McYoung Yang (M. Div., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary). He is the husband of Debbie Yang and the father to McCayden (9), McCoy (7), McColsen (5), and DeYoung (2). He is an Assistant Professor of Theology at Crown College in Saint Bonifacius, MN and is currently serving as a Counsel member of the Youth Ministry of the Hmong District of the C&MA. McYoung is continuing his post-graduate studies at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kansas City, MO where he hopes to obtain his PhD in Theology. He hopes to use his training and platform as a means to serve the local church in living life through the Gospel lens. McYoung enjoys reading/writing, sports, and playing with his children.
Different is Good
As a second generation Hmong immigrant from Southeast Asia, I have a perspective—now living in the western world of America—that rubs directly against my cultural indigenous people group. It did not take long within my youthful development to see that I was different. Not different in a unique or special way, but different in regards to fundamental living: customary traditions, parental interaction, and parent/teacher conferences (or lack thereof) were clear indicators that my situation was drastically peculiar to that of my classmates. I could begin to see that even though I lived in America, I was not necessary functioning like an American (at least not like those to whom I watched on television).
This clear distinction, which stood out like a sore thumb, began to haunt me. What began as a curiosity soon developed into an internalized racism which minimized the cognitive ability of my own homogenous people group. Yet even against my attempt at adaptation, I began to realize that my desire to belong to the broader culture was an uphill battle. I could see that I would never, from my vantage point, truly be apart of the broader sociological development of white Americanism. Simultaneously, I had not settled into the Hmong worldview of my parents. I was stuck in-between. Jung Young Lee rightly depicts the internal struggle I was feeling by saying,
To be in-between two worlds means to be fully in neither. The marginal person who is placed between this two-world boundary feels like a non-being. This existential nothingness caused by the perspective of two (or more) dominant worlds is a root of dehumanization.1
Yet shortly thereafter the Lord saved me in the midst of my own rebellion. My new life in Christ gave me eyes to see not only my own wickedness and depravity, but, in turn, His beauty in the cross and resurrection. It was not until I could properly see the Gospel of Jesus Christ that the particularities of my own culture began to resonate with me. What was once a heinous reality had soon become a gem in the hands of the Creator. The Gospel had given me a lens to see the world with His eyes.
Tearing Down
If I am honest with myself, I do not think my experience was unique; especially to my second generation Hmong brothers and sisters. It is definitely an experience to process. What does concern me, though, is the fact that many of those same brothers and sisters who grew up in the church have begun to despise the bride (the Hmong part at least); not on any theological grounds. per se but on the basis of culture. What has happened from a sociological vantage point (as stated above) has bled into how we have dealt with our divergent cultural narratives within the institutional church.
While second-generation immigrants live within a westernized context, the harsh contrast has granted them a platform to criticize their opposing worldview—the Hmong culture. Though I do not necessarily think that this type of criticism has lethal intent, I do worry that the deconstruction of the Hmong culture has led to a mindless reconstruction not necessarily built upon biblical convictions, but in an embrace of an Americanized ideology. Simply put, instead of rubbing the Hmong culture up and against the biblical narrative, the second generation community—for the most part—has bought into the westernized ideals. The battle to move the traditional Hmong church forward is not necessarily rooted upon biblical principles, but rather upon corporate American pragmatism!
