Diversity in Higher Education Institutions That Train Ministry Leaders: A Call for True Reflection and Examination

Color-blind vs. Color-conscious

The terms color-blind and color-conscious were originally directed towards multi-ethnic congregations. Multiethnic churches fall into two organizational models, each revolving around the dynamics between the majority ethnic group and those in the minority. First, there are ethnically diverse congregations with one ethnic group determining the organization and methodology of the church. This “color-blind” approach expects ethnic minorities to embrace the structures and philosophies established by the dominant ethnic group (Garces-Foley, 2007, p. 85). Leaders downplay ethnic identity and perspective in favor of Christian identity. The result is an assimilation that suppresses ethnic identity. Every person has an ethnic identity including Caucasians (Harris, 2004). For the purposes of this article, ethnic identity is referring to the non-Caucasian person.

The second form of multiethnic church is shared community with the goal to embrace the perspectives and traditions of each ethnic group by inclusion in leadership, celebration of traditions, and respect for ethnic differences (Garces-Foley, 2007, pp. 83–90; Woodley, 2004, p. 182). This approach necessitates “color-conscious” discourses that acknowledge the importance of ethnicity by affirming ethnic histories and perspectives (Garces-Foley, 2007, p. 53). The aim is to elevate ethnic identity and perspective without forsaking Christian identity.

The author suspects that many institutions of higher education are adopting a color-blind approach for several reasons. First, it is easier to easier to adopt the appearance of diversity than cultivate a diverse culture. Second, the events of 2020 demanded an immediate response; therefore, to avoid negative publicity, organizations began to prioritize diversity hires. Third, there is unfortunately an erroneous theological framework that suppresses ethnicity as secondary if not irrelevant to one’s identity when compared to one’s Christian identity.

Brief Theological Exploration of Ethnicity

Theologians throughout history have arrived at numerous conclusions regarding the image of God. While divergent, these are four principal viewpoints: substantive, functional, moral, and relational. The following synopses of each viewpoint will provide background to the discussion on ethnicity and the image of God. The intent of this section is to affirm ethnic identity and perspectives as an essential component of one’s Christian identity thus needing affirmation and integration in Christian institutions of higher education.

Theological Perspectives of Image of God

The substantive viewpoint asserts that the image of God involves a “definite characteristic or quality” within humans (Erickson, 1985, p. 498). While some have argued for a physical or psychosomatic aspect, the most endorsed perspective throughout the first twelve hundred years of church history centers on human reason. The most notable proponents were Irenaeus and Aquinas, both concluding human beings retained the image of God while the likeness was corrupted. They cite Gen 1:26–27 asserting that the words image and likeness are separate human entities, not parallel ones. Adam possessed the image of God, referring to human reason and free will, and the divine likeness, embodying his spirit. At the fall, Adam lost the divine likeness but retained the divine image (Erickson, 1985, p. 500). Since humans can know God, the divine image remains intact even after the fall. The fall did not affect a person’s mind; it destroyed the “supernatural grace” that allows a person to control one’s passions by one’s reason (Hoekema, 1986, pp. 38–39). Christ restores this grace, enabling believers to reflect the image of God (Hoekema, 1986, p. 39).

The moral viewpoint resonates with the substantive perspective and, for many scholars, is a branch of it since it locates the image of God as an innate aspect within humans. The category “moral viewpoint” is the author’s classification to draw distinction from the substantive perspective. While the substantive perspective isolates the divine image to human reason, the moral viewpoint perceives the soul as the location of God’s image. The key architect of this theological position was Calvin who stated, “For although God’s glory shines forth in the outer man, yet there is no doubt that the proper seat of his image is in the soul” (Calvin, 1960, p. 186). Calvin agrees that reason was at one point perfect; however, the fall has resulted in the divine image becoming so “vitiated and maimed” that it has in essence been destroyed (Calvin, 1979b, p. 95). This conclusion arises from his interpretation that image and likeness refer to the same essence, not separate entities. The remedy is the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit through the “Word of God” available in Jesus Christ (Calvin, 1979a, p. 187). A person must move towards “the Word,” leading to a gradual conformity to the image of God with the full realization experienced at glorification (Calvin, 1979a, p. 56).

