4.. < 1 I 1:: .11.-.. . II. :..-I: 0 :..: .00. .. .. 0.1.0”... :0 .I. 0: . :0. 0.060 ”I. .0 .600 103 . ....0M166n0.::l. ..I0.I .. 0:500: :h: ..0 0‘ 0H II I .- ..0: 000 .0 is , 0. 3.6.0 0 . 00 0 : :0. 0 2).. 6V1..05J\d....0m6..n1.0.. M36. .1. ovarWQS: “Whhtdfluw” can!“ .0.: ...f. 3.. 0. .Jofl. 0 fi:..0&0.:1.....06~...000. .1..." . 50.. ..IP: 0.,1... . .n :..-0. ...-u”: 0 0 .60. 0 m. “.6000 5051”“ 61.6.36“ 0.65.. :..5: .00“. famoulnI . ..‘0‘0.&05.0.h0:.r01h00:; 0‘. 0 .n: t a.) ‘Im-r.‘ 0 ,“U 0!" :0 A0. 06H. it?" I?“ 5. :0 I .: I .. : . 0 ..00 ::: ,‘00. . .I'.00:.0 « I bgfmwn‘ ”My? H.005: ..Vv : .ppmmeo...150h0M... .. ....mwmqwfldfivfi ......E. ..m. .6; .» .mm... 06.2.... Wrafi .m.....:...::. .66... . . . :... ; ... In... . ,I..I... . .....h. ”:1. ...... ....: - ”A... I 0 0..... ...:.:N 0..u..: 0 :06 I. 00 I 0 I .8 ..m“ ”00““ 0h" 0 00 01 {trivia-H.540 .’r 0.60.: :6. {Wot-Q". 0.0%.! 6806 u 0 .06.. .6. .040 4006.0? . 6. .. 0.1M. ., .00 .06..0.1A00. 6.1..‘5 . 6“ '0 : 0.. :00..I:: .. ...2000 ”.0.-0.00.0 Iv. ...“! firm-0%....«9 .. haul”: .:._.3...00I..0 . . ..I. .. .... . 3...: . .016 . .- . ”00.+ 3L) :. 0,0‘ 00 .I. 0600 .110... 0: 6 : . . ...: 6 :0. .0. k .0 I... 0 0. . 33.....- .0 ......) . , ........ ...... 1 . I . I... : 0 0 .0033. .0:.L0-up.u?tuu.\ 3,51%“. . .0. .t- . . 2.4». $390.36. :... 0.... . . . . _ .... .. .13.: I... .. I... -. ...: ... a... ...... t J 600.1? “.00.: 0.6 ".100 0:810. J06... 0 1.0 .0! .0.:0.._0I - 6.0.0 I . _ .4. . .0... 3000?. 0.30.04.” .. 0" I: 00" :0 :10: 0: t :.. ".... .... w1-...H.......i.-.fi:mn.... . ... -. ..I.- .. z I . - I‘ I. I. “ 5'00 .. DJ 8 0 0 7 ..0 ' .0 .l 0 03.0..” m0-& “6. 00-mI-0...” 5:- *0 05”.”: 00 00. _ I00 000.60..- Q” .60. I “.0 . .1 . .5 . . 90: . ., _. . I . . I I I .. . ,. ... . {20.00 3 0:01 0 0.836: .M. w. 6.; 0. .1416... .6 . . . ...3. 00.00.. :..: :.. 0 .. _ . . . . . .. . ,. , ,. .. lu:.‘#L’\MI.W-h 56060.4. :6 . 50 0‘ I ad .... 0. 0 0010:. ‘0. 5 . . 0‘ I504. . .. :.. ... .w ,u. "IL . . .0. ...: 30.0.”83301l0 .5904 66.406Ww046umw. 1.1.10: k0 nu. .0903“. 0 . unusty ....0 I . . . . . 6 .0.fl0. nu: .0 .2.. .... . . ...-n: «I. . Lana .2.-.... - ,I. -... . 2.7....- .... ...-......“- . . . “...... u ...... . dauHLHL. ...: 050., ...IA . 3:0... .0410... I z. a .0 .910 . . .- I. . . . . IIO‘8» I .0 0 I0 I .0... .65 . v I 0: .8 0100 A8 1 0 0 . 5.08. \..f . . “£06..“ 0N5 ... .0 I: .. u .1” .. I :00. 0:5 .9: 06.6.1030 ~ 0 . 0 I n. . . .11 0 :00..6I.ubi0.10 ’10 I ..w\ 0: 0000 0. .. . I. . I . ~33... .. I .1. 20:”...3Wu.‘ 0.000%... . I . 1351.. Junk)” : 0 .3... . .... In I :I. \7 a _. ..- . , 3550. 000 I: 9.3:: :00 .WOI.- 3.00.5.0: NI: I . .00 0 .6: 0 ...-5.0001a‘03000 .u- 0% .0. 4 015‘“ 0.03.00 :...fl. . .I :0. .0‘ 000, .0: I . I0: I: 0. .0 .00.. ...0 0 . 0 .. . ...-s ...-w. $1.3M?“ .. ... .. .....t ...-......m......u.n§.....u..4 N .- ..3.-:.. ..0 H“...- , 0000- : I . I I I. .0: I . .... 21...”..6. .. . - :.--41w...- ...- Jaw.- .Jw. . SW. .... ... :..... ..0. > . .W.«,. .330. . .. ... ... . .. . .... 3.4. .26 “mam... .. "ma-3...... .2.-a .....H...$.....- 5:3- 3.... .. «...-......“- . -..... ...: -. :.. I... . . . .u . - ........ .u.... . ~ :3 0 00. r000)« "0035“.“ J008’0.Ih035h1$900 . 00.1.6050 fiat-.10.”: .00 0 I 06 I . 0. ..0 0 .0 9. ..II : I ..0 . .0.. 3:. 00. I, .0. Y .L. 0K 0: :..? 00:0.- 0 .01":\.u.\ . .. ‘11:... I 0M2 wflaw 000.5 I .2., .. 0.5 .100 .0 . .0 . : 00. .0. . I _ 0 0 .I 0:. I. I . 0 I. 0 I..000. .H? 0:010:21: .50 .nnw. 6. .. 4.... 04"“ . .0 . .0 .0.“. I .3 50 $03.00. 5 . . . 0M .. . 6.0 0:. .0: .0. ...:3 . 0 .0 :- 3 . . 0. :.I:. .. . . :.. .u ... 7:55 “0.. . .00. 0 . . , a . 0 . 000...0&10.IL.€0..0;.:‘WP\I....80~ H . . , 5.. 0 0000 0.. . 1.40. III. . 0 0 . . ... J 0. . 08 I... (:..:l- .0. .:0 :: U... ... $00500."- 06."... .\: u , . .3 2.0.an I 00’» ‘5 *g‘ ’00!!- . . inflg.’ bur 0I” I 0.0. I” I 0.3.0. 5- . .. 0 . I. . ...... .I I 0.. . “6.“..0... 0 I .. : “00.:- 00.00.0ILIf0: 0.006,” . . . . W:u.b.”n. . «#00: 0.1!. :..».I 0.I\II:...0)I .. . . _ I 0000 1.70 3Y0. I! , .v. .: .0 .. 0. .u .. .. . ....1: 0.....r. . : 0:30.“ I .05.... ... I. 61.1.!” .. I . . ,. v. 0:. ”V .0.. .:H- 0..-0.5. .. 0...0 .0M5. 00, .0 000?.“ :0 .H.. ”0.08.: 00 .01.,- 00 0 0 “0. . . (”00 00—0. 1: .-lo.» 088.. .. .5! . 0 .0 3— n 0 . _ . . 00.0.. “00.10.- . 06.0 0.. I . V 0|0-<.009..h. . .....P. .00 ll- . 8. :I0I0 0... , 0‘0 0 a 0 .16“. _ 0 .0:00.II0 0.001. 0. 0 ":05 c . 0 050‘ 0 . :0 0. 0.. I0 0 0.. 0 d...(,.55: . 0 _. .1 0 0 I . . I . .. 0 0 ..C.... ...... ...wu... I... firm? new”... 2.4.08. 0.66.1.5:- 6I...» ,... .. :.. . r ... . %.:. 67.. «~60th 0..... ..nv. . ...... ...3.? .. ..u. a... . . ......u. .........u_ .. . $40“ 00051-0“: 00000.8...0 . . . . . .. .. .0. 5:0 0.0, ”66.10““ . .000. I. . . 0 '.00..5-....0 . 0 I 0’ 80-. ”I... . 001. . 0 0: ,. . 0.0 3060‘. 8. .00 “0‘05; 0. . . ,. . ..I‘ul 015.55. ::)0otmh}0.. .. . . 5. 000.500.0561 . 0.0.5 I 0 . 0. . ”V: I: 1.0.605, I 0: , .60.8Jb:m:..~€0? _ 1...»...656. h=50 0v. 0. . 0. 0&0 0 3 0, on ..,:5II. .06 . 5 . .6.:.. .0. . . . .sz 01.608.130.00: 1.6”- a." 0 I: . .00 : . .09 .0 0 . v. I: 0.: .0. 00600.31: ..- ...4...0.1.d.0....3.0 0...0.. 01:. .. ..vu: ..I: ..0 0 I . 000.6 . .00 .0. I . I 0 .. .3000 .57....“ 05:0.0Ia0l.:m,0.. .::00.4 ~5.06:300M00:.0s81.¢v...5 .00”. 0:15 .I .0 :0. n .0 . 000 0: :0: :... 6 0 . “.0 0..: 0 L .: I . .. .. . : 0 0 I : . . . I . .. . MMtJd0.&v&§II‘-Ow‘%1mmu0“nfimquhwa.IIfiv-?d”0flow080 . . . 0 0800 «Ir .0.“: . ... l k"! ”0.0 I . 00F .00 . 0.1.6.40”. .0 ..I ....5 "00””:0 ..mumifi ..mc. ....000....5..m0¢ .01. 0 0. 00:50.4. .... .. I: . .01- ..000 0:1 0::0.0 .. .5 II. .- . ... . tug“- . ....Iu 0. . (1:0. I .0... . I0! . 1‘6: o . . . . 30 : . o. . . . , . . . . J.60. "was I..... “:03”. fimimwu :.IMI.66.0. *0 .00"; 00.0” .000 : :.I‘Jafl. .50 7.0;; ...:0L0 0.31.0. 04., .0.. .—. . .. v 5.660.133“ .0: : I 0.60.000: ...0. .0 ...—“.600. t . . .:%.9. r. I .0 ..0 ~0«0.0 .00. Van?0.10u:0-...00 a I“... “ma 0. 0. 01:20 . 000. Ioria 0. 0 .:0 :0. . x 1'0 .. . 0 h 0 . . ..0:: in. u0.u.:.u 0 . . 0.. . . 0 .000... 0 N00 :00- h 0.0” “.0 mmwmy‘ . .0 80.0.“:62. Huffy”, f4 6110': "I '0' 0 0 8} . . 0‘. 5.0: 0 ‘.0 5 0 ....v :00 .0 I.0 . . . . ... . .III.: . 0a 0.5.... .00 0.0.. ..u: 00.00 . 6...! .n6” 6.00. 6 : :0._.<. . 0 ..0§.mn ”VIN: :01: 0... .v 0 :‘: . ,1. .0 . . .0 00:00 .7400“; .. i. 0. .0 no. : . . . . . . . .nvflanuflflhu 0“. it”! 0..”. .. (":00 00. 5 6”: .1“ 8V2. .00 0.0.“ .0 I ‘0 0.\‘..0J10ir. 54.0 35-6.“...05'00. 6. :0“ I}: Ch —. .5 I00 .0. , . . I . . . I ,’I .0 . 0 I I. . 0 .0.. . .. .- I. . . I l 50“.. J80.- ..00 0:20” :0” fl; .. . I. I .7. .. - . ... . . . . .. . . . .,.. 0. I. . . . . . I : tau-INN”... 6016000" Lanai-0%“.100-55 0 ..5006m....m._5..:..n ,1:an 0.0 00:60.00 0' 0'\: .5..:0.\000:0”1.Iun .M300.N£I 0F 6 .0: 0y. 0..“ I .0 . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . W. 0:16... J. .. n u. A: 0. . , .. . _ . . . . :pn-II 0 00:00 (V .001‘ 0 ...00050 :1. . . . . I. 0.01%: . .I 0 It: 1‘00 . . 0 I . 0.0. 4‘40... 0.00:0 fir. (0.00. 0.5 {.0. 0 awdwu- 0.0 “mp0 100.0 0 :0“ J. .0060... . 00" \d..0 “1004.“... 1 “..." 6 “00.60: ‘ ... . “0: “(Huh-p.03: 0 4‘ ': 0:00.619. 0::56 0:5? a} 00: 3.000.606. .01 “0.0.: 0.1.0.0000’6.0.. . . .. I . 0r ...“:OIPII ..I“ .0000... 000". I._.0\0. ems-w“. .hu.,.: s S 0 :S. (0.) 0.5.”.5105Urs0. 0: .0.... 60:. ., . . .. . ... .. . . . . l. : .n h2.000. .3130: . ... r... ...:.:.0........n 0. l: 011010.61 0.: .1... 00“.. ...0. 0 ...... - . . : . . . . .. . . - ... ... .6 01%.) 10.0 0 0 . M10- 0 .0 a0? I‘.L 9. 00 00:0! 9... .«0 "J 50 0.8000 60.0. 00 0 0.0.0, .8. 00m 0.6. ‘r.’ . . . . . . . . . . . .0 ”40.. . .019 \ ... I . I‘m-6. .0 1:. .0. .6 0001.15 .. .1 . 1!- . 0.. . 0. . 0. 0 00 5,00. .1 .:0.. . .0 0.0.1.108 000 I! _ .0. . ... ..0. .001. 08 01...‘ 0 I t .- 0005:.00fik... .‘0.0§00I.0. Ralph-10.5.0.3: :..-w-VLTWO 601.1% .10.!!! £110.3- 0 1. 01’5”” :..... I. ..00. .6 . ...m 0.0 . I 0. 0 II I. 0 0 I. I: 0 V A 01.1 : l 0 I t 30:02. .V: .. “MI". 2:”: . ..‘0. .1: .....I. trio . I :0\N:u.000 ”I” .56.. 1.6-. S H 1100.1 . . .. 100.06.“...0W01rowfii .5 ......r. . ... . J00...“ 0002 0..-00'0160'.‘ 070,000.01.~.0:0..\000 0000.. 00::I. I 05 . I 00.860.180.00500 I I. I .0. I 7 00’:- .0.. .. . 0:. . .... 5.7” . . . 065.0: .I I I01. :3 I .Ifiuh“: ... I~¥0KZ«I .0.. I «uni-Pt! 0.05 6 6 000 ..r ... . . .l .10. 0.. ... 0 .u. . . 0.0 II! . I. :... . . 4.0.00:an 0:08.. -....0I0.:5(0:. N00006: 0.6:. "Pr. :0. ...”. I”: . 0... . . r:.:...:. 2......- 50. .0... 00.. ..II. 00 .0 . . . .. .0.. 0.0...0..... . 3.18.9: :- .1... .v. .0 .9 5.0-. . 3 .. 336050.“. 0..... 1 .11.:- .... .0610. . .0. 0.0.» 0.1... ”I. .. ......6 . .. .30....- J:I. .I. 0‘0 1 :15.» 010.00 0. N. . 0 0 \00. . 0. :uigrn . . .0. . .. . II. 4 . . .0 . _ .0: .030: 1.05:. 0..“0L0HI5401 0.! .. [050. . u. .0”. 0001.008. , , .000. I . . .0... . . .. . . . .I) 0.... {VIII-(05x. . ..év' .. 00.0.5.0 I _ . .0 :0. r I 50.14.30... .05 0.. .. . . 0. 0 00.0 . 9“. 0 . 0.. I 500.0 . . .0 0*: . .. 0 0.0.. .400). .01. x. 0200:2400 ... 70. .00 00:. 0:. 6 v.62 o 0.... I“ . :..-t. \W ... 5.. 0.0. I. 41.0: . . ..r «0500 ..b: .0 . 00. . 000 0:105 “I: 0200.07.00i 30.0.1035 . .11 . 5.. 0 I 0. . III. .... 0V .0. .0.:n6.. -.0..£... I. ... . , I 5.: :. 0 : K . I0. .0.». I0... 0.:0%S0.0-10 0: 52:00.4. .0 . . r. .0.. 2.. .. .. 0 0 . :.. .:. .0.-.0010!"- .0.. . .. . . ..0. 5. 0: 0:. 009.1 0 .... ,flr! . (.0000 I o. . . 0“}: 0.0 . H 1. :0: ”0:0... ”\I L? 00 .0 0.. . 1.00.0 :: . I. : 0.0.0.0.. . l...‘ . 0. . u. .03....” J. I . . : I. 7:630 0 . 6 u .: a: 0 p . a. .0 “-00.90... 9:... A ... 0. 0. .. 0.1.0. 0 33...... : 35:.‘fl,t..z. .c :..... -:. :..-... - ..4. .2 - 0...!..I.....: 0.....0 .00.. .... «:3... .:..:..... 0‘ 01:02.00" .0. .01: ..0’56r:0.,.006 6. .... ..I:: ....It . . . .00..“ .0. 0. 0 u... . . . . .0 6.0 . 00.06.06.931... 0: .0 0021...: a... .. . .. 8.5503710}. :..V; .2. . “0.0.0.. ..I' : 0 , .. II: .. $160655 59 0. 0 .F, .\.I. .6. 1.? 0n:- "60’ ‘00.: ... I“: :0000‘00 :.00. n ..S . .0 .0. v 4......01 0 I :0 :f: :0 .0 I . Il . . . , . I 1 . . : .I0!...0.. 5:. .n I. .24.}: fit... ..I. . . . 0.00 .500 I. J 30:62.0: 0 1 .. a. 0 . I. 0. I .. . I .. . 0 0 I ...-0.. I. 6... I . .. . . :.. .0 33......Iziox... .0 .. . I....:.. 0.00 1-6.: 1, .. . . . 00-. ...: "0. 0 0.0. ..n .0 :. . . . ...-In ..:.0.:.V. - . :.....I .....00 . . 0..qu ...:0: .0....0. . :0» 0.. ..l 00- v. ..00. :. 500...:- 0. :- 0 . I 000: . 60:: 1 1:1 :: 0:30.! 0. n . 030.. 5 ...LJ... “00.0. 00 5.0000 0 5' 0:1 .0 r .: 80,00 .0050. L .0.. 000.00. LJOI0 0 0.: I :0. 5| .00 0 . 0 000 000' 1 I Ir 0.. 00 ! H.50- .:.. . 0 .0 . .0 .0 ..0....‘. 5 ... :.. A. 0 j .0 .0 00 : 0\ ..JI 0 . ..0.I. 0 . OI I L :.. . . .0 II“ « ’\. I .0 5 300.... .. ..l 6 0 0 0 . 0:00: 0: 55': , .. . I ,nl. J . 1:0. .0.. .: . . 0 0. I ..0: o .0000: . 0.5: 0: .0 “P"h .0": .0. . 0 .00 : .0. ’00 0'00 0‘ . 0 . .0 . 0. f: 0. “WI-1.05.0.0: 01 0 . . . 0 :.0 . . 0. I . I. U: 0 £00615“: v0.3, "-1..”3: :..—uh: . . «054000 . .50. . \ .. 0! 1.0 .4 R000 .0 03.0.0100 I0I .:I . .0“. :. 000.. ...3.. 00m1%k70...1..d 10t:.,.M.2.000: .0 0 .0 0: .00 $060 . . .0.~0.II.: :V. .0:....100..fl 0.00.05: . 0 I 0. .. :0. . 2.. .0.”) 5r. 0 0.8 00 0 L 0 .0... 0 I, I. 0. :0 0000 0 .00. 0:00. I I : 4 0.. .. . . 50.»?0 0.19.3105. 5: . P0600: .0.. 0:“ “O. ....8 VI: : .0.... 0.0. .0 0 0:0:00: 000.‘ .0 0....- . 0.03 :0- 0: 0.0 0000 8: .12. .I I 12"” . .30.. {000.01. :.5: I ..L 00:: I 00.0 :. 03300'III1. .00 .805) . I} I <..060I0.:FJ.. . . . . \0m. 6. 05.00:.f. .30.. I I . k. 5.... 0. . : 0 \0. 00.5. .0 . . IV 5. U. . 0 0. 0 0 . I .. ., 0 I . . .0230 00....000I. . . 0: «tocw‘ 13.0.04 .0 '3..u.b.h..n.0.:¢.... . . . . . . . . I . ,. 0... 394N060n2..::.:II 3 ....I0. .6 .5... . 0 I 00.6 s: . . .0 .310... I 00 ... 0. 00 . 0 . ..000.‘ . 0 I 00 600 0 .0... . . . . . , . . . , . .. . ... . . . . . . . . .. I ..0 0 o I: Z: .0 55v (00.00.60.710! :L'. 550 5“5 “or-205001100 . . . _ .....IV 0.00.6 . t... I :..-:00 .0000. .506020009000 . . _ .. _ . . . . . . . .. . q ,.....:J.l.:. .... .0 .10. 60nJ400: 0:... 0 .1010: 53:05:00.50 I I a .16... . $2.33.: 0: U... . ..II. 0 s . .II .0...0 0. 20.. ..00 . :10: 0. . . . . . . . . _. ,. .. .- J . . . : 1.3.0.090: . 01:..100013 It”! ...).0: .0. .4. 5 001.0. 5: 1 0.1:” 0‘. 6 . .VI 0 . . .0.. .50. . 00 t0.0:8 . 0 .504 : . I «.01 . I . 1505000 0. 3.0. 107.08. .00 I .41 I: . :..L: ...I..... . .. .. . . “... .... {If ...... I . -6 .. :... . . . . :10... ...8. 0900.19.39 (v.0... .6.- . . .>. ..00. 0.0 1 I .000. - . . . .. . . . .. .. . . . .. I .00.! 00:: . I . 00:. .0.u::0_n - .8 0 6. 0.. 0 . . .05 0. ,.I : . . . . . . . . , ., . . 0. 0 : 5 :0" :..-.. ... . r .. s I... .. _ _ .3. :... ..,...I. ... ..: .31....- .....I. I .... .. .I , ., , . 1 _. . .. . , . , .. , . . . :42... aha-p.11 55.. I... , :.....0 . :.. ..0u: :0. .....0:0 0.. : .....220. . . . . ... . . . . . . . . 0.0.:I.I.I00::I00.1~. 000M50- 500 r ..A I N I 0 1.. . 0 .0. 5.. I: ".5. .00... . . I:. .. -_0.:.. . . 00...: . 0:0: .. . . .. .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . .. . . _ . . 0.6.51 .0 0 0 00,0..I00... ..00:6.0M..0..(.a 35.... .R.b.w:00000M00.100. ...0000L. 7.05:.“ 0 . . . : . . ... . . . . . . .. . .. I. 0.0. 0.0:..10063 0:00.00... :05 0\0I\t. 351.0 . . ..I . . 9050......» .. .. 0 _ 000.. ... 0 ’0. ..000. . . . . .. . . . , . . . . . . . , . . . .... . .. . . «.51.... 010 3‘0; 0.0" . 0506.0...0. :. . 0. I :..00" . 0 . . . 00.1. r:.0"..5:’00.01.00..|. 0.. I 3 090 0\. 0 . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . , . . , .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . - 0.:..\ \85-«5... 60001.1I 0.! 08:50:80 0.00.0“.- . I . . .. . 0:0. 0 . . . . I . . .. . - .. . . .. . . . . I . .I . 0 0 I I I: .I .0.. . 0.”! 510—. . 0. , 60:03:. 0.0 r :5 . . 0 . h“ :00 0 0 a... 0 . .0 . . . . ”I. onum 0740 .109“. .5. 1015.50.53.90“ at}. 0 4.: I .00 0.0 . . 0".0.—...l. I .3 6. u 5.00 . 0 . I :0 0 I . ".0 0 . .0 0 .0 00‘ 0 (0.0 0.00300. , l ’ I 1“ 55‘ 6. I3; I. 0 .. . . . 0.4).. 0:05: I 0.06.1000: . .5 :00. z 0. .. . .... S 00. . .0. . . . . .. . . . . , . . . . 00.10.00,):0 ....flr. u010102t1. ...-v. 1. ,0 ... 31:00-06:00 DIQ‘ .l.. .0. .. 00 I 0.0 .I . . l0 00 00.0 . . _ :0 . 0 000 0f“: I r . :00 0 0 “...!II‘ . . : . . . . . . . .. . ..I..:: I0..-II 0..)0 : «0'0 .‘.: 500000 10 ..,-5. 5 :1. .0....PI I I 3.20 :.I. . . I . . I , ....I! 8:0. .. . . . u: - 0.0"? .. .5 .0. . . . . . ...:IIQ .0...A0000-..I 0.. In. 4.0: :.- .: . I 0 1 . 6. .. .0 v. . I 61):. 0N0... . .0 \101 :1- . .... 6.00.. . . 0. . _ . IS): .5. .0.-1.0.00.5! 11.}:5: . I. 0: 4 0100.63. ... I. . L: ! -..: I) Q .. ..I. , . M0: IV“! .0 0 . _. : 0 ..w. I 0.. 00...... :0 0.000:- f.) ... 0.50:1:50. :6 0020 (0 II: .0.“ : :1. 00. .0 - 5 . : r0 .. . I. : 0 . I ’ .8:- “I... : . ._ 0.: wu..¢:05..0~0r.0 I 0.01 :5. .6. «0 ..0..5. . I500: 00!- C .0 5.. 1.6.00: I . £70018 0 :I ._ 5 :0.!H0u:\0,‘0::9000:0. .....0... .10. .&.0. 6... 00:... 0 I .1 ..I...-. 00.000. - 0.0 ..0Ia....0I015.u: 60105052: Ari-:0 0 ...... 0 0.01: 000050 0. .010: 0 I. 2 . 0 11. . . x 9%....0 ‘55 5'05. ‘80 .84.? . . 0 0.0.0. ”.0. . .0000...:. .00 .0 0’00! 0.:..5 9171.6”!2-00!‘ . ...05 7: 1“,. ..OI. .0. :.I.:I _ II: 0: 5517 4 I.0 1: .00 -.:| . ,. . 65:55.1. 0. H: 0’51 . 0 1..3\.II6:0. ... I ....I .. . 0.0 _ :..00 . .‘u: . .. . .. . . .. .10:- I: ...000 :IJ.!.0 7.31:0. 0 :0.:1.50...,I'.. . 08!, .002: 0.00 5 . . ,I 00. 00,03,001? . 1.0.3:... ... .. . . I, .. . . .I .. . . . ... . . .00.. .I! 1100.0?!«0 Hun-(00.9. ..5flY00H 50 0 0.64 ..06 II I 65. .0. . . , . . 0. . .0 _. , —. :1 J 000 .0 I . . . . - 0 . . : I L 1 I]. 0.0 .0. 'I .0: 0 00 0803\§ {0 .0 :_I.. .0.. 00 3.0.0 . . . . ,0 5. ..04,00.:...0 0.. .. 0 ..I0 1 . . . . . . . . . . ”‘0 ::r.. ..00.:(: :0 .5IIJ 530.?1.‘ .I... .. 0 .60. 0 0:0: . .. . 50.?0. .. . ... 0 u . . I!- “ .0 0..: . . 0.0. 21.).- 0 .01600I. I 1.?0'0 .50 00:!00 . .000 . .. I 0 - . . :00-V 0:0. I . 0.0. 5 0 0 . .. :,‘.I0-. :00 I I :.‘50 ' «£4 .00 ..0 ..00 0 .0 I 0“."II’. I: ..nuI., I. 0 ..010' 1 .0‘5HHL. . “0 0 0 . .0 0‘. 0600 ‘0..00 0:... . .0 :: 1.04.. H0 ..u: 5 5! ...!th 15:8”: 5 t3 .5. I I... . . .I . . 0: 0 . 1| 0: . I: . :01 . .I . .03 . 1:005]: .. : .0 . I II: ..0. I6 0.0 0 nu 0.005: 6‘ ”I. 9H I u. ”... _ ..k: 0 .0 IRA-0. 40. _ .0..“ II ' ..II . .0 00:. I . . :0. 0 L:.. 0 1, a , 0: )0 . .0. I. . I a)... r 5... ..’.00I0.90.w1::0....ll0.. .55 54250000 . 5. 0 .50 . .0 .1 d 0* :0 .0 ..0. .I. 010.005: .050.0I 00.00: .: ..I.0 I 5:0 :0. 5. 1:03: ! : 00. 0O 0 I 0 r 0.: . I 0: I I. .00 r: 0: . 0.. 0 5| 0 0.. .00!) 50:0( )II 05.00. I Lr .100 . 0.0 . . :00 0 0. . a 16.. . .. 0. ... 00:: 5: :l . .. 00. :0: 0:5 :0 . I u .. I. I . . . . ... :'.I 0 :.. I: V . 0 I . I0.:III _ :\0: ,0 .0.; 0:0 000 0.: 1J0 ..T. 8.0 .. II. 1.0. I I .I I. I.. : I 0 0 . .. : .0” 01': 6.00 00:0. . I r : I: 0 . . , . .. . . .. .0: 5:.1 8 0:. 011 I 0. : .r: . .0010 -.- 0 .0: 00“.. 05M: 0: u 000 0»: 0 .0:00 ..I 0 0:0 \ 0 81:1 ‘ 06. :"0 0. . 0 . ..0: . 0 : .s u . .. I . . 0 5 , . : . . . . 0,. . 0:0 .00 r I F. :1... Z . . I .080 0r0000I16 0.0 0.0 0. 0 .. 0 0 :0. I . 0 I . 0.5: 00 0 f. ‘ 0 . . . ....0 .I V: . .0 5 .5 0. 16.03000. ..0 0‘ . ..0:u-..'l..\1'0I .. I: S! 0 ’0-0..(8:.I. 0 5‘5 . . a. 50 0. . :01 0 .0 0 0'. 0 _ .0 0. Viola-0‘ ..0, 0 "I... :00 :0. I ,. I :0. 1 0 55' . I . 0 60: 0‘ 0.. 0. . L. . 0:. , 0. 00 . . I05 6. I :9 01 w . .\ u : : : 4- . I) .. . 0....‘0 0. 0.00. J0 3000:. I .100. 0.! :.07 1000!. . I .0. .:. I #1505. 000:. 05 . ...! .05 010.560....”"00 .. 1'1: . .. I :0 00. .0. . 0 0! ,I . . 00 :5. 06.. 0.. ... I}. . . .0 :00 . .- 0 I . .I .I .I .I 00 0 , . .0 .. . 6 . 0 .0. 0:. .11: : 00 II'. 0:0 50. 3: :0 .:!0:8080 . 0010018.: 1 ' «0r.00 5:50 . .01 00 .00. .51:.:5:0.nwa 6:0..- I 0 I 1.05 I '50.. 0 . I 0". tuttnooou .I! I 5.. bus-0 0600 ... I I .. .0: . .0 . 0 I : .o0 0 .00 . Q0! 0:. .00.. 5 _::\v0. 0. I“ 0.04.60.00.31...- 16,00"...:..50001I.‘.au00«00.0lv.:IL..1.1164005 . ..0‘150 INN-Pug: ..0 :0. .aoc . ...,I. 5.0.0.: 0 ... .. :. .. :II: I: . 1.0 . I. 0:: 00. . .01.: : . .7:- : I1: 0. I . . .I .0 I... .I I. 6. :.. . Ir. J ... :.. .60... .. .0‘. .II: II. or... 7000050....0011 0010.0: . 00-5-0 0.0. 0... I. 0 .0: .5.- uu 0. .5: 00 ou.000.> 0 “a . 0‘}? r . 0.. “0 0.1. ‘0 0“ 0 . 0.2.0.000“ 0.000. I I II . 0 0 I . 0 .0 0.0. 0 0 I 0 I 6.0 0 : 00 :00 0 0 5000.0 I . :. .. . :0 0... . 000 0 .hl-0. I .0“. I. (I 00010:”. .0000..0«:.I 00: . I: 0000‘ ,0‘0: 1 :00. 0 I5. 1:1: 010015 ."A I! £116.90 .0. . 0 . M . 0.8 0.05 0 0 0 0 . 0:. III 0.00. I I. I I 2.05.6.6 0 . 1 ...-I. 50: 0: :00" 0 : . 0 . 0 I0. .0 I 0 I0 I 0 I 0 0 55 0 0 0 : .0... 0.0. . :I I... 0 801.5 - . ,.:00.. 000000550009. I ‘51 I .. 0. . \I . .. . 0.003;: a 0: o. ...6 .. .. 0 I 0 $0I 0 . 30(- 0 0: :00 0:... : . . o. .. . I .I .7 :- I I . .. 000. ..Irv“ I .... I . . . . 0, .. . iv: . 0:. . ”.00 .0 .00... I 1 I.) 0 . ...3. :2;- .m.:.. J. . .. I, I I... .. -..... ..- ...... ..--.... _ . .. . ... . f. .. .... . 9-3:“: :..-...”... II 0 :W‘ .0.. 6 5 050.0.- 0 0M1. 0:5.0 0. - 0: 00 . I. 500 0: I: I 0000., I H “In. 0 0 0 0.’ .1” v I ... I. I 50 :0 I100 00 . .0 ... I :0 .0 L ... I 0 . . .005. I . 0.: 0 .05.:0..I . I\ I..: I 01.. L 0 :..-13”"..00I00-0 00060.0 . II0\ , . IUII?VI0!..8010510..0 “’05 .. I. . I . I I o . 0. I 0 .I II 5. I . . : . -- . I . I : I I 1 0 0: I - ..05000: I. 0 I ... In.» ...-1... . . .., g. .. .. -.." a . ...: ... .....0 .. :05}... ....3 ... I 5. .IL ...... . , .. . ... :.:.. :.. - (...... . ... ..,}. .... 11...... ...... .... . z .N I)??? ...:v ....- .- 0 0u00 . .0.-0:. I. .... 0.. I ..0! 0 : 1. 0.: .. ‘5308' : 0.15.! 0 0. I 5... . . .. i I» 0. 0 .0 . .. . 0 I : I 0 I. . l I 0 0 .. \I I I . 1 .. 0 . A 0 00.05. 30:5; 001‘ Ir 0 . l .J :: 0 0 0 .6.\00 I 0 I . I: w .:00. 0. .0. 0.0. . 0 8:5. 00 o 0 . 0. K 0 50" 0: 0 0 0 08 I00 0. I ‘ :1 05 5. I I 0 .0 .:0 I . . ‘ I .0. ..1‘0: 0 0' .. 0: 0 I 0 0 .0 I 000 000005‘.0:0 0 III-10.1! 0 I . .. . . . . . II. II! .00. I 0. 1 ... I - . . I . . I J I I . : 0. . .: -.. . I. IA: I. . 0 0 . I h . . : 001. I I . . . . , . . :50; 3.010862 ..\.0 .0.-06. 0a.”..0 . . 5:: 54F . 0 I I.“ x . u. . :0 ..I. . .0.. 00.? . x : I 0 0: Q I. . ...I . . 5 .I ...; '40. . 0 . 0:00: I . . I . I 0... . . I‘ 5 II M. .. I 0.0: .\0 .YFRMIIII." 0 .....0. .... .0. v 00. a. 1 .\.-..:.ur.. ...UIL 00.0.0”. I5 0:0..0 ..: .W I 6 . .07. 0 . 0 .0. . SII 0..-.0 ,.. . .-.: 0 ...I0 I .0 I ::.I: I. 0H0 0 :0 :. I. 0:. 5.10.: I 0r 11.0.05 :1 0:5II I 001-3001: ,0 .: :0 0 .. h r . 1 00 . 50-0 “b“. .0: . .0 00 ..L‘ I 02“ 01' . .. ..:: :0 .. 0.. 0 0. 0 .0 v I :0 I . II I. .... r. . : ...I. I . I I I..5: 0 :0 . I... . ... I .0 0 0. 0.0 I . : I: 0. 05:700.: 0.0.000. :0NI05 I.00V'5.0.:\ . . 3 . ..I... ... ii... . ... .u..:u..:...h-...... h.. . I . . . :...- . . . . .. . .. . .., ., I . . ... I . .... . . . 1.43.2- Hun.»- : I I I 0 0 I 0 . l I 0 I 0 I u I I . 0 6.0 I) 5 01 . 0 “0.30 0 .-0.000 I 0 . .- I. 00! . .II.I .0201. 0S ”0,0.0 500 .u 7:00 ... 00” 5. 01 1 . I0. 96 . 0, 3 )u 0 :0: I I : .0 I. I 0 42, ... 1. . .I . I: 0-0 : :... . :0 . 6o .0 :..0 00 I : «:0. I Iv 1'00 80,1 .I0- I . :..-05 I .: . . . p._:. 6.. . 1 . 00:- . . 0. 00' ...-.... 0 ... 0 I 0. :12“. :0. :...: .0 0. 10: 00 "H0 0 0.: 10.: ..0. I I I. 0 . I 0. . 0 0.0.00.0. 0. . 50-00:!0!0.0!\!I”II I ... 0 ...0 o :I 5.. 30.00,. 000 . 90:... 1.0 . - 10.40 m0: 0 0 0 . 0... .0 , ’0 . 0 0. ..I k. I I 0 . I . J 0; :1- 0 0 I 0 0. . a . : I. 00 I :0. . 0 8000 :..:ANSOIO 0.1.1000"- 0 0 .0 5 05:. 0 . 5?. ..0 . 050100! .400000 9.1. . 0010050. 6‘ _ . NO 0 0“0 5 5 0.0 00 :00I0 .I 0: .06 r . 01. .0 .I II: :0 0.0 :10.‘ 0 1 I...I :0: .. :: 00:: 0 0 . 10 1:.“0 000000: . .t’u.0.0.h8“0“00 00...: ‘00 . f: . . . . I. . . . . . . :: 0 I I . .0 . I I . I w . : : - : : I I . I : x . I I .I 1:5? - .h 00‘ :50 00 0'1 .0. In .IJWIIVIWI .540. H. 0.0 II .0: 0 . 50 I I5 I5 :.0. 0 0' 0 0.0 0:0. : .0 I ! 0 0 .0', U0 ‘0 . I :50I 1h... 5.: . II I’m“: 0V.) I I “03005-50! . 00:00 000 I 6‘ 0». ~00: . . :...I \0 8.1000050 .... l 10.. 80’: .I. 0..: :0. 0::- 10 .0 0. 0 1. 8 0 4 I. I 0 :..-0. . II I 0 CI: M. .l . v . . I: 0 0:0 7 0. I! 0 IMHfinII 0:5!‘VIM04 . . .0 . I o 5 00 0 :I u I I I . I . : I : : I ,. I I : I : : I I o . . I 1 : I 1 000t 0 : .5”: 00 . V. O 0 I05. .0J 0:. ”00 .II 0 5O ‘6! ..I6 00050.... 16: :..-.0”. 15 . I. 00 I0I 0! 0. 0’ 1:0 10 . 0. 0. 0 0 . "00 I 0 0. .0 p I 000 0" 000.. .0 I0 6 .0 00 :0: : : 0.0 .:0 0:0 6 :05 .50 . . I I I: I u .V:..0.::0I.uu00 . : 9 .0 “0:08.00 Ilrlbi ‘Mt - . . - .I .. :0 .I I , . I _ 5 I 5 5 . . I: I I I. I .I 5 . 0 ‘I 0 I - . I 0' I 50 10.6 50?”. , 66.06.. 0. . 5“. 0 0 “I. 0F... I _ . 0‘.I 0000.000” “0:0 u. 0 4 . 0.0.. 0‘ :I I9: . 0 ..u» . .0 (I :00 I . 0 ’9‘ . 0 «.0140: ww 4 : I I . 0. 5 I :0 I I I v I 0 . 0 . . .0 9 I 55!. .0. . I 50' ”VIA-:0. I.’ 0 V0 .- 04‘5““. 9 80:30.0.Ist Y .11: f... 00 0:5. 0 0 5 .. 4 \ 5.0150 0 0. 0 0. :0: 0 .00 . 0 u. 5‘ I ... .... 0 :..: .I .1 I I5: 00 I :0 . .0 . 5 0. 0 . I . . : . HI ”.0. I: I : n .. ,.0 00.5.20. :. :0 ...5. ,I 01.014003 “1.00“ 5555.0!‘.UI050. Y. .I ., : .6 .0..I ”.0 Wh0. 0. 5. I .0 0. I I h... I."I . W. .0 0. 50.0.0“.00504.: nu. 0.0:anon 0:. . 1 0.5.6 : I0 0 . 0 .0 0 000: 0: I . :00 0 0,. - 0. .0 0 .. .00 :.II I .. I I I I 5.00 0 ...0 0 I . : Ia: ..,-U0 . 0...0h0.:0 I OJ I I (01.0500 0100!. ... 4080-0 0: 00:40:. I 0 0" nfl,:...1.:0.. ..m 06...... :-: :0. 0 .0 0. 1.0. :: £0.06. 0 .0.... V: I9... . .. . I 1.7:... 0: 5. :..... .H. . I :.. 0. . I .540: . 0: _. 00: J. .0 m: . I In .0 .I I 60 J:_d: : l.:.I.....:l.0.... 0.10.0510... “:.....ILIHIIHQ I :. I . 0 0 .0 I I :0 0: I . n I I 0 I I I II . I .I :I I . : I : I 6.2«0 0:.‘-.r . . 0. ,QUU". .:4....:- 0 “0:4"... «..QuOI.. ..I 0’: 0 , 0.! . .fi . .0 ...: Y: 0 : 11.5 I . : .0 In . ... 0 :69. .0 ...: v I . . :4:- :. .'.0I...01*4H0HI: : ‘IIIu0w.’ 0| .! .00: !. (.01....10. _ 5 . 0.4 1...! 0 . I I .. 0 It... . I ...3.. .0:- IV u. ‘H .3. 0 I. :... .. 1,50. I- . I? u ... 0. . . . . : . . : .n. - I .I . I I: It .I : I I .. I . .4 I. . : . 2:. 0.1.02: II.: .1 0: 0 -. . . . V 000.0 :0 .00 3.1:. I 0 I .0 : 6 I ..0 5. a 0 . 0 : .0 I .- I 0 I . 5 I: :I. :0’. 0: . 0 55:0: 000 I 1: 0 0 0:? h .6. I :I I0 I III) 0 .. 0.I. ..00: I .I00 :(00 5:0 I 00.00:. H. .0 000 0 0 u: C 0 8 I I I 5- 0.:n 0. :0 0 . 0 :IOH’DI. :0 . A 4.l:1:h00!’00:5l.|::0 : .: . I u : I d ,.§ 00. .. 00. 0 I... . 0 0 : .I. .: .. I I I . I00: I II I .. 0 . ..0I0.0.I .,I H ol:.0..:0.| :10 ”0.0.. 5 0:0”. 0. .U-JI . ..I .0“ .P: 1 . 6.1 0.0. I .I. I . 0: 6:0 .0 . .. 0 .I.H\:l 0 .0: n I .... 6.0.00. I0. $.34”: . 0 0.“: 0 . In ..I: 0. . r 0. I- : V: 1::0. I I I ...:. I 0 I 0:0: :5 In : I.) I PI. 0. C 20:00“ ..0.I.I.u.III.5:III : I .. . I .8 .0.: 1:0 . 00 I 0 . C l l . . I I. 5.05.]...I0l51 0‘ . 0: . . .u“. 30.... 0:5 .0 I “I 0. I 0 .00 0|.0 9.. 0 :. v 04 0. .0.» 0. 0 1 0 . “I ,0. ... 0: :I: U50 I. 00 I 00 5 0 .0 . a 5 5. 0 ..0 O . . 0 I .000. I 55" o: ..r... . : . I“! 10000163..”‘3 ..l00II: II '1 . . . . . - 0. .0 :5. 0.. 0. . ... . I o .0 0. 0 . : : I. I- . . - 0 : I . . . . . . s . III @rT ".5. 0:60U00..1..0_ I . :.0 00.0. In. : 6.60.0 10.05 005N093... .0 I 0.: 051351000. . 000 0 \0.. I I 0 0 I0.0::: Iva 8 . II ..0. I00 .0 0.0 .“0. .0 u 0&0: I00 0. I0.. ...-“00:“: ......o . .I.4.I\Iofl:r0I00. -'H50.U.I:004 { ..I. I :.. I 0 \- III. 0.. .I 00.: III 0 . I 0 I ..II: . .0 0.. 00 1.. II I 6 : - 00.: 0 . I a. 3 .. . .00 . .III: .. I: . I I. 0 II . Q 00: 5 I 110: 0 0 ‘05 . 60 0 . , 0 5'0'0: 0 . 0 “0.0:! l, I 1 0 5 0. .00.. I I I. 0.0.62.0 no.0 . 6-0. .0 0 .. I 0 ,... : I 0 I: I f 0 1 . : . 0 :.0- : . . . 0 1. . :0 :.lI.‘ I ... III.- 6 50.0I .I5090I ~0I 0W...WI....L T: ‘0.I05::.: 06..-. 00. 0.5 0 ”V100 5050 0 ”0.100 .5 :05-0 1. I: 5,50 9.0. .0060 H .004’IIII00 50 1.00 0. :I.‘ I 070.: I 0. 5. 00.0. 0 .1 .0 0 - .0005”. .5-I5L:.0:‘00000.05 . .6. . 0 .5 0 :0 ' 0 05. . I 0.0:: V :0 0\ . .I’000 0 1 6 0.0: I. 0 :0 . I e. 0 5! I I 0:0 0.: .0900 . . 03.15 .00r.5 I I 430 ..,: 00 ... ..0 «at 9L: 0 .II :0... :3. ....150.. I 0000.....- 0 9 0'-.- 00 05 :u.: v :06: . I. I. o I I . .n 5 - . 0 0 :0 0. :.. .a 31.: 0:0. 3:!.::.::5. .0 2 I, . ... : 00 .10... . 60 0:60 0. I . 0. 0 ...-0: 0 :4 .0 I I 00.00. 0. r1 0: .I.. I 0 0 0. . . . 0 0 I I: , I0 I: 0 . . 0 50 .0. 0: I: -. 101:.1‘: 0 0. II 0:: I .0. J ! A. .1. h .15.. [:0 ...:I:... I000... 0.00: v 0010:. I:.I: 0 .0 I .0. 0: .09 .0 :lIH..: :I . I. . I?! I I .0 r 5. : I . I. :07: . :-.:lhflio . :0 , 0 0 5 0. .. :0 I 0 0 8 0 .05 0:00 0: 0 0 0 0. 00 . . Ii :0 I 9:. I 0.0. 0 :0 0 0 5 II 0 0! 00' 10.06:: 0 00- l -P '5050 : ..0I .: Y 1:005 II: 0I.V.00. :0 . I .00 0 . .0.. 0 . ’10 00 . . .0550 0 00 . ... I 0: 9500. I 0 II 0 :. II: : . 5:: I I I 0 0 00 ”0””)..50ad . III..::I0I 5 MI 06 :1, 0.: 0 a . . 0:.“ 5.0: I 00 001.0 .0. 0 00. 6:. . : : . I. . I I: 0 I.: I .10 :0. I :0 I m . !. 0 . 0 . I . 0 .: I .II . 0 I I 4 0 I 5 I000. ,0. .0.” .0.. . 0 .l: [J 0.0:.V :00 0A . I .. I . I: 0:. 0 0 x0 :0 ., 0 . 0 . . :.0 I 0 . I I I . : I. 1 1! 0. o . : .. I I .: :505 .0 . 0 I :0: 0. I 0.. I : 0 0 0 0 . :.5 I 0 0 I : 0 0 0 .0.-.3 005 0: 0 08.55000050l95: ‘0 0 - 6 2.0 0 I .“.v06000 0M. 0“ . : 0 : 0 N0. 0. 0 5.0. :I.0_‘:00 I 00 «0 ... 0:00 :5. 050 0V 0” I0: 0 : 0 II 5...“ .0 I . I . .00- “0 I do 0.: 5 I. : . . I 0 0 0 0. I :...l .0 “I‘M. 0 I:!. 5W’0 18‘7“ I1 (0'01: : 0| .$:: :00... I Inf-20;:- VI 0 020:. ..0-1I.I 3.. 0.: 0 00 . .0. ...: :0. ...0n. I .0. I. .6 0 .o0u0ha01P 0.: :..H :.: :..: I I {100. I .. I :v. 0 :0 0: I I0: .,I.. I I .9 . .5! 11”...“ “flow-... 6‘ L( 0. n 0.... . ,1 0 00.0.00 .0.00000!.00.0’I0.:.I::HI.:5.0I 0 I. :.-.0. . . :06 0.0.: I .0 :. 0806.: .01.00 0 In 0 . b I. 00 0:. ..I: II. I. 0030.: : III: o :.IIIII 0 0 . $000 6unu| 65 I I. ‘:.v..I.. ,5. III : 00,.-. III 0 ”I. ‘0 I... 03.00.0004 . .::.n0. 0 1 0:! 8 .0:0 .- 051!- I 0 0. . “I 0 0! A: 5 00.1.“ :0 11:55.5 ‘0 . _ 0.00:.II-0 0.0 .6“: a) :0. 1'81 I I5.. .0.. 0 O 00 00. I 0:0..1 I .5: I . 0n” 0: 0 I (”0:00. . 0: .00 VI . I Ian-.0: II 000 II 0!. INUIIIHONIII. . ... I... .5 I: ~50. .. 06! 5 I 0 : I . .0 :.. ..l . 5 I60: 0.: 0 0- 0 I0. . I“I..I 00. 0 . . I I. I: .«I4 .: I 0 I. 0 I 0 . I0 II 0 t: 0 I .5: II _. I I010 21... .. 3:... I.. . ....I .. an... ., In...-0b ..-.. - .... :.. .I. - .... ..--.. . .. I . . -. . . ...- I: .1. I .0 . 00:1 5 I. I . I 0 0 .0. f . o . . 0 0 I 0 0 I : I I - . «5 5 000.7. .0 6 . 0! I 0.. 6 . ..0 . . 0.00.: : II 0: N I 0 . . 000 . I I I I: 6 0 0 A I 5 0 v I 0. I00 0 . 60 5 00:00 00 0. :0 I 0. V v,- 0 0 I. 0 0 fit: I 0 : 0:: 5 II 54 I . 1- : :- . 0: I: . .:0. 0..: :I. 0:. I :0 . _ W: :0! .15 0 .5 50460 _ 0:5 0 00 0 0 0 I 0 ... 5 I I 4 1 1 I I i. . .I . 5I . VII '1 0. . .06: . I I 1 I: I. v . 0 0 0 .. .. I: ...00 0 I ”-9 I . 23:31.. ....I -13: .I --....i... - ...-...... :..-- --...I.. ..-x. . I. - ...... ..::- ..f .. .. ... .. .. ... . I - - . . . .. - . I 9 5 -II-| I 0 I 5 9' I W031..." v. ......5, .I. .. .,. .. .. iii-...: ......f ...: ...-$0.03....- .... a. I. ... .. . M803 ”3,—r «the Slog"; lS'Lll LIBRARY Michigan State University dissertation entitled This is to certify that the RELIGIOUS INTERNALIZATION AND CHURCH ATTENDANCE AMONG SECOND GENERATION KOREAN AMIERNCANS presented by Henry Hyunsuk Kim has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for the Ph.D. degree in SOCIOLOGY Major Professor’s Signature / O , / (0 ~ 0 3 Date MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. To AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE ,Qk fijon'] 312105 L4 6199 l I_ I!“ t’; l itié i6 6/01 c:/CIRC/DateDue.p65-p. 15 RELIGIOUS INTERNALIZATION AND CHURCH ATTENDANCE AMONG SECOND GENERATION KOREAN AMIERNCANS by Henry Hyunsuk Kim A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Sociology 2003 ABSTRACT RELIGIOUS INTERNALIZATION AND CHURCH ATTENDANCE AMONG SECOND GENERATION KOREAN AMIERNCANS By Henry H. Kim This exploratory study investigates an independent second generation Korean American church in Ann Arbor, Michigan, to asses what associations exist with post-collegiate second generation (or non-first generation) Korean Americans who participate in their ethnic church. The major exploratory hypothesis is: Religious internalization is a necessary precondition for Korean American second generation church participation. Although religious internalization helps to explain religious participation, ethnic resources, socialization, costs and gains for church attendance, and selective acculturation help explain why the participants have selected a co-ethnic church. The ethnic- religious literature for Korean immigrants is saturated with the themes of first generation overrepresentation and second generation religious dissociation. One area of study which has been excluded in the second generation religious literature, and is the focus of this dissertation, concerns the post-collegiate autonomous-church members — those who continue to attend their ethnic church after college. To Uncle Tae, David Cho, and other Korean Americans who have left the race on earth. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank all of my committee members for their invaluable help towards the completion of this project. My advisor, Dr. Steven J. Gold has been especially helpful throughout my program. Further, my wife, parents, pastor and sa-mo-nim have been an incredible source of support. Finally and most importantly I thank my Lord and Savior for providing the opportunity to serve Him thus far in life. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES .............................................................. vii LIST OF FIGURES INTRODUCTION ............................................................... 1 Theoretical Investigations ...................................................... 5 Ethnic Resources ................................................................. 7 Costs and Gains .................................................................. 9 Selective Acculturation .......................................................... 10 Lighthouse Community Reformed Church .................................... 10 Contributions of the Study ...................................................... 19 CHAPTER 1 EUROPEAN AND NON-EUROPEAN ETHNO-RELIGIOUS COMPARISONS AND CONTRASTS ............................................................. 21 Selective Acculturation ......................................................... 21 European Intersections of Selective Acculturation and Religion .......... 22 Non-European Intersections of Selective Acculturation and Religion. . 30 CHAPTER 2 CHRISTIANITY AND KOREAN AMERICANS ........................... 37 Five Social Functions of the First Generation Korean American Church.. 40 Second Generation Korean Americans .......................................... 47 CHAPTER 3 METHODS .......................................................................... 57 Investigative Themes .............................................................. 58 Qualitative Investigations .......................................................... 62 Quantitative Investigations ........................................................ 65 CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS .......................................................................... 68 Religious Intemalization .......................................................... 68 Ethnic Resources ................................................................... 77 Costs and Gains ..................................................................... 90 Selective Acculturation ............................................................ 92 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................. 122 APPENDICES Appendix A. In-depth Interview Questions ...................................... 134 Appendix B. Surveys ............................................................... 135 BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................... 146 vi Table 1. Table 2. Table 3. Table 4. Table 5. Table 6. Table 7. LIST OF TABLES Type of Church and Associations ............................... 7 Ann Arbor Population from LCCRC Deliberations .......... 17 Ann Arbor Asian Population from LCCRC Deliberation. . .. 17 Korean And American Values ................................... 49 Number of Persons Who are Your Closest Friends ........... 83 Number of Your Closest Friends Who are Korean ........... 83 Number of Closest Friends Who Attend Lighthouse ......... 84 vii Introduction In this chapter I will briefly present a general context of European and non-European immigrant religions before I interject the specific focus of my study: second generation Korean American post-college church-stayers.1 I will also emphasize the importance of religious internalization (the crux of my hypothesis) as well as other possible tools to analyze my sample’s ethno-religious participation. The Lighthouse Community Christian Church (LCCRC or Lighthouse), of Ann Arbor, Michigan is unique not only in regards to its religious participation as a second generation Korean American church. Lighthouse is also unique in respect to its positive intergenerational relationships. Although I contextualize, discuss, and compare broader themes of European, non-European immigrant, and first generation Korean American religious patterns, the focus of my study pertains to second generation Korean Americans. Further, though the data in this study suggest that ethnic resources, costs and gains for staying or leaving Lighthouse, and selective acculturation are associated with Lighthouse participation, religious internalization is a necessary precondition for Lighthouse attendance. ' Of the 19 males who were interviewed, the following are their Korean church attendance rates in high school: 1] attended every Sunday, 1 attended almost every Sunday, 3 attended several times per year, and 4 attended an American church. Concerning the 15 female interviewees and their high school Korean church attendance rates: 13 attended every Sunday and 2 attended almost every Sunday. As a vast majority of the Lighthouse sample had attended a Korean church in their pre-college years, I will use the term “church-stayers” for this sample, although a minority of those who have never attended a Korean church in high school (4 males of 34 total interviewees) are also included in the Lighthouse sample. Aside from the nuances of “church-goer” versus “church-stayer,” Lighthouse members are differentiated from their silent exodus counterparts. Finally, Lighthouse, as church-stayers, is used in this exploratory study regarding ethno-religious associations for post-college second generation Korean Americans. Literature regarding immigrants focuses on the newcomers’ experiences and adaptations into various sectors of society. An abundance of scholarship has addressed multifarious aspects of the immigrants’ modes of incorporation: economic mobility, educational attainment, types of assimilation, ethnic language maintenance, ethnic enclaves and niches, etc. (Portes and Bach 1985, Bodnar 1987, Model 1993, Portes and Rumbaut 1996, Alba 1996 and 1997, Rumbaut 1999, and Farley and Alba 2002). Some scholars refer to the post-1965 (predominantly) non-European immigrants and their progeny as a “new wave” of immigration (cf. Portes 1993, 1995, 1996, and Farley and Alba 2002). Studies of religious adaptations for the post-1965 groups have generally focused on first generation members whereas discussions of second generation ethno-religious patterns are less common. One common theme concerning intergenerational- religiosity reiterates a pattern of first generation association and second generation dissociation. This pattern is especially pronounced for Korean Americans whose first generation members are currently the most Protestant-affiliated immigrant group (Hurh and Kim 1990, Min 1992, Chong 1998, and Hurh 1998) and have exceptional second generation losses. Immigrant and ethnic religions concerning European Americans are often placed in contexts of straight-line and “pressure-cooking assimilation” (cf. Warner and Srole 1945, Gordon 1964, Molesky 1988, Liptak 1989, and Portes and Rumbaut 1996) whereby ethnic churches can be used in the immigrants’ adaptations to mainstream society. However, “newer paradigms” of religious studies (Warner 1993) suggest that ethnic congregations are formed for reasons more diverse than the mobilization of resources (cf. McCarthy and Zald 1977). Among other things, the phenomenology of religious experiences may also be an important hermeneutic regarding religious affiliation and participation (Neitz 1990). In this context, however, few scholars are investigating non-European religious congregations (cf. Warner 1993, 1997, 1998a and 1998b, and Ebaugh 2000) and studies on second generation religiosity have been scarce. Today’s immigrants’ experiences are somewhat different compared to the earlier Europeans waves. For example, like their European predecessors, educated groups such as Korean Americans (Yoon 1997 and Min 1998) may evince upward mobility in the second generation (cf. Ong and Hee 1994 and Farley and Alba 2002). However, due to racialization and cultural differences these second generation members are also separated from the white mainstream (Ong and Hee 1994, Woo 1997, and Woo 2000). Further, due to cultural and linguistic assimilation they do not completely relate to their first generation counterparts (Kim 1990, Kim 1996, Kim, Warner, and Kwon 2001, and Cha 2001). A “natural” outcome of this situation is a process of selective acculturation whereby second generation persons adopt mainstream norms while also maintaining cultural elements. First generation Korean Americans are known for their high rates of self- employment (Min 1984, Min and Jaret 1985, and Min 1996) and Protestant affiliation. The social functions of first generation Korean American churches have been well documented (Kim 1981 and Min 1992). Although their second generation counterparts are socio-economically mobile (Lee 1996, Song 1997, Chai 1998 and 2001, and cf. Farley and Alba 2002), they do not follow their parents’ self-employment and church attendance patterns. Possible explanations for second generation ethno-religious perpetuity have not been adequately addressed, especially for those who have formed independent congregations.2 Second generation Korean Americans who have not internalized the Christian faith are likely to leave their ethnic churches (Lee 1996, Song 1997, and Chai 1998) in large numbers. However, those who do have religious internalization (qualified in chapter 3) may employ a religio-ethno nexus. That is, those who hold Christian Orthodox beliefs and practices are likely to combine their religious, Korean, and American, identities. I propose that religious internalization helps explain why second generation Korean Americans attend a church; church in general. Concepts such as ethnic resources, costs and gains, and selective acculturation help explain why second generation Korean Americans are drawn to their particular co-ethnic congregations. Therefore, the significance of the ethnic church concerns not only the religious participation but also the collective identity regarding the meaning of being a Christian Korean American.3 This dissertation project explores the conditions whereby post- college second generation Korean Americans use the ethnic church to merge their religious and cultural identities. In-depth interviews, participant observation, and 2 A second generation independent congregation is a broad term. It can mean a congregation that is entirely demarcated from their first generation counterparts, or a congregation that shares facilities with the first generation but has separate leadership, goals, budgets, etc. Regardless of definition, few studies have examined the post-college Korean Americans who continue to attend their “independent congregations.” 