Proselytizing on Campus, Asian American style
18 Responses | Leave a Comment »
I saw this article about Asian American Christians a few days ago on AAM, and I wanted to collect my thoughts before posting. I myself am an atheist according to Richard Dawkins’s definition, which means that I believe God is extremely unlikely to exist. I see no reason to believe that he exists, and since the doubt an agnostic would feel is negligible to me, I am therefore an atheist. At the same time, I have friends of different religions (including a Christian friend on the 44’s), and so I try not to judge people based on their beliefs. Belief is a personal choice. Still, some of this fundamentalist Asian American evangelical Christian stuff is scary, and since I feel it hinders our efforts to create a stronger Asian American community, I thought I’d comment on the article.
As a college student years back, I had the exact same experiences with Asian American evangelical groups. They gather in large groups, and they try to coerce their “friends” into converting to their religion. There are good Christians and bad Christians, of course, but evangelicals try to force a logically indefensible religion on people through all kinds of control and manipulation (which is mentioned in the article.). It’s wrong. All of the leaders treat the existence of the Christian God as a given fact, and they expect others to do the same without proof or reason. These Christian groups will often use bribery, threats, manipulation, and ostracism to get other Asian Americans to bow down to their god, whose existence they know they cannot confirm. It often broke my heart to see strong young people broken down by fear and submitting themselves to these cult-like groups.
Keep in mind that I’m not trying to insult anyone. I’m not trying to degrade the practice of religion. I’m just noting some extreme behavioral problems with fundamentalist evangelical Christian groups, as well as some of the problems that I see with the whole obedience lesson that these evangelicals preach. I think this hurts Asian Americans, and I think it’s something we need to bring out in the open.
From the article:
Then one day in the dining commons, Chiu met a Bible study leader who invited him to Acts2Fellowship’s student welcome night, during which a variety of skits were performed. In the “mask skit,” a character goes to college and tries to fit in by wearing different masks, but can’t find any meaningful relationships. The scene struck a chord with Chiu. “That’s how I lived my life through middle and high school,” he said, “trying to act cool.”
This is exactly how it usually works. For many of these evangelicals, selling Christianity is like selling Amway. “Hey, neighbor, I’ve got this great product that you should try. Come by Johnson Auditorium on Friday night, and bring your friends!”
People should be free to say whatever they want regarding their religion, but at a certain point, it becomes obnoxious. How do you excuse someone who pretends to be your friend in order to get you to subscribe to his belief system? I once even heard of a girl feigning interest in a guy just to get him to church. Having been approached by numerous Christian Asian American students when I was younger, I remember the modus operandi of the college evangelical very clearly. In fact, I could teach the method:
1. Be nice and outgoing: Meet lots of people, and invite them to your church. Act cool. You can even mention that there are tons of attractive women there.
2. Be somewhat distant during the early meetings. During church, preface everything by “I believe” or “we believe.” This way it doesn’t look like you’re forcing your beliefs on people.
3. Invite them into the fold, and drop the H-bomb: “You’re going to HELL if you don’t believe what I do!!! Thou art a sinner!!!”
Those Christian skits in college were mad crazy. I remember seeing a bunch of skits that did the normal preaching–no women, no drugs, no alcohol, no thinking licentious thoughts. There was never anything positive about the message. It was always “Thou shalt not ___,” rather than “Why not try ____.” It was always about restricting the individual, rather than encouraging the individual. The whole symbolism of the Christian campus skits were scary too. It was as if they were trying to teach Asian Americans fear and guilt.
Even in this article, most of the people seem to join because they are desperate for answers. They are somehow at the end of their rope, and they have nowhere else to turn. So they turn to evangelical religion, which demands total obedience and no exercise of skill or leadership. It kills your individuality.
In particular, Chiu said he found it hard to believe he was very sinful. Like many Asian students, he said, he was mostly concerned about making good grades and obeying his parents. “I never did anything bad, like kill anyone or do drugs,” he said. But he did start considering how he saw himself — particularly, how proud he was. And he admits that he tended to look down on others who weren’t as good as him academically or athletically.