The functional viewpoint emphasizes the dominion command given to human beings at Creation (Gen 1:28). God is Lord of the universe; therefore, humankind reflects his image as it exercises dominion (lordship) over his creation (Erickson, 1985, p. 509). In other words, the image of God involves action in the world. Proponents cite the Psalter, “Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor. You have given him dominion over the works of your hands; you have put all things under his feet” (Ps 8:5–6, all references in the article are from the English Standard Version). Advocates connect the implied image of “glory and honor” with the task of creational oversight, concluding that “man is a creature meant for dominion-having and that as such he is in the image of his Maker” (Mowinckel, 1962, p. 57).

The relational viewpoint asserts that the image of God does not reside within humans but expresses itself through interactions with God and other persons. The biblical basis for this perspective resides in God’s purpose for humans – to be creatures who respond to “His call of love with a grateful, responsive love” (Brunner, 1953, p. 55). Emil Brunner and Karl Barth are the principal advocates of this viewpoint. According to the former, the image of God contains two senses. The formal sense involves human being’s responsibility to respond to God and other people; the material sense applies to the actual response of love to these relationships (Erickson, 1985, pp. 503–4). The formal sense is not fallen while the material sense remains in a state of sinfulness, evidenced when an individual responds contrary to God’s desires (Hoekema, 1986, p. 55). The incarnation restores the image of God by allowing individuals to respond appropriately to God and other people (Hoekema, 1986, p. 56). Expanding on this perspective, Barth’s perception of the image of God focuses on the phrase “created male and female.” As men and women “confront” each other in relationship, they encounter the image of God (Barth 1958, 184). This male-female interaction reflects God’s “confrontations” with humans (Hoekema, 1986, p. 50). Unlike Brunner, Barth does not believe the image of God has been lost. It can, however, become more divine-like as a person embraces the lifestyle of Jesus Christ (Hoekema, 1986, pp. 51–52).

Synthesis of Perspectives

It is essential to remain biblically faithful, contextually sensitive, and logically consistent when developing a theology of the image of God. The following assertions attempt to construct such a framework by synthesizing the theological perspectives. The substantive perspective affirms innateness to the image of God. However, the image of God is never exclusively associated with reason; therefore, the moralistic viewpoint that locates the divine image in the soul is more textually persuasive. Furthermore, the words “image” and “likeness” in Gen 1:27 are best understood as an example of Hebrew parallelism rather than interpreted as different concepts. In addition, sin affected the image of God. However, the post-fall passages, Gen 5:1–2 and 9:6–7, affirm that the image of God is not lost despite the corruption of sin. In Christ, the divine image can begin to experience restoration. Yet, the image of God is not static; it also includes human activity, expressed through multiplication and dominion. In this sense, the divine image is functional. Thus far, the author wonders whether the theological treatment of image of God has been influenced by western, Platonic-grounded thought that focuses on the individual. Considering the communal emphasis of the biblical narrative, is it not more theologically holistic to embrace the image of God as necessitating a relational aspect – “to one another.” As such, the works of Brunner and Barth are helpful to encourage loving human interaction that is a demonstration and embodiment of image-bearing.

Ethnicity and the Image of God

This section intends to provide biblical, sociological, and theological support for a connection between ethnicity and the image of God to provide a substantive foundation that ethnic identity should be viewed as an essential aspect of one’s being. An overview of the biblical narrative will highlight how ethnicity relates to the functional purposes of the image of God. Next, a sociological treatment highlights its relational dynamics. Finally, ethnic identity formation incorporates aspects of the moral viewpoint.

