Asian Americans don’t look or think alike

The problem is that your reference to Romans 15:1 is in regard to an action that causes a believer to stumble. None of the complaints from AA Christians voiced an impact to them being more likely to stumble and sin, although the way they went about this publicly with open letters and thinly veiled boycott threats certainly looked like stumbling.

A more appropriate verse in context for the offended is 1 Peter 2:23: “When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly.”

One of the bloggers that drove traffic on this issue is Phil Yu of angryasianman.com. Phil is Korean yet you visit the site and he’s got a cartoonish karate kick guy on his banner and a japanese action figure that greets you to a homogenous mismash of asian kitsch. Just this week I went to a local restaurant called Koi Japanese Buffet. With the exception of Sushi, most everything is Chinese yet they also have KimChee.

All of this concern of pimping of Asian culture for sales and marketing is regularly done in the Asian and every other community. When I travel to Tokyo and see English and American culture butchered on products to sell to the locals, I just laugh and point out that the English words used are nonsensical. For tons of examples visit engrish.com.

Once we are in Christ, we are no longer Jew or Gentile, so we shouldn’t be offended when people ‘pimp’ our culture to sell a product. We don’t see Italian-Americans outraged at Olive Garden commercials.

@Randy, thank you for taking the time to comment. You are correct the specific context for Romans 15:1 is about causing another to sin; is it not ok to also apply the verse in a broader context to be sensitive to concerns of others in Christ? Or are you saying it’s okay to offend, whether unintentionally or intentionally, since Christ was insulted and didn’t retaliate?

On Professor Rah’s blog, he writes:

“Recently, I received my copy of the Zondervan catalog. In one of the circulars, there was an advertisement for a book called Deadly Viper Character Assassins: A Kung Fu Survival Guide for Life and Leadership.

“So the ‘Kung Fu’ part got my attention, as well as the dragon on the cover and the Chinese characters. I guess I was hoping against hope that it was the story of an Asian-American Christian rather than another example of Asian culture being pimped out to sell products.”

My thoughts are this: I think he has too much time on his hands and is looking for something with which to find offense. Did he bother reading the material before begging his crying?

As I’ve said on Facebook and in comments on Prof. Rah’s blog, Kung Fu isn’t even exclusively Asian anymore. In my area, I don’t even know of a martial arts dojo of any sort that has an Asian “Sensei”. Because of the lack of Asians in the dojo, should Asian “characters” be removed? Shall we insist that all martial arts instructors be Asian? Where shall the offense end?

Shall I take offense should Professor Rah ever write a book and illustrate it with an American Football (perhaps something like, “TACKLE Temptations and SCORE TOUCHDOWNS in your Spiritual Life”) or be offended if he wants to write a book on how to “Shoot Down Sinful Desires” should he illustrate said book with an F-16 (after all, we all know the relationship of the American-born Wright brothers and flying). He better not write about how “Not to Strike Out” and put a baseball/bat on the cover! God forbid! I might through a hissy fit with his publisher!

C’mon, people. Give up the right to be so easily offended. Especially if you’re a Christian in a position of leadership. Your skin should be MUCH thicker than that.

I’ve been beat up, spit on, called nigger, wetback,Almost on a quarterly basis all before 7th grade in Atlanta ga, maybe it’s seeig racism in your face and not accidently or structurally that changed my attitude.

@djchuang – Thanks for the questions of clarification and engaging in convo with me!

Applying Romans 15:1 to a broader interpretation is fine for someone to do, as long as they don’t interpret their broadening as a biblical command. Because then you’re talking about an opinion or personal application, not a direct word from God. Big difference in authority. I know many Christians that take “do not get drunk with wine” and apply a broader interpretation to not drink at all because that’s even “better.” The problem is when they judge other Christians for not taking they’re broader adlib of scripture.

And the point of sharing 1 Peter 2:23 isn’t whether unintentional offense is “OK”, the point is that being offended is not Christ-like. My men’s group leader shared a story the other night saying “applying the same principles as the DV situation, I should be offended every time I see an Olive Garden commercial or a Sopranos episode.” We studying DV last year and my (and other guys in the group) lives were changed dramatically because of the content but also because of the assassin/ninja/kungfu hooks.

Regarding the mishmash of asian culture in the book or the nonsensical use of Chinese characters on the cover, that’s like me being offended of the misuse of the English language for marketing in Asia, hilariously captured on sites like http://www.engrish.com.

