Cultural Psychology and Christian Divers: Developing Cultural Competence for a Diverse Christian Community

CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY & CHRISTIAN DIVERSITY

CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY & CHRISTIAN DIVERSITY

DEVELOPING CULTURAL COMPETENCE FOR A DIVERSE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY

KATHRYN ECKLUND, PhD

CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY AND CHRISTIAN DIVERSITY

Developing Cultural Competence for a Diverse Christian Community

Copyright © 2016 by Kathryn Ecklund

ISBN 978-0-89112-457-3 | LCCN 2016016301

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise—without prior written consent.

All Scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. Copyright ©1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved worldwide.

Scripture quotations marked (RSV) are from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright © 1946, 1952, and 1971 the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked (ESV) are from the ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked (NLT) are taken from the Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright © 1996, 2004, 2007 by Tyndale House Foundation. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Carol Stream, Illinois 60188. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked (NRSV) are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright 1989, Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA

Names: Ecklund, Kathryn, 1968- author.

Title: Cultural psychology and Christian diversity : developing cultural competence for a diverse Christian community / Kathryn Ecklund.

Description: Abilene, Texas : Abilene Christian University Press, 2016. | Includes bibliographical references and index.

Identifiers: LCCN 2016016301 | ISBN 9780891124573 (hardcover : alk. paper)

Subjects: LCSH: Cultural pluralism—Religious aspects—Christianity. | Cultural pluralism—United States. | Christianity and culture—United States. | College students—Religious life. | College students—United States. | Ethnopsychology.

Classification: LCC BR517 .E25 2016 | DDC 277.3/08308—dc23

LC record available at https://​lccn.loc.gov/​2016016301

Cover design by Thinkpen Design, LLC

For information contact:

Abilene Christian University Press

ACU Box 29138

Abilene, Texas 79699

1-877-816-4455

www.acupressbooks.com

To my sons,

Kaden and Brady,

and to my husband and best friend,

Carl:

Thank you for your support and patience.

Your energy and laughter bring me joy.

To my parents:

Thank you for giving me a heritage of faith and for teaching me to be diligent and persistent in all that I am called to do.

Contents

Foreword

Elizabeth Conde-Frazier, PhD

Acknowledgments

Introduction: Multiculturalism, the Christian Church, and Christian Colleges

Part 1: Multicultural Psychology Theory and Concepts

Chapter 1: Introduction to Multicultural Psychology

Chapter 2: Multicultural Psychology Concepts

Chapter 3: Cultural Transmission

Chapter 4: Diversity Dynamics in Multicultural Contexts

Part 2: Multiculturalism: Christianity and Christian Culture

Chapter 5: Biblical Perspectives on Diversity

Kay Higuera Smith, PhD

Chapter 6: Church Segregation and Integration

Kirsten Sonkyo Oh, PhD

Chapter 7: Multiculturalism and Christian College Campuses

Sarah Visser, PhD

Part 3: The Intersection of Cultural and Christian Identities

Chapter 8: Cultural Identity Development

Chapter 9: Intersectionality and Christian Identity

Chapter 10: Interpersonal Dynamics Among Christian College Students

Part 4: Multicultural Competence Development

Chapter 11: Multicultural Competence

Chapter 12: Multicultural Competence Development: Individual Factors

Chapter 13: Multicultural Competence Development: Interpersonal Factors

Chapter 14: Multicultural Competence Development: Mentoring Relationships

Chapter 15: Multicultural Competence Development: Organizational Factors

Glossary

References

Index

About the Author

FOREWORD

Elizabeth Conde-Frazier, PhD

Dean of Esperanza College

Eastern University

How does one write a foreword to a very comprehensive book on cultural competence? With much humility, self-reflection, and a passion of commitment. Also, with brevity.

We have this treasure in earthen vessels . . .

Colonialism and its need to dominate others in their own land in order to take over the land and the self-determination of the peoples gave rise to the social construction of race. Peruvian sociologist Anibal Quijano posits that racism was the organizer of colonialism in the Americas (Quijano, 2000, p. 220). It was a construction that used biblical interpretation and theological tenets to create a strong argument to rationalize the political dominance of the colonial powers. It conquers by creating an opposing worldview to the existing one, creating confusion and disruption to the way of life of the people. Religion provides the ultimate roots of a group’s identity. Theologian Virgilio Elizondo reminds us that [it is] the ultimate justification of the worldview of a group and the force that cements all the elements of the life of a group. . . . When such symbols are discredited or destroyed . . . the worldview moves from order to chaos. . . . (Elizondo, 1992, p. 107). This is the ultimate conquest of the dominant group. How do we reconcile the fact that the gospel comes to us through military conquest when it is a message of light, love, and liberation and that the symbols and sacred text of Christianity were used to bring peoples into submission to powers that raped, robbed, and killed? How do we come to terms with the prejudices, discrimination, and structural racism of White supremacy that live on even within the structures of the church, including Christian higher education?

Ethicist Katie Cannon uses the example of the transatlantic slave trade to show how racialized normativity became a theological idea. The concept that Europeans were ordained by God as natural masters, superior and therefore deserving of freedom and destined to subordinate those who were inferior (Africans), who were natural slaves, was theologically constructed and biblically based. White supremacy is the Trojan horse within organized Christianity, undermining and subverting the liberating news of the gospel (Cannon, 2008, p. 131).

Slaves in Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean were defined as an inferior species created to serve Europeans. They were seen as a species that had mental and spiritual deficiencies that required them to live under Christian tutelage as a way of correcting their deficiencies. The slave trade and encomiendas therefore were legitimate within the parameters of human and divine laws.¹ Slaves were mandated by God to serve masters. Their freedom was only from personal sin. The Bible gave evidence of this reality and gave Europeans control over every aspect of the lives of slaves and of peoples in their own lands. The physical traits that marked the differences of these persons (pigmentation, lips, hair, etc.) were the biological evidence of their inferiority. These traits were then used as ways of categorizing and targeting persons for discrimination even today.

