“You Hide Pieces of Yourself”: Navigating White Spaces as U.S. Missionaries of Color

Abstract

While extensive research has been conducted on the experiences of racial and ethnic minorities in predominately white institutions (PWIs) in the United States, there has been little research that examines the experiences of U.S. racial and ethnic minorities that serve for religious reasons with PWIs in international settings. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to understand how race shapes the relationship of long-term U.S. missionaries of color with their missions organization and teammates. Semi-structured, in-depth interviews were conducted with sixteen long-term U.S. missionaries of color serving internationally. The findings point to a number of ways that race shapes the experiences of these missionaries and have important implications for cross-cultural workers of diverse backgrounds as well as cross-cultural work teams and sending organizations. The results also point to the need for more research on diverse work teams in international settings.

Keywords

missionaries of color predominately white institutions race diversity colorblindness missions organizations

Introduction

Since the first century, Christians have engaged in missions both in their local contexts and abroad. While missions have always been a global endeavor, the spread of Christianity to the Global South through colonization by Western powers in past centuries mistakenly, and tragically, sent the message that Christianity was what has often been referred to as a ‘white-man's religion.’ However, this is changing as the Global South is increasingly sending out missionaries. In fact, well-known theologian, Samuel Escobar (2003) wrote about this nearly twenty years ago in his book, The New Global Mission: The Gospel from Everywhere to Everyone. He describes a type of reversal of mission, in that former bulwarks for Christianity, like the United States and Europe, are experiencing a revitalization of their faith through Christian migrants from the Global South. Likewise, missiologist Christopher Wright spoke of the “multidirectional nature of mission” (2007: 44). Wright argued that there are more missionaries being sent from India than the United States. Furthermore, the Korean Church has long been recognized as a leader in global missionary activities. And more recently, missiologist Allen Yeh (2016) continued to examine these new mission trends with his book, Polycentric Missiology: Twenty-First Century Mission from Everyone to Everywhere.

Nevertheless, while many champion the changing face of missions in the twenty-first century, the missions enterprise in the United States continues to be predominately white. Therefore, it should be no surprise that very little missiological research has sought to understand the experiences of racial and ethnic minority missionaries sent from the U.S. However, while absent in the missiological literature, U.S. missionaries of color are not absent from the mission field. Organizations such as the National African American Missions Council (NAAMC) and the Chinese Mission Convention (CMC) seek to mobilize and support believers and churches from racial and ethnic minority communities for global missions. Not to mention that the missions network, MissioNexus, has also been active in offering workshops, talks, and so forth on the topic of mobilizing American missionaries from diverse racial and ethnic minority backgrounds.

Not only is U.S. missionary activity predominantly racially white, in terms of the racial identity of missionaries, but also in terms of missions organizational leadership and culture. As will be discussed below, research has shown that racial and ethnic minorities face challenges in predominantly white institutions (PWIs), and Christian organizations are no exception. Therefore, the purpose of this qualitative study was to understand how race shapes the relationship of long-term U.S. missionaries of color with their missions organization and teammates. This study is part of a larger research project that explores the role of race in the experiences of U.S. missionaries of color in general. The five major findings that emerged indicate that race shapes relationships with missions organization, race shapes relationships with teammates, conversations about race are prevalent and are shaped by the racial identity of the conversants, racial and ethnic minorities adapt their behavior to align with white norms, and sources of support contribute to the resilience of racial and ethnic minority missionaries on the field. The findings of this study yield both theoretical and practical significance, which will be discussed further in the discussion and conclusion.

Conceptual Framework

A look at the relevant academic literature provides a conceptual framework helpful for developing an understanding of the experiences of people of color in PWIs. Therefore, the first section paints a broad stroke of the experiences of racial and ethnic minorities in PWIs, followed by a look at racial battle fatigue. Next, a brief look is given to the racial attitudes of US evangelicals with a focus on the ideology of colorblindness. Lastly, the literature on Christian institutions of higher education as PWIs is considered.

The Experiences of Racial and Ethnic Minorities in PWIs

People of color in predominantly white institutions go through a wide range of experiences as they navigate the contexts, systems, and settings that often feel foreign due to the normativity of whiteness. Resane referred to the normativity of whiteness as a “question of power” and as “an internal or subconscious conviction that the ‘super race’ is privileged to establish and maintain certain norms and standards to which others must adhere” (Resane, 2021: 3). The consequences of the normativity of whiteness for racial and ethnic minorities in PWIs may result in isolation and a lack of a sense of belonging. Bourke explained that experiences of isolation come by way of awareness, where the “subordinate member is always aware of the dominant culture, where the world of the dominant culture is presented as the norm and set as the example from which to learn” (Bourke, 2016: 16). The response of students of color in colleges and universities in the United States, for example, may include withdrawal from extracurricular activities and the institution itself. In fact, “self-segregation of students of color is often seen as a result of alienation from the dominant culture of the institution” (Bourke, 2016: p. 18). This experience of isolation is not due to some lack of social skills by the students of color. The systems that make up a campus's culture create an experience of exclusion when they cater to the members of the dominant culture (Bourke, 2016; Garcia, 2019). The very nature of PWIs, implied in the name, suggests that the institution is set up to benefit a specific population, a white population (Bourke, 2016). Therefore, it is not unimaginable that the systems in place in PWIs create and perpetuate a specific campus culture (Bracey, 2017).

Moreover, in addition to the normativity of whiteness, subtle forms of discrimination may be experienced by racial and ethnic minorities in PWIs. These hostilities have negative consequences on well-being and sense of belonging. The result includes, but is not limited to, a sense of invisibility, a felt lack of agency, and a skewed sense of belonging. This effectively describes the experience of many people of color in predominantly white spaces. Additionally, the need to navigate predominantly white spaces effectively necessitates the ability to code-switch or to “adopt dual identities to appease” (Dickens and Chavez, 2018: 761) white communities and their own, which in turn may cause a sense of loss of individual identity or, at the very minimum, confusion.

