I can tell you’ve been thinking through this a lot and in the whole DV thing. With your comparisons to Italian pizza place, etc…

I’ve come to understand “racism” as prejudice tied to privilege and power, not to calling someone “white” or “black” or “native” or whatnot. Let me explain what I mean (sorry it is long-winded, I just like to start at the beginning so as to communicate well).

White folks could be prejudiced against Asian folks, and Asian folks could be prejudiced against White folks, that’s true. But the -ism is tied to power. It’s true that the majority of people in the US are white (i mean that as “of european-mostly western-descent”, not as skin tone). Based on that majority, and the history of this nation, white folks have, as a people group, more power (social/political/etc) than other racial groups in this country.

Because of this majority and power, white norms and cultures (whether irish, swedish, immigrant mix, etc) become the standards. Which leaves non-white people as “different” to white people, and quite often, misunderstood. It’s not a part of most white folks’ social consciousnesses, as we just live a “normal” life.

So back to what is racism. Racism comes in to play when the racial group in power, which in the US is white folks, take advantage of or discriminate against people of a minority racial group, or believe in that kind of discrimination. In the DV mess, discrimination (however unintentional and well meaning the authors are, which most of the asian-american blog communities have acknowledged) was in the form of misrepresented minority culture and the misuse of minority cultural tropes to market an unrelated book. It is all because of the power of the majority racial group, white folks, to unknowingly comment on and pass judgment on the culture that is “different” and “not normal.” And the majority group, white folks, have the power to dismiss the complaints and corrections of the minority group, because the white folks are the majority of the people producing the material, marketing the material, selling the material, and a lot of the buying of the materials. It’s all about the power and the norms.

…As far as it is not Christ like to be offended, I think we need to look at what offended means. I think Christ was offended when he saw his Father’s house turned into a den of robbers, and he reacted in the extreme. He saw wrong and was hurt by it, and did what he needed to do to make it right. To be honest, his reaction scares me a bit and seems a little too extreme for me to follow.

As far as tough skin, I read a great piece by Kathy Khang on morethanservingtea.wordpress.com about how Christ doesn’t advocate for thicker skin — we need to be sensitive to the pain in ourselves and in our christian family. I dont want thicker skin, so that seeing poverty and pain doesn’t affect me.

That’s me. Your Thoughts? Did I say anything poorly?

Peace.

Hi Randy! Hope you don’t mind me chiming in a quick response.

Black men and women served willing in the cause of the Confederacy during the American Civil War as both support personnel and even infantry (a small number). There were even instances of free Black men purchasing Black slaves. Does the participation of some African American men justify the slavery of African Americans? Of course not.

I understand that DV has some Asian Americans involved in the DV ministry. But not all Asian Americans are the same, and the involvement of some shouldn’t be a blank check to invalidate the concerns of others. It’s as flimsy as a excuse as some person saying, “My two Black friends say it’s totally fine for me to call them the N-word, so I use it all the time when I address Black folks! They told me it was OK!”

I don’t know how much thought the authors put into the product, but from my standpoint (as someone with a better than fair amount of knowledge about Chinese and Japanese culture), the end product was still lacking in presentation and it was another vehicle for a set of dehumanizing stereotypes that have plagued Asian Americans in this country for years as “the other” and “the enemy”, labels that I think we can all agree are unwarranted, demeaning, divisive, and strips Asian Americans of their God-given humanity.

Asian Americans have been exploited, wrongfully imprisoned, and even murdered because we were thought of as the “enemy” or as a threat. Google the case of Vincent Chin if you don’t believe me.

peace,

-g.

While I appreciate the attempt to make sense of the various responses by AA to DV, I don’t find the appeal to Rom 15 accurate nor helpful. It assigns those who “took offense/were sensitive” as the “weaker brother.” In context the weaker brothers are those who possess the freedom to eat meat but cannot do so b/c they associate it sin. Paul makes clear there is nothing wrong with the meat itself. Applying this text to the DVZ controversy assumes that the use of Asian images by DV is the “meat.” According to this Rom 15 logic you already assume no actual offense was made – it is only in the imagination of the weaker brothers.

