The author owns three world maps. All three are flat, projecting the surface of the globe on a plane. The first map is the traditional kind, with Europe and Africa in the middle, the Americas to the west and Asia to the east, thus revealing how the terms "the West" and "the East" were products of a Euro-centered world view. The second map shows the Americas in the center with Africa, a tiny Europe and half of the former Soviet Union to the east, and with Australia, Asia, India and the other half of the Soviet Union to the west. According to this map, the East is now in the west! The third map, bought in Australia, is similar to the second but upside-down: the south is on the top and the north is on the bottom! Which of these maps is correct? All three, of course! The earth is round and any point on its surface is as much the center of the world as any other. However, all peoples have traditionally considered their country the center of the world, and they act accordingly (cf. Hofstede, 1997, p. xii).

Parochialism means "viewing the world solely through one’s own eyes and perspective. A person with a parochial perspective neither recognizes other people’s different ways of living and working nor appreciates that such differences have serious consequences" (Adler, 1997, p. 10). The American church suffers from parochialism. The cultural values of the United States underlie and have fundamentally framed many of our current models of church structure and leadership. This approach, while yielding valuable models and theories regardin ricans in American churches is, however, quite inadequate for a church landscape that is becoming increasingly multicultural. Moreover, little research yet exists explaining the specific ways in which American-based church organization and leadership theories must be altered to become applicable in a ministry context that is rapidly changing.

The author demonstrates in this paper the implicit parochialism of many current models and theories of organizational leadership in America, while asserting the need – both demographically and scripturally – for models that intentionally embrace the increasingly multicultural scope of Christian ministry in this country. After a discussion of the benefits and challenges of multiculturalism, the author defines culture and values, and deals with the issues of cultural convergence and assimilation. The author then presents Geert Hofstede’s (1980a) famous "4-D model" as an effective paradigm for understanding the dimensions of culture, discusses the consequences of culture for organizational leadership, and concludes with a series of recommendations for American church leaders. The purpose of the author is to encourage church leaders in America to seek a greater awareness of the perils, promises and paths of ministry to the "mixed multitude" around them, all for whom the Lord Jesus died.

According to Nancy Adler (1997), until recently, much of the published understanding of "secular" leadership and management came from the American experience.

The vast majority of management schools are in the United States, and the majority of management professors and researchers are American trained (Boyacigiller & Adler, 1991). Pfeffer (1985) has argued that just as scholars’ methodological and theoretical choices color the development of a field, so too do their ideological biases. This includes the American bias brought to the field of organizational behavior by its primarily U.S.-trained and -based founders and scholars. With the United States explicitly recognized by anthropologist Edward Hall (1976) as a low context culture, it is not surprising that U.S.-trained scholars habitually underemphasize contextual factors. Moreover, the majority of management research focuses on the United States: American researchers study American firms, American perspectives and questions most salient to American managers, rather than systematically including either non-U.S. sites or issues (Alder, 1983). Consequently, Americans have developed organizational theories and models without being sufficiently aware of non-U.S. contexts, models, research and values, thus imbuing management science with implicit, and inappropriate, universalism. For example, Hofstede (1980b, pp. 49-62) questioned the usefulness and appropriateness for cultural contexts other than the U.S., of models such as Maslow’s popular Needs Hierarchy (motivation theory), McClelland’s Need for Achievement (motivation theory), Likert’s System 4 Management Model (leadership theory), and Blake & Mouton’s Managerial Grid (leadership theory).

Although it is convenient and perhaps tempting to do so, prudence would not assume universality for current American-based theories. As Triandis (1983) observed, culture’s

Recognizing culture’s profound influence on the development of theories is difficult (Triandis, 1972). As Hall (1959) observes, if culture is invisible, one’s own culture is most invisible. Culture to an organizational researcher or leader is like water to a fish: the fish does not recognize that water even exists until it is caught and exposed to a whole new paradigm! In the same way, many American managers and leaders, who only understand organizational models and processes that are U.S.-specific first realize their limitations when they find themselves embroiled in mystifying cross-cultural inadequacies or conflicts.

Heavily influenced by secular organizational theories, many American models and theories of church organization and leadership were also "made in the U.S.A." and shaped by the political, economic, and cultural context of the United States. American church leaders and researchers have studied the behavior of Americans in American churches, and developed models and theories to explain organizational behavior in churches. Furthermore, they have interpreted biblical references to church structure and life in the light of their own cultural predispositions. As with their secular mentors, the problem was in their implicit assumption that what was true for Americans in churches in the United States, was (or, at least, should be) also true for people from other countries in American churches. Thus, researchers and leaders in American churches have been as parochial as their secular counterparts.

