intellectualism vs. experientialism

From: KRMMB@aol.com
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 02:23:39 -0400 (EDT)
To: CAC@emwave.net
Subject: CAC_Mail: New Topic: Asian-American Evangelism that Works???

Hello Everybodee!

Trust that the Lord is blessing the socks off of all my “newfound” brothers &
sisters and christian friends in CAC land.I truly appreciate all of your
contributions even tho I might not have always agreed with some of you. It
did helped me to understand and to learn so I am that much more enriched
because of y’all.

Dj gave me once in a lifetime deal. It was “an offer I couldn’t refuse”.
Here’s the deal – If I could signed up 10% more CACers to the mailing list,
then, I could sign on for free and receive unlimited access to all these
godly guys and gals. Isn’t that right, DJ? Boy, did I pull a fast one on
him…I only signed up four guys and still got access to y’all (my best
Texas drawl)

Hey, just a brief bio statement about myself since this may be my “first and
ONLY” posting.Where do all you brothers and sisters find the time to write
(y’all must have some cushy job somewhere, uh, d’ya have any openings where
you work. (*-*)

My name is Ken L. Tom. (Psss…please do not reverse my last name with my
first). As you can well imagine, I had a rough childhood as Tom Ken. Am a
“bona fide” ABC who sings along to Bruce Springsteen’s anthem “Born in the
USA”. Am just an average East Coast “t-shirt & jeans” kinda of guy who
serves the Lord in our Metro-NYC/NJ tri-state region.Have pastored four
churches both in Texas and in New York. Finished a graduate program at
Alliance School of Theology & Missions (now, ATS ”76) and graduated from
Dallas (Th.M/MA ’87).

Presently, I am the founder, director & (sigh) the “one” and the ONLY staff
of a small resource agency known as VisionQuest which “stands in the gap” as
a pastor to our pastorless churches. Basically, as a church aerobics
instructor, I seek to spiritually re-conidtion both churches(w/o a pastor)
and ministers (w/o a church) while they’re in transition. VisionQuest
mission seeks to advance the English Ministry developments within our
Chinese/Asian Churches into the 21st century. (Actually, sucess is being able
just to maintain and sustain any local church English Mnistry (EM) in this
20th century).

As a catalytical missionary, VQ jumps starts the start-up of new EM
church-plants, refocuses towards renewal mature EM congregations and creates
church growth environments for new EM groups. In my “visions of grandeur”, I
use to think it was “my great preaching” that ” knocked opened” close to 50
pulpit doors for a VisionQuest ministry. Alas, I have come to humbly realize
its wasn’t my great preaching (sic) but, rather, it was the great (and
desperate) need that churches “called me”…and usually, late at night at
that when they needed someone? anyone?.
Help…

So, as Hendricks wisely taught us DTS guys, we’ve got to stop believing those
press reports we keep on creating and reading about ourselves. Now, I’ve
developed this Eleanor Rigby/ Father McKensie syndrome of “writing sermons
that no will hear”. Just look upon the glazed eyes of some of the young
people who look like they are s in cyberspace while they might think I am
still “lost in space” (*-*)!

Sometimes, I lament to God ala Nancy Kerrigan “why me?” – why wasn’t I born
a Ken Fong (instead of) a Ken Tom.By the way, Ken. I met you in LA when I was
in late Sept amongst a swarm of folks.You’re our closest icon to a “rock”
star. Evergreen worship was a joyful and you were awesome. Sign me up for a
year supply of tapes. (Hope you don’t have any copyrights from us copycats)
(*-*) As we chatted, VQ will try to set-up something here on the East Coast.
As Tommy Smothers might have said about his brother, Dickie “God always liked
you better” Did the “angelic” nurses switch us at birth?

Nevertheless, I had always dreamed, probably, it more “wishin, hopin &
praying” that one of our ABC senior FACE leaders would have responded to the
East Coast “Macedonian call” but, no one came to help… so, when the Lord
looked around and saw no one else, He scraped the bottom of the barrel and
said “Tom – You’re it!” (gulp) and with a, Bill Cosby’s impish grin as
Noah…”I said…”right????” Now, I always wanted to be one of West Coast
kinda guys, especially, since my teen-age sons were always humming (out of
tune, of course) the Beach Boys ” I wish they could all be California girls”
:-). Now, that’s pressure…Nevertheless, we remain faithful to bloom where
the Lord has planted us for now. If any of you brothers…and sisters would
like to talk with me about your current or church situation or learn more
about VisionQuest. You should be encouraged to either email me or await a
future posting about VisionQuest. I am likened to Barnabas – a minister of
encouragement who would be more than happy to hear you out.

Sorry, had so much fun that I almost forgot my purpose for writing
y’all…I’ve been invited to share in a seminar on Asian American Evangelism
for Sat. Oct 25th. Part of my challenge is to encourage our of our tri-state
Chinese/Asian churches on the East Coast to mobilized for ministry in
evangelism. Where I hope the CAC family of readers might be able to help me
is to share briefly. first hand either, your story of Evangelism that Works
(Barna’s title) or didn’t work and/or your church “sucess/failure” results
story in Evangelism. Pls share any personal/church story, AA conversion,
evangelistic strategic approach or any insight that you think might be
helpful that will inspire others to do the Lord’s work in evangelism that
works. Your contributions are most appreciated and will make invaluable to
the seminar. I will in turn will share your stories and my pastoral
aspirations to see evangelism happen within Chinese/Asian our churches.

Greetings and Thanksgiving to y’all.

Joyfully in Christ,

Ken L. Tom
VisionQuest
226 Milltown Road
East Brunswick, NJ 08816

732 613 0637 (VQ fone/fax)
732 238 4409 (family fone/ans mach)
Email address – KRMMB@aol.com

— End —

From: JWongCDI@aol.com
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 03:02:35 -0400 (EDT)
To: RevCow@aol.com, cac@emwave.net
cc: JWongCDI@aol.com
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Reality vs. Virtuality

Well, a deeper apology is needed;

I have switched to AOL 2.7, since coming to Chicago and did not realize that
my response to Ted Kau did not get sent out properly. But today’s email from
Bill L. to Bro. G caused me to realize that I never received a copy of my
email either. (I hope my personal email to Bill got through.)
Please allow me to reconstruct what I tried to write, since I no longer have
a copy of it.

I wish to apologize for the anguish my comments caused. My writing was
probably too obtuse. I was, however, encouraged by Ken Fong’s analysis,
which was correct, of what I was saying. I was prophetic over the potential
reaction to my comments, which confirms my foolishness in offering it. :-{

First of all, I do not know Michelle, with no reasons whatever to attack
her, but am very sorry for offending her FATHER with my comments. It is not
my practice to comment on a person’s integrity, even when I know that person.
My comment was directed at the practice of praising a person’s sincerity,
perhaps at the cost of reality. But with this missed focus, what I had hoped
to provoke will probably be dissolved.

Here is an excerpt of what I wrote to Bill Leong,..

“Thank you for responding to my inquiry, which was from a pastoral concern
that our faith be based on what is real. I do not attack nor do inquisitions
on young Christians, but do challenge their thinking, believing that they are
ready to learn and eager to know what is true in Christ.

I knew when I wrote that the brevity is capable of brewing misunderstanding,
knowing the natural patterns… Cynicism is not what I was writing from, but
I acknowledge, can be interpreted as such. Neither was I writing to the one
who gave testimony.

Instead, I was writing to those charged with guiding Christians, asking for a
deeper evaluation of how well we are doing. I remember, as a young
Christian, many times when I shared my testimony or observations, I was
hoping that a more mature believer would help me evaluate the accuracy or
validity of what I said. “Should I say it again? Should I teach others that
it’s reliable?” I did not believe that I had it all right. But, you know
what? I rarely got any input. I didn’t know whether to interprete the
silence as “You’re right on!” or “Oh no, did he say that?”

I’m concerned that there are Christians who spoke as I did, but no one chose
to interact with, to guide them. Instead, they are simply “branded” (maybe
ostracized by the “orthodox”) or “praised.” I suspect that the young
believer would appreciate a caring person who would provide wise evaluation
of what was shared, to refine, to make more accurate. I believe Apollos
appreciated those who helped him. I guess for most believers, being an “eye”
witness is all they need to do. However, I’m concern about raising leaders
who will feed and disciple.

In the vocabulary of your “paycheck,” I receive considerable satisfaction
also, from those who have been guided toward a renewed mind, who have the
confidence to guide other believers toward a greater faith.

I hope this enlarged sharing of my perspective is useful. Again, thanks,
Bill for the inter-action.”

In Christ,
Joe

— End —

From: RevCow@aol.com
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 05:14:19 -0400 (EDT)
To: cac@emwave.net
Subject: CAC_Mail: The accuracy of reported experience…

3 C notes:

1. CREDIT
>…encouraged by Ken Fong’s analysis, which was correct…
If interested in accuracy, Tim had the original analysis, Ken
subsequently agrees (Tseng 10/11, 1:09AM EDT; Fong 10/11, 12:46PM EDT).

2. CRUX
>Bill (10/6): WOMEN IN MINISTRY. My daughter loves the Lord…
>Joe (10/13): …oops, I didn’t know you were writing about your
> daughter…

Joe, if you’d known it was from Mich’s father, I’m sure you’d have
written differently. Within this context, I’d be surprised if a father
did NOT take the following personally:
>Joe (10/7): Is the description given by those closest to the
> experience really real?…As long as the person is happy
> with their own description…

Bill, when Joe said “fools rush in [where angels fear to tread]”, I
believe he was referring to himself. He immediately states that “I’m not
sure I’m ready for the results from this 10 cents input,” which seems to
support this view.

3. e-mail CREDO
read carefully
give more grace
write even more clearly

The accuracy of our reported experiences must be preceded by the accuracy
of our understanding of the experience itself.

I’ve been enjoying CAC postings of late, and hope they continue to remove
bottlenecks to our unity and His revival.

Now back to our regularly scheduled program…

Shalom,
Ted

Rev. Ted Kau
Harvest San Gabriel Valley

A pastor needs three bones to remain upright: a backbone, a wishbone,
and a funny bone.
–Anon

— End —

From: RevCow@aol.com
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 08:16:38 -0400 (EDT)
To: cac@emwave.net
Subject: CAC_Mail: the WORK and WORD of God

Challenging, re Ken’s “God’s Work sometimes interpreting God’s Word”
(10/16) and Bill’s “how we relate to God” (10/14, #1).

I’m intrigued, Ken, that you point out:
>…it was easy for me to point to Scripture and say
>that that gift no longer exists…

************ CASE
Intrigued, because I didn’t believe in tongues until I studied Scripture
(WORD). This, with an understanding of the relatively recent development
of dispensationalism, the substantiation of tongues used throughout
church history, and the lives of those who practiced tongues (WORK), led
me to accept the biblical exercise of tongues. I accepted tongues
because of God’s Word interpreting God’s Work.

Despite my original bias against it, the only way I could reason tongues
had ceased was to 1) employ an eclectic approach to Scripture, 2)
redefine biblical terms, 3) disassociate text from its context, or 4) all
of the above. I know that intelligent, scholarly, genuine believers
stand on both sides of this issue. With my limited resources, however, I
couldn’t rule out God’s use of spiritual gifts of tongues today.

This issue can be quite emotional, but Ken,
you opened up this can of tongues. 😛 :b

************ MY INTENT
My intent is not to highlight tongues, but to better understand the
underlying process of how we are to relate to and reconcile the tensions
encountered between predisposition, experience, and Truth, or to borrow
Bill’s phrase, “how we relate to God.”

************ THE ISSUES
This leads me to my Real Questions:
1. How does a believer determine when God’s Work interprets God’s Word?
2. Are pastors to preach/teach this?
3. How can we safeguard ourselves from subjectively re-interpreting
God’s Word?
4. For Chinese/Asian American churches, which seems to you to be
the greater abuse: experiential-ism or intellectualism?
5. What organizations have been successful in discipling believers
to be mature both in their personal relationship with God AND
in their study of His Word? I’d really like to know about this
one, because I’d like to learn. Remember mentorship (9/29)?
If you’re too modest, please e-mail me personally.

Thanks in advance for your input.

Btw, for more background, I had been on staff at EFCLA’s English
congregation (1 of the 3 congregations under EFCLA’s roof) from 1988 to
1997. 25/160 EFCLAers branched out with EFCLA’s blessings on Easter of
1997. I’d appreciate any prayers you’d lift up on our behalf. Thank you.

For His Kingdom,
Ted

Rev. Ted Kau
Harvest San Gabriel Valley

“The Bible was not given to increase our knowledge but to change our
lives.”–D.L. Moody

“Most people are bothered by those Scripture passages which they cannot
understand. But for me, the passages in Scripture which trouble me most
are those which I do understand.”–Mark Twain

“He who teaches the Bible is never a scholar; he is always a
student.”–Vern McLellan

“Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their
only Law book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the
precepts there exhibited…What a paradise would this region be!”–John
Adams, 1756, America’s Second President

— End —

From: AsianPK@aol.com
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 19:25:29 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: CAC_Mail: Fwd: KimSt@aol.com: Fwd: fwd: International Day of Prayer for the Suffering …

Please read and participate as you feel lead.
———————
Forwarded message:
From: petelindborromeo@juno.com (PETER P BORROME)
To: ianweb@sonic.net, chung7@aol.com, pholey@MSN.com, AsianPK@aol.com,
Date: 97-10-16 14:32:11 EDT

——— Begin forwarded message ———-
From: KimSt@aol.com
To: beng.him.teh@nsc.com, DENALI@leland.stanford.edu,
Subject: Fwd: fwd: International Day of Prayer for the Suffering
Churches
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 14:05:30 -0400 (EDT)

———————
Forwarded message:
From: kimst@ul.com (Steven Kim)
To: support@rational.com, lloydc@compuserve.com, HERMESA@aol.com,
Date: 97-10-16 12:55:34 EDT

————-
Original Text
From: Bryan Young@316K@Eng_Srvc, on 10/16/97 9:21 AM:
To: imail[youngb@ul.com]

Hi yall,

My great friend, Godly man, sent this message to me. I encourage you to
read the following message.

Bryan

**************************************************

To all my friends,

I’m deeply distressed by the following news but I hope that
we will all pray together.

Eddie (pls forward this message)

**************************************************************************

Dear fellow brothers & sisters:

More Christians have been martyred in the 20th century than in the
previous 19 centuries combined.(1) Pastors are being arrested and
sometimes
shot in China and Cuba. Believers are forbidden to buy goods or own
property in Somalia. Christians who testify to their faith in Iran or
Saudi
Arabia may be put to death for blasphemy. Mobs have wiped out whole
villages of Christians in Pakistan.(2) And it goes on. For all this, the

western Church is mostly silent. “I am in prison,” says the Lord, “and
you
are not visiting me.”(3) It is time to shatter the silence. Sunday,
November 16, 1997, has been declared an International Day of Prayer for
the
Suffering Church. Until then, we need to educate our churches and our
friends concerning the extent of persecution which Christ is suffering
throughout the world. Later in this message, I suggest 3 specific steps
we
can all take, and I will let you know where to get information. (NOTE:
NONE
of the suggestions include “send your donation…”)
The International Day of Prayer (IDOP) was initiated by the World
Evangelical Fellowship (WEF), but it has earned the endorsement of
Christian
leaders of all types and denominations (I’ve attached a list to this
message). This is as it should be; this call is for everyone. When a mob,
fundamentalist Islamic policeman, or communist government investigator
comes
looking for Christians, they DO NOT ask any of the following questions:

– Do you believe the Bible to be inerrant, infallible, and uniquely
inspired?
– In whose name do you baptize?
– Do you acknowledge the Priesthood of all believers?
– Do you believe in a pre- or post-tribulation rapture?
– Do you believe in the Holy Trinity?

No, they ask one thing, and one thing only: will you bow down to
another
god, or will you remain faithful to Jesus? If the answer is “Jesus,” you
are under arrest. It’s that simple.

I AM ASKING EVERYONE WHO RECEIVES THIS MESSAGE TO DO 3 THINGS:
1) Please, please forward this message to every Christian
in your
personal electronic mailing list. If we are all diligent
to do
this,in a few weeks this message could reach every
Christian in
the
world who owns a modem. (No, this is not the only way
we’re
spreading the word, but it could turn out to be one of
the more
efficient ones.)

2) Please pray for your brothers and sisters under
persecution
around
the world on November 16. Pray every day, for that
matter, but
especially pray that day. Fast if you can.

3) Inform your pastor, your church’s prayer ministry, and
your
friends
(especially those who don’t have email) about the
International
Day
of Prayer on November 16, and about the persecution
Christ is
suffering.

Information concerning the suffering of Christians worldwide may be
obtained, in the US and Canada, from the US headquarters of IDOP. The
address is:

International Day of Prayer for the Persecuted Church
P.O. Box WEF, Wheaton, IL 60189-8003

INFO: 800-LETS-PRAY (1-800-538-7772)
OFFICES: 630-668-1754 FAX: 630-668-0498
EMAIL: IDOP@xc.org
WEB SITE: http://www.persecutedchurch.org

National Coordinator: Steve Haas
Director of Communications: Dr. Ed Bez

IDOP has a packet of information designed for informing your church group

and joining the day of prayer. The packet contains a Prayer Journal
containing several articles concerning the persecuted church, a 21-minute

video tape for your church or home group, several letters, and a Prayer
Commitment Sheet to send to IDOP to register your support(this is
optional.
Please pray, with or without notifying anyone.) They ask for $15 to cover

the cost of printing and shipping.

If you really can’t afford $15, ask for the packet anyway. Whatever you
do,
please don’t allow this message to stop traveling. Keep the word
moving.
Real people are dying real deaths out there where we can’t see them, and
they need our help. Do it now rather than later.

International Day of Prayer Board of Advisors:

Dr. Joseph Aldrich, President
Multnomah Bible College

Dr. Donald Argue, President
National Association of Evangelicals

Hon. William Armstrong, Senator
U.S. Senate, retired

Dr. Scott G. Bauer, Co-Pastor
The Church on the Way

William Bennett, President
Empower America

Charles E. Blake, Bishop
West Angeles Church of God in Christ

Dr. William Bright, President
Campus Crusade for Christ International

Dr. Paul Bubna, President
Christian and Missionary Alliance

William F. Buckley, Jr., Editor at Large
National Review

John Burke, Management Team
Willow Creek Community Church

Anne Buwalda, Director
Jubilee Foundation

Dr. Anthony Campolo, Professor
Eastern College

Rev. Dwight Chapman, President
General Association of General Baptists

Charles Colson, President
Prison Fellowship International
(Chairman, IDOP Advisory Board)

Johan Companjen, Intl. Director
Open Doors

Rev. Stan DeBoe, Priest
Trinitarian Order

David Engelhard, Gen. Secretary
Christian Reformed Church – N. America

Keith A. Fournier, President
Catholic Alliance

Dwight Gibson, N.A. Director
World Evangelical Fellowship

John Gimenez, Bishop
Rock Church

Dr. Os Guinness, Sr. Fellow
Trinity Forum

William J. Hamel, President
Evangelical Free Church of America

Hon. Mark O. Hatfield, Senator
U.S. Senate

Gary A. Haugen, President
International Justice Mission

Kent R. Hill, President
Eastern Nazarene College

Dr. John R. Holland, President
Intl. Church of the Foursquare Gospel

Michael Horowitz, Sr. Fellow
Hudson Institute

Jim Jacobson, Director
Christian Solidarity International

Dr. D. James Kennedy, President
Coral Ridge Ministries
Diane Knippers, President
Institute on Religion & Democracy

Dr. Richard Land, Exec. Director
Christian Life Commission, SBC

Paul E. Larsen, President
The Evangelical Covenant Church

Dr. Duane Litfin, President
Wheaton College

“For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain.”

-Philippians 1:21

——— End forwarded message ———-

— End —

From: Rlfong@aol.com
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 20:53:10 -0400 (EDT)
To: RevCow@aol.com, cac@emwave.net
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: the WORK and WORD of God

Ted

good quotes! I think it would be broadbrushing to paint all CACers in the
same category of either intellectualism or experientialism. I believe that
our younger / youth up to the 20 somethingers are into the experientialism
arena because of the mass culture in the USA; on the other hand, those who
get higher education or are immigrants agers 12 and up are probably more
intellectual oriented;

hence, as a sterotype, I would guess most MITers are intellectual; more
younger people immigranting from the PRC are experiential than intellectual (
older immigrants more intellectual ); most ABCs today’s age 30 and younger
experiential.

does this jive with anyone else’s opinion?