3 Intersectional approaches in Sociology usually encompass race, class, and gender (sexuality). Religious affiliation (internalization) is arguably a viable intersectional-component, especially for my study. survey data were collected over a period of one year from Lighthouse Community Christian Reformed Church (LCCRC), of Ann Arbor, Michigan. Theoretical Investigations The Importance of Religious Intemalization in this Study I will define religious internalization as a personal adoption of Christianity’s core beliefs to be a Christian; that one has repented of their sins and received Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior to become “born-again,”4 whereby the beliefs are also evinced by outward actions. In this study I will use a composite measure (detailed in chapter 3) based on certain Orthodox beliefs and practices to determine a presence of religious internalization among my sample. I use this concept somewhat differently than previous studies which have investigated the belief dimensions of religious commitment. Glock and Stark (1965; cf. Davidson 1975) were the first to investigate (five) “core dimensions of religiousness” to ascertain their effects on religious commitment. These core dimensions included: belief, practice, knowledge, experience, and consequence. The ideological (belief) dimension was described as “expectations that the religious person will hold to certain beliefs” (Glock and Stark 1965: 20). In a later study, Glock and Stark (1966: 11 and 12) suggest that beliefs and actions can be mutually enforcing. Concerning the effects of religious beliefs and actions, Davidson and Pyle (1994: 192) found that “intrinsic religiosity had important effects on [church] 4 This definition of “born again” is a basic tenet under Orthodox Christianity. For example, I would consider myself an Evangelical (Baptist and Progressive Dispensationalist) Christian, yet my views on salvation were similar to Pastor Choi’s views (he is Covenant Reformed and Presbyterian). The term “born-again” is a standard definition (John 3:3 and Ephesians 2:8-9) which has been clarified during the Reformation under Martin Luther (grace alone by faith alone in Christ). In this study, I will use terms such as “Christian,” “Protestant,” and “born-again” and in respect to nonns which are upheld under Orthodox Protestant Christianity. participation.” Hoge and Carroll (1978: 119) also found that “theological and ecclesiological attitudes predict church attendance more than other forms of church participation and commitment.” They also found that orthodox beliefs were associated with higher financial contributions to the church. Hoge and Polk (1980: 327) found that “belief in central Christian creeds predicts both church participation and greater monetary contributions.” In light of these studies and my usage of religious internalization, I contend in this study that religious internalization is a precondition whereby religious interactions among Lighthouse members are “the mediums through which groups negotiate an understanding of who they are, and work out their public and private faces” (Neitz 1990: 107). Other Hermeneutics to Interpret Lighthouse Participation? Whereas religious internalization is a necessary precondition for church participation, for church in general, other themes help explain why my sample is drawn to a co-ethnic church, to LCCRC in particular. I posit that ethnic resources, costs and gains, and selective acculturation theories can help elucidate why Lighthouse congregants have chosen this specific co-ethnic church, rather than a non-Korean church. The following table (next page) may help explain a two-step process of how LCCRC members have chosen their specific church and my approach to this exploratory study (steps 1 and 2)5 : 5 The focus of my study pertains to steps 1 and 2. I am interested in what associations exist for LCCRC members, for a Korean American second generation church that is already existing. Hence, my statistical data relates to levels of association, not causation. Had the focus of my study consisted of determining which variables predict ethno-religious perpetuity, it would have been appropriate to use path and factor analysis. Further, in this study I was not particularly concerned with the maintenance of a second generation congregation (long term growth versus decline) but again, I was interested in ascertaining patterns of association for an already-existing post-college congregation. Table 1. Type of Church and Associations Type of Church Church in Specific Church Multi-Ethnic General Church? Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Associations Religious Ethnic ??? Intemalization Resources Costs and Gains Selective Acculturation Ethnic Resources According to McCarthy and Zald (1977: 1213): “The resource mobilization approach... examines the variety of resources that must be mobilized, the linkages of social movements to other groups, the dependence of movements upon external support for success, and the tactics used by authorities to control or incorporate movements.” Conventional means for social movements would include aspects such as “money, political influence, access to the media, and workers” (Shaefer 2000: 456). However, Jenkins (1983:53) has stated that “traditionally, resource mobilization theory has been posed in terms of collective actors struggling for power in an institutional context. Micro-level processes have been ignored. . . .” Along the veins of resource mobilization, a non-traditional (perhaps less common) use concerns ethnic resources. Hurh (1998259, italics mine) stated that in respect to ethnic enclaves: Ethnic resources include various types of help and cooperation available from members of one’s own ethnic group; they may include business information, financial support, ethnic employees, ethnic customers, ethnic suppliers, and ethnic media. Ethnic resources also include cultural heritage, that is, the values and traditions of the immigrant group that may be conducive to the encouraging and promoting of enclaves in a new country. Ethnic resources have also been found to play an important role for the Korean American first generation churches (Min and Jaret 1985: 432, cf. Kim 1981, Min 1992). For example, first generation Koreans are known to use the ethnic church for fellowship and comfort, social services, and social status (Min 1992). Although these resources may be more important to the less-acculturated first generation persons than to their more-acculturated second generation counterparts (Hurh 1998), this does not preclude the validity of ethnic resources in my study. Certain “values and traditions” stemming from a Korean American identity have also impinged (directly and indirectly) on the LCCRC congregation. That is, aspects of commonalty and mutual feeling that are influenced by heritage and culture, which may be independent of discrimination and marginalization (cf. Tuan 1998), have helped build solidarity, which in turn facilitates the construction (perpetuity) of a second generation Korean American congregation. In this study I focus on Lighthouse’s use of ethnic resources to help explain their co-ethnic religious participation (focus of this study). Based on my post-study interviews and observations I also briefly raise an issue regarding resource mobilization and the perpetuity of a Korean American second generation ministry (not the focus of my study) at the conclusion of this dissertation. That is, though I briefly mention potential factors which may attribute to Lighthouse’s potential numerical grth via organizational goals and ethnic resource mobilization, positive associations with Lighthouse membership (i.e., ethnic resources) are the focus of my study. Costs and Gains Some scholars have interpreted religious participation, growth, and decline via economic and market terminologies (Finke and Stark 1992, F inke and Iannaccone 1993, Iannaccone 1994, Iannaccone, Olson, and Stark 1995, Dawson 1998, Spickard 1998). Spickard (1998: 2) stated that “a meaningful rational choice model of religion” should: rest upon these three assumptions: 1) individuals act rationally, weighing the costs and benefits of potential actions, and choosing those actions that maximize their net benefits; 2) the ultimate preferences (or ‘needs’) that individuals use to assess costs and benefits tend not to vary much from person to person or time to time, and; 3) social outcomes constitute the equilibrium that emerge from the aggregation and interaction of individual actions. Therefore, church participation is interpreted as an individual decision based on costs and rewards. Whereas many first generation Korean Americans use the ethnic church for brokerage functions, especially in regards to their businesses (Yoon 1981 and Park 1997), it is important to investigate whether the latter generation(s) also employ the ethnic church in a likewise manner. There is a possibility that ulterior motives preclude (ethno-) religiosity. Becker (1964: 1) has defined “investments in human capital” as “activities that influence future monetary and psychic income by increasing the resources in people.” He also posited that skills and knowledge are transferable into monetary or psychic gains. Although it is not likely that Lighthouse members would use the church for monetary gains,6 there may be certain “psychic” gains and rewards, or cost avoidances, that may be linked to their church participation. For example, there may be certain cultural mores which elucidate second generation religious involvement. 6 I have observed that it is not uncommon in first generation Korean American churches that certain positions and jobs also include a) financial remuneration and b) a Green Card. Selective Acculturation Portes and Rumbaut (2001) discussed selective acculturation in regards to first and second generation members being immersed in an ethnic community whereby cultural retention is maintained in conjunction with mainstream acculturation. In fact, selective acculturation may be one of the most useful tools to understand the ethnic aspect of ethno-religiosity among second generation Korean Americans. Although some scholars may propose that complete, structural assimilation for the post-1965 immigrant groups is viable (particularly Alba and Nee 1997)7, I believe that LCCRC members meld their American and Korean cultures (selective acculturation) within their religious identity. Areas of selective acculturation that will be discussed in this paper include: ethnic self- identity, socio-economic status, discrimination, marginalization, and incorporation, intergenerational relationships, language usage, media and foods, spousal preferences, and the sample’s desire to work or live in an ethnic community. Lighthouse Community Christian Reformed Church Background and History The Lighthouse Community Christian Reformed Church presents a unique case. In the United States, the first generation Korean population is the most Protestant-affiliated immigrant group. Nevertheless, post-college second 7 Complete, structural assimilation is very dubious for non-whites, especially considering that this term a) means the “the disappearance of the ethnic groups as a separate entity and the evaporation of its distinctive values” (Gordon 1964: 81), b) appears to be heavily influenced by phenotype: “the ease and rapidity with which aliens, under existing conditions in the United States, have been able to assimilate themselves to the customs and manners of American life have enabled this country to swallow and digest every sort of normal human difference, except purely external ones, like the color of skin...” (Park 1950: 206), and c) it is often viewed as a pejorative term of conformity, especially to persons of color. 10 generation Korean American church affiliation declines precipitously by as much as 95%. Bucking these trends, LCCRC is not only an independent, second 8 second generation Korean American congregation, it is the only autonomous generation Korean American congregation in the state of Michigan. It is further unique in its relative inter-generational harmony. This church specifically focuses on the young-adult, —fami1ies, and -professional ministries.9 The selection of LCCRC was based upon my interest in second generation Korean American Churches and because of the unique nature of this church. I obtained insider-status over a period of three months and I was asked to give the main messagelo on the last official participant-observer visit on April 21, 2002. I was further asked to be a guest speaker for the July 7th and 14’“, 2002 services. A picture of my wife and myself was placed on the church’s web page and we have been invited to various dinners and gatherings with other church members and married couples. Hence, I have developed an amicable and symbiotic relationship with this church (LCCRC provides opportunities for extended studies). The LCCRC building appears to be a home that has been modified into a church. The church is in a residential area by downtown Ann Arbor, just a few 8 Lighthouse has their own leadership, budget, vision, worship service, etc. but they share the same building with first generation Korean Americans. 9 Becker (1999: 13) delineated four church ideal types and stated that “the dominant model is that of a family, a place where worship, religious education, and providing close—knit and supportive relationships for members are the core tasks.” Becker’s family model aptly describes the function and purpose of LCCRC. '0 I am well known among the Korean American churches of Michigan as I have worked with the Michigan Council of Korean Churches (MCKC) for several years. MCKC is the only summer event where all of the Korean churches work together for a summer youth program. As I began to interact with Lighthouse and the senior pastor, I was asked to be a guest-speaker on various occasions. It was not the study per se that gave me the opportunity to be a guest speaker, but the study provided face-face contact which led to the opportunity to be a guest speaker on various occasions. I have been asked to be a guest speaker at several churches in state of Michigan (and out of state) and have established regular speaking engagements throughout the year for the past several years. 11 miles away from the University of Michigan campus. The sanctuary has very old folding seats, similar to those found in an old movie theater. There are folding chairs in the middle and front of the sanctuary and traditional pews can be found on the sides and back of the sanctuary. The church’s ambience is very simple: a piano, drum set, projector, screen, and basic sound system. Lighthouse Community Christian Reformed Church was formerly the English Ministry of the Korean Presbyterian Church of Ann Arbor (EM-KPCAA) which began in 1990. In December of 1996, the leaders of EM-KPCAA began discussing the possibility of forming an independent congregation and presented a letter to the mother church in January, 2000, outlining the logistics of becoming an independent congregation. The overarching reason for independence was growth and maturity among the second generation church members. Pastor Fred Choill began attending Calvin Theological Seminary in 1994, and served as the chun-do-sa (JDSN, Assistant Pastor-in-training). He became the full-time pastor after his ordination in 1998 when he graduated with a Masters in Divinity. The following is Pastor Choi’s description of the congregation which was sent to the Christian Reformed Home Missions Assessment Center, Grand Rapids, Michigan on January 7th, 2000: Our members are mostly young working professionals and families from the greater Ann Arbor Area as well as students of the University of Michigan. We had our humble beginnings ten years ago.... Since then, we have grown into a congregation of 90 members and God is continually adding new members to our church. With the blessing of KPCAA we have become an independent church. Also, we have been affiliated with Christian Reformed Church as an emerging church. ” All of the persons in this study have been given pseudonyms to protect their anonymity. 12 Upon my observations over a three month period, the congregation has (shrunk to) a membership of about 50 persons (on the 2002 summer church membership) and LCCRC has a weekly attendance of 35-40 persons. As of October, 2002, the web-directory listed 42 members. Of the 34 Korean interviewees: 8 persons were undergraduates, 15 were graduate students, 10 were in the workforce, and 1 was a fulltime housewife. Regarding marital status, 18 members were single, 2 were engaged, 13 were married members, and l was a widower (Pastor Choi). Among those who were interviewed, 8 members” of the church have a total of 9 children; the oldest one is seven years old. 35 surveys were also gathered from LCCRC members. 15 of the respondents were female and 20 were male. 19 respondents were born in the United States and 16 were born outside of the US. and over 4 of 5 respondents have lived in the US. for a time period of 17 years or greater. 30 respondents can be considered second generation‘3 Korean Americans, 2 are of the 1.5 generation, and 3 have come to the US. after the age of 16. All of the members except 3 are US. citizens. 16 persons are not enrolled as students, 9 are still in college, and 10 are in graduate school. Among the entire sample, there are 34 persons who attend the service on a regular or semi-regular basis. This fits the average weekly attendance which hovers around the mid-305. Therefore, the majority of Lighthouse members can be classified as second generation Korean Americans ‘2 The eight persons are not equivalent to four couples. There are three couples and two persons who attend LCCRC without their wives (one due to death, the other because the wife is more comfortable in a Korean service). ‘3 The term second generation was applied to those who were born and raised in the US. or came to the country at age 10 or under, and 1.5 was used for those who came to the US. between the ages of 11 and 16 years old. 13 and every member has completed, or is working towards, an undergraduate degree. Overall, the church is comprised of young adults, those in the mid-203 to mid-30$. LCCRC once had a regular attendance of almost one hundred persons per week. The average attendance has shrunk to almost one-third the rate two years after LCCRC had become an independent church. A major factor for the losses is that members have moved to other locations and these persons have not been replaced with other Korean (or Asian) students and professionals. It appears that when LCCRC created their church profile that they had not strategized how to continue to bring in new members to replace those who would graduate and or leave. Concerning the relatively short history of LCCRC as an independent congregation, it appears that religious internalization is a necessary precondition for their religious participation. Further, the other rubrics that I purport to use in this study also appear to be useful exegetical tools to understand associations to post-college second generation Korean Americans church-stayers. However, there appears to be a different level of analysis which is needed to delve into the issue of replenishing new members.14 Although the original purpose (and major focus) of my exploratory is to understand associations concerning the post-college church-stayers, I discuss my interactions with a Lighthouse informant after the formal completion of my data collection regarding LCCRC’s internal struggles '4 Persons who have left Lighthouse from the original membership rates have not quit Lighthouse but they have literally moved to a different geographic location. 14 and their inability to replenish the members who have moved. away and left the church. Community Demography and Claim for Independence Ann Arbor’s Asian p0pulation has tripled from 1980 to 2000 (refer to LCCRC Deliberation Reports on p. 17). Conversely, the white population has shrunk from 85% of the city’s population to 74.5% in the respective years. I am very familiar with the growth of the Korean population and their churches as Ann Arbor has been my permanent place of residency since 1980. The increasing permanence of Koreans has had a noticeable impact on the Korean ministries. Korean churches have changed from first generation-only to first generation churches with youth ministries, to immigrant churches with young adult and college ministries, to Korean churches incorporating English ministries. Although these church-stages (and larger independent and multi-ethnic congregations) can be found in other Korean American locales, that Lighthouse is the first and only independent congregation in Michigan makes this specific church context a unique case study. The following is an excerpt from LCCRC’s demography report which was used to facilitate their congregational independence: Ann Arbor is located in the southeastern part of Michigan. The city is located about 40 miles west of the Detroit Metropolitan area. It is the biggest city in Washtenaw County. While the whole of Michigan can be described as conservative, except maybe for Detroit, we can safely say that Ann Arbor is the most liberal city in Michigan. It is also a highly cultured vibrant city. Such characteristics of Ann Arbor can in most part be attributed to the presence of the University of Michigan which was established in 1817. Since then, the University of Michigan has become the biggest and the most influential institution in Ann Arbor. Demographically there is always a heavy population movement in September and in May when the university opens and closes its academic year. Economically, the ever-present institution gives solid stability to the whole region so that Washtenaw County frequently registers the lowest unemployment rate in the State of Michigan. Ann Arbor Christian Reformed Church is located on the north side of Ann Arbor. The membership reflects a high percentage of college related members. These people normally have a 15 high level of movement due to the university setting. The community that surrounds the church is upper middle class with very high educational levels and stable income. Many people work in nearby automobile industries around Metro Detroit. Ultimately, the decision for EM-KPCAA to become autonomous from the mother church was not based on any theological nor personal differences. This was not a church split but a carefully deliberated decision. The EM-KPCAA leaders felt that they had “calling” to become independent, grow in maturity, and to reach out in teleological phases with the goal of a multi-ethnic ministry. The following reasons were presented to the first generation members when EM-KPCAA desired to become a separate body from their mother church and to join the Christian Reformed Church denomination: 1) Ann Arbor is the most diverse city in Michigan. 2) Between 1960 and 1990, although Ann Arbor’s population grew about 20%, its Asian population grew over 600%. 3) Korean American churches are losing their adult population at an alarming rate. These young adults no longer see their parent churches as a place where they can grow and mature through gaining more ownership and responsibility in the church. 4) Joining a denomination will enable us to be accountable to the greater community. This will not cause a great change as we have always had strong ties with the Christian Reformed Church. 5) We have a responsibility toward the other English Ministries in the Korean American community. This responsibility includes the possibility of future mergers. Unlike many other second generation members who leave the first generation context in angst, LCCRC members have become autonomous with great care and sensitivity to their Korean elder congregation. In fact, though the two churches have separate leaders, budgets, mission statements, etc. they continue to share the same building. The following tables (next page) were provided by Pastor Choi concerning the LCCRC deliberations to form an independent congregation: 16 Table 2. Ann Arbor Population from LCCRC Deliberations 1970 1980 1990 2000 Total 99,797 107,966 109,024 1 14,024 White 90,843 91,875 89,841 85,151 Black 8,954 10,069 9,905 10,070 Asian 1,600 3,894 8,424 13,566 (1.6%) (3.6%) (7.7%) (11.9%) Hispanic N/A 2,251 2,827 14,858 Table 3. Ann Arbor Asian Population from LCCRC Deliberations Year 2000 Total Asian 13,566 Chinese 5,060 (37.3%) Indian 3,292 (24.3%) Korean 2,432 (17.9%) Japanese 1,204 (8.9%) Filipino 419 (3.1%) The Asian American population for Ann Arbor, Michigan, is almost 12%. However, a panethnic church does not seem to be forming in Ann Arbor, yet. I have visited churches and para-church15 movements on the East and West Coasts where panethnic churches may be a phase after the independent Korean American second generation churches. These coastal congregations are noticeably older with third generation members and are located in areas with substantial Asian sub-group populations. ‘6 ‘5 Para-churches are groups such as Campus Crusade for Christ, Navigators, Korean Christian Fellowship, Asian Christian Fellowship, etc. These are not churches, but campus ministries which attempt to build movements that focus on college students. Although it is officially open to all persons, these movements are usually comprised of undergraduate students. '6 According to my personal observations of those who purport pan-ethnic ministries, I generally find: a low ethnic affinity via cultural norms and language maintenance, a greater emphasis on “Asian” commonalty rather than a specific ethnicity, and lower inter-generational continuity emphasis than those who endorse co-ethnic ministries. 17 Main Service Worship time used to start at 9:45 AM on Sunday mornings, and has moved to 9:30 AM. The original service ended after 11:00 AM which conflicted with the first generation Korean adult service. The messages are given by Pastor Fred Choi, and about every 5 weeks there is a guest speaker. The worship service and messages are generally conservative. There may be a few times when people raise their hands during praise, there may be some hand-clapping on some of the faster songs, but I have never witnessed a manifestation of the sign-gifts. Sign- gifis include persons speaking in unintelligible “languages” and claiming direct revelation from God, performing healings and miracles, and other sorts of behaviors which are associated with the Charismatic and Pentecostal denominations. The overall worship aura is Protestant with Christian Reformed Church overtones. The most obvious CRC overtones are present in the church’s name, the overhead materials, and comments that reinforce the church’s denominational affiliation during the main service. More subtle CRC nuances come in the Bible study literature, infant baptism via sprinkling (Dispensational camps do not baptize infants nor use sprinkling), and when Pastor Choi raises his arms for the final dedication/blessings (more in line with Covenant and Reformed camps than Dispensational groups). The religious aura can be described as Protestant, Christian Reformed, and generally Conservative regarding doctrine and praxis. Since my formal investigations began in January 2002, LCCRC has resembled “Heraclitus’ river” — constant flux. There seems to be a general sense 18 of concern and borderline panic concerning the future of the church. LCCRC has had three meetings for internal reevaluation on May 19‘“, June 9th, and June 23rd of 2002. Several questions evolved amidst the changes and shrinking membership. I wondered if LCCRC would remain -— a David with a sling and some shiny stones as he fights the Goliath “silent exodus”l7 in the Ann Arbor community. That is, will this church remain or fall sway to the silent exodus norm? Contributions of the Study It is important to study ethno-religious patterns at LCCRC because it is the only independent Korean American second generation church in Michigan. Further, religious internalization, resource mobility, rational choice theory, human capital, and selective acculturation are useful rubrics to understand what correlates exist for second generation Korean American post-college church stayers. Whereas most Korean American church literature discusses dissociation and generational differences, no study has attempted to focus on post-college church stayers. Regarding second generation Korean Americans, no study (that I am aware of) has qualified religious significance as a specific set of beliefs (Orthodox Christian beliefs) and explored the importance of religious internalization as a precondition to church participation. In the broader field of Sociology, this study may provide understanding how religious internalization can be used in conjunction with selective acculturation and ethnic resources for immigrant progeny (cf. Warner 1997 and 1998b). Though brief mention of '7 Chai (2001: 158) has qualified the “silent exodus” as “an ‘exodus’ because the number of second generation Korean Americans exiting is ‘staggering.’ It is ‘silent’ because their exit is often unnoticed or not given serious attention within Korean churches.” 19 second generation religious participation (or dissociation) has been given, no case study or overarching theory has encompassed those who extend (perhaps in different forms) their parents’ religious practices. Finally, this study should broaden the understanding and importance of religious internalization specifically for Korean Americans, and generally for other ethnic groups. 20 Chapter 1 European and Non-European Ethno-Religious Comparisons and Contrasts In this chapter, I will discuss selective acculturation and the role of religion as a mode of incorporation for European and non-European immigrants. Whereas Europeans have (generally) structurally assimilated and evinced ethno- religious fissures, it remains to be seen what effect the (present) inability to structurally assimilate will have on the non-Europeans’ inter-generational ethno- religious perpetuity. A broad overview will provide similarities and differences concerning the two groups’ ethno-religious experiences and help contextualize my study. Selective Acculturation Portes and Rumbaut (2001: 209) stated that “selective acculturation takes place when the learning process of both generations is embedded in a co-ethnic community of sufficient size and institutional diversity to slow down the cultural shift and promote partial retention of the parents’ home language and norms.” In the US, European immigrants eventually assimilated into mainstream society (Conzen et al. 1992, Alba 1996, Kamphoefner 1996, Pacyga 1996, and Alba and Nee 1997). In general, “white ethnics” were able to assimilate because their fates were shaped by their class, not color (Rumbaut 1996: 121). On the other hand, people of color generally do not fully assimilate and are sometimes discriminated based on phenotype or other markers of (racial) difference. Recent literature has discussed occupational barriers and the “glass ceiling” for Korean and Asian Americans (Wong 1982, Cabezas et al 1989, Ryu 1992, Kamow and Yoshihara 1992, Kim and Lewis 1992 and 2000, Ong 1994, 21 Ong and Nakanishi 1996, Park 1996, Chin 1997, Lee 1998, Jo 1999, Laudarji and Livezey 2000, and Alumkal 2001). According to Portes and Rumbaut (1996: 138): Throughout the history of the US, immigrants have seldom felt ‘as American as everyone else’ because differences of language and culture separated them from the majority and because they were made painfully aware of that fact. Being ‘in America, but not of it,’ even if they wished to, represents an important aspect of the experience of most foreign groups and a major force promoting ethnic identity in subsequent generations. Within the bounds of structural assimilation and marginalization, all immigrants have historically employed selective acculturation as they have found their place(s) in America. European Intersections of Selective Acculturation and Religion Most European immigrants fused religion and ethnicity in their selective acculturation experiences (Mohl and Betten 1981) and used the church as “the first line of defense” for ethnic preservation (Warner and Srole 1945: 160). Various European immigrant groups have historically anchored themselves in the church or some type of religious institution (Hamey 1978, Mohl and Betten 1981, Weisser 1985, Bodnar 1987, Liptak 1989, and Wyman 1993). Dearman (1982: 179) stated that the immigrants’ potential to return to their native religion is likely given the fact that “all immigrant groups... have brought their religion with them,” assuming that appropriate resources were available. Concerning the intersection of religion and immigration, Warner (1997: 2) stated that “there seems to be a disciplinary amnesia in disregard of the fact that most of the religious pluralism in the US. . .. is the result of previous waves of immigration.” 22 Examples of European Selective Acculturation and Religion Nexus Kraut (1998: 15) stated: “Wherever Jews transplanted themselves, they established religio-cultural institutions and organizations that made possible the transmission of Jewish traditions, values, and patterns of behavior that reinforced social cohesion, mutual aid, and a sense of ethnic community.” Gold and Phillips (1996: 183 and cf. Glazer and Moynihan 1963) have found that Eastern European Jews in the US. have been able to “maintain a viable ethnic religious community despite high levels of social and economic advancement” and that “despite their rapid movement to the mainstream of American society, Jews continue to maintain a social and demographic profile -— in economics, occupations, education, politics, and communal life — that distinguish them from non-Jewish Americans of comparable characteristics.” During the mid-18503 and early 18903, amidst nativist anti-Catholic activity, “most Catholic ethnics spoke a language of their own — German, Polish, French, or Italian — and were concerned that their children learn the language and that culture of which it was a part” (Brereton 1998: 285). The most notable group among Catholic immigrants were the Irish. By the 19003, the Irish had monopolized the Catholic religion in the United States as they held “all the seats of ecclesiastical power” of many major cities (Liptak 1989: 81). However, during the period of Irish immigration into the United States, Gaelic “was a dwindling language even in Ireland” as “the Irish had become English-speakers” (Brereton 1998: 285). Accordingly, although “Irish immigrants wished to preserve a 23 distinct culture, language was no longer a part of it. .. Irish Catholics were primarily concerned with preserving their religion” (Brereton 1998: 285). A major competitor to the Irish Catholic hegemony were German Catholics who entered the struggle against the Irish-American hierarchy during the 18805 and 18903 (Dolan 1977). In 1840, over “one of every ten Catholics in the US. was German (70,592 of 663,000)” (Dolan 1977: 70). In contrast to their Irish Catholic counterparts, Germans made great attempts to preserve their language through religious forms. Dolan (1977: 72) stated that the German “national parish was the institutionalized attempt of an immigrant group to preserve the religious life of the old country, the English-speaking parish was as great a threat to the faith,” and that “loss of language meant loss of faith.” Italian and Polish Catholics also fused their religion and ethnicity, but they were not a major threat to Irish American Catholicism. In a study of several ethnic groups in Pittsburgh from 1900-1960, Bodnar, Simon, and Weber (1982) found that Italians and Poles used the ethnic church to build solidarity in their neighborhoods. They were able to fuse religion and ethnic solidarity via kin networks to secure jobs for themselves, latter generations, and arriving immigrants. In sum, four major non-religious functions can be identified concerning European ethnic religions: 1) cultural preservation amidst a foreign- America; 2) a mechanism for the immigrant’s self-identity and especially to demarcate themselves from other ethnic groups; 3) a symbol of nationality, and; 4) the center of political and cultural activities. These social functions were 24 especially important for non-Protestant groups that faced incorporation delimitations beyond their “race;” especially the Irish and the Italians. Selective Acculturation and Ethno-Religious F issure A general pattern can be found concerning European inter-generational religiosity; socio-religious forms slowly waned with the passing of successive generations. At least three non-mutually exclusive factors can help explain why some European groups have lost impetus in their socio-religious nexus; generational divisions, pressure-cooking assimilation, and assimilation. Generational Divisions Amidst the assimilative forces of the host country, the non-religious ethnic functions of the church were generally more significant for first generation immigrants than for the succeeding progeny (Mohl and Betten 1981). Weisser used the term landsmanshaftn regarding “the conscious recreation of Old World activities, relationships, and patterns” and stated that after the 19305, “the landsmanshaftn and their members would be fighting a losing battle” (Weisser 1985:174). The cause of this demise was attributed to irreparable generational rifts. As most European groups were “persuaded” to assimilate under the World War conditions and as the immigrant children grew up as “Americans, the old world church had less validity” (Mohl and Betten 1981: 15). The churches no longer symbolized an ethnic demarcation. As the Europeans became more assimilated into the mainstream, religious demarcations became more significant across ethnic groups.18 ‘8 For an in depth look regarding the shift from ethnic to doctrinal demarcations, refer to 25 Ironically, for the latter generations, “religion and the church... provided emotional and material resources which enabled ultimate assimilation” (Gjerde 1986: 681). Assimilation blurred racial lines and therefore reduced or removed the social needs of the church. Herberg (1956: 19) noted that the Europeans’ socio-religious bond was so strong that as second generation members began to assimilate (which began as soon as the immigrants touched shore): “Those who rejected their ethnic identification or felt uncomfortable in it transferred this rejection to the church and religion of their immigrant parents. In revolting against the immigrant heritage... they tended to cast off their religious identification.” Not only did the second generation fall away from their parents’ religion, but from religion altogether. Thus, the first generations’ use of religion for selective acculturation and ethnic perpetuity enabled the latter generations’ complete assimilation and eventual ethno-religious fissures. Pressure-Cooking Assimilation “Pressure-cooking assimilation” occurred mainly throughout the World War eras (1914-18 and 1939-45, cf. Gordon 1964, Mohl and Betten 1981, Molesky 1988, Liptak 1989, Weissbrodt 1992, and Portes and Rumbaut 1996). Amidst these wars the US. was filled with xenophobia, a predominantly European-immigrant population, and Anglo-Saxon religious and assimilative patterns of incorporation. “Americanization” was “a consciously articulated movement to strip the immigrant of his native culture and attachments and make him over into an American along Anglo-Saxon lines - all this to be accomplished the classic: Niebuhr, H. Richard. 1929. The Social Sources ofDenominationalism. New York,: H. Holt and Company. 26 with great rapidity” (Gordon 1964: 98). Almost all of the white ethnics would eventually acquiesce under the “Americanization” process as their relgio- ethnicities would be changed to an “American” identity. In 1915, Woodrow Wilson “informed an assemblage of naturalized citizens in Philadelphia that ethnic group identity was not compatible with being a ‘thorough American.’ ‘America does not consist of groups,’ Wilson stated, ‘A man who thinks himself as belonging to a particular national group in America has not yet to become an American’” (Gordon 1964: 101). This was an attack on their hyphenated self-identities. Another attack on immigrants was directed towards their language. Galush (1977: 96) noted that “During the Red Scare of 1919, some fifteen states passed laws requiring all instruction in public and private schools to be in English.” The Germans were one of the most outspoken groups against Irish Catholicism which notably succumbed to pressure-cooking assimilation. Although Germans were losing their language in conjunction to the first World War (Kamphoefner 1996), the “anti-German hysteria of World War I” and the “rise of Adolph Hitler and the onslaught of World War II” were catalysts for “German Americans to bury their ethnicity” (Dolan 1977: 80). Gordon (1964: 99) stated that “suspicion of the intent of the large German-American group produced in the minds of many citizens of the time the menace of the ‘hyphenated American,’ and hatred and persecution of German cultural manifestations in this country were epidemic.” The result of the xenophobic—aftermath was that “even though 25.5 million Americans identified themselves as individuals of German 27 descent as recently as 1972, the group consciousness of Germans has disintegrated. Only the faintest traces of German ethnic life remained” (Dolan 1977: 80 and cf. Glazer and Moynihan 1964). German Catholics had begun their religiosity in the US. by criticizing Irish assimilation and making attempts to maintain German religious-identities. Within a period of about 50 years, effectively all German Americans would self-identify as “American” and cease to attest to difference. Assimilation Robert Park (1950) teleologically depicted assimilation as a goal which began with racial competition and progressed towards conflict and accommodation. Park (1950: 104) stated that “these diverse processes are to be regarded as merely the efforts of a new social and cultural organism to achieve a new biotic and social equilibrium.” In his view, the process of assimilation was “progressive and irreversible” (Park 1950: 150). Gordon (1964: 63) did not believe that assimilation had taken place “until the immigrant is able to function in the host community without encountering prejudiced attitudes or discriminatory behavior.” He believed that for “the second and succeeding generations,” class would replace ethnic demarcations (Gordon 1964: 78 and of. Rumbaut 1996). The effects of assimilation on ethno-religious fissure can be seen in various European immigrant groups. Fevold (1993: 59-60) noted that between 1825 and the 18803, Norwegian immigrants and their churches were isolated from co-ethnics, and that from “1880’s and on, the percentage of immigrants indifferent to religion increased. 28 More were going to the cities... where social pressures leading the church membership were not so great as in rural areas.” Galush ( 1977: 92 and cf. Pacyga 1996) noted that Polish Catholic immigrants supported “a call for ethnic hierarchies, but their still modest numbers had little effect.” Over time, in light of assimilative forces, their loyalty to Roman Catholicism placed them in a general Catholic rubric that was independent of ethnicity. The Italians were another group that eventually assimilated (Alba 1996) into a “new American Catholicism” under the First World War context. World War I and its nationalistic-forces influenced the Italians’ participation and affiliation to the American Catholic church as they increasingly realized that they were no longer “birds of passage” and would not return to their home country (Liptak 1989). Italian immigrants initially tried to counter the rising status of Protestantism and religious-switching, and then inter-ethnic marriage with someone of Irish descent which had become a new symbol of achievement. One case study by Sciorra (1999) found that post-first generation Italians in Brooklyn, celebrated twenty-five Roman Catholic holidays each year. However, this particular community is an anomaly as it consisted of “second through fourth generation Americans as well as a large foreign-bom contingent hailing from the southern Italian region of Campania” (Sciorra 1999: 314). It appears that the post-first generation may perpetuate ethno-religiosity with a large presence of foreign-bom persons. Normatively, among post-first generation European persons, “the suburbanization and the resulting assimilation of ethnic members have tended to water down the intense mysticism and spiritual 29 disciplines” (Ciminio 2001: 131). That is, with greater incorporation into the US. mainstream and successive generational mobility (Warner and Srole 1945), religion loses its impetus (cf. Herberg 1960). Over time, European groups acquiesced to “natural” and “unnatural” amalgamations to form a white panethnic group. Although religion was initially used as a tool for selective acculturation, religion would eventually lose its efficacy for ethnic groups with the passing of each generation. I will now discuss the role of religion within the context of selective-acculturation, for first and second generation non-European groups. Non-European Intersections of Selective Acculturation and Religion The First Generation Warner (1998a) has estimated that there are currently: 3,500 Catholic parishes where mass is conducted in Spanish, 7,000 Hispanic Protestant congregations where most are Evangelical and Pentecostal, over 2,000 Korean American churches (Lee 1997: 2,600), more than 700 Protestant Chinese churches, up to 1,200 mosques and Islamic centers, 400 Hindu temples, and countless informal religious sites. Other recent non-white non-European immigrant religious studies concern: Korean Protestants (Min 1992, Kwon 1997, Chong 1998, and Hurh 1998), Argentinean Protestants (Cook 2000), Greek Orthodox (Gasi 2000), Indian Hindus (Waghome 1999, Jacob and Thaku 2000, and Nimrak 2001 ), Caribbean Seventh Day Adventists (Lawson 1998), Parsi Zoroastrians (Rustomji 2000), Mexican Catholics (Sullivan 2000c), Mexican Protestants (Sullivan 2000a), Indian Christians (Williams 1996), Chinese Christians (Yang 1998 and Yang 2000a), Chinese Buddhists (Yang 2000b), Vietnamese Buddhists (Huynh 2000), and Indo-Pakistani Muslims (Badr 2000). 30 Several religious studies have found that the ethnic element was just as important or more important than the religious component for first generation immigrants (Warner 1998b, Gasi 2000, Huynh 2000, Jacob and Thaku 2000, and Yang 2000a). First generation immigrants have also been found to use religion as a vehicle for selective acculturation, especially concerning their progeny (Williams 1996, Warner 1998a, and Jacob and Thaku 2000). The ethnic church may also be a place where marginalized men can gain status and prestige via church titles and offices (Drake 1945, Hurh and Kim 1990, Min 1992, Williams 1996, Park 1997, Alumkal 2001, Cha 2001, and Chai 2001). The role of the church as a therapeutic community has been especially pronounced among Black churches in the US. (Gilkes 1980, Wilson 1990, Laudarji and Livezey 2000, and McRae 2001). Although there are some similarities concerning ethno-religiosity for European and non-Europeans, there are two general differences concerning the European religious experiences and those of the post-1965 immigrants (i.e., this case study) which are more conducive for selective acculturation. First, neither context of the World War conditions nor “pressure-cooking” assimilation exists amidst a hyper-xenophobic America. Europeans faced “natural” and coercive assimilative forces whereby ethnic church- and cultural-affiliations were suspect of being “um-American.” More importantly, there is the issue and effect of color. Before 1925, 85% of the immigrants came from Europe (Massey et a1. 1998) as the two great migration waves of 1830 to 1882 and 1882 to 1930 consisted mostly of Europeans (Zinn and Eitzen 1987). 31 Today’s “immigrant stock” population includes approximately fifty-five million persons who are first generation foreign-bom immigrants and their children, or about one-fifth of the total national population (Rumbaut 1999). These immigrants of the latter third of the 20th century are “overwhelmingly from the developing nations of the Third World, especially from Asia and Latin America” (Portes and Rumbaut 1996: xxiii). Seven of the top ten sending nations were European in 1960, thirty years later, six of the top ten sending nations were Asian (Ebaugh and Chafetz 2000b). Though immigrants from Southern and Eastern European countries may not have initially been considered “white,” most notably the Irish and Italians, over time their progeny have been incorporated into the “white” panethnic label (Alba 1996 and Diner 1996). This amalgamation is entirely not the case for the non-white non-European immigrants of the post-1965 era, especially those with darker skin and non-European features. Ebaugh and Chaftez stated that it is usually the native-bom and White American who can “choose” his/her religion (Ebaugh and Chaftez 2000b). There is an abundance of literature which depicts host discrimination and delimitations for immigrant-Americans of the latter-third of the 20‘h century (i.e., Mills 1956: 129 and 279, Hurh, Kim and Kim 1978, Hurh 1980, Hurh and Kim 1984, Min 1984, Bonacich 1988, Portes 1993, Portes 1995, Waters 1995, Portes and Rumbaut 1996, and Zhou 1997). As immigrants sense their marginalization, one reaction may be to form a defensive identity via the ethnic church (Chong 1998). Europeans did this frequently, but as they culturally and structurally assimilated a (religious) defensive reaction was no longer needed. Eventually, the 32 following generations’ church attendance declined in conjunction to successive generations. Although Asians are not likely to structurally assimilate (definitely not the Korean Americans in my study), Asian (and Asian sub-group) collectivities are not necessarily only formed as a reactive ethnicity; especially among the latter generations. Tuan (1998: 46) found that “rather than retaining salient ethnic identities in defensive reaction to social exclusion, Asian ethnics may be more inclined to maintain salient ethnic ties for reasons having nothing to do with external pressures.” That is, commonalty (not based on discrimination) may draw Asians or Asian subgroups to form a type of collectivity. Studies suggest that commonalty may also influence pan-ethnic affinity (The Alban Institute 1995) and personal identities which are “based on national origin” rather than pan-ethnic terms (Lopez 1999:221 and cf. Espiritu 1992: 50). The findings in this study also support the efficacy of religious internalization and ethno-religious commonalty in light of selective acculturation. That is, although defensive ethnicities may facilitate ethno-religiosity, there may be other reasons which explain today’s non- European second generation religious participation. A Paucity of Research in the Second Generation The intersection of religion and non-European immigrants of the latter part of the 20th century is a burgeoning field of study. However, today’s socio- religious literature reiterates two findings: the first generation’s religio-ethnic fusion and the latter generation’s propensity to depart from their parents’ religion and or culture. It appears that immigration and ethnicity continue to provide 33 necessary and sufficient conditions for many first generation “de facto” congregations, but not for the latter generation’s ethno-religious perpetuity. Though a few studies give brief mention of latter generations that reaffirm or perpetuate their parents’ religion (Kwon 1997, Badr 2000, Sullivan 2000a), the studies do not provide specific contexts whereby the progeny would counter a “silent exodus” model. Second generation Korean American religious patterns appear to resemble those of their European predecessors. The fusion of ethnicity and religion continues to be a historical phenomena more for the first generation than for the second (and latter) generations (cf. Herberg 1960). Warner (1997: 3) hypothesized for the post-1965 immigrants that because ethnic churches are deve10ped around linguistic boundaries, with “the acquisition of English dominance by second and later generations - the immigrant congregation will face a crisis.” This language issue is all the more daunting if in fact America is a “language graveyard” whereby the immigrants’ native language is lost by the third generation (Rumbaut 1996 and of. Glazer and Moynihan 1964 and Portes and Rumbaut 2001: 127). The ethnic environment that the first generation recreates for their solidarity is the same aspect which tends to alienate the second and subsequent generations (Warner 1998b and Ebaugh and Chaftez 2000b). Among the current inchoate and sketchy second generation socio-religious anecdotes, second generation decline has been mentioned among various groups: Mexican, Filipino, and Vietnamese Catholics (Sullivan 2000b), Chinese Buddhists (Yang 2000b), Korean Protestants (Lee 1996, Kim 1997, Song 1997, 34 Chai 1998, Chong 1998, and Ebaugh and Chafetz 2000b), Greek Orthodox (Gasi 2000), Caribbean Seventh Day Adventists (Lawson 1998), Parsi Zoroastrians (Rustomji 2000), Hindus (Waghome 1999) and Armenians (Mirak 1977). Because Koreans are the most Protestant-affiliated immigrant group, their second generation losses provide an exceptionally interesting case. One study has estimated that up to 95% of the Korean latter generations will not attend any church upon collegiate graduation — the “silent exodus” (Song 1997). Literature concerning second generation ethno-religious perpetuity is usually mentioned in the context of umbrella-churches. Ebaugh and Chafetz make note of two Spanish-speaking congregations where the youth attempt to retain their linguistic and religious identities (Ebaugh and Chafetz 2000b). One of the two Spanish-speaking congregations is a Protestant “storefront” Mexican church of 20 families where the second generation is less engaged in “American popular culture than the average teenager” (television, movies, and foods) and there appears to be little inter-generational conflict (Sullivan 2000a: 150). This is uncommon as most studies reporting second generation religious-decline attribute generational conflict as one of the significant factors (cf. Herberg 1960, Song 1997, and Chai 1998). Moghissi (1999) and Badr (2000) have found that among second generation Muslims, the political involvement of the US. in the Middle East has created a perceived need for Muslim immigrants to solidify in America. Accordingly, the second generation youths who have lived in the US. from ten to twenty years are showing an increased desire to learn Arabic which is the official 35 religious-language for Muslims. Haddad (1978: 92) found that second generation members of various Arab subgroups were marginalized “by a host culture that is not willing to integrate them.” Their exclusion in comparison to the first generation “is even more intense, for while he still suffers the same effects of marginality he no longer has the sense of cultural identity enjoyed by those more recently arrived.” Perhaps for racialized Muslim Americans (or other stigmatized groups), religious internalization is not a necessary condition for second generation congregations. Their defensive ethnicities may warrant de facto congregations and ethnic resources (mobilization) similar to other first generation immigrants. However, for various second generation groups, external pressures do not always necessarily promote ethno-religious perpetuity (cf. Tuan 1998). No studies have reported that Korean American second generation religious participation is due to reactive ethnicity or strictly resource mobility. A major paucity in the intersection of second generation persons and religion is to ask: what may contribute to second generation ethnic-religious participation? — especially in an independent congregation. Second generation ethno-religious perpetuity is generally an anomaly and is all the more unique for the Korean Americans. For these reasons, LCCRC provides an opportunity to investigate an exceptional phenomena. In this chapter I have provided a comparison and contrast for European and non-European ethno-religious mode of incorporation. In the next chapter I will discuss the role of religion for Korean Americans. 36 Chapter 2 Christianity and Korean Americans Spatial Concentration In this chapter I will provide a context for Korean American ethno- religiosity by discussing their spatial concentration, use of selective acculturation, and the origins of the Protestant churches in Korea. Further, I will compare and contrast the meaning and function of Protestantism for first and second generation Korean Americans. Finally, I will end this chapter with a discussion regarding the permanence of the silent exodus and or if other factors may counter the second generation Korean American outflows (herein lies the importance of investigating LCCRC). Won Moo Hurh (1998: 129) has projected that “about 5 million Koreans are scattered all over the world; the largest concentration is in China (about 2 million). . ..” The 2000 US. Census has reported that there are 1,076,872 Koreans in the United States, as of May, 2001. However, three major US. locations have received the most scholarly attention. Illsoo Kim and Pyong Gap Min have written extensively concerning New York (and Atlanta, Min); Los Angeles has been the focus of Light and Bonacich (who wrote the classic Immigrant Entrepreneurs: Koreans in Los Angeles: 1965-1982), In-J in Yoon (1997), and Ableman and Lie (1995); and Chicago has drawn particular attention from Won Moo Hurh (1990) and In-Jin Yoon. These authors discuss the three major regions which have dominated the Korean American literature.19 '9 Within these geographies, an entrepreneurship-type (Min and Jaret 1985, Min 1996, Model 1993, Yoon 1997, Hurh 1998, and Min 1998) has been a major hermeneutic to exegete the Korean American immigrant experience. 37 Korean Americans and Selective-Acculturation Selective acculturation best describes the Korean American mode of incorporation (Hurh, Kim and Kim 1978, Hurh 1980, Hurh and Kim 1984, and cf. Portes and Rumbaut 2001). That is, Koreans evince some adaptability to mainstream norms while also retaining certain cultural values and practices. Various assimilation models which were used for the European immigrants (Warner and Srole 1945, Park 1950, Gordon 1964, Conzen et a1. 1992, and Alba and Nee 1997) do not match their mode of incorporation. Concerning the socio- historical experiences of Protestantism in mainland Korea, it should not be a surprise that Koreans have continued to use the ethnic church for social purposes in the US. (Hurh 1998). However, given that Korean Americans are a relatively new immigrant group in the US, more time is needed to ascertain the extent of their selective acculturation. That is, Korean Americans (and other post-1965 immigrant groups) have a relatively short tenure in the United States and how well they have assimilated or countered assimilation requires further time and longitudinal data (cf. Farley and Alba 2002). Little literature discuss the third generation for Korean Americans and therefore concepts such as assimilation, selective acculturation, modes of incorporation, etc. may be delimited. Origins of Protestant Churches in Korea The official introduction of Protestantism in Korea began after the 1882 Treaty of Amity and Commerce was signed between Korea and the US. (Kim 1981, Dearman 1982, and Hurh 1998). Holistic mission work which used 38 education and medicine to promulgate the Christian message and transform Korea had morphed into a social gospel at the turn of the 20th century with the annexation by Japan (1910-1945) (Nisbet 1920, Clark 1961, Pack 1980, Hurh 1998, and Kim, Warner, and Kwon 2001). However, positive associations with Christianity such as progress and hope would remain long after the missionaries’ departure. By 1989, nearly a quarter of South Korea’s population of forty million were Protestant-affiliated, and this figure is all the more incredible given the fact that about 2% of the entire Asian world population is Protestant (Kim 2000). By the end of the 20th century, Christianity and Buddhism had nearly equal members in South Korea, 25% and 29% respectively (Kim, Warner, and Kwon 2001). Christian Korean Hawaiians Between 1903 and 1905, 7,226 Korean labor immigrants went to Hawaii, and by 1924, 1,100 females came under marriage contracts with the Korean men (Hurh 1998). Korean Hawaiians quickly found solidarity in their ethnic churches: “the Korean ethnic church served the immigrant community as a social and cultural as well as a religious center... almost every Korean in the Hawaiian Islands eventually came to be identified with the Christian faith” (Hurh 1998: 38). Though Korean American immigrants have historically used the church as a social-solidarity mechanism, the Chinese and Japanese typically used non-religious avenues for cohesion (Lee 1996). Exactly why Koreans have used the church for social-cohesion rather than non-religious avenues as their Chinese and Japanese counterparts may be understood in light of Korea’s unique history concerning the positive associations with Christianity from 1882-1950. 39 Mainland Christian Korean Americans Lee (1997) has estimated that there are 2,600 Korean congregations in the United States as they have become one of the fastest growing churches in America in the past twenty years. Compared to the overall statistic of one church for every 730 Americans, there is one church for every 300 Koreans in the US. (Park 1997). A more conservative study provided a ratio of one Korean church per 400 Koreans (Hurh 1998). As high as 75-85% of the immigrant community professes Protestant affiliation (Chong 1998) and 70% of first generation Koreans are affiliated with a Korean Protestant church (Lee 1996). In sharp contrast, only 10%-15% of Korean immigrants identify with Roman Catholicism (Kim and Kim 2001) Case studies indicate that between 20% and 40% of non—Christian Korean immigrants affiliate with Korean Protestant churches after arriving to the United States (Hurh, Kim, and Kim 20% 1978, Hurh and Kim 20% 1990, Chai 25% 1998, and Min 40% 1992). One reason why many “converts” affiliate with the Protestant church post-emigration may be the churches’ selective-acculturation and social functions (Kim 1996). The Korean church has become the most significant institution in the immigrants’ lives (Kim 1990). Five Social Functions of the First Generation Korean American Church Various literature reveal that social reasons may supersede religious reasons for first generation church involvement. The five most important non- religious functions of the first generation Korean ethnic churches are: a) 40 fellowship and a coping mechanism; b) cultural preservation; c) social services; (1) social status and position, and; e) brokerage (cf. Kim 1981 and Min 1992). Fellowship and Coping Mechanism Structural barriers and ethnic resources have helped shape the Korean immigrant’s entrepreneurial propensity, and it appears that the same barriers and resource accessibility have served as a catalyst for their religious participation. Many Korean Americans believe that “complete assimilation is not possible because of their race and physiognomy generates an intense drive toward ethnic identity, sought often through the ethnic church” (Chong 1998: 282). Their outsider-status intensifies the coping-mechanism and selective- acculturation roles of the church (Koh 2001). Marginality provides necessary conditions whereby the church is used as a mechanism for solidarity: group cohesion, prevention of membership withdrawal, identity maintenance, and defined power relations within the group (Coser 1956). Thus, within the context of withdrawal and mainstream-isolation, “the Korean ethnic church supports the development of the group’s defensive and often highly exclusive ethnic identity. ...” (Chong 1998: 259 and cf. Portes and Rumbaut 2001). Chai stated that the first generation is “forced” to participate in their ethnic church (Chai 1998). Lee believes that first generation Koreans “voluntarily” isolate themselves in their churches as a defensive mechanism: “In the midst of their suffering, dislocation, and identity crisis, Koreans could meet with other Koreans, speak their own language, and comfort themselves in the strange milieu of America” (Lee 1997: 26). In Lee’s study (1998: 133) one 41 informant stated that “If you are not part of the church, you are not part of the community.” It is in this context that the ethnic church has had such a significant role for the Korean immigrants’ sense of identity and belonging (Min 1992, Kim 1996, and Chong 1998). From the first generation fellowship-perspective, the minimum qualification for their minister may be someone who can speak the same language (Kim 1997). The language may be a more important component for the immigrants to reconstruct their “home away from home” than religious doctrine or the actual content of a sermon. In light of leaving behind the war-experiences and facing diminishing human capital returns, the church provides psychological comfort as well as a sense of belonging (Hurh 1998). The church is the place where the first generation gather to speak the same language and feel ethnic- cohesion. Through fellowship, the church offers (at minimum) “weekly opportunities for interaction with other immigrants and instills in members a sense of belonging, comfort, and meaning... a microcosm for Korean society” (Chai 1998: 298). It is common that cliques will form within the ethnic church as “Bible studies” or “cell-groups.” Thus, in formal and informal ways, the church is used to provide comfort and fellowship for the first generation. Cultural Preservation The second function of the immigrant church is to provide a medium for cultural preservation or selective acculturation (Chong 1998). There are at least four aspects of culture that the Korean immigrants try to maintain at a familial level: language, values, customs (Min 1992), and food. Traditionally, the Korean 42 family is not only a basic social and economic unit but also the most important source of one’s identity (Min 1985 and Kim 1997). Accordingly, the first generation “tend to see Christianity as an ascribed characteristic that comes with family church membership” (Chai 1998: 308). Church is the medium (form) whereby the family can metaphorically return to the homeland.20 Social Services The third social role of the Korean immigrant church is to provide assistance on issues such as health care, social security, children’s education, and interpreting and filling out application forms for those who have serious language difficulties (Min 1992). As there is no single place whereby Koreans meet regularly en mass and their various forms of capital can be pooled, “the Korean ethnic church seems to be the only institution that most immigrants turn to for usefiil information and services” (Min 1992: 1385). Though this social function has not garnered much academic attention, this has been a major attraction for first generation international students at the New Hope Baptist Church of East Lansing, where I have served since the summer of 1994. Social Status and Position The church provides Korean Americans the place for the first generation to attain, reinforce, and disseminate their status in direct and indirect ways (Hurh 1998). The church can provide social status and position for the first generation in at least three ways, it can: a) empower one who is marginalized from mainstream- 20 Kawamura (1978) and Kendis (1989) have also found some Japanese (Buddhist) churches that have used religion for social reasons; specifically ethnic preservation. However, these ethno-religious perpetuity attempts pale in comparison to the first generation Korean American Protestant affiliation. 43 America; b) be used as a social-reaffirmation mechanism, or; c) be used to disseminate the progeny’s success. The first two avenues are mutually exclusive and are directly related to the immigrant and the third is indirectly related to the immigrant. The senior pastor has the ultimate authority in the church community ”2' church- (Kim 1996). Similar to Plotinus’ theory of emanation and the “One, power and —status stem from the senior pastor. The minister’s power is almost unlimited in the context of the Korean American church and he (usually male) often provides unquestioned, sole interpretations of the Bible and church polity (Kim 1997). The church status and power is further hierarchically diffused among the associate pastor(s) (mok-sa), pastor(s)-in-training (chun-do-sah), the ordained elders (ahn-jrp-sa), and deacons (ii—5a). Though any of these non-senior pastoral titles may have a manifest function regarding job-descriptions, these titles or positions also latently provide status and recognition among the community members (Hurh and Kim 1990 and Park 1997). Hurh has found that holding a church position for men was significantly related to their mental health (Hurh 1998). Min found that some pastors actually created more church positions than were actually needed in order to meet the Korean immigrants’ social and psychological needs (Min 1992). The Korean church can also been used as a mechanism of social- reaffirrnation. That is, an individual (male) with academic credentials and 2' According to Plotinus and his theory of the “One,” all ontology and epistemology flowed in the form of “minds” and “souls.” The “One” was the source of all emanation and apart from this “One” there could be nothing (Allen: 1985: 75 and 79). Analogously , in the first generation Korean American churches, most senior pastors hold and diffuse power in the congregations. 44 financial prosperity is more apt to receive recognition via church position than another person who has lower socio-economic status, irrespective of Bible knowledge and sincerity. Not only are the “better off” more likely to provide higher funds, but it “looks” better for the pastor and the church to engage in social-reaffirmation. Kim and Kim (2001: 85) found that “being ordained as an elder carries connotations of ‘being elevated to eldership’ in Korean immigrant churches. That is, it enhances one’s status in terms of power and prestige at the same time that certain reciprocities in terms of money and time are expected from ordained elders.” Koh (2001: 96) found that “Korean churches also offer a refuge from racism. Many Korean Americans feel empowered as soon as they enter a Korean church.” Lee (1998: 133) found that “Korean immigrants’ lack of fulfillment in their social integration in the larger American society makes the holding of church offices (elders, deacons, etc.) very important to them. Those who fail to get elected to the lay leadership positions frequently opt to lead their supporters in establishing a new church where they can be elected to the leadership position without any opposition.”22 The third and final way that the church can be used to enhance first generation status is indirectly via the progeny. This is usually done by proclaiming any combination of the following concerning their children: what school(s) they are attending, the degree(s) or occupation that they have, their 22 For example, in my study, Rita Ryu (and others) did not like how the Korean church could be used as a mechanism of social empowerment (cf. Min 1992): “I really disliked the way that Korean, first generation Koreans used church as kind of their social empowerment, basically, the way they used those names gives them power somehow and it almost doesn’t have anything to do with the spiritual aspect and I felt that at times they would abuse their power and that’s something I felt was very negative.” 45 Second Generation Korean Americans Three things are noteworthy regarding Korean American second generation church participation: one, the first and second generations have separate religious experiences and meanings concerning Christianity even though they attend the “same” church (Chai 1998); two, as long as the second generation remains under the first generation umbrella they will continue to be perceived as dependents and carry an inferior status, and; three, there will always be a generational-culture gap between the first and second generations. There is a certain irony regarding the first generation’s familial-ascription of Christianity when the religious experiences are generationally different and difficult to discuss trans-generation (Hurh 1998). Warner (2001: 35) stated that “Korean American youth seemed to be positive about God, religion, and their ethnic heritage, but negative about the church.” Based on the literature concerning the second generation Korean American departure, five factors appear to contribute to the “silent exodus”: language, structure and intergenerational differences, trajectories, choice, and a non-personalized faith (lack of religious internalization). Language Speaking in the Korean language en masse brings comfort and solace for the marginalized immigrant and is also a major pastoral-qualification. Conversely, from the second generation perspective “whose native language is English, feelings of alienation and experiences of isolation have come to be expected within the predominantly Korean speaking Korean American church” (Kim 1997: 28). Whereas the Korean language may provide solidarity for the 47 first generation immigrant, it may have the reverse effect on the progeny (Warner 1997 and Goette and Hong 2001). That is, the language which attracts the first generation may be the same element which repels the latter generations.23 Structure and Intergenerational Differences Most of the Korean American churches are depicted by a “church within a church model” whereby the first generation financially “umbrellas” the second generation. Parental- and capital-ownership combined with the Korean (Confucian) culture equates first generation domination and second generation subordination. Thus, “in most of the Korean churches the second generation ministry is unquestionably subordinate to the authority of the first generation, and governed by an authority style of leadership” (Chong 1998: 273). Kim (1990: 12) found that the Korean churches are “dominated by first generation immigrants” and “have yet to establish a system of meaningful dialogue with English speaking Korean children as well as English speaking Americans.” Although authoritarian 23 In my study, Becky Kim stated that language was “one of my biggest struggles because my lack of ability to speak Korean well hinders me from knowing Korean culture as much as I want to, and I want pass on Korean culture to my kids but it’s hard if I can’t speak Korean very well. And with my mother-in-law it’s a big struggle because she’s not used to speaking English with her kids, but, here 1 come into this new family and I am expected to speak Korean. I mean sometimes I wish, I wasn’t Korean so that they don’t have those expectations.” Ricky Choe stated that he is unable to communicate in Korean because he has never learned the language. Whereas Becky wished that she was not Korean, Ricky is scared of the Korean first generation persons: “I’m pretty scared of older first generation Koreans as it is. Like friends’ parents... I’m scared to meet them. I think it’s because I was never taught how to interact with them, and it’s different than American parents. I guess it’s easy to offend them too if you don’t show them respect. They talk to me in Korean and I have no idea what they’re saying.” Corey Lee is Korean and his wife is not, and neither are familiar with the Korean language. In their case, they not only dislike the Korean ethnocentrism among the first generation churches, but they also disliked the Korean cultural hegemony that they perceived at LCCRC. Corey stated that LCCRC “wants to be this independent church that reaches out to multi-ethnicity, multi-ethnic ministry, but I think it’s still where a lot of the elements, where I feel like it’s clinging on to its Korean American, Korean church identity and maybe that’s inevitable by the sheer demographics of its constituency but it does feel... I think it’s got a ways to go in terms of really creating an atmosphere where people that are non-Korean really do feel welcome there.” What really discouraged Corey was the feeling of exclusion among some of the LCCRC members if one was not “able to rattle off in Korean” during the fellowship times. 