The Application of Youth With A Mission’s Foundational Values Through Different Cultural Lenses

Looking at the Application of Youth With A Mission’s Foundational Values Through Different Cultural Lenses

Dustin Campbell University of the Nations MA in Team Based Communication Dr. Glenn Martin June 25, 2021

2 Abstract Youth With A Mission (YWAM) holds in high regard the mission’s Foundational Values.

They are required to be taught in all the Discipleship Training Schools (DTS) run worldwide.

They are a focus at leadership meetings and different staff trainings globally. With over 20,000 staff and over 1,500 locations in 187 nations, YWAM does take on multicultural and linguistic challenges. With this challenge, we need to consider how YWAM is communicating the Foundational Values.

When addressing the Foundational Values, we need to ask the question, “How are we applying them in our context?” Application is where the “rubber meets the road.” This is the actual test if we are living as we believe God called us to live. But with so many cultures and languages, how do we translate and apply our values in a multicultural setting?

This thesis is looking into the application of our values through different cultural lenses.

How does one culture apply the same value differently than another culture? What kind of misunderstandings take place with various applications in multicultural teams?

We will consider the following cultural lenses: guilt/innocence vs. honor/shame, individualism vs. collectivism, and power distance. The YWAM Foundational Values we will look at is servant leadership, valuing the individual, and working in teams.

Also, in the beginning, I want to say that studying culture is messy. There are lots of exceptions to the rules. Not everybody fits into a generalization. With that, I would like to start with a quote, “I like to say that generalizations are always wrong and usually helpful.” (Richards & James, 2020, p.13). I will be writing about many generalizations to bring a more profound understanding into cultures that differ from our own. With that said, we must never assume we

3 fully understand someone we just met since we have some general understanding of their culture.

We do not do that in our own culture. Therefore, we should not apply it when we meet someone else that differs from our culture.

4

Acknowledgements I will first thank Youth With A Mission, Richmond. They gave me the time so I could study and write this thesis.

I would also like to thank the Vessel Church, which I pastor. So many times, they fill in and support me throughout these unprecedented times we find ourselves in.

My children. They have given up time with their father and family time spent together to work on my Master's. I would especially like to thank my daughter Michaella who spent endless hours proofreading my papers and catching constant grammar mistakes.

I am also grateful to my editor Elyssa Ranck. You can take my ramblings and make sense out of them. Thank you so much for all of your hard work.

Most importantly, I want to thank my wife, Haydee Campbell. Without her support and belief in me, this would not be possible. You are the love of my life, and I am so grateful God placed you into my life.

5

Table of Contents Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………….. 2 Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………… 4 Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………………5 Chapter One Introductory Overview………………………………………………………. 7 Chapter Two Literature Review……………………………………………………………. 11 Values and Belief Tree…………………………………………………………….. 11 Function in Teams………………………………………………………………….. 18 Exhibit Servant Leadership………………………………………………………… 26 Guilt/Innocence vs Honor/Shame along with Individualism vs Collectivism…….. 30 Power Distance…………………………………………………………………….. 48 Chapter Three Methodology……………………………………………………………….. 56 Chapter Four Results………………………………………………………………………..58 Valuing the Individual ………………………………………………………………59 Servant leadership………………………………………………………………….. 62 Functioning in Teams………………………………………………………………. 65 Power Distance…………………………………………………………………….. 68 Honor and Shame………………………………………………………………….. 71 Individual vs Collective……………………………………………………………. 74 Evaluating Youth With A Mission…………………………………………………..77

6 Chapter Five Conclusions and Implications……………………………………………….. 82 References…………………………………………………………………………………. 89 Appendices………………………………………………………………………………… 92

7 CHAPTER ONE Introductory Overview If asked why I would pursue writing my thesis on the Cultural Application of our values, I would have to share my story with Youth With A Mission (YWAM) and my relationship with the values.

I was born and raised in the United States. When I was in Bible school, God led me into long-term missions and directed me to the Philippines. After I graduated in 1996, I flew to the Philippines for my Discipleship Training School (DTS) and ended up living and serving with YWAM in Asia for 20 years.

In 2002, Patti Lee, with a team, came to lead the first Foundational DTS Workshop in the Philippines. During that time, she spent one morning talking about the importance of YWAM's Foundational Values. She asked us to sit in small groups based on the locations we served. Once we did, she asked us to list the top three values that our location was strong in implementing and the three values we were weak at applying. After that, we shared our strengths and weaknesses in the whole group and then shared how to strengthen our weaknesses. This was the first time in YWAM I realized the importance of our mission's values in the way we functioned and lived.

From there, I began to look at YWAM through the lens of our values. In the process, I began to see some of the strengths and shortcomings in applying the values in every location and how I applied them in my own life.

In 2007, Darlene Cunningham spoke in my Leadership Training School (LTS) and spent one day teaching how our values need to align with our location's guidelines, rules, and policies.

During that time, she challenged us to look through our base policies one by one. She

8 emphasized that we should have as few rules as possible. She then said that the rules we did have needed to be in line with at least one of our foundational values. She also pointed out that when something is wrong in a YWAM location, it is usually because they are not functioning in one of the values. And if they are not operating in two of the values, then things are really dysfunctional. I was deeply challenged when she shared that. At the time, I was on a leadership team of a YWAM location and a few months after my LTS, I found myself leading that location.

Why do we do what we do? Where did our policies come from? In what ways do our policies line up with a specific value? These questions and more caused me to look at how we were functioning and what areas we needed to change.

Many years later, my family and I moved to the United States to serve in YWAM Charlotte. Having been born in the Philippines, my wife and my children expected culture shock moving to the States. I remember the first couple of weeks in Charlotte. As a family, we felt alone, and no one cared. We wanted to feel connected but struggled. What caused this feeling?

A couple of months later, it would be my son's birthday. Wanting to connect, we decided to invite all the staff to our house to celebrate. We bought lots of food and looked forward to welcoming everyone in. Everyone arrived on time, and we started talking, but after 30 minutes, people started to file out and left. I remember standing in our house looking at my wife in shock, saying, "Well, I guess that's it!" We felt disconnected and alone. What was missing?

One of YWAM's Foundational Values is "Value the Individual." The first sentence reads, "YWAM is called to value each individual" (Youth With A Mission, 2021). How do you do that?

What is the practical expression of that value? We were missing the cultural application of the value when it came to our situation in our arrival.

9 In the Philippines, when you welcome someone, you constantly check in with them. Do they know where to go to get food? How are they feeling? Do they need help with something?

By being present, you are making them feel welcomed and are available to help them with any needs. This way, they feel welcomed in the group.

In American culture, you give someone space and time to settle in. The application of valuing the individual means something different in the States than it does in the Philippines.

And it is here that we tap into the heart of this thesis.

Our values in YWAM are core to how we live in our mission. It is something we talk about repeatedly, and it is something I am passionate about. I’m concerned that we don't fully understand the cross-cultural dynamics when communicating and applying our values in a multicultural context. How does a person from one culture read and interpret a value and then apply it in a different cultural context? We can assume that there will be times when a person's intent is misunderstood.

In Cunningham’s book, Values Matter, she addresses the Belief Tree teaching which addresses how our beliefs are the roots embedded into the soil of cultural worldview. Our culture silently disciples us through our assumptions, to which we are often blind. These assumptions we inherently believe to be true and rarely question. I never heard teaching on how much that soil affects our beliefs and then, in turn, the application of our values. I believe it affects those beliefs much more than we teach or realize. In this thesis, we will look through the cultural lenses of honor/shame vs. guilt/innocence, individualism vs. collectivism, and power distance in how we apply three of our foundational values (#10 Function in teams, #11 Exhibit servant leadership, and #14 Value the individual).

10 I believe that looking through all of the values through different cultural lenses would be beneficial for the mission. But due to the scope of the research required for such a task, I had to limit my scope to make it more attainable. My desire is I, or someone else, would carry this research and take it to the next level and cover all of the values.

Also, I hope that this topic's study will help our mission to think in these realms when teaching our values. The more we share these concepts, I hope it would build a climate where many others can contribute to the discussion. Thus, we would become more effective in communicating and applying our values in multicultural settings.

Because of the scope of this research, I limited this study to three values. I feel strongly that our mission needs to focus on all of the values.

11 CHAPTER TWO Literature Review When looking at the scope of this research, there are many different angles one needs to consider. The following literature helped form my understanding in applying values through different cultural lenses and broadened my perspective on the different cultural lenses being focused on. At the center of this research is YWAM’s Foundational Values and the belief tree teaching. It is from there we will start.

Values and Belief Tree Darlene Cunningham, the co-founder of Youth With A Mission, is passionate about YWAM's Foundational Values. She has been working on her book Values Matter for a while, and I am grateful that it is coming out while working on my thesis. She is the co-founder of Youth With A Mission and is the authority when addressing the Foundational Values.

Cunningham (2020) starts sharing the formation of YWAM's Foundational Values through the history of the mission. She points out that in 1985, during YWAM's 25th Anniversary, she spoke about the history of YWAM. She then thought to herself, "What do we value as YWAM" (p. 42)? From there, she wrote down a few of them, shared them in a letter to YWAM staff worldwide, and taught them in a Leadership Training School in Kona. The first five values identified were: be visionary, champion young people, be international and interdenominational, depend on God for finances, and work in teams.

A key point of Cunningham's (2020) understanding of what God was speaking to her came when she was overseeing a Leadership Training School in Pune, India. One week Darrow Miller, Co-founder of Disciple Nations Alliance, was teaching on Biblical Christian Worldview.

12 "His teaching included an illustration he called The Belief Tree, which resonated with my spirit" (p. 36). With Miller's permission, she borrowed the illustration and adapted it for YWAM. This is a crucial moment because it deals with the beliefs and worldview from which the values grow, which is at the heart of this research. Miller and Cunningham both talk about our beliefs being embedded in our worldview. Our values are birthed from our beliefs. This thesis aims to draw out how the application of our values is affected by our worldview.

The teaching of the Belief Tree by Darrow Miller is found in a book he co-authored with Scott Allen (2006) titled, The Forest in the Seed. The book starts with the power of ideas.

The Bible reveals a fundamental principle, 'For as [a man] thinketh in his heart, so is he' (Pr. 23:7 KJV). This principle applies to individuals as well as entire cultures. The key to cultural transformation, therefore, lies in the transformation of the mindset or worldview of a people. (Allen & Miller, 2006, p. 13).

When we address changing culture, we must first address the worldview of the people.

This is true when we are discipling nations, but it is just as true if we are changing the culture of a YWAM operation location. Allen and Miller (2006) later write, Just as the quality of the soil and roots of a tree determines the quality and variety of the fruit produced, so it is with our ideas.…The deepest beliefs, assumptions and convictions of a people will determine their values, feelings and emotions. These, in turn, establish their patterns of behavior; and finally, their behavior has consequences for their lives, the lives of their families and their society. (pp. 14-15)

13 This is the center of the teaching of the belief tree. Nevertheless, I do want to focus on the first sentence of the last quote. The quality of the soil and roots will determine the quality of the fruit. From there, Allan and Miller (2006) state, "As a formula it may be expressed as follows: BELIEFS

!VALUES!BEHAVIOR!CONSEQUENCES” (p. 15)

The Belief Tree teaching tells us that our beliefs (the roots) are ingrained in our worldview (soil). “When we speak of worldview, we are speaking of the total set of beliefs or assumptions that comprise the mindset of an individual and determine what they value and how they behave” (p. 15). Note that the authors point out that a person’s worldview is a person’s mindset comprising the cumulative set of beliefs/assumptions that influence their values and behavior. What individuals truly believe is not like a theological doctrinal statement clearly written out and cited, but the assumptions lying deep into one’s subconscious, rarely processed and questioned. Therefore, the quality of the application of our values is directly related to the soil and the beliefs/assumptions.

Often in YWAM, when the belief tree is taught, the focus is dealing with the roots. The roots are what we believe about God, humankind, truth, and choice (Cunningham et al., 2014).

Cunningham (2020) and Miller both teach that the soil represents "…the environmental worldview that influences people – it may be Buddhist, Hindu, Animist, Muslim, secular humanism, etc. The roots represent the basic beliefs" (p. 37). However, neither Cunningham nor Miller address cultural lenses inline with the belief tree. Religion does play a significant role in a person's worldview; nevertheless, many cultural concepts are transcultural beyond religion.

14 Nevertheless, a part of a person's beliefs and assumptions is their cultural lenses.

Assumptions are accepted as truth and rarely questioned. The concept of cultural lenses needs to be added to the equation when considering the application of our values. We need to remember that a person's worldview is comprised of culture and beliefs. They both lie underneath the soil and are unseen Taking it a step further, Allen and Miller (2006) expound on worldview.

Worldviews act like the computer software that runs the hardware of our lives. Worldviews are not only personal, they are also corporate. Consider an organization that you are affiliated with, perhaps your church, or a Christian organization – or even your family. Within any group or organization, there are a dominant set of ideas, beliefs, assumptions and convictions that shapes its "corporate culture.” (p. 15) In YWAM's context, we do have our own culture. When visiting different operating locations, there are differences in culture seen. It can be due to the host country's culture, which would be true when most of the staff are from the host culture. The worldview (soil) would express itself through a YWAM location. Nevertheless, at the same time, we are linked together.

There are specific things that many YWAM locations have in common. All of the YWAMers have done a DTS, which is true. However, what links these YWAMers is that they try to live the same values. Although, there are times things do not feel right in a YWAM location. It is like something is misaligned.

Allen and Miller (2006) addressed this when they wrote, These dominant ideas will determine the values and principles by which the organization

.

functions. These values may be the same or different than those written down in a corporate

15 values document. Yet these operational values – stated or unstated – inform the day-to-day practices, programs and activities of the organization. (p. 15) When we in YWAM do not live our "written values," we embrace our unwritten values and apply those to our daily lives and activities. One can conclude that if a person is applying unwritten value, it is rooted in an unprocessed assumption/belief embedded in their worldview— this why YWAM needs to teach along with the values a deeper understanding of our beliefs and assumptions. One's beliefs are more organic than it is logical. To discover one's belief on a matter takes time to unearth and process.

With that said, there are times when two different people from two different cultures apply a value but, in the end, the outcome looks very different due to the worldview they are coming from. One person from one culture sees someone from a different culture doing something and thinks they are not applying the value based on the observer's cultural application of it.

In the book, Walking Naked into the Land of Uncertainty Rawlins (2012) gives us more insight on values when he wrote, You can’t separate your emotions from your values. If you feel strongly about something, it is the expression of a value. If you fear losing something, it is an expression of another value.

All of the feelings of the heart can be traced back to values. I would say that your emotions are the language of your heart / values. (p. 46) To discover their “unwritten values,” a person needs to trace their emotions back to the

value. As Rawlins (2012) stated,

16 Jesus came as a radical. To be radical means to go to the root or origin of something. The root or origin is at a heart level, a value. This was Jesus’ life. He was a radical and was always going to the root or origin of issues in the lives he was dealing with. (p. 51) What is clear is that many times a person’s values are not clear. One may think they value something, but their emotions expose them that their value may lay elsewhere. In most cases, the values are hidden from the person who carries them. This is when tension in one’s life reveals their emotions and exposes the person’s values. As Rawlins (2012) says, Tension is God’s gift to us that signals there is a difference or misunderstanding and we need to talk about it. Tension is a part of love and if we try and remove all tension, then we lose love and relationship as well. (pp. 107-108) God loves man so much that he uses tension in an individual’s life to bring to light one’s value through their emotions. From there, a person can dig deeper to nd out the hidden beliefs/ assumptions they may carry. If that person is a Christian, God can then uncover any unbiblical lies one is believing From there, we move onto Adeney's six-point plan on how in her article, Contextualizing Universal Values. In her plan, she shares how to interject a new Biblical value into a particular context. She uses the value of gender equality as an example of how to apply these six steps The rst step is to recognize the importance and universality of the value. Adeney (2007), at one point, writes, "Christians draw values from Scripture, studying the Bible in communities that believe that God's Spirit will aid understanding and application of the wisdom of God's Word" (p.33). Secondly, she discusses the acceptability of the value in another context.

