Question about Racial Diversity in Leadership vs. Membership

This is more of a rhetorical question, but given that the membership demographic of each locality in the U.S. currently consists of maybe 80-100% Asians, why is it that only 5/25 (20%) of the current co-workers are of Asian descent? How is this blatant underrepresentation of Asians in leadership simply accepted? I'm assuming it's because they do not want to be perceived as being a Chinese church (in order to attract more caucasians).....but I feel like they are very racist because the leadership demographics are so contradictory to the membership demographics. If they are indeed majority Asian, they should just own it. Why must they try to attract more whites rather than other races and ethnicities? Why does it matter, if people of all colors are indeed equally valuable in the eyes of God? Is this yet another reflection of white supremacist values in religion?

In terms of sexism (0/25 co-workers being women)...I'm not even going to go into that because just thinking about it makes me angry.

If you count blendeds + all others in LSM leadership roles, it's probably even less than 20% asian representation. I've noticed that whenever they send out those announcements, most or all those signing off are non-asian.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

This is more of a rhetorical question, but given that the membership demographic of each locality in the U.S. currently consists of maybe 80-100% Asians, why is it that only 5/25 (20%) of the current co-workers are of Asian descent? How is this blatant underrepresentation of Asians in leadership simply accepted? I'm assuming it's because they do not want to be perceived as being a Chinese church (in order to attract more caucasians).....but I feel like they are very racist because the leadership demographics are so contradictory to the membership demographics. If they are indeed majority Asian, they should just own it. Why must they try to attract more whites rather than other races and ethnicities? Why does it matter, if people of all colors are indeed equally valuable in the eyes of God? Is this yet another reflection of white supremacist values in religion?

In terms of sexism (0/25 co-workers being women)...I'm not even going to go into that because just thinking about it makes me angry.

I don't know the exact number, but there are closer to ~60-ish total co-workers, and around 30-35 of them "representing" North America, so the Asian co-worker percentage may be different if we include the whole group.

I can think of 9 of them who are reasonably Asian (although Andrew just passed away), so that skews the balance a little bit.

Andrew Yu
Minoru Chen
James Lee
Dennis Higashi (not sure but think Japanese is in there?)
Gerald Chan
Albert Lim
David Dong
Paul Hon
Robert Lim

If we include the co-workers who live in Asia, etc then there will be more added to that list who are Asian.

I'm not one to excuse many of their actions, but I think the issue is less that they aren't owning their Asian demographics, but the reality that Americans around them perceive them as an Asian church, and thus there is the initial barrier to entry, so to speak. So I don't think the driver is "Asians aren't as equal or valuable" but more "we have a reputation as an Asian church and as a result many people from the surrounding society aren't interested because they don't have an Asian background themselves."

Remember, they don't consider themselves to be "part of the church" but the entire genuine church in sum. So in their eyes, they think there are very few white people in general in the entire church.....not acknowledging there are plenty of white people in "other churches" that don't have anything to do with Lee. So the responsibility is entirely on their shoulders, they think, to get good representation across the board of ethnicities in their group, because they're the only group that counts.

The co-workers in TLR try to call themselves apostles, but have commandeered the word "co-worker" (or "fellow worker", sometimes translated) from scripture to give themselves a new title. To my knowledge, although I might be wrong, co-worker has always carried the implication of "in relation to Nee/Lee". In other words, there was a ring of co-workers (Ron, Kerry, Francis, Ed, Andrew, etc) who were direct co-workers with Witness Lee......and because Lee is the be-all and end-all and center of the whole movement, they just became "the co-workers". When Lee died and years went by, more "co-workers" have been brought in, but now "co-worker" means "someone who is working with someone who worked directly with Witness Lee".

Anyway, my point is that scripture uses "co-worker" differently.

In Romans 16:3 Paul uses "co-workers" in reference to a married couple - i.e. a male and a female.

In verse 9 it is in reference to a brother named Urbanus, who is not an "apostle" of any sort that we are made aware of.

In 2 Corinthians 1:24, Paul says to the entire Corinthian church that he and Timothy are co-workers WITH the Corinthian church, which obviously includes men and women (i.e. also implying that a co-worker isn't just a special group of people).

