Get E-Mail Updates

The Next Evangelicalism: Interview with Soong-Chan Rah, Part 2

[continued from part 1]

Take Action on This Issue

Tell the Senate: Don't Cut International Aid

Please join us in telling the Senate: Protect foreign aid programs that help the poor and the needy. 

You offer a blistering critique of the emerging church movement, suggesting that it is overhyped and lacks diversity. Is diversity possible in the "emerging" or "emergent" churches? It seems as if Christians involved in that movement are extremely culturally bound, even more so than "mainstream" evangelical Christianity.

Yes, there is always hope. Any organization can change and adapt if they desire, and if they are willing to pay the price. There is also the importance of self-awareness. I think when there is a new thing that comes up, its advocates should exercise enough self-reflection to say, "We're saying some really exciting things, but what are the unintended negative consequences of what we are saying? What are our blind spots and the areas that we need to grow in?"

What challenges or exhortations would you issue to the young "justice and reconciliation" minded folks, particularly those that are part of the "emergent" or "new monastic" crowds?

I think it is critical that we are willing to hear the stories and receive input from various points of view. I think even new things like emergents or new monastics can get stuck in a vacuum and not recognize that there are divergent voices that can contribute to the dialogue. I would encourage any new movements to consider and hear from disparate -- and even oppositional -- voices.

If you were a mentor to one of these young "justice and reconciliation" Christians and they asked for specific, clear advice on what type of church to attend and how to engage "the Next Evangelicalism," what would you say?

First of all, I would encourage them to broaden their reading list. I would begin with works of fiction. I find that works of fiction tend to communicate the best insight about a culture. There's a variety of novels that I'd recommend: Chinua Achebe's No Longer at Ease; Chang Rae Lee's Native Speaker; Jhumpa Lahiri's The Namesake; Khalid Hosseini's The Kite Runner; Mario Vargas Llosa's The Real Life of Alejandro Mayta. There also are a number of nonfiction works that provide insight into different cultures: Eldin Villafane's The Liberating Spirit; One Church, Many Tribes by Richard Twiss; Why are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria? by Beverly Daniel Tatum; Yellow by Frank Wu.

I would look for places of interaction across cultures. Many of us may find these opportunities at our place of work or in our neighborhood -- it's probably our church and Christian world that is more likely to be segregated. I would encourage the building and deepening of healthy cross-cultural relationships in your current context. My recommendation has been to seek out mentors or spiritual leaders from a different ethnic/cultural background. There will be different contexts (single-ethnic churches that are of a different ethnic background from you, or multi-ethnic churches with a diverse staff) where you may be able to find cross-cultural mentors. These relationships should not be forced, but it really needs to have the foundation of a genuine relationship and commitment. In other words, there are no quick solutions, and it'll take time to build the relationships and connections that will broaden your world.

It seems that often the conversation is how white churches can become more diverse, which can come off as an expression of white dominance or perpetuate the phenomenon of "white guilt" as a motivator. Would you suggest that some white and minority churches serving in the same neighborhood merge rather than having white churches glibly trying to be diverse?

The idea of a "merger" is a lofty concept that is very difficult to pull off. It is very hard to pull off the equality of power, or even an understanding of how power dynamics work, in the different cultural contexts required for a successful merger.
I think there needs to be a clear understanding of the reality of power distribution before engaging in talks about a merger. One of the most ignored aspects of any discussion on multi-ethnicity is the aspect of power. Those who have the power are oftentimes the ones who are unwilling to discuss the issue of power and dominance. Part of white privilege means the capacity and ability to not talk about the issue of power and the wielding of that power. I think one of the great things that a majority culture church can do in preparing for multi-ethnicity and diversity is to become more aware of white privilege. Instead of taking the lead and trying to fix the problem and create diversity, it might be better to be in a place of listening and preparation -- particularly in the practice of yielding power.

1.) How do predominately white organizations (Christian colleges and seminaries, Christian magazines, etc.) become multicultural without somehow developing the sense that they -- white Christianity -- are the impetus for multiculturalism?

2.) How willing do you think evangelical seminaries are to embrace both contemporary and historical ethnic minority theologians and scholars? Will these theologians be in the primary fold of essential theologians, or will it be a tag on (i.e., solely having a course on African-American theology rather than adding these theologians to the basic theology courses)?

Great questions. Again, the main issue is the issue of power. Are white institutions willing to yield decision-making power, theology-shaping power, curriculum-shaping power, culture-shaping power to non-whites? Will predominantly white organizations be willing to share power -- and initially that will require a yielding of power -- with non-whites? Any discussion about diversity will need to engage in a discussion about power. Otherwise, we reduce our efforts to tokenism.

portrait-edward-gilbreathEdward Gilbreath is director of editorial for Urban Ministries Inc., editor of UrbanFaith.com, and the author of Reconciliation Blues: A Black Evangelical's Inside View of White Christianity. He blogs at Reconciliation Blog. This article appears courtesy of a partnership with UrbanFaith.com.

Bonus Questions

What led you to leave Boston for Chicago?

Soong-Chan Rah: Leaving Boston was a very difficult decision, one of the most difficult decisions in my life, and it was certainly the most difficult decision that we faced as a family. We had a great community in Cambridge, and our family has always been committed to incarnational and local expressions of ministry. The church in Cambridge was a church that I planted, and it still holds a very special place in my heart. Aside from my family, I think planting the church is the best thing I've been able to do on earth so far. I also had deep and meaningful relationships with peers and mentors throughout the city who were some of the most formative mentors in ministry.

A few years ago, I was offered the opportunity to join the faculty at North Park Theological Seminary in Chicago. It meant a significant change: moving from the East Coast to the Midwest, shifting from being a local church pastor to a seminary professor. I was beginning to sense God's calling into a ministry that connected the academy to the local church. Being on the faculty of my denominational seminary would strengthen my ability to integrate my academic interests and study with my experience and heart for the local church. While it was an extremely difficult decision, I felt that the church was at a place where a new lead pastor would be a good opportunity and that God was calling our family to be part of a new venture at North Park Seminary.

