SECOND-GENERATION CHINESE EVANGELICAL USE OF THE BIBLE IN IDENTITY DISCOURSE IN NORTH AMERICA Timothy Tseng American Baptist Seminary of the West abstract Evangelicals dominate the landscape of Chinese Christianity in North America today. Their rapid growth parallels the influx of Chinese immigrants from Asia over the past three decades. As the children of these immigrants (who were born or raised in North America) came of age, their religious orientation and use of the Bible have developed in a manner distinct from that of their parents. How these second-generation Chinese evangelicals appropriate the Bible will be the focus of this article. I will argue that second-generation Chinese evangelical biblical interpretation has been bound by two perspectives: (1) the European immigrant experience as the model for their identity discourse; and (2) a white American “evangelical universalism” that subordinates racial identities. Consequently, there is a subtle Orientalism implicit in second-generation Chinese evangelical discourse that needs to be critically engaged and eventually excised. Introduction This essay has been a struggle to write because of my continued participation in the Chinese evangelical community in North America. I was raised in a close-knit Chinese evangelical community in New York City. The stubbornly separatist and narrowly fundamentalist worldviews fostered by that community limited my exposure to wider religious and sociopolitical realities. Nevertheless, the religious world of my childhood was a loving environment that inculcated a strong commitment to a passionate religious experience and insulated us from the harsh realities of a racialized American society. At times, I grieve at this community’s missed opportunities to voice Asian American concerns and to make a positive sociopolitical impact upon an increasingly diverse postmodern North America. But I remain hopeful that as Chinese evangelicalism comes of age in the next several years, both American-born and overseas-born Chinese will become lively participants in ecumenical Christianity and American society. This essay will attempt to make two points. First, current secondgeneration Chinese evangelical experience in North America can be best -251This article was published in Semeia 90/91 (2002) 251–67, copyright © 2002 by the Society of Biblical Literature. To purchase copies of this issue or to subscribe to Semeia, please contact SBL Customer Service by phone at 877-725-3334 [toll-free in North America] or 802-864-6185, by fax at 802-864-7626, or visit the online SBL Store at www.sbl-site.org. 252 semeia understood in light of the history of Christianity in the Chinese Diaspora and within the context of recent mainstream American evangelicalism. One must explore the world of second-generation Chinese evangelicals in North America in order to understand how they address questions of identity through their use of the Bible. “Americanized” Chinese evangelicals are much more complex than generalizations about their desire to emulate the “model minority.” The contradictions between their “lived” experiences and an evangelical “pop” theology that subordinates racial/ethnic particularities under a purportedly color-blind “biblical” cultural canopy generate much conversation about identity and power. Much of this discourse takes place within the contexts of congregations dominated by overseas-born and Chinese-speaking leaders. By looking at the rich sociohistorical contexts from which second-generation Chinese American evangelicals emerge, one can better understand why they interpret and appropriate the Bible through assimilationist and Orientalist lenses. Secondly, this essay will use Acts 6:1–7 as an interpretive site through which second-generation Chinese evangelical identity discourse is generated. Understanding which characters in the passage they identify with exposes some of the limitations of contemporary Chinese American evangelical discourse that is mediated through the assimilationist and Orientalist lenses. In the end, I want to suggest that a reading of Acts 6 that identifies American society with the Hebraic Christians can help second-generation Chinese American evangelicals open up a discourse that takes their racialized experiences more seriously. The Historical Context of Chinese Protestantism in North America Historians of the American religious experience have differed in their definitions of Anglo-American evangelicalism. Most agree that its doctrinal roots can be traced to the Protestant Reformation, but most of its bestknown characteristics were stamped by Continental Pietism, English Puritanism, and eighteenth-century Trans-Atlantic revivals. Fueled by Wesleyan and Arminian theological influences, evangelicalism became the most vibrant religious movement for social control and reform in nineteenthcentury America. By the early twentieth century, however, in the face of receding cultural influence, evangelicalism fragmented amidst the fundamentalist–modernist controversies. Losers in the fight for control of the mainline denominations and alienated from mainstream American culture, fundamentalists disappeared from public view and retreated into a strongly doctrinaire and separatist ethos in the 1920s through the 1940s. What came to be known as mainstream American evangelicalism was an extraordinarily successful mid-century reform movement that sought to make fundamentalism intellectually and socially respectable. Following Billy Graham’s cue, these evangelicals were more willing than their fundamentalist This article was published in Semeia 90/91 (2002) 251–67, copyright © 2002 by the Society of Biblical Literature. To purchase copies of this issue or to subscribe to Semeia, please contact SBL Customer Service by phone at 877-725-3334 [toll-free in North America] or 802-864-6185, by fax at 802-864-7626, or visit the online SBL Store at www.sbl-site.org. tseng: evangelical use of the bible in identity discourse 253 cousins to embrace mainstream American culture and work cooperatively with nonevangelicals. Their efforts led to the creation of impressive organizations such as InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, Fuller Theological Seminary, and the widely read magazine Christianity Today. Nevertheless, despite the recent reemergence of evangelicalism and its apparent popularity in American Protestant life, most North American evangelicals continue to retain much of the separatist and doctrinaire attitudes of fundamentalism (Carpenter; Marsden; Tseng and Furness). Chinese evangelicals in North America adhere very closely to the theological and cultural assumptions of mainstream evangelicalism and share a similar history of growth. Their explosive growth to dominance among Chinese American Christians since the 1970s, however, was more a result of changing immigration patterns than winning adherents from mainline Protestants. Chinese evangelicals are riding the crest of the second wave of Chinese immigration to North America that started with a trickle when the Chinese Exclusion Acts were repealed in 1943. This second wave has grown dramatically since the 1965 Immigration Act placed Asian immigration on an equal basis with Europeans. The contrasts between today’s evangelicals and those who planted the oldest Chinese congregations are relatively sharp. With the exception of a few independent congregations, the “historic” churches (such as First Chinese Baptist and First Chinese Presbyterian churches in San Francisco) were started with the help of mainline Protestant missionaries in the late nineteenth century. Reflecting the characteristics of the initial wave of Chinese immigration, these struggling mission stations were all located in urban settings and comprised largely of migrants from impoverished and rural Kwangtung communities. The missions did not completely mirror the Chinatown “bachelor society,” however. During the first half of the twentieth century, the missions were centers of Chinese nationalist activism and family formation. Thus, as an American-born generation came of age in the 1920s, Chinese women began to play prominent roles in their churches and communities. Theologically, this first wave of Chinese Christians were evangelical in orientation, but they did not exhibit the separatist or dogmatic attitudes of fundamentalism—nor did they appear to get caught up in the fundamentalist-modernist controversies in China and the United States. It’s likely that living in the shadow of Chinese exclusion, where experiences of marginalization and disempowerment were daily realities, these “firstwave” Chinese Christians found civic engagement and political activism more relevant than debating religious ideology. In any case, by the 1950s and 1960s, these “mainline” congregations became better established and were led predominantly by American-born Chinese. In contrast, Chinese evangelical leaders who immigrated after World War II were more likely to emphasize individual piety and doctrinal rigor than This article was published in Semeia 90/91 (2002) 251–67, copyright © 2002 by the Society of Biblical Literature. To purchase copies of this issue or to subscribe to Semeia, please contact SBL Customer Service by phone at 877-725-3334 [toll-free in North America] or 802-864-6185, by fax at 802-864-7626, or visit the online SBL Store at www.sbl-site.org. 254 semeia community service and Chinese political nationalism. Most grew up in provinces other than Kwangtung or in the Chinese Diaspora and were greatly shaped by the social dislocation caused by the Sino-Japanese conflict and the Communist victory in China. They came to North America only to find, in their view, mainline Chinese Protestant churches dominated by “old-timer” Cantonese or “Americanized” Chinese. These seemed to have lost their religious fervor and appeared to be entrenched in social and political concerns. In some churches, conflicts led to unhappy splits. Most evangelicals started independent urban Chinese congregations or campus ministries among the growing population of Chinese students. Though greatly admired for their courage and devotion, these evangelical immigrant pastors were often not well-educated or theologically trained. While they may have been uncompromising in maintaining evangelical doctrines such as biblical inerrancy, virgin birth, bodily resurrection, bodily return of Christ, or substitutionary atonement, most preferred to stress Confucian ethics and evangelical piety. Indeed, the spirituality of these pioneer evangelists was more akin to the holiness side of fundamentalism than to the Reformed or Dispensational wings. In part, this ethical and pietistic emphasis reflected their dissatisfaction with the perceived “dry rationalism” of an earlier generation of mainline Chinese Protestants, who through the 1920s to the 1940s had sought to embrace theological liberalism and link it to Chinese political nationalism. These evangelists, nevertheless, felt strongly nationalistic about Chinese culture and represented a shift away from state-oriented nationalism toward a diasporic perspective (Tseng, 1996; 1999; forthcoming). Up to the mid-1970s, most Chinese evangelicals in North America worshiped at small urban congregations or in Chinese Bible study groups on college campuses. Though Mandarin was becoming the dominant dialect on campuses, the urban churches were still predominantly comprised of Cantonese-speaking and working-class immigrants. Over the past two decades, waves of highly educated and wealthier immigrants have made their way into Chinese congregations. A significant number of students found professional work and stayed in the United States and Canada. Some Bible study groups grew large enough to become congregations. Indeed, many Chinese congregations have completely bypassed the urban experience and started their ministries in the suburbs among affluent professionals. Para-church ministries such as Ambassadors for Christ and Chinese Christian Missions have provided a sense of common purpose among these scattered and independently minded congregations. Chinese migration patterns, however, have created such linguistic, cultural, and economic diversity among Chinese churches that efforts by the North American Congress of Chinese Evangelicals (NACOCE) in the 1970s and the Chinese Coordinating Congress for World Evangelization (CCCWE) in the 1980s to create a unified movement have largely failed. This article was published in Semeia 90/91 (2002) 251–67, copyright © 2002 by the Society of Biblical Literature. To purchase copies of this issue or to subscribe to Semeia, please contact SBL Customer Service by phone at 877-725-3334 [toll-free in North America] or 802-864-6185, by fax at 802-864-7626, or visit the online SBL Store at www.sbl-site.org. tseng: evangelical use of the bible in identity discourse 255 A significant number of congregations have affiliated with evangelical denominations such as the Christian Missionary Alliance, the Southern Baptists, and the Evangelical Free Church, but few have joined mainline Protestant denominations. Many more remain staunchly independent of any denominational affiliation. Even among those who affiliate with a denomination (mainline or evangelical), Chinese congregations in North America have formed very few relationships or partnerships with non-Chinese Protestants. Though theologically conservative missionaries in pre-Communist China and post–World War II Chinese Diaspora had influenced an earlier generation of Chinese leaders, Chinese evangelicalism in North America has been largely an indigenous movement with few formal connections with white American Christians. Because immigrant Chinese evangelicals are so proudly independent, most of their second-generation youth grew up with very little contact with Christians who are not Chinese. Their primary interactions with non-Chinese people occur at school and work. Furthermore, today’s second-generation Chinese live in a time when Asian Americans are often lifted up by the media as the “model minority”; this, to a degree, insulates them from feeling racially discriminated against. Finally, most grew up with relatively greater affluence than earlier generations of Chinese. Hence, their experiences appear to differ greatly from those of second-generation mainline Chinese Protestants. In the 1930s and 1940s, most Chinese were segregated from whites in public life. Because mainline denominations provided missionary support for their churches, second-generation Chinese Protestants of this earlier time had greater opportunities to develop relationships with non-Chinese Christians. These mainline denominations also publicly supported racial integration at a time when racial segregation was quite obvious. These second-generation Chinese were therefore more willing to engage the public arena and join the Protestant efforts to overcome racial discrimination because they were experienced with interracial relationships. They were also willing to participate in Asian caucus movements within mainline denominations in the 1970s. Today’s second-generation evangelicals tend to approach the public realm with less confidence and often attribute this to their cultural upbringing. Without meaningful connections with a wider church body, there are few outlets to develop religious leadership skills beyond the English-speaking Chinese evangelical context. They share with the earlier second-generation a similar ambivalence about their Chinese identity, but they have not utilized this ambivalence to engage the wider Christian church or to critique society. Since the 1970s, identity discourse among Chinese evangelicals in North America has focused on urging immigrant church leaders to accept their socialization into North American culture and to share power and resources more equitably. During the NACOCE conferences in 1972, 1974, This article was published in Semeia 90/91 (2002) 251–67, copyright © 2002 by the Society of Biblical Literature. To purchase copies of this issue or to subscribe to Semeia, please contact SBL Customer Service by phone at 877-725-3334 [toll-free in North America] or 802-864-6185, by fax at 802-864-7626, or visit the online SBL Store at www.sbl-site.org. 256 semeia and 1978, advocates for North American–born Chinese pressed for greater attention. In 1978, a small group of West Coast American-born pastors received endorsements from NACOCE to form the Fellowship of American Chinese Evangelicals (FACE). This group sought to address the perceived problem of a high “drop out” rate among American-born Chinese (ABC) in Chinese churches, cultivate ABC church leadership, advocate for ABC ministries within Chinese churches, and support ABC laity toward “responsible leadership in the church.” In April 1979, they started publication of the AboutFACE newsletter. AboutFACE has— surprisingly for evangelicals—not devoted much attention to biblical interpretation or theological reflections upon ABC evangelical experience. But its goals were clear. It usually addressed one or two ABC evangelical issues, included some amateur sociological, psychological, or cultural analyses, and provided lots of practical suggestions for those involved with ministry among American-born Chinese evangelicals. Over the years, it has also served as a communication tool for ABC evangelical clergy and laity. Interestingly, the first biblical passage to be highlighted was Acts 15 (AboutFACE, Aug. 1979). Wayland Wong suggested that ABCs drop out of Chinese churches because the Christian gospel was not contextualized enough for them to own the faith. Pointing to the difficulty that “Jewish Christians” had in accepting “Greek Christians,” Wong argued that the Asian culture within Chinese congregations, much like the Jewish Christians, has become a stumbling block for the American-born to fully participate in the life of the church. “For many ABCs, fitting into a transplanted Chinese church from Asia appears to be too great a hurdle,” Wong asserts. Thus, the solution “is not to make the children of the Chinese church culturally more Chinese in order to reach them. This is like the Jews requiring the Greeks to be more Jewish in order to become good Christians.” Rather, the Chinese church must make the gospel contextually relevant to each new culture it reaches—namely, the American-born Chinese. This is equivalent to Paul and the Jerusalem Council’s decision to embrace Gentiles without requiring circumcision. Wong concludes with a call for an “indigenous ministry” where “radical changes and creative innovations must take place.” A few issues later (AboutFACE, Nov. 1979), Hoover Wong appropriated Acts 6:1–7 and referred to the same cultural tensions between Hellenist and Hebrew-speaking Jewish Christians. Claiming that “FACE took its roots” from this passage, H. Wong drew clear parallels between the Hellenists and the American-born Chinese while identifying the Hebrews with the Chinese-speaking and overseas-born. In order to resolve the contemporary crisis, Chinese church leaders must empower the English-speaking to exercise their gifts for ministry. This article was published in Semeia 90/91 (2002) 251–67, copyright © 2002 by the Society of Biblical Literature. To purchase copies of this issue or to subscribe to Semeia, please contact SBL Customer Service by phone at 877-725-3334 [toll-free in North America] or 802-864-6185, by fax at 802-864-7626, or visit the online SBL Store at www.sbl-site.org. tseng: evangelical use of the bible in identity discourse 257 AboutFACE’s challenge to the Chinese church in North America stirred up much discussion and some controversy in the early 1980s. Most theologically trained immigrant Chinese (or overseas-born Chinese [OBC]) evangelicals expressed sympathy for the American-born. They agreed that Chinese cultural identity should not be viewed as a fixed reality, since it had undergone many changes over time and in different cultural contexts. Rather, one’s North American Chinese identity falls along a wide continuum from the least to the most assimilated. Furthermore, they asserted that one’s identity moved back and forth along this continuum, depending on the contexts and length of time spent in North America. In spite of these pleas for reconciliation and unity, the real issue for AboutFACE editors was to persuade the congregations dominated by Chinese-speaking and overseasborn leaders to provide resources for ministries relevant to ABCs, and to share power more equitably. While the irenic OBC scholars were content to describe cultural identity issues of the American-born to help Chinesespeaking and overseas-born evangelicals better understand their children, ABC leaders viewed identity discourse as a means to achieve their desire for greater power and recognition in church congregations (Tan; Law; Ling). One seasoned pastor, however, defended the maintenance of Chinese culture with strong nationalist overtones. In 1983, Stephen Chan wrote “For My Kinsmen, My Flesh” for Challenger, newsletter of the Chinese Christian Mission. Citing Paul’s passion for his fellow Jews in Rom 9:3 (“I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my own people, my kindred according to the flesh” NRSV), Chan argued for an exclusive focus on evangelizing the millions of Chinese in the world. “We should love all the people in the world,” he acknowledged, “but, we do not love them all the same because relationships are different.” In fact, “Chinese Christians must bear a God-given responsibility in leading the Chinese people to Christ.” While the apostle Paul attempted to welcome Gentiles into the church, his strategy was to go to the Jews first. Furthermore, Chan noted that Moses retained his own national heritage and that Daniel resisted Babylonian assimilation: In my opinion, Chinese Christians who have immigrated all over the world and obtained different nationalities should ponder and give heed to the examples set by Moses, Daniel and Paul. If the Hebrews, who are only a small portion of the world’s population, are capable of withstanding the many years of persistent assimilation by foreign cultures, how can we Chinese Christians forsake our responsibility towards our Chinese brethren who make up one quarter of the world’s population? (95–96) The key for Chinese in North America was to retain the Chinese language. Drawing upon seventeen years of ministry experience in Southeast Asia, Chan observed that the “newly established small countries often tried This article was published in Semeia 90/91 (2002) 251–67, copyright © 2002 by the Society of Biblical Literature. To purchase copies of this issue or to subscribe to Semeia, please contact SBL Customer Service by phone at 877-725-3334 [toll-free in North America] or 802-864-6185, by fax at 802-864-7626, or visit the online SBL Store at www.sbl-site.org. 258 semeia to assimilate their Chinese residents by preventing them from learning Chinese. This blocked their means of relating to their own culture so they become indifferent to their fellow brethren.” Despite this, he scoffed at “the erratic notion about the gradual demise of the Chinese-speaking churches in North America, although it was foretold 30 to 40 years ago. In fact, the Chinese churches are still flourishing today.” Therefore, why “should we restrict ourselves from all the opportunities of sharing with the Chinesespeaking people and limit ourselves to a small group of English-speaking Chinese? We should equip our youth to speak the Chinese language so God can use them in evangelizing more Chinese people” (Chan: 96–99). It is likely that this perspective was the dominant view of most pioneering Chinese pastors. Chan’s vigorous apologetic for the maintenance of the Chinese language drew a sharp response from AboutFACE. Peter Yuen rejected the charge that drawing attention to the differences between OBCs and ABCs was divisive and presented Chan’s insistence on forcing ABCs to learn Chinese as a demonstration of ignorance. “He has not been here [North America] long enough and has not had contacts with ABCs sufficiently enough to understand them adequately to pronounce a design for meeting their needs. He has not raised a generation of ABC children of his own to know the plight of children growing up here and in the context of a Chinese church” (AboutFACE, Feb. 1984). Yuen then argued that North American Chinese churches had room to accommodate and support all different types of ministries. Two issues later, Yuen appropriated the Acts of the Apostles to demonstrate that even the New Testament church was able to minister to two different cultural groups with parallel ministries (AboutFACE, Aug. 1984). AboutFACE continued to pursue the point that the differences between OBCs and ABCs were great enough to warrant separate but equal Chinese ministries. What accounted for the differences was the seemingly inevitable movement toward assimilation of American-born Chinese into North American life. As early as 1981, Yuen had argued that “OBCs should be gradually becoming more Americanized by the influence of ABCs rather than ABCs becoming more Chinese by OBCs” (AboutFACE, Nov. 1981). Thus, to secondgeneration Chinese evangelicals the appeals for unity appeared as efforts to reverse the direction ABCs were moving. Accordingly, Sam Moy reinforced this argument about “significant differences between ABCs and OBCs” (AboutFACE, Nov. 1984). For Moy, Asian culture emphasized the group, duty, hierarchy, deference, restraint, and achievement, but Americanized Chinese stressed the individual, rights, equality, assertiveness, expressiveness, and personal growth. Consistently, the pages of AboutFACE advocated for greater attention to ministry among the American-born by employing the “different-from-OBC-but-equal” and “inevitable-assimilation-into-American-culture” themes. This article was published in Semeia 90/91 (2002) 251–67, copyright © 2002 by the Society of Biblical Literature. To purchase copies of this issue or to subscribe to Semeia, please contact SBL Customer Service by phone at 877-725-3334 [toll-free in North America] or 802-864-6185, by fax at 802-864-7626, or visit the online SBL Store at www.sbl-site.org. tseng: evangelical use of the bible in identity discourse 259 By the early 1990s, impatient with the slow response of OBC ministries, some AboutFACE writers began to advocate the planting of specifically ABC churches as well as promoting parallel ministries with OBCs. At the same time, pan-Asian congregations or ministries began to receive a great deal of attention. In particular, the impressive growth of the multi-Asian Evergreen Baptist Church in Rosemead, California—which was at one time a declining Japanese congregation—made the term “Asian American” more appealing (Fong). Para-church campus ministries such as Asian American Christian Fellowship and InterVarsity Christian Fellowship have also popularized the term. The large number of Asian Americans in many of InterVarsity’s campus chapters is also gaining some attention (Cho). InterVarsity Christian Fellowship’s Asian American staff has written resource materials to address the concerns and needs of Asian American college students. But for many, the term “Asian American” still refers largely to East Asians—Chinese, Japanese, and Korean (Yep et al.; Lin). AboutFACE editors chose not to embrace the term “Asian American” despite its growing popularity. “In order for us to continue to make an impact in the Chinese church and have a part in shaping the future of the church to be effective in reaching ABCs,” noted Yuen, “we must maintain that narrow focus and use terminology that keeps us in touch with OBC leaders whom we are intending to convince” (AboutFACE, May 1992). As recently as 1998, W. Wong noted that “most ABC seminarians are being trained to think ‘Asian American’ because it is the politically correct way for the moment. Meanwhile, most Chinese churches are not ready for this, thus making it difficult for ABC seminarians to become suitable candidates for Chinese churches. These churches are still very ethnocentric and the AsianAmerican theme is a threat to their very existence” (AboutFACE, Nov. 1998). Indeed, so long as the high rate of Chinese immigration continues, few OBC leaders will be willing to reorient their ministries toward non–Chinesespeaking Asians. Though the editors of AboutFACE recognized the benefits that pan-Asian ministries offered to those alienated from Chinese congregations, they reaffirmed their commitment to transforming Chinese churches. These multiple and contested discourses among Chinese American evangelicals are examples of literary critic Lisa Lowe’s argument that Asian American identity should not be considered a fixed or established “given.” Rather, Asian American cultural practices and its identity-producing process should be the foci of social analysis. Indeed, the latter are never complete and always constituted in relation to historical and material differences. The existence of a growing global Chinese Christian community destabilizes the Orientalist discourse that projects an EastWest religious divide. Second-generation Chinese American evangelical identity discourse further destabilizes efforts at homogenizing Chinese American cultural identity. But this form of evangelical “heterogeneity, This article was published in Semeia 90/91 (2002) 251–67, copyright © 2002 by the Society of Biblical Literature. To purchase copies of this issue or to subscribe to Semeia, please contact SBL Customer Service by phone at 877-725-3334 [toll-free in North America] or 802-864-6185, by fax at 802-864-7626, or visit the online SBL Store at www.sbl-site.org. 260 semeia hybridity, and multiplicity” does little to advance Lowe’s hopes of disrupting the “current hegemonic relationship between ‘dominant’ and ‘minority’ positions” (Lowe: 66–70). Though they may decry racism, Chinese American evangelicals do not have tools to critique the norms of society. To this problem, we now turn our attention. The Limits of Evangelical Appropriation of the Bible By lifting up the missiological themes in the Acts of the Apostles, the American-born editors of AboutFACE successfully launched a critique of the immigrant leaders who dominated Chinese evangelical congregations. Acts 6 provides an important backdrop for ABC evangelical identity discourse. The key to their interpretation of this biblical text is to identify the immigrant generation with the Hebrew Christians in the Jerusalem church, and themselves with the neglected Hellenistic widows. The strength of this interpretation lies in its apparent consistency with an evangelical commitment to Christ’s “Great Commission” in Matt 28:16–20. The Great Commission mandates the crossing of cultural and national boundaries in order to invite all people to become Jesus’ disciples. Many evangelical missiologists have recently rejected a cultural-imperialist usage of the Great Commission. Rather than imposing one’s culture upon another, there is now a greater emphasis on making the Christian message “contextually relevant” by divesting it of the “cultural baggage” of the missionaries but embracing the recipients’ cultural contexts. These missiologists point to Paul’s efforts in the Acts of the Apostles as an example of how the New Testament church rejected a narrow Jewish nationalism to embrace a Greco-Roman culture. Paul’s own words in 1 Cor 9:20–22 are often cited to justify contextualization: To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law) so that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, so that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that I might by all means save some. (NRSV) Thus, to the extent that second-generation Chinese evangelicals have embraced this more recent missiological emphasis on contextualization, their frustration is a reaction to the perceived immigrant ethnocentrism akin to that of the “Judaizers” in the New Testament church. They believe that the Chinese church in North America is being unfaithful to the Great Commission by focusing exclusively on Chinese-speaking communities. ABC evangelical discourse, as we have seen, underscores their linguistic and cultural differences from the first generation. Consequently, Chinese churches This article was published in Semeia 90/91 (2002) 251–67, copyright © 2002 by the Society of Biblical Literature. To purchase copies of this issue or to subscribe to Semeia, please contact SBL Customer Service by phone at 877-725-3334 [toll-free in North America] or 802-864-6185, by fax at 802-864-7626, or visit the online SBL Store at www.sbl-site.org. tseng: evangelical use of the bible in identity discourse 261 are urged not only to contextualize their ministries so that English-speaking Chinese may be included but also to engage in cross-cultural missions. But underlying this is an unspoken assumption that “assimilated” Chinese is a cultural group that also differs from white North Americans. Just as hellenized believers in Acts 6 were not Gentiles, Americanized Chinese are not fully white Americans either. Thus, the burden of responsibility for attending to the needs of American-born Chinese evangelicals falls primarily on immigrant pastors and church leaders, not white evangelicals. By identifying the first generation with the Hebraic believers in Jerusalem, the American-born have found a means to challenge the OBCs to pay closer attention to the specific needs and concerns of their “Americanized” evangelicals. Ironically, the recent popularity of the term “Asian American” or “Asian Pacific American,” when applied to American-born Chinese, inverts this Hellenist-Hebraic conflict strategy. Those who promote pan-Asian ministries can argue that ministries targeted only to American-born Chinese are just as ethnocentric and “Hebraic” as those exclusively directed toward the Chinese speaking. Why focus on English-speaking Chinese when there are so many other English-speaking Asian ethnics? Indeed, similar debates over identity and strategy can be found in Korean and Japanese congregations as well. Since “Americanized” Asian evangelicals share so much in common, these advocates urge the formation of panAsian American congregations and ministries regardless of the acceptance or rejection of this development on the part of first-generation immigrants.1 Again, the belief in the inevitable assimilation of Asians in North America does not necessarily result in the dissolution of race-specific congregations. Rather, similar to AboutFACE’s claims about American-born Chinese, the “pan-Asian” congregation is also a new cultural formation along racial rather than ethnic lines. In many ways, “pan-Asian” ministries parallel developments noted by Yen Le Espiritu on pan-ethnicity. Nevertheless, a similar critique about the theological legitimacy of English-speaking Chinese congregations can also be leveled at pan-Asian congregations. If the Great Commission leads to the dissolution of ethnic or racial particularities, then wouldn’t the ultimate goal be the breaking down of such barriers in worship each Sunday? Shouldn’t all congregations be multiracial and blind to color or cultural differences? Recent sociological studies have questioned the excesses of identity politics by noting its limitations with regards to multiracial people and asserting the fluidity of ethnic 1 Ken Fong, however, has recently changed his mind and observes that stereotypes of immigrant ethnocentrism have been exaggerated, because a growing number of individuals who worship at his pan-Asian congregation are, in fact, immigrants. This article was published in Semeia 90/91 (2002) 251–67, copyright © 2002 by the Society of Biblical Literature. To purchase copies of this issue or to subscribe to Semeia, please contact SBL Customer Service by phone at 877-725-3334 [toll-free in North America] or 802-864-6185, by fax at 802-864-7626, or visit the online SBL Store at www.sbl-site.org. 262 semeia and racial identities in North America (Hollinger; Spickard and Burroughs). Biblical passages such as Gal 3:26–28 or Eph 2:14–22 seem to support the dissolution of cultural particularities. These passages lead Daniel Boyarin to conclude that the essence of Paul’s ministry was to dissolve particular identities within a universalizing Christian vision.2 This is particularly salient among evangelicals who privilege religious identity at the expense of other expressions of identity. While evangelicals are beginning to address questions of racial reconciliation, they do not seem to have the theological or sociological tools to legitimize the continued existence of ethnic or racial congregations (Emerson and Smith). Yuen’s recent editorial about this matter reflects this ambivalence toward asserting racial/ethnic identities among Asian American evangelicals (AboutFACE, Feb. 1999). Addressing the Anglo church (he uses the term “the wider church”), Yuen gives advice about how to minister to Chinese Americans who leave Chinese churches in North America. He argues that the difficulties of establishing ministries among Chinese immigrants by white American Christians may be insurmountable, for “Americans unfamiliar with adapting to other cultures are likely to be stretched beyond their expectation.” However, ABCs “would be easier to work with since there should be minimal problems with language and culture.” Nevertheless, he discourages “specialized” ministries for ABCs within a congregation and urges a “gradual assimilation in a color-blind manner.” Indeed, the “whole church community would be healthier if there is gradual assimilation of minorities into the wider church without separating people by ethnic or racial groups.” Clearly, Yuen is encouraging the full integration of ABCs in the “wider church.” He not only appeals for unity in diversity by highlighting passages in Galatians and Ephesians but also argues that the “wider church” should ensure “that the leadership, both laity and staff on the church, is chosen regardless of race or ethnicity.” However, Yuen sees no place for creating a separate space for ethnic or racial groups, because when Chinese or ABCs gather themselves together in the wider church, that too is racial discrimination in reverse—something that ought not to be in the community of Christ. What has been successful in promoting healthy Christian fellowship across racial/ethnic lines is to keep from having any special racial/ethnic groups within the wider church. Gradually, over the months and years, close Christian relationships will be established without regard to race or ethnicity. Yuen then alludes to the difficulties that colleges have in encouraging students of differing races to “mix socially,” despite the successes of affirmative- 2 For a partial rebuttal of Boyarin’s thesis, see Volf. This article was published in Semeia 90/91 (2002) 251–67, copyright © 2002 by the Society of Biblical Literature. To purchase copies of this issue or to