But I believe many AAs will disagree that the appropriation of the Asian theme is morally neutral. As much as I am a Scripture prof and believe in its authority, I would say that simple appeals to Scripture do not adequately address the complex nature of this controversy. Personal testimonies by individual AAs likewise fail to do so. If the nature of the problem is systemic, involving issues of white privilege and colonialism, we need more tools than just Scripture and personal experiences to address the issue.

If I understand all this correctly (and for the record, I am an ancillary vested person in this story, click here to read my own post re: all this), they touched a very sensitive nerve that (not only) the Asian American community has experienced in a “white captivity” culture—one that they have been grappling to put words to.

The tragedy is that rather than making the subject a conversation around cultivating sensitivity to humanizing all people regardless of race, culture or ethnicity, the tone and the target of these wounds were aimed at two guys who were actually contributing to a conversation towards integrity, character and the affirmation of human dignity for all persons.

I am a huge fan of Prof Rah and think his message needs to get out further to provoke a more grounded sense of our Christian identity as it relates to the shifting (actually, shifted) demographic in the mosaic of who actually makes up our Christian majority. But I am also a huge fan of what the Deadly Viper project was advocating for, not only in its content, but how the message of integrity, character and grace was embodied in the lives of Mike and Jud. It is sad how two important messages collided and the fallout that has been an unintended consequence of this collision.

Let’s hope that everyone who made hurtful or accusatory statements about Mike and Jud, reconsider the content and tone of those unfair allegations. Much of the content I’ve read in the comment sections on blogs regarding all this has been unhelpful assumptions. These assumptions have only aggravated a sensitive conversation that needs to be played out. However, this important conversation should be held around more harmful eruptions of cultural insensitivity (i.e. the “Rickshaw Rally”) that somehow are left immune to the controversy Deadly Vipers unintentionally invited.

Let’s also remember that Mike and Jud should not be the targets of this dialogue. If people want to pick fights here, there are plenty of other legitimate instances of racial insensitivity that are more important and appropriate instances that can be focused on.

A positive outcome from all this would be an overwhelming level of support for Mike and Jud as the move away from the packaging of Deadly Vipers to their People of a Second Chance movement. A platform they have created for others that now needs to be extended to them, especially by those who have been so accusatory in the ways they’ve dismantled an important voice of renewal for our shared humanity.

The essence of how I hope all this comes across speaks to the crucial need to humanize all people—the Asian American community and Mike and Jud. I think there’s a way that Prof Rah’s (and other’s) concerns can be, and need to be validated, but not at the expense of Mike and Jud—otherwise, the same thing that Deadly Vipers has been accused of will be done to them by those who are most concerned.

Overall, I believe this has been a sad eruption of anger around an important issue that seems to have been misdirected at two guys who have given themselves to a much-needed message of hope. I think resistance to “white captivity,” or the imposition of any dominant consciousness of our Christian expression needs to be fought against, but not at the expense of the reputation and content of men whose message resonates with this struggle from a different perspective.

*If you’d like to discuss this or comment on these thoughts please leave them here (http://www.chrisheuertz.com/post/257436160/further-reflections-on-the-deadly-viper-controvery)*

The danger here is that it is easy, if you aren’t offended by something to put all the blame on those who are offended. To say that you’re talking about living a godly life and other people are weak or parochial if they are offended by your presentation of it because a Christian’s identity should be in Christ is an easy escape.

