Building Unity among First and Second-Generation Chinese Churches and Leaders

by Craig A. Smith

There is a concern among Canadian and American Chinese churches about the growing disunity within their congregations. For years, these churches were in a state of growth as first-generation Chinese immigrants filled the churches. Over time, however, these churches started to create two new groups.  

There is a concern among Canadian and American Chinese churches about the growing disunity within their congregations. For years, these churches were in a state of growth as first-generation Chinese immigrants filled the churches. Over time, however, these churches started to create two new groups.  

The first group consisted of second-generation believers, predominately the children of first-generation believers. The second group included 1.5-generation believers who were Chinese born overseas and who had immigrated to North America. The main tension, however, was between the first and second-generation congregants (although the younger the 1.5-generation believer who arrives in North America is, the more he or she responds in the manner of a second-generation believer). In some cases, the second-generation congregants are leaving, but in others, they try to co-exist within the church.      

In this article, I seek to examine how this problem arose and to offer possible solutions based on an examination of Paul’s response to the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 3:1-15. There are many parallels between the problem Paul faced in Corinth and the one that North American Chinese churches are facing today. The problems revolve around two issues: the nature of leadership and the nature of the church. I believe these are the two main issues which are the cause of disunity within the North American Chinese Church.

The Nature of Leadership (1 Cor. 3:1-9)

What is going on in Corinth that causes Paul to write this text? The Corinthians have begun to raise up their leaders to ungodly heights, stating, “I follow Paul, I follow Apollos, I follow Cephas.” It is easy to see how this happened. During this time period a group of people called the sophists became popular.  

Sophists were trained as rhetoricians. One of the easiest ways to get ahead back then was through learning how to speak well. To be a good rhetorician was like getting a Master’s degree and thereby qualifying one for public governmental life or private business.  

Some sophists gained their money through speaking publically in the market square or around the main city centers. If they were clever on a subject and won the debate, or if they were funny, then people would throw money their way. They also made money by getting students who wanted to learn their trade and who were committed to emulate them. For this reason, Apollos, whom we know to be a trained rhetorician, was a favorite of the Corinthians.  

The Corinthians’ problem was letting their culture affect their understanding of leadership. Their immature way of looking at leaders based on externals and in terms of the sophists was producing a compromised church. Paul, therefore, needed to confront it. 

 Paul’s Definition of a Leader

Paul stated unequivocally that leaders are “servants” (1 Cor. 3:5). When Paul used this term, he was thinking of Jesus the Isaian Servant of the Lord, the paradigm and paragon of servanthood. For Paul, servanthood was intrinsic to the nature of God. It was because Jesus is God that he humbled himself and became a human being (Phil. 2).

Paul would agree with the words in Mark 10:45, in which Jesus described the ultimate expression of servanthood as “laying down one’s life for others.” Servanthood means not lording one’s power and authority over others (Mark 10:42). Therefore, in order to understand leadership, one must understand the cross of Christ and his incarnation. Leaders, then, are servants of God based on the paradigm of Jesus Christ.

In 1 Corinthians 3:6-9, Paul explained that leaders have different assigned tasks. All of these tasks are important; however, no task is really significant in comparison to God’s sovereign action to make things grow. 

Some of the Corinthians were converted through the ministries of Paul, Apollos, and Peter. Unfortunately, with their sophist background, they were putting too much emphasis on the leader “through whom they believed.” 

The resultant problems were that they had an inordinate attachment to their leader and a skewed perspective on what constitutes a leader. 

With respect to the problem many North American Chinese churches are facing, there are some important corollaries and applications to be made from this text.  

First, ministers must base their understanding of a leader on the paradigm of Jesus Christ and the cross instead of some cultural value. Confucianism is the undetected cultural value which continues to impact the Chinese Church in terms of its understanding of leaders.  

In Confucianism, authority is based on three bonds: the sovereign to subject, parent to child, and husband to wife. Because education is so highly valued in Confucian culture, the lead pastor is considered a teacher. The relationship between the teacher/lead pastor and the rest of the church (associate pastors and laity) is based on the authority bonds listed above. The lead pastor is the authority and to be obeyed in the same manner as the king and father are to be obeyed. 

