained lower status and contributed very little. A third stance was an equalizing stance in which some with traditionally lower hierarchical status equalized their status in a way that they could con dently contribute. ese students recognized the epistemic status of experience that gave them unique knowledge that was helpful in discussion of the problem cases and spoke up at appropriate times regardless of their gender or lack of formal education. ese students’ courage and quality contributions eventually gained them credibility as participants so that their ideas were considered and engaged.

e participative stance each student took had an impact on their participation, including when to speak and when to remain silent. It also impacted how inclusive they were in considering and engaging others’ contributions. ose who took a minimizing or equalizing stance expanded the pool of ideas to consider and engage since they moved out of their normal social grouping to engage others and consider their ideas. is broadened their perspectives since they heard perspectives across gender, nationality, age, and status. ey also had to learn new skills of shaping communication for those outside of their normal social grouping.

Hierarchical status and di erentials may be more acceptable in high power distance cultures (Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov 2010) and hold more powerful sway in discussion group settings in those cultures, but status and di erentials also have a signi cant impact in multiethnic discussion (Anderson-Umana, Lisa 2010, 22). e di culty in multiethnic discussion groups comes when individuals operate out of their normal cultural patterns and are unaware of how status impacts participation, inclusion, and especially inclusive engagement of others’ ideas. Anderson-Umana (2010) helpfully pointed out the confusion that can take place in mission teams when members are unaware of the impact of power di erentials on expectations and judgments of others’ behavior within the group.

Jesus modeled minimizing status, maintaining status, and equalizing status at various times in crossing cultural boundaries of ethnicity, age, gender, sociocultural status, and position to engage deeply with others and their ideas (Phil. 2:5–8, John 3:1–21, John 18:19–24). He also intentionally thrust his disciples into situations that required crossing boundaries that helped draw attention to ethnocentric attitudes and absorption with status and required engaging in conversations outside of normal social status circles (Matt. 9:9–13, John 4:1–32, Matt. 15:21–28).

In the same way, multiethnic classrooms can be maximized for developing awareness of the potential impact of status in discussion and engaging others’ ideas, for modeling appropriate participation stances, and creating opportunities for exposure to broader perspectives that may be uncomfortably outside of normal social domains.