Customer Reviews

The Next Evangelicalism: Freeing the Church from Western Cultural Captivity

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

While reading The Next Evangelicalism by Soong-Chan Rah, my emotions went through three stages: anger, acceptance, and ambivalence.

First, anger: The thesis of Rah's book is that the evangelical church in America must be liberated from its "Western, white cultural captivity" and replaced by "the next evangelicalism," which is multicultural. According to Rah, Western, white culture is individualistic, consumerist, materialistic, and racist. And it pervades Anglo evangelicalism, both in America and wherever Anglo evangelical influence has spread. The Anglo evangelical church focuses on buildings, bucks, and butts in the pew rather than on the holistic, transformative power of the gospel. To be perfectly frank, as a middle-aged, American, white male, I was none too pleased to see my church, my country, and my culture run down in this way.

Then again, as a pastor, I'm used to taking vociferous criticism in stride. I always try to hear the truth behind my critics' words, not matter how much they're making me angry. And that brings me to the second stage my emotions ran through: acceptance.

No matter how hard I tried, I couldn't escape the conclusion that Rah--to a significant degree--is right. The American evangelical church is declining, or at least its Anglo component is. David T. Olson documents this fact in The American Church in Crisis. But as Rah points out, the non-Anglo component of the American evangelical church is thriving. This is true in my own denomination, the Assemblies of God. Our anemic growth as a denomination is largely explained by the explosive growth of the Hispanic churches within our denomination.

Not only is the Anglo evangelical church in America declining, it is guilty--in various parts and to varying degrees--of practicing an individualistic, consumerist, materialistic, and racist form of Christianity. Why do we focus on personal evangelism rather than also on social transformation? Why do we think the three B's--buildings, bucks, and butts in the pew--are indicators of a church's success, if that's even an appropriate word for a church to use? And why do we presume that non-white culture is a mission field that needs our contributions and competence, rather than the other way around?

Third, ambivalence: The Next Evangelicalism piqued my anger, at least in part, precisely because it hit so close to home. But if I could take off my middle-aged white guy hat for a moment, and remove my pastoral collar too, I'd like to put on my academic robes and point out three flaws in Rah's analysis. It is overbroad, tendentious, and inconsistent.

Overbroad: Here's a joke that makes a serious point:

An older Jewish man and a younger Chinese man are sitting in lounge chairs on the deck of their cruise ship. The Jewish man rolls up his newspaper, gets out of his chair, walks over to the Chinese man, and proceeds to repeatedly hit him over the head with the newspaper. Triumphantly he proclaims, "That's for Pearl Harbor!" The younger man angrily asks, "Why did you do that? I'm Chinese!" But the older man replies: Chinese, Japanese--they're all the same." A few minutes later, the younger man rolls up his newspaper, gets out of his chair, walks over to the older man, and proceeds to repeatedly hit him over the head with the newspaper. Triumphantly he proclaims, "That's for the Titanic!" Bewildered, the older man angrily asks, "Why did you do that? I'm Jewish." To which the younger man replies, "Iceberg, Goldberg--they're all the same."

Rah speaks of "Western, white culture" as if the various histories, cultures, and traditions of the historical epochs, people groups, and nation states within it are all the same. Is there a direct line of descent between Plato and Britney Spears, between high culture and popular culture? Are there no differences between the French, the Greek, and the English, let alone among the British, Scottish, and Irish? Is traditional Southern agrarianism the same thing as traditional Yankee industry? If I wrote a book describing, let alone critiquing, "Asian" culture with such overbroadness and lack of historical nuance, my guess is that Rah would cite me as an example of Western, white insensitivity.

But icebergs and Goldbergs are not the same.

Tendentious: Rah identifies the harmful aspects of Western, white culture with the culture itself. Are individualism, consumerism, materialism, and racism part of Western, white culture? Sure. So are socialism, volunteerism, asceticism, and egalitarianism. Why doesn't Rah mention these countervailing tendencies within Western, white culture? Why is the picture of that culture unrelievedly negative? Would Rah accept an unrelievedly negative portrayal of African culture, of Asian culture, or of First Nations culture?

Furthermore, haven't some goods arisen out of Western individualism, consumerism, and materialism? (You'll notice I leave racism off this list.) Critique individualism all you want, but if you're going to be overbroad, don't fail to mention that human rights is a Western preoccupation. Critique consumerism all you want, but if you're going to be overbroad, don't fail to mention that the number one food crisis of the American poor is obesity, not starvation. Critique materialism all you want, but if you're going to be overbroad, don't fail to mention that Western culture has elevated the living standards of the poor to historically unheard-of levels.

In my opinion, this doesn't come up in Rah's analysis. If it did, it would significantly change the picture he is drawing of Western, white culture.

Inconsistent: Rah's portrait of Western, white culture is overbroad and tendentious. It's also inconsistent.