Subtle forms of discrimination are also manifested in microaggressions, which are “brief commonplace, daily, verbal, nonverbal, and environmental slights, insults, invalidations, and indignities, intentional or unintentional, directed toward a marginalized group, which are categorized as microassaults, microinsults, and microinvalidations” (Ogunyemi et al., 2020: 97). Researchers surveyed about 50 African American undergraduate students at predominately white campuses in the Midwest about their experiences with racial microaggressions (Brezinski et al., 2018). The findings indicated that participants frequently experienced racial microaggressions. The main microaggressions were identified as “a noticeable absence of people representing their own race/ethnicity” (Brezinski et al., 2018: 272), the sense that their race was perceived as “dysfunctional, and undesirable” and that they were viewed as “aggressive, threatening, or hostile” (Brezinski et al., 2018: 273). Participants felt that they were “dismissed in group settings due to their race” and that they “have their thoughts and feelings invalidated” (Brezinski et al., 2018: 273). Consequently, these experiences foster a rift in a sense of belonging. According to the authors, these racial microaggressions resulted in the participants feeling disconnected from their schools (Brezinski et al., 2018). Similarly, in their systematic review of the literature on racial microaggressions in educational settings, Ogunyemi et al. found that for college students, “being targets of compulsive racial joke-telling caused students to feel tremendous stress, as frustrated integration efforts reduced their sense of belonging and hindered their participation in campus life” (Ogunyemi et al., 2020: 108). This experience is not limited to higher education institutions but may also be present in the broader society.

Racial Battle Fatigue

In many contexts, particularly those with a predominantly white composition, people of color experience what has now been termed racial battle fatigue (RBF). RBF is the cumulative result of experiencing racial microaggressions. As Galloway Burke has argued, “Seeing and hearing disparaging comments about a dimension of who you [as a student] are, of which you cannot hide, can have a detrimental impact on the psychological and psychosocial well-being of individuals, which must be taken into account when addressing structural racism in higher education” (Galloway, 2020: 176). Smith et al. (2007) described RBF as the experiences of African American students in historically white campuses. Furthermore, they commented that RBF is “a theoretical framework for examining social-psychological stress responses associated with being an African American male on historically White campuses” (Smith et al., 2007: p. 552). Examples of these responses include “frustration; anger; exhaustion; physical avoidance; psychological or emotional withdrawal; escapism; acceptance of racist attributions; resistance; verbally or nonverbally fighting back; and coping strategies” (Smith et al., 2007: 552). Franklin (2019) in their survey of 399 African American and Mexican American graduate and undergraduate students found that there was a correlation between experiencing racial microaggressions and psychological and behavioral stress. However, when accounting for coping strategies, they found that the use of such strategies lessened the stress responses. Examples of coping strategies that participants used were: acceptance of having experienced a racial microaggression and receiving emotional support from others (Franklin, 2019). Turning to religion or spirituality, along with emotional support, were important coping strategies for African Americans while turning to work or other activities, along with emotional support, were important for Mexican Americans. Given the similarities in experiences among other people of color (e.g., Latinas/os, Asian, Indigenous, First Nation) the term, racial battle fatigue, is now more ethnoculturally inclusive. However, it has yet to be actively applied across more diverse sectors of society beyond higher education institutions, such as the workplace, organizations, and the public sphere.

The Ideology of Colorblindness

A look at white evangelicals’ perspectives on race is also helpful to the study at hand. According to Emerson and Smith (2000), white evangelicals tend to embrace an attitude of colorblindness. Having a colorblind attitude says, ‘I don’t see race’ in an effort to communicate, ‘I don’t discriminate’ or ‘I’m not prejudiced.’ People that hold a colorblind perspective may not see themselves as racist, but rather that racism is the result of other individuals (Emerson and Smith, 2000). An individualized view of racism fails to give colorblind individuals an understanding of the social causes of prejudice and discrimination (Emerson and Smith, 2000).

Theologian Walter Strickland II posited, “Confusion about the state of race in America is complicated because racism manifests itself in two ways, namely, ‘individually’ and ‘systematically’ (or structurally)” (Strickland II, 2019: 163). This is because colorblind attitude erases all the history associated with race. According to evangelical sociologist, George Yancey, “because overt personal racism is so stigmatized today, there is a temptation to assume we have completely won the battle over racism” (Yancey, 2022: 63). However, Yancey argued that colorblindness, “ignores the damage our racialized society has sustained” (Yancey, 2022: 2). Later he wrote, “We can no longer deny the reality of the effects of historical racism, institutional discrimination, and contemporary subtle prejudice” (Yancey, 2022: p. 83).

Colorblindness sounds harmless, even positive, to the person that holds this view, but it is detrimental to race relations. In fact, Leslie Carr, in his book Colorblind Racism stated that colorblindness “is not the opposite of racism, it is another form of racism” (Carr, 1997: x). Moreover, Yancey argued, “There is an unspoken danger in colorblindness that does not always get sufficient attention. A colorblindness mentality causes intense frustration that builds up within people of color who live out the consequences of our racialized society. Many of us see the attitudes of such whites as uncaring at best and racist at worst” (Yancey, 2022: 81).

Christian Institutions of Higher Education as PWIs

A Christian institution in which research has been done on the experiences of people of color in PWIs is that of Christian higher education. Colorblindness also permeates Christian higher education. A colorblind perspective contributes to the invisibility that people of color feel in PWCIs. Discussing Christian higher education, McGill, Huang, Davis, Humphrey, Pak, Thacker, and Tom argued that “Dominant color-blind paradigms actually render invisible the populations that they are intended to help. To blind oneself to race is to blind oneself to the identity of a great number of marginalized people. When institutions do this, they organizationally become blind to large swaths of marginalized students” (McGill et al., 2018: 29). Although outside the Christian setting, as they assessed senior leadership at elite institutions of higher education, Gasman, Abiola, and Travers argued that colorblindness propagates “racism through low expectations and failure to acknowledge visible racial and cultural differences” (Gasman et al., 2015: 4).