After that, the other cultural values that prevent the practice of the universal value need to be

.

fi

.

fi

fi

identi ed. Then there is the necessity to recognize the complexities of the culture. Next, work

with the Christians in the culture to clarify traditional practices' priorities in light of the universal value. Finally, Adeney shares the need to work with Christians in the culture to devise new behavior patterns that demonstrate the universal value Adeney's article relates to this research on how we look at imparting our YWAM values to our staff globally. How we communicate our values in a cross-cultural context is vital. Her insight could be bene cial as we consider cultural lenses in our teaching of YWAM's values Trefry (2006) shares the effects of organizational culture, national culture, and people from different cultures in her journal entry A Double-Edged Sword: Organizational Culture in Multicultural Organizations. She talks about the positive and negative impact of organizational culture in a multicultural setting.

When it comes to organizational culture, Trefry says that it is the prime factor in the success or failure of large-scale change efforts. She goes on to say that more diverse organizations are more flexible toward change. Therefore, it is easier to change practices, systems, and procedures; it is challenging to change underlying values, beliefs, and assumptions that drive organizational practices. Nevertheless, organizational culture is a powerful means of shaping people's behavior.

Even though organizational culture is strong, the national culture is very persistent.

National culture will affect the values while organizational culture usually addresses practices.

Overall, Trefry believes that the benefits of multicultural teams outweigh the detriments. She also addresses the effects of the national culture (location of the team) on the multicultural team.

.

.

This is something we should consider in our YWAM setting. We should look at the effects

fi

17

18 (positive and negative) of our operational locations' host culture. Also, we should consider how it affects our values and the dynamics of our multicultural team.

Function in Teams When looking into YWAM’s value of functioning in teams, we will look specifically at how YWAM functions in multicultural teams. In the wording of the value, it does not mention “multicultural.” Nevertheless, being that YWAM values being international, this thesis will look at this value from a multicultural perspective.

Halverson and Tirmizi cover a wide area in the field of multicultural teams in their book, Effective Multicultural Teams: Theory and Practice. They talk about some of the challenges and advantages of having multicultural teams. Afterward, they quote from Bailey and Cohen (1997), A team is a collection of individuals who are interdependent in their tasks, who share responsibility for outcomes, who see themselves and are seen by others as an intact social entity, embedded in one or larger social systems and who manage their relationships across organizational boundaries. (p. 241) Then they write how Marquardt and Horvath (2001) define multicultural teams as taskoriented groups comprising people of different cultural backgrounds. Then combining Marquardt and Horvath and Bailey and Cohen, Halverson and Tirmizi (2008), …define multicultural teams as a collection of individuals with different cultural backgrounds, who are interdependent in their tasks, who share responsibility for outcomes, who see themselves and are seen by others as an intact social entity embedded in one or more larger social systems, and who manage their relationships across organizational boundaries and beyond. (p. 5)

19 Halverson and Tirmizi (2008) break down different kinds of teams and how they function in a multicultural team. The different teams include formal teams, informal teams, task forces, committees, self-managed teams, and virtual teams. They have found that "Many studies have shown that heterogeneous groups outperform homogenous groups. In contrast, some studies have shown that homogenous teams avoid the "process loss" caused by unpracticed communication and the subsequent conflict of more diverse teams" (p. 8). So if a multicultural team learns to communicate and relate better with each other, they are more effective than homogenous teams.

Halverson and Tirmizi also communicate about the importance and influence of the organizational culture on a multicultural team and determine how effective they will be in achieving their goals. In the area of goals, they shared the importance of clearly establishing goals. There are many times when multicultural teams do not communicate goals and individual members assume they understand them. If goals are not clearly communicated, there will be a breakdown.

Furthermore, Halverson and Tirmizi (2008) point out how relationships are essential in multicultural teams. Moreover, they share how multicultural teams can be more creative in problem-solving. They do address individualism and collectivism. "…Individualistic cultures, individual needs, preferences, and desires receive more attention than collective needs, where, Collectivism focuses on the needs of the collective”(p. 35). They also address challenges of conflict resolution.

Differing cultural norms lead to divergent perspectives: relative cultural norms, such as varied approaches to power distance relationships between managers and employees, individualism versus collectivism, temporality and the management of time, and even the

20 dynamics of interpersonal space or habits of eye contact, should be considered when beginning to address a conflict with someone from another cultural background. For example, individuals from a society where there is high power distance or strong collective loyalties, may find it difficult as subordinates to directly address a conflict with a superior. (p.

219) In the beginning of Leading Multicultural Teams by Evelyn and Richard Hibbert (2014), they share multicultural teams' advantages and challenges. "Research into multicultural teams suggests that multicultural teams have the potential to become exceptionally effective but also to experience serious conflict" (p. 2). Just as Halverson and Tirmizi concluded, Hibbert has the same diagnosis; multicultural teams can be effective if they overcome the challenges they face.

Two challenges of culture "…that particularly affect people's views of leadership are power distance and collectivism” (p. 4).

Hibbert (2014) then defines a team, "is a group of people who are committed to a common vision and to one another, who hold each other accountable to the accomplishment of that vision, and who work interdependently and according to commonly agreed values to accomplish their vision" (p. 7). From there, they do a walk-through on navigating through the different stages of team formation (forming, storming, norming, and performing). When reading, the authors explain the importance of setting goals and sharing the same vision. They also go into detail about team building and conflict resolution.

Toward the end, the book addresses the character qualities and skills the leader needs.

Leaders need qualities including: a love for cultures, humility, patience, respect, inclusion, approachability, self-awareness, listening skills, and teachability. Many of these character traits

21 are found in being a servant leader. Toward the end of the book, there are tips for organizations on how to support team leaders. They also address collectivism and power distance. Even though Hibbert does not address these in honor-shame terms, it does provide lots of food for thought around different areas of the research.

Kim, being a Korean, has done much research on international mission agencies working in the Caucasus region, the biggest group being a YWAM location. He has much insight into multicultural team dynamics. In Kim’s dissertation, he noticed that expatriate workers struggle in their multicultural relationships more than those whose teams are made up of local members. He points out assumptions and lack of understanding that affect the team ministry and their quality of relationships. Kim says that a deeper inquiry into multicultural team members' perceptions of what it means to work together is needed to become effective.

Kim's findings show that those who do not speak English as a first language struggle the most. Also, he notes that the team culture tends to be western. Therefore, in this context, those who come from western cultures have a softer landing and can adjust quickly. However, those from other cultures have a distinct disadvantage, which creates unintentional inequality among team members. He also includes that even though teams emphasize the importance of relationships, there needs to be more clarity on what those relationships look like.

Kim speaks into the disadvantages of non-English speakers have in multicultural teams since, in most cases, English is the medium of communication. Through my personal experience in YWAM, I have found, at times, this to be true in our mission. The communication gap needs to be considered when we are thinking about our values. Of course, this applies to our value of functioning in teams, but it also speaks to valuing the individual and servant leadership. Even

22 though this is not addressed in this thesis, it directly affects our value to communicate with integrity.

Silzer (2011) takes on a different perspective on culture in her book, Biblical Multicultural Teams. She starts with the vital fact that we are made in the image of God. She points out that, "Unfortunately, our culture (and other cultures) promotes many different false beliefs about who we are" (p. 10). To know who we are, we need to know who God is. The more we know who God is, the more we can understand our original design. From there, we know how to see others and how to relate to them. "Human social relationship that reflects the image of God demonstrates a respect for human life (Genesis 9:6) and preserves life through word and actions (James 3:9)" (p. 13).

Silzer (2011) addresses our Culture-based Judging System (CbJS), "that reveals what we think is right and wrong" (p. 1). She breaks down our CbJS into four parts: 1. Individuating (weak structure and weak community, 2. Institutionalizing (strong structure and weak community), 3. Hierarching (strong structure and strong community), and finally 4. Interrelating (weak structure and strong community). (p. 23) She helps the reader figure out which of the four culture types you fall into and how it distorts the image of God. Silzer (2011) made an intriguing point when she wrote, "The majority of large mission organizations established in the past 150 years have US American roots. Several American values are unconsciously embedded in these organizational structures" (p. 145). She mentions how financial and organizational policies are rooted in American values. She mentions how personnel issues are written to help administrators make decisions. She also stated, "Many of these mission organizations are based on individuals finding their personal support (i.e. 'faith'

23 missions). In these groups each member takes care of his or her own needs, and funds are not usually pooled" (p. 145). In the next paragraph, she states, In Strong Community cultures resources and finances are shared. Interpersonal problems are dealt with case by case rather than by policy as each person may have a different set of circumstances that contributes to the problem they are facing. (p. 145) This is related to this research in regards to working in teams. However, I cannot help thinking about the journey YWAM has been on in the last 15 years. YWAM has re-written our value, "Practice dependence on God," which is now more inclusive to collective cultures. Also, YWAM has entirely revamped our appeal process, which is more relationally based than dependent on a flow chart. We can see how God is changing YWAM to reflect more of an international movement, even though our roots are American.

Silzer's book does not directly address power distance and individualism and collectivism, which will be discussed later in this thesis. However, it does align with those concepts. When she is addressing "Weak Community," she is addressing aspects of individualism. Also, when she is talking about "Strong Community," she is speaking into collectivism. Power distance is recognized in her evaluation of Hierarching.

Cho, Thulare, and Greenlee (2002) share the benefits and challenges of working in a multicultural mission group in their article, The Potential and Pitfalls of Multicultural Mission Teams. They start by giving insight into what is needed in healthy multicultural teams. "Key to the survival of multinational teams in missions is fostering what community psychologists over the last 25 years have called a 'sense of community'" (p. 399). A sense of community is essential for multicultural teams, but fundamental challenges can affect that from happening. This article

24 gives insight into the advantages and difficulties of YWAM being a multicultural mission. Also, YWAM can relate to the same kind of conflicts mentioned.

Multicultural teams model the diversity of the Body of Christ. Along with that, the relationships that form in these teams can bring healing to other nationalities. Also, people in these teams are more sensitive to what is biblical and cultural. Some of the struggles that multicultural teams face are determining what is scripturally allowed, leadership styles, communication breakdowns, styles of raising children, punctuality, cross-cultural relationships, and more. In light of this, relationships are essential to make it all work. All parties in a multicultural team need to be willing to work on their relationships to help build a common understanding. This article lines up with this research in YWAM's value of functioning in teams.

A few years before the last article was written, Cho and Greenlee (1995) worked on an article tackling the same challenges: Avoiding Pitfalls on Multicultural Mission Teams. This article covered common ground, but they did mention five advantages of having a multicultural team. The first one is, "Multicultural teams can model the diversity of the Body of Christ in microcosm better than mono-cultural teams" (p. 179). Secondly, "Multicultural teams can be a demonstration of God's transforming power in intercultural relations" (p. 179). Thirdly, "Multicultural teams have an in-built, heightened sensitivity as to what is biblical and what is cultural about themselves" (p. 179). The last two advantages are, "The multicultural team, because of its diverse mix, may be less likely to be confused with political agents and so not perceived as being subversive by the host country" (p. 179). And finally, the fifth, "…the home churches benefit, enriched through the multinational team experience of those they send" (p.

179)

25 As mentioned in past references, multicultural teams take longer to develop and deal with more cross-cultural challenges. But it is clear once formed multicultural teams are worth the effort. This is also agreed by Cho and Greenlee (1995) when they wrote, Strong multi-national teams take time to develop. This strength comes from understanding each others’ cultural values, along with practicing the biblical values of serving one another, giving preference to each other, and being willing to change for the sake of mutual edification. (p. 182) Cho, Thulare, and Greenlee share the benefits and challenges of working in a multicultural mission group. A sense of community is essential for multicultural teams, but fundamental challenges can affect that from happening. This article points out the advantages and difficulties of YWAM being a multicultural mission. Also, it clearly shows the same kind of conflicts we face.

The authors share that the multicultural teams model the diversity of the Body of Christ.

Along with that, the relationships that form in these teams can bring healing to other nationalities. Also, people in these teams are more sensitive to what is biblical and what is cultural about themselves.

Some of the struggles that multicultural teams face are determining what is scripturally allowed, leadership styles, communication breakdowns, styles of raising children, timeliness, cross-cultural relationships, and more. In light of this, relationships are essential to make it all work. All parties in a multicultural team need to be willing to work on their relationships to help build a common understanding.

26 Exhibit Servant Leadershi Now we will look into the cross-cultural application of YWAM's value of servant leadership. We will start with Dr. Elmer (2006), who wrote Cross-Cultural Servanthood. He discusses how to walk in humility in a cross-cultural setting. Elmer draws from John 13 of Jesus washing feet and applies it to how we are to approach different cultures with a learning/servant heart versus a superior role. He teaches from his "monkey helping the fish" analogy how to step in and learn what it means to be a servant in the cultural context one finds himself in.

When addressing perspectives, Elmer (2006) shares how important it is that we take the role of a learner so we can enter the place as a servant. When we do not understand the culture, we can have an opinion or suggestion about something that can be interpreted as condescending or shaming. When we take the place of a learner, we can deepen our understanding of the culture by asking lots of questions to gain insight. From there, we can walk in servanthood, helping them where they need it. Dr. Elmer gives us some insight when addressing shame-based cultures in the third part of his book when addressing challenges. An example would be when asking "Do you understand" questions.

In shame-based cultures, a person tries to never respond in the negative. To say no to someone is considered harsh or rude. Furthermore, to say, 'I don't understand’ is to imply that the person explaining was not clear. Thus we would cause this person shame or loss of face to say, 'I don't understand’ after we have just given directions. Or the person hearing 'Do you understand' may feel shame or lose face if they really don't understand. They avoid this

p

disgrace by answering in the affirmative. (pp. 139-140)

27 Elmer's (2006) work discusses servanthood, which aligns with YWAM's Foundational Value #11, "Exhibit servant leadership." Second, he addresses another variable in the research: honor and shame cultures and how it applies to servanthood. Furthermore, the third, which is also vital, is addressing perspectives. How do we interpret servanthood in our cultural context?

Many times one's interpretation does not apply in a different culture. We have values in our mission that we teach and carry and the expectation that we would do our best to live this out in our lives. Nevertheless, what we understand in our context often is not transferable into a different culture without the key of understanding.

Hale's and Fields's (2007) study, Exploring servant leadership across cultures, looked into the concept of servant leadership and how it is practiced (or not practiced) by comparing the USA and Ghana. It first went into defining servant leadership, "…characterizations of servant leadership include an understanding and practice of leadership that places the good of those led over the self-interest of the leader, emphasizing leader behaviours that focus on follower development, and de-emphasizing glorification of the leader" (p. 397). The study also points out, "servant leadership has been discussed and described almost entirely in the American context" (p. 398). Nevertheless, it quickly gets into comparing servant leader concepts with African cultures. This comparison brings up cultural traits in the area of power distance and collectivistic cultures. Servant leadership traits like humility and empowering others do not work well with cultures that are collective and operate with high power distance.

The study gets into leadership in the current African context and the problems they face, and the inability to correct them. "Some African scholars and commentators believe that the dismal failure of sub-Saharan nations following independence is directly related to their leaders'

28 decisions to ignore traditional styles of leadership and to adopt western political and leadership paradigms" (p. 400). These African scholars point out that the traditional Sub-African leadership centers around the concept of kingship. Furthermore, their version of kingship looks a lot like servant leadership.

However, kingship in pre-colonial times was not the autocratic dictatorship that appeared in the colonial and post-colonial periods. Rather, in earlier periods, followers expected the king to function as a servant to the clan, tribe or community. In essence, the kingdom was more important than the king. (p. 400) They surveyed two Christian seminaries- one located in the mid-Atlantic region of the United States and the other in Ghana. Among other things, they "found that respondents from Ghana reported experiencing servant leadership behaviours significantly less frequently than did respondents from the USA" (p. 410). They point out that this was expected due to "high levels of power distance and collectivism in the Ghanaian cultural practices."