48 communication and hierarchical structure may be viable with the first generation (Cha 2001 and Kim, Warner, and Kwon 2001) it is not with the second generation (Kim 1996). The following charts show the differences and barriers among first and second generation Korean Americans concerning family values, life philosophies, and communication styles (Kim and Kim 1997: 21): Table 4. Korean and American Values Family Values Korean Values family oriented interdependency vertical, authoritarian structure respect for parents and elders family loyalty, and filial piety duty, obedience and acceptance family discipline via American Values individual-oriented autonomy/independence horizontal, democratic structure depends on the family and individual self-determination, own happiness freedom of choice and independence success through self- discipline and will sense of stoicism and fatalism reciprocity and obligation status conscious and face- saving holistic living in harmony with nature shame/punishment discipline relied on school/other agencies Life Philosophy family/kinship bonds, individualism collectivism pragmatism, fulfilling one’s potential sense of optimism and opportunism avoidance of obligation (go Dutch) self-realization; do your own thing control and conquer of nature 49 Table 4 (cont’d). Communication subtle, nonverbal, body emphasis on verbal language Style language free expression of feelings control of feelings direct, explicit expression flowery, indirect expression eye contact important no eye-to-eye contact equality in language honorific language self-promoting self-effacing hugging and kissing in public no physical contact or huggirg in public In my experience with second generation Korean American persons who attend or do not attend a church, I have generally found that the longer that they have been in the US, the more that they shift towards the right side (American mainstream values). As a whole, this group tends to fall in the middle of the chart. However, some are very adamant about their culture and family bonds regardless of the length of residency. As a group, Lighthouse evinces patterns of selective acculturation whereby they have a Korean “empathy” on some issues while showing the processes of “Americanization” on other aspects. I would surmise that Lighthouse members will have Koreanized values, mixed perspectives on worldviews, and American styles of communication. Trajectories The first and second generations not only “differ in membership demographics, but they have markedly different worship styles, somewhat different beliefs, and potentially different trajectories” (Chai 1998: 297, emphasis mine). Whereas the first generation is attempting to preserve as much of their 50 homeland as possible via homogenous congregations, their progeny may not want similar levels of cultural retention and homogeneity, especially at the cost of religious meaning. Chai (2001: 156 and cf. Kaplan 1997) discovered that “for many second generation young people with whom I have worked, neither the mainstream culture/society nor their Korean families have provided that nurturing environment in which they could construct a healthy identity as a bicultural person and as a uniquely created child of God.” Goette and Hong (2001: 121) stated that: “Too often US-bom Korean Americans have been alienated by the Korean church, which places a premium on cultural transference because they have been unable to meet the expectations of an unfamiliar culture and to identify with a faith expressed through the culture.” I believe that there are several possible religious trajectories regarding the second generation that are not associated with the first generation: 1) leave church altogether, forever; 2) pan-ethnic church; 3) autonomous second generation Korean American church; 4) para-churches, or; 5) American churches. My experiences with Korean American churches and the leaders of both generations appear to support options 1, 2, and 3 concerning post-college members. Within these possibilities, there are two intersecting continuums that may shape how the second generation will be involved with church: 1) “religiosity” regarding culture and Christianity tensions, and 2) culture regarding “Koreanness” and Americanization tensions. In contrast, the first generation church is predicated by the inflow of Korean immigrants to maintain “de facto congregations.” Its 51 trajectory is either homogenous preservation or extinction because inflow is the necessary and sufficient condition for their ethnic churches. Choice: Forced Versus Optional Structural barriers may be a cogent factor for first generation church participation. However, their progeny are more likely to have reduced societal barriers (Alumkul 2001) and higher SES and levels of acculturation (cf. Farley and Alba 2002). Therefore the latter generation may be more likely to view church as an option rather than a necessity. That is, if they believe that they can have their needs met outside of the church, they may in fact not attend any church. Furthermore, second generation youths may become overly church- sensitized whereby they inadvertently dissociate from their ethnic church as they become more acculturated to mainstream culture (cf. Herberg 1960: 19). Similar to Herberg’s findings in the European immigrant context, Chai has also found that second generation Koreans reject Christianity when they reject the old culture (Chai 1998). Generally, second generation Koreans “find their immigrant churches irrelevant, culturally stifling, and ill equipped to develop them spiritually for life in the multicultural 19903” (Lee 1996: 50). Whether one blames the first generation for not being sensitive to the progeny’s needs (Chai 1998) or whether one perceives the second generation as a group of “spoiled saints” (of. Lee 1996), the reality is that unlike the first generation, “the younger generation do not consider their ethnic church as the sole institution where all their needs can be met” (Kim 1997: 58). Whereas the first generation may view the Protestant 52 Church as a familial-ascription (Chai 1998), the second generation are more apt to see their religion as individual choice and expression. Further, with relative occupational and linguistic advancement and cultural assimilation, the ethnic church may become a vestige among the second generation. Non-personalized Faith (Lack of Religious Intemalization) There have been reports that second generation Korean Americans have broken off from their parents’ church to start their own ethnic churches (Hurh 1998) while others try to work within the “church-within-a-church model” (Chai 1998). However, it is not common for second generation persons who have participated in a Korean church to continue to be religiously involved upon college graduation. A Los Angeles church youth-coordinator’s comment typifies the second generation church-life: “The kids don ’t own the faith. They come to church because they are forced to. They can’t differentiate... culture and Christianity, and then they often develop a hatred of the culture - which they then extend to Christianity” (Lee 1996: 53, emphasis mine). That is, the “kids” do not have religious internalization and have meshed an ethno-religious nexus without internalizing Christianity. In my ten years of involvement with Korean American churches, the lack of religious internalization appears to be the greatest factor in second generation church dissociation. Even persons who shun their parents, culture, heritage, etc. with a personal belief in Christ attend some type of church. First generation Korean American immigrants see the church as the center for preserving their language and culture. For their children, however, it is a symbol of all they want to leave behind (Herberg 1960) in conjunction with 53 generational succession and upward mobility (Warner and Srole 1945). Consequently, many reject Christianity when they reject the old culture (Hiebert and Young 1993 and Song 1997). In other words, the second generation perceive church as their parents’ and not as their own. A Return to the Church? The “silent exodus” may in fact be a cultural backlash whereby religious abandonment occurs along a process, or as a by-product. Kim (1990: 6) stated that “identity conflict tends to be the single most important issue facing the younger generation of Koreans who are born in the States or have immigrated to the States at an early age.” Further, Cha (2001: 148) believed that for many of the second generation persons, “the Korean American church provided an ideal setting where they could hang out with their Korean American friends.” Kwon has speculated that the Korean immigrant church may be a place where the second generation rediscover their ethnic identity after they have rejected it earlier in their lives (Kwon 1997). The church can serve as the place where “they find their all-consuming identity as Koreans, as Americans, and as Christians” (Chai 2001: 172). Lee (1998: 77) found that “the use of ethnic language as well as interest in ethnic culture declines with age from preschool and elementary level to high school level, after which it increases somewhat at the college level.” Furthermore, at the college level, “they come to realize that they are always perceived as different in America and begin to associate more with the co-ethnics (or other Asian Americans) and regain their ethnic language ability.” Second generation Korean 54 Americans may also evince a return to church when they have children (cf. Lazerwitz 1961, Nash and Berger 1962, Glock, Ringer, and Babbie 1967, Nash 1968, and Moberg 1971). Chai (2001: 159) found that there were three key factors for second generation Korean American ministries: “association with evangelical Christianity, an affirrnation of Korean ethnic identity, and a sense of second generation autonomy and ownership of the English ministry.” Further, the members in her study “were not ready to be assimilated into mainline white Protestant culture” (Chai 2001: 172). This suggests that the Korean American second generation church may serve religious and social purposes; a place for group selective acculturation and ethnic resource for those possessing religious internalization. Finally, Goette (1993: 244) found that “in a major metropolitan area, almost 50% can be expected to return, especially if they have a church family and community of Christian fiiends to return to.” Whether the silent exodus is permanent or temporary (boomerang effect) needs further investigation. For the LCCRC sample, I hypothesize that if there is no religious internalization for the second and non-first generations (post- collegiate), the ethnic church will not play a significant role (if any) as a mode of incorporation and they will continue to exit the churches. Rational choice and market terms (F inke and Stark 1992, F inke and Iannaccone 1993, Iannaccone, Olson, and Stark 1995, Dawson 1998, Spickard 1998) may explain which type of church the second generation may attend, but not whether or not to attend a church. Similarly, ethnic resources may be functional in a second generation 55 Korean American church, but not without religious internalization. Religious internalization is a prerequisite for LCCRC attendance. This implies that the church possesses little (if any) non-religious and selective acculturation functions that are independent of religion for the second generation. Accordingly, the most powerful impetus of the second generation church will be the synergistic nexus of spiritual and cultural elements. In this chapter I have attempted to provide a socio-historical context for Korean American Protestantism. Moving from the Protestant origins in Korea to the first generation Korean American Protestant overrepresentation and their progeny’s dissociations, I have concluded this chapter by attempting to provide theoretical explanations for the second generation’s ethno-religious continuity and discontinuity. In the next chapter 1 will discuss the methods that I have used to explore the post-college church-stayers in my sample. 56 Chapter 3 Methods In this section I will discuss my exploratory themes and how the qualitative and quantitative data were analyzed and collected. Whereas a “traditional” approach would isolate certain demographic variables to predict (ethno-) religiosity, my goal is to explore the meanings of Lighthouse church participation from the respondents’ perspectives (of. Neitz 1990). Participant observation, in-depth interviews, and surveys were used to elucidate religious internalization as a precondition for Lighthouse participation and how ethnic resources, costs and gains, and selective acculturation helped to explain why Lighthouse members were drawn to the ethnic component of their church. A total of 34 Korean persons were interviewed between January 2, 2002 and April 21, 2002. During this timeframe I visited LCCRC every three of five weekends and collected 35 surveys. Questions were asked regarding three major themes: intergenerational relations, cultural significance, and religiosity. These three rubrics were used to identify specific associations with LCCRC (second generation Korean American) participation. As my sample size is relatively small (though greater than 30), the findings will emphasize the in-depth interview and participant observation data. Statistical measures will be used for illustrative purposes and to buttress the qualitative data. As Neitz (1990) argues for a phenomenological approach in religious studies, I will also try to collate my data to understand why and how Lighthouse members use the church for their ethno-religious identities in conjunction with their ethnic resources and selective acculturation processes. 57 Investigative Themes Intergenerational Relations To what extent did parental or first generation relations affect church participation? Other studies have found that intergenerational tensions contribute to second generation religious dissociation (Herberg 1960, Chai 1998, and Chong 1998; cf. Portes and Rumbaut 2001). That is, the latter generation(s) does not follow the first generation’s ethno-religious behaviors and breaks away from the religious and or cultural ties. Would positive intergenerational relations be correlated with church attendance? Intergenerational relationships were measured by evaluating the interviewee’s outlook and relationships with their parents and other first generation persons. Questions focused on the respondents’ perceptions, communication patterns, and feelings towards their first generation counterparts. Cultural Significance To what extent did cultural elements affect church participation? That is, do LCCRC members place an importance on being “Korean” (or “Asian”) in respect to religious participation? Cultural significance was measured by preference of: self-identification, foods, friends, dating-spouse, language usage, video and television viewing, music, reading materials, and activities. Further issues of marginalization and barriers (actual and perceived) were addressed concerning the use of Lighthouse as a mode of incorporation. Religiosity To what extent did religious internalization affect church participation? Does the ethnic church belong solely to their parents (non-personalized) or is Christianity something which the respondents individually claim as their own? 58 Are there spurious associations to religious internalization, such as socialization elements? Assurance of faith (0-100%), basis of salvation, and ascribed versus personalized faith were used as the primary indicators of religious internalization. I was looking for Christian Orthodox salvific responses and a 100% assurance level as primary measures of religious internalization. Furthermore, one’s response concerning their salvific-justification should precede a higher level of salvation assurance. For example, it would be odd for someone to provide a non- Orthodox Protestant response (salvation apart from grace and faith) and purport 100% salvation assurance. Finally, secondary indicators such as consistency in reading the Bible and prayer (quiet times) and past church experiences were also used to help draw conclusions regarding religious internalization. Religious Significance? Based on the first three questions, is religious internalization a necessary association for post-collegiate second generation Korean Americans to attend their ethnic church? That is, will the second generation attend church without a religious meaning (as evinced by many of the first generation Korean members)? This can be indicated by evaluating the answers to themes one, two, and three and ascertaining if non-religious motives supersede aspects of religious internalization. For example, if the data suggest that only intergenerational relations and cultural significance are (statistically) significant correlates, then religious internalization is not likely to be a necessary pre-condition for second generation religiosity. 59 Again, the major hypothesis of this study is that second generation (or non-first generation members) Koreans will not participate in their ethnic church if they have not internalized their faith (Lee 1996). That is, religious internalization is a necessary component for the autonomous second generation Lighthouse congregation. Conversely, those without religious internalization will attempt to find social meaning and status outside of their Korean ethnic churches along with their other silent-exodus counterparts (Lee 1996, Song 1997, and Chai 1998 and 2001). This premise contrasts the first generation counterparts whose religious participation can be attributed to predominantly social reasons such as solidarity and comfort. Whereas first generation persons are more apt to feel at home in the ethnic church and to feel a sense of “otherness” in mainstream culture, it appears that ethnic resources and rational choice theories would have a stronger pull for the first generation than the second generation counterparts who are more acclimated to mainstream culture, have greater returns in their human capital, and generally evince upward socioeconomic mobility (Farley and Alba 2002). Accordingly, the religious factor would have to play a bigger role for second generation church retention. Other Hermeneutics to Interpret Lighthouse Participation? Once I have established that Lighthouse does possess a level of religious internalization, that Lighthouse members do uphold beliefs and practices that would be deemed consistent to “born-again” Christian Orthodoxy, I must also try to understand what associations exist regarding the ethnic element of their ethno- 60 religiosity. Accordingly, I will also incorporate the concepts of ethnic resources, costs and gains, and selective acculturation into my study. Ethnic Resources As church longevity and perpetuity are not the primary concerns of this study (factors that are attributed to Korean American second generation congregation grth and decline), I will pay more attention to the ethnic resources (Min and Jaret 1985 and Hurh 1998) that current members employ in the church rather than the traditional use of resource mobilization (McCarthy and Zald 1977 and Jenkins 1983). Nonetheless, I will briefly mention the effects that Lighthouse leadership may have had on the future trajectory of the congregation at the end of my dissertation. My use of ethnic resources in this dissertation focuses on how members utilize their friendships, cultural commonalty, and assistance to first generation Korean Americans who share the same building with Lighthouse. Costs and Gains I will also examine explore the costs and gains to attend or not to attend Lighthouse. That is, are there benefits for attending Lighthouse that may help explain their participation? Are there consequences for leaving Lighthouse? Are there any cultural norms or expectations that this church should assist first generation Korean Americans who also use the same building, even though Lighthouse is an independent second generation congregation? Do these costs and gains have any salience for Lighthouse attendance? 61 Selective Acculturation According to the concept of selective acculturation (Portes and Rumbaut 2001), the Lighthouse congregants should evince some cultural retention in their adjustments to mainstream America. To understand their selective acculturation patterns, questions are asked regarding: ethnic self-identity, SES, (perceptions of) discrimination, marginalization, and incorporation, intergenerational relationships, language preferences and fluency, media and foods, and work and 1 residential preferences. Unsurprisingly, members will be impacted by both Korean and American cultures. In this context, I will try to identify Lighthouse patterns of selective acculturation. Although selective acculturation and ethnic resources may have similarities regarding Lighthouse participation, I believe that Lighthouse is a place whereby Korean American elements are differentiated and the bi-cultural differences are also maintained as a Korean American identity. Ethnic resources focuses on the Korean elements which are preserved and used to help maintain a Korean American identity among the Lighthouse members. Qualitative Investigations Participant Observation As an outsider, I needed to formally gain permission from at least one LCCRC gatekeeper to begin my investigation. I contacted Deacon George Won and Senior Pastor Choi in the Spring of 2001 via email. Shortly thereafter, I met Deacon Won and explained the nature and purpose of my project. With the formal approval and support of Deacon Won and Pastor Choi, I began to attend the services and Bible Studies about once a month for several months. Initially, I was welcomed as a newcomer. As church members realized that I was visiting 62 their church for research purposes, unsurprisingly they were hesitant to verbally express themselves (Nachmias and Nachmias 1976). However, over time I was able to build a healthy relationship with the LCCRC leaders and members. Participant observation allowed me to employ methodological empathy to understand the members’ perspective of their religious-realities (Babbie 1998). This allowed me to gain rapport and persons were willing to participate in in- depth interviews and surveys after becoming comfortable with my presence. The sporadic and extended periods of participant observation were crucial to observe the reality of their expressions which could not be reduplicated (Whyte and Whyte 1984). The bulk of the observations occurred between January and April of 2002, whereby I visited the church three of every five weeks. I was conscientious to demarcate what may be genuine from presentation, and the different stages and roles that may be encountered (Goffman 1959). For several months I took detailed notes during the services and Bible studies. The notes were typed, printed, and placed in chronological order to ascertain general patterns or any idiosyncrasies which needed further investigation. The participant observations also provided more face-face interaction which allowed me to build rapport and revise the in-depth-interview and survey questions. In-Depth Interviews The first three in-depth interviews occurred simultaneously with my initial participant-observations. Deacon Won gave me the password to access their website directory, and for several months I sent personal emails to all of the 63 members (about 50) on the directory. I was able to hold, record, and transcribe 34 interviews. The majority of the interviews were conducted in private rooms at the church. Some interviews were also conducted at a nearby coffee shop, and two were conducted at a dormitory at the University of Michigan campus. All of the interviews consisted of a specified set of open-ended questions and the interviewees were given ample opportunity to provide their perspectives on various issues. The interview times ranged anywhere from 30 minutes to an hour. The value of the interviews was that they helped me to contextualize the respondents and to avoid presenting reified and abstracted individuals. Further, with each interview I increasingly gained insider-status. I joined Deacon Won’s Bible study and interviewed all of the persons in his group. I also did this for Bible study groups #2 and #3. The major cautions concerning the in-depth interviews were the inforrnant’s motives, whether in fact they were genuine and trustworthy, and how much they decided to divulge during the interview process (Whyte and Whyte 1984). This is why the interview data have also been buttressed with observations and survey data. The following protocol was used to analyze the data from the interviews and observations: 1) Line-by-line analysis based on the research questions or other important new themes that may have arisen during the analysis (Emerson, Fretz, and Shaw 1995). 2) Coding to evoke specific rubrics in light of the core categories (Strauss 1987, Emerson, F retz, and Shaw 1995, and Ryan and Bernard 2000). 3) Coding ceased once theoretical saturation occurred — that is, nothing new could be discovered by the line-by-line analysis and coding (Strauss 1987 and Emerson, Fretz, and Shaw 1995). I was content that the three investigation-variables (intergenerational relations, cultural affinity, and religious internalization) would be a good way to investigate LCCRC’s 64 participation when I could no longer find new themes or rubrics to categorize the data. 4) Comparison and contrast concerning the saturation results and core categories. 5) The saturated themes were crossed with experiential data which “consists not only of analyst’s technical knowledge and experience derived from research, but also their personal experiences” (Strauss 1987: 11). As I have been active in a Korean Church ministry since 1994, I was able to connect this church’s context with my personal and professional experience. 6) The results of the observation and interview data were compared to the results of the survey data. Rather than viewing both types of data in diametric opposition, both types of data should have complemented one another. Quantitative Investigations Survey Data The advantage of the survey method was that questions and responses could be standardized for measures of comparison. That is, these data can be compared and contrasted with data from other studies. Surveys also allowed the respondent to reflect on the answer and present their views in anonymity. The caution is that they may answer questions based on what they think is the correct answer rather than stating what they honestly believe. However, in order for me to ascertain the presence of associations between the aforementioned variables and ethnic church participation, the survey must be given in conjunction with in- depth interviews and participant observations. The following procedures were used for the survey data: 1) Survey questions were drafted in lieu of the research focus of this dissertation. 2) Data was entered on nominal and ordinal levels, and nominal variables with only two categories were treated as ordinal variables (1 = highest score for every category). 3) Indexes were created where appropriate and a reliability check was conducted for variables that were collapsed into indexes. All of the 65 indexes that were used in this study had an alpha level greater than .80. All indexes that fell short of an acceptable alpha level (.80) were not used. 4) Using single variables or indexes, the values of Somer’s d, Kendall’s tau-b, Gamma, and the Spearman correlation were ascertained via SPSS 11.0 to find adequate levels of association (p < .05) concerning: 1) inter- generational relations and church attendance, 2) cultural significance and church attendance, and 3) religious internalization and church attendance. 5) The dependent variable, church attendance, was measured on six different levels: 1) current Lighthouse attendance, 2) Korean church attendance during college, 3) Korean church attendance during high school, 4) Korean church attendance during grade school, 5) A history index of church attendance from grade school to the present time of the survey, and 6) the duration of attendance at Lighthouse. 6) Measures of associations that had an absolute value between: 0.0 and 0.3 were deemed weak; 0.3 and 0.5 were deemed moderate; 0.5 and 0.7 were deemed moderate/strong. Measures of associations that had an absolute value above 0.7 were deemed strong. 7) Finally, as causality incorporates association of variables, the elimination of spurious variables, and time order; this study will not explore causality as the last component is beyond the scope of this study. Statistical Measures of Association The advantage of gamma is that it can be used for any size table (Elifson, Runyon, and Haber 1998). Further, it is a proportional reduction in error (PRE) and gives direction and strength of association. Gamma’s weakness is that it “tends to overstate the actual relationship (Elifson, Runyon, and Haber 1998: 175). Therefore, Kendall’s tau-b can also be used for ordinal data which tends to give a more stable value than gamma (Agresti and Finlay 1997). Though Kendall’s tau-b gives strength and direction (unlike gamma) it is not a PRE (Agresti and Finlay 1997 and Elifson, Runyon, and Haber 1998). However, this statistic is “particularly appropriate when we do not have a clearly identifiable independent and dependent variable and merely want wish to determine if two variables are related” (Sullivan 2001: 433). 66 Somer’s (I gives strength and direction of association and also takes into account the response and explanatory variables, which Gamma and Kendall’s tau- b do not (Agresti and Finlay 1997). That is, Somer’s (I gives two (usually different) values; the greater the value, the more likely that the given variable is the dependent variable in the association. The Spearman correlation provides strength and direction of association between two variables. Therefore, for ordinal level variables: Somer’s d takes into account which variable should be the dependent or independent variable; Gamma serves as a PRE; Kendall’s tau-b is a more stable and conservative measure than Gamma, and; the Spearman correlation provides strength and direction of association. For ordinal variables, these tests are appropriate to ascertain statistically significant levels of association. 67 Chapter 4 Findings In this section I will discuss my findings with respect to religious internalization. I will also explore the impact of ethnic resources, costs and gains of Lighthouse participation and non-participation, and selective acculturation. Religious internalization appears to be a necessary pre-condition for Lighthouse’s religious involvement whereas the other theories help to explain the ethnic aspect of their church involvement. Three dependent variables (1, 5, and 6) received the most attention in this study: current Lighthouse church attendance, an index of Korean church attendance history (from grade school to the time of the survey), and the duration of Lighthouse attendance. Finally, the statistical data was used to illustrate the in-depth interview and participant observation findings. Religious Intemalization Religious Self-Identity and Church Attendance Among the 35 persons who were surveyed, 91.4% claimed to be “bom- again” Christians and 94.3% (33 persons) attend Lighthouse every week or almost every week. The sample’s current church attendance rate (94.3%) is markedly higher than their college (71.4%), high school (62.9%), and grade school (60%) rates. The survey data suggests that there is a steady increase in attending a Korean church from grade school through college and post-college. This trend suggests that Lighthouse is comprised of church-stayers as well as those who have not attended a Korean church in their pre-Lighthouse years.24 24 Of the 35 persons who submitted surveys, 7 reported that they had never attended a Korean church during their high school years. 68 When the interviewees were asked how often they attended a Korean church during high school, about half of the males went to church every week and almost all of the females (13 of 15, or 87%) went to church every Sunday. Further, when the respondents were asked to describe their parents’ church attendance patterns when the interviewees were in their high school years, among the Korean males 12 (63%) reported that their parents attended church on a regular basis and among the females, 13 (87%) reported regular attendance. This suggests that if socialization has shaped the respondents’ religious outlooks, socialization may be more prevalent for the females than for the males. Comfort, Discomfort, and Socialization Jeff Cho stated that a positive aspect of the ethnic church was that the church could serve as an extended family (cf. Kim 1981 and Glock, Ringer, and Babbie 1967): Positive wise... since we were in a group, every home was like our family and we could go and act or assume like this house was my house. The parents understood that too. Being Korean together with other kids we can kind of get a certain understanding level, eating foods from other parents’ cooking. I don’t really feel like growing up we all emphasized we were all Korean together. But we just were able to mesh together because I felt like they could stay over as long as they want and I could stay over as long as I want, for example. Kwon’s (1997) conjecture that the Korean church may be used to help those in an identity crisis was also confirmed by Becky Kim: “Positive... you were around Korean culture and tradition... you had the support you needed if you had a identity crisis kind of thing.” I found that female interviewees were more likely than male interviewees to discuss church-socialization and -discomfort themes when comparing American and Korean churches. Stacy Park stated that American churches 69 “definitely didn’t feel as comfortable as if I was in a Korean church.” Judy Park stated that “it was different not to be around Asians or Koreans in the church setting because I am so used to it but it wasn’t like a negative experience, it was just different.” Karen Lee could not pinpoint a specific difference but detected it nonetheless: “it’s just different-like, but I can’t explain.” Becky Kim and her husband tried American churches as they were looking for a permanent church, and she stated: Yes, yeah it did especially in Ann Arbor, because when you go to a white church they’re white, and maybe like 5 Asians, and so you really feel out of place. It just feels different because we both have gone to Korean churches our whole life and... we came out here saying we are going to a non-Korean church. . .. But going to church, and trying to experience that, it just didn’t feel like home so we ended up coming to this church. The Korean church-socialization also influenced Suzie Cho who did not feel comfortable in an American church-setting: “I always associated church and Korean people, and it just didn’t feel natural to me I guess. I never really thought about it that way, but now that I just mentioned it, it just didn’t feel like church. Church is always like your parents, your family, and then like other Korean families, that’s the way that I always associated it (church) to.” Statistical data also revealed that gender was associated with Korean church attendance for high school, grade school, and attendance history. The data show a positive and moderate correlation between “female” and the respective dependent variables. The Somer’s (1 value is significantly greater when the dependent variable is church attendance as opposed to gender. We can infer that the association between these variables is best explained when church attendance is the dependent variable. That is, the greater the likelihood that the respondent was female, the greater the association to church attendance in grade school, high 70 school, and their lifetime. If religious socialization were a possibility, it was more likely for the females than males. Primary Indicators Justification for Salvation A Christian Orthodox justification for one’s salvation incorporates faith in the Person and works of Christ and a personal internalization based on grace (unmerited favor). Mere intellectual assent does not warrant one’s salvation. Furthermore, a salvation based on works would not be accepted according to Protestant Orthodoxy. It appears that the male interviewees were better able to provide Orthodox responses than the female interviewees. 13 (68%) males gave answers reflecting a Christian Orthodoxy belief of salvation and 6 did not. Karl Moon gave a classic Calvinistic answer when he was asked to provide a basis for his salvation: That’s a tough question... to be honest with you, if it’s something based on what I’ve done, probably nothing. I personally think I lived a fairly obedient life, but personally that’s nothing I’ve done to deserve I go to heaven. The only justification I have is that God has chosen me through His grace and mercy that I accept Him as my Lord, that’s the only thing I can say. Jason Kim’s answer is not Calvinistic but Orthodox (and Evangelical) nonetheless: “I would say because of my belief that Jesus Christ died for me, and that I am saved because I believe in the Truth. The fact that He died for my sins and was resurrected, and my sins were cleansed by His blood.” Among the Korean females, 4 (27%) gave answers reflecting the Christian Orthodoxy belief of salvation and 11 did not. For some reason there was a lot of ambiguity and confusion regarding a Biblical basis for one’s salvation. One 71 former deacon even confused a salvation based on grace with works: “I would say because with my whole heart that Jesus Christ came to die for my sins and that since that belief I’ve tried to be obedient, maybe not the best that I could but I tried to make it a priority in my life, to try to be obedient to the commandments and trying to serve other people as well.” A current deacon answered: “The basis of my salvation, I guess I would say just my relationship with You (God) growing up all these years, I know that sometimes there are times when I doubted but I know that my relationship with You is there because in my life You have just made it so present to me.” She had also stated that she was a “Christian from the womb” which is an impossibility among Protestant Evangelicals. Two persons were completely honest with their inability to answer the question. Rachelle Choi said, “that’s hard, I never really thought of it that way (providing a Biblical basis for her salvation). I don’t know.” Elizabeth Moon stated: “I don’t know. I know that I have assurance of salvation but then how do I articulate that? I never really thought of articulating that. I’ve never had a doubt that I would not go to heaven, but then at the same time I never really thought about why. . One female interviewee felt pressure to try to say the correct answer as she changed her answer from an Orthodox perspective to what she really believed: I think it’s a little different , well my first answer, the previous question is that, uh, I also believe in good works too. I think I just told you the good answer to be a Protestant but I also believe in good works too. I don’t believe that you just believe and then you do wrong things, and you don’t try to better yourselves. I really believe in charity and good works, and even the Bible says so, I could also give you references through email (she sent several pages), what it means, what those references are through the Bible. But this church, that’s one thing about the doctrine that are different than my belief. This church and the doctrine do not believe good works, are not necessary. 72 In sum, 50% of all interviewees provided a Protestant Orthodox justification for their salvation. Although the survey data shows that about 3 of 4 members could properly identify the Protestant Orthodox response for salvation, the in-depth interviews suggest that a socialization-effect may have been prevalent among the females. Salvation Assurance When the interviewees were asked to provide their salvation assurance confidence, among the males, 9 were at the 100% confidence interval and 4 were at the 90% level. However, among the females (although only 4 could give a Protestant Orthodox answer) 6 had a confidence level of 100% and 5 had 90% level of confidence. The other ten interviewees stated that their salvation assurance level fell between 0% and 80%. There are several explanations for the discrepancy between the females who provided Orthodox salvation responses (4) and those who reported 100% and 90% salvation assurance levels (6 and 5, respectively) . One, they really are sure of their salvation but could not provide an explication; two, they have become religiously-socialized and have “incorrectly” internalized their salvation experience with a religio-ethnic fusion, or; three, they have not been honest in reporting their answers during the in-depth interviews. Of concern is that only 4 were able to provide an Orthodox response, and there are 6 persons who have 100% salvation assurance, and 5 with 90% or higher. In general, primary and secondary indicators for males and females (except a justification for salvation) 73 suggest that religious internalization is present among the LCCRC members. However, it also appears that other factors may have fused with religious internalization to amalgamate a powerful ethno-religious fusion among the female LCCRC members. Salvation assurance (0-100%) was a statistically significant association with the respondent’s church attendance during college, high school, grade school, and their attendance history. The correlations were positive and moderate; the higher the level of salvation assurance, the greater the association with church attendance during college, high school, grade school, and throughout their lives. Conversely, the lower their salvation assurance scores, the greater the association to attending church less frequently for the given dependent variables. Unfortunately, there were no statistically significant measures of association for salvation assurance and either current church attendance or duration of LCCRC attendance. I had expected that these associations would be present. My guess is that a) the sample was too small to measure this association (as evinced by some Gamma absolute values of 1.0, and or b) salvation assurance possibly was not a good measure of religious internalization. Secondary Indicators Quiet Times When the interviewees were asked how many times per week they read the Bible, 42% and 40% of males and females, respectively, read the Bible at minimum every other day of the week. Concerning prayer, 68% and 80% of males and females, respectively, prayed at minimum every other day of the week. From an Evangelical perspective, of concern would be those who rarely or never 74 read the Bible or pray once per week or less. Concerning Bible reading, 7 males fall into this category and regarding prayer, 2 males are in this category; internalization is especially questionable for those who neglect personal Scripture reading and prayer. Concerning the females, 7 persons read at minimum about every other day of the week, and 10 pray at minimum about every other day of the week. The ratio of women who read (7 of 15) or pray (10 of 15) at minimum every other day resembles those of men (8 of 19 and 13 of 19, respectively). According to the descriptive frequencies, in the past six months, about 1 of 2 read the Bible every week at least a few times per week, and 46.7% did not read the Bible on any significant level. When asked to quantify the number of days the Bible was read, on average per week, 42.9% read the Bible at minimum every other day and 57.1% read only one day per week or less. Of concern from a Protestant perspective are those who fall in the l and 0 day categories (57.1%). The weekly prayer averages are a bit higher as 82.9% prayed at minimum every other day and 17.1% prayed only one day or less per week. Ideally, a Christian should read the Bible and pray every single day. However, a regular pattern of “every other day” will be accepted in this study regarding a valid level of religious internalization. In sum, it appears that about 3 of 5 and 4 of 5 persons can be considered to have a level of religious internalization based on Bible reading and prayer, respectively. An association between the respondents’ Bible reading habits in the past six months was found to be statistically significant with current Lighthouse attendance. However, the association was found to be greater when Bible reading 75 was the dependent variable (Somer’s d=.498) rather than the independent variable (Somer’s d=.29l). That is, the data suggest that it is more likely that the more one attended Lighthouse, the stronger the association to more frequent Bible reading. Conversely, the less that one attended Lighthouse, the stronger the association to less frequent Bible reading. Therefore, quiet times appear to be associated with church attendance. Although I have set up Bible reading (a secondary indicator of religious internalization) to be a necessary precondition for church attendance, these two variables appear to be mutually enforcing to one another (cf. Glock and Stark 1966). Marriage Preferences When the interviewees were asked how important it was to marry a Christian and if they would many a non-Christian, the majority of the men (63%) and an overwhelming majority of the women (87%) would only marry a Christian; which implies a significant level of religious internalization (personal affinity to Christian Orthodoxy). The descriptive frequencies showed that over 1 in 2 persons would absolutely not marry a non-Christian. Over 4 in 5 stated that they would absolutely not marry someone who is an atheist or opposed to Christianity. When these two variables were combined to create an Orthodox perspective of marriage, 76.5% were found to be in a Protestant Orthodox threshold. In determining an appropriate spouse, the Christian element held primacy over other factors (such as culture). According to Evangelical norms, a Christian would not desire to marry a non-Christian. 