The normativity of whiteness and the invisibility of students of color contribute to a lack of a sense of belonging for racial and ethnic minorities on predominately white Christian university campuses. Ecklund's (2013) study on first-generation college students, many of whom were students of color, at Christian colleges and universities, found that many experienced social isolations. Their families, who wanted them to succeed, had difficulty understanding their children's academic life, while at the same time, as minorities on primarily white campuses, these students also indicated that they lacked “supportive peer relationships” (Ecklund, 2013: p. 168). In addition, experiencing prejudice and discrimination is also a source of stress that contributes to a lack of a sense of belonging. In fact, participants in Ecklund's study were surprised to experience ethnic and cultural biases. They did not expect that this would be an issue at a faith-based school.

While what is presented here is only a snapshot of the rich and extensive research on the experiences of racial and ethnic minorities at PWIs, it highlights the major patterns such as the normativity of whiteness and its effect on the invisibility of people of color; both which have a negative effect on the sense of belonging. Moreover, these experiences of marginalization can result in racial battle fatigue. While the literature on Christian institutions of higher education is not as robust in terms of being PWIs, the literature that exists indicates that racial and ethnic minorities have similar experiences as their counterparts at secular universities. Considering the important implications and consequences of such experiences, and the noticeable absence of research on a growing population within missions, this study sought to address this gap by understanding how race shapes the relationships of long-term US missionaries of color with their predominately white teammates and missions organization.

Methodology

The methods for this study utilized a constructivist basic qualitative research approach (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Constructivism is an approach that has as its goal “understanding human ideas, actions, and interactions in specific contexts or in terms of the wider culture” (Glesne, 2016: p. 9). To collect data we utilized in-depth, semi-structured interviews conducted through Zoom. We recruited sixteen participants using purposeful sampling. Participants were long-term Protestant U.S. missionaries of color that have served on the mission field for at least 2 years. The majority of the participants were still on the field, although a few had recently returned to the United States. Of the participants, six were male and ten were female. The ethnic background of the participants consisted of nine Asian Americans, five Blacks or African Americans, and two Latinos/as. This study obtained approval from Biola University's Protection of Human Rights in Research Committee (PHRRC) in order to ensure ethical research procedures. We obtained written informed consent from each participant to conduct audio recorded interviews. We transcribed the interviews using TEMI, an internet transcription service. All identifying information was removed from the transcripts. The transcriptions were manually reviewed for accuracy and then uploaded to NVivo for data analysis. We utilized Charmaz’s (2014) approach to initial and focused coding, as well as constant comparative analysis. Pseudonyms were used in the write up of the data in order to maintain the confidentiality of the participants. For an additional measure of protecting confidentiality, the specific racial and/or ethnic identity of the participants, along with their field location, are not disclosed here. The major findings are discussed below.

Findings

The following findings emerged from the data. They have been organized into five major themes. Selected quotes have been included to illustrate each finding. While the experiences of missionaries of color are quite diverse, the following patterns were identified in the data: racial matters concerning their missions organization and teammates, conversing about race, navigating white missionary spaces, and sources of support for developing resilience.

Race Shapes Interactions with Missions Organizations

The first finding is that race shapes the interactions of missionaries of color with their missions organizations. The relationship with the missions organization sheds light on some of the structural elements related to the racialized experiences of missionaries of color. While some participants felt supported by their missions organization when it came to matters of race, overall, most felt that this was an area that was ignored or dealt with poorly. In fact, the three types of responses the participants perceived organizations to have were 1) looking to actively make changes in their organization, 2) no communication at all about racial issues/experiences, and 3) demonstrated cultural insensitivity and racism. It was evident that participants believed changes were needed in this area. This section discusses themes that arose related to conversations about racial matters and changes needed to help the organization become more supportive of missionaries of color.

Support on racial matters from missions organizations. Of the participants, eleven specifically noted positive interactions on matters of race with their organization. Several participants noted the support from upper leadership. Ethan shared this about the president of his organization, “He's put himself in a humble place to let the people of color in our organization teach him.” Another participant mentioned how the president of his organization, in consultation with trusted people of color, set aside a whole day to draft a letter responding to the George Floyd events. Amy also recalled that the leadership of her organization asked what they could do to support missionaries of color better. Eileen mentioned that the leadership of their organization attended a session on people of color at their annual conference. Others mentioned changes that the organization had made to better support missionaries of color. For example, Gaby was recruited to help onboard new missionaries of color. As part of her work, she brought in racially diverse speakers familiar with challenges on the missions field. Peter mentioned anticipated changes to having more diverse leadership in his organization. Ethan mentioned how diversity is integrated into the orientation curriculum for new missionaries, and yet he recognizes the need to make it more “integrated into the DNA of our people's lives.” A participant also mentioned that as an organization they have been reading a book by an African American missionary. For Lucas, the support was more personal. He said, “I would definitely say one of the things I always felt like I had the full support of our sending the agency. There was never a question that my agency treated me differently or anything like that.”

Negative experiences with missions organizations concerning race. While there were many mentions of support for racial issues by missions organizations, there were also several negative experiences mentioned. These can generally be categorized into two areas: cultural insensitivity or racism displayed by the organization and organization not prioritizing diversity. Regarding the first, the great majority were personal stories related by the participants. For example, when discussing how she was often recruited to be in the promotional materials for her organization, Eileen said, “It just has gotten a little bit tiring as time goes on…to always be used as that.” Samuel remembered a time he was in a meeting with his organization and the speaker said, “When we're out sharing the gospel as a white person…” He was sitting next to another missionary of color and they just looked at each other and laughed. Nevertheless, he felt that by saying this, the speaker was operating under the assumption that to be a member of this particular organization that “you have to be white…there's no other race here.” He felt that comment and what it represented was culturally insensitive. Similarly, Eileen pointed out that some of the expectation to assimilate is unconscious. She said, “So there's something you don't understand about when you're wanting to involve other cultures. You as a predominant culture… you assume people bend to you and you don't offer this inclusivity that people could just come as they are.”