Biblical Exploration of Ethnicity and the Image of God

Gen 1:27 and 9:6 connect the image of God to the multiplication mandate to “fill the earth” (Gen 1:28, 9:7). This command incorporates the functional aspect of the image of God. Humans reflect God’s image by scattering into the world. This mandate assumes the development of ethnic diversity as individuals will settle in different regions. The Tower of Babel chronicles the scattering of nations and infusion of languages (Gen 11:1–9). A careful reading of the text reveals two important conclusions. First, the sinful attitudes and actions of pride prevented the scattering of nations as God intended. “Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth.” (Gen 11:4 italics mine) God always intended for humans to “fill the earth.” Second, the infusion of language provided the impetus to scatter the nations. “Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another’s speech. So the Lord dispersed them from there over the face of all the earth.” (Gen 11:7–8) The text indicates linguistic diversity as the method by which God accomplished the original purpose to scatter the nations. In addition, Genesis 10 describes the formation of ethnic enclaves as people groups are spread out into their territories “by their clans, their languages, their lands, and their nations” (Gen 10:4, 20, 31). This passage is located prior to the Tower of Babel narrative to clearly highlight the fulfillment of Genesis 1 and 9. Chronologically, it occurs after Genesis 11 in response to the scattering of people (Sung, 2011, pp. 259–268).

Different languages are not the principal determination of ethnic distinction as ethnic persons are peoples who share a “common culture, including language, or other patterns of behavior and beliefs” (Cornell & Hartmann, 2007, p. 17). Sung is correct in concluding that Adam and Eve are not “pre-racial but non-racial beings” (Sung, 2011, p. 248). However, God intended for humans to “fill the earth.” The fulfillment began to occur after God scattered the nations, giving rise to ethnic enclaves. Could it not be affirmed that God had ethnic diversity in mind as a not-yet-realized aspect of the image of God when he originally created Adam and Eve, similar to how God more fully disclosed His covenant and redemptive purposes as the biblical narrative unfolded?

New Testament passages appear to imply the abolishment of gender and race, thus contesting an ethnic expression to the image of God. Gal 3:28 states, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” At first glance, this verse indicates persons are ethnic-free once they embrace a new spiritual identity. This interpretation misunderstands the passage. The purpose is to highlight the reduction of ethnic identities and barriers for the unifying nature of Jesus Christ. The gender and ethnic statements “do not mean that all male-female distinctions” have been eliminated “in Christ, any more than there is not racial difference between the Christian Jew and the Christian Gentile” (Fung, 1988, p. 175; Campbell, 2008a, p. 147). Rather, the redemption of Jesus Christ liberates sinful expressions that historically have accompanied lived realities of gender or ethnicity. In other words, Paul is not arguing for a faith without ethnic distinctions but rather for transformed ethnic identities, such as “transformed Jews” or “transformed Gentiles” (Campbell, 2008b, p. 15).

Reinforcing this sentiment, Col 3:11 states, “Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free, but Christ is all, and in all,” making a direct correlation to the “image of the Creator” (Col 3:10). O’Brien concludes that this verse emphasizes an abolishment of sinful influences, “the barriers that divided people from one another – racial, religious, cultural and social,” rather than an elimination of ethnic identity (O’Brien, 1982, p. 192). The emphasis is on the sinful results arising from ethnic group interaction, not the nature of ethnicity itself.

It is essential to maintain theological coherence and consistency when exploring biblical themes. If a person insists on a gender aspect within the image of God, the New Testament passages require the inclusion of ethnicity since gender and ethnicity are parallel in Galatians and Colossians. In addition, the language and purpose of Genesis 11 supports a divine commissioning of ethnic scattering to the world. The redemptive work in Jesus Christ does not abolish this decree but rather gives it a divinely restored expression.

In addition, the eschatological reality includes ethnic distinctions as persons from “every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages” worship before the throne of God (Rev 7:9–10). Furthermore, there are “nations” in the New Jerusalem (Rev 21:24). Interestingly, the tree of life is for the “healing of the nations”, giving credence to the biblical interpretation that the image of God includes ethnic expression with ethnic discord being a result of the curse (Rev 22:2–3).