Ronnie Fong
Fremont, CA ( somewhere in nor.Calif. on the Hayward EQ fault being home
sick )

In a message dated 97-10-16 08:33:29 EDT, Ted Kau writes:

<>

— End —

Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 23:47:42 -0700
From: OHBRUDDER
To: cac@emwave.net
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Personal Experiences as a Scholar

Sze-kar Wan wrote:
>
> Dear Bill, I know you didn’t mean it this way, but your remark cuts
like
> a hot jab to my soul.
>

Dear Sze-kar,
I was deeply touched by your reaction and response to my remarks about
relating to God. I obviously opened up some very old wounds and touch
some deep, raw nerves. I hope you truly believe that I did not mean
to offend nor hurt you. Like yourself, some of my most painful
offenses received in the past was wrought by other Christians . . .the
body of Christ shooting itself in the foot! And as you may recall, I
prefaced my remarks by saying I was not trying to judge which was the
right or wrong way of relating to God but to point out that there was
a difference. And obviously I left little doubt as to which I favored.

There is much I want to say about your position on scholarship but
sometimes wisdom is in the silence. At the moment, I don’t think there
is much I could say that would not offend you just because I do think
differently.
I’d rather be thought wrong than to hurt or offend you any further.
So I hope you could accept my apology, and may the peace of God
reign between us.

bill leong

— End —

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 14:26:14 -0400
From: Sze-kar Wan
To: CAC
Subject: CAC_Mail: Faith and Scholarship

Dear CACers:

My last post was one of those you hit the “send” command and immediately
wondered if you had exposed too much of yourself.

Well, so be it.

Thank you, Ray, Bill, and Gary for your words of understanding. Thank
you Bill for not taking it too personally. Yes, there are old wounds
and decade-long hurts, but my post was not intended as self-therapy so
much in vogue these days. Rather, I was hoping to bring to the fore the
anti-intellectual tendency I see in the Chinese church today (can’t say
for sure about other ethnic groups), using myself–wisely or
unwisely–as illustration.

I don’t know where this anti-intellectual bias came from. Maybe it’s
from the indigenous Chinese churches of the 20s and 30s, our spiritual
predecessors. Maybe it’s the anti-intellectualism so prevalent in North
American culture. Truth is, I hold scholar no higher or lower than
pastor. Both ought to be held to a standard of accountability based on
his or her faithfulness to the gospel. Both contribute to the Kingdom
in substantial and nonreducible ways.

When I hear public statements like “The Chinese church does not need
PhDs” or “Scholarship only gets in the way of saving souls” (not uttered
on CAC but frequently heard in Chinese churches), I bristle with
disappointment. What in fact is so wrong with serving God with the best
of one’s intellectual abilities? What is so destructive with loving God
with all our mind? We encourage our children to be doctors, lawyers,
engineers, scientists, and occasionally pastors; when will we start
encouraging our children to be scholars and theologians? No wonder
Chinese-Americans are so underrepresented in our theological schools. If
Chinese American Christianity is to chart a future course that can
ensure its sruvival and bring glory to God, we’ve got to think in terms
not only of church growth, evangelism, discipleship, etc. (all of which
are important), but also of seminars, serious and rigorous studies,
theological education. Talk is NOT cheap, true understanding is NOT
easy. Let’s not cripple ourselves.

Being daily transformed,
Sze-kar

— End —

From: Rlfong@aol.com
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 16:00:43 -0400 (EDT)
To: cac@emwave.net
Subject: CAC_Mail: MEDIA / GAYS ISSUE * Fwd: Vote

CACers

media poll on the gays kissing on TV on ELLEN. Take a position and vote as
the CAC vote portion of the populace.

Ronnie Fong
Fremont, CA ( SF Bay Area )
———————
Forwarded message:
Subj: Vote
Date: 97-10-17 09:47:32 EDT
From: Mypyface
To: djchuang@ix.netcom.com,Rlfong

Hi, Everyone:
Sorry, I had an error in the abcnews address. It should be as follows:
Cast your vote at http://www.abcnews.com/sections/us/ellen109.
I got the following message Oct. 15, and the vote was 65% for and 35%
against. I thought I should act on it so I got on just now Oct 17 6AM, and
the scale is tipping the right way. 60.8 for and 39.1 against.
In Him,
Peter

Forwarded message:
> Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 14:15:36 -0700
> Subject: FYI-Lesbian Kiss Poll
>
> This is a forwarded message!>
> >
> >Subject: Lesbian Kiss Poll
> >
> >Brothers and Sisters,
> >
> >I encourage you to go to
> >http://www.abcnews.com/sections/us/ellen109
> >today and place your vote.
> >
> >ABC is taking a poll to determine if you would
> >allow your children to watch lesbians kiss on TV.
> >(this is in reference to the Ellen show where that occurred).
> >
> >Currently the stats show 65% for and only 35% against.
> >I beleive the stats show a high gay response as info about
> >this poll originally came from a pro-homosexual page.
> >
> >I really can’t believe any parent in their right mind would
> >allow their children to watch something like that.
> >I don’t know any parents (believing or not) who would allow it.
> >Ellen and her mother actually had the arrogance to complain
> >about the warning message for parents ABC ran before that episode.
> >That is a clear indication that the gays will not stop until they
> >force everybody to accept their lifestyle.
> >
> >This is urgent as we don’t know how long ABC will run the poll.
> >
> >————- End Forwarded Message ————-

— End —

From: “DJ Chuang”
Organization: Ambassador Bible Church
To: cac@emwave.net
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 00:04:00 -0500
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: the WORK and WORD of God

On 16 Oct 97 at 8:16, RevCow@aol.com wrote:

> 4. For Chinese/Asian American churches, which seems to you to be
> the greater abuse: experiential-ism or intellectualism?

Ted,
this is an interesting question, but a good one.. I’m not sure it can be
compared on which is the greater abuse, and from my instinct and
experience(!), I believe both are abused depending on the context/ situation..
that’s not to say that there is abuse everywhere, but there are both extremes
and tendencies by individuals.

Some people value experiences much more than anything else (and I think this
may be a Asian cultural value), where life experience (thus respect for older
people, I believe is tied in to this) is more valuable than expertise (from an
educated “expert”). What may happen in an extreme situation with this person
is that an idea that is outside of this person’s experience is rejected; also,
this person will use his/her experience to interpret the Bible, using the line
of reasoning “it’s obvious that this is a good thing that God is blessing, so
it must be of God, and the Scripture must mean thus and so.”

Some people value intellectualism more, though this may or may not be
theological intellectualism, and experiences are put through an extreme
scrutiny, and ideas may be rejected because their former intellectual
training and reasoning disallows other concepts, and disallows valid
experiences. Where Asian culture fits here may be unique, for as a people,
education is highly treasured, but in the realm of the spiritual and mystical,
educated logic is sometimes set aside, it seems, for something that relates to
the supernatural. Thus in some circles, spiritual mystical practices are
prized over planning or strategizing. A line of reasoning common on this
extreme might be proof-texting, or intellectual pride.

What conclusion do I draw? I believe education and experience are not
antithetical nor absolute contrary, I believe they go hand-in-hand. How they
go together as to avoid extremes is much more challenging to define… as we
see our new discussion under way, we can see just how challenging of a task
this is.

DJ

* * new email

— End —

To: Cac@emwave.net
Subject: CAC_Mail: I Tim. 3″Ray Downen”
From: ben_mel@juno.com (Benjamin C Wong)
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 02:32:05 EDT

Hi Ray:

Good to hear from you. I appreciated your affirmation and wish to seek
to pursue a greater unity between us in God’s Word. This is posted on
CAC as an invitation to reach unity with others.

Ray you wrote:
Prophets (directly receiving and transmitting to God’s people
words from God) were temporary workers in the early church. It
appears that their work was done after the N.T. scriptures were
available to the church.

I’m out of sequence here because I responded to this at the end of this
letter.

You also wrote:
And here there’s a problem. Leadership in the Lord’s church is
made
the work of a “committee” of elders rather than in any one man of any
age. We choose to veer from the Bible plan. We have set up a clergy
system which makes the clergyman the leader of the congregation.
That’s not what the Bible teaches. There we see evangelists (where
age is no barrier to service) teaching the Word and seeking to win
the lost. We see those who were won gathering in congregations, which
are then led by the “committee” of elders selected from among
themselves (not hired from outside the group). Do you see in the
Bible a different pattern for church government than I’ve here
outlined? Have we the right to set up alternate church governments
and still claim to be following the Bible as our guide? I think not.

I believe that the leadership of the church is best served thru a
plurality of elders. I do not know of a passage of Scripture that says
it MUST be plural; (This is confessing ignorance and not a challenge to
produce it.). That the word “elder” was plural does not mean it MUST be
plural but is sufficient to understand that in general the churches were
ruled by elders. This would be the goal. When Paul started a new church
I would understand that he was the only elder until others were qualified
to be elders. When Paul left Titus behind to pastor the church, my
impression is that Titus was the only elder for a time until he obeyed
Paul in appointing elders. My own experience in starting a new church
was that for some time we only had one person who was qualified to be an
elder. I did not know how to have a plurality of elders. This is the
goal of the Biblical church, but the goal does not prohibit the process,
since the process is not veering from the goal. My comment of a “single”
man is not in reference to one man but to an unmarried man; which leads
us to:

I earlier said,
“The “husband of one wife” is not that he should be a husband, (cf.
Paul’s exhortation to celibacy) but that if he is a husband, he has
only one wife. So also, if he happens to be a father, he must be
“keeping his children under control with all dignity”. But the
qualification is not that he must be a father.”

You responded:
You surely have a right to your opinion. But the qualification is

that an elder MUST be, not only of mature age, but also that he be
the husband of one WIFE. This disqualifies any unmarried man, even if
otherwise fully qualified, from serving in the “office” of elder if
that office is being conducted according to scriptural requirements.
A problem some have is that they want to impose on what is taught a
different form of church government and still be doing things God’s
way. We shouldn’t look to the Bible for proof that our unscriptural
church government is acceptable to God.

Your focus for this qualification is on the word HUSBAND. My focus
for this qualification is on the word ONE WIFE. My understanding would
be expressed this way, “as a husband he must have ONE wife.” The concern
that he be “above reproach” is that he doesn’t have more than one wife,
not whether he is married or not. The other qualification I referred to
is similar; “as a father, he must keep his children under control with
all dignity.” The concern that he be “above reproach” is in keeping his
children under control with all dignity, not whether he is a father or
not. Would you say any man who is not a father is not qualified to be an
elder? How is a single man or a childless man not “above reproach,” in
what sense? In this passage I see the issue of qualifications is that he
is “above reproach.”

Again you wrote:

Ben”
I’m not clear as to the intent of the question here (Would you say
that this is really a verse of excluding rather than including them
into our salvation?).

[[This has to do with Gal. 3:28]].

Sorry for the confusion caused by a closing spontaneous question
that is to pursue “irony” (?). ( “Them” is the differences, Jews and
Gentiles, male and female). Another following question would have
helped. ” Isn’t it strange to interpret this verse as to mean inclusive?”

Just a quick comment on prophets. It is late and the letter is too long.
More on this another time. Definition of “priest” is a spokesman for
man to God. Definition of “prophet” is a spokesman for God to man. The
definition does not required him (prophet) to have special or new
revelation from God nor new predictions about future events.

Question: Where in the Bible do you defend your statement that prophets
were temporary and that they ended after the NT was completed? If it is
from I Cor. 13:8-10, what is the “perfect”? and how did you arrive at
that? I would like to suggest that the “perfect” is the Church, the Body
(soma: neuter) of Christ. The context of this passage is dealing with
spiritual gifts for the edifying of the Church.

Ben

— End —

To: Cac@emwave.net, CdBacDenC0@aol.com, pastorc@ecentral.com,
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 14:01:56 -0600
Subject: CAC_Mail: Poem
From: gdot@juno.com (G Ottoson)

To whom true love rings true

Cool carbon stones afire
Brilliant studded golden band
Only thee, my one desire
be my glory hand in hand
Grand design, taking time
I, the maker of the mines
Coal, coal, black and light
Diamonds flaming, blue and bright
Visions of Me on the verge
Inklings an iota
risen like a tree of life
in Deadwood, South Dakota
Soon the early will be chosen
Morning be at night
Santa Anas freeze the frozen
Icebergs will ignite
Darkness light upon the sun
Sickles slay the hammers
Freedom free without a gun
Learn-ed learn some manners

Tumble stars from lofty heights
Light devour darkness
Wickedness no more be right
Left be few, the righteous
Poets grope for wedding words,
politicians answers
Oceans offer up in thirds
death to necromancers
Thy design, Lord, taking time
Mine Thee, maker of the mines
Coal, coal, black and light
Diamonds flaming blue and bright
Pressure-treated stones inspire
Brilliant like Thee Son of Man
Love me all-consuming fire
Grace me with Thy wedding band
Love, Thee all-consuming fire,
take me to Thy Holy land
Love me, Spirit, my desire
Touch me with Thy hammered hand

c. 1995-1997 go

— End —

From: “DJ Chuang”
Organization: Ambassador Bible Church
To: wans@monet.bc.edu
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 22:52:59 -0500
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Faith and Scholarship
CC: cac@emwave.net

On 17 Oct 97 at 14:26, Sze-kar Wan wrote:

> I don’t know where this anti-intellectual bias came from.

Sze-Kar,
I’m sure if we dig around a little bit, we might find out where it came from
*grin* (perhaps from the theology of Kant and the enlightenment, perhaps from
other prominent or not-so-prominent pastor/teachers, or as Asians prefer,
“preachers”, who passed along some teachings, where the intellect is strongly
separated from spirituality)

Suppose we look at Jesus’ summary of the faith, say from Mark 12:30-31, which
is: “love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul
and with all your mind and with all your strength.” and the second (perhaps
demonstrative) “love your neighbor as yourself.” For some streams of
spirituality, heart and soul become a greater priority than mind and strength
(and even to the neglect of the latter), so that spirituality seems to be
only discerned and defined by mysticism, attitude, emotions, and experience,
and spirituality seems to have nothing to do with planning, or strategizing,
or management/organization, or quality scholarship.

What can one say to a spirituality like that?

Is not what Jesus saying totally comprehensive and integrated (not a list of
priorities, not a dichotomy to neglect), that everything that we have, all
the capacities and abilities and faculties are to be used unto Him, for His
purpose, and for His kingdom?

DJ

* * new email

— End —

From: TSTseng@aol.com
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 00:55:56 -0400 (EDT)
To: ben_mel@juno.com, Cac@emwave.net
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: I Tim. 3″Ray Downen”

Ray has been in dialogue with me about the “woman’s issue” as well. It is
clear that we disagree with each other’s interpretation of Scripture – but
I’m glad that the conversation is continuing – with one qualification:
perhaps we men should stop talking about what Scripture says about women and
start listening to what women hear Scripture saying to them. This discourse
is entirely too male dominated for me!

Finally, I want to recommend Craig S. Keener’s _Paul, Women and Wives:
Marriage and Women’s Ministry in the Letters of Paul_ (Hendrickson, 1992) as
an example of the abolitionist hermeneutical principle in Scripture. Keener
discusses all the “problem” passages and, IMHO, is on target. I certainly
would not want to part of a hermeneutical tradition that supported slavery!
On another note, Craig is an example of a devout and dedicated evangelical
who has been mistreated by his fellow evangelicals because of his views on
women in ministry and racial justice. When I “fight” for the marginalized
and oppressed, I think of white men like Craig who are persecuted for
speaking out.

In Christ,
Tim

————————————————————
Rev. Dr. Timothy Tseng
Sallie Knowles Crozer Assistant Professor of American Religious History
Colgate-Rochester Divinity School
1100 South Goodman Street
Rochester, NY 14620
OFF: (716) 271-1320, ext. 260
FAX: (716) 271-8013
Email: tstseng@aol.com
————————————————————

— End —

From: TSTseng@aol.com
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 01:04:18 -0400 (EDT)
To: corn1414@mailhost.net, pangks@pl.jaring.my
cc: cac@emwave.net
Subject: CAC_Mail: Re: Catholics on Mary – Antioch Letter 4.41

Dear Rev. Eng:

At times I have appreciated your “letters” and commentaries. Some of it is
very helpful and some of it is not. Furthermore, I don’t always agree with
everything you say – but, that’s okay, since we obviously believe in the same
Christ and Lord and Savior). But, I’m not sure how I got on your
distribution list. Nor did I give permission to be placed on your
distribution list. So, please tell me more about yourself and your
intentions for distributing your newsletter – and ask for my permission and
that of others first before you send it to me or others.

This message applies to others on the CAC list as well. Before putting all
of us on a distribution list, give each of us a choice in the matter.
Announce your list, give background info, and invite us to subscribe
individually. We’ve learned from our past mistakes of overloading
information to participants. We’ve become a pretty good discussion list.
Let’s continue in that spirit. Thanks.

Tim Tseng

————————————————————
Rev. Dr. Timothy Tseng
Sallie Knowles Crozer Assistant Professor of American Religious History
Colgate-Rochester Divinity School
1100 South Goodman Street
Rochester, NY 14620
OFF: (716) 271-1320, ext. 260
FAX: (716) 271-8013
Email: tstseng@aol.com
————————————————————

— End —

From: TSTseng@aol.com
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 01:06:17 -0400 (EDT)
To: gdot@juno.com, Cac@emwave.net
Subject: Re: Re: CAC_Mail: NY Times article on Affirm. Action

Brother G:

My take on Fuller’s courage is not so much linked to their stand on
infallibility/inerrancy (I agree with you there). Though Fuller’s decision to
move away from “inerrancy” may have saved it from the harsher Christian
constituents who wield “inerrancy” as a political butcher knife and given it
space to address other controversial issues with commendable grace and tact
(e.g., the charismatic claims, women in ministry, many social justice issues,
engaging in high powered academics, etc.). I have found that often
“inerrantists” tend to be gate-keepers while “infallibists” tend to be seeker
sensitive. Both have strengths and weaknesses, but the latter is better
equipped to handle the current shift into a global post-modern culture and
post-industrial economy. Thus, in this sense, I consider Fuller more
courageous because it is much more willing to “engage” (Star Trekkies,
forgive me) culture and contemporary life than those more cautious about
being “polluted” by it.

I share your concern about Christ’s bride co-habitating with American
corporations. But overcoming idolatry (or using your metaphor, adultery) is
not as easy to do as one might imagine. Even if theological institutions
were able to divest themselves of any corporate sponsorship, their
administrators, faculty, and students still have to wrestle with divesting
themselves of the worst of American culture. I submit that all of us have to
negotiate through a world filled with evil forces (principalities and powers)
in hopes that we can be “signs” of God’s inbreaking Kingdom. The strategy of
separatism and isolation will fail in the long run because the problem is not
only in the “world” out there, but also the “worldliness” within us.

Having said that, this means that the Christian must always be alert and
humble. We must continually confess our weakness and dependence on the Holy
Spirit of God to discern and act wisely in the world. (Indeed, in the CAC
discussions, it seems that what we are groping for – especially in light of
the disagreements on a number of issues – is the gift of discernment. What
belongs to Christ? What does not?). So, if Fuller accepts Weyerhauser money
(shades of DNC acceptance of money from Asians?), it needs to be alert and
ready to return it if news, say, of labor exploitation or anti-Chinese
discrimination is confirmed. But, this is not very likely. So it is up to
discerning and humble brothers like you to call Fuller (and any Christian
group) to accountability in that event. Perfect ethical and courageous
leadership is unattainable. But it can be approximated so long as no one
abdicates their responsibility to call others to accountability (in a civil
manner).

Ack, I spachen too muchen. Cheers to Robin!

In Christ,
Tim

In a message dated 10/16/97 12:03:01 AM, gdot@juno.com wrote:

<>

————————————————————
Rev. Dr. Timothy Tseng
Sallie Knowles Crozer Assistant Professor of American Religious History
Colgate-Rochester Divinity School
1100 South Goodman Street
Rochester, NY 14620
OFF: (716) 271-1320, ext. 260
FAX: (716) 271-8013
Email: tstseng@aol.com
————————————————————

— End —

From: TSTseng@aol.com
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 01:08:04 -0400 (EDT)
To: wans@monet.bc.edu, cac@emwave.net
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Faith and Scholarship

Sze-Kar:

I echo your sentiments and concern about anti-intellectualism in Chinese
Christianity and North American culture (the eminent historian, Richard
Hofstader wrote an entire book about American anti-intellectualism). It
seems to me that many of us Chinese Christians will remain hostile towards
_certain_ intellectuals (not hard science Ph.Ds, medical doctors, or
engineers) so long as we cherish our marginal status in society and the
Church (universal). Academicians in the humanities, social sciences, or
theological disciplines have engendered an elitist attitude in the past, so
it is understandable why marginalized peoples feel suspicious of them.