At the end of the book, Rah implores White, western evangelicals to listen to African American, Native American, and immigrant Christians. I think this is both reasonable and right. They are brothers and sisters in Christ, and they are increasingly the face of evangelical Christianity in America. We have much to learn from them about holistic ministry and the inequities of the American experience. They also can teach us about how to practice church as a community, not just as a gathering of individuals on Sunday morning.

So, on the one hand, I again agree with Rah. But on the other hand, why is the portrait of Western, white culture unrelievedly negative while the portrait of these other cultures is unrelentingly positive? Perhaps it is because Anglo evangelicalism is the dominant partner in the American evangelical enterprise, and as the dominant partner, needs the greatest correction. But correction does not mean the total negation of the one culture nor the total affirmation of the others. It requires a balancing off of weaknesses and strengths.

Speaking of imbalance, I haven't been balanced in my criticism of Rah, have I? I dedicated a far greater proportion of this review to critique rather than concurrence. So, for the record, I do concur with Soong-Chan Rah. American evangelicalism is changing. And that can be a good thing, if we experience liberation from cultural captivity and walk freely in the paths of Jesus--humbly, openly, and together.

At the risk of sounding overly harsh, I feel compelled to counterbalance the glowing recommendations this book has received from Philip Jenkins and Scot McKnight (whom I admire) and many others, including the thoughtful and concerned readers who posted positive reviews on Amazon.

Rah's contention is that the western Church needs to be rescued from its "white cultural captivity" in three key areas: individualism, materialism and racism. This is a serious and important topic.

For the record, I am a white evangelical Protestant (formerly Roman Catholic) with mostly conservative views on political and social issues. But I try very hard to listen respectfully to believers whose theological and political leanings differ from mine. It is my present opinion that the modern evangelical emphasis on having "a personal relationship with Jesus," when combined with American individualism and our consumer-oriented culture, has produced a hyper-individualized religion that bears little resemblance to the gospel of the kingdom as proclaimed by Jesus and the apostles. I've grown weary of hearing Christianity denounced as the religion of "rich white men." (Recently I witnessed an intelligent university student claim with a straight face that the Bible was written by rich white men.) I believe that the gospel of Christ is the one true antidote to hostility and divisions. Thus it pains me that American churches have been utterly ineffective at knocking down barriers of race, ethnicity and social class, and the current divisions in the body of Christ along racial, denominational and political lines are sinful and scandalous. In short, before picking up this book I already agreed with the author's premise that, as Christianity continues its global shift to the south and east, evangelical Christians in America need some deep spiritual awakening and cultural-value realignment. I was a low-hanging fruit ready to be picked.

This book provides anecdotal and empirical evidence that Christianity in America is alive and well but its ethnic face is changing. The decline of older white congregations is offset by growth among culturally diverse urban ethnic churches filled with immigrants from Asia, Africa and Latin America. Yet this trend is still unseen by many white Christians. No corresponding shifts have been seen in the ethnic composition of faculty at seminaries or among titles and authors at major Christian publishing houses. The growth models popularized by American megachurches and, more recently, the emergent-church movements are predominantly white phenomena, while activities of ethnic congregations are rarely discussed. Everyone presumes that the next generation of Christian leaders will be hip, postmodern white guys with goatees doing church in awesomely creative and cool ways. But in terms of raw numbers, the engine of American church growth lies within the immigrant communities. All of these points are valid, well taken and useful. The author has close ties to immigrant churches and the Christian academe, and he speaks on these matters with credibility and authority.

My difficulties with this book begin when Rah starts his cultural critique of the white American church with respect to individualism (Chapter 1). I concur with his observation that the gospel preached in America - with its emphasis on personal salvation, personal goal fulfillment and therapeutic problem-solving - distorts the message of the New Testament, promotes narcissism and devalues community. Readers with no previous exposure to these points might find them eye-opening and refreshing. But many authors have been making similar arguments in more careful and measured ways. For example, the recent book Uncompromised Faith by S. Michael Craven (2009, NavPress) (which I highly recommend), and the missional church writers from Newbigin onward have been saying these things for years. In comparison, Rah's analysis strikes me as simplistic and one-sided. He names the problem but fails to name the solution. The antithesis of individualism is collectivism. Individualists believe that a group exists for the benefit of the people within it, whereas collectivists believe that individuals exist for the benefit of the group. Individualism and collectivism are not inherently good or bad, and both are found in the teachings of Christ. A faith that upholds the dignity and worth of the individual is perhaps the best gifts that western Christianity has given to the world. Perhaps what Rah denounces as individualism might better be described as selfishness. But because his discussion lacks nuance, the reader is left wondering if he advocates a shift away from self-centeredness toward some kind of group identification. The Christian cure for selfishness is God-centeredness, but this point is never really made.