A Great Opportunity to Build Up
As second-generation immigrants whose societal positioning, according to Lee, is in-between2, they have a plethora of opportunities not only to usher their homogenous congregations into deeper missional living, but to embark upon greater theological discussion that will foster a wider benefit within the broader universal church. Diversity of eyes upon theological structures will grant, potentially, multiple vantage points into the unity of historical Christian thought. D. A. Carson speaks of the rise of globalization which will give birth to theological dialogue amidst the differing nations. Carson enthusiastically says, “In other words, the pressures we face from globalization have the odd effect of making people in defined culture think more clearly about their own contexts as the place where they “do theology.” On the other hand, the perception that inevitably people “do theology” from within a particular culture, and that there are many, many cultures, contributes to our assessment of globalization.”3
If ethnic minorities within the western context play a pivotal role in adding to the theological dialogue of the developing church, the second generation immigrant could possibly be a connecting point in engaging in such conversations. Yet in order to do so, the second generation immigrant must embrace the arena by which God has placed him/her (Acts 17:26). As second-generation immigrants we ought not run from our heritage, but rather embrace it as a tool in the hands of God to sharpen the universal church in grasping truths more deeply. Vern S. Poythress adds that “because God has blessed us through Christ and has given us His Word and His Spirit, we do know truth, including truth about God and about His moral standards. At the same time, we can grow by adding more truths to what we know and by knowing truth more deeply. We grow partly through learning from others.”4 The second generation immigrant has insight not only into western ideologies, but eastern perceptivity. This vantage point is not only beneficial for their respective indigenous people group, but for the universal church who seeks to move toward a multi-cultural existence at the local level.
Biblical Authority
A full-orbed scope within developmental doctrine is imperative for the life of the church. Divergent cultures will assist in these endeavors. Not only to establish propositional truths that are faithful to the biblical narrative, but for the life and vitality of the organic church. Kevin J. Vanhoozer artistically orchestrates this reality in saying,
Doctrine orients the church’s life by teaching it how to live and what to live for. Indeed, doctrine orients the church to the abundant and eternal life found only in Jesus Christ. For life is more than a matter of biology, more than sheer physical existence: it is a matter of being in fellowship with the triune God. Doctrine forms disciples when it helps the church to act out its new life in Christ. Far from being removed from real life, then, we see that doctrine concerns energies and events that are as real and powerful as anything known in physics or chemistry, energies and events that can turn the world upside down (Acts 17:6).5
If the second generation immigrants are to engage in this God-honoring endeavor he/she must not merely shrug off his/her Hmong exterior and clothe themselves in American ideologies, but rather redeem both cultures in the blood-ridden scares of the Savior. The differing cultural lenses are not meant to dictate the mood nor extent of the biblical narrative, but to shed light on how those truths are perceived and understood. It is imperative to see, then, that the basis of truth is always the text; sola Scriptura. The vantage point to which culture brings is to awaken others to blind spots that may not have always been recognized. Carson balances our tendencies to lean too much into culture by saying,
Wilson Chow is right: however sensitive we may be to the life situation of the interpreter or of the interpreting community, however important it is to wrestle with the illuminating work of the Holy Spirit, however vital it is that we use our reason as we interpret Scripture, however fundamental it is that we cherish holiness and love of God while reviling sin, the fact of the matter is that the proper source of Christian theology is God’s gracious self-disclosure in the Scriptures. Otherwise, there is no possibility of God’s objective truth standing over against culture, ours or anyone else’s, when that culture goes astray. Only by returning to the font again and again do we have any hope of cutting away unfortunate cultural accretions to biblical faith in the believing community, of condemning cultural elements that defy the Word of God or are inconsistent with it, of transforming and calling into being cultural values that reflect and are consistent with God’s gracious self disclosure.6
As we seek to understand our culture, may the Word of God be the very rock to which we gauge how timeless truths are expressed. It is imperative that the Gospel shape the motivation and engagement of the church into a broken and depraved world. It is an understatement to say, then, that the church must contextualize the message of the Gospel without forfeiting the Gospel for the sake of the glory of God (1 Cor. 9:20). May second-generation immigrants, like the Hmong, submit themselves to the hand of the Creator in order to be used in a mighty way for the fame of His Name. This reality has the potential of becoming a masterpiece signifying the unity in the midst of diversity through the power of the triune God. It presupposes, though, that we can, by the power of the Spirit, operate through the Gospel lens.
- Jung Young Lee, Marginality: The Key to Multicultural Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), 45.
- Ibid., 42.
- D. A. Carson, The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 541-542.
- Vern S. Poythress, Redeeming Sociology: A God-Centered Approach (Wheaton: Crossway, 2011), 134.
- Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Faith Speaking Understanding: Performing the Drama of Doctrine (Louisville: The Westminster John Knox Press, 2014), 6.
- Carson, The Gagging of God, 548-549.