on affirmative action and Asian Americans

TO: cac@emwave.net

From: RevCow@aol.com
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 11:57:23 -0500 (EST)
Subject: CAC_Mail: Much ado about nothing…

Hello G & Fellow CACers,

I apologize for continuing this matter on a public forum intended for
Chinese American church issues. Brother G chooses to continue this
discussion publicly, and I will accommodate him.

If not interested, please delete.

Brother G, have you tried the solution I offered? I’ve asked you over
three times, and each time you haven’t responded. Try it. It works.

>>>>>Why would you choose to ask ‘one question to one man’?
>>>>Because it is a more elegant solution, >Than a solution requiring a question be asked twice. (11/15)
>No such requirement was made.
Yes it was, by you in the original puzzle (11/11/97):
>…If given (only) ONE question, to ask them BOTH (at once or
>individually), What question could the traveler ask in order to
>continue on the trail to Happiness?”

>This response, yours I presume, indicates
>the character of a reasoning heart: It is ‘truth’ twisted. Please
>(re-)consider your approach to me in light of the following statement,
>esp in relationship to the well-being of beloved Chinese people:
I’m not sure how you can question my character or accuse me of twisting
truth. If I have twisted truth, I’d like to apologize. Please show me
where so I can confess and repent. I’ve also re-considered my approach
to you, and I’m confused as to what you think my approach is, because my
approach was that of fun and games, of solving a puzzle. I don’t mind if
you don’t accept the solution I offered. It’s just a puzzle.

>…the TRUTH must be heard before healing and
>reconciliation and justice can occur. ” –Tim Tseng…
Umm, I think we’re talking about a game here. I have nothing against
you, and I hope there is no wounding or need for reconciliation. If
there is wounding, I publicly and openly apologize if I am the source of
it. I hope you accept this apology.

What’s the TRUTH? That Jesus Christ died in our place, that if we call
upon Him as our Lord and Savior, we don’t have to suffer for our sins.
Let’s get back to majoring on the majors and minoring on the minors.

Brother G, and I call you brother because my understanding is that we are
in the family of God, let’s not continue this matter publicly. If you
feel there is a sin, let’s practice Matthew 18. If I’ve offended or hurt
you in any way, I’d like to apologize to you.

Hoping to make peace,
Ted

– —————- Begin Forwarded Message —————-
Date: 11/14 9:30 PM
Received: 11/16 8:20 AM
From: Blessed Half, RevCow@aol.com
To: Grace, gdot@juno.com
Blessed Half, RevCow@aol.com

Hello G,

As per my original request, could we continue this privately instead of
involving others? Thanks.

>>>Why would you choose to ask ‘one question to one man’?
>>Because it is a more elegant solution, <—than what?
Than a solution requiring a question be asked twice.

Another reason, the puzzle analogous to yours that I found in my computer
logic and algorithm text required that only one question be asked once to
one person. If you're interested, the analogous puzzle had two doors
instead of two paths, and behind one door was a beautiful woman, and
behind the other a hungry tiger. Other than these details and the issue
of how many times the question was asked, the puzzle is the same.

By the way, have you tried the solution I offered yet?
IT WORKS. =)

Spending too much time on trivial matters
instead of eternal,
Ted

Rev. Ted Kau
Harvest San Gabriel Valley

To be always relevant, you have to say things which are eternal.
– –Simone Weil
– —————– End Forwarded Message —————–

Rev. Ted Kau
Harvest San Gabriel Valley

The chief trouble with the church is that you and I are in it.
– –Charles H. Heimsath, "Sermons on the Inner Life"

——————————

From: "GE Liang"
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 08:01:48 -0700
Subject: CAC_Mail: From Advocates International’s China File

Dear CAC.

Here’s the location of a (11-page) report from China’s State Council issued last
month: http://www.chinanews.org/whitepapers/freedomofreligious.html.

The Bureau of Religious Affairs of the PRC advised a local organzation, Advocates
International (http://www.advocatesinternational.org/), of the report after three
months of dialogue.

Advocates International sent correspondence to President Clinton (cc: the Secretary
of State), Members of Congress, and to Mr. Steven Haas (U.S. Coordinator International
Day of Prayer for the Persecuted Church) informing them of the above.

They also highlighted two portions:

(from page 2 of the report)
“All normal religious activities held either at sites for religious activities or
in believers’ homes,…such as…reciting scriptures…praying, preaching, observing
Mass, baptizing,…and holding memorial ceremonies, are protected by law as the affairs
of religious bodies and believers themselves and may not be interfered with.”

(from page 5 of the report)
“There is no registration requirement for, to quote from Chinese Christians, ‘ house
services,’ which are mainly attended by relatives and friends for religious activities
such as praying and Bible reading.”

Quoting from AI in their letter to Mr. Haas, “Although a policy statement does not
guarantee compliance in all cases…we believe that the language in the Report is
a significant tool for believers in China.”

>From DC
G.E.L.

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

——————————

From: “DJ Chuang”
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 15:27:14 -0500
Subject: CAC_Mail: Bill Lee’s Religious Orientation

– — forwarded message follows —

Date: Sun, 16 Nov 1997 20:41:31 -0500
From: “Andrew Y. Lee”
Subject: Bill Lee’s Religious Orientation

FYI since there’s been a fair amount of discussion about Bill Lann Lee:

He attended a multi-racial Conservative Baptist Church in NYC while
growing up. His brother is now the pastor of a multi-racial Conservative Bapt.
Churchin New York. Bill Lee and his wife presently attend an Episcopal
Church.

Andrew Lee

——————————

From: HarryWLew@aol.com
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 16:21:17 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Bill Lee

Dear Sze-kar,

>>I wonder how CACers feel about the stalled nomination of Bill Lee.

Bill Lann Lee and his Asian American “civil rights” cohorts don’t represent
the views of most Asian or Chinese Americans any more than Patricia Ireland
and N.O.W. represent the views of most women.

>>Personally, I am very disappointed and I thought the tactics used to
sabatage his hearing were less than noble.

Lee now knows what it means to get “borked.”

>>Maybe I am paranoid.

I once heard Rev. Charles King, an African American civil rights leader, say
you can’t grow up as a minority without being paranoid. That’s all the more
reason why I choose to give the majority (and everybody else) the benefit of
the doubt. Look for the good in people. It’s better for your spiritual and
mental health.

Yours in Christ,
Harry Lew

P.S. How do you guys find time to write such long messages?

——————————

From: jtc10@juno.com (J Chang)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 01:54:13 -0500
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: School Choice

Dear Tim:

I’m glad that you were able to access some of the web pages of the
Family Research Council (FRC). Thanks for your observations
regarding the article in discussion! Sorry for the delay in responding,
I’ve been busy lately.

On Tue, 11 Nov 1997 01:39:20 -0500 (EST) TSTseng@aol.com writes:

>Thanks for the web page address for FRC. I’ve been looking at it with
>great interest. I was not permitted to access the second web page
address,
>however.

Tim, if you had trouble with the second web page address, please start
from the home page & work your way towards the research
topics option under “education.”

>I found the article “With Liberty & Justice for All: Refining the
>Educational Choice Debate” intriguing. FRC seems to be advocating a
>number of contradictory proposals:
>1. They want school choice on the basis of a libertarian view (where
>gov’t doesn’t interfere with the rights of parents and families to
control
>their children’s education), but reject the libertarian argument when it

>comes to abortion (I’m not suggesting that the pro-choice abortion
position is
>correct, merely that it is inconsistent to want freedom of choice in
>one arena without allowing for it in another; there is no clear criteria

>to advocate choice in education but not in abortion).

a) The article “With Liberty & Justice for All: Refining the Educational
Choice
Debate” (*) does not touch upon the issue of abortion, it focuses solely
on
the topic of education. FRC may use other arguments to justify its
position
on the abortion issue. Even if there was an overall inconsistency in the

philosophical views, that in itself does not negate the arguments put
forth
towards school choice. There may be nuances & gradations within the
views of each issue which cannot be easily generalized.

b) I’m not sure that FRC is arguing from a “purist” libertarian view
when
it advocates school choice. (i.e.: no governmental interference and
parents &
families in full control) From what I understand, FRC does want less
federalized governmental control of education, but with the local & state

jurisdictions, and community school boards having a greater input in
education.
One line of thinking might be that such control would have greater
accountability
to the parents & families, whom they serve, compared with the less
responsive
bureaucratic federal infrastructure.

c) Other advocacy organizations also favor school choice & educational
reform
but focus only on these issues. Here are three of them for your
reference:
(1) The Center for Educational Reform,
(2) The Alliance for Parental Involvement in Education,

(3) United New Yorkers for Choice in Education (email:
unyce@earthlink.net)

>2. They want to reduce and put caps on welfare benefits to the poor,
>yet reject means-tested education vouchers in order to provide them to
>middle class families. Gov’t handouts creates a culture of dependency
among
>the underclass, they argue, but doesn’t do the same for middle-class
>recepients, apparently.

a) From what I understand, FRC is in favor of educational tax credits for
the
“non-use of public schools.” This would allow families from different
income
levels the option to help pay for their children’s education whether they
choose
to go the routes of home-school, parochial school, or private school.
Since
this tax credit cuts across the board, and does not depend on income
level, the
argument would be that it helps to avoid creating “a huge disincentive
for families
on the margin to escape the poverty trap.”(*) If an educational voucher
is means-
tested, with the cut-off margin being “XX” adjusted gross income (AGI),
a family just
slightly below “XX” AGI may not want to go above that level for fear of
losing the
ability to qualify for the means-tested educational voucher.

b) Your premise is that an educational tax credit is a government
handout for the
middle class. One can argue that it is not because (1) it is not
exclusively for the
middle-income level families, and (2) it applies to all income levels.
If it was means-
tested for just middle-income families & only middle-income families then
it could
fit such a definition of a handout for middle-income families.

>3. They want to introduce “competitiveness” in schooling (and make the
>unfortunate assumption that “competitiveness” will produce students of
>character), yet fail to recognize that preparing children to conform
>to the “marketplace” mentality will undermine the very family values
they
>claim to support.

I agree that there is no magic formula for nurturing children/students of
character.
Just because one comes from a Christian family, a pastor’s family, a
missionary
family, a “home-schooling” family, a “private Christian school” family,
etc. does not
guarantee that one will be a person of good character. Nor is it true
that when one
comes from a “public school” family, or a non-Christian family, the
possibility of
becoming a person of good character is therefore eliminated.

Educator Charles Glen said: “we may have set ourselves an impossible
task of seeking to provide a single model of education that is to be at
once
capable of nurturing character and civic virtue and inoffensive to the
conviction
of any parent.”(*)

But perhaps the strategy of concerned parents may be to increase the
opportunities for
their children to be exposed to educational values which are more in
alignment with
their own. The “monastery” vs. “out of the salt-shaker” approaches to
education can be
debated endlessly. Different parents may have different convictions as
God leads them.

>4. They argue that school choice allows for diversity, while the
>”common school” is a means of homogenizing American culture; however,
what is
>FRC’s view on affirmative action (I couldn’t find anything info about
it)?

Again, please go to FRC’s home page first and then to their
research topics search engine.

>Would they make the diversity argument to support affirmative action?
Also,
>would FRC sanction vouchers for, say, a feminist private school? a
>gay/lesbian private school? How far would they press the “freedom of
choice”
>argument?

Good questions! But I cannot answer for FRC.

>I agree with you that most families now see private schools as better
>options than public schools. But this may be a perception fostered by
the
>recent hype about public education “failure.” More cynically, it may be
the
>result of years of projecting the middle-class as the paragon of
American
>virtue, thus, creating class envy on the part of the poor.
>But of greatest concern for me is the short-sighted selfishness that
>FRC’s privatization agenda engenders. The breakdown of “social
>responsibility” in public life today will have terrible consequences for
our
>children when they grow up.

Many socially responsible and concerned individuals have come from
private schools. Some of my peers, with private schooling, have been
quite active in the social issues of urban life. A good private
education
should emphasize civic responsibility and social/political involvement.

One’s perspective can greatly alter one’s interpretation of another’s
motives.
Would it be possible that FRC earnestly & unselfishly seeks to advocate
those public policies which it believes to best benefit America’s
children?
Why doesn’t the elite educational establishment want to allow competition
with public schools? Is the purpose of a teacher’s union to be an
advocate
ultimately for teachers or for students? Who really has the unselfish
interests
of our children at heart? The parents or some career educational
bureaucrat?
There are many teachers and other educators who are truly unselfish &
genuinely
give of themselves for their students. But in general, the bottom line
is that
the parents will most likely give more of themselves for their children.

> I can imagine what the school choice scenario will do to our
>kids: “son, daughter, we worked hard to have the freedom to put you in
the
>best school possible [subtext: hey, that’s what life is about – getting
>into the best rated schools, getting the highest grades, the highest
paying
>jobs, etc., etc. why go into ministry? why care about the poor? why
care
>about anyone else but numero uno?].

There’s a need to differentiate between the issues of cause and effect.
I agree that poor motivations may result from misguided attempts to
selfishly focus only on one’s educational ambitions without regard to
others
less fortunate or to God’s calling into ministry. However, education in
itself
is a tool which can be used wisely or squandered wastefully. Either
result
may be an outcome in spite of the school setting chosen.

There is a fine line between striving for academic excellence for the
sake
of His Kingdom and that which is for the self. Certain educational
situations
may lead one to be exposed to greater temptations of selfish ambition but
that does not invalidate the use of a such a “tool.”

>Again, thanks for providing access to FRC. It certainly provides more
>for me to chew on! Blessings!
>Tim Tseng

No problem, Tim! You owe me one for giving you such a big juicy steak to

chew on. πŸ™‚ God bless!

In Him,
J. Chang

——————————

From: Sze-kar Wan
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 02:02:19 -0500
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Bill Lee

HarryWLew@aol.com wrote:
>
> Bill Lann Lee and his Asian American “civil rights” cohorts don’t represent
> the views of most Asian or Chinese Americans any more than Patricia Ireland
> and N.O.W. represent the views of most women.
>
I am sorry you feel this way; you sound like an “angry white man,” to
quote someone famous. But why demonize Bill Lee, one of our own?

Come to think of it, maybe we should invite Bill to join CAC. I am
serious. Anyone has his e-mail address? Andrew?

> Lee now knows what it means to get “borked.”
>
Do two injustices make a justice? It may be the political or partisan
way; I scarcely think it’s Christian.

> >>Maybe I am paranoid.
>
> I once heard Rev. Charles King, an African American civil rights leader, say
> you can’t grow up as a minority without being paranoid. That’s all the more
> reason why I choose to give the majority (and everybody else) the benefit of
> the doubt. Look for the good in people. It’s better for your spiritual and
> mental health.
>
All the power to you, Harry, if joining the “majority” works.

However–
Eyes, once opened, cannot be shut.
Minds, having embraced the real, the solid, Light Itself,
will not return to the caves in Shadowland
– –at least, they shouldn’t.

Sze-kar

——————————

From: ben_mel@juno.com (Benjamin C Wong)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 04:18:51 EST
Subject: CAC_Mail: Bill Lee

Why should (according to Gilliam) all Asian American come to the defense
of Bill Lee? Is this a racial thing? Is the issue whites or Republican
against Asians?
Are we suppose to support him because he is “one of our own?” and
nothing else supersedes that ?

Isn’t Mr. Lee’s qualification the real issue? Do they really think all
Asian American think Bill Lee is qualified?

I think this is being swept into an emotional thing, and the real issue
is getting cloudy.

Ben

——————————

From: “Andrew Y. Lee”
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 10:01:23 -0500
Subject: CAC_Mail: Response from Bill Lee

Dear CAC:

Earlier Sze-kar made this suggestion: “Come to think of it, maybe we should
invite Bill to join CAC. I am serious. Anyone has his e-mail address?
Andrew?”

Actually, I had already asked Bill Lee’s brother (who is the one I know
well) whether either of them wanted to make a statement to CAC. I can
pursue this formally for CAC if you so desire.

My suggestion: If you will e-mail one or two questions to ask him and send
this to me privately (AndrewYLee@compuserve.com), I can collate these and
pass them along. I can then inform you either of his statement or his
decision not to comment.

He will be in New York this weekend; I will be out of town at SBL starting
Friday so all questions must be received by this Thursday.

Andrew Lee

——————————

From: Sze-kar Wan
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 10:48:23 -0500
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Response from Bill Lee

Dear Andrew:

Thanks for being the go-between. Your suggestion of asking Bill Lee for
a statement–as a Chinese American Christian–is a good one, I think,
especially since CAC (at least judging from the posts so far) is not of
one mind in this matter. I myself don’t have any particular question.

Sze-kar

PS: Since I don’t have any question, I decided to make this public.
Hope you don’t mind, Andrew.

——————————

From: gdot@juno.com
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 11:22:03 EST
Subject: CAC_Mail: Re: “hey you all..”

Peter, Thx for this bit of levity (reminded of the late Francis
Schaffer’s (sp?) case for the ‘true truth’–which liberates.) As for the
original problem, ask both men one question: What would HE say is the way
to Happiness?

Blessings!

Bro. G

On Fri, 14 Nov 97 08:39:29 -0800 “Peter P. Huang”
writes:
>
>>[The] original problem stated that:
>>>One of these men
>>>always tells the Truth, the other man always Lies.
>
>as the infamous contemporary philosopher Fox Moulder would say,
>
>”All lies lead to the truth”

——————————

From: jtc10@juno.com (J Chang)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 11:59:43 -0500
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Bill Lee

Dear CACers:

On Tue, 18 Nov 1997 02:02:19 -0500 Sze-kar Wan
writes:
>HarryWLew@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> Bill Lann Lee and his Asian American “civil rights” cohorts don’t
>represent
>> the views of most Asian or Chinese Americans any more than Patricia
>Ireland
>> and N.O.W. represent the views of most women.
>>
>I am sorry you feel this way; you sound like an “angry white man,” to
>quote someone famous. But why demonize Bill Lee, one of our own?

No individual should be “demonized” regardless of whether they are
“one of our own” or not. I think that the above comments are a matter of
fact
statement expressing the view that those in the spotlight or in
leadership do
not represent the views of all that they purport to represent. It does
not
sound angry to me.

>> Lee now knows what it means to get “borked.”
>>
>Do two injustices make a justice? It may be the political or partisan
>way; I scarcely think it’s Christian.

I agree. It’s a good point!

>> >>Maybe I am paranoid.
>>
>> I once heard Rev. Charles King, an African American civil rights
>leader, say
>> you can’t grow up as a minority without being paranoid. That’s all
>the more
>> reason why I choose to give the majority (and everybody else) the
>benefit of
>> the doubt. Look for the good in people. It’s better for your
>spiritual and
>> mental health.
>>
>All the power to you, Harry, if joining the “majority” works.

I understand Harry as meaning to GIVE the “majority” the benefit of the
doubt and not necessarily to JOIN the “majority” or embrace it’s way of
thinking.

In Him,
J. Chang

——————————

From: Sze-kar Wan
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 14:28:23 -0500
Subject: CAC_Mail: What’s the issue?

Dear Ben, Harry, and J.:

Ben brings up a good point: what exactly is the bone of our contention?

Bill Lee’s qualifications? Hardly. No one–not even Hatch himself who
had reportedly praised Lee’s academic and professional background before
Gingrinch came down on Lee–has ever questioned Lee’s qualifications,
which are unassilable, which is why I never raised the issue.

Is it “affirmative action”? The Republican objection to Lee’s
nomination is that he’s for civil rights, which is a curious objection,
given the fact that it’s the job description. When asked pointedly
whether he would defend the quota-system, Lee said “No!” But the
Republicans didn’t believe him.

Reasonable people can disagree on “affirmative action.” I expressed
doubts myself some time ago on the basis of Steele’s work, though not so
much as to scrap the whole system. So, you guys and I are not as far
apart on this issue as it might appear, tho, to be sure, differences
exist.

The real issue is: ON WHAT BASIS do we judge Lee’s nomination? Harry
compares Lee to Patricia Irland and his stalled nomination to Bork’s.
These are standard partisan diatribes, hence my characterization of it
is that of an “angry white man.” One needn’t be actually emotionally
riled up to espouse such a view; it’s by now standard Republican
vocabulary. What can one conclude from this but that Harry stands with
the Republicans in this matter.

Now, it is OK to be a Republican, a Democrat, or whatever one likes.
That’s not the point and it certainly is not my disagreement with
Harry. I was disappointed that once again partisan politics is chosen
over Asian-American interests, that someone else’s agenda is privileged
over our own. I would’ve said the same thing if it had been the
Democrats who sabataged the nomination. Hence my subtle reminder that
Bill Lee is “one of our own.” Doubly so, for he is in fact a brother in
Christ! Not that he should then be blindly elected, but that he should
be judged by the highest standard accorded to all Christians. And if we
must judge him by political standards of the day, let us do ourselves a
favor and judge him by standards of the Asian-American commununity.

Sze-kar

——————————

From: ohbrudder
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 12:19:47 -0800
Subject: CAC_Mail: The passing of John Wimber

For immediate release
November
17, 1997
Contact Todd Hunter
714.777.1433
John Wimber,
Founder of Vineyard Movement,
Passes Away

Anaheim, CA. β€”Todd Hunter, Acting National Director of the Association
of Vineyard
Churches (USA) announced that John Wimber, founder and International
Director of the
Association of Vineyard Churches, suffered a massive brain hemorrhage
the evening of
November 16 and passed away peacefully at 8:00 a.m. (PST) the
following morning in the
presence of his family. He was sixty-three years old.

International conference speaker, inspiring worship song-writer,
best-selling author and spiritual
leader to the 450 Vineyard congregations in the United States and to
the 250 Vineyard
congregations abroad, John Wimber was the senior pastor of the Anaheim
Vineyard Christian
Fellowship for seventeen years (1977 to 1994). He was also known as a
pivotal voice in the
arenas of spiritual formation and renewal.

Memorial services will be held Friday, November 21 at 6:00 p.m. at the
Vineyard Christian
Fellowship of Anaheim.

——————————

From: ohbrudder
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 12:44:24 -0800
Subject: CAC_Mail: Re: the WORK and WORD of God

Hi Ted and CACers,

When I watched Michelle Kwan figure skate-the last two weekends-
I found myself proud to be a Chinese American! What grace! What skill!
I guess I’m racist when I say I hope she beats the white girl, Lipinski,
in every competition especially the Olympics. . .one down and ? to go!
Michael Chang hasn’t won much lately, not much source of pride there
in recent times.

Let me throw another 10 cent at this idea of the all important
relationship
with God. I do believe the individualistic ways in which we relate to
God
determine the way we interpret Scripture, the way we pray and worship,
the way we live out our Christian life and the way we approach ministry
– —much more so than our culture. Personally, I think this accounts for
much of the theological divisions in the church today.

And the ways we relate to God fall into two general categories as I’ve
tried to illustrate with two relationships: with a king who issued an
edict,
and with a close friend who wrote a love letter. I’ve previously
described
the first with a king. However, it is relating to Christ as a friend
that I
identify with most.