In Philippians 4:3, Paul mentions two women who have labored with him, and then says "along with Clement and the rest of my co-workers". It could be argued either way whether co-worker there refers only to Clement and others, or if it could reasonably include the two women also.

In 3 John 1, John refers to "adelphoi", which could mean brothers only or both brothers and sisters, in verse 5. Then in verse 8 he instructs the recipient of the letter to show hospitality to them so that they could be co-workers, or fellow workers, with them.

Bottom line: "co-worker" (Gk: sunergos) in the Bible does not only refer to brothers, and it does not only refer to brothers who circled around a particular man. As usual, the ministry in the local church misappropriates words of scripture.

@Trapped I think you make a good point that because they view themselves as the genuine church in its entirety, the probably feel obligated to increase diversity (which to them means increasing the number of caucasians). Why do I get the feeling that if this problem was in reverse (let’s say 20% Asian, 80% white), they wouldn’t make it such a big deal? And if there were majority white membership, I bet you the leadership would also be majority white. So majority Asian membership = majority white leadership. Majority white membership = majority white leadership. You see the issue? No matter how you count it, there is currently less than 30% Asian leadership in North America.

[Sons to Glory!]

Interesting . . . of course any focus on percentages according to race is just fleshly. Will there even be any races in the next phase of God's purpose? Maybe, but I don't see anything in scripture that specifically promotes that idea. As far as the LC is concerned, it would only make any difference in North America or Europe any way, right? (where the populations are mixed)

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Interesting . . . of course any focus on percentages according to race is just fleshly. Will there even be any races in the next phase of God's purpose? Maybe, but I don't see anything in scripture that specifically promotes that idea. As far as the LC is concerned, it would only make any difference in North America or Europe any way, right? (where the populations are mixed)

If you mean "fleshly" the way the local church meant fleshly, then I don't agree at all. If you are in a city but your church demographics are nowhere near parallel to the demographics of your surroundings, then it makes perfect sense to me to look at why. It might indicate there is something you are doing that is unintentionally driving people away.

Presuming that race is a human concept, I believe the local church is "fleshly" by basing its recruitment strategies in human concepts, rather than in the spirit and in actually being faithful in God to save whoever He wants to save.

By the way, my original post was more referring to the CENTRAL leadership (LSM corporation, blendeds, people listed on their tax returns) in North America. I feel that the "most important" people in their organization reflects what type of people they value the most -- and that includes race.

I realize that demographics vary widely by locality, although I'd still estimate probably 80%+ Asian overall.

........
By the way, I was very much disturbed by the way Ron Kangas disrespected his second (Asian) wife in an international conference last year... I believe he would never have dared to do that to this first (white) wife. I don't know if his behavior has to do with race, but I do wonder...

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

@Trapped I think you make a good point that because they view themselves as the genuine church in its entirety, the probably feel obligated to increase diversity (which to them means increasing the number of caucasians). Why do I get the feeling that if this problem was in reverse (let’s say 20% Asian, 80% white), they wouldn’t make it such a big deal? And if there were majority white membership, I bet you the leadership would also be majority white. So majority Asian membership = majority white leadership. Majority white membership = majority white leadership. You see the issue? No matter how you count it, there is currently less than 30% Asian leadership in North America.

I don't really have a reason for this, but somehow it doesn't sit right with me to say that the local churches would be actively discriminating against Asians in leadership. I don't have much to say to back that feeling up, but I also quite literally cannot think of one single instance of my experience that would support it either (aside from the percentage itself, but there could be many reasons for that).

Do you think it's possible that it's a "cultural" thing? What I have in mind there is, for example, could Asians read the ministry where Lee criticizes anyone who has personal ambition and adjust their ambition accordingly to not strive to be in the eldership, whereas white brothers (and I'm assuming "American" here) might read the same words but can't downplay the American drive to be on top? I say that knowing there are plenty of Asians who have drive, etc, too. I know I'm risking offense somewhere in there, but I genuinely don't mean what I'm saying as offensive and am kind of just casting around looking for anything that would explain the phenomenon you are describing.

It's funny, I can think of churches where there are a large number of Asian serving brothers (or deacons or responsible brothers, what have you) but just not Asian elders.

