CAC Digest #8

Covers 29 Aug 1996

Dear CACers:

Well, the Dem Nat Con is over and I know who I’m voting for this Nov!

Also, I wanted to inform you that thanks to DJ we now have a formal list
server. This will make communication a lot easier and save some confusion.

Unless you let me know that you want “off” this list by Wed, Sept. 4 (after
the many conferences have been held), I will automatically subscribe you to
the CAC list. From that point on, if you want to send a message to everyone
of the list, just send it to: cac@bccn.org.

Finally, please continue to pray for those with leadership roles at various
conferences this weekend. Jasmin and Grace will lead important workshops at
the Eastern Chinese Bible Conference; Craig Wong will be the speaker at the
First Chinese Baptist Church, SF’s career conference.

Blessings!

Tim Tseng

========================

The following is for your information.

Welcome to the Chinese American Christians’ mailing list. The purpose of this
mailing list is to facilitate online discussion about ideas, strategies,
issues, concerns, and resources of interest to Chinese American Christians.

To unsubscribe this mailing list, please send email to “cac@bccn.org” with
the following line as content:

unsubscribe cac@bccn.org

For any other questions about this mailing list, please contact

DJ Chuang
djchuang@ix.netcom.com
http://users.aol.com/djchuang

CAC Digest #7

CAC Digest #7 August 28th, 1996

{1} From Rev. Dr. Andrew Lee

Subj: Re: CAC Digest # 6
Date: Wed, Aug 28, 1996 10:10* EDT
From: 71153.2022@CompuServe.COM (Andrew Y. Lee)
To: TSTseng@aol.com

Tim:

I’ve never used a list-server but that sounds as if it’ll be convenient.
When I sent out my survey to everyone I simply created a new group called
CAC for my CompuServe Address Book and clicked once or twice and had everyone
added without clicking and pasting individually. Now when I want to send a
message I simply click on CAC and everyone is automatically addressed. I’m
not that experienced in E-mailing yet but if I did things correctly doesn’t
everyone else have the same capability?

As for the Helen Lee article, I thought it was a good summary and may draw
attention to the second generation problem. However, a comment from one of
my Korean-American seminary students was that, “It was the same old stuff.
Nothing new.” Those already involved in 2nd generation ministry are aware
of what’s going on and are seeking solutions.

The idiom “preaching to the choir” applies. How many 1st generation leaders
read Christianity Today? Ideally, stemming the exodus requires a cooperative
effort from all parties.

Andrew

Tim responds:

In addition to being convenient, a list-server would also keep our list of
subscribers up to date. You may have noticed that the number of participants
(subscribers) to this list has grown, but in order for you to post to the
newcomers, you need to keep abreast of new subscribers. That can be a bit
difficult to manage with our current set-up.

I agree with you about the Helen Lee article. When she interviewed me, I
brought up a number of issues concerning racial discrimination and other
issues that Asian Americanists consider important. Yet, whether it was
because she wanted to cover as many ethnic Asian groups as possible or
because of editorial constraints, she glossed over these issues. It’s not
that I disagree with her, but I agree with your Korean students. It’s the
same old same old geared towards a wider and more Caucasian audience.

On another note, I think that themes of “exodus” from one’s “cultural” roots
and the ambiguity of bi-cultural identity are overused when Asian
evangelicals reflect on their experiences. I’m dissatisfied by this constant
focus on the psychological-privatized experiences of Asian American
Christians. Such experiences leave out so much (e.g., political and racist
factors for such experiences) and are locked into an outdated sociological
model (i.e., the Chicago School “assimilationist” cycle of Robert Parks). I
hope that both Russ Jeung and Fenggang Yang – who are bona fide sociology
scholars – can comment and thicken this statement.

==============================

{2} From Hon Wai

Subj: No Subject
Date: Wed, Aug 28, 1996 10:33* EDT
From: hwong@math.rutgers.edu (Hon-Wai Wong)
To: TSTseng@aol.com

Dear Tim,

Thank you for your hardwork in re-directing the CAC listers’ messages. I hope
I can also take a more active part in the conversation; but I have been too
busy finding jobs and I am not so familiar with some of the conversation
topics.