Elizabeth shared about an interaction she had with a colleague who said something that she and other white colleagues perceived as blatantly racist. Elizabeth said, “All the blood left our faces and I was pretty gutted.” Long story short, when a formal opportunity to discuss the situation happened, the person who had said the offensive comment tried to “explain it away” by indicating that “he didn’t mean it” and that what he said “wasn’t racist”. His response was perceived by Elizabeth as “whitesplaining”. Elizabeth felt that the “burden of reconciling the relationship” was now put on her.

Calls for organizational change. There emerged a belief in the need for change in the organization at the structural level, with regards to organizational culture and diversity of leadership. Some participants expressed the perception that even if organizations want to change or support them, organizations do not know how. Gaby said, “The organizational culture needs to be understanding and welcoming… affirming. There's a difference between assimilation and integration, and just assimilating into the main culture or integrating, and letting people be themselves in the way they express themselves or make decisions and [without] being offended or scared…it's knowing how to draw them out and how to hear their voices.” Ethan mentioned that if organizations can “improve in administrative support and organization, that could actually also give more time to attend to different topics, different situations, especially multicultural teams.” Peter expressed frustration with the lack of people of color in leadership, “You gotta have people in those leadership positions. And you've got to stop making excuses that, ‘Well, you know what, we just try to hire good people. We're not looking at color.’ No? Well then hire a good person of color because they've been there and you've never hired them in the [number] years that I've been here.”

Race Shapes Relationships with Teammates

A second major finding that emerged was that race plays an important, and complicated, role in participants’ relationships and interactions with their missionary team on the field. In fact, there were two opposing dynamics that emerged as descriptive of interactions with teammates: displays of cultural insensitivity and supportive actions. Nevertheless, there was also indication of a perception that white teammates cannot relate to the racialized experiences of missionaries of color.

Displays of cultural insensitivity highlight cultural differences between missionaries of color and their white American coworkers. For example, two participants serving in areas where they shared a similar racial or cultural heritage felt defensive when teammates displayed cultural insensitivity to locals, thinking, “These are my ancestors.” Another felt hurt when a coworker spoke rudely about a custom in the local culture, because there was a similar custom in his culture. Ethan said that sometimes “it's these little things” that are damaging. He shared a story of going on a retreat to a hotel and hearing comments like, “Oh, [ethnicity] food at this breakfast” and how joking can demonstrate cultural insensitivity and lack of recognizing the dignity of others.

Other teammates displayed cultural insensitivity in other ways that were offensive. Jessica said:

I have had teammates who use a phrase of, ‘I don't see color.’ … and, ‘I’m colorblind’… I know where their heart is coming from. So…they often choose to not see me as different as them. And, so there's sometimes topics that they talk about, and I'm like, “No, I don't do that” and they're like, “How can you not do that? You're American.” I'm like, “Well, not all Americans have to do that.” And having to learn myself to speak up in those situations, but not out of attacking them in any way, but out of just love and be like, “Hey, yeah, not everybody does that.

Similarly, another participant recounts a story of when she felt uncomfortable once walking with two teammates who were white. The way she describes it makes it sound as if she felt invisible to them:

They started arguing about Chinese traditions and why they give apples for Christmas. And they were just having this conversation about Chinese people, back and forth. And I literally was in the middle and I was like, ‘This is so ironic and weird that you guys are kind of like having this back and forth about Chinese culture when there's like a Chinese person right in front of you, you know?’ I never grew up with that tradition, but it was just kind of like two white people talking about Chinese culture. ‘There's a Chinese American right in front of you.’ And so, I think that was hard. I was like, this is weird. I feel like I should say something, but I also don't feel like I should, because I don't participate in that tradition, you know?

While the examples of cultural insensitivity outweigh the examples of support, some participants also shared about how their teammates supported them. Anna, who was sometimes mistaken by locals for a prostitute or servant said, “They've [her team] tried to make an effort of being conscious of not letting me carry things when I'm with them or like not taking care of their kids, even though I want to help out.” When Jessica was denied an English teaching position because she was not white, her team and her organization “had to fight for me and tell them, “No, she is qualified.”

However, there tended to be a perception among the participants that white teammates cannot understand their experiences because as a couple of participants mentioned, they are “not in my shoes.”

Conversations About Race

A third theme that emerged from the findings was that conversations about race are prevalent and are shaped by the racial identity of the conversants. One, our interviews were conducted just weeks after the death of George Floyd, therefore, the George Floyd events sparked more recent opportunities for participants to have conversations on race. Two, conversations with Whites tended to be complicated and tiring, while the experience of discussing racial matters with fellow missionaries of color helped them feel supported.

The murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis in May 2020 sparked interest in conversations on race within missions organizations. Some missions organization leaders reached out to their missionaries of color on the field as well as did white teammates. Sometimes this was out of concern and other times out of curiosity. Elizabeth noted that during the George Floyd events, people reached out to her “out of care” and wanted to “hear stories.” “That there are individuals that are looking into, ‘What is it? What have we missed? What's our part? What can we do?’ So I shared some resources that I came across.” Veronica mentioned that she's been pulled into conversations within her organization to discuss how to address racism or social injustice within their organization. At the same time, these conversations can be tiring. About having conversations within his mission, Lucas said, “I think that has been the most exhausting part.” Still, Peter, Veronica, and Eileen saw the current racialized events in the United States as an opportunity to have more discussion and create change within missions organizations.