Christianity and its missiological endeavors therefore have been deeply criticized in the 20th century for being the religious arm of the European colonial powers and later of the United States. However, this was not as clean-cut as one may think, for oftentimes the missionaries were the defenders of the rights of the peoples they served.

This convoluted legacy of the gospel of understanding and self-understanding and of power over and subjugation because of racial difference has been embedded in the religion and culture and therefore shapes the ways we relate to one another, read Scriptures, and construct the structures of our society. It has built the epistemologies, worldviews, laws, and educational institutions of our times. There isn’t a perspective or institution that has not been marked by this legacy. The very lens with which we read Scriptures has been colored by it.

How do we unravel such a maleficent intersection of untruths? What is necessary to redeem it and to bring reconciliation between those who have been made to see themselves and each other as superior and subjected selves? How do we come to see ourselves with sober judgment (Rom. 12:3)? How do we reimage and reconstruct the Christian understandings; how do we reread Scriptures through a lens that is not of racism, discrimination, and dominance?

As the global economy creates the environment for massive immigration of peoples and human trafficking, we find ourselves more than at any other time needing to relate to persons different from ourselves for the doing of justice, for negotiate meanings, and for being the people of God differently. We need intercultural skills to build a society that will manage the challenges and promises of such a time as this. Is the Bible a trusted narrative that holds a promise and the elements necessary for forging such a vision? Can Christian colleges today prepare Christian citizens equipped for such a task?

The concept of race is a strong ideology that, although it does not exist biologically speaking, has become the reality of White supremacy that does not leave us. An ideology comprises the most widely shared beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors that are incorporated in social practices and institutional life. An ideology can compete with others and can also be flexible and adaptable to the changing historical conditions and oppositional struggles. An ideology can make concessions to oppositional groups. White supremacy has morphed into many forms in our history and has camouflaged itself in the notions of meritocracy and even as hegemonic understandings of doctrine.

To transform an ideology and hence its power, one needs to generate a new consciousness with the purpose of developing critical movements or mobilization that requires group action and practices for engaging one’s energy in ways that reinforce a different ideology and that have the goal of creating change of an unjust system.

Generating a new consciousness involves coming to an awareness of one’s cultural blinders and ideological filters through which we interpret the world. Ecklund does precisely that as each chapter delves into the definitions and understandings of structural power and the many forms it takes, beginning with how it takes form in our psyche. It makes us aware of how this insidious ideology of power over has usurped the message of the gospel and taken form in our daily lives. Because the forms this takes are enmeshed in so many aspects of our lives, the discussions that show the intersectionality of psychology, biblical interpretation, and theology unmask this ideology and open up to us the brighter message of Christ’s love. Creating a new consciousness involves creating experiences of enough depth, duration, and intensity that the prevailing interpretations can be transformed. In this book, the overlapping and repeating themes in different chapters help us see once more, within a different disciplinary perspective, the forms that prejudices take as a part of our personal, cultural, and Christian identities. The chapters on the challenges and resources for coming to intercultural competencies and relationships guide us through the ways for us to transform such a consciousness and exercise its evils. We are given the tools for beginning a journey of new becoming. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come (2 Cor. 5:17 ESV).

Kay Higuera Smith’s chapter on the Bible is not the usual chapter that offers a biblical undergirding of the theoretical content. It is much more substantive, for it gives us a deeper, critical understanding of the different groups of power featured in the biblical account and how these groups created their identities as a people based on creating out-groups or of bringing forth the redemptive theme of God’s love. It identifies for us narratives of engagement or distantiation constructed by those in power to reinforce their self-interests. The author makes us aware of how redemption takes place through the weak and the powerless who subvert the norms of the powerful. The chapter shows us how we can become lost in narratives and practices of violence when we read the Scriptures through the lens of the powerful and, in contrast, guides us through the narratives of the weak and powerless pointing to the redemptive acts of God that mark the living of God’s people. This intentionally forges a different mindset that then redefines our behaviors for becoming the people of God.

The praxis for this living are intercultural skills that reconstruct our personal, cultural, Christian, and institutional identities and practices. They demand the discipline of humility. The other side of humility is grace. As we engage in this lifelong learning for living into multicultural becoming, the challenges of it invite us to live more gracefully with one another.

Ecklund is clear from the beginning: this is not about a bunch of psychological jargon and theoretical frameworks. Forging a new identity or, as I would say, a new consciousness is about transforming a social, political, and historic dynamic that has created power dynamics that have kept in place economic disparities resulting in unrighteous, unjust power structures. To unravel this is to take steps toward increasing the possibility for fostering power that promotes God’s purposes for sufficiency, solidarity, and emancipation.

Sufficiency is the meeting of basic human needs. This is equated with faithfulness to God in the Matthew 25:31–46 passage. Sufficiency is actions and practices that permit or foster the human dignity of others. In this Matthew passage, dignity becomes the norm by which the adequacy of all forms of human behavior is to be judged. Education is key to promoting dignity and justice. From its inception, Christian higher education was a means of empowering the weak. Over the years, it has become a place for the privileged. Ecklund shows us the proof of this and challenges us to redeem the structures of Christian higher education, particularly among the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities (CCCU) schools.

The last part of the book discusses strategies for building cultural competence as individuals and organizations within Christian community. These are presented as domains of growth. Challenges, methods, and resources are offered for personal, interpersonal, and institutional change.

Ecklund and her guest authors have produced a book with all of the definitions necessary to make one proficient in the field. It is a book for learning—whether it be in a faculty development setting, theological education, or undergraduate psychology. It includes inserts for reflection, thus modeling the type of learning necessary and facilitating the spiritual disciplines to accompany this journey of becoming. The stories that accompany the theoretical ground it in real life.

Come let us reason together says the Lord . . .

I come to this reading as a dialogue partner. Dialogue means that we are in the process of a discussion that has not yet been resolved but that we are committed to remaining in each other’s presence toward coming to greater justice. Micah 6:8 invites us to such justice as a part of walking with God. 1 John 4:20 reminds us that in this walk, we are to love one another as a way of coming to know God. In a dialogue we assent and dissent as we seek critical thinking, understanding, and praxis. This reading invites us to a robust dialogue no matter what side of the argument we are coming from or the experiences of racism, discrimination, and prejudice that have formed us. The text brings us to the table in new ways.