If the lead pastor is first generation (which is usually the case) and he has second-generation associate pastors, then it will be the lead pastor who will make the final decisions. One can see why this would become a point of great frustration for second-generation pastors and laity when they propose ideas like incorporating English songs or worship styles in a Chinese service, or having an English-speaking service to attract second-generation Chinese non-believers or non-Chinese friends.  

Second, ministers must see their ministry through the paradigm of Jesus as master and them as servants. This means other paradigms in which the pastor is the chief executive officer, the entertainer, or the authoritarian are not acceptable. There are no personal empires in the Church—there is only the Kingdom of God. 

Again, with a Confucian background, one can see how easy it would have been for the authority structure in the church to resemble more closely the “three bonds” of authority in Confucianism than the example of Christ’s kenosis in Philippians 2:6-8. The truth is that it is hard for anyone to see things clearly with their cultural blinders on. Every culture has its blinders, regardless of race or nationality.  

My experience as I have talked about this issue with first-generation ministers has been that they could not see what they were doing. In some cases, they opened up to an understanding of their roles as leaders/pastors as servants instead of Confucian leaders and the results have been rewarding. Unfortunately, there have also been those who have no desire to change and continue to hold fast to their understanding of leadership. These ministers tend to be leaders of very large congregations. 

Third, pastors should not overestimate their value. Paul said that leaders were fellow workers of God. His point on the one hand was that leaders belong to God as his servants, but on the other hand, all leaders share in working together with God in order to fulfill his purposes in the Church. This means that the pastor is not to do everything, be in control of everything, or decide everything.  

The vision of the church that Paul painted was one of a more collaborative approach in which each person could express his or her God-given calling. This leadership model is counter-cultural in a Confucian context. In multi-staff churches, this means lead pastors should be encouraging associate pastors and staff to fulfill their callings instead of lording their authority over them.  

I have had numerous conversations with associate pastors and lay workers who feel frustrated because the decisions being made in the church are unilateral. As the disunity persists and the frustration increases, these second-generation pastors feel the need to leave or wait until they are allowed to be in the position of lead pastor. Unfortunately, the tendency is to replace the lead pastor not with the second-generation associate pastor, but with another first-generation pastor brought in from Hong Kong or elsewhere in Asia.

Last, congregations should not put their leaders on pedestals. Peter, Paul, and Apollos were all prominent leaders in the Church—like some lead pastors today. The problem was that the Corinthians were raising them up to the point that these leaders grew proud, self-commending, autonomous, even autocratic (2 Cor. 10:1-11:13).  

I have observed in many Asian contexts (and particularly those cultures which have a Confucian background) that the lead pastor is raised up on a pedestal. This occurs because of the importance and relationship of authority and honor in Confucian cultures. I experienced this when I was a teacher in Asia. There, my students would want to honor me through their gifts, even plagiarizing me as a sign of honoring my thoughts and ideas. I experienced it also when I co-pastored a Chinese church. 

Authority in leadership is important; however, it must be tempered and expressed through Christ.  It is good to honor a leader because of his or her noble calling; however, honor, when it is unrealistic or inauthentic, can be idolatry. 

I find that two things can happen in this case. First, people put unrealistic expectations on these leaders to do everything perfectly. There is therefore no room for error, and soon the leader learns that he or she must hide or deny his or her mistakes. Second, people abdicate their responsibility as followers of Christ to their leaders and become silent even when they might disagree with a leader. This silence becomes fertile breeding ground for disunity.  

For example, when a church is becoming predominately filled with second-generation congregants and the first-generation lead pastor refuses to integrate the church, people tend to remain silent and let the lead pastor’s decision stand without any discussion. This underlying current continues to percolate until either there is a blow up, divisions grow, or people leave.