76 I asked Elizabeth Moon how she felt about marrying a Christian, and she stated: “It’s extremely important. I refuse to marry a person who is not Christian.” She also used Scriptural reference regarding the marriage of a Believer and non- Believer to explicate her position on intra- and inter-ethnic marriage: It’s very important (to marry a Korean), you know how in the New Testament it says to not yoke yourself with non-believers, I kind of take that a little bit farther where I guess... where you should be equally yoked, you should be tied together, you should have things in common with that person. Religion is one huge thing, but another one is cultural background. Preference to marry an atheist or someone who is opposed to Christianity was found to be moderately/strongly positively associated with Korean church attendance in grade school. Those who were more likely to marry an atheist were associated with a stronger association to Korean church attendance. Those who were more likely to not marry an atheist were associated with a stronger dissociation to Korean church attendance. However, these patterns are reversed by the time the respondents become regular attendees at Lighthouse. In fact, the Gamma score is a perfect ——1.000. This set suggests that those who are more likely to marry an atheist have a stronger association to less frequent church attendance. Conversely, those who are less likely to marry an atheist have a stronger association to attending Lighthouse more often. The statistical data strongly suggest that marriage to a Christian (non-atheist) is associated with the members’ current church participation. Ethnic Resources Cultural Commonalty When the respondents were asked why they joined LCCRC many interviewees posited elements of comfort via cultural commonalty. One may 77 argue that cultural commonalty falls under a micro-level analysis. However, these collective feelings are used as an ethnic resource to maintain a Korean American second generation aura. I believe that the Korean ethnic component of Lighthouse continues to be a latent goal among the church members. Respondents consistently showed that cultural affinity had an influence regarding Lighthouse membership and participation. Corey Lee had stopped attending LCCRC for a while and then “decided to return to attend. I needed a sense of community again, especially a Korean and Asian community.” When he compared LCCRC to his white church experiences, he stated that “one thing 1 like about Lighthouse compared to the Catholic church is I felt it was easier to become a little closer and get to know the people around you. At the Catholic church... it was predominantly Caucasian so there was a little less commonality there. ...” Randy Park stated that he and his wife “found affinity toward the people here, and I have to say, maybe more because it’s an Asian church we felt a little more comfortable in some respects.” An international student stated that “I think because I am very Korean and I made a few close friends when I first came to college and they were very involved in Lighthouse, that pulled me in.” Beth Kim is also “very Korean” and likewise found ethnic commonalty among other second generation Korean Americans. For others like Jason Kim, there was a preference towards the Korean culture: “I was very comfortable with the situation . I think I would like to go to Korean church just because of the Korean background.” Becky Kim, an expectant mother, said: “I think the sermon may not 78 have been as entertaining... but what made us decide on Lighthouse were the people. The people were in the same stage of life that we are in. And it was spiritual, people weren’t just here to hang out and stuff.” Undergraduate students were drawn to Lighthouse because it had older Korean Americans as opposed to only college-aged persons (such as the para- church movements). Judy Paek, an undergraduate senior, stated that what attracted her to LCCRC was that “it was a small church and that it was not only college-level, it wasn’t a church that was centered on undergrads but there were families.” Rhoda Lim, another undergraduate had similar reasons: “More than anything, I appreciated the fact that there were a lot of older people here. I’ve always appreciated the company of older people rather than people in my immediate age group. KBC (another Korean church with an English ministry) would be a flock of people of everybody like me.” Jill Pack is another undergraduate who appreciated families, “it feels more homey when there are children and families. I loved everyone. . When the respondents were asked to describe their experiences in a Caucasian worship setting, 8 males said that that they have not visited a white church because they feel more comfortable in a Korean and Asian setting. 9 males (47%) and 8 females (53.3%) said that they have attended or visited a predominantly white congregation. Mark Lee’s experiences with white churches were that “with Caucasian worship, there’s no emotion, it’s just people sitting in pews and I don’t know if everyone’s daydreaming.” Randy Park also finds Caucasian churches to be “too boring.” For Steve Kim, his preference for Korean 79 churches was partially subconscious: “I did attend some predominantly Caucasian churches. Honestly, I think it may have been in the back of my mind because I had been so used to being in, going to church with everyone who looked like me.” George Won directly attributed comfort as a factor in choosing LCCRC as opposed to an American church: “I guess if I had to make a distinction between those (white) churches and Korean churches, I felt a bit less comfortable in a white or predominantly white church. I think I am more comfortable meeting Koreans for the first time than I am in general meeting Caucasians.” Rhoda Lim has never attended an American worship setting out of fear: “I’ve considered it... what prevents me is the fact that I know that I am as Korean as I know that I am, it’s still a scary thought to me.” Allison Choe expressed some regret in her inability to worship in a non-Korean context: “I did (try to attend a Caucasian church), like actually I couldn’t get used to it. So that’s why I regret growing up in a Korean church only, because I couldn’t get used to it. Just the style in their worship, like in praise in general, their styles of praise is very different.” Michelle Kim was the only member to have had a completely positive experience in a white church: “I felt actually, spiritually really growing. And, I think I felt more in place not only as a community but as spiritual growth, I was actually growing, I met an elder who I became friends with, um, we had dinner with 70 year-olds, 60 year-olds, 40 year-olds, it was very loving, very nurturing, and very giving, and at the same time I felt like I was also contributing to the 80 church, not in a big... like they were giving me, but in a little way. I wouldn’t have left (that church) if I didn’t have any guilt feelings. If my husband came with me.” Michelle was content to leave LCCRC, but her husband desired to remain — she stayed. Overall, it appears that most of the Lighthouse members have not tried to attend a Caucasian setting or did not find it as comfortable as the Korean setting. Not one respondent mentioned racism, discrimination, marginalization, nor an overt need for defensive co-ethnic fellowship. Similar to Kitano and Daniel’s (1998) and Tuan’s (1998) findings, many LCCRC respondents appear to have an affinity with Koreans (and Asians) apart from external pressures. One and only one person did have an overall positive experience outside of a Korean church setting; she came back to LCCRC because her husband preferred LCCRC. The majority of the LCCRC members have expressed that they are not ready for worship in the (white) mainstream setting. This is exactly what Chai (2001: 172 and cf. Kwon 1997) had found in her studies; her Korean sample was “not ready to be assimilated into mainline white Protestant culture.” Furthermore, cultural commonalty does not appear to be based on racism. The correlations between the respondents’ perception of discrimination and marginalization and their Lighthouse attendance, Korean church attendance in high school and grade school, were found to be moderate and negative. The Somer’s (I value was greater when Lighthouse attendance was the independent variable (-.446) and perception of discrimination and marginalization was the dependent variable (-.328). In other words, it is slightly more probable that the 81 more the respondent attended Lighthouse, the stronger the correlation to not feeling discrimination or marginalization in mainstream society. The converse is also a (slightly less likely) probability. That is, the Kendall’s tau-b and Gamma tests of significance show that the more they sensed marginalization and discrimination, the stronger the association to not attend a Korean church. Conversely, the less that they sensed marginalization and discrimination, the stronger the association to attending a Korean church more frequently. This suggests that Lighthouse church attendance is not a result of reactive or defensive ethnicity (cf. Tuan 1998). If Korean church attendance were a result of reactive ethnicity, the association would be positive, not negative. Amidst the respondents’ high SES and cultural assimilation, church attendance does not seem to based on a reactive religio-ethnicity. Nonetheless, Lighthouse is a place where cultural affinities can be mobilized in a Korean American context. Friends For some of the post-college members, LCCRC is the main source of co- ethnic fellowship as they do not regularly intimately interact with Korean persons outside of their church gatherings. Elizabeth Moon stated that “the only social friends that I have are from church.” Karen Lee’s comments were interesting: “In high school I didn’t hang out with Korean kids at all. Two of my best friends are Korean, and I met them at church. The American people I hang out with are friends from high school.” This freshman was born and raised in Ann Arbor, and her social life has begun to shift from an American-only context to a Korean 82 context. LCCRC provides a major avenue for co-ethnic socialization (ethnic resources), especially for those who are non-students and in the workforce. The following descriptive frequencies show the members’ responses regarding: 1) the number of persons who are their closest friends, 2) those who are Korean, and, 3) those who attend Lighthouse. Table 5. Number of Persons Who are Your Closest Friends Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent 5 and More 15 42.9 42.9 4 6 17.1 60.0 3 9 25.7 85.7 2 4 1 1.4 97.1 1 l 2.9 100.0 Total 35 100.0 Table 6. Number of Your Closest Friends Who are Korean Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent 5 and More 5 14.3 14.3 4 5 14.3 28.6 3 1 1 31.4 60.0 2 6 17.1 77.1 1 6 17.1 94.3 0 2 5.7 100 Total 35 100.0 83 Table 7. Number of Closest Friends Who Attend Lighthouse Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent 4 2 5.7 5.7 3 3 8.6 14.3 2 4 1 1.4 25.7 1 12 34.3 60.0 0 14 40.0 100.0 Total 35 100.0 These descriptive frequencies show a continual decrease for responses “4” or “5 or more” from charts 1 to 2 and from 2 to 3. This implies that all of the members’ closest friends are not Korean and that their closest friends do not attend this church. In comparing mean scores, respondents claimed that they consider a little less than 4 persons as their closest friends, less than 3 are Korean, and 1 attends Lighthouse. In fact the median value shows that only 1 of their closest fi’iends attends this church. As a vast majority do interact with co-ethnics outside of Lighthouse, it would be safe to suggest that co-ethnic friendships are not likely to be a major explanation why members attend this church. However, the association between having face-face interaction with other Korean persons and the number of years one has been attending Lighthouse is moderate and negative. That is, with greater interaction with Koreans, the greater the association of having attended Lighthouse less years. Conversely, the less face-face interaction with Koreans, the greater the association of having attended Lighthouse more years. 84 There is also a moderate positive association between having closest friends who are Korean and church associations with college, grade school, and attendance history. However, the Somer’s value is greater when “closest friends are Korean” is the dependent variable (.352, .295, and .301) rather than Korean church attendance during college, church attendance during grade school, and a Korean church attendance history index (.311, .243, and .280, respectively). According to Somer’s d test of significance, going to a Korean church during college, grade school, and from grade school to the time of the survey (as dependent variables) provide a little stronger correlation to having Korean persons as closest friends. These last two sets of data suggest that those who attend Lighthouse (an ethnic church) have co-ethnic church members become their closest friend(s) over time, and that they diminish their co-ethnic fellowship outside of church over time. I have noticed that persons who had been members of Lighthouse for a longer number of years had also established significant co-ethnic fi‘iendships. Through formal and informal conversations during lunches and dinners and pick- up basketball games, friendships and conversations were solidified via Korean American identities and constructions. For example, parental pressure for academic or career choices, using a mixture of Korean and English (“Konglish”), discussing Korean foods etc. were used as bonding mechanisms. The Korean American friendships (mini-cliques) were also prevalent during fellowship times on Sunday mornings. I believe that certain cultural empathies were solidified via 85 co-ethnic friendships within Lighthouse, which also helped to maintain a Korean American church identity. First Generation Associations and Assistance When the interviewees were asked to describe the frequency of phone conversations or face-face conversations with their parents, all of the respondents stated that that they speak with either their mother or father on a regular basis via telephone. Some of the congregants have divorced, separated, or deceased parents so the communication has diminished or ceased. 10 of the males (52.6%) and 14 of the females (93.3%) speak with their parents at least once per week. Had there been great tension or dissonance, the communication would be irregular, infrequent, and or nonexistent. Several descriptive frequencies support the qualitative findings concerning regular intergenerational communication. 72.7 % of the sample discuss most of their life choices (education, career, dating, or marriage) with their mothers, and 1 of 2 persons discuss these choices with their fathers before the decision is made. Conversely, 9.1% and 25% discuss “few things” or “nothing” with their mothers and fathers, respectively, before the decisions are made. 4 of 5 persons talk to their mothers and 72% talk to their fathers about their life choices within one week after the decisions have been made. 4 of 5 persons verbally communicate with their mothers on a weekly basis, and l of 2 persons speak to their fathers in the same timeframe. 3% talk to their mothers once a month or less, and 22% do so with their fathers. Concerning arguments with parents, 77.4% reported that they rarely or never argued with their parents from the respondents’ college years 86 to the present. In sum, the majority of the respondents’ communication with their parents appears to be regular and non-argumentative. Oddly, the statistical associations regarding the respondents’ verbal communication with their mother and Lighthouse attendance was negative and stronger when Lighthouse attendance was the independent variable. Hence, as respondents attend Lighthouse more (less), their communication with their mother decreases (increases). Perhaps the respondent’s increase in church attendance is a sign of residency and permanence and few of the respondents’ mothers live in the church area, hence diminishing communication. I do know that only a few members’ parents live in the Ann Arbor community. As the timeframe for gathering data has expired, I cannot provide further detail nor explanation regarding this oddity. So far, the data suggest that LCCRC members have positive relationships and communication patterns with their parents. Under Pastor Choi’s leadership, there appears to be a collective effort to help the first generation persons who share the building facilities with the Lighthouse congregation. Pastor Choi stated: Our mentality was if they do not bless us we will not force our independence first of all. We decided that from the very beginning that we will not force our independence, because that means that there’s just going to be a split and we don’t want to do that. Also, another reason why we are still staying in the building, it’s not so much for our benefit but for their benefit. But even against going toward our own goal (of complete autonomy and merging with other second generation churches) we decided that we will stay because... if we physically leave, the Korean congregation does not have the capacity to do that (teach their youth) on their own. I discovered that LCCRC pays $1,100 of the $1,400 monthly mortgage (78.57%), bought new carpet for the church, and serves the first generation rather than buying or making their own building. 87 Given that the second generation is financially and structurally independent, has a higher budget (expenditures and revenues), more manpower, and resources than their first generation counterparts, and still defer time and monies to the first generation reflects a Korean concept of hyo. Rhoda Lim explained hyo as “a big expectation and emphasis on the concept of children returning back to their parents. Because they’ve been taken care of and they have done so much for them. This concept is called ‘hyo’ in Korean. Like the oldest son taking care of his parents and his parents living with their oldest son.” Without positive intergenerational relationships, it is unlikely that Lighthouse would collectively employ a concept of hyo in respect to the first generation. As of the summer of 2002, LCCRC had never had a problem of receiving more tithes than expenditures. However, on October 22nd, 2002, an informant told me that LCCRC was struggling with having more expenditures than incoming funds. That LCCRC is having financial issues and is still caring for the first generation clearly exemplify the aspects of respect, care, and hyo; second generation Korean American ethnic resources for the benefit of the first generation. This praxis of hyo is one of the strongest indicators that LCCRC has positive feelings towards the first generation, or else they would have left. As aforementioned, though LCCRC members pay almost 80% of the mortgage, they changed their worship time to give the first generation the time-slot they desired as both groups use the same sanctuary. When the first and second generations have a lunchtime conflict, LCCRC members will eat in a Sunday school room and allow the first generation to use the dining area. These observations buttressed 88 with the data from the interviews evince ethnic resources via strong and positive intergenerational relations. Poor Leadership? (Resource Mobilization) Pastor Choi stated: “Our way of dealing with (multi-ethnic ministry) is a series of concentric circles. We want to be able to minister to us, the Koreans first, well, and then move one step at a time.” I wondered if LCCRC leadership had been effective in their Korean American and multi-ethnic ministry goals. Although I had sensed that there was some disorganization and lack of vision among the leaders, I was not sure how to tactfully address this issue. When I mentioned that there was a significant decline in membership in the past two years, no one seemed to have a plan to bring other Koreans and Asians into the church. My suspicions regarding a lack of resource mobilization among the leaders were not confirmed until my fortuitous follow-up meetings with Jeff Choi (which are discussed in detail in the conclusion). Furthermore, although Pastor Choi and Lighthouse may overtly express the church’s broader vision for a future multi-ethnic church, the majority of the congregants are still very Koreanized in their Korean American identities (as shown in later sections). Although ethnic resources help to explain how current members have chosen to participate in LCCRC (focus of my exploratory study), there appears to be another dimension of resource mobilization concerning Lighthouse’s inability to replenish the members who have moved away from Ann Arbor in the past two years (not the focus of my study). 89 Costs and Gains That 100% of LCCRC has (or will attain) a college degree is well above the Asian and national averages for 20-21 year olds who are enrolled as college students, 71% and 42% respectively (Ong and Hee 1994). Lighthouse members were well aware of their academic status. The descriptive frequencies show that about 1 in 10 self-rated their educational levels as “average,” and almost 90% reported as “above average” or “superior.” About 30% felt that they had amassed a superior education in respect to their mainstream peers. Among the 17 persons who were working and out of school, 94% (16 persons) are professionals and only one person identified as working-class. Concerning their individual income levels, the median income was in the $70,000-$79,000 range and the mean income was $67,100; both are well above the individual and household Asian and national averages (of. Ong and Hee 1994). It appears that Lighthouse members are aware of their relatively high education and occupation levels. Regarding their SES, 17.6% felt that they were “superior” and over 3 of 5 persons felt that they were “above average.” 3 persons felt that they were “average,” and no one reported that they were “below average” or “deficient.” Concerning the perception of discrimination or marginalization, 2 (5.7%) persons reported “all the time,” 34.3% reported “some times,” about 3 of 5 persons felt “very rarely,” and only one person reported “never.” A low perception of discrimination or marginalization should be expected given their actual SES and English fluency. However, their SES did not preclude their 90 minority consciousness as Korean Americans. Over 1 of 2 reported that they sensed their “otherness” as a Korean American “all” or “most times,” and 1 of 4 reported “some times.” Only 1 in 5 reported “very rarely.” No person reported “never” nor was oblivious to their racial (minority) identity. Over 80% felt accepted by mainstream society “all” or “most times,” and 3 of 5 persons felt incorporated into mainstream society “all” or “most times.” Therefore, on some level other than SES, the respondents did not feel entirely structurally assimilated. The data suggest that although the Lighthouse members have achieved high levels of SES and language fluency to obviate reactive ethnicity (of. Coser 1956 and Portes and Rumbaut 2001), complete assimilation was also relegated due to their outsider-consciousness. In this conundrum, the members do not sense that they are discriminated by mainstream society. Nor do they feel completely accepted or incorporated into mainstream America. Although Lighthouse members do not use their church for monetary gains, LCCRC participation may be related to psychic gains (Becker 1964) and other costs or gains.25 In the Ann Arbor community, if Lighthouse members desire to attend a co—ethnic church with persons of similar demographics, Lighthouse is their only option (it still remains as the only independent second generation Korean American church in the state of Michigan). In fact, for post-college Korean Americans, there are no other competing cultural or co-ethno-religious gatherings in Ann Arbor. Accordingly, if Lighthouse members were to weigh “the costs and benefits...” and choose “those actions that maximize their net benefits (Spickard 25 Pastor Choi is the only paid staff. All other Lighthouse positions are on a volunteer basis. 91 1998:2), attending Lighthouse is a rational choice based on cultural and demographic factors. In light of Lighthouse’s service to the first generation congregation, how does a collective-sacrifice in time and financial resources result in a collective (or individual) “net benefit?” Based on utilitarian motives, Lighthouse should have moved to a newer building years ago as the first generation is actually an economic and resource drain. Attending Lighthouse and helping the other first generation congregation may not be a financial gain, yet sacrifices in money and manpower help reinforce the concept of hyo. This is a psychic reward. The consequence of not helping the first generation may be public shame and collective guilt, which is a certain (cultural) collective cost for the church as a whole. Furthermore, religious co-ethnic fellowship (amidst a lack of leadership) appears to be chosen over non-Korean (white) churches that may have better leadership and ministries. In conjunction with religious internalization, it appears that using a cost/ gain interpretation provides some understanding to Lighthouse’s ethnic dynamics. Selective Acculturation Since LCCRC members are predominantly second generation Korean Americans, various cultural elements should be expected to be important and evident among the church members. The data suggest that Lighthouse members have formed a type of “community of memory” (cf. Gustafson 1961) via selective acculturation. These second generation Korean Americans have held on to some aspects of their parents’ ethnicity as they have also become incorporated into the 92 mainstream society. Cultural associations were expressed in their ethnic self- identities, desires to work or live in an ethnic community, patterns of SES and church attendance, feelings of discrimination, marginalization, and incorporation, intergenerational relationships, language, media and foods, and spousal preferences. Ethnic Self-Identity According to the survey responses, 80% of the LCCRC members self- identify as “Korean American,” 8.6% as “Korean,” and 11.4% as “American Korean.” When the interviewees were asked to ethnically self-identify, 80% said “Korean American,” which was consistent with the survey data. Not one person identified as American-only, Asian, nor Asian American. The absence of a panethnic self-identity was consistent with the findings of Espiritu (1992), Lee (1998), and Lopez (1999). This suggests that Lighthouse members overwhelmingly identity with some form of a Korean identity, and not as “Americans” or “Asians.” When the interviewees were asked to state how important they felt about maintaining their ethnic culture or identity, 28 (82%) of the 34 interviewees felt that cultural identity was important. Interestingly, the Korean American identity is covert in the Lighthouse settings. During my initial visits in December of 2001 and January of 2002, I noticed that there were no overt signs that this was a second generation Korean American church. Throughout the participant observations there was virtually no reference to anything “Korean” during the sermons and Bible studies and no Korean words were used during the sermons. This was a bit odd concerning my 93 experiences with other Korean American churches. From January through April, I heard only one Korean word in the pastor’s sermon. Most of the congregation understood the word and laughed when the Pastor said “underwear” in Korean. I have only heard the Pastor speak Korean to one international student in the Bible study when there were only Korean persons in the study. The pastor has also briefly spoken in Korean to my wife in the foyer when he detected that she was a first generation Korean. I asked the pastor if there was an intent to downplay the “Koreanness” of the church. He stated that “we went through, about three years ago the ‘Korean’ issue” so as not to offend non-Koreans; about 15% of Lighthouse members are Chinese, and the rest are Korean.” His comments were confirmed by Elizabeth Moon, a second generation Korean American who said to me: “I liked your message but you used too many Korean words.” She was worried that I may have offended those in the congregation who were not Korean. Ironically, she is also adamant that Korean persons should marry Korean persons and uses Scripture to justify intra-ethnic marriages. As I have gotten to know Elizabeth Moon and her husband (George Won) rather well, they both emphasize Korean elements in their personal lives. Concerning Lighthouse’s Korean exclusivity in the past, Corey Lee stated: I’ll be honest with you, there were some groups that were within the church that I feel like a little bit exclusive in terms of not really hanging out with the people that are non- Korean. Nowadays not so bad, but maybe two or three years ago. There were some groups... they were always nice to me but I felt like, especially the more native Korean groups. But I could also see that they were excluded from some of the Korean American groups. But at the same time I felt it could go both ways. You know, if you’re not rattling off Korean in the middle of a party... then what’re you doing there? That’s sometimes how I felt. And I think that Sandy Li (his Chinese fiancée and member of LCCRC) 94 has felt some amount of that too in some of the group meetings that have occurred in the past, at Lighthouse, I think we brought that up to the church in the last 6 months or so. My sense is that there is a little more of an effort to undo that though I don’t know.... Whereas some non-Koreans and those who were not fluent and or not in touch with their Korean heritage raised concerns of Korean-exclusivity, as I have stated before, most members appeared to be quite comfortable relating to me and to one another via a Korean American identity. Higher SES and Lower Church Attendance The respondents’ and parents’ SES were statistically significant correlates with various aspects of church attendance. The correlation between the respondent’s educational self-rating (in comparison to mainstream society) and their attendance to a Korean church during high school and throughout their lives is negative and moderate. That is, the higher that they rated their education, the stronger the correlation to not attending a Korean church in high school and throughout their lives. Conversely, the lower the respondent’s felt about their educational levels, the greater the association to attending a Korean church in high school and throughout their lives. Similar to the previous findings, the respondents’ SES self-rating was negatively moderately/strongly associated to church attendance during high school, grade school, and throughout their lives. That is, the higher that they perceived their SES, the greater the association to not attend a Korean church during high school, grade school, and throughout their lives. Conversely, the lower they perceived their SES, the greater the association to attend a Korean church during high school, grade school, and throughout their lives. These trends were also evinced in the European’s successive-generation assimilation patterns 95 whereby increasing socio-economic status was associated with ethno-religious dissociations (cf. Warner and Srole 1945 and Herberg 1960). Discrimination, Marginalization, and Incorporation The sample (amidst a relatively high SES ) appears to be more comfortable among co-ethnic peers than in the presence of their first generation counterparts or native born whites. When the respondents were asked to state how well they felt integrated into mainstream society from a scale of 1 through 10, the males’ average score was 7.25 and the females’ was 7.1. Not one person felt that they were a “10” even though a vast majority of the respondents were completely fluent in English and possessed relatively high levels of SES. Rhoda Lim stated that she felt relatively integrated into and accepted by mainstream society based on language fluency but not color. “I think that the only thing that would cause me to hesitate from saying ‘ 10’ (perfect integration) is that I’m still, I think marginally aware of the effects of race. The fact that I am fluent in English, and, so I really don’t feel marginalized, I don’t feel like I have a disadvantage or I have to prove myself in some way.” It appears that LCCRC members are aware of their relatively high SES and this may mollify any feelings of marginalization and or discrimination. No person has expressed specific acts of injustices directed towards them. These church-goers seem content with their human capital returns and their “place” in the social structure. Perhaps because they are relatively young professionals they have not had the opportunity to experience the glass ceiling in the upper- administrative levels. 96 Intergenerational Relationships Chai (1998 and cf. Herberg 1960) suggested that intergenerational rifts contributed to ethno-religious dissociations for the latter generation(s). Among Lighthouse respondents, at least four positive associations to intergenerational relations could be ascertained: appreciation of the first generation, relationships and communication, perceptions of the first generation, and intergenerational religious perpetuity. That is, these four rubrics pointed to ethnic (-religious) continuity amidst their adjustments into mainstream society. Appreciation When the respondents were asked to state what aspects they appreciated about their parents, many respondents mentioned family solidarity and 3 of 4 interviewees mentioned their parents’ sacrifices. Joe Ryu stated that “I am thankful that my parents have devoted their whole lives to us, everything they did was to give us a better opportunity so I really appreciate that.” Austin Kim felt that his parents “made a lot of sacrifices in immigrating here, so that’s always appreciated. And also a lot of the sacrifices have been for their children.” Stacy Park said: “I think I am thankful for all the sacrifices that they have made for me in terms of working very hard in their job here in America. Although there were some difficult times, still they made it feel like I was provided for, very secure.” Judy Paek said that “I think what I appreciate the most is that they sacrificed so much. They’ve sacrificed a lot in their time and a lot of goals. .. efforts go to raising us so they don’t have time to do other things. They work really hard so I admire that about them.” Mark Lee said “I appreciate how much they sacrifice 97 for me, not only have they worked hard here in the States when they immigrated over for themselves, but they sacrificed a lot in terms of their own dreams, so my two older sisters and I could have a better lifestyle. That’s the main thing that I really appreciate.” All of the interviewees expressed gratitude towards their parents except one Korean female who expressed bitterness and resentment towards her parents and the Korean culture; her parents were in the midst of a separation during the research timeframe. To this question she responded “It’s a tricky question for me right now because I am going through this phase where I am resenting a lot of Korean culture. . ..” Aside from this one outlier, the sample’s overall appreciation for their parents was rather high, especially among those who were married and or had children. Relationships Korean females were more likely than Korean males to state that they had a closer relationship with their mother than their father. 8 of the 15 Korean females specifically indicated that they were closer to their mother. For example, Jill Paek stated: “I think with my mom it’s pretty good, I’m really close with her. With my dad I don’t talk as much with him, he’s kind of reserved, the Korean dad, kind of quiet, it’s not like we have grudges or anything, I am close to him. I don’t really share as much with him but I guess our relationship... it’s OK I guess.” Not one male individual made a distinction whether they were closer to their mother or father. Nonetheless, every interviewee except one male indicated that they had at minimum, a “good” or better relationship with their parents and 98 every respondent mentioned at least one thing that they would like to continue intergenerationally. Perceptions of and Relations with the First Generation When the respondents were asked to describe how they felt toward first generation Korean Americans, only one person in the entire sample (N) gave only an entirely negative response. This Korean female answered: “Negative, pretty negative. I mean it’s also what’s going on right now.” Her parents were in the midst of a separation and she described her father as “church-hater” and her mother as a Christian who converted after her marriage. Her current dislike towards the first generation was obviously tied to her family’s situation. Aside from this outlier, all other respondents gave either only positive responses (7 males and 4 females), positive and negative comments, or neutral responses. The descriptive frequencies further suggest that the respondents held their parents in high esteem. Over 4 of 5 persons reported that their parents were good or excellent role models. 100% and 93.8% self-reported that their mothers and fathers, respectively, are somewhat or entirely proud of the respondents. 94.1% and 84.4% respect most or all of their mother’s and father’s opinions, respectively, when making decisions in their lives. 100% and 81% reported that their relationships with their mothers and fathers, respectively, are pretty good or excellent; this is higher than the rates for the respondents’ college years, 82.4% and 75.8%, respectively. Similar to the in—depth interview data, only one person (3.1%) stated that their relationship with their father was terrible. 76.5% and 54.5% reported that 99 they would perpetuate the same parent-child relationship that they had with the mothers and fathers, respectively, with their own progeny. 