The inserts with exercises for reflection invite me to practice the spiritual discipline of self-reflection with the Holy Spirit as a part of the dialogue. It also makes it possible for me to bring others to the table to reflect with me. This is necessary for us to be changed as we are reading. Community is necessary as part of sustaining growth toward a new identity in our lives. When we read as a part of our study, our perspectives are transformed, but we cannot sustain this or integrate it into all of the levels at which we live without one another to affirm and bring us to accountability and greater depth.

Christian spirituality is attentiveness to the Holy Spirit and participation in her initiatives. The kingdom of God is a communal initiative of the Spirit. It emphasizes the corporate nature of our lives of faith. Covenant, the knitting together of those lives, is needed for forming and equipping a community whose character makes visible the gospel. If we are to learn for continued change, we need communities of support and accountability where we reread the Scriptures with an eye for a new identity, and, as a result, a change takes place in the socioeconomic and political dynamics where we seek to live the gospel through our actions in our local communities as we seek to transform injustice and alienation. Only the incorporation of our commitment into concrete action will sustain transformational learning.

I am in the Father and the Father is in me . . . . As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. (John 14:10; John 15:9)

In his last discourse to the disciples, Jesus alludes to the community of all things. The very nature of God is community, for God is in community with Godself (the trinity), and this is the purpose for all creation. Latina theologian Loida Martell-Otero reminds us: There was to be a space and a place for all living creatures to thrive fully and in relation to each other. This grace-full relationality in diversity was described as ‘the image of God’ (Martell-Otero et al., 2013, p. 113). The Greek word for this intimate joining was perichoresis. Ecklund and company invite us to the understandings and practices of perichoretic intimacy with the triune God, one another, and all creation. It is a becoming and abiding journey. Read and share prayerfully, making it a part of a teaching and learning dialogue for social change in your context.

¹ The Spanish crown would grant to soldiers an estate of land that included the inhabiting American Indians. This system was instituted in 1503. The inhabitants were said to be under the protection of the Spanish crown paying for this protection with their servitude. It was also necessary to evangelize them.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

In reflecting on the process of deciding to write this book and then undertaking the process to do so, there are many people whom I would like to acknowledge. I have been a student of multicultural psychology since the days of my dissertation in the early 1990s. I have had the honor of teaching undergraduate, graduate, and postgraduate students in this field of study for more than 20 years. In all of my interactions with students, colleagues, and mentors, I have learned as much—if not more—from them as they possibly could have learned from me. Therefore, I would like to thank each of the undergraduate and graduate students with whom I have had the honor of sharing brief moments of our respective multicultural journeys. I would like to thank Michelle, the first to suggest this book be written. I would especially like to thank the diverse, first-generation students who have shared with me their stories and allowed me to celebrate with them their joys and to grieve with them their pains and losses. I would also like to thank my research students: Quanesha Moore, Destarte Owens, Jacqueline Blanca, Kellie Fujimoto, Christina Zavalza, Julia McJunkin, Gabriel Lee, Mary de Guzma Llagan, and Thalia Diaz. Your interest in and commitment to this project are reflected in these pages.

As a clinical psychologist, I would like to acknowledge the many patients whose lives I have had the honor of being a part of, even for a brief time. I have learned much from these diverse individuals and their families, who have modeled courage, perseverance, and resilience as they have faced many of life’s difficult challenges. From them I have come to understand the importance of cultural humility and cultural empathy.

I also wish to acknowledge the many colleagues who, over the years, have walked the journey of multiculturalism and shared with me a passion for diversity and social justice: Dr. Katherine Abdollahi, Dr. Meg Sandow, Dr. Eric Trevizu, Dr. Charles Odipo, Dr. Lynn Thull, Ms. Sonia Rahel-Ahmadazai, Dr. Tina Sanchez, Dr. Susan Simpkin, Dr. Lesley Deprey, Dr. Rose Borunda, Mr. Ed Barron, Mr. Aaron Hinojosa, and Mr. Richard Martinez. I wish to thank my phenomenal and diverse colleagues in the Department of Psychology at Azusa Pacific University whose diversity across multiple dimensions of identity has created a welcoming, unified, and Christ-centered community that is a model of the value, fun, and enriching nature of Christian diversity in the academy. I especially wish to thank my colleagues and special contributors, Dr. Sarah Vissar, Dr. Kirsten Oh, and Dr. Kay Smith.

When considering my personal identity development journey as a first-generation college student, a female, and a Christian, there have been key mentors who have helped shape the direction of my life and my identity. I would like to acknowledge my father, whose choice of diverse faith communities during my childhood laid the psychological bases of my multicultural worldview and whose supportive gender-nonconforming parenting in independent thinking, athletics, paper routes, and later, service industry employment were foundational in forming my gender identity. I would like to acknowledge early spiritual mentors such as Pastor Donald Leach and Mr. Dick Brink, who lived and breathed Christ’s love and commitment to caring for others, regardless of shared or diverse identity. I would like to acknowledge Mr. Bud Bowman for his concrete direction and support in introducing me to higher education and encouraging me to begin my college education journey. I would like to acknowledge Dr. James Guy for his mentoring toward graduate education. As a first-generation student, without the direct support from these two mentors, higher education would not have exerted an influence in my life.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge my family. I would like to thank my parents, who taught me more about hard work than any college-educated person has. I would like to thank my sisters, Darcy and Renee, for their honesty and love and my brother, Richard, for embodying community and multicultural Christian living. I would like to thank my grandma Eva, who is full in her joy with Christ. Her wisdom in life and her love for Christ set a standard for the family that we continue to strive toward. From my husband, Carl, I have learned to invest passion in my convictions, to stand for what I believe, and to not be afraid of disagreement. Throughout the process of undertaking this project, Carl has been my biggest advocate and support. For more than 25 years, he has inspired me to strive to do my best. Thank you for being willing to be a single father for days and weeks at a time and encouraging me when I became discouraged. Finally, and most important, I wish to thank my children. They inspire me to continuously strive to affect the Christian and local community in such a way that multiculturalism, diversity, and Christian unity may progress and become a greater part of their reality than it was for those who have gone before us.