(By the way, Ted, I hope you were rejuvenated by your vacation trip to
VA.)
There must have been some time in the past when your lovely wife,
Chris, wrote you a love letter while you both were still courting. You
might have read it a couple of times, maybe even studied it for
additional hidden messages or clues. It must have at the least
confirmed your relationship with Chris. The letter might have
confirmed stuff you’ve discussed in person, or over the phone.
It might have given you more insight or guidance as to how to please
her or how to behave toward her in the future.

SUBJECTIVISM GREATLY UNDERVALUED
I think my allusion to our relationship with Christ and the Scripture is
obvious. I’m going to be dubbed anti-intellectual when I say that
our subjective spiritual experiences are at least as important as our
objective biblical knowledge if not more so. For me it’s the
difference between kissing my wife and studying her love letters.

Don’t get me wrong I love the Holy Scriptures. I love to study it and
I love to read it. I love most of all how the Lord speaks to me thru it.
And I concede nothing intellectually to the so-called “scholars.”
But the objective biblical truths are but one side of the spiritual
reality
coin. Our subjective experiences are the other side. I think this is in
accord with what DJ stated earlier, that education and experiences go
hand-in-hand.

There are subjective
truths or information that can only be obtained through personal
experiences. If I have never tasted a strawberry, how would you
describe it to me so that I can have that knowledge? It’s sweet, juicy?
So are oranges, apples, etc. There is no way for you to pass on the
flavor of strawberry to me with words. I have to taste it for myself.
“Taste and see that the Lord is good.” There is a goodness of God
that can only be experienced first hand. . .thru personal tasting.

Our salvation and our personal relationship of faith and love with
Christ are subjective experiences. Granted they are based on
objective truths but my relationship is with God, not the Bible. The
Bible helps facilitate my relationship with God, but it is not God.
Before the mass distribution of the printed Bible, Christians of the
first 17 or 18 centuries must be “weaker” Christians than us. Not!
I suspect they and most of the third world Christians today had
primarily subjective experiences to sustain their faith.

I say all this to hopefully get you in my shoes to see where I’m
coming from, especially in these issues of God’s work interpreting
God’s word, vice versa, scholarship, intellectualism, experientialism
. . .but more particularly my approach to discipleship and ministry.
I see many times I’m talking “apples” and others are talking “oranges.”

Personally, I’m more interested in discussing personal “tastings” of
God and the “goodness” you all may have experienced. I think our
testimonies could build each other’s faith to trust God more and love
Him more deeply. And out of our faith and love will come forth great
deeds, works, and victories. And somehow the task of winning
our generation for Christ will not look so overwhelming and
hopeless. Amen?

For Him who is so good!

bill leong

ps. I took a few sittings to write this but I hope it doesn’t take you
a few sittings to read it!

__________________________________________________________________

RevCow@aol.com wrote:
>
> 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. πŸ˜› :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

——————————

From: jtc10@juno.com (J Chang)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 22:10:49 -0500
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: What’s the issue?

Dear Sze-kar:

I appreciate your clarification of some of the comments made earlier. I
agree
that we need to get to the crux of the issue.

On Tue, 18 Nov 1997 14:28:23 -0500 Sze-kar Wan
writes:

>Is it “affirmative action”? The Republican objection to Lee’s
>nomination is that he’s for civil rights, which is a curious
>objection, given the fact that it’s the job description. When asked
pointedly
>whether he would defend the quota-system, Lee said “No!” But the
>Republicans didn’t believe him.

I understand that some Republican senators object to Mr. Lee’s advocacy
of “affirmative action.” Since Mr. Lee appears to have such a
long-standing
personal belief, would he then be able to put that aside when it comes to
upholding the law as interpreted by the courts in spite of his personal
differences. Case in point: since the Supreme Court has allowed the
state
of California to ban “affirmative action” policies in state hiring &
state university
enrollment preferences, would that then present a conflict of interest
when the
time comes to enforce the law?

>The real issue is: ON WHAT BASIS do we judge Lee’s nomination? Harry
>compares Lee to Patricia Irland and his stalled nomination to Bork’s.
>These are standard partisan diatribes, hence my characterization of it
>is that of an “angry white man.” One needn’t be actually emotionally
>riled up to espouse such a view; it’s by now standard Republican
>vocabulary. What can one conclude from this but that Harry stands
>with the Republicans in this matter.

Before the Robert Bork confirmation hearings were held, it seemed that
a candidate’s professional qualifications were the main issue for
examination. Now, after that circus-like public relations “trial,” it
seems
that a candidate’s view on the issues is now fair game for scrutiny. The
standard operating procedure on the Senate floor now commonly includes
“litmus” tests or “hoops” through which the candidates must jump
through.
So whichever political party holds the majority on the judiciary
committee gets
to determine which ‘hoops” they will be. Apparently, the “hoops” at hand
are
the “affirmative action” hoops.

>Now, it is OK to be a Republican, a Democrat, or whatever one likes.
>That’s not the point and it certainly is not my disagreement with
>Harry. I was disappointed that once again partisan politics is chosen
>over Asian-American interests, that someone else’s agenda is
>privileged over our own. I would’ve said the same thing if it had been
the
>Democrats who sabataged the nomination. Hence my subtle reminder that
>Bill Lee is “one of our own.” Doubly so, for he is in fact a brother
>in Christ! Not that he should then be blindly elected, but that he
>should be judged by the highest standard accorded to all Christians.
And if
>we must judge him by political standards of the day, let us do ourselves

>a favor and judge him by standards of the Asian-American commununity.

I suppose that everyone has their own priorities, interests, &
convictions on
the many public policy issues affecting Americans, the immigrants, the
minorities,
the disenfranchised, the unborn, Asian-Americans, the poor, the homeless,
etc.
But if one is holding a principled policy position which is argued, put
forth, & closely
aligned with a certain political party, and perhaps transcending the
specific
interests of a certain ethnic/racial group, would that necessarily be
wrong?
And vice versa, if one is holding a principled policy position which is
argued, put
forth, & closely aligned with a certain ethnic/racial group, and perhaps
transcending
the specific interests of a certain political group, would that
necessarily be wrong?

Whether an advocacy is based on a political loyalty or an ethnic/racial
loyalty would
depend on the convictions of the individual. Hopefully, though, for a
believer, neither
loyalty would supersede that of loyalty to the Lord and to His
principles. As best we can,
our positions would need to be examined in light of the biblical
characteristics of
God’s love, compassion, goodness, mercy, grace, justice, righteousness,
etc. and the
His teachings/values of responsibility, sacrifice, trust, fairness, risk,
sacredness of life,
stewardship of resources, etc.

As I’ve read many of the posts on this email list, I would say that all
of us earnestly
seek to develop views consistent with biblical principles. The goals may
not really
differ that much in the many topics touched on in this CAC List: being
an advocate
for persecuted Christians, unborn children, discriminated minorities,
students in
need of stronger educations, etc. However, being that we are human with
imperfect
faculties, we disagree over the means by which those ends can be
achieved. But that’s
the beauty of having CAC as a forum to hear each other out as brothers &
sisters in
Christ!

In Him,
J. Chang

——————————

From: DCChuang@aol.com
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 00:09:56 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Bill Lee

In a message dated 97-11-18 04:19:46 EST, you write:

<>

Thanks Ben for expressing that so succinctly. From the “propaganda” I’ve
heard coming from OCA (?) and their spokesperson Daphne Kwok, they seem to be
just a front for the Democratic party trying to gain support for their issues
under the pretense of concern for the Asian community.

With all the recent talk of paternalism, being manipulated, and the like (at
least that’s my take on it), I’m surprised how easily people are coerced into
supporting someone based solely on their race. How about hearing some
equally objective critiques on this, as we have heard about the far right?

DC

——————————

From: TSTseng@aol.com
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 01:37:43 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Bill Lee

Ben:

You raise good questions. The consensus seems to be that Lee is “qualified”
(thanks Sze Kar for your probing of newspaper reporting about the Lee
confirmation story). But, of course, whenever I hear the word “qualified,” I
wonder whether there is a universally acceptable standard for what that
means. For instance, in my denomination, I’ve been hearing many complaints
from white males about the lack of “quality” in our multicultural and gender
inclusive programs. And even though racial minorities reflect the fastest
growing segments within the denomination, almost every recent “church growth”
and/or “church renewal” program I’ve seen only has “white” (and usually male)
“experts” teaching us how to grow or renew our congregations. Also, I’ve
witnessed several incidences where “qualified” racial minories and women are
passed over in favor of less “qualified” white men. In these instances, the
question of “qualification” was never raised. So, the question about
“qualification” appears to be ladened with racial connotations, too (i.e.,
the inference that only certain people are innately qualified). To be blunt,
when anyone attempts to foist “universally acceptable” language or words into
a conversation (“qualified,” “reasonable,” “self-evident”), I would think
about such terms critically.

Also, I think you simplify the concerns of Asian American activists who would
like to see “one of our own” in such a position. It is not true that
“nothing else supersedes” race. Lee also has to support the concerns of
these activists, otherwise, Asian Americans would respond to him in much the
same manner that African American leaders responded to Justice Clarence
Thomas’ nomination (with a “cold shoulder”). In fact, Jay Kim (?), a
Republican who was forced out of office because he received campaign
donations illegally, got precisely that – a cold shoulder – from Asian
American activists since he took such conservative political positions.

After looking at the issues more closely, I’ve concluded that Asian Americans
are correct in pointing out the contradictions of the Republican efforts to
block Lee’s nomination. In their attacks on Lee’s position on affirmative
action, they tried to “grandfather” their argument that affirmative action is
not constitutional (Lee was nominated before the Supreme Court issued its
ruling on Prop. 209). They’ve confirmed other white nominees with similar
views, but found it politically advantageous to make an issue out of Lee’s
views.

Finally, I’m a bit troubled by how you associate “emotional” with clouding
the “real issues.” Are you saying that by appealing to dispassionate,
rationale logic one can gain a truly objective perspective? In other words,
emotional people are not clear thinkers? Are not our minds also tainted with
sin to such a degree that we cannot trust it? Those on this list who are
suspicious of academics would certainly agree, wouldn’t they? For example,
Albert Schweitzer’s classic _The Quest of the Historical Jesus_ surveyed 19th
century German biblical scholarship’s attempt to present an objective
portrait of Jesus Christ concluded that the Jesus they unearthed was no more
than reflections of the scholars themselves (like looking down at the well
and seeing your own reflection). And these were supposed to be objective,
dispassionate, reasonable scholars!

Fundamentalists and modernists share the same perception that an objective
reality can be accessed by our unfettered minds. By downplaying the emotions
and the will, they privilege the intellect on the basis of either a creedal
interpretation of Scripture (fundamentalists) or modern scientific reasoning
(modernists). This is why what Sze-kar said about biblical hermeneutics
being culturally and subjectively influenced is so important. If we don’t
acknowledge the whole human (mind, will, emotion, culture, etc.) in the
interpretation of the bible (or anything), we will elevate one aspect of our
human makeup to such a degree of sinlessness or purity that we become blind
to the pervasiveness of human corruption (don’t I sound like a Calvinist?
“Total depravity,” is it not?). On the other side of the coin is the need
for Christ to totally redeem us totally (the Cappadocians said that “what is
not assumed is not saved” in their debate with those who argued that Jesus
Christ was not fully human). One value of the current “post-modern” mood is
its ability to force us to hold each other’s unconscious privileging of our
intellect (or feelings) accountable.

So, I stand with my Pentecostal and charismatic brothers and sisters in
rejecting the “modernist” epistemological paradigm. The “entire human” needs
to be involved with any assessment of moral and ethical statements whether
they be biblical or public policy related. Wasn’t it Mencius who said
something about our reaction to the dropping of a baby into a well being an
indicator of some trace of “goodness” in human nature? Thus, the pain and
passion people feel whenever social injustices occurs (or when the Lee
nomination is being manipulated in this manner) ought not be ignored for the
sake of a more “reasonable” argument (which itself may reflect one group’s
interests anyway).

Bottom line: while I disagree with some Asian American activists’ agenda, on
the whole I think they are more in touch with the 97% unchurched Asian
Americans than we Christians are. Do you think it wise for Asian American
Christians to ignore these concerns?

All the best,
Tim Tseng

In a message dated 11/18/97 3:19:46 AM, ben_mel@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

——————————

From: drwong1@juno.com (Richard L Wong)
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 04:40:28 EST
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Bill Lee

On Tue, 18 Nov 1997 02:02:19 -0500 Sze-kar Wan
writes:
>HarryWLew@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> Bill Lann Lee and his Asian American “civil rights” cohorts don’t
>represent
>> the views of most Asian or Chinese Americans any more than Patricia
>Ireland
>> and N.O.W. represent the views of most women.
>>
>I am sorry you feel this way; you sound like an “angry white man,” to
>quote someone famous. But why demonize Bill Lee, one of our own?
>
>Come to think of it, maybe we should invite Bill to join CAC. I am
>serious. Anyone has his e-mail address? Andrew?
>

>
>> Lee now knows what it means to get “borked.”
>>
>Do two injustices make a justice? It may be the political or partisan
>way; I scarcely think it’s Christian.

Right you are, Sze-kar. That’s why I as a Christian cannot support
affirmative action. It attempts to remedy one injustice (state-supported
discrimination against black persons, i.e. segregation) with another
(state-supported discrimination against non-minorities, e.g. affirmative
action goals and quotas). Don’t you think there’s a reason why these
“angry white males” are angry? If you were the target of intentional
discrimination and exclusion on the basis of your skin color, without
regard to your abilities, and without regard to your personal
responsibility for the original injustice, wouldn’t you be angry too?
Personally, I dream of a society where a man is not judged based of the
color of his skin, but rather, on the content of his character.

By the way, Robert Bork was not judged on the basis of his qualifications
or his character, but rather, on his personal views of the Constitution
and how that document and subsequent laws would be interpreted. Because
the Senate Democrats made such interpretive issues fair game during the
confirmation process when they controlled the Senate (recalling also
William Bradford Reynolds’ contentious confirmation hearing), one can’t
complain just because the other political party does it.

Richard

——————————

From: SKYLeung@aol.com
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 09:13:37 -0500 (EST)
Subject: CAC_Mail: School Choice

Brothers Tim and J,

I guess we’ve started down the slippery slope of political “preoccupation, ”
and so I’ll join in (again) against my better judgment. Since we’re tossing
in things on which to chew, here’s some shoe leather to go along with your
steak…

[On the school choice issue, I find myself “buying” FRC’s position – I
suppose that makes me part of the religious right on this one.]

Brother J recently wrote:

>I’m glad that you were able to access some of the web pages of the
>Family Research Council (FRC). Thanks for your observations
>regarding the article in discussion! Sorry for the delay in responding,
>I’ve been busy lately.

>On Tue, 11 Nov 1997 01:39:20 -0500 (EST) TSTseng@aol.com writes:

>>Thanks for the web page address for FRC. I’ve been looking at it with
>>great interest. I was not permitted to access the second web page
address,
>>however.

>Tim, if you had trouble with the second web page address, please start
>from the home page & work your way towards the research
>topics option under “education.”

>>I found the article “With Liberty & Justice for All: Refining the
>>Educational Choice Debate” intriguing. FRC seems to be advocating a
>>number of contradictory proposals:
>>1. They want school choice on the basis of a libertarian view (where
>>gov’t doesn’t interfere with the rights of parents and families to
control
>>their children’s education), but reject the libertarian argument when it

>>comes to abortion (I’m not suggesting that the pro-choice abortion
position is
>>correct, merely that it is inconsistent to want freedom of choice in
>>one arena without allowing for it in another; there is no clear criteria

>>to advocate choice in education but not in abortion).

>a) The article “With Liberty & Justice for All: Refining the Educational
Choice
>Debate” (*) does not touch upon the issue of abortion, it focuses solely
on
>the topic of education. FRC may use other arguments to justify its
>position
>on the abortion issue. Even if there was an overall inconsistency in the

>philosophical views, that in itself does not negate the arguments put
>forth
>towards school choice. There may be nuances & gradations within the
>views of each issue which cannot be easily generalized.

>b) I’m not sure that FRC is arguing from a “purist” libertarian view
when
>it advocates school choice. (i.e.: no governmental interference and
>parents &
>families in full control) From what I understand, FRC does want less
>federalized governmental control of education, but with the local & state

>jurisdictions, and community school boards having a greater input in
>education.
>One line of thinking might be that such control would have greater
accountability
>to the parents & families, whom they serve, compared with the less
responsive
>bureaucratic federal infrastructure.

>c) Other advocacy organizations also favor school choice & educational
reform
>but focus only on these issues. Here are three of them for your
reference:
> (1) The Center for Educational Reform,
> (2) The Alliance for Parental Involvement in Education,

> (3) United New Yorkers for Choice in Education (email:
unyce@earthlink.net)

I think it’s fairly well understood that FRC doesn’t take “libertarian”
positions for the sak of libertarianism. There are moral issues at stake
(which also affect the family): 1) abortion is wrong and in too many
instances individuals in our society aren’t inclined to responsibly exercise
their choice with respect to the life our our unborn citizens (of humanity).
2) we are commanded to train up our children in the way they should go. If
(Federally “controlled”) public education isn’t doing it’s job or, in fact,
is countering our efforts, the freedom to seek alternatives should not be
encumbered.

>>2. They want to reduce and put caps on welfare benefits to the poor,
>>yet reject means-tested education vouchers in order to provide them to
>>middle class families. Gov’t handouts creates a culture of dependency
among
>>the underclass, they argue, but doesn’t do the same for middle-class
>>recepients, apparently.

>a) From what I understand, FRC is in favor of educational tax credits for
the
>”non-use of public schools.” This would allow families from different
income
>levels the option to help pay for their children’s education whether they
choose
>to go the routes of home-school, parochial school, or private school.
Since
>this tax credit cuts across the board, and does not depend on income
level, the
>argument would be that it helps to avoid creating “a huge disincentive
for families
>on the margin to escape the poverty trap.”(*) If an educational voucher
is means-
>tested, with the cut-off margin being “XX” adjusted gross income (AGI),
a family just
>slightly below “XX” AGI may not want to go above that level for fear of
losing the
>ability to qualify for the means-tested educational voucher.

>b) Your premise is that an educational tax credit is a government
handout for the
>middle class. One can argue that it is not because (1) it is not
exclusively for the
>middle-income level families, and (2) it applies to all income levels.
If it was means-
>tested for just middle-income families & only middle-income families then
it could
>fit such a definition of a handout for middle-income families.

I agree that rejecting means-tested helps to prevent this provision from
being just for one socio-economic class. Means-tested has its merits. But,
this freedom to select alternative schools should not be limited to any one
class. Instead of creating a culture of dependency, the action, in part,
aims to prod public schools to get up to speed. “You’re either competitve or
you aren’t – don’t just take the tax-payers’ money and do your own thing
(agenda).” Parents (the customer) will take their children and funds
elsewhere if they’re not satisfied. Potentially, and hopefully, once schools
meet the needs of parents, they won’t “depend” on the vouchers an more than
they “depend” on public education. It doesn’t always (and forever) have to
be the case that private schools are better, and kids don’t always (and
forever) have to be sent to them to get satisfactory education.

>>3. They want to introduce “competitiveness” in schooling (and make the
>>unfortunate assumption that “competitiveness” will produce students of
>>character), yet fail to recognize that preparing children to conform
>>to the “marketplace” mentality will undermine the very family values
they
>>claim to support.

>I agree that there is no magic formula for nurturing children/students of
character.
>Just because one comes from a Christian family, a pastor’s family, a
missionary
>family, a “home-schooling” family, a “private Christian school” family,
etc. does not
>guarantee that one will be a person of good character. Nor is it true
that when one
>comes from a “public school” family, or a non-Christian family, the
possibility of
>becoming a person of good character is therefore eliminated.

>Educator Charles Glen said: “we may have set ourselves an impossible
>task of seeking to provide a single model of education that is to be at
once
>capable of nurturing character and civic virtue and inoffensive to the
conviction
>of any parent.”(*)

>But perhaps the strategy of concerned parents may be to increase the
opportunities for
>their children to be exposed to educational values which are more in
alignment with
>their own. The “monastery” vs. “out of the salt-shaker” approaches to
education can be
>debated endlessly. Different parents may have different convictions as
God leads them.

I believe the competitiveness is actually more a remedy for the institutions
than the students. Nonetheless, both apply. Competitveness usually requires
institutions to have requisite quality/value (in the eyes of the customer) in
order to thrive or “survive.” The parents’ values and not the Government’s
or the educators’ values should be driving a local school system. I sense
an assumption in a several posts of the past month that the marketplace
mentality equates to a depraved mentality. In reality, human mentality is
depraved no matter what economic system society adopts. Is there a socialist
system that one can point to and tell me that they are the model of morality
and character?

As for children, they should make the most of what they’ve been given in
terms of talent. We teach them the parable of the talents, don’t we? What
has to be “guarded” is their motivation for “being all that they can be.”
The question is: “to whom goes the glory?” If we are to be faithful
stewards of what God has given us, we should do so with excellence and
faithfulness – doing all things heartily, as to the Lord.

I am suspicious of systems that (perhaps inadvertantly) encourage sloth –
“sit back and let the state take care of you; and don’t try to be better than
average” I believe they can breed mediocrity, self-indulgence, and
complacency. Ask folks associated with Government if they don’t see these in
their surroundings. I think such systems are almost as dangerous as systems
that encourage pure social darwinism…

>>4. They argue that school choice allows for diversity, while the
>>”common school” is a means of homogenizing American culture; however,
what is
>>FRC’s view on affirmative action (I couldn’t find anything info about
it)?

>Again, please go to FRC’s home page first and then to their
>research topics search engine.

>>Would they make the diversity argument to support affirmative action?
Also,
>>would FRC sanction vouchers for, say, a feminist private school? a
>>gay/lesbian private school? How far would they press the “freedom of
choice”
>>argument?

>Good questions! But I cannot answer for FRC.

I can’t speak for FRC either – nor would I try. But, diversity can be
fostered in different ways. Affirmative Action may provide diversity, but
there is a question as to whether or not it is perceived by society at large
as fair. If so, we should let it do its job until the field is perceived as
level. If not, it doesn’t solve much…but I believe folks are getting into
that in another thread.

I could buy the extension of the “libertarian” argument – as long as there
aren’t deleterous consequences for society. I would let marketplace forces
weed out schools which don’t have a legitimate customer base, and then let
the marketplace of ideas sort out the worldviews that are functional and
healthy. If certain parents want their child to grow up espousing a
gay/lesbian outlook, I won’t stand in their way as long as they do it at
their own school. I would want my child growing up able to point out the
error of their ways to their children instead of having some public educator
inculcating my child with the notion that their ways are equally “right.”

>>I agree with you that most families now see private schools as better
>>options than public schools. But this may be a perception fostered by
the
>>recent hype about public education “failure.” More cynically, it may be
the
>>result of years of projecting the middle-class as the paragon of
American
>>virtue, thus, creating class envy on the part of the poor.