I will spend my next year in Hong Kong. After getting back on own feet, I
will take a more active part.

I think we are reaching a point where a central list-server is important. If
nothing else, I begin to lose trcak of which messages follow which. Sam Ling,
for example, all a sudden sends me an email about the welfare reform, and it
takes me several minutes to know that he is talking about it. If the newgroup
have their messages grouped according to a few threads (e.g., “Helen Lee’s
article”, “Welfare reform”, etc.), it will be helpful when our list becomes
very active.

I also think that it is wise to move to a wider circle of Asian American
Christians slowly. I am of course only speaking for myself. I am not American
born, but I intend to reside in this country permanently and I will call this
country my home. That is itself a good enough reason for me to be interested
in the wider AA issues. However, Asia stilll commands a lot of energy and
attention from me. I suppose I am not alone in the CAC list. I suppoe this
diversity can be an asset. After all, an immigrant AA and a American born AA
are both AA, each has legitimate needs and valuable contribution. But it may
take time for the group to get used to each other’s style. Again, speaking
for myself only, my understanding of ABC’s need has increased considerably
through CAC.

Yours
Hon-Wai

Tim Tseng responds:

Thanks Hon-Wai. And best wishes as you get “re-booted” in HK. If you’re on
line while in HK, please leave us your email address so that we can stay
connected.

where Asian-American graduates go after campus ministries

CAC Digest # 6 August 27, 1996

{1} From Rev. Dr. Samuel Ling, Chicago

Subj: Re: Helen Lee article
Date: Tue, Aug 27, 1996 7:33 EDT
From: Samuel.Ling@wheaton.edu (Dr Samuel Ling)
To: TSTseng@aol.com, aalumkal@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Antony W. Alumkal)

Good thought re. where Asian American graduates go. Perhaps may just drop
out (the usual conclusion people make)? I agree that most AA campus
ministries adopt the mainstream theology and culture. I also agree that this
is a transitional phase — but I guess that it will last quite a long time?
May I venture to guess which church you referred to in your e-mail? Do you
know my former church-member and seminarian friend Dan Ying?

Sam Ling
General Director, China Horizon (a ministry to mainland Chinese scholars, and
a one-time ABC youth director, 1976-78, and church planter for ABC’s, 1980-85
— that dates me! Yuck…)
Sam
===============================

{2} From DJ Chuang

Subj: broader scope than ABCs
Date: Tue, Aug 27, 1996 4:36* EDT
From: djchuang@ix.netcom.com (DJ Chuang)
To: 54YANG@CUA.EDU, TSTseng@aol.com

>From 54YANG:
>> a listserv list is preferred. However, I agree with Tim that we should
not restrict ourselves to ABC ministries only. Overall, there are not too
many Chinese churches and Chinese Christians. We need some broader scope.<<

I think there plenty of Chinese churches and Chinese Christians in America,
perhaps not as many that are online, and not as many who are proficient with
email, but I think it's not far fetched to say that there would be a few
hundred who would be able to discuss issues online related to ABC Ministries
on a mailing list, as evidenced by the monthly newsletter called FACE
(Fellowship of American Chinese Evangelicals) in California, for example.

However, I could ask to see if a broader scope mailing list can be setup that
more exactly parallels (thus able to replace) the CAC list.. what should this
list be called, and what would be the scope.