INTRODUCTION

Multiculturalism, the Christian Church, and Christian Colleges

The United States has a distinct history and culture. The history, characterized by the prominent forces of immigration, acculturation, oppression, capitalism, and democracy, has resulted in complex cultural dynamics. Within the aforementioned dynamics, individuals develop their individual, family, cultural, and community identities. During this developmental process, individuals relate to others with similar experiences and worldviews. Most people in the United States also have the opportunity to be in relationships with people whose cultural heritages, demographics, or diverse experiences are different from their own. The United States has become a widely diverse country, and demographic diversity is now a reality in most U.S. regions. One would be hard-pressed to find a U.S. resident who does not interact with people of at least one divergent cultural affiliation or context on a regular basis.

For example, consider racial diversity in the United States. The national census indicates that racial diversity has increased across the United States. At the national level, in 2010, 63.70% of the U.S. population identified as White/Non-Hispanic; 13.30% identified as Hispanic/Latino; 12.60% identified as African American/Black; 4.80% identified as Asian American; and 7.30% identified as American Indian, Native Hawaiian, Alaska Native, Pacific Islander, or some other race (Humes, Jones, & Ramirez, 2011).

Additionally, racial diversity increases are reflected in the biracial and multiracial population in the United States. Multiracial individuals (individuals born from parents whose racial identity differs from each other) constituted 2.9% of the U.S. population in 2010. Biracial individuals whose racial identities include both White and non-White heritage make up 75% of the multiracial population, with 1.8 million biracial African American/White individuals, 1.6 million Asian/White individuals, 1.4 million White/American Indian or Alaska native individuals, and 1.7 million White/other race individuals. Among native Alaska and American Indians, 43% report being of biracial heritage, as do 15% of Asian Americans and 56% of native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islanders. Clearly, the United States is racially diverse (Humes et al., 2011).

Figure 1

U.S. population distribution by ethnoracial identification (2010).

Geographically, there is some variance in racial diversity across the United States. When divided into four census regions, the U.S. racial minority (defined as all persons except White/non-Hispanic) population ranged from 22% in the Midwest region to 47% in the Western region. Analysis by states indicates that Hawaii has the largest percentage of minority population (77.3%), followed by California (59.9%), New York and New Mexico (both 59.5%), Texas (54.7%), Nevada (45.9%), Maryland (45.3%), Georgia (44.1%), Arizona (42.2%), Florida (42.1%), Mississippi (42%), New Jersey (40.7%), Louisiana (39.7%), and Illinois (36.3%). States with the lowest percentage of minority representation include West Virginia (6.8%), Vermont (5.7%), New Hampshire (7.7%), and Maine (5.6%) (Humes et al., 2011). Although cultural diversity extends beyond racial classifications highlighted here (e.g., ethnic, cultural, religious, and other demographic diversities), when comparing the 2010 census data to the 2000 data, Humes et al. (2011) noted, Overall, the U.S. population has become more racially and ethnically diverse over time (p. 22).

Cultural Diversity

Cultures are generally formed when a group of people share common values, beliefs, and patterns of behavior that establish expected norms for community life. In the history of cultural psychology, distinct concepts of culture, ethnicity, race, and class have overlapped and at times been used synonymously, leading to confusion and dissention within the profession (Trimble, J., personal communication, April 6, 2012). The American Psychological Association (APA) has identified cultural groups as communities that identify as a collective group and share in common specific articulated cultural variables. Cultural groups can include groups of individuals that share in common any of the following identities: race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual identity, ability, socioeconomic status, age cohort, immigration/acculturation/generation status, country/region, and/or community affiliation.

For the purpose of this book, the term cultural group is used when referring to diverse groups in general, and the terms ethnoracial group, ethnocultural group, and ethnoreligious group are used when focused specifically on a particular race, culture, or religious group. In other words, the term ethnocultural group is used to refer specifically to cultural groups that share in common an ethnic history. Ethnoracial group is used to refer to groups that primarily share a common racial history, and ethnoreligious group or religiocultural group is used to refer to groups that share in common a culture that is primarily based on a shared religion.

Intersections of cultural identity, to be defined and discussed in Chapter 9, refers to the interaction of more than one cultural identity in an individual or among individuals in social contexts. When multiple cultural identities intersect, they do so in a metacontext characterized by dynamics of hierarchy, power, and oppression (McCall, 2005; Chapter 4). Individuals possess multiple cultural identities, each of which coexists within the self in a hierarchical value-based manner (Chapter 9). Individuals in interpersonal interactions bring their multiple cultural identities into interactions with others who also possess multiple cultural identities that are also hierarchically valued (Ecklund, 2012; Chapter 10). Because these multiple cultural dynamics are present in human relationships, cultural diversity and multiculturalism are inextricable with the study of psychology.

Diversity in the Christian Community

According to the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life (2008), 78.4% of the U.S. population identifies as Christian. When the Christian population is classified by ethnoracial categories, it becomes clear that the Christian community is a diverse group. Overall, the diversity of the Christian population parallels that of the general U.S. population, with the exception of a slight overrepresentation of White/non-Hispanic persons and an underrepresentation of Asian Americans (Pew, 2008). Unfortunately, this diversity is not represented in the local Christian church, and denominational clustering based on ethnic/racial identification is present (Pew, 2008). Since the time of Martin Luther King Jr., the Christian church continues to accurately reflect Dr. King’s words that the 11 o’clock hour on Sunday morning when we stand to sing, we stand in the most segregated hour in America (Williams, 2011, p. 22). The Christian culture in the 21st century continues to be one that segregates itself by intersecting cultural identities other than the shared religious affiliation (Gibson, 2012). Instead, the community predominantly separates by ethnoracial and ethnocultural groups (DeYmaz, 2007; Garces-Foley, 2008; Perkins & Rice, 2000; Priest & Nieves, 2007; Williams, 2011). Despite significant gains in ethnic and cultural integration of the U.S. general population in other organizational systems (e.g., educational, vocational, recreational), the Christian culture has failed to make significant strides toward building a multiculturally inclusive community (Williams, 2011).

