Backsliding into Fundamentalism and the Promise of Asian American Historical Theology (Part 3 of “Color-Blinded by the Light”)

Wow! It’s been so long since I picked up on my promised three-part reflection about the “American Empire and the Deconstruction of Asian American Racial Identity in the San Francisco Bay Area” I wasn’t satisfied with this part of my AAAS presentation, but never had a chance to get back to writing. So this blog entry can serve as sort of a part 3A.

isaac-forum-nor-cal-2016This will be a summary of the presentation I gave at the ISAAC Forum Nor Cal on Sept. 27, 2016. The goals of the Forum was to explore the future of Asian American Christianity. What needs to be given up and changed? What will be retained? So here’s my take:

Asian American Christians are backsliding into fundamentalism.

This statement, of course, reveals my affinity for “progressive” evangelicalism. What most people don’t know is that I grew up as a fundamentalist Christian and almost gave up on my faith when I could no longer stand its judgmental and controlling attitudes. Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship rescued me by demonstrating that one could be an evangelical while engaging intellectual questions honestly, respecting (and befriending) those who disagreed, and participating in a grace-filled and grateful community.

Later, I discovered that I had quite a few Asian American evangelical peers who shared a similar journey. Many, like Louis Lee (who we are honoring) felt called to build Asian American evangelical solidarity in the 1990s and early 2000s.

But today, I’m pessimistic about Asian American Christianity’s future. We face a vanishing sense of Asian American Christian solidarity and cooperation.

There are many reasons for the disappearance of Asian American Christian solidarity – among these are

  • the rise and dominance of immigrant Asians in our churches who do not identify with the racial struggles of Asian Americans and other racial minorities;
  • the power that the “model minority” and “assimilative multicultural” narratives have to draw Asian Americans away from the “niche” or “ghetto” identifications.

But in this presentation I want to focus on a third factor that is especially acute among Asian American evangelicals, namely…

The Backslide into Fundamentalism

In the last ten years, many of my colleagues and I have noticed the rise of fundamentalist attitudes among the younger  Asian American evangelical leaders. As a young evangelical historian, I used to think that the Fundamentalist movement had one positive virtue: it saved American Christianity from a closed-system modernism by protecting the authority of Scripture and the supernaturalism of five fundamentalist doctrines. But these days, I’m less convinced of this. Fundamentalism replaced a vibrant 19th century evangelical world view with a Gnostic and Manichean view of the cosmos. It also locked epistemology into an outdated “common sense” philosophy (the “self-evident” argument). See Mark A. Noll, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (Eerdmans, 1994). Also, recent studies are revealing the close ties between fundamentalist (later, evangelical) and corporate leaders to create the current evangelical empire that is closely allied to the Religious Right. See Kevin M. Kruse, One Nation Under God: How Corporate American Invented Christian America (New York, 2015) and Timothy E. W. Gloege, Guaranteed Pure: The Moody Bible Institute, Business, and the Making of Modern Evangelicalism (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2015).

Evangelicals have attempted to dig themselves out of fundamentalism since the mid-twentieth century. See George Marsden’s Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalism (Eerdmans, 1988) and Molly Worthen’s  Apostles of Reason: The Crisis of Authority in American Evangelicalism (Oxford University Press, 2016). Instead, the current scene has become increasingly polarized. A revival of fundamentalist-like evangelicals have been pitted against progressive evangelicals.

The backslide to fundamentalism, I believe, is the greatest cause for pessimism about the future of Asian American Christian solidarity. I’m probably overstating this, but consider the following suppressive practices that appear to be on the rise:

  1. Suppression of cooperation: The legacy of Louis Lee and his generation was to build pan-Asian cooperation. Today, we witness a resurgence of “separated silos” centered around the teachings of (White) evangelical preaching “giants.” Pan-Asian cooperation across theological or brand differences are rarely seen anymore. So branded (or brain-washed?) are they, that they can no longer worship outside the environment that they’ve been drawn to – usually while in college.
  2. Suppression of intellectual integrity: We are seeing the rise of ecclesial echo chambers of absolute certitude. Young people can no longer hear anything other than one perspective, right or wrong. In many of the settings, there is no nuance of biblical or theological interpretation. I believe we are returning to what Mark Noll called the “The Intellectual Disaster of Fundamentalism.” Mark A. Noll, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind.
  3. Suppression of women leadership: Earlier, egalitarian and some complementarian Christians encouraged women with leadership or teaching gifts to lead and teach. Everyone, male and female, was encouraged to do all they can to proclaim the gospel since reaching the lost was the highest priority. But now we are witnessing the actual practice of suppressing women in leadership in campus ministries and churches. The fundamentalist suppression of women leaders in the early 20th century has renewed itself among many Asian American evangelicals today under the debatable idea that female subordination is a core doctrine of faith. See Margaret Bendroth, Fundamentalism and Gender, 1875 to the Present (Yale University Press, 1996).
  4. Suppression of Asian American identity: In a fundamentalist (and conservative evangelical) ethos, culture, ethnicity, and race are irrelevant  – if not idolatrous. Doctrinal truth is emphasized while all things created and material are trivialized. A color-blind Christianity makes it impossible for Asian Americans to reflect on their own social location and cultural contexts (as I have argued earlier).

So where does our help come from? What can Asian American Christians who are trapped in this new fundamentalist echo chamber do?

The Promise of Historical Theology

We need a new cadre of Asian American Christian leaders who learn from history. Recently, there has been interest in doing evangelical theology and ministry in the contemporary Asian American contexts. But, like systematic theology, these efforts tend to isolate the contemporary experience from the past. They also rely too heavily on sociology. Because conversation partners are contemporaries who share so much in common, little can be done to change the echo chamber effect of fundamentalism. In his recent book, Jesus Christ and the Life of the Mind (2011), Mark Noll proposes to rebuild the evangelical “mind” with greater attention to the historical sources of Christian thought rather than on a broken fundamentalist foundation. I argue that this approach would also benefit Asian American evangelicals as we look to the future. Allow me to illustrate with three Asian American Christian historical examples…

Jee Gam photo.pngJee Gam [Chu Jin] (1849-1910)

In 1895 Jee Gam was the first Chinese American ordained as a Congregationalist minister, though he was still unable to become a U.S. citizen. From the very beginning, Jee Gam used his influence and access to Protestant resources (newspapers, journals, mission boards, church networks) to fight for Chinese American political rights. In speeches, sermons, private letters, and public writings, he championed Chinese American suffrage and combated Chinese exclusion, passed in 1882 by the federal government.