What church do you currently attend?

Our family has always believed in neighborhood churches. I really don't like the idea of driving a great distance to attend church (bad for the environment and bad for the family). We attend Immanuel Covenant Church on the north side of Chicago, about three blocks from our home (which is about three blocks from the seminary where I teach). Our home, my place of work, our kids' school, and our church are all in the 60625 zip code of Chicago, which is one of the most diverse zip codes in the United States. We were told that our kids' school has over 50 languages and over 70 different nationalities.

Our church reflects that diversity. The church at one point had been a Swedish immigrant congregation. Less than a decade ago, the church was overwhelmingly white. Now it's home to 15 different first generation immigrant groups -- including Indian, Pakistani, Sri Lankan, Korean, Chinese, Mexican, etc. There is no clear majority at the church. Furthermore, we have a joint worship with a Filipino congregation adding to the diversity. There is great diversity in the church and that creates many challenges. But we have loved the community at this church and appreciate the genuine effort by the church to reflect the diversity of our neighborhood.

Are you still a Boston sports fan, or have you transitioned over to Chicago teams? If so, Cubs or White Sox?

I'm very loyal to my sports teams. I grew up in the inner-city of Baltimore, so I've been an Orioles fan since I was about 8 years old and haven't changed my loyalties in over 30 years. I still follow the Orioles via fan Web sites and online games. While I was in Boston, I developed an affinity for the Red Sox (especially since they gave me a free clergy pass to the regular season games). I'm thoroughly convinced that it was the prayers of the clergy members who received free tickets to Red Sox games that led to Boston's breaking of the curse and their winning two World Series championships. In contrast, when we moved to Chicago, I wrote to the Cubs asking if they had a clergy-pass program. They replied that they didn't. So it's 100 years and counting for the Cubs.

Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

Resources

Like what you're reading? Get Sojourners E-Mail updates!

by: ando

07-07-2009 @ 9:04pm

Given the paucity of responses on the interview with Soong-Chan Rah, one wonders if people really care about the future of Evangelicalism. Perhaps we're too focused on the "social gospel" and the political issues of the day to care about souls? This may be a microcosm of why the mainline church in America is in decline and taking off is much of the rest of the world; the concern for souls is as important as political agenda of the day. (perhaps this will incite a few responses...)

by: BlueDeacon

07-07-2009 @ 9:23pm

Actually, evangelicals here are far too comfortable; the "Gospel" we preach doesn't make the surrounding culture take notice because evangelicalism is far too much a part of such culture and often exists (indeed, is sold) to maintain comfort. In contrast, in other lands calling oneself a Christian is a social and political statement -- you are or you aren't. Nowhere else in the world except America is Christianity allied with a "conservative" ideological agenda.

by: ando

07-07-2009 @ 11:05pm

It's also not allied with a liberal ideological agenda. You haven't refuted my point that mainline Christianity -- of which many of the Sojo posters are part of -- seem to be more interested in politics than preaching the Good News.

by: BlueDeacon

07-08-2009 @ 12:55pm

This is an evangelical blog, if you haven't noticed; it has some mainline followers only because it touches upon issues ignored by American evangelicalism but which would be embraced by evangelicals in other countries -- which is why those voices are disproportionally represented here. And BTW, the Good News of Jesus Christ does have political implications hardly limited to so-called cultural issues. Who do you think had Him killed? That day's political leadership, which correctly understood him as a threat.

by: rosechef

07-08-2009 @ 3:11pm

At a potluck this weekend, a friend told me about a Chinese-American friend in Boston who would never consider marrying anyone except someone from her own ethnic background. "Is she a Christian?" I asked. "Yes, and she wants to marry a Christian as well, but only a Chinese-American Christian." I was disappointed for her. After spending four years in Beijing, my son--white--married a wonderful ethnic Chinese woman from Singapore who is deeply committed to Jesus Christ. Their engagement was a long process of trying to discern what was Biblical in their respective cultures (keep those) and what was not (negotiate those), but there was never any question in their minds (or ours) that God had brought them together. That process will probably continue indefinitely, but it is so exciting to see what God has brought about.

by: ando

07-08-2009 @ 4:12pm

I can assure you that evangelicals in other countries would be dead-set
against abortion and appalled that it even be conceived as government
policy. They also would be very much in favor of marriage as between a man
and a woman. You might think that evangelicals in other countries only
talk about is racism, poverty and the environment. You would be dead wrong.
They are concerned about the above-mentioned issues, as well as drugs and
alcoholism, the breakdown of the family, and other issues that defined as
"conservative" by the Sojo-ites.
My guess is that Focus on the Family has a much bigger following
overseas than does Sojourners. Developing world evangelicals may be
conservative, but they certainly aren't liberal.
Evangelical is
loosely defined, both on the Left and the Right in this country

by: BlueDeacon

07-08-2009 @ 5:19pm

And I would suggest you are not altogether correct. Martin Luther King Jr. inspired a large number of black Africans, specifically in sub-Saharan Africa and especially South Africa, to resist racist oppression (I know this because I interviewed jazz trumpeter Hugh Masekela a few years back and he told me as such), and Billy Graham went over the South Africa in the 1970s and said, "Your system has got to go." Indeed, a Christian ministry that I contribute to on occasion was instrumental in getting rid of apartheid.

Further, there's no need to have special concern with the environment in Africa and Asia; many Christians already are and would find those concerns addressed in Scripture. (The Bible comes out of an Afro-Asiatic culture.) Moreover, other cultures don't subscribe to the type of individualism rampant in America; thus, what we would consider "socialistic" here would be part of their daily operations.