Much that is promoted in current American church growth and leadership models has been largely "imported" from American secular theories of management and organization, and suffers the same encumbrance of being shaped by and for the American culture (e.g., Maxwell, 1995; 1998; Warren, 1995; Barna, 1992; Joyner, 1994; McLaren, 1998; Hawkins, 1997; Dale, 1996). This approach, while yielding valuable models and theories regardin ricans in American churches is, however, quite inadequate for a church landscape that is becoming increasingly multicultural in scope and mission. Moreover, little research yet exists explaining the specific ways in which American-based church growth and leadership theories must be altered to become applicable in a ministry context that is rapidly changing. Consequently, as Ortiz (1996) laments, "at this time we, the church in the U.S., are a great disappointment in terms of manifesting the new community founded in Christ Jesus and called to worship the King of the kingdom in the ministry of reconciliation…in this world of ever increasing diversity" (p. 45).

From 1980 to 1990, the United States experienced the largest amount of immigration since the turn of the century, as well as the most racially and ethnically diverse ever. In that decade, 9.5 million documented and undocumented immigrants arrived in this country (Rhodes, 1998, p. 15). In describing this new immigrant population, Ruben Rumbaut notes that

Although Whites still maintain a clear majority – with 76 percent of the population – other racial and ethnic groups are achieving increasing numerical significance in specific parts of the country (Ortiz, 1996). The United States now has the second largest Black population (after Nigeria), and the fourth largest Spanish population of any country in the world (Appleby, 1986). "The year 2056 is the magic date cited by sociologists as the moment when the majority of the US American population will be nonEuropean, nonwhite. As it is now, Asians, Africans and Hispanics make up one-fourth of the population." (Sweet, 1994, p. 176) Consequently, in the new millennium, Anglo-Americans will be just another, albeit important, cultural group in this nation.

If the American church is going to reach this vast and diverse world at her door, her structures must change. Manuel Ortiz (1996) wrote,

As Stephen Rhodes (1998) contends, we must not pursue racial or cultural diversity simply because it is politically correct, or because it is the latest theological fad. We should do it because it is the gospel. In a day of increasing ethnic and cultural diversity in America, congregations that are multicultural, rather than homogeneous, will be in a "unique position to reach the rich diversity of God’s people who live in our communities, and also to model for our culture what it means to live in unity amid diversity" (Rhodes, 1998, p. 17). Jesus called us to "make disciples of all nations" (Matthew 28:19, New International Version), and there are many biblical injunctions for multiculturalism in churches.

According to Paul Hiebert, a multiethnic (or multicultural) church is "a church in which there is (1) an attitude and practice of accepting people of all ethnic, class and national origins as equal and fully participating members and ministers in the fellowship of the church; and (2) the manifestation of this attitude and practice by the involvement of people from different ethnic, social and national communities as members in the church" (Ortiz, 1996p. 149). God’s desire for this kind of multiculturalism is found from the beginning to the end of the Bible. As Verkuyl (1992) observes, "the God [of the Old Testament]…is the God of the whole world" (p. A-49). In Genesis chapters 1 through 11, God’s work and activity are directed at the whole of humanity. The promise of divine redemption given to Abraham in Genesis 12:3 declares, "all peoples on earth will be blessed through you" (NIV). Furthermore, as Webber (1998, p. 54) notes, many prophecies throughout the Old Testament foretold the coming time when salvation would be offered to all nations (e.g., Genesis 12:3; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14; Psalm 67; 72:17; Isaiah 2:1-5; 11:10; 60:2-3, 6; Joel 2:28; Amos 9:11-12; Habakkuk 2:14; Zechariah 8:20-22; cf. Galatians 3:8). Likewise, the New Testament affirms not only God’s intention to save people from all cultures and ethnic groups (e.g., Matthew 24:14; 28:19-20; John 4:42; Acts 11:18; Ephesians 1:10; Titus 2:11; Revelation 5:9-10; 7:9-17), but also His desire for those people to be joined together in one body (e.g., Acts 6:1-7; Galatians 3:28; Ephesians 2:12-22; 4:3-5). Thus, in Christ, the church has no real "choice" in the matter. God has called the American church to embrace those of other cultural backgrounds and to seek unity with them.

This multicultural unity, however, does not mean uniformity. As Spencer and Spencer (1998) wisely note, a multicultural unity that is biblical will be "inclusive to all people, [but] exclusive to one Supreme God" (p. 19). According to Rhodes (1998), a biblical diversity "assumes that we hold a common truth but express it in different ways. Diversity presupposes unity. We may not always agree in diversity, but we are committed to working toward the underlying unity amid our differences" (p. 28). Thus, a true multicultural unity will build upon the foundation of unity in Christ with bricks and mortar that reflect the cultural diversity of the participants. The pursuit of such a unity will mean great blessing for the church, but also new challenges.

