Review of Next Evangelicalism by Soong-Chan Rah

Soong-Chan Rah, an assistant professor at North Park Theological Seminary has recently penned a stimulating and hard-hitting book entitled, The Next Evangelicalism: Freeing the Church from Western Cultural Captivity. His basic thesis is that the church in America is held captive by western culture – individualism, materialism and racism. The first two points are not controversial; plenty of thoughtful people have made these observations. However, the third point will, undoubtedly, unsettle many.

Part of the reason is because he is not addressing society at large, but conservative Christianity. If he is right, then the church has committed a grave offense against God and his people by either turning a blind eye towards racism, or even worse, perpetuating it. Rah comes to this conclusion in three ways. First, he recounts a number of personal incidents of racism that he or his colleagues have experienced in the life of the church.[1] Second, he briefly examines the history of slavery in America, the exploitation of Native Americans, and the mistreatment of other groups.[2] Third, he critiques the perpetuation of Western and white standards and categories of thought in the church, even in the face of rapidly changing demographics.[3]

In particular, he points out two trends in the church that he sees as contributing to racism: the megachurch movement and the emerging church model.[4] First, he argues that the megachurch by embracing a homogeneous unit principle to facilitate numerical growth does not fight racism, but actually allows it to linger. In fact, he points out that one of the strategies of Willow Creek was intentionally not to focus on fighting race issues, because of the difficulties involved, but instead to focus on principles of numerical growth.[5] Concerning the emerging church, he simply states that these churches almost never raise issues of race and that they are almost entirely white. I quote Rah in full to give a sense of his views as well as his tone. He writes:

“When emerging white evangelicals were leaving these boomer generation churches, one option that may not have been seriously considered was the opportunity to join African American or immigrant churches. Instead, emerging white evangelicals chose to cluster with other white Americans to form a new movement. Was there a willingness to yield the power and privilege of the Western, white captivity of the American church and explore leadership outside of the white community? Is there now a willingness to yield to leadership outside of the Western, white captivity of the church?”

At this point, Rah offers a few reasons why white churches need to consider other groups. First, many minority groups have proved faithful to God and experienced God’s blessing in ministry. For example, he uses the growth of the immigrant Korean American church as an alternative to the megachurch model.[6] Second, he points out that minority churches have different experiences, which are important to gain a better understanding of the gospel. In this regard, Rah writes that much can be learned from the suffering of Black and Native American churches.[7] Third, he states that minority groups offer new perspectives and different models of ministry. At one point, he provocatively writes:

“Instead of putting forth yet another white leader in his thirties with a megachurch paradigm as the model of ministry, should we be lifting up the Haitian pastor, who drives a cab during the day, attends seminary classes at night and pastors the church on weekends? Or the Dominican pastor who returns to the Dominican Republic on ‘vacation’ and holds numerous evangelistic rallies and ends up planting several churches? Or the Hmong pastor that an entire community relies upon to be both the civic and spiritual leader, but whose church never grows past forty worshippers? Are we willing to acknowledge that the immigrant church that appears to be a people in need, might actually have something to teach us?”[8]

Finally, Rah challenges white churches not only to consider minority churches, but also to submit to them.


My Assessment:

Rah’s book deserves to be read. I think he makes four important points. First, he does show that there is a tendency in white churches to overlook minority churches and groups. This tendency is probably due to the cultural pride of America. If one talks to people from any other part of the world, they will tell you that Americans often are provincial in their thinking. Probably another contributing factor is the level of theological education. Very few places can rival America. However, it is important to keep in mind that theology is not merely a conceptual thing, but also an experiential one. Second, Rah also documents very clearly that there is an explosion in Christianity among minority groups and other nations of the world – particularly non-western ones. For example, I am always shocked by the fact that there are probably as many Christians in China as America. And even in my own case, I am a fourth generation Korean American Presbyterian and my son is a fifth generation one. If this is the case, then it will behoove all people to learn from each other actively. Third, I think there is some warrant to single out the white church, because it is the church in power. This might seem unfair, since I am positive that what Rah says of the white church applies to all groups; what church or group does not have its own biases and patterns of sin?  But those in power are responsible for their power before God in a special way due to their privilege. Therefore, these churches should lead the charge in humility, servanthood, unity, and racial reconciliation. If they do not, God will raise others to bring up the issues – even non-Christians. Fourth, because no one has a perfect view of God and all people have many blind spots, it is extremely important to seek the perspective of others. For example, tentmaking as a viable option seems like a forgotten option for many. For these points and others, Rah is to be thanked. That said I find a few areas where I would have taken a different approach.

I wish that Rah would have offered the example of the life and death of Christ more clearly as the way of accomplishing his task of racial reconciliation. If Christ, the Lord of Lords and King of Kings laid down his life willingly for undeserving people, then how might that look in racial reconciliation? How might that dynamic play out among churches with power and without power? In the light of the cross, isn’t it one of the greatest privileges to die to one’s dreams and even traditions? Isn’t grasping onto power foolish? Secondly, had Rah emphasized the need for a spirit of submission for all, then what we would have is people trying to outdo one another in love, a better place to be in. It would be like two friends fighting over who will pay the check at the end of dinner. Thirdly, I thought he could have given more examples of white brothers and sisters actually carrying out the task of loving and serving sacrificially. I’ve experienced this in my presbytery and in my own personal life. To be sure, he does mention some touching examples, but a few more would have given the book a better balance. If you are going to hit hard, encourage hard as well. Finally, I thought there could have been a stronger emphasis on a goal. What does Rah ultimately want to achieve? White churches to submit more? Racial reconciliation? Unity? In my opinion, unity should be the goal and submission of all is one of the means by which to achieve it.

In conclusion, I recommend Rah’s book. In fact, I must admit that I shed a tear reading this book. This book took courage to write. Furthermore, Rah’s call to submit to one another is a beautiful message and the path to spiritual maturity and ironically authority and indispensability.


[1] Soong-Chan Rah. The Next Evangelicalism (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2009), 64-66; 76, 79-80; 120-121.

[2] Soong-Chan Rah. The Next Evangelicalism, 66-71; 143-163; 156-158.

[3] White and Western are pretty much synonymous to Rah.

[4] Soong-Chan Rah. The Next Evangelicalism, 108-126.

[5] Soong-Chan Rah. The Next Evangelicalism, 84; 91-107. He even points out that Bill Hybel has admitted to a historical misstep in seeking to build a church based on a mono-cultural/social model of numerical growth.

[6] Soong-Chan Rah. The Next Evangelicalism, 164-179.

[7] Soong-Chan Rah. The Next Evangelicalism, 143-163.

[8] Soong-Chan Rah. The Next Evangelicalism, 179.