What most people don’t understand is that the academy has changed in the past
thirty years – becoming more inclusive of people of color, of women, and of
so-called “low brow” culture. The democratization and popularization of the
humanities and theological disciplines has meant that this elitism no longer
carries much weight as many younger scholars have entered their respective
fields hoping to find a voice for the marginalized.

Ironically, this effort to include the voices of all people in America has
produced a backlash that would like to keep America as monochromatic and
monolingual as possible. Thus, neo-conservative think-tanks like the
American Enterprise Corp. have maligned these developments as “political
correctness” or “raging relativism.” And many conservative Christians have
jumped on the band wagon. And based on my reading of many of the messages on
the CAC list, many Chinese Christians have also adopted the agenda of the
“backlashing” conservatives. I believe that much of the spewing of
right-wing talk on this list (which I welcome, don’t get me wrong) comes from
“uncritical” acceptance of ideologically conservative Christians (who are
primarily white and male – at least that agenda seems to serve white male
elite interests better than anyone elses). I’ve yet to hear a substantive
argument on this list justifying the identification of core Christian values
with “conservative ideology.”

Another irony: ideologically conservative American Protestants are now trying
to force “political correctness” out of their seminaries – which translates
into fewer opportunities for women and people of color (like most of us on
this list) to find seminary teaching positions. And they are succeeding.
The irony is this: many younger minority Christians [late baby boomers or
baby busters, not necessarily generation X – ugh, I hate these labels!] have
joined in the call to eliminate “liberal political correctness.” Consequence
# 1 Less of their own people will be represented in these seminaries.
Correction: less of the kind of people who really represent the interests of
minority communities will be represented. Consequence # 2: don’t count on
seminaries which have successfully stamped out “political correctness” to
provide for the special concerns and needs of minority Christians.

All these ironies! It all stems from this problem you highlighted, Sze Kar.
We so-called “theological intellectuals” are trench fighters in an arena who
– given proper direction, support and encouragement – will reshape the
configuration of American Protestantism and academia (to a lesser degree) in
the next century. So long as we are seen as ivory tower professors
disconnected from the life of the local church, the enemy will have already
won. Chinese American Christians will remain divided and marginal. It seems
blatantly unfair for our brothers and sisters in the local churches to
privilege their own experiences while kicking a leg out from underneath us.
We are also servants of Christ’s church among Chinese Americans. You know
as well as I do how tricky it is to juggle the many institutional and
academic agendas which are thrust into our hands while we try to provide
voice to Chinese American Christians.

Illustration: I’ve been shopping around for publishers for my book on the
history of Chinese Christianity in North America. While many publishers have
expressed interest, many others ask me whether such a book is “marketable.”
“Too specialized a topic,” I sometimes hear. Lesson learned: mainstream
academics, publishers, religious institutions really care very little about
Chinese American Christians – even though I’ve devoted so much of my energy
trying to get research grants, trying to justify teaching an Asian American
Christianity course which no one is interested in taking, trying to argue
that we’re not simply going to assimilate into the American mainstream (if we
do, there would be no reason to study Chinese Americans as a distinct
religious tradition, would there?), etc., etc. – all to give voice to Chinese
American Christians in the academy, seminaries, Asian American studies, etc.
With voice comes space and resources to strengthen a marginalized Christian
community that few in America really care about.

But, it seems that our greatest impediment is ourselves. Unlike our Korean
brothers and sisters, we choose to remain isolated from those “liberal”
denominations and seminaries and associate with evangelicals who are usually
less than enlightened about or interested in Chinese Americans (though they
seem to love us when we are in China or the Chinese diaspora). Koreans, on
the other hand, have pounded the doors and invited themselves in (witness the
Korean dominated Asian American ministry programs in several mainline
seminaries including Princeton, Garrett-Evangelical, Claremont, Drew). After
all, they, too, are brothers and sisters in Christ and therefore deserve a
seat at the welcome table. Conservative or liberal, Koreans have done well
to get a foot in the door and I applaud them. But we have lashed at each
other (OBC v. ABC, “liberal” v. “conservative,” ordinary people v.
“intellectuals”), bashed our own culture while uncritically adopting the
white evangelical subculture and their “issues,” and argued about issues
irrelevant to our community (why no discussion about the impact of welfare
reform on Chinese immigrants? why no discussion about the rise in anti-Asian
violence?). When will God raise up leaders among us who are looking out for
our people’s _real_ interests?

If this discussion list does anything to address that last question, I will
meet my Creator a happy man. When you and I gathered a group of “academic
types” to start this list, we had hoped to bring together the wonderful
diversity of Chinese and Asian American Christians into dialogue with one
another (’tis true that theological liberals and conservatives rarely speak
to each other – preferring to create and destroy “straw persons” [I believe
in inclusive language use]). We [Chinese seminary professors] also wanted to
share our views and hear others in hopes of strengthening the Chinese church
in North America. I still believe that participants on this list are doing
just that. Anti-intellectualism is both understandable and legitimate (to a
degree), but I hope that we won’t allow it to “censor” certain messages
posted on this list. The time is ripe now for Chinese and other Asian America
n Christians to partner with leaders who are in the trenches of mainstream
Christianity (e.g., denominational leaders, seminary professors and
administrators, etc.) to develop Christ-like leaders for our churches, the
Asian American community, and the wider community.

In Christ,
Tim

In a message dated 10/17/97 1:42:14 PM, wans@monet.bc.edu wrote:

<>

————————————————————
Rev. Dr. Timothy Tseng
Sallie Knowles Crozer Assistant Professor of American Religious History
Colgate-Rochester Divinity School
1100 South Goodman Street
Rochester, NY 14620
OFF: (716) 271-1320, ext. 260
FAX: (716) 271-8013
Email: tstseng@aol.com
————————————————————

— End —

From: JWongCDI@aol.com
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 11:28:49 -0400 (EDT)
To: cac@emwave.net
Subject: CAC_Mail: CAC mail: more, Women & Ministry

Greetings on a beautiful Monday morning in Chicago. Fall is crisply in the
air, hinting of a winter (which I hear can be pretty challenging for a
Californian). But, for now, I love it.

I apologize for being slow in entering the discussion on women and ministry.
It is often a frustrating topic because we are concerned about authority and
power, about “ruling over” and submitting.

In trying to discern God’s design and purpose in this matter (as we are all
seeking to do) I’ve decided on an approach that seems to work for me. My
primary question is over Responsibility. Who is responsible? or What are the
responsibilities given to this person?

The point of discovering responsibility is that we are then able to (assign)
recognize who has authority or power. I believe God has not handed out
authority willy-nilly, but purposefully, according to His design in creation.

Many of our problems in relationships come about when an individual
assumes/usurps a responsibility that does not belong to him/her. In trying
to carry out the responsibility, he/she discovers that there is no
accompanying authority, and wonders why nobody is willing to listen to
him/her. (eg: an older child acting like a parent over younger siblings)
There is also the practice of assigning a responsibility to an individual,
without providing authority. This also is a way to create chaos.

I find that Scripture passages like Hebrews 13:17, are easily understood when
we approach it from a Responsibility perspective.
“Obey your leaders, and submit {to them}; for they keep watch over your
souls, as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not
with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you.”

Hopefully, this approach will help in our thinking.

Joe Wong
Church Dynamics International

— End —

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 17:25:31 -0400
From: Sze-kar Wan
To: Cornelius
CC: ctesl-l@iclnet.org, CAC
Subject: CAC_Mail: Re: Verse of the Week – 52

Dear CACers:

Does anyone know who “Cornelius” is and how CAC-members got on his
distribution list? He doesn’t seem to respond to our best effort to get
in touch with him.

Tim is right about cluttering our CAC discussion which has been
constructive and informative. Ours a private discussion on issues
specifically related to Chinese/Asian-American Christian life. It’s not
appropriate to use the CAC-forum as another distribution point if the
post is not directly relevant to our group.

Respectfully,
Sze-kar

— End —

From: Fenggang Yang
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Re: Verse of the Week – 52
To: wans@monet.bc.edu, Cornelius
Cc: ctesl-l@iclnet.org, CAC

I strongly agree with Sze-kar!!! Get my name off your list,
Cornelius. Who are you?

fyang@uh.edu

—–Original Message—–
From: Sze-kar Wan
To: Cornelius
Cc: ctesl-l@iclnet.org ; CAC
Date: Monday, October 20, 1997 4:57 PM
Subject: CAC_Mail: Re: Verse of the Week – 52

>Does anyone know who “Cornelius” is and how CAC-members got on his
>distribution list? He doesn’t seem to respond to our best effort to
get
>in touch with him.
>
>Tim is right about cluttering our CAC discussion which has been
>constructive and informative. Ours a private discussion on issues
>specifically related to Chinese/Asian-American Christian life. It’s
not
>appropriate to use the CAC-forum as another distribution point if the
>post is not directly relevant to our group.

— End —

Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 22:59:32 +0000
From: Grace May
To: Benjamin C Wong
CC: Cac@emwave.net
Subject: CAC_Mail: CAC: W/M Ministry

Ben,

I want to encourage you and others interested in a more detailed
understanding of my position to read an article I co-authored w/ Hyunhye
Joe (a colleague of mine from Gordon-Conwell) in response to J.I.
Packer’s argument for not ordaining women as elders. Feel free to skim.
But I would hope that you would find a more thoroughly reasoned and more
carefully articulated response there than I can give here. Let me know
if, after reading my article, you still have questions.
See http://www.goldengate.net/mall/cbe/may.htm.

To respond to your e-mail addressed to me dated 10/13/97:

1. How would you understand the meaning of kephale (Eng. “head”)?
Hyunhye and I offer a definition of kephale in our article. In light
of Peter Woo’s 10/15/97 posting, do you believe that Paul had in mind
all women and men or only wives and husbands (or both) in Eph 5 and
I Cor 11? I find I Cor. 11:11-12 one of the most compelling passages
for advocating the interdependency of women and men in Christ (“all
things come from God”) over and above any biological (“man comes through
woman”) or chronological (“woman comes from man”) orderings.

2. I’m delighted to hear that you understand the standard of “one wife”
as expansively as you do. Like you, I firmly believe that the list of
qualities in I Tim. 3 are guidelines for maintaining godly leaders. But
many people cite the reference to “one wife” as an absolute bar against
having women as overseers, because, the argument goes, since a leader
must have a wife this automatically eliminates women from
consideration. In my opinion, that argument is as logical and helpful
as saying that the text is insisting that only single men can be
overseers.

3. Right — we mustn’t prioritize experience over Scripture, but we
must remember that all of our interpretations of Scripture are just
that: “interpretations” and that our understanding by necessity is
mediated through our human experience. So I’m glad when people own the
experiences that have informed their respective views. The information
helps me to understand where people are coming from and weigh the
factors that might have influenced them. E.g. I think Ken Fong
provided us w/ some useful history from his Fuller days. I’m humbled by
the caliber of female students he found at seminary.

5. Gal 3:28 is about our identities in Christ. Many people argue,
however, that this passage on equality should be applied exclusively to
our position in salvation. But didn’t God initiate us into the divine
reign for a purpose? Are we not to live out and embody the ethics of
God’s kingdom — values which are so alien to the world — and make them
a viable, living reality here on earth?

Praying as Christ taught us “Your kingdom come, Your will be done on
earth as it is in heaven,”

Blessings,
Grace

— End —

Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 08:59:07 -0500
To: CAC@emwave.net
From: Samuel Ling
Subject: CAC_Mail: patience and courtesy

Dear good friends at CAC:

May I encourage the moderator of our group to
contact Cornelius, to kindly suggest that he needs
to respond to people like Sze Kar and Fenggang
about their request that they be removed from his
list?

May I also encourage all of us to be a bit more patient
with one another? I am not sure that ALL of Cornelius’
messages are irrelevant to our discussion. Perhaps
it is the sheer volume of material he is producing,
which is our concern? (In which case, I have been
guilty for months, though am submitting much less
these days!) Let’s respond to the issue of Cornelius’
VOLUME rather than the CONTENT or VIEWPOINT
(which I don’t think Sze Kar and Fenggang is doing …
I just want to raise a little word of caution here).

In Christ,

Sam Ling
(Greetings, Sze Kar and Fenggang!)

— End —

To: Cac@emwave.net
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 20:28:55 -0600
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: NY Times article on Affirm. Action
From: gdot@juno.com (G Ottoson)

On Mon, 20 Oct 1997 01:06:17 -0400 (EDT) TSTseng@aol.com writes:
>Brother G:

> I submit that all of us have to negotiate through a world filled with
evil
> forces (principalities and powers) in hopes that we can be “signs”
> of God’s inbreaking Kingdom. The strategy of separatism and isolation
> will fail in the long run because the problem is not only in the
“world”
> out there, but also the “worldliness” within us.

Dear Tim, CAC:

No rebuttal to your wisdom, Tim, but an opportunity to apply it follows.
I know this issue may appear to be off the track, but I’ll take a chance
that it isn’t, that it could help to achieve even more clarity for your
point. Feel free to expand/refine the issue in terms of Chinese
culture/customs, about which I know too little:

There was an article in the news the other day, maybe you/some other
people saw it, about the ‘medical care’ system in Africa. Allegedly,
about 85% of ~1 billion African population go to witch doctors and
medicine men for traditional cures– a thriving business, too. The World
Health Organization endorsed this form of ‘medicine’–rendered it
‘valid’. It involves pagan ritual, incantations, massage, casting out
‘spirits’, etc. in curing disease. What would be wise Biblical counsel
for our African brethren, sisters who must ‘negotiate’ through that part
of the world today? Should they renounce the witch doctors or not? Also,
is there a real difference (in this context) betw relying on witch
doctors etc. and relying on (medical) technology, as many Americans do,
over against faith in God, i.e. living ‘ in hopes that we can be “signs”
of God’s inbreaking Kingdom’?

Gary

P.S. Robin sends her greetings to you and all the saints 🙂

— End —

From: Rlfong@aol.com
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 03:11:31 -0400 (EDT)
To: Cac@emwave.net
cc: TSTseng@aol.com, gdot@juno.com
Subject: CAC_Mail: INQUIRY – Customs

Has anyone posted Christian interpretations of Chinese customs, as imported
and practiced here in America. It’d be my guess that there be some
differences between practices here and in Asia; as well as regional
differences between say San Francisco and Texas.

Customs I’m curious about are weddings, funerals, baby births,
i.e. wearing a cheong sam or an embroadered jacket; big banquet party
i.e. doing three bows to the decreased; or paper money; or candy and money
gifts
i.e. doing a red egg and ginger party; drinking chicken wine soup

In the SF Bay Area, the Christian theme seems to be go with the
materialistic culture which in many ways is an affluent expectation of
spending lots of money to impress others. How much do we follow to “honor”
our parents expectations v. doing proper Christian stewardship?

be interested to hear thoughts.

Ronnie Fong
Fremont, CA ( attending another red egg & ginger party on Saturday )

— End —

From: “DJ Chuang”
Organization: Ambassador Bible Church
To: cac@emwave.net
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 10:00:03 -0500
Subject: CAC_Mail: Women & Ministry

——- Forwarded Message Follows ——-

From: JWongCDI@aol.com
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 09:10:08 -0400 (EDT)
cc: corn1414@mailhost.net
Subject: CAC_Women & Ministry

Warm greetings;

First, I too wish “Cornelius” to remove me from his list. Thanks Sze-kar for
saying it for us.

Now –
I continue to do some thinking and would like to add to my earlier memo on
Women & Ministry. (it may even seem clever)

the key words for this issue may be: Real – Role – Relationships –
Responsibility – Right .

the first concern for us ought to be “What is Real?”
Is our understanding of Men and Women Roles accurate to Reality? that is
True?
Of course our understanding of what is true or real, must conform to God’s
design and purpose in creation. And conforming to God’s (not Man’s) design
and purpose is what I understand as Right. (our understanding is most
reliable when it is discerned from His Word.)

So, in God’s creation, what are the Roles and Relationships which He assigned
to His creatures, humans, in particular?
This understanding must not simply be based upon ability. One young man
told me he wanted his wife to pursue a career because she was good at it. I
thought, however, that Sin is also something we are ABLE to do. The basis for
his (and her) decision must involve her roles and relationships.

Finally, it seems to me that the assigning of role and relationships are tied
to the responsbilities God gives. Has God given responsibilities to the male
different from the female? Has God empowered each gender with physical and
psychological characteristics to fulfill their different responsibilities? I
believe the answers are “Yes.” But these characteristics does not
automatically make us good at carrying out our responsibilities. Neither does
it mean that each is not capable of doing more. Instead the capability is
what allows us to sin, that is to act in a manner that is inconsistent to
God’s design and purpose.

A word about roles. It seems that we humans are usually seeking roles of
power and control. This will lead us to miss entirely the true roles God has designed for us – and Himself. I find that the role God has assigned to Himself is to be a Servant. Let me share the words of a godly woman; ” I am sure that we are made women so that we can model for our men the true servant spirit.”

Anyway, in my own searching, these are guiding concepts which I find valid and employ.

Respectfully,
Joe Wong (at Chicago Chinese Baptist Church)
Church Dynamics International

— End —

Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 17:22:45 +0000
From: Grace May
To: KRMMB@aol.com
CC: CAC@emwave.net
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: New Topic: Asian-American Evangelism that Works???

Ken,
Good question. I don’t know how everyone stays on top of your CAC
mail, let alone everything else people must receive. I’m thinking of
getting a faster modem. Any other suggestions?
Grace

— End —

To: cac@emwave.net
Subject: CAC_Mail: Re: Asian-American Church Planters
From: jro6@juno.com (Jonathan c Ro)
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 23:15:12 EDT

Hi DJ,
Thanks for your message. Yes, you did send it earlier. However,
I accidentally deleted it upon reading it for the first time and forgot
who actually sent it. I apologize for my mistake and I do appreciate
your persistence.
Yes, I did speak at the B-ball tournament at CCUC. Thanks for
your comments. Being vulnerable has been a character trait I’ve been
working on for years and it hasn’t been easy. I still struggle with that
issue since I have so much “performance/acceptance” baggage in my past.
But by God’s grace He is slowly flushing it out.
Great to hear about your new church plant situation. Tell me
more about it. What is the make up of the core team? What vision does
the core team have? What denomination or church is it affiliated with?
How large is the church plant? How long has it been since the launch
date? What strategy and model will you be implementing and why? Who is
your primary target group? Is it realistic to go multi-ethnic if most
members of the core team are Asian Americans?
My wife and I just got back from the “Church Planters Assessment
Seminar.” It was a grueling weekend but a good one. I learned a lot
about myself; what were my strengths and weaknesses. We are in prayer
waiting for God’s leading.
Love to hear from you… In Christ, Jon

— End —

Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 01:34:34 +0000
From: Grace May
To: cac@emwave.net
Subject: CAC_Mail: CAC mail vol

Tim,
I had to chuckle. You gave a detailed and thoughtful response even to
a query such as mine. Thank you. I’ll try and incorporate suggestion
#1 to avoide duplicate mailings and am open to suggestion #2. The
latter could help me to be a better steward w/ my time.
Grace

— End —

From: TSTseng@aol.com
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 23:29:23 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: CAC_Mail: CFP: Conf. on Social Gospel at Colgate-Rochester
To:

Greetings. I’d like to announce the following call for papers for an
upcoming conference on the Social Gospel. Please send inquiries to Dr.
Christopher Evans at revsroce@frontier.net. Thank you.
– Timothy Tseng

Call for Papers

Conference on the Social Gospel at Colgate Rochester Divinity School
April 24-25, 1998

Sponsored by Colgate Rochester Divinity School and the Edwin Mellen Press

On April 24-25, 1998, an inaugural conference on the social gospel will be
held at Colgate Rochester Divinity School. This two-day event, co-sponsored
by the Divinity School and Edwin Mellen Press, will feature papers and panel
presentations designed to promote a scholarly understanding of the social
gospel tradition. The conference speaker will be Dr. Max L. Stackhouse,
Professor of Ethics at Princeton Theological Seminary.

Paper and panels will be considered on all facets of the social gospel
tradition. Given Colgate Rochester’s historical and theological connection
to the thought of Walter Rauschenbusch, papers dealing with Rauschenbusch’s
legacy are encouraged. Proposals from graduate students will also be
considered. Selected papers from this conference will be published in a
special volume in the Edwin Mellen Press Series, _Texts and Studies in the
Social Gospel_.