I sincerely doubt that the poor envy the middle-class for their virtue.
Virtue does not come from your pocketbook (although some feel that the
wealth that someone else has would help them be virtuous). If Godly virtue
came from the pocketbook, then our Lord’s words that “blessed are the poor”
(Luke) or “poor in spirit” (Matthew) “for theirs is the Kingdom of God” would
be outright misleading or misinformation.

>>But of greatest concern for me is the short-sighted selfishness that
>>FRC’s privatization agenda engenders. The breakdown of “social
>>responsibility” in public life today will have terrible consequences for
our
>>children when they grow up.

>Many socially responsible and concerned individuals have come from
>private schools. Some of my peers, with private schooling, have been
>quite active in the social issues of urban life. A good private
>education
>should emphasize civic responsibility and social/political involvement.

>One’s perspective can greatly alter one’s interpretation of another’s
motives.
>Would it be possible that FRC earnestly & unselfishly seeks to advocate
>those public policies which it believes to best benefit America’s
children?
>Why doesn’t the elite educational establishment want to allow competition
>with public schools? Is the purpose of a teacher’s union to be an
advocate
>ultimately for teachers or for students? Who really has the unselfish
interests
>of our children at heart? The parents or some career educational
bureaucrat?
>There are many teachers and other educators who are truly unselfish &
genuinely
>give of themselves for their students. But in general, the bottom line
is that
>the parents will most likely give more of themselves for their children.

>> I can imagine what the school choice scenario will do to our
>>kids: “son, daughter, we worked hard to have the freedom to put you in
the
>>best school possible [subtext: hey, that’s what life is about – getting
>>into the best rated schools, getting the highest grades, the highest
paying
>>jobs, etc., etc. why go into ministry? why care about the poor? why
care
>>about anyone else but numero uno?].

>There’s a need to differentiate between the issues of cause and effect.
>I agree that poor motivations may result from misguided attempts to
>selfishly focus only on one’s educational ambitions without regard to
others
>less fortunate or to God’s calling into ministry. However, education in
itself
>is a tool which can be used wisely or squandered wastefully. Either
result
>may be an outcome in spite of the school setting chosen.

>There is a fine line between striving for academic excellence for the
sake
>of His Kingdom and that which is for the self. Certain educational
situations
>may lead one to be exposed to greater temptations of selfish ambition but
>that does not invalidate the use of a such a “tool.”

Summarizing Brother J in another way, seeking the best does not necessarily
equate to social irresponsibility. Why do people get advanced degrees
(including PhD’s) and then promote social justice and social activism? I
doubt they get them for the title only. I think they understand that it
somehow prepares them to do a better job – including championing causes,
examining issues, being Godly governors and stweards, and financially funding
social and charitable work. Would anyone argue that Le’Tourneau’s (sp?) work
and wisdom as a businessman was immoral?

>>Again, thanks for providing access to FRC. It certainly provides more
>>for me to chew on! Blessings!
>>Tim Tseng

>No problem, Tim! You owe me one for giving you such a big juicy steak to

>chew on. πŸ™‚ God bless!

Chew, chew!! (What pulls our train?)

Grace to you,
Stephen Leung

——————————

From: gdot@juno.com
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 12:53:27 EST
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Bill Lee

On Wed, 19 Nov 1997 01:37:43 -0500 (EST) TSTseng@aol.com writes:
>Ben:
>
>You raise good questions…[Mencius points to]..some trace of “goodness”
in > human nature..Thus, passion people feel whenever social injustices
> occurs (or when the Lee nomination is being manipulated in this
> manner) ought not be ignored for the sake of a more “reasonable”
>argument…Tim Tseng
>

Dear Tim, et. al.:

An experience (which occurred today):

I get to school early…the school is inner city, multi-racial, and mixed
econ strata of both kids and teachers–a very interesting situation esp
with/for a growing number of Asian students…a Black woman who has a
daughter in first grade dropped by (before school starts) and talked
about sundry subjects for a few minutes, then, suddenly broke down
crying…I handed her a box of Kleenex…she ‘talked’ at length then
about (the impact) of her daughter coloring a picture of a person in
class yesterday and coloring the face of her person brown (her Negro
color)…she said the white first grader sitting next to her daughter
asked “Why are you coloring your person brown?” The daughter said, “I
like brown.” The white kid said: “But brown is ugly.” | Apparently, I
guess, the first grade teacher did not perceive that this conversation
took place in class, or would have said something appropriate…but I
wonder how often this or a form of this ‘ugly’ idea is (has been)
communicated unchecked each day, not just here at this urban Cath school,
but throughout our society…this lady’s sorrow esp regarding her young
daughter’s sorrow is profound.

G

——————————

From: HarryWLew@aol.com
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 16:50:14 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: What’s the issue?

Dear Sze-kar,

>I am sorry you feel this way; you sound like an “angry white man,” to quote
someone famous.

If I were paranoid, I would take that as an insult; something like calling me
a “banana.” But since I am not paranoid, I give you the benefit of the doubt.
I’ll excuse you as I do the well-meaning multiculturalists who want to lump
the Chinese and all other non-whites into the category of “people of color”
who should think and act the same way politically.

If you want to be informed of Lee’s hard-nosed views on affirmative action
read the latest THE NEW REPUBLIC (Dec. 1, 1997) page 6ff. Even the
unabashedly liberal magazine, which believes in “mending, not ending”
affirmative action, find Lee’s views “distressing.”

By the way, I am a registered Democrat.

Yours in Christ,
Harry

——————————

From: Sze-kar Wan
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 18:32:02 -0500
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Bill Lee

Richard L Wong wrote:
>
> Right you are, Sze-kar. That’s why I as a Christian cannot support
> affirmative action. It attempts to remedy one injustice (state-supported
> discrimination against black persons, i.e. segregation) with another
> (state-supported discrimination against non-minorities, e.g. affirmative
> action goals and quotas).

To call “affirmative action” as “state-supported discrimination against
non-minorities” is rather extreme, don’t you think? The stated goal of
AA is to balance out heretofore unbalanced situations, to even out
resources and opportunities that have always concentrated in the hands
of a few. Preferential treatment by itself is NOT racism, sociologists
and anthropologists have been telling us for years; it is only when it
is coupled with POWER does it become racism. When the majority, the
white powerholders of this country, had (and still have as far as I can
see) this sort of preferential treatment and it was buttressed by
political and economic power vis-a-vis nonwhites, the product was (still
is) racisim. When preferential treatment was applied to minorities, as
in the case of AA, it was used to give non-powerholders some access to
power. To call AA “discrimination” is to ignore the dyamics of power in
society and, frankly, disingenuous on part of the white majority. Do we
really think they are the best judge on “discrimination”! I encourage
anyone interested in how Christians ought to view power in society to
read Reinhold Niebuhr’s _Moral Man and Immoral Society_, a classic.

As to whether a Christian can support AA, my only response is: read Acts
2.43-47; 4.32-37; Luke 4.18-19; Amos 4.1-3; Isa 58, just a few texts off
the top of my head. Here is biblical basis for the preferential
treatment of the poor, the disenfranchised, the powerless, the widows
and orphans. This was the distinguishing mark of early Christianity,
one which so impressed its opponents that even they grudingly registered
their approval (see Justin Martyr’s mid-2d century report of pagan
opposition). The Bible is replete with preferential treatment for the
poor. It’s the basic biblical definition of justice, and I dare
challenge anyone to contradict me.

When are we going to stop picking and choosing biblical texts to
reinforce our selfish piety and our health-and-wealth “spirituality”
and, instead, read the prophetic words of the Bible, stand in silent awe
of the frightening presence of God’s Word (which kills as well as
nournishes), and repent for our sins AS A PEOPLE?

Anyone who takes Scripture seriously will know that God does NOT
establish covenants with single individuals as if one person could have
God in his or her pocket! God always has the whole people in mind: The
Abrahamic Covenant, the Noachic Covenenat, the Mosaic Covenant–NONE has
to do with just one person’s privatistic feel-good piety; ALL have to do
with our obedience to God AS A PEOPLE.

Tim’s “problem” is not that he’s a Marxist. He is not. He is just a
plain old biblical Christian.

I am perfectly willing to concede that the quota-system is not the best
there is. If we can find a better one, we should scrap it. But don’t
get rid of it when you haven’t proposed anything in its place! The
quota system is a stop-gap measure, we all acknowledge that. It’s
superficial, and it gives liberals an excuse not to probe deeper into
the social ills responsible for the conditions that make AA necessary.
On and on. Nevertheless, popular and fadish thinking in the current
cultural climate would have us believe that because it is not perfect
let us return to the pre-60s status quo. Scratch the surface of such
rhetorics and you’ll find those who are anxious lest their ill-deserved
privileges are taken away from them–all under the cloak of fairness.
And this is the conclusion of a three-hour exasperating conversation
with a white woman student: she just doesn’t want to give up what’s
already hers, whether she deserves it or not. If that’s how a white
woman feels, imagine how the white MALES feel. No wonder they are
angry! No fury like tantrum-induced anger.

Sze-kar

——————————

From: AsianPK@aol.com
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 19:37:14 -0500 (EST)
Subject: CAC_Mail: Promise Keepers Clergy Conferences in 98

Some of you may already have this info. Please pass this along to others who
may be interested. Promise Keepers is offering free one day clergy
conferences in the following locations in 1998:
Philadelphia – 1/15 (#98200)
Denver – 1/22 (#98201)
San Deigo – 1/29 (#98203)
Nashville – 2/5 (#98204)
Charlotte – 2/10 (#98205)
Dallas – 2/12 (#98206)

St. Petersburg, FL – 2/19 (#98207)
Portland, OR – 3/10 (#98202)
Indianapolis – 3/12 (#98208)

Although these conferences are free, PK would appreciate you registering by
calling toll free 888.265.3297 if you know your constituent number with PK or
by calling 800.888.7595 without a constituent number. Your registration must
be made six (6) weeks prior to an event in order to receive a free meal as
part of the one day conference.

“These conferences, designed to position the church for revival and
awakening, will inspire, challenge and equip you for the task of ministry to
the men of your church. In addition, these conferences will allow you to
connect with other pastors from your state and region for ongoing prayer
support in your ministry.” Dale Schlafer, VP for Revival and Awakening at PK

Louis Lee
PK Cultural Relations Manager for Asian Americans

——————————

From: “Ronald Lee”
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 17:26:45 -0800
Subject: CAC_Mail: Bickering about the “Religious Right”

Dear CAC’ers;

I have been on this list for a little while. While I am excited to see Asian believers discuss their Christian faith on the web, I am distressed to see the discussions often dip into LSD (Lies, Slanders, Defamations…) I am particularly distressed to see Christians using the slanderous term picked up from the mass media to describe conservative Christians as the “Religious Right.” It is bad enough to have the left, the liberals, and God-hating mass media calling some of our Christian brothers and sister with slanderous labels, IMHO, it is worse to have God-fearing Christians calling one another labels from the opposing side. I liken this to us name-calling each other Ching-Chong Chinaman, Jap, or nigger, etc…

I think the traditional Chinese society leans more toward meritocracy, instead of Affirmative Action. Chinese traditions treasure traditional family value, where parents have final say on the future of the family, and not having big government dictating to families how to raise the children. Chinese society value good works, setting up private benevolent societies and foundations to take care of the needy, and not a big-society-granddaddy to set up welfare programs for the masses. I don’t know where you guys live, but I have seen so many cases of welfare abuse that I know the current system doesn’t work. If that believe makes me a religious right I would wear the label as a badge of honor.

> > > > > +++ < < < < > > > > +++ < < < < <

——————————

From: SKYLeung@aol.com
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 00:10:22 -0500 (EST)
Subject: CAC_Mail: Medical Services International

Dear CACers,

I forward this at the request of a friend who subscribes to the digest
version. You may know someone who would be interested…

Regards,
Stephen Leung
– ———————
Forwarded message:
From: dyao@jhsph.edu (David C. Yao)
To: SKYLeung@aol.com (Steve Leung)
Date: 97-11-18 17:35:06 EST

Dear Steve,
Can you post this on CAC? Thanks!
– –David
– ———- Forwarded message ———-

A Medical and Health Ministry to China and East Asia

OPPORTUNITY

Major changes are occurring in Asia. For example, over the past decade,
under the policy of Four Modernizations, China has welcomed many foreign
experts to share in its opening and development. Critical areas of
involvement are in medical and health services and community development,
especially in China's inland provinces, rural areas and among the national
minority peoples. MSI was founded by Dr. James H. Taylor III, Mr. Richard
Chen, and Dr. Reginald Tsang as a channel whereby skilled Christian
professionals from the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada,
Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia, Taiwan, Hong Kong, etc., can
serve the medical, physical and spiritual needs of these areas of Asia.

PURPOSE

To promote total health, defined as physical, social and spiritual well
being, through health care services, education, training and community
development in partnership with Chinese counterparts.

MISSION

Placing professionals who are committed Christians in strategic positions
where the incarnational application of their skills and service can be
appreciated and effective.

OBJECTIVES

1. To set up centers in inland provinces where Christian
professionals can serve in developing and upgrading medical services.

2. To place Christian professionals in specialty and general areas:
– – enabling them to work with local authorities in developing and upgrading
the respective professional service;

– – involving them in small group environments where meaningful friendships
can be nurtured.

OPERATION

MSI provides both short- and long-term programs for volunteer doctors,
dentists, nurses, and health personnel, and sends these individuals in
teams to needy areas.

Health professionals will be involved on site in:

1. Hands-on care as needed in needy and strategic areas.

2. Lecturing on and demonstrating advanced medical and health
techniques and services.

3. Training programs for improving environmental hygiene, preventive
medicine, "village medics" and health personnel.

4. Providing medicines, medical equipment and training in its use for
the most strategic areas.

5. Developing programs which will provide openings for English
teachers, accountants, livestock experts, and community development
experts.

6. Providing a Christian testimony of love and concern.

YOU CAN HELP BY:

1. Praying for the work of MSI.

2. Considering being a team member.

3. Networking with other Christian medical and health individuals
about the work of MSI.

4. Supporting the work of MSI financially.

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

Please return to MSI.,

__ I would like to be on the mailing list.

__ I am interested in going on mission trips for 2 weeks or more.

__ I would like to pray for the work of MSI.

__ I would like to support this work financially.

Profession ____________________________

I speak the following Chinese dialects (list):

Comments

Name

Address

Phone (H)

Phone (W)

Fax

E-mail

**********************************************
Please contact:

MSI
c/o Dr. Reginald Tsang
Perinatal Research Institute
University of Cincinnati
P.O. Box 670541
Cincinnati, OH 45267-0541
Phone: (513) 558-0543
Fax: (513) 558-7770
E-mail: Reginald.Tsang@uc.edu

Affiliated with OMF International

U.S.A:
10 West Dry Creek Circle
Littleton, CO 80120-4413
Phone: 1-800-742-5219
Fax: (610) 693-6485
E-mail: bdraper@aol.com

Canada:
5759 Coopers Avenue
Mississauga, ON L4Z IR9
Phone: (905) 568-9971
Fax: (905) 568-9974
E-mail: omfcanada@cproject.com

——————————

From: Sze-kar Wan
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 01:24:33 -0500
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Bickering about the “Religious Right”

Dear Ronald:

I agree with you that when such labels are misused as they have been,
they can be deadly.

When you referred to the unedifying use of “religious right,” I believe
you were talking about something I said some time ago. As it was
eventually explained, I used the phrase in a private message to a
friend which was inadvertently posted to CAC out of context. I did use
it pejoratively, and I made a public apology (11/6/97; To Harry Lew):
“You are quite right in what’s left unsaid: my use of words like
‘dislodge,’ etc. is very unfortunate, and I wish I hadn’t used them.
This IS one of those slip-ups I talked about. Do accept my apologies.”

On the other hand, I don’t think I intended the phrase to be a
slanderous label for offhand dismissal, and certainly not to be used as
the kind of racial epitaphs you compare my phrase to. In the same post,
I said: “…re the RELIGIOUS LEFT. …I have no love for them either,
especially the more extreme forms. Pesonal faith is always put on the
back burner, and whatever decisions they make, they make on basis of
abstract notions like ‘justice’ and ‘peace’ that are completely denuded
of their foundation in God. Worse, from the perspective of CAC, their
theories of racial equality, while noble, are never quite compelling
enough to overcome their own self-interests. The endproduct is often
transparent hyposcrisy” (emphasis added).

If I am a slanderer, I am an equal-opportunity slanderer.

Respectfully,
Sze-kar

——————————

From: Sze-kar Wan
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 01:53:24 -0500
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: What’s the issue?

Dear Harry:

Maybe you SHOULD be more paranoid. No, I did not insult you, nor did I
intend to. And no, I did NOT call you a “banana.” But I was certainly
being naughty. By comparing your response to my initial post opening
discussion as that of “an angry white male,” I was pushing you to an
extreme–a kind of reductio ad absurdum if you will–to show how
partisan your argument could be.

My initial post of 15 Nov was a request for discussion (“I wonder how
CACers feel about the stalled nomination of Bill Lee.”). But I was
dismayed that it was immediately pigeonholed into the kind of partisan
politics we read in the papers and magazines. My challenge–perhaps too
subtle for its own good–was and still is: Why can’t we look at the
issue as Chinese American Christians rathe than recycle tiresome
arguments from the popular press? Hence my references to ethnicity. I
believe I wrote the following in a subsequent post:

“I was disappointed that once again partisan politics is chosen over
Asian-American interests, that someone else’s agenda is privileged over
our own…. Hence my subtle reminder that Bill Lee is ‘one of our
own.’ Doubly so, for he is in fact a brother in
Christ! ”

No insult intended or even hinted at. But the challenge still stands.

Respectfully,
Sze-kar

——————————

From: drwong1@juno.com (Richard L Wong)
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 02:32:02 EST
Subject: CAC_Mail: Re: Bill Lee and Affirmative Action

On Wed, 19 Nov 1997 18:32:02 -0500 Sze-kar Wan
writes:

>Richard L Wong wrote:
>>
>> Right you are, Sze-kar. That’s why I as a Christian cannot support
>> affirmative action. It attempts to remedy one injustice
>(state-supported
>> discrimination against black persons, i.e. segregation) with another
>> (state-supported discrimination against non-minorities, e.g.
>affirmative
>> action goals and quotas).
>
>To call “affirmative action” as “state-supported discrimination
>against
>non-minorities” is rather extreme, don’t you think?

Not really, because that’s what it is. If a company tried to do it on
its own, that company would be slapped with a racial discrimination suit
faster than you could say “Jim Crow.” Because this form of
discrimination is state-sanctioned, however, companies, educational
institutions, and governmental hiring agencies are able to do it and to
get away with it.

>The stated goal of
>AA is to balance out heretofore unbalanced situations, to even out
>resources and opportunities that have always concentrated in the hands
>of a few. Preferential treatment by itself is NOT racism,
>sociologists
>and anthropologists have been telling us for years; it is only when it
>is coupled with POWER does it become racism.

Since when did we depend on sociologists and anthropologists to tell us
what to think? By the way, the California Civil Rights Initiative (which
eventually became Proposition 209)was initiated in part by Dr. Glynn
Custred, an Anthropology professor at my former alma mater, Cal State
Hayward. I wonder what THAT anthropologist would say about the
supposedly benign effects of AA?

>As to whether a Christian can support AA, my only response is: read
>Acts
>2.43-47; 4.32-37; Luke 4.18-19; Amos 4.1-3; Isa 58, just a few texts
>off
>the top of my head. Here is biblical basis for the preferential
>treatment of the poor, the disenfranchised, the powerless, the widows
>and orphans. This was the distinguishing mark of early Christianity,
>one which so impressed its opponents that even they grudingly
>registered
>their approval (see Justin Martyr’s mid-2d century report of pagan
>opposition). The Bible is replete with preferential treatment for the
>poor. It’s the basic biblical definition of justice, and I dare
>challenge anyone to contradict me.

I’m with you 100% on this point, Sze-kar. (and to think I’m a registered
Republican!) But these biblical passages call upon us to assist others
based on their wealth, means, or abilities, not upon the color of the
skin. To discriminate against a group of people or to give preferential
treatment to another based solely upon the color of their skin is racism,
pure and simple.

What does AA do to help poor whites who don’t have the educational
background to get into graduate school? What does it do to assist an
illiterate kid from Appalachia whose parents are illiterate and couldn’t
afford to send him to a prep school? Is it fair to deny him a
scholarship and to give it instead to a black student whose father is a
doctor and mother is a lawyer, just because the kid happens to be black?

If affirmative action is supposed to help those who cannot help
themselves, then there should be a means test, and not a color test.
Awarding benefits and denying access to an individual based on skin color
is racism, no matter what euphemisms sociologists and anthropologists may
use. Does God have positions set aside in Heaven for blacks and whites?
Will he accept unsaved black sinners into Heaven just for the sake of
diversity?

>When are we going to stop picking and choosing biblical texts to
>reinforce our selfish piety and our health-and-wealth “spirituality”
>and, instead, read the prophetic words of the Bible, stand in silent
>awe
>of the frightening presence of God’s Word (which kills as well as
>nournishes), and repent for our sins AS A PEOPLE?

Amen! Instead of trying to vainly create a Heaven on earth (by
eliminating racism, poverty, and discrimination), let’s direct people’s
eyes to the root causes of these ills (man’s sinful nature, including
their own). Let’s make sure that they are aware of their sinful nature,
and let’s get them to repent for their sins to ensure that they will not
become (or continue to be) a source of injustice.

Instead of working so hard to create Heaven on earth, let’s keep our eyes
on the Heavenly Kingdom, where a righteous God will reign, rewarding the
meek and the poor in spirit. By focusing on trying to solve worldly
injustices, we might easily be distracted and lose focus of our
responsibilities in getting people to repent. And by proposing remedies
to past injustices that result in additional injustices, you’ll only
provoke angry reactions from its victims, possibly driving them even
further away from the Kingdom!

Richard

——————————

From: jtc10@juno.com (J Chang)
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 10:46:53 -0500
Subject: CAC_Mail: Re: Bill Lee and Affirmative Action

Dear Richard:

On Thu, 20 Nov 1997 02:32:02 EST drwong1@juno.com (Richard L Wong)
writes:

>Amen! Instead of trying to vainly create a Heaven on earth (by
>eliminating racism, poverty, and discrimination), let’s direct
>people’s eyes to the root causes of these ills (man’s sinful nature,
>including their own). Let’s make sure that they are aware of their
>sinful nature, and let’s get them to repent for their sins to ensure
>that they will not become (or continue to be) a source of injustice.

>Instead of working so hard to create Heaven on earth, let’s keep our
>eyes on the Heavenly Kingdom, where a righteous God will reign,
>rewarding the meek and the poor in spirit. By focusing on trying to
>solve worldly injustices, we might easily be distracted and lose focus
>of our responsibilities in getting people to repent. And by proposing
>remedies to past injustices that result in additional injustices,
>you’ll only provoke angry reactions from its victims, possibly driving
>them even further away from the Kingdom!