Thanks,
DJ

* my page at http://users.aol.com/djchuang/ * John 2:17 *

===================================

{3} From Tim Tseng

DJ, perhaps some “history” is in order :-). The CAC list was originally the
brainchild of Prof. Sze Kar Wan @ Andover-Newton Theological School about
one-1/2 years ago. At the Assn of Theological School’s seminar for
Underrepresented Scholars in March, 1995, Sze-Kar, a number of colleagues,
and I discussed the possibility of developing a network of Asian Americans
Christians from the academy, church, and laity to discuss matters pertinent
to Asian American Christian ministries/research. Sze-Kar and I felt that our
callings into the ministry of seminary/theological education – while opening
doors for Asian Americans in that arena – still left us marginalized from
Asian American Christians. We didn’t want to merely research Asian Americans
who are Christians; rather, we felt the need bring together resources that
Asian American layleaders, pastors, and academicians possessed to help people
understand Asian American Christians, generate support and interest in the
new scholarship related to Asian American Christianity, and help strengthen
Asian American churches/ministries. One way of describing all this is that
we were hoping to develop a “think-tank” network for Asian American Christian
ministries. Some of our long range dreams: conferences to develop Asian
American theology (both academic and practical), Asian American Christian
studies, and “political” clout to influence seminary education and scholarly
publishers to give more attention/resources to Asian American Christians.
Sze Kar and others ought to correct me if I’m mistaken in any of the above
remarks.

After much enthusiastic discussion, we felt that we had to start slowly and
with a small group. So the CAC internet list was started last year – limited
to Chinese Americans (i.e., OBC/ABC/ARC). We decided not to start with a
formal list server (i.e., messages are posted to one email address and
automatically distributed to all subscribers of the list – saves the hassle
of addressing everyone on the list for each message) and hoped that something
would develop over time. We’ve (especially me) taken the liberty of adding
our friends’ addresses to the list this past year .

Well, conversation has been light until this month. So please keep talking
(I promise to step out of the role of list manager and get into the
conversations myself soon). At this point, I’m fairly certain that this list
doesn’t want to limit itself to ABC matters. But, I’m not sure we’re ready
to expand to include other Asian ethnic groups (let’s continue to discuss
this issue). I am absolutely sure that I’d prefer to move to a formal server
like the one that you’ve set up. So, could we change the name/purpose of
your list to focus on Chinese American Christians (for now)? I think it would
be prudent to wait until more folks participate in this list before we shift
the focus to be more broadly Asian American. This doesn’t mean that we need
to discuss Chinese American Christianity exclusively.

If DJ can make a slight alteration with his “ABCministries list,” I would
like to have everyone on this list automatically subscribed. Again, please
let me know if you (i.e., everyone on this list) wish to be removed from this
list – otherwise I’ll assume that your silence is an agreement to remain on
the CAC list. Also, if you know anyone who might be interested in signing
on, please let me know!

We’ve got some real gifted persons on this list with impressive credentials,
so I hope that you’ll introduce yourselves as you respond to this message
(don’t be shy!). For convenience, please send me your messages – indicating
that you would like it distributed to everyone on the list – and I’ll have it
sent. When we switch over to a formal server, then you’ll be given an
address to send your messages. These will automatically be sent to everyone
on the discussion list without going through me first.

Also, I’ve saved all the discussion and materials for August. It’d be nice to
get a web-page so we can archive our discussions.

Sorry for the lengthy message.
Tim Tseng

CAC Digest #5

CAC Digest # 05 Covering August 25-26

Dear CACers:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

{1} The following is a set of resolutions just passed by the Evangelical Free
Church of America. It was written by a friend of mine – Keith Sunahara – who
is now a PhD candidate in theology and ethics at Loyola in Chicago. Thought
you might be interested. – – Tim

Date: Fri, Aug 23, 1996 9:12 EDT
From: SunaJaK
Subj: EFCA Resolutions
To: TSTseng

Hi Timothy,

Sorry it took so long to get back to you. Here’s the 3 resolutions that the
Evangelical Free Church of America approved (without footnotes):
– – – – – – –
Stranger at our Gates, A Christian Perspective on Immigration

During periods of rapid change and economic uncertainty, it is often the
vulnerable and marginalized people who are blamed for the misfortune that
everyone else experiences or expects to experience. Today a significant
amount of attention and blame for a perceived threat to the American way of
life is being directed at immigrants. As Christians we must ensure that our
response to the issue of immigration is directed by a world view that is
shaped by Biblical principles rather than secular rhetoric.

A number of themes relevant to immigration run through the Bible. The first
theme is that we ourselves, as Christians, are aliens on this earth. “…
And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth.” (Hebrews
11:13, NIV) Our status as aliens and strangers forms the basis for our
attitudes and responses towards those people who live outside our society.