Conversations on race with Whites within their organization and teams, although welcomed, were difficult and unpredictable. One participant mentioned that it was tiring to discern the motives behind people's questions, to discern whether they had a sincere inquiry or if there were ulterior motives for asking questions associated with race. When asked about whether she shared with her organization about her racialized experiences she experienced on the field, Cynthia said, “I wouldn't tell them. I didn't think I felt a need to, or that if I told, I wouldn't know what to expect from [organization's name]. I don't know what they would say or how they would handle it, or if they would even know what to do or say.” Eileen understands that some people in her organization do not want to talk about race. She said, “And [I] understand that it is emotionally heavy and that people are in different places on their journey. So I don't want to push and be like, how dare those people don't want to talk about this so much. It's hard, I get it. And, it's not very interesting to some folks. Um, but think history, like that's important to kind of know about.” Peter mentioned he got pushback from his organization when bringing up the need for more racial diversity in the leadership structure within his organization. He explains it this way, “We gotta take advantage of this time period, where people are thinking more about race and reading books and trying to watch movies…we need to do that more. But overall the leaders, again, my opinion is that most of them are white, they look at it as losing power.” In contrast, Veronica shared that since she has trust with the leadership in her organization she can challenge and pushback on things related to racial issues:

I can challenge things a bit more. Push back on things…so that is a huge, huge thing. I don't [credit] that to my color, but my color will benefit from it by what I can say and what I can speak into. And so I may not be able to change anything in my lifetime. But I hope that for my nieces or if I ever have children or for other people of color, things will be different for them.

While conversations about race tended to be difficult with Whites, a couple of participants mentioned how helpful it was to process the events with other missionaries of color. Whereas the conversations with Whites about race tended to be more tiring, conversations with other missionaries of color tended to be supportive. This will be discussed more later on.

Navigating White Missionary Spaces

A third major finding revealed that missionaries of color tend to adapt their behavior to align with white norms when interacting with their missions organization or their team. These strategies can be divided up into three main strategies: be agreeable, assimilate to white culture, and adjust speech.

First, participants discussed the need to be agreeable. Several participants alluded to the pressure they felt to “not be problematic.” Speaking of a book that was helpful to her, Jessica said, “One thing that I really resonated in his book was his idea of in order to have longevity as a minority in a predominantly white organization, was to be non-problematic. To be someone that doesn't want to ruffle the feathers. And in a way that was how I felt when I first joined the organization.” Kevin said, “…just like any minority, to not want to rock the boat because of the potential consequences.” And, Elizabeth said, “try to be as neutral as possible.”

Second, participants engaged in strategies to assimilate to white culture. Elizabeth shared, “When you're in a dominant culture the whole time you just do what the dominant culture says, and adapt. The other people always adapt.” Eileen summed up the sentiments of several participants when she said, “So we've learned how to talk. We've learned what to say. We've learned how to maneuver. And we've learned how to alter or bend ourselves to adapt to the culture to fit in, to do whatever we need to do.” Likewise, Peter said, “We got to conform more and more. And not just to move up in leadership, but I just want to be at the table, to be able to speak into what God has called us to do here. And after [x] years, I don't feel like sometimes I'm even invited to the table.” One aspect of trying to fit into the dominant white culture for Veronica was the pressure to hide oneself in order to avoid judgment. She said, “We are then judged by our white counterparts because we don't do it like them and their society in their social structure. Therefore we are wrong because it looks different….So you hide pieces of yourself. Or you don't acknowledge pieces of yourself in public because XYZ… because you don't want to have a conversation about whatever it may be. You don't want to make people uncomfortable.”

Third, participants adjusted their speech when interacting with people from their organization and team. Elizabeth mentioned how she would try to use soft language or politically correct terms, like, “diversity” in order not to cause offense, “I'd say diversity, just really soft.” Another participant mentioned that when a racially charged situation would arise, she would need to think about whether it was time to speak out or to “wait for a teachable moment.” Recounting a charged conversation Peter had with a white colleague, he said, “And then the [ethnic identity] passion comes out and all of a sudden, my hands start flying. My voice gets louder. And they're not comfortable with that at all. And so I have to lower the voice.”

There are also instances when participants resisted conforming to the norms of the dominant culture. One of Peter's concerns was that he would become a “sellout.” Peter said, “the way to move up is to be at the yes man or yes, woman. And, I wasn't going to do that when I didn't agree with something, but I wanted to actually grapple with it, talk about it. Let's have the hard conversations. And that's not always easy to do in a Christian group because we all want to just be happy and keep moving forward. But there was definitely times in our mission I didn't like the direction it was headed in. And so I spoke out.”

Gaby also voiced a critique and recommendation for her organization. She recounted the story of a former [ethnic group] missions director that was trying to help missionaries from a particular ethnic group understand what it takes to work primarily with white mission teams. “He said, ‘If you cannot argue or do conflict in the American way, your voice will not be heard….And he was encouraging the [ethnic group] to be the ones to learn how to do things the American way, just to be able to be respected or to be heard at the table….Unfortunately, I mean, glad he was saying that, but I think we need Americans saying that to the American teams, you know, like, ‘Hey, we need to learn how other cultures…or understand the strengths and some of the barriers minorities will feel, not only the field…where they're serving, but also on their own team members.”

Likewise, Jessica utilized her cultural competence to critique an outreach practice in her organization and the power of the voices in her organization over her own. She said, “Why does hospitality mean that we have to invite people to our homes? When in Asia inviting someone to your home is the most burdensome thing in the world. That, actually in no way, shows hospitality to people because it causes them to feel uncomfortable. And so it challenged me a lot and seeing like, no, just because everybody else is doing this in my organization, they're not doing it wrong either, they're coming at it at a certain worldview and a certain background that they're from. But also not discrediting what I feel could be also biblical, you know? But because those voices aren't as loud, sometimes it causes me to really wrestle with, ‘Oh, is it really right? Is it really true?”

