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.

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.

Actually, 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.

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?

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.

And I’m sure many of us have had that experience. But once again, we don’t rate things by the lowest common denominator.
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?

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)?

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?

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?

You are taking the literalist interpretation and then tearing it down.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.)

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.