God intends His church in America to be multicultural, and there are great potential benefits in this. Alder (1997, pp. 100-101) notes the following organizational benefits derived from multiculturalism:

1. Multiple perspectives.

2. Greater openness to new ideas.

3. Multiple interpretations.

4. Increasing creativity.

5. Greater flexibility.

6. Improved problem-solving skills.

Moreover, Ortiz (1996, pp. 76-77) notes some additional church-specific synergistic advantages of multiculturalism:

1. Enriched knowledge of the Word of God, as plural leaders minister to each other.

2. Deeper congregational repentance regarding attitudes of paternalism and racism.

3. Increased church growth, both quantitatively and qualitatively.

4. The headship of Christ is more visible as the people depend on Him more as they obey His commandment to take the gospel to all cultural groups.

5. In a society where racial strife is more evident than brotherly love, a multicultural church provides a greater testimony of the reality and power of Christ’s love to men, and often leads to evangelism and growth in the church, as well as healing in the community.

6. The biblical concept of unity in diversity is fleshed out in this biblical order of the church.

However, multiculturalism has more than just this "sunny side," and Alder (1997, p. 100) notes the following organizational costs due to multiculturalism:

1. Increased ambiguity.

2. Greater complexity.

3. More confusion.

4. Miscommunication.

5. Difficult to reach agreement regarding meanings.

6. Difficult to agree on specific actions.

As Hofstede (1997) astutely observes, "culture is more often a source of conflict than of synergy. Cultural differences are a nuisance at best and often a disaster" (p. xiii). Moreover, "diversity...is not self-managing" (Joplin & Daus, 1997). Effective leadership of any multicultural constituency requires specific skills and sensitivities (Sullivan, 1992; Thomas & Ely, 1996; McEnrue, 1993; Wheeler, 1997; Fraser, 1998). In addition, new organizational structures are called for (Hofstede, 1997): structures that specifically and intentionally embrace a multicultural constituency. Thus, effective multicultural churches will create structures and practices that, in a biblically-consistent manner, will bridge cultural differences.

To reach the people of many nations that God is sending to America, we must change our ways. American-based church structure and leadership theories must be altered to become applicable in a ministry context that is becoming increasingly multicultural. The profound consequences of culture demand such a radical transformation.

To understand the differences between monocultural and multicultural approaches to church organization and leadership, it is necessary to understand the primary ways in which the cultures of the world vary. Adler (1997) quotes one of the most comprehensive and generally accepted definitions of culture:

In an organizational context, Hofstede (1984) treats culture as "the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one human group from another" (p. 21). Therefore:

1. Culture is a collective phenomenon. It is shared by all or almost all members of some social group.

2. Culture is learned, not inherited. It derives from one’s social environment, not from one’s genes. Moreover, it is something the older members of the group intentionally try to pass on to the younger members.

3. Culture shapes behavior and structures one’s perception of the world. (cf. Alder, 1997, p. 15; Hofstede, 1997, p. 5)

As Hofstede (1997) notes, "culture should be distinguished from human nature on one side, and from an individual’s personality on the other, although exactly where the borders lie between human nature and culture, and between culture and personality, is [debated]" (p. 5).

Figure 1 depicts the three levels of uniqueness in "human mental programming."

At the core of culture are values.

According to Williams (1979),

Thus, values are core conceptions of the desirable within every individual and society. Milton Rokeach (1979, pp. 2-3) makes the following observations regarding values:

1. The number of dimensions of human values is small.

2. The dimensions of human values are the same the world over.

3. Human values are capable of different structural arrangements.

4. They are the result of societal demands and psychological needs.

5. They are learned and determined by culture, society, society’s institutions, and personal experience.

6. They are determinants in turn of attitudes, judgments, evaluations, rationalizations, choices, attributions of causality, and actions.

7. They are capable of undergoing change as a result of change in society, situation, self-conceptions, and self-awareness.

8. Changes in values represent central rather than peripheral changes, thus having important consequences for other cognitions and social behavior.

In spite of the increasing "globalization" of business, etc., there is no evidence that the cultures of present-day generations from different countries are converging. "In the sphere of values, i.e., fundamental attitudes towards life and towards other people, young Turks differ from youn ricans just as much as old Turks differed from Old Americans" (Hofstede, 1997, p. 17). Hofstede (1997) further asserts:

Of particular significance to this present study is the concept of assimilation. The situation faced by migrants who leave their own country to settle in a new one is basically the problem of learning to adapt to an unfamiliar culture. This problem can be dramatic if the new culture is very different from the one they left. They may have to learn a new language, and they will be exposed to some patterns of values and forms of behavior that are quite foreign to them. The society they enter may be organized differently, with new forms of institutions and social structures. As they begin to live and interact with others within their new environment, some of the values that they brought with them may alter as they are exposed to the influences of the new culture. According to Gordon (1964), there are seven different but interrelated subprocesses of assimilation:

1. Cultural or behavioral assimilation, or acculturation, where cultural patterns have changed toward those of the host society.