Originally Posted by Trapped

Do you think it's possible that it's a "cultural" thing? What I have in mind there is, for example, could Asians read the ministry where Lee criticizes anyone who has personal ambition and adjust their ambition accordingly to not strive to be in the eldership, whereas white brothers (and I'm assuming "American" here) might read the same words but can't downplay the American drive to be on top? I say that knowing there are plenty of Asians who have drive, etc, too. I know I'm risking offense somewhere in there, but I genuinely don't mean what I'm saying as offensive and am kind of just casting around looking for anything that would explain the phenomenon you are describing.

I suppose it could be cultural, as we don't see many Asians in leadership positions in other churches or in society at large. How do they select leaders in the local church though? If it's something largely out of the control of members or of those "striving" to be in the eldership, then that could hint to racism. On the other hand, if someone "striving" to be an elder does have a decent chance of becoming one, than maybe it's self-selected. But the central leadership? How do they decide who works alongside Ron Kangas, Benson Philips (and replace them eventually)?

As an Asian-American myself, I have to point out that Asians oftentimes even discriminate against each other... At times I have felt that caucasians were valued more highly than I was, because they were more "rare." So perhaps I've answered my own question.

1. There is no "striving for a coworker or eldership". This is seen as ambitious and in the authority rulebook this person is pushed away from any such position.

2. As elders and Coworkers are positions of authority- women are forbidden from such positions. 1 Timothy 2:12 is the scriptural justification for this. Also in many other groups of believes such as catholics- woman can't be ordained priest and reach levels such as bishop or archbishop. Also in denominations woman pastors are quite rare. Overall 1 Timothy 2:12 is a scripture upheld in the whole of Christendom to a significant magnitude. Women are still loved and cared for and as Ephesians 5 goes into great detail about this- but yet they do not have authority.

3. You for some reason think too much of race. Elders and Coworkers are allowed their positions due to knowledge and loyalty to the ministry and race does not matter too much. Also this current generation of elders and coworkers were responsible for spreading and building the local churches in the twentieth century throughout the USA. Due to their efforts and works in the recovery they were prominent and gained position. Who cares if the leadership is 50 percent Asian or 75 percent Asian or perhaps 40 percent white. To them it does not matter. As said in Galatians chapter 3- there is no race in the body of Christ, no Jew, no gentile, no nothing. They are all in the body of Christ, so this obsession with race will not hold up well in argument in context of the church life.

4. Ron Kangas- he does not like women empowering themselves and makes lots of comments about this. His comments towards his wife was also quite harsh- I do not defend this and I am sure he looks like an idiot for saying that and people will always remember but never mention it cause Ron Kangas is, as a funny user on here named Chris Fleming said-. "Big Daddy Kangas". No one messes with the coworkers In the recovery especially the ones that speak at the conferences...

[aron]

Originally Posted by John 7:24

As an Asian-American myself, I have to point out that Asians oftentimes even discriminate against each other... At times I've felt that Caucasians were valued more highly than I was, because they were more "rare." So perhaps I've answered my own question.

Hi John 7:24,

I think there are two related issues, one a legacy issue that's fading away, and one replacing it. But both go toward what you observe.

The first is from the '60s and '70s when men of the current leadership generation got active, and a lot of Caucasians came in from the college campus and the military. The pool of potential leaders from that cohort was prominent and is now reflected in the names you see.

Twenty years later, the tide began to markedly turn, perhaps accelerating after the late '80s turmoil. For instance, the entire German cohort left at that time. A lot of USA Caucasians also drifted away. Those coming in as replacements were often recent Chinese immigrants. I saw a website from a Titus Chu-affiliated "Local Church in Sydney" a few years back that had an attached monthly newsletter with a prayer list for the "new ones", and every single name was Chinese. I went through a number of these monthly bulletins and each was the same. About 20 Chinese names, the majority female (those w English first names).

Q: So, how is the LC going to maintain the fiction that they're "local", i.e. representative of the location? Sydney Australia isn't 100% Chinese. A: They promote Caucasian leadership. That's why you got the feeling that Caucasians were valued more highly than you were, because they were helpful in perpetuating the illusion. Otherwise they'll have to call themselves the Chinese Evangelical Christian Church of Sydney, and the stated reason for existence - 'locality' - disappears. The illusion must be maintained at all costs.