What I Love About the Covenant: Part II – IMMIGRANT HISTORY
I once gave a talk to a largely 1st-gen Korean audience and made the somewhat strongish claim that the “silent exodus” (i.e., the departure of the second-generation from the mother-tongue churches) was a good and necessary thing, and that one day the Korean-American church would cease to be. A somewhat flustered and boxy gentleman in the back challenged me asking me what proof I had, to which I had no good reply. It was one of those moments where “I wish I had said…”
“Look at the Swedes.”
And to be sure I can name other ethnicities as well. Now I am not against the immigrant church, and as long as there are immigrants it is of supreme value and importance. But the children’s children of immigrants – need they be ethnically bounded any longer? Especially if there is some kind of inward bent so as to earn the moniker “The Hermit Nation”? No; this is not a good thing. We should not remain hermits any longer. And thus the delicate shift that happens between 1st and 2nd generations, at least in the Korean-American church. A releasing needs to take place – and the proof is in the pudding – it’s happened before, to other ethnicities. So I’m citing here, from my studies, what happened to the immigrant Swedes in America, over 100 years ago, circa 1893:
The only precedence of the Swedish language in our eyes is that we understand it better and speak it more easily than any other language under the sun. Yes, for many among us it is the only language. And for the purpose of worship we are served by only one language, which all understand and all understand well. The religious life is quite substantially, at least for the majority, feeling. A strange language must have had time to become the possession of the tongue before it becomes the possession of thought. And a still longer time will elapse before it can be for the heart and feeling what the mother tongue is. We are of the opinion, and the experiment of a hundred years has proven this, that the use of a strange language (e.g., Latin) for worship purposes leads to religious superficiality. Thus, we believe ourselves to be good Protestants in the use of our mother tongue as our church language as long as it is the language we understand best.
In time, this same principle of “mother-tongue” and “heart-language” is what would transform the “Swedish Evangelical Mission Covenant Church” into the “Evangelical Covenant Church.” But there is one thing the present denomination has not lost sight of: it’s immigrant roots.
Like
Good point Wayne, but the chief difference is that Swedes are white, and race has always trumped other considerations when it comes to these issues. As you well know, it matters not that there are as many as 10th generation Chinese Americans in the US who are regularly asked, “Where are you from,” or “How did you learn to speak English so well?” A Swede, (or Pole, or German, or Frenchman, etc) won’t be asked that question and won’t be treated as an immigrant even if they literally just stepped off the boat. As long as this is the dominant racial reality in the United States, questions of “whither the ethnic Asian church” will continue to be asked and have challenging and complex answers.
It seems one very real way this issue is resolving itself is the far out-sized rate at which Asian women attach themselves to White men and give scant attention to passing on any cultural or ethnic values — essentially raising them as Whites. So for Asian-Americans, the questions is whether they want to be White.
Hi Wayne, I go back and forth on this issue. I hear what you are saying, but like elderj stated race is an important consideration. Perhaps another way to look at it is whether non-Asians (our Caucasian brothers and sisters) would be willing to join predominantly Asian churches. I see that the willingness usually only goes one way. Surely, there are exceptions, but exceptions are exactly that. For example, my church is open to all races, in my opinion, but most non-Asians do not feel comfortable. Also we do talk about race and the importance of reconciliation. Our second church even merged with an Indian church. So, if the willingness is usually only unidirectional, what should second generation churches do? In my opinion, they can: (a) integrate, but do so knowing what they are doing so for the sake of Christ and try to build bridges, (b) continue to stay mostly mono-cultural, since our society may not be as open as we think, even churches (c) take small steps and seek pan-Asian churches and expand slowly and organically.
I feel I should qualify my statements for you, my esteemed fellows, but also for any larger Korean readership who may walk away feeling I am anti-my-own-race. I am not.
To re-state, I don’t feel Korean churches should disperse for the goal of assimilation (into mainstream ethnic society), but disperse for the goal of mission. Now that’s a high goal, mind you, and dispersal is not always ideal. But when race inhibits mission – I wonder about that.
The challenge for me is to lead communities not so much into assimilation into the dominant culture as much as it is to shepherd the ethnic congregation towards the cross-cultural encounter with the ethnic / sociological / generational Other. It is this tension I’m after.
Hi Wayne, when you put in the missional perspective, who can argue? But it will not be easy. But what mission is?
I agree. Ethnic White churches should disperse for the sake of mission because it seems clear to me that White racial solidarity is hindering their ability to accept and minister to the non-White other.