Building a Church Characterized by Unity (1 Cor. 3:10-15)

In 1989, the movie Field of Dreams was released. It was the story of a man who owned a large cornfield when he had a dream that he should build a baseball field in the middle of it. He built the baseball field, and the baseball greats, who were long dead and gone, came to play baseball. The point for us is that if we build our churches on the right foundation, then not only will the people come, but they will stay.  

In 1 Corinthians 3:10-15, Paul explained how a church was to be built by using the analogy of a building and builder and presenting himself as the paradigmatic builder. He said, “By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder.” In this analogy, the building was the church in Corinth. The owner was God and the initial builder who laid the foundation was Paul. He went on to say, “…and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds.” At this point, Paul was nebulous and non-specific about who was building on his foundation; however, it is clear that these builders must have the right requirements (namely, wisdom and grace) and build with the proper materials.

There are a number of requirements that God expects his servants to have as they build churches. Let me list just a few.

Grace. Grace starts with God. Paul said, “By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation” (1 Cor. 3:10). Paul had a clear understanding of his call to be an apostle and pastor of the church. He knew he was fulfilling God’s will for his life by embracing this vocation. However, his understanding of grace goes further than this. The grace of God is that which gave him his identity, but also which sustained him in his ministry in spite of hardship and struggle (1 Cor. 15:9-10).  

Both aspects of God’s grace are important reminders that the ministry is God’s and the strength needed for the task comes from him.  

Wisdom. The other requirement Paul mentioned was wisdom. The NIV translates vs. 10 as, “I laid the foundation as an expert builder,” although literally it says, “wise builder.” Why “wise”? It is used because a wise builder will lay the only true foundation, which is Jesus Christ. The emphasis on wisdom here goes back to 1:18-2:16, where Paul spells out his understanding of wisdom as Christ crucified. This wisdom is contrary to the wisdom of Greeks.  

The ancient Greek historian Herodotus said, “All Greeks were zealous for every kind of learning.” In fact, the Greeks were the most advanced of all the nations, and this advanced learning caused them to abandon traditional gods. Therefore, to the Greeks, God would be the ultimate of reason as they conceived it. Therefore, the crucified Christ obviously did not fit their ideology since it was not reasonable.
God’s wisdom also confounded the Jews and their idolatry. In arrogance, they considered God known, predictable, and subject to their desires. For this reason, many times the Jews asked for miraculous signs from Christ to establish his identity (Matt. 11:20-24; 12:38-39; 16:1; Mark 8:11).  

The idolatry and sin of the Jews was that they believed that they had figured out how God worked—namely, that he did powerful acts in the past so he will do the same now. They were looking for a repeat of the Exodus experience with even greater glory. Therefore, in John 6 they ask for manna from heaven as Moses did. But they did not expect Jesus to be the Manna. C.K. Barrett wrote, 

Their predilection for miracles implies a refusal to take God on trust; He must present His credentials in the form of visible and identifiable acts in which His claim upon men, and His ability to meet their need, are validated. (1968, 54)

Paul went on to say in 1:26-31 that God chose the weak things to vindicate himself—to show that his message/wisdom is effective, regardless of status. Finally, in 2:1-5 he declared that God chose Paul, unwise in the Corinthians’ sight, to preach in weakness so that the Corinthians would look at the results.

What does this mean for those who are first, second, or even third-generation Chinese? It means that the approach to the issue of how to do church as first, second, and even third-generation Chinese will require wisdom that comes from outside of themselves. It means that they will have to submit to a wisdom which may seem like foolishness, as all cultures must. The approach to church may have to change and the “way we have always done it” adage may have to give way to a new wave of grace and wisdom.

Necessary Building Materials

Paul continued his building analogy and claimed the importance of the building materials. Not only were builders filled with grace and wisdom, but the building materials had to also be correct. 

I am on the board of a Christian school which is entering a large building project. I have been in the process of securing funds for the project so I have been on the phone with banks and architects. Throughout this process, it has become clear to me that having a competent architect and builder is important; however, having appropriate, substantial materials are vital if you want the building to last for the next fifty to one hundred years. Materials matter. Paul, the wise builder, shared his building list. The foundation must include gold, silver, and costly stones instead of wood, hay, or straw.  