In this text, the authors advocate that an inclusive culture that values diversity is necessary for a healthy Christian community. The current status of the Christian church in the United States and the factors that contribute to the reality of sustained segregation will be explored. Factors that make it difficult to move toward integrated multicultural Christian communities will be shown to lie at individual, interpersonal, and organizational levels.

Christian Universities and Diversity

In order for the Christian community to move toward multiculturalism, there must be a generation of Christian leaders who understand and possess the necessary knowledge and skills to forge the way. Christian universities often express, as part of their organizational mission, the goal of building the next generation of Christian leaders. In a random sampling of 14 Coalition of Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU) mission statements, nine universities indicated a desire to prepare Christian leaders for the future, and 11 of the 14 mentioned the importance of diversity in the education provided. It is the authors’ belief that the future success of a multicultural Christian Body depends on whether Christian universities can facilitate the development of the cultural competence of their students.

When considering that developing multicultural skills is more likely to occur in diverse contexts, one may become discouraged in reviewing the ethnic diversity of the student body of Christian colleges. In 2009, the enrollment of students of color (defined as all students who do not identify as White/non-Hispanic or nonresident alien) in CCCU schools did not reflect the representation of diverse youth ages 18 to 24 in the general U.S. population. When aggregated by geographical region, diverse students were underrepresented by 10.9% (in the Midwest) to 27.1% (in the Southwest). In all regions across the United States, students of color were not proportionally represented at the CCCU schools (Reyes & Case, 2011), notwithstanding the Pew data (2008) suggesting that ethnic/racial distribution among Christians is roughly proportional to the U.S. population.

Despite the reality of less than optimal diversity among CCCU institutions, it is the authors’ contention that Christian colleges have the opportunity to play a pivotal role in building a multicultural Christian culture. It is our belief that Christian colleges serve as the miner’s canary for the Christian church. If multiculturalism fails at the Christian university, it will not succeed at the local church community. As noted above, 11 of 14 randomly reviewed CCCU institutions’ mission statements and goals did indicate a commitment to developing culturally diverse and multiculturally competent students.

Multicultural Psychology and Christian Faith Integration

In order to understand and overcome the challenges Christian universities and the Christian church face in developing into an integrated multiethnic Christian culture, it is necessary to understand the issues, forces, and dynamics involved. Throughout this text, readers are provided with the tools for developing an understanding of these matters by utilizing both multicultural psychology and biblical perspectives.

Purpose of the Text

The purpose of this book is to assist Christian university students in developing multicultural competence in individual, interpersonal, and organizational domains. The book integrates Christian beliefs, Scripture, and multicultural psychology concepts in order to (a) establish multicultural competence as a Christian and an ethical mandate, (b) demonstrate the need to understand multicultural psychology in order to develop multicultural competence as a person of faith, (c) move the multicultural psychology dialectic from a racial to a multiple cultural identity-based study of psychology, (d) help the next generation of Christian leaders develop greater cultural mindedness and multicultural competence, and (e) equip future Christian leaders to move the Christian community toward multicultural competence and cultural integration in the Christian community.

In the field of multicultural church ministry, there is literature that demonstrates the value and importance of a multiethnic Christian culture. Utilizing faith-integrated multicultural psychology, this text weaves a more complete tapestry than either the evangelical multicultural church literature or the multicultural psychology literature alone. Students here can explore a biblical model of multiethnic Christian community, biblical instructions for diverse relationships, and multicultural psychology to develop an understanding of the factors that contribute to the slow progress in forming integrated multicultural Christian communities. Using the Christian university context, readers can explore how multicultural psychology, culturally inclusive Christian faith, and the model of intersectionality of identity can be used to thoughtfully facilitate multicultural competence among Christians and Christian leaders, which in turn will facilitate the growth of culturally inclusive Christian communities.

PART 1

MULTICULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY THEORY AND CONCEPTS

PART 1

INTRODUCTION

Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote a letter in 1956 to the American Christian church. In it he pretended to have received a lost letter written by the Apostle Paul to the 20th-century American church. In Pauline fashion, Dr. King challenged the American Christian community of faith with their failure to stay true to the gospel message and the Scripture’s instructions for the church.² A short excerpt of the letter is provided in the Spotlight below. The challenge presented by Dr. King is as relevant today as it was in 1956. Because American Christians tend to assume their ethnocultural or ethnoracial identity as their dominant identity, Christians have minimized the role of Christian culture in their lives. Instead, they tend to append (or hyphenate) their Christianity to their dominant ethnocultural identity. For example, Euro-American Christians tend to walk through life expressing the values, behaviors, and ideologies that other Euro-Americans do, adding to those expressions a belief in Christ as their savior and the Son of God. Likewise, Asian American Christians tend to live more similarly to other Asian Americans and simultaneously believe in Christ as their savior and the Son of God. As a result of the Christian identity being secondary to people’s racial/ethnic identity, diverse Christians in the United States tend to have little connection with each other.

Spotlight on Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (1956)

But America, as I look at you from afar, I wonder whether your moral and spiritual progress has been commensurate with your scientific progress. It seems to me that your moral progress lags behind your scientific progress. Your poet Thoreau used to talk about improved means to an unimproved end. How often this is true. You have allowed the material means by which you live to outdistance the spiritual ends for which you live. You have allowed your mentality to outrun your morality. You have allowed your civilization to outdistance your culture. Through your scientific genius you have made of the world a neighborhood, but through your moral and spiritual genius you have failed to make of it a brotherhood. So America, I would urge you to keep your moral advances abreast with your scientific advances.