I never really understood this religious focus on not feeling proud. Top athletes and top politicians are proud of their abilities. How is this sinful? More importantly, how can a person excel if he doesn’t believe that he is good at a certain task? It seems to me that this is a false conceit. In order to think of yourself as conceited, you have to admit that you think you’re better than other people at something, and if you think that, chances are pretty good that you are.
Today, Chiu says he’s not as crazy about grades as he once was. And while he used to want a girlfriend to fill his loneliness, now he says he’s focused on his male friendships.
Something about that just doesn’t seem right.
“I began to see that my future is secure because God has a plan for me,” he said.
Big Brother is watching you.
When the pastor began his lecture, the students dug in their backpacks bringing out notebooks and Bibles. He reminded them of the key verse of the year: Philippians 3:8. “Did anyone memorize it yet?” he asked.
A few raised their hands. He called out the first name of a male student sitting toward the back, joking about his engineering major. The student stood and recited the passage from memory: “What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ.”
“It’s impossible to earn our way to heaven,” the pastor told the students, as they jotted down notes. “The only way to heaven is through the cross of Jesus Christ.”
Interspersed throughout his explanation of the passage, the pastor kept things lively by relating things to students’ cultural experiences. He likened the Apostle Paul to the “guy in the Korean newspaper” who “your mom points out, who goes to Harbard,” he said, laying on a thick Korean-mom accent. Later, he compared God’s power to that of Gandalf in Lord of the Rings, when the white-haired wizard releases King Theoden from the spell of the evil wizard Saruman. “God releases you and you can be healed,” he said.
Then he got serious again. “What is life all about?” he asked. “The one thing that’s certain about everyone’s life here is that we’re all going to die. We’re all sinners, and we’re all going to die and face our God one day.” He acknowledged that this might sound harsh to some. “I’m not trying to be a morbid prophet, I’m not trying to scare you,” he continued, adding, “Shouldn’t we try to find a way to salvation?”
This is classic fundamentalist bullshit. This pastor is pulling the scare card right out of his hat, and he’s talking about a “salvation” that has never been proven. I’ll say it loud and clear: this pastor is lying through his smarmy teeth. Fear is the number one enforcement tool for the proselytizer. Everything else is meaningless. Read the article and see what all the converts are saying, “Now that I’ve turned towards Jesus I’m not going to HELL.” This pastor can go about his business in scaring people into dropping coins in the collection tray, but make no mistake–he is trying to scare people.
“I think Asian Americans are looking for more than just what they’re doing in their life,” Huang said. “They’re looking for more than just what their parents brought with them from China or other Asian communities. That looking for more has translated into looking for God. I think a lot of Asian Americans, their moms and dads found suburbia and privilege. And a lot of Asian Americans who grew up in privilege realize it’s not enough. We have a nice house, two cars, food in the refrigerator, but there’s still something missing. When we go to UC Berkeley, we want to know what’s out there. We want to experience more.”
I agree with Huang’s idea that Asian Americans are looking for more in life. It just strikes me as utterly ironic that people turn to religion.
There is just so much more out there. What about studying history so that you can make positive changes in society? What about studying literature or art so that you can see what is beautiful in life? What about studying music? Putting yourself in a place where your leaders attempt to scare you with the unproven idea that you’re a dirty sinner who will go to Hell without their guidance just doesn’t seem to me to be the best way to assuage your desire for more in life, and it worries me because I think a lot of young Asian Americans are turning to the wrong leaders. What they want is control over their own lives, and instead, they are turning to people who are promising control over an afterlife which probably doesn’t exist.