A second theme is that our material possessions do not really belong to us.
The promised land belonged to the Isrealites only in the sense that as host,
God allowed the Isrealites to dwell in the promised land as his guests
(Leviticus 25:23). Similarly, as aliens and strangers in the world, the
material resources of the world do not belong to us. We have what we have
because God, as host, has distributed material resources to us, his guests.
As recipients of God’s graciousness and generousity, we need to guard
against selfishness and possiveness which would cloud our attitude toward
immigrants.

A third theme is protection for the alien. As non-citizens, working in their
country of residence, aliens exist outside the social and political network
of the society they are residing in; thus they are rendered powerless.
Aliens are very vulnerable to exploitation. As Christians, we should recall
our roots as aliens and thus identify with their plight (Exodus 23:9).

A fourth theme is that for Christians, no one is ever to really be considered
an outsider. “… The alien living with you must be treated as one of your
native-born. Love him as yourself, …” (Leviticus 19:33-34, NIV) The Great
Commandment is to apply to the alien because he or she is our neighbor.

A fifth theme is that in serving the outsiders of society, we encounter
Jesus. Because Christ identify with the stranger, we are to extend the same
treatment to the alien and stranger that we would extend toward Jesus
(Matthew 25:35).

Historically, immigration policies of the United States appear to be directed
more by racism and economic self-interest than compassion. Immigration
quotas favored people groups already established in the United States
(western and northern Europeans) while limiting immigrants from Asia and
Africa . Sometimes certain people groups were allowed to emigrate only when
they were needed as menial labor for a specific task, e.g., Chinese railroad
builders. Today immigration policy favors those who bring technical
expertise or financial resources with them.

The present debate over immigration policy and immigrants is often based on
stereotypical falsehoods. Immigrants do not displace American workers. They
usually fill a shortage of skilled labor, or do the menial task that citizens
refuse to do. Immigrants’ rate of employment is higher than the general
population and they work longer hours. They receive less general assistance
than the general population. Immigrants pay more in taxes than the social
services they receive. The reason state governments are financially
burdened by immigrants is because only one third of the federal income tax
paid by immigrants is returned to the state governments who provide public
services such as education and emergency medical care.

As we engage in our society’s debate on immigration through forums such as
the voting booth, community discussion groups, political parties, and church,
in light of the preceeding discussion, we need to raise the following issues:

A. To what extend are our attitudes towards immigration shaped by racism? To
what extent do we assume that American culture is identified with northern
and western European culture; and are we attempting to protect those cultural
roots of America from corruption by “foreign” cultures? Are we afraid that
this existing cultural dominance will be overcome by the “strangeness” of
strangers? Are we denying that other cultures bring gifts that add to,
rather than detract from our society’s culture? Does our cultural identity
take precedence over our Christian identity so that we fail to recognize that
we are fellow aliens with these immigrants?

B. To what extent are our attitudes towards immigration shaped by
materialism? As aliens and strangers in this world, what is the theological
basis for acting as though America was our property and we can hence deny
access to it? Are we being overly possessive of our lifestyle or standard of
living?

C. Is the fear of running out of limited resources justifiable? How can we
say that there is not enough to go around in America? Are we more concerned
with the pursuit of affluence than meeting the basic human needs of all human
beings?

D. What are the Implications of Proposition 187 Type Legislation (as in the
state of California)? Does denying or reducing “safety net” and other public
benefits to illegal immigrants and their American born children imply that in
our society, some groups of people are a not regarded as being equally human
as others, even though they participate in the economic functioning of our
society? Are some groups of people not deemed worthy to receive the minimal
goods and services we consider essential for a very basic level of human
existence?

E. What about immigration policy? To what extent are we responsible for the
living conditions in other countries that motivate people to emigrate? Do
the policies of the U.S. government and U.S. trans-national companies
contribute to pressures on people to emmigrate to the U.S.? Does an
immigration policy that favors the immigration of highly skilled people drain
other countries of the skills necessary to improve their standard of living
and hence reduce the pressure to emigrate to America?