Jee Gam based his arguments for political rights on a vision of Christianity that emphasized egalitarianism and universal brotherhood. In an era when many Americans believed that the Chinese were too heathenish to genuinely convert to Christianity, Jee Gam insisted on the religion’s inclusivity. “I am a Chinaman and a Christian,” he wrote in 1892. “I am not any less Chinese for being a follower of Christ…. I am in some sense also an American, for I have lived in America almost twice as long as in China.” He went on to call Chinese exclusion “un-American, barbarous and inhuman. It is unchristian, for it is contrary to the teaching of Christ.” From

I highlight Jee Gam because even though we would recognize him as an evangelical, his commitment to speaking out for racial justice would be unfamiliar to many of us today. He identified with an abolitionist interpretation of Scripture and faith which valued the dignity of all humans created in God’s image – in this life. Most fundamentalists and evangelicals today have unconsciously adopted a slave owner hermeneutic. This approach stresses saving souls for heaven and keeping the status quo in worldly affairs. Learning about the history of biblical interpretation can help us break free from the fundamentalist echo chamber. See Larry R. Morrison, “The Religious Defense of American Slavery Before 1830,” The Journal of Religious Thought, Fall 1980/Winter 1981 (Vol. 37 Issue 2) pp 16-29.

Mabel Lee Metro Baptist 1923 sm

Mabel Lee, a newly minted Ph.D. (Metropolitan Baptists, 1923)

Mabel Lee (1896-1966)

Mabel Lee was a pastor’s kid. Her father, Lee To, had been the pastor of the Baptist Chinese Mission in New York’s Chinatown since 1904. Born in Canton in 1896, Mabel accompanied her father to the United States and studied in American public schools. She enrolled in Barnard College and graduated in 1916. She then earned a Ph.D. in economics from Columbia University in 1921. Her dissertation was published later that year. In addition to her father’s evangelical piety, she also shared his zeal to engage the social problems of the Chinese community in New York and overseas. During her college years, she integrated her devotion to faith, the reconstruction of China, and woman’s suffrage. From

I think Mabel Lee could be considered evangelical, though she lived during a time when a liberal theology was dominant in the U.S. She definitely was not a fundamentalist. Her fundamentalist peers were campaigning to remove women from church leadership. But before the rise of fundamentalism, there was a very strong woman’s missionary movement. In many Wesleyan, Holiness, and Pentecostal denominations, women were ordained pastors. So historically, however the bible was interpreted, women like Mabel Lee were accepted as leaders in churches until fundamentalism emerged.

Hideo Hashimoto 1955

unknown, “Hideo Hashimoto,” Lewis & Clark Digital Collections, accessed October 23, 2013,

Hideo Hashimoto (1911-2003)

Finally, I’d like to share about Hideo Hashimoto, a Methodist pastor and professor. Hashimoto graduated from the University of California at Berkeley and then from Union Theological Seminary in New York City. He served several pastorates, including one in a temporary church he helped establish in a Japanese internment camp during World War II. After receiving his doctor of theology degree from Pacific School of Religion, he joined the faculty of Lewis & Clark. He taught in the Department of Religious Studies from 1949 until his retirement in 1976.

Hashimoto’s mom died in Hiroshima when the U.S. dropped the atomic bomb. As a pastor and professor, he was known as a “great peace lover and activist… an energetic social activist up to his death.” He advocated for civil rights, pacifism, and nuclear disarmament.



I mention Hideo because he was influenced by the mainline Protestant tradition of social engagement. As a pacifist, Hashimoto didn’t completely agree with Reinhold Neibuhr, but respected theological realism deeply. The neo-orthodoxy of the mid-twentieth century proved helpful after the trauma of the Japanese American internment camps and the loss of his mother from a nuclear bomb. Looking at the life and thought Asian Americans in the mainline Protestant tradition can provide Asian American Christians guidance for public engagement – guidance that I believe is sorely lacking among Asian American evangelicals today.

Smithsonial African American Museum.jpgSmithsonian’s National Museum of African American History and Culture

Let me conclude by noting that the Smithsonian’s National Museum of African American History and Culture opened last Saturday (9/24/16) in Washington DC. One of the lessons of the Civil Rights movement was that African-Americans have a history that should not be ignored or erased. When President Obama was elected, many pundits, including many white evangelicals, quickly declared that the United States was, at last, a post-racial nation. But, as we have seen in the recent shootings of African-Americans, we are far from being post-racial or multi-cultural.

In any event, what would a post-racial church or multi-cultural society look like? Does it mean forgetting and erasing Blacks from American history? Does it mean erasing the different Asian American ethnicities from our collective memories? Does it mean that Asian American Christians have no history in the history of Christianity? One of the first historians of the African American experience, Carter G. Woodson, said that “If a race has no history, it stands in danger of being exterminated.”

Likewise, so long as Asian American Christians remain in the echo chamber of an ahistorical theology, culture, and community so pervasive among fundamentalism, we too stand in danger of being exterminated.

On the other hand, if we put resources into integrating Asian American Christian history into our faith, preaching, ministries, and communities, we may have a future. And we will have something to contribute to Worldwide Christianity and God’s kingdom.

Again, I’m pessimistic and pray that God will help me overcome my lack of faith.

“History is not merely something to be read. And it does not refer merely, or even principally, to the past. On the contrary, the great force of history comes from the fact that we carry it within us, are unconsciously controlled by it in many ways, and history is literally present in all that we do.” — James Baldwin


Mutual Submission and Hierarchy

August 8, 2016

After my sermon last week about mutual submission as the ideal for marriage friendships, there was a question about whether I intentionally avoided Ephesians 5:23-24 because it seemed to contradict my anti-hierarchical view. Here is the passage:

23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

At face value, this passage suggests a hierarchical arrangement between husband and wives (and therefore between men and women).

Now, I was a bit miffed by the suggestion that I skipped these verses because I disagreed with them. Actually, I have an interpretation of this passage that confirms that Paul did not entirely endorse hierarchy between husbands and wives. Rather, even these verses confirm that Paul’s ideal is mutual submission. I’ll attempt to make the case in this blog.