Proposals, including a 250-word abstract and one-page vitae, should be
submitted by January 15, 1998 to

Dr. Christopher Evans
Assistant Professor of American Church History
Colgate Rochester Divinity School
1100 South Goodman Street
Rochester, New York 14620
(716) 271-1320
FAX (716) 271-8013
Email: revsroce@frontier.net

————————————————————
Rev. Dr. Timothy Tseng
Sallie Knowles Crozer Assistant Professor of American Religious History
Colgate-Rochester Divinity School
1100 South Goodman Street
Rochester, NY 14620
OFF: (716) 271-1320, ext. 260
FAX: (716) 271-8013
Email: tstseng@aol.com
————————————————————

— End —

From: TSTseng@aol.com
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 23:40:41 -0400 (EDT)
To: cac@emwave.net
Subject: Re: Re: CAC_Mail: New Topic: Asian-American Evangelism that Works???

Dear Grace (and CACers):

I hope that my initial statement of concern about being placed on other
distribution lists won’t open up another period of “slashing and burning” on
this list – so please be patient with me and one another. The only concern I
was addressing was the way my email address was apparently placed on someone
else’s distribution without my knowledge or permission.

Now, with regards to the volume on the CAC list – two suggestions:

1. send you messages only to the cac list w/o “cc”ing other persons on the
list. sometimes duplicate messages are sent.
2. we may want to consider a CAC Digest option, i.e., instead of receiving
all the messages separately, they can be automatically condensed into one
longer digest of messages. this usually means that a participant won’t be in
on discussions instanteneously, but most of us don’t respond immediately
anyway (nor is it always wise to do so!).

Most of all, let’s exercise care about what types of messages we post. Some
messages that I’ve posted in the past really were not relevant to the entire
group, so I’ve consciously tried to reduce the volume I’ve been sending.

All the best and God’s “Grace” to you, always! 🙂
Tim

In a message dated 10/22/97 4:20:02 PM, you wrote:

<>

— End —

From: TSTseng@aol.com
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 23:51:27 -0400 (EDT)
To: Cac@emwave.net
Subject: CAC_Mail: Re: Witch Doctors (Healers)

Hey, hey, Gary:

Thanks for opening up a new thread!

This issue that you’ve raised will probably be better answered by a
missiologist (like Grace May), but my take on it is that African Christians
will either: (1) renounce all forms of traditional cures that appear contrary
to Christianity, (2) negotiate a somewhat syncretistic/synthetic arrangement
where Christian [modern?] and traditional practices are both employed, or (3)
fully incorporate these traditional practices into their Christianity (i.e.,
Christianize them).

In reality, I think all three dynamics occur more or less simultaneously
(consciously or not). Most African Christians would probably make clear
distinctions between their faith and traditional “superstitions” but choose
to retain some of their traditional mores. I think of all the Chinese herbal
medicines that I’ve taken (and shared some with you, I recall), yet, I don’t
see myself compromising my faith. Indeed, if everything in our Chinese
culture was renounced, what would replace it? IMHO, there’s no such thing as
a “cultureless Christianity” or a Christian culture untouched by human
experiences. Therefore, we need more than trying to find the “purest”
expression of Christian faith is the gift of discernment. – Tim

In a message dated 10/22/97 2:13:10 PM, gdot@juno.com wrote:

<>

————————————————————
Rev. Dr. Timothy Tseng
Sallie Knowles Crozer Assistant Professor of American Religious History
Colgate-Rochester Divinity School
1100 South Goodman Street
Rochester, NY 14620
OFF: (716) 271-1320, ext. 260
FAX: (716) 271-8013
Email: tstseng@aol.com
————————————————————

— End —

From: TSTseng@aol.com
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 00:03:29 -0400 (EDT)
To: Cac@emwave.net
Subject: CAC_Mail: Re: Witch Doctors (Healers)2

Apologies for not giving credit to Ronnie’s posting about Christian responses
to Chinese customs – which raised a similar question that Gary raised. I’d
like to hear what others think about how we relate to or interpret Chinese
customs.

Nicole Constable wrote a book studying Hakka Christians in Hong Kong and she
concluded that these Chinese Christians maintained a dual-system approach to
their worldview and religion. By “secularizing” Chinese customs (i.e.,
saying that Chinese New Year is not really a religious holiday), Christians
allowed themselves to participate in Chinese festivities. This permitted
them to retain their Christian convictions without being totally alienated
from Chinese society.

Now, I wonder what happens in North America? Any thoughts! – Tim

————————————————————
Rev. Dr. Timothy Tseng
Sallie Knowles Crozer Assistant Professor of American Religious History
Colgate-Rochester Divinity School
1100 South Goodman Street
Rochester, NY 14620
OFF: (716) 271-1320, ext. 260
FAX: (716) 271-8013
Email: tstseng@aol.com
————————————————————

— End —

From: TSTseng@aol.com
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 23:29:04 -0400 (EDT)
To: cac@emwave.net
Subject: Help needed in NYC’s Chinatown

FYI,
Tim Tseng

———- Forwarded message ———-
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 09:20:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joshua Henry Atkins
To: hksss@columbia.edu
Subject: Medicine – Chinese

Dear friends,

I am writing regarding an opportunity for anyone interested in
medicine/paramedicine and who speaks a substantial amount of
either Cantonese or Mandarin. The Urban Institute of Family Health
is looking for students with medical interest to assist in their
Clinic on the Lower East Side on Tuesday mornings from 8:30 am to
12:00 pm. The clinic is mainly for lower income or homeless persons
and they have recently seen a very large increase in elderly Chinese
patients. They only have 1 doctor who speaks Chinese and she is only
available 1 day per month. Students interested would help with
translation of basic information, participate in seeing patients, and
have the opportunity to get involved in other areas of the clinic
operation.

If interested please call Elisa Wallman at the Urban Institute for
Family Health at (212) 633-0800 (extension 263).

Please pass this note along to anyone who you think might be
interested.

Thanks,

Josh

— End —

From: “Peter Szto”
To: Cac@emwave.net
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 12:33:08 EST5EDT
Subject: CAC_Mail: rites, rituals & customs

While studying for my doctorate I took a course in folklore. The
focus of my research was “Asian America weddings” and the rituals
that are used in a cross-cultural context. My experience as a wedding
photographer provided a rich data source to visually analyze how various rites
and rituals are carried over from Chinese societies into the American
context. Asian American weddings are unique in how they combine
Western rituals and symbols with Chinese ones. The paper I wrote
used semiotic analysis to decode the meaning of such things as the
significance of white and red dresses for the bride, a church
ceremony versus an outdoor one, and the array of rituals such as the
social function of kissing.

I’m glad that Ronnie is also analyzing this dimension of life. My short
conclusion is that cultural awareness is important to understand the
meaning of all rituals, whether Esat or West, particularly as a
Christian. I don’t see the value of a so-called “Christian wedding” if the couple
themselves are not epistemologically self-conscious of the rites they
employ to celebrate marital union.

Peter Szto

— End —

From: gdot@juno.com
To: cac@emwave.net
Subject: CAC_Mail: Re: Witch Doctors (Healers)
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 13:48:22 EDT

On Wed, 22 Oct 1997 23:51:27 -0400 (EDT) TSTseng@aol.com writes:
>I think of all the Chinese herbal medicines that I’ve taken (and shared
some with >you, I recall)

The warts disappeared after that. I’d ask, ‘What do you recommend for
grey hair?’ except for the fear of going bald 🙂

Bro. G

— End —

Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 12:19:14 -0400
From: Sze-kar Wan
To: CAC
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: patience and courtesy

Samuel Ling wrote:
>
> May I encourage the moderator of our group to
> contact Cornelius, to kindly suggest that he needs
> to respond to people like Sze Kar and Fenggang
> about their request that they be removed from his
> list?
>
> May I also encourage all of us to be a bit more patient
> with one another? I am not sure that ALL of Cornelius’
> messages are irrelevant to our discussion. Perhaps
> it is the sheer volume of material he is producing,
> which is our concern? (In which case, I have been
> guilty for months, though am submitting much less
> these days!) Let’s respond to the issue of Cornelius’
> VOLUME rather than the CONTENT or VIEWPOINT
> (which I don’t think Sze Kar and Fenggang is doing …
> I just want to raise a little word of caution here).

Dear Sam:

Greetings from Boston! The city is not quite the same since your left
in May 🙂

Not quite sure what the last parenthesis means: the ambiguity of the
antecedent to “which” leaves me hanging. In any cae, I was concerned
with NEITHER the volume NOR the viewpoint, BUT the integrity of CAC
itself. Elsewhere I wrote the following and I here quote in full:

“To me, the far more important issue is the integrity of the mailing
list, hence the integrity of the discussion. People who sign up for CAC
should have the confidence that their names are not passed on to any
other list withouth THEIR prior consent–no matter how valid anyone
might think it is or how easy they could delete or filter out
unsolicited mail. It ultimately concerns the credibility of CAC.”

I do understand that it is sometimes difficult to filter out all SPAM
mail on technical grounds, but at least the principle should be upheld.

Thanks for hearing me hout,
Sze-kar

— End —

Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 15:57:15 -0500
From: Fenggang Yang
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: rites, rituals & customs
To: Peter Szto , Cac@emwave.net

Hi, Peter,

How are things going? How is your dissertation writing?

I didn’t know you did such a study. Could I have a copy of the paper?
It is a very interesting topic to me. I thought weddings of Chinese
American Christians are all very much Westernized/Americanized. But I
can be wrong. How about funerals? I like to read any writings about
North American Chinese Christian rites (wedding, funeral, birth,
etc.). Please forward any title/paper and advise about sources.

Thank you.

Fenggang
—————————————————————
Fenggang Yang, Ph.D. fyang@uh.edu
Department of Sociology http://www.uh.edu/~fyang
University of Houston 713-743-3943 (FAX)
Houston, TX 77204-3474 713-743-3973 (phone)

— End —

Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 17:03:25 -0400
From: Sze-kar Wan
To: CAC
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: rites, rituals & customs

Dear Peter:

Your semiotic paper on AA weddings sounds positively intriguing. Any
chance of posting an abstract of it and sending me the full version?

I would agree with the need for “epistemologically self-conscious”
awareness of the symbols involved. But these are also layered with
meaning through continual use, so that the present, lived experiences of
the AA community, not just their once-pristine Christian or Chinese
meanings, must needs play a part, no? I say this because I just got
married last year and I honestly could care less whether a certain part
of the wedding was purely Christian or Chinese, or which part was
cultural and which cultic. I just did what I knew would include all my
relatives (majority nonchristian) as well as all my Christian friends.
Time for me to understand why it was so enjoyable to all who came
(400+), including my wife and me. Your work would help.

Warmly,
Sze-kar

— End —

From: Rlfong@aol.com
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 19:40:15 -0400 (EDT)
To: fyang@uh.edu (fenggangyang), pszto@legacy.calvin.edu (peterszto),
Cac@emwave.net
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: rites, rituals & customs

Dear Fenggang & Peter Szeto

I too would be interested in a copy.

Ronnie Fong
Fremont, CA

<>
In a message dated 97-10-23 17:09:03 EDT, fyang@uh.edu wrote:
To: pszto@legacy.calvin.edu (Peter Szto), Cac@emwave.net
Could I have a copy of the paper? It is a very interesting topic to me. I
thought weddings of Chinese American Christians are all very much
Westernized/Americanized. But I can be wrong. How about funerals? I like
to read any writings about North American Chinese Christian rites (wedding,
funeral, birth,
etc.). Please forward any title/paper and advise about sources.
<>

— End —

From: JLoFEC@aol.com
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 20:32:27 -0400 (EDT)
To: cac@emwave.net
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: CAC mail vol

All –

actually, i think a digest version would be great! hear, here!

john lo

* * * *
John Lo
Pastor of Youth and Young Adults
First Evangelical Church, Glendale, CA
818.240.5633
JLoFEC@aol.com
* * * *

— End —

To: cac@emwave.net
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 21:38:03 -0600
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: rites, rituals & customs
From: gdot@juno.com (G Ottoson)

On Thu, 23 Oct 1997 17:03:25 -0400 Sze-kar Wan
writes:
>Your semiotic paper on AA weddings sounds positively intriguing. Any
>chance of posting an abstract of it…Time for me to understand why it
was so enjoyable to all who came…Your work would help.

Dear Sze-kar, Peter, and Friends,

The idea of posting this abstract is an excellent one. For me (and
probably for many others) it would be very useful to have (web) access to
the scholarship/sermons/misc writings/grievances/abstracts/wisdom, etc.
of CAC.
E.g Brother Fenggang wrote an in-depth email a few weeks ago which
captivates the imagination and has an enduring quality to it. He and
other Spiritual scholars in our (electronic) midst should have a place to
post their weighty/weightier ideas–primarily for CAC, of course, but not
un-public. Such a place could turn out to be like that ancient church
door where a pudgy German monk named Luther both challenged and changed
the course of history. And among us there may be another Luther–a
Chinese one…And who knows, Sze-kar, it may be you:)

Respectfully and Warmly,

Gary

— End —

To: cac@emwave.net
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 01:10:21 -0400
Subject: CAC_Mail: Press Release – Surgeon General Nominee
From: jtc10@juno.com (J Chang)

Dear CACers:

Are there other CACers who hold similar or different views regarding this
issue?

In HIm,
J. Chang
—————————————————————————
SURGEON GENERAL NOMINEE SUPPORTS LEGALIZED INFANTICIDE

FRC OUTRAGED AT SATCHER’S SUPPORT
FOR PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Dr. David Satcher, President Clinton’s
nominee for United States Surgeon General, has told a Senator
in writing that he supports Partial-Birth Abortion to protect
the “health of the mother.” Dr. Satcher departs from thousands
of his colleagues in the medical profession who emphatically
declare that there is no health reason to puncture the skull
of a partially delivered child and vacuum the child’s brains
out.

“Appointing an advocate of infanticide to the bully pulpit on
our country’s health would send an absolutely tragic message
to our nation and to the world,” Family Research Council
President Gary Bauer said Wednesday. “The position of the
‘nation’s doctor’ should NOT be filled by an individual who
acquiesces in a radical agenda that threatens the life and
health of our nation’s mothers and their unborn children. It
would be a great tragedy if the members of the U.S. Senate,
who voted overwhelmingly to ban legalized infanticide, endorse
as Surgeon General of the United States an individual who
legitimizes the gruesome practice of partial-birth abortion,”
Bauer continued.

“President Clinton’s second veto of the partial-birth abortion
ban demonstrates that he is accepting misleading advice from
those who put the politics of abortion over the principles and
values of our nation,” Bauer declared.

“I call upon Dr. Satcher to explain in medical terms, not
political ones, why his views on partial-birth abortion are
contrary to the testimony of doctors around the nation who say
this horrific and barbaric procedure is never medically
necessary.”

American Medical Association President Daniel H. Johnson, Jr.,
M.D., wrote in the New York Times that “the partial delivery
of a living fetus for the purpose of killing it outside the
womb is ethically offensive to most Americans and physicians.”
In May, the AMA, a 297,000-member group of doctors, joined
PHACT (the Physicians’ Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth), a group of
over 700 doctors nationwide — many of them specialists in
neonatology and obstetrics — in saying this procedure is never
medically necessary.

Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop told the American
Medical News in August of 1996, “… in no way can I twist my
mind to see that the late-term abortion as described — you
know, partial birth, and then destruction of the unborn child
before the head is born — is a medical necessity for the
mother. It certainly can’t be a medical necessity for the
baby.”

— End —

Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 01:49:11 -0400
From: Sze-kar Wan
To: CAC
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Faith and Scholarship

Dear DJ et al.:

My flu is about out of the door and I can once again try to do some
intellectual lifting.

I agree with your exposition of Mark 12.30f to which my original post
also alludes. Loving God requires all our integrated abilities, among
which counts our “mind.” Rom 12.1-2, where Paul pivots his discussion
from “theology” (chs 1-11) to “ethics” (chs 12-15), is another passage
which emphasizes the centrality of our mental faculty under the renewing
influence of the Spirit.

NIV’s “spiritual” in Rom 12.1 is literally “reasonable” (so KJV, NRSV
note, etc.) or “logikos” in Greek (fr which we get “logic”).
“Spiritual” is not wrong but masks a paradoxical point Paul is making
here. The mind is the center of all intellection and thus all ethical
decisions and actions, but it must be transformed by the Spirit. Then
and only then can our life be a “reasonable” offering or worship. Such
worship is “reasonable,” because it will then be issued from a mind
functioning at its best, under the transformative impulsion of the
Spirit. But since the Spirit stands behind this reasonable life or
worship, the latter is by definition “spiritual.”

Clearly Paul is making an assumption common in his days about the
function of the mind. In so doing he endorses the assumption, but only
to an extent. The mind, while central, must be continually transformed
by the Spirit; it must be christianized (my word, not Paul’s), as it
were. But Paul does NOT bracket the mind out of the equation but rather
reinforces its prime of place.

This is my starting point for integrating scholarship and faith.

Respectfully,
Sze-kar

— End —

Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 03:03:05 -0400
From: Sze-kar Wan
To: CAC
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: rites, rituals & customs

G Ottoson wrote:
> … Such a place could turn out to be like that ancient church
> door where a pudgy German monk named Luther

Dear Gary Son of Otto:

Nice to be compared to Luther, tho I know better: I AM rather pudgy, but
my wife tells me I am no monk! And my so-called theses rhyme with
something unmentionable in polite company. 🙂

Seriously, DJ’s archive of posted messages is a great place. Check it
out.

Warmly,
Sze-kar

— End —

Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 03:41:26 -0400
From: Sze-kar Wan
To: CAC
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Faith and Scholarship

Dear Tim et al.:

> Koreans, on the other hand, have pounded the doors and invited
> themselves in (witness the Korean dominated Asian American ministry
> programs in several mainline seminaries including Princeton, Garrett-
> Evangelical, Claremont, Drew).
>

Bravo for laying it on the line! Your comparison to the Korean
situation is apt. Our Korean brothers and sisters put us to shame.
Everywhere I go–universities in Israel, Leiden, Tuebingen, Heidelberg,
all over England, and definitely ALL over North American–I meet teams
and teams of dedicated Korean students pursuing PhDs in theology. They
are so many that I was constantly called “Koreaner” in German
supermarkets. This does not count the many, many more (5-10 times
more?) students at the masters level. I have no doubt they will alter
the face of theological education worldwide in the coming decades if
they haven’t already.

The vast majority of Korean students are theologically as conservative
as we are. We both have similar strengths and limitations, similar
cultural resources and histories of discrimination. One main
difference, which CAC touched upon before, is that Korean culture does
not stigmatize the ministerial professtion. Another is what Tim
mentions here: Korean theological educators have a strategy that does
not artificially discriminate against the theological stripe of an
institution, be it “liberal” or “evangelical.” The ultiamte goal seems
to be an elevation and eventual development of their own theology,
institutions, traditions, etc. We Chinese Christians have achieved far,
far less in spite of our head start.

I dont’ want to romanticize the Korean situation, but I as an outsider
can certainly sense far greater cohesion and support their theological
students and educators enjoy than I have ever experienced among my own
people. (Well, that’s an understatement.) If there is any envy on my
part, it is this.

Respectfully,
Sze-kar

— End —

From: TSTseng@aol.com
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 09:48:04 -0400 (EDT)
To: Cac@emwave.net
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: rites, rituals & customs

Peter:

I’d appreciate a copy of your paper as well. Just a minor point with regards
to your statement (and I’m included in this critique as well) – it makes too
easy a transition between “asian american” and “chinese american.” Asian
American is a “political” construct created by the American government to put
all the diverse groups from Asia and the Pacific Islands into one racial
designation (this has both positive and negative features). Thus, it should
not be confused with “cultural” characteristics usually identified with
specific national groups like Chinese, Korean, Filippino, etc. In other
words, there’s no such thing as an “Asian American” culture since this
category includes all the various immigrant cultures (this, of course, should
be qualified since if churches like Evergreen Baptist should continue to draw
more diverse Asians into its congregation, there is a possibility of the
formation of a distinctive Asian American culture there; also, there are
other instances of a possible Asian American culture emerging if one pays
attention to all the literature, film, and activist groups). So, it would be
helpful to be specific when talking about something that is Chinese (i.e.,
cultural) vs. something that Asian American (more or less political).