As evangelicals we are called by God to aid the vulnerable. Therefore, we
must see the alien and the stranger as individuals made in the image of God,
the object of Christ’s love, and as people of intrinsic worth who are in need
of our affirmation and support.
=======================

Resolution Opposing the Presidential Veto of H.R. 1833
The Partial-birth AbortionBan Act

I. Partial Birth Abortion

“Partial-birth abortion, also known as dilation and extraction (“D and X”),
is a procedure for ending late-term pregnancies: The mother visits the
abortion facility on three successive days. On the first two days, her cervix
is mechanically dilated. On the third day, the abortionist extracts the baby,
feet first, from the womb and through the birth canal until all but the head
is exposed. Then the tips of surgical scissors are thrust into the base of
the baby’s skull, and a suction catheter is inserted through the opening and
the brain is removed, collapsing the skull and making it easier to deliver.”
(Christianity Today, 12/11/95)

II. Background

On April 10, 1996 President Bill Clinton vetoed the Partial-birth Abortion
Ban Act (H.R. 1833). This bill, approved by the Senate (54-44) and the House
of Representatives (286-129), would have banned partial-birth abortions
except for a “mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness
or injury.” In a statement released through the Office of Management and
Budget by the Clinton Administration on November 7, 1995, President Clinton
had promised to veto the bill because

“The President believes that the decision to have an abortion should be
between a woman, her conscience, her doctor, and her God. … The President
has long opposed late-term abortions except where they are necessary to
protect the life of the mother or where there is a threat to her health,
consistent with the law. … Therefore, the Administration cannot support
H.R. 1833 because it fails to provide for consideration of the need to
preserve the life and health of the mother, consistent with the U.S. Supreme
Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade.”

The supporters of H.R. 1833 sought to limit the use of partial-birth
abortions to situations in which the mother’s life was in danger. To
incorporate the health of the mother as a consideration for use of this
abortion procedure would make the ban meaningless since “health” has been
interpreted to include “all factors — physical, emotional, psychological,
familial and the woman’s age — relevant to the well-being of the patient.”
(Doe vs Bolton, U.S. Supreme Court 1973) As long as the physician and mother
agree that carrying the pregnancy to birth affects some aspect of the
mother’s “health,” then a partial-birth abortion would not be prohibited by
this ban.

III. Response

The Evangelical Free Church of America denounces President Clinton’s veto of
H.R. 1833 for the following reasons.

A. We believe that God creates a human being not by passage through a birth
canal or by a surgical procedure such as Cesarean section. Nor does God
create a human being when a fetus is capable of existing outside its mother’s
womb. Rather, we believe that God creates a human being when conception
occurs.

The abortion debate is not really about a woman’s freedom to choose (see
also “The Myth of Choice” Resolution adopted at the EFCA General Conference,
1993). What the abortion debate is really about is our society’s definition
of a human being. Those who want to frame the abortion debate as a matter of
choice, seek to move our society’s definition of a human being as far away
from conception and as close to birth as possible. We, on the other hand,
strive to push society’s definition of human being back to the point of
conception.

The partial-birth abortion assumes that an unborn baby becomes a human being
at complete birth. A fully viable, healthy, unborn baby is not a human
being, even though its legs, arms, and body are outside the mother’s body, as
long as its head is still within the mother’s body. The choice of the head
being the last body part remaining within the mother’s body is a purely
pragmatic one. The head cannot be removed until its skull is first
collapsed. According to the logic of partial-birth abortions, it’s never too
late to perform an abortion, as long as some body part, even a foot, remains
within the mother’s body. As long as some part of the baby remains inside
the mother, the baby has not yet been born; and what has not yet been born is
not a human being and can therefore be aborted.

President Clinton’s veto of H.R. 1833 clearly supports the worldview that
one’s status as a human being depends not on a creative act of God in
conception, but on a human-defined set of biological criteria (is it viable,
inside the womb, dependent on an umbilical cord?) that ignores the spiritual
nature of a human being. As supportive of such an un-Scriptural worldview,
we oppose Presidential veto of H.R. 1833.

B. We also disagree with President Clinton’s position that “the decision to
have an abortion should be between a woman, her conscience, her doctor, and
her God.” Why is it that the decision to steal a car, rob a bank, murder
someone, cheat on taxes, etc., is not a decision between the perpetrator, his
or her conscience, and his or her God? The reason why is that laws against
theft, murder, cheating on taxes, etc., are based on fundamental moral truths
that apply to everyone in society. No individual has the authority to choose
which of these fundamental moral truths do or do not appy to himself or
herself.

