discussion on Bill Lan Lee

To: cac@emwave.net

From: JWei422935
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 05:22:15 EST
Subject: CAC_Mail: Re:Outreach Concert at Garden Grove, California

LIVE at Wintersburg Presbyterian Church at:

13711 Fairview
Garden Grove, CA 92643
Saturday, November 1, 1997
At: 7:30 PM Sharp!

Junko Nishiguchi Cheng IN Outreach CONCERT:

Good opportunity to bring your unchurched Asian friends, co-workers,
relatives, or just anybody.

For those of you who don’t know Junko, she is considered one of the top Asian-
American Christian singer/performers in America. She has traveled the globe to
many countries and has been on the top of the Christian music charts in
Hawaii. She sings in the style similar to either Twila Paris or Sandi Patti.

There will be an altar call similar to Calvary Chapel’s style. If any
questions, call Wintersburg Presbyterian at (714) 740-9400 or 9405 (Fred
Tanizaki) or John Wei at (714) 491-7080.

Let’s get those 95-97% Asian-American unchurched to know our Lord & Savior!!!

In Christ,

John Wei

——————————

From: Samuel Ling
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 17:00:53 -0800
Subject: CAC_Mail: Trade with China

TRADE WITH CHINA —
A PLEA FOR A REASONED APPROACH

1. SIGNIFICANCE OF ISSUE

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

2. OUR PRIMARY MOTIVATION

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

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

3. CHINA’S PERCEPTIONS

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

4. HAVE WE CONSULTED THE CHURCH IN CHINA?

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

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

5. WHICH AGENDA: AMERICAN OR KINGDOM AGENDA?

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

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

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

6. EFFECTIVE MEANS TO ADDRESS PERSECUTION

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

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

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

7. OUR LONG TERM GOAL

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

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

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

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

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

9. FOR THE MAJORITY — PRAY, JUST PRAY

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

——————————

From: Sze-kar Wan
Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 14:47:51 -0500
Subject: CAC_Mail: Religious Freedom in China

Samuel Ling wrote:
> The fact is, persecuted Christians in China are NOT voicing
> their request that American Christians speak on their behalf
> …
> Christian leaders who urge the US government to use sanctions
> have, by and large, NOT consulted church leaders inside China
> (or among overseas Chinese church leaders)

I’m in 100% agreement with you here, Sam. K. H. Ting (whatever one
thinks of him) is right in issuing a strong statement protesting what he
calls “interventionism.” House church leaders, too, are puzzled by and
highly suspicious of, the current congregational attempt at “protecting”
them. While “persecution” or, more accurately, harassment happens (only
if we are to judge by American standards), such high-profiled actions
cannot but be perceived as either grandstanding or vestige of
expansionist ambition. It does more harm than good. This is simply not
how they do things in China.

I was in Shanghai this summer taking part in a two-week seminar on
Christianity at Fudan University, one of the leading universities in the
country. Response was extremely enthusiastic, esp. among church workers
who yearned to be better trained, bc there are som few seminaries around
the country. Some came from as far as Canton (2 days of train ride) and
Heilongjiang (3 days). There were also graduate students in religion.
I spoke on NT theology (3 hrs), while a good friend of mine spoke on OT
theology (6 hrs). Others spoke on systematic theology, Chinese church
history, etc. There were only two stipulations: (a) No foreigners be
invited (I was invited mainly bc the authorities chose to regard me
Chinese); and (b) a member of the Religious Affairs Bureau be present in
all sessions, to make sure we didn’t say anything political. I was
forewarned, and nothing I or anyone said could be interpreted as such.
In sum, other than the fact that I taught in Mandarin, it was no
different from my typical seminary class Stateside. The RAB approved
the list of invitees, but they also gave the OK that released the
money–no different from any western venture. All that would’ve been
cancelled (and almost was!) if the US-China relationship had
deteriorated further.

Think about it: can you imagine having a Christianity seminar/Christian
education class, funded by the federal govt, at, say, Stanford? Not
likely. Maybe there is religious persecution in this country! Maybe we
should mobilize the Chinese people’s congress, the PLA, or whatever to
speak out against intolerance of Christianity in American higher
education! If we think this is absurd, we are in a better position to
understand the Chinese Christians.

A Chinese friend of mine, selfconsciously conservative theologically,
said that the likes of James Dobson and FRC simply don’t know the
situation in China. He is right. These folk have not taken the time to
understand China or consult with Christian leaders in China and in the
diaspora (see Sam’s point above). Their self-importance and
self-appointed paternalism bespeak at best arrogance, at worst racism.
Their confrontational tactic will only make life more miserable for the
Chinese Christians. The problem of religious freedom in China is one we
Chinese Christians, wherever we live, must deal with ourselves.

Respectfully,
Sze-kar

——————————

From: Fenggang Yang
Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 14:02:57 -0600
Subject: CAC_Mail: the religious situation in China

For those who are concerned about the religious situation in China, I
have two articles discussing it, one in Chinese one in English. The
English article put the topic in the framework of civil society in
China, entitled “Civil Society and the Role of Christianity in China: A
Preliminary Reflection.” The Chinese article is more direct without
theoretical jargons, entitled “1997: Christianity in China.” These
articles are written from the perspective of a Chinese Christian who
happens to be a sociologist, and based on my visit to China this past
summer and other sources. Anyone who is interested in reading them,
please email me off the list.

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

——————————

From: Sze-kar Wan
Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 16:46:36 -0500
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: the religious situation in China

Dear Fenggang:

I’d like both articles Are they e-mailable? If not, I’d be happy to
reimburse you re costs. Thanks.

Thank you, too, for your always insightful postings on CAC.

Sze-kar

——————————

From: Fenggang Yang
Date: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 16:24:34 -0600
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: the religious situation in China

Hi, everyone, to give you some ideas about the content of my papers,
here is the “introduction” of the English paper. The Chinese paper has
no theoretical discussion.

_Civil Society and the Role of Christianity in China: A Preliminary
Reflection_

Fenggang Yang, Ph.D. October, 1997

This paper begins with a review of theoretical perspectives of civil
society in China because these confrontational models seem to block our
vision for a constructive future. I suggest an alternative model that
distinguishes three sectors of society: the state, the for-profit
sector, and the not-for-profit sector. The third sector is composed of
moral and intellectual associations that have irreplaceable functions in
the process of social and economic reforms. Religious communities are
important components of the third sector. After this theoretical
discussion, I will analytically describe three religious policies of the
central government; three relationships between local governments and
churches; and three concurrent forces of Christianity in today’s China.
This analysis is to argue that there are spaces of religious freedom
and, more importantly, there is the need for Christianity to contribute
to the spiritual and moral construction of the Chinese society in its
grand transition to market economy and democratic politics. This is a
preliminary reflection because I have not collected systematic data for
the description and analysis. Anecdotal accounts will be used for
illustration.

——————————

From: “Peter Szto”
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 17:48:12 EST5EDT
Subject: CAC_Mail: non-Chinese Christians on China

Dear friends,
The institution I am affiliated with is “thinking” about developing a
program in China. The idea is to have a semester in China. Historically, the institution, which
self-identifies as Christian, has been governed by “whites”, although
it likes to believe that it is becoming more multi-cultural. My
concern for discussion among Chinese Christians is that in re-attempting to go to China, is a Western
Christian institution prey to the perception, on the part of China, that Christianity is
a “white man’s religion”? A question for discussion is what are the
advantages or disadvantages of a Christian institution sending forth
leaders to China who are white or ethnic-Chinese? Would a white
program leader reinforce an image of paternalism?

Peter

——————————

From: SKYLeung@aol.com
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 01:33:03 -0500 (EST)
Subject: CAC_Mail: Trade with China

Brother Samuel,

I do have a few impulsive responses (perhaps not fully reasoned and
researched) to your wise and truthful plea for a reasoned approach. But let
me preface that by saying that your advice regarding MFN was the best that i
and many of my friends saw during the most recent debate concerning the
renewing of MFN. We forwarded your advice far and wide. Thus, my gut
feelings here are not given so much to question your understanding of the
situation as to express the visceral that often rails against the cerebral
within us.

>1. SIGNIFICANCE OF ISSUE
>
>Trade with China (with MFN status) is the very heart of
>the US-China relationship put into motion by Nixon and Carter.
>Without it, and we really don’t have much of a relationship.

MFN is too blunt an instrument to wield as an instrument of diplomatic
negotiation. This is not to say that strategic aspects of trade can not be
negotiated. I agree with the quote: “when goods don’t cross borders, armies
will (more likely).” We just don’t have to do it as if “eight bells and
all’s well.”

>2. OUR PRIMARY MOTIVATION
>
>As Christians, our primary concerns are (a) the welfare of
>the Church of Christ in China, (b) the ability of the Church in
>China to be salt and light in mainland Chinese society, and (c)
>continued opportunities for overseas Christians to be salt and
>light in China.

Agreed that these are our primary concerns. But, as Christians in the West
with a Freedom of Expression to exercise and the obligation to speak against
injustice, silence is not always our call. In fact, as long as we are not
jeopardizing our fellow Christians in China and the advancement of the
Kingdom of God, it is “constructive” to let the leadership in China know that
there is “peaceful disention” in the US. We are not monolithic nor
monocular.

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

Part of our “americanized” understanding of morals is the need to speak truth
even if it causes embarrasment. Now as an ABC in a Chinese church, I’m fully
aware of the hazards of “making” others lose “face.” While my moral
obligation means speaking out, I’ll strive to remember the Golden Rule, the
fruit of the Spirit, the need to “speak truth in love,” and my own fallen
state. At an international level, it’s obviously more difficult to do this
and to do it so that the other party can perceive my “attitude” and
“intention.”

>3. CHINA’S PERCEPTIONS
>
>When Christians in the west engage in confrontational politics
>concerning China, China is listening. China concludes that (a)
>American Christians (or America as a nation) are subverse and
>hostile to China, and worse, (b) American Christians are aiding
>the Church inside mainland China to be subversive. This really
>hurts the safety and welfare of the Body of Christ in China.

Ah perceptions. That’s were the risk always lies in communications.
Politics, foreign affairs, international marketing, and most all the soft
sciences “deal” in the arena of perceptions. Oft times we Christians haven’t
done our homework in this arena. Confrontation certainly can backfire.
However, what would a complete void of confrontation or protest communicate?
Would our brothers and sisters in China begin to think that comfy western
Christians had lost their nerve or their concern? A perception that we’re
content with being fat, dumb, and happy wouldn’t be too encouraging either.
And, for the Chinese Government, would they think that Christians in the US
are really indistinguishable from their Government – one and the same – when
we’re really not. Hey, they should know that Christians in the US can be
just as much of a headache to the Government in this country as theirs – even
more so. Our leaders should get no free lunch from their Christian
constituents – even if we do pray for them and submit to them as the Bible
commands us to do.

>4. HAVE WE CONSULTED THE CHURCH IN CHINA?
>
>The fact is, persecuted Christians in China are NOT voicing
>their request that American Christians speak on their behalf
>to use sanctions against China on the basis of religious persecution!!!
>
>Christian leaders who urge the US government to use sanctions
>have, by and large, NOT consulted church leaders inside China
>(or among overseas Chinese church leaders) as to their real
>preference.
>
Acknowledged, and this is an evident shortcoming in the actions and
activities of Christians in the US. But, let me ask the question (out of
real ignorance) have they requested American Christians to NOT speak on their
behalf. If they have so asked, I guess the brotherly (and sisterly) thing to
do is to shut up and know that He is God!=)

>5. WHICH AGENDA: AMERICAN OR KINGDOM AGENDA?
>
>There is a real difference between promoting the agenda of the
>Kingdom of God agenda and promoting the American agenda
>(of a particular political party, and of a particular stripe within
>that party).

Agreed. We must first individually know the difference (as it applies to
ourselves and our actions)…
>
>Our primary concern is NOT the nuclear arms threat, or the trade
>imbalance, although these are legitimate concerns. The problem is,
>Christian leaders are misleading when they use PERSECUTION
>as the alleged basis for confrontational politics, if their REAL
>and PRIMARY motive is the threat to US military and economic
>interests. We are confusing issues, and we are confusing our
>audience.

This statement troubles me in that it implies that we know for sure that
Christian leaders are thus in cahoots with those who concern themselves with
military and economic affairs in making nuclear proliferation and trade
imbalance (or piracy of intellectual property and human rights) the primary
motives instead of presecution of Christians and the abridgement of religious
liberties.

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

But, if we are NOT using them as false cover, then must Christians remain
silent so as not to offend?

>6. EFFECTIVE MEANS TO ADDRESS PERSECUTION

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

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

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

These all are wise and practical. I myself may write my congressman
suggesting such action. However, what will the voice of the senator or
representative from VA (or KY for that matter) mean, unless members of the
National People’s Congress know that this US official’s constituency does in
fact feel this way or that way, and he or she isn’t just making up a story to
express his or her own opinion on a matter? My point: there is a place for
Christians to publicly protest and “generate” media exposure (over here and
not on the congressman’s efforts over there). And, i think that folks like
the Governor of Washington State (What’s his name Brother Garrick?) and
various politicos from CA and HI would probably be better recognized than my
local congressman. Perhaps they would be key for such assignments of “gentle
persuasion.” Please don’t just leave it up to the CEO’s of some giant
corporation – he or she probably won’t give a hoot about Joe Christian’s
concern.

>7. OUR LONG TERM GOAL
>
>Our goal should not stop at stopping persecution. For the sake
>of argument, even if the Communist Party closes up shop tomorrow,
>there would still be the long term needs of nation buiding. If we
>are just going to applaud an congratulate ourselvesw for the
>collapse of Commnism in China, that’s one thing. But if we are
>serious about being servants of Christ, and salt and light in China,
>then we must keep a long term perspective.

Amen.

>8. NO DENIAL — ACTUAL ACTION NEEDED (AND FUNDS)
>
>We do NOT deny that religious persecution is occuring. We do NOT
>deny that China has a one-party dictatorship (which no longer believes
>in Marxist-Leninist-Maoist ideology).
>
>Christians who are advocating a reasoned approach are ACTUALLY
>helping individual persecuted Christians! We are ACTUALLY seeking
>help for Christians who are able to leave China, to seek Bible and
>theological training to prepare for future ministry in China.

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

Probably a true indictment. So let us press on. And, may we spread the word
on ways that we can “engage” in this way. I believe such postings should be
welcomed in a listing such as the CAC.

>9. FOR THE MAJORITY — PRAY, JUST PRAY
>
>When we pray for the persecuted church, perhaps we should JUST
>pray, and not use it as a pretext to write our Congressmen/women?
>And when we DO write our members of Congress, we need to
>encourage them to take a positive, one-on-one/people-to-people,
>encouraging posture toward China.
>
This too, i’m afraid we do not do enough. Yes, let us pray. And, i hope
that the post sent a few weeks ago by Brother Louis about Nov. 16th will not
go unheeded. What an opportunity for many to simultaneously beseech the
Father for His sovereign protection and deliverance of His children, our
fellow heirs of the Kingdom, from their persecutors! Our help comes from no
other.

Respectfully (despite my ABC brashness),
Stephen Leung

>From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole
earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where
they should live. – Acts 17:26 (NIV)

——————————

From: “DJ Chuang”
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 17:30:00 -0500
Subject: CAC_Mail: About CAC

FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions about CAC

Updated: 2 Nov 97

[This is a monthly posting; * marks What’s New]

Q: How do you post a message to the CAC forum?

A: Send an email message to “cac@emwave.net” [without quotes], and a copy of
your message will be sent to all CAC subscribers.

Q: How do you unsubscribe (stop receiving CAC messages)?

A: Send an email message to “majordomo@emwave.net” and on the first line of
the message body, write “unsubscribe cac” [without quotes].

Q: How do you subscribe to CAC (start receiving CAC messages)?

A: Send an email message to “majordomo@emwave.net” and on the first line of
the message body, write “subscribe cac” [without quotes]. You’ll receive a
confirmation/ welcome message to say you’re a new subscriber.

*Q: How do you receive the CAC Digest version? What is a digest?

A: Send an email message to “majordomo@emwave.net” and on the first line of
the message body, write “subscribe cac-digest” [without quotes]. A digest
version will compile all CAC postings in one big email message that is sent
to you about once a week, whenever the collected postings reach 50k in size.
Some people prefer this format because mailings are less frequent.

Q: Is there an archive of old CAC messages?

A: There is an archive of selected CAC messages and posted articles at the
CAC web page

Q: I’m only interested in some of the topics. What can I do?

A: As the list has grown, almost quadrupled in size within the past year,
there has been an increasing diversity of discussions and interests. We
encourage you to engage in discussion of issues relevant to Chinese American
Christians; please refrain from file attachments in order to conserve
bandwidth. Short informational articles are okay; if there is a lengthy
article or essay you’d like to share, a short announcement or reference to the
web site can be posted.

Q: What is this CAC mailing list?

A: The CAC Forum is an informal “mailing list” online discussion for Chinese
American Christians, where we discuss many issues related to (but not limited
to) Chinese American Christians, including campus ministry and ethnic church
issues, as well as some political issues concerning Asian Americans. As an
informal forum, you may also share ministry opportunities and prayer requests
accordingly.

Q: What does CAC stand for?

A: CAC is Chinese American Christians. Although the scope of discussions often
discuss Asian American issues and sometimes generic topics, the name stuck
because of its origin.

Q: How many subscribers are there on CAC?

A: Currently we have more than 180 ministry leaders and laypersons. Please
forward this message to others who may be interested in the CAC forum.

Q: How does a “mailing list” work?

A: CAC is run by an automated computer program, called a “listserver”, which
send copies of email messages to all CAC subscribers. Currently the listserver
is undergoing some technical transition, but that should be transparent to
you.

Q: When was CAC started and automated?

A: The list was started in 1995 by Drs. Timothy Tseng and Sze-Kar Wan. CAC
used to be a manually propagated carbon copy email, but was automated in
summer of 1996. We hope to bring Chinese American Christians together using
the latest technology so that we can share our ideas and resources on
furthering the cause of the Christ.

Q: Is there a moderator for CAC?

A: DJ Chuang is the list manager; there is not a
moderator for the ongoing discussions.
– —
*

——————————

From: ohbrudder
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 16:43:43 -0800
Subject: CAC_Mail: Dobson

>A Chinese friend of mine, selfconsciously conservative theologically,
> said that the likes of James Dobson and FRC simply don’t know the
> situation in China. He is right. These folk have not taken the time to
> understand China or consult with Christian leaders in China and in the
> diaspora (see Sam’s point above). Their self-importance and
> self-appointed paternalism bespeak at best arrogance, at worst racism.

Sze-kar,

I just happened to be visiting my daughter in Colorado Springs a couple
of weeks ago. She lives down the street from Focus on the Family
headquarters, home of James Dobson’s ministries. Focus/Family is the
second biggest tourist attraction in Colorado Springs next to the
Air Force Academy.

We visited the beautiful Focus on the Family facilities which are
totally
debt free. The city had lured this ministry from California with an
offer
of $4,000,000 plus the free land . . .I don’t know how many acres, but
more than 10 acres. The ministries involve over a 1000 volunteers,
150 on the phones, receives 8,000 pieces of mail every day, hundreds
of counselors responding to the mail and with each prayer request being
prayed for individually by someone. I wish I paid better attention to
all the incredible stats of this enormous ministry so I can relay them
to you. James Dobson receives no salary from Focus but is a major
contributor.

The countless multitudes James Dobson has helped and led to the Lord,
directly and indirectly would object to your characterization of him.
I’m not a fan of Focus nor do I know Dobson personally, but he is a
fellow believer and minister in the Lord. And I object to your unkind
characterization of my brother.

Another James once said, “Show me your faith without deeds, and I will
show you my faith by what I do.”

respectfully,

bill leong

——————————

From: Sze-kar Wan
Date: Sun, 02 Nov 1997 22:48:44 -0500
Subject: CAC_Mail: Re: Dobson

Dear Bill:

There is so much I could say about your description of the FRC HQ, but I
won’t.

My point has to do with to what extent they are informed about the
situation in China to be helpful to the church there. My conclusion,
from what I know, albeit secondhand, is that they don’t. Others on CAC
have dealt with them firsthand re the church in China–with
disappointing results. They can speak for themselves. Until FRC can
show a willingness to learn from Chinese Christian leaders, I will
continue to regard them as I would a typical 19th-cent Am. missionary
organization–zealous for the gospel but blind to their own provincial,
white self-righteousness.

This does not make them any more or less sinful than anyone else, hence
no better or worse than my other brothers and sisters. I just think
they are doing more harm than good with regard to the church in China.

Respectfully,
Sze-kar

——————————

From: HarryWLew@aol.com
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 01:03:35 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Dobson

Dear Bill,

Thanks for your letter. Unfortunately it is all too common and even
fashionable in some circles to call folks we disagree with, “racist”.

Yours in Christ,
Harry Lew

——————————

From: “DJ Chuang”
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 08:51:41 -0500
Subject: CAC_Mail: new way to read CAC

The digest version of CAC is now available!

There are two steps to convert over from the normal CAC subscription to the
CAC digest subscription: (1) unsubscribe from CAC, (2) subscribe to
CAC-Digest.

This can be done in one quick email, by sending an email message to
“majordomo@emwave.net” and in the message body, write:

unsubscribe cac
subscribe cac-digest
end

* What is a digest version?
A digest version will compile all CAC postings in one big email message that
is sent to you about once a week, whenever the collected postings reach 50k in
size.

* Why would some people prefer a digest version?

Some people prefer this format because mailings are less frequent, and
instead of receiving 3 to 5 emails each day, you’ll receive one big email
about once a week, depending on discussion traffic. (for instance, you might
call the CAC archives a “giant digest”)

* visit the CAC web site http://www.aamdomain.com/cac/

DJ Chuang, CAC list manager

– —
*

——————————

From: gdot@juno.com (G Ottoson)
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 21:15:00 -0700
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Religious Freedom in China

On Sat, 01 Nov 1997 14:47:51 -0500 Sze-kar Wan
writes:
>… While “persecution” or, more accurately, harassment happens
>(only if we are to judge by American standards),
>…
>Their confrontational tactic will only make life more miserable for the
Chinese >Christians…

Dear CAC,

I draw attention to two of Sze-kar’s ideas, above, ‘harassment’ and ‘more
miserable’, in context, to try to help clarify what is ACTUALLY happening
to Chinese Christians in China. What is the situation for them? Please
supply some trustworthy details and examples to refine our (probably
mostly ‘my’, but maybe not just ‘my’) perception of their circumstances.

Thank you.

Bro. G

——————————

From: gdot@juno.com (G Ottoson)
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 21:19:28 -0700
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Religious Freedom in China

On Sat, 01 Nov 1997 14:47:51 -0500 Sze-kar Wan
writes:
>… While “persecution” or, more accurately, harassment happens
>(only if we are to judge by American standards),
>…
>Their confrontational tactic will only make life more miserable for the
Chinese >Christians…

Dear CAC,

I draw attention to two of Sze-kar’s (well spoken) ideas, above,
‘harassment’ and ‘more miserable’, in context, to try to help (me)
clarify what is ACTUALLY happening to Chinese Christians in China. What
is the situation for them? Please supply some trustworthy details and
examples to refine (probably mostly ‘my’, but maybe not just ‘my’)
perception of their daily circumstances with respect to walking with the
Lord.

Thank you.

Bro. G

——————————

From: TSTseng@aol.com
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 00:32:27 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Re: CAC_Mail: Dobson

Dear Harry:

To the extent that you are describing extremists, I agree with you. But I’d
be curious to know at what point do you call a situation, attitude, etc.
“racist” – i.e., what is your measuring rod? Does racism exist? How do you
define “racism”?

After all, this is the first time Sze-Kar ever used the term “racist.” And
so far as I understand it, he is referring to the attitudes of missionaries
of the past (which were indeed “Euro-American centric,” if not racist) and
warning about how dangerously close contemporary American Christians can
replicate those attitudes if they are not informed.

While one extreme will label every disagreeable action taken by a person of a
different race to be “racist,” the other extreme is to attempt to silence or
censor others from even using the term.

Respectfully yours in Christ,
Tim Tseng

In a message dated 11/3/97 12:11:33 AM, HarryWLew@aol.com wrote:

<>

——————————

From: Sze-kar Wan
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 00:48:46 -0500
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Religious Freedom in China

Dear Gary:

Others should jump in here; I am wearing out the CAC welcome mat.

I encourage you to read the case studies in Hunter & Chan, Protestantism
in Contemporary China (Cambridge UP, 1993), and the revised edition of
Tony Lambert, Resurrection of the Chinese Church (1995?), for case
studies.

Fenggang’s article on civil society in China, which you also got a copy
of, talks about the role local government plays in church affairs. The
central government may make all the policies, but it is the local
officials who will persecute, harass, tolerate, help, or encourage the
local churches as they please. There are well-documented cases of HK
organizations financing building projects of churches and lay-training
centers with warm approval, even encouragement, by the local mayor–for
a variety of reasons, one of which is that Christians make good citizens
and help lower crime rate, which in turn makes him look good! All this,
in spite of supposed communist hostility to Christianity. This
decentralization has gone on for centuries, if not for dynasties. It’s
nothing new.

My point is simply that, outside pressure, perceived or real, for
“religious freedom” would only tighten the central government’s reins on
local governments, to make them conform to the letter of the law. And
that can’t be good for Christians inside China.

This is not to say protest does not have a place in our engagement with
China. But to have the US congress passing resolutions or to use the
US-China relation as leverage for change is to hit China at its sorest
spot, namely the century and a half of humiliation at the hands of
western powers. If that’s how “freedom” is presented, China will never
listen–not now, not after June 30, not when the last colonialist has
just been chased off her map. (Sorry, Macau doesn’t count!) Of course,
the British weren’t “chased” off, but we are talking about
self-perception here. That’s why the Chinese absolutely insisted on
sending in the troops 3 hrs after midnight in driving rain. Again,
self-perception.

Rather, I would support Sam Ling’s call for wise engagement, all the
while helping to strengthen the churches in China in whatever way we
can–with our financial resources, our earnest prayers, with our
trainings, above all with humility. After what the Chinese brothers and
sisters have gone through in the last four decades, I can only stand as
mute naif in midst of their suffering-borne eloquence.

En Christo,
Sze-kar

——————————

From: gdot@juno.com
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 16:47:10 EST
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Religious Freedom in China/’perceptions’

On Tue, 04 Nov 1997 00:48:46 -0500 Sze-kar Wan
writes:
>Dear Gary:
>
>Others should jump in here…
>
>I [encourage you..a] mute naif in midst of..suffering-borne eloquence.

Yes, you do encourage me; in recent times and in ancient ways; and I’ve
never even met you, Brother!

Sze-kar, you know, and I remind you, that Luther’s great work with
Galatians was ‘borne’ out of a variety of ‘suffering’ including that
inflicted by fierce critics. Some of his choicest words (therein) were
directed against, for example, the Anabaptist ‘extremists’ who appeared
to him more Christian than Christ. IMO, you are really blessed to be at
least 1500 miles away from a modern version of Luther’s extreme-est
critics, headquartered here in Colorado Springs. Nevertheless, my mat is
out; I offer you asylum if you ever need it, but would confirm, too,
that the closer you would get to Colorado Springs,~65 miles S. of here,
the closer you would get to a source of real despair…maybe like that of
Luther approaching Rome.

==========

And, in an editorial aside, this type of despair is the feeling I felt at
the CACI annual meeting last Friday. I do have notes and observations
about that and the substance of C.E. McVaney’s (CEO of JD Edwards) ‘key
note address’. Here’s an example of my take on it for you and CAC in he
wake of Bro. Harry’s latest email to Bro. Bill:

We know that JD Edwards hires, in partic, astute Asian software
developers to work in his~$500 million/yr. corporate empire. They work
hard for him here in Colo. and in other places like the Silicon Valley.

And, I know now, too, that McVaney’s concept of ‘corporate culture’ is
the social arena in which these Asian (and their friends) work. It is
easy to recognize both from what he said and from having been exposed to
Evangelical operations like _Focus on the Family_ that a Dobson brand of
Evangelicalism, i.e. Tenet 1 = ‘Honor God’ (page 1 of McVaney’s
‘Corporate Culture’ Handbook) is basic to ‘corporate culture’.

But very troubling are the conflicting concerns emerging from this
knowledge:

#1 is that among the corporate leaders in attendance at the CACI (Colo.
State Chamber of Commerce) Annual Meetings were (virtually) zero Asians,
Blacks, Hispanics, and minorities (except for the table waiters and
bus-boys:) Elite distinguished guests from Colorado were present to speak
to approx 500 WHITES (inc me, not in a silk suit, but in Dockers and a
cotton shirt).

#2 is that a significant number of business-people there were Dobson-ite
type Christians. In fact, I was witnessed to by one who works directly
for CACI, who [speaks] not of the ‘wondrous works’ of Jesus, but of
Dobson and JD Edwards!!!
(I.e. apparently possessing NO concept of the impliktions of Gal.3:28)

I admit I probably did not look ‘saved’, Sze-kar– Praise God:) — in
violation of the tenet re: ‘business dress’ (JD Edwards, page 17)…but I
was polite, listened mostly (an admirable, hopefu;;y developing character
feature partly attributable to my recent associations with CAC:)

Anyway, To me this experience (alone) suggests that what people are
dealing with now in CAC, i.e. what is coming out of Colo. Springs, is
(not different than) ‘corporate culture’, which is both ‘racist’ and
‘paternalistic’.

I guess that a fair question, then, to Harry and Bill (or to whoever
wants it) would be this:

Being fact, esp here in Colorado, that business-minded Dobson-ites
exhibit both ‘racism’ and ‘paternalism’, How and why would Dobson-ites
act any differently in China or differ in their dealings with the Chinese
(anywhere)?

==========

Sze-kar, If Luther came among us today, to lead, I doubt he’d be as
polite as you and St. Tim are. If you want a humorous (but deadly) lift
to your spirits then re-read some of Bro. Luther’s work on Galatians or
his Intro to the Sermon on the Mount. Meanwhile, I’ll be tracking down
the references you suggested and getting into Dr. Fenggang’s mind, too.
(Let’s hope he has some Excedrin ๐Ÿ™‚ And awaiting the words of those who
hear the cries of people for God in the throes of history and culture.

Shalom, remain in peace,

Gary

——————————

From: “DJ Chuang”
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 22:21:42 -0500
Subject: CAC_Mail: Corporate Culture

Gary and Sze-Kar,

Perhaps you could help us to understand what it is that you’re saying when
you use emotionally charged terms like “racist” and “paternalistic” in
describing corporations and ministries. To use such terms on entities that
are making great contributions in the economic arena and the salvific arenas
can be very confusing and disturbing to other CACers.

May I ask, similarly, what do you find intrinsically evil or bad about
capitalism as a viable form of economics? Do you imply a preference for
socialism or Marxism? (and does that imply that the Gospel prefers
socialism?)

DJ

On 4 Nov 97 at 16:47, gdot@juno.com wrote:

> Anyway, To me this experience (alone) suggests that what people are
> dealing with now in CAC, i.e. what is coming out of Colo. Springs, is
> (not different than) ‘corporate culture’, which is both ‘racist’ and
> ‘paternalistic’.
– —
*

——————————

From: Fenggang Yang
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 1997 23:27:08 -0600
Subject: CAC_Mail: Re: Christian leaders and China

A news report mentioned that President Jiang Zemin met Billy Graham in Los
Angeles after meeting corporate executives. However, this piece of news
carries no details and no big news agencies seem interested in the meeting
and the conversation between Jiang and Graham. Does anyone have any
information about this meeting? Did Billy Graham said the same things as
other conservative Christian leaders and congressional leaders do?

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

——————————

From: Sze-kar Wan
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 01:26:49 -0500
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Corporate Culture

DJ Chuang wrote:
> Perhaps you could help us to understand what it is that you’re saying when
> you use emotionally charged terms like “racist” and “paternalistic” in
> describing corporations and ministries….

Dear DJ and other CACers:

Yes, these ARE emotionally charged words. So emotional, in fact, that I
rarely use them. I must confess, the strong reactions they provoked
these past few days have caught me by surprise and almost made me regret
using them.

But only almost.

First all, please do understand that my criticisms of these various
organizations were NEVER aimed at any CACer, not even indirectly. I
don’t believe in ad hominem attacks, and they have no place in CAC. If
I slip up in any way (which I do often), I ask for your forgiveness.

Secondly, I don’t think I actually called these organizations “racist”
per se. My exact words were: “These folk have not taken the time to
understand China or consult with Christian leaders in China and in the
diaspora…. Their self-importance and self-appointed paternalism
bespeak at best arrogance, at worst racism.” I criticized their action
(or nonaction in this case), not their character–an important
distinction. Their not having taken the time to learn about the very
people they purport to protect is a form of paternalism. (I know what’s
best for you whether you know it nor not!) And their willful disregard
of appeals by Chinese-American Christian leaders in the matter of
religious freedom in China certainly reflects arrogance and comes close
to racism. I never intended these emotion-laden terms to be
indiscriminant, blanket indictments of all ministries of FRC and James
Dobson.

But why does disregard point to racism? I find no better exegesis of my
complex feelings than the classic words of Ralph Ellison:

“I am an invisible man. No, I am not a spook like those who haunted
Edgar Allan Poe; no am I one of your Hollywood-movie ectoplasms. I am a
man of substance, of flesh and bone, fiber and liquids–and I might even
be said to possess a mind. I am invisible, understand, simply because
people refuse to see me. Like the bodiless heads you see sometimes in
circus sideshows, it is as though I have been surrounded by mirrors of
hard, distorting glass. When they approach me they see only my
surroundings, themselves, or figments of their imagination–indeed,
everything and anything except me.

“Nor is my invisibility exactly a matter of biochemical accident to my
epidermis. That invisibility to which I refer occurs because of a
peculiar disposition of the eyes of those with whom I come in contact.
A matter of the construction of their inner eyes, those eyes with which
they look through their physical eyes upon reality. I am not
complaining, nor am I protesting either. It is sometimes advantageous
to be unseen, although it is most often rather wearing on the nerves.
Then too, you’re constantly being bumped against by those of poor
vision. Or again, you often doubt if you really exist. You wonder
whether you aren’t simply a phantom in other people’s minds. Say, a
figure in a nightmare which the sleeper tries with all his strength to
destroy. It’s when you feel like this that, out of resentment, you
begin to bump people back. And, let me confess, you feel that way most
of the time. You ache with the need to convince yourself that you do
exist in the real world, that you’re a part of all the sound and
anguish, and you strike out with your fists, you curse and you swear to
make them recognize you. And, alas, it’s seldom successful” (_Invisible
Man_, “Prologue”).

Said (_Orientialism_) makes a similar point.

What galls me about these groups–as regards China–is that they act as
if Chinese Christians didn’t exist and they were the only experts in
this matter. They remind me of 19th-cent missionary organizations that
arrogated to themselves the only true torch to the heathen world.
Zealous to be sure, but seriously wanting in self-criticism.

Which brings up the question of ulterior motive. I suspect a partisan
one, which is actually legitimate in my Realpolitik book. But if so, I
wish they wouldn’t use the China cause as fodder for their ideological
cannons.

Respectfully,
Sze-kar

——————————

From: ohbrudder
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 01:11:09 -0800
Subject: CAC_Mail: Re: the WORK and WORD of God]

Hi Ted,

I find your questions of more interest than current topics on the
table. . . I hope that doesn’t mean I automatically disparage
the other CAC discussions on culture, women, China.

The extent of my interest in Asian American culture right now
doesn’t get much past Michelle Kwan’s ice skating. My prime
concern about China and Asian countries is their effect on my
stock portfolio. I hope I don’t appear condescending, smug, or
arrogant toward others who are concern about those issues.
Well, to tell you the truth, I don’t care much any more since
even when I do tread lightly, I’ll get the neg press. I’ve
managed to step on some toes with my past 10 cent posts just
by breathing; good thing I don’t let it all hang out with my
radical takes. . . which I don’t consider radical except in
relation to those currently posting in CAC.

Since I don’t have that much time to write, I’ll just spread what
I want to say over a few posts. It is not like I am required to
say anything but sometimes I feel compeled by some audacious
statements or by the utter boredom of irrelevance I’ve read. So
I might as well contribute my brand of audacity and irrelevance!

The RELATIONSHIP is what it’s all about.
I previously stated what I perceive are the primary ways
believers relate to God: “personally” and thru “the Word”.
And I think your labels of “experiential” and “intellectual”
were apt but didn’t quite go the distance of what I had in mind.
It’s my fault. So to clarify, let me illustrate with relationships
you and I might have, with:
a close intimate FRIEND who wrote a love letter
or a KING who issued an edict.

There are others I could use to describe our relationship to God
such as our relating to
God as Abba Father or God as the Universal Landlord, and
to Jesus as the active Spirit dwelling and interacting,
and acting in us or as the thunderous voice from the mountain.

I think Christians who relate to God as the King who issued an
“Edict” might study and analyze the “Edict” for instructions
and clues as to how to relate and behave righteously toward
God—trying to figure out God from afar. I also think they
tend to be legalistic and dogmatic. And in my experience,
they have problems with believers who relate to God more
subjectively. They have problems with emotions and
testimonies of personal experiences attributed to God,
manifestations of spiritual gifts attributed to the Holy
Spirit, healings and miracles, God speaking today, etc.
I think a severe case even espouses the King James
Version as the only true version.

Ok, ’nuff said for now,

bill leong

RevCow@aol.com wrote:
>
> ************ 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.

——————————

From: Samuel Ling
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 03:53:06 -0800
Subject: CAC_Mail: Intellectualism or Experientialism as Abuses

To RevCow@aol.com:
which is the greatest abuse among Chinese Americans,
intellectualism or experientialism?

I. HISTORICAL HERITAGE OF THE CHINESE CHURCH: ANTI-INTELLCTUAL
EXPERIENTIALISM IN PIETISM

Immigrant church leaders from Taiwan and Hong Kong
have brought to the Chinese American church a form
of experientialism which is very anti-intellectual. This
anti-intellectualism comes from the US and from other
western countries, as missionaries in the late 19th and
early 20th centuries (the conservative branch) brought
to China the practices of pietism.

This pietism has several characteristics:
1. Anti-culture (this world is passing away soon, so
it is not important)
2. Anti-urban (missionaries came from Rural America
and ended up in Rural China)
3. Anti-intellectual (the intellect, along with emotions
and the will, belong in the soul, 2nd floor of man;
what’s really important is the spirit, on the 3rd floor,
the faculty through which man communes with God)
4. Anti-denominational (best to be independent
church, or independent faith missions, because
denominations are becoming liberal)
5. Anti-theology (watch out that you don’t become
liberal through studying theology; just stick to
the Bible and prayer)
6. Anti-organizational
7. Isolationist (created mission compounds and Chinese
churches which intentionally do not have an impact on,
or have a dialogue with, contemporary society in China)

II. CONTEMPORARY EXPERIENTIALISM IN AMERICA
AND AMONG CHINESE-AMERICANS

I find another, revised form of experientialism in
contemporary America, which is being discipled
into the Chinese-American community.

This has other characteristics:

1. Anti-theological: stick with exegeting the Bible,
doctrinal systems are all suspect.
2. Pragmatic: Whatever works (witness the multitude
of 12-step and other “Christian” books in Christian
bookstores, and the rarity of heavy theological,
doctrinal books in evangelical Christian bookstores)
3. Family-oriented: It seems that the only thing
that matters to Chrsitian family is the family. I realize
I am stepping on toes and am probably unfair in this
caricature, and saving the family is certainly a noble
and biblical cause. But there is certainly life beyond
saving our cocoons! God has also called us to
tend the garden, i.e. take care of the world (Gen. 2:15)
I find cocoon-building to be too much emphasized among
Chinese Americans (forgive me if I am wrong).
4. Self-oriented: we take away from Sunday sermons, etc.
whatever meets MY needs, sometimes exclusively.
Then we retreat into our private words in which privacy
and leisure reign supreme, sometimes as idols.
5. Weak-willed: While immigrant churches have wills
that are too strong (they need it to survive in a hostile environment),
2nd generation Chinese Americans need to be tougher to
survive suffering and harrassment (which comes from the
fact that we are Chrsitians, as well as from our marginality
as a minority among a minority…)
6. Cry for healing: legitimate healing, but sometimes therapy
offered is mistaken for the gospel (while therapy, legitimately
offered, can be a proper by-product of the gospel).

I don’t mean to say that intellect is everything, and experience
is not important. Experience is VERY important; thus we
need to have a biblical foundation to understand them.
As a matter of fact I am recently making
a new theological discovery in the sphere if supernatural
experiences. But certainly we need to be more scrutinous
and biblical in our use of emotions and in our understanding
of our experiences.

‘Nuf said. Critiques welcome.

Sam Ling
La Mirada, California

——————————

From: TSTseng@aol.com
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 05:25:04 -0500 (EST)
Subject: CAC_Mail: Dislodging our churches from the Religious Right

Sze-Kar:

One of your recent post mentioned the need to “dislodge our churches from the
clutches of the Religious Right.” I’d like to hear you expand on this topic
some more. After all, if Chinese Christians who gleefully (and perhaps
blindly) follow the leaders of the Religious Right are our brothers and
sisters in Christ, why should we criticize their choices? I certainly
dislike being labeled and dismissed a “liberal” simply because I disagree
sharply with the policies promoted by Republicans. And though it seems okay
for some brothers in Christ to use LSD (i.e., Label, Slander, Dismiss) when
it comes to attacking “liberal” policies and “liberal” Christians, I still
think that we need to be more clear about our critique of the Religious Right
(w/o using LSD).

So, tell me, what is it about the Religious Right that we need to be
“liberated” from (beside their China policy)? I’ll suggest a couple of
things that seemed to have come up on this list in the past:
– – The Religious Right’s political agenda does not address the most central
concerns of Asian American Christians (or most American Christians, for that
matter); we are asked to conform to this agenda without anything in return.
– – We need to assert our own concerns (theologically, politically, etc.); and
we won’t be able to do so unless we are free of undue influence of the
Religious Right (and Euro-American Christianity, for that matter).

Any others?

Tim

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

——————————

From: SunaJaK@aol.com
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 17:44:54 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Dislodging our churches from the Religious Right

Dear Friends,

What makes me uncomfortable with the Religious Right, and what we need to be
dislodged from are the following:

1. A world view imbedded in a western/elightenment ideology of individualism
that denies the existence of group rights or responsibilities, and also
denies the existence of institutional or structural sin.

2. A assumed confidence in the free market as the means of solving societal
problems.

3. An assumption that North American theology is unbiased and objective and
hence is assumed as normative for the rest of Christianity. All other
approaches to theology are biased by the culture context of the other person.

4. That the Bible’s teachings on justice is only about protecting the
individual’s freedom/autonomy; Biblical justice does not include social
justice.

5. An acceptance of the American Dream as the lifestyle of good Christians.
A longing for a mythical “good old days” when America was a “Christian”
nation and everything was so much better. In this sense, America needs to be
protected from change by “cultural outsiders.”

Hopefully these thoughts can be a starting point for a discussion on the
Religious Right and our response to this movement. Note, this list is not
all inclusive, I just thought of these off the top of my head this morning in
response to Timothy’s message.

Keith Sunahara
First Evangelical Free Church
Chicago, IL
Graduate Student at Loyola University Chicago
Ph.D. in Christian Ethics

——————————

From: HarryWLew@aol.com
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 21:33:34 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Dislodging our churches from the Religious Right

Tim and Sze-Kar:

How about talking about conservative Christians “without resorting to LSD
(i.e., Label, Slander, Dismiss)”?

Do “liberal” Christians like yourselves really “address the most central
concerns of Asian American Christians (or most American Christians, for that
matter)”?

How about freeing us from the “undue influence” of the Religious LEFT,
especially in thinking that only you can properly address the concerns of
Asian Americans?

Harry Lew

——————————

From: jtc10@juno.com (J Chang)
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 23:48:07 -0500
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Mutual Edification

Dear Stephen:

Just a note of appreciation for your recent post to CAC. Without
commenting
on whether I agree or disagree with your points, I do want to say that
your
reply reflected a sense of grace and humility. You did not pull back
when
you had to disagree & yet gave the other person room to “save face.” You
realized that you did not have all the answers & yet made counter-points
not previously considered.

Such a dialogue elevates the communication process among fellow brothers
& sisters in Christ so that we can all be edified. I hope that we can
all
continue in the same spirit of gentleness.

In Him,
J. Chang

——————————

From: jtc10@juno.com (J Chang)
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 23:20:53 -0500
Subject: CAC_Mail: Fwd: Press Release – China Legislation

Dear CACers:

FYI & more sparks for the ongoing discussions.

In Him,
J. Chang
—————
IN WAKE OF JIANG’S VISIT,
WILL CONGRESS BEGIN TO ADDRESS
ABUSES IN CHINA?

FRC URGES HOUSE TO TAKE FIRST STEPS
WITH ACTION ON CHINA BILLS

WASHINGTON, D.C. – “Last week, the American people paid close
attention to Chinese President Jiang Zemin’s visit to the U.S.,
and, like most people, I was disappointed by much of what I
saw,” Family Research Council President Gary Bauer said
Wednesday. “This week, our focus will be on Capitol Hill, and
like many, I hope to see Congress begin to address human
rights abuses in China and the emerging military aggressiveness
of the Chinese government.” Bauer made his comments as the
U.S. House of Representatives begins debate Wednesday on nine
pieces of legislation dealing with U.S. policy toward China.

Since the House voted to renew China’s most-favored-nation
status last June, there have been continual reports from China
of religious persecution, human rights abuses, and nuclear
proliferation:

June 26 – Two days after Congress voted to continue MFN for
China, imprisoned Chinese dissident Wei Jingsheng is beaten by
inmates with approval of prison guards (Reuters).

July 3 – Pentagon’s intelligence report indicates that China
has stepped up its arms build-up and is aiming missiles at the
U.S. (Washington Times).

July 3 – CIA report cites China and Russia as the leading
suppliers of technology related to nuclear, chemical, and
biological weaponry to various countries hostile to the U.S.
(New York Times).

August 20 – In an attempt to assert hegemony over Taiwan,
China attempts to derail the Panama Canal conference. China’s
delegation prevails in attaining the withdrawal of support and
participation by U.N. officials, and actively pressures
government and private companies to boycott the conference
(Wall Street Journal).

September 2 – Office of Naval Intelligence reports that China
remains the most active supplier of contraband weapons to Iran
and Iraq (Washington Times).

September 10 – Russia and China join together in building two
long-range nuclear missile systems in Iran, according to U.S.
and Israeli intelligence reports (Washington Times).

September 19 – China purges Qiao Shi, a reform advocate, and
other Chinese leaders from China’s Politburo. Qiao pressed
for a revision of the Communist Party’s condemnation of the
Tiananmen Square protests (Washington Post).

September 25 – Pastor Xu Yongze is sentenced to 10 years in a
labor camp, the harshest sentence given to a Christian believer
since 1982 (Compass).

September 28 – Hong Kong’s newly appointed Chief Administrator,
Tung Chee-hwa, all but eliminates democratic elections in Hong
Kong. The newly instituted law reduces the eligible voter
pool from 2.7 million voters to 180,000 (Washington Post,
Oct.3).

“When the Chinese president came to this country, he pointedly
refused to improve on these issues,” Bauer said. “Unbelievably,
U.S. officials responded by granting access to America’s
nuclear power technology, despite the fact that it is easily
converted for military use. China has a deplorable record of
transferring such technology to dangerous countries. Jiang
Zemin must have laughed all the way back to Beijing.

“American families won’t think it’s a laughing matter if some
day their children are endangered by outlaw nations with
nuclear arms. Our nation’s leaders must no longer place trade
ahead of the safety of America’s families.”

FOR MORE INFORMATION OR INTERVIEWS,
CONTACT THE FRC MEDIA OFFICE.

– ——— End forwarded message ———-

——————————

From: jtc10@juno.com (J Chang)
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 00:02:18 -0500
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Who is the Religious Right?

Dear Tim:

Before we can have a discussion about “why?” we need to define
“who?” Who is the “Religious Right?” We may find that it is not
so easy to label & neatly package such an entity.

In Him,
J. Chang

——————————

From: TSTseng@aol.com
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 00:58:49 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Re: CAC_Mail: Who is the Religious Right?

J.

You’re absolutely correct. Labels are useless without specifics (after all,
the label “liberal” is used carelessly by many, too).

The religious right to me represent a coterie of politically conservative
Christian networks of organizations. IMHO, groups such as Navigators, PK
(though given the Family Research Council’s eagerness to support them, I’m
not so sure), InterVarsity, Youth for Christ, or other groups who
traditionally focused on ministry do not count as the “religious right”
though they may have many who espouse conservative politics within. In most
of these groups, political moderates, liberals, or radicals are not turned
away because of their views. After all, Billy Graham is a registered
Democrat and we know how important he has been to just about every
evangelical parachurch organization in the 20th century.

I would consider religious oriented groups like the Christian Coalition, the
Family Research Council, and – to some degree – Focus on the Family,
representative of the religious right, though I recognize internal
differences. All three are self-consciously political and social activists
(actually I applaud these new “social gospelers” – I believe that our faith
needs to address social questions). I just cannot see a clear cut connection
between biblical revelation and most (not all) of the public policy issues
they advocate. So-called “liberal Christians” get labeled as cultural
accommodationists, but I wonder about that. It seems to me that there is
alot more unthinking cultural accommodation going on among conservatives than
“politically correct liberals.”

I hope this helps with specificity. And I hope that those of us who are
critical of the “religious right” have read their materials carefully and
remain respectful in our remarks. I am tempted to get very passionate about
my honest disagreements, but it is because the Lord has burdened me with a
deep love for “the least of these” and a strong hatred of oppression of any
kind. I feel called to help raise up a new generation of prophetic, yet
pastoral, evangelicals (or other Protestants) who will have hearts for the
social realities that so many among the religious right simply do not see
yet.

In a message dated 11/5/97 11:19:22 PM, jtc10@juno.com wrote:

<>

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

——————————

From: TSTseng@aol.com
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 01:04:14 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Fwd: Press Release – China Legislation

J.

Thanks for the FRC press releases. If I’m not mistaken, isn’t the Washington
Times a front for the Moonies (who happen to be very anti-Communist)? I
noticed in the press release that the most paranoid clippings come from the
Wash. Times (reports that China is aiming missiles at the US, etc), which
IMHO, creates a credibility problem. The other quotes are likely to be more
credible. Perhaps FRC is unaware of the credibility problems of the Wash.
Times?

Tim

In a message dated 11/5/97 10:56:38 PM, jtc10@juno.com wrote:

<>

——————————

From: Sze-kar Wan
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 01:21:06 -0500
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Dislodging our churches from the Religious Right

If only my colleagues could read these posts, now that I’ve bcome a
“liberal” ๐Ÿ™‚

Dear Harry:

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.

Tim will have to speak for himself re the religious left. But 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.

This is of course not true with every such organization or institution;
this list of complaints is more representative of personal bad
experiences with “liberal” institutions than anything else.

What I hear Tim advocate, and I am in agreement, is that we AA
Christians need to think for ourselves. I have been critiquing the
religious right–perhaps onesidedly and unfairly–bc they seem to me
resistant to the notion of self-determination. With the religious left,
the problem is of a different sort: they do not always practise what
they preach. Still, self-determination is no less a basis for my
critique.

In the heat of battle, I know I can sound strident and argumentative.
Occupation hazard, I suppose. But I do so partly because I know the
respect we have for each other creates a freedom and a space for us to
risk the deep exploration of important issues. Such exploration can be
painful at times but can also be rewarding in the long run, because we
do so in the spirit of Christian fellowship.

Respectfully in Christ,
Sze-kar

——————————

From: RevCow@aol.com
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 02:08:22 -0500 (EST)
Subject: CAC_Mail: WORK and WORD of God

Hi Bill.

>The RELATIONSHIP is what it’s all about.
Agreed.

>…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.

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. Thus we have “Bible-based” churches
and they attract those who want more of the Word (negative aspects:
legalism, dryness, hearers/not doers), or we see “Spirit-filled” churches
attracting those who want more of the Spirit (negative aspects:
subjectivism, experience-seeking), or in fewer cases we see
“missions-emphasis” churches that likewise attract impatient doers.

FIVE-FOLD PURPOSE
All churches should have some degree of fruitfulness in Winning the lost
(evangelism), Exalting the Lord (worship), Fellowshiping with family
(koinonia), Instructing to maturity (discipleship), and Tending to Needs
(missions), courtesy the Greatest Command and the Great Commission [cf.
Rick Warren, “The Purpose Driven Church”].

Because of this, we have churches or even denominations that become more
and more differentiated, instead of more and more one (John 17) and more
and more loving. Ahh, but I’m probably preaching to the choir.

As you said, Bill, ’nuff said. Hope you and all of CAC’s readership are
well.

Spending too much time on this
digest and not enough in prayer,
Ted

Rev. Ted Kau
Harvest San Gabriel Valley

Each of us is either a missionary
or a mission field.
– –Anonymous

——————————

From: gdot@juno.com (G Ottoson)
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 01:35:45 -0700
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Corporate Culture

On Tue, 4 Nov 1997 22:21:42 -0500 “DJ Chuang”
writes
>
>May I ask, similarly, what do you find intrinsically evil or bad about
>capitalism as a viable form of economics? Do you imply a preference
>for socialism or Marxism? (and does that imply that the Gospel prefers
>socialism?)
>

Dear DJ,

Rambling again, to a degree, I would agree that the ‘economic system’ has
many forms. The ‘viability’ of a particular economic form depends on
‘perspective’. Embracing the Holy Spirit changes one’s perspective. In
the new perspective (e.g. in ‘newness of life’) there is (or develops) a
new meaning of existence; life is something radically different than
before. e.g. we could say that an implication (of knowing I AM THAT I
AM , Exodus 3) is that economics becomes a measuring device for, or
conceptual framework for, analyzing our NON-essentials ๐Ÿ™‚ In essence,
then, the Holy Spirit maybe dismisses the economic system but does not
forbid balancing a check book and projecting a Biblical fiscal
soundness…

Are capitalism and socialism distinct options or choices within this
system? IMO, few if any people are either capitalist or socialist, e.g.
we all ‘suffer’ from the elderly capitalists who insist that Am. gov’t be
reduced/restructured to enhance private enterprise, but who also consume
enormous (even unnecessary?) quantities of Social(-ized) Security…

To me life ‘after’ (vs. ‘before’) the Holy Spirit boils down, not to a
(false?) choice between capitalism or socialism, but to accepting the
command to renounce the World system (I John). In reality, this would be
to turn from both capitalism and socialism as sources and ways of life
and also turn from them as ideal ideological frameworks. It would be to
admit to (my) abuses, corruption, so forth, and to (try to) cease from
doing them. It is to choose the alternative (now) to trust the Holy
Spirit and Christ who sent this Spirit into the World…

True, the World economic system is necessary in some sense, e.g.
necessary to ‘negotiate’ with now, as Dr. Tseng has pointed out. Perhaps
this means it is a necessary ‘evil’ and ‘evil’ present for the ‘good’
purposes of God. For instance, what if within the perspective of the Holy
Spirit the context of ‘freedom’ in the NT is captivity, not wealth? This
would be ‘good’ yet Christians in many circles are sworn to defend
capitalism/wealth, not ‘captivity’. Why, though, when from the Holy
Spirit’s perspective, defending capitalism (a necessary ‘evil’) is like
suicide? Why when it would lead many fine people to ruin, not to the
‘goodness’ of God?

Perhaps the Pauline antidote to ruin is found in Eph. 4:28 where a form
of ‘socialism’ emerges, I think, for OUR good. If so, it would be a (Gal
3:28-style ‘neither slave nor free’) generosity rooted, not in capitalism
(organized theft?), but in manual work which is not intended primarily to
please the State, but to please God. Manual work might mean, for
instance, doing a garden because God commanded us till, seed, weed the
soil in Genesis. And because Paul, through the Spirit, says:

‘He who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing
something useful with his own hands, that he may have something to share
with those in need…’

(I have to break off from rambling for now–feel free to interact. Thanks
for everything!)

Bro. G

——————————

From: matthew goh
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 18:19:25
Subject: CAC_Mail: BILLY GRAHAM MEETS WITH PRESIDENT JIANG ZEMIN

>Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 20:10:56 -0500 (EST)
>From: ChristianNet@ccis.org.uk
>Subject: [CN-WORLD] BILLY GRAHAM MEETS WITH PRESIDENT JIANG ZEMIN
>
> — [ From: B. J. Durston * EMC.Ver #3.1a ] —
>
>Billy Graham Evangelistic Association
>News Release
>
>November 2, 1997
>
>PRESIDENT JIANG MEETS PRIVATELY WITH BILLY GRAHAM
>Chinese Leader and Evangelist Discuss
>Religion in U.S. and China
>
>LOS ANGELES, Nov. 2 — President Jiang Zemin and American evangelist Billy
>Graham met today to discuss religious life in the United States and China.
>The meeting came near the close of the Chinese leader’s eight-day state
>visit to the United States.
>
> “I found the President to be very warm and personable,” Mr. Graham said
>after the meeting, which took place at the request of President Jiang. “He
>is highly intelligent and curious about our country, and has clearly learned
>much during his trip here. I told him I felt that he had a very successful
>trip, and hoped that he could come again for a more extensive visit.”
>
> Details of the half-hour-long private meeting — originally scheduled for
>fifteen minutes — were not revealed. However, Mr. Graham did acknowledge
>that they had discussed the issue of human rights in China, and particularly
>religious freedom. The Chinese constitution guarantees freedom of religion,
>although Chinese officials themselves have acknowledged that the guarantee
>is not always implemented well at the local level. A recent State Council
>document entitled “Freedom of Religious Belief in China” outlines in some
>detail the government’s policies toward religion. Some China watchers
>suggest this document indicates the Chinese government is giving greater
>attention to these issues.
>
> “Twenty years ago hardly one church was open in all of China,” Mr. Graham
>noted. “Today there are tens of thousands, and we should be very grateful
>for that.” In recent years the number of Christians in China has risen
>sharply, although they still are a small minority among the nation’s 1.2
>billion people. “Jesus told us to love our neighbor, and in today’s world
>everyone is our neighbor,” Mr. Graham added.
>
> Mr. Graham was accompanied by his son, the Rev. Nelson (Ned) Graham. Ned
>Graham is president of Seattle-based East Gates International, and has
>visited China over forty times. He reported to President Jiang that East
>Gates assists the churches of China by helping supply Bibles, religious
>literature and leadership training, with the legal permission of Chinese
>authorities. In the
>last few years the organization has distributed several million Bibles to
>China’s House Church believers.
>
> Both Ned Graham and his mother, Ruth Graham, were guests at a Department of
>State luncheon for President Jiang hosted by Vice President and Mrs. Gore on
>Wednesday, October 29. Ruth Graham was born of missionary parents in
>China’s Jiangsu Province, which is also the birthplace of President Jiang.
>
> “My family and I have always had a great love for China and the Chinese
>people,” Mr. Graham told the visiting president. “People in our
>two countries need to get to know each other better, and I think your trip
>here has been an important step in that direction.” He also said he was
>
>grateful for the opportunity to share his Christian faith with the President
>.
>
> Mr. Graham first visited the People’s Republic of China in 1988, when he
>preached in several cities and also met with Premier Li Peng and the present
>Executive Vice-Premier, Zhu Rongji (who was mayor of Shanghai at the time).
>He has returned to Beijing on two other occasions to preach and meet with
>officials. This past September, Mrs. Graham and Ned Graham also visited
>Beijing for several days, and met with a number of church and governmental
>leaders.
>
> Billy Graham recently completed a three-city crusade in the San Francisco
>Bay area. Although the Chinese suggested several locations for their
>meeting, Mr. Graham delayed his departure from California to meet with
>President Jiang in Los Angeles — the President’s last stop in the United
>States. On November 6, Mr. Graham will give the prayers at the dedication
>of the George Bush Presidential Library and Museum in College Station,
>Texas.
>
>
——————————

From: matthew goh
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 18:18:48
Subject: CAC_Mail: Religious Liberty in China?

Hi
Something relevant to the discussion…

>To: uighur-l@taklamakan.org
>Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 01:40:10 -0700
>Subject: Religious Liberty in China?
>From: utkuremet@juno.com (Edgar Emmett)
>
>This interview was conducted recently in China with a high ranking
>official whose job it is to monitor religious activity. A Christian in
>an atheistic situation, he granted the interview only on condition of
>strict anonymity. He is an authority on the growth of Christianity and
>the precise attitude of the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party
>toward it.
>
>Many of our readership may find his point of view disturbing. However, we
>reproduce it because, (a) there are many in the so-called “third wave”
>house churches (began after the 1989 Tiananmen massacre) run by younger
>leaders who agree with his view, and (b) we feel it is important to grasp
>any chance to gain a clearer understanding of the attitude of higher
>level officials toward Christianity in general. China’s government
>remains immensely secretive, and reliable “inside” information on the
>attitude of high level leaders toward Christians is scarce indeed. As you
>will read, there is much to be encouraged about, and much to be concerned
>about.
>
>Compass Direct: Let’s start by asking you about the hottest topic of
>1997: persecution. In recent months there have been denials by Han Wenzao
>and Ye Xiaowen that there is any such thing as religious persecution in
>China. Or perhaps Han would nuance it to say that persecution is mostly a
>thing of the past save for some overzealous, outdated cadres who may
>still harass believers in certain areas. What is your view on this?
>
>ANSWER: I tend to make a distinction between persecution and
>discrimination. I would say that there is very little persecution, but
>massive discrimination. Let me explain.
>
>When you become a known Christian in China, you automatically lose
>certain rights. It is harder to obtain a job, a good education, trips
>abroad, etc., because the society is essentially run by members of the
>Communist Party for professing Communists. That’s discrimination. It
>happens to every Christian.
>
>Then, if you are a Christian, you are not free to practice your faith as
>you choose. You are obliged to keep it private, and practice it only in
>officially supervised settings. Chinese officials have made a silly
>mistake about religion. They equate it with public worship. So they
>think, if you can pray and sing in a church, then you are free. They have
>no concept of Christianity as a way of life. Again, that is highly
>discriminatory.
>
>By persecution I tend to think of Christians being thrown in jail,
>beaten, harassed, physically abused in some direct fashion. I believe
>there is very little of that relative to the size of the Christian
>population. Now I may be too far up the tree to know what’s going on at
>the roots, but I would be very surprised if there were more than a couple
>of hundred people incarcerated for their Christian faith. The last two
>years have seen some hundreds of arrests, but few have been sentenced,
>and most released. That is regrettable, and it is wrong to say there is
>no persecution, but it is minimal when you consider the Christian
>community may number more than 50 million.
>
>Compass: You do sound a bit sanguine about the fate of 200 people who may
>be languishing in jail for their Christian beliefs.
>
>A: Well, I don’t mean to, it’s just that here in China we are used to
>millions being persecuted, and if you lived here you would recognize that
>as an enormous improvement…to have only hundreds incarcerated, as
>opposed to millions. And I might add, even of those jailed, I would say
>in nine cases out of 10, the government has a very good reason to come
>hunting them.
>
>Compass: What do you mean by “a good reason?”
>
>A: I mean something foolish that virtually requires the government to
>take action.
>
>Compass: Can you give an example?
>
>A: Probably Xu Yongze. He has been getting more and more unorthodox in
>recent years, as well as abusing his power within his own movement. He
>attracted attention by his extremism. (SEE earlier article on Xu’s
>sentencing.)
>
>Compass: But it is denied that he is truly a cult leader.
>
>A: By whom?
>
>Compass: Those who have contacts with the movement.
>
>A: That’s precisely the problem. Other house churches that have contacts
>with the movement have themselves called him a cult leader. There is
>evidence that some of his followers are total charlatans, who have been
>hiding lights up their sleeves and then surreptitiously shining them in
>dark, crowded rooms as “the light of the Spirit.”
>
>Compass: But that can hardly be typical.
>
>A: Maybe not. All I’m saying is that there was enough that was peculiar
>about the movement to attract unwanted government attention. Other more
>orthodox movements do not have so much to fear. Don’t get me wrong. I’m
>not defending his arrest. I believe that if someone wants to teach that
>salvation is gained by performing a handstand over a bowl of bean curd
>that still does not merit a jailing. In a free society, we should laugh
>at them, not jail them. And Xu I am sure is a Christian, but he is in
>jail partly because of his own extremism. Another case is the recently
>arrested Xu Gouquing. He is a Christian house church leader, but what
>attracted the government to him was that he was criticizing Chinese
>foreign policy, claiming that the government was wrong to give up
>sovereignty over Mongolia. Sure, he shouldn’t be arrested for expressing
>silly political opinions, and so he, like Xu, is persecuted. But it is
>partly their own doing.
>
>Compass: You say there is actually positive news to report on
>persecution. Can you explain?
>
>A: It’s really extremely complex. Let me put it this way: there is much
>more religious freedom today than 20 years ago, and all indicators
>suggest that there will be much more freedom in 20 years time than today.
>China is committed to capitalism, which will continue to open the country
>up to Western ways, and the Maoist ideology–the motor of past
>persecution–is worn-out. So the good news is, religious persecution and
>discrimination are declining in the long term, and will continue to do
>so.
>
>The bad news is, the 1990s have seen a regression–the mid-nineties quite
>a strong regression–of this general trend. It does not alter the
>underlying positive pattern, but it is a cause for sadness and concern.
>The fundamental issue is that the government of China feels very insecure
>right now, and religious policy is always linked to that.
>
>Compass: Since you have so many contacts with high-ranking Communist
>Party officials, tell us what their attitude is toward religion in
>general and Christianity in particular?
>
>A: Puzzled and confused. High-ranking leaders are genuinely puzzled that
>there is so much turning to religion in today’s China. Li Ruihan recently
>declared to a committee, “Why is religion growing so fast? We need to
>know the answer to this before we can do much about it.” Buddhism
>especially is booming in the provinces. It’s the fastest growing religion
>by far. But Christianity is also growing, especially among educated young
>people. Now this is hardly surprising to those who knew that, before Mao,
>China was swathed in folk religion, and so this is it simply re-emerging
>from the embers. But to a generation that genuinely thought religion had
>been virtually exterminated, its resurgence comes as puzzling. “Where did
>religion go if it wasn’t destroyed?” said one of the Party leaders to me
>recently. I answered, “It went where it always is…the heart.”
>
>There is a different attitude to Christianity as opposed to, say, Daoism
>or Buddhism, because it is seen as a more subversive religion. Chinese
>leaders hold the Christian churches of Eastern Europe partially
>responsible for toppling the communist regimes in 1989 and 1990. Many
>foreign Christians are “stop-at-nothing” characters, who see the
>spreading of Christianity as something the state has no jurisdiction
>over, so they smuggle Bibles into China and conduct underground teaching
>seminars and so forth–the Chinese leaders are very threatened by those
>types of people.
>
>And then of course you have to realize that religion and nationalism seem
>to go together here. The Muslims of Xinjiang seem to use their religion
>to foment separatism. The Buddhists in Tibet use their religion to
>maintain a separate identity. Again this is very threatening to a
>Communist Party leadership that really can’t motivate people like these
>religions can.
>
>Compass: How does all this translate into an actual policy on religion in
>China?
>
>A: Well, this is where the confusion comes in. If you are puzzled about
>where religion comes from and what it is, how on earth do you control it?
>In 1995 it was decided to have a single new religious law for the whole
>of China. It was introduced on a trial basis in Shanghai in 1996, but was
>not a success. All the religions complained it was too restrictive. So
>now there is uncertainly about whether to have a nationwide religious law
>at all, and there is this unevenness of application and policy which is
>so confusing for everyone.
>
>Compass: Would you say that this policy involves stamping out the house
>churches?
>
>A: No, I don’t think that is a conscious intention in the minds of the
>top leadership. Religious policy in my view is dependent upon whether
>the Party leadership feels politically secure or not. If the leaders feel
>insecure about their rule, about their ability to govern China and lead
>China into the next century, they become more controlling, more
>defensive. This affects everything, from emerging trade unions to house
>churches. This is a time of great insecurity right now, so anyone who
>meets together in unofficial groups in this society right now is heading
>for trouble. That is why is it so hard for the house churches now, and
>probably will be for a few years more.
>
>But I don’t want to present a totally negative scenario. The very
>puzzlement, confusion and defensiveness that Party officials show toward
>religion right now are actually an opportunity for the Western church.
>
>Compass: What kind of opportunity?
>
>A: Well, quite simply, to join the debate on what to do with religion.
>Party officials are open to advice as never before. Of course, this
>advice has to be given from people who have taken the time to make
>friends with these officials. Fierce name-calling or denunciation from
>another country will not open the door. But for those who seek to
>befriend the leaders of this country, a golden opportunity awaits them to
>actually assist and guide leaders in their attitude to religion through
>this crucial period.
>
>Compass: Can you give an example of this?
>
>A: In a certain province I knew of a Party official who hated religion.
>He used to take any opportunity to jail Christian leaders. But a foreign
>Christian came to the city and began to build a hospital. The two of them
>had to work together on administrative matters, and for a time the
>official persecuted the local Christians more, just to goad this new
>foreign Christian. But as they worked together, a friendship slowly
>formed. The Party official was greatly impressed that this man would come
>to China and work for subsistence wages, when he could be getting rich in
>his own country. It turned out that the official’s wife had died in the
>1960s of starvation, and some Christians had tried to resurrect the
>corpse. He had been bitter toward them ever since. But after this
>encounter with this visitor, he began to ease off on the persecution, and
>even intervened when some of his officials persecuted other believers.
>
>The point is that the persecution in this case did not come from any
>ideological vendetta, but a private hurt that was eased through
>friendship. This could be happening all over China if Western Christians
>would make friends first with these officials.
>
>Compass: But there must be a place for firmness too? The persecuted must
>be named and their persecutors pressured themselves?
>
>A: Yes, I don’t think one should stop all criticism. Western Christians
>must articulate the cry of the oppressed; otherwise they would not be the
>true church of Christ. But one must be careful not to be so negative that
>you give off hate towards persecutors. Some of the criticism leveled
>against China this year I believe was hate-based. Some Christian leaders
>are involved in religious persecution issues because they hate
>communists, pure and simple. I’ve met them, so I speak from experience.
>To them I would say, keep the persecuted on the map by all means. That is
>your duty. But remember, there are no communists left, only Party
>members. Take the ideological sting out of your crusade. It’s
>inappropriate. Mao is not still running this country, and if you realize
>that, you can have more influence than you dream. But you must become
>friends first.
>
>Copyright 1997 by Compass Direct

——————————

From: Samuel Ling
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 08:24:38 -0800
Subject: CAC_Mail: Prayer for CAC

Dear Father in Heaven,
Creator and Governor of all things,

Thank You for everyone of Your children,
servants, men and women
who serve You
and the Cause of Your Son Jesus Christ.

Thank You for passion,
for diversity of
political,
social,
economic,
theological perspectives
and temperaments.
Father, I couldn’t believe that
what was imposible 20 years ago
is possible and happening right now
in the Body of Christ —
healthy interest in contemporary issues,
and an intense exchange of views,
and passions.

Thank You Father
for the hearts,
minds,
and pens (mice?)
of every brother and sister
in CAC.

And Father,
we pray that You will intervene
in Your own way
to relieve our brothers and sisters
who are persecuted in China
this very day.
We entrust them
to You,
directly,
totally.

Through Jesus Christ our Lord,
Amen.

Samuel Ling
La Mirada, California

——————————

From: TSTseng@aol.com
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 10:33:45 -0500 (EST)
Subject: CAC_Mail: ANNOUNCE: CONFAB 1998

Dear CACers:

I’d like to announce the following conference. – Tim Tseng

CONFAB 1998
“Growing Deep, Reaching Out: Discerning God’s Direction for His People”
June 23-28, 1998
Biola University (La Mirada, CA)

Sponsored by the National Conference of Chinese Christian Churches.
Mission statement:
“The Mission of the National Conference of Chinese Churches of North America,
Inc. (CONFAB) is to provide mainline Chinese Christian churches in North
America, as well as others who may be interested, periodic opportunities for
fellowship, sharing and inspiration, so that the Christian outreach, witness
and service of these churches may be enhanced and strengthened.”

For more information, write

National Conference of Chinese Christian Churches, Inc.
1 Waverly Place
San Francisco, CA 94108
ATTN: Freddie Hee
(415) 221-2469

– ————————————————————
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: gdot@juno.com
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 14:51:59 EST
Subject: CAC_Mail: Corporate Culture, 2

>For instance, what if within the perspective of the Holy Spirit the
context of >’freedom’ in the NT is captivity, not wealth? This would be
‘good’…

Hi DJ:

Last night I was remembering Tim’s encouragement several months ago: ‘let
a thousand ideas bloom’. I really like that idea ๐Ÿ™‚

At the juncture I copied to, above, the (rambling) train of thought
turned to Christians who ‘defend capitalism’, not ‘captivity’
(‘captivity’ in various levels of meaning in the NT, I think, is the
fertile soil of ‘freedom’ in Christ.) Well, for Brother Harry’s sake, I
was not on LSD and NOT unconscious of Christians who defend
socialism/Marxism/liberalism. I want people to know that am not one of
these. Let me ramble about this for a minute:

Once we (Christians) get into ‘negotiating’ in this World, it’s like Hell
breaks loose–well, it seems to bust loose like Chaos in me. There really
is no way to correctly systematize Hell, esp in terms of economics. There
is confusion and no economic approach which solves it. Yet, this is
exactly what socialism and capitalism appear to want–competing, of
course–for the assent of all people, in all places at once. To me this
is a Satanic, demonic, Hellish ‘agenda’ (or scheme).

Meanwhile, the current essential occupation of the Holy Spirit is not to
promote the victory of either of these organizational forces or the
non-eschatological demise of them. The Spirit leads in a different
direction or dimension away from this economic squabble over the agenda
of the World. The Spirit leads to the Cross and toward a Day of judgment
(connected to the Cross) in which no ungodliness will remain or survive.
God will battle Satan and the World (for us) and as we know now, in part,
will destroy them.

Our interim occupation, or ‘work’, in the sense of Ephesians 4:28, is to
be like that of the Spirit we love: ‘working’ to inform the World of Who
came and is coming, judgment-wise, and, to praise the living God as we
go.

This is all for now, except to say thanks to Sam for his poem this
morning, beautiful, and to turn CAC on to this poem, no, actually a Rock
song, the greatest Rock song of all time, by Larry Norman, 1992. (No LSD
required ๐Ÿ™‚

<>

Bro. G

——————————

From: “GE Liang”
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 14:38:31 -0700
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: BILLY GRAHAM

Dear CAC,

Apparently, Billy Graham also knows a little bit about the Chinese language, or
knows someone that does! Check out his remarks intended for those at PK’s SITG, which
were not played because of the abrupt ending (due to running over time):
http://www.promisekeepers.org/manual/sitg/bgraham-remarks.htm

By His grace,
G.E.

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

——————————

From: “GE Liang”
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 14:40:42 -0700
Subject: CAC_Mail: Intellectualism or Experientialism as Abuses

Dear CAC,

Dr. Ling wrote:

>
>II. CONTEMPORARY EXPERIENTIALISM IN AMERICA
>AND AMONG CHINESE-AMERICANS
>
>I find another, revised form of experientialism in
>contemporary America, which is being discipled
>into the Chinese-American community.
>
>This has other characteristics:
>
>1. Anti-theological: stick with exegeting the Bible,
>doctrinal systems are all suspect.

>
>I don’t mean to say that intellect is everything, and experience
>is not important. Experience is VERY important; thus we
>need to have a biblical foundation to understand them.
>As a matter of fact I am recently making
>a new theological discovery in the sphere if supernatural
>experiences. But certainly we need to be more scrutinous
>and biblical in our use of emotions and in our understanding
>of our experiences.
>
>’Nuf said. Critiques welcome.
>

Surprisingly, even among those who have “dipped into” theology, many espouse a dialectic
between the intellectual and the experiential, or between God’s Word and all things
human, including man’s criticisms. Some have attributed the “leap of faith” mentality
to Kierkegaard and then Barth, tracing it further to Bultmann and Niebuhr. (Have
I listed anyone’s favorite theologian yet?) Many of my “intelligent” AA friends
subscribe to the thoughts of the Danish Kierkegaard or the Swiss Barth. I suppose
they could be labeled Christian existentialist at times. Periodically, I wonder
if I am really following mailing lists for the dynamic (dialectic) discussions or
for new information to try to synthesize….

Also “rambling,”
G.E.

More lightbulb jokes:
http://www.webcom.com/~ctt/comic.html

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

——————————

From: jtc10@juno.com (J Chang)
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 19:31:34 -0500
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: School Choice

Dear Tim:

I appreciate your views regarding the school choice issue. While I can
add to the dialogue with my views, I cannot speak for the Family
Research Council (FRC) since I am not their spokesperson.

Local legislation was passed & a pilot program on school choice was
started
in Milwaukee where parents were allowed to use vouchers towards private
schools I believe. It was interesting that some of the proponents of
school choice came together from very different sides of the political
spectrums. Some conservative and liberal lawmakers in that city helped
to
pass that program.

The conservative lawmakers wanted less federal involvement in the local
schools, giving the local communities & parents more control over their
children’s
upbringing. The liberal lawmakers wanted the poorer urban neighborhood
children to have the same opportunities of a better education that the
wealthy
families would have. It was certainly a joining of “strange bedfellows.”
Polls
also show that about 85% of urban African-Americans are in favor of
school
choice.

Many of the poor inner city parents are desperate for better educational
opportunities for their children. They see the president’s daughter,
Chelsea
Clinton attending a private school but they themselves being denied that
same chance for their children.

To read what FRC believes about school choice, please go to their article
entitled: “With Liberty & Justice for All: Refining the Educational
Choice Debate”
at the web page:

For a more general policy position on: “How does FRC believe we can
improve
the public education system in America?” you can read about their stance
at:

In Him,
J. Chang

——————————

From: “Jennifer Lin”
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 21:45:30 -0500
Subject: CAC_Mail: CAC-ers

in regards to the capitalism and Christianity conversation,
would like to throw out a book by Alisdair MacIntyre..leading Irish American
professor of philosophy at Duke University entitled “Marxism and Christianity”.
very devout Catholic who poses some interesting assertions. up to date, he has
since recounced many of his earlier thoughts on the subject but the book still
retains its ability to question the Leviathan of Big Market Capitalism which
most Rel. Right advocates so embrace. is anyone familiar with MacIntyre’s book?
(definitely not one of his many books which have become seminal ones in field
of phil.).

jennifer

——————————

From: Sze-kar Wan
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 23:01:16 -0500
Subject: CAC_Mail: Religious right

Dear Tim:

Thanks for the nuanced distinction of the differnt groups in the
so-called “religious right.” Glad you like my favorite group, IVCF,
too. Yep, is Jeanette listening?

Sze-kar

——————————

From: Ken Fong
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 22:36:00 -0800
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Dislodging our churches from the Religious Right

Since we’re on the topic of RIGHT and LEFT, let me pass along a
description of either’s attitude that I found both amusing and pretty
much on target:

A man has fallen through the ice of a frozen lake 50 feet from shore and
is crying out for someone to save him. The Rightist tells him not to
worry, that he is going to help him, then proceeds to through him 30
feet of rope and challenges him to make up the difference. The Leftist
arrives on the scene, offers the same pledge of help, throughs the
struggling man 100 feet of rope and then proceeds to let go of the other
end.

Too stereotypical? Probably. Well, if anything, maybe I succeeded in
adding a little levity to the discussion for a moment.

ken fong

——————————

From: Ken Fong
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 22:48:03 -0800
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Religious right

knowing Jeanette, she’s cyber-lurking someone out there, but she’s got
to be smiling from ear to ear. as someone who is sold on IVCF, I was
holding my breath as you listed them, but breathed a sigh of relief when
you later wrote that you didn’t consider them to be Right Wing.
Speaking as a member of the Board, I can tell you for a fact that the
sr. leadership and board members are definitely not Rightists nor
Leftists. That’s why I find it such a good fit and a fertile place to
wrestle with the implications and applications of the gospel.

ken fong

——————————

From: “DJ Chuang”
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 09:08:54 -0500
Subject: CAC_Mail: PhD/ThD Students-FYI: Charlotte W. Newcombe Doctoral Dissertatio

– ——- Forwarded Message Follows ——-

Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 15:03:58 -0800 (PST)
From: Han-Ron Siah
To: “cac”
Hi,

I thought that there might be a few people on this list that might
qualify for this and be able to take advantage of the information.

Han-Ron

+————————————————————————-+
| Han-Ron Siah | University of California |
| hsiah@seas.ucla.edu | Los Angeles |
| ICQ UIN: 3208007 | http://wwp.mirabilis.com/3208007 |
+————————————————————————-+

– ———- Forwarded message ———-
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 12:11:09 -0800
From: Division, Graduate
To: Multiple recipients of list GRADFELLOWSHIPS-L

Subject: Charlotte W. Newcombe Doctoral Dissertation Fellowships

FELLOWSHIP:
Charlotte W. Newcombe Doctoral Dissertation Fellowships

TARGETED FIELDS:
Fellowship is intended primarily for the last year of dissertation
writing.

ELIGIBILITY:
Applicants must be candidates for Ph.D. or Th.D. degrees enrolled in
doctoral programs in the humanities and social sciences at graduate
schools in the United States, and expect to complete all doctoral
requirements except the dissertation by November 28, 1997.

PROGRAM SUMMARY:
Charlotte W. Newcombe Doctoral Dissertation Fellowships are designed to
encourage original and significant study of ethical or religious values
in all fields of the humanities and social sciences. In addition to
topics in religious studies or ethics, dissertations might consider the
ethical implications of foreign policy, the values influencing political
decisions, the moral codes of other cultures, and religious or ethical
issues reflected in history or literature.

STIPEND:
Winners will receive $14,000 for 12 months of full time dissertation
writing.
Between 30 to 35 awards will be made.

DEADLINE DATE:
Completed applications must be postmarked by December 12, 1997.

APPLICATION PROCEDURES:

All requests must be postmarked or received by e-mail by 11/14/97.

Application forms may be requested from:

Newcombe Dissertation Fellowships
The Woodrow Wilson National Fellowships Foundation
CN 5281
Princeton, NJ 08543-5281\
e-mail: charlotte@woodrow.org
**please include mailing address

***Applications are also available on http://www.woodrow.org/newcombe

——————————

From: SunaJaK@aol.com
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 09:42:44 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Re: CAC_Mail: Dislodging our churches from the Religious Right

In our use of the adjectives left, right, liberal, and conservative, I
believe we are ignoring a crucial distinction. There is a difference between
theological conservative, and social conservative, theological liberal and
social liberal. I get the impression that most people assume that if someone
is socially liberal, then they are also theologically liberal, and hence
ought to be considered “enemies of Christ” or “people in need of conversion
to the truth.”

I also believe that although we seem to use the adjectives conservative and
liberal quite liberally (excuse the pun), if we took a poll, we would come to
the realization that we are not operating on the same shared meanings of
“theological conservative, social conservative, theological liberal, and
social liberal.” Hence when we attempt to locate people in these categories
we get many people upset because they would not agree with what someone else
thinks it means to be located in one or more of these categories.

I suggest that we avoid using these adjectives unless we are attempting to
define them. When discussing differences in political or theological views,
rather than labeling them “theologically conservative, socially conservative,
theologically liberal, or socially liberal,” we should focus the discussion
on the idea itself.

For example, one quality of the Religious Right that makes me uncomfortable
is their disregard for social justice. If someone wants to disagree with me,
please don’t say “oh he’s liberal, therefore he’s wrong.” Rather say that
I’m wrong because the Bible does not teach social justice, therefore I’m
wrong to use social justice as a criteria for evaluating the Religious Right.
Or that the Religious Right actually does care about social justice,
therefore I’m wrong because I misunderstand the Religious Right.

We need to get away from the use of labels because the only thing that labels
accomplish is stifle dialogue. Put forward specific ideas and then discuss
the validity or credibility of those ideas.

Keith Sunahara
First Evangelical Free Church of Chicago (just a member)
Ph.D. Student in Christian Ethics
Loyola University of Chicago

——————————

From: ben_mel@juno.com (Benjamin C Wong)
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 12:07:09 EST
Subject: CAC_Mail: Faith and Scholarship 11-6-97

Rom. 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of
Christ.

Scholarship in “hearing” / studying the word of Christ will produce
faith. Faith is not to come from blind stupidity but from understanding
of the sure authority of God.

Ben

——————————

From: ben_mel@juno.com (Benjamin C Wong)
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 12:07:09 EST
Subject: CAC_Mail: Women and Ministry

Hi: Nov. 6, 97

Sorry for the long delay in responding; this especially to Tim’s note to
me on hermeneutics back on Oct. 11th; but also for Grace’s posting to
me on Oct. 20th.

Tim:

Thanks for the input on the importance that hermeneutic principles play
in trying to understand the Bible. This could be an extensive
discussion, but just briefly let me comment. Perhaps others may have
more input.

I am not familiar with the two hermeneutical principles to which you
drew our attention; Prophetic Protestant Principle and Southern Strategy.
The hermeneutical principle I am committed to requires a historical
principle (the historical context of the passage) and a grammatical
principle which would derive the same meaning as the recipients of the
passage would have understood it. Any meanings other than that would be
uncertain unless other passage of Scripture should so give that meaning
to it. Hermeneutical principles that subject the interpretation to the
interpreter is not acceptable since the interpreter becomes the voice of
God. Isn’t the interpreter also elevated to God if the hermeneutical
principle is rejected merely because the interpretation is not acceptable
to him? This can be due to one’s experiences or to one’s reasonings or
to both (which includes one’s culture).

Wild thot: “IF” God provided for slavery, then it would best benefit us
if we sought to understand the good and wisdom in such a provision.

Grace:

Hope it hasn’t been so long that we’ve lost continuity. I am grateful
for your responding to this subject.

1) Concerning the word “head” as used in I Cor. 11. I would understand
its meaning to be the same when it is used of the Father as head of
Christ as when it is used of Christ as head of the Church and when it is
used of man as the head of woman. Christ did and said what the Father
told Him to do and say. The Church is suppose to submit to Christ as
LORD in everything. “Head” therefore mean a position that has authority.
In the same sense, the man has the position of authority. The woman has
the position to submit.

Peter Woo’s explanation is concerned with the act of submitting; should
all women submit to all men?. Paul is describing the positions; the man
has the position of being the head over the woman (in Eph. 5, Paul is
dealing with husbands and wives). Is it a problem (morally or
rationally) that all men have the position of head to all women? If this
is a problem the solution is not in denying the meaning of this passage
but in understanding the line of authority, or as Bill Gothard puts it,
“the chain of authority.”

2) One cannot understand I Cor. 11:11-12 apart from verses 8-10. The
interdependence of man and woman in Verses :11-12 does not negate the
concept that woman was created FOR man’s sake in verses 8-10.

Going back to Gen. 2, before the fall and in the beauty and wisdom of
God’s act and purpose of creation, God created man. When God
demonstrated and declared that it was not good that man should be alone,
He purposed to make a HELPER suitable for him. In the design of God’s
creation, the woman was to be a helper to the man. This is not saying
inferior or less human. This is not saying she may be abused and is only
an object to be used. But it is saying she is to be man’s helper. This
is the meaning Paul is driving at in I Cor. 11:8-9. Does the word
“helper” have the primary meaning of “companion”? Does the word “helper”
mean she is to submit, to be in subjection to the man? I believe this is
the reason why Paul in Eph. 5 tells the wife to submit to her husband.
This seems to be the clear meaning of the Scriptures. It is not a
self-serving interpretation. I am not creating MY interpretation. I
would not have any problem if God had created woman to be a companion.
But the Scripture doesn’t say “companion” it says, “helper”. “Helper”
does suggest “companion” but it is not the primary emphasis. If I teach,
“Yes, the woman can be co-head.” I am not merely contradicting myself; I
am contradicting God’s Word.

If one wants a verse to equalize the roles of man and woman, it would be
Eph. 5:21; “and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ..”
Included in the “one another” is the man being subject to the woman. The
equality is in subjection not in headship. So also is the admonition
that illustrate Christ (who is the head of the Church) as humbling
Himself to die for the Church (Phil. 2). Greatness is not in having
authority and power over others, but in serving others. The divine
purpose for authority and power is to better serve. Man in seeking
greatness (different concept than the world’s) would seek equality with
the woman to be under subjection. What do you think about this?
By the way, headship is not the same as spiritual gifts. For example; to
prophesy is not equal to being head. A woman can prophesy.

3) Concerning the elder in I Tim. 3; the passage is describing a
position for men. The term “elder” is masculine. The possibility of
being a “husband” is limited to men. And all pronouns referring to the
elder is masculine.

4) How can one trust the interpretations of experiences? All
experiences has more than one interpretation. How does one know which is
right, if any? For example: When Israel defeated the Gentile nation, it
taught that Israel’s God is the true God. When Israel was defeated by a
Gentile nation, it did not teach that the god of that Gentile nation was
the true God. Rather it taught that God was judging Israel for her sins.
Human experiences is not a good mediator for our understanding of
Scripture. Our understanding of Scripture provides the proper
interpretation of human experiences. At best human experiences confirms
the truth of Scripture. This means that there must be an objective way
to obtain the correct interpretation. As indicated in the note to Tim,
through a historical grammatical hermeneutic.

5) As suggested in my earlier note on Gal. 3:28, this is not so much on
the equality of our position in Christ as in the equality of coming to
Christ. As all works of the Law is negated and everyone comes “by
hearing with faith,” (:2), so there are no advantages in being Jew nor
Greek, nor being slave nor free, nor being male nor female. This is not
a common interpretation and I am not dogmatic in it.

Whatever we may understand of the equality, the passage cannot be
teaching that the equality eliminated headship, elders, diversity of
spiritual gifts, leaders and followers.
Nor is the passage giving understanding to the purpose of the divine
reign, nor to how we are to live out and embody the ethics of God’s
kingdom.

Please comments, corrections, point out blind spots, support, expanding
understandings.

Praying that in the Church there would be glory to God.

Maranatha,

Ben

——————————

From: ben_mel@juno.com (Benjamin C Wong)
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 14:58:20 EST
Subject: [none]

Ted: 11-7

I am ignorant of the context of your comments. Maybe others are too.

Please expand and explain your meaning and understanding of how “social
action may be understood as loving God with all our strength”; and of
“worship Him in spirit and truth.” Is spirit = personally and truth =
Word?

At your convenience. You admonished me that prayer is more necessary
than all these postings. Thanks!

That we may worship Him,
Ben

——————————

From: ben_mel@juno.com (Benjamin C Wong)
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 14:58:20 EST
Subject: CAC_Mail: Women & Ministry 11-6-97

Hi:

Sorry!! In my last posting I meant to include Tim’s and Grace’s notes.
Here they are belated.

Grace wrote:

dated: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 22:59:32

Ben,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blessings,
Grace

– ——— End forwarded message ———-

Sat, 11 Oct 1997 00:58:03 -0400 (EDT)
To: ben_mel@juno.com

Hi Ben:

I didn’t interpret Ken’s posting about women in leadership as one of
pragmatism or expediency. Rather, I thought he (and Grace in her article
for
the Priscilla papers) established a guiding principle for how Holy
Scripture
is to be interpreted by citing Genesis 1-2. So, while I think your point
about elevating Asian American leadership to the standards of I Tim 3 is
a
valid concern, how that passage will be interpreted (and more
importantly,
how that interpretation will impact the practice of ministry or the life
of a
congregation) in light of one’s operating hermeneutic is just as
important.
Many evangelicals believe that the abolitionist principle (see Craig
Keener’s
works) [or what others call the Prophetic Protestant principle]
undergirds a
proper interpretation of Holy Scripture. This principle disavows
hierarchical, repressive, legalistic ways of looking at Scripture in
favor of
a more communitarian and egalitarian vision of the Kingdom of God. Even
more
evangelicals embrace the Southern strategy – a hermeneutic originally
designed to justify slavery – but now used with a vengeance to advocate
more
rigid and hierarchical interpretations and actions. The Southern
strategy is
quite understandable because in our post-modern era of confusion and
fragmentation, many are tempted to return to hierarchy in order to impose
some sense of order to a society that seems to be spinning out of
control.
But, I believe that this is a mistaken strategy. More often it leads to
witch hunts and repressive regimes rather than genuine religious freedom
and
social responsibility.

Granted, these two “hermeneutical principles” are simplistic heuristic
devices, but they help me understand how our different sub-cultures
influence
the way we interpret God’s Word. It also helps to be consciously aware
of
how our social location or culture influences our interpretation of the
Bible
and Christian action in the world.

So, if we are to train good and godly leadership, it seems that we’ll
have to
encourage them to wrestle with these hermeneutical issues at the same
time
that they wrestle with the Scriptural standards you rightly call leaders
to
attain. – Tim

– —————————-
I trust this will give some continuity to my earlier posting.

Ben

——————————

From: jtc10@juno.com (J Chang)
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 15:15:55 -0500
Subject: CAC_Mail: Happy Birthday!

Today (11/7/07) is the Rev. Billy Graham’s 79th birthday.

Happy Birthday, Rev. Graham! Thanks for your many years
of ministry!

——————————

From: jtc10@juno.com (J Chang)
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 16:03:08 -0500
Subject: CAC_Mail: The “Religious Right” label

Dear Keith:

Thanks for your insights! You made very good points regarding:
1) the differences between the varied theological/social views
2) the need to focus on the issues/ideas
3) the need to avoid generalized & convenient labels

However, “religious right” also is a label with its own varied
perceptions of definition. For example, in an earlier post, Tim
presented his definition of the “religious right.” Some CACers
breathed a sign of relief that IVCF was not included as part of the
definition. For our own purposes within the forum of CAC, that
may be generally acceptable conventional wisdom. However,
it is possible that the public-at-large, the mainstream media, and
different political/social groups may or may not consider
IVCF or other Christian groups as part of the “religious right.”

IMHO, the perception of what is the “religious right” varies
depending on who is doing the defining. Those who are not
sympathetic with “religious right” values generally don’t have
a problem using such a term. Those who are sympathetic
with “religious right” values may feel that it carries a negative
connotation since the label has been stigmatized by the media
and political pundits.

Perhaps, “religious right” is also another label to use with much care
as it may mean different things to different people.

In Him,
J. Chang
– ————-
On Fri, 7 Nov 1997 09:42:44 -0500 (EST) SunaJaK@aol.com writes:
>We need to get away from the use of labels because the only thing that
>labels
>accomplish is stifle dialogue. Put forward specific ideas and then
>discuss
>the validity or credibility of those ideas.

——————————

From: Sze-kar Wan
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 16:57:17 -0500
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Women and Ministry

Dear Ben:

Thanks for your substantial postings. You’ve raised a whole host of
very important issues. Thank you for reopening them.

I agree with you 100% that understanding must be a part of our faith; we
cannot submit to what we cannot understand (in your “Faith and
Scholarship” post).

If that’s the case, however, it vastly complicates the whole
hermeneutical picture. You are right in saying, “Hermeneutical
principles that subject the interpretation to the interpreter is not
acceptable since the interpreter becomes the voice of God.” To create
God out of our own image is idolatry. But, if understanding is
required, can the interpreter be so easily extricated from the
equation? Is it possible to make a clean separation between
“interpretation” and “interpreter”?

Take the following chain of communication:

God–>Word/Bible–>Reader

God spoke the Word and the latter is inscripturated into the Bible. If
the Reader does not understand the Bible, there is no communication and
there is no access to God through his Word. “Understanding,” therefore,
is an absolutely necessary ingredient; it is inextricably bound up with
the Reader. A revised communication chain would look like the
following:

God–>Word/Bible–>Understanding/Reader

If so, “Hermeneutics”–the system that produces an “Interpretation” that
makes Understanding possible–must be a part of the same chain. As a
third-level of details, we have:

God–>Word/Bible–>Hermeneutics/Interpretation–>Understanding/Reader

In other words, Hermeneutics stands between the biblical text and the
Reader and cannot be separated from him or her. If a hermeneutical
system produces an Interpretation INcomprehensible to the Reader, there
is no understanding, and there can be no faith. What I just outlined
here is not new: it’s what philosophers (e.g., Wittgenstein) call
“language game.”

Take your slavery example as test case. I don’t think you or anyone on
CAC would advocate slavery as a viable social system, even though it’s
described in the New Testament. So, when we come to the Household Codes
where the slave-master relationship is laid down (Col 3.22-4.1; Eph
6.5-9; etc.), some sort of hermeneutics must be in operation: we must
“understand the good and wisdom” of it as you said. Why can’t we simply
submit to it literally–without any input from the interpreter? Because
(a) we don’t live in a slavery society (our historical & social
location); and (b) we think slavery is evil (20th-century moral
standard). In other words, to take these passages literally would be
utterly INcomprehensible to us. Here I take the notion of
incomprehensibility in the MORAL rather than the epistemological sense,
but the case still stands. Our experience, our moral commonsense (which
is not common at all but is developed over time), our social location,
our reason–all this plays an indispensable role in our understanding
and, hence, in our hermeneutics. Other examples can be multiplied.

I applaud your use of a historico-grammatical hermeneutics in your
reading of the Bible, for that’s my overwhelming preference as well.
But I think we (i.e., you and I) should also be aware of the cultural,
historical, and philosophical biases built into the method. It was
founded on the Enlightenment principle of separating subject (Reader or
Interpreter) from object (Text). Grammatical, lexical, and historical
tools were then devised to bracket the Interpreter’s own subjectivity,
personal allegiances, dogmatic commitments, etc. The goal was to come
to some “objective” result recognizable by all. But the collapse of
rationalism brought an end to that project. And as you recognize,
Understanding must needs play a part in our faith, and Understanding
necessarily involves the Interpreter himself or herself.

Furthermore, we should also recognize that the grammatico-historical
method was NOT the method of choice in the New Testament! Paul calls
his own interpretation of the Hagar and Sarah story “allegorical” (Gal
4.21-31; see esp. v. 24). (The NIV shies from “allegorical” and calls
its “figurative,” but see NASB and NRSV. The word is “allegorousthai,”
literally, “to be said allegorically.”) See also 1 Cor 10.1-5, where
Paul identifies the rock following the Israelites in Exodus as “Christ”
(v. 4). Now, in both cases, a straightforward grammatico-historical
reading of the Hagar-Sarah story and the Exodus account would NOT yield
the Pauline results of “earthly Jerusalem-heavenly Jerusalem” and
“Christ.” Was Paul wrong? No way! Or as Paul would say, “me genoito!”
๐Ÿ™‚ But then, should we abandon our grammatico-historical method?
Well, not yet, at least not for me. But surely this tells me the G-H
methods is not as omnipotent and value-free as I once thought.

Just some ruminations for further discussion.

Respectfully,
Sze-kar

——————————

From: Sze-kar Wan
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 17:12:30 -0500
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: The “Religious Right” label

Dear J.:

As someone who first used the “Religious right” label, I can only agree
with you that we should use it advisedly. Tim’s recent posts have in
fact helped me to be much more careful.

Sze-kar

——————————

From: gdot@juno.com (G Ottoson)
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 18:30:12 -0700
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Women and Ministry

On Fri, 07 Nov 1997 16:57:17 -0500 Sze-kar Wan
writes:
>Dear Ben:
>
>Take your slavery example as test case. I don’t think you or anyone
>on CAC would advocate slavery as a viable social system,
>
>Just some ruminations for further discussion.

Dear Sze-kar,

Without sounding ludicrous`, I hope, I’d like to suggest that there may
be more beneath the surface of this ‘slavery’ example (and issue) than
first meets the eye. As I mentioned to DJ yesterday, I think ‘viability’
is a function of ‘perspective’. It applies here, too, if comparing a
slave worker in 1857 and a slave worker in 1997. This comparison may
yield some very interesting results. Aside from the specter of low social
status and (isolated cases?) of physical abuse (of the Frederick Douglas
variety), job-wise, the slave of 1857 actually had a pretty good deal.
Most everything he needed was provided for and through his work via the
master/plantation (system). But the slave of our generation has precious
little if anything ‘provided’. The modern system is always unmerciful,
but many Civil War-era slaves actually enjoyed merciful
masters/circumstances. Being able to own rather than be owned is
important, but this does not mean that a modern slave worker is better
off in an overall sense. In fact, a reality check on this point may yield
the picture to CAC that the misery quotient of modern slave workers is
vastly greater (on average, across the board) than that of an Am. Civil
War slave. To point this out does not mean that I advocate ‘slavery’. It
does mean, however, that I doubt it has been abolished in Am. In fact, I
think it is possible that Am. slavery (and Am. influenced global slavery)
has evolved from an in-humane to an even more in-humane form. The
prospects for the (global) workers of the next century could be
disgustingly bleak, esp with, as Tim mentioned, the demise of Unions.

Respectfully,

Gary

——————————

From: Sze-kar Wan
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 22:04:03 -0500
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Women and Ministry

G Ottoson wrote:
>
> … Being able to own rather than be owned is important, but this does
> not mean that a modern slave worker is better off in an overall sense.
> In fact, …the misery quotient of modern slave workers is vastly greater
> than that of an Am. Civil War slave….

Dear Gary:

You are quite right that a modern “slave worker” could lead a more
miserable life than a Civil War slave. But my African-Am friends would
be the first to tell me that, while a great deal still has to be done,
the world has made a quantum leap. The law is now on the side on the
workers inasmuch as it wasn’t on the slaves. It took another 100 yrs
for Afr-Ams to vote, but that right is now guaranteed. The rise of the
Afr-Am middle class is now possible in a way it couldn’t have been 100
yrs ago. And so on.

Don’t misunderstand me. I’m not saying the status quo is golden; I’m
simply saying the world has changed. Its value system has been totally
overturned. The master-slave paradigm has been decisively rejected–at
least in the West–as an acceptable mode of discourse. Even if someone,
say, an industrialist, wants to reap the benefits of a master-slave
relationship, he or she has to hide it under the cloak of something
else. He or she has to justify, say, the hiring of non-unioned,
below-minimal wage, or overseas workers in terms of jobs, the
bottomline, or the stockholders, etc. But what he or she cannot and
would not say is that he or she is buying up slaves. This does not mean
there is no slavery–which is your point–since human depravity knows no
bound. Exploitation will continue to happen. Rather, slavery as a
“social system”–which is my point–has such overwhelmingly negative
connotations that it is not viable as such.

When exploitation happens, it is up to social critics like yourself,
Tim, and in my view all Christians to point out that the
exploiter-exploited relationship is in truth no better than a
master-slave relationship. You see, what makes this argument work is
the common acceptance by all interlocutors that slavery is evil. In
defense, the exploiters will try to demonstrate that their treatment of
their workers is NOT like the masters’ treatment of their slaves. What
they will NOT do is acknowledge the similarity but argue that slavery is
good.

By contrast, antebellum slave-owners were perfectly within the bounds of
law and social customs to defend slavery as a social system and to
assume it as one of the bedrocks of social stability. They had critics,
of course. Always did, ever since the days of Exodus and Periclean
Athens. But the debate then was on whether slavery could not be
considered a “relative” good–not ideal but nonetheless good. I doubt
anyone in the west today would seriously attempt such a strategy.

Orlando Patterson (whom I don’t always admire) wrote a brilliant book on
the subject: _Freedom: Freedom in the Making of Western Culture_, in
which he argues the western notion of freedom has always depended on
slavery as a correlative. He begins from the Greeks and goes through
the NT materials, but unforunately stops at medieval Europe. Don’t know
what he has to say about modern American freedom in the absence of
slavery. Maybe others on CAC better versed in Patterson or similar
matters could fill me in. I am out of depths here.

Warmly,
Sze-kar

——————————

From: TSTseng@aol.com
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 23:57:09 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Re: Christian leaders and China

Dear Fenggang:

I read about the meeting – Graham definitely did not approach Jiang with the
same threatening posture found among other conservative Christians. I wish
more of our younger evangelicals would emulate him. – Tim

In a message dated 11/6/97 3:15:35 PM, fyang@uh.edu wrote:

<>

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

——————————

From: “DJ Chuang”
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 00:04:16 -0500
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Corporate Culture

To G Ottoson:

My question was to ask the critics of capitalism.. what it is that
makes corporate capitalism so evil (from the rhetoric given), and if it
is evil, what is the correct ‘biblical’ alternative? Would that be
socialism?

I’m not one for simple answers, but neither for spiritualized ones..
I’m not sure what to make of your response, which seemed esoteric (I
hope that’s a nice word, I’m wanting a nice word for the sophistication
of your “ramblings” *grin*).

The thing about these “self-criticism” or evaluation of conservative
politics and theology (and conservatism on one realm does not
necessarily correlate to the same leaning in the other, as one rightly
pointed out), is that

(1) to only voice problems offers no alternative nor solution,

(2) critiques of issues sometimes borderline on slander (for
those that can’t separate issues from individuals), and

(3) some readers are put off by such evaluation (particularly
conservatives, of which I would guess comprise a good portion of
CACers),

(4) such critiques do not invite dialogue but rather tends to drive a
wedge of stereotyping, labeling, and plain old doesn’t make some
people feel very good. (and by saying this, I don’t mean that
Christians can only talk about things that “edify”, which seems to be
a code word among some to only talk about good things and ignore
issues so problems are swept under the rug).

So when critiques are presented, it seems more helpful to be careful
with word choice, and to offer an alternative or solution. Scriptural
insights would also be helpful.

DJ

On 6 Nov 97 at 1:35, G Ottoson wrote:

> Rambling again, to a degree, I would agree that the ‘economic
> system’ has many forms.
:
> e.g. we all ‘suffer’ from the elderly capitalists who insist that Am.
> gov’t be reduced/restructured to enhance private enterprise, but who
> also consume enormous quantities of Social(-ized) Security…
– —
*

——————————

From: TSTseng@aol.com
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 02:27:54 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Re: CAC_Mail: Dislodging our churches from the Religious Right

Harry, et. al.:

First, I must make a public apology for responding to Sze-kar’s private email
to me on the CAC forum. I mistakenly believed he intended it for the larger
group. On the other hand, I’m glad that it evoked somer quality responses –
which, IMHO, improves the CAC list. Clearly we disagree on several issues
and I thank God for that, since more is learned by having our “prejudices”
tested than by having them reinforced.

Second, I want to reiterate Keith Sunahara and Sze-Kar’s points. Labels
don’t work. I echo many of Sze-Kar’s complaints about the “religious left.”
Based on my experience, what I like least about many [not all] “liberal”
congregations are their lack of spiritual vitality, their cultural
accommodation, their lack of real interest in justice issues (mostly
theoretical), their condescension towards evangelicals, their paternalism
(and racism), and their disregard for God’s Word. Okay. Does that satisfy
anyone? Am I now sufficiently free of the “religious left”?

As a historian, I know very well the fallacy of “categorizing” people.
Indeed, most social gospel advocates during the turn of the century saw the
value of using social theories (which emerged from missions to poor
communities) and were thus labeled “liberal.” But the truth is that most
theological liberals were quite conservative, socially and ideologically.
Furthermore, many theological conservatives shared much in common with
social gospelers. Look at Norris Magnuson’s study, _Salvation in the Slums_,
which traces the history of the Salvation Army, the Volunteers of America,
and the Christian and Missionary Alliance’s origins to revivalists who were
very close to the social gospel socio-political positions.

To address your specific questions below, I agree with your first statement.
I do not want to use LSD when I talk about the “religious right.” I’ll
probably have to qualify everything I say in the future so that readers will
know when I’m using a descriptive (and hopefully, neutral) statement or a
provocative one. E.g, I don’t use the words “racism” or “racist” to attack
people. These are words that honestly describes American history and
society. Yes, I agree that America is a fine country – one that I love and
want to participate in – but the TRUTH must be heard before healing and
reconciliation and justice can occur. In any case, very rarely have I or
anyone on this list used the term “racist” as an attack on people. So I
don’t believe that the term “racist” (or “religious right”) should be
censored from this discussion list. And while some on this list may disagree
with policy proposals by the Republican Party, the Christian Coalition, James
Dobson, the Family Research Council, I’ve not heard much LSD going on –
generalizations, perhaps, but no LSD. No one has accused Dobson or Bauer of
NOT being real Christians. In fact, as I’ve said so often, I appreciate
hearing substantive defenses of politically conservative policy proposals
(you’d be surprised at how many of them I agree with!).

Re: addressing the most central concerns of Asian American Christians – in
fact, yes, I believe that I am making a good faith effort, though I never
said I was an authority on Asian American Christian interests. But at least
I do not propose policies which will delegitimize our right to be a people –
e.g., the cries against “color consciousness” so often heard in
anti-affirmative action circles who would never complain (as some secular
liberals do) about the right to “religious consciousness”. I don’t dismiss
(nor always agree with) “secular” Asian American activists when they complain
about anti-Asian sentiment. Nor do I jump on the anti-China bandwagon simply
because conservative religious leaders and liberal social activists have
united in protest. In fact, I’m equally concerned about the impact of these
activities upon fellow believers in China and the way Chinese Americans are
perceived – e.g., during the Korean War, many Chinese Americans worried about
being “interned” like the Japanese Americans during World War II. As a
minister of the Gospel, I care deeply about ministry among Asian Americans
and have endeavored to write a history of Chinese Christians in North America
regardless of the topic’s lack of popularity in the academy. I pray that
this and other research will encourage “secular” minded Asian Americanists to
view Christianity more favorably and will encourage the dominant culture
Christians to recognize the existence of Asian American Christianity. Yet,
so often, no matter how often I bring these points up, the most recalcitrant
responses come from ideologically conservative Chinese Christians who rarely
give substance to their ideological commitments. The impression I get from
some is that “if it’s spoken by a conservative white male who claims to be
Christian, it must be Gospel truth and how dare anyone question it!?” Now,
how does that attitude reflect the real interests of Chinese or Asian
American Christians? What words can I find to describe this attitude in my
history project? Perhaps there is no value in writing a history of Chinese
American Christianity if Chinese American Christians give no thought to their
identity, history, and the impact of ideological positions and public
policies on their communities?

Just wondering,
Tim Tseng

In a message dated 11/6/97 6:18:40 PM, 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: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 02:33:53 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Re: CAC_Mail: BILLY GRAHAM

G.E.:

Wasn’t Graham’s wife, Ruth, the daughter of a Presbyterian missionary to
China?

In a message dated 11/7/97 3:13:45 AM, xformed@mailexcite.com wrote:

<>

——————————

From: gdot@juno.com (G Ottoson)
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 01:31:13 -0700
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Corporate Culture

On Sat, 8 Nov 1997 00:04:16 -0500 “DJ Chuang”
writes:
>To G Ottoson: I’m not one for simple answers, but neither for
spiritualized ones.. I’m not sure what to make of your response, which
seemed esoteric (I hope that’s a nice word, I’m wanting a nice word for
the sophistication of your “ramblings” *grin*). >

Yo DJ,

The politeness–I think I could get used to it ๐Ÿ™‚

Straight from the heart–>I’m not an answer man; mostly short questions
is what you can expect from me among CAC. This is due to meddling in
esoterica, poetry, humor, etc…my wife, Robin, who is a very precise and
gifted thinker like many (of) CAC, says my brain ‘works like a snow
blower’ except for when ‘lobbing grenades in the oatmeal’ ๐Ÿ™‚ But I
promise to try to improve upon clarity esp since I’m realizing that
people read this stuff.

Here’s a key question (or two) for now. Is CAC conservative? I know
everyone is pretty cool even when they’re mad. It’s wonderful! But how
would one know who is conservative except maybe for you and Bros. Harry
and Bill and Richard?

DJ, have you posted a powerful conservative argument yet except for the
substantial works of renowned liberals like Sze-kar ๐Ÿ™‚

Where are all the ‘conservatives’–more conscious of labels I am learning
to be–are they out listening to Rush Limbaugh? Tell them I sense a
cryin’ need for them to step up to the plate and take a full swing. An
esoteric one would be fine. Are you ready to ramble? ๐Ÿ™‚

Go for it. I won’t mind. Neither will G.E. We think rambling is cool. In
fact, I told him I could understand HIS rambling much better than I
could understand MINE:)

You and I seem to have the same problem DJ ๐Ÿ™‚ Keep after me about it.

Your brother, G

P.S. BTW Has anyone heard from Mooch in while? I enjoyed his thoughts on
PK.

——————————

From: drwong1@juno.com (Richard L Wong)
Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 04:39:01 EST
Subject: CAC_Mail: The Religious Right?

Keith:

I don’t mean to sound disrespectful, but after your lengthy note
describing the four quadrants of theological and social thought and the
need for precision rather than simplistic adjectival labelling, you
proceeded to criticize the “Religious Right,” not once, but twice!

Now, who IS part of this Religious Right? Are they really the monolith
that you make them out to be? Do the members agree with each other 100%?
What ARE their beliefs? From what religions sect does the RR come?
What makes one a member of the RR? Is there a specific individual who
personifies the RR? Or is it simply a label that you conveniently use to
describe somebody with whom you do not agree?

Richard

——————————

From: “Peter P. Huang”
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 97 09:20:46 -0800
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: The “Religious Right” label

>Perhaps, “religious right” is also another label to use with much care
>as it may mean different things to different people.
>
>In Him,
>J. Chang

i’m reminded of some time ago when i was graduating from college and
applying to seminary. my decision to attend fuller seminary was regarded
by some as applying to a “liberal” school by those who are from more
conservative background. people were cautioning me against the things
that i will be learning at fuller. i felt that i had to “defend” fuller
as a solid evangelical institution.

then a couple of weeks later, i ran into my best friend’s father who is a
PCUSA minister (my friend at that time had also applied to seminaries and
decided to attend princeton seminary). when he learned that i was going
to fuller, he replied, “that school is VERY conservative! are you sure
you want to go there?”

i had a good laugh. so, you are absolutely right (absolutely no pun
intended) when you say that labeling is very subjective.

isn’t that what stereotyping is all about anyway? we frequently don’t
have time and the attention to explore issues and people and the easiest
thing to do is to arrive a quick decisions that confirm our biases and
existing mental schemas. whether it’s the religious right or left or
perceptions of Asian Americans, or whichever other issue… often it’s
those who are in power who are doing the defining. in each of our
smaller circles, it’s who’s in power that frequently define these labels.
often times as pastors and professors, we do need to be careful with the
labeling that we do, because people pick up these lingos or prescriptions
from us even without us knowing it. sometimes, our casual labeling may
not mean a thing to us, but people whom we lead take what we say very
seriously (sometimes way too seriously). in the larger scheme of things,
it is again usually those who are in power who do the labeling – whether
it’s in our society or through our government.

for example – another can of worms – are we REALLY the model minority as
asian americans, or have we (and the rest of America) bought into this
way that our government and media has chosen to conveniently label us?

peter huang

– ————–
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: Sze-kar Wan
Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 14:17:02 -0500
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: The “Religious Right” label

Dear Peter:

You hit the problem right on the head! My decision to go to
Gordon-Conwell solicited the same confusing reactions.

Sze-kar

——————————

From: Ken Fong
Date: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 22:45:42 -0800
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Dislodging our churches from the Religious Right

excellent point, keith. thanks for making it.

ken fong.

——————————

From: TSTseng@aol.com
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 02:50:38 -0500 (EST)
Subject: CAC_Mail: Re: Corporate Culture

Gary, et. al.:

It’s exceedingly difficult to compare misery indices between historical
periods as different as pre-Civil War and post-industrial America. But, the
substance of your argument is sound, IMHO. Do you recall the stats whereby
in the 1970s, CEOs made on average 40 times as much as the lowest paid
employee but now, CEOs make 140 times as much? And this is not only in
America – it’s a phenomenon happening everywhere global corporate capitalism
has found niches.

There is, however, one major difference between now and the past. The
institution of slavery was built on theological, political, economical, and
ideological justifications for a person to own another. It was based on the
idea that some people had no rights (which is a feature built into the U.S.
constitution – the founders “intended” that blacks count as only 3/5 of a
person).

But, the Civil War marked the triumph of the idea of freedom for owners and
workers. The irony was that the U.S. government recognized corporations as
individual entities, thus, establishing a system where power was clearly
distributed disproportionately (i.e., until the early 20th century, workers
unions were not permitted to be treated as individual entities, rather, each
individual worker was considered a free agent under contract). After the
overthrow of the Radical Republican agenda for Reconstruction in the South
(whereby much affirmative action-like govn’t assistance was given to the
Freedmen) in the 1870s, America witnesses its worst period in race relations
(and class relations, if one takes into account the rise of the Carnagies,
the Rockefellers, etc.). Jim and Jane Crow, share-cropping, and other
terrible abuses of Blacks in the South and immigrant workers in the North
lends support to the idea that corporate capitalism – if unrestrained – could
lead to conditions far worse than plantation slavery.

So, for me, the issue is not so much critiquing mulitnational corporate
capitalism (it certainly has increased wealth, though disproportionately),
but finding ways to make it work for as many people as possible. The
traditional liberal solution was to use big government as a restraining arm.
But this has been critiqued sharply by neo-conservative economists and
politicians (some of which are on target, IMHO. Gov’t is probably too large
and levies heavy tax burdens – though the fact that welfare is targeted and
not social security or national “security” says alot about whose entitlements
are being protected).

But, if government cannot restrain the excesses of capitalism, then what
will? Most of the perceived “breakdowns” in the moral order should properly
be attributed to the consumer culture created by corporate America (e.g., “I
have the right to shop ’til I drop; I have the right to pick and choose what
I want – whether it be fashionable sneakers, sexual partners, or even a
different spouse; I have a right to increase my debt for the sake of
immediate gratification; look out for number 1”). But once we’ve diminished
the restraining hand of government, what is to prevent the continuing
fragmentation of society?

This is where family values comes into the picture, is it not? This is where
“blame the poor for their laziness and culture of poverty” comes into the
picture, is it not? Or blame those immigrants? What a convenient way to
divert attention from the material causes of our current problems towards the
“spiritual” causes alone. And in the meantime, the liberal “big” government
solution has been abandoned by both political parties and nothing to keep a
leash on corporate capitalism has replaced it. It wouldn’t be so bad if
Christians declared that a renewal of spirituality and values in corporate
America was needed, but lately the ones that need “converting” (i.e.,
learning the work ethos of discipline, prioritizing, and saving money) seem
to always be the poor and culturally “impoverished.”

So when Christians ally themselves with apologists for the aforementioned
brand of political conservatism, I feel ill at ease, and wonder who will
speak up for those trampled under by global corporate capitalism. Have Ralph
Reed, James Dobson, or Gary Bauer ever voiced these concerns directly or in
addition to family values, abortion, or school vouchers? If I’m not
mistaken, concern for social justice and the material needs of people has had
a long tradition in the Judeo-Christian tradition; I think it dates back to
the Exodus and to Jesus’ concern for the poor and outcast. I pray for these
Christian leaders; I fear, however, that they may be leading us back to the
“fleshpots” of Egypt rather than towards the Land of Milk and Honey; slavery,
with its double-speak about “freedom” rather than the freedom to be “God’s
slaves” in Christ.

Tim

In a message dated 11/8/97 5:08:58 AM, gdot@juno.com wrote:

<>

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

——————————

From: TSTseng@aol.com
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 03:07:04 -0500 (EST)
Subject: CAC_Mail: Bill Lann Lee vote

CACers:

FYI, Tim

===============================================================
PRESS RELEASE
===============================================================
For Immediate Release November 6, 1997
For Further Information Bob Sakaniwa, JACL, 202-223-1240
Daphne Kwok, OCA, 202-223-1240
Matthew Finucane, APALA
202-842-1263
Karen Narasaki, NAPALC
202-296-2300

BILL LANN LEE COMMITTEE VOTE POSTPONED

Washington, D.C. — Today, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) requested
that the Senate Judiciary Committee postpone the vote on the
nomination of Bill Lann Lee for the Assistant Attorney General for
Civil Rights. The highly charged debate was heightened by the
attendance of House Members who were in attendance: Rep. Patsy
Mink (D-HI), Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Rep. John Lewis (D-GA),
Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA), Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), and
others. Also in attendance were Jesse Jackson and Kweisi Mfume,
President of the NAACP.

Matthew Finucane, Executive Director of the Asian Pacific American
Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO, stated, “We believe that those attacking
Bill Lee have distorted his record and that it would be a tragedy
if the Senate turned down this highly qualified Asian Pacific
American who represents the best our community has to offer.”

Karen Narasaki, Executive Director of the National Asian Pacific
American Legal Consortium, said, “Americans should question the
fairness of Senator Hatch’s opposition to Bill Lann Lee since
Senator Hatch had no problems today voting for Seth Waxman’s
nomination, a white male who has been actually carrying out the
Administration’s affirmative action policies, and who will be one
of Bill Lee’s bosses at the U.S. Department of Justice.”

“This has been a difficult year for Asian Americans who have
tried to participate in the political process. Bill Lann Lee’s
nomination has been the one shining light the community has been
looking towards this year. To see his nomination held up or
defeated would send a terrible message to the Asian American
community,” remarked, Robert Sakaniwa, Washington, D.C. Representative
for the Japanese American Citizens League.

OCA Executive Director Daphne Kwok commented, “The Asian Pacific
American community throughout this country has mobilized around
Bill Lee. We want to show Congress that we are not shying away
from the political process by remaining silent on an attack on
a preeminently qualified member of our community. Bill Lee
has been in the mainstream and has practised mainstream civil
rights law and now we want to see him protecting the rights of
ALL Americans.”

– 30 –

The Organization of Chinese Americans, a national civil rights
organization with over 60 chapters and affiliates
across the country, was founded in 1973 to ensure the civil
rights of the Asian Pacific American community.
It maintains its headquarters in Washington, D.C.

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: “DJ Chuang”
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 10:58:37 -0500
Subject: CAC_Mail: make your brief introductions

To assist CACers in getting to know fellow participants, a CAC Who’s Who is
posted at

If you are not listed in the Who’s Who, please post a message to CAC, or send
an email to with a brief personal introduction (about
50 words or so) describing your involvement with the Chinese American
Christian community (and thus your interest in being a part of CAC).

Thank you!

DJ
– —
*

——————————

From: Sze-kar Wan
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 12:17:41 -0500
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: make your brief introductions

Terrific job as usual. Thanks, DJ.

Sze-kar

——————————

From: gdot@juno.com
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 12:18:15 EST
Subject: CAC_Mail: Re: Viewpoint Study #77

On Mon, 10 Nov 1997 07:07:28 +0000 “Ray Downen”
writes:
>..better stuff will be written and sung by boomers…raised on
rock and roll sound…

Ray, Try this one next Sunday:)

(From memory, for fun, a few lines of the ‘spiritual’ which Larry
Norman** (re-wrote?) sang, used to open in about 1990 at Macedonia
Baptist in Denver, a huge Black congregation–I hesitate to use the word
‘church’ ๐Ÿ™‚ :

<>

** fyi, Larry, for those who don’t know, is the counter-cultural
‘Grandfather’ of the now cultural and sub-cultural ‘sound explosion’ that
Ray’s article mentions; author of lyrics such as:

“Why should the devil have all the good music? ..(I don’t like none of
them funeral marches [at church]– I ain’t dead yet!!)…’Jesus is a Rock
and he rolled my blues away!”

And, he is author of the song ‘God, Part 3’ (about the Holy Spirit, I
guess, which I called in a recent CAC email, ‘the greatest Rock song of
all time’.) Go to http://www.larrynorman.com if you’re interested in locating
the main source of all this raucousness ๐Ÿ™‚

Bro G

——————————

From: gdot@juno.com
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 15:36:05 EST
Subject: CAC_Mail: Re: Viewpoint Study #77

On Mon, 10 Nov 97 14:34:00 E leungs
writes:
>
>Brother Gary,
>
> …I’m missing what Brother Ray wrote….

Stephen, et. al. A copy of Viewpoint #77 follows. I assumed, incorrectly,
perhaps, that Ray sends these to CAC. Regardless, he lists a web add,
below, where Viewpoints are accessible.

fyi: Larry has a concert schedule at his web site (www.larrynorman.com)
Maybe he’ll be in your area. You can write to him via the site, too.

(Stephan: Thx for the info about Rich Mullins. Though I’m Protestant, I
teach at a Catholic elem/middle school. Maybe some of Rich’s writing will
‘connect’; I’ll try the site you sent and get back to you.)

Blessings to all!

G

==========

<From Mission Outreach =A0 =A0Viewpoint Bible Study #77
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 in Joplin MO =A0=A0More About Christian Worship =A0
per Viewpoints #11, et al Last revised on 11/3/97

Far More Than A Matter of STYLE =A0

In The Lookout Magazine (Standard Publishing,
Cincinnati) for 10/19/97 is a helpful and interesting
article by Russ Blowers of Indianapolis. In Question
And Answer style, Russ addresses the question —
“Like many other churches, our congregation is being
divided over worship styles. The traditionalists
don’t want anything to change. The contemporaries
want to sell the organ, pull down a screen, and let
guitar players lead. In your estimation, what is the
best kind of service?”

RUSS BLOWERS says: =A0 =A0I think the present controversy
in musical styles is not all bad. Some good things can
come out of conflict. It is possible that the
competing styles will produce a new and better way
for the church to behave when it assembles to worship
God.

Ray comments — Most Christian worship should be done
when the church is NOT assembled. Christians who are
busy at worship of God can put up with considerable
foolishness when the assembly comes, and nowadays
there sure is lots of foolishness in most
congregations. We don’t look to Revelation (which
describes Heaven where it may be that the primary
work of us saints is to praise God) nor to the Old
Testament (where a considerable ritual was put in
place by which men of that day were to express their
adoration to God), but rather we look to admonitions
to CHRISTIANS if we want to see how Christian worship
should be conducted.

The chorus and guitar and synthesizer group is
producing songs that really are addressed to the
Lord. There’s something very moving when we sing to
Him, “You alone are my heart’s desire, and I long to
worship you.” That’s much more intimate than “When we
all get to Heaven” or “O how I love Jesus.”

Ray remarks — Christians I grew up with realized
that prayers are addressed to God, and intimate
private prayer should be kept private. Public prayer
because it was public was much less intimate since the
one praying was wording thoughts it was hoped the
entire group could join in praying. The best hymns of
an earlier day also avoided personal intimacies which
are hardly appropriate in public settings. Intimacies
between husband and wife are not displayed in public.
In my opinion, intimacies between God and man are also
best conducted in private.

A sub-heading on the Lookout page within this
paragraph says, “When we leave church on the Lord’s
Day, we ought to be able to say, ‘I have been in the
presence of God today.'”

Ray says, Every Christian who reads this statement
should feel at least a little sick to their stomach.
If the Christian doesn’t bring God WITH him or her to
the meeting place, if indeed God is waiting in the
church building for us to join Him THERE, the entire
teaching of the New Testament is incorrect and
insufficient. Christians are holy people within whom
God dwells. Church buildings are holy because holy
people meet there and for no other reason.

Russ continues — =A0 =A0 =A0 But then the “contemporary”
brothers and sisters can learn something from the
great hymns of the church. A lot of the gospel
ditties are notoriously weak biblically. As time
passes, better stuff will be written and sung by
boomers and busters raised on rock and roll sound
explosions.

=A0 =A0 =A0 Some folks like to spend the first 30 minutes
of our meetings standing up singing favorite choruses
over and over with their arms up like a little child
reaching for Daddy. Some churches bounce around and
jump up and down and say things like “Amen” and
“Hallelujah.” Other Christians sit like the Sphinx,
in the beauty of holiness and the quietness of
contemplation. Who is to say one is more preferable
to God than the others?

=A0 =A0 =A0 The goal is not to get everybody doing the
same thing. Of course there are non-negotiables like
the Lord’s Supper, and prayer, and the exposition of
the biblical message. But within the boundaries of
Scripture, there’s room for an appealing variety in
worship.

=A0 =A0 =A0 My preferences are pretty inclusive, but I feel
very close to my Lord in a more traditional setting
with organ, choir, and hymnbook. When I’m in England
I always go to Evensong in late afternoon, a liturgy
of Scripture and music in the Anglican church. Formal
church services seem motionless and expressionless to
others, though, who want to participate more actively
with their minds, bodies, and souls. The important
thing is pleasing God.

Ray remarks — Russ is saying that both those who
display much emotional fervor and those who choose
to NOT make a display of their emotions can either
one please God by their participation in public
worship assemblies. He comes down squarely in the
middle by saying that either way may be entirely
acceptable to God. But the Bible still says that the
primary aim of Christian gatherings is to edify the
PEOPLE present, to “recharge our batteries,” and
strengthen us for the work of God which is true
worship for living Christians.

Russ says — =A0 =A0 =A0 I like Psalm 95 because it is a
call and a guide to worship. [Jewish worship, that
is, not Christian worship — says Ray]. It contains
a description of the biblical flow of worship:
— We are to enter his gates, starting our worship
with exuberant and enthusiastic praise (vv. 1-5);
— We are to bow low in silent reverence (vv. 6,7);
and
— We are to hear his voice and then leave to live
obediently before God (vv. 7-11).

Russ continues — PRAISE –=A0God wants us to praise
him. Praise is telling God what he means to us, how
magnificent he is. We can praise him with shouts of
joy (Psalm 66:1, 95:1), by playing a variety of
musical instruments (Psalm 150), by singing hymns
and songs to him and to each other (Ephesians 5:19).
[Ray remarks — Ephesians 5:15-20 is a call for daily
Christian living, for ALWAYS being thankful to God,
for being AT ALL TIMES filled with His Spirit, for
walking every moment WITH God. It is not an admonition
to get together on Sunday mornings in order to praise
God with music and dance for an hour or so instead of
doing the work He calls us to do in His world. The
19th verse is only PART of the picture Paul paints].

C. S. Lewis wrote: “The psalmists in telling everyone
to praise God are doing what all men do when they
speak of what they care about.” “Sing praises to God,
sing praises! Sing praises to our King, sing praises!”
(Psalm 47:6,7). [Ray questions — Were the Psalms of
the Old Testament written to guide Christian worship?
I suggest we best praise God by doing what Jesus calls
for US to do in God’s world, and the more time we
spend in assembled “worship and praise,” the less
time there is in which we can serve God by sharing
with those around us in obedient service and
evangelism.]

WORSHIP — Christian worship, says Russ, is
attributing worth to God. Worship is directed to
him: “You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive
glory and honor and power” (Revelation 4:11). In our
worship services we should have a vision of God’s
glory and goodness, and we should bow in wonder and
awe. Some worship services are so busy and loud that
there is little opportunity to “be still and know”
that he is God (Psalm 46:10). In others, we are so
bound by tradition and the printed bulletin that we
often spend the entire hour wishing for a chance to
tell him from the heart, “How great thou art.” When
we leave church on the Lord’s Day, we ought to be
able to say, “I have been in the presence of God
today.” [But the New Testament doesn’t tell us to go
to “church services” to find God. I have to believe
this particular statement is not a totally accurate
representation of true Christian worship, says Ray.
Yet I see the very good thought intended by it. If we
go to a building to meet God, we want to feel when
we’re done that indeed what we did was pleasing to
GOD. Russ has said many very good things in this
study! As surely every reader will see.]

The Israelites knew the Lord God, but their worship
was negated by their disobedience and rebellion in
wanting to give up the promised land in favor of
going back to Egypt (Numbers 14:1-4). Worship is
vain and invalid if it is not followed by our
obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ. So let’s come
before him in a variety of ways, and “worship the
Lord with gladness; come before him with joyful
songs” (Psalm 100:2).

RAY REMARKS — If Christians were called to hold
frequent services for the purpose of worshipping God,
the suggestions made by Russ Blowers would certainly
be helpful in guiding our obedience to such a
command. In fact, we are not once told that
Christians should get together to conduct their
worship of God and His unique Son Jesus Christ. The
purpose for which early Christians met was to
strengthen one another, to share with one another,
to learn from one another and from those inspired to
teach and lead. I believe these still should be the
purposes for which true CHRISTIANS assemble.

Note a responsive comment —

Date sent: Sat, 8 Nov 97 11:18:18 UT
From: “Douglas Willis”
=A0 =A0 =A0Ray, =A0 =A0 =A0Your comments on ‘not being instructed
in the NT to go to church to worship’ were spot on. I
also appreciated the point made by you that intimate
praise is private. If these two underlying truths were
comprehended it would help solve a lot of differences
over worship and music styles.

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 I have long taught that Jesus made a difference
between ‘Go into your room and shut the door – and
pray’ and His, plus the early churches, public or
semi-private prayers. I have made the challenge
several times (without response) for someone to show
me one passage – in the New Covenant portion of the
bible pertaining to the church on earth – which
commands, sets an apostolic example or instructs in
any way for the church to sing corporately. [Ray’s
note — We sing together, and in harmony, because WE
enjoy it and want to do so. It’s not because we’re
told we should or must do so.]

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Hebrews 2:12, 1 Corinthians 14:15 & 26,
Romans 15:9 and James 5:13 all speak of individual or
solo singing. Colossians 3:16 may be speaking of
private occasions and Ephesians 5:19 of semi-private
occasions – as in one-to-one situations – but both are
instructions for everyday living. Nothing about
corporate worship. Is this not so? Where in Acts 2:42
is the example/instruction for corporate singing in
the NT assembly?

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 I am not suggesting that we start another
faction called The Anti-singing Church of Christ’.
But realizing the lack of such evidence does put
music in its proper perspective. Even prior to the
church age, at the institution of the Lord’s Supper,
we read of only one hymn being sung.

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 For evangelistic purposes there is obviously a
very good reason to use music appropriately. Although,
in=A0one of our very successful crusades, held in Russia,
we conducted the whole crusade without music of any
kind – not by choice but of necessity.

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Please indicate if my exegesis is offbeat.
=A0– =A0Doug Willis Please send e-mail comments to Ray.

=A0 =A0 With this further response

Date sent: Sat, 08 Nov 1997 16:39:11 -0800
To: “Douglas Willis” and to Ray
From: Charles Dailey

Doug, =A0 =A0 All of your statements seem right to me. A
number of evangelicals are migrating to the Orthodox
Church because of the fine worship experience. But a
“worship experience” as such (sacrifice, mystery,
rhythm) has no counterpart in the New Covenant
Scriptures. — Charles Dailey –
=A0 =A0 =A0 Please send comments to Ray.

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 =3D http://www.ipa.net/~outreach
>>

——————————

From: TSTseng@aol.com
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 01:39:20 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Re: CAC_Mail: School Choice

J.:

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.

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 inconsistant 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).
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.
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.
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)? 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?

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. 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?].

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

Tim Tseng
In a message dated 11/7/97 9:20:46 PM, jtc10@JUNO.COM wrote:

<<To read what FRC believes about school choice, please go to their article
entitled: "With Liberty & Justice for All: Refining the Educational Choice
Debate" at the web page:

For a more general policy position on: “How does FRC believe we can improve
the public education system in America?” you can read about their stance at:
>>

– ————————————————————
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: Rlfong@aol.com
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 01:51:42 -0500 (EST)
Subject: CAC_Mail: HUMOR – It’s all a matter of cultural perspective

A Briton, a Frenchman and a Russian are viewing a painting
of Adam and Eve frolicking in the Garden of Eden.

“Look at their reserve, their calm,” muses the Brit. “They must
be British.”

“Nonsense,” the Frenchman disagrees. “They’re naked, and
so beautiful. Clearly, they are French.”

“No clothes, no shelter,” the Russian points out, “they have
only an apple to eat, and they’re being told this is paradise.
They are Russian.”

——————————

From: Mary Lauchli
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 07:23:15 -0800 (PST)
Subject: CAC_Mail: China

Dear friends,

I read recently the Graham press release about Dr. Graham’s meeting with
President Jiang and also the interview of the anonymous Chinese official
about the persecution of Christians.

I agree that Chinese officials need to be befriended by Christians. They
need to see the gospel in the lives of Christians. At the same time,
Christians and others need to address the injustices perpetrated by the
Chinese government. No human government should trample on the ability of
its citizens to speak and worship freely. And as Christians, we should
not be afraid to speak the truth in love.

The press release by Dr. Graham’s organization failed to mention the real
problem of persecution and oppression in China. In fact, its euphemistic
language could have been written by the Chinese government. I hope Dr.
Graham’s personal conversation was more penetrating.

The interview with the Chinese official was more candid. It showed that
we still have an obligation to be advocates for political and
institutional change.

I had the opportunity to join others who demonstrated when President Jiang
visited Los Angeles. I was particularly touched by the plight of the
Tibetans. They need to know that we are standing with them.

In Christ,

Mary Szto Lauchli
Professor, Chinese Law

——————————

From: Sze-kar Wan
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 11:50:43 -0500
Subject: CAC_Mail: New Book: Bible in Modern China

Dear CACers:

I would like to invite you to a celebration of the publication of the
book edited by Irene Eber, Sze-kar Wan, & Knut Walf, _Bible in Modern
China_ (Sankt Augustin: Monamenta Serica, 1998), at the Society of
Biblical Literature Ethnic Chinese Biblical Colloquium Fall Meeting:

7 pm, Monday, 24 November 1997
San Francisco Hilton: Union Square-11
333 O’Farrell St.

The book is dedicated to the memory of Bishop Samuel Isaac Joseph
Schereschewsky (1831-1906), formerly Bishop of Shanghai and one of the
first to translate the Bible from Hebrew to northern colloquial Chinese,
and we will present the book to his grandson, Mr. Benjamin Sherry. Come
hear the life story of the great Bishop from those close to him and
celebrate with us. A reception will follow the book presentation and
give ample opportunities for informal conversation.

Afterwards, around 7.30 pm, you are also welcome to stay for a panel
discussion of the newly published commentary on Hosea in the New
Interpreter’s Bible by a leading member of the biblical guild and one of
our own, Dr. Gale Yee. It promises to be a stimulating evening.

Do write me if you have questions.

Very Warmly,
Sze-kar

——————————

From: jtc10@juno.com (J Chang)
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 18:34:20 -0500
Subject: CAC_Mail: Surgeon General Nominee on Hold

Dear CACers:

FYI, J. Chang
– ——————
Family News in Focus
News from November 10, 1997

“Surgeon General Nominee on Hold” by Martha Kleder, staff writer

The nomination of Dr. David Satcher as U.S. Surgeon General has hit a
snag as physicians question his recent remarks backing partial-birth
abortion.
According to Gene Tarne with Physicians Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth,
“Clearly
from a medical perspective his remarks caused concern, because our
organization is dedicated to bringing out the medical facts regarding
partial-
birth abortion, and what he is saying goes against those medical facts.

Dr. David Stevens with the Christian Medical and Dental Society says,
“The
surgeon general functions as a public health voice and leads the country
to
changing its behavior.” He says Dr. Satcher could mismanage significant
moral issues. “The greatest issues in medicine today have do with
cloning,
abortion and physician-assisted suicide,” Stevens says.

Gary Bauer, president of the Family Research Council, says U.S. senators
should oppose Dr. Satcher’s nomination. “If a senator was against slavery
in 1850 and then voted to confirm a slavery advocate, we would all know
he was not serious about slavery,” Bauer explains. “The same goes with
the
sanctity of human life.” Bauer says Satcher’s confirmation is one of the
important pro-life votes of this session.

Copyright & copy; 1997 Focus on the Family.
All rights reserved. International copyright secured.

——————————

From: ben_mel@juno.com (Benjamin C Wong)
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 22:04:17 EST
Subject: [none]

Ray:

Absolultely. Yes, if it can be useful, you may copy any of my comments.
I do not need to check to see that it is acceptable – unless you make
me responsible for them.

I am quite computer challenged. I am not on the internet and do not even
know how hard or easy it is to do so. And if I got on, I don’t have any
idea as to how to get around on it. I think it is mostly fear from
ignorance. Anyway, if you could and would e-mail study #37 and #79 and
“Who Should We Act Like” to me, it would be very much appreciated.

I was encouraged by your comment. Thanks!! May God keep us in His
truth.

Because of His grace,

Ben_Mel@juno.com

——————————

From: jtc10@juno.com (J Chang)
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 19:21:46 -0500
Subject: CAC_Mail: China Embassy Contacts

Dear CACers:

In the spirit of “a reasoned approach” regarding dialogue with China
on the issue of human rights abuses, here are some names of
contacts within the Chinese Embassy in Washington, DC.

Please feel free to pray for them & to share your thoughts with them
by letter/phone/fax/email etc.

In Him,
J. Chang
– ————–

Ambassador Li Daoyu
Chinese Ambassador to the United States
Chinese Embassy
2300 Connecticut Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20008
Tel: (202) 328-2500 Fax: (202) 588-0032
Email at web site: webmaster@china-embassy.org

(Mr. Zhou Wenzhong: Minister of the Embassy of the People’s Republic of
China)

Political Affairs Office
Minister Counselor Lu Shumin
Tel: (202) 328-2507 Fax: (202) 745-7473

Congressional Liaison Office
Minister Counselor Shao Wenguang
Tel: (202) 328-2509 Fax: (202) 234-4055

Consular Affairs Office
Counselor & Consul General Liao Zhihong
Tel: (202) 328-2587 Fax: (202) 588-0046

Press Office
Counselor Yu Shuning
Tel: (202) 328-2511 Fax: (202) 588-0032

Defense Attache Office
Major General Gong Xianfu
Tel: (202) 328-2540 Fax: (202) 667-4032

Commercial Affairs Office [Address (1)]
Minister Counselor Shi Jianxin
Tel: (202) 625-3380 Fax: (202) 337-5845

Economic Affairs Office
Counselor Shen Longhai
Tel: (202) 328-2528 Fax: (202) 234-8629

Cultural Affairs Office
Minister Counselor Li Gang
Tel: (202) 328-2510 Fax: (202) 234-3715

Science & Technology Office
Minister Counselor Liu Zhaodong
Tel: (202) 328-2530 Fax: (202) 265-7523

Education Affairs Office [Address (2)]
Minister Counselor Jiang Miaorui
Tel: (202) 885-0731 Fax: (202) 234-2582

[Address (1)]: 2133 Wisconsin Avenue N.W., Washington, D.C. 20007
[Address (2)]: 2712 Porter Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20008

——————————

From: gdot@juno.com
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 13:54:00 EST
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: China

On Tue, 11 Nov 1997 07:23:15 -0800 (PST) Mary Lauchli
writes:
>..I hope Dr. Graham’s personal conversation was more penetrating..
>
>Mary Szto Lauchli
>Professor, Chinese Law
>

Dear Mary, I hope this, too. But Christian leaders who decide to
co-operate with BOTH the kingdom of God AND the (capitalistic) system, do
appear to impale themselves on the horns of a dilemma, i.e. “When to
live/speak for the King (in love, of course, unless the speaker is
Luther-like ๐Ÿ™‚ vs. When to live/speak for ‘my system'” ?