But first, let me share an anecdote. One person who heard my sermon emailed me about her campus ministry was deeply wounded by those who insisted on a gender hierarchy. Apparently a woman was elected to be president of the campus fellowship. Those who opposed having a woman lead men left the fellowship in protest, taking half of the members with them. This is not news to me. I’ve seen so many instances of how gender hierarchists operate. This arrogant belief that the bible teaches gender hierarchy is doing more harm to the next generation of Christians (especially Asian Americans) than any other teaching in recent memory. Too many Asian American college students are drawn to campus ministries that produce irresponsible and semi-heretical biblical teachings. And the results are devastating. Asian American young adults cannot re-integrate with any church that does not reproduce their college fellowship echo-chamber. This is the closest thing to a cult that I have seen. Gender hierarchy is often a sign of authoritarian church leadership. Abusive practices are on the rise especially in churches that are authoritarian. As they say, “where there is smoke…”

That is why it is so urgent, in my mind, to have a more sound biblical approach to this issue. I cannot bear to see any of our daughters, sisters, indeed, anyone, bear the brunt of practices that stem from incorrect teachings.

In order to properly interpret wifely submission, we ought to start with the question “Does the bible teach that human relationships are hierarchical?” The answer to this question is “yes.” The bible does assume that human relationships are hierarchical.

But the better question is this: “According to Scripture, does God intend for humans to live in permanent hierarchies? Does God want caste systems?” The answer to that is clearly “no.” Please note, this does not mean that hierarchies should not exist. Clearly, there is a hierarchy between God, humans, and creation. For example, Psalm 8:4-6 (reflecting on Genesis 1:26-28) asserts:

what is mankind that you are mindful of them,
human beings that you care for them?
You have made them a little lower than the angels
and crowned them with glory and honor.
You made them rulers over the works of your hands;

Christians also submit to Jesus, our Lord and Savior (and Friend), because we believe that he is divine.

But permanent human hierarchy does not appear to be part of God’s design for humanity. The biblical authors assume that human hierarchy exist, but do not usually identify that with God’s will. Here are some examples:

1. The first time human hierarchy is introduced is AFTER THE FALL. In Genesis 3:16, God proclaims one of the consequence of human disobedience in the Garden of Eden:

16 To the woman he said,
“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.”

Prior to this, there is no indication that the woman was to be ruled by the man.

2. Slavery. In the ancient world of the bible, slavery and poverty were accepted as the cultural norm, but not considered God’s ideal design for humanity.

a. The Exodus event. God’s liberation of the Hebrew people from bondage is the clearest indication that God opposes oppressive enslavement. Recent biblical and archeological studies suggest that the Hebrew “conquest” of the Promised Land was more likely a “freedom” movement that attempted to overthrow the Canaanite deities that perpetuated slavery and other inhumane and idolatrous practices.

b. The Jubilee year (Leviticus 25). After settling into the Promised Land, the people of Israel were to consecrate every 50th year. During the Jubilee year, all property (including Israelite slaves) were to be released, returned, or redeemed (with the exception of slaves from the “nations around you” and “temporary residents”). The poor and the foreigner are to be treated fairly. The purpose of the Jubilee year was to prevent permanent economic and social inequality from hardening into a permanent caste system, as suggested in verse 23 when God says: “The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you reside in my land as foreigners and strangers.”

c. Paul also acknowledged that slavery was a major part of the Greco-Roman economy. Even though he never sought to overturn the system over slavery, he did not like it. For example, in 1 Corinthians 7:21-23, Paul writes:

21 Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. 22 For the one who was a slave when called to faith in the Lord is the Lord’s freed person; similarly, the one who was free when called is Christ’s slave. 23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings. 24 Brothers and sisters, each person, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation they were in when God called them.

In other words, Christ has purchased us out of human slavery to become His people. Note in verse 22, that Paul uses a “mutuality logic” to say that disciples are both freed persons and slaves. It appears that the cultural norms of master/slave is being mixed up by Paul’s “logic of mutuality” (more on this point later).

Nevertheless, Paul encourages freedom from human slavery, as seen in his letter to Philemon. Philemon’s slave, Onesimus, had become a believer and supported Paul during his imprisonment. When Paul sent him back to Philemon, he said:

15 Perhaps the reason [Onesimus] was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever— 16 no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord.

But in the end, Paul encourages Christians to “remain in the situation they were in when God called them” as people who are “responsible” to God. Paul also applies this principle to both the circumcised and uncircumcised (17-20) and to Christians who are married to non-believers (8-16). But he doesn’t insist that singles remain unmarried (25-40).

In sum (at least at this point), first, it is important to bear in mind Paul’s “mutuality logic” (see also 1 Corinthians 7:1-7) which is rooted in the belief that Christ reconciles all people equally into his inheritance as seen in Galatians 3:26-29:

26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

This is the kingdom and gospel norm that is uncomfortable with the fallen world’s hierarchical norm. And if you need any more biblical evidence, look to Jesus himself

3. Jesus and hierarchy.

Mary’s Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55) praises God for introducing Jesus the Savior to Israel and the world. What exactly does Jesus’ arrival suggest about human hierarchies? Let’s look at verses 51-53:

51 He has performed mighty deeds with his arm;
he has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts.
52 He has brought down rulers from their thrones
but has lifted up the humble.
53 He has filled the hungry with good things
but has sent the rich away empty.

Jesus’ coming seems to be about “flipping the script” of human hierarchies! And Jesus himself taught the same. Look at Matthew 20:25-28 (see also Mark 10:42-45 and Luke 22:24-27):

25 Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

and Matthew 5:5

“Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.”

I don’t think I need to show more biblical evidence about how the Servant King and the early church envisioned a “flipped script” about human hierarchies. But the early church also did not envision a permanent role reversal where slaves would dominate masters. And even though the earliest Christians “were together and had everything in common,” “sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need,” and “No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had.” (Acts 2:44-45; 5:32), they did not insist on enforced equality. Elders and deacons were still appointed to serve as leaders with authority, thus, suggesting that hierarchy still existed.

It seems, therefore, that the two biggest differences between Christian hierarchies and the socio-cultural hierarchies of the time were that:
(a) church leaders were encouraged to follow Jesus’ example of servant leadership [see 1 Peter 5:1-6] and
(b) church hierarchies are mutual, not permanently fixed or unidirectional.

In sum, Jesus and his disciples bequeathed to us the priority of mutuality where we are to accept, love, serve, submit one another. This takes precedence over fixed, unidirectional human hierarchies. As a result of this vision about the New Creation of reconciliation and mutuality, many women became partners and leaders in ministry and mission.

