Maybe it’s time for Continental/Anglo-American dominated seminaries to step down from their ivory towers as “senders” and become “goers” as they learn from the wisdom of the people they wish to “convert” into bond-servants of Christ. Maybe it’s not about sending less-offensive faces to Asia in hopes of inculcating them with theology/hermeneutics steeped in Eurocentric-traditions, but about sending misinformed “senders” into Asian dominated seminaries to become sensitive “goers” for the “Great Commission.” God bless.

Lee: No, that wasn’t at all what I meant. Many apologies if that’s how it came out. I (or Piper) am not trying to point fingers or find justice or determine who should take more responsibility for the current state of affairs in certain countries. It’s not even about turning the other cheek so much, because this is not supposed to be personal.
I am not trying to “justify” sending Asians/non-whites at all…..I don’t need to….that should be plain to all Christians…that all believers whatever their race have a responsibility to fufill the Great Commision.

We, believers of all colors and nationalities are in this together. We are all called to be part of the work, but we need to objectively access the situation for each people God wants us to reach and figure out who/what would be the more ideal tool to carry out a particular job. Sometimes it might be a blond blue eyed male dentist from Kentucky or it might be a black woman school teacher from Belize. It is a strategic call. Finding the right person for the job. Not discrimination.

BTW NONE of what I’ve expressed above are my original premises, nor are they necessarily John Piper’s as Mr. Chuang mentioned earlier that he has heard Asian colleagues in ministry voice similar observations about the potential of Asians in the mission field.

If you want to share your church’s view on missions, the Great Commission, ideas on how to reach countries that are openly hostile to a particular race or nationality, please email me at visualpun(a t) netzero. net. … since this is turning into a one on one discussion rather than direct comments about the blog entry. If not, take care and God bless.

To answer your second point, I really hope this innocent speech does not lead to human rights abuse or anything negative reinforcements of stereotypes. But I feel strongly that the original blog attacks are so out of place and un-Christ-like. I liken it to the Pharisees criticizing Jesus and his disciples for picking grain on Sabbath.

I think when Piper spoke it was to not to his flock but to people seeking to live with the same “resolve” as that 18th century Christian visionary Jonathan Edwards.(www.resolved.org/) He went in with the understanding that this group had their heads focused to find out how we can better reach the world and not just to get a spiritual pick me up. (i.e. it’s all about God, it’s not about me.)

A pastor can wear many hats right? As a Christian I can understand him taking off his flock shepherding hat and putting on his missions strategist hat that afternoon.( If you do a little research into his books like “Don’t Waste Your Life” you might understand why I am so forgiving. He is super passionate for Christ and in your face. Don’t let his title fool you. He is more missionary, than pastor. That is his strength, what he is admired for, why he gets asked to speak at these conferences, but strong wills can rub some people the wrong way.

I’ve taken a class called “Perspectives on World Christian Movement” class. It’s a marvelous class that all Christians would benefit from. And anyone whose taken this course would have no problem shunting aside self-centered questions of “should I be insulted?” and just embracing his contagious longing to reached the unreached. This class exposed me to many missionaries and mission strategists who really focus their lives more on these foreign worldviews and frankly they aren’t so sensitive about the worldview of you or I.

When he opened his mouth he was only suggesting a path for mission strategy, not a way of thinking in general about race. Those offended are reading too much into his words. This speech was not intended for people who care more about finding something to blog about than about God’s number one agenda.

HIs big point was the European and American (caucasion) face has been poking about the third world so much —- colonizing, evangelising, whatever else….It is not welcome in many cultures. Lot of cultures distrust America and whites. Just facts. If I an Asian made this point to a group of white missionaries, I doubt they would yell “generalizing” or “stereotyping”.

It is still possible for whites to befriend Muslims, but much harder. And they stick out like a sore thumb. And he is suggesting IF other races/colors MIGHT seem less offensive to a particular people group, it might be easier for them to get the work done.

I heartily agree with one of the comments above that with the hostage crisis with the Korean missionaries in the Mideast, that the Asian face will also raise a red flag in SOME countries. And even in Sudan, the atheist Chinese setting up business there have left a bad taste in the locals’ mouths. But still Asians have not been screwing around in other cultures as long as the whites and might be better tolerated. And there may still be dozens(hundreds?) of people groups that may not have ever seen an Asian in the flesh. This strategy can apply not only to Asians, but any non-white Christian. American Indians have reached out to Mongolians with success, because the Mongolians themselves pointed out their similarities. Sophisticated Americans may call this generalization, but most of the world doesn’t think like us and John Piper knows this and that’s where a comment like this comes from that understanding.

And I am sure Piper understands that the color of your face in no way guarantees or disqualifies your success in the mission field. Your faith, your heart, your personality, your training, your support all comes to bear.

Yes, ministry is a type of warfare, and Piper is a type of general. However, Piper is not only a “mission-strategist” (whatever that may mean), but also a pastor. A pastor is more than a general and the warfare is not all about converts and geographical expansion (i.e., ignorance, racism, bigotry, et al. are included in this warfare). Pastors are not only mission focused, but SENSITIVE to the rest of the flock. If there is a stray sheep that needs special attention, the pastor is called to be “impractical” and hold up the rest of the traffic to tend to the wounds of the few. In fact, pastors should imitate Christ in cultivating their “Dr. Phil” side just as much as their “Gladiator” side.

Plus, even on a practical level, think about the many times human rights were abused for the sake of “the greater good” like national security (e.g., Japanese American internment). Stan, your perspective does have a place, and sometimes it is much needed, but PASTOR Piper is just exactly that, a pastor. Pastor’s are not just accomplishing a mission objective (in the military sense), but participating as witnesses to the redemptive/reconciliatory work of God in Christ from Creation to New Creation.