2. Structural assimilation, where large-scale entry of the migrants into institutions has occurred within the host society.

3. Marital assimilation, where extensive intermarriage has taken place.

4. Identificational assimilation, where migrants have developed a sense of peoplehood based exclusively on the host society.

5. Attitude receptional assimilation, where social relations involve an absence of prejudice toward members of the migrant group.

6. Behavioral receptional assimilation, where there is no discriminatory behavior toward members of the migrant group.

7. Civic assimilation, where conflict between migrants and the host society is absent over issues concerning values and power.

For some migrants, assimilation may go no further than acculturation (Feather, 1979), and Eisenstadt (1954) observes that "full absorption," which occurs when the migrant group populates the society’s institutions and ceases to have a separate identity, never occurs. Usually a pluralistic structure arises in which different groups coexist, with each group maintaining some degree of separate identity. In other words, culture and diversity in values never quite "go away." Consequently, Christian leaders in America must understand how cultures vary, if they are to disciple effectively the multicultural society of the new millennium.

In the first half of the twentieth century, social anthropologists developed the conviction that all societies, modern or traditional, face the same basic problems; only the answers differ. These problems and their answers represent "dimensions" of culture. Thus, a cultural dimension is an aspect of culture that can be measured relative to other cultures (Hofstede, 1997).

In 1980, Geert Hofstede published his seminal study on "Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values." Based on the analysis of about 72,000 survey answers from IBM employees from 40 countries, Hofstede proposed four dimensions along which to distinguish countries regarding the values that the majority of their people hold at work. Hofstede’s four dimensions are:

1. Power Distance. This indicates the extent to which a society accepts the fact that power in institutions and organizations is distributed unequally. Citizens of the Philippines, Mexico, Venezuela, India and Singapore ranked highest in power distance; residents of New Zealand, Denmark, Israel and Austria the lowest.

2. Uncertainty Avoidance. This indicates the extent to which a society feels threatened by uncertain and ambiguous situations and tries to avoid these situations by providing greater career stability, establishing more formal rules, not tolerating deviant ideas and behaviors, and believing in the attainment of expertise. Citizens of Greece, Portugal, Belgium and Japan reported the highest uncertainty-avoidance ratings; residents of Singapore, Denmark and Hong Kong the lowest.

3. Individualism-Collectivism. Individualism implies a loosely knit social framework in which people are supposed to take care of themselves and of their immediate families only, while collectivism is characterized by a tight social framework in which people distinguish between in-groups and out-groups; they expect their in-group (relatives, clan, organizations) to look after them, and in exchange for that, they give absolute loyalty to it. Moreover, individualistic cultures emphasize that the needs and goals of the individual and his or her immediate family are most important. The United States ranked as the most individualistic culture in Hofstede’s sample, followed by Australia, Great Britain and the Netherlands. Venezuela, Columbia, Pakistan were the most collectivistic.

4. Masculinity-Femininity. Measurements in terms of this dimension express the extent to which the dominant values in society are "masculine" – that is, assertiveness, the acquisition of money and things, and not caring for others, the quality of life, or people. Japan, Austria, Venezuela and Italy were the most masculine cultures surveyed, while Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands and Denmark were the most feminine.

Table 1 shows the scores of 10 countries along Hofstede’s dimensions of national values, and reveals the significant and complex differences between them.

A fifth dimension of culture was added on the basis of a study of the values of students in 23 countries carried out by Michael Bond (1987), a Canadian working in Hong Kong. Bond and Hofstede had cooperated in another study of students’ values which yielded the same four dimensions as the IBM data (Hofstede & Bond, 1984). However, they wondered to what extent their common findings in two studies could be the effect of a Western bias introduced by the common Western background of the researchers. Michael Bond resolved this dilemma by deliberately introducing an Eastern bias. He used a questionnaire prepared at his request by his Chinese colleagues, the Chinese Value Survey (CVS), which was translated from Chinese into different languages and answered by 50 male and 50 female students in each of 23 countries in all 5 continents. Analysis of the CVS data produced three dimensions significantly correlated with the three IBM dimensions of power distance, individualism, and masculinity. There was also a fourth dimension, but it did not resemble uncertainty avoidance. It was composed, both on the positive and on the negative side, from items that had not been included in the IBM studies but were present in the Chinese Value Survey because they were rooted in the teachings of Confucius. Hofstede labeled this dimension: Long-term versus Short-term Orientation. On the long-term side, one finds values oriented towards the future, like thrift and persistence. On the short-term side, values are rather oriented towards the past and present, such as respect for tradition and fulfilling social obligations (Hofstede, 1993). On the Long-term Orientation index, China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan and South Korea scored very high; whereas Pakistan, Nigeria, Philippines, Canada, Zimbabwe, Great Britain and the U.S.A. scored low (Hofstede, 1997, p. 166).