So why did Paul and Peter say that wives should submit to their husbands and remain silent? Are they contradicting the Kingdom norms that Jesus, the early church, and even Paul himself tried to live out?

Mutuality logic, Household Codes, and bearing witness

Earlier, I argued that Paul and Jesus (and Peter) applied their vision of a “flipped hierarchy” by using the “logic of mutuality.” But Paul also wanted his followers to “remain” in their situation (1 Cor. 7:24). He seemed to be suggesting that since slavery and other earthly hierarchies would be done away with when Jesus returns shortly, it’s best to not to radically overturn the current norms. Instead, Paul wants his disciples to bear witness to Christ. Peter says it best:

Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us. (1 Peter 2:12)

In this chapter, Peter also wants Christians to submit to every human authority and for slaves to submit to their masters. By doing so Christians would do what is good and emulate Jesus’ example of suffering. Paul, rather than upsetting people in the Greco-Roman world with “unpalatable” Kingdom norms such as the “flipped script of hierarchy” or “mutuality,” says “I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings” (1 Cor. 9:22-23).

Therefore, Paul and Peter introduced the Greco-Roman household codes (Haustafeln) into their writings as a guideline for early Christian families to bear positive witness to their faith (Col. 3:18–4:1, but also Eph. 5:22–6: 9; 1 Tim. 2:9–15; Titus 2:2–10; 1 Pet. 2:13–3: 7). These household codes likely originated with Aristotle, but were widely adopted by Jewish and Roman families. In fact, having a male head of the family (pater familias) was legally prescribed during Paul’s time. Groups that did not follow this pattern were considered suspicious and possibly illegal. So in order to bear witness to the Greco-Roman world, Christians did not want to be viewed as destructive to the family values of that society.

But Paul (and Peter) did not simply conform to the cultural norms of their day. The Greco-Roman family codes stated that the husband has legal privilege over his wife, children, and slaves. Wives, children, and slaves were required to submit to the head of the family. The haustafein did not include a mutual command for the male. But when Paul and Peter added a code for the male head of the household, they introduce the logic of mutuality to the family.

Let’s examine Ephesians 5:21-28.

21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.

When viewed as a whole, the pattern of wifely submission is coupled with the pattern of husband love. The wife’s section is an importation of the Greco-Roman household code that is dressed up with an analogy to Jesus and the church. But when paired with the husband’s section on servant leadership, Paul addresses another aspect of our relationship to Christ – namely, that Christ loved and died for us so that we, the Church, may be made holy and blameless. Seen together, this appears to be a case for mutual submission that doesn’t directly challenge the Greco-Roman household code.

According to Rachel Held Evans,

“Such a relationship could only be characterized by humility and respect, with both partners imitating Christ, who time and again voluntarily placed himself in a position of submission.
“Women should not have to pry equality from the grip of Christian men. For those who follow Jesus, authority should be surrendered—and shared— willingly, with the humility and love of Jesus…or else we miss the once radical teaching that slaves and masters, parents and children, husbands and wives, rich and poor, healthy and sick, should “submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.”

While not a radical change, Paul transformed a politically and economically based idea of family into one that is based on the love of Jesus Christ.

So what happens when Christians import our God, family, country hierarchies (our cultural norms) into the bible today? What happens when we take the household codes out of the larger biblical context and focus only on woman’s subordination? Simple: we create communities that looks more like the Roman Empire than Kingdom of God. Mutual submission and mutual love is the better way.

For Further Study

New Books on Race and Racism in East Asia: China, Japan, and Korea

If you want to chew on the topics of Race and Racism in East Asia (China, Japan, and Korea), have a look at these books. A bit pricey, but worth a look. This is cross-posted from an email by Rotem Kowner on H-Asia, an email list of

– Tim

  • Rotem Kowner and Walter Demel (editors) Race and Racism in Modern East Asia (vol. II): Interactions, Nationalism, Gender and Lineage (Brill, May 2015)
  • Rotem Kowner and Walter Demel (editors) Race and Racism in Modern East Asia (vol. I): Western and Eastern Constructions (Brill, paperback edition, September 2014)
  • Rotem Kowner From White to Yellow (vol. I): The Japanese in European Racial Thought, 1300-1735 (McGill-Queen’s University Press, December 2014)

Race and Racism in Modern East Asia vol 2 - 59103

Race and Racism in Modern East Asia (vol. II): Interactions, Nationalism, Gender and Lineage (Brill, 2015; 674 pp). ISBN-10: 9004292926; ISBN-13: 978-9004292925

Rotem Kowner and Walter Demel (editors)

In this sequel to the volume, Race and Racism in Modern East Asia: Western and Eastern Constructions, we examine in depth interactions between Western racial constructions of East Asians and local constructions of race and their outcomes in modern times. Focusing on China, Japan and the two Koreas, we also analyze the close ties between race, racism and nationalism, as well as the links race has had with gender and lineage in the region. Written by some of the field’s leading authorities, our 23-chapter volume offers a sweeping overview and analysis of racial constructions and racism in modern and contemporary East Asia that is seemingly unsurpassed in previous scholarship.

For further details:

Table of contents


1 Introduction: The Synthesis of Foreign and Indigenous Constructions of Race in Modern East Asia and Its Actual Operation
Rotem Kowner and Walter Demel

2 East Asians in the Linnaean Taxonomy: Sources and Implications of a Racial Image
Rotem Kowner and Christina Skott
3 Constructing Racial Theories on East Asians as a Transnational “Western” Enterprise, 1750–1850
Walter Demel
4 The ‘Races’ of East Asia in Nineteenth-Century European Encyclopaedias
Georg Lehner
5 The Racial Image of the Japanese in the Western Press Published in Japan, 1861–1881
Olavi K. Fält

6 The Propagation of Racial Thought in Nineteenth-Century China
Daniel Barth
7 Learning from the South: Japan’s Racial Construction of Southern Chinese, 1895–1941
Huei-Ying Kuo
8 “The Great Question of the World Today”: Britain, the Dominions, East Asian Immigration and the Threat of Race War, 1905–1911
Antony Best
9 “Uplifting the Weak and Degenerated Races of East Asia”: American and Indigenous Views of Sport and Body in Early Twentieth-Century East Asia
Stefan Hübner
10 Racism under Negotiation: The Japanese Race in the Nazi-German Perspective
Gerhard Krebs
11 Discourses of Race and Racism in Modern Korea, 1890s–1945
Vladimir Tikhonov
12 The United States Arrives: Racialization and Racism in Post-1945 South Korea
Nadia Y. Kim
13 A Post-Communist Coexistence in Northeast Asia? Mutual Racial Attitudes among Russians and Indigenous Peoples of Siberia
David C. Lewis