Holding one’s culture or heritage in esteem above Christ working through a book in thousands of guy’s lives is at best, self-absorbed, and at worst, idolatry.

DJ…

It all comes down to communication and a DESIRE to dialogue respectfully. In my opinion, this didn’t happen.

I agree that some of the DV material could be seen as offensive, but the PREMISE and PURPOSE of the book was not. Though I don’t personally find it offensive to me, it’s obvious many were. This doesn’t make any of us wrong… OR right.

In hindsight, I believe the offended community could have come out in a less angry tone and IN PRIVATE. Matthew 18 talks us through how to address those who have sinned against us. I’m honestly not seeing how the first steps were taken appropriately. It was as if Jud & Mike were thrown to the wolves without even being aware first. It all turned around quickly within 24 hours, like a unexpected Kung-Fu chop in the neck (*yes… you can laugh there*)

Many who were offended wrote VERY respectful and gracious posts about this subject… but unfortunately, the angry, rude and hurtful ones were the ones that got the most attention.

Do I believe we should just stay silent when we’re offended? Absolutely NOT! But some of us were so busy fighting to be heard, we didn’t stop to think how we could extend love and grace in this situation. We just made it worse, and hurt others deeply in the process.

I wish the DV didn’t get pulled. I wish the Asian-American community didn’t APPEAR so “overly-sensitive” and to be blunt… a bit selfish. But that’s where we are right now and I feel like I’ve got a foot in both camps. This CAN be remedied… but it’s gonna take communication… and some serious hugging 🙂

Randy,

It sounds like you really enjoyed what the authors of DV-CA were doing. I understand why you’d be upset. In reality though, it is the fault of the authors that such material has now been pulled from the internet and booksellers. Since they and/or their graphic designers used a ham-handed collection of Asian stereotypes that their message is now compromised. I mean if I came up with a great presentation of Christian apologetics but then dressed it up as a minstrel show complete with blackface characters it would be my own fault that such a stupid thing was (rightly) denounced – not other people’s sensitivities.

Dan,

I’m the “confused and frustrated” comment linked above. I started following this a few days after the “Open Letter” post on Prof Rah’s blog.

I’ve learned quite a bit (and I’m still learning) but I think your comment points out some of the confusion I’m still working through.

I understand the problem with blackface and comments about someone’s eyes or the way someone talks. I’m having a hard time, however, seeing how that’s the same as using martial arts as a theme of a book.

I’m not saying it isn’t offensive (because apparently it is), it’s just that it seems like that’s quite a jump to equate one to the other. I just want to connect the dots (thanks to my analytical, OCD personality!).

Then adding to this “gap” in my understanding is the offense of “co-opt[ing] Asian culture in inappropriate ways” (from Prof. Rah’s Open Letter) in order to market and sell a book. That raises a whole set of questions about who then, is authorized to use these themes to market a book (only someone who is Asian? only someone who’s studied the culture? how long should they study? should they use a committee?). I don’t mean this sarcastically, it’s just the questions I have when I hear this. I want to understand what would have made the book “right”. And I don’t want to offend someone because I like ninjas or use an analogy about martial arts or something like that. How far is too far?

I want to understand. I think I’m on the path to get to that understanding, but it’s such a complex situation that I think some things got lost in the emotion and the communication of the issues.

Just some thoughts I’m working through.

Erik

@djchuang – I’m am neither the offending (the authors and Z) or the offended party. You added the non-offending part, the authors of the article may no such prohibition. And I am offering wisdom thru your blog to those that have been offended by posting the article here because most of them are unaware of the collateral damage they’ve done.

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.

Thanks, DJ. This is a really helpful discussion about all the nuances of racism, conviction and the Asian American community.

By the way, the sooner all of us realize there won’t be a Chinatown, Little Italy, or East LA in Heaven, the sooner we can talk about important things like Christ, character, and integrity and not navel gaze on topics like self-esteem, pride in culture, and appropriate use of Asian art.

Randy and Chris,

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.

Ironically, it would have been better for Mike Foster and Jud Wilhite if they had been objectified in the Deadly Viper controversy, but it appears they were mistakenly made the subject of the discussion.

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)*

@Randy>
“The authors had Asians work on the design and consulted with a local university professor on the use of specific Asian characters and themes. In this case it wasn’t thoughtless. Also, what sin did the authors commit that needed repentance?”

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.