Another weakness in Rah's analysis comes in his discussion of personal versus corporate sin. He correctly notes that many evangelicals define sin in purely private terms, and notions of collective guilt are often lost on them. In his examples of corporate sin (p. 41), he cite three issues that left-leaning Christians feel passionately about -- torturing political prisoners, structural poverty and racism - but discussion of the first two is absent. Readers on the liberal side may nod in agreement, but there he is preaching to the choir. Those who lean more to the right - including many of those white Christians he is supposedly trying to reach - would generally agree that torture is immoral but probably disagree over the extent and severity with which it is practiced by agents of the United States. Ditto for structural poverty, a concept which is well known to progressives but difficult to fathom by many who believe that America is, in contrast to much of the rest of the world, a land of great freedom and opportunity. My point here is not to argue for the correctness of those who lean to the right or to the left. My point is that when Rah suggests that a wide swath of American Christians are blind to the reality of corporate sin but makes little effort to illuminate them, readers who do not already agree with Rah will remain profoundly unconvinced.

[On a related note, an outstanding description of structural poverty caused by human sinfulness appears in the recent book Truth and Transformation by Vishal Mangalwadi (2009). As an intellectual Christian from India, he looks at Western culture from the outside and concludes that it was our Christian values -- notably, trust -- that created a climate where business and community could flourish. This book contains a rousing call to transform society by building a church that demonstrates the core values of the gospel. In addition, Mangalwadi's indictment of cultures that do not uphold the dignity of individual human life and oppress women and children is a useful counterbalance to Rah's overbroad denunciations of individualism.]

When Rah tackles western materialism (Chapter 2), I again found myself sympathetic in general but disagreeing with him on many specifics. The degree to which American Christians participate in the never-ending pursuit of belongings, achievement, success, security, and pleasure, is indeed a huge problem for the church. But Rah is too quick to equate consumerism/materialism with the economic system of free enterprise. He indicts the administration of a conservative Christian university for firing a faculty member who deviated from the school's stated commitment to capitalism (p. 50). He then goes on to state:

"The Western, white captivity of the church means that capitalism can be revered as the system closest to God and the consequent rampant materialism and consumerism of the capitalist system become acceptable vices."

I'm sure there are a few conservative Christians (I have not personally met them) who revere capitalism as "the system closest to God." But many more take a pragmatic approach and support a free economy because they believe that history has shown the alternatives to be worse. Although many have argued that capitalism and greed are inseparable, others would say that the root problem is idolatry, which exists in every culture and economic system. Rah does not raise such arguments; he simply moves on.

When discussing the value systems of American congregations, Rah says, "I could not think of a single reason why a waterfall and a rock garden were more beneficial for a church than using these funds to serve the poor in the community" (p. 51). In some respects, I am inclined to agree. But the same criticism could be leveled at any attempt to beautify any house of worship, and such attempts are hardly peculiar to modern western culture. Is a rock garden or waterfall any more extravagant than mosaic, mural, stained glass or spire? As further evidence of western Christian materialism, Rah cites the resemblance between large megachurch buildings and American shopping malls. Although the imagery is striking (and I am no great fan of megachurches), one could also point out that many evangelical congregations are housed in inexpensive nondescript buildings resembling warehouses that are functional but devoid of artistic merit. By historical standards, the overall trend in American church construction may actually be toward greater frugality, not extravagance. The chapter concludes with the recent admission by leaders of Willow Creek Community Church that their approach to ministry over the last three decades has failed to produce Christians who are spiritually mature. Rah presents this as evidence that western affluenza and the market-driven megachurch model of growth has failed. I found this example odd because, as far as I know, the main issues raised by Willow Creek's admission were not about numbers or resources but about the church's philosophy of providing ongoing spiritual services to its members rather than discipling and training them to help them to grow on their own.

Some of the least illuminating parts of this book are the sections on racism. The state of race relations in this country is a raw open wound, but Rah's analysis contains no healing balm. In today's climate, discussions of race require sensitivity and empathy. This topic tends to divide people into two camps. One sees racism woven throughout the fabric of society and laments that the majority white culture is simply blind to it. The other camp cites legal protection and affirmative-action policies enacted over four decades as evidence that, for the most part, America has gotten over its racism. Rah belongs to the former and believes that many white Christians belong to the latter. A tactful author would approach the other camp an emissary, speaking to them in terms that they could understand. But Rah remains firmly seated in his own camp, writing on his own terms in his own language.

To his credit, he makes a good case that race is a dubious construct, an invention of Western social history used to justify oppression and slavery. There is only one race, the human race, and this point many white evangelicals would agree. But problems arise when he takes various race-related issues and lumps them together as racism when it seems more accurate and helpful to apply different terms. Certain doctrines of race and racial superiority are peculiar to the West, but xenophobia, ethnocentrism and discrimination are found throughout the world in every period of history. Rah points out the insensitive and condescending attitudes of some white Christians toward their non-white neighbors borne of ignorance. A vivid example of this is the vacation Bible school material full of offensive Asian caricatures (pp. 64-65). In this instance, I suspect that the parties involved would maintain that they meant no harm by it, and they are not racist because they uphold no racist ideology and, in fact, this material represents an appreciation rather than a mocking of Asian culture. To move forward in situations like these, one could grant that insensitive portrayals of nonwhite people and doctrines of white supremacy are offenses of a different magnitude and a different nature; uniting them under the title of racism muddies the waters and is more likely to alienate the offenders than to win them over.