>

The guy’s a mission strategist, he’s all about focusing on maximizing the glory for God. He’s not Dr. Phil, or a self-help guru, he’s a sword for God in the spiritual fight. If you force a guy to start being a ‘politician’ or study up on how to be PC to each oversensitive American minority or regional group, how to appease the people, instead of studying up on how to reach unreached people groups, you really hamstring a singly focused guy like he is.

I really think the overly sensitive do need to desensitize, especially if they’re Christian. They need to stop thinking ‘me, my race, and I’ and start focusing on God and his purpose for his people.

I know you don’t think this, but it seems a few of our Asian brothers think if we make enough of a stink about this, that we can shame him in changing his ways. After all he doesn’t want us to stop buying his books and he doesn’t want the conferences to stop calling him to speak, right? I really doubt this. He serves God, not himself, and not man. We should respect that. Not hinder it. I am glad that most of the posts here can see past a man’s seeming shortcomings and focus on what he is trying to accomplish for the church.

>

I have met quite a few Causcasian Americans fairly commited to reaching China. And I always wonder why? Did they get called specifically? Is it just because they see the need is so great? Sometimes I wonder, from the strategic and practical perspective, why don’t they try reaching causcasian ethnic groups. It makes a lot more sense. You don’t stand out like a sore thumb, etc. So Asians reaching Asians make sense. If you are a general guiding a war, you have to look strategically to where a particular battalion will do the most good. In WWII did the German’s train Japanese spies in English so they could infiltrate the Allies? No, they trained white dudes. It’s strategy, not racism.

I don’t understand what’s so offensive about Piper’s exhortation, even if it’s to be understood as “Go back to your own country” as thecuttingtruth takes it. I’m curious to know just how many AAs have, in fact, gone back to the countries of their ethnic ancestry. In the organization I serve with, it’s not many.

Take China, for instance. Isn’t it possible, and I believe quite likely, that in God’s sovereign plan, when China expelled all foreign missionaries in 1954, He intended for Chinese from Taiwan and Hong Kong (not under P.R.China’s authority and where most ethnically Chinese immigrants in the US come from) to immigrate to America, have their next generation be raised up in churches, and send them “back to [their] own country” so that the Chinese would hear?

Asian-Americans in China, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc. could break down walls that exist because of the difference in appearance between the stereotypical (in their mind) white Christian and the natives. I say “could” because, as it stands, I don’t think there are enough AAs “going back” to provide enough evidence for a trend.

It seems that AAs are more concerned about where else God might be leading them as opposed to their countries of ethnic origin. Being an AA myself, I used to think “I want to do what other, non-AAs do.” Some (not all) AAs want to find an identity in something that doesn’t fit the stereotypical AA mold. Some Christians do the same. Isn’t it possible that God is asking us to embrace how He’s made us and embrace (of course, what I speculate to be) His plan?

Thanks for the opportunity to be heard.

I’ll take a look at the post on your blog.

I think what bothers me most about discussing these issues with some white people is their inability to see from another person’s perspective. I’ve had people try to brush off serious concerns with, “Well, I didn’t mean that so get over it already.” It is difficult to communicate to such people that their worldview is *not* normative for everyone.

If the conference attendance really was one-third Asian American people, then it is remarkable that they do not try to find AA speakers for the main stage. This is not about filling quotas or tokenism; it just makes sense that the leadership up front reflects the overall picture of the conference. Maybe the leadership team at such conferences isn’t networked in enough with AA circles; maybe it’s too much of a hassle to deal with racial, ethnic & cultural diversity; whatever the reason, I hope that more AA speakers are invited to the table for these kinds of events.

Ken – I have posted a response here [http://www.reyes-chow.com/2007/07/intention-vs-in.html]. Actually I have had friends ask me about things they were thinking about saying and I always warn that not matter what, someone will misunderstand their intent. The thing to think about is that they asked because they understood their power and privilege. And not that I represented the “Asian Voice” but iw as able to help them discern whether or not their words were way off or uninformed. If I were to offer Piper some comments, I would encourage him to offer some disclaimers that showed that he had thought of some of the issues. For instance, “I do not fully understand the historical and culture realities of Japanese and Filipino interactions, but . . .” or I would push him to think about whether this was a place for him to venture in the first place. I could have predicted this kind of fallout.

Certainly there is passive racism and I have been the target of that as an Asian American. But this isn’t the issue here. Deal with the issue and the point and not any suggested sub-text that you are reading into. Blogs are dangerous when they start to target people, misconstrue quotes and create controversy where there should be none.

As to being responsible for what other people here, I think that that is true only to a certain point. We are obligated to communicate as clearly as we are able, and to anticipate likely points of misunderstanding. But sometimes in spite of our best efforts people will seriously misunderstand us. Sometimes their own assumptions will cause them to “read in” meanings that have no basis in our actual words. In such a case I’m not sure that the speaker is at fault, since it is impossible to guarantee that no one could possibly misunderstand what we say. After all, some people even misunderstood Jesus.

In terms of being “responsible” for what other people hear, isn’t that the burden that we each hold every time we proclaim the word? Being under a microscope is never fun, but one of the things that we own as preachers. While i do appreciate any preachers prophetic voice, if there are times where that push and challenge might be off-based isn’t it also pastoral to rethink and shift or at least to own the fact that words might not have had the intended effect?

Please keep in mind that I don’t know him. Didn’t hear the comments in the first person. But in the context of a Multicultural event it sounds like a missed opportunity.