Hale and Fields point out the dilemma with high power distance, collective cultures in regards to servant leadership: In cultures with higher levels of in-group collectivism, individuals are integrated into strong cohesive groups, such as families: group goals often take precedence over individual goals; duties and obligations are strong determinants of behaviour; and people make larger distinctions between members of in-groups and others . Indeed, group membership is often the source of an individual's identity. In-group members expect preferential treatment that is not available to out-group members. Servant leadership emphasizes building community, and

29 doing so begins with an acceptance of all those in the working unit, regardless of other group affiliations. (p. 403) Their research determined that "Ghanaians report experiencing servant leadership less frequently than North Americans do. Also, Ghanaians relate a leader's willingness to involve followers in establishing vision to judgements of leader effectiveness more strongly than North Americans do" (p. 413). They found that Ghanaians have a higher expectation of their leaders to provide vision than Americans. Due to high power distance and being from a collective culture, Ghanaians see their leaders as different. Due to their low power distance and individualistic culture, Americans see that they can be a part of vision development with their leaders.

However, I do question how Hale and Fields measured their research. Their research was based on Dennis' Ph.D. Thesis, "Servant Leadership Theory: Development of Servant Leadership Instrument." It is an unpublished thesis, but I believe it is the same as Dennis's later journal entry with Bocarnea, "Development of the servant leadership assessment instrument." In this they said that servant leader leads and serves with agapao love, acts with humility, is altruistic, is visionary for the followers, is trusting, is serving, and empowers followers” (Dennis, 2005, pp. 601-602). I do not disagree with Dennis' understanding of servant leadership, but what it lacks is any mention of a cross-cultural element. Therefore I can only assume he is taking this perspective from a Western-individualistic point of view. Then Hale and Fields apply this assessment instrument to compare a cross-cultural setting to evaluate servant leadership, and in turn, the results favor the American's perspective. What is missing is asking the question, "What does servant leadership look like to the Ghanaians?"

30 Of course, we need to look at how servant leadership is defined in the Bible, which is what YWAM is basing their foundational value of servant leadership on. We will get to that later in this thesis.

Guilt/Innocence vs Honor/Shame along with Individualism vs Collectivism When discussing cultural concepts, there tends to be much overlap. Many of the authors cited in this research mention many of the variables of this thesis. Guilt/innocence cultures tend to be from the western individualistic background. At the same time, honor/shame cultures tend to be from a collectivistic background. One bleeds into the other. Therefore this section will address the authors who deal with both concepts.

In The 3D Gospel, Georges breaks down cultures into three areas: guilt, shame, and fear.

Guilt-innocence cultures, which tend to be Western, focus on individual actions and what has happened. It is a "right and wrong" approach. This is defined by the rules and laws of the society the one finds himself in. An internal conscience guides this type of morality within each individual.

Shame-honor cultures are collective where the group is highly valued. To have honor is where the group thinks highly of you, and shame is when everyone looks down on you. Where in a guilt-innocence culture, the individual takes center stage, honor-shame it is the group. Where in an individualistic culture, you would say, "I did wrong," in the collectivistic culture, you would say, "I am wrong." Also, one's actions can be attributed to the group as a whole. That would mean a person can "bring honor" to the group or "bring shame." What you do for the relationship is morally right.

31 Fear-power cultures look to the spirits. They need to appease the spirits to gain favor.

Spirits can be manipulated through rituals for personal or larger group gain. They live in constant fear of the spirit world and their powers. They must live in harmony with the spirit world.

Georges considers where these cultures come from is based on where society gets its resources.

Guilt cultures are provided by institutions. Shame cultures are provided by the community. And fear cultures are provided by the spirit world.

With the focus on honor and shame, culture proves to be a valuable resource for this thesis since it is one of the variables. One of the best ways Georges (2017) gives understanding is when he wrote, Shame-honor societies assume strong group orientation. Honor is a person's social worth, one's value in the eyes of the community. Honor is when other people think well of you, resulting in harmonious social bonds in the community. Honor comes from relationships. (p.

20) He continues giving insight on shame. "Shame, on the other hand, is a negative public rating: the community thinks lowly of you" (p. 20). So as a whole, "Honor and shame function like a social credit rating measuring one's reputation" (p. 21).

So when thinking of honor and shame cultures, how does this affect a person's view of YWAM's Foundational Values? How is valuing the individual, servant leadership, and functioning in teams seen through an honor and shame culture?

In Ministering in Honor-Shame Cultures written by Jayson Georges and Mark Baker (2016), Georges reports,"… in 2014 developed TheCultureTest.com- an online questionnaire to assess a group's culture type" (p. 19). They learned that 64% of the global population see

32 themselves through an honor-shame lens. Along with that, 90% of the unreached live in an honor-shame culture (p. 21). Those focused on missions need to concentrate on honor and shame cultures.

Georges' and Baker (2016) points out, "Honor-shame cultures are naturally 'collectivistic.'

That means their cultural outlook prioritizes the groups' survival and distinction over individual preferences" (p. 45). The link they made between honor-shame cultures coming from collective cultures is evident to those who work cross-culturally, but nevertheless, it is good that it is stated.

Later on, they say, "Collectivistic societies define people by their relationship to the group" (p.

45). When teaching how to apply YWAM values, we need to understand the perspective of those taught. The lens that collectives see through is very different from those of the individualist.

Georges and Baker made a point of this when they wrote, "There are consequences to Westerners' negative misunderstanding of honor-shame cultures. First Christian discipleship simply becomes transplanting Western cultural values" (p. 59).

YWAM was founded in the United States by Loren and Darlene Cunningham.

Furthermore, in our leadership, we have a lot of North American and European leadership. It was God's design in the way He started YWAM and the administration He gathered. However, we do need to ask ourselves, "Are we transplanting Western cultural values?" I do believe, at times, many of us (myself included) have done that when teaching our YWAM values. Nevertheless, if God is the one who gave us our values, then we know there is a way to translate the application of those values.

In Merz's (2020) article, The culture problem: How the honor/shame issue got the wrong end of the anthropological stick, he pushes back on the concept of honor and shame along with

33 the other approaches presented in Georges' The 3D Gospel. He believes that the generalization of cultures does more harm than good. He delved into the history of honor and shame and shared that Ruth Benedict came up with the concept in 1946 when helping the United States government deal with Japanese culture. He points out, "Anthropologists and Japanese scholars heavily criticized her book for its method and theory, and largely rejected it as a work of anthropological value" (p. 3). He brought out that anthropologists picked up the study of honor and shame in the 1950s and 1960s. They …did not discuss honor and shame as a feature of culture, but rather presented them as part of social ideas, standards, and values, which are observable in how people interact with each other, not only at an interpersonal level but also between family and groups. (p. 3) He, later on, explains where in the 1980s, missiologists picked up the honor-shame concept from anthropology, and it grew in mission circles. In the 1990s, "…Christians often understood the postmodern critique as a call for relativity and the abolition of absolute truth, and thus as a threat to their Christian identity" (p. 8). As a result, missiology started to pull away from anthropology. He makes a point that the study of anthropology changed, and missiologists missed the boat. The study of anthropology went from there to study, not cultures in general, but from identity and group behavior. We need to start with the individual and their perspective, not looking at the culture as a whole.

Merz (2020) views taking the generalities of cultures as a disservice. He believes to do so undervalues the individual because we assume we understand where they are coming from.

Studying culture as a generalization is, in his words, "grabbing the wrong end of the stick." We need to study the person first. He believes we should look at honor and shame as a value and

34 culture more like an adjective rather than a noun. (p. 10) Culture is messy and hard to define.

Trying to define it is not helping.

Merz's view of honor and shame and culture opposes the framework of this thesis in his belief that we should not use generalities. We admittedly need to get to know the person and not just generalize them based on what we studied about their culture. However, generalizations are helpful as a starting point. Nevertheless, we must not assume they are concrete. People in their own cultures generalize to help them understand what is happening, and at times the generalization may fail. Why not use a generalization in a cross-cultural setting? We need to stay open and realize that we do not fully understand anyone, no matter their culture. We should constantly be entering into a situation as a learner. When we do not, that is when things generally go wrong.

Chapter 32 of A First Look at Communication Theory opens the door to the FaceNegotiation Theory of Stella Ting-Toomey. In her theory, she "assumes that people of every culture are always negotiating face" (Griffin, 2012 p. 407). The theory does point out that there will be striking differences between collectivistic and individualistic cultures. The difference would be found in how "members perceive self, goals, and duty" (p. 408). It also points out that two-thirds of the world are of collectivistic cultures.

Throughout the chapter, it goes back and forth into conflict management and, depending on if you come from an individualistic or collectivistic culture, how you will deal with conflict.

Also, it gets into power distance and how a person perceives threats.

Face-Negotiation Theory does relate to the research; even though it does not mention honor and shame culture, saving face does fall into that. The claim that all cultures have face is

35 intriguing and does have merit. Ting-Toomey points out that those in individualistic cultures are just trying to save their face, whereas those in collective cultures are concerned about saving others' face.

Song's article, Understanding Face and Shame, is about managing face for clergy in a church setting. In her research, she interviewed six church leaders, three being Anglo-Saxon Americans and three being Chinese. Also, the gender of the participants was three males and three females. The interview was done in their first language except for one from Hong Kong, whose first language was Cantonese.

Song (2019) points out that, "Clergy can have a negative impact on churches and other individuals when they knowingly or unknowingly attempt to save face, that is, try to protect their standing or reputation" (p. 19). She said that clergy need to know their identity. If not, they can not handle leadership well. They will be more likely to do more damage to themselves and others. She digs into how those clergy who try to save face can react in different ways, those being to work to the point of burnout and abuse power to attempt to fix people or stay in charge.

They will also not ask for help.

Along with self-awareness, Song believes that servant-leadership is key to face management. She finds the concept of servant-leadership has "deep cultural roots" (p. 21) in both American and Chinese cultures. When clergy apply servant-leadership principles, it will help them with their face management. In her research, she also concluded that both American and Chinese cultures have face and need to deal with face management.

36 Face is an honor and shame concept. Her focus on servant leadership is also in line with this research on servant leadership. In her article, she also brings up gender roles and identity, which connects with this research on valuing the individual.

In the research article, Communication Monographs, discuss how different cultures deal with face and facework in conflict. It includes the results of a questionnaire that went out to 768 participants in four different national cultures in their native languages. These countries were China, Germany, Japan, and the United States. They asked about three various face concerns and eleven different facework behaviors.

Facework "refers to the communicative strategies one uses to enact self-face and to uphold, support or challenge another person's face" (Oetzel et al., 2001, pp. 235-236). The writers of Face and facework in conflict: a cross-cultural comparison of China, Germany, Japan, and the United States, point out that Japanese and Chinese cultures have two different definitions of face where the United States and Germany only have one. And with facework, there is "self-face in the concern for one's own image, other-face, is the concern for another's image, and mutual-face is concern for both parties' images and/or the 'image' of the relationship" (p. 238). It is good to remember when dealing with an Asian's understanding of face; there are two types, personal and corporate.

Dr. Maggay, author of Global Kingdom, Global People, is a social anthropologist, international speaker, and consultant on culture and social development issues. She is also from the Philippines. Her book is about living in a multicultural world and how missions should engage in today's global environment.

37 Dr. Maggay's (2017) disagrees with a critical variable in this research. She states, "It is not true that the world can be divided into 'guilt cultures' and 'shame cultures.' All cultures have some primal sense of a cosmic breakdown, of a 'wrath shed abroad in the universe' that needs appeasing." (p. 29). It is incredible that she, being a Filipina, only once mentions “face."

Nevertheless, with that said, there is merit in what she says. Yes, all cultures do have a concept of face, as stated by Stella Ting-Toomey's Face-Negotiation, as mentioned earlier. However, not addressing it at all in a book about culture is disheartening.

Even though I disagree with Maggay's (2017) analysis on shame, I would recommend her book to read. She makes a point on the importance of learning a language.

Linguists have brought to our attention the fact that language is not just an instrument for voicing ideas, but shaping those very ideas. We have no eyes and ears for things we have no words for. Filipinos do not have an indigenous word for 'privacy,' for instance, being a culture that does not wall in a space where others cannot go. (p. 49) This is a great point when explaining the need to learn the language as a missionary.

When we understand the language, we get deeper into understanding the culture and cultural values. Also, when it comes to teaching the Foundational Values of YWAM, the translation of the values must be done by someone with a deep understanding of the values.

Jackson Wu (2012) is an American who serves in Asia as a theologian, church planter, and professor for Chinese pastors in East Asia. He has an in-depth understanding of Honor and Shame in a Chinese context. Saving God's Face is his dissertation for his Ph.D. It is about the theological contextualization of soteriology in Chinese culture. He defines, "'Honor' refers to the

38 value placed upon people within their social context. It may either be ascribed or achieved" (pp.

5-6). He goes on to say, …those who live in cultures that emphasize HS (Honor and Shame) are especially sensitive to the importance of gaining, losing or lacking honor. 'Shame' is the ill repute brought upon a person for some perceived deficiency or failure to meet the standards issued by his or her community. (p. 6) Wu goes into detail defining honor-shame and the implications for Chinese identity. Wu quotes Malina (2002) to give more understanding of honor. "Honor is the value of a person in his or her own eyes (that is, one's claim to worth) plus the person's value in the eyes of his or her social group. Honor is a claim to worth along with the social acknowledgment of worth" (pp.

21-22). Wu (2012) goes on to write, "Conversely, one is shamed by not conforming to that standard of good, bad, right, and wrong" (p. 148).

In going to a depth of honor and shame in a Chinese context, Wu links it with collectivism. "Naturally, people are more sensitive to face-concerns in more group-oriented cultures" (p. 153). Then, later on, he compares it to individualism. "By contrast, individualistic societies … tend to be more egalitarian, informal, and direct in communication" (p. 153).

Wu does not mention power distance in his writings, but he does allude to its relation to honorshame and face. "Honor is owed to one's superiors" (p. 154). Later on, when talking about two kinds of face, he writes, "…mianzi as one's prestige or reputation due to 'high position, wealth, power, ability, through cleverly establishing social ties to a number of prominent people'" (p.

156).

39 Wu continues to write in this essay where he looks into how Western culture influences church planting movements (CPM). He first talks about how CPM practitioners misinterpret Paul's actions in the book of Acts. He points out that the church's rapid growth in the book of Acts comes from Gentiles who had to some degree affirm the Jewish faith. Because they understood the Jewish faith, these Gentiles were quick to accept a Jewish Messiah. Wu also points out that when Paul went to "full Gentiles" (those who had no previous Jewish teaching influence), he was not warmly welcomed. Therefore, we can not expect a rapid acceptance of the Gospel from people who have no Jewish or Christian faith background.

Wu's second point is that CPM practitioners generalize church planting practices and assume them to be universal. He points out that these practices are western in approach and do not account for the fact that different cultures respond differently.

In the third and final point, Wu shares why these unbiblical CPM approaches continue.

The reasoning is that, first of all, missionaries want them to be accurate. It is easier to raise funds and people's understanding of what is successful.

YWAM can learn a lot from Wu's approach. When teaching our values, we cannot assume that they will be applied the same way universally. Also, we cannot assume that the way we may use a value is necessarily biblical.

Wu (2019) also wrote a book that walks through the Book of Romans through the lens of honor and shame titled Reading Romans with Eastern Eyes. In it he explains how we tend to read the Bible from our cultural perspectives. At one point, he states, "The ability to assume multiple cultural perspectives is essential for biblical interpretation" (p. 8). As it is with biblical

40 interpretation, I believe that the ability to assume multiple cultural perspectives is vital to teaching our YWAM values in a multicultural setting.

Wu (2019), later on, writes, "People are not born with cultural perspectives. They are learned and adjusted over a lifetime" (p. 9). We learn culture from growing up in our families.

This becomes our culture of origin, but it does not mean we cannot learn and embrace new cultures different from those we grew up in. Nevertheless, just as Wu said, our culture is "learned and adjusted over a lifetime." We should always be in the place of a learner as we walk in crosscultural missions.

From here, Wu dives into honor and shame. Here we will point out some things not mentioned before. The first point is when he writes, Honor-shame cultures refer to context where people have a heightened sensitivity to honorshame dynamics. After all, elements of honor-shame perspective exist everywhere. Honor and shame are built into the human experience. I simply refer to patterns within cultures. The difference between traditional Eastern and Western cultures is one of degree. (p. 13) This reminds me of Ting-Toomey's "Face-Negotiation Theory” which states that everyone has face. Collective cultures are more sensitive to it, but the good news is that individualists can grow in their understanding.