The truth is that it is easy for us to say to our brothers and sisters who may be offended by our thoughtless words and actions “relax about all this, you should be more like Christ.” I know it is easy enough for me to say that especially since the unspoken, obverse implication is that my not being offended is a sign that I myself am more Christ-like.

yes, i understand that things can be insensitive to a culture and there is a certain political correctness that is out there. But can we look at the intent and heart of the Mike Foster and Jud Wilheite…can we discuss the important topics of this book, what this book is all about and how things were used to illustrate and give understand of the Greater message. Can we use stereotypes, even negative ones and redeem them for Kingdom purposes.

Can we also be more offended by the lack of holiness than someone using cultural references to talk about issues that all of us need to apply in our lives?

I have Deadly Viper right here on my desk…love the book…loved the blog and loved the heart behind it. This is a total shame how this came out and I am very disappointed in the one(s) who hadled it in such a manner.

And I’ve literally been in a Mexican restaurant owned and run by a Chinese family who greeted me with “Hola”, the menu was garbled Span-ese, and the waitstaff were dressed in Mexican garb. They also served fortune cookies after your meal of fajitas. It was comical to me as part-Latino, though I never felt my culture was being pimped. Besides, my heritage became irrelevant once I became saved. I once asked him, “why not open a Chinese restaurant?” and the owner said, “In this neighborhood, better money in Mexican. Plus, I like Tequila.”

The funny thing is, this is all about wounds and hurt feelings. Every first reaction of the offended was about how it hurt their feelings. Not whether it was targeting their heritage negatively (it wasn’t) or whether the content was damaging (it wasn’t) or if Christ or the other apostles ever were offended over issues of race or culture (they weren’t.) We are neither Jew nor Gentile, Latino nor Asian, according to the Word of God.

I wasn’t equating in the sense that kanji on a book cover = blackface in terms of offensiveness (I don’t even know how one would measure that). Rather what I was doing was pointing out that authors are the ones who bear responsibility for how they package their message. Using the example of minstrelsy to present the gospel was perhaps over the top, but my point stands – if I want to spread a message I have to take responsibility for how I do so.

I don’t think a pizzeria is a good analogue here since the product on offer is actually connected to Italian or Italian-American culture. There are some things still though that the owners could do that would be offensive, like using fake Italian accents (something the DV-CA gang did with Asian accents in a video that Eugene Cho referenced).

There is a fine line perhaps between homage and appropriation, but unless you’re opening a pizzeria or making a film in the style of classic Hong Kong action movies why dance with that line? While you are correct that I haven’t seen much other than the front cover of the book (still visible on Amazon as of yesterday) so I cannot say with certainty how offensive I would have found it to be, I still think the authors/Zondervan were not wise in even risking this sort of aesthetic direction at all.

You said: “It is not for telling an offended person that s/he is sinful and s/he is being unlike Christ.” The title of the article is “The Sin of Being Offended” for goodness sakes!! The article specifically states, “From a spiritual perspective, the truth of the matter is that as believers we have no right to take offense at what others do or say to us.” And then it follows up with 1 Peter 2:23!! I’m starting to think that you’re interpreting everything through your personal belief (Romans 15:1 and this article) instead of reading and applying what the text actually says. From a conversation perspective, that’s frustrating. From a spiritual perspective, that’s saddening.

And while I’m not Italian (my men’s group leader is,) my/his point is that no Italians are offended by those commercials. And if they were, most people would deem it silly and over-reaching. By the way, Olive Garden is owned by Darden, who also owns the Red Lobster franchise. So they’re just ‘pimping’ Italian culture to sell mildly authentic food. The horror!

@Dan – equating pictures of Asian art and random Chinese characters with blackface is like accusing the local owners of Sal’s Pizza (who aren’t Italian) with the same ‘crime’ by putting up maps of Italy and Frank Sinatra photos. @Dan- I don’t think you’ve actually seen the book. I have a copy of both the first edition that the authors self-published and the new Zondervan printing. And so do two Asian brothers that were in our group. They were some of the most vocal in our group when doing the study about thinking the approach was ‘cool.’ And one happens to be first generation American with a black belt in Taekwondo.