Hofstede’s theory of dimensions of national values forms one of the more important and popular theories of culture. A study of Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) listings found 1036 quotations from "Culture’s Consequences" in journals during the period 1980 to September 1993. In comparison, another famous typology in a different field of management – Miles and Snow’s typology of strategy – was only cited 200 times in almost the same number of years (Sondergaard, 1994).

As Hofstede (1980b) points out, "characterizing a national culture does not, of course, mean that every person in the nation has all the characteristics assigned to that culture" (p. 45). Nevertheless, a number of replications of Hofstede’s work have confirmed the validity of Hofstede’s dimensions in a variety of circumstances (e.g., Sondergaard, 1994). For example, Michael Hoppe (1990), a German-American management educator, replicated the IBM study on a population of political and institutional elites.

This kind of replication needs to be done in the context of the American church. The author has yet to find a single example of a replication of Hofstede’s work in the context of the American Christian church. In fact, several otherwise excellent texts on models of multiculturalism in the American church make no mention at all of Hofstede’s work or paradigm of culture (Breckenridge & Breckenridge, 1997; Rhodes, 1998; Ortiz, 1996)! Hofstede (1984) wrote:

If secular organizations need a better understanding of the organizational consequences of culture for the sake of increased synergy, how much more does the church!

Leaders must be aware of cultural differences to lead effectively in a multicultural environment (Daft, 1999, p. 308). A few specific examples of the organizational impact of cultural values follow (Hofstede, 1984; Adler, 1997, pp. 46-57; Hoppe, 1990, pp. 40-49; Hackman & Johnson, 1996, pp. 290-293).

1. The larger the power distance between leaders and followers, the greater the fear of disagreeing with a superior and the closer the supervision of follower activities.

2. Titles, status and formality command less importance in low power-distance cultures, and leaders and their constituents are seen as alike.

3. Coercive, authoritarian leadership is more common in high power-distance countries, whereas democratic and participative leadership is more often the norm in low power-distance countries.

4. Organizations functioning in low power-distance countries are less centralized, their organization pyramids are flatter, and they distribute rewards more equally.

1. High uncertainty-avoidance cultures give more weight to age, seniority and expertise when selecting leaders.

2. Leaders in low uncertainty-avoidance societies are more willing to take risks, to change the rules if needed, to tolerate ambiguity of structure and process, and to emphasize interpersonal relations.

3. In a low uncertainty-avoidance culture, the leaders need not have precise answers for everything, but in a high uncertainty-avoidance society, there is little respect for leaders who ask for input.

4. Organizational constituents in high uncertainty-avoidance cultures prefer clear instructions, are more willing to follow orders, disapprove of competition between constituents, and are more loyal than their low uncertainty-avoidance counterparts.

1. Followers in individualistic societies generally respond well to rewards that honor individual effort, whereas followers in collectivistic cultures do not feel comfortable with individual recognition and prefer team rewards instead.

2. Members of collectivistic societies expect mutual loyalty between organizational leaders and followers, and feel betrayed when organizations show disloyalty to their constituents.

3. Individualistic cultures expect people to look after their own interests, whereas in a collectivistic society, the people expect the organization to look after them like a family.

4. To be accepted, new ideas in collectivistic countries must come from the group as a whole rather than from any individual.

5. Decision making is identified with a single leader in individualistic societies and with the group in collectivistic societies.

1.Women in masculine cultures have a more difficult time emerging as leaders and are more likely to be segregated into a few specialized departments in organizations.

2. Decision-makers in feminine cultures put a greater emphasis on intuition and consensus.

3. Leaders and constituents in masculine cultures put a higher priority on task, whereas leaders and constituents in feminine cultures put more emphasis on the quality of relationships.

4. In a masculine society, organizational interests are a legitimate reason for interfering with people’s private lives, whereas in a feminine culture, the organization should not do so.

5. Leaders in feminine societies are more likely to demonstrate an interpersonally oriented leadership style.

6. Members of masculine cultures are more motivated by achievement, recognition and challenge.

Thus, differences in values have profound and far-reaching consequences for organizations.