You made some keen observations on the issue of affirmative action.
However, regarding the point about “eliminating racism, poverty, and
discrimination” vs. directing “people’s eyes to the root causes of these
ills”: I don’t think it’s an “either/or” proposition, rather it’s
“both/and.”

Believers are mandated to be “salt & light” in society. That includes
preaching the Gospel, evangelism, discipleship, missions, church-
planting, etc. as well as fighting for righteousness, fighting against
injustices (strategies of doing this may differ) through social action,
political involvement, social mercy ministering, etc. Each person’s
calling is unique & can focus on a different point along that spectrum.

But to champion certain “righteous” causes on earth does not mean
that one is attempting to create “Heaven on earth,” as long as one has
the proper balance & perspective. It is true though, that one can be
tempted towards “human” solutions rather than “spiritual” answers
ultimately for the world’s problems.

In Him,
J. Chang

——————————

From: gdot@juno.com
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 14:07:20 EST
Subject: CAC_Mail: Re: “hey you all..”

On Wed, 19 Nov 1997 17:39:27 -0500 (EST) TheLurk@aol.com writes:
>
>Dear “Brother” G,
>
>Your answer is half complete…You then need to take the opposite way.

Yep, I agree.

>Not being Asian, I’ll say what I have to say…Your responses…are
[among other things] paranoid …Back to lurking, TL

Being ‘paranoid’ (in any context) would be no fun, but travelling in
society with lurkers, how could one avoid it?

Mindful of the urge to ramble,

G

——————————

From: jtc10@juno.com (J Chang)
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 20:39:43 -0500
Subject: CAC_Mail: Political Involvement by Believers

Dear Ray:

On Thu, 20 Nov 1997 11:34:17 +0000 “Ray Downen”
writes:
>You say many helpful things in this note.
> Jesus teaches that we individually should relieve suffering.
>He
>also teaches that our task on earth is not to seek political answers
>to social ills, but rather that we are to be (individually) salt and
>light while we’re building a kingdom that is NOT of this earth. We
>are urged to preach the gospel, which is good news about God’s love
>as expressed in Jesus. Christians are NOT called to change worldly
>political structures!

I appreciate your views as stated above. I basically agree with the main
thrust of your statements. However, I have a slightly different take on
your
last sentence: “Christians are NOT called to change worldly political
structures!”

In & of itself, political ends/changes in political structures are not
the
ultimate solutions to man’s problems. But that doesn’t mean a believer
cannot try to pray for political change, work towards political
structural
change, and still fulfill God’s calling in one’s life as long as one has
the proper spiritual/eternal perspectives in focus at all times.

>From what I understand, many believers & pastors in the former Eastern
bloc countries prayed & stood peacefully with conviction against
repressive
regimes even knowing that their lives & liberties were at stake. But God
honored their prayers & steadfastness eventually with the falling of many
brutal leaders.

This is not to say that the changes in political structure now brought
are
the ultimate answers either. But I feel that some believers may be
called
by God to devote their lives in the political arenas for the purposes of
being
the next “Daniels” and “Josephs” of our generation.

In Him,
J. Chang

——————————

From: ben_mel@juno.com (Benjamin C Wong)
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 01:18:03 EST
Subject: [none]

Concerning civil-rights, social issue.

How can there be equality without changing the in-equality that is
inherent in man? How can there be social justice without changing the
injustice that is characteristic of man? If you put children of all
nationality into the same school and into the same class room, what would
make us think that the white girl wouldn’t say, “Brown is ugly”? How do
one develop a just, equal society, and of more importance a moral,
loving, God-fearing society with humans that are “totally depraved”?

How can I get excited about afirmative action or anti-a. a.? How can I
get excited about discriminations, racism, low-cost housing, welfare,
etc.? Excited in the sense of hope; of correcting it.

Ben

——————————

From: RevCow@aol.com
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 02:48:36 -0500 (EST)
Subject: CAC_Mail: WORK & WORD, Ben’s questions

Hi Ben,

Thanks for your thoughtful questions. Here’s my two cents worth.

>Please expand…”social action…as loving God with all our strength”
If you don’t mind, I won’t expand. Many ways of loving God with all our
strength, one by meeting people’s needs in Jesus’ name (others include,
but not limited to: work, using our time for God, finances, resources,
etc.).

>and of “worship Him in spirit and truth.”
>Is spirit = personally and truth = Word?
I made an implicit connection with (heart related to spirit) and (truth
related to mind). This is not a definitive statement. I’d like to learn
more about this if anyone would like to offer.

>At your convenience. You admonished me that prayer is more necessary
>than all these postings. Thanks!
I hope we’re all praying more and more for the harvest. I respect the
postings regarding Bill Lee, and I do know and believe that it’s
important to have godly men in leadership of this nation. Thank you for
the info on him. Regardless of how much or little we’re praying, I feel
that that perhaps we should be praying more, and encouraging each other
and each other’s churches to pray more.

I’m reminded of Psalms 2, specifically verses 1 & 8:
Why do the nations conspire and the peoples plot in vain?…Ask of me,
and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your
possession.

ANYONE BITE?
I think one wonderful way to use CAC as a tool for the Kingdom would be
as a forum for relaying urgent prayer needs and their answers.

Bill, I’ll get to your postings later. Thanks!

That all the earth may worship Him in our generation
(less than 150 people groups and counting),
Ted

Rev. Ted Kau
Harvest San Gabriel Valley

Prayer does not equip us for greater works,
prayer is the greater work–
Oswald Chambers

——————————

From: JirehLin@aol.com
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 08:08:29 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Re: Bill Lee and Affirmative Action

CACer,

Did anyone read the article by Susan Su Allen, president of U.S. Pan Asian
American Chamber of Commerce Washington, D.C. (Nov.20, 14A-USA TODAY)
concerning Bill Lann Lee.

I’ve been hearing two sides of the coin concerning Bill Lee. According to
Susan Su Allen, the reason why Bill Lee failed Senate Judiciary Committee
consent to be the Justice Department’s assistant attorney general was because
of his restricted view of the Constitution.
“Contrary to Jesse Jackson’s claim, Lee was not rejected because of his skin
color, but rather for his misguided belief in civil rights for some based on
race, ethnic origin and gender, and for his use of preferences, quotas and
set-aside to achieve his goals. ”

Bill’s policies for the last 20 years have been “injurious to the racial and
gender harmony in America” The article goes on to say that his “preferential
policies excluded Asian-Americans from the University of California system
even though they are more qualified than admitted students of other ethic
groups. He works against parents who tell their children to work hard so
they can get in the school of their choice but find that their children are
passed over for less qualified students because of their race of ethnic
origin.”

If this is true, then he would not be of interest to the Asian Communities at
large. I know even in my church a young man being passed over for admittance
to a good state school because a quota system from his school would only
allow certain numbers of Asia to enter. He was a scholar, but was cut to
make room for other minorities. He eventually when to Harvard Law
graduating 1st in his class.

What do you think?

Patiently,
Jireh

——————————

From: jtc10@juno.com (J Chang)
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 15:20:48 -0500
Subject: CAC_Mail: Fwd: Press Release – 105th Congress & Families

Dear CACers:

FYI, here is FRC’s summary of the first session of the 105th Congress.

In HIm,
J. Chang
– ————-

THE 105TH CONGRESS –
HOW ARE FAMILIES DOING SO FAR?

WASHINGTON, D.C.- “From giving families back some of their own
money to fighting for the interests of women and the lives of
their unborn children, the first session of the 105th Congress
worked toward restoring the values upon which our nation was
founded,” Family Research Council President Gary L. Bauer said
Monday upon the conclusion of the 1997 legislative session of
Congress.

“By cutting taxes, stopping federalized education tests,
limiting taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand, and keeping
taxpayer-funded needles out of drug users hands, the 105th
Congress crossed party, class, gender, and racial lines in an
attempt to help all Americans,” Bauer continued. “The
President’s veto — or the explicit threat of a veto —
prevented several important initiatives, such as the Partial-
Birth Abortion Ban and the Coverdell education savings account
legislation, from becoming law in 1997. We will continue to
work with committed members of Congress to build the support
necessary to enact these important measures during the second
session of the 105th Congress, even as we seek support for new
initiatives to promote family, faith and freedom,” Bauer added.

For reporters and Congress watchers who are analyzing the
impact of this session on the family, the following represents
a pro-family review:

SANCTITY OF LIFE

Passed by Congress, Signed Into Law:
* No taxpayer-funded physician-assisted suicide
* No taxpayer-funded Medicaid abortion-on-demand through HMO
programs
* No military abortion-on-demand
* No taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand for federal employees
* No abortion-on-demand for D.C. employees
* No abortion-on-demand for D.C. Medicaid recipients
* No taxpayer-funded human embryo research
* No taxpayer-funded human cloning research
* No taxpayer-funded abortion in prisons
* No abortion litigation by the Legal Services Corporation
* A conscience clause for federal prison employees who desire
to avoid assisting in prisoner abortion details

Passed by Congress, Vetoed:
* A Ban on Partial-Birth Abortion procedures, except to save
the life of the mother

One Chamber Passed:
* A ban on foreign aid “family planning” taxpayer dollars going
to groups that promote or perform abortions; elimination of
U.S. contribution to the United Nation’s population control
arm that provides support to China’s coercive one-child policy
program (House)

What Continues:
* Taxpayer funding of research involving tissue from aborted
babies
* Taxpayer funding of international abortion providers and of
the UN’s participation in China’s coercive population control
programs

FAMILY TAX RELIEF

Passed by Congress, Signed Into Law:
* Single filers making up to $75,000 and couples filing
jointly making up to $110,000 can now receive a $500 per child
tax credit
* Lowered burden on estate or “death” taxes
* Lowered tax rate on capital gains

One Chamber Passed:
* Require the IRS, not taxpayers, to carry the burden of proof
for proving errors (House)

What Continues:
* No constitutional limitation on raising taxes on the American
people

EDUCATION

Passed by Congress, Signed Into Law:
* No federal funding for federal education tests, thus
preventing implementation of a federal education curriculum

One Chamber Passed:
* Education Savings Accounts for K-12 education expenses as
part of the Tax Relief bill (Senate)
* Education Savings Accounts for K-12 education expenses as a
freestanding bill (House)
* Education block grant of $13 billion to local schools (Senate)
* Non-binding resolution to send 90% of federal “dollars to the
classroom” (House)

What Continues:
* No K-12 Education Savings Accounts for parents to save up to
$2,000/year tax free for their child’s education expenses in
public, private, or home schools
* Federalized, Washington-run education programs costing more
than $30 billion with nearly half of the money remaining in
Washington

FAMILY POLICY

Signed Into Law:
* Reform of the foster care and adoption laws to free more
children from languishing in foster care programs and place
them in permanent loving adoptive homes

One Chamber Passed:
* Flex Time for workers to trade overtime pay for paid time
off (House)

What Continues:
* Title X (ten) clinics may still distribute contraceptive
drugs and devices to minors without notifying parents using a
$203.5 million allocation from U.S. taxpayers
* A new entitlement program, health care for poor children,
which is the first step toward implementing the Clinton Care
federally run health care system
* Elderly people on Medicare cannot make private contracts with
their doctors to pay cash for services, unless their doctor
refuses to see any elderly Medicare patients for two years
* The 1938 workplace law which bars families from scheduling
their work week around their needs while still getting paid
* Unbridled judicial activism in federal courts by judges who
defy the Constitution for political agendas

On the Horizon
* Legislation in process to ban pornography on the Internet
* Legislation in process to reinstate the Family Impact
Statement, an assessment test for how government actions
impact families; originally implemented as an executive order
in the Reagan administration but revoked by President Clinton

DRUGS

Passed by Congress, Signed Into Law:
* A ban on taxpayer funded needle exchange programs until at
least March, 1998

FOREIGN POLICY/HUMAN RIGHTS

* William Weld did not become the U.S. ambassador to Mexico
(Senate)

One Chamber Passed:
* The House passed nine first-step bills addressing human
rights abuses and China’s vast military buildup

What Continues:
* The United States became a signer on the Chemical Weapons
Treaty (CWC), thus opening up thousands of U.S. companies to
intrusive UN inspectors
* Communist China is still granted Most-Favored-Nation trade
status by the United States despite its documented human
rights abuses and weapons proliferation
* U.S. supercomputers, capable of developing nuclear
capabilities, now can be transferred to China’s government
* U.S. tax dollars will allow the Export/Import Bank to
continue giving the most money to China’s government-run
companies
* Global religious persecution continues with virtually no
sanction by the U.S. government

CULTURAL BATTLES

Passed by Congress, Signed Into Law:
* No taxpayer funds will go to pay for health benefits for
homosexual “partners”
* No taxpayer funds will go to pay for mandated diversity
training unrelated to federal employees’ jobs

One Chamber Passed:
* A resolution defending the Ten Commandments display in
federal buildings (House)

What Continues:
* U.S. taxpayers will fund the controversial National
Endowment for the Arts with $98 million
* U.S. taxpayers will pay for an increase in funding for the
controversial Legal Services Corporation

——————————

From: HarryWLew@aol.com
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 15:28:42 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: What’s the issue?

Dear Sze-kar,

>I am sorry you feel this way; you sound like an “angry white man,” to quote
someone famous.

If I were paranoid, I would take that as an insult; something like calling me
a “banana.” But since I am not paranoid, I give you the benefit of the doubt.
I’ll excuse you as I do the well-meaning multiculturalists who want to lump
the Chinese and all other non-whites into the category of “people of color”
who should think and act the same way politically.

If you want to be informed of Lee’s hard-nosed views on affirmative action
read the latest THE NEW REPUBLIC (Dec. 1, 1997) page 6ff. Even the
unabashedly liberal magazine, which believes in “mending, not ending”
affirmative action, find Lee’s views “distressing.”

By the way, I am a registered Democrat.

Yours in Christ,
Harry

——————————

From: leungs
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 97 16:02:00 E
Subject: CAC_Mail: Prayer – I’ll byte

Brother Ted,

you wrote:

:ANYONE BITE?
:I think one wonderful way to use CAC as a tool for the Kingdom would be
:as a forum for relaying urgent prayer needs and their answers.

:Ted

:Rev. Ted Kau
:Harvest San Gabriel Valley

:Prayer does not equip us for greater works,
:prayer is the greater work–
:Oswald Chambers

Perhaps it is synchronicity… I think there is someone else’s hand in all
this:

I know another brother on this list who sent out an urgent prayer request
this morning. I have another one that I’d like to share, since I was just
updated here at work…

We probably don’t appreciate many folks until they are gone. This applies
to our church leaders as well.

Elder Charlemagne Chu from our church was hit by a car two nights ago as he
was walking home to get the other car from his home to jump start the one in
the parking lot of a nearby grocery store. His was wife stayed behind to
wait in the first car.

To make a long story short, he was induced into a coma to keep his brain
activity below harmful levels. (I’m no brain surgeon, nor rocket scientist,
so I’m fuzzy on this detail.) The physicians were waiting until his son
returned from China before undertaking a make-or-break surgery to relieve
pressure on the brain. Last night, the son arrived.

The update I received today:
“Yesterday the doctor told the Chu family that they could try another
surgery on Elder Chu, but the chance of success was only 20%. The Chu
family
would have to decide whether to have the surgery or not. They decided not
to
have the surgery because they thought it would be too much for Elder Chu.
Right now Elder Chu is on life support. This morning Mrs. Chu and their
children gathered around Elder Chu and sang songs. Elder Chu could hear
them
and tears rolled down his face.”

I was just called and told that he passed away. His family is in need of
prayer. I prepare to go to Youth Group tonight not exactly knowing how to
break the news. Last week’s sermon was from Psalm 90. We touched on the
fragility of life…

You can imagine the mix of feelings now that run through our minds. Many of
you have been there, I’m sure. This is a first for our church in its 18
year history – in that the death involves a prominent church leader. On
one hand, God wanted to bring His child home. On the other, it seems that
God could have showed us yet another miracle. We’re a PCA church – no name
it claim it guys in our midst… We have had miraculous answers to prayer
in the past for our church members. This time, it was just different. We
could only pray “Thy will be done.” Yet, this can seem such a timid and
dispassionate prayer – especially to young people. Certainly, your prayers
for the elder’s family are coveted.

Sorry for going on like this at the keyboard. Writing is sometimes
therapeutic ( though not as much as prayer.) This is really what I want to
say. Many of us have had a chance to gather around his bed know to “talk”
to him. They asserted that hearing is one of the last sensory functions to
go. That’s why his family sang to him… Last night, I thanked him for his
service, his example. I told him that he might be on his way home now, but
that he was in good hands now. It was difficult to say much more, but there
could have been more to say. I forgot the words “we love you.” I so wish I
had gotten them out. I wanted to tell him that his family would be in good
hands – they will be. But, what I really wanted to tell him was that I
wished for his forgiveness for the hard heart I’ve held towards our elders –
him included – because of differences of opinion, struggles, and wounded
“servants” we’ve had in getting our English-speaking ministry off the
ground. Perhaps we should have prayed together more.

Elder Chu’s English name was apropos. Even as he has dealt with other
health problems in recent years, he was the elder who as a retiree, came out
to help the ABC deacon “tend” the grounds. He was softs-poken but
dedicated. I thanked him often. But, I never reconciled. He may have
never known there was a need to do so. I could have said so much more.
Sorry if this really sounds like the beginnings of a eulogy in the making.

I wanted to write quite a bit today. I would have responded to Brother
Richard about how “doing justly” is a Christian’s witness and responsibility
(not something shoved off to Gov.) I would have responded in length to
Brother Jireh’s post by asking if the question is now Bill Lee’s past, which
goes against new judicial rulings on the constitutionality of Affirm.Act.,
or his conviction, which to a degree he will have to temper to be a dutiful
civil servant. Demographers now tell us that there is much that divides us
– not just race or gender. There is a divide between the haves and
have-not’s (not just in fiscal terms). There is a divide between
generations…. We see all these within our churches as well. But…all
that seems much less significant now.

There is near me and around me a grieving family. There are words
regrettably not said. There stands before us a sovereign, just, and
faithful God. Would you pray?

In the Redeemer,
Stephen

——————————

From: jlin3@unity.ncsu.edu
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 16:21:02 -0500 (EST)
Subject: CAC_Mail: Update on Paul Igasaki

hey ya’ll perhaps some may find this interesting, somewhat relevant at
this time with our concurrent discussion on Bill Lan Lee.
Under His severe mercy–
jennifer

oca@ari.net wrote:
>
>
> ======================
> PAUL IGASAKI – UPDATE
> ======================
>
> VICE CHAIRMAN IGASAKI IS AWAITING RECESS APPOINTMENT AS CONGRESS ADJOUNS
>
> Last week, Paul Igasaki’s reappointment to the position of Vice-
> chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was
> stalled before the Senate Labor Committee. With Congress
> adjourned for the year, the fate of this key civil rights
> appointment is in limbo.
>
> Under the provisions of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act,
> Igasaki’s first term officially expired with the adjournment of
> Congress. Until the White House comes through with an expected
> recess appointment, Igasaki will remain on the agency payroll
> in a provisional capacity.
>
> Igasaki’s reappointment is particularly crucial for EEOC because
> of the pending departure of Chairman Gilbert Casellas, who has
> announced his plans to leave the commission by the end of 1997,
> and an existing vacancy on the commission. A minimum of three
> commissioners must be seated on the five member panel for the
> agency to conduct official business. Igasaki is expected to be
> given a recess appointment shortly, although no official word
> has been given from the White House.
>
> Paul Igasaki Biographical Information:
>
> A lawyer and civil rights adviser, he has held the vice-chair’s
> seat since September 1994. During his first term at the
> commission, he headed a task force that recommended an overhaul
> of the agency’s charge processing system and the establishment
> of a national enforcement plan. Before his work with the EEOC,
> Igasaki was executive director of the Asian Law Caucus in San
> Francisco. Formerly, he was the Washington representative for
> the Japanese American Citizens League, and he also served as
> the Asian American Community Liaison on the Chicago Commission
> on Human Relations.
>
> Igasaki is the son of Japanese American parents who met at an
> interment camp during WWII. He said that the experiences of
> “wartime hysteria and racial hatred” faced by his family led him
> to pursue a career in civil rights.
>
>
> Organization of Chinese Americans
> 1001 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite #707
> Washington, D.C. 20036
>
> Tel:(202)223-5500
> Fax:(202)296-0540
> Voice Mail:(202)223-5523
>
> E-Mail: oca@ari.net
> World Wide Web: http://www2.ari.net/oca
>

——————————

From: HarryWLew@aol.com
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 19:06:44 -0500 (EST)
Subject: CAC_Mail: Re: G’s experience

Dear G,

In your empathy, please don’t advocate a position like affirmative action
that harms more than helps.

Shelby Steele wrote a short but excellent article a year ago in THE NEW
REPUBLIC about white guilt and the fear of being charged with racism as the
motivation for racial preferential policies which do not deal to the root of
the race problem in the U.S. The article, “The Race Not Run: Fear and the
roots of affirmative action,” is in the Oct. 7, 1996 issue, pages 23ff.

Also Alan Wolfe wrote an excellent review of David Shipler’s A COUNTRY OF
STRANGERS: BLACKS AND WHITES IN AMERICA in which Wolfe evaluates the use
stories such as yours in understanding the state of race relations in
America. The review is entitled “The Facts And The Feelings” appears in the
September 29, 1997 issue of THE NEW REPUBLIC, pages 27ff.

Both articles will deepen our understanding of these issues. My students and
colleagues who come from all sides would agree. If you have trouble finding
the articles, let me know.

P.S. CACers, my apologies if you received my reply to Sze-kar twice. Someone
accidently deleted his original copy of my message and asked me to send him
another copy, but instead to sending it personally to him, I mistakenly sent
it to the CAC listserve again.

Yours in Christ,
Harry

——————————

From: Epo9@aol.com
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 20:17:41 -0500 (EST)
Subject: CAC_Mail: Re: CAC List Mail: Pastor Sen Wong

Hi everyone,
Sorry this took so long, but this is the latest address I have for Sen Wong

1480 Dumaine St.
Concord, CA 94518 (510) 798-8964

His wife June’s email is Dolinki@ aol.com

Patty Kashiwamura

——————————

From: gdot@juno.com (G Ottoson)
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 23:38:43 -0700
Subject: CAC_Mail: Re: G’s experience

On Fri, 21 Nov 1997 19:06:44 -0500 (EST) HarryWLew@aol.com writes:
>Dear G,
>…
>P.S. CACers, my apologies if you received my reply to Sze-kar twice.
>Yours in Christ, Harry

Dear Harry,

I re-read the “reply to Sze-kar twice”. Can anybody anticipate what the
Holy Spirit does with such things (any more than we know where the wind
blows)? Pray in private, argue truthfully in public–> both you and
Sze-kar have exemplified Jesus in this regard, Harry, and it speaks of
him to me.

Thank you for the advice re: NR. I’ll contact you privately, if
necessary, as you suggested. | Here’s a Thanksgiving poem written a few
years ago, ff.; prefaced by a comment in passing, that Ben M., today, in
my estimation, put his finger on perhaps the most powerful CAC-list issue
to date; he and Tim are blowing me away lately πŸ™‚ If anything, Harry, I
might advocate for Ben’s sense of “excitement”, but who has an answer for
his probing question(s)?

