I am still on the subject of theological language and categories. Thus far, it should be apparent that my problem-definition has been socio-historical in nature. My reason for this is that postmodernity in the West has been spoken of in like manner, and the starting point of my entire thought process was this very Western discourse at both the theological and the popular levels. Whilst I have demonstrated (perhaps far too inadequately) that postmodernity is not a relevant problem for Asia, colonialism is very much relevant to us, since it is a historical reality in my part of the world.
I cannot emphasise enough the case for which I am arguing above – that our struggle is a post-colonial one, and not a postmodern one. In my mind, even a marginal deviation from this emphasis poses the unfortunate prospect of a digression in my efforts. And because our struggle is not postmodernity but post-colonialism, we are not herein reckoning with the tension between theological liberalism and theological orthodoxy as is the case in the West. In fact, such an insignificantly marginal segment of the Christian community here is theologically unorthodox that their presence poses almost no concern to the rest of the community. Our battle is, however, against the unthinking Evangelical imperialism which suffocates the prospect of authentic expression in our Asian Christianity. It locks theology up within the confines of Western cultural realities. This cultural imperialism, as I have mentioned, has shifted from high-culture imperialism to low-culture imperialism. We are therefore endeavouring to emerge with a “generous orthodoxy” of another kind.
However, in proposing this third way beyond the traditional (high-culture imperialism) and the Church Growth Movement (low-culture imperialism), it is not sufficient for me to rest my construction solely on such a socio-historical analysis of the prevalent contemporary culture. My reasons for this argument are as follows:
a. Life consists of multi-factorial considerations. To assume a mono-factorial socio-political consideration is naïve. There are certainly other factors that come into play when attempting to construct a third way. For example, the Asian people – beyond their socio-political consciousness – are primarily and innately religious people. Their senses pertaining to the “transcendental other” is strong. Furthermore, religions in Asia exist not singularly, but plurally; and they co-exist to form a myriad of various worldviews. It is understandable that since secularism proliferated the Western worldview, that innate religious sense has been almost obliterated, although not all together. But this is precisely the reason for Western discussions resting largely on socio-political concerns. We in Asia cannot afford to dwell on that level alone, for even our socio-political agenda is most often driven by religious sensibilities.
b. Western theology is not entirely undesirable. To rest my critique solely on Western theological “failure” is to be terribly disrespectful and ungrateful of the positive contributions of the Western Church to the Church Universal. The Western Church is not to be blamed for speaking in theological categories and approaching their God-talk from a rationalistic approach (which arose from their own historical realities). This is only being human! Perhaps one day, we in Asia may also emerge with similar categories! Hence, I will go only as far as acknowledging the historical error of having imposed this language upon the Asian people.
c. Christianity is a historical faith, and Western theology is part of this historical reality. In other words, what is done is done. If we had been conquered by Russia in the course of history, we would similarly be struggling with Eastern Orthodox theology. And human history has evolved such that the most vibrant period of Christian vitality occurred in the Western context during the medieval days. We cannot go about constructing our theological language as if theology did not arise out of a historical period; no theology exists in a vacuum, and all theology is contextual. Since Christianity is a historical faith, it develops. Similarly, the Church’s talk about God must develop and evolve as well.
Therefore, I am suggesting that our construction of an Asian theological language must take in account various other considerations. Very briefly, they are:
i. Asian religious traditions. This means that we must somehow embrace a mechanism that enables us to examine the various worldviews co-existing with Asian Christianity. Examples of this are the Muslim concept of monotheism, the Hindu concept of karma, the Buddhist concept of enlightenment, the Taoist concept of the yin and yang, and the Confucian concept of social order and communal obligation. Fundamental to any socio-political and historical realities such as colonialism, the primary characteristic of Asians is our religious inclination. Perhaps, our inquiry may consequently yield more points of resonance with these religious worldviews that we have thus far cared to discover.
ii. The Great Tradition. May we not forget that Western Protestant theology constitutes a mere segment of the theology of the Church Universal. Other theological languages and categories are to be found in the traditions of the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church. Whilst acknowledging the weaknesses of Protestant theology, we have a wider and longer heritage upon which to fall back to derive a richer Asian theological language. To conjure an Asian theological language that demonstrates no continuity from our faith in ages past is at best a dangerous enterprise, and at worst, potentially heretical. The element of "connectivity" and "rootedness" cannot be compromised. All these various streams of theological language and categories need to be examined and embraced to form what some scholars have come to know as The Great Tradition. It is herein that a generous orthodoxy possesses the potential to be embodied at its best.
These are just two major building blocks that will probably take us another several decades (or even centuries!) to handle proficiently before emerging with an authentic Asian theology. This process of mastery will undoubtedly involve arduous deconstructions and constructions at various levels.
It is true that all theology is contextual and that all these theologies arose from various socio-historical contexts. However, to fail to (at least attempt to) understand how our predecessors have interacted in their peculiar contexts – and thereby learning from their interactions – is to divorce ourselves from the historicity of the Christian faith. If this historical reality is the story of God and his people, can we afford to isolate ourselves from this story? It is for this reason that despite my often disillusioned sentiment with the way things are, I refuse to take leave from my faith community in search of something less rooted. I believe with all my heart that if I am ever going to revive a meaning in an Asian type of “generous orthodoxy”, I must learn from my spiritual parents of generations past.
More to come…