Currently there is much emphasis in the American church on "reconciliation" and "repentance" regarding heart attitudes toward those of other colors and races (e.g., Dawson, 1994). This is a good first step, but it is not enough. As the author has demonstrated, cultural differences profoundly affect organizations. For the American church to fulfill our calling to reach the many peoples within our national borders, and to find true reconciliation and unity, we must go beyond merely changing our heart attitudes towards those of other cultures; we must also change our fundamental approaches to leadership and organizational structure in our churches.

Church leaders need to be aware of the profound effects of culture and develop practices that will solve potential problems and exploit potential opportunities. As Hofstede (1997) asserts,

Accordingly, the author now makes specific recommendations regarding a variety of leadership and organizational issues.

All organizational activity involves communication. Unfortunately, as Adler (1997) observes, "cross-cultural communication continually involves misunderstanding caused by misperception, misinterpretation, and misevaluation" (p. 71). To be effective in a multicultural environment, church leaders need training in cross-cultural communication skills. Ruben (1977, p. 474) suggests that these include:

1. The capacity to communicate respect.

2. The capacity to be nonjudgmental.

3. The capacity to personalize one’s knowledge and perceptions.

4. The capacity to display empathy.

5. The capacity to be flexible.

6. The capacity for turntaking.

7. Tolerance for ambiguity.

The development of these skills will require a great deal of persistence, a readiness to be introspective, and a willingness to examine and learn from failures as well as successes. As Ruben (1977) notes, "most critical is the necessary commitment to scrutinize and strive to improve one’s capacity to be genuinely receptive to the communication frameworks of the other persons" (p. 478). In developing cross-cultural communication skills, leaders must give special attention to language and humor.

Language. European countries possess a strategic advantage in intercultural contacts since many people speak several foreign languages. Moreover, whoever speaks more than one language will more easily learn additional ones. Compared to the rest of the world, Americans do not excel in this regard. One farmer from Kansas is supposed to have said, "If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it is good enough for me" (Hofstede, 1997, p. 214)! As Adler (1997) laments, "Americans speak fewer foreign languages, demonstrate less interest in foreign cultures, and are more naïve in global business situations than the majority of their trading partners" (p. 10). Our arrogant complacency regarding others’ languages and cultures puts the American church at an inherent disadvantage when it comes to our multicultural future.

Humor. Unless one knows the language, one often misses many of the subtleties of another culture, such as humor. "What is considered humorous is highly culture-specific…In intercultural encounters the experienced traveller knows that jokes and irony are taboo until one is absolutely sure of the other culture’s conception of what represents humor" (Hofstede, 1997, p. 214).

"Studying culture without experiencing culture shock is like practising to swim without water" (Hofstede, 1997, p. xviii). Consequently, leaders need experiential training in cultural issues. Initial and then periodic immersion in another culture would be highly beneficial for leaders. In a multicultural church, there will be a variety of degrees of intercultural interaction ranging from frequent and intense (key leaders) to rare and superficial (most church members). Thus, it is especially important that the top leaders in the church should be able to function in the multiplicity of cultures of which the church consists. Hofstede (1997) notes that there are three phases of intercultural communication skills: awareness, knowledge and skills (pp. 230-231). All church members should have at least some awareness and knowledge of relevant cultural issues, but the leaders must possess thorough awareness, knowledge and skills.

Furthermore, different kinds of leadership training are necessary. The more traditional kind focuses on specific knowledge of the other culture. The other type of intercultural training process focuses on awareness of and general knowledge about cultural differences. "Awareness training focuses on one’s own mental software and where it may differ from others. It is not specific to any given [culture]…the knowledge and skills taught apply in any foreign cultural environment" (Hofstede, 1997, p. 232).

A useful instrument for self-training is the culture assimilator (CA), which is "a programmed learning experience designed to expose members of one culture to some of the basic concepts, attitudes, role perceptions, customs, and values of another culture" (Fiedler, Mitchell & Triandis, 1971, p. 95). This tool consists of about 100 short case descriptions, each illustrating an intercultural encounter in which someone behaves in a particular way. After the case, four explanations are given of this behavior, one of which is the explanation shared by the majority of those inside this culture. The three others are naïve interpretations by outsiders. The student chooses one answer and then reads the corresponding comment, which explains why the answer chosen is correct or incorrect. Although these assimilators do lead to greater sensitivity in dealing with people from other cultural groups (Hofstede, 1997, p. 233), they are costly to make since different assimilators are needed for each pair of cultures (Fiedler, Mitchell & Triandis, 1971, p. 95).

Some leaders will be better in multicultural situations than others. "People with unduly inflated egos, a low personal tolerance for uncertainty, a history of emotional instability, or known racist or extreme left- or right-wing political sympathies should be considered bad risks [for multicultural leadership]" (Hofstede, 1997, p. 231). Furthermore, successful leaders in a multicultural endeavor will likely have had significant previous cross-cultural experience (M. Ortiz, personal communication, November 25, 1998).