Looking forward to reading your paper! – Tim

In a message dated 10/24/97 12:56:09 AM, pszto@legacy.calvin.edu (Peter Szto)
wrote:

<>

————————————————————
Rev. Dr. Timothy Tseng
Sallie Knowles Crozer Assistant Professor of American Religious History
Colgate-Rochester Divinity School
1100 South Goodman Street
Rochester, NY 14620
OFF: (716) 271-1320, ext. 260
FAX: (716) 271-8013
Email: tstseng@aol.com
————————————————————

— End —

From: TSTseng@aol.com
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 11:00:18 -0400 (EDT)
To: cac@emwave.net
Subject: CAC_Mail: Info about PAACCE

Dear CACers:

A number of you have requested information about the Pacific Asian American
and Canadian Christian Education project (PAACCE). This 20 year old
ecumenical group (which Sze-Kar and I have been involved with at some time in
our past) provides Christian Education resources for Asian American
congregations dealing with inter-generational concerns, Asian American ways
of interpreting Scripture, experimenting with worship and liturgical
practices which incorporate Asian American culture/history, resources for
wrestling with anti-Asian racial discrimination, etc. PAACCE publishes
newsletters and bibliographies as well. While they service primarily Asian
Americans in mainline denominations (American Baptist, Reformed Church of
America, Episcopalian, United Methodist, PCUSA, United Church of Canada,
etc.), they welcome evangelicals who are open to working within a
theologically and denominationally diverse framework.

The current Executive Director of PAACCE is Prof. Wenh In Ng. She may be
reached at:

Rev Dr Wenh In Ng
Emmanuel College, Victoria University
Toronto School Of Theology
75 Queens’ Park Crescent
Toronto, ONT M5S 1K7
WK: (416) 585-4549
FAX: (416) 585-4516
EMAIL: gawi.ng@utoronto.ca

————————————————————
Rev. Dr. Timothy Tseng
Sallie Knowles Crozer Assistant Professor of American Religious History
Colgate-Rochester Divinity School
1100 South Goodman Street
Rochester, NY 14620
OFF: (716) 271-1320, ext. 260
FAX: (716) 271-8013
Email: tstseng@aol.com
————————————————————

— End —

From: MChowAACF@aol.com
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 12:36:27 -0400 (EDT)
To: wans@monet.bc.edu, owner-cac@emwave.net, cac@emwave.net
Subject: Re: Re: CAC_Mail: Faith and Scholarship

Sze-kar,

My understanding is that the difference between the Chinese view of a pastor
and the Korean view of a pastor is quite different and that by having this
view, the Korean son or daughter has the blessings of their parent to be in
full-time ministry. From what I understand, it’s almost like being a doctor.

On the other hand, I haven’t heard too many parents (except for Bill) who
have encouraged their children to consider ministry as a career. Probably
why the difference of the number of Korean American churches and ministries
and their zeal for ministry is that some of the environmental and family
stigmas aren’t a problem like other Asian Americans.

Melanie

— End —

Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 16:46:39 -0400
From: Sze-kar Wan
To: CAC
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Faith and Scholarship

Dear Melanie:

Your observation about Korean-Am churches is right, so far as I can see
as an outsider. Too bad we seem to have few Korean voices on CAC; it
would be interesting to have a conversation on this with an insider who
really knows.

In any case, it may be too easy to blame the Chinese culture for
deemphasizing theological education. Folks on this list represent a
formidable contingent in Chinese-American churches–what with the
talent, education, enthusiasm, spiritual maturity, influence, evident in
every message I read. We have the potentials to address problems like
lack of cohesion and support, anti-intellectualism, community change,
and the rest, if we have the will. Let’s pray for that vision.

En Christo,
Sze-kar

— End —

Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 16:21:51 -0500
From: Fenggang Yang
Subject: CAC_Mail: Koreans, Chinese, and denominationalism
To: cac@emwave.net

Sze-kar, Melanie, and everyone,

I trust that your experiences with Korean Christians and Chinese
Christians, especially in regard to encouraging children enter the
ministry or seminaries, are real. But why is there such a difference
between Chinese Christians and Korean Christians? Why Chinese
Christian parents are reluctant to encourage their children to enter
the ministry? Without finding the real causes, things may not be
changed.

One thing I have been contemplating /speculating is denominationalism.
In the U.S., most Korean Christians are Presbyterians and some
Methodists. A majority of them join or stay in the mainline
denominations of the Presbyterian Church (USA) and the United
Methodist Church, although some churches also formed their own Korean
Presbyterian Church denomination. But anyway, the point is: most
Korean Christians belong to a denomination. However, nearly half of
Chinese churches in the U.S. are nondenominational; many Chinese
Christians are anti-denominationalism.

So what, you may ask. Well, this may be one of the reasons why
Chinese Christians are reluctant to enter the ministry, or rather,
Chinese Christian parents are unwilling to let their loved children
get into the ministry. With insitutional support from a denomination,
young people who want to enter the ministry do not need to worry too
much about how to make a living, because the denomination has pension
plans, and would provide support in case of disputes between a pastor
and his congregants. However, in the independent churches, the pastor
often has no long term pension plan, and in case of conflict, he is
often overthrown and driven out. In other words, to be a pastor in a
Chinese church is more costly/difficult than one in a Korean church
that belongs to a denomination. Similarly, Chinese churches often
demand multilingual and multicultural capability of the pastor,
whereas homogeneous Korean churches do not have such necessity.

While denominationalism may be against Christian universalism, but
anti-denominationalism may also mean sectarianism.

Agree? disagree? Again, this is just my speculation, not based on
sound empirical research or biblical interpretation. I can be wrong
and I’m ready to change my opinions.

Fenggang
—————————————————————
Fenggang Yang, Ph.D. fyang@uh.edu
Department of Sociology http://www.uh.edu/~fyang
University of Houston 713-743-3943 (FAX)
Houston, TX 77204-3474 713-743-3973 (phone)

— End —

Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 16:38:06 -0500
From: Fenggang Yang
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: rites, rituals & customs
To: Peter Szto , Cac@emwave.net

Peter and everyone,

Because several people have shown interest in your paper, I feel a
burden to say this: I want to pay you the cost of reproduction and
mailing, and will definately accredit your work in case I cite, quote,
or otherwise use it. Meanwhile, won’t you enjoy the popularity of
your topic? 🙂 We really should have more folklore studies of
Chinese American Christian practices.

Also, if an electronic copy is convenient, please simply “attach” the
file of the paper to an email to me. That is the simplist to do, I
guess.

Thank you.

Fenggang

— End —

From: Rlfong@aol.com
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 18:16:13 -0400 (EDT)
To: fyang@uh.edu, cac@emwave.net
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Koreans, Chinese, and denominationalism

It’d be my limited observation that denominationalism alone is insufficient
as a root causation for the difference in encouraging people to enter the
ministry. While it’d might be true the Korean-American Church is more
affliated with denominationism, it is also my impression ( don’t flame me )
that the Korean American experience is more full of schism and frequent
church splitting resulting in smaller churches than the Chinese American
church; with an even more tuffer pastoral experience.

Is not the difference more atune to the differences in the amount of
immigration from the homecountry to the USA?

Ronnie Fong
Fremont CA who really should be doing work instead of replying to this thread
in the SF Bay Area

In a message dated 97-10-24 17:37:14 EDT, fenggang wrote:

<>

— End —

Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 19:32:57 -0400
From: Sze-kar Wan
To: CAC
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Koreans, Chinese, and denominationalism

Fenggang’s line of inquiry, focusing on Korean denominationalism versus
Chinese sectarianism, holds a lot of promise. I can verify it, albeit
anecdotally, with my own experience.

In 1982 after I left my home church, an independent local church, I
shopped for a denomination. I had three important criteria (in no
particular order): support (not financial, just general encouragement)
for my scholarly pursuit, one that is strong in Asia (since I was
planning to teach there), and has a Chinese congregation in the Boston
area where I lived. The first two were compIetely lacking in my home
church and were in fact responsible for much of the tension. I ended up
with the Episcopal Church, because it was (still is) strong in the first
2 areas and a new Chinese congregation was opening up in Boston. I have
been a part of that congregation ever since.

My immediate experience in the Episcopal Church was tremendous
institutional support. My scholarly pursuit was never questioned but
simply assumed. I was able almost immediately to gain access to all
sorts of national programs, all of which received me with open arms. I
participated in PAACE (see Tim’s post) as a representative of the Epis
Church; I also visited Chinese and Hong Kong seminaries and attended
Chinese theological conferences under its auspices. It and most every
mainline denomination still look for ways to enhance the Asian presence
which hitherto is predominatnly Korean; the Chinese lag far, far
behind. On the other hand, the result of becoming a mainliner is that
I’ve been virtually cut off from the majority of Chinese churches. It
is a pity, for mainline denominations have a wealth of resources, a
national and international infrastructure, the willingness to be
supportive of Asian and Chinese causes. If only Chinese Christians
weren’t so suspicious of them, there is a great deal we could do.

Fenggang’s observation probably doesn’t ultimately solve the question
why theological education has such low standing in Chinese churches, for
it merely pushes the question back one step: Why do Chinese churches
eschew mainline denominations and Korean churches don’t? That question
will take us way too far afield. But Fenggang has given us a solid
sociological context in which to understand the differences between
Korean and Chinese Christians.

En Christo,
Sze-kar

— End —

Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 19:48:53 -0400
From: Sze-kar Wan
To: CAC
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Koreans, Chinese, and denominationalism

Rlfong@aol.com wrote:
>
> … the Korean American experience is more full of schism and frequent
> church splitting resulting in smaller churches than the Chinese American
> church; with an even more tuffer pastoral experience.

Sadly, however, schism is a way of the Christian church life. From the
days of Paul’s Corinth to the Church Fathers to the split with the
Eastern Church to the Reformation to the rise of denominations to North
Am Chinese churches, it has been an unbroken string of schisms. Maybe
I’ve become jaded, but I’ve come to accept schism as a way of life. 😦

It seems to me that the real test is how we deal with differences once
we have them. Will an oligarchy deal with them in a hush-hush manner
behind closed doors? Or is there a clearly worked out, time-tested
procedure to adjudicate between the warring parties?

> Is not the difference more atune to the differences in the amount of
> immigration from the homecountry to the USA?

I think there is some truth to this. Does anyone have hard statistics
comparing Korean and Chinese immigration patterns in the last 25 yrs? I
suspect (nothing more than that) there have been more ethnic Chinese
coming into the country than Koreans, but I could be wrong.

Warmly,
Sze-kar (who should be resting instead)

— End —

To: cac@emwave.net
Subject: CAC_Mail: Asian American Church Planting Possible?
From: jro6@juno.com (Jonathan c Ro)
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 02:14:59 EDT

I want to throw out a question for all Asian American church plants.

How valid is it to start future “Asian American” churches if there isn’t
an strong identifiable “Asian American” culture in the US?

Dr. Tim Tseng’s comments are insightful and may have ramifications for
future Asian American ministries. He writes: “Asian American” is a
“political” construct created by the American government to put all the
diverse groups from Asia and the Pacific Islands into one racial
designation (this has both positive and negative features). Thus, it
should
not be confused with “cultural” characteristics usually identified with
specific national groups like Chinese, Korean, Filippino, etc. In other
words, there’s no such thing as an “Asian American” culture since this
category includes all the various immigrant cultures (this, of course,
should
be qualified since if churches like Evergreen Baptist should continue to
draw
more diverse Asians into its congregation, there is a possibility of the
formation of a distinctive Asian American culture there; also, there are
other instances of a possible Asian American culture emerging if one pays
attention to all the literature, film, and activist groups)”

Here are my thoughts: There is an identifiable White-Anglo culture.
There is an identifiable Chinese culture. There is an identifiable
Korean culture. What is an “Asian American” culture? “Asian American”
seems to be a sub-culture of two or more dominant cultures.
If that is the case, isn’t it risky to plant an exclusively “Asian
American” church? Is it worth it? Should it be attempted at all,
especially if that church plant has no denominational or mother church
support?

Any feedback? Jon

— End —

To: Cac@emwave.net
Subject: CAC_Mail: Korean, Chinese
From: ben_mel@juno.com (Benjamin C Wong)
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 03:42:44 EDT

To the pastors in CAC;

The emphasis on Biblical education can start at the churches. The church
I was at used to have a senior (high school) retreat to help prepare them
for college and to especially challenge them to consider Bible college to
be grounded in their faith.

This is not a popular focus since the concern is to get into a career to
earn a living, to become successful and 3 to 4 years in a Bible college
is a waste of time. Are our values conforming to the world?

This is not the churches’ focus because it has not been a concern nor
goal of the churches. Are the Korean churches (not just parents and
friends) giving more values to this?

Ben

PS The first senior class we took on a retreat had seven. Five went to
Bible college.

— End —

To: Cac@emwave.net
Subject: CAC_Mail: Surgeon General
From: ben_mel@juno.com (Benjamin C Wong)
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 03:42:44 EDT

Hi J. Chang:

I would be very grieved if David Satcher is approved as the surgeon
general.
Thanks for raising the issue.

In Him,
Ben

— End —

Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 09:53:41 -0500
To: acmi-network@xc.org, cac@bccn.org
From: Samuel Ling
Subject: CAC_Mail: Book offer — Essays by Christian PRC’s

BOOK OFFER — NEW BOOK OF
ESSAYS BY CHRISTIAN PRC’S

SOUL SEARCHING has just been published by China Horizon.
This is the first volume in the “Horizon Series.” SOUL SEARCHING
contains ten essays by mainland Chinese intellectuals (PRC’s)
living in the west, on the relationship betwee the Christian faith
and society, art, Chinese culture, and the future development of
Chinese institutions. These are thoughtful pieces which come from
the depths of their minds and souls. I wrote an introductory
chapter tracing the historical context to help the reader understand
the tremendous significance of PRC’s and PRC ministry today.

China Horizon is offering this volume free to any international
student ministry worker or Asian American church leader.
Please request your copy BY (SNAIL)MAIL to:
China Horizon, POBox 40399, Pasadena, CA 91114.
Just give your name, address, and with whom/where you serve. We will
send your copy by return mail.

Keep in mind the costs of production of this book. Donations of
any amount are appreciated, but are NOT required in order to
receive your book. Ask for it by title: SOUL SEARCHING.
(The cost for producing this book is stated on the copyright page
of the book.)

Samuel Ling, General Director
China Horizon
PO Box 40399, Pasadena, CA 91114
Office located at:
1605 E. Elizabeth, Pasadena, CA 91105
(626) 296-7615 FAX (626) 296-7616

— End —

Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 12:41:27 -0500
To: cac@bccn.org
From: Gregory Jao
Subject: CAC_Mail: Koreans, denominationalism, etc.

While denominational affiliations may play a part in the Korean reverence
for the pastorate, I think we need to look at Korean church history as well.
According to Peter Cha, seminary was one of the few options available to
Koreans desiring graduate/professional training during the Japanese
occupation. Most other colleges and graduate schools were closed. As a
result, the best and brightest students ended up going to seminary. In
effect, the pastorate became the only “prestige” career available to
families who valued education. Peter suggests that the Korean reverence and
respect for the pastorate stems (in Korean and among immigrant churches)
from this socio-historical context.

(Incidentally I think this history also explains, in part, why pastors more
thoroughly dominate the life and thought of their churches than many Chinese
pastors do. Ambitious people had to go somewhere. And it may explain the
fuller expression of the “gift of schism” among our Korean cousins. Nearly
every Korean student I’ve met has been through at least one (if not two)
church splits. While schism is part and parcel of our falled church life, I
think the Koreans exerience it more often.)

Anecdotally, we’re finding increasing resistence to the pastorate as a
valued career option for second generation kids on campus. The pastorate
may have been a favored career for older 2d generation folk (i.e., around
the later twenties and above), but I’m not seeing the same excitement
for/among the younger folk. The esteem for the pastorate is dropping–both
among the first generation and the second.

Greg Jao

— End —

To: cac@emwave.net
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 12:02:13 -0600
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Asian American Church Planting Possible?
From: gdot@juno.com (G Ottoson)

On Sat, 25 Oct 1997 02:14:59 EDT jro6@juno.com (Jonathan c Ro) writes:
>I want to throw out a question for all Asian American church plants…
>[Dr.Tseng:] “Asian American” is a “political” construct created by the
American >government…
>Any feedback? Jon

Jon, Friends, One crucial point here, feel free to disagree, is that the
government is part of the ‘system’. (Thinking about Jonah once again) At
this point of history our government _per se_ is ‘systematized’. It is
like a poor, barefoot, and pregnant mistress at the beck and call of
corporations.

E.g. When it comes to immigration, the corporate leaders are frantic for
cheap labor here. (This hurts the laborers already in place, who want
full-time jobs w/benefits, etc.) When it comes to showing commensurate
appreciation, i.e. cultural/economic acceptance (forget ‘inclusion’) of
new immigrant labor, corporations (inc their old labor, unions) say to
the gov’t (mistress), in effect, ‘go have an abortion’, don’t bother ‘me
with additional housekeeping matters’. What can she do? She is so far ‘in
bed’ and in debt (by design, I think) that the corporations OWN her.

The key cultural idea in this scenario is that America is a ‘corporation
culture’ because it is ‘corporation’s culture’. ‘Government of, by, and
for (ALL) the people’ is being dismantled.

IMHO, This corp.culture is organized like a big department store where
‘Asian American’ (and for that matter, ‘Swedish American’) is not a
people. AA in particular now is an unreal place, a ‘dept.’ which exists
to enable (white) negotiators to avoid the nomenclature like
‘miscellaneous’ or ‘other workers’; i.e., to avoid the appearance of
(immigrant) worker abuse which, in reality, they are lying about.

Then, when, e.g., the Chinese Prime Minister comes to visit ‘the store’,
to sing, dance, and shop, these corporate leaders can tell him there is a
cool ‘place’ for all Asian ‘people’ here. ‘Wanna see it?’ The prime
minister may say, ‘Well, I’d actually like to shop in the Chinese
department’. ‘OK,then, let’s go there’–and, there, he can buy, e.g. a
beautiful silk tie made (by prisoners?) in China or an Elvis CD–all the
same stuff. He would (and will!) be doing exactly what corporate culture
wants him (and all 1.6 billion Chinese people) to do–on NBC–shop at the
American store…

Except, that what he is also feeling (a contempt, perhaps, which bodes of
major war someday) is the pressure that the whole of China (partic it’s
booming economy) may/will be annexed to (systematically swallowed by)
‘the store’.

Enough on this (speculation? You can decide), but on one other, not
unrelated theme, Sze-kar’s idea that the Reformation is of a piece with
the (Church) history of schism:

Though not a scholar so I could offer a paper to mail or transmit, I
still wonder in public (like you have done, thanks, Brother Jon) whether
the genius of the Reformation lies in the fact that fractured/fragmented
Euro-culture/cultures United.

Isn’t ‘unity’ at the crux of the current issue facing yourselves, Jon,
and your (our:) leaders like Tim, Fenggang, Sze-kar, Grace, Sam, Garrick,
Stephen, et. al…

I wonder if there was a common enemy which Luther and his friends figured
out how (to get people) to see (correctly)?

What an accomplishment, (if) they all ‘saw’ something clearly..and
acted…Yes, the Church split, but that was not the goal–to split…

Years later, when the common enemy was no longer common or in correct
focus, the Reformation churches (re-)splintered back to a new form of the
pre-Reformation condition…

Is this the (current) condition, perhaps, in which Germans hate French,
Swedes mock the Norwegians and English, etc. (while Euro-economy
consolidates/universalizes)..and perhaps in which (denominational)
Koreans fight (anti-denominational) Chinese, vice versa…(while
corporate Amerca instigates, expands)?

Again, this would be the condition in which OUR common enemy is out of
focus.

Perhaps Brother Ben touch on it today when he asked ‘Are our values
conforming to the world?’ I might add this dimension: Are WE presently
departmentalized and further departmentalizing OURSELVES into oblivion?
Can we clearly see that WE (each other) are not the real enemy?

Bro. G

— End —

Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 18:29:03 -0700
From: Ken Fong
Organization: Evergreen Baptist Church
To: MChowAACF@aol.com
CC: wans@monet.bc.edu, owner-cac@emwave.net, cac@emwave.net
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Faith and Scholarship

my k-a christian friends now tell me that that parental attitude has
changed to be more like the chinese, i.e., “don’t become a pastor. too
many hours, not enough pay.”

ken fong

— End —

Date: Sat, 25 Oct 1997 18:47:07 -0700
From: Ken Fong
Organization: Evergreen Baptist Church
To: Fenggang Yang
CC: cac@emwave.net
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Koreans, Chinese, and denominationalism

Fenggang,

I find your theory quite persuasive. I too have observed that our KA
brethren are much more comfy in mainline denom’s and in seminaries of
all stripes. Not so for our CA brethren, who seem to have a penchant
for independence. just validating your theory.

ken fong

— End —

To: cac@emwave.net
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 00:30:21 -0400
Subject: CAC_Mail: Religious Freedom in Public Schools
From: jtc10@juno.com (J Chang)

Dear CACers:

FYI. For all concerned students and parents of students:

In Him,
J. Chang
—————————————————————————
RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS:
IS YOUR SCHOOL STILL IN THE DARK?