14 Nationalism and Internationalism: Sino-American Racial Perceptions of the Korean War
Lü Xun
15 Gangtai Patriotic Songs and Racialized Chinese Nationalism
Yinghong Cheng
16 Japanese as Both a “Race” and a “Non-Race”: The Politics of Jinshu and Minzoku and the Depoliticization of Japaneseness
Yuko Kawai
17 Ethnic Nationalism in Postwar Japan: Nihonjinron and Its Racial Facets
Rotem Kowner and Harumi Befu
18 Ethnic Nationalism and Internationalism in the North Korean Worldview
Tatiana Gabroussenko

19 In the Name of the Master: Race, Nationalism and Masculinity in Chinese Martial Arts Cinema
Kai-man Chang
20 Sexualized Racism, Gender and Nationalism: The Case of Japan’s Sexual Enslavement of Korean “Comfort Women”
Bang-soon L. Yoon
21 “The Guilt Feeling That You Exist”: War, Racism and Indisch-Japanese Identity Formation
Aya Ezawa
22 ‘The “Amerasian” Knot: Transpacific Crossings of “GI Babies” from Korea to the United States
W. Taejin Hwang

23 The Essence and Mechanisms of Race and Racism in Modern East Asia
Rotem Kowner and Walter Demel

Amazon site:

Race and Racism in Modern East Asia vol 1 - 70589Now in paperback edition!
Race and Racism in Modern East Asia (vol. I): Western and Eastern Constructions (Brill, 2014; 618 pp.) ISBN-10: 9004285504; ISBN-13: 978-9004285507
Rotem Kowner and Walter Demel (editors)

In Race and Racism in Modern East Asia: Western and Eastern Constructions we juxtapose Western racial constructions of East Asians with constructions of race and their outcomes in modern East Asia. It is the first endeavor to explicitly and coherently link constructions of race and racism in both regions. These constructions have not only played a decisive role in shaping the relations between the West and East Asia since the mid nineteenth century, but also exert substantial influence on current relations and mutual images in both the East-West nexus and East Asia. Written by some of the field’s leading authorities, this 21-chapter volume offers an analysis of these constructions, their evolution and their interrelations.

For further details:

“Within the historical research on the topic of racism, East Asia has barely played any role. This volume, the outcome of a multi-year project closes this research lacuna. … Overall, the volume is superbly edited and easy to read and will undoubtedly remain, until further notice, the standard work on the subject of race in East Asia. For those interested in the historical development of the concept of race and wish to go beyond the European framework, this volume is highly recommended.”
Sven Saaler, Historische Zeitschrift (2014)

“A gigantic volume, its real strong point is its variety, with papers probing such interesting and understudied topics … The scholarly summaries are very accomplished and provide a wealth of material for understanding that race is neither a fixed nor an atemporal construct, nor is it one that can be simply transferred from Western contexts into Eastern ones. … The essays represent starting points for a variety of new work as such they are very valuable contributions to the burgeoning field. Highly recommended.”
Michael Keevak, Asian Ethnicity (2014)

“This collection of scholarly works explores racial constructions of East Asians from both external and internal perspectives. … Not only does this book help readers understand how racial constructions of the West and East Asia interacted in shaping their relationships in the past, but also, more importantly, how these constructions still influence their current relationships in the 21st century. Summing up: Recommended. All levels/libraries.”
A.Y. Lee, Choice (2013)

Table of contents


1 Introduction: Modern East Asia and the Rise of Racial Thought: Possible Links, Unique Features, and Unsettled Issues
Rotem Kowner and Walter Demel

2 Early Modern European Divisions of Mankind and East Asians, 1500-1750
Walter Demel and Rotem Kowner
3 How the “Mongoloid Race” Came into Being: Late Eighteenth-Century Constructions of East Asians in Europe
Walter Demel
4 Between Contempt and Fear: Western Racial Constructions of East Asians since 1800
Rotem Kowner
5 “A Very Great Gulf”: Late Victorian British Diplomacy and Race in East Asia
T.G. Otte
6 Pan-Mongolians at Twilight: East Asia and Race in Russian Modernism, 1890-1921
Susanna Soojung Lim
7 National Identity and Race in Post-Revolutionary Russia: Pil’niak’s Travelogues from Japan and China
Alexander Bukh
8 Class, Race, Floating Signifier: American Media Imagine the Chinese, 1870-1900
Lenore Metrick-Chen
9 Racism for Beginners: Constructions of Chinese in Twentieth Century Belgian Comics
Idesbald Goddeeris
10 Race, Imperialism, and Reconstructing Selves: Late Nineteenth Century Korea in European Travel Literature
Huajeong Seok
11 Race, Culture and the Reaction to the Japanese Victory of 1905 in the English-Speaking World
Philip Towle

12 A Certain Whiteness of Being: Chinese Perceptions of Self by the Beginning of European Contact
Don J. Wyatt
13 Racial Discourse and Utopian Visions in Nineteenth Century China
Sufen Sophia Lai
14 The Discourse of Race in Twentieth-Century China
Frank Dikötter
15 Racist South Korea? Diverse but not Tolerant of Diversity
Gi-Wook Shin
16 Skin Color Melancholy in Modern Japan: Male Elites’ Racial Experiences Abroad, 1880s-1950s
Ayu Majima
17 Anatomically Speaking: The Kubo Incident and the Paradox of Race in Colonial Korea
Hoi-eun Kim
18 Who Classified Whom, and for What Purpose? The “Japanese” in Northeast China in the Age of Empire
Mariko Asano Tamanoi
19 Race and International Law in Japan’s New Order in East Asia, 1938-1945
Urs Matthias Zachmann
20 East Asia’s “Melting-Pot”: Reevaluating Race Relations in Japan’s Colonial Empire
Yukiko Koshiro
21 Categorical Confusion: President Obama as a Case Study of Racialized Practices in Contemporary Japan
Christine R. Yano

Amazon site:

From White to Yellow - 9780773544550From White to Yellow (vol. I): The Japanese in European Racial Thought, 1300-1735 (McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2014, 706 pp.) ISBN-10: 0773544550; ISBN-13: 978-0773544550

Rotem Kowner (author)

When Europeans first landed in Japan they encountered people they perceived as white-skinned and highly civilized, but these impressions did not endure. Gradually the Europeans’ positive impressions faded away and Japanese were seen as yellow-skinned and relatively inferior. Accounting for this dramatic transformation, I examine of the evolution of European interpretations of the Japanese and the emergence of discourses about race in early modern Europe. Transcending the conventional focus on Africans and Jews within the rise of modern racism, I seek to demonstrate that the invention of race did not emerge in a vacuum in eighteenth-century Europe, but rather was a direct product of earlier discourses of the “Other.” All in all, I contend that the racial discourse on the Japanese, alongside the Chinese, played a major role in the rise of the modern concept of race. While challenging Europe’s self-possession and sense of centrality, the discourse delayed the eventual consolidation of a hierarchical worldview in which Europeans stood immutably at the apex. Drawing from a vast array of primary sources, I also attempted to trace the racial roots of the modern clash between Japan and the West.

For further details:

“This magisterial work fills an important gap in contemporary scholarship about racial history and European perceptions of the Japanese during the age of maritime explorations, beginning with the voyages of Marco Polo. The author approaches a delicate and complex topic with a breadth of knowledge and erudition based on the careful analysis of primary documents from a wide variety of both printed and manuscript sources in numerous languages.”
M. Antoni J. Ucerler, S.J. Director, Ricci Institute, University of San Francisco

“Rotem Kowner has written an extraordinary book which will be must-reading for anyone interested in Western perceptions of the Japanese from the beginning (Marco Polo’s account) to the 18th century, and to anyone interested in the history of the very concept of ‘race.’”
Gary Leupp, Department of History, Tufts University

“Erudite, comprehensive, and clearly-written, From White to Yellow offers the reader a panorama of the Euro-Japanese encounter in the pre-modern period that is unsurpassed in previous scholarship.”
Ronnie Hsia, Department of History, Pennsylvania State University

Table of contents


PHASE I – SPECULATION: Pre-Encounter Knowledge of the Japanese (1300-1543)
1 The Emergence of “Cipangu” and Its Precursory Ethnography
2 The “Cipanguese” at the Opening of the Age of Discovery

PHASE II – OBSERVATION: A Burgeoning Discourse of Initial Encounters (1543-1640)
3 Initial Observations of the Japanese
4 The Japanese Position in Contemporary Hierarchies
5 Concrete Mirrors of a New Human Order
6 “Race” and Its Cognitive Limits during the Phase of Observation

PHASE III – RECONSIDERATION: Antecedents of a Mature Discourse (1640-1735)
7 Dutch Reappraisal of the Japanese Body and Origins
8 Power, Status, and the Japanese Position in the Global Order
9 In Search of a New Taxonomy: Botany, Medicine, and the Japanese
10 “Race” and Its Perceptual Limits during the Phase of Reconsideration

Conclusion: The Discourse of Race in Early Modern Europe and the Japanese Case

Amazon sites:


The Elliot Rodger tragedy and Asian American ministry

Most of the responses to the Elliot Rodger’s murderous rampage have drawn necessary attention to mental illness and gun violence. Emil Guillermo, after analyzing Rodger’s “manifesto,” highlights a racial dimension that has implications for ministry in racially diverse contexts. Guillermo argues that Rodger acted largely out of disdain for his mixed-race features (he was hapa, i.e., half-Asian; his mother is Chinese).

Emil Guillermo 8-100x100See Emil Guillermo’s blog “Elliot Rodger’s manifesto shows self-hate fueled anti-Asian violence that kicked off Isla Vista rampage” (May 25, 2014)

Blaming this for his sexual frustration and relational isolation, Rodger lashed out last Friday. The Isla Vista rampage left 7 dead and 13 wounded. Three of the dead were Chinese Americans from the S.F. Bay Area (one attended a youth ministry of a Chinese church in San Jose).

I don’t want to over-analyze the racial dimensions of this tragic situation. But I believe that they have implications for ministry, especially ministry among Asian Americans. Let me begin by assuming that a racialized world will reproduce racialized subjectivities. That is to say, the way we view and value ourselves is largely determined by the way our society structures and assigns value, power, and beauty to different racial categories. Much of our self-worth depends on what we embrace from our society’s diverse perceptions about race.

Of course we don’t all think the same way about race. Many of us who grew up in an Asian ethnic “bubble” did not feel devalued until we entered the mainstream, despite the media’s tendency to present “whiteness” as the norm. Those who grew up in largely white or multiethnic settings sometimes resort to “colorblindness” to escape self-stigmatization. Others might exaggerate their race/ethnicity/culture in order to garner attention that can be, in some cases, very rewarding. Race may be deeply submerged, laying just beneath the surface, or at the core of our feelings about ourselves. But it is always present within our consciousnesses. It gives us this nagging feeling that being white (and male) is simply better. That nagging feeling is one of the ways racialization in our social structure is reproduced within us. What does this say about ministry to Asian Americans?

God’s acceptance: the Asian American evangelical gospel?

Christians believe that our identity in Christ ought to be our most distinguishing feature. We are encouraged to live each day as a public witness to our faith, as if we were standing before the face of God (corem deo). Usually this means that our Christian identity renders irrelevant all the other aspects of who we are – such as race, gender, and social status. In fact, these identities are the result of sin. Christians should overcome, not dwell on them. Ministry and mission should therefore be blind to culture, gender, and social status.

As appealing as this sounds, it misses an important reality: social inequality, not social difference, is the result of sin. When being seen as “not” white has negative ramifications for how that person is valued or treated, it is not simply racial prejudice (check out this study). This is symptomatic of a social structure that privileges whiteness. Social inequality grows out of sinful social structures. Corporate and structural sin is just as real as individual and personal sin.

But racial, gender, and economic inequality don’t exist in a worldview where structural sin is not seen. In this worldview, racialized subjectivities are not ministry concerns.

However, can one say that the God of the Bible doesn’t care about social inequality?

Many Christians believe that God cares deeply. For them, living corem deo includes bearing witness against structural sins and their consequences. Over the last twenty years, InterVarsity Christian Fellowship has developed a ministry strategy for overcoming the negative effects of racial inequality that Asian Americans experience. The inequality often finds expressions through self-hatred, feeling unaccepted and devalued, seeking worth through performance, and placing undue faith in meritocracy. This ministry stresses the importance of embracing Asian American culture, ethnicity, and race.

