There was an effort recently to ban the word "bossy", spearheaded by Facebook executive Sheryl Sandberg. The reasoning behind this is that when “bossy” is used to describe women (as it almost always is), it discourages them from speaking up for fear of being saddled with that derisive term. I had never considered that before, and wondered if there are other words that can have the same effect - adjectives that have specific connotations when employed towards specific people. And I came up with at least one more example, a term which I have heard on a few occasions: angry. People of color and other minorities who are vocal about issues of race and justice are often called angry - “angry asian man”, “angry black guy", “angry feminist lady”, etc.

People of color and other minorities who are vocal about issues of race and justice are often called angry - “angry asian man”, “angry black guy", “angry feminist lady”, etc.

This might not seem like a big deal because some of these people are indeed angry in a purely objective sense. But the use of this word in this context often carries an additional connotation, that this person's anger is not appropriate or justified. That is what people really mean when they talk about an “angry _____ person” - they are saying, “unnecessarily and excessively angry _____ person.” Intentionally or not, the use of that word implies abnormality, an anger that is pathological in nature, as if a product of genetics, rather than context.

You can see this dynamic at work in nearly every racially charged controversy in American culture, from the riots in Ferguson to debates on football mascots, where people are quick to dismiss the concerns of minorities as nothing more than political correctness run amok. In this way, minorities are often portrayed as having an anger problem, rather than having a problem which makes them angry, two very different things.

But this tendency is hardly limited to secular American society. It is also a pressing issue in the evangelical church.

Minorities are often portrayed as having an anger problem, rather than having a problem which makes them angry, two very different things.

Contrary to common belief, many evangelical churches are very enthusiastic about diversity, and will even go out of their way to include and elevate minorities when possible. This does not describe all churches, but it is not as uncommon of a phenomenon as one might think in American evangelicalism, at least in my experience. And for this, these churches should be commended. They rightly recognize the importance of having diverse people of color and minorities participate in the life of the church.

But while evangelical churches and leaders may enthusiastically invite people of color to the table, they are rather less enthusiastic when that person expresses an opinion that is angry or critical. The response in such situations is often shock, quickly followed by a conspicuous unwillingness to consider that their anger might actually be justified. And nowhere was this tendency on clearer display than last year, in a situation that transpired with Rick Warren of Saddleback. In a tongue in cheek posting on the Saddleback Facebook page, Pastor Warren posted a picture from China's Cultural Revolution: a passionate comrade of the Red Guard smiling broadly, arm cocked at a jaunty angle. Warren's point was to poke fun at his own staff, and the attitudes they should/do have when they come to work. To be fair, it is a comical sort of picture, and Pastor Warren's intent was hardly malicious.

But the reception from Asians, especially from the Chinese community, was swift and sharp. Multiple leaders spoke out about the use of this picture, and asked for it to be taken down. But Pastor Warren and other leaders were clearly bewildered. They defended the use of the photo by stressing that it was just a joke, and refused to remove it, nor issue any sort of an apology. Countless others echoed this perspective via social media and comments boards, blasting critics for making such a big deal out of nothing, or even accusing them of race-baiting. Their message was clear: the outrage was silly and unjustified, the unwarranted rantings of "angry Asian people".

Their message was clear: the outrage was silly and unjustified, the unwarranted rantings of "angry Asian people".

What these leaders completely failed to recognize was that the impassioned response of Asians was not pathological, but historical. The Cultural Revolution of Communist China may mean little to nothing to most Americans, but to people from China, it was a period of immense upheaval and trauma. Some historians estimate that as many as 1.5 MILLION people died during the Cultural Revolution, either as a result of direct action by the government or else by the policies they enacted. Even more sent to prison camps, including countless Christians (Christianity having been outlawed by the communist regime). And the Red Guard, the group which the picture portrays, were a paramilitary gang that were guilty of heinous atrocities so terrible that they even haunted those who perpetrated them.

In this light, perhaps you can begin to understand why this was so upsetting to the Chinese Christian community, for a respected American evangelical to utilize such an upsetting image for lolz, and worse, to blithely dismiss the Asian response as illegitimate. Using that picture is not entirely unlike someone posting a picture of a cheery SS officer from Nazi Germany, hand extended in a crisp open handed salute to the Führer - hardly proper fodder for comedy. For me, as an Asian-American evangelical, but also an admirer of Pastor Warren, this was a deeply discouraging moment.

But thank God, this is not the end of the story.

It took a while, but once Pastor Warren and other leaders were made aware of the historical context of the picture and its negative significance on Chinese Christians, they took it down and apologized for their insensitivity. An even more encouraging example was set at the Expontential West conference last year, when organizers assumed an encouraging posture of listening and learning after playing a video that featured dated Asian stereotypes. There was also Thom Rainier's outstanding apology on behalf of Lifeway Publishers for the "Rickshaw Rally" VBS curriculum, which was published before he even began his tenure there. So yes, this situation serves as an example of how the privileged can make uninformed and hurtful assumptions about the reasons for anger in minority communities. But it is also an example of how those same people were willing to listen and learn, and how we are all so much better and stronger as a result.

And so encouraged by this, this is my request to evangelical leaders:

First, thank you for the opportunity to participate more deeply in the life of the church. Your willingness and leadership to that end has not gone unrecognized, at least by me. But please understand that inviting minorities into leadership of the church means that you will also have to understand their stories, as well as their pain. Anything less is just tokenism. And while the anger that people of color and other minorities bring with them may be shocking to you, it is not without very real cause. We are not angry people as much as we are angered people, and there is a crucial difference between the two. Please, do not dismiss our realities just because you do not share them. Instead, take a moment to listen, really listen, and try to understand where we are coming from. You may realize that we have more reason for grief than you thought.

To be clear, we do not enjoy this anger, nor do we want to remain angry in perpetuity. In fact, we want you to be angry with us, and to work to furiously tear down all principalities and systems that do not reflect God's character and His Kingdom. We are family in Christ, and love you.

But know this: until we see that justice done, we will remain "Angry ____ People".