Sources of Support Contribute to Resilience

A fifth theme that emerged from the interviews was that despite the challenges missionaries of color faced within their predominately white organization and teams, they drew on sources of support that helped them to develop resilience. Eight of the sixteen participants mentioned something related to this theme. The most important source was interaction with other missionaries of color. This served as an important source of support for several participants. After George Floyd's murder a participant shared about how she and her black colleagues supported one another: “Black missionaries within [organization name], we've gotten together just to check in with each other and talk and ask questions and stuff like that. Since we all have different experiences…some people relate, some cannot.”

In addition to providing a safe outlet to discuss the George Floyd events and other conversations on race, as mentioned above, having other missionaries of color to communicate with, or to be present, at large meetings sponsored by the missions organization was also helpful. Samuel spoke about his experience hanging out with other [ethnic group] men at missionary conferences, “There are some times where we're not included or singled out…stuff like that unintentionally, but it happens.” Later he went on to say, “White people stick to white people, I guess…. [ethnic group] people [with] [ethnic group] people. And so there's just [a] few [ethnic group] people to stick to, so I just hung out with them.” And, Eileen said, “I've loved getting more connection with the people of color in our company, and I've helped organize some of that too.”

Additional supports mentioned were books and podcasts that discuss minority experiences. Lastly, supports related to faith such as prayer, remembering God's faithfulness, and spiritual authority were mentioned. For example, although Peter expressed frustration with the lack of diverse leadership within his organization, he said, “We're [missionaries of color] still gonna do what God calls us to do because we feel like we have spiritual authority to do stuff in our mission that in the past has been mostly with people with the titles.” These various sources of support helped participants develop resilience on the field.

Discussion and Implications

The purpose of this study was to understand how race shapes the relationship of long-term U.S. missionaries of color with their missions organization and teammates. The five major findings of this research were: race shapes relationships with missions organization, race shapes relationships with teammates, conversations about race are prevalent and are shaped by the racial identity of the conversants, behavior is adapted to align with white norms when interacting with their missions organization or their team, and sources of support contribute to resilience. The findings indicate the importance of race in shaping the experiences of missionaries of color with their predominately white missions organization and teammates. Below the findings are discussed in light of the literature.

Missions Organizations and Teams as White Spaces

While experiences varied between participants, overall patterns in the data indicated that among our participants, missionaries of color seem to have similar to experiences of people of color at other PWIs with regards to the prevalence of white normativity and cultural insensitivity. Such experiences have detrimental effects on individuals such as a sense of invisibility, racial battle fatigue, and an overall lack of a sense of belonging. Furthermore, it can be argued here that both Anglo-conformity and colorblindness were perceived to characterize white missionary spaces. Among the missions organizations represented by the participants in our study, it is the participants’ perception that it was not until only recently, and only in some cases, have mission organization leaders and teammates expressed a sincere interest and desire in supporting missionaries of color. While this was occurring before the summer of 2020, the murder of George Floyd, and the racial unrest that followed, seem to spark within white missionary communities a desire to pursue a deeper understanding of racial issues.

The findings above indicate the importance of sensitivity for Whites when engaging in conversations about race with people of color. Appiah, Eveland Jr., Bullock, and Coduto (2022) discussed at length the barriers that affect interracial conversations about race. Both Whites and people of color bring a certain amount of fear with them when discussing racial issues. Moreover, when initiating these conversations Whites should be aware of their motivations, as well as the possible unintended consequence of the stress this places on their colleagues of color. Whites should be mindful that even if they have good intentions, they may display, “implicit racial biases” (Appiah et al., 2022: 447). Moreover, it is important to note that over time, continued exposure to situations in which cultural insensitivity, or worse, racism is experienced, along with pressure to conform to white norms, can result in racial battle fatigue and threaten the persistence of missionaries of color on the field. As discussed above, racial battle fatigue negatively affects the well-being of individuals (Franklin, 2019; Galloway, 2020; Smith et al., 2007).

Although it seems as though missions organizations and missionary teams have a long ways to go as far as creating a sense of belonging and inclusion among missionaries of color, it was encouraging to note that the findings do indicate that there may be a trend toward missions organizations adopting a posture of listening and learning in order to better understand and support missionaries of color. Nevertheless, a change in attitude or cultural competency will not likely be sufficient to create more inclusive communities, but rather organizational change in the form of racially diversifying the leadership is another step that will demonstrate evidence that mission organizations and teams are committed to creating supportive structures for missionaries of color.

Anglo-Conformity as a Strategy to Navigate White Spaces

As discussed above, the normativity of whiteness is prevalent in PWIs, so it should come as no surprise then that one of the major findings to emerge was how participants modified their behavior to navigate the white spaces of their missions organization. The normativity of whiteness places on people of color the expectation to assimilate to the dominant culture, rewarding those that do and punishing those that do not. This can also be considered Anglo-conformity, or assimilation to white culture. The participants in this study were not the first ones to modify their behavior in the presence of their white colleagues, but rather people of color have long modified their behavior in order to navigate white spaces. For example, writing about the situation of Blacks after Emancipation, Ogbu said, “Blacks were also now required to behave and to talk like White people to gain social acceptance and to be treated as social equals by White people” (Ogbu, 2004: 14).

Moreover, while pressure to adhere to the culture of Anglo-conformity may be present in missions, it is evident from a historical perspective that Blacks have not been able to assimilate and instead, continue to occupy the lowest rung on the racial hierarchy in the United States (Hochschild, 2000). Although improvements have been made in political power and socioeconomic status, African American communities continue to be marginalized in the U.S. and face racial discrimination (Hochschild, 2000; Portes and Zhou, 1999; Waters and Eschbach, 1999).

Yancey critiqued Anglo-conformity by writing, “Some would argue that we need to go into communities of color and teach them how to be successful in our society. This type of Anglo-conformist mentality can provide help to people of color without truly acknowledging the toxic effects of historical racism and institutional bias” (Yancey, 2022: 81). Moreover, a pressure to conform, along with negative racialized experiences, can have detrimental effects on individuals’ sense of belonging and value within their organization and team. As mentioned above, Dickens and Chavez argued that modifying behavior to adhere to white norms can result in adopting “dual identities to appease” as well as cause a sense of loss of individual identity or confusion (Dickens and Chavez, 2018: 761). Moreover, it can lead to conflict within teams and hijack the cohesion and goals they share. Not least importantly, Anglo-conformity and a colorblind approach to race also overlook and diminish the strengths that people of color bring to their positions precisely due to their racial identity and ethnic heritage, as well as the skills learned by navigating a society in which they are minorities.