Not I, but I wish you (all) a Happy Thanksgiving πŸ™‚

G

==========

THE “L” WORD

God is liberal
God is good
Let us thank Him for our food. . .

For the sun, the moon, and stars
For the oil in our cars
Thank You for the birds and trees
For the mountains and the seas
For the grain on leather purses
For a doctor’s lovely nurses
Thank Him now for all He does
Give Him praise for He is Love

If He was conservative
Would we have a place to live?

All He made He made for you
Air and water, clear and blue
Eyes and ears and treble notes
Saliva for our burning throats
Chinooks where the eagle soars
Land to choose for liquor stores
Math by which to count your money
Lips to use to kiss your honey
Metal, liquid, oxygen
Lumber, cotton, and your skin
Rivers rinsing forest floors
Galaxies to go explore
Warmth of friends like Ed and Alice
Rainbows and the Borealis

God has opened up His coffers
Shared His wealth with foes and scoffers

Men have cursed Him if He held
Any blessing from the World

God is gracious
God is true
God is liberal
How about you?

c.1995 go

——————————

From: RevCow@aol.com
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 02:25:13 -0500 (EST)
Subject: CAC_Mail: “Precious in the sight of the Lord…”

Dear Brother Stephen,

My heart was grieved to hear about Elder Charlemagne Chu’s passing away.
God knows we need leaders like him with a heart for the English
ministries.

Thank you for sharing about your desire for reconciliation with Elder
Chu. While this is perhaps painful for you, it is a reminder to me about
what’s important to God. I am challenged to make sure there is no root
of bitterness between me and any of the Taiwanese/Mandarin leaders of my
denomination now, before the opportunity slips away.

Thank you for bringing eternity back into focus.

>Would you pray?
My wife and I are praying for Elder Chu’s family, your church, and for
you. If you don’t mind, I’d like to post your prayer request to our
church’s prayer meetings. Please let me know if you feel this is
appropriate.

Prayerfully,
Ted

Rev. Ted Kau
Harvest San Gabriel Valley

“I am ready to meet God face to face tonight and look into those eyes of
infinite holiness, for all my sins are covered by the atoning
blood.”–R.A. Torrey

“Death is but a passage. It is not a house, it is only a vestibule. The
grave has a door on its inner side.”–Alexander MacLaren

“Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints.”–Psalm
116:15

——————————

From: TSTseng@aol.com
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 02:53:04 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Re: Bill Lee and Affirmative Action

Richard:

I appreciate your thoughtful response to the AA debate. Fairness must not be
sacrificed for the sake of racial or ethnic solidarity even though I am a
proponent for Asian American coalition building.

The debate over affirmative action does not appear to be over whose view is
more fair than the other but over beginning assumptions about the nature of
society (whether these assumptions match up with Scripture is another
debate). Proponents of AA believe that our society is not a level playing
field when it comes to race (and gender and class). Opponents seem to think
that society is already a level playing field. AA proponents want to make
equal opportunity possible, opponents think it already exists. Depending on
where you begin, you will define equal opportunity differently.

Evidence used to support these positions also reveal something about the
debater’s approach to reality. AA proponents cite historical evidence and
the present experience of racial minorities. Opponents appeal to abstract
logic and an almost “inerrant” view of the Founding Father’s intentions in
the US Constitution (in the original language, of course, this would mean
the perpetuation of slavery).

Consider this example as we think about the merits of AA: Compare
evangelical and mainline protestant seminaries and denominations since the
1960s. The latter chose to employ AA in their hiring practices (because
their diverse constituencies pressured them to) and have more diverse
faculties and representation than evangelical seminaries and denominations
that decided not to use AA. Does this mean that all the “qualified”
professors and leaders are in evangelical seminaries and denominations? Even
in evangelical denominations and seminaries that have diversity along racial
lines have had to accept AA as guideline in order to achieve that diversity
(e.g., the Christian Missionary Alliance has ethnic specific ministry
programs – a clear example of AA at work).

Another example, say that you are a pastor in a multi-cultural church. What
would happen if the only people who exercised leadership in that church were
white males? What happens when the only ones who determine the criteria for
leadership qualifications were white males? How would you encourage others
to use their gifts to serve the Lord? And wouldn’t inviting someone
non-white and apparently less qualified be an injustice to the white men
already in positions of leadership? Only something like AA will be able to
change this situation. Otherwise there will simply be no openings for people
of color called into ministry or these racial minorities will have little
choice but to leave the church and form congregations along racial lines.

In a message dated 11/20/97 5:31:07 AM, drwong1@juno.com wrote:

<>

Racism, pure and simple, is not about skin color. It’s about power and abuse
of power on the basis of perceived complexion (and other physiological)
differences. The bible is silent about acid rain, too, but we certainly can
appeal to guidelines from Scripture that would affirm the need to protect the
environment. Similary, while “skin color” is not a central concern in
Scripture (after all, racism is a modern phenomenon), the bible clearly
speaks out against abuse of power and the uplifting of the oppressed (e.g.,
Nathan’s charge to David when he abused his power to cover up his adultery
with Bathsheba).

<>

I agree. This is why the “mend it, don’t end it” solution works. AA should
be expanded to include helping even the playing field for economically
deprived people. But, this should not substitute for race or gender since it
means that poor white men will benefit more than poor non-white men and
women. But by saying this, are you supporting the philosophy of AA (i.e.,
compensatory justice)?

<>

Again, AA doesn’t purport to help those who cannot help themselves (it’s not
welfare). It is a means of making the playing field more even for those who
on the basis of their “skin color” are not allowed to compete fairly.
Furthermore, as I said earlier, means testing should not replace “color”
testing. To argue this assumes that racial discrimination does not exist or
can be explained away as a function of economic deprivation.

Depending on how harsh an Augustinian or Calvinist one is, God does seem to
have “set asides” (double predestinaton) for the elect, does He not? In any
case, I don’t think admission to heaven is merit based.

<>

J. Chang already articulated a great response to your concerns – which I
echo. One does not have to try to create heaven on earth to be concerned and
take action about injustice in the world. The church’s witness to the world
ought not be limited to a “lifeboat” theology. It should be a sign or
foretaste of the heavenly kingdom as well. Otherwise, why do we pray in the
Lord’s prayer, “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven?”

Also, what are the signs of true repentance for the past and present sin of
racism and the church’s complicity with it? A mere apology? What about the
real victims of current injustice (the poor, racial minorities, women, etc.)?
If there is no remedy for the sins inflicted on them, don’t we risk driving
them away from Christ? Or are you saying that it is more important that we
keep white males happy in their positions of privilege? If opponents of
affirmative action really believe that racism is a real problem, even in the
church, what do they suggest to deal with it beyond inviting everyone to look
to heaven?

Tim Tseng

——————————

From: TSTseng@aol.com
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 02:53:34 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Re: CAC_Mail: Re: Bill Lee and Affirmative Action

Greetings Jireh:

I certainly don’t expect the U.S. Pan Asian American Chamber of Commerce to
support anyone who stands firmly for the civil rights policies that are
perceived to favor other minorities over Asians. The question remains: do
other minorities really benefit at the expense of Asian Americans?

I urge you and others to read Dana Tagaki’s _Retreat from Race_ which shows
that Asian admissions quotas are NOT caused by other unqualified minorities
taking “our spots,” but by the unwillingness of schools to permit more than a
limited number of Asians in. Let’s stop assuming that we are competing
against other racial minorities. This is precisely what fosters Asian racial
prejudice against Blacks and Latinos and projects the image that Asians are
just like whites.

Tim

In a message dated 11/21/97 6:18:35 AM, JirehLin@aol.com wrote:

<<<>

——————————

From: TSTseng@aol.com
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 02:53:58 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Re: CAC_Mail: Bill Lee

DC:

The OCA is as much a “front” for the Democratic Party just as the Christian
Coalition, FRC, and Focus on the Family are “fronts” for the Republican
Party. I remember seeing a OCA publication which hesitated on taking a
position on Affirmative Action (about 2 years ago) and I don’t know where
they finally ended up. When I was in NYC and my wife worked for the Chinese
American Planning Council (a social service agency), we had the impression
that OCA was rather conservative.

Anyway, using “race” to organize political agendas is one of the things that
is at stake in the current debate. It helps to keep the central question
that racial minorities ask in focus: “how do people of color gain equal
opportunity to participate in public institutions (and religious
institutions)?” Some say “self-help” as individuals because equal
opportunity is assumed; others say intentional efforts on the part of
institutions to recruit people from a particular group since equal
opportunity does not exist for people of color. Those who believe that the
latter perspective reflects social reality will often organize along racial
(or ethnic lines) because they see no alternative to insuring that American
institutions will truly provide equal opportunity.

Translate this debate into the Christian ministry arena and what do you get?
Those who want to affirm Chinese or Asian American specific congregations
automatically fit into the second perspective. Many use two types of
arguments to justify ethnic or racial specific ministries: (1) God called me
to minister to Chinese Americans [a race/ethnic specific calling]; (2) there
is a greater need for Chinese/Asian Americans to hear the gospel than other
groups – after all 10% (at most) Chinese are Christians [pragmatic argument].
If one were to use the anti-affirmative action or race neutral arguments,
neither of these reasons would hold water. After all, if God is no respecter
of persons and if there is neither Greek nor Jew, etc. in Christ, wouldn’t it
be unbiblical to minister to a specific people groups? Wouldn’t intentional
efforts at reaching Asian Americans discriminate against efforts at reaching
non-Asian Americans? So, to support the arguments against AA and race-based
politics would, in essence, undermine our rationale for calling people to
minister to Chinese and Asian Americans.

I agree that it is wrong to support someone simply on the basis of race and I
hope what I’ve written is not interpreted as”coercion” but a relative
objective (but undergirded by moral principles) analysis.

Tim

In a message dated 11/20/97 11:09:58 PM, DCChuang@aol.com wrote:

<>

——————————

From: “Peter P. Huang”
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 97 09:15:27 -0800
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Re: Bill Lee and Affirmative Action

I like the discussion going on here. Here’s my two cents.

>debate). Proponents of AA believe that our society is not a level playing
>field when it comes to race (and gender and class). Opponents seem to think
>that society is already a level playing field. AA proponents want to make
>equal opportunity possible, opponents think it already exists. Depending on
>where you begin, you will define equal opportunity differently.

Tim, I totally agree with you here. The perspective is built on whether
there is a level playing field and what we would like to do with this
level or not playing field. Some people acknowledge the disparity but
would like to keep it this way. For me, meritocracy is great – IF there
is a level playing field. So, until the field is leveled, there is no
adequate discussion on meritocracy (with opponents of AA use).

>that decided not to use AA. Does this mean that all the “qualified”
>professors and leaders are in evangelical seminaries and denominations? Even

Tim, I think you brought up a good point here with qualifying
“qualified.” It’s part of revisiting what contributes to a good
education or to a good work environment. Diversity is one aspect of
qualifying someone because of the perspectives that this person can
contribute to learning. Often times, in hiring or in admitting a
student, we also tend to forget that we are not out there to hire person
with the longest c.v. or the highest SAT or GRE score. We tell people
that there are certain qualifications that people need to meet in order
to apply. After people meet these requirements, it should be fair game.
I think the UC Regents were reminded of that a couple of years back.
>
>Another example, say that you are a pastor in a multi-cultural church. What
>would happen if the only people who exercised leadership in that church were
>white males? What happens when the only ones who determine the criteria for
>leadership qualifications were white males? How would you encourage others

The perspective is often defined by those who are in power. I think as a
start and at the least we need to recognize that.

Granted that AA is not the most perfect system, I have to always remind
myself that the purpose of AA is not to look at the individual case
(which opponents tend to focus on). Focusing on exceptions and the
individual does not do justice to AA because as a program it was not
designed for that. Did you know that in the University of California
system under AA, only 5% of the admitted students were special case
admissions (people who didn’t make the UC qualifications)? In this 5%,
only 20% of the admission decisions were made based on race? (The other
80% were mostly athletes and musicians.) This means that only 1% of the
UC admissions under AA were based on race. Sometimes opponents of AA
makes it seem that every underrepresented person of color gets in because
of AA. This is simply not true. AA keeps the public servants
accountable to what they have proposed – that if people meet a certain
standard, they are eligible. Helping with underrepresentation does not
mean admitting or hiring unqualified people. It may be choosing the
Native American who got a 1200 on her SAT’s but who is still qualified
for admittance to UC over the white American who scored a 1450 on her SAT
(probably also with the help of prep classes, tutoring and having begun
prepping for the SAT since the 9th grade). I am concerned for the doing
away of AA in the state of California. I feel that without AA, the
ethnic distance will only increase as it was already happening at an
alarming rate (education, average income) prior to AA. AA was a way of
maintaining and possibly narrowing this gap. Without it, in 5 to 10 to
20 years, we will really begin to see even more rift not only between the
races but between the haves and the have-nots.

– ————–
Peter P. Huang
petie@ix.netcom.com
home: (310)530-8081 fax: (310)530-8802
work: (626)280-0477 work email: phuang@ebc1.mhs.compuserve.com

——————————

From: ohbrudder
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 16:47:51 -0800
Subject: CAC_Mail: Re: Prayer – I’ll byte

ohbrudder wrote:

Dear Stephen,

My heart goes out to you, the family of Elder Chu, and your spiritual
family. And add my prayers for the Lord’s comfort, strength, peace and
even joy. This past week saw the passing of another great man of God,
John Wimber. He was for me and many Chinese ministers I know, a major
influence in shaping our theology and ministries to effectively reach
and minister to the lost and our churches.

At the peak of Wimber’s ministry, healing and miracles were a prominent
part of his ministry. I remember once when he cried and expressed
frustration that their desperate prayers did nothing for a close friend
dying of cancer; he had seen hundreds healed of all kinds of illnesses
including cancer. And he had to remind himself of many things he had
taught us. Among them is to have faith not in our own prayers but in
God
and to pray for the Spirit to teach us how to pray in a particular
situation. God may lead us to pray for a miracle or He may lead us to
pray for our own selves to be sustained through grief or something
else.

Elder Chu and John Wimber will be missed (for now) but their passing is
not a tragedy. I know they themselves would ask us to save our tears
for
those whose death would be “death” . . .a real tragedy.

In the name of Him who gives us peace that passes all understanding,

bill leong

> > Elder Charlemagne Chu from our church was hit by a car . . .
> > I was just called and told that he passed away. His family is in need of
> > prayer. On
> > one hand, God wanted to bring His child home. On the other, it seems that
> > God could have showed us yet another miracle.

——————————

From: ohbrudder
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 16:57:00 -0800
Subject: CAC_Mail: Re: WORK and WORD of God

ohbrudder wrote:

Hi Ted,

I thought that before I respond to your response, I’d explain more
clearly
my perception of how I perceive believers relate to God . . .which I
did
attempt to do in my last 2 or 3 ten cent posts–I hope! Maybe I’m weird
or something but I make sense to me. I spoke “apple” and everyone else
spoke “orange” or “kumquat”! Now i’ll try to pitch my dime at these
ideas
you brought up. . .with the understanding you understand me.

> >…what I perceive are the primary ways
> >believers relate to God: “personally” and thru “the Word”.
> WITH ALL OUR HEART, MIND, AND STRENGTH
> Is it possible that to have an intimate relationship with God means
to
> have a high degree of both? Do they have to be mutually exclusive?
I
> see this as loving God with all our heart and mind. Believers who
stress
> social action might be understood as loving God with all their
strength.
> Jesus says that God seeks those who worship Him in both spirit and
truth,
> not one or the other.
>
> The human tendency is to focus on one to the detriment of others, but
I
> believe that what pleases God is an intense relating with Him on all
> fronts.
>

As you can see, my definition of worship in spirit and truth is at a
slight
variant to yours, so is how we view our relationship to God and the
Word.
From my point of view, our spirit and the Spirit drive our heart, mind,
soul, and strength to love Him. The source of that love is the Spirit
of
love Himself and he pours it into us.
On our own, in our own flesh or sinful nature,
we are incapable of the kind of love God ask of us. And apart from Him
we can do nothing. But by His Spirit we are enabled to love . . .
however, the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.
And I for one will spend the rest of my life overcoming the flesh . . .
the same as dying to myself . . .so that “I no longer live but Christ
lives in me” and more of His love can be poured out of me.

> BIRDS OF A FEATHER–FRAGMENTATION OF CHURCH
> The unfortunate phenomena that occurs (which is not limited to
Chinese or
> Asian churches) is that churches tend to focus on and do one, two, or
> maybe three things real well, and they attract people who emphasize
or
> are already strong in those areas.

In my opinion, those people are just church-hopping, disgruntled,
selfish
Christian dudes (and dudettes) who don’t know the meaning of commitment
and ignore their Lord’s command to love each other as he loved them.

For Him who loved me before I loved Him,

bill leong

——————————

From: ohbrudder
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 17:11:01 -0800
Subject: CAC_Mail: Re: WORK & WORD, Ben’s questions

Hi Ted and Ben,
May I throw in my dime’s worth? okay.

> >Please expand…”social action…as loving God with all our
strength”
> If you don’t mind, I won’t expand. Many ways of loving God with all
our
> strength, one by meeting people’s needs in Jesus’ name (others
include,
> but not limited to: work, using our time for God, finances,
resources,
> etc.).

I concur with Ted . . .love is action most exemplified, or best
expressed
in the act of giving . . . giving of oneself, his resources, his
strength,
etc. God so loved . . .that He gave his one and only . . .

>
> >and of “worship Him in spirit and truth.”
> >Is spirit = personally and truth = Word?
> I made an implicit connection with (heart related to spirit) and
(truth
> related to mind). This is not a definitive statement. I’d like to
learn
> more about this if anyone would like to offer.

In worship we ascribe to God His worth to us; we give to Him what
belongs
to Him: our praises, our sacrifices which is ourselves, our “stuff”,
our expresseions of love and trust . . .perhaps thru songs, hymns, etc.

“in spirit” . . . in the realm of the spirit where our spirit and His
Spirit commune . . .with our spirit giving expression thru our lips and
body language and other. I think this is as personal as it gets with
God!
(It does not necessary follow that when we are singing, for instance,
that we are worshipping in the spirit; this could just be the flesh
without the involvement of the spirit.)

“in truth” . . .we worship Him in the reality of who God is. God of
love, power, righteousness, holiness, etc. We can approach Him boldly,
for instance, with confidence . . .not with fear. He is holy so we
approach Him appropriate to His nature, etc. We praise Him for who He
is,
etc.

My opinion from my perspective of relating to God.

for Him who is worthy,

bill leong

——————————

From: HarryWLew@aol.com
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 21:23:50 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Re: Re: CAC_Mail: Re: Bill Lee and Affirmative Action

Greetings Tim,

>I urge you and others to read Dana Tagaki’s _Retreat from Race_ which shows
>that Asian admissions quotas are NOT caused by other unqualified minorities
>taking “our spots,” but by the unwillingness of schools to permit more than
a
>limited number of Asians in. Let’s stop assuming that we are competing
>against other racial minorities.

I’ve read many convoluted, spurious arguments by liberal racialists defending
affirmative action, and Tagaki’s is probably no different (although I will
look her or his book up to be sure).

The math simply doesn’t add up. If you are going to have racial quotas for
“underrepresented” minorities, what are you going to do when a minority group
such as Asian Americans is “overrepresented”?

Prior to the passage of Proposition 209, the L.A. TIMES reported on a study
that projected enrollment in the top tier University of California system for
Latinos will drop 25% and African Americans down 50%, whites will remain
roughly the same, but Asian Americans will rise 25%. Nobody, conservative or
liberal, doubts this will not happen with the elimination of racial
preferences in admissions.

The fact of the matter is, because of affirmative action, Asian Americans
unfairly have to work harder than anybody else to make it into our best
colleges and universities.

Yours in Christ,
Harry Lew

——————————

From: HarryWLew@aol.com
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 21:23:56 -0500 (EST)
Subject: CAC_Mail: Angry Yellow Men

Dear CAC’ers,

When Sze-kar said that in one of my messages I sounded like an “angry white
man,” I was reminded of an article entitled “Angry Yellow Men” by Kenneth Lee
in THE NEW REPUBLIC over a year ago during the presidential campaign (Sept.
9, 1996, page 11).

I think you will find it an interesting read.

Yours in Christ,
Harry Lew

* * * * *

ANGRY YELLOW MEN
Exploiting Asian discontent
By Kenneth Lee

This past March, Bob Dole delivered his only anti-affirmative action speech
of the primaries. “We ought to do away with preferences. This is America. It
ought to be based on merit,” he told a cheering crowd of 2,000. But his
audience contained few if any angry white males. Dole was speaking in Little
Saigon, in the heart of Southern California’s Vietnamese-American community.

Why this audience? After all, as racial minorities, Asians benefit from
affirmative action in numerous areas, such as federal contracting. Most Asian
American civil rights groups, seeking alliances with more established
counterparts such as the NAACP and the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund,
lobby hard to keep racial preferences in place. As Daphne Kwok of the
Organization of Chinese Americans puts it, “We work with other minority
groups because we’re politically young, and there’s strength in numbers.”

According to a 1993 poll conducted by the California Policy Seminar, however,
two-thirds of Asians oppose affirmative action. Hostility to preferences in
higher education is particularly strong. In 1989, several disgruntled Asian
Americans filed complaints with the federal Office of Civil Rights, accusing
the University of California, Berkeley, of discriminating against Asian
students. Ira M. Heyman, then Berkeley’s chancellor, apologized for the
rigged admissions policy and pledged to reform it. Yet a racial disparity
still exists: the average Asian freshman in 1994 had an average SAT score of
1293 and a 3.9 GPA, compared to 1256 and 3.86 for whites and 3.43 and 994 for
blacks. According to a poll conducted by the National Conference of
Christians and Jews, Asians say they have more in common with whites than
with blacks or Latinos.

Take Allan Ng. Ng had an A average in high school and scored in the top 2
percent on his SATs but was rejected by several Ivy League schools. When he
learned that several of his black classmates had been accepted with lower
grades and test scores, he got angry. “I’m from an immigrant family, and my
parents never had the opportunity to discriminate. Why should I pay for past
discrimination?” he asks. Ng has become a staunch opponent of racial
preferences, writing anti-affirmative action polemics for his college
newspaper at the University of Virginia and distributing them through the
Internet. What Ng says publicly, many Asians feel privately. When students at
the University of California at Irvine held a hunger strike to protest the
Board of Regents’ decision to abolish racial preferences, hardly any Asians
took part, although they constitute more than half of the school’s
population.

In this resentment, conservatives see opportunity. “There’s no doubt that
Republicans can run on a platform of fairness and use this issue to get the
Asian vote,” says Jerry Reynolds of the Center for Equal Opportunity, a
conservative think tank. “Any time racial preferences are used, there’s a
victim. And in California, the victim often has an Asian face.” The Angry
Yellow Male may not have the political clout of the Angry White Male–Asians
represent only 1 percent of the electorate–but Asians are America’s fastest
growing ethnic group; they will probably outnumber blacks by 2020. Right now
they don’t lean heavily toward either party. Focusing on Asians provides the
GOP with indirect benefits as well, inoculating the party’s anti-affirmative
action crusade against charges of racism.