“It appears that some school officials, teachers and parents
have assumed that religious expression of any type is either
inappropriate, or forbidden altogether, in public schools,”
President Bill Clinton accurately observed in a July 12,
1995 memo to the U.S. Secretary of Education. “As our
courts have reaffirmed, however, nothing in the First
Amendment converts our public schools into religion-free
zones, or requires all religious expression to be left
behind at the schoolhouse door.”

The president’s memo went on to elaborate on religious
freedoms in public schools, as listed below. This directive
was mailed to school districts across the country, yet a
climate of intimidation toward religion still pervades many
public school campuses. Familiarize yourself and your
public school officials with the guidelines to make sure
public schools do not become “religion-free zones”:

Student prayer and religious discussion: Student religious
expression is allowable in school settings to the extent
that other types of expression are permissible. Students
may read their Bibles and pray before meals or tests to the
same extent they may engage in comparable non-disruptive
activities. In informal settings such as hallways and
cafeterias, students may pray together, read their Bibles,
discuss religious issues, and even try to persuade their
peers of their religious beliefs as they would their
political views.

Please see for an expanded summary of the
following topics:

Graduation prayer and baccalaureates:
Official neutrality regarding religious activity:
Teaching about religion:
Student assignments:
Distribution of religious literature:
Religious excusals:
Released time:
Teaching values:
Student dress:
The Equal Access Act:

Schools receiving federal funds must comply with the Equal
Access Act, which allows student religious groups the same
access to public school facilities as is afforded to other
non-curriculum-related student groups.

ACTION: Does your public school respect the rights of
religious students? If not, tell school officials about
these guidelines on religious freedom in public schools.
Family Research Council is interested in the status of
religious freedom in public schools. If someone you know
has experienced religious discrimination in a public school,
please contact Family Research Council by mail, fax, or
e-mail. Please include the designation “RE: Religious
Freedom in Public Schools.”

——— End forwarded message ———-

— End —

To: cac@emwave.net
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 01:30:23 -0400
Subject: CAC_Mail: Ed Facts -From Family Research Council- 10/24/97
From: jtc10@juno.com (J Chang)

Dear CACers:

Since the topic of cultural attitudes towards Christian
education/Bible school/college has come up, this may
be especially relevant for parents with school-aged
children. This deals with a very practical aspect of it:
the financial side. Could the Body of Christ/Christian
parents/children benefit from such legislation? Perhaps
eventually, and indirectly, helping to change such attitudinal
barriers by lowering some of the upfront monetary
educational expenses facing Christian parents today?

In Him,
J. Chang
————————————————————–

HOUSE VOTES TO PASS A+ EDUCATION ACCOUNTS

The House voted Oct. 23 (230-198) to pass the A+ Education
Savings Accounts bill. The House defeated a substitute
amendment offered by Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) to give $4
billion to school construction instead of the Education
Accounts. The Senate plans to vote on the House bill in the
next week or two. Sen. Paul Coverdell (R-Ga.), sponsor of the
original “Coverdell Amendment” on education accounts, is
working to defeat an anticipated filibuster in opposition to
the bill.

TALKING POINTS:

* Any relative or business could contribute up to $2,500 in
annual contributions per child.
* Accounts would accrue tax-free interest, so the first
dollars are already taxed.
* Money could be used for ANY school — public, private,
parochial or home school.
* The Congressional Joint Tax Committee estimates that 75
percent of the accounts will be used for public school
children.
* The bill expands the allowable use of education savings
accounts, or education IRAs, beyond college provisions that
were signed into law by President Clinton.
* Money could be used for virtually any education-related
expense, whether it be tutoring fees, school uniform costs,
or children with special needs.

ACTION: Please contact these SENATE targets: *Joseph Biden
(D-Del.), Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), John Chafee (R-R.I.), Susan
Collins (R-Maine), *Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), James Jeffords
(R-Vt.), *Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Paul
Sarbanes (D-Md.), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine). * indicates a
previous vote in support of the Coverdell Education Accounts.
Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121

SCHOLARSHIPS TO “H.E.L.P.” LOW-INCOME STUDENTS

Representatives Jim Talent (R-Mo.), J.C. Watts (R-Okla.),
Floyd Flake (D-N.Y.), and Frank Riggs (R-Calif.) introduced
legislation titled the H.E.L.P. Scholarship Act geared toward
Helping Empower Low-Income Parents. This legislation provides
for scholarships for students whose families are at or below
185 percent of the poverty rate. The funds could be used to
cover the cost of tuition at any public, private, or religious
school located in an impoverished neighborhood. This provision
would be implemented by allowing the use of existing federal
funds in Title VI to provide for the scholarships. The House
anticipates a floor vote during the week of Oct. 27.

— End —

To: jtc10@juno.com
Cc: cac@emwave.net
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Press Release – Surgeon General Nominee
From: drwong1@juno.com (Richard L Wong)
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 02:42:28 EST

While I share your concerns about Dr. Satcher’s views, I’m also a little
concerned about the views of another individual going through the Senate
confirmation process, i.e. Bill Lann Lee, President Clinton’s nominee to
serve as the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. While some
Asian-Americans support his nomination, others have spoken out in
opposition. I guess the Asian-American community isn’t as unified as the
outside world makes it out to be!

Richard Wong
Arlington, VA

On Fri, 24 Oct 1997 01:10:21 -0400 jtc10@juno.com (J Chang) writes:
>Are there other CACers who hold similar or different views regarding
>this issue?

— End —

From: “DJ Chuang”
Organization: Ambassador Bible Church
To: cac@emwave.net
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 23:38:10 -0500
Subject: CAC_Mail: Asian American Church Planting Possible?

——- Forwarded Message Follows ——-
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 01:01:10 -0500
From: Peter Huang
To: Jonathan c Ro
Cc: CAC

i want to address some of the issues that Jonathan mentioned in his last
email about Asian American culture. My name is Peter Huang and I’m on
staff at Evergreen Baptist Church as the Ministry Associate of Small Groups
Ministries. I have been a web “lurker” (someone who reads but not comments –
I heard this term from Jeanette Yip via Ken Fong) of CAC for quite some time –
since it’s beginning, I believe. Anyway, I haven’t kept up with the past 50
or so messages so if I’ve missed some discussion from recent exchanges, please
do excuse me.

The question at hand is whether an Asian American culture exists. I
believe it does, although it may be difficult to quantify it for now.
Whether or not it can be defined independently of Chinese, Philippino,
Korean, Japanese or Vietnamese American culture, I can’t say for sure right
now. But one thing I do know for sure – as Asians become more acculturated –
inherently due to being here for many generations, there is a loss of original
ethnic culture and the acquisition of the mainstream culture. Many 3rd or 4th
generation Asians at our church do not speak any or much Chinese or Japanese.
But this does not also mean that they are apple-pie Americans either. There
is an identity that they assume as being part of a larger identity of looking
like other Asians and perhaps sharing some residual Confucian and other Asian
values. Part of what they share is also a common heritage of being different,
being discriminated against, being somewhat marginal, being unable to
completely assimilate as hard as they might try. I’m sure there’s more. Even
as I am having difficulty articulating what an Asian American culture looks
like, I know for sure that with demographic trends, there is and WILL be an
Asian American culture distinct from other ethnic-Asian-specific cultures.
Perhaps it is also more apparent in Southern Cal. Other people wanna jump in
and help me identify some specifics?

With certain Asian ethnicities whose numbers are continuing to grow due to
immigration, there will always be the first generation to uphold the Chinese
or Korean or Philippino or Asian Indian culture. However, even within these
groups, the new generations are growing up or have grown up with other Asian
Americans. Their perception of being Asian and being Asian American is very
different from the first generation who still have memories and understandings
of being the majority culture and having loyalties towards their traditions.
Being Asian American may mean something very different to the 2nd, 3rd, and
4th generations. In our post-modern college environment, Asian American
college students are finding Asian Americans from other ethnicities to be
their best friends, future spouses, fraternity brothers, sorority sisters,
etc. Although I am still trying to articulate what exactly this culture is,
the gist of it is that there is a culture that is a blend of whatever the
participants bring to contribute. Perhaps, this is why it’s difficult to
describe it. Evergreen happens to be primarily Japanese and Chinese American;
but we are also seeing our Asian Americanness change as new people have
contributed to who we are. I am sure that if Evergreen had been Chinese and
Philippino American, our Asian American culture would look different too.

Asian American culture is/will be reflected in who our children will be
(or already are). Asian Americans have a high incidence of marrying other
Asian Americans (other ethnicity). What then will be the culture of the
children of interethnic (vs. interracial) marriages? Some would say that they
have the best of both worlds. But is that really true? Yes to a certain
extent. But with the difficulty already of each person maintaining the
culture that they bring into a marriage, it is even more difficult for the
children to maintain the best of both worlds. The likelihood of the parents
as well as the children maintaining both cultures is low. The easier thing to
do may be to synthesize their own culture with people who are like them –
other Asian Americans who are dealing with similar issues.

One last note: recently a bunch of us went to see the movie “My America –
Honk if You Love Buddha,” a documentary on the lives of Asian Americans
produced by Rene Tashima-Pena (a great film – probably on its way to PBS –
keep your eye out for it). I was particularly fascinated by the
producer/narrator’s concluding words – that what she ultimately realized in
her attempt to discover her identity as an Asian American by traveling
throughout America to find stories of Asian Americans, was that she had
realized that she in fact had grown up not in America but in Asian America.
Quite fascinating, I thought. What do you think?

P.S. What is the Anglo-American culture?

— End —

From: MChowAACF@aol.com
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 01:02:36 -0500 (EST)
To: djchuang@cheerful.com, owner-cac@emwave.net, cac@emwave.net
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Asian American Church Planting Possible?

Thanks Peter…for those of you who don’t know…Peter and I have been
working together a lot at Evergreen…Peter is the staffer and I’m the lay
person responsible for small group and discipleship ministries at Evergreen,
though I’m in full-time ministry (well, 3/4 time being a new mom and all) in
the parachurch arena in campus ministry.

Anyways, as there continues to be more interAsian marriages among the latter
generations of Asians in America, there will be the product of those
marriages, those like me (3/4 Chinese, 1/4 Japanese American) that for lack
of having to continually identify my Asian ethnicity, I found it easier,
especially for my age grouping to call myself an Asian American. Believe it
or not , being at Evergreen, is the first time in my life that I have one
less step to explain (or defend – yes there has been some negativism toward
my mixed ancestry in past – but praise God I have overcome my frustration)
regarding my identity.

Being a new mom, I haven’t seen a movie in a theater so I look forward to
your recommendation…but yes, that does ring true that there is for Asian
Americans a shelteredness to our identity mixing with others…a step in the
forward direction for racial reconciliation within the Asian arena, and then
the next step to the other cultures?

Melanie Mar Chow

— End —

Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 23:06:40 -0800
From: Ken Fong
Organization: Evergreen Baptist Church
To: MChowAACF@aol.com
CC: djchuang@cheerful.com, owner-cac@emwave.net, cac@emwave.net
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Asian American Church Planting Possible?

Just as the Chinese, Pilipino, Japanese and Korean sugar cane laborers
in old Hawaii learned to appreciate one another’s lunches–and thereby
invented the now legendary “plate lunch” or “mixed plate”–I believe
there is tremendous potential for the Spirit to create a ‘new plate
lunch’ these days, esp. as more of our more progressive mixed AsiAm
churches move towards Multi-ethnicity. Of course, depending on the
actual makeup of the congregation and surrounding communities plus the
geographical location, each ‘plate lunch’ will have a distinctive flavor
and mix.

Evergreen-LA, for example, with its unusual mix of Chinese, Japanese,
Korean, Vietnamese, Pilipino, Polynesian, Portugese, Indonesian, Thai,
Burmese, Mexican, Anglo, East Indian, African American and biracial will
potentially produce a very unique plate lunch. however, we’re just
beginning to appreciate that this ‘plate lunch’ will not come together
all on its own. It will need wise and representative guidance. We may
form a multicultural council to oversee this emergence. In an
increasingly balkanized society, we believe that the church more than
ever before needs to be a demonstration of the unifying power of Jesus.
Interestingly enough, many of the Americanized AsiAms that we’ve
‘targeted’ for many years are apparently drawn to this kind of
movement. So for those who feel that this evolutionary step means
abandoning the evangelization of AAAs, I say “not necessarily; might be
just the opposite.” ’nuff said.

time for bed.

ken fong
sr. pastor
Evergreen Bapt. of LA
Rosemead, CA

— End —

Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 00:13:19 -0800
From: ohbrudder
To: CAC
Subject: CAC_Mail: WORD AND WORKS

Ken Fong wrote:
> but when confronted with unmistakable brethren who had
> that gift, I felt compelled to alter my theology rather than write off
> these brethren as not truly Christian bc their power source wasn’t the
> Spirit.

appears to be a humble person with a teachable spirit . . .
God can use more of such character.

bill leong

— End —

From: TSTseng@aol.com
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 11:15:45 -0500 (EST)
cc: cac@emwave.net
Subject: Re: Re: CAC_Mail: Press Release – Surgeon General Nominee

Richard:

Could you elaborate on your point here re: Bill Lann Lee? I’ve not followed
this story very closely, but in general, I’ve had positive feelings about
Lee’s appointment. Since the Reagan “revolution” started the current
“retreat” from Civil Rights (the burden of proof in demonstrating racial or
other forms of discrimination has shifted away from corporations and
institutions – i.e., plaintiffs now have to shoulder most of it; furthermore,
disparate impact no longer holds sway – which means that plaintiffs now have
to prove that an institution “intended” to discriminate – easier said than
done), it has become more and more difficult to protect those discriminated
against. So, one with Lee’s background and training may help all who are
discriminated against.

If you are concerned about his views regarding gays/lesbians, abortion, etc.
(which I confess ignorance), then elaborate on that.

I’ve appreciated receiving Family Research Council materials, but I want to
hear more reasons why these perspectives are Christian or biblical. Why are
those who are political conservatives on this list so quiet about sharing
their reasons for supporting such positions?

Incidently, I watched a “Firing Line” debate on Friday in which William
Buckley skewered Gary Bauer on the China trade question. I’m no fan of
Buckley, but what this debate demonstrated was how some conservatives are so
eager to get into a “witch-hunt” with regards to China. Suddenly, China was
portrayed as an enemy to American values and a real threat to American
virtue. And, brothers and sisters, if we stand with those who are willing to
demonize China (even if we dislike China’s human rights violations and
persecution of Christians), we may unlease (if we haven’t already) a
witch-hunt against Asian Americans. [I wonder what that new Richard Gere
movie is all about?]

Tim

In a message dated 10/27/97 1:57:58 AM, drwong1@juno.com wrote:

<>

————————————————————
Rev. Dr. Timothy Tseng
Sallie Knowles Crozer Assistant Professor of American Religious History
Colgate-Rochester Divinity School
1100 South Goodman Street
Rochester, NY 14620
OFF: (716) 271-1320, ext. 260
FAX: (716) 271-8013
Email: tstseng@aol.com
————————————————————

— End —

To: cac@emwave.net
Subject: CAC_Mail: Asian American church planting possible? The wrong question.
From: jro6@juno.com (Jonathan c Ro)
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 19:17:18 EST

Thanks Peter, Ken, Melanie for your contributions.
I apologize for posing a question that went in a direction that I
hadn’t intended on going. I also agree with you that an Asian American
culture or “subculture” does exists and it is definitely growing,
especially in Cal. In fact, I would also consider myself “Asian
American.” I’m half Korean, half Chinese. I was born in America and
raised in Taiwan as a missionary kid. My father is a Korean (Born in
Korea, educated in the US). My mother is an ABC (5th generation from
Hawaii). The term “Chinese/Korean American” is too long for me. So I’d
rather be called “Asian American.” I guess I was intrigued by Dr. Tseng’s
statement about how the term ‘Asian American’ was created. He said the
term “was a ‘political’ construct created by the American government to
put all the diverse groups from Asia and the Pacific Islands into one
racial.”
I also applaud the efforts of Evergreen and other churches who
are actively reaching unchurched Asian Americans. I think more churches
like them are needed. The question I’m more interested in is how are we
going to plant these churches so that they will prevail.
What I’m asking more specifically is this: how realistic it is to
start future AA church plants without denominational or a mother church
support if the target group is not a dominant culture such as American,
Korean, Chinese, but a “sub-culture” of several dominant cultures?
And even more importantly, how then should these churches be
started?
Would it be better to start with AAs and move toward multi-cultural or to
start with a multi-cultural church reflecting its diverse community? Or
maybe both are needed.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of either way? What kind of
unchurched AAs would be more attracted to an AA church? What kind of AAs
would be more attracted to a community church?

Your feedback…

Jon

— End —

Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 18:23:18 -0500
From: Sze-kar Wan
To: CAC
Subject: CAC_Mail: Women and Ministry

Dear CACers:

I wrote a long discussion on 1 Cor 11.2-16 (10K); here is a synopsis of
my arguments. Write me if you are interested in the long version.

Assumption: The Bible is not like a computer manual. It’s not enough to
say the Bible is the word of God; we must also ask IN WHAT SENSE?

(a) The issue confronting Paul here is proper attires…. Whatever we
think of the meaning of “head” in this passage, we must realize that it
is used to buttress a cultural practice which we no longer hold and
which is NOT essential to AA spirituality. But I wholeheartedly embrace
Paul’s underlying concern in this passage, which is not to misuse our
freedom so as to cause others to stumble. One should consider giving up
inappropriate dress if it scandalizes others. At work is Paul’s
body-principle (1 Cor 12-14).

(b) 11.3-10: Paul does seem to establish a hierarchy:
God-Christ-husband-wife. No matter what one thinks of _kephale_, Paul
is very clear that God is the head of Christ, Christ is head of
Adam/man, man/husband is the head of woman/wife (v. 3)….

(c) 11.11-12: As soon he has established this hierarchy, however, Paul
immediately follows with an important qualifier in vv. 11-12. The
gender-hierarchy is based on creation. But “in the Lord” (=“in
Christ”), “neither is man without woman nor is woman without man” (v.
11)…. What this amounts to is a massive exception… or, better, a
new situation made possible “in the Lord.”

(d) Points (b) and (c) together give us a rather confused Paul. Quite
prepared to uphold the new gender-egalitarianism found in the Lord, Paul
is nevertheless aware of the problems it creates. Freedom in the Lord
evidently had caused the Corinthian women to flout the Corinthian
headdress customs (whatever they be), and the results of reversing what
to the Corinthians were gender-specific attires challenged Paul’s
cultural sensibilities. I propose that Paul answers the challenge in
kind–using tools available to him from culture, specifically the Jewish
culture and popular Stoicism. All the while, however, such cultural
argumentation is NEVER intended to replace gender-egalitarianism.

(e) The Stoic argument: The argument from “nature” in vv. 14-15… comes
from popular Stoicism and is one most of us do not buy…. One can
legitimately reject Paul’s actual argument here–even as one embraces
his underlying concern.

(f) The Jewish argument: The whole argument from Jewish scripture in
vv. 4-10 is also a cultural argument. It is parallel in structure to
the Stoic argument. It is also called “tradition” in v. 2. (discussion
of lexical data follows.)

(g) Conclusion: Paul struggles between upholding gender-egalitarianism
and maintaining gender distinction. As a product of 1st-cent
patri-archalism Paul uses the commonly held assumption that man is the
head of the woman to settle a question of clothing custom. As soon as
he does, however, he runs up against gender-egalitarianism which defines
our new existence as a body in the Lord. At the end, he thinks that
equality in status should not blur the distinction between men and
women. My own appropriation? Though endorsr Paul’s concern with gender
distinction, I also question the arguments he uses to advance his point.

I don’t want to trigger another round of unsubscription. More on my
continual exploration later if there’s still interest.

Respectfully en Christo,
Sze-kar

— End —

To: cac@emwave.net
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 19:58:09 -0500
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: China Trade Debate
From: jtc10@juno.com (J Chang)

Dear Tim:

I appreciate your well-articulated views on many of the issues you touch
upon.
God has certainly gifted you with the ability to write well.

I also had the opportunity to watch the “Firing Line” debates regarding
trade with China. Before I listened to the program, I didn’t have strong
views
either way. However, after hearing the arguments on both sides, I came
away leaning towards the position of restricting trade with China.

Some of the arguments I heard for maintaining trade with China:

1) Help to keep the channels of communication open through diplomatic
exchange,
dialogue, trade, student exchanges, scientific cooperation, etc. and
thereby help China to see the positives of democracy, religious freedom,
etc.