I am impelled to write you concerning the responsibilities laid upon you to live as Christians in the midst of an un-Christian world. That is what I had to do. That is what every Christian has to do. But I understand that there are many Christians in America who give their ultimate allegiance to man-made systems and customs. They are afraid to be different. Their great concern is to be accepted socially. They live by some such principle as this: everybody is doing it, so it must be alright. For so many of you Morality is merely group consensus. In your modern sociological lingo, the mores are accepted as the right ways. You have unconsciously come to believe that right is discovered by taking a sort of Gallup poll of the majority opinion. How many are giving their ultimate allegiance to this way.

There is another thing that disturbs me to no end about the American church. You have a white church and you have a Negro church. You have allowed segregation to creep into the doors of the church. How can such a division exist in the true Body of Christ? You must face the tragic fact that when you stand at 11:00 on Sunday morning to sing All Hail the Power of Jesus Name and Dear Lord and Father of all Mankind, you stand in the most segregated hour of Christian America. They tell me that there is more integration in the entertaining world and other secular agencies than there is in the Christian church. How appalling that is.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Paul’s letter to American Christians, http://​mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/​index.php/​encyclopedia/​documentsentry/​doc_pauls_letter_to_american_christians/.

In the United States, people observe a Christian culture that is predominantly segregated. Most American Christians attend churches that are primarily home to a single ethnocultural or ethnoracial group (Emerson & Smith, 2001; Garces-Foley, 2007; Scheitle & Dougherty, 2010). Historically, the United States had constructed a culture of legal segregation, where government statutes supported ethnoracial separation. For generations, Americans were enculturated to believe in, to value, and to live a segregated life—where everyone primarily socialized with others from a shared ethnocultural or ethnoracial background. For example, Italian Americans met, married, worshipped, and socialized with each other, as did Irish Americans, African Americans, Puerto Ricans, and other ethnic groups of the time. With the emergence of the civil rights era (approximately 1954–1968), legal desegregation emerged. Initially, desegregation meant that it was no longer legal to pass or enforce laws that prohibited any American from full participation in activities of American society. However, initially, people continued to live segregated lives, and additional legal processes were enacted to encourage the process along (e.g., federal agents escorting Ruby Bridges daily to her desegregated school in New Orleans).

Despite initial apprehensions, federally enforced desegregation had the effect of propelling Americans toward increased diverse social contact. As a result, the dominant culture began adapting to the interactions of diverse groups in daily life. Legal desegregation was considered a necessary precondition for multicultural integration in America (Steinhorn & Diggs-Brown, 1999). While the integration movement continues to draw people into greater contact with diverse others, some reticent groups continue to express preferences for desegregation rather than integration. For example, people who contentedly live in communities that are separated by ethnoracial and ethnocultural group affiliation and are not interested in or concerned with diverse others live a desegregated but not integrated life.

Cultural and racial integration in America were incorporated into American culture through the endorsement of the color-blind perspective. Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan (1833–1911), like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., was a civil rights champion ahead of his time. As the lone dissenter in the historic case Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which upheld segregation as a legal practice, Justice Harlan wrote:

The White race deems itself to be the dominant race in this country. And so it is in prestige, in achievements, in education, in wealth and in power. So, I doubt not, it will continue to be for all time if it remains true to its great heritage and holds fast to the principles of constitutional liberty. But in view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful. The law regards man as man, and takes no account of his surroundings or of his color when his civil rights as guaranteed by the supreme law of the land are involved. . . . If evils will result from the commingling of the two races upon public highways established for the benefit of all, they will be infinitely less than those that will surely come from state legislation regulating the enjoyment of civil rights upon the basis of race. We boast of the freedom enjoyed by our people above all other peoples. But it is difficult to reconcile that boast with a state of the law which, practically, puts the brand of servitude and degradation upon a large class of our fellow citizens, our equals before the law. The thin disguise of equal accommodations for passengers in railroad coaches will not mislead anyone, nor atone for the wrong this day done.

Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 559–62 (1896) (Harlan, J., dissenting) [italics added], available at http://​chnm.gmu.edu/​courses/​nclc375/​harlan.html.

The value of color-blind, cultural integration was based on the idea of equality in practice. It was intended that Americans would live in such a way that they would make room in our hearts, home, classrooms, and communities to welcome each other comfortably as neighbors and friends (Steinhorn & Diggs-Brown, 1999, p. 5). However, in practice, the dominant culture’s expression of integration values occurs within the context of conformity to the Euro-American dominant power structure (see Chapter 4) and functions to minimize or invalidate meaningful integration in their daily lives. In the United States, cultural and racial integration has become at the same time a cultural ideal and a cultural illusion.

In response to the illusory outcome of color-blind integration, in the last 30 years, there has been a movement toward multiculturalism. The multicultural movement shares the same ideals as the original color-blind integration movement; that is, in the United States, people would value, appreciate, and embrace diversity as demonstrated by meaningful interaction with diverse others in their lives. Unfortunately, multicultural values have not yet fully generalized within the U.S. culture, and, as a result, citizens find themselves surrounded by communities and peers that are quick to tolerate diversity; however, they are not so quick to truly embrace it and celebrate it (Williams, 2011, p. 25).

In Part 2 of this text, readers will explore the idea that a multiethnic diverse Christian community is a biblical mandate that has not yet been successfully enacted. Many in the multicultural church movement have argued that one of the prominent reasons the Christian community is not integrated is because Christians have failed to learn to love their neighbor as themselves (Mark 12:31) and because multiculturalism is not yet an internalized Christian value. Peoples’ behavior reflects their values (Matt. 6:21, For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also), and the Christian community’s segregation speaks to its values regarding integration (DeYmaz, 2007; Williams, 2011).

Before undertaking a Christian application, an exploration of multiculturalism’s foundational groundwork must be laid. In Part 1, readers can become familiar with the theory and concepts in multicultural psychology that will help facilitate their understanding of why Christian communities today are not multiculturally integrated. By deconstructing the problems faced in the pursuit of Godly multicultural living (Parts 2 and 3), readers can then begin to reconstruct a livable solution in Part 4 of the book.