I was also disappointed by Rah's confounding of slavery as America's original sin with the obligation of white Christians to repent of corporate racism. Although these issues are related, they are not identical. No serious person today would argue that slavery was not abhorrent, and thousands of white Americans paid for abolition at the ultimate price of their own blood. But who bears the collective guilt of today's economic disparities is another question. It deserves a serious treatment, but Rah's analysis lacks balance or nuance. The extent to which heterogeneous population of America today is responsible for acts committed in the past is simply not as obvious as Rah would like it to be. In speaking to Asian-American students at an Ivy League institution (p. 70), he repeats the oft-heard claim that they are beneficiaries of racism because the land on which they were standing was stolen from Native Americans, and the economy in which they thrive was built on the backs of African slaves. He is making a comparison between present reality and an imaginary alternative history in which Native Americans were allowed to keep their land (Which land, specifically? How much of it? Was it always their land, or did they take it from someone else? Should it belong to them and their descendents forever because they came first?) and in which slaves were never brought here from Africa (presumably because there would have been no white settlers here to enslave them). He contends that present-day American Christians would be worse off and would enjoy fewer opportunities had those sinful acts never happened. But the counterfactual history imagined by Rah would have produced a radically different world in which many people here today would not exist, so the imputation of past societal guilt to present-day individuals is problematic. Rah believes that sins of the past have led to many benefits and blessings that we now enjoy. But wouldn't a past devoid of racism have produced a better world than the present one - better not only for groups that are presently disadvantaged but for everyone? In general, I think the sins of fathers lead to suffering and curse for their children, not privilege and blessing. Noticeably absent from Rah's analysis is any mention of the sovereignty of God who, despite the utter sinfulness of all mankind, continues to shape events and mold history according to his wisdom and divine purpose.

Personally, I believe that corporate sin is real and that American Christians (all of us) bear collective responsibility for the economic and social health of the entire community. But the imputation of guilt for certain past sins upon certain groups of present-day individuals based on skin color rather than other criteria (sex, ethnicity, income, education, denomination, place of residence, etc.) has always struck me as odd. I continue to remain open to the idea of structural racism. For a long time I have been waiting for a thoughtful Christian to explain it to me in clear language (no jargon, please) with objective evidence, compelling examples and acknowledgment that this is a painful and difficult subject for everyone. But here Rah doesn't really try. He simply throws out terms like structural racism and then moves on.

A low point comes when Rah recounts his participation in a panel discussion on postmodernity (p. 124). When the topic of globalization came up, the other three panelists (all white) enjoyed a lively exchange, but Rah remained silent. When the moderator noticed this and asked him to comment, he replied, "White people talking to other white people about a problem white people created in the first place - why would I care about that conversation?" To me, this conjured up mental images of some hip instructor at a college campus trying to startle young kids who are unaware of their whiteness. Moments like these may have been poignant and consciousness-raising during the 1970's. But the image of a seminary professor trying this in 2009 has no shock value whatsoever and merely strikes me as sad. Is condescension any less condescending when it comes from the mouth of one who isn't white? A great teachable moment was wasted. As I went through this book, that same thought came to me again and again: another teachable moment wasted.

I was also irked by Rah's jabs at some of the sacred-cow political issues of conservative white Christians. Not because these issues don't merit discussion, but because in most cases I found his analysis to be amateurish. His consistently negative (and, many would say, unfair) characterizations of the conservatives' motives betrays a lack of understanding or empathy which makes his arguments fall flat. For example, he chides those who oppose immigration reform (p. 75), and suggests that this stance is rooted in a racist desire to keep America white. Although this may be true in a few cases, many (including myself, and I am not really an opponent of immigration reform) would find the general assertion to be utterly distasteful. He also states that if conservative Christians really cared about stopping abortion, then they ought to embrace immigration reform, because granting citizenship to twelve million illegal immigrants would turn the tide of the abortion debate (p. 75). This assertion is either disingenuous or naive. Political battles always play out within the two-party system. Are most of these new citizens going to vote Republican? Not likely. Are they going to identify themselves as Democrat and then proceed to change the pro-abortion stance of the Democrat party? Again, not likely. Given that abortion policy is largely shaped by the courts, would a shift in public opinion by a few percentage points in one direction or another really lead to dramatic change? This claim just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Occasionally I find a book that strikes me as prophetic. The marks of prophetic writing are, first, conviction and clarity regarding the present sinfulness of the culture and, second, a dramatic vision of the glory of God and a Spirit-inspired strategy on how to move forward. This book contains a bit of the former but not much of the latter. Three chapters at the end are devoted to things that white evangelical Christians should learn from ethnic and immigrant churches. Learning from other parts of the body of Christ is never a bad idea, and the specifics mentioned in these chapters seem helpful. But this advice is doled out in a piecemeal fashion with no grand vision that I could discern. In Chapter 8, we are urged us to consider "holistic evangelism" as practiced in Korean immigrant churches. There is much to admire within Korean immigrant churches, including their prayer and fervor, deep sense of community and generosity toward their members. But to uphold these congregations as exemplary in a book about cultural captivity strikes me as ironic. These churches are not multiethnic and are unlikely to become so. A balanced and fair analysis should also mention some of their peculiar issues and problems that stem from Korean cultural values, including suspicion toward outsiders, pressure toward conformity, age-based hierarchy, infighting and divisions, and so on.