Two Kinds of Building Materials    

The materials that Paul recommended were listed in descending order of value, and were all imperishable: gold, silver, and costly stones. The materials he rejected were perishable: wood, hay, and straw. There is an allusion to the Old Testament temple because Paul included the materials used in building Solomon’s temple (1 Chron. 29:2; 2 Chron. 3:6). The Church replaced the temple as the new locus of worship, forgiveness, and the expression of one’s relationship with God.  

The perishable materials represented the “wisdom of this age” which had passed away with the coming of God’s kingdom. The imperishable material represented the wisdom of God, the crucified and risen Jesus Christ through whom one can have life. Paul’s point was simple: the servants of God must build the Church using materials that are consistent with the materials Paul used in the foundation.  

So what are the perishable materials that should be avoided and the imperishable materials that are needed for Chinese churches with first and second-generation congregants? Let me share one critical one: culture.

The Church should never be built on the perishable material of culture. Everyone comes from a culture and inevitably is influenced by that culture. Similarly, every church exists within a culture. There are factors which affect the culture of the church, though largely it is determined by the people who go to the church.  

Let me illustrate. A church could exist in Saudi Arabia and all its congregants could be Cantonese speaking from Hong Kong. Certainly, the Saudi culture would have some impact on this church but only to the degree to which these people were integrated into that culture. The culture of the church is largely determined by the extent to which they express the Chinese culture they share or to put it another way, their Chinese-ness.  

Generally speaking, a first-generation Chinese church maintains a high degree of Chinese-ness in their church because to a large degree they are not very integrated into the North American culture. This is normal and to be expected when they first arrive as immigrants. On the other hand, a 1.5 or second-generation believer who attends this church would be far more impacted by and integrated into the American or Canadian culture. This is where things get complicated and where some difficult questions need to be asked.  

Question #1: Is requiring adoption of the Chinese culture a requirement for being a church member?  

Many second-generation Chinese students tell me that in their churches they are not considered Chinese enough, and therefore lacking as believers because their first language has become English and they have adopted a Christianity that embraces some Chinese cultural values and some Western values. For example, I led an English-speaking service in a Chinese church and many of the older folks were very concerned that their children would become less Chinese and more Western. They felt some relief, however, when I told them that I wasn’t interested in either culture unless it was consistent with scripture. Instead, I was only interested in them growing in Christ.  

In Galatians 3:28, Paul stated that in Christ there was neither Jew nor Greek. His point was that being a Christian superseded all culture. And just as Paul told the Jews that one cannot add the law as a requirement for the Gentiles to be members of the Church, similarly, we cannot add Chinese-ness to anyone in order to be the people of God in a church (see Smith 2014). We are the people of God by grace, through faith in Christ. Any other burden is perishable material and will be burned off.    

Culture, however, is not neutral. There are things in a culture that are in line with scripture and others that are not. We need to evaluate our culture critically. For example, hospitality is a part of the Chinese culture and aligns directly with scripture, which stresses the importance of hospitality. So clearly, it should be kept. Honoring the elderly is another Chinese cultural value in line with scripture; however, when honor is elevated to the point that an older person is obeyed simply because of his or her age and status even though their request is unbiblical, then it is no longer a cultural value to be embraced. 

Question #2: Are there times when Chinese-ness should be kept and times when Chinese-ness should be rejected?  

Yes and yes. When congregants’ Chinese-ness contributes to the mission of God, then keeping their Chinese-ness is important. For example, if a Chinese believer (regardless of whether he or she is first, second, or 1.5 generation) lives in a neighborhood that has a large population of Chinese immigrants, then it is important for this believer to keep his or her Chinese-ness in order to make it easier for these Chinese people to come to Christ.  

In the same way, Paul “became like the Jews to win the Jews” (1 Cor. 9:20) and had Timothy circumcised to make him more acceptable and in order to put no stumbling block before the Jews to whom they were ministering.  