0% and 12% reported that they would perpetuate “few things” or “nothing” the same with their mothers and fathers, respectively. When the respondents were asked to evaluate their feelings towards their first generation counterparts, the mean and median responses fell in the “somewhat positive” range. In fact, 85.3% reported “somewhat” or “very positive,” and only 5.9% (2 persons) reported “somewhat negative.” Many LCCRC members also connected Korean American immigrants with the “model minority” thesis. It appears that there is a certain “halo effect” (Kaplan 1997) regarding Lighthouse’s perception of their predecessors. Rita Ryu stated that what “amazes me about our culture and the first generation is just the ability to sacrifice so much for their family and I think that’s amazing. How they just dropped everything from their homeland and came to a new country where they didn’t know the language at all and had to start from scratch, I think that’s just amazing.” Jeff Cho, when speaking of his feelings of the first generation stated that: “On the one hand I really admire them for being able to pick up everything and move to a different country. Most of the time they don’t even know English, they just show up, that’s my feeling, and just start from there. And that’s very admirable because I don’t think I could do something like that.” Randy Park stated: I respect the first generation a lot, many of them came to the US. with literally nothing. That wasn’t the case with my parents but I know of Korean American families that have come to this country with nothing and through hard work and effort without even knowing English very well, they’ve established themselves and they’re well-to-do. 100 Certainly they’ve lived the American Dream, they’re not lazy, they’re hard working and in that generation I see a great deal of respect for them. Intergenerational Religious Perpetuity An index measuring the respondents’ desire to perpetuate their parents’ religious patterns (prayer-life, Bible reading, church attendance, beliefs, and church involvement) shows that over 1 of 2 reported that they would like to continue “all” or “most of them,” and 23.3% reported “few” or “none of them.” In every instance except one (beliefs), more persons reported “none of them” for their fathers than their mothers. Conversely, except for religious beliefs, more respondents reported “most of them” or “all of them” concerning their mothers’ religious practices. Concerning inter-generational prayer perpetuity, 66.7% and 40.6% stated that they would repeat “all” or “most” of their mothers’ and fathers’ patterns, respectively. Conversely, 9.1% and 34.4% stated that they would repeat “few” or “none” of their mothers’ and fathers’ patterns, respectively. 53.1% and 45.2% stated that they would perpetuate “all” or “most” of their mothers’ and fathers’ Bible reading patterns, and 15.6% and 32.3% reported that they would repeat “few” or “none” of the reading patterns, respectively. Concerning church attendance, 72.7% and 59.4% stated that they would repeat “all” or “most” of their mothers’ and fathers’ patterns, while 21.3% and 31.3% indicated that they would follow “few” or “none” of their mothers’ and fathers’ church attendance patterns, respectively. 55.9% and 63.6% reported that they would emulate “all” or “most” of their mothers’ and fathers’ religious beliefs, while 11.7% and 30.3% stated that they would follow “few” or “none,” respectively. 101 Finally, 60.6% and 43.8% reported that they would perpetuate “all” or “most” of their mothers’ and fathers’ church involvement, whereas 24.2% and 31.3% stated that they would perpetuate “few” or “none” of their mothers’ and fathers’ patterns, respectively. Except for the religious belief category, respondents were more likely to emulate their mothers’ religiosity. Conversely, in every category of non-perpetuity (“few of them” or “none of them”), the fathers scored higher. This data suggests that the respondents’ fathers may have more desirable religious beliefs, but the mothers’ religious praxis are more attractive to the respondents on all other measures. Accordingly, if religious dissociation were to occur, it is more likely that it would occur with the fathers than with the mothers. Two intergenerational-relationship associations were found to be statistically significant with Lighthouse duration: 1) how proud the respondent felt that their mother or father was of the respondent, and; 2) the respondent’s relationship with their mother or father in college. The respondent’s perspective of how proud they felt that their mother and father were of them was positively and moderately associated with the sixth dependent variable. That is, the stronger that the respondent felt that either the mother or father was proud of their achievements, the greater the association was to being a church member for a greater number of years. Data also suggest that the better the relationship with either the mother or father was in the respondent’s college years, the greater the number of years that the member has been at Lighthouse. In sum, a vast amount of evidence suggests that LCCRC has positive intergenerational relations. 102 Minor Obstacles for Positive Intergenerational Relations When the interviewees were asked if there were any family experiences that they would not want to continue intergenerationally, 11 males (57.9%) stated at least one practice that they saw from their parents that they would not like to continue in their own families. The other 8 males stated that there was nothing that they would not like to continue. Among the 15 females, 11 (73.3%) mentioned that they would discontinue at least one practice intergenerationally and 2 stated that there was nothing specifically that they would not like to confinue. Allison Choe stated that she disliked the pressure that “you have to get a 4.0 everyday... academic pressure. My parents are so good at not saying it straight to my face, they hint very well. They have a subtle guilt trips and stuff, that’s something I definitely don’t want to do .” Several other members also disliked past occurrences whereby parents overly exuded their desires for the progeny’s academic success. 8 persons (5 males and 3 females) mentioned that they would like communication to improve intergenerationally. Joe Ryu stated that “Well, I guess I would like to be a little bit more communicative and less strict than my parents were, especially my father. I’d like to communicate more openly with my kids, I think there’s a cultural thing there that made it hard to be open. My father was pretty stern growing up, he’s not like that anymore, I think that made it tough on all of us.” Fred Kim said of his father, “My father is not as open and he tries to be and it’s almost too late because he doesn’t know how to do it and I feel awkward 103 when he tries. But if he had tried earlier, it might have been more natural today.” Larry Kim stated that after his high school years, he had no concrete experiences to recall with his father and that he currently needs “more conversation with my father.” Freddie Choe stated that his father “has a verbal communication problem, his English is not that great and my Korean is not that great. It’s not a problem, but... I’d like better communication with my children.” Freddie Choe was able to engage in many activities with his father as an adolescent and continues to speak fondly of his father; still he regrets that there is a communication barrier regarding language. For the three females who desired better parent-progeny communication, language was not the problem. Karen Lee stated that “I guess that there is a barrier between myself and my parents because they’re really Korean and so they don’t understand just a lot, some of the views that, because I grew up here. Sometimes we don’t understand each other.” Elizabeth Moon stated that “Sometimes we did have a communication problem...” and that her father “doesn’t communicate very well even though his knowledge of English is very good.” Michelle Kim attributed the communication hindrances to different types of body language and customs (cf. Kim and Kim 1997: 21). Some college students mentioned that they would not like to compare their future children with other children. Mark Lee stated that “I see a lot of Koreans, my parents included, they like to compare with other people. Their business... compare kids, awards, or possessions and not only is that un-Biblical I think but stupid. But it’s a cause from 100 years of oppression, so I can’t really fault them 104 because of what they’ve been through” (the Korean War and its repercussions). One female confronted her parents for their constant bragging which pressured her to maintain high grades: “I guess every parent like, brags, but my parents do that a lot with their friends or my relatives especially. I grew up with that pressure and everybody was like ‘Yeah, Allison’s so smart da da da da,’ so that I don’t like because that just put more pressure on me, and that was one of the biggest issues that I had with my parents. I told them and I don’t think they do it as much because they know, I think I had my little breaking point in high school. . ..” Ricky Choe was not compared to other Korean kids and he attributes this to the lack of Koreans in his community. “I grew up in a Caucasian church, and there wasn’t other people (Koreans) to compare us to so we just had to do well in our class.” In sum, although there were some minor obstacles for intergenerational cultural perpetuity, overall the data points towards intergeneration continuity rather than dissociation. The data also suggest that there may be some intergenerational elements which may be preserved and some that may become vestiges. Nonetheless, there was no evidence of a lopsided antagonism against the first generation. LCCRC is generally comfortable among first generation Korean Americans; both their parents and those sharing the church building. This is consistent with other findings which suggest the presence of ethnic resources via intergenerational relationships. 105 Language Regarding the importance of speaking and reading in Korean, about 2 of 3 and l of 2 persons, respectively, felt that it was very important. Only one person felt that it was not important to read or speak in Korean. An index measuring the combined importance of reading and speaking in Korean shows that almost 70% felt that it was very important (mean = 1.374 and median = 1.0, 1 = highest importance and 5 = lowest importance) and one person felt that this was not important. The data suggest that the respondents feel that it is important to read and speak Korean. Further, their desires were not merely wishful thinking as a majority could carry a basic conversation (85.7%) in Korean and read complete sentences (71.4%) Concerning speaking in Korean, 1 of 5 persons claimed that they were completely fluent, almost 1 of 5 persons claimed that they were almost fluent, and almost 1 of 2 persons could carry basic conversation. 14.3% could only speak basic Korean words or not speak in Korean at all. Conversely, almost 90% claimed that they were completely fluent in English and 11.4% (4 persons) stated that they were almost fluent. Speaking with Parents When the interviewees were asked to estimate how much Korean they used when speaking to their parents, 14 of 19 males speak Korean 50% or more to their parents, while 8 of 15 females use Korean 50% or more of the time with their parents. Contrary to Rumbaut’s (1996) finding that girls maintain the ethnic 106 language more than boys, in this sample the Korean males have maintained their ethnic language far above their female counterparts. Using descriptive frequencies, about 30% speak to their mothers and fathers only in Korean and about 15% speak to their parents in Korean almost all of the time. Almost 3 of 5 persons speak in Korean all, almost all, or most of the times to the mothers and fathers. Conversely, about 2 of 5 respondents speak in English to their parents all, almost all, or most of the time. Given that the majority of the respondents speak mostly in their native tongue with their parents, these figures are relatively high compared to Portes’ and Rumbaut’s (2001: 127) study, where they concluded that “no second-generation group on the average can be considered fluent in their parents’ native tongue.” The data show that the mothers (76.5%) are slightly more likely than the fathers (71.9%) to speak in Korean all, almost all, or most of the time to the respondents. l of 2 mothers and about 2 of 5 fathers speak only in Korean to the respondents. Conversely, 23.5% of mothers and of 34.4% fathers speak in English to the respondents all, almost all, or most of the time. Using an index to measure the two-way communication between respondents and their parents, over 1 of 3 persons used the Korean language all of the time and 74.2% reported that Korean was used all, almost all, or most of the time. Conversely, an index showed that English language was used by only 3.2% (1 person) all of the time and l of 3 persons also used English all, almost all, or most of the time with their parents. The data suggest that the majority of Lighthouse members and their parents predominantly use Korean in their inter-generational conversations. 107 Speaking with Spouse When the interviewees were asked how important it was that their spouse (present or future) was able to communicate to their parents in their ethnic language, 21 of 34 (62%) persons felt that it was important. When the respondents were asked how important it was that they were able to communicate to their spouse (present or future) in Korean, only 4 of 34 (12%) persons felt that it was important. It appears that the majority of the Korean members speak Korean to their parents and vice versa at least 50% of the time, but they do not feel that it is important for their spouses and parents to communicate in Korean. The survey data showed that the respondent’s desire for their spouse to speak Korean, at minimum conversational-Korean, was correlated to both attendance history and Lighthouse duration. The more that the respondent desired their spouse to be able to speak in Korean, the stronger the association that the respondent attended a Korean church throughout their lifetime. However, the independent variable was negatively associated with Lighthouse duration. That is, the more that the respondent desired their spouse to be able to speak in Korean, the stronger the association that the respondent had attended Lighthouse for a fewer number of years. Conversely, the less that the respondent had preferred their spouse the speak in Korean, the stronger the association that the member had attended Lighthouse for a greater number of years. This suggests that respondents preferred their (future) spouse to speak Korean from grade school through college, but during the time of the survey, they now preferred to speak in English 108 with their (future) spouses. This is especially true for those who have attended Lighthouse for a longer number of years. Data also show that there is a negative and moderate correlation between how strong the respondent places an importance on speaking in Korean to their spouse and how long the respondent has attended Lighthouse. That is, the greater the importance that the respondent felt that they should speak in Korean to their spouse, the greater the association that they have attended Lighthouse fewer years. Conversely, the less that the respondent felt that it was important to speak to their spouse in Korean, the greater the association that the respondent had spent more years at Lighthouse. Speaking With Friends Statistical data suggest that there is a moderate and positive correlation between speaking Korean to friends (and friends speaking Korean to the respondent) and Korean church attendance during grade school. When comparing the independent variables with church attendance in grade school, the Somer’s d value was significantly greater when church attendance was the independent variable. Therefore, the more that one attended a Korean church during grade school, the higher the association in speaking Korean with friends or fiiends speaking in Korean to the respondent. When using an index to measure two-way communication in Korean between the respondents and their fiiends, there is a positive and moderate correlation with this index and attending an ethnic church during grade school. Further, the Somer’s (I value is greater when communication in Korean is the dependent variable (.290). The implication is 109 that going to an ethnic church in grade school precedes speaking in the native tongue, not vice versa. The association between friends speaking in Korean to the respondent and the church attendance history index (grade school to the present) is moderate and positive. Interestingly, the Somer’s d values have only a .002 difference when “friends speak in Korean” is the dependent variable or dependent variable. Thus, the association between these two variables can be interpreted bi-directionally, (it is very slightly more probable that friends speaking in Korean is the dependent variable). That is, respondents who have attended Korean church from grade school through the present are more likely to be associated with having friends speak in Korean to them. However, the Somer’s d value difference is so slight that the converse association is also valid. The next association provides an interesting twist. The correlation between “friends speaking in Korean” and “Lighthouse duration” is moderate and negative; the Somer’s D values have a difference of only .012. Therefore, with the greater likelihood of having friends speak in Korean, the fewer years one is associated with Lighthouse. Or, the greater the number of years one has spent at Lighthouse, the less likely that the respondent has had friends speaking in Korean to them. This suggests that those who have been at Lighthouse for a longer number of years are more likely to be associated with speaking in English with their friends. Therefore, when comparing the previous set of positive associations with the current data set (negative), the 110 sample in general appears to have used Korean in their churches throughout their lives except at LCCRC where English is clearly the preferred language. Speaking Fluency Korean speaking fluency was correlated to church attendance in high school and Lighthouse. However, there is a major difference in the associational direction regarding high school and current church attendance. That is, whereas Korean fluency and high school church attendance is moderate and positive, Korean fluency and Lighthouse attendance is moderate and negative. Thus, the more one is able to speak in Korean, the greater the correlation to Korean church attendance in high school. However, the more one is able to speak in Korean, the greater the correlation to not attending Lighthouse on a regular basis. In fact, the gamma value (-1.000) shows a perfect negative correlation between these variables (this is an abnormality which is probably due to the relatively small sample size). Kendall’s tau-b (-.205) and Somer’s d (-.290) are probably more accurate than the Gamma value. Nonetheless, the data suggests that a language shift has occurred from high school to the present; English is clearly the preferred language for the congregants. Reading Preferences At least 94% of the respondents claimed that they could read basic words in Korean, 2 of 5 could read complete sentences, and 31.4% could read books and newspapers. Conversely, every person could read books and newspapers in English. Korean reading fluency was moderately and positively correlated to ethnic church attendance from grade school to the time of the survey. Thus, the 111 more fluent one is able to read in Korean, the greater the correlation in having attended a Korean church throughout their lifetime. Further, the correlation between the respondent’s preference for the spouse’s Korean reading ability and Lighthouse duration was found to be negative and moderate. This finding is similar to the correlation between the respondent’s preference for the spouse to speak Korean and Lighthouse duration. The more that the respondent desired their spouse read in Korean, the stronger the association that the respondent had attended Lighthouse for a fewer number of years. Conversely, the less that the respondent had preferred their spouse read in Korean, the stronger the association that the member had attended Lighthouse for a greater number of years. In sum, the data concerning language usage and preferences suggest that respondents are generally able to maintain the Korean language, yet prefer to use English with the passing of time. English was more prevalent regarding communication with friends, spouse-preference, and speaking fluency. Reading fluency was the only statistically significant positive correlate with Lighthouse attendance. Other variables of speaking fluency had a negative association with current Lighthouse duration and attendance. Progeny Language Preferences When the interviewees were asked how important it was that their children (present or future) were able to speak in their ethnic language, 85% stated that it was important that their children are able to speak Korean. This was significantly higher than those who placed an importance for either their spouse to be able to communicate with their parents (62%) or vice versa (68%). Various reasons were 112 given for desiring the children to be able to speak in Korean. Fred Kim stated that it was important, “for my parents’ sake but not for mine.” Freddie Choe said “yes, because my wife is Korean and she prefers Korean.” However, with each generation the ethnic language deteriorates, as pointed out by Cory Lee: “I think it’s very important for me to at least try for them (future children) to speak . What makes it hard is that I don’t very well. It’s probably idealistic of me and in reality I don’t know how it will play out.” Karen Lee stated that “I am worried that my kids won’t know a lot about Korean culture and I want them to know how to speak Korean well. And I know that a lot of second generation who have kids are like extra-extra Americanized. I don’t want my kids to not know how to speak Korean.” The descriptive frequencies helped to quantify the congregants’ responses. Over 2 of 5 persons reported that it was “very important” that their children speak Korean. Another 42.9% felt that this was “somewhat important.” 1 of 5 respondents desired that their children speak Korean fluently, over 30% desired “almost fluent,” and about 30% desired “basic conversation.” Thus, over 4 of 5 persons desired that their children speak at least basic conversation, which reflects the respondents’ Korean—speaking rate. In an index combining the respondents’ and respondents’ parents’ desire for ethnic perpetuity via reading, speaking, and marriage, the median score was “somewhat important” and the mean was 1.8857 which suggests that Korean ethnic perpetuity (language and marriage) is important to both the first and second generations. The lowest scores possible in the combined index were “against it” 113 and “not important” and both had frequencies of 0. Only the three highest scores 9, (6 of “very important, somewhat important,” and “indifferent” were reported in this index. However, the correlation between placing importance on the progeny’s linguistic perpetuity and actual church attendance and duration is negative. That is, the more that the respondent desired their child to be able to speak in Korean, the stronger the association that the respondent had attended Lighthouse less frequently and for a fewer number of years. Conversely, the less that the respondent had preferred their child read in Korean, the stronger the association that the member had attended Lighthouse more frequently and for a greater number of years. This suggests that the importance that is placed on the progeny to maintain the ethnic language wanes with the passing of time (or more regular and longer church attendance). Media and Foods When the interviewees were asked how regularly they watched Korean videos or listened to Korean music, many interviewees reported that these media forms were not a significant factor for cultural maintenance. LCCRC members with children watched more English programs and tapes because their children, the third generation, were already succumbing to the “language graveyard” (cf. Rumbaut 1996 and Portes and Rumbaut 2001). Katie Park, a mother of two, said “Zero (Korean videos) because the kids always want to watch American children’s videos.” One and only one person watched Korean videos on a regular basis. According to Freddie Choe, “my wife watches Korean videos which makes 114 me watch it, maybe one tape a day.” His wife is a member of the first generation Korean church, and Freddie Choe attends and serves LCCRC apart from his wife. Some members watched ethnic videos when they visited their parents during the holidays. For Brian Kim, watching Korean videos has become a family event: “That’s actually a good way I found for us to become like a family bonding—time, during the holidays, and we get together and are able to joke and laugh at what’s on TV and connect or ask ‘what did they just say’ and then get the translation.” Korean music also had a negligible impact on the LCCRC respondents regarding cultural maintenance. When the interviewees were asked how often they ate Korean foods, there was a discrepancy on how much one would like to eat it and how much one was able to eat. Limitations included finances, time for cooking, and the ability to cook Korean foods. For those who were able to cook or afford it (some lived with their mothers), a rice-combination was a regular diet. For the majority, similar to the findings regarding ethnic media, eating ethnic foods was more common when visiting home. I have formally and informally talked with persons and discovered that every Korean member appreciates and desires Korean foods. I also asked if they had any favorite Korean foods, and almost every person was able to name Korean dishes with the correct pronunciations, regardless of their Korean speaking ability. Using an index from the survey responses, almost 90% (would) eat Korean food every day. Consistent with the qualitative findings, actual consumption of Korean foods was curtailed by the wherewithal to make Korean 115 dishes. Concerning media usage, 3 of 4 persons rarely or never watched Korean videos, and only 5.7% (2 persons) watched on a regular basis. Another media- paucity concerned music, over 3 of 5 persons rarely or never listened to Korean music and only 14.3% (5 persons) listened to their ethnic music on a regular basis. The greatest discontinuity with ethnic media was in the literature. 85.7% rarely or never read Korean literature in the Korean language. Only 5.7% (2 persons) read Korean literature on a regular basis. These data (descriptive frequencies) suggest that Lighthouse members are more likely to maintain ethnic ties with food and not media. A positive and moderate correlation was ascertained between watching Korean videos and movies and the number of years one has been a member at Lighthouse. That is, the more one watches Korean ethnic media, the greater the association that one has been a member at Lighthouse for a longer number of years. Therefore, although more interviewees self-reported ethnic continuity via foods than media, the media was found to be positively associated with church duration. Spousal Preferences According to the descriptive frequencies, 31.4% would only marry within their own ethnicity, 60% preferred to marry within their own ethnicity, and 8.6% (3 persons) were indifferent. Among the 12 Korean married interviewees, 11 have married Korean persons. The one Korean who did not marry a Korean person married a Chinese lady who also attends LCCRC. Among the 3 Koreans who are engaged, all of them are engaged to Korean persons. Although the 116 respondents may overtly support inter-racial relationships and marriages, in practice, every Korean who is married and dating that I have interviewed (except one) was in a relationship with another Korean person. When the interviewees were asked how their parents felt about inter-racial marriages, among the males 15 (79%) persons stated that their parents preferred or demanded that they marry a Koran person and 4 persons stated that their parents were indifferent. Among the females, 14 (93%) persons stated that their parents preferred a Korean son-in-law and one person was unsure. It appears that the parents of the LCCRC congregation desire their children to marry Korean persons. Allison Choe’s response reflects one way that parents insinuate that the in-law must be Korean: “the last time I checked, they’re like, it doesn’t matter [who you marry] as long as he can speak Korean.” In various ways, (co-ethnic) spouse preferences was unequivocally positively associated with church attendance. Further, the Somer’s (1 value was consistently greater when the current spouse-type was the dependent variable.26 Accordingly, there was a moderate/strong positive association between spouse-type and Korean church attendance during college, high school, grade school, and the attendance history index. However, the Somer’s d values show that there is a greater correlation when spouse type is the dependent variable. That is, the more one attended a Korean church under the aforementioned timeframes, the greater the likelihood that they married (what was perceived as) a first generation Korean American. 26 Spouse-type was coded as: 1:1" generation, 2=l .5 generation, and 3=2"d generation. Persons did not classify their spouse other than first, one-point five, or second generation. 117 Finally, these data show that there is a moderate and positive correlation between spouse preference and church regularity for grade school and the attendance history index variables. That is, the stronger the respondent’s feelings in marrying a Korean person, the greater the correlation to church attendance in grade school and the timeframe from grade school through the present. The data clearly show that Lighthouse members (and their parents) prefer co-ethnic marriages. Desire to Live or Work in an Ethnic Community When the interviewees were asked if they wanted to live in a Korean ethnic community, such as an ethnic enclave, not one person said that they desired to be immersed in a Korean-only community. They all preferred ethnic diversity regarding a presence of Korean persons, stores, goods, etc.. Brian Kim stated that he might consider living in an enclave-setting to help new immigrants adjust to mainstream life; but he does not desire to live only among Koreans for his own needs or satisfaction. Jason Kim’s answer typifies the Lighthouse members’ sentiments: “I want to be part of a Korean community but I don’t want to be part of only a Korean community.” From the survey data, no one recorded that they are currently working in a Korean ethnic community. Given the opportunity, only 8.6% (3 persons) desired to do 30. 14.3% had no preference and 77.1% did not desire to work in such an environment. Given the opportunity to live in a Korean community, only 8.6% (3 persons) desired to do so, 11.4% had no preference, and 4 of 5 persons did not desire to live in a Korean ethnic enclave. An index which combined their 118 preference for working and living in an ethnic community resulted in a median score of “no.” In fact, about 3 of 5 persons reported “no.” However, 94.3% (33 persons) felt that it was important to have access to Korean persons and foods. The respondents’ answers regarding their living and working preferences appear to reflect selective acculturation. That is, they desire residential and occupational integration in lieu of maintaining other cultural elements in their lives. Although the majority of interviewees preferred not to live or work in an ethnic enclave setting, according to the survey data, these measures were positively associated with church attendance. This suggests that the church may provide some type of ethnic comfort, especially for those who desire co-ethnic fellowship in their work or living environs. An index which measured the respondent’s desire to live and work in an ethnic community was moderately positively associated with their church attendance in college, grade school, and lifetime. That is, the greater the desire to live and work in an ethnic community, the greater the association to attend a Korean church in college, grade school, and throughout their lifetime. Conversely, the smaller the desire to live and work in an ethnic community, the greater the dissociation to attend a Korean church in college, grade school, and throughout their lifetime. Downside of Ethno-Religious Fusion Lighthouse members also experienced a downside to their socio-religious experiences, as one female stated: “Negative wise... I wished especially in college that I didn’t hang out exclusively with Koreans or Korean Americans. I think in a way that kind of limited me socially, just kind of my social circle I felt 119 like it was very exclusive. It almost made me start to feel almost uncomfortable if I was not with exclusively Korean people.” For Jeff Cho it was hard to break out of the Korean American cultural mold. As with all identities, they can establish boundaries to keep in as well as keep to keep out. Jason Kim pointed out that the Lighthouse identity excluded those who did not have a Korean background: “The positive thing about it is that we have a similar background and culture. So a lot of the culture gets incorporated into the church, so that makes it comfortable. Of course, it can be fairly positive or negative. It’s very hard for a non-Korean person to break through that, even if it’s in English, even if the pastor is speaking in English. There are a lot of terminologies that get incorporated in the messages. It’s good for the Koreans who are searching but it’s kind of difficult for the non- Koreans to go in there.” Concerning the Korean-Protestant fusion, Fred Kim had a hard time demarcating culture from religion: “Negatives. Cultural paradigms that I associated as being the gospel itself” (cf. Herberg 1960). Furthermore, Rhoda Lim stated that “There is a big wrapping around it (Korean church) that is Korean culture and not necessarily Christianity and we identify a lot of it as Christian faith.” This fusion can be difficult to theologically discern and can also obfuscate praxis. Allison Choe stated that the Korean-Christian nexus influenced her to become “kind of like closed-minded” as she interprets her religious experience from a Korean-culture hermeneutic. Katie Park stated that “if I went to American church it would be hard to get along, even reading Bible.” Rachelle Choi did not know how to give a response when she was asked to comment on the positive and 120 negative aspects of the Korean ethnic church: “I don’t know. I just took it (Korean church) as part of life.” The selective acculturation process among Lighthouse members appears to have some tensions. On the one hand, there are positive aspects in keeping a Korean American boundary among Lighthouse members, especially concerning the comfort that is felt among co-ethnics. Interestingly, the church’s Koreanness can also be a double-edged sword, which makes it: a) difficult for non-Koreans to become incorporated into the church; b) places delimitations on Lighthouse members to break out of their Korean circles, and; c) obfuscates religious and cultural boundaries via a ethno-religious fusion. However, amidst the pros and cons of maintaining a Korean American context among the Lighthouse congregation, the data suggests that Lighthouse employs a Korean American ethno-religious praxis, rather than a pan-ethnic religious form. 121 Conclusions The vast majority of LCCRC members represent a flipside of the silent exodus; the 5% to 10% who remain in the ethnic church after college graduation. Although the primary religious internalization indicators suggest that the females may have experienced an ethno-religious socialization effect, the secondary indicators suggest a presence of religious internalization for both the male and female samples. Considering the in-depth interviews, participant observations, surveys, and personal interactions, I would conclude that LCCRC in general does possess religious internalization. I did not find that social functions superseded the religious element of the church; which is the case for many first generation congregations. In light of the religious internalization which compels the members to participate in church, in general, I believe that ethnic resources, costs and gains, and selective acculturation help explain why the members have chosen a co-ethnic church. Data suggest that Lighthouse was used for ethnic resources via: cultural commonalty, co-ethnic friendships, and to help the first generation congregation which was dependent on LCCRC’s finances and manpower. Concerning costs and gains, Lighthouse also provided psychic gains in the cultural form of hyo. Further, there was no other independent Korean American post-college second generation congregation. Therefore, if one were to leave Lighthouse one would lose in terms of culture and demographics. The church was also a viable form of group selective acculturation. Members tended to affiliate with the Korean American identity regarding: ethnic self-identity, discrimination, marginalization, 122 and incorporation, intergenerational relationships, foods, and spousal preferences. Members were more likely to identify with mainstream society regarding their: employment, residency, patterns of SES and church attendance, language, and media usage. There also appears to be an attraction for LCCRC members based on ethnicity, religion, class, status, age, and life-direction and -stages. Further, the data (and my observations) suggest that LCCRC participation is not predicated on discrimination and marginalization, which is a factor for first generation church attendance. However, a person who matches Lighthouse’s demographic profile without religious internalization is not likely to attend this church on a regular basis nor participate at significant levels. If this were the case, there would be no silent exodus phenomenon and churches would more regularly use ethnic (-religious) resources. In fact, one member who scored the lowest on primary (and secondary) levels of religious internalization quit attending the church in the midst of my data collection. Though no formal study to date has investigated the second generation Korean Americans who comprise the silent exodus, I can refer to experiential data regarding those whom I do know that have left Korean American churches in the Ann Arbor and East Lansing, Michigan areas. My histories with these individuals span ten to twenty years. Some of the church-leavers have positive intergenerational relations with their parents and some do not, some have rather high SES and others do not, and some place a high premium on “Koreanness” and others do not. What is common among the dozen (12 or more) post-college 123 persons that I do know of in the two communities that have left the church and not returned is that they: do not call themselves “bom-again Christians,” are not sure of their salvation-justification, do not have 100% salvation assurance, and do not have regular quiet times.27 The lack of religious internalization was ascertained from my personal observations and conversations with the post-college persons and their parents. In conclusion, barring a few outliers, the vast majority of Lighthouse evince (potential) relatively high SES, self-identify as bom-again Christians and Korean Americans, and have similitude regarding their human capital returns, perceptions of their own SES, and aspects of ethnic resources and selective acculturation. In this context, it is a “rational choice” for second generation Korean American professionals who possess religious internalization to attend Lighthouse. It is “irrational” to sacrifice time, money, and manpower to the first generation when there are no “net benefits”; but not “irrational” regarding hyo. This church appears to be moving towards the upper—middle- and upper-class as church members use the church to fuse their Christian and cultural (Korean and American) identities. However, church membership has declined and stagnated. This decline (inability to regain members) may be partially attributed to a lack of resource mobilization among the leaders, which was further explored after I had completed my formal visits and investigations. Whereas I have attempted to explicate existing associations for post-college church-going second generation 27 These attributes were also found in the one LCCRC interviewee who left the church in the midst of my data collection at Lighthouse. 124 Korean Americans (focus of this study), I will briefly address Lighthouse’s internal struggles and membership decline. After the Formal Interviews and Surveys Although the data from this study suggest that religious internalization is a necessary precondition for Korean American second generation church attendance, the future of LCCRC (and other Korean American churches in this study’s locale) faces challenges. In my post-study meetings with LCCRC leaders, I tried to encourage the church to move forward as they were the only independent Korean American second generation congregation in Michigan. Several members expressed excitement while others sensed a deeper responsibility to provide ethno-religious opportunities to their co-ethnics. As I reiterated some of the positive findings in my study, Jeff Cho initiated further discussions because he did not want me to leave “with an overly rosy picture” of Lighthouse. We set a time and I interviewed Jeff for the second time. As he wanted to discuss some of the negative aspects of the church that (he felt) I was not aware of, specifically membership decline, I did not guide the interview in any specific direction. I recorded the interview and interjected when his comments needed clarification. He began by telling me the background of their membership losses: I think the recent history of Lighthouse, the past three or four years, the concern has always been attendance and numbers. I’d say over the past four years, we started to notice a decrease in attendance. 