Building Inclusive and Supportive Structures for Missionaries of Color

As noted above, relationships with other missionaries of color were an important source of support. These relationships were important when attending conferences and when discussing the murder of George Floyd and the racial unrest in the summer of 2020. Scholars have studied the importance of same race and culture groups in other settings as well. In higher education, it has been found that race and ethnic specific student groups have several benefits for students of color including providing a sense of belonging (Kuh, 2017) and increasing academic achievement and retention (Romero et al., 2020).

The experience of isolation is intimately connected with feeling a lack of support. The support structures at PWIs must be assessed for inclusivity. People of color face challenges that are different from most of their white counterparts. Bourke commented that “attending to structural diversity via diverse admissions without addressing organizational elements that can aid student engagement will result in little that can positively affect student enrollments” (Bourke, 2016: 18). Therefore, ethnic student groups, such as sororities and fraternities, have been an outlet students of color have pursued. In her qualitative study, Garcia (2019) assessed the experiences of Latina/o students involved in Latina/o sororities and fraternities in predominantly white institutions. She found that the most significant influence of their experience of belonging had to do with representation, where the participants “were able to identify with others and know that they shared similar backgrounds and experiences” (Garcia, 2019: p. 187). The simple reality of being one of the few exceptions based on ethnic and racial backgrounds creates a sense of exclusion. Therefore, institutions face an opportunity to address such challenges.

Case and Hernandez's study on a cohort of Latino university students engaged in “an intentional ethnic identity exploration program” at a Primarily White Christian Institution (PWCI) found that the program had numerous benefits for the students’ academic and personal development (Case and Hernandez, 2013: 87). Through the program, freshman students developed more ethnic awareness and pride in being Latino and progressed through various stages of identity development until as seniors they became “ethnically rooted bicultural leaders” (Case and Hernandez, 2013: 87). As a result of participating in this program, Latino students experienced growth in the areas of “academic, social, and leadership development” (Case and Hernandez, 2013: 90). Institutions that adopt a colorblind perspective that ignores the value of race for academic success and persistence, in contrast, these findings argue for the value of racial and ethnic identity formation to the success of minority students in PWCIs.

Therefore, the findings align with the academic literature by highlighting the importance of either same-race peer support or support through relationships with other missionaries of color. This finding provides opportunities for mission organizations to support their missionaries of color by fostering such groups and relationships.

Implications for Missions Practice and Research

The findings of this research have several important implications for missions organizations, racially and ethnically diverse missionary teams, and missiological research. First, structural support and change is needed in the leadership of mission organizations. Leadership can support missionaries of color by racially and ethnically diversifying leadership and organizational culture, by listening to and learning from missionaries of color, and by having courage and persistence to deal with racial issues well. Second, there is a need for mission organizations to implement cultural responsiveness training and pre-field training on working in diverse teams, as well as to equip member care staff to support the unique needs of missionaries of color. Organizations can better prepare missionaries for the field by not only providing them with tools to interact cross-culturally with local host cultures, but also by equipping missionaries to interact with their own diverse teammates. Third, by demonstrating a posture of cultural humility and genuine care, white missionaries can contribute to creating a more inclusive and safe environment for discussing racial issues. Fourth, missions organizations would do well to invest in creating avenues for missionaries of similar racial and ethnic backgrounds to connect with each other. If there are very few missionaries of similar racial and ethnic backgrounds within an organization, the organization should consider supporting opportunities for missionaries of color to connect with each other, regardless of the specific racial and ethnic identity. Lastly, although this research has identified several problematic areas where missionaries of color experience a lack of inclusion, it should be noted that a shared Christian identity has the potential to be a strong bridge for relationships in diverse missions organizations and teams (Marti, 2009).

Lastly, the findings of this study provide several avenues for future research, including exploring gender differences among missionaries of color as it relates to predominately white organizations, how multiracial and multiethnic teams deal with racial conflict, and attitudes of missions organizations leaders on racial conflict within their organizations.

Conclusion

Lisa Fields, founder and president of the Jude 3 Project, extended this challenge to the evangelical church,

“Racism, slavery, and oppression are skeletons in the evangelical closet and cannot be overcome until they are honestly addressed. The old tale that ‘time heals all wounds’ is a lie. Time cannot heal what is not confronted and discussed. This is the very nature of the gospel message. The gospel confronts the sinful nature of humanity and requires confession and repentance to have a right standing with God. There is no reconciliation without confession. If evangelicalism cannot be honest about its dark past, it will never see wholeness in its future” (Fields, 2019: 169).

While the challenge issued by Fields is a tall order, theologian and seminary administrator, Walter R. Strickland II, offer hope. Broadening the conversation he said,

“God has granted humanity resources to overcome our limitations, one of which is the people of God who can help us to identify our areas of blindness. As a result, Christians are better equipped to live a life of faithfulness in community, especially when the community is representative of different ages, stages of life, races, and socioeconomic demographics. People of various types must be proactively included in both examining and establishing the structures that comprise our lives so that the love of God for all people is captured in every structure in society” (Strickland II, 2019: 166).

Furthermore, from a missiological perspective, a commitment to improving race relations should be motivated by a core component of Christian doctrine found in Genesis 1:26. This is the belief that all humans are made in the image of God, which bestows upon each innate dignity and worth. Thus, cultivating organizational cultures and team dynamics in which the image of God is recognized and honored in missionaries of color is a kingdom worthy endeavor.