Sociological Exploration of Ethnicity and the Image of God

Two principal influences form individual ethnicity. The first influence is primordial which includes physical characteristics, nationality, history, and language. These attributes are “the assumed givens” of social existence, influencing ethnic identity apart from the decisions or circumstances of the individual. They are “fixed, fundamental, and rooted in unchangeable circumstances of birth” (Cornell & Hartmann, 2007, p. 51). The circumstances encountered in life frame the second influence on ethnic identity. As an individual migrates to a different country or marries someone of another ethnicity, ethnic identification experiences a redefinition (Cornell & Hartmann, 2007, p. 59). For example, a person from China will see life differently than an American-born Chinese.

The question is, does the ethnic component of divine image correlate to both influences? The biblical references affirm the image of God to be innate at birth. It does not change over time. It experiences corruption or restoration; however, its “essence” does not change. Furthermore, the image of God is holistic, involving every aspect of a person. Therefore, the image of God can include primordial aspects of a person’s ethnicity, namely physical characteristics. Genetic research advocates for a “shift from fixed essential types to the dynamic population paradigm,” which argues for a more fluid perspective where each individual is slightly different from their parents (Sung, 2011, p. 145). Since each individual is unique, there are no fixed qualities. While this is scientifically accurate, it does not exclude that these qualities can still be “assumed givens” since each person is uniquely created (Ps 139:13–16). In addition, the image of God involves relational interaction. The New Testament passages affirm individual ethnicity (“Jew” and “Gentile” in Galatians 1 and Colossians 3) and ethnic groups (“nation, tribe, people” in Revelation 7). As individuals from different ethnic groups interact with each other, they reflect the relational aspect of the image of God. The ongoing ethnic tensions reflect its not-yet-glorified nature.

Theological Exploration of Ethnicity and the Image of God

Jennings asserts that a person’s “racial self” is created when that individual is displaced from their native context, as they become defined by the physical and cultural distinctions from other persons in the new context (Jennings, 2010, p. 59). Racial identity refers to a self-concept imposed on a person by another group, whereas ethnic identity involves a self-concept that is chosen by the individual (Cornell & Hartmann, 2007, pp. 32–35). This article focus is on ethnic identity; however, Jennings conclusions are relevant since racial identities suppress an individual’s ethnic identity. He further argues that racial identities experience transformation through the redemptive story of God (Jennings, 2010, p. 161). Jesus invites all people (thus all “cultures”) to himself, creating a new life-giving relationship (Jennings, 2010, p. 266, 273). The result is freedom that leads to cultural intimacy and validation or the ability to express one’s ethnic identity (Jennings, 2010, p. 288). Carter asserts this transformation occurs to a person’s divine image as it is restored to the likeness of God (Carter, 2008, p. 246). He cites Gregory of Nyssa who argues for two layers to the image of God: the “prototype image,” understood as the spiritual essence in us, and our “filled out” image, that characterizes individual distinctions. Gen 1:27 describes these layers as man and woman are created in the image of God (prototype image) with unique qualities such as gender (filled out image) (Carter, 2008, p. 246). After individuals are scattered at the Tower of Babel, the filled out image takes on contextual qualities such as ethnicity (Carter, 2008, p. 246). Over the course of time, these qualities experience distortion due to sin, leading to ethnic conflicts and tensions. In the New Testament, Jesus is the concrete “prototype” that invites humans’ “filled out” images into his divine image, resulting in new, restored identities (Carter, 2008, pp. 247–8). This divine absorption liberates individuals from the sinful expressions of ethnicity (e.g. racism) without erasing ethnic identities. In other words, the cross frees ethnic identities to what God intended (Carter, 2008, p. 312). Williams echoes this sentiment by arguing that God “anticipated an ethnically diverse community” when he chose Abraham and Moses as conduits for his purposes to be fulfilled in the redemptive work of Christ (Williams, 2021, p. 2).