We’re at a point in history where we need people to create change. We need people to contribute their intellectual capital to the betterment of society. We don’t need people to submit to a group mentality and to cave into fear. Now some of you may say that Martin and Malcolm were both religious and that they did their civil rights work within the framework of their religion. I’d respond by pointing out that this brand of Christianity is clearly different. Martin never forced his beliefs on others through fear and guilt, and Malcolm proved his openness to other religions by quoting from the Bible. There was never any kind of “Thou art a sinner” type of theme in anything they did. Fundamentalist Christianity is a bad thing for Asian Americans. It is an opiate, a red herring, that keeps us from where we really need to focus. We need strong people to fight for equality, people who will rise to challenges. We don’t need this:
Again, I’m not trying to dog anyone’s religion, so feel free to disagree with me.
(photos from gracepointonline.com)
Leave a Comment »
Share
Entries (RSS)
nskripchun
1:20 am | Apr 10, 2008jaehwan, you calling me out to debate you? Are you really denying how integral spiritual element of MLK Jr. and Malcolm’s viewpoints were to their revolutionary philosophy? OH SNAP.
You’re lucky I like you. =)
I don’t have a whole lot of time to post all my comments (sorry, it’s a school night.. haha), but first off, let me say that I do think you have a lot of valid criticisms of fundamentalist Christianity… fundamentalist types scare progressive Christians like me as much as they scare atheists like you. My main problem with your editorial is that you make a lot of broad comments that don’t distinguish between the diversity that exists within Christianity itself, even Asian American Christian college groups. Not all are the same, just as the Fighting44s is different from YellowWorld, ModelMinority, reappropriate, and FO Central. Doctrines and philosophies do vary, though they might all fall under the broad category of “Asian American activists”.
Are there abusive, broken people who run heavy, fundamentalist type Christian groups whose only concern is making converts? Of course. But saying every Asian American Christian groups existence is evil simply because of the practices of a certain fundamentalist / evangelical-types is akin to saying that all Asian American groups and activists are evil because Amy Tan and Maxine Hong Kingston are wack.
I could go and on (you already got the gears in head turning on a lengthy editorial… haha), but let me share a quick personal anecdote to tell you where I’m coming from.
When I first went to college, one of things that I knew I wanted to do was join a group that had an Asian American focus. I went to a high school that was about 80-90% white, so when I went to college, I was pretty excited about meeting more people similar to myself. Now, at my school, that pretty much meant these choices if I wanted to get involved with an Asian American group:
1. Asian American fraternity
2. Chinese Student Association / HK Student Association-type org
3. Asian American Christian groups
I visited / talked to members of all these student organizations and I found that…
1. Frats, were, ummm… frats. Filled with party guy types who were usually interested in only getting laid / drunk / high / going to clubs. And not necessarily in that order. Fun on Saturday night and not much else.
2. Chinese student orgs these ethnic-specific organizations weren’t much better. It was like a giant social club (there’s always ALOT of members, most whom seem to do nothing), where people grabbed leadership positions to pad their resumes, and plan once-a-year, lame-ass high school type social dances. If they had a couple of serious people, they might plan, oh, one community service project a year. Maybe.
And “social justice” was just a catchy phrase to hold music concerts or club nights.
3. Asian American Christian groups. I didn’t consider myself that strong of a Christian at the time, but I thought I’d check a few out. While some didn’t impress me as much different from 1 or 2, there were couple that were starkly different in:
-Service. Most members served their local communities on a regular basis, whether it was weekly tutoring of minority HS students, feeding the homeless, visiting the elderly, etc. And they did it not because they were required to or were trying to pad their resume or look good… they did it because they wanted to help other people.
-Close-knit community. Being viewed as a “Jesus freak” doesn’t exactly bring in huge numbers of people, but most of the people who were there at these AsianAm Christian groups were there for reasons of personal, intellectual, and spiritual growth. People were there to trying to build authentic friendships.
Yeah, you had the few guys/girls who would drift in from time to time trying to fish for a hook-up, but they’d fade out once they would realize that exactly the best spot for “hit it and quit it”.
-Authenticity. This might sound strange, but this is what attracted me the most. The people I met and talked to seemed “real” to me. They didn’t claim to be perfect, there were no fronts about trying to be smartest / most beautiful. There was dog-eat-dog pecking order (*cough* frat *cough*) and there was no cut-throat politics (*cough* Chinese orgs *cough*). Just real people hanging out together.