In California, where Asians represent 10 percent of the population, backers
of this year’s big affirmative action referendum, the California Civil Rights
Initiative, have made special efforts to woo the Angry Yellow Male vote. The
measure’s supporters have deliberately showcased yellow faces in their
campaign–an ironic, even cynical, use of race-conscious means to abolish
race-conscious policies. The campaign has tapped prominent Asians to publicly
support the initiative, such as Lester Lee, the first Chinese-American to
serve as a University of California Regent. It has also appointed special
liaisons to the Asian community. And it’s manned an array of booths at ethnic
parades and gatherings, where volunteers hand out anti-affirmative action
op-ed pieces–authored, of course, by Asian Americans. In one such editorial
for the paper Heterodoxy, Matthew Tsien, an Asian American activist, writes,
“Asians do face real discrimination, but it is caused far more often by
racial engineering than by white racism…. [Asians are] being turned away
for university enrollment because quota requirements have been filled and
room has to be made for students from other ethnic groups with dramatically
lower test scores.”

Such rhetoric leaves Asian civil rights groups on the defensive. “College
admissions is a complex issue,” says Henry Der, deputy superintendent of the
California Department of Education and former director of Chinese for
Affirmative Action. “Asian students have a lot of choices [in schools] even
if they don’t get into schools like Berkeley.” Black and Latino activists
tend to leave Asians out of the equation altogether, charging that an end to
preferences would mean a return to “lily-white universities.” But elite
schools won’t become all white again; they’ll end up mostly white and Asian.
At Berkeley, abolishing affirmative action will actually increase Asian
enrollment.

Asian Americans are caught between policies that limit their admission to
select colleges and opportunistic conservatives who see in them a way to
further a larger social agenda. Is there a way out? One Asian student at
Berkeley has a suggestion: “Maybe we should be opportunistic and use
Republicans to get what we want–get rid of affirmative action.”

(Copyright 1996, The New Republic)

——————————

From: ohbrudder
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 00:15:24 -0800
Subject: CAC_Mail: Outrage!

It is an outrage that the Lakers don’t have an Asian on the team;
at least there is a token white on the team–Barry. There should
be a token Asian Laker . . . and I volunteer for the NBA minimum
salary of $250,000? or so, then I can keep a bench warm and help
the Lakers be truely American by helping it meet its Affirmative
Action quota.

bill leong, already residing in LA, ready and unable.

——————————

From: KG Louie
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 15:15:04 +0000
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Outrage!

Brudder Bill,

You are a sick individual – KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!!!! In all seriousness,
thanks for bring in some humor within the current discussion of AA. It’s
wonderful that there may be disagreement within the ranks and still hold on
to and respect the views of others.

We had our annual Thanksgiving luncheon yestarday at our church. It is the
only time when we combine the English and Chinese congregation together in
one service before the luncheon. As usual there was plenty to eat and much
more to clean up. There’s a lot of turkey left for the rice grool – YUMMY!!!

To all the CAC, Have a wonderful Thanksgiving holiday. I am grateful for
reading your comments on various topics.

King Louie.
Fresh Meadows, NY

At 08:15 AM 11/24/97 +0000, you wrote:
>It is an outrage that the Lakers don’t have an Asian on the team;
>at least there is a token white on the team–Barry. There should
>be a token Asian Laker . . . and I volunteer for the NBA minimum
>salary of $250,000? or so, then I can keep a bench warm and help
>the Lakers be truely American by helping it meet its Affirmative
>Action quota.

——————————

From: gdot@juno.com
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 11:20:42 EST
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Outrage!

Dear Harry,

Hi. Is Bill turning the Aff. Action discussion toward an inquiry into
capitalism? If so, I have a few cents left to toss in πŸ™‚

Anyway, My reference to ‘Ben M.’ the other day should have been to Ben.
W.– my bad, sorry Ben.

FYI: A copy of Ben W’s main question(s) so intriguing:

” How do one develop a just, equal society, and of more importance a
moral, loving, God-fearing society with humans that are “totally
depraved”?…How can I get excited about afirmative action or anti-a. a.?
How can I get excited about discriminations, racism, low-cost housing,
welfare, etc.? Excited in the sense of hope; of correcting it.”

It appears that he means hope could have a capital ‘H’, i.e of ultimately
‘correcting it’, i.e of hope in God.

Best regards,

G

On Mon, 24 Nov 1997 00:15:24 -0800 ohbrudder
writes:
>and help the Lakers be truely American by helping it meet its
>Affirmative Action quota.

Dear Bill:

An AA quota for the Lakers? Actually, such a quota would apply to the
NBA, not merely to one NBA team.

——————————

From: “Ronald Lee”
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 10:02:43 -0800
Subject: CAC_Mail: Dissident’s Advice to Clinton: Only Pressure Sways Beijing

Dear CAC’ers;

Not long ago someone criticized the angry white males such as Gary Bauer =
and Christian Coalition protested against President Jiang of PRC =
regarding religious freedom in China, and they may not have heard from =
the Christians in China. Well, I don’t know if Mr. Wei is a Christian, =
but he sure advocate more pressure on China regarding human rights =

and/or religious freedom.

– —–Original Message—–
From: hknews@ahkcus.org
Sent: Saturday, November 22, 1997 12:01 PM
To: hknews_readers@ahkcus.org
Subject: Dissident’s Advice to Clinton: Only Pressure Sways Beijing

New York Times November 22, 1997

Dissident’s Advice to Clinton: Only Pressure Sways
Beijing

By PATRICK E. TYLER

[N] EW YORK — Wei Jingsheng, China’s most prominent
democracy advocate, said in an interview in New York
on Friday that he would tell President Clinton that only
continued pressure from the West could help free more
Chinese political prisoners. He said he intended to use
his time in exile to act as a campaigner for human
rights.

“This will be the very first issue we discuss,” said
Wei, who is expected to meet Clinton later this month or
early in December. “If you want to have a dialogue with
a communist government, you have to use pressure.
Otherwise they will not talk to you.”

Still weakened by his 16 years of imprisonment, Wei
nonetheless appeared to be in fairly good health.
Reports that he was suffering from life-threatening
illnesses appear now to have been part of a strategy by
family members and rights groups to press Beijing’s
government to release him on medical parole, as it did
last weekend.

Wei’s assertions that he intends to become a strong
public advocate for improvements in China’s human rights
situation could complicate relations between Washington
and Beijing.

Wei’s message may prove controversial to the Clinton
administration, which won praise Friday from rights
organizations for pressing Wei’s case in private
meetings with Chinese leaders in the last three years.
Clinton has stepped back from the campaign of trade
pressure on China that he advocated at the outset of his
administration, arguing that “engagement,” not
confrontation, was more likely to produce improved
rights conditions in China.

Speaking at a news conference in New York and in an
interview afterward, Wei said he saw himself becoming an
evangelist for greater freedom and democratic reform in
China using the Voice of America, Radio Free Asia and
other news media that would enable him to build an
audience among the Chinese.

Many people in China do not recognize his name because
it is banned from being mentioned by state-run news
outlets and because he has been imprisoned almost
continuously since March 1979.

“Most of the Chinese people would very much like to hear
other voices,” he said. “Otherwise they would not know
that they have choices. That is why this is very
important.”

He quarreled good-naturedly in the interview at being
labeled a dissident. “Most of the Chinese people want
democracy,” he asserted. “The people who really differ
on this question are actually a little group of ruling
elites at the top of the Chinese Communist Party, so
they are really the dissidents.”

In the news conference, he exhorted China’s democracy
forces, saying, “You should not pay attention to the
immediate low tide, because after a low tide there is
always a high tide that follows.”

The State Department earlier this year reported that
political dissent in China had effectively been
completely stifled through a campaign of repressive
measures including jailings and forced exiles.

Wei’s entrance this morning into a large hall at the New
York Public Library packed by waiting reporters and
well-wishers was greeted by applause and cheers. The
47-year-old activist wore a brown corduroy jacket and a
red plaid shirt, his uneven prison crew cut looking in
need of a trim.

In an opening statement, Wei thanked the “people and
governments around the world that have made enormous
efforts to press the Chinese Government for the release
of political prisoners” and admonished those who already
live in freedom in the world not to become complacent
about those who do not.

“Democracy and freedom are among the loftiest ideals of
humanity, and they are the most sacred rights of
mankind,” he said. “Those who already enjoy democracy,
liberty and human rights, in particular, should not
allow their own personal happiness to numb them into
forgetting the many others who are still struggling
against tyranny, slavery and poverty, and all of those
who are suffering from unimaginable forms of oppression,
exploitation and massacres.”

Though he evaded questions during the news conference
about what message he would deliver to Clinton, during
an interview afterward, Wei was emphatic that he would
seek continued pressure from Washington and other
Western capitals for improvement of rights conditions in
China and the release of prisoners.

The only reason Chinese leaders have ever engaged in
dialogue over the country’s internal human rights
conditions has been pressure from the United States and
other countries whose markets have become important
export destinations for Chinese goods and a source of
technology for China’s modernization.

Wei said he would like to visit all parts of the United
States in the coming months. While in New York, he has
been assigned a New York police detective as a
bodyguard. Columbia University and the University of
California at Berkeley have offered him office space and
living quarters to pursue academic studies and
pro-democracy work.

His immediate plans are to write a book about the
beatings, abuse and psychological pressure that the
Chinese prison authorities used to try to break him and,
ultimately, to force him into exile by refusing him
further medical treatment in prison.

Among the techniques were shutting off heat in his cell,
using other inmates to torment or beat him and housing
him in a cell where lights were left on 24 hours a day
as a way of denying him sleep.

Wei was released from Jidong Prison, about 150 miles
southeast of Beijing. “When I was a prisoner there in
1989, they used to brag that they were the largest salt
factory in Asia, exporting to Japan and many other
countries. But when I returned in 1993, I asked them if
they were still exporting salt to other countries, and
they denied it.”

Wei indicated that international criticism of China’s
use of prison labor for exported products had caused the
prison authorities to change their story.

He said that if he becomes active as an opposition
figure in the United States, he is concerned that the
communist authorities might retaliate against members of
his family left behind in China.

“I am concerned about their security,” he said at the
news conference. “They have suffered a lot. But there
are hundreds of millions of Chinese who have been
oppressed, and I am concerned about them equally.”

Beijing’s leaders are apparently calculating that with
Wei out of the country, his threat to rekindle a
democracy movement has been neutralized and his
effectiveness as a political troublemaker will be
minimized by his distance from China.

But rights groups based in the United States, with Wei’s
cooperation, already appear to be developing a strategy
to give him a new voice in China, something he has
scarcely had since 1978-79, when he pasted his
pro-democracy essays on a stretch of wall in central
Beijing that became known as the Democracy Wall.

Among Wei’s first interviews Friday were with
correspondents for the Chinese-language service of the
Voice of America, Radio Free Asia and a major Chinese
daily newspaper in Hong Kong. He was also interviewed by
The New York Times.

For a man who has spent long years in solitary
confinement and watched as more than a dozen teeth
dropped out from years of malnutrition because of a poor
prison diet, Wei seemed to enjoy parrying the questions
of a New York news conference.

Asked about his views on Taiwan and Tibet, where there
are strong independence movements with support in the
United States, Wei was careful not to challenge China’s
claims of sovereignty over both territories.

“On Tibet,” he said, “this is a rather complex question.
I don’t agree with the government’s policy of oppressing
and killing Tibetans and carrying out the destruction of
Tibetan culture, but as to how to resolve this issue, I
think that calm Chinese and Tibetans should sit down and
figure out a good solution.”

Asked to tell the greatest lesson he learned from his 16
years of imprisonment for the views he expressed during
the Democracy Wall period, Wei said: “I have learned
many things in prison, but the most important thing is
that for a human being, there is no difficulty that
cannot be overcome. You just have to rely on yourself
and you can get through anything.”

The man most responsible for Wei’s jailing was Deng
Xiaoping, the Chinese leader who emerged in the years
after the death of Mao Tse-tung in 1976 and opened an
era of economic reform that is turning the nation of 1.2
billion into an Asian powerhouse.

Wei’s trenchant essays on Democracy Wall pointedly
criticized Deng for failing to carry through with his
promises of democracy as part of the program for China’s
modernization. When Wei called Deng a dictator in early
1979, he was arrested and Democracy Wall was torn down.

Wei said he sent a letter of condolence to Deng’s family
when the 92-year-old leader died in February.

“If he only would have expanded his reforms to the
political arena,” Wei said,” then I would have suffered
even more abuse from him without hating him.”

Wei took questions for a little more than 40 minutes at
the library hall and then asked politely that he be
excused because he was feeling tired and dizzy.

——————————

From: Fenggang Yang
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 13:14:03 -0600
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Dissident’s Advice to Clinton: Only Pressure Sways Beijing

Mr. Wei Jingsheng is not a Christian. I have been wondering about what
does this heroic and stubborn man believe besides his political
conviction of “democracy”. Without religious beliefs, “demoracy” is
mere politics, which means power struggle. Consequently, you got to use
political power to achieve political purposes, such as press/threat the
Chinese government to consent.

It would be great if Christians can introduce Christian beliefs to him.
Any one wants to volunteer himself/herself?

Fenggang Yang
U of Houston

——————————

From: “DJ Chuang”
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 23:31:06 -0500
Subject: CAC_Mail: church life in China

Here’s some good news about things happening in China, from a new web site
with daily Christian news at http://www.christiandailynews.org/

excerpt from:

Believers sacrifice in order to build church

China — Providing places where believers can meet and worship is one of the
most pressing problems for the church in most parts of China today, especially
in the poorer countryside regions. However, in their eagerness to have their
own church building, believers are capable of extraordinary feats of sacrifice
and ingenuity in order to provide what is necessary for the [construction] to
go ahead. As we reported last month, the first church in a Tibetan minority
area in Gansu Province was dedicated this summer in Lin Tang County. . .In
October’s issue of Tian Feng magazine, Li Jianguo gives examples of some of
the sacrifices made by the believers in Lin Tang in order to build for
themselves this church.

Li points out that when the work on the Lin Tang church started it was
estimated that the building would cost 500,000 yuan to complete (US $61,000
approx.). All the believers in the area gave what they could toward the
construction, be it money, labor or materials, but the amount needed to
complete the building was phenomenal for a community of poor rural believers
to cover.

Li goes on to describe how one woman came from a poor family and could not
afford to give anything except some light labor. Dissatisfied with only this
contribution to the work, she decided to sell her beautiful, long hair in
order to have some money, however small, to offer to the church.

Another believer heard that the church needed funds but his own salary was
very low. His wife had no job and they had two children in school to provide
for. All they had in savings was a meager 10 yuan (US $1.20 approx.). The
family wanted to contribute but couldn’t work out how. Li mentioned how the
family then suddenly realized with the children busy [in] school and
[themselves] busy at work and with church activities they had little to no
time to watch television. Therefore, they sold their color TV set and raised
1,000 yuan (US $120 approx.) to donate toward the building of the new church.

In a similar vein, Li tells how many craftsmen spent a period of about six
months working on the new church building but, when it came [time] to settle
their accounts they only charged for half that period. Those workers who had
labored for three months only took one month’s wages and some workers who did
small jobs offered their services for free.

The believers within the county brought food and water for these workers. Some
temporary laborers working on the building only made 1.2 yuan (approx. US
$0.15) every day and even this they gave back to the church. Other believers
sold oil and potatoes to raise cash.

By the time the building was completed it had cost less than 300,000 yuan (US
$36,800) to construct, a testimony to the dedication and the resourcefulness
of the believers of Lin Tang County.

Reprinted with permission from Amity News Service.
– —
*

——————————

From: DJ Chuang
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 13:47:48 -0400
Subject: CAC_Mail: Do we Asian-American owe anything???

– — forwarded message follows —

From: “Cheuk, Clarence”
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 04:48:17 CST6CDT
Subject: A question…”Do we Asian-American owe anything???”

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

I’ve been wondering about something as of late. Do we
Asian Americans owe the Afircan-American community anything? Most of
the Asians in the United States immigrated after the Civil Rights
Movement which peaked in 1963. We arrived on the shore after social
structures were disturbed and ready for change, social structures
which have been crystallized through the centuries. Many of us were
not there to fight this battle, but nevertheless, we certainly
benefit from it. So do we, as a community, have a Christian duty to
actively RECIPROCATE (this is a deliberate use of a Confucian term)?

It is very tempting for us to tell ourselves that we made
it on our own, that we Asians are hard working (somewhat implying
that those less fortunate are less hard working) and that’s why we
are so successful. It is a juicy thought that we Asians “merited”
all our positions in colleges and universities. It is definitely
salivating to ponder that we Asian Americans are the model minority.
Sure, we worked hard; heck, my parents worked hard. But we have to
remember that there was once a time not too long ago when it didn’t
matter how hard you worked; no matter what you did, you would not get
a fair share. It is simply phenomenologically UNTRUE to assert a
rugged individualism, AND it is biblically unsound. We owe so many
people for our accomplishments (if we can even call them OUR
accomplishments)

During this Thanksgiving season, it
seems to me that it is important to remember our Afircan-American,
Latino-American, and Native-American brothers and sisters and to be
overflowed with thanksgiving. At least that much. And from there,
see where that takes us as a community.

Clarence Cheuk
Junior @ Wheaton College, IL

——————————

From: Fenggang Yang
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 13:30:27 -0600
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Do we Asian-American owe anything???

>From: “Cheuk, Clarence”

>During this Thanksgiving season, it
>seems to me that it is important to remember our Afircan-American,
>Latino-American, and Native-American brothers and sisters and to be
>overflowed with thanksgiving. At least that much. And from there,
>see where that takes us as a community.

Remember all the above three racial groups but not European-Americans?

Fenggang Yang
U of Houston

——————————

From: jtc10@juno.com (J Chang)
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 15:14:01 -0500
Subject: CAC_Mail: Ed Facts – 11/21/97

Dear CACers:

To continue the educational thread, FYI.

In Him,
J. Chang
– ——————————–
FATHER KNOWS BEST

A new study from the U.S. Education Department reinforces
that children whose fathers are involved in their schools do
better academically. The study also confirmed that parents
are more likely to volunteer when they feel welcomed by
school personnel and involvement is made easy. Old news, new
source.

ACTION: To order “Fathers’ Involvement in Their Children’s
Schools,” contact the National Library of Education at
1-800-424-1616 or visit its website at
http://www.ed.gov/NLE/.

——————————

From: OHBRUDDER
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 13:52:07 -0600
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Outrage!

no kidding?

>
> On Mon, 24 Nov 1997 00:15:24 -0800 ohbrudder
> writes:
> >and help the Lakers be truely American by helping it meet its
> >Affirmative Action quota.
> >
> >bill leong, already residing in LA, ready and unable.
> >
>
> Dear Bill:
>
> An AA quota for the Lakers? Actually, such a quota would apply to the
> NBA, not merely to one NBA team.

——————————

From: HarryWLew@aol.com
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 22:22:09 -0500 (EST)
Subject: CAC_Mail: Bill Lann Lee versus the Constitution

Dear CACers,

The op ed piece below is by Ken Masugi, a fellow Asian American, who teaches
political science at Ashland University, a school in Ohio affiliated with the
Brethren Church.

Enjoy!

Yours in Christ,
Harry

* * * * *

The Clinton Administration and Bill Lann Lee versus the Constitution
by Ken Masugi
November 1997

It’s less the case that the Republicans have finally gotten serious about
affirmative action as a principled political issue than that the Clinton
Administration and one of its nominees have gone overboard in its disregard
of the Constitution. In the crucial position of assistant attorney general
for civil rights the Republican majority on the Senate Judiciary Committee
will exercise its constitutional authority in rejecting the Administration’s
nominee and, more important, underline the seriousness with which it takes
racial and gender preferences.

With the distribution of benefits and the manipulation of the bureaucracy as
its focus, Congress rarely takes the Constitution seriously as a reason for
action. But affirmative action preferences violate the Constitution’s most
fundamental principle that America is comprised not of castes but of citizens
of equal rights. The ideal that your fate today should not be determined by
the standing of your ancestors is at the heart of America’s political
philosophy – however often mocked in our history and social practices.
Existing injustices make it particularly incumbent on government that it
never violate this fundamental principle, as it seeks to secure justice under
a color-blind Constitution.

Thus, in this case the Senate should deny the entirely reasonable presumption
that an Administration be able to appoint its nominee, if that nominee
betrays constitutional morality or constitutional principle. Senators who
would vote to confirm a nominee whose views violated the Constitution would
be violating their oath of office to defend the Constitution. Who could
imagine a Secretary of the Defense who thought that the armed forces were
unconstitutional?

The Administration’s nominee to enforce civil rights, Bill Lann Lee, is a Los
Angeles attorney who works for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, an activist
civil rights litigation group. His career has been devoted to advancing the
very devices of quotas and preferences that the Supreme Court has found
unconstitutional, in case after case over the last several years. These are
not differences of opinion over policy; they involve respect for the
Constitution itself, our fundamental law.

Devoid of argument, Lee’s desperate supporters have advanced one poisonous
argument: Republicans oppose him on account of his Chinese ancestry. Of
course the Republicans waited far too long before voicing objections to
Clinton nominees with dubious views. And it is also of course undeniable that
the Democrats intended this nomination of a man whose immigrant parents
represent the American dream to score political points with an important
California ethnic group that has not always voted their way in the past.

A revealing moment occurred last Saturday when President Clinton reaffirmed
his support of Lee’s nomination before a homosexual rights group. The context
of group-rights reflects why Americans can with good conscience reject him.
It is the insistence on group status for political gain – whether for racial
and ethnic groups or for groups based on sexual orientation – that makes
American constitutionalists uneasy about Lee, the homosexual rights movement,
and President Clinton.

The Chinese-American groups that denounce opposition to him as racist
represent elite and typically more leftist opinions than those of their
rank-and-file membership. While Lee’s nomination may inspire young
Asian-Americans to enter public service, his eagerness to use quotas will
injure their career aspirations. Racial preferences harm Asian-Americans
generally, especially in admissions to elite universities, public and
private, whose policies favored black and Hispanic applicants over Asians and
whites. But the Chinese-American groups supporting Lee remain silent or even
submissive on these issues. Bill Lann Lee’s own education at Ivy League
schools may be denied to other Asian-Americans on account of the policies he
advocates favoring some groups over others.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch appears to have the votes to prevent
Lee’s nomination from going forward. But in defeat Lee’s moment of good faith
can be to explain to some of his misguided supporters that his crime was not
his ancestry but his unsound views on the Constitution. The opportunism of
his supporters should not besmirch his reputation. It was not the group he
belonged to but the group rights mentality that he would enforce as the law
that is the concern of senators who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution.