IMHO, Jesus taught quite clearly that the kingdom of God and ‘the system’
are opposed. In John’s writing they are as different as night and day.
Conversion, in Colossians 1:13, is predicated on being ‘transferred’ from
darkness to light. The King, who demonstrated daily unto death his
teaching: ‘you cannot serve both God and the World’, He who never
changes. If so, then must not our words/lives CONSTANTLY point to Him and
His words? Tim might ask (me): Does this mean “to criticize ‘the system'”
is approved–I’m thinking about this…and an illustration about Jesus’
‘dilemma’ upon US:

(A close friend, an African Brother, teaches this piece of (esoteric)
wisdom, ff. Maybe you know the answer, Mary. Let’s let CAC’rs chew on it,
too. I promise to send the answer to everybody later if it goes unsolved
for long; I kinda doubt it will ๐Ÿ™‚

“A person is traveling the road to Happiness when he comes to a fork. At
this fork in the road are two men, one on each trail. One of these men
always tells the Truth, the other man always Lies. 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?”

Manna for thought. And greetings and love to Dr. Graham if he is reading.
I thank you for leading (a sin battered) Grandpa Andrew Ottoson to Christ
at ripe age of 76; and, my wife and son (both relatively unbattered) to
Him in their early years. The son, also named Andrew, at age 7, walked
from the top rows of Mile High Stadium to visit with Christ via one of
your counselors…

God bless you (all),

Gary Ottoson

——————————

From: TSTseng@aol.com
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 22:45:40 -0500 (EST)
Subject: CAC_Mail: Research question

Dear CACers:

I’m looking for Rev. Sen Wong’s (Chinese Bible Church of Oakland?) phone
number and address. During the summer of 1996, my research associate
interviewed him via videotape. I’d like to send him a copy of that interview
but have lost track of him. Thanks!

Tim Tseng

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

——————————

From: RevCow@aol.com
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 01:36:40 -0500 (EST)
Subject: CAC_Mail: Fun & Games

>”A person is traveling the road to Happiness when he comes to a fork. At
>this fork in the road are two men, one on each trail. One of these men
>always tells the Truth, the other man always Lies. 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?”

Ask just one man (either) one question:
“Will the other man tell me if the right trail leads to Happiness?”
If his answer is yes, take the left.
If his answer is no, take the right.

So does that mean we’re supposed to do the opposite of what everyone says
everyone else is telling us to do? ๐Ÿ˜›

Ted

Rev. Theodore J. Kau
Harvest San Gabriel Valley

“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: gdot@juno.com
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 12:05:32 EST
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Fun & Games

Ted,

Re: “Will the other man tell me if the right trail leads to Happiness?”

This is a good guess, perhaps, yet not the solution.

G

=====

On Thu, 13 Nov 1997 01:36:40 -0500 (EST) RevCow@aol.com writes:
>>”A person is traveling the road to Happiness when he comes to a fork.
>>At this fork in the road are two men, one on each trail. One of these
men
>>always tells the Truth, the other man always Lies. 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?”
>
>Ask just one man (either) one question:
> “Will the other man tell me if the right trail leads to Happiness?”
>If his answer is yes, take the left.
>If his answer is no, take the right…

——————————

From: RevCow@aol.com
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 22:24:18 -0500 (EST)
Subject: CAC_Mail: Fun & Games, again

Hello.

Perhaps I should have worded it more clearly:
Ask just one man one question:
“Will the other man tell me if the trail ON THE RIGHT leads to Happiness?”
If his answer is yes, take the left.
If his answer is no, take the right…

This is not a guess. Try it. It works. It’s from my philosophy class
back in college. The original challenge is to ask only one man one
question. Enjoy.

Btw, I apologize for wasting CAC bandwidth.

Ted

>Ted,
>
>Re: “Will the other man tell me if the right trail leads to Happiness?”
>
>This is a good guess, perhaps, yet not the solution.
>
>G

Rev. Ted Kau
Harvest San Gabriel Valley

When all is said and done, as a rule,
more is said than done.
– –Lou Holtz

——————————

From: ohbrudder
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 19:38:31 -0800
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Fun & Games

Ted,

Ask one of the men, “Are you a man?” The one who denies he is a man
is on the wrong road to Happiness.

did I get it?

bill leong

——————————

From: gdot@juno.com (G Ottoson)
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 21:46:54 -0700
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Fun & Games, again

On Thu, 13 Nov 1997 22:24:18 -0500 (EST) RevCow@aol.com writes:
>..Ask just one man one question:
>…
>If his answer is yes, take the left.
>If his answer is no, take the right

Ted,

This is risky for two reasons: 1) One question may be asked to BOTH men.
Why would you choose to ask ‘one question to one man’? 2) There was/is no
guarantee you’d receive a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer.

G

——————————

From: RevCow@aol.com
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 10:59:08 -0500 (EST)
Subject: CAC_Mail: Fun & Games, RIP

It’s this trail puzzle thing again. Please delete if not interested.

G,

Have you tried the solution I offered? It works.

>1) One question may be asked to BOTH men.
>Why would you choose to ask ‘one question to one man’?
Because it is a more elegant solution, and it works. You don’t need to
ask both men.

I looked it up, it’s from my logic and algorithms class. It’s not my
solution, it’s from a textbook.

The reason one man is asked about the other is that this CANCELS out the
uncertainty of which one is lying. One of them definitely is lying, so
the answer must be a lie. Thus, you take the opposite route.

Your original problem stated that:
>One of these men
>always tells the Truth, the other man always Lies.

Now you say:
>2) There was/is no
>guarantee you’d receive a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer.
If one always tells the truth, and one always lies, it’s proper to assume
that the person asking would be guaranteed at least a ‘yes’ or ‘no’
answer from each man. If not, then the rules are changing as we play.
If there’s no guarantee for a ‘yes’/’no’ answer, then any other answer
can’t be guaranteed either.

G, I suggest that if you have any more doubts about this solution that we
e-mail in private. This puzzle has little, if anything, to do about
Chinese America or churches.

If you’ve read this far, I hope you’re enjoying this. ๐Ÿ˜›

Ted

Rev. Ted Kau
Harvest San Gabriel Valley

When all is said and done, as a rule,
more is said than done.
– –Lou Holtz

——————————

From: “Peter P. Huang”
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 97 08:39:29 -0800
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Fun & Games, RIP

hey you all,

>Your 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.”

in another season of his life, he said, “The Truth is out there.”

long live the X-Files,

Peter Huang ๐Ÿ˜‰

– ————–
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: gdot@juno.com
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 15:02:06 EST
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Fun & Games, RIP

Ted, What solution are you comparing to? G

On Fri, 14 Nov 1997 10:59:08 -0500 (EST) RevCow@aol.com writes:

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

——————————

From: TSTseng@aol.com
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 00:12:28 -0500 (EST)
Subject: CAC_Mail: Bill Lann Lee update

CACers:

An update about the pending Bill Lann Lee nomination. – Tim

November 13, 1997
Contact: Karen Narasaki (NAPALC), 202-296-2300
Daphne Kwok (OCA), 202-223-5500
Bob Sakaniwa (JACL), 202-223-1240
Matthew Finucane (APALA), 202-842-1263

ASIAN AMERICANS SAY FIGHT FOR BILL LEE HAS JUST BEGUN

Washington, D.C., Nov. 13– Responding to procedural
moves today in the Senate Judiciary Committee that will
delay Senate action on the Bill Lann Lee nomination until next
year, a coalition of national Asian Pacific American organizations
announced that they would now step up their efforts and wage an
unprecedented fight for Bill Lann Lee's nomination.

"The fight for Bill Lee's nomination has just begun," said
Matthew Finucane, Executive Director of the Asian Pacific
American Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO. "In the coming months the
Asian Pacific American community will come together and mobilize
at the grass roots to support Bill Lee at a level never before
seen in Asian Pacific American history."

"Senator Hatch announced that he was drawing the line with
this nomination," said Karen Narasaki, Executive Director of the
National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium. "What the far
right really did was cross the line by unfairly attacking Bill Lee
for positions he has never taken, and using this outstanding Asian
Pacific American candidate as a political tool to attack the
nation's civil rights agenda. We will work with the entire civil
rights community to ensure that the full Senate treats this
nomination fairly."

"Bill Lee is one of the best civil rights lawyers in the
country, and he has been shabbily treated by Republican members
of the Judiciary Committee, with the brave exception of Arlen
Specter of Pennsylvania" added Daphne Kwok, Executive Director
of the Organization of Chinese Americans. "This is an insult to
all Americans who believe in civil rights, and it is an insult to
the Asian Pacific American community. We will respond by making
our voices heard, and we ask every Asian Pacific American to use
the Congressional recess to contact their elected representatives
and press for this nomination."

Robert Sakaniwa, Executive Director of the Japanese American
Citizens League, said that the delay in the Bill Lee nomination
would probably solidify calls in the Asian Pacific American
community for the first national network of Asian Pacific
Americans. "By the end of November, I believe there will be a
new national network of Asian Pacific American leaders and groups,
and that the Bill Lee nomination will be at the very top of the
network's new agenda. We must win this nomination, for our
country, for our community, and for our children."

-30-

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: TSTseng@aol.com
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 00:31:23 -0500 (EST)
Subject: CAC_Mail: Thanks for the help!

Dear CACers:

Thank you for everyone's help in locating Rev. Sen Wong! God bless. – Tim

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

——————————

From: Sze-kar Wan
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 01:27:32 -0500
Subject: CAC_Mail: Bill Lee

Dear CACers:

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

Personally, I am very disappointed and I thought the tactics used to
sabatage his hearing were less than noble. I also wonder to what extent
partisan politics or racism (or both) played a part. Maybe I am
paranoid.

Also, could someone summarize for us or direct us to a webpage on what
has happened so far?

Warmly,
Sze-kar

——————————

From: “Jennifer Lin”
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 10:36:58 -0500
Subject: CAC_Mail: Bill Lee: Sign on

if any of ya’ll are involved in APA organizations who would like to express
support for Bill Lan Lee, i encourage ya’ll to do so. where does “CAC” stand?
should we discuss whether we have “consensus”? if so, we CAN do something about
it!

jennifer

>FROM JACL, OCA, APALA, AND NAPALC
REQUEST FOR ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN SIGN-ONS
JOINT STATEMENT OF SUPPORT FOR BILL LANN LEE
NOVEMBER 14, 1997

Dear Friends,

Over 30 Asian Pacific American organizations and 50
individuals recently placed a prominent ad in Roll Call newspaper
announcing their support for Bill Lee. Since Congress has gone
home without voting on the matter, the battle will continue over
the next few months and grass roots is extremely important. To
help in our grass roots effort, we would like to continue
compiling a list of Asian Pacific American organizations and APA
leaders who support Bill Lee. We would like this list to be as
broad and as bipartisan as possible, as Senator Hatch and the far
right are already trying to split the Asian American community
on the nomination. Please sign on and encourage others to sign
on. Groups and individuals wishing to sign on to the Joint
Statement of Support (see below) should send a fax stating so
on their letterhead to: Matthew Finucane, Executive Director,
Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO, FAX 202-842-1462.
The fax should state clearly whether you are signing on as an
individual, or an organization, or both. We regret that we
cannot do this by e-mail since we need to confirm the
authenticity of sign-ons.

Here is the Joint Statement of Support for Bill Lee, and a
list of current signers.

“The Asian Pacific American Urges the Senate to Confirm
Bill Lann Lee”

“Bill Lann Lee, the son of poor Chinese American
immigrants, excelled in the New York public schools, attended
Columbia Law school, and then went on to a distinguished career
at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and Education Fund in Los
Angeles. He is a brilliant civil rights lawyer who has worked
hard for the rights of all those who face discrimination,
whether they are white, black, Latino, Asian or any other race
or ethnicity. Even those who have opposed him in litigation
have applauded his work, including Mayor Richard Riordan of
Los Angeles who has described him as a “superbly qualified
candidate” for Assistant Attorney General who “practiced
mainstream civil rights law,” does not believe in quotas” and
“has pursued flexible and reasonable remedies that in each case
were approved by a court.”

“Mr. Lee was warmly introduced and endorsed by Senator
Alfonse D’Amato at his confirmation hearing, and he has the
support of the Congressional Black, Hispanic, and Asian American
caucuses. Leading newspapers have called upon the Senate to
immediately approve this nomination, including the New York Times,
the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times. His nomination to
the highest civil rights position in the nation is extremely
important to the Asian Pacific American community and to all who
believe in civil rights. We call upon the U.S. Senate to confirm
this nomination.”

Current signers

Groups

Advocates for the Rights of Korean Americans
Asian American Association
Asian American Institute
Asian American Business Development Center
Asian American Center for Justice
Asian American Commerce Group
Asian American Community Services
Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund
Asian Association of Utah
Asian Cultural Society of Ohio
Asian Pacific American Heritage Council
Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO
Asian Pacific American Legal Center of Southern California
Asian Pacific American Network in Agriculture
Asian Pacific Policy and Planning Council
Asian Pacific eXchange
Asian Professional Association of Ohio
Association of Philippine American Physicians
Chinese Engineers and Scientists Society of Utah
Chinese American Development Corporation (Chicago)
Chinatown Chamber of Commerce (Chicago)
Chinese for Affirmative Action
Chinese American Citizens Alliance
Chinese American Service League
Columbus Chinese School
Committee of 100
Filipino American Political Action
Filipino American Student Association
Filipino Association of Toledo
Filipino Civil Rights Advocates
India Abroad Center for Political Awareness
Japanese American Citizens League
Korean American Coalition
Leadership Education for Asian Pacifics
National Asian Pacific American Bar Association
National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium
National Association of Korean Americans
National Federation of Filipino American Associations
National Korean American Service and Education Consortium
Organization of Chinese Americans
Philippine American Heritage Federation
Philippine American Society of Ohio

Individuals Supporting the Statement

Vida Benavides
Gloria Caoile
Shu-Ping Chan
Wai-Ping Chan
Hon. Lily Lee Chen
S. Andrew Chen, Ph.D.
Dr. Enrique dela Cruz
Stan Egi
Matthew Finucane
Guy Fujimura
Warren T. Furutani
Dolly M. Gee
Kaying Hang
Amy Hill
Grace B. Hou
Norman Hui, D.D.S.
David Henry Hwang
Ann (Lata) Kalayil
Helen Kawagoe
John H. Kim, Esq.
George Koo
Daphne Kwok
Corky Lee
Jin Sook Lee
Jeannette M. Lim
Karen Lin, Esq.
Michael Lin
Franklin Y. Liu
Hon. Norman Y. Mineta
Debasish Mishra
Jose M. Montana, Jr.
Albert Muratsuchi
Don T. Nakanishi
Karen Narasaki
Phil Tajitsu Nash
George M. Ong
Ron Osajima
Courtni Pugh
Katie Quan
Robert Sakaniwa
Joanna Su
George Takei
Austin P. Tao
Lauren Tom
Tamlyn Tomita
Mabel Teng
Kung-Lee Wang
Prof. Paul Y. Watanabe
Ming-Na Wen
Kent Wong
Lawrence Wong
Hon. S. B. Woo
Hon. Michael Woo
Herbert Yamanishi
John C. Yang
Kathleen Yasuda
Eric Michael Zee

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

– —End of forwarded mail from oca@ari.net

——————————

From: gdot@juno.com (G Ottoson)
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 09:45:37 -0700
Subject: CAC_Mail: Re: Please, RIP

On Sat, 15 Nov 1997 00:29:31 -0500 (EST) RevCow@aol.com writes:
>
>Hello G,
>
>As per my original request, could we continue this privately instead
>of involving others?

Ted, An attorney has also advised me not to engage you at this time
without a witness (CAC). You also chose to engage this issue in public:

>>>>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. 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:

“Yes, I agree that America is a fine country – one that I love and want
to participate in – but the TRUTH must be heard before healing and
reconciliation and justice can occur. ” –Tim Tseng, in an open letter
to CAC, 11/8/97

G

“Do you believe [God]? then you will speak boldly. Do you speak boldly?
then you must suffer. Do you suffer? then you will be comforted. For
faith, the confession thereof, and the cross, follow one upon another.
– –Dr. M. Luther, _Table Talk_ #266

——————————

From: Sze-kar Wan
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 17:14:55 -0500
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Bill Lee

Dear Richard:

Thanks for the recommendation. The Post articles are terrific!

Sze-kar

Richard L Wong wrote:
>
> Check out the Washington Post’s website: http://www.washingtonpost.com for a
> couple of articles and editorials regarding the Lee nomination.

——————————

From: Ken Fong
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 15:40:29 -0800
Subject: Re: CAC_Mail: Bill Lee

I think what happened to him was rotten and a shame. Sounds like he was
truly well-qualified. this may come back to haunt the Repub’s later on.
imho: Part of me thinks your paranoia is justified.

ken fong.

——————————

From: Sze-kar Wan
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 20:30:39 -0500
Subject: CAC_Mail: Articles on Bill Lee

I’ve now downloaded and read 13 articles from the Washington Post
(www.washingtonpost.com) and the New York Times (www.nytimes.com).
Racism is alleged in a minority of articles (e.g., Mary McGrory, Post,
13 Nov, directed against Hatch) and explicitly discounted in one
(Editorial[?], Post, 10 Nov). Most think Hatch is not fair: Nicholas
Lemann even thinks Hatch attacks Lee for a position (against 1996 CA
Prop 209) that Lee himself has dismissed, something Hatch himself may
not even be aware of (Post, 12 Nov). Since I don’t know the cases to
which Lemann refers, I can’t say if it’s fair.

Dorothy Gilliam cites, approvingly, the opinion of Theodore Hsien Wang
and Frank H. Wu (respectively, SF civil rights attorney and Howard Univ.
law prof.) that Asian Americans remain โ€œat a significant disadvantageโ€
compared with white Americans, suffering the same limitations because of
a โ€œglass ceilingโ€ as other minorities. Gilliam then calls on all Asian
Americans and “the entire civil rights community [to come] to the
defense of Lee. If this heightened recognition of the commonality of
interest of people of color remains, Lee, even if he is defeated, will
have triumphed.”

The 14 Nov NY Times editorial strongly denounces the stall: “Republicans
on the Senate Judiciary Committee acted with contempt for civil rights
and the rights of Senate colleagues yesterday when they refused to clear
President Clintonโ€™s nominee for the top civil rights job in the Justice
Department.” The author blames Trent Lott, the Senate majority leader,
for a large-scale machination “of blocking nominees for judgeships,
sub-cabinet posts and ambassadors” at the insistence of “extreme
conservative groups.” Accordingly, the “assault” on Lee is a part of
this plan.

Only one author (of the 13 I read) defends the block. Michael Kelly, of
National Journal, thinks it’s legitimate for a president to nominate
someone who shares his views on affirmative action, and he agrees that
Lee is an “honorable” nominee. But then, Kelly goes on to side with
“conservatives [who] argue that he could not be trusted to serve as a
fair and impartial enforcer, that he would likely interpret the courtโ€™s
rulings as narrowly as possible, seeking to protect even programs that
clearly violate the courtsโ€™ definition of what constitutes
constitutionality. This is DIFFERENT from saying that Lee is for or
against affirmative action…” (Post, 13 Nov; my emphasis).

What Kelly seems to be saying is that Lee’s problem is not his position
on affirmative action but that his views might make him susceptible to
misinterpreting the law. Maybe it’s bc I am a layperson, I can’t figure
out Kelly’s “difference” here. First all, that does not seem to be the
substance of Hatch’s (and other Republicans’) objections to Lee’s
nomination. Secondly, what Lee did before, as a civil rights advocate
for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, was in fact to uphold the then-legal
and then-constitutional affirmative action. There has never been any
question of Lee’s ever having stepped outside the bounds of law to
pursue his narrow interests. If this is the case, what could the
“conservatives” be objecting to if not in fact his views on affirmative
actions, which have become unfashionable only because laws and popular
sentiments have changed? But this is precisely what Kelly insists NOT
to be the case. Maybe others better schooled in this sort of things can
help me out.

Trying to make sense of it all,
Sze-kar

——————————

Advertisements

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

Comments are closed.