BTW, I seriously doubt that Focus would be popular overseas; it's an America-centric ministry. Besides, other countries don't have the funds -- and it's all about fund-raising!

by: ando

07-08-2009 @ 6:44pm

Focus broadcasts to about a dozen countries around the world, in most all continents, according to their website. Their website can be accessed in Spanish.

by: BlueDeacon

07-08-2009 @ 7:04pm

That doesn't mean anything because those broadcasts are funded here. Besides, you have to have access to a radio, which many folks in that part of the world don't. What we're looking at is an indigenous move of God in those countries totally independent of any cultural structures from Western evangelicalism, which is Rah's point.

by: ando

07-07-2009 @ 9:04pm

Given the paucity of responses on the interview with Soong-Chan Rah, one wonders if people really care about the future of Evangelicalism. Perhaps we're too focused on the "social gospel" and the political issues of the day to care about souls? This may be a microcosm of why the mainline church in America is in decline and taking off is much of the rest of the world; the concern for souls is as important as political agenda of the day. (perhaps this will incite a few responses...)

by: BlueDeacon

07-07-2009 @ 9:23pm

Actually, evangelicals here are far too comfortable; the "Gospel" we preach doesn't make the surrounding culture take notice because evangelicalism is far too much a part of such culture and often exists (indeed, is sold) to maintain comfort. In contrast, in other lands calling oneself a Christian is a social and political statement -- you are or you aren't. Nowhere else in the world except America is Christianity allied with a "conservative" ideological agenda.

by: ando

07-07-2009 @ 11:05pm

It's also not allied with a liberal ideological agenda. You haven't refuted my point that mainline Christianity -- of which many of the Sojo posters are part of -- seem to be more interested in politics than preaching the Good News.

by: BlueDeacon

07-08-2009 @ 12:55pm

This is an evangelical blog, if you haven't noticed; it has some mainline followers only because it touches upon issues ignored by American evangelicalism but which would be embraced by evangelicals in other countries -- which is why those voices are disproportionally represented here. And BTW, the Good News of Jesus Christ does have political implications hardly limited to so-called cultural issues. Who do you think had Him killed? That day's political leadership, which correctly understood him as a threat.

by: rosechef

07-08-2009 @ 3:11pm

At a potluck this weekend, a friend told me about a Chinese-American friend in Boston who would never consider marrying anyone except someone from her own ethnic background. "Is she a Christian?" I asked. "Yes, and she wants to marry a Christian as well, but only a Chinese-American Christian." I was disappointed for her. After spending four years in Beijing, my son--white--married a wonderful ethnic Chinese woman from Singapore who is deeply committed to Jesus Christ. Their engagement was a long process of trying to discern what was Biblical in their respective cultures (keep those) and what was not (negotiate those), but there was never any question in their minds (or ours) that God had brought them together. That process will probably continue indefinitely, but it is so exciting to see what God has brought about.

by: ando

07-08-2009 @ 4:12pm

I can assure you that evangelicals in other countries would be dead-set
against abortion and appalled that it even be conceived as government
policy. They also would be very much in favor of marriage as between a man
and a woman. You might think that evangelicals in other countries only
talk about is racism, poverty and the environment. You would be dead wrong.
They are concerned about the above-mentioned issues, as well as drugs and
alcoholism, the breakdown of the family, and other issues that defined as
"conservative" by the Sojo-ites.
My guess is that Focus on the Family has a much bigger following
overseas than does Sojourners. Developing world evangelicals may be
conservative, but they certainly aren't liberal.
Evangelical is
loosely defined, both on the Left and the Right in this country

by: WaveTossed

07-09-2009 @ 6:24pm

"I can assure you that evangelicals in other countries would be dead-set against abortion and appalled that it even be conceived as government policy. They also would be very much in favor of marriage as between a man and a woman."

And these aren't social agendas? Or are these issues solely about saving individual souls?

Looks like it's only the "social agendas" that you favor are acceptable for Evangelicals. Other than that, it seems that you believe that the Sojo people are "too liberal" because some of them believe that saving souls would be interconnected with dealing with social and political issues.

by: ando

07-09-2009 @ 7:48pm

Point 1: Many people in other parts of the world DO have radios. That's
how a lot of agricultural, health and other important information has been
disseminated into rural areas, at least in the past.
Point 2: I agree it's an indigenous movement of God, independent of the
American Religious Right, post-modern theological cow plop, and liberal
hypocrisy.

by: BlueDeacon

07-08-2009 @ 5:19pm

And I would suggest you are not altogether correct. Martin Luther King Jr. inspired a large number of black Africans, specifically in sub-Saharan Africa and especially South Africa, to resist racist oppression (I know this because I interviewed jazz trumpeter Hugh Masekela a few years back and he told me as such), and Billy Graham went over the South Africa in the 1970s and said, "Your system has got to go." Indeed, a Christian ministry that I contribute to on occasion was instrumental in getting rid of apartheid.

Further, there's no need to have special concern with the environment in Africa and Asia; many Christians already are and would find those concerns addressed in Scripture. (The Bible comes out of an Afro-Asiatic culture.) Moreover, other cultures don't subscribe to the type of individualism rampant in America; thus, what we would consider "socialistic" here would be part of their daily operations.

BTW, I seriously doubt that Focus would be popular overseas; it's an America-centric ministry. Besides, other countries don't have the funds -- and it's all about fund-raising!

by: BlueDeacon

07-09-2009 @ 10:16pm

I've got bad news for you: The Christianity emerging from the Third World will be -- in fact, to a certain extent already is -- more "liberal" and Sojo-friendly than you might appreciate; they understand that the Christian faith is meant to apply to every sphere of life. In that context it won't be compartmentalized the way it often is in American society, where Jesus serves as little more than a value-added commodity, especially to the political right. And there's a reason for this: Many of them will go through more persecution for their faith than we ever will, and that will make them more empathetic with those who are not like them. I have never seen that from the right, which often complains about that when (usually) unwarranted.