The morality of abortion depends on the fundamental moral truth of whether
or not an unborn baby is a human being. Claiming that the decision to have
an abortion belongs to individual women, implies that individual women can
choose for themselves, whether or not the fundamental moral truth of who
counts as a human being, does or does not apply to their babies.

We believe in the existence of fundamental moral truths, absolute and
universal. The understanding of when a human being comes into existence is
one such fundamental moral truth. As a repudiation of the universal nature
of this truth, we oppose the Presidential veto of H.R. 1833.

IV. Conclusion

In a consumer oriented and materialistic society such as ours today, the
world tends to define one’s humanity according to his or her usefulness to
society. Only those who contribute are seen as having a right to share in
the consumption of resources necessary to support our lifestyle. Those
lacking “normal” cognitive skills, people with other serious disabilities,
the unborn, the elderly, and those with limited socio-economic opportunities,
are seen as a waste of resources, a negative return on investment. Those who
argue for the freedom to choose promote a dark vision of a society that culls
the less than useful from its ranks by denying them status as human beings
and thus making them disposable.

Freedom to choose is freedom for some to decide who doesn’t count as a human
being and thus who is disposable. Whether in the beginning stages of life
through abortion, or in the latter stages of life through suicide and
euthanasia, no one has the authority to disenfranchise someone (even
themselves) of his or her humanity. Such authority belongs only to God, the
one who brings human beings into existence by his creative power.

As the people of God, our calling is to defend the humanity of all people,
especially the most vulnerable (unborn, elderly, disabled, and powerless)
from others who would seek to declare them less than human. We oppose all
efforts that seek to make the disenfranchising of human beings an accepted
norm or practice in our society. As we value the life and humanity of all
people, we stand in stand in stark contrast to those who would deny even
these basic essentials to the “least of these.”
===================

A Resolution Condemning the Burnings of African American Churches

Since 1995 a significant number of African American churches, located
primarily in the Southern United States, have been presumably burned by
arsonists. As national media coverage of this movement of hate has grown, so
too has the number and frequency of church burnings. During the Civil Rights
struggles of the 1960s, many of us opposed our African American brothers and
sisters in Christ through our criticism of their actions, our unfriendly
indifference towards their condition, and our willful “looking the other way”
when they called for help. Not this time.

African American Christians and members of the Evangelical Free Church of
America (EFCA) are members of the same universal church. We are all equally
sons and daughters of God, and equally brothers and sisters in Christ. We
are all “fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household.”
(Ephesians 2:19b, NIV) Hebrews 13:1-3 states:

Keep on loving each other as brothers. Do not forget to entertain strangers,
for by doing so some people have entertained angels without knowing it.
Remember those in prison as if you were their fellow prisoners, and those
who are mistreated as if you yourselves were suffering. (NIV)

Our response to the suffering and loss of our African American brothers and
sisters in Christ should be no different than if it were our churches being
burned.

As the EFCA we condemn the burnings of African American churches and the
racist hate that motivates those burnings. We call on all EFCA churches to
humbly offer assistance, in a manner appropriate to each circumstance, to our
African American brothers and sisters who are being affected by this wave of
burnings.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

{2} From Fenggang Yang

Subj: Re: CAC Digest # 4
Date: Sun, Aug 25, 1996 7:17* EDT
From: 54YANG@CUA.EDU
To: TSTseng@aol.com

Hello, Tim,

This summer, especially August, is a hectic time for me. I have read most of
the CAC messages, but not yet had the time to really follow up. Some short
and quick comments.

1. very glad to see the vitalization of the CAC list. We need it. Thanks to
Tim for his good work.

2. a listserv list is preferred. However, I agree with Tim that we should
not restrict ourselves to ABC ministries only. Overall, there are not too
many Chinese churches and Chinese Christians. We need some broader scope.