2) China is improving its human rights record, allowing for people in
some
villages the freedom to vote.

3) China is THE major economic superpower in the region. Any US trade
restrictions simply won’t work. China will just continue its trade with
other
countries.

4) We can’t isolate China in this modern era; other countries are not
following the footsteps of the US & fill in the vacuum.

5) Why restrict China’s trade only; why not also other countries with
similar
human rights abuses like Saudi Arabia/Sudan? And if not these other
countries
then we shouldn’t limit China’s trade.

6) Having a unilateral US trade restriction will only hurt the US
economic interests
and not China.

7) China has a long history of many thousands of years; any attempts to
improve
or change China will take time; we must be patient.

8) Any US trade restrictions will only be symbolic in nature and will
not be of much
substantive significance.

9) We are demonizing China on a “witch-hunt” and Asian-Americans may
suffer further
discrimination. [reason given via email]

Some of the counter-arguments I heard in favor of limiting trade:

1) We’ve already been regularly granting China MFN trade status and
continuing
all types of trading, diplomatic exchanges, etc. with little or no
improvement in
human rights abuses.

2) Human rights abuses have worsened since the 1989 Tianmen massacre.
Student democracy protesters have either been executed, jailed, or
exiled. The
People’s Liberation Army (PLA) runs slave labor camps which exports its
products
to the US. Christian pastors and believers are being persecuted for
their religious
faith, going to jail, being executed/tortured, losing work/community
privileges, etc.
Women who are pregnant with more than one child are forced to undergo
abortions
and/or sterilizations. A 1996 State Dept. report on religious
persecution documented
flagrant human rights abuses by the Chinese government, naming China as
among
one of the worse in the world.

3) We cannot elevate money above freedom, commerce above human rights,
or
the rule of trade above the law of justice. There must be a linkage of
human rights
progress with trade privileges. America was built on the foundation of
religious
values and freedoms.

4) US receives about 30% of China’s exports, not an insignificant
amount. Other
countries may fill in part or all of the trade vacuum but the symbolism
is just as
substantive. The US must exert its international leadership where it
can, even if
no follows in the short or long run. US trade with South Africa was
previously
restricted over the issue of apartheid. Trade with Cuba is being
restricted.

5) The US should be consistent in applying its trade restrictions across
the board.
Saudi Arabia and Sudan should be subject to the same limitations if
necessary.

6) It has been 8 years since the Tiananmen killings. The present policy
of
gentle persuasion & gradual engagement has not helped at all. In fact,
it has
gotten worse. Imagine being a pastor jailed because of one’s faith,
imagine
being a woman forced to have an abortion, how patient would one be in
praying
for the Chinese government to change its ways?

7) Holding the perspective of advocating trade restrictions with China
should not be
interpreted as an attempt to “demonize” China in a “witch-hunt.” One can
have a deep
love for China, her culture, and her people and still be in favor of
limiting China’s trade
with the US. Regarding the point about how this might overflow into more
discrimination
against Asian-Americans: the Chinese in China are enduring a much more
severe
situation and do not have freedom to publicly voice political dissent.
At least in the US,
there are more opportunities & more advocates to speak out and fight
against such
discrimination/”persecution.”

This is not an exhaustive list of the arguments on both sides. However.
when the debates
ended, I felt the trade limitation side gave more compelling arguments in
its favor. Perhaps
you or others can add more to points I may have missed. Did anybody else
get a chance to
watch the debate? Please join the discourse even if you haven’t.

In Him,
J. Chang

— End —

From: TSTseng@aol.com
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 02:31:14 -0500 (EST)
To: cac@emwave.net
Subject: Re: Re: CAC_Mail: China Trade Debate

Hi J. Chang:

Thank you for detailing the Firing Line debate! I didn’t have the time to
describe all the issues as well as you did.

I want to also clarify what I meant when I said that Buckley “skewered” Bauer
– it was at that point in the debate when Buckley asked Bauer why he did not
apply the same criteria to Saudi Arabia. Bauer paused, realizing that
pragmatic issues and American national “interests,” in this case, superceded
his call for human rights. To be consistent, he would have to call for
restriction of trade with or removal of Most Favored Nation status from Saudi
Arabia as well. IMHO, this begged the question – why pick on China at this
point?

Three other observations about the debate:

1. I was not clear what Bauer’s team was advocating (perhaps I missed it):
cessation of all trade with China (i.e., removal of MFN status) or limitating
trade strategically. The proposal Buckley laid on the table was in favor of
continuation of trade with China, but it was clear that the “realists” on his
side (including Kissinger, Sen. Trent Lott, and a CEO from Netscape) were
willing to engage in targeted trade restrictions so long as the policy of
engagement was pursued.

2. I disliked Ariana Huffington’s attacks on Kissinger’s motives (i.e.,
Kissinger had investments in China which would be affected by interruptions
of trade). While what she said was probably true, the shrill “witch-hunting”
ad hominems, IMHO, was out of order.

3. Clearly the debate was framed within a politically conservative context.
Former Gov. Jerry Brown should never have accepted the invitation to
participate in the debate since it was clear that Buckley only invited him to
trash him. Nor did Brown pursue his case with any real substance.

My own assessment of the matter: Don’t use the “trump card” so quickly,
i.e., don’t threaten China with the removal of MFN status so publically or so
soon. There are other ways to “skin a cat” – take advantage of President
Jiang’s visit, talk about these matters less publically, use targeted trade
restriction strategies. So long as we do not give China an excuse to accuse
Americans and American Christians of hypocrisy and hegemonic motives,
opportunities for change will continue. The American record in China and our
own internal problems have not escaped the eyes of the Chinese leaders. So
if we seek to call China to accountability before the entire world, we can
only do it in league with other nations.

Related to this is my reservations about American Christians speaking up at
this time against religious persecution worldwide – not so much because I
deny their existence, but because American Christians so easily forget their
history of cultural imperialism and collaboration with colonialists. Thus,
all our protests in support of our persecuted brothers and sisters in other
nations must, I repeat, must begin with CONFESSION of our guilt and sin in
the past and present. It always helps to take the log out of our own eyes
before we take the log out of our brothers, sisters, or neighbors’.

Thanks, again. And like you, I hope to hear from others, too.

Tim Tseng

————————————————————
Rev. Dr. Timothy Tseng
Sallie Knowles Crozer Assistant Professor of American Religious History
Colgate-Rochester Divinity School
1100 South Goodman Street
Rochester, NY 14620
OFF: (716) 271-1320, ext. 260
FAX: (716) 271-8013
Email: tstseng@aol.com
————————————————————

— End —

From: TSTseng@aol.com
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 03:03:19 -0500 (EST)
To: cac@emwave.net
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Asian American church planting possible? The wrong question.

Hi Jon!

Thanks for clarification! I also do not want to give the impression that the
more politicized origins of the term “Asian American” meant that we should
ignore Asian American churches or the emerging Asian American cultures.

I think your “intrigue” begs the question about whether something that is a
“political construct” is real or not – am I correct? If so, then I would say
that constructs, whether social or political, may not refer to social
reality, but they impact social reality significantly. E.g., while there
really is no biological basis for racial differences, the social impact of
racism has real life and death ramifications. So, even though the term
“Asian Pacific American” is ascriptive (i.e., imposed upon us), it has a real
impact on the way we are perceived and treated.

The question then is one of strategy: Should we “Asian Americans” (who are
involuntarily affected by the label) overcome the stereotypes and
discrimination by virtue of individual heroism (pulling ourselves up by the bo
otstraps) or by organizing as an Asian American constituency, power block,
etc.? Should ethnic groups within the “asian american” umbrella pursue their
own interests or work in coalition with other Asian ethnic groups? Asian
Americans from different ethnic Asian backgrounds and pan-Asian churches like
Evergreen will likely lead the way in addressing these questions.

All the best,
Tim

In a message dated 10/27/97 10:41:03 PM, jro6@juno.com (Jonathan c Ro) wrote:

<>

————————————————————
Rev. Dr. Timothy Tseng
Sallie Knowles Crozer Assistant Professor of American Religious History
Colgate-Rochester Divinity School
1100 South Goodman Street
Rochester, NY 14620
OFF: (716) 271-1320, ext. 260
FAX: (716) 271-8013
Email: tstseng@aol.com
————————————————————

— End —

From: TSTseng@aol.com
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 03:08:57 -0500 (EST)
To: cac@emwave.net
Subject: CAC_Mail: BOOK ANNOUNCEMENT

Dear CACers:
FYI, Tim

========= BOOK ANNOUNCEMENT ===========

The Japanese Canadian Christian Churches Historical Project is pleased to
announce the publication of the book _The Ministry to the Hopelessly
Hopeless_.

_The Ministry to the Hopelessly Hopeless: Japanese Canadian Evacuees and
Churches During World War II_

This text draws on archival sources across the country, focusing on the
critical nature of the support that churches provided. The churches promoted
assimilation as its anti-racism strategy. It supported the gathering of
church workers to empower the people, and it followed the evacuees east of
the Rockies when the “ghost towns” were closed.

The title is drawn from a study of the evacuated Japanese Canadians in 1944
by the Rev. K. Shimizu. The “Preface” is written by Dr. May Komiyama
Vancouver, B.C. An invocation for Canada by a high school student in the
Tashme Relocation Centre was written by Mr. Victor Kadonaga Hamilton, Ont. A
reflective Postscript is by Miss Grace Tucker Richmond, B.C.

The Rev. Dr. Roland M. Kawano is the editor of all the archival research
material along with contributions from fellow clergy The Rev. Harold Aihara,
The Rev. Shinji Kawano, and Pastor Stan Yokota. The cover design is by Mr.
Peter Ito.

_The Ministry to the Hopelessly Hopeless_ is available for $17.50 each plus
$3.50 for postage/handling ($1.50 for each additional book). Please make
checks payable to JCCCHP. Send request and check to:

Pastor Stan Yokota
50 Regency Square
Scarborough, Ontario M1E 1N4
Canada
(416) 265-3386

Reserve your copy today!

Also, look for these forthcoming titles:

_The Rev. Francis Wm. Cassillis-Kennedy: Elder to the Japanese Canadians_ and
_A History of Japanese Congregations in the United Church of Canada_.

The JCCCHP is supported by:
The Toronto Japanese Christian Interchurch Council
The National Japanese United Church Conference
The United Church Division of Mission in Canada
The Japanese Canadian Evangelical Christian Society
The Anglican Province of British Columbia
The Anglican Foundation
The Canadian Japanese Redress Foundation

————————————————————
Rev. Dr. Timothy Tseng
Sallie Knowles Crozer Assistant Professor of American Religious History
Colgate-Rochester Divinity School
1100 South Goodman Street
Rochester, NY 14620
OFF: (716) 271-1320, ext. 260
FAX: (716) 271-8013
Email: tstseng@aol.com
————————————————————

— End —

From: TSTseng@aol.com
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 03:19:40 -0500 (EST)
To: cac@emwave.net
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Religious Freedom in Public Schools

Dear J. Chang:

Equal access for all religious groups in public schools is one of the few
issues where I agree with the FRC. However, having heard a number of
Christians talk about doing away with the wall of separation between church
and state, it makes me wonder whether FRC should be proactive in speaking
against Christians who use the “take America back” language. In particular,
my Sunday School class has been viewing Ravi Zaccharias’s video series
“Deliver Us from Evil” where it appears that Zaccharias is promoting a
“conquest” model of Christian evangelism. – Tim

In a message dated 10/25/97 11:19:09 PM, jtc10@juno.com wrote:

<>

————————————————————
Rev. Dr. Timothy Tseng
Sallie Knowles Crozer Assistant Professor of American Religious History
Colgate-Rochester Divinity School
1100 South Goodman Street
Rochester, NY 14620
OFF: (716) 271-1320, ext. 260
FAX: (716) 271-8013
Email: tstseng@aol.com
————————————————————

— End —

From: TSTseng@aol.com
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 03:37:09 -0500 (EST)
To: cac@emwave.net
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Ed Facts -From Family Research Council- 10/24/97

My chief difficulty with this proposed policy is its inability to address the
tremendous educational needs in our nation’s poorest communities. While it
may be attractive for middle-class families like mine to have school-choice,
it will continue the process of pulling resources out of poor communities by
privatizing education. The H.E.L.P. scholarships will not be enough to
address the needs of our poorest. (Actually, it’s more like crumbs for the
unworthy) Even if 75 % is claimed to go into public education (which, of
course, won’t be distributed fairly), the legislation opens doors to social
irresponsibility. Rangel’s proposal to rebuild schools is, IMHO, a better
way to use our tax money.

Some questions: Why does FRC press for this type of legislation if they
really care for the many poor Christians in our inner cities? Why does FRC
promote a policy which will further undermine our public schools? In the
end, who will benefit from this legislation?

In a message dated 10/25/97 11:42:40 PM, jtc10@juno.com wrote:

<>

————————————————————
Rev. Dr. Timothy Tseng
Sallie Knowles Crozer Assistant Professor of American Religious History
Colgate-Rochester Divinity School
1100 South Goodman Street
Rochester, NY 14620
OFF: (716) 271-1320, ext. 260
FAX: (716) 271-8013
Email: tstseng@aol.com
————————————————————

— End —

From: TSTseng@aol.com
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 03:47:49 -0500 (EST)
To: cac@emwave.net
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Women and Ministry

Sze Kar:

I’d be interested in the long version of your study of I Cor. 11:2-16. I
hope anyone who unsubscribes will at least have a look at it first! 🙂

Judith Gundry-Volf and Miroslav Volf (of Fuller) wrote a critical review of
Boyarin’s _A Radical Jew_ (which I referred to some time ago) in the summer
issue of _Books and Culture_. You might find that review interesting since
they are defending Paul from Boyarin’s charge of dissolving distinctives
along gender lines. Your synopsis of I Cor. 11 sounds similar to a part of
the Volf’s arguments. I’ll see if I can down load that review if you (or
anyone) is interested in it.

BTW, nice review of Bays’ book on _Christianity in China_ – though I would
have been a little more critical of certains aspects of the book.

Have a nice one!
Tim

In a message dated 10/27/97 6:49:03 PM, wans@monet.bc.edu wrote:

<>

————————————————————
Rev. Dr. Timothy Tseng
Sallie Knowles Crozer Assistant Professor of American Religious History
Colgate-Rochester Divinity School
1100 South Goodman Street
Rochester, NY 14620
OFF: (716) 271-1320, ext. 260
FAX: (716) 271-8013
Email: tstseng@aol.com
————————————————————

— End —

Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 02:26:11 -0800
From: ohbrudder
To: CAC
Subject: CAC_Mail: Re: Asian-American Evangelism that Works???

Ken Tom . . .
a little late for your Oct 25th seminar but what I received from the
Lord,
I’ll pass on to you . . .very much experientially based but biblically
sound.

a couple of PRINCIPLES:
1. There is NO SUCH THING AS A PERFECT PROGRAM OR STRATEGY FOR ALL
CHURCHES.
What works for one church does not necessarily work for another. If
your
theology allows you, seek the Lord for a specific program for your
church.
I believe we must partner with the Lord . . . so we should do what He
has
planned for that occasion and listen for specific instructions and
follow
the Spirit’s lead.
What He tells you to do is not always “logical.” He himself did not use
the
same technique in his healing ministry, for example. If his spit and
mud
could heal all blind men, he could have packaged it and mass
distributed.

2. THE “TOOLS” HE GAVE YOUR CHURCH OFTEN COINCIDE WITH HIS STRATEGY.
Sometimes I had a group with a lot of talented musicians and singers,
so we had a few music ministries touring the country. Another group was
young (college and high school) with limited musical talents but a love
for children. We did numerous Kids Klubs. These and others produced
hundreds of souls for the kingdom.

[One of my most memorable and blessed occurrence. One of my “tough”
girls played a mean guitar but also happened to know “sign language”
for the deaf. We happen to find or God gave us a small shy deaf girl in
one of our tour stops. For a week, often with tears, we watched as a
special relationship developed between Danette and the small deaf girl
as Danette shared the gospel stories with the girl. “Tough” Danette
changed
and softened up, and the shy deaf girl got saved and came out of her
shell.
You had to be there. And they are still friends and in contact though
3000 miles and 7 years removed.]

A STRATEGY THAT WORKed . . .
During many summers, in various cities, for Sunday School and Kids
Klubs,
we looked up Chinese surnames in the White Pages, and obtained
addresses.

Divided the names among the teams of two and sent them out. They took
flyers and balloons and visited the homes, inviting any children in
resident and inquire about any other kids nearby to attend our event.
We usually get a hundred kids in a single day of canvassing.

We use our own vehicles to pick the kids and take them home. We give
them such a good time, the kids come back Sunday . . . and Sunday
after Sunday. Then its up to the local church to followup.

Rapport with the kids, leads to relationship with the family . . .
older siblings and parents. Those with ministries to the older
members of the family are given leads to extend invitations to
church services or cell groups and other events.
Win the 1st generation thru the second generation.

bill leong

— End —

From: SKYLeung@aol.com
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 07:54:16 -0500 (EST)
To: CAC@emwave.net
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: China Trade Debate

Dear CACers,

Yes, Many arguments pro and con. Must pray that our “engagement” is wise and
Godly. Ironic that we try to work these necessary agreements in the backdrop
of a Market tailspin which in large part was triggered by the market
happenings in S.E. Asia (even before East Asia). Some of us mused that it
was just desserts for those “Asians” over there which have gotten so
materialistic/individualistic, which to a degree is almost personified by
the markets. But, then, how far can you point the finger? Who’s king when
it comes to individualism, self-reliance, and performance-driven appraisals?

This is a global economy, and it takes as much, if not more gamesmanship,
these days than even during the Cold War. Comments on the implications of
global linkage on missions work, tentmaking ministries, and those that would
embark upon them?

One sad note concerns the “greed” in American Business that has led to a
total disregard for holding the hard line on totalitarian regimes just
because of the potential market they represent. Can’t say much about the
next guy’s values or when your own isn’t much to write about. Many of the
communist and islamic countries will never receive more than token rhetoric
from us now because they are our buyers, suppliers, or partners in business.
And, do we really know what values drive our decisions anymore? Anyone read
in Time about our fascination with all things Buddhist? I guess we’re taking
our cue from the Pacific Rim in more ways than one. Just some things to
think about. (I’m really late for work!=)

In the Redeemer,
Stephen Leung
Alexandria, VA

****
Don’t follow the crowd unless it’s following Jesus
-bumper sticker

— End —

From: “Peter Szto”
To: Cac@emwave.net
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 13:05:47 EST5EDT
Subject: CAC_Mail: rites, rituals & customs

Dear friends,
I’m in the throes of doing academic advising. My apologies for not
replying any sooner.

Thank you for all the interest in my paper. I didn’t think so many
people really wanted a copy of it. I guess weddings and how we do
them is a real area of curiosity. It’d be nice to collaborate with
others on expanding my initial ideas, and even photographs.

Over the weekend I dug up my copy in my files and would
like to freshen it up before forwarding it to you all. It was
written in 1993. I will have it ready before Thanksgiving.

Again, thanx for your patience.

Peter

— End —

From: dwliu@law.harvard.edu
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 97 14:49:00 -0500
Subject: CAC_Mail: Request for info about Hong Kong
To: cac@emwave.net

Greetings!

I am writing my third-year law school paper in conjunction with a
seminar on the future of Hong Kong and was hoping to focus on the issue
of Christianity. I was wondering if folks familiar with the issues
could suggest research questions relevant to the Christian community in
China. I’ve considered looking at PRC control over Christian churches
and organizations in the HKSAR — especially in light of many Christian
groups’ participation in the democratic movement and their ties
internationally — and the PRC’s reaction to the efforts of Hong Kong
missions organizations and international organizations using Hong as a
base to work within China proper. My goal is to nail down a definite
topic in the next week or two, and I would appreciate all thoughts on
this matter. (From the academics out there, I’d also like some advice
on how broad a topic it would be reasonable to pursue in what will
probably be a 55-60 page paper.) Instead of cluttering up the list,
please email me directly at dwliu@law.harvard.edu.

Many thanks!

ybiC,
David Liu

ps: Though I’ve thus far also just been a web “lurker,” I’ve enjoyed
many of the recent postings. Perhaps one day I will actually catch up
on reading all of them! 🙂

— End —

To: “CAC”
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 06:28:14 -0700
From: “GE Liang”
Subject: CAC_Mail: AA culture: dynamic with a constant theme

CACers,

For your consideration:

The following well-articulated post on the soc.culture.asian.american newsgroup was
provided in response to a question i posed to the newsgroup just over a month ago.

Respectfully,
G.E.