They will also need personal flexibility and an openness to change (Daft, 1999, p. 318). In the multicultural church, cultural differences must be understood as cultural differences and not as moral issues. In multicultural contexts, "conflict arises not only from personal and cultural differences, but also from the fact that people often attribute moral force to their priorities for personal behavior and judge those who differ from them as flawed, rebellious, or immoral" (Lingenfelter and Mayers, 1986, p. 14). The leader must be able to establish an organizational environment in which people can hold to their own cultural norms and standards, without being judged and rejected by others in the local body of Christ.

More research is needed in this area to determine if there are consistent characteristics of leaders who will succeed in multicultural environments.

All parties in the church must recognize and accept that they bring their own cultural values to the organization, and the structure of the church must somehow reflect these differences if the church is to become successfully multicultural. As Hofstede (1989) asserts, "structure should follow culture" (p. 390). Thus, a multicultural church will, of necessity, be a multi-structural church. This patchwork structure may lack beauty, but it will follow the needs of the variety of cultures in the church. Too often, leaders desire uniform principles in structuring their entire organization. These simple structures may satisfy the leaders’ needs for simple solutions and clear procedures, but they are bound to violate the cultural assumptions or needs of some of the constituents sooner or later. Thus to embrace multiculturalism is to embrace a significant complexity and difficulty of structure.

For the American church to thrive in a multicultural world, Christians must understand first their own cultural values and then the cultural values of the people they are trying to reach. Parents have a great influence in creating or preventing multicultural understanding in their children, since cultural values are mainly acquired during the first 10 years of a child’s life, through observation and imitation of adults and older children (Hofstede, 1997, p. 238). Consequently, the way parents talk about and behave towards people from other cultures determines the degree to which the child’s mind will be opened or closed for cross-cultural understanding. Furthermore, children’s ministries in churches should develop systematic multicultural awareness and knowledge activities for the same reason. For tomorrow’s church to be successfully multicultural, today’s children must be thoroughly and happily exposed to other cultures.

"Culture shocks are environment specific. For every new cultural environment there is a new shock." (Hofstede, 1997, p. 211). Thus a new structure and new understanding must accompany every new initiative to incorporate a different nationality in a church. There will never be a time when a church has "arrived." To embrace the divine call to true multiculturalism is to embrace the call to continued development of the church’s leadership, structure and people.

The American church has been parochial for long enough. We cannot continue to expect people from other national backgrounds to happily embrace the structures and models that we developed to suit ourselves. They will not do this, and, for the most part, they have not done this. Jesus called us to serve (Matthew 20:26-28), and with a servant spirit to reach people from all nations (Matthew 28:19-20). The increasing cultural diversity of America is the church’s opportunity to reveal to the world the power and reality of the love of our God. In a multicultural context, we must change our ways and intentionally seek the cultural knowledge and skills necessary to build communities of faith that reflect the Kingdom of God in eternity – a kingdom composed of "every tribe and language and people and nation" (Revelation 5:9-10, NIV; 7:9-17).

In Jesus’ death, God broke down the walls between the cultures (Ephesians 2:14). Multiculturalism is difficult and demanding, but God will help us succeed. Unity was His idea!

Adler, N. J. (1983). Cross-cultural management research: The ostrich and the trend. Academy of Management Review, 8 (2), 226-232.

Adler, N. J. (1997). International dimensions of organizational behavior (3rd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing.

Appleby, J. L. (1986). Missions have come home to America: The church’s cross-cultural ministry to ethnics. Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill.

Barna, G. (1992). The power of vision: How you can capture and apply God’s vision for your ministry. Ventura, CA: Regal Books.

Bond, M. (1987). Chinese values and the search for culture-free dimensions of culture: the Chinese culture connection. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18, 143-164.

Boyacigiller, N A. & Adler, N. J. (1991). The parochial dinosaur: Organizational science in a global context. Academy of Management Review, 16 (2), 262-290.

Breckenridge, J. & Breckenridge, L. (1997). What color is your God? Multicultural education in the church. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Co.

Cox, T. Jr. (1994). Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory, research & practice. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Daft, R. L. (1999). Leadership: Theory and practice. Orlando, FL: The Dryden Press.

Dale, R. D. (1996). Leading edge: Leadership strategies from the New Testament. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.

Dawson, J. (1994). Healin rica’s wounds. Ventura, CA: Regal Books.

Eisenstadt, S. N. (1954). The absorption of immigrants. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Feather, N. T. (1979). Assimilation of Values in Migrant Groups. In M. Rokeach (Ed.). Understanding human values: Individual and societal (pp. 97-128). New York: The Free Press.