Now, in your time on this blog you have consistently insinuated that the left and the right merely represent two sides of the same coin. That's patently ridiculous, if for no other reason that the evangelical "left" preceded the right and thus was never dependent on political power and cultural authority to stay in business. If this blog would go kaput and the national spotlight were to depart from Wallis he would keep on doing what he's been doing because it's his calling regardless of popularity. On top of that, it's always the right that questions the salvation of people on the left, best understood as those who don't subscribe wholeheartedly it its agenda (my pastor, who certainly isn't "left" by any means, has also made the observation).

And speaking of which, my own conservative, evangelical, down-the-middle church would welcome Wallis to our pulpit because we're involved in the same work he is, although on a smaller scale. But my pastor also has said that James Dobson has lost his authority to speak for God.

by: ando

07-08-2009 @ 6:44pm

Focus broadcasts to about a dozen countries around the world, in most all continents, according to their website. Their website can be accessed in Spanish.

by: BlueDeacon

07-10-2009 @ 5:11pm

I attend a Christian & Missionary Alliance church, which was introduced to me nearly 30 years ago by someone I met through IVCF my second year in college; I therefore am also personally acquainted with a number of missionaries. So I can match bona fides with you.

However, some years ago my white senior pastor, in the company of our black worship pastor, visited our denomination's missionaries to Southeast Asia in Thailand and confronted them about their racism. Besides, about 20 years ago a missionary spoke at my church (though I was attending elsewhere at the time) and brought out that the foreign missions was trending toward urban areas.

That said, I don't even understand why you would even think that I would consider something like IVCF part of the "religious right" -- in fact, I didn't even hint at that. What I am saying is that today's missionaries are no longer interested in just a "harvest of souls" but also in the social conditions that imprison people (and thus keep them from hearing the Gospel). Funny, but that dovetails nicely into what Sojourners has been doing for going on 40 years -- so what's your beef?

by: BlueDeacon

07-08-2009 @ 7:04pm

That doesn't mean anything because those broadcasts are funded here. Besides, you have to have access to a radio, which many folks in that part of the world don't. What we're looking at is an indigenous move of God in those countries totally independent of any cultural structures from Western evangelicalism, which is Rah's point.

by: ando

07-10-2009 @ 4:40pm

You really care about nobody else's viewpoint but your own. Have you been
to other countries? How many people from foreign lands do you actually
know?
I came to faith through IVCF, the US-arm of the International Fellowship of
Evangelical Students. They are Reformed theologiclly, and they have largely
been led by white leaders
since their inception. They've also embraced a number of African, Latino
and Asian evangelicals and have been doing a lot of mission projects in the
inner cities and around the world. I've known a lot of IVCF staff workers;
most all of them are white. Do they qualify for your narrow worldview of
Religious Right? How do you define them? On your terms?
Pride goeth before a fall.

by: WaveTossed

07-09-2009 @ 6:24pm

"I can assure you that evangelicals in other countries would be dead-set against abortion and appalled that it even be conceived as government policy. They also would be very much in favor of marriage as between a man and a woman."

And these aren't social agendas? Or are these issues solely about saving individual souls?

Looks like it's only the "social agendas" that you favor are acceptable for Evangelicals. Other than that, it seems that you believe that the Sojo people are "too liberal" because some of them believe that saving souls would be interconnected with dealing with social and political issues.

by: ando

07-09-2009 @ 7:48pm

Point 1: Many people in other parts of the world DO have radios. That's
how a lot of agricultural, health and other important information has been
disseminated into rural areas, at least in the past.
Point 2: I agree it's an indigenous movement of God, independent of the
American Religious Right, post-modern theological cow plop, and liberal
hypocrisy.

by: BlueDeacon

07-09-2009 @ 10:16pm

I've got bad news for you: The Christianity emerging from the Third World will be -- in fact, to a certain extent already is -- more "liberal" and Sojo-friendly than you might appreciate; they understand that the Christian faith is meant to apply to every sphere of life. In that context it won't be compartmentalized the way it often is in American society, where Jesus serves as little more than a value-added commodity, especially to the political right. And there's a reason for this: Many of them will go through more persecution for their faith than we ever will, and that will make them more empathetic with those who are not like them. I have never seen that from the right, which often complains about that when (usually) unwarranted.

Now, in your time on this blog you have consistently insinuated that the left and the right merely represent two sides of the same coin. That's patently ridiculous, if for no other reason that the evangelical "left" preceded the right and thus was never dependent on political power and cultural authority to stay in business. If this blog would go kaput and the national spotlight were to depart from Wallis he would keep on doing what he's been doing because it's his calling regardless of popularity. On top of that, it's always the right that questions the salvation of people on the left, best understood as those who don't subscribe wholeheartedly it its agenda (my pastor, who certainly isn't "left" by any means, has also made the observation).

And speaking of which, my own conservative, evangelical, down-the-middle church would welcome Wallis to our pulpit because we're involved in the same work he is, although on a smaller scale. But my pastor also has said that James Dobson has lost his authority to speak for God.

by: ando

07-10-2009 @ 2:40pm

You really care about nobody else's viewpoint but your own. Have you been
to other countries? How many people from foreign lands do you actually
know?
I came to faith through IVCF, the US-arm of the International Fellowship of
Evangelical Students. They are Reformed theologiclly, and they have largely
been led by white leaders
since their inception. They've also embraced a number of African, Latino
and Asian evangelicals and have been doing a lot of mission projects in the
inner cities and around the world. I've known a lot of IVCF staff workers;
most all of them are white. Do they qualify for your narrow worldview of
Religious Right? How do you define them? On your terms?
Pride goeth before a fall.

by: BlueDeacon

07-10-2009 @ 3:11pm

I attend a Christian & Missionary Alliance church, which was introduced to me nearly 30 years ago by someone I met through IVCF my second year in college; I therefore am also personally acquainted with a number of missionaries. So I can match bona fides with you.