The basic gist of this ministry is this:

God created and placed us in our cultural, ethnic, and racial settings. Sin diminishes Asian social identities and favors others. Rather than rejecting or escaping them, we need to realize that our identities are not marks of worthlessness. Rather, they are gifts from God. God transforms what our world sees as insignificant into something with tremendous significance and purpose. So we don’t have to feel embarrassed or devalued. 

An example of this approach can be found in this video clip (thanks Roy Tinklenburg):


As you can see, the spiritual discovery happens when the Asian American believer realizes that God accepts him or her. Instead of the futile efforts of earning societal acceptance and meeting family expectations, we rest in God’s declaration that we are worthy (in view of Christ’s work on the cross). This message transposes into the Asian American context the basic Reformation and evangelical insight of sola gratia.

There is no doubt in my mind that God’s acceptance is a message Asian Americans need to hear. It is a message that rings true for multi-race people and others who are marginalized, too.

But, in my opinion, it is just a first step. There are many questions that still need to be considered by Asian Americans as we minister to them. For example:

  • Now that I can accept who I am, what do I do with this knowledge? [i.e., the sanctification question]
  • What in my Asian culture needs to be redeemed? After all, God’s creation, despite being declared good originally, is still marred by sin.
  • What does social equality look like as an Asian American Christian? Does this mean fighting against any and all forms of discrimination and injustice?
  • Should I openly support Asian American causes? (e.g., APA programs in colleges or seminaries, Asian American politics or community activism, Asian American specific ministries)
  • Should I take pride in being Asian? How? (e.g., promote Asian American studies or cultural immersions)
  • How do I share this new insight to non-Asians? What role do they play in all of this?
  • Should I belong to an immigrant Asian church? Should I go to a multi-ethnic church?
  • Whichever church or ministry I join, how much of my Asian American identity should be part of conversation? How can I contribute this part of who I am?

I don’t know all the answers, but I’m eager to connect with others who are also interested in these questions.  I cannot say that the message of God’s acceptance would have prevented Elliot Rodger from slipping down the slope of self-destruction, hatred, and violence. I wonder if he and many others would have benefited from a ministry that pays as much attention to the “racial dimensions” of our contemporary life as InterVarsity’s Asian American ministries. But I’m convinced that greater attention to the questions raised by those who are invested in Asian American ministries will contribute to a better self-image,  mental health, and spiritual maturity for the Church and those to whom she is called to minister.

Asian American Legacy: James Chuck looks to the future of Chinese American churches in the 1970s

Rev. Dr. James Chuck, Th.D.

Rev. Dr. James Chuck, Th.D.

I was honored to participate in a tribute to the life and ministry of the Rev. Dr. James Chuck on Feb. 8, 2014 sponsored by ISAAC NorCal. Dr. Chuck was pastor of the First Chinese Baptist Church, San Francisco, for forty years. After his retirement, he had a second twenty-year career as a theological educator at the American Baptist Seminary of the West/Graduate Theological Union. He is one of my favorite mentors and, a hero, in my eyes, of building bridges between mainline Protestants and evangelicals. I’m sure that this will not be the last time I share about James in my Asian American Christian legacy blogs!

Let me first highlight two of Dr. Chuck’s studies that are still available:

1. James is the principle author of the 2008 Bay Area Chinese Church Research project report. You can purchase a copy at:

2. Three volumes of Chinatown Stories of Life and Faith,  oral histories of First Chinese Baptist Church, San Francisco. Here is a description:

chinatown Stories Vol. IIIn 2002, the First Chinese Baptist Church in San Francisco began a project to preserve and share the life stories of persons connected with the church, plus some others from the Chinatown Community. Participants talk about parents, growing up, schooling, marriage and family, work, and faith and values. The stories are contained in three volumes: the first published in 2002, the second in 2008, and Volume III in 2012, with each volume containing about 60 stories. Volume I is no longer available for general distribution, but some copies have been saved out for libraries who may want to purchase a single copy. Collectively, the three volumes, which is illustrated with hundreds of photographs, provides a rich travel trove of stories of Chinese Americans negotiating life in 20th Century America. Copies are available for purchase from First Chinese Baptist Church, 1 Waverly Place, San Francisco, California, 94108. (415) 362-4139. 20.00 per copy; 15.00 per copy for three or more copies.

Now, the historical document!

“Where Are the Chinese Churches Heading in the 1970’s?” is a presentation that James gave to the Chinese Christian Union in early 1970. He shares the findings of a study of Chinese churches in the Bay Area. The study shows that the then current generation of predominantly English-speaking Chinese mainline Protestants were at their peak of spiritual vitality. While he also noted the increasing visibility of Chinese American evangelicalism, he and his peers “did not anticipate the growth of Chinese churches with overseas roots, or the many independent groups that has arisen since.” [James Chuck email, Feb. 24, 2014]

In the second part of his presentation, he offers suggestions about the future direction of Chinese American churches. In retrospect, James was amazingly prescient. He agreed with emergent Chinese American evangelicalism in the 1970s about the centrality of evangelism in congregational life. Indeed, the impressive growth of immigrant and American-born Chinese evangelicalism since 1970 has almost overshadowed the legacy of the earlier generation of mainline Protestant Chinese Americans. Perhaps James anticipated this. Thus, he expressed concern about the loss or negligence of public witness among Chinese American Christians.

As we fast forward thirty years, we witness a new generation of Chinese American evangelicals who are expressing the same concern. Many have left Chinese churches, in part, because few Chinese evangelical church leaders have paid attention to Dr. Chuck’s call for a balanced theology of ministry. – Tim Tseng

* * *

Where Are the Chinese Churches Heading in the 1970’s? 
Rev. James Chuck, Th.D.
Chinese Christian Union of S.F. • Feb. 28, 1970


When we speak of a “Chinese” church, we are speaking of a church which sees its special responsibility as that of reaching the Chinese. The issue is not whether we need a Chinese church as such. That is a secondary question. The main question is who will work among the Chinese, and how can this work be best carried out?

Protestant work among the Chinese has a history of over one hundred years. That work has included a variety of ministries, including the teaching of English, the teaching of Chinese, rescue missions, social services, children and youth programs, etc. Within these missions, staffed mostly by missionaries, were organized “Chinese” churches led by pastors who were for the most part from China. This was a situation which continued through the 1940’s.