Seriously jaehwan, I’m not trying to make my experience at an Asian American Christian group sound all “kum-ba-ya”, but honestly, given the above 3 choices, which was the sanest one for someone who was genuinely interested in serving their community and building positive relationships?
So let me pose a question for you: Is there room for a supportive religious diversity in a strong Asian American community? If fundamentalist-type Christianity is divisive and weakening to the community (I agree with you that yes, religious fundamentalism is unhealthy) what would a supportive religious element look like in the AA community? Isn’t there a potential symbiosis, such as the relationship between Black churches and the Civil Rights movements of the 60s?
I’ll post more thoughts later… let’s keep the dialogue up!
nskripchun
1:22 am | Apr 10, 2008Forgive that crapload of typos… back to correcting math tests! :)
awong
11:02 am | Apr 10, 2008that is the similar experience I noticed with the chinese church i went to for one summer to see how it was, people were more real and they were fun to hang around with, its just I found the evengelical side being thinly shown during the bible readings, and it seemed to me during bible study, all I was learning was how to be a better person for god, but the stuff for being a better person, shouldnt that be a given? It was that I felt can be said without any reference to god that any reasonable person should be able to follow. It seems to me that a lot of the people, they need something to keep themselves in check, and I have no problem with people using religon to help them move forward It was the talk into creationism, evolution, that I started feeling uncomfortable, and the poltical messages being sent out that sounded like bush.
The one quote pointed out about wanting more in life I think is why they turn to religon, seems to me the ones mentioned in the article came up from spoon fed houses, that have done everything materialistically, which is why I think so many are evengelical, similar to how famous people and rich business men tend to convert to the extreme. They were on one far side of the spectrum and instead of moderating themselves they end up on the other far side.
I think I’ll add more later if I can think of a better way to express, kind of hard to do right now this morning
jaehwan
12:49 pm | Apr 10, 2008Haha…I guess you knew that I was talking about you when I said that I had a 44’s Christian friend! Yup, it was a friendly call out! :)
One thing that I’ve respected about you, skrips, is that you’ve always been respectful of other people’s lifestyles and beliefs. We’ve had a number of fundies in the religious section who’ve actually tried to do internet conversions (or would that be “message board conversions?”), and we basically had to bring in kimtae to set them straight. But you’ve always been very respectful and tolerant, which I totally appreciate.
My experience with the church has always been bad. I remember the guilt trips and manipulations that some fundies have tried on me throughout my life. Even when you outsmart them, they’ll never admit it. They’ll just keep on trying new tactics. It’s like dealing with a telemarketer in person. But I’d agree with your assessment of the frats and ethnic orgs, and I can see how the Christian groups would be good socially. Frats are often just too much style, and the ethnic orgs are just too little action. (Although to be fair to frats, Yul Kwon has spoken at length about how his Asian American fraternity encouraged service as well.) With the Christian groups, if you joined the right one, I imagine there would be at least some good introspection.
So yes, to answer that last question, I do think that it is possible–and probably even advisable–to create a system where people can share across religious lines. For many people, it’s a lifestyle, and people of different religions need to respect that. And you’re totally right about service. I think it’s great that these Christian groups are encouraging service.
To answer your question, I think you and Mrs. skrips have it right. awong is correct too. Martin and Malcolm are correct too. I think that these Asian religious groups need to stop claiming that their way is the only way. We now live in a multiracial, multireligious world, and part of respecting other religions, I believe, is to acknowledge the validity of other religions. Otherwise, how else will people get along? I used to think that maybe people could just tone down the “only way” rhetoric, but how would they ever become friends with Muslims is Muslims always wonder what Christians are saying about them behind closed doors?
What do you think?