However, some years ago my white senior pastor, in the company of our black worship pastor, visited our denomination's missionaries to Southeast Asia in Thailand and confronted them about their racism. Besides, about 20 years ago a missionary spoke at my church (though I was attending elsewhere at the time) and brought out that the foreign missions was trending toward urban areas.

That said, I don't even understand why you would even think that I would consider something like IVCF part of the "religious right" -- in fact, I didn't even hint at that. What I am saying is that today's missionaries are no longer interested in just a "harvest of souls" but also in the social conditions that imprison people (and thus keep them from hearing the Gospel). Funny, but that dovetails nicely into what Sojourners has been doing for going on 40 years -- so what's your beef?

by: ando

07-10-2009 @ 2:40pm

You really care about nobody else's viewpoint but your own. Have you been
to other countries? How many people from foreign lands do you actually
know?
I came to faith through IVCF, the US-arm of the International Fellowship of
Evangelical Students. They are Reformed theologiclly, and they have largely
been led by white leaders
since their inception. They've also embraced a number of African, Latino
and Asian evangelicals and have been doing a lot of mission projects in the
inner cities and around the world. I've known a lot of IVCF staff workers;
most all of them are white. Do they qualify for your narrow worldview of
Religious Right? How do you define them? On your terms?
Pride goeth before a fall.

by: BlueDeacon

07-10-2009 @ 3:11pm

I attend a Christian & Missionary Alliance church, which was introduced to me nearly 30 years ago by someone I met through IVCF my second year in college; I therefore am also personally acquainted with a number of missionaries. So I can match bona fides with you.

However, some years ago my white senior pastor, in the company of our black worship pastor, visited our denomination's missionaries to Southeast Asia in Thailand and confronted them about their racism. Besides, about 20 years ago a missionary spoke at my church (though I was attending elsewhere at the time) and brought out that the foreign missions was trending toward urban areas.

That said, I don't even understand why you would even think that I would consider something like IVCF part of the "religious right" -- in fact, I didn't even hint at that. What I am saying is that today's missionaries are no longer interested in just a "harvest of souls" but also in the social conditions that imprison people (and thus keep them from hearing the Gospel). Funny, but that dovetails nicely into what Sojourners has been doing for going on 40 years -- so what's your beef?

by: BlueDeacon

07-10-2009 @ 5:11pm

I attend a Christian & Missionary Alliance church, which was introduced to me nearly 30 years ago by someone I met through IVCF my second year in college; I therefore am also personally acquainted with a number of missionaries. So I can match bona fides with you.

However, some years ago my white senior pastor, in the company of our black worship pastor, visited our denomination's missionaries to Southeast Asia in Thailand and confronted them about their racism. Besides, about 20 years ago a missionary spoke at my church (though I was attending elsewhere at the time) and brought out that the foreign missions was trending toward urban areas.

That said, I don't even understand why you would even think that I would consider something like IVCF part of the "religious right" -- in fact, I didn't even hint at that. What I am saying is that today's missionaries are no longer interested in just a "harvest of souls" but also in the social conditions that imprison people (and thus keep them from hearing the Gospel). Funny, but that dovetails nicely into what Sojourners has been doing for going on 40 years -- so what's your beef?

by: ando

07-10-2009 @ 4:40pm

You really care about nobody else's viewpoint but your own. Have you been
to other countries? How many people from foreign lands do you actually
know?
I came to faith through IVCF, the US-arm of the International Fellowship of
Evangelical Students. They are Reformed theologiclly, and they have largely
been led by white leaders
since their inception. They've also embraced a number of African, Latino
and Asian evangelicals and have been doing a lot of mission projects in the
inner cities and around the world. I've known a lot of IVCF staff workers;
most all of them are white. Do they qualify for your narrow worldview of
Religious Right? How do you define them? On your terms?
Pride goeth before a fall.

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: ando

07-07-2009 @ 9:04pm

Given the paucity of responses on the interview with Soong-Chan Rah, one wonders if people really care about the future of Evangelicalism. Perhaps we're too focused on the "social gospel" and the political issues of the day to care about souls? This may be a microcosm of why the mainline church in America is in decline and taking off is much of the rest of the world; the concern for souls is as important as political agenda of the day. (perhaps this will incite a few responses...)

by: ando

07-07-2009 @ 9:04pm

Given the paucity of responses on the interview with Soong-Chan Rah, one wonders if people really care about the future of Evangelicalism. Perhaps we're too focused on the "social gospel" and the political issues of the day to care about souls? This may be a microcosm of why the mainline church in America is in decline and taking off is much of the rest of the world; the concern for souls is as important as political agenda of the day. (perhaps this will incite a few responses...)

by: BlueDeacon

07-07-2009 @ 9:23pm

Actually, evangelicals here are far too comfortable; the "Gospel" we preach doesn't make the surrounding culture take notice because evangelicalism is far too much a part of such culture and often exists (indeed, is sold) to maintain comfort. In contrast, in other lands calling oneself a Christian is a social and political statement -- you are or you aren't. Nowhere else in the world except America is Christianity allied with a "conservative" ideological agenda.

by: BlueDeacon

07-07-2009 @ 9:23pm

Actually, evangelicals here are far too comfortable; the "Gospel" we preach doesn't make the surrounding culture take notice because evangelicalism is far too much a part of such culture and often exists (indeed, is sold) to maintain comfort. In contrast, in other lands calling oneself a Christian is a social and political statement -- you are or you aren't. Nowhere else in the world except America is Christianity allied with a "conservative" ideological agenda.

by: ando

07-07-2009 @ 11:05pm

It's also not allied with a liberal ideological agenda. You haven't refuted my point that mainline Christianity -- of which many of the Sojo posters are part of -- seem to be more interested in politics than preaching the Good News.