² The whole letter, Paul’s letter to American Christians, read in the voice of Dr. King, can be found at the website, Martin Luther King Jr. and the Global Freedom Struggle, http://​mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/​index.php/​encyclopedia/​documentsentry/​doc_pauls_letter_to_american_christians/.

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION TO MULTICULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY

The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it,

the world, and all who live in it;

for he founded it on the seas

and established it on the waters.

(Ps. 24:1–2 NIV)

This chapter provides an introduction to the psychological study of cultural and multicultural psychology. Readers are familiarized with diversity in the United States, the theory of social constructionism, and the disciplines of cross-cultural, cultural, and multicultural psychology. An introduction to how the tenets of multicultural psychology intersect with Christianity is also provided.

Spotlight on Self-Reflection

When you hear the word multiculturalism, what do you think? When you saw that one of your textbooks for this course was about multicultural psychology and Christianity, what ideas came to mind? When your parents, spouse, or friends saw your reading list for this course, what did they have to say?

As a student reading this text, you bring to this topic your own diverse experiences, worldview, thoughts, feelings, and ideas about culture and diversity. A wide range of perceptions may be triggered by the idea of reading this book and taking this course. What are your thoughts, feelings, concerns, and anticipations about this course and this book? Are you excited? Annoyed? Frustrated? Encouraged? Discouraged? What ideas and thoughts are connected with your feelings?

In some circles, diversity and multiculturalism have become derided terms. In those circles, multiculturalism may be blamed for the decline of the culture, educational systems, and economic prosperity in the United States. Some accuse multiculturalism of being a value system that is anti-American, and in some circles, diversity values are considered anti-Christian. If you have been raised in those social circles, as a Christian student of psychology, a book on faith-integrated multicultural psychology may be potentially problematic. You or your loved ones may be concerned that the authors of this book will attempt to turn you into a liberal.

Perhaps you are an ethnic, racial, or cultural minority student at a predominantly White institution (PWI). Your college may be made up of a majority of Euro-American students. You may have spent the last few years feeling as if you were under the microscope in classes where you have been the only or one of the only persons of your racial or cultural heritage present. In classes, you may feel that if you venture to speak, your voice will be assumed to represent your entire ethnoracial or ethnocultural group. Your experiences with multiculturalism on campus thus far may have been mostly marginalizing ones where you have felt that, at times, you were reduced to a one-dimensional person, defined solely by your racial or ethnic heritage. You may be worried that stepping into a class that is focused on multiculturalism may exasperate your experience.

You may also be nearing the end of your education at your university, and perhaps your university has spent a great deal of time and energy espousing the values of Christian multiculturalism. You may be growing tired of the dialog. You may think that your generation is multicultural and that there is no problem with embracing multiculturalism. You may believe that the fact that faculty so ardently pursues this discourse is more of an indicator of generational differences, that your generation is not racist, and that the faculty should move into the 21st century and stop living in the past. Thus, you may think that this book is an artifact of the old school and is going to be an exercise in irrelevance.

Maybe you are excited by the prospect of having the opportunity to look at multiculturalism through the lens of psychology and (better yet) through the lens of psychology and Christianity. Perhaps your life experience has been filled with multicultural experiences, and what led you to your field of study was a desire to seek a greater understanding of your observations and experiences. Perhaps you have spent hours in college classes where the theories, concepts, and ideas being discussed seemed inadequate to explain the reality of your own diverse background or irrelevant to your community context. Maybe you have been frustrated by a recurring experience where cultural factors have been ignored in classes or where they have been relegated to a lecture during the last week of class, and now you are looking forward to giving culture your full attention. On the other hand, you may be looking at this book and thinking that a book on multiculturalism and Christianity is fine—if you live in an urban center, but for the majority of students who live in monoracial suburban and rural contexts, multiculturalism is really a nonissue.

Regardless of the perceptual framework with which you are approaching this book, most likely you are about to spend at least three hours a week sitting in a classroom in which issues of diversity are a prominent focus of the course. Your experiences in this class will likely challenge and affirm some of your beliefs and ideas and ignite your passions; and you might well become frustrated. The study of multicultural psychology draws your heart and mind into deliberations with yourself and with those around you. This text is written for the purpose of integrating your Christian faith and worldview with your study of multicultural psychology. It is our hope that in reading this book, you will experience being challenged, affirmed, frustrated, and passionate.

An Introduction to Multicultural Vocabulary

When undertaking the study of multicultural psychology, concerns regarding vocabulary and language emerge (Dunn & Hammer, 2014). Developing an appreciation for the dynamics of diversity (to be discussed in Chapter 4) and the complexities of how they are infused in and perpetuated through vocabulary and language can have the effect of slowing progress toward cultural competence when fear of potential negative outcomes that could result from word choice causes one to shut down. On the other hand, failure to appreciate the power of one’s vocabulary can result in others shutting down in the presence of those who are not sensitive to their use of words. In this text, readers are exposed to the powerful influence that language and vocabulary have over attitudes, interpersonal relationships, and systemic forces. Readers also have the opportunity to reflect on personal patterns of and preferences for language use. However, to begin a conversation about diversity and intersections of diverse cultures, a common vocabulary must be established.

Preferred word choice related to issues of diversity and culture shifts across time (Sue & Sue, 2013). When communicating about groups of people, the dynamics of power (see Chapter 4) influence the common vernacular. In multicultural psychology, special attention is given to reducing power differentials in interpersonal and group dynamics. Therefore, the use of labels that diminish or marginalize groups is discouraged, and when a common categorical label becomes derogatory, it falls out of favor for use.

Woven throughout this book are quotes from historical figures in the fields of multicultural psychology and multicultural ministry. Readers will likely notice antiquated vocabulary in those quotes and may shudder at their use. However, the current vocabulary that is used in the field of multicultural psychology, like historical language, is not without problems—especially when we consider the labels in terms of how they situate people in relationship to power, privilege, inclusion, exclusion, and marginalization. For example, the use of the term majority to refer to the dominant White culture in the United States and the term minority to refer to diverse cultures in the United States that are not considered part of the dominant White culture can be problematic. These labels may reinforce power differentials that sustain dominant power in the hands of the majority and may also marginalize minority groups that perceive the word minority to communicate that they are considered less than the other. Likewise, the use of the term people of color to refer to non-White persons can also be problematic, as it can communicate a generalization that minority groups are all the same (grouped together) and can marginalize Euro-Americans who may find the term diminishes their status as diverse persons.