subscribe to Semeia, please contact SBL Customer Service by phone at 877-725-3334 [toll-free in North America] or 802-864-6185, by fax at 802-864-7626, or visit the online SBL Store at www.sbl-site.org. tseng: evangelical use of the bible in identity discourse 263 action programs. He regrets that “ethnic-specific clubs are formed” even in Christian schools. “That should not be so among Christians,” he writes. In the end, “balkanization” remains a great problem for Yuen, as it is for most white evangelicals. In this editorial, Yuen does not appear to view organizing along racial/ ethnic lines as an effective vehicle for “assimilation” and participation. In congregations (or any organization dominated by one group), however, mobilizing minority interests is the only way to ensure that a diversity of perspectives is reflected in staff or lay leadership. Indeed, Yuen’s own efforts to advocate for ABCs would have been impossible without a distinct ABC group identity. In the end, what Yuen and many American-born Chinese evangelicals are hesitant to question openly is how white evangelical norms have shaped their own perspectives. What is missing in Chinese American evangelical appropriation of Acts 6 is a critique of how structural racism operates in white American evangelical circles. Without tools for structural analysis, ABC evangelicals may be in danger of making “whiteness” their norm and perhaps open themselves up to criticism that they are “investing in whiteness.”3 Without an interrogation of white evangelical norms, analysis of their ministries is circumscribed by an understanding of “assimilation” that assumes European immigrant experience as the basis for their identity discourse. Furthermore, by uncritically embracing a mainstream American evangelical theological universalism, their own experiences as racialized people in church and society are dismissed. This strategy of “investing in whiteness” allows anti-Asian consciousness in the fabric of American history and contemporary society to seep into the way American-born Chinese perceive Chinese immigrants. Recently published studies provide alternative perspectives. Mia Tuan’s study, Forever Foreigners or Honorary Whites? The Asian Ethnic Experience Today, offers a more complex and ultimately more satisfying account of the identity formation of “Americanized” Chinese and Japanese in California. In her study, she finds evidence that these Asian Americans were influenced by both assimilation and racialization processes. In other words, while it is true that second- to fifth-generation Chinese Americans are becoming acculturated into white American cultural norms, they still cannot escape the taint of “foreignness.” Anti-Asian racism is distinct from other forms of racism because Asians, more than any other group, are viewed as permanent “aliens.” Robert Lee describes the legacy of anti-Asian sentiment as a historically constructed American popular discourse in his important study, 3 “Investing in whiteness” is a phrase utilized by recent scholars about the racial formation of “whiteness.” See Lipsitz; Roediger; and Hale. This article was published in Semeia 90/91 (2002) 251–67, copyright © 2002 by the Society of Biblical Literature. To purchase copies of this issue or to subscribe to Semeia, please contact SBL Customer Service by phone at 877-725-3334 [toll-free in North America] or 802-864-6185, by fax at 802-864-7626, or visit the online SBL Store at www.sbl-site.org. 264 semeia Orientals: Asian Americans in Popular Culture. The subtle but deeply rooted forms of “Orientalism” in American media and other arenas of pop culture inform how most Americans perceive Asian Americans. Indeed, efforts of earlier Asian American writers to demonstrate their “American” identity in contrast to stereotypical images of Asian American immigrants has ironically betrayed a subtle use of “Orientalism.” The overwhelming tendency for both ABCs and Asian American evangelicals to confront Chinese and other immigrant Asians without offering a critique of anti-Asian racism suggests that a more structural understanding of American society is much needed. But this is difficult for mainstream evangelicals to do, since they are so closely identified with the national culture. Second-generation Chinese American evangelicals have the potential to destabilize stereotypical images of Asian Americans, but they will have to aquire the critical tools for analyzing the dominant culture and social structures. In this regard, a new reading of the Bible can offer a constructive step. Acts 6 can be utilized as a helpful interpretive tool for ABC evangelicals if they begin to identify North American society with the “exclusivist” Hebrews. Refusing to be either ontological strangers or “integrated” Hebrew-speaking people, Hellenistic Jewish believers in Acts find their own voice and encourage the church at Jerusalem to broaden its horizons and embrace the “alien.” In order to read Acts in this manner, the implicit Orientalism that renders Asian Americans as permanent foreigners or fully assimilated “model minorities” needs to be excised. Indeed, Asian American leaders in mainline denominations and a few scholars have already employed an approach to the Acts of the Apostles that identifies white American society with the Hebrew-speaking disciples in Jerusalem (Kim; see also González). This challenge to mainline Protestant denominations in particular has resulted in the creation of significant space for Asian Americans in these church bodies. Though Chinese American evangelicals tend not to utilize Acts 6 in this manner, they are definitely dissatisfied with the perceived exclusivity of mainstream evangelicals. In my oral-history interviews with Chinese American evangelicals, the history of Asian American exclusion and the dominance of white evangelical norms are clearly recognized. For instance, Ken Fong, in response to his seminary professor’s well-intentioned call for Asian Americans to join his congregation for the sake of racial reconciliation, questions why that professor didn’t think about joining his pan-Asian congregation instead (interview with Ken Fong, June 1996). The growing presence of Asian Americans in evangelical settings and the universalizing ethos inscribed in evangelical identity may be the reason why second-generation Chinese American evangelicals are silent about this other reading of Acts 6. But insofar as Chinese Americans are willing to interpret their experiences and read