Locating ethnicity in the divine image provides a biblical, sociological, and theological foundation for Christian institutions of higher education. This perspective appropriately addresses the image of God passages while accounting for its sinful distortions. Furthermore, a remedy to ethnic identity suppression is available in the redemption of Christ. Finally, this position coheres with sociological principles of ethnic identity formation. Related to Christian institutions, one must ask what is their theological framework for ethnic identity development? What is the biblical motivation for engagement with members of different ethnic groups? How does a Christian college or university ground its diversity initiatives?

Outcomes of a Color-blind Ethos

Based on this theological position, color-blind approaches to diversity are lacking in several ways. First, they minimize or disregard essential components of one’s nature as image-bearers of God. This approach results in a deficient theology. Second, it suppresses the histories, perspectives, and essential being of ethnic persons. A comparable stance would be an institution stating that one’s gender perspective is relevant; what is most important is simply a biological gender ratio. Such affirmations would be dismissed by the larger scientific community that conclude through research that men and women are different. Sociologically, similar research can be stated regarding the unique differences, not simply in nurture but nature, between different ethnic persons. Finally, it can produce a class perspective to identity. Since western Christian institutions are typically populated by Caucasians, the overall culture is shaped around a Caucasian perspective. Realities of inherent power, presumed validation, and accessible opportunities are givens, not challenges. Members of ethnic minorities live in a different reality where barriers, discrimination, and marginalization, are commonplace. Some Christian institutions strive to incorporate the perspectives of ethnic persons. However, the vast majority are satisfied with a diverse demographic rather than true ethnic representation. Perhaps a theological grounding that legitimizes ethnic identity could motivate an ethnically-affirming culture change in institutions.

Outcomes of a Color-conscious Ethos

In contrast, it is most honoring to adopt a color-conscious approach to diversity. It upholds the theological affirmation that each person is “fearfully and wonderfully made” (Ps. 139:14). Embedded in this conviction is the invitation that the entire person should be welcome to an institution, including but not limited to one’s ethnic background and perspective. In addition, it adds a richness to the academic environment of higher education. Colleges and universities are first and foremost learning organizations. Embracing the unique ethnic perspectives of ethnic persons fosters enriched awareness and academic development, stretching pre-existing and fossilized mindsets.

Direct beneficiaries of this ethos are the students. Faculty establish the guardrails for learning in the classroom. Naturally, one’s background influences and dictates one’s pedagogy. While one might attempt to step into the shoes of the ethnic-other, it is impossible from a true experiential standpoint. For institutions of higher education to fully develop their students, it is essential for ethnicity to be embraced, not simply visibly, particularly among the faculty. It enables perspective-taking to occur within the classroom, to say nothing of the authentic affirmation amongst ethnic minorities. Practically, ethnic individuals should be given permission to utilize non-Caucasian texts and curricula to cultivate critical thinking.

The world is becoming increasing global. Higher education is no longer a western commodity. To fully participate in the global landscape, institutions need to truly embrace diversity lest they engage in theological colonialism, domestically or abroad. At its heart, colonialism involves control by one group over another group, typically understood among nation-states. Historically, the church engaged in colonialism by asserting western Christian practices on perceived inferior cultures. This practice continues today through theological education. There is a perception that western scholarship is superior to non-western ones. It is commonplace to export western curricula and textbooks, and sadly this reality is oftentimes welcomed and desired by other countries. This message, whether intentionally or unintentionally, communicates that non-western theological or ministry practice works are not as qualified as western ones. Embracing a color-conscious ethos creates the conditions for ethnic scholarship to blossom. Faculty members would be empowered to think critically regarding ethnic scholarship as informed by theological orthodoxy. This endorsement could in turn provide permission and invitation to global scholarship.