Newguy123
4:12 pm | Apr 10, 2008i’ve tried to stay neutral in all discussions in this site by never posting, but that picture chosen for the story kind of bugged me. After looking at the picture of the white guy preaching to the asians and reading the article, it seems like the message was that christianity is a “white” religion and asians following it are simply their pawns and that they should follow a different path. I dunno if that picture was chosen intentionally or not but it seems to convey the feeling that christianity is white and therefore the wrong thing for us asians to follow
jaehwan
7:51 pm | Apr 10, 2008Hey Newguy,
Thanks for coming. No problem staying neutral; we try to encourage discussion.
I got that picture off of the website of a Korean American church. That was the photo for their “training up” theme, and because I was thinking of evangelicals training evangelicals, it made perfect sense to include it.
Now skrips may disagree with me, but Christianity is a white religion. True, it was invented by darker folk in the Middle East, but the way it is practiced today, it’s run by white folk. Christianity is white the same way Buddhism is Chinese; it came from a different source, but the majority of practitioners and leaders of Buddhism and Christianity are Chinese and white, respectively. In fact, most academic historians refer to Western civilization as “Western Christendom,” which reflects the way in which Western culture and Christianity are tied together. If you were to look back in your own tradition of your own church, I’ll bet you anything that there is a white teacher somewhere less than a few generations away.
Now this doesn’t necessarily mean that Christianity is bad. Representative democracy also comes from the West, and most people feel this is a good thing. Just because it’s a “white” religion doesn’t necessarily mean that you shouldn’t learn or practice Christianity. All it means is that Christianity is a Western religion and is a primary part, perhaps the most significant part, of Western culture.
Thanks again for your post. Feel free to agree or disagree.
Xian
11:15 pm | Apr 10, 2008And here I thought I was getting props ;)
Major organized religious are all saddled with the problems of following other hierarchal systems–they integrate the existing prejudices and values of the society they are developed within.
So it matters deeply what you mean when you talk about “Christianity”. Do you mean the opportunist preacher or the enlightened follower of Jesus?
At its heart, Christianity is about a man of color a couple of thousand years ago who reached the pinnacle of human existence–ultimate empathy.
Have horrible perversions of his teachings ending the establishment of the faith? Of course, why do you think it is such a high sin to mislead others as to what the word is?
I feel like we are having the same discussion again. Why does it matter what bad versions of “feminism” or “Christianity” exist? Sure, we need to engage them externally, but as we build strategically, there is no need to devalue the central core of the exact ideals that should be the cornerstones of our movements.
It shouldn’t matter whether you believe that Jesus was a guy who really walked the Earth. Surely you can acknowledge the power of the image of the ultimate empath and how that is a worthy ideal?
nightshade
1:22 am | Apr 11, 2008Though I don’t have any religious affiliations, I think churches are excellent at creating and maintaining a community.
If only I wasn’t such a hater.
As for hell, Christians are just worried about your soul. I mean, friends don’t want friends to go to hell, right? It sounds like it’s way too hot there.
jaehwan
1:49 am | Apr 12, 2008Xian,
You ARE getting props!
So I think there are two sides of the Asian American feminism/Christianity debate–the part that they have in common, and the part that they don’t. But before I begin, I have a disclaimer: I was raised in the church, and I’ve seen people’s lives wrecked, absolutely destroyed, by fundamentalist religion, so I’m not 100% unbiased when it comes to this debate. That being said:
In terms of what they have in common, Asian American feminism and fundamentalist Christianity are both movements in which the majority of influential leaders do things that we might agree are not good. Fundamentalists invading Iraq because God told them to do so and because it could fulfill certain prophecies in Revelation is not good. Pushing creationism over evolution is not good. Kingstonians attacking Asian men without cause is not good.
So in terms of the similarities, my position is on the church is the same as my position on Asian American feminism. People can turn it into a force of good by drawing boundaries and enforcing them. So returning to Asian American feminism: it could be a very powerful force of good if Asian American women take control over it, define it with boundaries, and contribute to female empowerment rather than Asian male emasculation.
Christianity, however, is somewhat different, and here is where the comparison diverges. You mentioned empathy, but as I was taught in chuch, Christianity is neither about empathy nor about doing good. It’s not about caring for people. It’s not about leaving the world better than you found it. It’s not about caring for children. It’s about believing in Jesus Christ and not believing in any other religion.
What this means is that God doesn’t rate you on whether or not you’re a good person or bad person. He rates you on whether or not you believe in him. In John 14:6, it is written:
This means that if you think you’re getting to the Father through Mohammed, Buddha, or the FSM, think again. According to the written word of the Bible, there is only one way to get there. It’s Jesus’ way or the highway. (and not the Highway to Heaven but rather the Highway to the…other place.)
So I think Asian American feminism can achieve it’s ideals by staying true to it’s one professed ideal–Asian American female empowerment. I can’t really speak for Christianity though because I was raised in a Christian church, and I know what their book says. That being said, I also know some very good people who are Christian. Exactly how those good Christian people can turn it into a force for good is an extremely important debate, which is probably why I hope this debate takes place.
Xian
11:07 am | Apr 12, 2008Christianity, however, is somewhat different, and here is where the comparison diverges. You mentioned empathy, but as I was taught in chuch, Christianity is neither about empathy nor about doing good. It’s not about caring for people. It’s not about leaving the world better than you found it. It’s not about caring for children. It’s about believing in Jesus Christ and not believing in any other religion.
Ephesians 2:8-9: For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.
No, that’s only one interpretation of that passage. The emphasis is yours. I would argue that “by grace” “gift of God” and “so no one can boast” are the key concepts there.
You know full well that “works” are a product not only of righteousness, but also circumstances and contextual definitions of what “good works” are.
The passage is saying that those who count their works in order to boast about them, “I gave $3 million to feed hungry kids, now I’m going to go open a bunch of selective charter schools!” are going to be in for a surprise.
If you have the core empathy, then the works will follow. If you counted them accurately, you could certainly compare to anyone, but there is no need. Just strive for your actualized, enlightened potential and that will be worth more than itemizing you accomplishments.
In many ways, this can be read as an anti-capitalist passage–what’s the number one metric that people current worship insofar as counting their works? Money.
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.
This means that if you think you’re getting to the Father through Mohammed, Buddha, or the FSM, think again. According to the written word of the Bible, there is only one way to get there. It’s Jesus’ way or the highway. (and not the Highway to Heaven but rather the Highway to the…other place.)
You are taking the literalist interpretation and then tearing it down.
The characteristics of Jesus do not need permission to manifest themselves in a person. If you believe that Jesus is the ultimate empathic human ideal, then obviously, that is the only path to salvation.
But the combination of syllables that make up His name are not some magic convocation. What’s in a name?
There are plenty of Christians who would not debate the obvious presence of God in the Word of Khalil Gibran or other prophets.
The true Christian has far more in common with the empathic Muslim than with the “Say the Word and you are Saved!” so-called Christian.
jaehwan
1:04 pm | Apr 12, 2008Xian,
The concept of being “saved” in the Ephesians verse is itself a Christian construct, and there still is an emphasis on faith, which is almost uniquely Christian. In the Buddhist tradition, for example, there is no single deity who “saves” you; there is karma, and you don’t have to “believe” anything. So while you’re correct in saying that there are many ways to define “works,” wouldn’t the emphasis on “faith” and being “saved” still define Christianity in terms of belief rather than actions or feelings?
Yes, but is my literalist interpretation mainstream? I remember an interview with Billy Graham following 9.11, and they were talking about different visions of the afterlife. The news reporter kept trying to emphasize commonalities between Islam and Christianity, and Graham kept saying something like, “Well yes, we respect Muslims, but when it comes to theology, we Christians know that Jesus Christ is the only way.
Now I guess this is similar to Asian American feminism because I know that not all Christians feel this way, but many of the mainstreamers do.
Returning the concept of interpretations, if you yourself felt that your view on an issue was superior to someone else’s, would you ever use the sentence, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me?” It would seem to me to be a very long stretch to say that Jesus was trying to transcend his physical being and trying to link it to a higher principle.