by: ando

07-07-2009 @ 11:05pm

It's also not allied with a liberal ideological agenda. You haven't refuted my point that mainline Christianity -- of which many of the Sojo posters are part of -- seem to be more interested in politics than preaching the Good News.

by: BlueDeacon

07-08-2009 @ 12:55pm

This is an evangelical blog, if you haven't noticed; it has some mainline followers only because it touches upon issues ignored by American evangelicalism but which would be embraced by evangelicals in other countries -- which is why those voices are disproportionally represented here. And BTW, the Good News of Jesus Christ does have political implications hardly limited to so-called cultural issues. Who do you think had Him killed? That day's political leadership, which correctly understood him as a threat.

by: BlueDeacon

07-08-2009 @ 12:55pm

This is an evangelical blog, if you haven't noticed; it has some mainline followers only because it touches upon issues ignored by American evangelicalism but which would be embraced by evangelicals in other countries -- which is why those voices are disproportionally represented here. And BTW, the Good News of Jesus Christ does have political implications hardly limited to so-called cultural issues. Who do you think had Him killed? That day's political leadership, which correctly understood him as a threat.

by: rosechef

07-08-2009 @ 3:11pm

At a potluck this weekend, a friend told me about a Chinese-American friend in Boston who would never consider marrying anyone except someone from her own ethnic background. "Is she a Christian?" I asked. "Yes, and she wants to marry a Christian as well, but only a Chinese-American Christian." I was disappointed for her. After spending four years in Beijing, my son--white--married a wonderful ethnic Chinese woman from Singapore who is deeply committed to Jesus Christ. Their engagement was a long process of trying to discern what was Biblical in their respective cultures (keep those) and what was not (negotiate those), but there was never any question in their minds (or ours) that God had brought them together. That process will probably continue indefinitely, but it is so exciting to see what God has brought about.

by: rosechef

07-08-2009 @ 3:11pm

At a potluck this weekend, a friend told me about a Chinese-American friend in Boston who would never consider marrying anyone except someone from her own ethnic background. "Is she a Christian?" I asked. "Yes, and she wants to marry a Christian as well, but only a Chinese-American Christian." I was disappointed for her. After spending four years in Beijing, my son--white--married a wonderful ethnic Chinese woman from Singapore who is deeply committed to Jesus Christ. Their engagement was a long process of trying to discern what was Biblical in their respective cultures (keep those) and what was not (negotiate those), but there was never any question in their minds (or ours) that God had brought them together. That process will probably continue indefinitely, but it is so exciting to see what God has brought about.

by: ando

07-08-2009 @ 4:12pm

I can assure you that evangelicals in other countries would be dead-set
against abortion and appalled that it even be conceived as government
policy. They also would be very much in favor of marriage as between a man
and a woman. You might think that evangelicals in other countries only
talk about is racism, poverty and the environment. You would be dead wrong.
They are concerned about the above-mentioned issues, as well as drugs and
alcoholism, the breakdown of the family, and other issues that defined as
"conservative" by the Sojo-ites.
My guess is that Focus on the Family has a much bigger following
overseas than does Sojourners. Developing world evangelicals may be
conservative, but they certainly aren't liberal.
Evangelical is
loosely defined, both on the Left and the Right in this country

by: ando

07-08-2009 @ 4:12pm

I can assure you that evangelicals in other countries would be dead-set
against abortion and appalled that it even be conceived as government
policy. They also would be very much in favor of marriage as between a man
and a woman. You might think that evangelicals in other countries only
talk about is racism, poverty and the environment. You would be dead wrong.
They are concerned about the above-mentioned issues, as well as drugs and
alcoholism, the breakdown of the family, and other issues that defined as
"conservative" by the Sojo-ites.
My guess is that Focus on the Family has a much bigger following
overseas than does Sojourners. Developing world evangelicals may be
conservative, but they certainly aren't liberal.
Evangelical is
loosely defined, both on the Left and the Right in this country

by: BlueDeacon

07-08-2009 @ 5:19pm

And I would suggest you are not altogether correct. Martin Luther King Jr. inspired a large number of black Africans, specifically in sub-Saharan Africa and especially South Africa, to resist racist oppression (I know this because I interviewed jazz trumpeter Hugh Masekela a few years back and he told me as such), and Billy Graham went over the South Africa in the 1970s and said, "Your system has got to go." Indeed, a Christian ministry that I contribute to on occasion was instrumental in getting rid of apartheid.

Further, there's no need to have special concern with the environment in Africa and Asia; many Christians already are and would find those concerns addressed in Scripture. (The Bible comes out of an Afro-Asiatic culture.) Moreover, other cultures don't subscribe to the type of individualism rampant in America; thus, what we would consider "socialistic" here would be part of their daily operations.

BTW, I seriously doubt that Focus would be popular overseas; it's an America-centric ministry. Besides, other countries don't have the funds -- and it's all about fund-raising!

by: BlueDeacon

07-08-2009 @ 5:19pm

And I would suggest you are not altogether correct. Martin Luther King Jr. inspired a large number of black Africans, specifically in sub-Saharan Africa and especially South Africa, to resist racist oppression (I know this because I interviewed jazz trumpeter Hugh Masekela a few years back and he told me as such), and Billy Graham went over the South Africa in the 1970s and said, "Your system has got to go." Indeed, a Christian ministry that I contribute to on occasion was instrumental in getting rid of apartheid.

Further, there's no need to have special concern with the environment in Africa and Asia; many Christians already are and would find those concerns addressed in Scripture. (The Bible comes out of an Afro-Asiatic culture.) Moreover, other cultures don't subscribe to the type of individualism rampant in America; thus, what we would consider "socialistic" here would be part of their daily operations.

BTW, I seriously doubt that Focus would be popular overseas; it's an America-centric ministry. Besides, other countries don't have the funds -- and it's all about fund-raising!

by: ando

07-08-2009 @ 6:44pm

Focus broadcasts to about a dozen countries around the world, in most all continents, according to their website. Their website can be accessed in Spanish.

by: ando

07-08-2009 @ 6:44pm

Focus broadcasts to about a dozen countries around the world, in most all continents, according to their website. Their website can be accessed in Spanish.

by: BlueDeacon

07-08-2009 @ 7:04pm

That doesn't mean anything because those broadcasts are funded here. Besides, you have to have access to a radio, which many folks in that part of the world don't. What we're looking at is an indigenous move of God in those countries totally independent of any cultural structures from Western evangelicalism, which is Rah's point.

by: BlueDeacon

07-08-2009 @ 7:04pm

That doesn't mean anything because those broadcasts are funded here. Besides, you have to have access to a radio, which many folks in that part of the world don't. What we're looking at is an indigenous move of God in those countries totally independent of any cultural structures from Western evangelicalism, which is Rah's point.

by: WaveTossed

07-09-2009 @ 6:24pm

"I can assure you that evangelicals in other countries would be dead-set against abortion and appalled that it even be conceived as government policy. They also would be very much in favor of marriage as between a man and a woman."

And these aren't social agendas? Or are these issues solely about saving individual souls?

Looks like it's only the "social agendas" that you favor are acceptable for Evangelicals. Other than that, it seems that you believe that the Sojo people are "too liberal" because some of them believe that saving souls would be interconnected with dealing with social and political issues.

by: WaveTossed

07-09-2009 @ 6:24pm

"I can assure you that evangelicals in other countries would be dead-set against abortion and appalled that it even be conceived as government policy. They also would be very much in favor of marriage as between a man and a woman."

And these aren't social agendas? Or are these issues solely about saving individual souls?

Looks like it's only the "social agendas" that you favor are acceptable for Evangelicals. Other than that, it seems that you believe that the Sojo people are "too liberal" because some of them believe that saving souls would be interconnected with dealing with social and political issues.

by: ando

07-09-2009 @ 7:48pm

Point 1: Many people in other parts of the world DO have radios. That's
how a lot of agricultural, health and other important information has been
disseminated into rural areas, at least in the past.
Point 2: I agree it's an indigenous movement of God, independent of the
American Religious Right, post-modern theological cow plop, and liberal
hypocrisy.

by: ando

07-09-2009 @ 7:48pm

Point 1: Many people in other parts of the world DO have radios. That's
how a lot of agricultural, health and other important information has been
disseminated into rural areas, at least in the past.
Point 2: I agree it's an indigenous movement of God, independent of the
American Religious Right, post-modern theological cow plop, and liberal
hypocrisy.

by: BlueDeacon

07-09-2009 @ 10:16pm

I've got bad news for you: The Christianity emerging from the Third World will be -- in fact, to a certain extent already is -- more "liberal" and Sojo-friendly than you might appreciate; they understand that the Christian faith is meant to apply to every sphere of life. In that context it won't be compartmentalized the way it often is in American society, where Jesus serves as little more than a value-added commodity, especially to the political right. And there's a reason for this: Many of them will go through more persecution for their faith than we ever will, and that will make them more empathetic with those who are not like them. I have never seen that from the right, which often complains about that when (usually) unwarranted.

Now, in your time on this blog you have consistently insinuated that the left and the right merely represent two sides of the same coin. That's patently ridiculous, if for no other reason that the evangelical "left" preceded the right and thus was never dependent on political power and cultural authority to stay in business. If this blog would go kaput and the national spotlight were to depart from Wallis he would keep on doing what he's been doing because it's his calling regardless of popularity. On top of that, it's always the right that questions the salvation of people on the left, best understood as those who don't subscribe wholeheartedly it its agenda (my pastor, who certainly isn't "left" by any means, has also made the observation).

And speaking of which, my own conservative, evangelical, down-the-middle church would welcome Wallis to our pulpit because we're involved in the same work he is, although on a smaller scale. But my pastor also has said that James Dobson has lost his authority to speak for God.

by: BlueDeacon

07-09-2009 @ 10:16pm

I've got bad news for you: The Christianity emerging from the Third World will be -- in fact, to a certain extent already is -- more "liberal" and Sojo-friendly than you might appreciate; they understand that the Christian faith is meant to apply to every sphere of life. In that context it won't be compartmentalized the way it often is in American society, where Jesus serves as little more than a value-added commodity, especially to the political right. And there's a reason for this: Many of them will go through more persecution for their faith than we ever will, and that will make them more empathetic with those who are not like them. I have never seen that from the right, which often complains about that when (usually) unwarranted.

Now, in your time on this blog you have consistently insinuated that the left and the right merely represent two sides of the same coin. That's patently ridiculous, if for no other reason that the evangelical "left" preceded the right and thus was never dependent on political power and cultural authority to stay in business. If this blog would go kaput and the national spotlight were to depart from Wallis he would keep on doing what he's been doing because it's his calling regardless of popularity. On top of that, it's always the right that questions the salvation of people on the left, best understood as those who don't subscribe wholeheartedly it its agenda (my pastor, who certainly isn't "left" by any means, has also made the observation).