Finally, it serves as a testimony to God’s nature and mission. If God’s purposes are for an eschatological reality that embraces ethnic identity and culture as argued, color-consciousness aligns and serves this goal. Higher education institutions that promote ethnic diversity, in appearance and ethos, thus embody God’s mission. In a world clamoring and at times screaming for ethnic equality and empowerment, such a position would serve to enhance the reputation of Christ. In short, it would bring credibility to the church. Rather than trailing society, the church can lead it, theologically, practically, and pedagogically.

Implications for Higher Education Institutions

It is essential for higher education institutions to wrestle with diversity, not in response to political correctness or societal pressure, but as an affirmation of kingdom values. The following sections are directed at Christian higher education institutions, particularly seminaries. These implications have specific importance for seminaries who train ministry leaders to lead in an increasingly global world. These implications are not intended to be exhaustive or simplistic solutions but rather initial considerations for organizations that seek to change their ethos.

Consider a Theology that Embraces Ethnic Identity and Perspective

Orthodox theology has been upheld and exegetically affirmed throughout church history. These proclamations and statements have been utilized to address current social issues such as sexual orientation – an area that involves a person’s being or essence. Theology has been applied to racial tensions and discord; however, the focus has been on justice and racial inclusion. Passages such as Galatians, Colossians, and Revelations are utilized to support such viewpoints. Jesus’ interaction with the Samaritan woman is an example of racial inclusion supported by the biblical text (John 4).

If theology is being applied to matters of essence, should not the church consider a theological exploration that incorporates ethnic identity (aka essence), not simply ethnic interactions? It has been argued in this article that such a theology is biblically sound and affirming of truths found in sociological literature. Thus, consideration of an ethnic-affirming theology would not be reckless or slippery. Rather, it would elevate one’s theology. In turn, this foundation would ground diversity initiatives in institutions of Christian higher education, particularly seminaries, in a way that is theologically-driven rather than reactionary to societal concerns. A specific application would be developing a theological statement that guides institutions regarding diversity, namely ethic identity, or courses that intentionally integrate ethic identity within a theological foundation.

Affirm Reconciliation that Considers Identity and Critical Thinking

Artificial reconciliation strives for a mirage of peace without truly grappling with underling racial tension or strained histories. Humility admits to maligning another’s identity by intentionally marginalizing a person’s ethnicity or dismissing it as immaterial in the name of “we are all Christians with a shared Christ-identity.” While the latter is true, it nullifies the theological conviction that ethnic diversity is in the heart of God. Therefore, true reconciliation should proactively seek to enhance, and if necessary, restore one’s identity through collective community ownership. It would admit, “we have not always created conditions for your ethnic identity to blossom.”

Equally, reconciliation demands deeper critical thinking to evaluate, both individually and communally, places in our lives and organization that require unearthing. Attempts at integration that stop at understanding without analyzing systems, policies, and hidden prejudices reinforce color-blindness, aka temporary diversification, not culture change. Reconciliation is not possible if individual judgments (“I understand you better, but I don’t see you differently”) or embedded discriminatory systems (“Our policies are ethnic-neutral rather than ethnically-affirming to open up pathways for growth, development, and promotion”) remain in place. Reconciliation needs to be both individual and organizational. Critical thinking allows the barriers to be identified and addressed. Specifically, seminaries that train ministry leaders should nurture leadership formation within its students that embraces holistic racial reconciliation. In an increasingly globalized world, ministry leaders will inevitably face racial issues, individually and organizations. It is necessary to be skilled in navigating these situations. More broadly, organizations, higher education institutions and churches, should incorporate racially sensitive protocols and practices that promote genuine reconciliation.