In certain intellectual circles, it is fashionable to denounce all things Western and to romanticize peoples and cultures that are non-Western. Adjectives such as white, middle-class, suburban, and American are now seen as pejorative. Activists' chants of "Hey-hey, ho-ho, western culture's gotta go" have inflamed passions and stifled intelligent and thoughtful discussion. Anyone who wishes to be heard above the background noise of the present culture wars needs an extra helping of balance, fairness, generosity and tact. Because this book is lacking in those areas, I do not think it will convince those who are not already convinced. I am truly surprised by those who have described this book as eye-opening, a paradigm shifter or a game-changer. The author writes as an outsider, never for a moment letting us forget that he remains outside of the American evangelical mainstream. But if his assertion is true, then those notions of mainstream are already obsolete, and non-majority is the new majority. If Rah were to act and write as an insider, showing empathy and identification with the multifaceted and diverse evangelical community to which he does belong, he could reach a wider audience and his voice would become stronger.

This is my first-ever amazon book review, not from the lack of books I'd recommend, but from what I see as a perspective-altering book. Rah's analysis is thoughtful, Scriptural, and data-filled, which at the very least should prompt discussion about the core issue raised in the book - the changing face of Christianity in America and abroad.

Expect to be surprised, provoked, and challenged after reading it, both practically and theologically.

As one who has attended an evangelical seminary and pastored in an urban church in nyc, Rah put into words many of the "hunches" I've noticed about the rise of a new evangelicalism. He went deeper than I could have imagined, though, and gave a remarkable effort for us to be aware of what God is doing in our midst that may seem unrecognizable.

I hope this book is read by all to gain a new perspective and wrestle with all the implications together.

I especially appreciate how Rah pieces together western cultural attributes in the first part of the book and how they relate to what's been promoted as normative theology and practice.

This book was prominently featured in the marketing materials of a suburban Chicago "pan-Asian multi-cultural" evangelical church. I wasn't sure what "pan-Asian multi-cultural" evangelicalism was, so I decided to check out the book. I was interested in learning more about the guy who is apparently at the center of this nascent movement (whose foothold, ironically, is in the posh northern 'burbs of Chicago).

In general, I cannot quibble with the main points of the book. No objective observer can deny that, broadly speaking, American evangelicalism is too individualistic, too materialistic, and too culturally homogeneous. But is this really a novel criticism? Roman Catholics have been offering the identical criticism for more than two centuries. In fact, Rah's criticism merely echoes the warnings proffered by Old Side Presbyterians, who, in the 1740s, questioned the merits of the revivalist (i.e., evangelical) impulse of the times. So, Rah's observations, while reasonably correct, are nothing new.

The apparent novelty of Rah's thesis is the notion that this is all the fault of white people. Yet Rah doesn't seem to be able to provide much support for this thesis. Certainly, most serious Roman Catholics would share in Rah's criticisms of "white" evangelicalism. In fact, Roman Catholics faced decades of persecution in this country due to their dissent from WASP culture. But, according to Rah's apparent thesis, even they must implicitly share the blame for the shallow narcissism of American evangelicalism. And what about Dutch Calvinists, German Lutherans, Scots-Irish Covenanters, and Swiss Mennonites, who have all generally absented themselves from American evangelicalism? Apparently, they too share blame. Unsurprisingly, Rah offers little to support his apparent thesis, aside from relying on broad generalities that rarely define the features of any specific socio-cultural group. (After all, does any family have 2.4 kids?) In short, the "white" thesis just can't sustain itself.

I have no affinity for American revivalistic Christianity, or for the crass populism and anti-intellectualism that accompany it. To a degree, I applaud the work of those who seek to counteract this trend, although reversing 260 years of history isn't easy. That being said, Rah's book offers little to counter the vulgarizing effects of "white" evangelicalism. In fact, Rah's thesis is no less populist and anti-intellectual than those whom he criticizes. Any form of populism tends to minimize the contributions of minority groups. It depicts minorities in a single dimension, and strips them of much of the humanity with which God has endowed them. This has been true whether the victims are African slaves, Polish laborers, or Korean merchants. But Rah is guilty of the same sin, as he callously attributes such evils to so-called "white" Christians.