* * * * *

Ken Masugi is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Ashland University
in Ashland, Ohio and Senior Fellow at the John M. Ashbrook Center for Public
Affairs. Dr. Masugi holds the Ph.D. in Politics from the New School for
Social Research in New York City. Dr. Masugi specializes in constitutional
history and the politics of ethnicity.

——————————

From: TSTseng@aol.com
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 00:13:21 -0500 (EST)
Subject: CAC_Mail: Happy Thanksgiving!

Greetings CACers:

A number of us “egg-heads” (i.e., academic types) were in San Francisco for
the American Academy of Religion/Society of Biblical Literature/Evangelical
Theological Society meetings this past weekend – so upon my return home, I
was delighted by the spirited and substantial debate over the affirmative
action issue. I appreciated Gary’s poem (I hope you don’t mean that God is a
Democrat!). Also, Harry Lew and Bill Leung’s candor and humor were, as
usual, to the point (I still disagree with them and hope they will give some
reflective response to what I wrote, a la Peter Huang – though I’m glad that
Harry provided some citations and articles). To Ron Lee, welcome to the
list, but I’ve not heard much name calling (“religious right”) these days and
I don’t think Chinese society really ever valued meritocracy (after all,
beyond the traditional Confucian examination system, nepotism was rather
rampant in 19th century Chinese society). In response to Clarence’s remarks
and DJ’s effort to give Euro-Americans equal time, both are correct. The
Civil Rights movement of the1950s-60s was indeed the momentum behind the
ending of immigration legislation which specifically closed the door to Asian
immigrants, so we have much to thank to the many people of color (including
many white liberals and radicals – many who studied at mainline seminaries)
who advocated for fair immigration. Ironically, many of us beneficiaries now
exhibit attitudes towards Blacks and Hispanics that border on racism – to
which I grieve. No, Asian Americans did not make it in America on the
strength of their own cultural superiority or individualistic/acquisitive
work ethic (both of which contradicts Scripture). Let history be our guide
not some abstract logic about fairness.

I believe Ben_Mel’s questions address the heart of the matter. For me, both
individual regeneration and social justice are flip sides of the same coin,
not an either/or proposition. Thus, I agree with J. Chang’s remarks even
though he appears to support ideologically conservative Christian
socio-political positions. I’d rather be in the same room with a
conservative activist than a privatized liberal – at least the “conservative”
and I agree that our desire for justice in society is rooted in our Christian
calling. But how do Christians become motivated to care for those crushed
under the weight of the oppression of racism, sexism, classism, etc. when we
look only at the individual’s need to be cleansed of sin? Be a real
missionary – not one who comes with all the answers pre-packaged, but one who
wants to understand why so many people live in grinding poverty and pain. Be
a real missionary – make sure that when you proclaim the Good News of Jesus
Christ that the news is truly good (i.e., it doesn’t merely address the
individual’s need, but structural surroundings which create oppression). Why
get excited about correcting racism, poverty, etc.? Much depends on the
extent of love that we can exhibit. Much depends on whether we can truly
have the compassion that Christ had for people. In essence, becoming
passionate about these so-called “social” issues (which are really spiritual
issues) is a sign of individual regeneration and spiritual growth (cf.
Charles Finney and the 19th century revivalists who saw abolitionism and
social reform as an extension of individual conversion). I know it’s
difficult for me to love as Jesus loved, for I have not attained perfection;
but it helps to have the brothers and sisters on the CAC list (and elsewhere)
sharpen and challenge me to be more like Christ. Have a Happy Thanksgiving
all!

Tim

In a message dated 11/23/97 8:50:41 AM, you 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

——————————

From: TSTseng@aol.com
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 00:27:50 -0500 (EST)
Subject: CAC_Mail: Re: Bill Lee and Affirmative Action

Dear Harry:

You might be surprised that I do not like our current President all that
much, but to quote him, “I can feel your pain.”

Asian Americans (and other “people of color” and impoverished whites)
unfairly have to work harder than anybody else to make it, period. Don’t
blame affirmative action.

I eagerly await for your comments on Tagaki’s book. What did you think about
Peter Huang’s stats? Have a great Thanksgiving!

In Christ,
Tim Tseng

In a message dated 11/24/97 6:56:27 AM, HarryWLew@aol.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

——————————

From: TSTseng@aol.com
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 00:33:43 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Outrage!

Bill:

Outrageous outrage. I’d volunteer, too, but I’m a Knicks fan.

Perhaps Michael Jordan will join Isaiah Thomas as one of the few African
American basketball franchise owners someday? It helps to look at the entire
plantation, not just the (mega-rich) workers. – Tim Tseng

In a message dated 11/24/97 2:19:28 AM, ohbrudder@prodigy.net wrote:

<>

——————————

From: Sze-kar Wan
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 00:47:01 -0500
Subject: [Fwd: Re: CAC_Mail: Re: Bill Lee and Affirmative Action]

Message-ID:
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 22:36:01 -0500
From: Sze-kar Wan
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Macintosh; I; 68K)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Richard L Wong
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Re: Bill Lee and Affirmative Action
References:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Dear Richard:

Time is a short and I am getting ready to go out of town for 5 days.
Just some short notes that don’t do justice to your thoughtful remarks.
I’ll have to answer in greater detail next time. Apologies!

Richard L Wong wrote:
> Since when did we depend on sociologists and anthropologists to tell us
> what to think?
>
Whether this observation comes from soc. or anthrop., the basic point I
was making was the nec. ingredient of power that makes preferential
treatment a racist act. I hope the substance of the argument is still
valid.

> I’m with you 100% on this point, Sze-kar. (and to think I’m a registered
> Republican!) But these biblical passages call upon us to assist others
> based on their wealth, means, or abilities, not upon the color of the
> skin….
> What does AA do to help poor whites who don’t have the educational
> background to get into graduate school?
>
These are very good points, and I think you hit upon the weakness of AA
as it stands today. I have the same questions. To discover ANOTHER
area (ie, poor whites) in which AA could be helpful (or acc to arguments
above, faithful to the biblical mandate of justice) is great. But if
so, shouldn’t the logical conclusion be: TO EXPAND affirmative action
rather than curtail it?

> Amen! Instead of trying to vainly create a Heaven on earth (by
> eliminating racism, poverty, and discrimination), let’s direct people’s
> eyes to the root causes of these ills (man’s sinful nature, including
> their own). Let’s make sure that they are aware of their sinful nature,
> and let’s get them to repent for their sins to ensure that they will not
> become (or continue to be) a source of injustice.
>
All this, I agree. But J. Chang’s last two posts are very persuasive:
why should we choose between dealing with sinful nature and changing
sinful structures? Injustice is injustice. Surely your objection to AA
is that it is an unjust, maybe even a racist, policy; you therefore
would like to change it. I happen to disagree with your assessment of
AA, but I stand with you on the principle of calling for an end to
unjust structures.

You are quite right that we are not called to create heaven on earth,
but neither are we called to escape from earth. Two biblical categories
come to my mine that force us to deal with this creation
constructively. (1) Paul’s notion of “new cretion” (Gal 6.15; 2 Cor
5.17). Notice this does NOT mean a pie in the sky reality but the utter
renewal of THIS creation, the world we live in here and now. The final
regeneration has begun with Christ’s resurrection and will come to a
glorious fulfillment at his return. But eternal life is a CONTINUATION
of that new creation, not its abrogation.

(2) The glorious chapter of Revelation 21. The new heaven and new earth
comes DOWN from heaven TO EARTH. While our entrance into heaven is a
given, the final cataclysmic event is consummated in a new heaven ON
EARTH. This means, among other things, all our earth possessions, human
structures, cultures, achievements, institutions, etc. will be
regenerated, renewed, and reborn–through the Spirit of God. We must
needs take care of our present life because the “eternal weight of
glory” (2 Cor 4.17) impinges on it.

Warmly,
Sze-kar

——————————

From: Sze-kar Wan
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 00:47:24 -0500
Subject: [Fwd: Re: CAC_Mail: Re: Bill Lee and Affirmative Action]

Dear J:

Your last posts are eloquently persuasive as always.

As for your earlier point:

<>

You are quite right that whichever initial allegiance we pledge
(political party or ethnicity), transcendenc or self-transcendence
should be the ultimate goal. The starting point is nevertheless still
important. I take all political or ethnic groups self-serving. That is,
their self-interests dictate what they must advocate and what they must
object. Our representative democracy functions on the basis of such
competition; it would fail if we politely defer to the others’
interests. This is a given.

If so, it makes all the importance whether and to what extent we know
what our own interests and needs are and how well we argue on our own
behalf; else we are pushed along by other equally driven groups–but
driven by THEIR own interests. This may seem inhumane, but to me it
speaks to our responsibilities as citizens. Hence, I would insist on
the starting point of our Asian-American communiites.

Ultimately, of course, I stand with you that we are not just Asian
Americans, but in fact Asian-Am. CHRISTIANSs. In my last post, I
started outlining an approach to biblical justice and corporate
repentance. Such notions stand as the last court of appeal. More still
needs to be done in this regard.

Sorry for this all-too-brief response to your careful remarks. Got to
get up early to catch a plane.

Till next time,
Sze-kar

——————————

From: “Peter P. Huang”
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 97 00:35:25 -0800
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Outrage!

actually, the nba will soon be importing it’s first (?) asian american…
there’s this north korean basketball player, ri, he’s 7’9″. he’s trying
to gain legal status in canada now that will qualify him to play in the
nba. move over shawn bradley and muresan, here comes ri!

>no kidding?
>
>> On Mon, 24 Nov 1997 00:15:24 -0800 ohbrudder
>> writes:
>> >and help the Lakers be truely American by helping it meet its
>> >Affirmative Action quota.
>> >
>> >bill leong, already residing in LA, ready and unable.
>> >
>>
>> Dear Bill:
>>
>> An AA quota for the Lakers? Actually, such a quota would apply to the
>> NBA, not merely to one NBA team.

– ————–
Peter P. Huang
petie@ix.netcom.com
home: (310)530-8081 fax: (310)530-8802
work: (626)280-0477 work email: phuang@ebc1.mhs.compuserve.com

——————————

From: drwong1@juno.com (Richard L Wong)
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 04:31:00 EST
Subject: CAC_Mail: Re: Bill Lee and Affirmative Action]

Hey Sze-Kar,

Thanks for your thoughtful comments! Don’t feel compelled to reply in
greater detail — I’m satisfied with what you’ve already provided. (I
don’t want to burden the CAC mailing list with endless postings on Bill
Lann Lee and AA, especially since only a handful of us seem to be
interested in the topic. Let’s wait and see if the President makes a
recess appointment.

But from what I hear, Congress isn’t planning to reconvene until January
27th. In previous years, Congress would meet on the 3rd of January (as
mandated under the Constitution), and would then take a recess for the
month of January. (I guess nobody likes spending a winter here!) If my
sources are correct, there won’t be much of a recess period and Bill
won’t be a recess appointee. Politically speaking, if the President were
to make a recess appointment, and Bill made a couple of
conservative-leaning decisions while temporarily filling the office, that
would mute a lot of the GOP criticism when he came up for a full vote on
the Judiciary Committee. (since the Judiciary Committee is practically
tied right now, and one or two GOP swing votes could send the nomination
to the floor, where he would probably be confirmed).

Have a safe and happy Thanksgiving!

Richard

On Wed, 26 Nov 1997 00:47:01 -0500 Sze-kar Wan
writes:
>Time is a short and I am getting ready to go out of town for 5 days.
>Just some short notes that don’t do justice to your thoughtful
>remarks.
>I’ll have to answer in greater detail next time. Apologies!

——————————

From: “Peter P. Huang”
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 97 08:18:23 -0800
Subject: Re: Re: Re: CAC_Mail: Re: Bill Lee and Affirmative Action

>
>The math simply doesn’t add up. If you are going to have racial quotas for
>”underrepresented” minorities, what are you going to do when a minority group
>such as Asian Americans is “overrepresented”?
>
>Prior to the passage of Proposition 209, the L.A. TIMES reported on a study
>that projected enrollment in the top tier University of California system for
>Latinos will drop 25% and African Americans down 50%, whites will remain
>roughly the same, but Asian Americans will rise 25%. Nobody, conservative or
>liberal, doubts this will not happen with the elimination of racial
>preferences in admissions.
>
>The fact of the matter is, because of affirmative action, Asian Americans
>unfairly have to work harder than anybody else to make it into our best
>colleges and universities.
>
just a thought… been thinking about this. yes… it is true that Asian
Americans as a whole are overrepresented at the college and grad school
level. these are, however, mostly the chinese, japanese, and korean
americans (and a lot of international students). the educational
attainment level of the SE asian american and the pacific islander
american are lower. also, the percentage also doesn’t reflect filipino
americans adequately (considering that they will soon be the largest
group of asian americans in america) and also that their college drop out
rate is quite high. is there affirmative action needed within the asian
groups? would we as chinese americans (and the other overrepresented
asian groups) be willing to give up our “privilege” so that the less
represented could go to college? i know that the same education doesn’t
get asian americans as a group the same educational investment return
than white americans but just a thought…

– ————–
Peter P. Huang
petie@ix.netcom.com
home: (310)530-8081 fax: (310)530-8802
work: (626)280-0477 work email: phuang@ebc1.mhs.compuserve.com

——————————

From: jtc10@juno.com (J Chang)
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 12:12:48 -0500
Subject: CAC_Mail: Re: Bill Lee and Affirmative Action]

Dear Sze-kar:

On Wed, 26 Nov 1997 00:47:24 -0500 Sze-kar Wan
writes:

>Your last posts are eloquently persuasive as always.

Thanks, Sze-kar, for your thoughts & words of encouragement!

>You are quite right that whichever initial allegiance we pledge
>(political party or ethnicity), transcendenc or self-transcendence
>should be the ultimate goal. The starting point is nevertheless still
>important. I take all political or ethnic groups self-serving. That
>is,
>their self-interests dictate what they must advocate and what they
>must
>object. Our representative democracy functions on the basis of such
>competition; it would fail if we politely defer to the others’
>interests. This is a given.

Good points! I agree. BTW, the pro-life special interest groups are one
of
the exceptions in relation to the presence of self-serving motives. This
pro-
life movement advocates for the lives of the unborn & the interests of
women
in crisis pregnancies with selfless compassion. Generally, pro-lifers do
not
gain any intrinsic social/political benefits by fighting against
“fetal-phobia” in the
present cultural/political landscape. There can be personal satisfaction
in
knowing that one has stood up for righteousness, helped to touch the
lives of
babies & of those in crisis pregnancy situations with the love of Christ.
Of
course, in any special interest movement, there are extremes,
unfortunately,
where some resort to violence or may seek to gain for themselves.

>If so, it makes all the importance whether and to what extent we know
>what our own interests and needs are and how well we argue on our own
>behalf; else we are pushed along by other equally driven groups–but
>driven by THEIR own interests. This may seem inhumane, but to me it
>speaks to our responsibilities as citizens. Hence, I would insist on
>the starting point of our Asian-American communities.

Your line of reasoning is well taken. Your burden for Asian-American
interests
appears to be driven from a personal conviction & passion nurtured
through
time. I can truly respect that. However, God may not give all
Asian-Americans
the same intensity of burden that you may have. For you, the starting
point
may be that of Asian-American communities; for another it may not be the
same.
In no way should you stop sharing your personal passions or stop arguing
rigorously those issues that are dear to your heart. Others may
gradually &
eventually grow such similar interests. But those who have different
priorities
can also be equally responsible Asian-American Christian citizens.

Hope you’ve had a nice flight on your trip back from out of town!

In Him,
J. Chang

P.S.
Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and
admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms,
hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God.

And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the
name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.

Colossians 3:16-17
Have a great week filled with thanksgiving!

——————————

From: Ken Fong
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 10:24:44 -0800
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Do we Asian-American owe anything???

Good point, Clarence. I’ve long believed that we stand on the shoulders
of our predecessors, not just our same-skinned ancestors, but on all the
shoulders of those who suffered, even died, to buy us the freedoms that
we easily take for granted. Yes, it’s quite tempting to take sole
credit for the ‘successes’ of some (not all) of us AsiAms, but as in
medicine, overly simplified diagnosis is rarely the whole picture. I
for one am grateful for our brethren of other hues and what they fought
for in order that I/we might enjoy greater freedoms.

ken fong
sr. pastor
Evergreen Baptist Church of LA

——————————

From: jtc10@juno.com (J Chang)
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 13:05:26 -0500
Subject: CAC_Mail: WORTH FORWARDING

Dear CACers:

Someone took the effort to write this poem. So please, forward this to
others during this holiday season & help to remind people that drinking
and driving don’t mix. Even one small drink can affect one’s driving
coordination & reaction-time.

Have a safe & blessed Thanksgiving!

In Him,
J. Chang
– ————-

>DEATH OF AN INNOCENT

>I went to a party, Mom, I remembered what you said.
>You told me not to drink, Mom, so I drank soda instead

>I really felt proud inside, Mom, the way you said I would.
>I didn’t drink and drive, Mom, even though the others said I should.

>I know I did the right thing, Mom, I know you are always right.
>Now the party is finally ending, Mom, as everyone is driving out of
sight.

>As I got into my car, Mom, I knew I’d get home in one piece.
>Because of the way you raised me, so responsible and sweet.

>I started to drive away, Mom, but as I pulled out into the road,
>the other car didn’t see me, Mom, and hit me like a load.

>As I lay there on the pavement, Mom, I hear the policeman say,
>the other guy is drunk, Mom, and now I’m the one who will pay.

>I’m lying here dying, Mom.. I wish you’d get here soon.
>How could this happen to me, Mom? My life just burst like a balloon.

>There is blood all around me, Mom, and most of it is mine.
>I hear the medic say, Mom, I’ll die in a short time.

>I just wanted to tell you, Mom, I swear I didn’t drink.
>It was the others, Mom. The others didn’t think.

>He was probably at the same party as I.
>The only difference is, he drank and I will die.

>Why do people drink, Mom? It can ruin your whole life.
>I’m feeling sharp pains now. Pains just like a knife.

>The guy who hit me is walking, Mom, and I don’t think it’s fair.
>I’m lying here dying and all he can do is stare.

>Tell my brother not to cry, Mom. Tell Daddy to be brave.
>And when I go to heaven, Mom, put “Daddy’s Girl” on my grave

>Someone should have told him, Mom, not to drink and drive.
>If only they had told him, Mom, I would still be alive.

>My breath is getting shorter, Mom. I’m becoming very scared.
>Please don’t cry for me, Mom. When I needed you, you were always there.

>I have one last question, Mom, before I say good bye.
>I didn’t drink and drive, so why am I the one to die?

——————————

From: DJ Chuang
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 08:16:57 -0500
Subject: CAC_Mail: Bob Jones

brief excerpt from

Fundamentalist Leader Bob Jones Jr. Dies

Contributed by: Evangelical News Service 11/14/97 12:00:00 AM

GREENVILLE, S.C. (EP) — Bob Jones Jr., chancellor and
chairman of the fundamentalist Christian Bob Jones University
which his father founded, died Nov. 12, after being diagnosed
with abdominal cancer in September. He was 86.

Jones graduated from the fundamentalist school and became
acting president in 1932. In 1947 the school became a
university and moved from Tennessee to Greenville, South
Carolina, and Jones was named president. In 1971 he was
succeeded by his son, Bob Jones III, and was named
chancellor of the school.

Bob Jones University is known for its tradition of militant
fundamentalism. It broke ties with Youth For Christ and with
the National Association of Evangelicals, claiming that the
groups were compromising on social and theological issues.

The school also severed relations with the Billy Graham
Evangelistic Association, even though Graham and many of the
organization’s leaders were alumni. Jones argued that the
ecumenical cooperation fostered by Graham’s crusades was
an intolerable compromise.

——————————

From: jtc10@juno.com (J Chang)
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 08:58:25 -0500
Subject: CAC_Mail: The First Thanksgiving

Taken from _We Give Thanks: A Thanksgiving Keepsake Book_

>THE FIRST THANKSGIVING

Many years ago, 1607 to be exact, a group of English people known as
Separatists left England because they were not able to worship God in the
way they thought they should. They decided to emigrate to Holland to
establish a new religious community – one where they would be able to
worship the way they wanted. They looked forward to living in a country
that would not tell them how to worship. When they arrived in Holland,
they were surprised to find how difficult it was for them to adjust to
the Dutch lifestyle. One problem was that they did not know the language.
Another problem was that while in England they worked as farmers, but in
Holland they had to work in factories because those were the only jobs
available to them. They stayed in Holland for twelve years but then
decided that their life there was not any better than the life they had
left in England. They decided to leave Holland. And they decided not to
return to England either! The decided to go to the New World – the land
of opportunity and plenty!

In July 1620, forty-six Separatists boarded the Speedwell, the ship that
would carry them away from Holland to their new lives! Their first stop
was Southampton, England where they planned to join the Mayflower, the
other ship with which they would travel. Following many delays, they
discovered that the Speedwell would not be able to complete the long
ocean voyage to America. Most of the Separatists, however, were able to
join the English colonists on the Mayflower. On September 6 they all left
England and headed for America.

The Pilgrims were very excited when after 98 days of sailing, they landed
at Plymouth, Massachusetts. Their excitement soon turned to sorrow,
however, when the hard winter began to take its toll. During the first
bitter winter in the new World, 47 Pilgrims died because of illness and
disease. Thankfully, Squanto, a local Wampanoag Indian, provided the
remaining 55 Pilgrims with help that allowed them to survive. With his
help, the Pilgrims learned to hunt, fish, and build houses. When the
weather improved, he taught them to plant crops of corn and squash.
Squanto also proved to be a valuable friend when he served as negotiator
and interpreter between the Pilgrims and the Indians. Several years
before the Pilgrims arrived in America, Squanto had been captured by
English fishermen. It was during that time that he learned to speak
English.

After their first successful harvest, the Pilgrims’ Governor, William
Bradford, announced that they would hold a Thanksgiving celebration. The
Pilgrims began to make plans for their joyous celebration. They decided
to show their appreciation to the Indians by inviting Massasoit, chief of
the Wampanoags, to their celebration. Massasoit and 90 of his braves
gladly accepted their invitation. The Pilgrims and the Indians had a
wonderful time together – complete with games and a demonstration of
their weapons. When they sat down together, they feasted on duck, goose,
seafood, eels, corn bread, greens, pumpkins, wild plums and dried
berries. The Indians provided several deer for the feast. All of the food
was prepared and served by only four women and two teenage girls, the
only women who had lived through the harsh winter. Compared to the
previous winter, the Pilgrims were very thankful that they were able to
participate in such a glorious celebration.

The Thanksgiving of 1621 was celebrated with excitement and enthusiasm
but it was not until 1623 that there was another Thanksgiving
celebration. Many people consider the celebration in 1623 to be the first
Thanksgiving because it consisted of prayer and thanksgiving – more in
line with the Puritan values of the Pilgrims. It was not until 1626 that
Thanksgiving became an annual holiday.