Because the entire current vernacular is potentially problematic, in this text, specific labels are used to identify diverse groups. The choice of labels is based on the current patterns in the multicultural psychology literature (see Leong, Comas-Diaz, Nagayama Hall, McLoyd, & Trimble, 2014; Sue & Sue, 2013). A variety of descriptors are utilized throughout the book in an effort to most accurately describe the groups of people being considered. For example, if discussing an experience of a group of African American students, the group will be identified as African American. However, throughout the book, groups of diverse people are also discussed collectively, and such a level of specificity will not be possible. Some of the categories that are utilized throughout the text are described in Table 1.1.

Table 1.1

Common Vocabulary to Describe People Groups in Multicultural Psychology

Spotlight on Self-Reflection

Table 1.1 lists common vocabulary that is used to describe diverse groups in the United States. While it is always best for people to self-identify their own preferred referent labels, when it is not possible to gather that information, the labels in Table 1.1 can be used. In your personal reflection, or in small groups, take a few minutes to consider the labels in the table. Discuss how each label situates people in relationship to power, privilege, inclusion, exclusion, and marginalization. Identify the vernacular labels that are used in society to identify the in-groups to which you belong. How do those labels situate your groups in relation to power, privilege, inclusion, exclusion, and marginalization? Do you notice any patterns in terms of how your labels situate you socially?

Diversity in a Pluralistic United States

Much has been written about the dramatic shift in the U.S. ethnic population (Anderson, 2007; Schlosser, Lyons, Talleyrand, Kim, & Johnson, 2011a). The U.S. population, subsequent to colonization and the formation of the 50 states, has been composed of Euro-American ethnic groups as the dominant, or majority, group, with a smaller presence of other ethnic and racial groups. While the classification systems utilized to identify ethnic groups as minority groups have varied across time and sociopolitical contexts, the ethnic minority groups often were classified into one of three categories: African American/Black, Hispanic/Latino, and Asian American. All other ethnic groups were classified under the category of Other. In the 1990s, statistics emerged predicting the dramatic demographic shift to be statistically present by 2050 (White & Henderson, 2005). Those predictions were subsequently accelerated:

In the 2010 Census, just over one-third of the U.S. population reported their race and ethnicity as something other than non-Hispanic White alone (i.e., minority). This group increased from 86.9 million to 111.9 million between 2000 and 2010, representing a growth of 29 percent over the decade. Geographically, particularly in the South and West, a number of areas had large proportions of the total population that was minority. Nearly half of the West’s population was minority (47 percent), numbering 33.9 million. Among the states, California led the nation with the largest minority population at 22.3 million. Between 2000 and 2010, Texas joined California, the District of Columbia, Hawaii and New Mexico in having a majority-minority population, where more than 50 percent of the population was part of a minority group. Among all states, Nevada’s minority population increased at the highest rate, by 78 percent. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011, p. 17)

In addition to rapid growth in the Hispanic population in the United States, the Asian American population has also experienced rapid growth. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, The Asian population alone grew faster than any other major race group between 2000 and 2010, increasing by 43 percent (2011, p. 5).

Equally important to the numeric growth of the diverse population is the rapid growth in the wide range of diverse ethnic and racial groups in the United States. As of 2010, there are approximately 100 distinct ethnic groups in the United States. Additionally, there has been a rapid increase in multiethnic births (a 32% increase between the 2000 and 2010 U.S. census). Current trends in demographic statistics indicate that the United States is quickly moving toward becoming what can be described as a complex, multicultural society (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011).

Despite rapid changes in population composition, our diverse society is situated within a context of social challenge, stress, and difficulties. Since its establishment, the United States has been plagued by racialization, ethnic and racial biases, and social justice and economic disparities. While specific manifestations of these challenges morph across time, they tend to be persistent (Anderson, 2007; Baruth & Manning, 2011; Emerson & Smith, 2001; Heine, 2012; Mio, Barker, & Tumambing, 2011; Nagayama Hall, 2010; Schwarzbaum & Thomas, 2008; Steinhorn & Diggs-Brown, 1999). Within the context of persistent challenges with the dynamics of a diverse society, the study of culture in psychology developed.

Enculturation refers to the process by which an individual learns the traditional content (e.g., values, attitudes, behaviors, traditions) of a culture and assimilates its practices and values.

Essentialism refers to the view that certain categories (e.g., women, racial groups) have an underlying reality or true nature that one cannot observe directly. Essentialists believe that the underlying true nature of an object or construct is objective and that its core is nonmutable.

Identity refers to the stable, defining characteristics of a person that make him or her an individual. Having a solid sense of identity requires a thorough understanding of oneself, including one’s own traits, preferences, thought patterns, strengths, and weaknesses.

Postmodernism refers to a philosophical orientation that encourages both a distrust of grand theories and ideologies and the critical deconstruction of ideologies through an examination of assumptions, values, and beliefs that are implied in the model. Postmodernists then engage in personal reconstruction of ideologies grounded in values, assumptions, and beliefs that are intentionally chosen and explicitly expressed.

Social Construction Theory

Social constructionism emerged with the postmodern movement and is a theoretical model that rejects the theory of essentialism (Burr, 1995; Ferber, 2009). Social construction theory purports that one’s experience of reality is socially constructed through individual-in-context experience. In this model, ongoing engagement and interaction within social groups results in the dynamic formation and modification of a shared understanding of the world. Social organization, structure, and institutions serve to legitimize the perception of reality that pervades each social group’s worldview and culture. The social construction process results in an internalized (personal) and an externalized (group, institutional) understanding of reality (Burr, 1995). In multicultural psychology, the process of socialization—wherein one learns how to perceive, think, process, understand, make meaning, and engage with reality—is called enculturation. The