3. yes, we need to know each other better. I enjoyed reading others’
self-introduction. Here is mine:

Fenggang Yang, ph.d candidate in sociology at the Catholic University of
America, Washington, DC. I am finishing my dissertation entitled “Religious
Conversion and Identity Construction: A Study of a Chinese Christian Church
in the U.S.” I’ve done some other related papers. Beginning 1/1/97 I am
going to be a postdoc at University of Houston, continue to study “new
immigrant religions.” I came to the U.S. from PRC in 1989 and was baptized
in 1992 in a nondenominational Chinese church. We have a wonderful
evangelist fellowship for mainland Chinese. All right, enough for now.

Fenggang Yang

Asian-American GenXers

CAC Digest #4 Covering August 21-24, 1996

D.J. Chuang has made a formal server mailing list
available for us. The following is a “welcome” message that many of you may
have received. Personally, I would prefer to have the list managed
automatically, but wonder about whether the purpose statement of DJ’s list
may be too limiting (it’s focus is on American Born Chinese) Anyway check
out the message below. Tim Tseng (tstseng@aol.com)

P.S. Congrats to Sze-Kar Wan and Maria Mak! They were
wed today (August 24th)! For those of you who may not know, Sze-Kar was also
tenured as a professor of biblical studies at Andover Newton this year! He
is really the one who got this discussion list started.

>From DJ Chuang….

Welcome to the American-born Chinese Ministries mailing list. The purpose
of this mailing list is to facilitate online discussion about philosophies,
strategies and ministries for American-born Chinese.

To unsubscribe this mailing list, please send email to
“abc_ministries@bccn.org” with the following line as content:

unsubscribe abc_ministries@bccn.org

For any other questions about this mailing list, please contact

DJ Chuang
djchuang@ix.netcom.com
http://users.aol.com/djchuang
=================================

{1} Ken Fong [Evergreen Baptist Church] responds to
Tim’s query:

>> Has anyone read the lengthy article in the current _Atlantic Monthly_
about mega-churches? I can email it to you by request only since it is so
long (I don’t want to clog up your email accounts any more than necessary).< I’m wondering if you could comment on how the differences
>between European-American generation X and their Asian peers affect your
>ministry among them. And how their respective images of God compare.

A good resource that was recently published by IVP about ministry to
GenXers is _Jesus for a New Generation_ by Kevin Graham Ford. I think it’s
really excellent and I highly recommend it for anyone doing ministry to
GenXers.
There are, of course, many differences between European-American
GenXers and Asian-American GenXers, but here are a few that I feel
comfortable talking about.
I think one of the similarities for both are in weak families, but
for Asian-American youth the cross-cultural factors compound the
cross-generational factors. This relates to GenXers valuing friendships over
family relationships, which is the way Asian Americans have gone when their
family is not there for them.
One difference is that Euro-American GenXers have given up on
traditional organizations, career paths, and hopes for financial success.
Most Asian-American youth are still driven to achieve and have hopes for
future success.
Another thought about GenX culture (it is a culture), I know of
Asian-Americans who fall all over the range of identification with it. As
there is an Asian vs. American bi-cultural continum of cultural
identification, it probably applies to the AA GenXers as well.
I’ll keep my comments brief, I’m just speculating. As for ministry
applications, we’re figuring out how to minister to a group of mixed
Euro-American and Asian-American GenXers, so I can’t easily tell the
distinctions. And as for images of God, I can’t tell either. Give me a
couple more years.
Well,sorry I can’t be more helpful. I appreciate your asking and the
chance to ponder about this.

God’s blessings,
Irene

P.S. I should introduce myself for the list. I grew up in New York City in
a Chinese Chinatown church, went to Brown for college and have been doing
ministry with InterVarsity for most of my years since graduating, except for
a year in China inbetween. Now, I’m not doing any Chinese specific ministry
or go to a Chinese church, but I work with a likeable multi-ethnic group of
students.

parachurch groups and home churches

Subj: CAC Digest # 03
Date: 96-08-22 01:58:20 EDT
From: TSTseng

Covering Aug. 19-21, 1996

Dear CACers:

Has anyone read the lengthy article in the current _Atlantic
Monthly_ about mega-churches? I can email it to you by request
only since it is so long (I don’t want to clog up your email
accounts any more than necessary).

