Review: Growing Healthy Asian American Churches

Reading the 9Marks’ two reviews by Jeremy Yong and Geoffrey Chang on Growing Healthy Asian American Churches piqued my interest to pick the book up myself. Here are the strengths and weaknesses I have found with this book.

Strengths:

1. Strong Introduction opening.

a. I found it easy to relate with much of the issues with Asian-American race issues. For example, p.10 talks about how churches are either “too Caucasian or too Asian” for tastes. However, if given the choice of these two churches to serve in, I would prefer the former over the latter. But others may prefer the latter over the former.

b. The disconnect between explicit vs. implicit theology is certainly true (p.13). Even within the Reformed circles, almost all 2nd-Generation churches and ministries opt for the non-Reformed normative principle of worship. Most Asian-American pastors, especially 1st-generation, are not principle- or theological-oriented, but people-oriented. Thus, it was easy to echo their confirmation on p.14 that orthodoxy and orthopraxy need to mirror one another. However, as will be seen below, rather than aligning the cultural orthopraxy to the biblical orthodoxy, this book emphasizes that in order to be healthy biblical orthodoxy one must submit to the Asian-American cultural orthopraxy.

c. The observation of Asian-American evangelism (p.16) is interesting: while disdaining Western Church Growth philosophy (p.33), Asian-American churches value quantitative growth as a measure of successful ministry (p.40).

2. The problem with Western theological seminaries to equip 2nd-Generation Asian-American seminarians to minister in 2nd-Generation context is certainly a problem (p.49) that Western theological seminaries, including within my own denomination – the Southern Baptist Convention – are seriously lacking.

3. I also resonated with their observation that many Asian-American seminarians go into ministry adopting Western concepts of church models and methods rather than knowing what the Asian-American model and method might be (p.49).

4. I found the Multigenerational Households chapter (Chapter 7) to be the most interesting one. The 4-stages of the 2nd-generation ministries was insightful.

• Stage 1: 100% support & supervision from 1st Generation
• Stage 2: Personal identity and vision
• Stage 3: Financial and organizational independence
• Stage 4: Compete autonomy

Weaknesses:

1. All of the contributors come from a theologically liberal to, at best, moderate background. Not a single theologically Reformed contributor is included. The entire book discounts sound Reformed theology while highly favoring Asian-American sociology and anthropology.

2. Nancy Sugikawa and Steve Wong attempt to argue that Asian-American Christian culture values secular academic achievement while Western Christian culture distrusts it (p.33). The counter-argument can be easily made that today’s Western Christian culture have migrated away from the secular academia in favor of Christian institutions because of the strong anti-Christian stances and ideologies taught and advocated in the secular institutions on which Asian-American Christians are ambivalent, neutral or ignorant.

3. While I resonated with S. Steve Kang’s note about Asian-American seminarians utilizing Western concepts of church models and methods without reflection (see Strengths #3 above), his argument was limited to a methodological comparison (Western methodology vs. Asian-American methodology) without conveying anything that the chapter title “Truth-Embodying Households” would seem to convey: Gospel truth to embody the household of God.

4. On the role of women in ministry, this book emphatically endorses the Egalitarian model. David Gibbons is considered “risk-taking” and “innovative” for his reexamination of Scripture to allow women in the pulpit ministry (p.50), while the Complamentarian model is seen as sexist. For example, the role of the family according to the Complamentarian model is mocked as “male-centered values and practicies” (p.166). As is typical in liberal and moderate circles, sociological and anthropological studies are valued higher than theological truths. In their own admittance, “One sociologist… concluded that these churches tended to marginalize women by barring them from leadership roles… Another study that examined 2nd-generation ASian-American congregations noted that many of them continue to teach and practice gender hierarchy. These teachings and practices need to be biblically and critically reassessed by Asian-American congregation” (p.168).

Neither Peter Cha nor Grace May have provided anything theological nor biblical in their arguments. Instead they throw in sociological studies and conclusions, and expect Asian-American churches, even those still practicing the Complamentarian view of the role of men and women in the church, to reexamine Scripture in light of these sociological findings.