Avoid Ethnic Tokenism

Ethnic tokenism is being defined as the intentional focus on persons’ ethnic heritage in a way that spotlights their phenotype or upbringing in an exotic fashion such as “look at our diverse faculty” while excluding or minimizing their unique perspective. It is not uncommon for ethnic persons to feel spotlighted simply for their minority status in an institution. Promotional materials and public events are populated with ethnic persons with the expressed purpose of showcasing one’s diversity. This tendency de-humanizes the individual by reducing their identity to the color of one’s skin. Ethnic tokenism not only encourages color-blindness, but it also victimizes the ethnic person.

Rather, institutions should view ethnic individuals as encompassing an equal and unique voice. It is not greater or lesser than other voices. It is one that enriches the overall ethos of the organization. These individuals should be welcome to participate at all levels of the organization if they choose to do so, not because the institutions wish for diverse representation. In other words, the desire to participate should come from the individual. In the classroom, permissions should be granted to ethnic persons to share curricula and pedagogy that is ethnically sensitive, not sanitized to an erroneous belief that subject matter should be ethnic-free (ethnic-free subject matter is in essence majority-culture informed curricula). Such steps will inevitably cause some disequilibrium in the institution and classroom; however, our collective theological affirmations should be strong enough to sustain diverse, dialogical discourse. This process will also have a formative impact on current and future ministry leaders by cultivating perspective-change in a safe setting, aka the classroom, before facing such issues within a ministry context. This will allow them to be more racially sensitive leaders.

Incorporate Reflective Learning Conversations

Cultivation of authentic diverse environments requires time and patience. Color-blind environments place a premium on efficiency thus the temptation to fix diversity through diversity hires and ethnic initiatives. However, organizations that desire a diverse ethos should incorporate regular, ongoing settings where reflection and learning can occur. This learning is not simply one-directional (ethnic persons to majority culture). Rather, it should be bi-directional, premised on the belief that learning should occur among parties for culture change to occur. This bi-directional conversation can foster organizational change through increased self-awareness, perspective-taking, and empathic relationships. Conversations should consist of topics such as how the other stereotypes the other ethnic person (and also how the ethnic persons stereotype the majority culture), what barriers exist in the organization that prevent color-consciousness (true empowerment of one’s ethnic voice), and educational accommodations that would cultivate a broader ethnic lens. At the administrative level, space should be given to ask the question, “Is there something we are missing as an institution because we are seeing it from a majority culture” and “How can our decisions be more informed by the perspective of ethnic persons?” Within the classroom, intentional reflective conversations should occur that nurture psychological safety and ethnically informed perspectives. Leadership requires self-awareness. A critical component of this, for institutional and ministry leaders, is in the area of ethnicity and race.

Combine Ethnic Affirmation and Transformative Learning

Transformative learning involves disorienting moments that prompt us to see life differently (Mezirow, 2012, p. 86). Typically, it is reduced to perspective change by fostering a different outlook on life. When one is disoriented, an individual sees life differently thus learns. In this way, it is static by relegating it to the cognitive domain. Scholarship has challenged Transformational Learning Theory as being too focused on individual transformation and not factoring in social realities (Collard & Law, 1989). When considered, transformative learning can be beneficial when connected to relationships. Attaching a disorienting moment to one’s personal interactions enables a person to see someone differently, and in turn engage better with that person. In essence, transformational learning can transform one’s relationships, not simply one’s perspective.

As such, since diversity involves a strong relational component, it is important to invite disorienting moments into those relationships that focus on ethnic identity for the purpose of cultivating ethnically sensitive learning and relationship-building. An essential component of transformational learning is reflexivity – the examination of one’s beliefs and perspectives (Mezirow, 2000). Reflexivity should be equally applied to one’s relationships for the purposes of learning. Does one’s interaction truly consider the full essence of another person? Asking the following reflexivity questions can be formative: “How can my relationships be changed because of the ethnic interactions of another person?” or “How can my relational interactions be developed by socially embracing another’s ethnic identity?” Transformational learning should not simply be a mental exercise but a relational one as well. Seminaries are tasked primarily with shaping the individual, not simply training persons for ministry effectiveness. These reflexivity questions can encourage this personal development.