I’ve been in some discussions lately with some of those I work with that have really blown my mind. One of the amazing things about the last couple years for me has been working closely with people with a lot of gravitas, a lot of character and there’s an ethos to what they bring that is pretty attractive. There’s a lot of people that have walked through a lot of struggle and pain and come out of it with a higher capacity to love as well as a wealth of wisdom that leads to greater spiritual and leadership vision.The evangelical world, perhaps reflective of the broader dominant culture, has struggled mightily to appreciate the way in which different people groups are marginalized in their communities, organizations, and society at large. There has been some progress and in the evangelical world there is at least much more discussion about what is required to make a relevant impact with the changing demographics. There is increased discussion about contextualization, selection of ethnic minority leaders and modeling diversity, selection of female leaders, and other issues related to empowerment. There’s a ways to go here, but there is movement.This post will focus on a different aspect of marginalization and perhaps even introduce it to the larger discussion since I and few others I’ve been in discussion with have no memory of seeing this addressed or acknowledged anywhere before. I’m speaking of the way in which geographic regions can be marginalized in a nationwide ministry or organization.I’ve served in ministry almost exclusively in California over the past fifteen years I’ve personally observed several attempts, some more explicit than others, to try to bring the west coast more in line with what is going on in the rest of the country. The west coast is often cited as one of the areas where the nation (from a ministry perspective) is looking to for learning and insights into how to adapt and become more effective in the coming years because it provides a snapshot of what the rest of the country will look like in twenty, thirty, or forty years.
While this is true in a lot of ways, there has also been an uncomfortability at times with the ways in which ministry and the ministry climate looks as compared to other places. There has even been intentional efforts at times to try to “align” the west coast to more nationwide standards. These dynamics plus the fact that there has not been a west coast representative in national leadership for a long time reinforce a significant gap of understanding and a measure of marginalization that is present. It’s not nearly as insidious as marginalizing ethnic groups or marginalizing women, but it does exist.The point I’m trying to make is that it’s easier to identify cultural differences when they are ethnic, but it’s a lot harder to identify cross-cultural issues when they are geographic in nature and the general ethnic demographics in those regions are roughly similar in terms of who is actually working in the organization. Looking at just the face of things, it could look like there is a significant need for alignment or change, but if leaders took the time to actually learn and understand things from a different perspective they might find that there are cross-cultural realities at work.If people from one part of the country try to discern reality in a different geographic region with the assumption that their values and perspectives are “normal” or even “better” then the leadership begins to betray perhaps a geo-centric bias (if I can play off of the word ethnocentric). So is the west coast ministry culture “liberal” or “out to lunch” or some other label…or is the east coast “conservative” or “stuck in tradition?” I raise the question to illustrate that the answer to this question for you probably reveals where you are from and where the dominant influences on you have been. Geographic prejudice is not something that is obvious at first, but if we’re honest – it is there though we might choose to rationalize it by ascribing theological or organizational value language to it.The west coast, just like other regions in the country, is not perfect and I’m not saying it is. I’m saying it has a distinct culture that is a bit different and these type of geographic differences should factor into how we approach leadership nationally so that we keep ourselves honest about what values and assumptions we are working out of. It’s worth stating that just because I might look like you, it doesn’t mean I think like you and vice versa. Where we grow up goes a long way to shaping how we see the world and how we relate to it. There have been many hurts over the years because of myopic approaches to leading change in which the DNA of the geographic culture has been devalued and overlooked and instead has been maybe viewed with suspicion and perhaps judgment (albeit from lack of awareness as opposed to malicious intent).As I write, I’m not writing in a vacuum or without experience of my own here. This is something we’ve had to work on and be intentional with in Epic, my current ministry. Our headquarters is in Southern California and much of the leadership is based in Southern California. Yet we have significant groupings of staff in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic as well as in Texas. Our staff working in the Northeast come from a slightly different place than most of our staff working on the West Coast and the students in the Northeast are a little bit different than the average student on the west coast. Our east coast and west coast student conferences in Epic have different feels to them. They are all Asian-American so it is not really an ethnic difference, but it is a cultural difference because of how these staff and students have been shaped by the influences in their geographic regions. If we ignore this reality we betray our own biases and limitations in our own vision.In leading nationally we’ve not done it perfectly, but we’ve worked hard and have been intentional to counter the geographic marginalization that is inevitable when there is such geographic distance between those leading and those being led. There’s been a lot of conversations to learn and understand some of the differences and most importantly there have been efforts to communicate great value. Distance will always be a factor, but there’s been an effort to always keep these people in mind as we are thinking about different issues and decisions. I can say this will be a factor in future leadership selection decisions as well because of the value to represent those people that make up Epic and not exclude them.So here are some suggestions for those of us who think in terms of a national scope and perhaps if you’re context is more localized you can find an application that fits your situation:
- Travel. If you know me you know that I really don’t like travel. However, if you want to bridge the gap across geographic regions then the most obvious step is to make sure you prioritize actually going to different regions and spending time with folks on their own turf. It communicates value and shows that at a very basic level that you “see” them. People who are geographically marginalized often feel invisible or irrelevant to what’s going on at higher leadership levels.
- Listen and Learn. Decode the culture. Pay attention to the differences without making judgments. Don’t make the mistake of coming in to be a Savior of a change agent, but seek to understand the ways in which the culture is different from yours. What is important? How do people think? What things are given greatest value? What are people’s starting points as it relates to the important issues affecting effectiveness. When it comes to geographic differences in the U.S., these conversations tend not to happen because we don’t often know that they need to happen. Know that these kind of conversations are needed and have them!
- Empower instead of Control. Let those leading in these geographic regions feel the freedom to lead out in ways that resonate with the cultural climate. I’m not talking about allowing people to be conformed to the worldly culture around them, but let’s not force people to conform to different cultural assumptions that are more foreign to that part of the country. We need to affirm and empower as opposed to control and conform. This comes down to a question of servant leadership and cross-cultural values. You either make people conform to you or you try to help others succeed in the environments that they know best.
- Platform and Model in Leadership Selection. Be intentional to platform and select leadership when possible to affirm the different geographic contributions and demonstrate that they are relevant to the national leadership picture.
As I’ve shared these thoughts, it is not my aim to point fingers or paint anyone in a bad light. I don’t think that’s what I’ve done, but some might have different reactions to these ideas. These are issues that are more common that what is talked about and I’m writing to draw attention to an issue that merits more conversation and more intentionality. This is true for Epic, the larger ministry of what I’m a part of, and any national level ministry or organization.If you think this is not an issue and you are part of the dominant culture of your organization or ministry in which your “neck of the woods” is well represented in the DNA of leadership activity and behavior, then I ask you to humbly think deeply about these things since those of us with power and representation in our communities don’t often recognize the power disparities when they are there and the ways in which others feel marginalized.What are your thoughts? Have you experienced geographic marginalization? What things have spoken loudly to you from leadership if you are geographically isolated from the bulk of leadership activity in your ministry? What other ideas do you have to reinforce a servant leadership culture that is affirming the diversity of geographically based cultures?