The next book, Effective Intercultural Communication a Christian Perspective, addresses how to be efficient in intercultural communication as the title states. This book is a great "go-to" book for understanding different concepts of culture. For this research, I focused on the various cultural lenses of collectivism/individualism, power distance, and honor and shame. When comparing collectivist with individualist Moreau (2014) states,

41 …collectivist cultures as the most stable, with people's conduct being in accord with the obligations and duties of their collective. Individualists, however, give precedence to personal goals and drop relationships when goals change. (p. 156 I must admit, and this may be due to my years in Asia, I struggle with how relationships seem to be disposable in American culture. Nevertheless, this needs to be considered on how it affects YWAM's value of working together in a team.

Moreau (2014) talks about two different types of honor. "First it may be ascribed. Honor can be ascribed because a person is born with a certain family status. Someone may also receive honor as a gift or a grant from a more powerful person" (p. 200). Ascribed honor can also be taken away "by a more powerful person. In this case it might be because of deception or even simply because of the whim of the more powerful one, for ascribed honor is not gained or lost on the basis of performance" (p. 200).

And then comes the other, The second means of gaining honor through achievement. A person (and that person's ingroup) can achieve honor - or lose it (shame) - through success or failure in accomplishments and/or public challenges by individuals or the in-group. (p. 200) This is key to understand when working cross-culturally. At times a westerner may be ascribed honor based on their country of origin and then cause someone to lose honor without knowing it. This is also related to servant leadership. When we are leaders, we can also ascribe honor to those under us. It is not always based on achievement in a collective/honor-shame

)

culture.

42 Richards' and O’Brien's (2012) purpose in writing their book Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes is apparent in the title. They hope to help Westerners look into Scripture's cultural context to apply it into their lives properly. In the process of explaining the culture in the Bible, they address two of the variables in this research: individualism vs. collectivism and honor and shame vs. guilt and innocence. Richard and O'Brien first address the perspective of the expected reader, Western societies are, by and large, individualistic societies. The most important entity in an individualistic culture is the individual person. The person's identity comes by distinguishing herself for the people around her. She is encouraged to avoid peer pressure and the people around her. (p. 96) Then Richard and O’Brien (2012) compare this worldview with a collective culture.

In a collectivist culture, the most important entity is the community- the family, the tribe or the country- and not the individual. Preserving the harmony of the community is everyone's primary goal, and is perceived as much more important than the self-expression or selffulfillment of the individual. (p. 97) Later on, Richard and O’Brien (2012) explain a western perspective of right and wrong, An important part of mature selfhood, for us, is knowing the difference between right and wrong. Ideally, then we choose the right and avoid the wrong. This sense of what is right and what is wrong is expected to be internal, with the heart and mind of each person, and people are expected to choose right behavior on the basis of conscience. (p. 114) Richards' and O’Brien's (2012) terminology of right and wrong is in line with Georges' explaining guilt and innocence, which he coined in his later writing, 3D Gospel. They express

43 how westerners tend "to polarize choices into two opposing categories" (p. 115). Westerners tend to make everything black or white, good or bad, and right and wrong. Not so when it comes to Asians, "Eastern thought, influenced by the Tao and Confucius, the yin/yang, tend to strive for harmony rather than distinction, stressing more a both-and perspective rather than an eitheror" (p. 115).

From there, Richards and O’Brien (2012) go on to explain how honor/shame differs.

"In shame cultures, people are more likely to choose the right behavior based on what society expects from them. It is not a matter of guilt, nor an inner voice of direction, but outer pressures and opinions that direct a person to behave a certain way." (p. 116) Richards and O'Brien do a great job helping their readers to see into collective and honor/ shame cultures. But Richards continues his writing in the following reference.

In 2020 Richards co-authored a book with Richard James that carries a title similar to the last book, Misreading Scripture with Individualist Eyes. This book has the same kind of goal as the previous one in that it wants to help individualist readers to see the cultural context of the Bible. What differs is that this book takes a different approach. They explain collectivism and honor and shame, which we will not go into because it was just covered. Nevertheless, there are some other nuggets.

In the introduction, Richards and James (2020) share a class discussion with a western student. The student said it was always wrong to shame someone, and the rest of the students agreed. The implication was that shaming is sinful. However, our writers wrote this, "Yet Jesus practiced shaming. Jesus shamed those who objected when he healed a suffering woman: 'When he said this all his opponents were put to shame' (Lk 13:17 NRSV). It was Jesus' goal to shame

44 them" ( p. 12). To the westerner, this seems to go against our internal value system. However, they do not stop there. They point out how Paul shamed the Corinthians in hopes of changing their behavior. "I say this to shame you" (1 Cor 6:5; 15:34). Furthermore, they point out that God even shames, "But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong" (1 Cor 1:27). For something like shaming that westerners would think is always a sin, we see it happening a lot in the Bible.

But then Richards and James (2020) give us a deeper insight, Shame can be used to do a lot of harm. But it can also be used to do good. We need to deepen our understanding of how shame is used (and abused) by people today. According to the New Testament, shaming others (appropriately) was a virtuous thing to do. (p. 12) This is not easy for westerners to wrap their heads around, but we can discover some profound truths when working cross-culturally.

But then comes my favorite quote from all of my readings. "I like to say that generalizations are always wrong and usually helpful" (p. 13). When talking about culture, we need to understand that every person is different. Even if they come from a collective culture, we should get to know each individual in our circle of relationship and not just generalize them based on their cultural background.

Later on, Richard and James (2020) point out how the Holy Spirit uses guilt to bring us to repentance, "just as he uses honor and shame to bring Easterners to repentance and saving grace" (p. 165). After that, they write, "Westerners can't imagine how the Spirit can convict anyone without using guilt; yet many Asian cultures don't even have a word for guilt" (p. 165).

45 It is difficult to explain what honor and shame are. It runs deep in many collective cultures worldwide, but those who live in it cannot fully explain it. Many times it just takes place without being addressed. Richard and James do a good job opening the reader's eyes to something so foreign to them.

Mischke's (2015) article, Honor-Status Reversal, shares the importance of understanding honor/shame dynamics in our exegesis of the Word of God. He points out the honor/shame in the culture of the day the Bible was written. Therefore, we would also look through the lens of honor/shame when we hermeneutically approach the Scripture.

Mischke (2015) starts with missiologist Paul Hiebert's four steps for contextualizing the Christian faith. These four steps are to exegete the host culture, exegete Scripture, community evaluates beliefs and customs, and lastly, the community develops new contextualized practices.

Mischke proposes to add a step before Hiebert's process: to exegete Bible cultures in light of honor/shame beliefs and customs. The reason why is because most missionaries were trained in the west or trained by western missionaries. Therefore, they have a blind spot in interpreting Scripture and the culture regarding honor/shame dynamics. At one point, Mischke defines honorshame reversal that takes place in many stories in the Bible.

Honor-status reversal is when a person, family, or people have whatever degree of esteem, respect, privilege, power, or authority before a community turned the other way around.

One's honor-status can be high or low or in-between, ranging from the lowest honor-status of a leper or a slave—to the immensely powerful high honor-status of a mighty king. (p. 11) Mischke shows through the Bible that some who had shame were given honor (e.g., Esther and Mordecai), and those who had honor ended up with shame (e.g., Haman). Some

46 started with shame, got honor, and then shame again (e.g., Saul). However, the reverse is also true (e.g., Joseph).

Flanders article, Bringing shame upon and Honored Missiological Paradigm: A Study of Conviction and Elenctics. Like Wu and other authors already mentioned, Flanders shares how missionaries misread the Bible through their cultural lens and apply a gospel that does not translate.

Flanders (2020) opens up with an allegory using a durian. It is a spiked fruit in a hard shell. To open it, you need to cut along the seams of the fruit. It would be nearly impossible to cut across the fruit. If you cut it the right way, then you can gain the beloved edible fruit underneath.

In certain ways, ministering to people is like opening a durian. For quite some time now, missiologists have helped us see this same reality in understanding cross-cultural notions of sin, conscience, and conviction. That is, if we are working at cross-purposes with a person's or a culture's natural form of conviction, we will experience frustration. But, if we can understand the "seams" of a person or a culture, that is, if our approach works with rather than against these natural cultural 'seams,' we will potentially find greater connection and effectiveness in our evangelism and discipleship. (p. 121) Flanders gets into the reality that missionaries often communicate a gospel focused on guilt that does not translate to a culture that is more in line with shame. He goes deeper into how the Bible was written with a shame-based Gospel, which most westerners miss.

He discusses the u-shaped conversion. It describes many who grow up in a Godly home end up living a worldly lifestyle. Then at some point amid their self-inflicted despair, guilt leads

47 them to repentance and they return to God. They use Luke 15 and the parable of the prodigal son.

What is striking is how much this parallels Mischke's honor-status reversal explained earlier.

Where u-shaped conversion is based on guilt, honor-status reversal has it's own u-shaped based on honor and shame. Mishke even uses Luke 15 and the prodigal son to reinforce his position (Mishke, 2015, pp. 19-20).

This is a perfect example of how individualists misread Scripture and interpret it through their cultural lens. The story of the prodigal son is an honor-status reversal scenario. However, when reading it with no understanding of honor-shame, we rework it to fit our cultural paradigm.

When teaching on how to apply YWAM values, understanding honor and shame is imperative.

Lingenfelter's book Ministering Cross-Culturally shares how his family moved to Yap, a small island in Micronesia, back in 1967. He worked and lived for two years learning Yapense culture in preparation for his doctoral dissertation. He writes about his experiences with the Yap people, pointing out differences in culture. He tackles things like time orientation and goal setting. All along the way, he opens up differences in how the Yap people see life, others, and more.

This book does not have the terminology of "honor-shame." However, honor-shame stands out in all of the chapters. Since the book was first written in 1986, the author might not have been aware of the terminology of honor and shame. It was during the 1980s when the concept of honor and shame was gaining traction among biblical scholars.

At one point, Lingenfelter (2016) addresses the need for missionaries to embrace the culture they are serving in.

48 Missionaries and others who accept the challenge of cross-cultural ministries, however, must, by the nature of their task, become personally immersed with peoples who are different.

Following the example of Christ means undergoing drastic personal and social reorientation. (pp. 108-109) We, as missionaries, need to embrace a different culture and worldview. Lingenfelter (2016) goes on to say, "They must enter a culture as if they were children again- helpless, dependent, and ignorant of everything from customs of eating and talking to patterns of work, play, and worship" (p. 109). If we are to communicate our YWAM values cross-culturally, those entering first must become the students before they teach.

Power Distance There have already been some references to power distance in this thesis. Here we will try to give more definition on what that is.

In her book, Managing Intercultural Con ict Effectively, Ting-Toomey (2001) describes small (low) and big (high) power distance: Small power distance refers to broad value tendencies of people in a culture to emphasize individual credibility and expertise, democratic decision-making processes, equal rights and relations, and equitable rewards and punishments based on performance. (p. 31) Ting-Toomey (2001), later on, gives examples that small power distance can be found in such countries as Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Israel, and New Zealand. She goes on to explain, Large power distance refers to abroad value tendencies of people in a culture to emphasize

fl

status-based credibility and experience, benevolent autocratic decision-making processes,

49 asymmetrical role-based relations, and rewards and punishments based on age rank, status, title, and seniority. (p. 31) The examples of countries she gives that have large power distance are Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Venezuela, and many Arab countries. Griffin (2012), later on, points out that "Individualistic values and small power distance usually go together" (p. 416). and later on states, "Collectivistic values and the acceptance of large power distance is common” (p. 416).

We see from this that honor-shame cultures and large power distance cultures are commonly from collective cultures and guilt-innocence cultures. Small power distance cultures are frequently from individualistic cultures.

Hofstede's book, Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, is rich with detail about power distance along with individualism and collectivism.

Power distance is defined by Hofstede (2010), "… as the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally” (p. 61). Later on, he writes about how power distance is distributed.

Power distance is thus described based on the value system of the less powerful members.

The way power is distributed is usually explained by the behavior of the more powerful members, the leader rather than those led. The popular management literature on leadership often forgets that leadership can exist only as a complement to 'subordinateship.' authority survives only where it is matched by obedience. (pp. 61-62)

50 So power distance is given by those who have less power. This is something we need to consider when we think of our YWAM value of servant leadership. How does servant leadership function in a collective high power distance culture?

Hofstede (2010) also addresses the Power Distance Index (PDI) of different countries that measure inequality in a society. He shares how IBM researched their employees in 57 different countries worldwide to measure the PDI of that country. They surveyed non-managerial employees with three questions. The first question was, "How frequently, in your experience, does the following problem occur: employees being afraid to express disagreement with their managers? (Mean score on a 1-5 scale from 'very frequently' to 'very seldom.’)" The second question was, 'subordinates' perception of the boss's actual decision-making style (percentage choosing the description of either an autocratic style or a paternalistic style, out of four possible styles plus a 'none of these' alternative)." The third question followed, "Subordinates' preference for their boss's decision-making style (percentage preferring an autocratic or a paternalistic style, or, on contrary, a style based on majority vote, but not a consultative style)" (p. 56).

From this survey, they calculated a PDI score for all of the 57 countries. The top countries with the highest power distance were Malaysia and Slovakia tied, scoring 104. Then they were followed by Guatemala and Panama tied at 95. After that, the Philippines at 94 (p. 57).

On the bottom end of their chart was Austria scoring 11. Israel then followed them at 13. And then Denmark at 18 (p. 59).

We can see from this research that individualistic culture countries tend to score low on power distance whereas collectivistic culture countries score high on power distance. Hofstede (2010) writes,

51 The vast majority of people in our world live in societies in which the interest of the group prevails over the interest of the individual. We will call these societies collectivist, using a word that to some readers may have political connotations, but the word is not meant here in any political sense. It does not refer to the power of the state over the individual; it refers to the power of the group. (pp. 90-91) We can see that in collective cultures, the person identifies themself with the group. The power of the group supersedes the interest of the individual. This is a stark difference compared to the minority of the world. "A minority of people in our world live in societies in which the interest of the individual prevail over the interest of the group, societies that we will call individualist" (p. 91).

IBM did more research on individualism that Hofstede (2010) tapped. They came up with an individualism index (IDV) score for 76 countries. The higher the score, the more individualistic the country. The lower the score, the more collective. The top three and coming in at number one is the United States, scoring 91. Australia then followed them at 90 and Great Britain at 89 (p. 95). On the bottom was Guatemala at six, followed by Ecuador at eight and Panama at 11.

Hofstede (2010) also concluded that "Many countries that score high on the power distance index score low on the individualism index, and vice versa" (p. 102).

Individualism and collectivism, along with power distance, are significant factors when we address the application of our YWAM values. How does power distance affect servant leadership? What does it look like in a team with collectivists and individualists? How do these cultural differences affect how we value the individual?

52 Mellis and Schreck, in their article, The Church and Multiculturalism: The Role of Immigrant Churches in Amsterdam, talk about the challenges of immigrant churches in Amsterdam working and relating to Dutch churches. It addresses many of the cross-cultural misunderstandings and many failed attempts of bringing the groups together. They detail many of the cross-cultural challenges native Dutch churches have with African immigrant churches and vice versa.

Mellis' and Schreck's (2015) writings do not mention power distance, individualistic/ collectivistic cultures, or honor/shame. But that is what they are addressing when discussing the cultural differences between the Dutch churches and the immigrant churches. You can see how individualism influenced the Dutch church when they wrote, Churches should not be concerned with how modern persons live or act outside of this.

Certainly, churches should not speak to issues of sexuality or morality. This view results in weaker patterns of bonding as the sphere of life to which churches can speak is truncated and limited. (p. 29) Later on, when addressing the Pastor's influence in immigrant churches, you can see high power distance in play.

Immigrant pastors play a very strong role in the leadership and administration of their churches. Furthermore, their roles are not limited to spiritual matters but also include close attention to many areas in the lives of their members, including family life, sexual morality, and work. (p. 29)

53 As they express some of the challenges of building relationships with Dutch and immigrant pastors, there is a misunderstanding of intent when communication occurs. When Dutch pastors invite immigrant pastors to a different event, frustration takes place on both sides.