Fiedler, F. E., Mitchell, T., & Triandis, H. C. (1971). The culture assimilator: An approach to cross-cultural training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55 (2), 95-102.

Fraser, G. (1998, February 1). The slight edge: Valuing and managing diversity. Vital Speeches of the Day, 64 (8), 235-240.

Gordon, M. M. (1964). Assimilation in American life. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hackman, M. Z. & Johnson, C. E. (1996). Leadership: A communication perspective (2nd ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.

Hall, E. T. (1959). The silent language. New York: Doubleday.

Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press.

Hawkings, T. R. (1997). The learning congregation: A new vision of leadership. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Hofstede, G. (1980a). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Hofstede, G. (1980b, Summer). Motivation, leadership, and organization: Do American theories apply abroad? Organizational Dynamics, 42-63.

Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values (abridged ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Hofstede, G. (1989). Organising for cultural diversity. European Management Journal, 7 (4), 390-397.

Hofstede, G. (1993, February). Cultural constraints in management theories.
The Academy of Management Executive, 7 (1), 81-95.

Hofstede, G. (1997). Culture and organizations: Software of the mind. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hofstede, G. & Bond, M. H. (1984, December). Hofstede’s culture dimensions: An independent validation using Rokeach’s value survey. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 15 (4), 417-433.

Hoppe, M. H. (1990). A comparative study of country elites: International differences in work-related values and learning and their implications for management training and development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Joplin, J. R. W., & Daus, C. S., (1997, August). Challenges of leading a diverse workforce. The Academy of Management Executive, 11 (3), 32-47.

Joyner, R. (1994). Leadership, management and the five essentials of success. Charlotte, NC: Morningstar Publications.

Lingenfelter, S. G. & Mayers, M. K. (1986). Ministering cross-culturally: An incarnational model for personal relationships. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.

Maxwell, J. C. (1995). Developing the leaders around you: How to help others reach their full potential. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

Maxwell, J. C. (1998). The 21 irrefutable laws of leadership. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

McEnrue, M. P. (1993, Winter). Managing diversity: Los Angeles before and after the riots. Organizational Dynamics, 21 (3), 18-24.

McLaren, B. D. (1998). Reinventing your church. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.

Ortiz, M. (1993). The Hispanic challenge: Opportunties confronting the church. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Ortiz, M. (1996). One new people: Models for developing a multiethnic church. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Pfeffer, J. (1985). Organizations and Organization Theory. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.). Handbook of social psychology (3rd ed.). Vol. 1, pp. 379-440.Westminster, MD: Random House.

Rhodes, S. A. (1998). Where the nations meet: The church in a multicultural world. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Rokeach, M. (Ed.). (1979). Understanding human values: Individual and societal. New York: The Free Press.

Ruben, B. D. (1977, December). Guidelines for cross-cultural communication effectiveness. Group & Organization Studies, 2 (4), 470-479.

Rumbaut, R. G. (1996). The Crucible Within: Ethnic Identity, Self-Esteem and Segmented Assimilation Among Children of Immigrants. In A. Portes (Ed.), The new second generation (pp. 119-170). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Sondergaard, M. (1994, Summer). Hofstede’s consequences: A study of reviews, citations and references. Organization Studies, 15 (3) , 447-456.

Spencer, A. B. & Spencer, W. D. (Eds.). (1998). The global God: Multicultural evangelical views of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Co.

Sullivan, P. (1992, September). Six traits of global managers. Executive Excellence, 9 (9), 8-10.

Sweet, L. (1994). FaithQuakes. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.

Thomas, D. A. & Ely, R. J. (1996, September/October). Making differences matter: A new paradigm for managing diversity. Harvard Business Review, 74 (5), 79-85.

Triandis, H. C. (1972). The analysis of subjective culture. New York: Wiley.

Triandis, H.C. (1983). Dimensions of cultural variations as parameters of organizational theories. International Studies of Management and Organization, 12 (4), 139-169.

Verkuyl, J. (1992). The Biblical Foundation For the Worldwide Missionary Mandate. In R. D. Winter & S. C. Hawthorne (Eds.), Perspectives on the world Christian movement: A reader (Rev. Ed.) (pp. A-49 – A-63). Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library.

Warren, R. (1995). The purpose driven church: Growth without compromising your message and mission. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.

Webber, M. (1998). An introduction to the older testament. Goshen, IN: Pioneer Books.

Wheeler, R. D. (1997, November/December). Managing workforce diversity. Tax Executive, 49 (6), 493-495.

Williams, R. M. Jr. (1979). Change and Stability in Values and Value Systems: A Sociological Perspective. In M. Rokeach (Ed.). Understanding human values: Individual and societal (pp. 15-46). New York: The Free Press.