It is unfortunate that they chose to reject the one aspect of Asian American tradition that is most aligned with Scripture: the view of gender. As is true with any human traditions and cultures, the Asian American tradition of the role of women is scarred and deformed due to the sinful nature of the male counterparts. But the position that this book takes is not a biblical response, but a humanistic reaction. Rather than understanding the biblical model of the role of men and women that the Complamentarian view appears to mirror much of the Asian American tradition, Peter Cha and Grace May completely denounce any form of male leadership/female support model as unbiblical and equality of all sexes as biblical.

Peter Cha and Grace May make a charge on p.171 to Asian-American churches that they “in order to become healthy households of God, need to work on the important task of affirming both God’s sons and daughters.” One can see their insinuating charge here. That, according to them, the “healthy households of God” are the ones who follow the Egalitarian model of women in the ministry. While they never use the terms “Egalitarian” or “Complementarian” anywhere in the book, one only needs to pick up any resource from the Council Of Biblical Manhood And Womanhood to realize that the Egalitarian view is where this book stands.

I found it completely laughable that Peter Cha and Grace May state on p. 176, “As Bible-believing Christians, we are people of the Book. We believe that the Word of God should guide and direct not only our individual lives but also our corporate life together as the church. Furthermore, we believe that the Word of God should serve as the standard against which we measure and assess all human cultures. The Bible assists us in identifying and affirming those elements of our culture that are redemptive, and convicts us to reject or transform those aspects that are sinful and harmful.” While they dedicate 16 pages between p.164-182 to sociological studies, case examples and opine conjectures, biblical defense of their position was only sparsely covered in 4 pages (p.168-171). And what they did cover in these 4 pages, it is from a liberal, egalitarian interpretation.

Personally, as an Asian-American myself, I found it insulting that they attempt to defend their view of the role of women in ministry as biblical on the grounds of it being part of Asian American. Further, I find it ironic that the states that are most heavily concentrated with Asian-Americans (e.g. New York, California, Hawaii, Washington, etc.) are also heavily liberal on the role of women in the church, home and society. Rather than being a biblical voice in these regions, it is sad that this book applauds the Asian-American churches in these regions (e.g. New Song Community Church, Open Door Community Church, etc.) as endorsing liberalism as biblicalism.

5. The criticism against LifeWay’s VBS curriculum Rickshaw Rally is a valid one (p.197). The Southern Baptist Convention, unfortunately, is having a difficult time looking beyond “White” boundaries. Much has to do with the fact that they are culturally Southern. 9Marks held a discussion panel on the issue of racism in the Southern Baptist Convention (see my February 7, 2008 blog). However, where the argument weakens is by leveling out the degrees of racism into one level. I agree with Jeremy Yong’s critique that putting slavery of Africans and VBS stereotyping of Asians is not the same degree of racism. I would think that our African-American brothers would actually find it either glaringly insulting or roll their eyes in contempt at seeing any attempts to equate any sufferings Asian-Americans might have faced by the VBS caricaturization as somehow on the same par of sufferings the African-Americans have had under American slavery.

Conclusion:

S. Steve Kang signs off the book with Soli Deo Gloria. It would be more appropriate to have signed off this book with Soli Homo Gloria. Or, I guess, more specifically: Soli Asian-American Cultus Gloria. Other than a few Bible verses springled here and there, and then interpreted from a liberal or moderate perspective, there is nothing ecclesiologically rich or deep in this book to be considered Gospel-based. While I was amused with their few “nice-to-know” cultural trends, social identity markers, pragmatic methodologies and personal testimonies, I found this book otherwise unhelpful.

I wish I could leave it at that – unhelpful. Unfortunately, it is more than that. This book can, as well, confuse the average untrained or undiscerning lay person because the contributors cloak or masquerade their sociological and pragmatic verbage as being “biblical.” One only needs to visit the very same churches that this book applauds as “healthy” to see how truly biblically healthy they really are (think Saddleback or Willow Creek). While Jeremy Yong happily recommends this book, I have to agree with Geoffrey Chang that this book cannot be recommended for Asian American churches to be healthy. Stick with Mark Dever’s 9 Marks Of A Healthy Church and Joshua Harris’s Stop Dating The Church.