From the Dutch pastors' perspectives, immigrant pastors are either disinterested or too irresponsible to participate in such meetings and gatherings. From the perspective of the immigrant pastors, these meetings, they explain, do not build relationships. They complained that the meetings they attended had a fixed agenda, which was interpreted such that Dutch pastors were only interested in their agenda and not in building relationships. (p. 31) Unmet expectations are common in building relationships cross-culturally, common in YWAM when we build multicultural teams. As we build teams, we need to understand the broad cultural background from where our teammates originated. Nevertheless, we need to go deeper and get to know the individuals in our team. Many times people do not fit their cultural preferences from their culture of origin. It is only by learning and relating to the person that we know how they “tick."

Basáñez (2016), documents in his book, A World of Three Cultures, three observations he found in culture: honor, achievement, and joy. Also, he believes that "Values are the building blocks of cultures" (p. 14).

Of course, Basáñez's insight on honor aligns with this research, and he has the protective values that build the culture. As Allen and Miller (2006) wrote, "When we speak of worldview, we are speaking of the total set of beliefs or assumptions that comprise the mindset of an individual and determine what they value and how they behave" (p. 15). It seems that Basáñez puts values and beliefs in the same area.

54 Basáñez also believes that culture is transmitted through family, school, religion, media, and leadership. He does talk about how religion forms culture, but he seems stuck in the evolution approach to culture formation. He doesn't acknowledge God with the formation of culture. Basáñez also addresses power distance and individualism versus collectivism and refers to Hofstede..

Navara's and James' article, Sojourner adjustment: does missionary status affect acculturation? focuses on the difference between missionaries and their adaptation into a crosscultural environment compared to other expatriates. Their research was based in Nepal, and along with missionaries, they surveyed business managers, exchange students, embassy, military personnel, and the like. What they learned was that missionaries reported less satisfaction in their posting compared to other expatriates.

Navara and James (2002) shared about what kind of culture shock people go through and the rationale of why they chose to study missionaries. They pointed out, Previous research on the sojourner acculturation process has focused on investigations of coping and adjustment to cultural stressors of various groups (e.g., business managers, exchange students, embassy staff, military personnel, etc.); however, little research has been conducted specifically on one group of sojourners—missionaries. The primary aim of the present study was to compare the levels of coping and adjustment of missionaries to those of other expatriates. (p. 695) Navara and James also noted how Nepal was an ideal location for their study because of the high population of expatriates living in the country.

55 This is not directly related to this research, but it is good to keep in mind that missionaries' challenges and what they go through is different from other expatriates. This needs to be taken into consideration when thinking about applying contextualization of values in another cultural context.

When studying culture, we need to remember that it is fluid. As years go by, different generations have their own cultures. Not only that, we need to consider how globalization is affecting cultures globally. In many metropolitans worldwide, there are different cultural pockets of people groups thriving in their native languages. Broadening our understanding of cultures is vital as YWAM moves forward, especially as we consider the application of our values in our multicultural movement.

56 CHAPTER THREE Methodology I invited 18 people to be interviewed and I had ten people respond. The longest serving person has been in YWAM for 43 years, and three of them had served for 17 years. Collectively, they have lived in 17 different countries on five continents. Of those interviewed, five come from individualistic countries, while the other five come from collectivistic countries. From those who responded, there were nine males and one female. There was a desire to have a more significant number of women for the interviews, but the others I asked did not respond. All of these interviews were connected in February of 2021. One person was interviewed in person and nine

by Zoom. It took about an hour for each interview.

The reason I interviewed these people was that they had met four specific criteria: The first is their years in YWAM. The longer someone has been in YWAM, the deeper their understanding of the mission. Due to the nature of the interview on YWAM's Foundational Values, they should understand their importance and the meaning behind them.

The second reason is that they have worked in multicultural teams. Only one of them has not lived outside of their home country, and all of them are well-traveled. Out of the ten, six of them have visited all five continents. One of them has lived on five continents. Since this research addresses our values in a cross-cultural setting, the participants need to have exposure to working in a cross-cultural environment. All of them have years of experience working in multicultural teams.

The third reason they were selected was because of their background. There is a mix of individualistic cultures and collectivistic cultures. Even though all of them work and live in

57 multicultural settings, many times, a person's origins can (and usually does) affect their outlook on things. Hence, it is good to have people who are coming from different perspectives.

Finally, they all have been or are currently in leadership in YWAM. From this group, all of them have staffed in a YWAM school. All but one have led multiple schools. There have been six who have been or currently serve on national leadership teams. Seven of those have led YWAM operating locations. One of them has been a YWAM national leader. Currently, one serves on a board of the University of the Nations (UofN), and another carries a Bachelor's degree and a Master's degree from the UofN. There are also two of them who have authored books. These are not only leaders in our mission; they are trainers who carry the responsibility for imparting our values.

58 CHAPTER FOUR Results In the process of the interviews, I separated the answers of the participants into two different groups. One of those groups is the participants from individualistic cultures and the other is those who come from collectivistic cultures. I wanted to see if there are any differences or similarities between the two different groups. To not use their names, I classified them as “I-1 to I-5 for the individualist group. And for the collectivist, I classified them from C-1 to C-5. The first question was still in an “ice breaker” mode, but it did have a purpose. I wanted to tap into insight on the foundational value “function in teams” in the context of being in a multicultural environment. The first question in the interview was, “What is something you have enjoyed about working in a multicultural setting in your time serving in YWAM?” One resounding answer that came from all of the participants answered some type of learning from different cultures. Three of them (two individualists and one collectivist) shared how they enjoyed being confronted. One individualist said, "So you know, I've never enjoyed it in the moment, but certainly sometimes I'm confronted by my own, my own arrogance. My own, you know where I think my way is better." (I-1, personal communication, Feb 4, 2021). A collectivist said, "Being confronted with my own mindset how I grew up." (C-3, personal communication, Feb 10, 2021). She continued sharing about the need to travel to different nations to get her U of N degree, "It forced me to go and do schools in poorer nations. And it forced me to look at myself in a very, very different mirror."

59

Valuing the Individual I asked a question about YWAM’s value of the individual and how it works in their cultural setting with the second question. As a reminder, here is the value statement.

“14. Value the individual YWAM is called to value each individual. We believe in equal opportunity and justice for all. Created in the image of God, people of all nationalities, ages and functions have distinctive contributions and callings. We are committed to honoring God-given leadership and ministry gifts in both men and women.” (Youth With A Mission, 2021) At the time of the interview, eight of the participants lived in a collective culture. The question was, "When considering, 'Value the individual,' how does this apply to your YWAM context?"

One answer that shocked me was that two participants said it did not apply since the culture they live in does not value the individual. One is from an individualistic culture (I-3) and the other from a collectivistic culture (C-1). "In (Asian country) it's they don't care about individual… But if you're in (Asian country) it's all about the group. The individual doesn't matter anymore. Like you get absorbed somehow." (I-3, personal communication, Feb 13, 2021) At one point, C-3 questioned if YWAM truly values the individual.

“I don't know how much we value the individual even though we constantly stay we do. I think we are not very racist, upfront racist, and that helps with value valuing the individual. I think that's a positive that we really try not to look at color. But do we really value the individual? Then I have to look at if a nation is an individual. Why does our team still

60 represent the people they represent? Why do we have to work so hard at having the islands and the Africans and the Asians represented in the top, top, top dog top positions? So do we really value the individual? I do not think so. We think we do. I don't think we do to the to the degree that we could. To be honest here. I think we are politically correct with individuals in amazing ways. YWAM, it seems like a high value in YWAM to be politically correct. High value. Which makes it looks like you value the individual a lot.” (C-3, personal communication, Feb 10, 2021) A little later, C-3 shared, "When I lived in (Asian country), it was they don't value the individual as much. They value the leaders. Because that's their culture. So for me to say do we value the individual it's like saying, 'Hi (Asian country). Do you value the constitution?' No, it's America. 'Do you value the individual?' No, it's American."

I was surprised at C-3’s answer. It is for sure an outlier for this question, but we cannot dismiss it. This is a person who has lived in more counties than anyone else I interviewed and five continents. She has been in YWAM for more than 20 years. Moreover, she is asking, “Do we really value the individual?”

I am reminded by what Allen and Miller (2006) wrote: “These dominant ideas will determine the values and principles by which the organization functions. These values may be the same or different than those written down incorporate values document. Yet these operational values – stated or unstated – inform the day-to-day practices, programs and activities of the organization.” (p. 15) We also need to consider two of the other participants who didn’t think it applied in their context.

61 Nevertheless, outside of those three, there were some mixed answers. Two of the other collectivists talked about it as listening and hearing the other person.

“The value of the individual means the importance of hearing the person's point of view, point of passion, point of disappointment, in the point of disagreement. Looking at the person's actual value as a person. When you look at the individual, you know their uniqueness as a person beyond their own cultural background.” (C-5, personal communication, Feb 11, 2021) This also was related to what I-4 said, “Valuing the Individual really requires us to assess where they come from. I would say there's also the combination of not just their cultural background, right warm culture cold cultural group, versus individualistic. But there's also, I think quite a bit of personality traits that come along with it. (I-4, personal communication, Feb 23, 2021) Later on, I-4 talks about the dangers of generalizing people, “I think we generalize oftentimes. Oh, warm culture, group culture. But the reality is a lot of times, there’s cold cultural people are that are very communal and there's hot culture of communal people that are very individualistic. And I think that gets heightened more and more as we're more globalized. “ Two of the other individualists talked about believing in someone and their uniqueness.

The third question is related to the next question, “What are some different cultural ways you have seen this value applied?”

After the question, some patterns were found in the answers to the last two questions in valuing the individual. The number one response was about hearing and listening to the

62 individual. Three of those times were from collectivists and one from an individualist. It needs to be mentioned that this individualist was born in a collective culture to missionaries and lived there until 16. So even though his passport is from an individualistic country, he often thinks like a collectivist.

The responses of the collectivists seem to be connected to power distance and honor. If a person has a high power distance, they are in a place of honor. Therefore, they do not need to listen, but they can ascribe honor to someone by listening to them if they do.

C-5 mentioned that he would greet the guest in hospitality, "It is an honor to meet you."

The second most mentioned response by three participants believe in the individual (two by individualists and one by a collectivist). That was followed by believing in someone's calling (2 individualists). Two collectivists said you value the individual through friendship.

Interestingly, collectivists saw valuing the individual through relationship. They talked about listening, being friends, and one even mentioned spending time with someone. On the other hand, individualists value the individual by believing in their potential and calling.

Evaluating the responses, the individualists echo what is written about the value: believing in someone's gifts and calling. However, for the collectivist, valuing the individual means embracing that individual into the collective.

Servant Leadership The following three questions bring us to the value of servant leadership. The value reads: “11. Exhibit servant leadership YWAM is called to servant leadership as a lifestyle, rather than a leadership hierarchy. A servant leader is one who honors the gifts and callings of those under his/her care and guards

63 their rights and privileges. Just as Jesus served His disciples, we stress the importance of those with leadership responsibilities serving those whom they lead.” (Youth With A Mission, 2021) Here are the questions asked regarding servant leadership, “What does servant leadership look like to you?” “Can you tell me a time when you acted like a servant leader?” “How does servant leadership look in your cultural context?”

The word “dishes” came up six times in these last three questions, followed by other ways to serve practically. The thought that went through my mind was, “In YWAM, we don’t wash feet. We do dishes!”

C-3 responded, "What does servant leadership look like to you?" She answered, "It's when I see a leader on the work DTS roster." Furthermore, she later stated, "So servant leadership for me is truly when I struggle to find out who's the school leader and who's the base leader because you just stay and you just serve."

There is the aspect of practical service in leadership that we really cannot get away from.

However, others did speak about other aspects of servant leadership that we usually do not think about. C-2 said, "That's like a very used and abused word in YWAM." (C-2, personal communication, Feb 9, 2021) Later on, he stated, "I think that value is applied in different levels.

You have this shallow you know servant leadership, and then you have this much mature deeper servant leadership. We have the ability to confront."

C-2 does not deny the practical service that many people apply, but he addresses doing the job that no one likes to do, and in this case, he talks about confrontation with a matching story.

64 When asked the question, “How does servant leadership look in your cultural context?”

Five of them said that it is looked down upon in the Asian country they served in; three were individualists, and two were collectivists. One more collective (C-2) alluded to it being seen as a negative but did not directly say it. “I think in our culture cultural context when it comes to servant leadership people will look at you small and degrading.” (C-4 personal communication, Feb 10, 2021) All of them but I-5 shared practical service is a part of servant leadership. Four collectives and two individuals shared a story of practical service. I-1 shared why, as a guest teacher in a school, they did dishes. “I suppose part of me was wanting to show them that no one’s above doing this stuff. And it doesn’t matter whether I’m a staff or a leader or a teacher. I should never be above doing the mundane stuff that we expect all the students to do. IF we expect the students to do it we need to be willing to do it. And if I’m not willing to do it, then I don’t have a servant heart.” (Feb. 4, 2021) On the other hand, four individuals and one collective shared how to release others into leadership as servant leadership. “It’s really like a sacrificial kind of leadership. It’s a service to lift up leaders around you and mentor and train them to get on your level. It becomes more sacrificial; less and less about yourself. But when you lead other peoples you try to serve them and empower them to take your place.” (I-3 personal communication, Feb 13, 2021) The one individualist I-4 who did not say anything about releasing leaders or providing opportunity said this, "[Servant Leadership is] Not caring about a position that position does not impact how you actually function on the day-to-day because you're a servant first and foremost." (I-4, personal communication, Feb 23, 2021)

65 Interestingly, three individualists spent more time talking about the abstract and not practical service. Two of them never mentioned practical service of any kind. On the other hand, two collectivists only talked about practical service.

To close this section out, I would like to quote I-5 when asked what servant leadership looks like in their cultural context. "I think probably just being part of the community. And not it's not as much apart from making a way for people here. Because I still am involved in that limb, and I still do that, but really it's more of, I think, a predisposition or a heart to show others that we're not above them. And so coming and eating meals, being in worship, and the regular activities intercession times. Sometimes I think leaders advocate that role." (Feb. 4, 2021) Functioning in Teams When asked the question, “what is a team?”, four of the participants used a sports analogy (two individualists and two collectivists). Five participants defined it as a group with a vision or purpose (three individualists and two collectivists). C-5 said, “Basically has relationship with one another that communicates… They should know their purpose as a team.

They should know why they are a team.” (Feb 11, 2021) On the other hand, three collectivists said that it was a group in a relationship and/or working in complementary giftings. Different from the others was I-3, who said, “It’s like a group of equals; where the ideal team for me is like where everyone can operate in his strength.” ( Feb. 13, 2021) When asked about the advantages of working in multicultural teams, four participants shared the different perspectives provided (three individualists and one collectivist). On the other hand, four others talked about the advantages of having different kinds of giftings (three

66 collectivists and one individual). Outside of that, I-3 focused on having multicultural teams is “like we have a launchpad for missionaries that go to other cultures.” His focus was that a mix of cultures help train missionaries to be more multicultural.

Then C-3 said the advantages are, “You get confronted with your bias. You get confronted majorly with your racism. You get confronted with your elitism. You get confronted with your poverty mentality… Where there is a mix, and there’s poor and rich YWAMers, you truly get confronted. Like a lot of my financial needs, like when I was in America and Australia, I am thinking, ‘Who gave?’ So you felt poor. But when I was in my own culture, I wasn’t poor…. Then you go to Australia, and they look down on you because you’re (from a collective country).” (Feb. 10, 2021) Some fascinating data came out of the following question about the challenges of having a multicultural team. All of them except C-3 said something about cultural differences.

"Everyone thinks their way is better." (I-1, personal communication, Feb 4, 2021). "Sometimes it's just different world views" (I-3, personal communication, Feb 13, 2021) I-5 spoke into this problem when people of one people group isolate themselves, "I've totally seen it not just in one base but a lot of bases. When you have one group, they just stick to themselves and don't associate that much with others. You know, and part of it is they speak the same language. They eat similar food. If it's just one or two people, then they have to venture out and relate to others. But that's where I see that it becomes a challenge is if you get five or six of the same culture. There's a proclivity to isolate themselves." (Feb 4, 2021) C-3 took a different approach.

67 “How can you think of something that's a disadvantage? No, because there's no color in Christianity, there's no Jew and Greek in this, and that see if you can find one let me know.