I fear that evangelicals too often live in a parallel universe (i.e., the evangelical subculture), where they give too little credence to voices that arise from outside of their echo chamber. Rah would probably join me in this criticism, at least insofar as it pertains to "white" evangelicalism. Sadly, his book proves that the same pernicious features are equally true of "pan-Asian multi-cultural" evangelicalism. Which leaves me wondering... Does Rah really want to change American evangelicalism? Or does he just want to change it enough so that he can be counted among the cool kids?

I will not re-hash the thorough reviews titled "Anger, Acceptance, Ambivalence" and "A non-serious..." with which I agree.

My main problem with this book is that even if I agree with what the author is saying, he presents no answers - not even a first step of application to an individual, a church leader, or a congregation. The author is posing a significant challenge without any solutions.

I would suggest finding a different discourse on this topic that is more complete.

In the first part of the book, Rah shows how the American evangelical church has largely been captured by the dominant culture instead of transforming it. He shows how it is individualistic, consumerist, materialistic, and racist. And how despite efforts to fight these aspects, the mostly white evangelical church is not making much headway.

One thing I found a bit grating is the repetition of the phrase "Western, white cultural captivity". If it were up to me I would phrase it more specifically as "western modern mindset". While there is still a considerable amount of white privilege that favors say Russian immigrants over Nigerian immigrants just because of the way their color, there is no such thing as white culture. White immigrants from Russia or from the Mediterranean region are nearly as far culturally from the WASP stereotype as any other culture, and no more or less likely to be individualistic, consumerist, materialistic, or racist than people coming from any other part of the world. Rah is right that America has long been marked by individualism, consumerism, materialism, and racism. But at least on racism, America's original sin, it has made large strides in the last two generations; while far from perfect it is doing better in this respect than any other country with the possible exception of Canada. Acknowledging the progress made so far would not be an invitation to rest on its laurels. I think Obama's speech on race from the spring of 2008 and his inauguration address struck a better balance in giving America credit for the progress made while not letting it off the hook. But on the other hand a prophet should not speak like a politician running for office, and Jesus was much harsher when critiquing the dominant culture in first century Palestine.

Hopefully not many will stumble on these harsh terms but keep on reading. The most edifying part of the book is the third part, which shows how community oriented immigrant churches have blessed not just the immigrants, but the cities in which they live. And then goes on to envision how next generation bi-cultural Americans can go beyond immigrant churches, and enrich the country with multicultural churches; and how for the country as a whole multiculturalism can be better than a homogenous melting pot. What resonated with me personally (as one who also immigrated as a child) was his view of the liminal state of being between two cultures, belonging to neither as not a weakness but a blessing, even something that God can use to bless others.

Outstanding book challenges the church in the USA to wake up to the blessing that the new immigrants are bringing to our nation. There is a strong challenge here to break with traditional church stereotypes and instead relate unique ethnicity with new church starts. With minorities soon representing the largest Christian segment of the conservative and evangelical movement, inclusion is demanded in places of authority, and seats of education. There is a silent revival happening in our nation and it is because of the rapid growth of ethnic or immigrant churches.

The Next Evangelicalism: Freeing the Church from Western Cultural Captivity
The author of The Next Evangelicalism, Soong-Chan Rah, has garnished a reputation as being a bit of a firebrand. He has become known for publicly criticizing the racial insensitivity of Christian organizations on several occasions. But, let's admit it, while they make us uncomfortable, we need firebrands now and then. Some would call them prophets.

Rah is more than a rabble rouser though. He's a professor at North Park Theological Seminary in Chicago, has pastored urban, multi-ethnic congregations and is a respected associate of several social justice-oriented evangelical organizations, networks and publications.

Rah's thesis in The Next Evangelicalism is that the future of American evangelicalism rests upon reconciliation and renewal through confronting of its past and present "white cultural captivity." He places the data from Philip Jenkin's The Next Christendom and Davild T. Olson's The American Church in Crisis beside each other (both worth reading). Rah's conclusion is the only American church in crisis is that which is bound by "white cultural captivity." The church immigrating from the Southern hemisphere is thriving. Not only in the south but in America. Rah asserts that by confessing and letting go of the captivity mentioned above American evangelicalism as a whole will flourish.

I resonate with his thesis but I confess that I was dissapointed. With his title being a nod to Jenkin's The Next Christendom I assumed that the book would contain significant data. Yet while willing to provoke the reader, I felt that Rah did not explain terms or defend conclusions as well as I thought a scholar would. I assume that he was aware that much of what he wrote would be received as accusation by many of those within "white cultural captivity." Because of that I had hoped he would diffuse emotions with logic, confound his detractors with solid data. Instead, he teeters somewhere between anecdotal and academic throughout the book.

I probably wouldn't be so critical if it were not for the fact that I think Rah's argument needs to be heard. I don't want him to be written off. But Rah is probably much smarter than I. He's likely aware that data or emotions isolated will not heal the rift in the American church. We've got to talk. And by unapologetically taking on a wide spectrum of theological, cultural and ecclesiastical issues, while exposing racism and cultural dominance there he has certainly started a conversation. So, I say read the book. It may trouble you. If it does, know it was probably meant to.