Subject: Re: Asian Culture; Asian American Culture: Is there One?
From: Walter Lee
Date: 1997/09/28
Newsgroups: soc.culture.asian.american

Yes. There is An Asian American Culture… but it is polyglot and
multicultural experience –

Read the back of each coin and it will read…E Pluribus Unum.
It means “From the Many comes just the One.”

and so we are just that many that has become just one.

Sharon Muramaru wrote:
>
> xformed@mailexcite.com wrote:
>
> : So many postings and discussions here and elsewhere assume there’s a :
> : single Asian Culture out there. Is that so? I’ve heard that Asian
> : American studies on some of our college campuses also strive to define some

> : nebulous, generic, AA culture. Are they successful? …

AA culture is not nebulous nor is it generic. It is concrete and specific.
*It is a rainbow of different contributing sub-cultures. Each has its own story
to tell – my advise is to focus on one sub-culture at a time (it’s easier).
*It has its own history – it has a different perspective than your
generic USA History. Like Native North American Indian History,
a story not very often told. A road not always taken.
*It is a eastern-western culture of adaptations… very different from the
normal strictly european cultures. A drummer doing two beats simultanously!
😛
*It is a story of a dynamic culture that is undergoing greater change
than other contemporary cultures. But being dynamic doesnot mean that
it is nebulous. There is a theme running constantly through
AA culture: survival, family, education, and community.
*It is a well document and there is alot of source material available.

> : I am trying to assemble a piece on the diffuiculty of specifying a unique
> : culture. I assert (perhaps mistakenly) that it’s a futile effort….

The trip of a thousand miles, is started by one footstep.-old chinese proverb

>
> Perhaps you should take an Asian American studies course, then make a
> judgement on whether or not your efforts are futile. You will be made
> more
> aware and sensitive to the many Asian American sub-cultures in the U.S.
>

Univ. of Calif. has a AA studies course.
Univ. of MD has a AA studies course (elective- not available ever year)

Free web-based email, Forever, From anywhere!
http://www.mailexcite.com

— End —

Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 12:42:32 -0500
From: Sze-kar Wan
To: CAC
Subject: CAC_Mail: China Trades

Dear Tim, J. Chang, Stephen, et al.:

I have a cynical take on the current debate on China trades.

I get exasperated every time I hear mainland Chinese rail against
American decadence. After spending a month in this country, some of
these critics know enough to use arguments developed out of the civil
rights movt and Andrew Hacker’s writings on race relation to conclude
that the US is a racist country. These observations are sent back home
and the Chinese press picks them up as “evidence” of American weakness.
Same for such issues as the deficit (the American economy is in big
trouble), inner city poverty (evil of captialism), AIDS (spiritual
pollution), etc.

Now, I happen to agree with the substance of these criticisms; I even
make them myself. Trouble is, these criticisms are part of a dialogue;
they retain their original, intended meaning only as part of a
language-game (a la Wittgenstein) established by its interlocutors.
Once they are lifted out of context, they mean different things and
serve different purposes. In this case, self-criticism become
propagandistic tool.

A parallel phenomenon is taking place in the US debate on China trades.
Wei Jingsheng, Wang Dan, Fang Lizhi, Liu Binyan, Harry Wu, and the
Tiananmen students of 1989 have given us a glimpse of the internal
struggles within China. Not many of us would question their sincerity
or the substance of their critiques. Trouble is, do we think the
American press is really doing justice to the Chinese debate? Have
Hollywood, Richard Gere, Bratt Pitt, etc. earned the moral right to
speak so indignantly about the sufferings of the Tibetans? Do we really
think the presidents of AFL-CIO and other labor unions are concerned
about the “injustice” of prison labor? Do we really trust Washington
politicians, of both parties, to be concerned with morality? Do we
really think American foreign policy is driven by human rights? In all
these cases, self-interest rules, and the order of the day is
Realpolitik. I am not saying I endorse it, but that’s the game.

This is why we should cut through the ethical rhetorics when we are
talking about trades with China. I personally would rather not divorce
politics from morality (I am Confucian after all). But given the fact
that they are not and have never been wedded together in the American
political culture, it would be naive to simply buy into the current
rhetorics without also rasing the question of American interests.

When I was in China this summer, what struck me most was not political
repression (which I took as a given) but how capitalistic the whole
culture was. China did not take over Hong Kong; Hong Kong captialism
has taken over China. Hong Kong has become THE paradigm for the rest of
the country. Shanghai looked and felt like the Hong Kong of the 60s and
was closing in fast. What concerned taxidrivers, shopkeepers, waiters
and waitresses, even university professors, ie ones I talked with first
hand, was not political freedom (again, that’s simply assumed) but
corruption, inflation, disparity between rich and poor, pollution, job
security, high rent, the next pay check, unemployed workers from the
countryside. Prostitution was rampant in Shanghai: I was propositioned
three times within 15 minutes of arriving the Bund in late evening! In
sum, while no one would refuse political freedom, everyone had more
urgent matters to worry about. If ever the US would cut off trades with
China, the vast majority of the people would (a) never believe the
human-rights motive (nor would I); and (b) blame it on American
imperialism.

What do I think about US-China trades? I endorse it–but for purely
pragmatic reasons. There is no way in high heaven American companies
are going to stop doing business with Chinese companies (which by the
way are increasingly privatized), not when hundreds of billions of
dollars is at stake. Can you imagine Bill Gates not jumping at the
chance of making MS potentially twice or three times as big? Or Boeing,
IBM, GM, etc.? Clinton or whoever’s in charge would be impeached and
lynched before that happens.

Sze-kar

— End —

To: cac@emwave.net
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 12:15:53 -0700
Subject: CAC_Mail: Notice: CACI Annual Meetings
From: gdot@juno.com (G Ottoson)

“The Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry will hold its 32nd
annual meeting from 10 a.m. to 1:30 p.m Friday [tomorrow] at the Adam’s
Mark Hotel, 1550 Court Place in Denver. The keynote speaker will be C.
Edward McVaney of Denver software developer JD Edwards & Co., speaking
on:

_Growth and Grace: A New Corporate Culture_

…Tickets are available…$450 per corporate table of 10 in advance.
For reservations and information call…303-866-9653.”

(Source: Denver Post, 10/29/97)

==========

Comments:

1.

Someone is making a ticket or two to this gala available. I’ll go and
behave myself, Lord willing; and, try to acquire a copy of the keynote
speech to post somewhere, maybe with Bro. DJ.

If you’re in the area, hollar electronically, or call 303 781 7196, and
I’ll take you with and put you up.

2.

Brethren and Sisters, Please realize that my last post to Jon was written
while I was Rockin’ out in the middle of the Blizzard 🙂 One salient
point about it. The idea ~ that “AA is not a ‘people’ ” refers to how
the ‘corporate culture’ views and treats AA. Certainly AAs can see this,
too, and take a place as ‘cogs’ if they want to, but, is this what is
best (most desirable)?

To me what you and we are as people and as ‘a people’ is due ONLY to the
Grace of our God experienced each day. WE (in the Pauline ‘inclusive’
sense) are (a) chosen People in God’s holy eyes no matter what anyone
else thinks, says, or does. And, if in the end, this is all that really
matters, what about it now–i.e. perhaps in terms of our ONLY-ness (not
lonliness) ?

Much Love to you all today, in Christ, the Lord,

Bro. G

— End —

From: gdot@juno.com
To: cac@emwave.net
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: cultures and sub-cultures
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 21:13:25 EST

On Thu, 30 Oct 1997 17:42:52 -0500 (EST) JWongCDI@aol.com writes:
>Let me see if I can put this right:
>
>There is a lot being written about culture. However, what is meant by
>culture? and what then is a sub-culture? How do cultures differ from
>one
>another and then how do we discover a sub-culture?

Brother Joseph, What happened to ‘counter-culture’?

e.g. here’s a cool ‘counter-cultural’ concept:

Psalm 27:4 – “One thing I ask of the LORD, this is what I seek: that I
may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, to gaze upon
the beauty of the LORD and to seek him in his temple.”

Too individualistic? Perhaps, but if the “I’s” can be legitmately changed
to “we’s”, then what?

Consider:

Matt. 26:61 – … “This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of
God and rebuild it in three days…'”

I Cor. 3: 16 – “Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and
that God’s Spirit lives in you?”

Bro. G

— End —

From: JWongCDI@aol.com
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 17:42:52 -0500 (EST)
To: cac@emwave.net
Subject: CAC_Mail: cultures and sub-cultures

Let me see if I can put this right:

There is a lot being written about culture. However, what is meant by
culture? and what then is a sub-culture? How do cultures differ from one
another and then how do we discover a sub-culture?

In refering to sub-cultures, are we saying any more than “All people are
different, even from one another within the same ethnic and culture!”? Is
there such a reality as “Miss America?” Can any individual represent a whole
ethnic culture? No, only that there are many shared similarities.

I would like to propose that culture is defined by two comprehensive
categories: Values and Methodology/Ways. These represents the beliefs of
what is GOOD and what are the RIGHT ways to achieve good. These beliefs
drives (motivates) the people of that culture. Thus, “The good and the ways
of a people” is the definiton for “culture.” Is this an OVER simplification?
I’D WELCOME ANY EXPANSION OF THIS DEFINITION.

When we identify a small group of people shifting in their values and/or ways
of doing things, I think, is when we propose the discovery of a sub-culture.
Or what else do we recognize as distinguishing cultural characteristics?

Now, a personal word: I believe there is also a “Kingdom Culture,” not in
existence in our world, but defined for us in Scriptures -and- the culture we
are to be transforming our churches into, whether Chinese, American or
Asian-American. The Gospel is not interested in creating Chinese churches,
American churches, Black churches, nor World churchs -but- a Christian
church. Ethnic churches and ministries are useful tools for reaching people
of a particular culture,.. in order to transform them from their own
culture’s delusions.

It seems then, that a pre-occupation with establishing our particular ethnic
culture is a mis-direction of our heart’s concerns. Let’s not conform, but,
by renewing our minds, transform our values and the ways we do things. Why
should I be obsessed with thinking, being like an Asian-American? Why should
I be seeking to encourage others into being more happy with their particular
ethnic culture? IMHO, being a faithful Christian must become meaningful and
identifyable as differing, culturally, from all other cultures.

Of course, I am writing from the heart of a Minister of the Gospel of Jesus
Christ. And I am aware of many other vocations and concerns.

Joseph @ Chicago Chinese Bapist.
Church Dynamics International

— End —

From: GAPang@aol.com
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 01:54:26 -0500 (EST)
To: TSTseng@aol.com
cc: cac@emwave.net
Subject: CAC_Mail: Witch-hunting…

In a message dated 97-10-27 17:23:41 EST, TSTseng@AOL.COM writes:

<>

I am not for the “demonization” of anyone, however if China’s human rights
record is bad, then it is bad. If we are “witch-hunted” for stating the
truth so be it. As a Christian, I personally will endure persecution (if in
fact witch-hunting is persecution), if that’s what it takes to stand up that
which is un-just. (Having said that, there is a lot going on here in our
country that I’m not so proud of either).

Just a thought.

Garrick Pang
Pastor
Wellspring Christian Church
Bellevue, Washington

— End —

From: TSTseng@aol.com
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 02:13:37 -0500 (EST)
cc: cac@emwave.net
Subject: CAC_Mail: Re: Witch-hunting…

Garrick:

No essential disagreement on my part. China’s human rights record is not
good, neither is everything about American the Kingdom of God on earth. But
demonization and witch-hunting go beyond stating the truth. In fact, they
distort the truth, do they not? They often are promoted without dialogue
with or due process for the accused. Is this not persecution?

Which reminds me…Christians are not only persecuted, but also persecute.
Christian history is certainly littered with the blood of martyrs; it is
also filled with the guilt of the persecutors. On the whole, I hope that
more souls have been saved because of the example of the martyrs than lost
because of the examples of the persecutors. Perhaps history will reveal
whether the zeal of those who engage in today’s “culture wars” will wind up
advancing or regressing God’s kingdom.

Tim

In a message dated 10/31/97 12:55:12 AM, GAPang wrote:

<>

————————————————————
Rev. Dr. Timothy Tseng
Sallie Knowles Crozer Assistant Professor of American Religious History
Colgate-Rochester Divinity School
1100 South Goodman Street
Rochester, NY 14620
OFF: (716) 271-1320, ext. 260
FAX: (716) 271-8013
Email: tstseng@aol.com
————————————————————

— End —

Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 03:28:03 -0500
From: Sze-kar Wan
To: CAC
Subject: CAC_Mail: Boyarin

Dear Tim:

As you know, I’ve been asked to contribute a chapter to a book edited by
Sugirtharajah and Segovia, _Interpreting beyond the Border_. I’ve
decided to entitle my chapter (for now) “Diaspora Identity and
Universalism: An Asian-American Reading of Galatians.”

It will take Daniel Boyarin’s definition of “diaspora identity” as
starting point but will also critique his reading of Paul and Galatians
in general. But my real interests are to figure out (1) to what extent
our double cultural identities help us understand Paul’s own dbl ids;
(2) to what extent the dialect betw cultural particularity (emphasis on
difference) and universalism (emphasis on sameness) can be documented in
Galatians; and (3) To what extent Gal 3.28 is a paradigm for AA
Christianity.

I am excited about the project. I am also anxious to hear from anyone
who could contribute to my thinking. This, I hope, will help
systematize my thinking on positive biblical warrant for AA
theology–which I still owe you and all CACers. 🙂

Would you send me Volf & Volf’s review of Daniel’s book to me?

Warmly,
Sze-kar

— End —

To: cac@emwave.net
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 11:10:10 -0700
From: “GE Liang”
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Women and Ministry

In light of Reformation Day, upon us tomorrow, i’ve posted another fictional story/dialog
entitled “All Saints Day.” However, the topic of discussion is really Women and
Ministry. You may find the story at http://www.cyberjunkie.com/all_saints, or at its full
address: http://www.geocities.com/athens/parthenon/5229/saints.html. This one’s
longer than the last one since there were more facets of this subject to touch.
Enjoy! ; ]

G.E.

P.S. Thanks for review of the first draft go to some of the folks at the BIBLE@virginia.edu
listserve, in which the following “numerical” commentary was found:

I don’t know if you have seen this or not

Q: How many internet mail list subscribers does it take to change
a light bulb?

A: 1,392:

1 to change the light bulb and to post to the mail list that the
light bulb has been changed…

14 to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how
the light bulb could have been changed differently,

4 to complain that they were happy with the old one,

7 to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs,

27 to point out spelling/grammar errors in posts about changing
light bulbs,

53 to flame the spell checkers,

156 to write to the list administrator complaining about the light
bulb discussion and its inappropriateness to this mail list,

41 to correct spelling in the spelling/grammar flames,

109 to post that this list is not about light bulbs and to please
take this email exchange to alt.lite.bulb,

203 to demand that cross posting to alt.grammar, alt.spelling and
alt.punctuation about changing light bulbs be stopped,

111 to defend the posting to this list saying that we all use light
bulbs and therefore the posts **are** relevant to this mail list,

306 to debate which method of changing light bulbs is superior, where
to buy the best light bulbs, what brand of light bulbs work best
for this technique, and what brands are faulty,

27 to post URLs where one can see examples of different light bulbs,

14 to post that the URLs were posted incorrectly, and to post
corrected URLs,

12 to flame the AOL users for violating netiqutte and blame them for
starting this whole thing,

3 to post about links they found from the URLs that “are relevant
to this list, which makes light bulbs relevant to this list,”

45 posts about weather or not AOL should even be allowed to exist,

* 33 to concatenate all posts to date, then quote them including all
headers and footers, and then add “Me Too,”

12 to post to the list that they are unsubscribing because they
cannot handle the light bulb controversey,

19 to quote the “Me Too’s” to say, “Me Three,”

4 to suggest that posters request the light bulb FAQ,

1 to propose new alt.change.lite.bulb newsgroup,

47 to say this is just what alt.physic.cold_fusion was meant for,
leave it here, and

100 votes for alt.lite.bulb.

43 to post TEST to the list to just see if they are on it.

The Revd Stuart D Rogerson
http://www.cnetwork.co.uk

Christian Network

Free web-based email, Forever, From anywhere!
http://www.mailexcite.com

— End —

Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 17:00:53 -0800
To: cac@emwave.net
From: Samuel Ling
Subject: CAC_Mail: Trade with China

TRADE WITH CHINA —
A PLEA FOR A REASONED APPROACH

1. SIGNIFICANCE OF ISSUE

Trade with China (with MFN status) is the very heart of
the US-China relationship put into motion by Nixon and Carter.
Without it, and we really don’t have much of a relationship.

2. OUR PRIMARY MOTIVATION

As Christians, our primary concerns are (a) the welfare of
the Church of Christ in China, (b) the ability of the Church in
China to be salt and light in mainland Chinese society, and (c)
continued opportunities for overseas Christians to be salt and
light in China.

China really needs Christians (indigenous as well as foreign) to exemplify
high moral standards in society. Christians are China’s last great
hope!

3. CHINA’S PERCEPTIONS

When Christians in the west engage in confrontational politics
concerning China, China is listening. China concludes that (a)
American Christians (or America as a nation) are subverse and
hostile to China, and worse, (b) American Christians are aiding
the Church inside mainland China to be subversive. This really
hurts the safety and welfare of the Body of Christ in China.

4. HAVE WE CONSULTED THE CHURCH IN CHINA?

The fact is, persecuted Christians in China are NOT voicing
their request that American Christians speak on their behalf
to use sanctions against China on the basis of religious persecution!!!

Christian leaders who urge the US government to use sanctions
have, by and large, NOT consulted church leaders inside China
(or among overseas Chinese church leaders) as to their real
preference.

5. WHICH AGENDA: AMERICAN OR KINGDOM AGENDA?

There is a real difference between promoting the agenda of the
Kingdom of God agenda and promoting the American agenda
(of a particular political party, and of a particular stripe within
that party).

Our primary concern is NOT the nuclear arms threat, or the trade
imbalance, although these are legitimate concerns. The problem is,
Christian leaders are misleading when they use PERSECUTION
as the alleged basis for confrontational politics, if their REAL
and PRIMARY motive is the threat to US military and economic
interests. We are confusing issues, and we are confusing our
audience.

We must not use persecution and kingdom agenda items as a cover
up to promote American economic and military agenda items,
however legitimate the latter may be.

6. EFFECTIVE MEANS TO ADDRESS PERSECUTION

Christians who are pleading for a more reasoned approach,
avoiding confrontational politics, are suggesting that there are
many other effective means to address the issue of religious
persecution. On the top of the list would be:

US government leaders should visit China (100 members of Congress
have done so since Jan. 1, 1997), and in the context of engagement
(investments, professional service and other humanitarian
service projects etc.), bring to the attention of their counterparts
in China (that is, members of the National People’s Congress in
China) the concerns of the Congressman/woman’s constituency
back home, about persecution. Members of Congress should do
this without media exposure, one-on-one, and all the while expressing
our intention to make contributions to China’s development.

Where Christians have been sentenced inside China, Christians from
overseas can write the Religious Affairs Bureau to express their views.
This is an effective means to let the Chinese government know our
concerns.

7. OUR LONG TERM GOAL

Our goal should not stop at stopping persecution. For the sake
of argument, even if the Communist Party closes up shop tomorrow,
there would still be the long term needs of nation buiding. If we
are just going to applaud an congratulate ourselvesw for the
collapse of Commnism in China, that’s one thing. But if we are
serious about being servants of Christ, and salt and light in China,
then we must keep a long term perspective.

8. NO DENIAL — ACTUAL ACTION NEEDED (AND FUNDS)

We do NOT deny that religious persecution is occuring. We do NOT
deny that China has a one-party dictatorship (which no longer believes
in Marxist-Leninist-Maoist ideology).

Christians who are advocating a reasoned approach are ACTUALLY
helping individual persecuted Christians! We are ACTUALLY seeking
help for Christians who are able to leave China, to seek Bible and
theological training to prepare for future ministry in China.

If we do confrontational politics re. China, are we ready and available
with funds to help specific individual persecuted Christians from
China? I hear precious little efforts in this regard among those leaders
who are so outspoken about what can About persecution. Perhaps they need
to be
educated and informed aCTUALLY be done
about persecuted Christians.

9. FOR THE MAJORITY — PRAY, JUST PRAY

When we pray for the persecuted church, perhaps we should JUST
pray, and not use it as a pretext to write our Congressmen/women?
And when we DO write our members of Congress, we need to
encourage them to take a positive, one-on-one/people-to-people,
encouraging posture toward China.

— End —

Advertisements

About djchuang
everything you'd want to know is at http://www.djchuang.com

Comments are closed.