The study revealed the complex racial dynamics that missionaries of color face as they interact with their predominately white missions organization and teammates. At the same time, the findings of our study suggest perhaps a hopeful shift in the way many missions organizations are approaching matters of race and injustice. While the George Floyd events were the catalyst for many conversations, other organizations had already been involved in prioritizing diversity and supporting missionaries of color before the summer of 2020. What remains to be seen is whether this shift toward support for missionaries of color will become a growing trend among a broader scope of missions organizations. Also unknown is whether these changes will lead to long-term, structural changes in priorities and values as they relate to issues of diversity, both within mission organizations and within the U.S. evangelical church in general.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The authors received financial support from the Biola University Faculty Research and Development Grant to conduct this research.

ORCID iDs

Lindsey A. Huang

Norlan Josué Hernández Blandón

Author biographies

Lindsey A. Huang, PhD is Associate Professor of Intercultural Studies and Program Director for the Doctor of Intercultural Studies at the Cook School of Intercultural Studies at Biola University.

Norlan Josué Hernández Blandón, PhD is the Director of the Jesse Miranda Center at Vanguard University.

References

Appiah

Eveland Jr

Bullock

et al. (2022) Why we can't talk openly about race: The impact of race and partisanship on respondents' perceptions of intergroup conversations. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 25(2): 434–452.

Bourke

(2016) Meaning and implications of being labelled a predominantly white institution. College & University 91(3): 12–21.

Bracey

(2017) The significance of historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) in the 21st century: will such institutions of higher learning survive? American Journal of Economics and Sociology 76(3): 670–696.

Brezinski

Laux

Roseman

, et al. (2018) Undergraduate African–American student’s experience of racial microaggressions on a primarily white campus. Journal for Multicultural Education 12(3): 267–277.

Carr

(1997) “Color-Blind” Racism. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Case

Hernandez

(2013) ‘But still, I’m Latino and I’m proud’: ethnic identity exploration in the context of a collegiate cohort program. Christian Higher Education 12(1–2): 74–92.

Charmaz

(2014) Constructing Grounded Theory (Second). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Dickens

Chavez

(2018) Navigating the workplace: the costs and benefits of shifting identities at work among early career U.S. Black women. Sex Roles 78(11–12): 760–774.

Ecklund

(2013) First-generation social and ethnic minority students in Christian universities: student recommendations for successful support of diverse students. Christian Higher Education 12(3): 159–180.

10.

Emerson

Smith

(2000) Divided by Faith: Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

11.

Escobar

(2003) The New Global Mission: The Gospel from Everywhere to Everyone. Downers Grove: IVP Academic.

12.

Fields

(2019) The challenges of racism within evangelicalism. In: Chatraw

Swallow Prior

(eds) Cultural engagement: a crash course in contemporary issues. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academics, 167–170.

13.

Franklin

(2019) Coping with racial battle fatigue: differences and similarities for African American and Mexican American college students. Race, Ethnicity and Education 22(5): 589–609.

14.

Galloway

(2020) Moving beyond the statements: the need for action to address structural racism at predominantly white institutions. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Perspectives in Higher Education 5(1): 174–179.

15.

Garcia

(2019) Belonging in a predominantly white institution: the role of membership in Latina/o sororities and fraternities. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education 13(2): 181–193.

16.

Gasman

Abiola

Travers

(2015) Diversity and senior leadership at elite institutions of higher education. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education 8(1): 1–14.

17.

Glesne

(2016) Becoming Qualitative Researchers: An Introduction. New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.

18.

Hochschild

(2000) Looking ahead: racial trends in the United States. In: Back

Solmos

(eds) Theories of race and racism: a reader, 2nd edition. New York: Routledge, 639–651.

19.

Kuh

(2017) What do we do now?: Implications for educators of how college affects students. The Review of Higher Education 15(3): 349–363.

20.

Marti

(2009) Affinity, identity, and transcendence: the experience of religious racial integration in diverse congregations. Journal for the Social Scientific Study of Religion 48(1): 53–68.

21.

McGill

Huang

Davis

, et al. (2018) Addressing the neglect of students of color: the strategy of life coaching. Journal of Sociology and Christianity 8(1): 23–42.

22.

Merriam

Tisdell

(2016) Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

23.

Ogbu

(2004) Collective identity and the burden of “acting White” in Black history, community, and education. The Urban Review 36(1): 1–35.

24.

Ogunyemi

Clar

Astudillo

, et al. (2020) Microaggressions in the learning environment: a systematic review. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education 13(2): 97–119.

25.

Portes

Zhou

(1999) The new second generation: segmented assimilation and its variants. In: Yetman

(eds) Majority and minority: the dynamics of race and ethnicity in American life. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 348–363.

26.

Resane

(2021) White fragility, white supremacy and white normativity make theological dialogue on race difficult. In Die Skriflig 55(1): 1–10.

27.

Romero

Gonzalez

Clark-Ibanez

, et al. (2020) A culturally validated model of student success services and academic and curriculum enhancements at a Hispanic-serving institution. AMAE Journal 14(3): 84–104.

28.

Smith

Allen

Danley

(2007) “Assume the position…you fit the description”: psychosocial experiences and racial battle fatigue among African American male college students. American Behavioral Scientist 51(4): 551–578.

29.

Strickland II

(2019) Diagnosing race as a twofold problem. In: Chatraw

Swallow Prior

(eds) Cultural engagement: a crash course in contemporary issues. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academics, 163–166.

30.

Waters

Eschbach

(1999) Immigration and ethnic and racial inequality in the United States. In: Yetman

(eds) Majority and minority: the dynamics of race and ethnicity in American life. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 312–327.

31.

Wright

CJH

(2007 January) An upside down world. Christianity Today 51(1): 42–46.

32.

Yancey

(2022) Beyond Racial Division: A Unifying Alternative to Colorblindness and Antiracism. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press.

33.

Yeh

(2016) Polycentric Missiology: 21^st Century Mission from Everyone to Everywhere. Downers Grove: IVP Academic.