The problem of disunity among Chinese churches today, however, is primarily among those churches which have more second-generation than first-generation congregants. They have already experienced a large influx of immigrants and now their North American-born children are filling the churches.  

In this scenario, it is important for the first-generation group to let go of their need for Chinese-ness for the sake of keeping and reaching the second-generation Chinese. In doing so, the first-generation believers are following Paul’s words by “being all things to all people” (1 Cor. 9:22).  To think of this Christologically, it means that just as Christ gave up his rights and privileges as God to become human, the first-generation Chinese must give up their Chinese-ness to be like the second generation to keep them in Christ. This takes maturity and sacrifice on the part of the first-generation believers. 

Because of the nature of the Chinese culture, the change needed must come from the elders—that is, from the first-generation believers. The power base is with the lead pastor and the older generation; therefore, they must act first. If they don’t, they risk the second generation leaving the church or the church remaining in state of disunity. 

Learning from Church History

In situations like this, it is worth looking at church history, particularly in Canada and the USA.  This is not the first time that ethnic churches have sprung up in these countries. Canada and the USA are built upon immigration and they continue to grow through immigration. Most of the immigration to these countries from the 1600s to the late 1900s was from Europe.  

For example, the Swedish Baptist Church formed during this time period, as did the German Baptist and the Ukrainian Baptist Churches. These churches experienced a period of disunity as the second and third generation embraced English and the North American culture. Eventually, however, the people from these churches were integrated into the greater Baptist Church denominations or assimilated into other denominational or non-denominational churches which no longer kept their distinctive language.  

It is natural for people who immigrate to another country to establish a church according to their own culture and language. However, it is also natural for the children of these immigrants to want to integrate the language and some of the new surrounding culture or to leave and attend other churches.  

Therefore, it is not unusual (in fact, it is normal and even to be expected) for 1.5 and second-generation believers to leave a Chinese church in order to attend an English–speaking Chinese church or go to a non-Chinese church.  It may even be a sign of health that these young people are differentiating themselves from their parents and maturely finding places of worship which are consonant with their beliefs.  

Unfortunately, there are many who are leaving church entirely or remaining in churches marked by disunity. There is a good reason why Jesus’ last prayer on earth was for unity. Disunity in the Church is an offense to the Trinity and a stumbling block for the world to come to faith.  It is vitally important for the largest-growing sector of Christianity to model the unity of the Trinity within their churches for the sake of those outside the Church who are watching to see if the Church is different from the world.

References

Barrett, C. K. 1968. A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Harper’s New Testament Commentaries, 1st ed. New York: Harper & Row.

Smith, Craig A. 2014. “The Jerusalem Council: Much ado about Nothing? Acts 15:1-21.” In Journeying Together.
Ed. Joyce Chan, 3-8. Toronto: Carey Theological College & Carey Institute and Hudson Taylor Center for Chinese Ministries at Tyndale University College & Seminary.

. . . .

Craig A. Smith, a Canadian, teaches Biblical Studies and co-directs the DMin program at Carey Theological College. He was formerly a missionary with the C&MA. He has published many books and articles, most recently 2 Timothy: A New Biblical Commentary, with Sheffield Phoenix Press.

EMQ, Vol. 53, No. 2. Copyright  © 2017 Billy Graham Center for Evangelism.  All rights reserved. Not to be reproduced or copied in any form without written permission from EMQ editors.

Questions for Reflection 1. Reflect on your church and consider how your leaders are building your church. Are they of one purpose and unified in their approach? Why or why not? 2. In order for the first and second-generation leaders to minister together, they will need a collegial attitude similar to that between Paul and Timothy. Has this been your experience? What are some specific attitudes or actions needed to foster a collegial relationship? 3. Endurance or perseverance is vital for leaders. In what particular aspects of leadership should Christian leaders demonstrate this type of ‘stick-to-it-ness’? Why are these necessary? How do you think it will change the dynamics within the leadership team and the church?