When I first saw this book advertised by InterVarsity Press (IVP) for summer 09, I was excited. I used an old gift card to order it along with another IVP book which also came out this past summer. After finishing the book, I know why I was so excited. I've been open for a year, maybe a year and a half, to hear about the racism and the white, Western cultural captivity of North America, especially the Christianity there. I never found an appropriate teacher, until I found this book. My friends have read different classics on the subject, but those were not the teachers I sought. I was seeking a Pastor, preferably a non-white pastor, to honestly teach me in love about racism in and white, Western captivity of USAmerican Christianity. Pastor and Professor Soong-Chan Rah did that for me in The Next Evangelicalism.

[scroll to end for the summery]

I writing this review a month or two late and I haven't written a book review in a long while, but here it goes. Rah divided the book into three parts, and so I'll take you through those three parts in this review. The first part describes the Western cultural captivity of the North American church; this captivity is maintained through three chains- consumerism, individualism, and racism. I found the first two "chains" to be not much new content for me. I am well aware of the abuses and damage consumerism has reaped in our society and around the world, and I am familiar with the problems of taking individualism to the extreme that our culture has. Rah remained even-handed as he discussed consumerism. He did not advocate vows of poverty or communal living, but discuss the loss of the idea of a local, community, or parish church, the shifting of the word church to mean a building instead of a group of people, and the evils of consumerism when held against the Biblical values of moderation and giving. For individualism, Rah discussed the reduction of theology and spirituality to me and God, me and worship and me and service, from the more Biblical vision of levels of relationship- God and nation, God and congregation, God and family, and God and individual. But, he did address the great good of the West's individualism- something called individualization; this is the idea that people can not only be associated with groups, but they are also a person in their own right. This idea led to great things like democracy, human rights, and women's rights, for example.

In the third chain of Western culture's captivity of the church, Rah discusses the issue I believe is most dear to his heart- racism. In this chapter, #3, I learned the most. First he went into the history and development of racism, and concept mostly invented in the USA in the 19th century to justify slavery law, immigration law, and social Darwinism. He goes onto discuss the lack of any idea similar to racism in the Bible; the closest idea is one of grouping people by geo-political boundaries (ie USAmerican vs Canadian) or by family. He also describes the quickly changing demographics in the US, the North American church, and around the world. He mentions how Latins are the fastest growing segment of both the general US population and of US Christians. He asks why he, both a pastor and seminary professor, sees a broad lack of addressing this issue in North American evangelical leadership, which interestingly, is almost entirely white. The leadership of North American evangelicalism doesn't even reflect today's demographics, let alone the huge predictions of change by 2050. He tells stories of dying white churches selling their campuses to other white churches while passing up better offers (both $$ and general church health) from non-white churches, VBS curriculum that hijacks East Asian culture into insulting Hollywood versions, with no regret, remorse or second thought, despite a large outcry from the Christian Asian-American community. He talks about the prominence of white theology (when was the last time you read a book, especially an overtly Christian book by a non-white author?) and worship style.

From my reading, the biggest problem isn't any of these symptoms, but is instead the unwillingness of whites to see themselves at fault, for any of this racism in Christianity. I think this is the reason why leadership and higher-up things (like theology, seminaries, books) don't even reflect today's demographics. I think white people think that because we got over seeing non-whites as less human and (mostly) changed with the Civil Rights movement, now we're off the hook. I'm sorry; we are definitely not off the hook yet. There are hundreds of years of racial stereotypes to address, economic structures that still oppress minorities, and etc. Then there is the work of reconciling each other into one church, one body, one bride of Christ, from every nation, tribe, and tongue. Rah ends the chapter with a glimpse of what we will address at the end of the book- the need for multi-ethnic churches.

Ok, so that was long, but for me, it was the crux of the whole book. The next part of the book describes how these chains played out (still playing out) and corrupted the church growth movement (think Rick Warren, Willow Creek, etc) of the latter half of the 20th century and the still moving emerging church thing. I found the church growth movement chapter interesting for its history, but I was never a part of it personally. The chapter on the emerging church was also interesting, but this time because Rah pointed out how the movement is almost entirely white, even though it holds diversity as a high value. Rah finished by saying he hoped for the emerging church to move past being white (which I think is impossible because its basically a white-collar, middle class thing formed out of white guys disgruntled at evangelicalism's status quo in the 90's). I don't remember well the next chapter, but I think it basically summarized and restated the five previous chapters and discussed how USAmerican churches exported their version of Christianity around the globe.