“Our harvest being gotten in, our Governour sent foure men fowling, so
that we might after a more special manner rejoyce together, after we had
gathered the fruit of our labours, they foure in one day killed as much
fowle, as with a little help beside, served the Company almost a week, at
which time, amongst other Recreations we exercised our Armes, many of the
Indians coming amongst us, and amongst the rest their greatest King
Massasoyt, with some nintie men, whom for three days we entertained and
feasted, and they went out and killed five deer which they brought to the
Plantacion and bestowed on our Governour, and upon the Captain, and
others.”
– Edward Winslow, 1621

Copyright (c) Zondervan Publishing House, 1996>

So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live
in him, rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you
were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness.

Colossians 2:6-7
Have a great week filled with thanksgiving!

The Holy Bible, New International Version
Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society

——————————

From: HarryWLew@aol.com
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 16:31:51 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Re: Re: CAC_Mail: Re: Bill Lee and Affirmative Action

Dear Peter,

You said,
>yes… it is true that Asian Americans as a whole are overrepresented
>at the college and grad school level. these are, however, mostly the
>chinese, japanese, and korean americans (and a lot of international
>students). the educational attainment level of the SE asian american
>and the pacific islander american are lower. also, the percentage
>also doesn’t reflect filipino americans adequately (considering that
>they will soon be the largest group of asian americans in america)
>and also that their college drop out rate is quite high.

Do you have any clue why this is so?

According to the latest U.S. statistics, Japanese, Chinese and Korean
Americans make more money per capita than whites. If we factor out the
Vietnamese of Chinese descent, I’ll assume with you SE Asian Americans,
Filipinos and Pacific Islander Americans make less.

Why is this so?

Does white racist America like us more? Are whites less likely to
discriminate against us? Do we look more like them so that we blend in? Are
we more “invisible” in racist America than our SE Asian and Pacific Islander
American brothers and sisters? Is white racism, individual and/or
institutional, more of a problem for them than us?

So why are we succeeding in America, while the “people of color” are not?

(I’ll give you a hint: Read Lawrence E. Harrison’s WHO PROSPERS? HOW CULTURAL
VALUES SHAPE ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL SUCCESS, [Basic Books, 1992])

Once you figure that out, maybe you’ll have some clue on how to help them.

Thankful today to be an American,
Harry Lew

——————————

From: “Peter P. Huang”
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 97 00:03:57 -0800
Subject: Re: Re: Re: CAC_Mail: Re: Bill Lee and Affirmative Action

Dear Harry,

>According to the latest U.S. statistics, Japanese, Chinese and Korean
>Americans make more money per capita than whites. If we factor out the
>Vietnamese of Chinese descent, I’ll assume with you SE Asian Americans,
>Filipinos and Pacific Islander Americans make less.

the stats themselves can be deceiving too. yes, the per capita income of
the JA, CA and KA is higher than the whites. but the figures that i have
also show that the number of workers per capita of asian americans is 1.7
while the whites are 1.2. when you factor this in, the figure per worker
for the AsAm is lower than that of the white american. also, AsAm tend
to reside in metropolitan areas where the standard of living is higher.
i’ve seen a study comparing AsAm in San Francisco with white americans
where the per capita income of the white americans is higher. perhaps
numbers do lie. what do you think?

>Does white racist America like us more? Are whites less likely to
>discriminate against us? Do we look more like them so that we blend in? Are
>we more “invisible” in racist America than our SE Asian and Pacific Islander
>American brothers and sisters? Is white racism, individual and/or
>institutional, more of a problem for them than us?
>
it all depends on what you mean by “like us more.” would you mean liking
us as in favoring us and pitting us against other minority groups, or
liking us as in hiring us to be high-tech coolies and keeping us from the
management level?

>So why are we succeeding in America, while the “people of color” are not?
>
>(I’ll give you a hint: Read Lawrence E. Harrison’s WHO PROSPERS? HOW CULTURAL
>VALUES SHAPE ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL SUCCESS, [Basic Books, 1992])

>Once you figure that out, maybe you’ll have some clue on how to help them.

i don’t have time right now to read the book; perhaps you can give me/us
a synopsis. from the title, i wonder if harrison is advocating how
certain “cultural values” (i.e. confucian) make certain cultures more
successful or superior. enlighten us so that we may have some clue.

sometimes i wonder if we bite onto and buy into america’s portrayal of us
as the model minority too readily because it makes us feel better. after
all, isn’t that all we want to hear – that all the hard work and the
sacrifices have paid off? i’m not convinced with the “numbers.” i look
at the john huang incident and see that all the asian stereotypings
resurface a la fu manchu. are we really doing that well? i don’t know
if we are really that free of racism. yes, in my asian america, i
rejoice of the freedom of being american, but at another time or another
place, i’m not so sure.

pondering,
Peter

– ————–
Peter P. Huang
petie@ix.netcom.com
home: (310)530-8081 fax: (310)530-8802
work: (626)280-0477 work email: phuang@ebc1.mhs.compuserve.com

——————————

From: ohbrudder
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 10:38:21 -0800
Subject: CAC_Mail: Re: racist

Ray,

No, I don’t know better. I have enough freedom in Christ to indulge my
racial pride. So you like “vanilla” and I like “chocolate.” If I’m
racist
for wanting Michelle Kwan to win than so is every Asian who wants
Bill Lee and Paul Igasaki to win . . .the only difference is I admit my
racial pride openly in doing so.

I’ll tell you what is objectionable racism. It is when I was passed
over
for promotion to a vice-president position in favor of a taller,
blonde,
blue-eyed white guy who was less qualified than I. . . I was even asked
to train him for VP . . .so gracious of me! and stupid?

I admit I don’t pray for the whites to be saved . . . I admit I pray
for
Chinese Americans more fervently than Chinese in China or any Japanese,
Korean, Filipino, blacks, etc. I guess I’m racist.

Go Michelle!

bill leong

ps And why was Cornelius’ postings called out for “littering” CAC and
not yours???

Ray Downen wrote:
>
> Yes, that’s racist, and therefore not worthy of a CHRISTIAN, who
> should not be racist. Should only Asians admire grace and skill on
> the rink? You know better.
>
> > Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 12:44:24 -0800
> > From: ohbrudder
> > Reply-to: ohbrudder@prodigy.net
> > Organization: Prodigy Internet
> > To: CAC
> > Subject: CAC_Mail: Re: the WORK and WORD of God
>
> > When I watched Michelle Kwan figure skate-the last two weekends-
> > I found myself proud to be a Chinese American! What grace! What
skill!
> > I guess I’m racist when I say I hope she beats the white girl,
Lipinski,
> > in every competition especially the Olympics. . .one down and ? to
go!
> > Michael Chang hasn’t won much lately, not much source of pride
there
> > in recent times.
> >
> from Ray Downen respectfully on this day of the Lord.
> 417/782-0814 2228 Porter Joplin Mission Outreach.
> Mail address is P O Box 1065 Joplin MO 64802-1065.
> Internet home page addr = http://www.ipa.net/~outreach

——————————

From: “Ray Downen”
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 15:31:34 +0000
Subject: CAC_Mail: Re: Pearls and Swine

You feel free to spout partisan rhetoric right and left, but want me
to not do so since I don’t agree with you. Please take your own
advice and stop the ridiculous political and
quasi-Christian posturing!

> Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 15:54:53 -0500
> From: Sze-kar Wan
> To: Ray Downen
> Subject: Re: varia

> Dear Ray Downen:
>
> Thank you for your responses to some very old posts of mine. I’d prefer
> not to reopen those discussions at this point and in this fashion.
>
> Your viewpoints are clearly partisan, which are OK. You are perfectly
> entitled to your politics. CAC in general and I in particular cannot be
> so easily pigeonholed, however. Furthermore, to endorse this political
> party or that, in my view, runs counter to the nature and spirit of
> CAC. It would be good if we halt the debate now.
>
> Also, I would appreciate it if you take my name off your various mail
> lists. I don’t think you have ever asked for my permission to receive
> your circulars, neither have I ever agreed to be on your lists. Thank
> you.

from Ray Downen respectfully on this day of the Lord.
417/782-0814 2228 Porter Joplin Mission Outreach.
Mail address is P O Box 1065 Joplin MO 64802-1065.
Internet home page addr = http://www.ipa.net/~outreach

——————————

From: Sze-kar Wan
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 17:11:45 -0500
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Re: Bill Lee and Affirmative Action]

J Chang wrote:
>
> …. BTW, the pro-life special interest groups are one of
> the exceptions in relation to the presence of self-serving motives.
>
As someone who is profoundly committed to the prolife platform, I would
say that there is still selfinterest. Perhaps not in the same sense as
other political or ethnic groups. But if we believe in a cause, there
is political interest to be gained. Which is OK. One ought never stop
our commitments just because we detect human motives. Eg, I’ve seen
numerous young people coming to church looking for boyfriends or
girlfriends and have found both gospel and friends. In any case, I am
in basic agreement with you, J.

>
> … For you, the starting point may be that of Asian-American
> communities; for another it may not be the same.
>
You are quite right in reminding those of us who can get a bit fanatical
about causes. Patience is something I need cultivate more seriously
than I care to admit.

I hope this Thanksgiving season gives you and your family a restful
respite from the onslaught of Christmas consumerism.

In Christ,
Sze-kar

——————————

From: Sze-kar Wan
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 17:18:42 -0500
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Do we Asian-American owe anything???

Dear Clarence:

Good point. Enjoy your well articulated position. I remember coming to
the States in the late 60s/early 70s from Hong Kong and marveling at the
vastly enlightened attitudes towards us minorities and immigrants in
this country. Little did I realize then, a good deal of those benefits
were the results of struggles in which I did not participate. Which is
why nowadays I can’t watch film clips from that era without a sense of
awe or without getting misty-eyed.

Blessed Thanksgiving to you,
Sze-kar

——————————

From: gdot@juno.com (G Ottoson)
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 02:21:43 -0700
Subject: CAC_Mail: Re: racist

On Fri, 28 Nov 1997 10:38:21 -0800 ohbrudder
writes:
>
> I’ll tell you what is objectionable racism. It is when I was passed
>over for promotion to a vice-president position in favor of a taller,
>blonde, blue-eyed white guy who was less qualified than I… I admit
>I don’t pray for the whites to be saved . . .

Dear Bill,

It is clear from your email context–> the disappointment with MIDDLE
MANAGEMENT–> why you might not pray for MANAGEMENT to be
‘saved’…reflecting on it some more I’d ask, were there only white
managers involved in ‘passing you over’ for promotion? (e.g. could you
have been the first AA/CA VP at the company in question?)

G

——————————

From: Gregory Jao
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 19:42:09 -0600
Subject: CAC_Mail: Asian American Evangelical #? Help!

Friends,

On Tuesday, December 3, I’ll be serving on a panel before 30 newly-hired
religion writers from newspapers across the United States. (Why me? It’s a
long story.) The panel’s title: “Getting Beyond the Basics: Diversity and
Religion”. Also on the panel: a Sikh, Muslim, Jew, etc. I think I’m the
token evangelical. Specifically, I’m the token Asian American evangelical.

I’ve been asked to sum up Asian Amercan evangelicalism in about 10 minutes.
You begin to see why I need your help, I’m sure. I have one specific
request and one general request.

Specific request: anyone have hard numbers for (a) # of AA who claim to be
evangelical; (b) # of AA total in the US; (c) breakdowns of denominational
preferences for our various ethnic enclaves; (d) any of the above broken
down by immigration/generation.

General request: Any suggestions for salient points that I should get across?

Please email me directly at gljao@midway.uchicago.edu so that we don’t
clutter CAC further if you can be of help.

Thanks!

Greg

——————————

From: HarryWLew@aol.com
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 21:29:53 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Do we Asian-American owe anything???

Dear Clarence,

I appreciate your youthful idealism. During the 1960’s when I was your age I
was an officer in my school’s chapter of the Congress of Racial Equality, and
active in demonstrations and protests in behalf of civil rights. While a
student at the City College of New York, I organized the first InterVarsity
Christian Fellowship conference on racial reconciliation in the New York City
area.

You are right that Asian Americans have benefited from the civil rights
battles fought by my generation and preceding ones. Large numbers of African
Americans too have moved from poverty into the middle class in our country.
But it is also true that too many African Americans have not made good on the
opportunities won in the struggle for civil rights.

African American scholars such as Shelby Steele in THE CONTENT OF OUR
CHARACTER and Glenn Loury in ONE BY ONE FROM THE INSIDE OUT: ESSAYS ON RACE
AND RESPONSIBILITY IN AMERICA have written about this. They bemoan a
pathological culture of the underclass, “a set of values and attitudes
strongly influenced by the experience of slavery and perpetuated by the
ghetto.” This, much more than racism, is what holds the black underclass back
today.

Nicholas Lehmann in THE PROMISED LAND and others have argued persuasively
that the prevalence of this pathological culture of the underclass in our
inner cities is due in no small part to the flight of the black middle class
to the suburbs, leaving the ghetto bereft of positive citizen role models.

A substantial part of my ministry to college students is encouraging African
Americans to stay in school. The media, liberals, and demagogues tell them
over and over again that this is a racist society and the odds are
overwhelmingly stacked against them. Unfortunately many of them come to
believe this racialistic rhetoric, and respond by giving up and dropping out.

I have acted as an advocate on behalf of many individual African American
students, talking to their professors, to the registrar, to the financial aid
office, and even to their academic advisors. I’ve tutored them, helped them
with their papers, and showed them how to study. I tell them over and over
again that when they make it through school and earn that B.A., the doors are
wide open for them in America, contrary to what the purveyors of racial
resentment preach. In my almost twenty years of campus ministry I have never
found that not to be true.

You can make an effort to befriend African American students at your school.
At academically elite colleges such as Wheaton, many black students often are
there because of affirmative action. That means they are at a disadvantage
academically compared to the rest of the student body. They may compensate
defensively by keeping to themselves socially. Find out the drop out rate of
these students and do what you can to help them stay in school.

You can dare to venture into the ghetto to help. Wheaton is near Chicago.
When I was a seminarian, I did my field education internship in a storefront
church in West Philadelphia running an afterschool Bible club for African
American kids from a housing project. My son, a high school junior,
volunteers as a tutor for a black child in a “study buddy” program in an
innercity public elementary school in our city. I’m presently working with my
pastor (an African American) to set up an afterschool program in our
innercity church in which I and others will teach neighborhood black kids how
to play chess. He thinks it would be great to help them develop critical
thinking skills.

Finally, do I detect a reluctance on your part to tell underclass folks about
the merits of hard work? This is not the time to exercise your Asian modesty!
While civil rights can grant us equality of opportunity, without hard work,
civil rights cannot guarantee us success of outcome. Those who think
otherwise have not learned the lessons of the failure of socialism.

Work hard, study hard, get a good education, don’t have kids outside of
wedlock, chastity before marriage, fidelity within marriage, plan and save
for the future, delay gratification, etc…everything your folks taught you.
Call it Confucian values…call it family values…call it middle class or
bourgeois values…call it the Protestant work ethic…call it Biblical
values..call it whatever you want, but this is precisely what the underclass
needs to hear today, if they are going to break out of poverty and be
productive members of our society.

I once asked Jawanza Kunjufu, an Afro-centrist educational consultant (based
in Chicago, by the way) and author of numerous books including DEVELOPING
POSITIVE SELF-IMAGES AND DISCIPLINE IN BLACK CHILDREN and COUNTERING THE
CONSPIRACY TO DESTROY BLACK BOYS, whether I as a Chinese American can serve
as a positive role model to the black kids in my innercity neighborhood. He
assured me that my values as an Asian American and as a Christian are exactly
what they needed.

Yes, we Asian American Christians can reciprocate. Thanks to God, you and I
have much to offer.

Yours in Christ,
Rev. Harry Lew

——————————

From: SKYLeung@aol.com
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 22:17:40 -0500 (EST)
Subject: CAC_Mail: Thanksgiving and Giving Thanks

Dear Brothers and Sisters of CAC,

I just want to pass along a note of thanks on behalf of my church and the
family of our late Elder Chu.

Your prayers have been invaluable and your condolences heart-warming.
Personally, I thank those of you who shared thoughts of comfort and hope
with me. I have passed them on as much as possible.

The whole time of Thanksgiving has taken on a different sheen for us this
year. Throughout this past week, there was a wonderful sense of reflection,
awakening, appreciation, gratitude, and rejoicing. Even the unchurched youth
have paid close attention. The Chu family has peace and comfort, and all of
us have seen the Lord make His presence known. In the elder’s death, as in
his life, the glory has gone to God. Indeed, Brother Ted, Psalm 116.15 is
apt. And we thank God for those who show us what it truly means to live is
Christ and to die is gain.

Content in Christ,
Stephen

——————————

From: SKYLeung@aol.com
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 22:34:39 -0500 (EST)
Subject: CAC_Mail: Affirmative Action

Dear CAC,

Apologies: some more political pondering. And, it is true, Brother Richard,
that these types of rumination are no substitute for actual social action;
I’ll try not be too long-winded.

Any suggestions on how one goes about “mending” Affirmative Action, if there
is a real need to preserve it? I, for one, am leary of excessive social
engineering. But, if there are bright ideas that folks have or have come
across, why not share them or point us to objective forums where they are
being aired?

Here’s a quick list of what I think “mending” needs to address, in addition
to some of Brother Richard’s point about accounting for different
socio-economic strata:

1) The playing field is not uniformly level or “tilted” across the country.
Discrimination is a real problem or potential problem in some regions of the
country. In others, it’s not. Federally mandated Affirmative Action is an
“insult” to those who would truly endeavor to be fair and even “diverse”
without it, particularly if their region isn’t plainly racist.

2) In an effort to benefit “targeted” minorities, the end result is still
that a relatively few individuals within those minorities ever truly benefit.
Therefore, the situation is that the field hasn’t gotten any more level with
AA as we know it – just more uneven with peaks and valleys, mountain tops and
canyons, added to the landscape.

3) Efforts to boost should not be counterproductive in terms of motivation
and determination. Even abundant opportunities are of little value when
incentive and motivation have not been addressed. Incessant fixation on
being “victims” yesterday, no matter how true, doesn’t help to get folks to
prepare for tomorrow’s challenges. Two thoughts: a) token positions and
set-asides [not saying they’re not needed, but…] can produce short-term
gains and give the appearance of success, but they can also lull people into
a false sense of insulation from the harsh realities of free and open
markets, global competition, the ever-more rapid pace of change, and
associated forces. b) let’s not indiscrimnately bash the “protestant work
ethic,” which seems to be in vogue these days – even if we are trying to
(self) deprecate along the lines of a similar Asian cultural value. After
all we are instructed in the Bible that each of us should carry our own load
AND carry each others burdens (Gal. 6; consider Col 3.23 and 1 Thes 5.18
also). Trailing thought: struggling and overcoming is the stuff of admirable
people and role models. [Would Tiger Woods appreciate and identify with
Jackie Robinson half as much if the latter had faced no obstacles breaking
the race barrier in Major League Baseball? Is the determination and industry
of our immigrants to be minimalized?]

4) Individual responsibility shouldn’t be completely transferred onto the
sholders of the State. Even if Affirmative Action were improved, it should
never be viewed as the system that takes care of discrimination once for all.
This leads me to a few points about the responsibility of Christians. I
fully agree that the “inner man” must be regenerated in order for justice,
peace, and righteousness to be prized in accordance with God’s heart. So, we
must evangelize and disciple. But, there is also the Christian
responsibility to speak out against wrongs and not turn a blind eye. I
suspect that much of what is envisioned in perpetual social engineering would
be closer to being realities if Christians lived and spoke up as they should.
Prejudice and discrimination should be called for what it is – and we don’t
have to be a member of a minority or the discriminated party to so speak.
And, it doesn’t have to be in-your-face types of confrontation when we
speak. Burying our heads in the sand or leaving it to Big Brother doesn’t
resonate with Biblical responsibility and charity. Yes, render unto Ceasar
what is Ceasar’s. But, never view Ceasar as infallible, omnipotent, or even
expeditious and efficient. Was it Roscoe Pounds that said, “the State has
become Jehovah?” I trust that isn’t the mentality of us Christians.

Enough, already. Eager to hear ideas. As the pastor officiating our wedding
pointed out to my wife and I, movements tend to swing like a pendulum from
one extreme to the other. It’s kind of like the thesis and antithesis
process. It takes time to eventually settle over middle ground. So this
issue may still be kicked around a bit.

Okay Brothers Tim and Richard: dig, set…

Please pass the salt,
Stephen Leung

——————————

From: SKYLeung@aol.com
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 22:40:12 -0500 (EST)
Subject: CAC_Mail: Bill Lann Lee

Dear CAC,

I suppose if there were a question I’d like to ask Brother Andrew to pass on
to “our own” Mr. Lee, it would be whether or not in his heart of hearts he
understands the opposition to his nomination to be racially motivated –
specifically against his being Asian.

The majority of Asians with which I broach this subject, immediately tie some
type of anti-Asian sentiment to the stalled hearings. But, this might be a
hasty assumption. I submit that perhaps nobody with his qualifications,
convictions, and track record would be confirmed speedily. Of course, this
is speculation. Nonetheless, wouldn’t anyone with a strong past support of
positions recently “implied” to be unconstitutional be seriously questioned –
regardless of their race, gender, or party affiliation. Okay, maybe not
party affiliation…. But, we should ask, if the nomination had been the
African-american woman who’s name had been pitched for a while, would that
have been confirmed without much ado?

Brother Sze-kar asked if a firmly pro-Afirmative Action perspective isn’t
part and parcel to the Civil Rights position under question. I think that’s
a fair question. I then also assume that the confirmation of most any
candidate “qualified” for the post would encounter rough seas in light of the
recent rulings of the Judiciary branch of Government (currently the most
powerful branch and worthy of commentary some other time). And what about
qualified candidates? Doesn’t that too go beyond knowledge, skill, and
ability? Because the position almost must be filled by someone “approved” by
the NAACP and other power brokers doesn’t that make the candidate an
automatic political football?

Some secondary and tertiary questions we might wish to ponder:

Should/do we admire Mr. Lee for his firm convictions or his political
success?

If Mr. Lee is uncompromising in his passion and commitment to a particular
stance on Affirmative Action and related things, should he dispense with
trying to convince Sen. Hatch and the others that he will uphold “current”
law?

Would we be content with Mr. Lee being appointed to the high post even though
he would have to modify/qualify his actions with respect to Affirmative
Action in the future? In other words is having an additional high-ranking
Asian-american appointee more important than Mr. Lee’s historical advocacy of
Affirmative Action? Do the socio-political liberals and conservatives among
us have different answers/spin on this?

Not that we are similarly qualified, but, what would we do if we were in Mr.
Lee’s shoes? Would we abide by common law and stare decisis (let the
decision stand)? Would we worry about getting in first and then acting as a
“fifth column” for the Affirmative Action cause? Yes, it’s a quasi-ethics
question. But, since he’s one of us, we could also wonder, “what if we were
him?”

Circumspectly,
Stephen Leung

——————————

Advertisements

About djchuang
Creating the safe and trusted space on the internet for all things Bible - learn more at http://get.bible

Comments are closed.