For those of you who filled out the survey, thanks!

Tim Tseng

==============
Subj: Re: Chinese Protestant Women in American Paper Proposal
Date: Tue, Aug 20, 1996 7:52 EDT
From: jyep@nwu.edu (Jeanette S.G. Yep)
To: TSTseng@aol.com

Hi Tim!

Rev. James Tan, the founding pastor of BCEC has written a book
about the church –in both Chinese and English. I have an extra
copy. I’d be happy to give it to you. Would you like me to mail
it to you or will it be soon enough for you to receive it in
October? (It’s a bit like hagiography, but I know you’ll know
how to wade through it!)

=================

Subj: Re: Helen Lee article
Date: Tue, Aug 20, 1996 3:35* EDT
From: aalumkal@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Antony W. Alumkal)
To: kenfong@earthlink.net (Ken Fong)
CC: TSTseng@aol.com

> Well, Mr. Princeton, I see your point.

Please, I prefer to go by “Mr. Berkeley exiled in Princeton but
hoping to return.” 🙂

> Many of the AA college students
> I’ve spoken with in the last five years are in a dilemma.
Being in AACF
> or IVCF, etc., has truly gotten them more serious about their
life of
> faith. However, most of them state that they are very
pessimistic about
> returning to their home churches–they don’t ‘fit’ there
anymore. We
> need more forward-looking/thinking churches that reflect the
outlook of
> these motivated young adult believers.

While I would not deny there could be differences in motivation
level, it seems to me the major difference between AA young
adults from parachurches and members of their home churches could
be cultural. From what I remember at Berkeley IVCF, the word
“Christian” was often used in place of “American evangelical”
(eg. Christian music, Christian publishers, etc.). As Randall
Balmer argued so well in _Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory_,
American evangelicalism is a cultural system, some might even say
an “ethnic” group. By participating in groups like IVCF and CCC,
at least some AA Christians my begin to define Christianity more
narrowly in American evangelical terms–“Christians” are people
who know the Four Spiritual Laws, have scheduled “quiet times,”
etc. Their home churches may not be able to live up to these
standards.

Just a hunch. If I’m completely off base, let me know.

pax,
Tony Alumkal

Chinese Protestant Women

Subj: CAC DIGEST # 02 Aug 19, 1996
Date: 96-08-20 01:48:51 EDT
From: TSTseng

CAC DIGEST # 02

{1} Subject: server
Date: 19-Aug-1996 09:14am EST
Sender: MENG@drew.edu
TO: TSTSENG@AOL.COM

Hi Tim

About your grant, I would remind you of the founder of the First
Baptist church in Chinatown, but i’m sure you know more about her
than I do. Of course, there is always Mrs. Yvonne Chang formerly
of NYCBC.

I was reminded of your good work and the need of a server for the
CAC or what not. I don’t know what all is involved with a list
server and stuff but if you want I could approach Drew for some
charitable donation of a cut of their cyberspace.

– Milton

{2} Subj: Re: Chinese Protestant Women in American Paper
Proposal
Date: Mon, Aug 19, 1996 12:08* EDT
From: jyep@nwu.edu (Jeanette S.G. Yep)
To: TSTseng@aol.com

Tim:

This looks like a great proposal! I wonder if you can get the
names of some of the early Chinese Protestant Women from some of
the “old-timers” in the older, established, more Chinatown-based
(vs. 1960’s Taiwanese/Hong Kong immigrant) churches across the
country. It seems that the Chinese church has always had a
category for “Bible women” who faithfully served their
congregations as ministers of visitation, ministers to new
immigrants and women’s Bible study/fellowship leaders. In the
Boston Chinese Evangelical Church, I remember a Mandarin (!)
speaking woman, Miss Helen Shih (?) who was instrumental in
founding the church. I suspect that many of the “long-time” older
Chinese churches have similar, foundational, key leaders in their
history. You may have to go the oral history route to get info on
some of these unsung, faithful heroes of the faith! (Miss Helen
may be already with the Lord.)

Blessings,

Jeanette