As more and more of the American born became assimilated into the American way of life, the English speaking element within the churches gradually became more predominant. In the 1950’s and 1960’s, this element within the Chinese churches supplied more and more of the leadership and financial support. This period began to raise the question as to whether or not there will continue to be a need for Chinese churches as such. The influx of new immigrants in recent years has, of course, introduced a new dimension to this question.

In May of 1968, the Bureau of Community Research connected with the Pacific School of Religion published a report entitled, “A Study of Chinese Churches in the San Francisco Bay Area.” The report found 34 predominantly Chinese congregations in the Bay Area, two times the number in 1952. This increase can be almost entirely accounted for by new groups coming to work among the Chinese. Denominations such as the Lutherans, Southern Baptists, the Reformed Church, Nazarenes, etc. established work among the Chinese, as well as independent groups with special attraction to student groups, the Mandarin speaking, and other sub-groups of Chinese not being reached by the existing churches. Churches in the Bay Area averaged 120 members; in San Francisco, 240. Including Roman Catholics, Chinese churches were reaching, either as members or as constituents, about 25% of the Chinese population.

From the study, the following profile of the membership emerged. First, the membership was middle class. 70% were married and have middle size families; 50% belong to professional, business, or clerical; and 80% work outside of Chinatown. Secondly, the membership was found to be youthful, with one half of the members between the ages of 25-44. They are undoubtedly the products of the youth programs of the late 1940’s through the early 60’s. Thirdly, the majority of the membership (63%) were born in the United States. Fourthly, most of the members (59%) listed English as their dominant language. The study also found that 70% of the governing boards of these churches consisted of English speaking persons. This profile confirms the observation that the Chinese churches – at least among those which belong to the mainline denominations and have a comparatively speaking long history – are made up primarily of English speaking persons.

The report also found that a third of the membership of these churches live within a mile of the church building, but another third had to travel more than five miles to get to church. Nevertheless, the activity level was fairly high, with 52% reporting that they attend church at least once a week; and 58% reporting that they belong to at least one church group besides attending worship.

The new factor in the Chinese churches is the arrival of a great number of new immigrants in recent years. To varying degrees, they have made an impact upon the churches. Some churches have made the reaching of these new immigrants the main thrust of their work. Other churches have created separate and parallel programs, all the way from polite indifference to open conflict. While these new arrivals hold promise of giving new life to our churches, differences in background, theology, understanding of the scriptures, style of life, etc. could be decisive unless this new challenge is intelligently and creatively met.

These are some of the sociological facts, defining the context in which the Chinese church must do its work. In order, however, to delineate where the church is heading in the 1970’s, it is also necessary to look into the church’s understanding of its mission.


Evangelism, in the broad sense of the term, stands at the center of all that the church does. Evangelism means making the new life in Christ available to all men everywhere. It is simply the carrying out of the Great Commission to “make disciples.”

Evangelism, broadly conceived, involves at least four stages. The first is contact, making some connection, getting next to the people we are trying to reach. The second stage is cultivation. People simply are not able to make any meaningful decision without some prior preparation of heart and mind. The third stage is commitment, the glad and willing response of a person to the call of Christian discipleship. The fourth step is conservation, the continuing process of nurture and growth whereby committed persons express their faith in loving service to others in the name of Christ.

From this it can be readily seen that the vehicles of evangelism involves nothing less than the totality of all that the church does. Christian education, social service, social action committees, and services of worship are necessary either as preparation for, or as an expression of, the new life in Christ. Mass evangelistic meetings (emphasizing the element of commitment) is meaningful only when placed within the total context of nurture and the life of service and witness.

The church’s main task, therefore, is to call men to respond in love and trust to God through Christ. That is where the Christian life begins. This relation which man has with God is always deeply personal, even mystical, in nature. One of the main contributions of the conservative wing of the Christian faith is to constantly remind us of that fact.

However, we need to go on to say that although faith is intensely personal, it is never private. Much harm has been done to the Christian cause with the uncritical identification of the personal with the private. True faith always seeks to find ways of expressing the love of God in love for neighbor. The Christian lives a “separated” existence only in the sense that his life is different from, or distinguishable from that of the world; but the Christian never lives apart from the world. He is in the world but not of it. He relates to the world as salt, light, and leaven.

Much of the recent criticism of the church today is precisely at this point: the church has not been sufficiently concerned about the large social issues such as injustice, war, the pollution of the environment, etc., being too often preoccupied exclusively with personal morality and the salvation of the individual’s soul.

It is extremely unfortunate that in the fundamentalist-liberal controversy, which goes back now at least half a century, commitment to Jesus Christ in a deep personal sense and concern for the world and its needs are seen as opposites. Why could we not have said that the more deeply we are committed to Christ, the more we will be committed to the world and its needs? And conversely, the more we are committed to the world and its needs, the more we will see the need for the new life in Christ.

Now when people ask the question, “What is your church doing?”, I believe we must not hesitate to say that the main thing we are doing is to bring to men the new life in Christ. But I also believe that the fullness of faith must be expressed not only in deep personal commitment, but also in works of love: for much of the outside world will understand our commitment only in terms of our works of love.

Where the Chinese churches are heading in the 1970’s depends on how those of us who belong to Chinese churches respond to the new challenges and opportunities, and this in turn depends largely on our understanding of what the mission of the church is. Three factors, it seems to me, are relevant:

  1. The quality of commitment we bring to bear on the work of the Chinese churches. If we seek first the Kingdom — give this matter of reaching the Chinese top priority as far as energy and resources are concerned — then we may see some notable progress made in the coming decade.
  2. The fullness of our understanding of the Gospel, taking seriously both parts of the great commandment. The whole Gospel should be deeply personal and socially relevant at the same time. The 1970’s are not a time to retreat to an individualistic perversion of the Gospel. We must not only move ahead, but in the right direction.
  3. The quality of leadership we can bring to bear in reaching all age groups and conditions of men. We are beginning to see emerging in the Chinese churches a quality of mature churchmanship such as we have never seen in the history of the Chinese churches in America. Whether all the potential that is there can be effectively channeled is for the present an open question. The present generation of Christians in our churches is probably better trained, and has more in the way of financial and other resources, than any previous generation. If we are good stewards, we may write a significant chapter in the history of the Chinese church in America.
%d bloggers like this: