Reflections On: Soong-Chan Rah’s THE NEXT EVANGELICALISM
I’ve been making my way through Korean-American author Soong-Chan Rah’s recent new work The Next Evangelicalism. Now careful here, reading it is like gargling with salt – it stings on the way down but clears the sinuses of quaint tokenisms and so-called “color-blindnesses” that perpetuate faulty systems. Basic premise: while the de facto representation of American evangelicalism is predominantly a Caucasian playing field, the fact of the matter is, “American evangelicalism” is fast becoming non-white. I think this is no mystery, and just today heard this sentiment expressed, by a Caucasian brother for that matter. What’s the big stink then? Why the ranting against the establishment, when folks recognize the nation over this phenomenon of “the browning of America”?
Like it or not, America is changing. Do we adapt or die? I think most people (including whites) have accepted that it is time for a change.
Thus I find Prof. Rah’s deconstruction a double-sided sword. On the one hand, we need to continually hear this – and to recognize the systemic structures that favortize the dominant culture – yes – but on the other hand I wonder as I was reading: to what extent do we deconstruct? I myself have charged the barricades often enough, vacillated between periods of extreme polemics to compliantly accepting the role of the “model minority” (yes I know this is wrong). But as a minister in an overwhelmingly mono-ethnic, dominant culture context (Caucasian) I wonder if at times we might make an idol of the hermeneutic of suspicion. Yes, my community needs to hear these things so much so and yet while we want to call out the wrong, at the same time the purpose is not to ostracize the dominant culture.
Let us be reminded the telos of racial dialogue is always reconciliation, and all the more so in the church, for that matter. Be angry – but let it lead to healing. See the sin embedded in our systems – own up to it EVEN if not individually responsible – work towards intentionally going to the other – yes this is missional. In the end I’ve found the following words to encapsulate some of mine own ruminations lately:
I personally find the use of the term “emerging church” to be offensive. I believe that the real emerging church is the church in Africa, Asian and Latin America… I believe that the real emerging church is the hip-hop church, the English speaking Latino congregation, the second-generation Asian American church, the Haitian immigrant church, the Spanish-speaking store-front churches and so forth. For a small group of white Americans to usurp the term “emerging” reflects a significant arrogance. Is there recognition of the reality of the changing demographics of American Christianity?
Keep the dialogue going.
And here is a place where I find the crux of the debate played out so much more eloquently, over @ Nextgenerasian.com – the debate seems to be between those who recognize the systemic dimensions of racialization and those who insist that it’s not an issue.
“listens carefully to how he speaks to native speaking Americans… straddles both cultures and finds that he seeks to be an amiable man, who is hardly seen and who hesitates to assert himself before hearing others. As a bicultural, bilingual American, Lee’s character will listen before he speaks and gauge expectations in his context before engaging and interposing his point of view. The cautious, sensitive biculturalism… is the perfect postmodern prescription for the heroic triumphalism of modernity. Furthermore the call to listen and to gauge others before speaking and acting provides a model for multiethnic ministry… cannot occur without the unique skills offered by bicultural Americans”
I found this to be interesting. All the things I was ashamed of – the unassertiveness, the shy self consciousness – according to Rah these things are strengths for the minister of the future.
Thanks for the review Wayne. I’m greatly appreciating the chance to dialogue about the concerns and issues raised in the book. Interesting take on my reference to Chang Rae Lee’s book (post #2). I found Lee’s take on the bi-cultural Asian-American to be fascinating. I do think our bi-cultural identity, our willingness to more reflective and to be third culture (as Dave Gibbons puts it) is a definitive plus. I think it will serve us well to accept the ways we live out our identity. What’s interesting to me, however, is that when Asian-Americans break out of that mode/mold, we are labeled as angry and confrontational. As one of my Korean-American colleagues put it, my passion is often mistaken for anger by the majority culture.
Thanks for stoppin by prof Rah; Pasting this in from my comment over @ Julie Clawson’s blog which I think captures the “coy asian / angry asian” tension:
“But what Rah is doing is breaking out of the “coy asian” mode and thank God someone is doing it. He’s leading the way for a new social engagement amongst Asian-American Christians and he’s kicking it off with a shout. Sometimes a strong corrective is needed to shake things up a bit.”
The black church had Cone. The Latin-Am Church had Gustavo. It’s about time Asians had a voice. And I suspect a coy, unassertive, overly diplomatic asian is just not gonna cut it.
A few years ago I was at a gathering of some prominent Asian-American leaders. I said that in the black community there is the recognition of the differing role of Malcom and Martin. We don’t seem to have too many Malcoms in the Asian community. (I’m not sure we have a whole lot of Martins either, btw). But maybe we need a few more Malcoms in order for the Martins to be heard.
Soong-Chan (profrah.com)