The Elusiveness of the Asian American Faith Expression

What is Asian American faith expression? 

Black Christians have the gospel choir and a responsive preaching experience, but what are the distinctive markers for Asian Americans (AA)? Take worship for example, is there AA worship? How is an AA Sunday gathering distinct from a non-AA gathering? Is there a distinct feel or flavor to AA preaching?

And why is it so difficult to answer these questions?

To demonstrate the elusiveness of this answer, imagine the following AAs:

AA1: attends the English speaking ministry of an immigrant church. 

AA2: attends an independent AA church 

AA3: attends a majority white church as the only Asian.

Is the first closer to an AA faith expression because it occurs in the context of one’s immigrant parent’s faith heritage? Is it the second because one’s faith expression takes place in the context of other AAs while adopting certain Western norms such as the English language? Or is it the third because one’s faith expression leans in to the “American” in Asian-American while displaying the norms of Asian culture?

The reality is, a real case can be made for all three of these AAs, and that’s precisely what makes this conversation so challenging. 

In this post, I don’t claim to define it (because I can’t) but I share two reasons why I believe giving a definition is elusive and challenging: 

Reason 1. Cultural Selectiveness Breeds Expressive Confusion

When Kanye West professed his faith and launched his pop-up church services, one of the key elements he introduced was a gospel choir. In other words, Kanye was embracing the faith traditions and cultural expressions that were passed down to him. 

Yet when Asian Americans create services or plant churches, we have a tendency to reject the faith traditions and cultural expressions that were passed down to us.

For example, Koreans have an amazing cultural faith expression of early morning prayer, sacrificial giving, hospitality, and fusing church and culture (i.e. Korean language program at church). Yet, you will not find many Korean American churches walking into the same expressive characteristics. 

But in addition to rejection, we also preferentially cherry-pick out of cultures. Since AAs are bicultural, we have a tendency to pick and choose different cultural aspects that suit the moment. So while some AAs reject certain faith expressions as being “too white evangelical” and “too old school Asian traditional” we will also embrace ministry philosophies created by white pastors and embrace Asian collectivism because it fosters loyalty and community.

Can a clear identity and cultural expression be forged from self-regulated selectiveness? Or will AA Christians experience the dazing symptoms of expressive individualism, a creative self-autonomy?

Perhaps the Apostle Paul is a helpful model for us since it was principle, not preference which guided his logic for embracing or rejecting cultural expressions. For example, if a faith expression diluted or threatened the gospel as in the case of the Judaizers and circumcision, he rejected it. But if it propagated the gospel as in the case of Timothy and circumcision, he embraced it.

Reason 2. A Subjugated Gospel Breeds Perspectival Standstill

Paul was a fascinating individual. On the one hand, he had no qualms about his cultural heritage. He was a Jew and a really sophisticated one at that. He had no problems listing his Jewish credentials and he knew the traditions of his people inside out. Furthermore, God sent him to the Gentiles (non-Jews) which accentuated his Jewish identity in a Greco-Roman context.

And oddly, no one today considers him the best “Jewish Christian.” We think of him simply as the greatest Christian to have ever lived. Why is this so? 

I believe it’s because Paul held the gospel as his primary identity marker so that his color was subjugated to his chosen-ness without eradicating his ethnic identity. To use the words of Bryan Loritts, Paul subjugated his Jewishness to his Jesus-ness. This radically freed Paul to understand his Jewish identity not through the lens of sociology but service. 

This is why Paul said he was willing to “become” all things to all people for the sake of the gospel. In adapting without losing himself, he understood who he was. His identity and cultural expression crystallized in gospel-shaped, gospel-fueled service unto cultures (both his and others). In other words, in losing himself in the service of his primary identity, he flourished in his secondary identity.

What if the questions regarding AA identity and cultural expressions are circular conversations until layered in embodied service and engagement? Where I, as an AA , will better understand myself as I proactively engage and serve my next-door neighbors, street, and city? Where I, as a Korean American, will feel more comfortable in my own skin as I serve my church and love the people I am surrounded by through the unique voice, experience, and wisdom afforded to me?

Conclusion

As an AA in a non-Asian dominant church context, this is a question I’ve asked myself and still do. Maybe sociologists 15-20 years later will give me an answer.

What I sense for now is an invitation from God to personally embrace the faith expressions passed down from my parent’s faith, even something as practical as waking up early to pray and give the first fruits of time to God.

I also sense an invitation to serve those around me out of the unique cultural dynamics God has gifted me with, not to trumpet AA culture, but Christ through my color.

Time will tell, but maybe it’s not as elusiveness as it appears to be?