In the third and last section of the book, Rah attempts to explain how Christianity can break out of Western (white) captivity, specifically in North America. The first solution is to embrace theology of suffering. Theology of suffering is the opposite of theology of celebration. Rah describes how Native-American and African-American pastors and theologians have long dwelled on this side of Christianity, white their white counterparts stressed celebration. I honestly did not understand the argument he was trying to make here. I think he tried to take so heavy theology and only partial dumb it down, and the result was confusing and a weak argument. I believe white Christians have a lot to learn from their black and red brothers and sisters, but Rah did not do a great job of presenting what or how. The second solution Rah offers is holistic evangelism, something he experienced growing up in an immigrant church. Rah describes how immigrant churches live and function (very fascinating!) which is much more than Sunday services, Bible study, service, and missions. An immigrant church becomes the primary social group for any member, and labors to help each other in every area of life. Rah thinks white churches still don't have this idea of holistic ministry figured out, but I disagree. White churches may not be adapting this at home yet, but I know of several missions organizations that have learned this very lesson in the last few decades of ministry to and in poor countries. My own church, the one I grew up in, is doing a decent job of moving towards more holistic ministry.

Finally, Rah argues how multi-cultural churches are the key to freeing the church from Western captivity. Jumping off the phenomenon of second-gen immigrants and their ability to be part of (and/or inability, depending on how you look at it) in both immigrant churches and mainstream ones, he argues that only churches that only multi-ethnic churches can address the Western captivity of the church and begin to forge a better path. Specifically, churches with bi-cultural members. Here, I think Rah's argument is stronger than ever. I was already considering making multi-ethnicity one of my pre-reqs when I search for a church as an independent adult, and now it will be a primary consideration.

Overall, this is a good book, 4/5 stars. Some content was new to me, some old. Some was compelling and challenging, some not. Rah mostly makes great theological and cultural arguments any lay-person can grasp, but he sometimes gets off on discussions of social science and theology that he doesn't tie in very well. Chapters 4, 5, 6 (Part 2 of the book) were good. Chapters 3 (racism) and 9 (multicultural worldview, ie multi-ethnic churches) were superb. I would love to read a book by Rah that specifically addresses racism and/or multi-ethnic churches; that I discern, is his specialty, and would make for an excellent read.

I'd wager that a lot of folks within the Evangelical world have picked up a copy of The Next Evangelicalism by Soong-Chan Rah. We are a people, after all, who are interested in the latest trends and methods . Authors who claim to know what's around the cultural corner are attractive within a movement that often feels one step behind The Next Big Thing.

Readers hoping for this type of how-to insight from Professor Rah would do well to take seriously the book's subtitle: Freeing the Church from Western Cultural Captivity. Even more telling is how the author qualifies "Western captivity" with "Western, white captivity." It turns out that welcoming the next Evangelicalism often means rejecting and repenting of certain aspects of the current Evangelicalism And Professor Rah isn't shy in pointing out the specifics of white culture that need to go. Of the many who first pick up the book, how many will actually finish?

The Next Evangelicalism is divided into three parts. Part I describes the Western white captivity of the church (individualistic, materialistic, and racist), Part II examines how widespread Soong-Chan Rah believes Western white influence to be, and Part III explores the way forward. Rah's critique of the American church can be scathing, and some will be turned off by his view of the Evangelical movement. (A quick scan of the blogosphere turns up reviewers who seem disappointed that Professor Rah didn't write about more of the positive contributions of evangelicals.) Whatever one's emotional response to the book's content, there are at least two very good reasons this book deserves a wide audience.

First, the indictment leveled at the American church by Professor Rah is profoundly theological and must be taken very seriously.

"When one culture is elevated above another, we are stating that one culture and the individuals in that culture are made more in the image of God that others... [We] fail to fulfill our human capacity to create culture reflecting the image of God by elevating one culture over another. Do we not have a responsibility to our cultural mandate of putting forth the uniqueness of every culture and contributing to the global expression of Christianity?" (134)

In other words, when the Evangelical movement is defined by the dominant characteristics of just the majority white culture, than it has ceased to be a movement that reflects the image of God. If this is true, than we must swallow hard and look carefully at any aspect of our church structures, methods, or leaderships that has succumbed to individualism, materialism, or racism.

Secondly, while many are lamenting the decline of American Christianity, Soong-Chan Rah sees a different development. Along with scholars like Lamin Sanneh and Philip Jenkins, Rah sees a global church that is growing- including within the USA. Because the growth is not generally white, mainstream Evangelicalism has either completely overlooked it or seen these vibrant immigrant and minority churches as exceptions rather than the rule. Reflecting America's ongoing demographic shifts, these churches can no longer be ignored or patronized. The Next Evangelicalism strongly suggests that the future American church will be formatively influenced- as it should be- but these overlooked congregations. How quickly will the current Evangelical movement acknowledge this changing landscape and make the deep-seated changes necessary to more accurately reflect God's image and coming Kingdom?

In the book's final section the author suggests what some of these changes ought to be. I'll not summarize them here; Professor Rah's proposals are best heard after grappling with the difficult implications of the first six chapters. Whether or not the reader agrees with all of Rah's analysis and suggestions, hopefully the time of ignoring his basic premises has past. While we may welcome the growth and vibrancy of the changing American church, we must be willing to look closely at the shortcomings within Evangelicalism these changes have exposed. The Next Evangelicalism is a very helpful starting point, providing a view of both the struggle and hope that is just around the corner.