But it will probably be unscriptural a person's inability to listen and to ask clarifying questions and actually show some humility. But there's a lot of things that come out with that, so yes, the process is delayed, and it's frustrating. It's only frustrating because we have so much pride and so much irritation. Because why can't you understand what I'm saying like honestly if you really dig deep and I know because I've been there. Like, I know it's frustrating, and if you don't understand me, and my English is even good then well, you know it goes deep. It's a great thing for discipleship, and we should never change that. Yeah, it's one of the most wonderful things we have.” (Feb. 10, 2021) Language differences were pointed out by three of the participants (two individualists and one collectivist). C-1 puts it this way.

“We have to translate. If we don't translate, people leave the team feels offended feel miscommunicated. So a little bit of hard work on that, but it is worth it to do. When we have international, we will in the meeting we meet for one hour we have to prepare like two hours because we have to translate.” (Feb. 8, 2021) One surprising thing that came up was that five participants (four individualists and one collectivist) made references to high and low context cultures. Some of the terminologies they used were like, “My struggle working with cross-cultural, especially western people, is that because generally really talk straight. You know our culture is we, as much as possible, didn't want to offend people. I think it was my struggle from the very beginning. But later on, I understand

68 that's part of your culture that's who you are. And understand that's not a bad thing.” (C-4, personal communication, Feb 10, 2021) I-1 put it this way, "So even within the (Asian) culture, there's variances to that, but generally, they're non-confrontational, and they're non-directive, so when you get the westerners put in that, then it really challenges them." (Feb 4, 2021) There is one point I-1 made which is a good reminder for us who study culture, "Of even what they thought was Asia, now I just say to them sometimes go to Singapore they're taskorientated, they're straight; they're directive, they're like the west, but they're Asian. So we have such a mix here in Asia that you just can't afford to pigeonhole people. Even within cultures, there's differences there, and so that's the challenge of how do you bring a commonality so that people can enjoy the difference."

Power Distance When doing the interviews, the question was asked if the participant understood the concept of power distance. Four of the participants could define it (three individualists and one collectivist), while the other six needed a definition provided. All of the individualists spoke about it in negative terms. I-4, who had an understanding of power distances, said, "Where there's an underlying fear of leadership because of the power, that's what creates the distance. So you don't feel like you can be close to a leader." (Feb. 23, 2021) He, later on, said when referring to it in meetings, "So I think the tendency is those with perceived power distance can tend to dominate, and then oftentimes, those without it can just kind of go with the flow." I-1, who also understood the concept, said, "What I love about YWAM is that we try and bring that together so that there isn't any power distance. And so that we're like this (making hand signals meaning all

69 at the same level). And to me, that's part of servant leadership - dismantling the power distance." (Feb. 4, 2021). I-5 worded this way when sharing how to deal with power distance, "I don't think it's a good thing at all... the way to combat it is to humble yourself as a leader.

Immediately it creates a closeness. You don't let people look for your faults; you tell them." (Feb. 4, 2021) On the other hand, among the collectivists, there were mixed results. Two of them talked about it in a positive light, two were negative, and the other had a hard time seeing it in their context. The two that were negative made references to how YWAM positions can change and how people do different kinds of work. With three collectivists, I questioned if they fully understood the concept since it was their first time hearing about it. C-3 was the only one who studied the concept from all the collectivists. She started out saying, “I'm so glad I have learned that vocab of power distance because it really helps. When you are with Loren Cunningham that I give him power distance and when the Aussie next to me didn't give him power distance. I was about to hit her. There once again, I wanted to hit somebody in the face because she was like, "I can have my food here, why should it be neat?

Why should it be tidy? It’s just Loren." and I'm like honoring your elders. But it's an Aussie.

Tall poppy cutting man. There goes his head.” (Feb. 10, (2021) To give clarity to what C-3 said, Peeters (2004) wrote, “… there is an Australian saying: ‘‘You have to cut down the tall poppies.’’ In other words, anyone who dares to poke his head above the crowd must be attacked, denigrated and brought down to the common level” (p. 74).

Later on, C-3 talked about how studying power distance has helped her in her leadership.

"So it really helps, but it also helps me to grow in leadership because as a third world or a

70 high-powered distant nation, oh my word, these places that I'm thinking, 'Don't give him power.' I can actually find my voice because I don't give them power. I have a voice because power distant people have been made voiceless."

To make it clear, C-3 does not see power distance as wrong. What she learned is that she is the one who gives power distance to those she chooses. She says how American parents do not teach their children how to honor and respect their elders. This also falls in line with C-5 when he was talking about raising his kids in American culture. "When I brought my children to (American location), all the teachers admire so much my children. "Wow. Your kids so respectful of authority." That's what you call power distance part of it. But for American kids, they don't have such respect to authority." (Feb 11, 2021) It was intriguing how the individualists and two of the collectivists saw power distance as a problem to be fixed. They see it as something that gets in the way for leaders to relate with followers. However, two collectivists see that individualists could apply more power distance. In this way, they give more honor and respect.

One other thing that some individualists brought up was that power distance could lead to abuse of power. "Also, if you raise a leader, he might expect to have that power that he's kind of elevated, and it's a bit dangerous because it's prone to abuse if you have such a high power distance. Then you might reach a point where you don't have accountability anymore to anyone."

(I-3, personal communication, Feb 13 2021) However, when C-5 shared about an abusive leadership situation, he said, "I would say there is a use and abuse of power instead of power distance." Later he mentioned, "I guess if it has to do with the follower, it depends on their background their upbringing; yeah, your attitude towards authority."

71 With that I-1 shared about the dangers of working cross-culturally and not understanding power distance.

“So there's got to be self-awareness in the leader. There is actually the possibility of power distance, and that could easily be happening within his context, if he's working in an Asian context and if he's unaware of power distance and how that plays out, then he's not going to change because he's not aware of it he's got to become aware of it and understand how that power distance plays out in a team dynamic.” (Feb. 4, 2021) Honor and Shame The questions asked about honor and shame were, “How does honor and shame affect multicultural team dynamics?” And “How does it affect how we value the individual in YWAM? A good point was made by I-2.

“I think honor and shame, while it's a part of every culture, it's more foundational in some rather than others. And so you could apply the same to cultures that are more truth and liebased, where the value system is just different, and so well, while someone might be fighting for their value of truth. The way in which they're going about it is really dishonoring other people. And so the breakdown of actually having the conflict resolved; is not about what they're talking about. It's about just that misconstrued value system, or my value system is different.” (Feb. 4, 2021) When I asked these questions, I noticed six of the participants showed some kind of an emotional response (three individualists and three collectivists.). Two of the collectivists shared stories where they felt hurt by being shamed in public.

72 When asked these questions, all participants talked about shame, but only four of them talked about honor (three individualists and one collectivist). I-4 shared some of the challenges of working in a multicultural team. "You can shame somebody and not realize you shamed them and they'll never talk again. Or never actually say what they really think again. and you never ever know it. They'll never ever admit to it because it's shameful." (Feb. 23, 2021) "It's not even intentional. Most of the time, you offend somebody unintentionally, because you said something, you did something, you burped while eating." (C-2, personal communication, Feb. 9, 2021) Most of the participants spoke about shame with a negative connotation. However, C-3 spoke more broadly about it. After sharing a time when she was shamed, C-3 said, “If you shame somebody really to shame them, you need discipleship. Because we don't just shame people to shame people. that's a discipleship thing. If you really put somebody down in front of other people, you are probably training them. Now, if you're not training them, there's maybe a context for it. Like you go to the army, you're gonna get shamed all the time.

Why? Because you need to get in that group.” (Feb. 10, 2021) This reminded me of when Richards and James (2020) wrote, "Shame can be used to do a lot of harm. But it can also be used to do good. We need to deepen our understanding of how shame is used (and abused) by people today. According to the New Testament, shaming others (appropriately) was a virtuous thing to do." (p. 12) C-3, later on, talked about how she leads while discipling. "I will shame you because I actually care." (Feb. 10, 2021) Even though most of the participants see shaming as wrong, there is a place where we can discern the noble side of it.

73 When addressing honor, I noticed how I-4, who has lived in Asia for so long, miss spoke when referring to YWAM’s Foundation Value, value the individual. While talking about honor, he said, “I realize in this interview that probably one of my weakest YWAM values is honoring the individual.” (Feb.4) Please note that he said, “honoring the individual,” not “valuing the individual.” He did this twice in this segment of questioning. The connection of value/worth was also made by Moreau (2014) when he wrote, “Honor or face… has two components: (1) a claim to positive worth along with (2) the social acknowledgment of that worth.” (p. 196). This also lines up with what I-2 said when talking about applying honor in a cross-cultural setting, “I think that's probably the biggest hindrance in cross-cultural; one is that the amount of value given to honor and shame is so drastically different. That there's a way to really resolve the content conflict appropriately. I don't know how to explain that. I mean, you would understand what I'm trying to say. But I said before then because someone values honor and they avoid shame. The more honor can be given to someone, the more they will feel valued.

So honor then becomes a currency that one can use.” (Feb. 4, 2021) I-1, in his answer, never connected value with honor. However, what he said applied in this context. I-1 spent a lot of time sharing the importance of not shaming someone and how one time, one of his Asian staff confessed openly to their team. "So I think you know when we give value to one another, and we give space to hear one another's stories." (Feb. 4, 2021) When bringing close to his answer, I-1 concluded, "So I think a shame-based culture is really minimized if we create a safe environment where the individual is really valued."

What needs to be mentioned here is the connection between honor and shame and power distance. When asked about power distance, two of the collectivists brought up how when people

74 from low power distance cultures did not give power distance, it was a sign of disrespect or a lack of giving honor. In contrast, the individualist saw power distance as a problem that needed to be solved. There is a connection between honor and power distance that needs to be recognized.

Individual vs Collective The questions asked for this segment were, “What are some of the team dynamics with people from both individual and collective cultures? What kind of conflict have you seen? How was it resolved?”

When asked these questions I-3 opened up with, “I think you have to discover this alchemy between like how can you use the strength of both (individual and collective cultures). Because let's say we all know that we need group culture. and this is an Asian century whether you like it or not. Like we are already so dominated by china and Asian countries whether we like it or not. And so we all know we have to work in teams.” (Feb. 13, 2021).

Along the same lines I-4 said, “They (individualists) probably have a whole lot more to learn from the collectivists. They (collectivists) are more like Jesus, so they should just shut up and listen more often than not.” (Feb 23, 2021) When looking at the overall data, five participants shared the importance of communication (three individualists and two collectivists), while four shared the challenges of misunderstanding (two individualists and two collectivists). I-5 put it this way, "I think it just takes time to meld, yet people have to listen to the other. Try and understand; it's like that Francis of Assisi prayer. You can seek to understand more than to be understood." (Feb.4, 2021) This

75 also goes in line with I-3 when he mentioned, "Sometimes the westerns are too individualistic.

But they should sacrifice more for the sake of the group." (Feb. 13, 2021) This was also echoed

by C-3 when she said. "I would say that's where the individualistic cultures need discipleship because they have no idea how to be in a team." However, I-3 did later on when talking about collectivism. He stated, "But the weakness is, I think if there's too much conformity, there is no creativity. It kills creativity."

When addressing these questions, C-5 looked at them through a leadership lens.

“I guess depending on the context of who is the leader. If you have an individualistic leader and he does not have a concept of input of the group, then everybody will end up very hurt.

Because this person is so individualistic and that's that no concept of whatsoever the value of the group.” (Feb. 11, 2021) However, C-5 did mention this when talking about leadership in the collective, “because you are also too much conscious of the collective, and you cannot operate individually to make execute the decision.”

Two of the individualists drew the parallel between individualism to our value of the individual and collectivism and functioning in teams throughout the interviews. I-4 said, “we value the individual, and we value the group we value both are biblical.” (Feb. 23, 2021). I-2 summed it up well when he said, “I think if we just take the example of individual and collective cultures. Having both values valuing the individual as well as functioning in teams as two values, you are actually hitting the nail on the head on both cultures. And having them both function together can create that bridge between the two. So that it's not either/or it's always both. And I think that's a real

76 strength. Like if we only played to one of those, I think ywam would be drastically different.

And multicultural conflict would abound more than it already does.” (Feb 6, 2021) Many gave insightful comments when addressing conflict in multicultural teams. I-3 talked about his experience, “I’ve seen some examples where let’s say, conflict in the Asian context, and then the Asians were terribly offended by the westerners.” (Feb. 13. 2021) Later on, he said that we need to ask some questions when offense takes place. “Is this a cultural thing? Or is it an individual mistake of the person?”

I-4 shared about a struggle where a collective worship leader did not want to lead worship due to the individualist in the base who would not fully participate.

“One of our key leaders got up and said, "I stopped leading worship because in (Asian country) when I ask everyone to clap or sing or dance, they do it. But all you westerners don't." Shameful. Shameful. So I just refuse to lead worship. I would say that's a pretty good prototype of the individualistic.” (Feb 23, 2021) Later on, I-4 continues about the struggle he had with individualist at his location, "If the person on the microphone says clap, you clap. No now if the person on the microphone says, hey, go sleep with the prostitutes, we're going to call that sin. Yeah, like we're not going to do that. But the individualist takes that to an extreme and goes you can't tell me to clap. I don't feel like clapping. And if I don't feel like it violates my conscience. And it's not true."

I-2 shared the importance of a mediator. "So on a multicultural team, if you don't have that person who can understand both sides or multiple sides, it's going to be really hard to resolve the conflict." (Feb 6, 2021) Later on, I-2 shares that servant leadership is "the only way that

77 cross-cultural teams can function. It's like anytime you don't have that, I don't think there's going to be much success down the road." Then he continues, “The greatest problem with multiculturalism is just the misunderstandings and the miscommunications. And so the way one culture values the individual can be offensive to another. the same way one culture functions in a team can be really frustrating for another.”

I-5 gave a different perspective, "I think the onus is on those who are not the host culture to learn and to assimilate. You can create a space for them. But if I'm going to go to Afghanistan, the onus is on me to learn certain protocols." Later on, he states, "I think it's the person who is visiting that culture who has to learn the most."

Evaluating Youth With A Mission The next set of questions focused on evaluating YWAM on the application of the values being addressed in this thesis in a multicultural setting. The questions were, “How well do you think the YWAM values of the individual, working in teams, and servant leadership work in multicultural settings? What are the hindrances?”

When asked these questions, seven of the participants focused on YWAM International while three of them focused on their local context. Those who focused on their local context did not feel qualified to evaluate YWAM as a whole.

From those participants who focused on YWAM International, five (three individualists and two collectivists) felt that YWAM is doing well, but for different reasons. C-3, who believes we are doing well puts it this way, "I think it's because we worship together, and we have a fear of God. When there's something wrong, we have the Holy Spirit convicting us, and we act on that. If it wasn't for that, we

78 would not have gone far. I tell you, I give the holy spirit the thumbs up here because I think if it wasn't for Him in our lives, YWAM would never have been where they are because we don't value those things as high as we should." (Feb. 10, 2021) I-5 addressed it this way, “I think we do really well as a mission. Better than most other organizations. Although I think the lines are a lot more defined because of salaries and employment in organizations, where people stay in their lane. It's a lot easier, but I don't know if it's genuine or not. I think if you really can achieve unity and cooperation in a YWAM setting, it's the way the body of Christ was meant to function. So I think we are doing very well. I love the way it's set up because we don't get a salary. It really does kind of even the playing field.” (Feb 4, 2021) The focus of I-4 was leadership. "I think we're incredibly intentional to try to blend all those things of valuing the individual, functioning as teams, in a cross-cultural setting." Later on, he states, "I think the senior leadership of YWAM is very intentional also. I think they're very aware of it, in my opinion."

C-5 focuses on Loren Cunningham and our gatherings, “So he always brings this international gathering. Why? to retain our diverse multicultural organization. That's why you have an area circle leadership team. You have the European circle leadership team. and when we come together. We call it YWAM Together. And we all merge from all nations from different backgrounds we come from. And that's still functioning; if we're no longer doing that, we lost our edge. That would be the baseline, I would say that you can put your parameter in looking at our effectiveness as an international

79 multicultural organization. Once one nation disassociates itself from international gathering, that's a danger. (Feb. 11,2021) I-1 felt we are doing well in some places and others we are not for the other two. "In some settings, it works really well. in other settings; it doesn't really work well. I think in the settings that work really well, it's where the leader has been able to make that adjustment with the whole collective individualistic mentality." (Feb 4, 2021) He, later on, shares the importance of learning the language, "Not saying proficient, not saying A grade, but stumbling along, demonstrating to the (Asian people) that, hey, your language is important, your culture is important." He then later shares how many Westerners could not adjust to the culture, and therefore many left.

Later on, I-1 said, "Much of the way YWAM led is very western. Even though they talk about being flat, they talk about eldership; they're still very western and how they're doing everything. And until that changes, I think there's always going to be an incredible tension there. And we've got to learn how to give voice to those that aren't western.”

He continues later on when he addresses putting collectivists into leadership, “Not parading them around and saying, look, I've just put in a Latino teacher a leader, or I've just put in an Asian leader. It's how we do it day to day. And so just changing the color isn't going to change the ethos of what is going on. Because to me, it's a heart issue.”

I -1 closes off the interview with this statement, “I know the heart of YWAM is very much to be inclusive and, to you know, change things a bit. But I think it's still very western in its flavor and the way things are done.”

80 Being an Asian, C-2 believes.

“We could be better, because the whole power distance - lower distance is still very strong.

That's why most of our leaders are westerners, just because they talk more. That doesn't mean there's content. There is the lower distance- margin that are thinkers, that are actually more heavy in their thoughts with more wisdom in the words that come out of their mouth. So YWAM can learn more to identify those. You know not because you're chatty. Not because you're a westerner. It's implied that you are always better. So there is still that stigma that I see over the last 31 years that I've been with YWAM.” (Feb.9, 2021) Afterward, C-2 addresses the intimidation, "It's not that they're trying to intimidate you, but it's just like you kind of like automatically goes to your corner because I am Asian- because I don't have a lot of financial support." Later on, he shares how both sides, individualists and collectivists, need to address the problem. It talks about how collectivists need to rise up, and individualists need to make way. "I'm hoping that we could be better at that as well so we can nurture less dominant cultures to be taking on leadership roles… As because we've always been intimidated, we have always been the lesser important in the organization. I think it has a lot of pride behind it."

C-2 who focused on YWAM in his local context. Being discouraged he said, “There's even was one base in (Asian location) now that's really struggling because they don't even staff. People left those potential foreigners left because, and this is my personal assessment, because it's really poor leadership. Not having a real understanding of what team dynamic is—not even valuing individuals—not even demonstrating servant leadership to the people.” (Feb. 10, 2021)

81 C-3, after that, addressed the importance of applying the values. "If you don't really leave out these values; you might memorize it actually, but you don't really understand." He later expresses that if we do not learn how to apply the values, there will be "difficulties in the future."

Speaking about one of the challenges of hearing more voices from collective cultures, “I think we've all recognized this over the years just so often; the financial challenge of amazing leaders, maybe with lack of resources being able to get to meetings, can hinder the voice and the influence, which plays into the functioning as teams and the multi-generation or the multicultural thing. I think there are probably amazing leaders in YWAM that are undiscovered treasures just because of the lack of resources.” (Feb. 23, 2021)

82 CHAPTER FIVE Conclusions and Implications In October 2012, I was a participant in a trilingual DTS Equip in Cambodia where the speaker that week was doing an excellent job teaching on making contingency plans for things that may go wrong in a DTS. At that time, about half of the participants were from Vietnam. He shared about how to plan if a student was injured or possibly died. Then he also shared how YWAM Montana has a contingency plan if a wildfire threatens their location. One of the prominent leaders in Vietnam asked the question, “How does this apply in our context?” The speaker honestly said he did not know. It depends on their situation.

I then raised my hand and, when called upon, stated, “When the police raid your DTS while there is lecture, do your staff and students know how to answer the questions when they are interrogated? If your speaker is a foreigner does he know what to do? If you discover that the police learned about the place where you are meeting, do you have a second meeting location?

This is how contingency plans apply in your context.” You could see the Vietnamese thoughtfully nod their heads up and down.

The speaker seemed taken back. He then asked the question, “How many of you have been arrested for your faith?” Around two-thirds of the Vietnamese raised their hands.

When we explain how to apply our YWAM values, we need to remember the context we are speaking in. Just like the speaker teaching on contingency plans in a context he did not understand, we teach about YWAM values and often try to apply them through our own cultural lenses. We can do this without thinking because our understanding is being passed through our assumptions to interpret the application. When explaining the values in a multicultural setting,

83 we must remember the context. Who are we teaching the values to? How are the words I am sharing filtered through their cultural lenses?

Throughout the interviews, people linked up the value of the individual with individualism, functioning in teams with collectivism, and power distance with servant leadership. In other words, their cultural lenses influenced how they perceived these terms. And this is also connected with honor, shame, and power distance.

Belief Tree Since the belief tree is an integral part of our teaching in YWAM, a few things need to be addressed. When teaching the belief tree concept, more emphasis needs to be placed on how our beliefs and values are connected to assumptions, which are often hidden below the surface of our lives. Usually, when someone experiences a strong emotion, assumptions are exposed. Like what Rawlins (2012) wrote, “…that your emotions are the language of your heart/values.” (p.46) We in YWAM also need to understand that the functioning of the belief tree is a lot more complex than is presented on many occasions. There is a tenancy those who hear the teaching can walk away and believe that a change in cognitive beliefs will bring a change in action.

However, the reality is that underlying assumptions and cultural influences are hard to change.

Knowledge alone will not be enough. Most people are not fully aware of the cultural lenses they view through and know what they believe or value without taking specific actions to discover them. These actions would be two fold. First studying different cultural ways along with relating with those from other cultures would help expose them to the cultural lenses they look through.

Second, when experiencing a strong emotion ask questions that would expose the underlining value. From there, it takes even longer to change them.

84 Adding these new concepts to our belief tree teaching would give a more holistic view of the teaching and better equip our staff for the challenges they are facing.

Power Distance In my interviews, all the individualists saw power distance as a problem to be solved.

They saw it being a hindrance to servant leadership and a roadblock between leader and follower.

For two of the collectivists, they saw power distance as a way to give proper honor. How do we bridge the gap? What is right or wrong? Individualists tend to polarize choices into two opposing categories due to their guilt/innocence orientation. High power distance, mainly being found in a collective culture, is seen differently due to honor and shame. Individualists should try to view it as they do.

Regarding honor, two collectivists I interviewed said it was a way to honor someone. For many collectivists, giving power distance is viewed as proper, and among Christians, Biblical as seen in scriptures that refer to honoring your parents (Eph 6:2) and government of cials (Romans 13:1-7). It also says we are to give double honor to leaders in the Church (1 Tim, 5:17).

Above all, we should honor God (Proverbs 3:9, Phil 2:9-11, 1 Pet 3:15). So I would say there is a place for power distance in honor So with that understanding, can servant leadership exist in a high power distance culture?

I noticed that four out of the ve collectivists I interviewed focused on the practical side of servant leadership and told stories about how it positively impacted a high power distance context. For example, one of the collectivist leaders interviewed shared a story of a time when he was preparing lunch for a DTS when a prominent pastor in the area came to the YWAM campus.

fi

.

fi

The Pastor was shocked to see the YWAM leader doing such a minuscule task. Nevertheless, the

85 interaction was positive and became not only memorable but also meaningful. So in collective context and understanding, it can work It is the leader who initiates servant leadership, and it is the followers who respect and honor. Therefore, there is nothing stopping leaders from practicing servant leadership in high power distance cultures.

Some of the people I interviewed believed that power distance prevents leaders from building relationships with their followers. If a leader practices servant leadership, that can break down walls in the relationship so there can be closeness—an example of relationships between parents with their children. Children can give respect and honor to their parents and still have a close relationship. Not all children in collective cultures are close to their parents, but that can also be said of children in individualistic cultures I do acknowledge that leaders can use power distance for their sel sh motives. I also recognize that individualists who lead in a collective culture may not understand the dynamics of power distance and may cause relational damage.

With this understanding, I would like to propose a new de nition for power distance to help get clarity on how it functions. My de nition is as follows: Giving a proper level of recognition to those in positions of importance and allowing them a more signi cant in uence in one’s life However, I also noticed that seven of the people interviewed did not even know the term, power distance. I propose a broader initiative to educate those in YWAM working in multicultural settings on the concept of power distance. Initially, teaching power distance in

fl

fi

fi

fi

.

fi

.

.

leadership meetings and leadership training would be helpful. Until YWAM as a whole has more

86 of an understanding of power distance, we cannot address the cross-cultural con icts that take place in our mission regarding it

Implications for Future Study and Research Here are some areas that would be beneficial for future study in applying YWAM’s values through different cultural lenses.

High and low Context One cultural lens that came up in my interviews was that of high and low context cultures. This affects how we understand and apply YWAM’s values. Many times those from low-context cultures miss the non-verbal communication from those in high-context cultures.

Many times those in low-context cultures miss the meaning of the actions from those in highcontext cultures. This directly affects how we communicate and practice the values. Future research could educate our staff and leaders, which would help with cultural misunderstanding and better collaboration.

Language and Multicultural Teamwork One other area needed for future research is the effect language has on multicultural teams. In YWAM, we aim for more cultural diversity as communicated in our YWAM value “Be international and interdenominational.” Three participants from my interviews shared that language was a challenge in working in multicultural teams. English is many times the medium of communication among multicultural teams. Westerners adjust quicker and have an advantage over non-English speakers in a multicultural setting. Also, the culture of the group becomes more

fl

.

western.

87 If English continues to be the dominant language in multicultural teams, the tendency will be that western ideas and culture will dominate. If we want more voices to rise from nonwestern countries, we need to change our approach in conducting our meetings. To help address this native English speakers could learn other languages and more of our meetings could be held in other languages.

Looking Deeper into All of YWAM’s Value Due to the limited scope of my research, I focused on three out of the eighteen Foundational Values of YWAM. We should examine the application of all of the YWAM values through different cultural lenses.

For example, how does the YWAM value “Practice dependence on God” apply to individualists and collectivists? How does God provide for us in YWAM? Traditionally everyone in YWAM is responsible for raising their personal support, which is more individualistic.

Collectives get their needs met from the collective. Currently, the wording of the value would allow collectives to trust God as a collective for their needs to get met. We can see this in the Bible when Jesus and his disciples received support as a collective. (Luke 8:3) However, there are times when problems arise. I have met YWAM leaders in collective cultures who are responsible for raising the support for everyone they lead. This becomes a massive burden for the leader but also limits their followers. If a person or group in the collective believes God is calling them somewhere else, they may be persuaded not to leave due to the fear of having no support after leaving. Also, they may not want to become leaders because they do not want to carry the burden of raising support for all of their staff.

As with the last example, we need to look deeper into YWAM values and ask how we

s

apply them in a cross-cultural setting. We already see this happening with the YWAM value,

88 “Make God Known.” We look for cultural ways to share the Gospel to t the context of the ones we are sharing Conclusion With globalization, more people worldwide are adopting different cultural practices that do not originate from their root culture. We can meet someone from a collective culture that exhibits individualistic traits. We must be careful not to generalize individuals based on their cultural background. Nevertheless, I think it is wise to become more culturally aware of different cultural lenses especially with respect to applying our foundational values.

Culture is messy and trying to apply our YWAM values in diverse cultural contexts can be daunting. But, if we take a step back, we can see the beauty.

As we move forward, let’s celebrate the beauty in cultural diversity that is so represented in our YWAM movement. And let us commit to greater cross-cultural understanding that allows

fi

.

us to better apply our values through cultural lenses.

89 Bibliography Adeney, F. S. (2007). Contextualizing universal values: a method for Christian mission. International Bulletin of Missionary Research, 31(1), 33-37.

Allen, S. D., & Miller, D. L. (2006). The Forest in the seed: A biblical perspective on resources and development. Disciple Nations Alliance.

Basáñez, M. (2016). A world of three cultures. Oxford University Press.

Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of management, 23(3), 241.

Cho, Y. J., & Greenlee, D. (1995). Avoiding pitfalls on multi-cultural mission teams. International Journal of Frontier Missions, 12(4), 179-183.

Cunningham, D., Hamilton, D. J., & Gauslin, D. (2014). The Belief Tree. Youth With A Mission. https://ywam.org/for-ywamers/the-belief-tree/.

Cunningham, D. (2020). Values matter. YWAM Publishing.

Dennis, R. S., & Bocarnea, M. (2005). Development of the servant leadership assessment instrument. Leadership & organization development journal.

Elmer, D. (2006). Cross-cultural Servanthood: Serving the World in Christlike Humility. IVP Books.

Flanders, C. (2020) Bringing Shame upon an Honored Missiological Paradigm: A Study of Conviction and Elenctics. Testing Models, Shifting Paradigms, 121.

Georges, J. (2017). The 3D gospel: ministry in guilt, shame, and fear cultures. Tim Press.

Georges, J., & Baker, M. (2016). Ministering in honor-shame cultures: biblical foundations and practical essentials. IVP Academic.

Greenlee, D., Cho, Y. J., & Thulare, A. (2002). The potential and pitfalls of multicultural mission teams. Doing member care well: perspectives and practices from around the world, 399405. https://www.globalconnections.org.uk/sites/newgc.localhost/files/papers/ Multiculural%20mission%20teams.pdf Grif n, E. A., & Grif n, E. A. (2012). In A rst look at communication theory (pp. 407–419). essay, McGraw-Hill.

ē

fi

fi

fi

Hale, J. R., & Fields, D. L. (2007). Exploring servant leadership across cultures: A study of followers in Ghana and the USA. leadership, 3(4), 397-417

90

Halverson, C. B., & Tirmizi, S. A. (Eds.). (2008). Effective multicultural teams: Theory and practice (Vol. 3). Springer Science & Business Media.

Hibbert, E., & Hibbert, R. (2014). Leading multicultural teams. William Carey Library.

Hofstede, G. H., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: software of the mind. McGraw-Hill.

Kim, J. Y. (2013). Perceptions of working relationships among multicultural team members in international mission agencies: A languacultural analysis. Trinity International University.

Lingenfelter, S. G., & Mayers, M. K. (2016). Ministering cross-culturally: a model for effective personal relationships. Baker Academic, a division of Baker Publishing Group.

Maggay, M. P. (2017). Global kingdom, global people: living faithfully in a multicultural world.

Langham Global Library.

Malina, B. J. (2002). In The New Testament world insights from cultural anthropology (pp. 21– 22). essay, Westminster John Knox Press.

Marquardt, M. J., & Horvath, L. (2001). Global teams: How top multinationals span boundaries and cultures with high-speed teamwork. Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

Mellis, J. K., & Schreck, H. C. (2016). The Church and Multiculturalism: the role of immigrant churches in Amsterdam. Glocal Conversations, 3(1), 26-42. https://gc.uofn.edu/ index.php/gc/article/view/36 Merz, J. (2020). The culture problem: How the honor/shame issue got the wrong end of the anthropological stick. Missiology, 48(2), 127-141.

Mischke, W. (2015) Honor-Status Reversal—Dominant Motif of the Biblical Grand Narrative. The Word Became Fresh, 11. https://orality.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/ V4N1-Orality-Journal.pdf#page=13 Moreau, A. S. (2014). In Effective intercultural communication a Christian perspective (pp. 154– 176). essay, Baker Academic, a division of Baker Publishing Group.

Navara, G. S., & James, S. (2002). Sojourner adjustment: does missionary status affect acculturation? International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 26(6), 695–709. https:// doi.org/10.1016/s0147-1767(02)00042-1

fl

Oetzel, J., Ting-Toomey, S., Masumoto, T., Yokochi, Y., Pan, X., Takai, J., & Wilcox, R. (2001).

Face and facework in con ict: a cross-cultural comparison of China, Germany, Japan,

91 and the United States. Communication Monographs, 68(3), 235–258. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/03637750128061 Peeters, B. (2004). Thou shalt not be a tall poppy: Describing an Australian communicative (and behavioral) norm. Intercultural Pragmatics, 1(1), 71-92.

