The religious varieties of ethnic presence: a comparison between a Taiwanese immigrant Buddhist temple and an evangelical Christian church

Sociology of Religion, Summer, 2002 by Carolyn Chen

Hardly shying away from the American political arena, the new immigrants have also proven themselves to be visibly active in the political system (8) (Saito 1998; Wong 1982). Not only distinct class-wise and educationally from earlier immigrant cohorts, they arrive at a period in America where the racial-ethnic ideal of multiculturalism, rather than the "melting pot," reigns supreme (Glazer and Moynihan 1970; Hollinger 1995). Furthermore, achievements of the Civil Rights movement have inspired immigrants to mobilize around their collective interests and identity (Espritu 1992). Without neglecting the continuing persistence of racism that immigrants face in American society, it must also be recognized that the climate of multiculturalism minimizes some of the obstacles that difference -- racial, ethnic and religious -- present to participation in mainstream America, while perhaps simultaneously presenting different obstacles. (9) Specifically regarding the case of post-1965 skilled Asian immigrants, their class and educational advantages, along with the current multicultural climate of the United States, undoubtedly challenge some of the assumptions of immigrant life based upon immigration of a different historical era. Do their religious institutions continue to play the role of the protective ethnic sanctuary disengaged from the concerns of those outside? Or do they make efforts to reach Out?

The second issue to which this paper draws attention is how religious ideals shape the public mission of an immigrant religious institution. Like other associations and institutions within the immigrant community, the religious organization provides a space for communal solidarity through the sharing of resources, symbols and traditions. What differentiates religious institutions from other immigrant institutions is that they consider themselves to be the living embodiment of universal and timeless truths. They are, to use Robert Wuthnow's term, the "public expression of the sacred" (1994). As such, they carry a certain weight, a gravity of responsibility, that transcends the concerns of their own congregation and extends into visions of how the world ought to be. How these ideas become publicly manifest is as much a theological question as it is a social question.

Sociological literature has addressed how religious ideals inform a congregation's public presence (Troeltsh 1931; Weber 1946b; Niebuhr 1951; Niebuhr 1929; Wilson 1988; Roozen, McKinney, and Carroll 1988; Wuthnow 1994; Ammerman 1999; Warner 1988). From these a number of competing typologies have been constructed to categorize the different types of communal engagement a congregation might have in the larger society. In addition to theological message, varying factors have been cited as critical determinants, for example, geographic locale, socio-economic class of members, congregational size, authority structure and human and material resources.

For the most part, these congregational typologies have been based upon cases that are both Christian and Anglo-American. Where post-1965 immigrant religious congregations are not Anglo and often not Christian, I argue that these determining factors only partially shed light on the issue. (10) Overlooking these salient characteristics of new immigrant congregations neglects the way that difference, whether it be religious and/or racial, will mediate the sort of presence the religious institution will have in society. Religious institutions operate in a dynamic environment whereby they are responding to a larger social context. Regardless of the intentions of a religious institution, the opportunity to enact these religious ideals in the wider society will depend on the degree of access the public grants them. It is no secret that America has a longstanding tradition of excluding those who are different from the Anglo Protestant ideal (Dinnerstein 1961; Moore 1986; Higham 1988; Kashima 1977; Horinouchi 1973). Today, religious difference continues to be an obstacle for non-Christian groups despite the rhetoric of religious tolerance and multiculturalism. (11) Furthermore, hostility and suspicion from mainstream America may cause immigrant religious groups to temper the zeal for their religious mission.