1 think what mainly happened is that people started leaving, but people were not coming in at the same rate, mainly undergrads. A lot of them were graduating and moving on, that was 90% of the people. We were up as high as 75, 80 - our member list was up to 100, 1996. I count every week, it’s about 36 what I usually get to during the message. Basically over the past few years numbers have been declining, about 15 or 20 every year. Which leaves to where we are now, we have 18 leaving this year (regular attendees). That leaves about 25 or 20 in our church after they leave. 125 When I asked him how he felt about seeing the losses, especially since he had been at this church since his undergraduate years, he stated that “I think a lot of people could be discouraged. I know that I am seeing only 20 (potential) people.” A basic Evangelical church-principle is known as the “win-build-send” model. This means that a church engages in reaching out to non-Christians with the gospel, helps believers mature as Christians, and sends them out to repeat this cycle. Whether one calls this the “Great Commission” (Matthew 28: 18-20) or a “multiplication process,” the principle is that new converts must be brought into the church. It appears that LCCRC formed its independent congregation with a critical mass of believers, and over the years as people left (graduated or moved) the missing members were not replenished from the local community. Interestingly, after my formal studies were completed, I spent six Saturday mornings teaching some of the leaders basic Christian church principles.28 As I devoted one lesson to the “win-build-send” model, the leaders admitted that they have not engaged in this process. Whether due to lack of knowledge or action, there appears to be a lack of leadership, vision, and (church) resource mobilization concerning numerical growth (replenishment). Part of the church’s inactivity also appears to be connected with a great misfortune that occurred about one year before I began my study. Pastor Choi had lost his wife and two sons in an automobile accident. Apparently, this misfortune had repercussions on the pastor and the church. Jeff stated that: 23 After my studies were completed, I was asked by church members “what do you think our church needs?” I suggested a set of themes that “every” Korean American second generation church should understand, and was asked by the Pastor to teach these themes to the church’s Bible study leaders, for six consecutive Saturdays. 126 After the tragedy, he came back, maybe a couple months of being away from Ann Arbor, being at his parents’ house. When he came back, the leaders of the church decided if he should stay or move on. The church after really deliberating, overall the tragedy has not changed God’s will and his role for the church. All things put aside there was no reason why he should leave, why we should say he should leave. We want him to be here, so based on that he said he would stay. And I think that was a big support.... However, Jeff also stated that the church, as well as the accident was a source of discouragement to the Pastor. Specifically, young families were not sure of the Pastor’s broader vision for the church: The church is also a source of discouragement. In seeing the hearts of the people serving, or the attendance dropping off. People’s attitudes about what the church should be doing for them instead... Pastor Choi looks at the big picture, to see beyond Ann Arbor, or family... he wants them to see the bigger picture. Asian Americans in America, and Asia. He wants church to see a bigger, grander vision. But a lot of people at church ask how does that affect me? I got to care for my kids. Or, I’m just a student, I don’t know what I am going to be. The couples with families or young children may ask if the church is ministering to my kids, I want to be trained in the church and learn. But, is this church really able to do that? We don’t think 30. Sometimes there’s a concern for the young families, they don’t know if this church is right for them, they don’t know if they want to serve, they don’t have much time anyway. And what time I do have I want to spend with my kids, and this may be a discouragement. Here, Jeff is clearly addressing the inadequate vision and direction of Pastor Choi. I asked Jeff if he had addressed these tensions with any other church members and he said that a group of leaders had met and discussed LCCRC’s membership decline. After much deliberation, they discussed their concerns with Pastor Choi: What happened was that a lot of the leaders decided to get together one day and there were maybe 8 of us who had been serving in the church for years. Rita Ryu, she actually initiated this and sent an email to a number of people. She was discouraged at how the church was plodding, not plodding, but progressing the past couple years, and even expressed some disappointment in Pastor Choi and his ability to lead, or lack of leadership for this church. She considered many times that maybe I should just leave because I don’t see this church helping me grow. But instead, after talking, it was suggested that she should get the leaders together and pray rather than leave. So she initiated this meeting, George Won, Elizabeth Moon, Rick Chang, myself, Beth Kim, Steve Kim was also invited but he could never make it, Stacy Park. We’ve been here 3 or 4 years, we could justify bringing everyone together. The first session was talking about our frustrations... what frustrates me about Pastor Choi. .. we just got together and started praying together. We didn’t even know what to pray for at first but wanted to give them to God. and then maybe start a movement to see a greater picture. It started as a venting session... for a couple weeks, for 8 weeks. Pastor Choi 127 eventually knew that some people had gotten together to pray for the church, but he didn’t know specifically that it was about him. He didn’t really know what drove this prayer meeting, and he didn’t know that we were meeting every week. For about two months we got together, had a good time of prayer.. and the subject had changed from let’s complain, we had already done that... and now it was more like well how are we going to take our prayers and what are we going to do at the end of the session? What ended up happening, we set Easter of this year as a deadline, we are going to pray until Easter and once that comes we are going to ask Pastor Song to meet with him, and say we’ve been praying about these things and share. and we also have some ideas how we can change the structure of this church or address some things we think are more relevant, his messages, even the way we have relationships with people in the church. We met with him a couple weeks ago, and everybody wrote a letter, two weeks ago Easter time. Everybody wrote a letter... and met for prayer meeting... everyone was kind of nervous. He read the letters, and first he was discouraged, each one shared how the pastor had failed to nurture, encourage, etc. . .. but after reading all the letters he noticed that everyone had ended the letters... how can we, we’ve been praying about it, we want to encourage you, and also have you take steps forward. The funny thing is that the first thing was talked when we met was that maybe he doesn’t know the heart of this church, the heart of the people all that well. He has great vision, but maybe he doesn’t know how to connect... one day his sermon he said he wanted to make it more relevant and he gave it... and ever since then his sermons have been more relevant to the people. I know they’ve been more refreshing to me and kind of connecting, and even before we told him while we were praying Pastor’s heart was already changed. It’s amazing to see this change. It appears that my interviews and surveys were being conducted in the midst of the leaders’ meetings and that they had talked to Pastor Choi before my study was completed. Had Jeff Cho not initiated a follow-up interview, I would have never had known that these events had occurred. As Jeff and I discussed some possible implementations for LCCRC to replenish its lost memberships, I asked if the upcoming summer planning and events were important for LCCRC’s vitality. He stated: Very very crucial, this summer (2002). I feel that now that everything we’ve shared with Pastor Choi, that he’s on board, we’re kind of building up to this great revival we’re having at the end of May. It seems that this revival is going to spark something. We want it to spark something, to take a step forward within our church. We are not going to put all our eggs in one basket, but maybe this summer, when people leave and a core group is left, these people have to. . .. 128 I visited Lighthouse (Bible study leaders) on six different Saturdays after the summer revival meeting. It did not appear that the revival had any powerful impetus. The church has gained some new members, but this was because some members left a different Korean/Asian ministry. Ironically, my family used to be members of this church which had imploded over the last ten years, so I was very familiar with the situation. With this “windfall” LCCRC members had replenished some persons who had recently left in the prior fall, to stabilize their memberships and weekly attendance at the mid-thirties. Nonetheless, they were still a long ways from their initial memberships when they began their independent congregation. Although my hypothesis regarding religious internalization and church- associations appear to be supported by the data, the information that Jeff29 divulged has provided a new dimension to my study. I had not thought of the importance of a “win-build-send” model, mentors, and vision for LCCRC’s longevity. That is, I may have underestimated the role that resource mobilization may have in sustaining a Korean American second generation ministry. In my final formal face-face conversation with Jeff at the church, he stated that he had been struggling with his service to the church. He stated that “I don’t mean to sound selfish, but after all the serving that I have done, what about me? What about my needs and my growth?” Some other young parents brought this to my attention as well; the church has many young professionals and no mentors to 29 Jeff and I have established a friendship through this study and we communicate regularly via email. Although my study suggests that religious internalization is a necessary condition for Lighthouse participation, it appears that I have underestimated the role of resource mobilization for second generation Korean American church longevity. 129 provide advice to the relatively homogenous congregation. It will be interesting to see how Jeff and other members cope with their ethno-religious desires and how significant religious factors, ethnic resources, costs and gains, and selective acculturation will influence the direction of LCCRC.30 Further Research and Investigation Further research is needed to ascertain significant correlates for Korean American second generation religious participation and ministry longevity. As LCCRC is to this date the only independent Korean American second generation congregation in Michigan, I was compelled to investigate this church. However, there are larger (and multi-ethnic) churches in the East and West coasts. A larger sample size would have provided more stable statistical tests of association, particularly when Gamma values resulted in an absolute value of 1.000. Although my survey sample (N = 35) was greater than 30, only 26 persons were post- college members. Ideally, the minimum sample is 30 (N = 30) but preferably 100 or more respondents. (Hence I attempted to intersect qualitative and quantitative research methods in my study). Investigation of members who can choose from different congregations would also have been useful to ascertain why some members chose their particular church for membership and participation. Would religious internalization have the same impetus among members who have access to different types of churches? Several members have expressed their dissatisfaction(s) with LCCRC during and after my research timeframe. 30 Jeff and I communicate a couple times per month via email and discuss how the church can be used to meet his religious needs. Thus far in our communication he has not discussed the possibility of leaving Lighthouse or seeking a new pastor. 130 However, they had no other church to attend aside from LCCRC. Would other churches with better resource mobilization have attracted and or retained more persons? Apart from religious internalization, I did not find the members of this church any different from “other” Korean Americans (cf. Farley and Alba 2002). What is unique is that there is only one Korean American autonomous church in the state of Michigan which is: predominantly second generation, independent, post-college, and comprised of young families and professionals. The church context was unique rather than the members (aside from their religious internalization). Although some aspects of religious internalization were found in my study, more measures of religious internalization would have provided stronger support for my hypothesis. In my study, I did not include the importance of personal and group evangelism, which is a crucial marker of an Evangelical Protestant church. Theologically and pragmatically, this is also vital for the longevity of a local church. I believe that LCCRC’s lack of a “win-build-send” praxis (ineffective resource mobilization) influenced Lighthouse’s inability to replenish their congregants who have moved to other locales, but this theme was not addressed in my study. This church was also demographically-homogenous in its composition. As no families had teenagers, I could not ascertain the effect of having teenage children and church attendance. Further, this study did not pay enough attention to the gender dynamics of church participation. For instance, data suggested that if socialization were a factor in this church’s membership, it was more likely that this process occurred 131 among the females. However, my in-depth interview and survey questions did not adequately address gender-complexities; especially for the married couples. Though two interviewees had suggested that the husbands rather than wives chose LCCRC, this issue was not addressed and I cannot provide further elaboration. Given the opportunity, these issues should be addressed in future Korean American second generation religious studies. Whether LCCRC succeeds or fails, it provides a rich account of this locale’s attempt to sustain Korean American second generation ethno-religious perpetuity. Finally, future studies should investigate the significance of core religious beliefs for other second generation immigrant groups. Would religious internalization (an adherence and personalization to a set of core beliefs) also be a necessary condition for Buddhist, Catholic, Hindu, Muslim, etc. post-first generation ethno-religiosity? Or would issues of marginalization, reactive ethnicity, phenotype, stigmatization, and ethnic resources (especially for groups that face difficult contexts of reception) obviate and or buttress religious internalization to form “de facto” congregations? It would prove valuable in the fields of Sociology and Religion to compare and contrast the second generation church-stayers and —leavers. I have tried to address one component, second generation Korean American stayers, within a broader picture. 132 APPENDICES 133 Appendix A. ln-depth Interview Questions Question 1 - Intergenerational Relations What are some of the things that you appreciate most about your parents, either now or in the past? Can you describe how your relationship with your parents are now? Can you described how the relationships were in college, high school, and before high school? What were some of the major changes? What are some of the intergenerational aspects that you would want to see with your future spouse and children? What are some of the intergenerational aspects that you would not want to see with your future spouse and children? What do you think were the biggest barriers for a harmonious relationship with your parents? Are there any specific topics that are prone to lead to arguments? How do your parents feel about what type of job you secure? Can you describe your parents’ SES level throughout your teen years to the present? How do you think that your SES will compare to your parents’ SES? Will and discrepancies cause problems? How often do you communicate, argue, and tell your parents about your life (dreams, feelings, who you are dating etc)? 13 there anything that you wish your parents had done different while you were growing up? Would you say that overall, you’ve obeyed to what your parents have wanted? Can you describe your general feelings toward the first generation? Question 2 - Cultural Significance How important is it for you to maintain a Korean culture? Which aspects are most important to maintain? How well can you read or speak Korean? How important is it that you marry a Korean? Would you marry a non- Korean? How do your parents feel about you marrying a Korean or non-Korean person? Do you desire to work or live in a Korean ethnic community? How often do you hang out with Korean friends and persons? Do you watch Korean videos and listen to Korean music? How often do you eat Korean foods? Which ones are your favorites? 13 it important to you that your children speak Korean? 13 it important that your spouse be able to communicate in Korean to your parents? Question 3 - Religions Intemalization How often did you go to a Korean church while in high school, before high school? What were some of the positive and negative experiences of being in a Korean church? What was the church experience like for your parents? Were there any family problems concerning church or religion? Can you describe to me how you became a Christian? In your understanding, how does one become a bom-again Christian? Can you describe your “quiet times” with the Lord? Bible reading and prayer frequency? How important is it that you marry a Christian? Would you marry a non-Christian? Not that I wish this upon you, but if for some reason your life were to be taken today, how would you answer the following if God asked: “Why should I let you into My presence for the rest of eternity?” How sure are you that God would say “Well said and done My child, spend the rest of eternity with me” from 0% to 100%? 134 Appendix B. Surveys Church Member Survey for Henry H. Kim I would like to personally thank you for taking the time to fill out this important survey. There are four (4) sections to this survey: General Questions, Intergenerational Relations, Cultural Affinity, and Religiosity. Please read carefully and answer all guestions to the best of your ability. If either your mother or father is deceased and the question is therefore unanswerable, please write “n/a” in front of the question number. Thank you again for your time © 1. General Questions 1. What is your gender? _female _male 2. Where were you born? _United States _Korea _other (please specify) 3. If you were born outside of the US, how old were you when you first came to the US? _less that one year old _1-5 years old _6-10 years old _1 1-16 years old _17 and older 4. How many years have you lived in the United States? _1-5 years _6-10 years _1 1-16 years _other (please specify number of years) 5. Are you a US citizen? _yes _no 6. What is your date of birth? Month and Year 7. Where did you complete grade school (1" through 8th grades)? _United States _Korea _other (please specify) 8. Where did you complete high school (9‘h through 12‘h grades)? _United States _Korea _other (please specify) 9. Where did you complete college? _United States _Korea _other (please specify) 10. Are you currently enrolled as a student? _no _college student _graduate student _other, please specify l 1. How would you describe your mother’s educational background? _finished grade school _finished high school _finished college _finished graduate school _other, please specify 12. How would you describe your father’s educational background? _finished grade school _finished high school _finished college _finished graduate school _other, please specify 13. How would you describe the type of your mother’s current occupation? _professional class _working class _owns own business (please specify type) _retired _housewife _other, please specify 14. How would you describe the type of your father’s current occupation? _professional class _working class _owns own business (please specify type) _retired _other, please specify 135 15. How would you describe the type of your mother’s occupation when you were in high school (9‘h through 12‘h grades)? _professional class _working class _owns own business (please specify type) _retired _housewife _other, please specify 16. How would you describe the type of your father’s occupation when you were in high school (9lh through 12‘h grades)? _professional class _working class _owns own business (please specify type) _retired _other, please specify 17. How would you describe your parents’ (combined) current yearly gross income? ___0-$l9,999 _20K-$29,999 _30K-$39,999 _40K-$49,999 _50K—$59,999 _60K—$69,999 _70K-$79,999 _80K-$89,999 _90K-$99,999 _100K or greater _they are retired 18. How would you describe your parents’ (combined) yearly gross income when you were in coflege? _0-$l9,999 _20K—$29,999 _30K—$39,999 _40K-$49,999 _50K-$59,999 _60K-$69,999 _70K-$79,999 _80K—$89,999 _90K-$99,999 _100K or greater _they are retired II. Intergenerational Relations 19. How much do you currently discuss your life choices (education, career, dating, or marriage) with your mother before you make life choices? _everything _most things _some things _few things _nothing 20. How much do you currently discuss your life choices (education, career, dating, or marriage) with your father before you make life choices? _everything _most things _some things _few things _nothing 21. How soon do you tell your mother about your life-choices after you have made a major life- choice decision (education, career, dating, or marriage)? _within a week _within a few weeks _within a month _within a few months _within the year _do not tell 22. How soon do you tell your father about your life-choices after you have made a major life- choice decision (education, career, dating, or marriage)? _within a week _within a few weeks _within a month ___within a few months _within the year _do not tell 23. How often do you verbally communicate with your mother via phone or face to face? _never _rarely _once a month _several times a month _every week _several times a week _every day 24. How often do you verbally communicate with your father via phone or face to face? _never _rarely _once a month _several times a month _every week _several times a week _every day 25. How often do you currently argue with your mother concerning your choices in life (education, career, dating, or marriage)? _never _rarely _once a month _several times a month _every week _every day _every time we speak 26. How often do you currently argue with your father concerning your choices in life (education, career, dating, or marriage)? _never _rarely _once a month _several times a month _every week _every day _every time we speak 136 27. How often did you argue with your mother concerning your choices in life (education, career, dating, or marriage) when you were in college? _never _rarely _once a month _several times a month _every week _every day _every time we speak 28. How often did you argue with your father concerning your choices in life (education, career, dating, or marriage) when you were in college? _never _rarely _once a month _several times a month _every week _every day _every time we speak 29. How do you currently perceive your mother as an overall role model, as a “mother”? _excellent role model _good role model _fair role model _poor role model _horrible 30. How do you currently perceive your father as an overall role model, as a “father”? _excellent role model __good role model _fair role model _poor role model _horrible 31. How did you perceive your mother as an overall role model, as a “mother” when you were in college? _excellent role model _good role model _fair role model __poor role model _horrible 32. How did you perceive your father as an overall role model, as a “father” when you were in college? _excellent role model __good role model _fair role model _poor role model _horrible 33. How proud do you think your mother is of you today concerning your choices in life (education, career, dating, or marriage)? __entirely proud _somewhat proud _rarely proud _ashamed 34. How proud do you think your father is of you today concerning your choices in life (education, career, dating, or marriage)? _entirely proud _somewhat proud _rarely proud _ashamed 35. How proud do you think your mother was of you concerning your choices in life (education, career, dating, or marriage) when you were in college? _entirely proud _somewhat proud _rarely proud _ashamed 36. How proud do you think your father was of you concerning your choices in life (education, career, dating, or marriage) when you were in college? __entirely proud _somewhat proud _rarely proud _ashamed 37. Overall, how much do you respect your mother’s opinions and wishes concerning your choices in life (education, career, dating, or marriage)? _all of them _most of them _some of them _very few of them _ none of them 38. Overall, how much do you respect your father’s opinions and wishes concerning your choices in life (education, career, dating, or marriage)? _all of them _most of them _some of them _very few of them _ none of them 39. Overall, how would you rate your current relationship with your mother? .... excellent _pretty good __fair _poor _in trouble __terrible 40. Overall, how would you rate your current relationship with your father? _ excellent _pretty good __fair _poor _in trouble _terrible 41. Overall, how would you rate your relationship with your mother during your college years? _ excellent _pretty good _fair _poor _in trouble _terrible 137 42. Overall, how would you rate your relationship with your father during your college years? __ excellent _pretty good _fair _poor _in trouble _terrible 43. Overall, would you want to have the same type of relationship with your children as you have had with your mother? _exactly the same _mostly the same _some things the same _few things the same _nothing the same 44. Overall, would you want to have the same type of relationship with your children as you have had with your father? _exactly the same _mostly the same _some things the same _few things the same __nothing the same 45. Overall, how have First Generation Koreans impacted the second and latter generations? _very positive _somewhat positive _neutral _somewhat negative _very negative 46. Overall, how have First Generation Koreans impacted you? _very positive _somewhat positive __neutral _somewhat negative _very negative III. Cultural Affinity 47. How do you currently ethnically self-identify? _Korean _Korean American _American Korean _Asian _Asian American _American _other (please specify) 48. When you speak to your mother, how much do you speak in Korean? _all of the time _almost all of the time _most of the time _some of the time _rarely _never 49. When you speak to your father, how much do you speak in Korean? _all of the time _almost all of the time _most of the time _some of the time _rarely _never 50. When you speak to your mother, how much do you speak in English? _all of the time _almost all of the time _most of the time _some of the time _rarely _never 51. When you speak to your father, how much do you speak in English? _all of the time _almost all of the time _most of the time _some of the time _rarely _never 52. When your mother speaks to you, how much does she speak in Korean? _all of the time _almost all of the time _most of the time _some of the time _rarely _never 53. When your father speaks to you, how much does he speak in Korean? _all of the time _almost all of the time _most of the time _some of the time _rarely _never 54. When your mother speaks to you, how much does she speak in English? _all of the time _almost all of the time _most of the time _some of the time _rarely _never 55. When your father speaks to you, how much does he speak in English? __all of the time _almost all of the time _most of the time _some of the time _rarely _never 56. How often do you eat Korean foods or Korean side-dishes (pan-Chan)? _every day _almost every day _once a week _a few times a month _rarely _never 57. How often would you like to eat Korean food or Korean side-dishes (pan-Chan)? _every day _almost every day _once a week _a few times a month _rarely _never 138 58. What type of food do you usually eat for breakfast? _Korean _American _I do not usually eat breakfast __other (please specify) 59. What type of food do you usually eat for lunch? _Korean _American _I do not usually eat lunch _other (please specify) 60. What type of food do you usually eat for dinner? _Korean _American _I do not usually eat dinner _other (please specify) 61. How often do you watch Korean videos or movies? _every day _almost every day _once a week __a few times a month _rarely _never 62. How often do you listen to Korean music? _every day _almost every day _once a week _a few times a month _rarely _never 63. How often do you read Korean literature in the Korean language? _every day _almost every day _once a week _a few times a month _rarely _never 64. How often do you participate in exclusively Korean activities? _every day _almost every day _once a week _a few times a month _rarely _never 65. How often do you speak in Korean with your friends? _every day _almost every day _once a week _a few times a month _rarely _never 66. How often do your friends speak in Korean to you? _every day _almost every day _once a week _a few times a month __rarely _never 67. How often do you associate with Korean persons face-to-face? _every day _almost every day _once a week _a few times a month __rarely _never 68. How many persons would you classify as your closest friends? 0 1 2 3 4 5 other (please specify) 69. How many of your closest friends are Korean? 0 l 2 3 4 5 other (please specify) 70. How many of your closest friends are members or attendees of This current church (where survey was given)? 0 1 2 3 4 5 other (please specify) 71. What is the extent that you can read in Korea? __cannot read _alphabet _basic words _complete sentences _books and newspapers 72. What is the extent that you can read in English? __cannot read _alphabet _basic words _complete sentences __books and newspapers 73. What is the extent that you can speak in Korean? __cannot speak _basic words _basic conversation _almost fluent _completely fluent 74. What is the extent that you can speak in English? _cannot speak _basic words _basic conversation _almost fluent _completely fluent 75. How important is it for you to be able to speak in Korean (at least basic conversation)? _very important _somewhat important _indifferent __not important _against it 139 76. How important is it that you are able to read Korean (at minimum basic words)? __very important _somewhat important _indifferent __not important __against it 77. Are you married? _yes _no 78. If you are married, is your spouse Korean? _1 am not married _yes _no _other, please explain 79. If you are married to a Korean, which best describes your spouse? _1 am not married _1” generation _1 .5 generation __2"d generation _bi-ethnic _adopted _other (please specify) 80. What is your preference in marrying a Korean person? _I would only marry a Korean _I prefer to marry a Korean, but am open to man'ying a non- Korean _indifferent _against man'ying a Korean _would only marry a non-Korean 81. If you prefer to marry a Korean person, which best describes the type of Korean you prefer to marry? _1" generation _1.5 generation _2nd generation _bi-ethnic _adopted _1 am married _I do not prefer to marry a Korean person _other (please specify) 82. How important is it that your (current or future) spouse is able to speak Korean (at least basic conversation)? _very important _somewhat important _indifferent _not important _against it 83. How important is it that your (current or future) spouse is able to read Korean (at minimum basic words)? _very important _somewhat important _indifferent _not important _against it 84. How important is it that your (current or future) children are able to speak in Korean (at least basic conversation)? _very important _somewhat important _indifferent _not important _against it 85. How fluent would you want your (current or future) children to be able to speak in Korean? _completely fluent _almost fluent _basic conversation _basic words _I am indifferent ___I am against it 86. How important is it that your (current or future) children are able to read (basic words) in Korean? _very important _somewhat important _indifferent _somewhat opposed _against it 87. How important is it to your parents that you marry a Korean person? __very important _somewhat important _indifferent _somewhat opposed _against it 88. How important is it to your parents that they are able to speak in Korean to your (current or future) spouse (at least basic conversation)? _very important _somewhat important _indifferent _somewhat opposed _against it 89. How important is it to your parents that your (current or future) spouse is able to communicate in Korean to them (at least basic conversation)? _very important _somewhat important _indifferent _somewhat opposed _against it 90. How important is it that you are able to communicate in Korean to your spouse (at least basic conversation)? _very important _somewhat important _indifferent _somewhat opposed __against it 140 91. How would you rate your educational background in comparison to other US. citizens of your age? _superior _above average _average _ below average _deficient 92. If you are out of school and working, how would you describe the type of your occupation? _still in school __professional class _working class _other, please specify _ own business (please specify type) 93. If you are out of school and working, how would you describe your current socioeconomic status (income, status, and education) in comparison to other US. citizens of your age? __still in school _superior _above average _average _below average _deficient 94. If you are out of school and working, how would you describe your current gross income? _still in school _0-$ 1 9,999 _20K-$29,999 _30K-$39,999 _40K-$49,999 _50K-$59,999 _60K-$69,999 _70K-$79,999 _80K-$89,999 _90K-$99,999 _100K or greater 95. How often do you feel discriminated or marginalized as a Korean (minority person) in the US? _all the time _most times _some times _very rarely _never 96. How conscious are you that you are Korean (a minority person of color) and not a White person? _all the time _most times _some times _very rarely _never 97. How well do you feel accepted by the mainstream “American” society? _all the time _most times _some times _very rarely _never 98. How well do you feel incorporated into the mainstream “American” society? _all the time _most times _some times _very rarely _never 99. Do you currently work in a Korean ethnic community (a geographic area which has predominantly Korean persons or Korean businesses)? _yes _no _other, please specify 100. Do you desire to work in a Korean ethnic community (a geographic area which has predominantly Korean persons or Korean businesses)? __yes _no preference _no _other, please specify 101. Do you currently live in a Korean ethnic community (a geographic area which has predominantly Korean persons or Korean businesses)? _yes _no _other, please specify 102. Do you desire to live in a Korean ethnic community (a geographic area which has predominantly Korean persons or Korean businesses)? _yes _no preference _no _other, please specify 103. How important is it that you live in an area that has reasonable access to Korean persons and Korean foods? _very important _somewhat important _indifferent __not important _against it Religiosity 104. How often do you currently attend this current church (where survey was given)? _every week _almost every week _a few times a month __several times a year _never 105. How often do you currently attend a non-Korean church? _every week _almost every week _a few times a month _several times a year _never 141 106. How often did you attend a Korean church during college? _every week _almost every week _a few times a month _several times a year _never 107. How often did you attend a non-Korean church during college? __every week _almost every week _a few times a month _several times a year _never 108. How often did you attend a Korean church during high school (9‘h through 12lh grades)? _every week _almost every week _a few times a month _several times a year _never 109. How often did you attend a non-Korean church during high school (9‘h through 12‘h grades)? _every week _almost every week _a few times a month _several times a year _never 110. How often did you go to a Korean church during grade school (1" through 8‘h grades)? _every week _almost every week _a few times a month _several times a year _never 1 l 1. How often did you attend a non-Korean church during grade school (1" through 8th grades)? _every week _almost every week _a few times a month __several times a year _never 112. How many years have you been attending this current church (where survey was given)? _under one year _1 _2 _3 _4 _5 or more friends 113. Do you have a current title, formal or informal at this current church (where survey was given)? _no __deacon _treasurer _webmaster _Sunday school teacher _Bible study leader _unsure _other, please specify 114. Have you ever had a title, formal or informal at this current church (where survey was given)? __no _deacon _treasurer _webmaster _Sunday school teacher _Bible study leader _unsure _other, please specify 115. How important is it that you have a formal or informal title at this current church (where survey was given)? _very important _somewhat important _indifferent _not important __against it 116. How important is it that you are recognized, formally or informally, for your services provided to This current church (where survey was given)? _very important _somewhat important _indifferent _not important _against it 117. Which term(s) best describes the roles that you have served this current church (where survey was given)? in the past 6 months? deacon __usher _Scripture reader _administrative _ other, please $ecify 118. How often does your mother currently attend a Korean church? _every week _almost every week _a few times a month _several times a year _never 119. How often does your father currently attend a Korean church? _every week _almost every week _a few times a month __several times a year _never 120. How often did your mother attend a Korean church during your college years? _every week _almost every week _a few times a month _several times a year _never 121. How often did your father attend a Korean church during your college years? _every week _several times a month _several times a year _never 142 122. How often did your mother attend a Korean church during your high school years (9“1 through 12‘h grades)? _every week _almost every week _a few times a month _several times a year _never 123. How often did your father attend a Korean church during your high school years (9‘h through 12th grades)? _every week _almost every week _a few times a month _several times a year _never 124. How much of your mother’s religious behaviors do you wish to incorporate into your own life, concerning the quality of her prayer-life? _all of them _most of them _some of them _few of them _ none of them 125. How much of your father’s religious behaviors do you wish to incorporate into your own life, concerning the quality of his prayer-life? _all of them _most of them _some of them _few of them __ none of them 126. How much of your mother’s religious behaviors do you wish to incorporate into your own life, concerning the quality of her reading the Bible? _all of them _most of them _some of them _few of them _ none of them 127. How much of your father’s religious behaviors do you wish to incorporate into your own life, concerning the quality of him reading the Bible? _all of them __most of them _some of them _few of them _ none of them 128. How much of your mother’s religious behaviors do you wish to incorporate into your own life, concerning her frequency of church attendance? _all of them _most of them _some of them _few of them _ none of them 129. How much of your father’s religious behaviors do you wish to incorporate into your own life, concerning his frequency of church attendance? _all of them _most of them _some of them _few of them _ none of them 130. How much of your mother’s religious behaviors do you wish to incorporate into your own life, concerning her religious beliefs? __all of them _most of them _some of them _few of them _ none of them 131. How much of your father’s religious behaviors do you wish to incorporate into your own life, concerning his religious beliefs? _all of them _most of them _some of them _few of them _ none of them 132. How much of your mother’s religious behaviors do you wish to incorporate into your own life, concerning her level of church involvement? __all of them _most of them _some of them _few of them _ none of them 133. How much of your father’s religious behaviors do you wish to incorporate into your own life, concerning his level of church involvement? __all of them _most of them __some of them _few of them _ none of them 134. How often have you read the Bible in the past six months? _every day _almost every day _a few time a week _a few times a month _very rarely never 135. On average, how many days per week to you read the Bible by yourself? _6-7 days _4-5 days _2-3 days _1 day _0 days 136. On average, how many days per week to you pray by yourself, not including meals? _6-7 days _4-5 days _2-3 days _1 day _0 days 143 137. In the past 5 years, how many times have you read the Bible in its entirety? _ 4 times or more _thrice _twice _once _never 138 Do you consider yourself to be a Christian, either “saved” or “bom-again?” yes _no _unsure 139. Would you marry someone who is not a Christian? __absolutely yes _probably yes __maybe _probably not __absolutely not 140. Would you marry someone who is an atheist, or against Christianity? _absolutely yes __probably yes _maybe _probably not __absolutely not 141. Were you baptized after you were “saved”? _yes _no 142. Mark any of the following which would make a “non-saved” become “saved.” _regular church attendance _baptism _reading the Bible _faithful tithing _receiving a church title or position _regular tithing _being born into a Christian home _faithful prayer _receiving Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and doing something _good works __only by receiving Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior _you tried your best _other, please explain 143. By no means is this desired, but if for some unknown reason your life were to end today, which reason(s) best explains why you should spend the rest of eternity with God - the reason(s) for your salvation. _I attended church regularly _I was baptized _I read the Bible regularly _I married a Christian person _I personally received Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior _I tithed faithfully __ I was born into a Christian home _I prayed diligently __l was the son or daughter of a pastor __I did good works __I had a church title or position _I tried my best _other please specify 144. How sure are you that based on the previous answer (#40) that God would allow you to spend the rest of eternity with Him — the assurance of your salvation? __0% _25% _50% _75% _100% _other (please specify) Thank you for completing the survey. Your help is much appreciated. Feel free to provide any further comments on the back page© 144 BIBLIOGRAPHY 145 BIBLIOGRAPHY Abelmann, Nancy and John Lie. 1995. "American Ideologies on Trial and Conclusion." Pp. 148-192 in Blue Dreams: Korean Americans and The Los Angeles Riots. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Agresti, Alan and Barbara Finlay. 1997. Statistical Methods for the Social Sciences. Upper Saddle River N.J.: Prentice Hall. Alba, R. 1996. "Italian Americans: A Century of Ethnic Change." Pp. 172-181 in Origins and Destinies: Immigration, Race, and Ethnicity in America, edited by S. Pedraza and R. G. Rumbaut. Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth. Alba, R. and V. Nee. 1997. "Rethinking assimilation theory for a new era of immigration." International Migration Review 31 :826-874. Allen, Diogenes. 1985. Philosophy for Understanding Theology. Atlanta: John Knox Press. Alumkal, Antony W. 2001. "Being Korean, Being Christian: Particularism and Universalism in a Second-Generatoin Congregation." Pp. 181-191 in Korean Americans and Their Religions: Pilgrims and Missionaries from a Different Shore. University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press. Babbie, Earl R. 1998. The Practice of Social Research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub. Co. Badr, Hoda. 2000. "Al-Noor Mosque: Strength Through Unity." Pp. 193-227 in Religion and the New Immigrants: Continuities and Adaptations in Immigrant Congregations. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Becker, Gary Stanley. 1964. Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, with Special Reference to Education. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research: Columbia University Press. Becker, Penny Edgell. 1999. Congregations in Conflict: Cultural Models of Local Religious Life. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. Bell, David A. 1997. "Asian Americans Represent an American Success Story." Pp. 200-212 in Asian Americans: Opposing Viewpoints, edited by W. Dudley. San Diego, Calif.: Greenhaven Press. Bellah, R. N. 1988. "Civil Religion in America (Reprinted From Daedalus, Winter, 1967)." Daedalus 117:97-1 18. 146 Berger, Peter L. 1967. The Sacred Can0py: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion. Garden City, N.Y.,: Doubleday. Bodnar, John E. 1987. The Transplanted: A History of Immigrants in Urban America. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Bodnar, John E., Roger D. Simon, and Michael P. Weber. 1982. Lives of Their Own : Blacks, Italians, and Poles in Pittsburgh, [900-1960. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Bonacich, E. 1988. "The Social Costs of Immigrant Entrepreneurship." Amerasia Journal 14:119-128. Brereton, Virginia Lieson. 1998. "Education and Minority Religions." Pp. 279- 304 in Minority Faiths and the American Protestant Mainstream, edited by J. D. Sama. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Cabezas, Amado, Tse Ming Tarn, Brenda M. Lowe, Anna S. Wong, and Kathy Turner. 1989. "Empirical Study of Barriers to Upward Mobility for Asian Americans in the San Francisco Bay Area." Pp. 85-97 in Frontiers of Asian American Studies: Writing, Research, and Commentary, edited by G. M. Nomura, R. Endo, S. H. Sumida, and R. C. Leong. Pullman, Wash.: Washington State University Press. Cha, Peter T. 2001. "Ethnic Identity Formation and Participation in Immigrant Churches: Second-Generation Korean American Experiences." Pp. 141- 156 in Korean Americans and Their Religions: Pilgrims and Missionaries from a Different Shore. University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press. Chai, Karen. 1998. "Competing for the Second Generation: English-Language Ministry at a Korean Protestant Church." Pp. 295-330. in Gatherings in Diaspora, edited by R. S. Warner, Wittner, Judith G. eds. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Chai, Karen J. 2001. "Beyond "Strictness" to Distinctiveness: Generational Transition in Korean Protestant Churches." Pp. 157-180 in Korean Americans and Their Religions: Pilgrims and Missionaries from a Different Shore. University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press. Chin, James W. 1997. "Asian Americans still face Significant Discrimination." Pp. 180-183 in Asian Americans: Opposing Viewpoints, edited by W. Dudley. San Diego, Calif: Greenhaven Press. 147 Chong, K. H. 1998. "What it Means to Be Christian: The role of Religion in the Construction of Ethnic Identity and Boundary Among Second-Generation Korean Americans." Sociology of Religion 59:259-286. Ciminio, Richard P. 2001. "Orthodox Converts in New York City." Pp. 131-147 in In New York Glory: Religions in the City, edited by T. Cames and A. Karpathakis. New York: New York University Press. Clark, Allen D. 1961. History of the Korean church. Seoul: Christian Literature Society of Korea. Conzen, K. N., D. A. Gerber, E. Morawska, G. E. Pozzetta, and R. J. Vecoli. 1992. "The Invention of Ethnicity — a Perspective From the Usa." Journal W of American Ethnic History 12:3-41. Cook, David. 2000. "Iglesia Christiana Evangelica: Arriving in the Pipeline." Pp. .4! 171-192 in Religion and the New Immigrants: Continuities and ' Adaptations in Immigrant Congregations. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Coser, Lewis A. 1956. The Functions of Social Conflict. Glencoe, 111.,: Free Press. Davidson, J. D. 1975. "Glock's Model of Religious Commitment: Assessing Some Different Approaches and Results." Review of Religious Research 16:83- 92. Davidson, James D. and Ralph E. Pyle. 1994. "Passing the Plate in Affluent Churches: Why Some Members Give More than Othes." Review of Religious Research 36:181-196. Dawson, L. L. 1998. "Anti-modemism, Modernism, and Postmodernism: Struggling with the Cultural Significance of New Religious Movements." Sociology of Religion 59: 13 1-156. Dearman, Marion. 1982. "Structure and Function of Religion in the Los Angeles Korean Community: Some Asepects." Pp. 165-183 in Koreans in Los Angeles: Prospects and Promises, Korean-American and Korean studies publication series ,' no. 2., edited by E.-Y. Yu, E. H. Phillips, and E. S. Yang. Los Angeles (5151 State University Dr., Los Angeles 90032): Koryo Research Institute: Center for Korean-American and Korean Studies California State University. Diner, Hasia. 1996. "Erin's Children in America." Pp. 161-171 in Origins and Destinies: Immigration, Race, and Ethnicity in America, edited by S. Pedraza and R. G. Rumbaut. Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth. 148 Dolan, Jay P. 1977. "Philadelphia and the German Catholic Community." Pp. 69- 83 in Immigrants and Religion in Urban America, edited by R. M. Miller and T. D. Marzik. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Drake, St Clair. 1945. "The Power of the Press and Pulpit." Pp. 398-429 in Black Metropolis: A Study of Negro Life in a Northern City. New York,: Harcourt Brace and Company. Dudley, William. 1997. Asian Americans: Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego, Calif.: Greenhaven Press. Ebaugh, H. R. and Janet Saltzman Chafetz. 2000. "Overview and Thematic Issues." Pp. 1-44, 325-463 in Religion and the New Immigrants: Continuities and Adaptations in Immigrant Congregations. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Elifson, Kirk W., Richard P. Runyon, and Audrey Haber. 1998. Fundamentals of Social Statistics. Boston: McGraw Hill. Emerson, Robert M., Rachel I. Fretz, and Linda L. Shaw. 1995. Writing Ethnographic F ieldnotes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Espiritu, Yen Le. 1992. Asian American Panethnicity: Bridging Institutions and Identities. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Farley, R. and R. Alba. 2002. "The New Second Generation in the United States." International Migration Review 36:669-701. F enton, John Y. 1988. Transplanting Religious Traditions: Asian Indians in America. New York: Praeger. Fevold, Eugene L. 1993. "The Norwegian Immigrant and His Church." Pp. 51-64 in Ethnic and Non-Protestant Themes, edited by M. E. Marty. New York: K.G. Saur. Finke, R. and L. R. Iannaccone. 1993. "Supply-Side Explanations For Religious Change." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 527:27-39. F inke, Roger and Rodney Stark. 1992. The Churching of America, 1 776-1990: Winners and Losers in Our Religious Economy. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press. Fong, Timothy P. 1998. The Contemporary Asian American Experience: Beyond the Model Minority. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall. 149 Galush, William J. 1977. "Faith and Fatherland: Dimensions of Polish-American Ethnoreligion, 1875-1975." Pp. 84-102 in Immigrants and Religion in Urban America, edited by R. M. Miller and T. D. Marzik. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Gasi, Maria V. 2000. "St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church: Maturing Through the Generations." Pp. 153-170 in Religion and the New Immigrants: Continuities and Adaptations in Immigrant Congregations. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Gilkes, C. T. 1980. "The Black Church as a Therapeutic Community: Suggested Areas for Research into the Black Religious Experience." Journal of Interdenominational Theological Center:29-44. Gjerde, J. 1986. "Conflict and Community - A Case Study of the Immigrant Church in the United States." Journal of Social History 19:681-697. Glazer, Nathan and Daniel P. Moynihan. 1963. Beyond the Melting Pot: the Negroes, Puerto Ricans, Jews, Italians, and Irish of New York City. Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press. Glock, Charles Y. 1973. "The Dimensions of Religious Commitment and On the Origins and Evolution of Religious Groups." Pp. 9-11 and 207-220 in Religion in Sociological Perspective: Essays in the Empirical Study of Religion, edited by C. Y. Glock. Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth Pub. Co. Glock, Charles Y., Benjamin B. Ringer, and Earl R. Babbie. 1967. T 0 Comfort and to Challenge: A Dilemma of the Contemporary Church. Berkeley: University of California Press. Glock, Charles Y. and Rodney Stark. 1965. Religion and Society in Tension. Chicago: Rand McNally. —. 1966. Christian Beliefs and Anti-Semitism. New York,: Harper & Row. Goette, Robert D. 1993. "The Transformation of a First Generation Church into a Bilingual Second Generation Church." Pp. 237-251 in The Emerging Generation of Korean Americans, edited by H.-Y. Kwon and S. Kim. Seoul Korea: Kyung Hee University Press. Goette, Robert D. and Mae Pyen Hong. 2001. "A Theological Reflectoin on the Cultural Tensions Between First-Century Hebraic and Hellenistic Jewish Christians and Between Twentieth-Century F irst- and Second-Generation Korean American Christians." Pp. 115-123 in Korean Americans and Their Religions: Pilgrims and Missionaries from a Different Shore. University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press. 150 Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, N.Y.,: Doubleday. Gold, Steven J. and Bruce Phillips. 1996. "Mobility and Continuity among Eastern European Jews." Pp. 182-194 in Origins and Destinies: Immigration, Race, and Ethnicity in America, edited by S. Pedraza and R. G. Rumbaut. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth. Gordon, Milton Myron. 1964. Assimilation in American Life: The Role of Race, Religion, and National Origins. New York,: Oxford University Press. Gramsci, Antonio. 1971. "The Intellectuals." Pp. 3-23 in Selections from the Prison Notebooks, edited by Q. Hoare and G. Nowell-Smith. New York,: International Publishers. Greeley, Andrew M. 1972. "The Origins and Functions of Religion, Religion as an Ethnic Phenomenon." Pp. 30-70, 108-126 in The Denominational Society; a Sociological Approach to Religion in America. Glenview 111.: Scott Foresman. Gustafson, James M. 1961. Treasure in Earthen Vessels; The Church as a Human Community. New York: Harper. Haddad, Yvonne Yazbeck. 1978. "Muslims in Canada: A Preliminary Study." Pp. 71-100 in Religion and Ethnicity: Essays, edited by H. B. Barclay, H. G. Coward, and L. S. Kawamura. Waterloo, Ont.: Published for the Calgary Institute for the Humanities by Wilfrid Laurier University Press. Han, In Young. 1988. "A study on Help-Seeking Patterns Among Korean Americans." Ph.D. Dissertation Thesis, Applied Social Sciences, Case Western Reserve University, Ann Arbor. Handlin, Oscar. 1951. The Uprooted: The Epic Story of the Great Migrations that Made the American People. New York: Grosset & Dunlap. Hamey, Robert F. 1978. "Religion and Ethnocultural Communities." Polyphony 1:1-10. Herberg, Will. 1960. Protestant, Catholic, Jew: An Essay in American Religious Sociology. Garden City, New York: Doubleday. Hiebert, Paul G. and Young Hertig. 1993. "Asian Immigrants in American Cities." Urban Mission March: 15-24. 151 Hoge, D. R. and J. W. Carroll. 1978. "Determinants of Commitment and Participation in Suburban Protestant Churches." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 17:107-127. Hoge, D. R. and D. T. Polk. 1980. "A Test of Theories of Protestant Church Participation and Commitment." Review of Religious Research 21 :3 15- 329. Hoge, D. R. and Fenggang Yang. 1994. "Determinants of Religious Giving in American Denominations: Data from Two Nationwide Surveys." Review of Religious Research 36:123-148. Horton, John and Jose Calderon. 1995. The Politics of Diversity: Immigration, Resistance, and Change in Monterey Park, California. Philadelphia: Temple University. Hurh, Won M00. 1980. "Towards a Korean-American Ethnicity - Some Theoretical-Models." Ethnic and Racial Studies 3:444-464. —. 1998. The Korean Americans. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press. Hurh, Won Moo, Hei Chu Kim, and Kwang Chung Kim. 1978. Assimilation Patterns of Immigrants in the United States: A Case Study of Korean Immigrants in the Chicago Area. Washington: University Press of America. Hurh, Won M00 and Kwang Chung Kim. 1984. "Adhesive Sociocultural Adaptation of Korean Immigrants in the United-States - An Alternative Strategy of Minority Adaptation." International Migration Review 18:188- 216. —. 1990. "Religious Participation of Korean Immigrants in the United States." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 29: 19-34. Huynh, Thuan. 2000. "Center for Vietnamese Buddhism: Recreating Home." Pp. 45-66 in Religion and the New Immigrants: Continuities and Adaptations in Immigrant Congregations. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Iannaccone, L. R. 1994. "Why Strict Churches Are Strong." American Journal of Sociology 99:1 180-1211. Iannaccone, L. R., D. V. A. Olson, and R. Stark. 1995. "Religious Resources and Church Growth." Social Forces 74:705-731. 152 Jacob, Simon and Pallavi Thaku. 2000. "Jyothi Hindu Temple: One Religion, Many Practices." Pp. 229-242 in Religion and the New Immigrants: Continuities and Adaptations in Immigrant Congregations. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Jenkins, J. Craig. 1983. "Resource Mobilization Theory and the Study of Social Movements." Annual Review of Sociology 9:527-553. Jiobu, Robert M. 1996. "Recent Asian Pacific Immigrants: The Demographic Background." Pp. 35-58 in The State of Asian Pacific America. Reframing the Immigration Debate: A Public Policy Report, edited by B. O. Hing and R. Lee. Los Angeles, CA: LEAP Asian Pacific American Public Policy Institute and UCLA Asian American Studies Center. Jo, Moon H. 1999. Korean Immigrants and the Challenge of Adjustment. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press. Kamphoefner, Walter D. 1996. "German Americans: Paradoxes of a 'Model Minority.” Pp. 152-160 in Origins and Destinies: Immigration, Race, and Ethnicity in America, edited by S. Pedraza and R. G. Rumbaut. Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth. Kao, Grace and Marta Tienda. 1995. "Optimism and Achievement: The Educational Performance of Immigrant Youth." Social Science Quarterly 76: 1-19. Kaplan, Elaine Bell. 1997. Not Our Kind of Girl: Unraveling the Myths of Black Teenage Motherhood. Berkeley: University of California Press. Kamow, Stanley and Nancy Yoshihara. 1992. Asian Americans in Transition. New York: Asia Society. Kawamura, Leslie S. 1978. "Changes in the Japanese True Pure Land Buddhism in Alberta." Pp. 37-56 in Religion and Ethnicity: Essays, edited by H. B. Barclay, H. G. Coward, and L. S. Kawamura. Waterloo, Ont.: Published for the Calgary Institute for the Humanities by Wilfiid Laurier University Press. Kendis, Kaoru Oguri. 1989. "Ethnicity in the Suburbs." Pp. 120-143 in A Matter of Comfort: Ethnic Maintenance and Ethnic Style Among Third- Generation Japanese Americans. New York: AMS Press. Kim, A. E. 2000. "Korean Religious Culture and Its Affinity to Christianity: The Rise of Protestant Christianity in South Korea." Sociology of Religion 61:117-133. 153 Kim, Hee-ja. 1996. "Pastoral Acculturating Influences on Korean Immigrant's Value System." Chongshin Theological Journal 1:121-147. Kim, Hyung-Chan. 1981. "The History and Role of the Church in the Korean American Community." Pp. 47-64 in Korean Immigration to the United States: Its Demographic Pattern and Social Implications for Both Societies, Papers of the East- West Population Institute ,' no. 74., edited by H. K00 and E.-Y. Yu. Honolulu, Hawaii: East-West Center. Kim, Jung Ha. 1997. "The Church as Gendered and Racially and Ethnically Conditioned." Pp. 47-89 in Bridge-Makers and Cross—Bearers: Korean- American Women and the Church, American Academy of Religion academy series ; no. 92. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press. Kim, Kwang Chung and Shin Kim. 2001. "The Ethnic Roles of Korean Immigrant Churches in the United States." Pp. 71-94 in Korean Americans and Their Religions: Pilgrims and Missionaries from a Different Shore. University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press. Kim, Kwang Chung, R. Stephen Warner, and Ho-Yound Kwon. 2001. "Korean American Religion in International Perspective." Pp. 3-24 in Korean Americans and Their Religions: Pilgrims and Missionaries from a Different Shore. University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press. Kim, Luke I. and Grace S. Kim. 1997. Korean American Immigrants and Their Children. San Francisco: Many Cultures Publishing. Kim, Mikyong. 1990. "Korean American Clergymen's Views on Mental Health and Treatment." Ph.D. Thesis, Dept. of Social Welfare, University of California, Berkeley. Kim, Pan Suk and Gregory B. Lewis. 1994. "Asian Americans in Public Service: Success, Diversity, and Discrimination." Public Administration Review 54:285-290. —. 2000. "Asian Americans in Public Service: Success, Diversity, and Discrimination." Pp. 213-222 in Asian Americans: Experiences and Perspectives, edited by T. P. Fong and L. H. Shinagawa. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Kitano, Harry H. L. and Roger Daniels. 1988. Asian Americans: Emerging Minorities. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. 154 Koh, Tong-He. 2001. "Religion as a Variable in Mental Health: A Case for Korean Americans." Pp. 95-112 in Korean Americans and Their Religions: Pilgrims and Missionaries from a Different Shore. University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press. Kraut, Benny. 1998. "Jewish Survival in Protestant America." Pp. 15-60 in Minority Faiths and the American Protestant Mainstream, edited by J. D. Sama. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Kwon, Victoria Hyonchu. 1997. "Social and Demographic Profile of Korean Immigrants in the United States and The Korean Ethnic Church and Conclusion." Pp. 31-51, 83-127 in Entrepreneurship and Religion: Korean Immigrants in Houston, Texas. New York: Garland Pub. Laudarji, Isaac B. and Lowell W. Livezey. 2000. "The Churches and the Poor in a "Ghetto Underclass" Neighborhood." Pp. 83-106 in Public Religion and Urban Transformation: Faith in the City, edited by L. W. Livezey. New York: New York University Press. Lawson, R. 1998. "From American Church to Immigrant Church: The Changing Face of Seventh Day Adventism in Metropolitan New York." Sociology of Religion 59:329-351. Lazerwitz, Bernard. 1961. "Some Factors Associated with Variations in Church Attendance." Social Forces 39:301-309. Lee, Helen. 1996. "Silent Exodus. Can the East Asian Church in America Reverse the Flight of its Next Generation?" Christianity T oday:50-53. Lee, Jae-Hyup. 1998. Dynamics of Ethnic Identity: Three Asian American Communities in Philadelphia. New York: Garland Pub. Lee, Jung Young. 1997. Korean Preaching: An Interpretation. Nashville: Abingdon Press. Lien, Pei-te. 2001. The Making of Asian America Through Political Participation. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Light, Ivan Hubert and Edna Bonacich. 1988. Immigrant Entrepreneurs: Koreans in Los Angeles, 1965-1982. Berkeley: University of California Press. Liptak, Dolores Ann. 1989. Immigrants and Their Church. New York: Collier Macmillan Publishers. 155 Lopez, David E. 1999. "Social and Linguistic Aspects of Assimilation Today." Pp. 212-222 in The Handbook of International Migration: The American Experience, edited by C. Hirschman, J. DeWind, and P. Kasinitz. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Lott, Juanita Tamayo. 1998. Asian Americans from Racial Category to Multiple Identities. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Massey, Douglas S, et a]. 1998. "New Migrations, New Theories, Contemporary Theories of International Migration, and Understanding the North American System." Pp. 1-107 in Worlds in Motion: International Migration at the End of the Millenium. Oxford: Clarendon Press. McCarthy, John D. and Mayer N. Zald. 1977. "Resource Mobilization and Social Movements: A Partial Theory." American Journal of Sociology 82: 1212- 1241. McRae, Mary B. 2001. "Black Churches as a Therapeutic Institution." Pp. 233- 245 in New York Glory: Religions in the City, edited by T. Games and A. Karpathakis. New York: New York University Press. Mills, C. Wright. 1956. The Power Elite. New York,: Oxford University Press. Min, P. G. 1992. "The Structure and Social Functions of Korean Immigrant Churches in the United States." International Migration Review 26: 1370- 1394. Min, P. G. and C. Jaret. 1985. "Ethnic Business Success - the Case of Korean Small Business in Atlanta." Sociology and Social Research 69:412-435. Min, Pyong Gap. 1984. "From White-Collar Occupations to Small Business - Korean Immigrants Occupational Adjustment." Sociological Quarterly 25:333-352. —. 1996. Caught in the Middle: Korean Merchants in America 's Multiethnic Cties. Berkeley: University of California Press. Min, Pyong Gap and Young 1. Song. 1998. "Demographic Characteristics and Trends of Post-1965 Korean Immigrant Women and Men." Pp. 45-64 in Korean American Women: From Tradition to Modern Feminism, edited by Y. 1. Song and A. Moon. Westport, Conn.: Praeger. Mirak, Robert. 1977. "On New Soil: The Armenian Orthodox and Armenian Protestant Churches in the New World to 1915." Pp. 138-160 in Immigrants and Religion in Urban America, edited by R. M. Miller and T. D. Marzik. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. 156 Moberg, David O. 1971. "Religious Practices." Pp. 551-598 in Research on Religious Development, edited by M. P. Strommen. New York,: Hawthorn Books. Model, Suzanne. 1993. "The Ethnic Niche and the Structure of Opportunity: Immigrants and Minorities in New York City." Pp. 161-193 in The Underclass Debate: Views from History, edited by M. B. Katz. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Moghissi, H. 1999. "Away from Home: Iranian Women, Displacement Cultural Resistance and Change." Journal of Comparative Family Studies 30:207- 217. Mohl, R. A. and N. Betten. 1981. "The Immigrant Church in Gary, Indiana - Religious Adjustment and Cultural Defense." Ethnicity 8: 1-17. Molesky, Jean. 1988. "Understanding the American Linguistic Mosaic: A Historical Overview of Language Maintenance and Language Shift." Pp. 29-68 in Language Diversity, Problem or Resource?: A Social and Educational Perspective on Language Minorities in the United States, edited by S. McKay and S.-L. C. Wong. New York: Newbury House. Moon, Ailee. 1998. "Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics of Korean American Women and Men." Pp. 37-44 in Korean American Women: From Tradition to Modern Feminism, edited by Y. 1. Song and A. Moon. Westport, Conn.: Praeger. Nachmias, David and Chava Nachmias. 1976. Research Methods in the Social Sciences. New York: St. Martin's Press. Nash, Dennision. 1968. "A Little Child Shall Lead Them: A Statistical Test of an Hypothesis that Children were the Source of the American "Religious Revival"." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 7:23 8-240. Nash, Dennision and Peter Berger. 1962. "The Child, the Family, and the "Religious Revival" in Suburbia." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 2:85-93. Neitz, Mary Jo. 1990. "Studying Religion in the Eighties." Pp. 90-118 in Symbolic Interaction and Cultural Studies, edited by H. S. Becker and M. M. McCall. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Niebuhr, H. Richard. 1929. The Social Sources of Denominationalism. New York,: H. Holt and Company. 157 Nimbark, Ashakant. 2001. "Hinduism in New York City." Pp. 88-100 in New York Glory: Religions in the City, edited by T. Carnes and A. Karpathakis. New York: New York University Press. Nisbet, Anabel Major. 1920. Day in and day out in Korea : being some account of the mission work that has been carried on in Korea since 1892 by the Presbyterian Church in the United States. Richmond, Va.: Presbyterian Committee of Publication. Ong, Paul and Don Nakanishi. 1996. "Becoming Citizens, Becoming Voters: The Naturalization and Political Participation of Asian Pacific Immigrants." Pp. 275-305 in The State of Asian Pacific America. Reframing the Immigration Debate: A Public Policy Report, edited by B. O. Hing and R. Lee. Los Angeles, CA: LEAP Asian Pacific American Public Policy Institute and UCLA Asian American Studies Center. Ong, Paul and Suzanne J. Hee. 1994. "Economic Diversity." Pp. 31-56 in The state of Asian Pacific America, edited by P. M. Ong. Los Angeles, CA: LEAP Asian Pacific American Public Policy Institute and UCLA Asian American Studies Center. Pacyga, Domino A. 1996. "From Peasant to Worker: The Polish Immigrant in the United States." Pp. 195-205 in Origins and Destinies: Immigration, Race, and Ethnicity in America, edited by S. Pedraza and R. G. Rumbaut. Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth. Pack, Nak-chun (Paik). 1980. The history of Protestant missions in Korea, 1832- 1910. Seoul, Korea: Yonsei University Press. Park, Edward Jang-Woo. 1996. "Asian Matter: Asian American Entrepreneurs in the High Technology Industry in Silicon Valley." Pp. 155-178 in The State of Asian Pacific America. Reframing the Immigration Debate: A Public Policy Report, edited by B. O. Hing and R. Lee. Los Angeles, CA: LEAP Asian Pacific American Public Policy Institute and UCLA Asian American Studies Center. —. 2001. "The Impact of Mainstream Political Mobilization on Asian American Communities: The Case of Korean Americans in Los Angeles, 1992- 1998." Pp. 285-310 in Asian Americans and Politics: Perspectives, Experiences, Prospects, edited by G. H. Chang. Washington, DC, Stanford, Calif: Woodrow Wilson Center Press, Stanford University Press. 158 Park, Kyeyoung. 1997. "The Comforts of Christianity for Korean Immigrants: Religion and Reproduction of Small Business Activity and Conclusion." Pp. 183-206 in The Korean American Dream: Immigrants and Small Business in New York City, Anthropology of contemporary issues. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Park, Robert Ezra. 1950. "Race Relations." Pp. 81-220 in Race and culture. Glencoe, Ill.,: Free Press. Portes, Alejandro. 1993. "The New Second Generation: Segmented Assimilation and Its Variants." The Annals 530:74-96. —. 1995. "Segmented Assimilation Among New Immigrant Youth: A Conceptual F ramework." Pp. 71-76 in California's Immigrant Children: Theory, Research, and Implications for Educational Policy, (LS-Mexico contemporary perspectives series ; 8., edited by R. G. Rumbaut, W. A. Cornelius, and University of California San Diego. Center for U.S.- Mexican Studies. La Jolla, Calif: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies University of California San Diego. —. 1996. The New Second Generation. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Portes, Alejandro and Robert L. Bach. 1985. "The Cuban Enclave in Miami." Pp. 200-239 in Latin Journey: Cuban and Mexican Immigrants in the United States. Berkeley: University of California Press. Portes, Alejandro and Rube'n G. Rumbaut. 1996. Immigrant America : a portrait. Berkeley: University of California Press. —. 2001. Legacies: The Story of the Immigrant Second Generation. Berkeley: University of California Press. Rumbaut, Ruben G. 1996. "The Crucible Within: Ethnic Identity, Self-Esteem, and Segmented Assimilation Among Children of Immigrants." Pp. 119- 170 in The new second generation, edited by A. Portes. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. —. 1999. "Assimilation and Its Discontents: Ironies and Paradoxes." Pp. 51 in Becoming American, America Becoming, edited by J. DeWind, C. Hirschman, and P. Kasinitz. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Rustomji, Yedzi. 2000. "The Zoroastrian Center: An Ancient Faith in Diaspora." Pp. 243-253 in Religion and the New Immigrants: Continuities and Adaptations in Immigrant Congregations. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. 159 Ryan, Gery W. and H. Russell Bernard. 2000. "Data Management and Analysis Methods." Pp. 769-802 in The Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks Calif: Sage Publications. Ryu, Charles. 1992. "1.5 Generation." Pp. 50-54 in Asian Americans: Oral Histories of First to Fourth Generation Americans from China, the Philippines, Japan, India, the Pacific Islands, Vietnam, and Cambodia, edited by J. F. J. Lee. New York: New Press : Distributed by W.W. Norton. Sciorra, Joseph. 1999. "Religious Processions as Ethnic and Territorial Markers in a Multi-Ethnic Brooklyn Neighborhood." Pp. 310-340 in Gods of the City: Religion and the American Urban Landscape, edited by R. A. Orsi. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Shaefer, Richard T. 2000. Sociology: A Brief Introduction. Boston: McGraw Hill. Song, Min-Ho. 1997. "Constructing a Local Theology for a Second Generation Korean Ministry." Urban Misson223-34. Spickard, J. V. 1998. "Rethinking Religious Social Action: What is "Rational" About Rational-Choice Theory?" Sociology of Religion 59:99-115. Steinberg, Stephen. 1981. The Ethnic Myth: Race, Ethnicity, and Class in America. New York: Atheneum. Strauss, Anselm L. 1987. Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sullivan, Kathleen. 2000a. "Iglesia de Dios: An Extended F amily." Pp. 141-151 in Religion and the New Immigrants: Continuities and Adaptations in Immigrant Congregations. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. —. 2000b. "St. Catherine's Catholic Church: One Church, Parallel Congregations." Pp. 255-289 in Religion and the New Immigrants: Continuities and Adaptations in Immigrant Congregations. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. —. 2000c. "St. Mary's Catholic Church: Celebrating Domestic Religion." Pp. 125-140 in Religion and the New Immigrants: Continuities and Adaptations in Immigrant Congregations. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Sullivan, Thomas J. 2001. Methods of Social Research. Fort Worth, TX ; London: Harcourt College Publishers. 160 The Alban Institute Inc., 1995. 1995. Pacific Asian North American Ministry in a Time of Shifting Paradigms: The Example of Asian American Conflict Management. Bethesda, MD.: Alban Institute Action Research Team on Conflict in Asian American Congregations, and Alban Institute Inc. Tuan, Mia. 1998. Forever Foreigners or Honorary Whites? The Asian Ethnic Experience Today. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press. Vega, W. A. and R. G. Rumbaut. 1991. "Ethnic-Minorities and Mental-Health." Annual Review of Sociology 17:351-383. Waghome, Thomas A. 1999. "The Hindu Gods in a Split-Level World: The Sri Siva-Vishnu Temple in Suburban Washington, DC." Pp. 104-130 in Gods of the City: Religion and the American Urban Landscape, edited by R. A. Orsi. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Warner, R. S. 1993. "Work in Progress Toward a New Paradigm For the Sociological- Study of Religion in the United-States." American Journal of Sociology 98: 1044-1093. —. 1997. "Religion, Boundaries, and Bridges." Sociology of Religion 58:217-238. —. 1998a. "Approaching Religious Diversity: Barriers, Byways, and Beginnings." Sociology of Religion 59:193-215. —. 1998b. "Immigration and Religious Communities in the United States." Pp. 3- 34 in Gatherings in Diaspora, edited by R. S. Warner, Wittner, Judith G. eds. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Warner, R. Stephen. 2001. "The Korean Immigrant Church as Case and Model." Pp. 25-52 in Korean Americans and Their Religions: Pilgrims and Missionaries from a Different Shore. University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press. Warner, W. Lloyd and Leo Srole. 1945. The Social Systems of American Ethnic Groups. New Haven: Yale University Press. Waters, M. C. and K. Eschbach. 1995. "Immigration and Ethnic and Racial- Inequality in the United- States." Annual Review of Sociology 21 :419-446. Weber, Max, Hans Heinrich Gerth, and C. Wright Mills. 1946. "Social Psychology of the World Religions and Religious Rejections of the World and Their Directions." Pp. 267-301 and 323- 359 in From Max Weber: Essays in sociology. New York,: Oxford university press. 161 Weissbrodt, David S. 1992. "History of US. Immigration Law and Policy." Pp. l- 48 in Immigration law and procedure in a nutshell, Nutshell series. St. Paul, Minn.: West Pub. Co. Weisser, Michael R. 1985. A Brotherhood of Memory: Jewish Landsmanshaftn in the New World. New York: Basic Books. Whyte, William F oote and Kathleen King Whyte. 1984. Learning From the Field: a Guide from Experience. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Williams, Raymond Brady. 1996. Christian Pluralism in the United States: The Indian Immigrant Experience. New York: Cambridge University Press. Wilson, Bryan R. 1966. "Religion in America: A Contrasting Pattern." Pp. 86-102 in Religion in Secular Society: A Sociological Comment. London: Watts. Wilson, William J. 1990. The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wimberly, Dale. 1989. "Religion and Role Identity: A Structural Symbolic Interactionist Concept of Religiosity." Sociological Quarterly 30:125-142. Wong, Bernard P. 1982. Chinatown, Economic Adaptation and Ethnic Identity of the Chinese. New York N.Y.: Holt Rinehart and Winston. Woo, Deborah. 1997. "Asian Americans Success 15 a Myth." Pp. 213-222 in Asian Americans: Opposing Viewpoints, edited by W. Dudley. San Diego, Calif: Greenhaven Press. —. 2000. "The Inventing and Reinventing of "Model Minorities": The Cultural Veil Obscuring Structural Sources of Inequality." Pp. 193-212 in Asian Americans: Experiences and Perspectives, edited by T. P. Fong and L. H. Shinagawa. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Wyman, Mark. 1993. "Churches, Traditions, and the Remigrant." Pp. 169-188 in Round-trip to America: the Immigrants Return to Europe, 1880-1930. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. Yang, F. G. 1998. "Chinese Conversion to Evangelical Christianity: The Importance of Social and Cultural Contexts." Sociology of Religion 59:237-257. Yang, Fenggang. 2000a. "Chinese Gospel Church: The Sinicization of Christianity." Pp. 89-107 in Religion and the New Immigrants: Continuities and Adaptations in Immigrant Congregations. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. 162 —. 2000b. "The Hsi-Nan Chinese Buddhist Temple: Seeking to Americanize." Pp. 67-87 in Religion and the New Immigrants: Continuities and Adaptations in Immigrant Congregations. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Yoon, In-Jin. 1997. "Class, Family, and Ethnicity in Korean Immigrant Entrepreneurship." Pp. 100-173 in On My Own: Korean Businesses and Race Relations in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Zhou, Min. 1997. "Segmented Assimilation: Issues, Controversies, and Recent Research on the New Second Generation." International Migration Review 31:975-1008. Zinn, Maxine Baca and D. Stanley Eitzen. 1987. Diversity in families. New York, NY: HarperCollins College Publishers. 163 lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll‘lllllllllllllllllll 31293 02504 8798