I think my literalist interpretation makes the most sense in terms of the reading of that sentence–when translated into English, of course. And I think this is the interpretation that most Christians have of it, which is why they, like Mr. Graham, feel confident in telling Muslims and atheists that we’re all wrong.
I’d just like to re-emphasize that my view of Christianity is colored by my experiences growing up in the church, where I saw so many people destroyed by fundamentalism–and yes, my church was comprised of rabidly evil fundies who lacked even the most basic moral compasses.
So without being too offensive–and I hope this isn’t offensive–would you say that your concept of goodness and empathy has more to do with your own goodness and empathy rather than what is taught in scripture? I do, for example, like your interpretation of John 14:6, but it seems to me that your reading has more to do with what you want it to say than what it actually says, and it’s different from how most people would actually read it. In a sense, your sense of Christianity transcends what the book itself says.
Xian
5:41 pm | Apr 12, 2008In the Buddhist tradition, for example, there is no single deity who “saves” you; there is karma, and you don’t have to “believe” anything. So while you’re correct in saying that there are many ways to define “works,” wouldn’t the emphasis on “faith” and being “saved” still define Christianity in terms of belief rather than actions or feelings?
I would argue that the emphasis on “non-attachment” in Zen is very similar to “faith”. I’d argue the opposite–it’s pretty hard to find a faith without a faith equivalent. It’s also pretty easy to find faith equivalents in every civilization, even outside of religion.
Yes, but is my literalist interpretation mainstream? I remember an interview with Billy Graham following 9.11, and they were talking about different visions of the afterlife. The news reporter kept trying to emphasize commonalities between Islam and Christianity, and Graham kept saying something like, “Well yes, we respect Muslims, but when it comes to theology, we Christians know that Jesus Christ is the only way.
I still don’t understand this argument. Mainstream food sucks. Do you eat food? Mainstream Asian American masculinity sucks. Aren’t we trying to be good Asian American men? Mainstream clothes suck. We wear clothes.
Neither of us basis whether we do something on whether most of the people doing it doing it badly. Why does that change when it’s something that you don’t do?
I’d just like to re-emphasize that my view of Christianity is colored by my experiences growing up in the church, where I saw so many people destroyed by fundamentalism–and yes, my church was comprised of rabidly evil fundies who lacked even the most basic moral compasses.
And I’m sure many of us have had that experience. But once again, we don’t rate things by the lowest common denominator.
So without being too offensive–and I hope this isn’t offensive–would you say that your concept of goodness and empathy has more to do with your own goodness and empathy rather than what is taught in scripture? I do, for example, like your interpretation of John 14:6, but it seems to me that your reading has more to do with what you want it to say than what it actually says, and it’s different from how most people would actually read it. In a sense, your sense of Christianity transcends what the book itself says.
Well, the Book is meant to be read seeking for divine inspiration. Otherwise you get these “Jesus has no problem with usurers, he just hates gays!” interpretations.
Every person’s faith relationship is going to be different and I would hope that it transcends what the Book says. Otherwise, who needs anything except the literature?
jaehwan
11:04 am | Apr 13, 2008Actually, the one thing that created confusion among Western scholars when they first studied Asian religions was the complete lack of faith. They did a survey in Japan asking people whether or not they believed in God, and when everyone said no, they assumed the Japanese were non-religious. What they didn’t know was that religion in Japan and in much of Asia takes the form of a tradition, rather than a belief. While orthodox Judaism also usually requires one to believe in God, that belief or faith does not contain the same level of importance as it does in Christianity.
This is why scholars such as Kitagawa give their books names like “The Religious Traditions of Asia.” Most Christian scholars talk more about faith, rather than tradition.
Non-attachment doesn’t require any significant leap of faith; it requires the kind of faith that one has when one uses peroxide to cleanse a flesh wound. In other words, it requires no temporary or permanent suppression of logic or adherence to an ideology, and in fact, it flows perfectly with logic–you don’t have any noticeable numbers of Buddhists denying that the earth is round or that evolution is a force of nature. In that sense, a Buddhist doesn’t require faith in the Christian sense. Buddhists never say, “You have to believe.” They say, “You have to practice.” Sure, there’s some faith involved, but it’s faith that comes about through practice and seeing, not blind faith, no Kierkegaardian leap.