Richards, E. R., & James, R. (2020). Misreading scripture with individualist eyes: patronage, honor, and shame in the biblical world. IVP Academic, an imprint of InterVarsity Press.

Richards, E. R., & O'Brien, B. J. (2012). Misreading scripture with western eyes: removing cultural blinders to better understand the Bible. IVP Books.

Rawlins, M. (2012). Walking naked into the land of uncertainty. Amuzement Publications.

Silzer, S. T. (2011). Biblical multicultural teams: applying biblical truth to cultural differences.

William Carey International University Press.

Song, J. (2019). Understanding face and shame: A servant-leadership and face management model. Journal of Pastoral Care & Counseling, 73(1), 19-29.

Ting-Toomey, S., & Oetzel, J. G. (2001). In Managing intercultural con ict effectively (p. 31).

Sage.

Trefry, M. G. (2006). A double-edged sword: organizational culture in multicultural organizations.

Wu, J. (2012). Saving God's face: a Chinese contextualization of salvation through honor and shame. William Carey International University Press.

Wu, J. (2014). The influence of culture on the evolution of mission methods: using church planting movements’ as a case study.”. Global Missiology.

Wu, J. (2019). In Reading Romans with Eastern eyes: honor and shame in paul's message and mission (pp. 1–25). IVP Academic.

fl

Youth With A Mission. (2021, March 21). Purpose, Beliefs, Values. https://ywam.org/about-us/ values/

92 Appendix Appendix A: Questions asked during the interviews They were broken into two parts. The first was introduction questions followed by questions directly related to this research. The introduction questions are as follows: 1-What country are you from?

2-What country do you serve in?

3-How many different countries have you lived in? What are those countries?

4-How long have you been in YWAM? 5-Which YWAM values come to your mind most often in your ministry?

After the introduction, questions were the following.

1- What is something you have enjoyed about working in a multicultural setting in your time serving in YWAM? 2- When considering "Value the individual," how does this apply to your YWAM context?

3- What are some different cultural ways you have seen this value applied?

4- What does servant leadership look like to you?

5- Can you tell me a time when you acted like a servant leader?

6- How does servant leadership look in your cultural context?

7- In your own words, what is a team?

8- What are some advantages of having a multicultural team? Can you give me an example?

9- What are some challenges of having a multicultural team? Can you give me an example?

10- Are you familiar with the concept of power distance? If so, how would you describe it?

How does power distance affect servant leadership in YWAM?

93 How does power distance affect multicultural team dynamics?

11- Honor and Shame: How do Honor and Shame affect multicultural team dynamics?

How does it affect how we value the individual in YWAM? (Ask for examples) 12- Individualistic and Collective: What are some of the team dynamics with people from both Individualistic and Collective cultures?

What kind of conflict have you seen? How was it resolved? (Ask for examples) 13- How well do you think the YWAM values of the individual, working in teams, and servant leadership work in multicultural settings? What are the hindrances?

94 Appendix B: Purpose, Beliefs This document presents YWAM’s sincerely held purpose, core beliefs, and foundational values which have been compiled in response to specific directives given by God since YWAM’s beginning in 1960. They are recorded here in order to pass on to successive generations that which God has emphasized to us.

This shared purpose and our YWAM beliefs and values are the guiding principles for both the past and future growth of our mission. Some are common to all Christians everywhere; others are distinctive to Youth With A Mission.

The combination of this purpose, beliefs and values makes up the unique family characteristics of YWAM—our “DNA.” They are the framework we hold in high regard for they help us determine who we are, how we live and how we make decisions. A YWAMer is someone who has completed a YWAM Discipleship Training School and who joyfully embraces our Statement of Purpose, Core Beliefs, Foundational Values, Legacy Words and Covenants.

Our Purpose Youth With A Mission (YWAM) is an international movement of Christians from many denominations dedicated to presenting Jesus personally to this and future generations, to mobilizing as many as possible to help in this task, and to the training and equipping of believers for their part in fulfilling the Great Commission.

As citizens of God’s kingdom, we are called to love, worship, and obey our Lord, to love and serve His body, the Church, and to love all peoples everywhere, which includes presenting the whole gospel for the whole person throughout the whole world.

95 We of Youth With A Mission believe in God–Father, Son and Holy Spirit–and that the Bible is God’s inspired and authoritative Word, revealing that Jesus Christ is God’s Son, fully God and fully human; that people are created in God’s image; that He created us to have eternal life through Jesus Christ; that although all people have sinned and come short of God’s glory, God has made salvation possible through the incarnation, life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ; that repentance, faith, love and obedience are fitting responses to God’s initiative of grace towards us through the active ministry of the Holy Spirit; that God desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth; and that the Holy Spirit’s power is demonstrated in and through us for the accomplishment of Christ’s last commandments, “Go into all the world and preach the good news to everyone” (Mark 16:15 NLT) and “Go and make disciples of all the nations…” (Matthew 28:19 NLT).

Our Beliefs Youth With A Mission (YWAM) affirms the Bible as the inspired and authoritative Word of God and the absolute reference point for every aspect of life and ministry. Based upon God’s Word, who He is, and His initiative of salvation through the atoning work of Jesus (His death, burial, and resurrection), the following responses are strongly emphasized in YWAM: Worship: We are called to praise and worship God alone (Exo 20:2-3; Deu 6:4-5; 2Ki 17:35-39; 1Ch 16:28-30; Neh 8:2-10; Mar 12:29-30; Rom 15:5-13; Jud 24-25; Rev 5:6-14; Rev 19:5-8).

Holiness: We are called to lead holy and righteous lives that exemplify the nature and character of God (Lev 19:1-2; Psa 51:7-11; Jer 18:1-11; Eze 20:10-12; Zec 13:9; Luk 1:68 75; Eph 4:21-32; Tit 2:11-14; 1Pe 2:9,21-25; 1Jo 3:1-3).

96 Witness: We are called to share the gospel of Jesus Christ with those who do not know Him (Psa 78:1-7; Isa 40:3-11; Mic 4:1-2; Hab 2:14; Luk 24:44-48; Act 2:32-26; Act 10:39-43; 1Co 9:19-23; 2Co 2:12-17; 1Pe 3:15-18).

Prayer: We are called to engage in intercessory prayer for the people and causes on God’s heart, including standing against evil in every form (Gen 18:20-33; Exo 32:1-16; Jdg 3:9,15; 1Ki 8:22-61; Eze 22:30-31; Eze 33:1-11; Mat 6:5-15; Mat 9:36-38; Eph 3:14 21; 2Th 3:1-5).

Fellowship: We are called to commit to the Church in both its local nurturing expression and its mobile multiplying expression (2Ch 29:20-30; Psa 22:25-28; Psa 122:1-4; Joe 2:15 17; Mat 18:19-20; Act 2:44-47; Act 4:32-35; 1Co 14:26-40; Eph 2:11-18; Heb 10:23-25).

Service: We are called to contribute toward God’s kingdom purposes in every sphere of life (Deu 15:7-11; Deu 24:17-22; Psa 112:4-9; Pro 11:10-11; Zec 7:8-10; Mat 5:14-16; 2Th 3:13; Tit 3:4-8; Heb 13:15-16; Jam 2:14-26).

97 Appendix C: Our Foundational Values 1. Know God YWAM is committed to know God, His nature, His character and His ways as revealed in the Bible, the inspired and authoritative Word of God. We seek to reflect who He is in every aspect of our lives and ministry. The automatic overflow of knowing and enjoying fellowship with God is a desire to share Him with others (2Ki 19:19; Job 42:5; Psa 46:10; Psa 103:7-13; Jer 9:23-24; Hos 6:3; Joh 17:3; Eph 1:16-17; Php 3:7-11; 1Jo 2:4-6).

2. Make God known YWAM is called to make God known throughout the whole world, and into every arena of society through evangelism, training and mercy ministries. We believe that salvation of souls should result in transformation of societies, thus obeying Jesus’ command to make disciples of all nations (1Ch 16:24-27; Psa 68:11; Psa 71:15-16; Psa 145:4-7; Mat 28:18-20; Mar 16:15; Act 1:8; Act 13:1-4a; Rom 10:8-15; Rom 15:18-21).

3. Hear God’s voice YWAM is committed to creating with God through listening to Him, praying His prayers and obeying His commands in matters great and small. We are dependent upon hearing His voice as individuals, together in team contexts and in larger corporate gatherings as an integral part of our process for decision making (1Sa 3:7-10; 2Ch 15:2-4; Psa 25:14; Isa 6:8; Amo 3:7; Luk 9:35; Joh 10:1-5; Joh 16:13-15; Heb 3:7-8,15; Rev 2:7,11,17,27; 3:6,13,22).

4. Practice worship and intercessory prayer YWAM is dedicated to worship God and engage in intercessory prayer as integral aspects of daily life. We also recognize the intent of Satan to destroy the work of God and we rely upon

98 God’s empowering presence, the Holy Spirit, to overcome Satan’s strategies in the lives of individuals and in the affairs of nations (1Sa 7:5; 2Ch 7:4; Psa 84:1-8; Psa 95:6-7; Psa 100:1-5; Mar 11:24-25; Act 1:14; Eph 6:13-20; 1Th 5:16-19; 1Ti 2:1-4).

5. Be visionary YWAM is called to be visionary, continually receiving, nurturing and releasing fresh vision from God. We support the pioneering of new ministries and methods, always willing to be radical in order to be relevant to every generation, people group, and sphere of society. We believe that the apostolic call of YWAM requires the integration of spiritual eldership, freedom in the Spirit and relationship, centered on the Word of God (Num 12:6; 1Sa 12:16; Pro 29:18; Eze 1:1; Hab 2:2 3; Mar 1:35-39; Luk 9:1-6; Act 16:9-10; Act 26:19; 2Pe 3:9-13).

6. Champion young people YWAM is called to champion youth. We believe God has gifted and called young people to spearhead vision and ministry. We are committed to value them, trust them, train them, support them, make space for them and release them. They are not only the Church of the future; they are the Church of today. We commit to follow where they lead, in the will of God (1Sa 17:32-50; Ecc 4:13-14; Ecc 12:1-7; Jer 1:5-10; Dan 1:17-20; Joe 2:28; Joh 6:9; Act 16:1-5; 1Ti 4:12-16; 1Jo 2:12-14).

7. Be decentralized YWAM is a Christ-centered, faith-based global volunteer movement, united by shared vision, core beliefs, foundational values and relationships. We do not have a centralized structure. Every YWAM ministry has the privilege and spiritual responsibility to develop and maintain healthy relationships with appropriate authorities and circles of elders. (Exo 18:13-26;

99 Num 1:16-19; Num 11:16-17,24-30; Deu 29:10-13; Jos 23:1-24:28; Act 14:23; Act 15:1-31; 1Co 3:4-11; Tit 1:5-9; Heb 13:7,17).

8. Be international and interdenominational YWAM is international and interdenominational in its global scope as well as its local constituency. We believe that ethnic, linguistic and denominational diversity, along with redeemed aspects of culture, are positive factors that contribute to the health and growth of the mission (Gen 12:1-4; Gen 26:2-5; Psa 57:9-10; Jer 32:27; Dan 7:13-14; Act 20:4; 1Co 12:12-31; Eph 4:1-16; Col 3:11; Rev 7:9).

9. Have a biblical Christian worldview YWAM is called to a biblical Christian worldview. We believe that the Bible—the textbook for all of life—makes a clear division between good and evil; right and wrong. The practical dimensions of life are no less spiritual than the ministry expressions. Everything done in obedience to God is spiritual. We seek to honor God with all that we do, equipping and mobilizing men and women of God to take roles of service and influence in every arena of society (Deu 8:1-3; Deu 32:45-47; 2Ki 22:8; Psa 19:7-11; Luk 8:21; Joh 8:31-32; Php 4:8-9; 2Ti 3:16 17; Heb 4:12-13; Jam 4:17).

10. Function in teams YWAM is called to function in teams in all aspects of ministry and leadership. We believe that a combination of complementary gifts, callings, perspectives, ministries and generations working together in unity at all levels of our mission provides wisdom and safety.

Seeking God’s will and making decisions in a team context allows accountability and contributes to greater relationship, motivation, responsibility and ownership of the vision (Deu 32:30-31;

100 2Ch 17:7-9; Pro 15:22; Ecc 4:9-12; Mar 6:7-13; Rom 12:3-10; 2Co 1:24; Eph 5:21; Php 2:1-2; 1Pe 4:8).

11. Exhibit servant leadership YWAM is called to servant leadership as a lifestyle, rather than a leadership hierarchy. A servant leader is one who honors the gifts and callings of those under his/her care and guards their rights and privileges. Just as Jesus served His disciples, we stress the importance of those with leadership responsibilities serving those whom they lead (Deu 10:12-13; Psa 84:10; Isa 42:1-4; Mic 6:8; Mar 10:42-45; Joh 13:3-17; Rom 16:1-2; Gal 5:13-14; Php 2:3-11; 1Pe 4:10-11).

12. Do first, then teach YWAM is committed to doing first, then teaching. We believe that firsthand experience gives authority to our words. Godly character and a call from God are more important than an individual’s gifts, abilities and expertise (Deu 4:5-8; Ezr 7:10; Psa 51:12-13; Psa 119:17-18; Pro 1:1-4; Mat 7:28-29; Act 1:1-2; Col 3:12 17; 2Ti 4:1-5; 2Pe 1:5-10).

13. Be relationship-oriented YWAM is dedicated to being relationship-oriented in our living and working together. We desire to be united through lives of holiness, mutual support, transparency, humility, and open communication, rather than a dependence on structures or rules (Lev 19:18; Psa 133:1-3; Pro 17:17; Pro 27:10; Joh 13:34-35; Joh 15:13-17; Joh 17:20-23; Rom 13:8-10; 1Jo 1:7; 1Jo 4:7-12).

14. Value the individual YWAM is called to value each individual. We believe in equal opportunity and justice for all. Created in the image of God, people of all nationalities, ages and functions have distinctive

101 contributions and callings. We are committed to honoring God-given leadership and ministry gifts in both men and women (Gen 1:27; Lev 19:13-16; Deu 16:18-20; Psa 139:13-16; Mar 8:34 37; Act 10:34-35; Gal 3:28; Eph 6:5-9; Heb 2:11-12; Jam 2:1-9).

15. Value families YWAM affirms the importance of families serving God together in missions, not just the father and/or mother. We also embrace the inclusion of single-parent families. We encourage the development of strong and healthy family units, with each member sharing the call to missions and contributing their gifts in unique and complementary ways. We uphold and celebrate the biblical view that God’s intent for holy matrimony is between one man and one woman (Gen 2:21-24; Gen 18:17 19; Deu 6:6-7; Pro 5:15-23; Pro 31:10-31; Mal 2:14-16; Mat 19:3-9; 1Co 7:1-16; 1Ti 3:2-5; Heb 13:4).

16. Practice dependence on God YWAM is called to practice a life of dependence upon God for financial provision. For individuals and for any YWAM team or community this comes primarily through His people. As God has been generous toward us, so we desire to be generous, giving ourselves, our time and talents to God with no expectation of remuneration (Gen 22:12-14; Exo 36:2-7; Num 18:25-29; Mal 3:8-12; Mat 6:25-33; Luk 19:8-9; 2Co 8:1-9:15; Php 4:10-20; Tit 3:14; 3Jo 5-8).

17. Practice hospitality YWAM affirms the ministry of hospitality as an expression of God’s character and the value of people. We believe it is important to open our hearts, homes, YWAM locations and campuses to serve and honor one another, our guests and the poor and needy, not as acts of social

102 protocol, but as expressions of generosity (Gen 18:1-8; 2Sa 9:1-11; Psa 68:5-6; Pro 22:9; Isa 58:7; Mat 25:31 46; Act 28:7-8; Rom 12:13; Heb 13:1-3; 1Pe 4:9).

18. Communicate with integrity YWAM affirms that everything exists because God communicates. Therefore, YWAM is committed to truthful, accurate, timely and relevant communication. We believe good communication is essential for strong relationships, healthy families and communities, and effective ministry (Gen 1:3-5; Num 23:19; Pro 10:19; Pro 25:9-14; Zec 8:16-17; Mat 5:33-37; Luk 4:16-22; Joh 1:1 5; Col 4:6; Jam 3:1-18).