the Bible through the lenses of racialization, the potential This article was published in Semeia 90/91 (2002) 251–67, copyright © 2002 by the Society of Biblical Literature. To purchase copies of this issue or to subscribe to Semeia, please contact SBL Customer Service by phone at 877-725-3334 [toll-free in North America] or 802-864-6185, by fax at 802-864-7626, or visit the online SBL Store at www.sbl-site.org. tseng: evangelical use of the bible in identity discourse 265 for a powerful second-generation Chinese American evangelical engagement in social issues without denying their Asian American history and identity remains a real possibility. WORKS CONSULTED Boyarin, Daniel 1994 A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Carpenter, Joel 1997 Revive Us Again: The Reawakening of American Fundamentalism. New York: Oxford University Press. Chan, Stephen 1986 “For My Kinsmen, My Flesh.” Pp. 95–99 in A Winning Combination: ABC-OBC, Understanding the Cultural Tensions in Chinese Churches. Ed. Cecilia Yau. Petaluma, Calif.: Chinese Christian Mission, 1986. [Originally published in Challenger, August 1983] Cho, David 1999 “Asian Americans Changing Face of Christianity on Campus.” The Philadelphia Inquirer, Feb. 2:R1, R4. Emerson, Michael O., and Christian Smith 2000 Divided by Faith: Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America. New York: Oxford University Press. Espiritu, Yen Le 1992 Asian American Panethnicity: Bridging Institutions and Identities. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Fong, Ken Uyeda 1999 Pursuing the Pearl: A Comprehensive Resource for Multi-Asian Ministry. Valley Forge, Pa.: Judson. González, Justo L. 1995 “Reading from My Bicultural Place: Acts 6:1–7.” Pp. 139–48 in Reading from This Place, vol. 1: Social Location and Biblical Interpretation in the United States. Ed. Fernando F. Segovia and Mary Ann Tolbert. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress. Hale, Grace E. 1998 Making Whiteness: The Culture of Segregation in the South, 1890–1940. New York: Vintage. Hollinger, David 1995 Postethnic America: Beyond Multiculturalism. San Francisco: HarperCollins. This article was published in Semeia 90/91 (2002) 251–67, copyright © 2002 by the Society of Biblical Literature. To purchase copies of this issue or to subscribe to Semeia, please contact SBL Customer Service by phone at 877-725-3334 [toll-free in North America] or 802-864-6185, by fax at 802-864-7626, or visit the online SBL Store at www.sbl-site.org. 266 semeia Kim, Chan-Hie 1995 “Reading the Cornelius Story from an Asian Immigrant Perspective.” Pp. 165–74 in Reading from This Place, vol. 1: Social Location and Biblical Interpretation in the United States. Ed. Fernando F. Segovia and Mary Ann Tolbert. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress. Law, Gail 1986 “A Model for the American Ethnic Chinese Churches.” Pp. 131–41 in A Winning Combination: ABC-OBC, Understanding the Cultural Tensions in Chinese Churches. Ed. Cecilia Yau. Petaluma, Calif.: Chinese Christian Mission. Lee, Robert G. 1999 Orientals: Asian Americans in Popular Culture. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Lin, Tom 1996 Ling, Sam 1986 Losing Face and Finding Grace: Twelve Bible Studies for Asian-Americans. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press. “Beyond the ‘Chinese’ Way of Doing Things: The Continued Search for a Theology of Culture.” Pp. 61–82 in A Winning Combination: ABC-OBC, Understanding the Cultural Tensions in Chinese Churches. Ed. Cecilia Yau. Petaluma, Calif.: Chinese Christian Mission. Lipsitz, George 1995 “The Possessive Investment of Whiteness: Racialized Social Democracy and the ‘White’ Problem in American Studies.” American Quarterly 47:369–87. Lowe, Lisa 1996 Immigrant Acts: On Asian American Cultural Politics. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press. Marsden, George 1980 Fundamentalism in American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism, 1870–1925. New York: Oxford University Press. Roediger, David R. 1991 The Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class. New York: Verso. Spickard, Paul, and W. Jeffrey Burroughs, eds. 2000 We Are a People: Narrative and Multiplicity in Constructing Ethnic Identity. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Tan, Che Ben 1986 “Chinese Church in Tension between Two Cultures.” Pp. 3–15 in A Winning Combination: ABC-OBC, Understanding the Cultural Tensions in Chinese Churches. Ed. Cecilia Yau. Petaluma, Calif.: Chinese Christian Mission. This article was published in Semeia 90/91 (2002) 251–67, copyright © 2002 by the Society of Biblical Literature. To purchase copies of this issue or to subscribe to Semeia, please contact SBL Customer Service by phone at 877-725-3334 [toll-free in North America] or 802-864-6185, by fax at 802-864-7626, or visit the online SBL Store at www.sbl-site.org. tseng: evangelical use of the bible in identity discourse 267 Tseng, Timothy 1996 “Religious Liberalism, International Politics, and Diasporic Realities: The Chinese Students Christian Association of North America, 1909–1951.” Journal of American-East Asian Relations 5.3–4: 305–30. 1999 “Chinese Protestant Nationalism in the United States, 1880–1927.” Pp. 19–51 in New Spiritual Homes: Religion and Asian Americans. Ed. David Yoo. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. forthcoming “Unbinding Their Souls: Chinese Protestant Women in TwentiethCentury America.” In Women and Twentieth Century Protestantism. Ed. Virginia Brereton and Elizabeth Bendroth. Tseng, Timothy, and Furness, Janet forth“The Reawakening of Evangelical Social Consciousness.” In The Social coming Gospel Today. Ed. Christopher Evans. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox. Tuan, Mia 1998 Forever Foreigners or Honorary Whites? The Asian Ethnic Experience Today. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press. Volf, Miroslav 1996 Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation. Nashville: Abingdon. Yep, Jeanette, et al. 1998 Following Jesus without Dishonoring Your Parents. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press. This article was published in Semeia 90/91 (2002) 251–67, copyright © 2002 by the Society of Biblical Literature. To purchase copies of this issue or to subscribe to Semeia, please contact SBL Customer Service by phone at 877-725-3334 [toll-free in North America] or 802-864-6185, by fax at 802-864-7626, or visit the online SBL Store at www.sbl-site.org.