Good points.
My view of mainstream vs. not doesn’t change. Or at least it shouldn’t. For example, I do Asian American activism, but I can still say that most if not all “mainstream Asian American activists,” like S.B. Woo, are doing things that are bad. I say that he’s wrong, and I elevate people like yourself and D who are right. Yes, my activism isn’t mainstream today, but someday I’d like it to be. I’m not content to have my area of activism dominated by people who are wrong.
In other words, I can proudly claim to be an “Asian American activist” because I think we could do better, and I voice this opinion so that people see the difference between me and the mainstream. Also, people know I want to end/replace mainstream activism. I think it’s important to standardize it. Sometimes people in a movement–you, me, and D, for example–don’t agree on everything, but if you’ve got someone who is clearly wrong to the point that their activism actually hurts people (i.e. Hong Kingston with her anti-Asian male rhetoric or Billy Graham with his arrogant Christian supremacist remarks), you need to draw a difference between what you feel is real activism/AA feminism/Christianity and what you believe it should be. It’s much the same issue that Obama faced with Jeremiah Wright. He had to say that Wright was wrong at least on some issues in order to define his position. In a case like Hong Kingston, we would have to disown her completely. In a case like Billy Graham, we’d have to make clear that he doesn’t understand the main point of empathy in Christianity.
So tying in activism with our debates on feminism and Christianity, would you agree that it would be worthwhile to do what we can to standardize Asian American feminism and Christianity by vociferating what is right or wrong with the mainstream?
In other words, would you say:
1. Kingstonism is a fake version of Asian American feminism (as nightshade has said).
2. Billy Graham statement was ignorant, and he demonstrated that he does not understand the main point of Christianity.
Because if you can agree with these two statements,
1. We can really start to help create an Asian American feminism that people can understand and promote.
2. We can promote religious tolerance that people can understand and promote.
Once we draw the line, it’s easier to move on because there’s no ambiguity either in our own understanding of what we want, nor in the understanding of people who join whatever movement we’re discussing. The point is to define to the non-practitioner exactly what various movements are and are not.
I think this point goes back to my previous point above and also my previous previous point about Asian American feminism. Does monotheistic religion–in the state in which it is currently practiced–do more harm than good? Can we get rid of this harm if people “standardize” the practice through debate and activism (i.e. shutting down the Billy Grahams and Pat Robertsons of the world)?
TheMac
11:17 pm | Apr 15, 2008Bwahaha at comparing G-d to Gandalf. Props to my fellow Tolkien nerds out there. I stand with you.
Honestly, while there’s certainly nothing wrong with being Christian, I really doubt that the social issues that may or may not exist within the AA community can be solved through religion. In fact, some might say religion has always stood in the way of social development, at least in modern times. I agree with the Malcolm/Martin comparison, but the missing link there is ‘activism’. Activism melds the morality of religion and the vitality of social change. Without that element, it’s just, you know, Pat Robertson yelling about gays and brown people or something.
Either way, I’m pretty suspicious about the whole deal mentioned in this article, and it sounds very much like a). bringing Christianity to the “foreigners” type of mess, b). a way to “Americanize/Westernize” AA (there’s nothing more American than Christianity). For those AA who are Christian, mad love, but I have to question this vaguely racist evangelist/fundamentalist nonsense that doesn’t seem to be about the melding of AA cultures and Christianity, or the history there, in the least.
Akrypti
4:18 pm | May 28, 2008Well put, jaehwan. I wrote on the same issue before at 8A. =) See: http://www.8asians.com/2007/09/04/a-comment-on-asian-christians/
jaehwan
12:54 am | May 29, 2008Thanks, Akrypti! It looks like some of the same guys on your site have come to this one. I recognize one of them in particular. He tried to come here to convert people, just as he did on your site! I guess there are opportunities (and sinners) everywhere!