And speaking of which, my own conservative, evangelical, down-the-middle church would welcome Wallis to our pulpit because we're involved in the same work he is, although on a smaller scale. But my pastor also has said that James Dobson has lost his authority to speak for God.

by: ando

07-10-2009 @ 2:40pm

You really care about nobody else's viewpoint but your own. Have you been
to other countries? How many people from foreign lands do you actually
know?
I came to faith through IVCF, the US-arm of the International Fellowship of
Evangelical Students. They are Reformed theologiclly, and they have largely
been led by white leaders
since their inception. They've also embraced a number of African, Latino
and Asian evangelicals and have been doing a lot of mission projects in the
inner cities and around the world. I've known a lot of IVCF staff workers;
most all of them are white. Do they qualify for your narrow worldview of
Religious Right? How do you define them? On your terms?
Pride goeth before a fall.

by: ando

07-10-2009 @ 2:40pm

You really care about nobody else's viewpoint but your own. Have you been
to other countries? How many people from foreign lands do you actually
know?
I came to faith through IVCF, the US-arm of the International Fellowship of
Evangelical Students. They are Reformed theologiclly, and they have largely
been led by white leaders
since their inception. They've also embraced a number of African, Latino
and Asian evangelicals and have been doing a lot of mission projects in the
inner cities and around the world. I've known a lot of IVCF staff workers;
most all of them are white. Do they qualify for your narrow worldview of
Religious Right? How do you define them? On your terms?
Pride goeth before a fall.

by: BlueDeacon

07-10-2009 @ 3:11pm

I attend a Christian & Missionary Alliance church, which was introduced to me nearly 30 years ago by someone I met through IVCF my second year in college; I therefore am also personally acquainted with a number of missionaries. So I can match bona fides with you.

However, some years ago my white senior pastor, in the company of our black worship pastor, visited our denomination's missionaries to Southeast Asia in Thailand and confronted them about their racism. Besides, about 20 years ago a missionary spoke at my church (though I was attending elsewhere at the time) and brought out that the foreign missions was trending toward urban areas.

That said, I don't even understand why you would even think that I would consider something like IVCF part of the "religious right" -- in fact, I didn't even hint at that. What I am saying is that today's missionaries are no longer interested in just a "harvest of souls" but also in the social conditions that imprison people (and thus keep them from hearing the Gospel). Funny, but that dovetails nicely into what Sojourners has been doing for going on 40 years -- so what's your beef?

by: BlueDeacon

07-10-2009 @ 3:11pm

I attend a Christian & Missionary Alliance church, which was introduced to me nearly 30 years ago by someone I met through IVCF my second year in college; I therefore am also personally acquainted with a number of missionaries. So I can match bona fides with you.

However, some years ago my white senior pastor, in the company of our black worship pastor, visited our denomination's missionaries to Southeast Asia in Thailand and confronted them about their racism. Besides, about 20 years ago a missionary spoke at my church (though I was attending elsewhere at the time) and brought out that the foreign missions was trending toward urban areas.

That said, I don't even understand why you would even think that I would consider something like IVCF part of the "religious right" -- in fact, I didn't even hint at that. What I am saying is that today's missionaries are no longer interested in just a "harvest of souls" but also in the social conditions that imprison people (and thus keep them from hearing the Gospel). Funny, but that dovetails nicely into what Sojourners has been doing for going on 40 years -- so what's your beef?

by: ando

07-10-2009 @ 4:40pm

You really care about nobody else's viewpoint but your own. Have you been
to other countries? How many people from foreign lands do you actually
know?
I came to faith through IVCF, the US-arm of the International Fellowship of
Evangelical Students. They are Reformed theologiclly, and they have largely
been led by white leaders
since their inception. They've also embraced a number of African, Latino
and Asian evangelicals and have been doing a lot of mission projects in the
inner cities and around the world. I've known a lot of IVCF staff workers;
most all of them are white. Do they qualify for your narrow worldview of
Religious Right? How do you define them? On your terms?
Pride goeth before a fall.

by: ando

07-10-2009 @ 4:40pm

You really care about nobody else's viewpoint but your own. Have you been
to other countries? How many people from foreign lands do you actually
know?
I came to faith through IVCF, the US-arm of the International Fellowship of
Evangelical Students. They are Reformed theologiclly, and they have largely
been led by white leaders
since their inception. They've also embraced a number of African, Latino
and Asian evangelicals and have been doing a lot of mission projects in the
inner cities and around the world. I've known a lot of IVCF staff workers;
most all of them are white. Do they qualify for your narrow worldview of
Religious Right? How do you define them? On your terms?
Pride goeth before a fall.

by: BlueDeacon

07-10-2009 @ 5:11pm

I attend a Christian & Missionary Alliance church, which was introduced to me nearly 30 years ago by someone I met through IVCF my second year in college; I therefore am also personally acquainted with a number of missionaries. So I can match bona fides with you.

However, some years ago my white senior pastor, in the company of our black worship pastor, visited our denomination's missionaries to Southeast Asia in Thailand and confronted them about their racism. Besides, about 20 years ago a missionary spoke at my church (though I was attending elsewhere at the time) and brought out that the foreign missions was trending toward urban areas.

That said, I don't even understand why you would even think that I would consider something like IVCF part of the "religious right" -- in fact, I didn't even hint at that. What I am saying is that today's missionaries are no longer interested in just a "harvest of souls" but also in the social conditions that imprison people (and thus keep them from hearing the Gospel). Funny, but that dovetails nicely into what Sojourners has been doing for going on 40 years -- so what's your beef?

by: BlueDeacon

07-10-2009 @ 5:11pm

I attend a Christian & Missionary Alliance church, which was introduced to me nearly 30 years ago by someone I met through IVCF my second year in college; I therefore am also personally acquainted with a number of missionaries. So I can match bona fides with you.

However, some years ago my white senior pastor, in the company of our black worship pastor, visited our denomination's missionaries to Southeast Asia in Thailand and confronted them about their racism. Besides, about 20 years ago a missionary spoke at my church (though I was attending elsewhere at the time) and brought out that the foreign missions was trending toward urban areas.

That said, I don't even understand why you would even think that I would consider something like IVCF part of the "religious right" -- in fact, I didn't even hint at that. What I am saying is that today's missionaries are no longer interested in just a "harvest of souls" but also in the social conditions that imprison people (and thus keep them from hearing the Gospel). Funny, but that dovetails nicely into what Sojourners has been doing for going on 40 years -- so what's your beef?