With all due respect, I think you are needlessly antagonistic towards a Western understanding of theology (Enlightenment? Modernist?) and it seems, some Westerners who espouse it (ref. to your past several posts). The unfortunate outcome of that is that most of your entries inclines moderates like me to not take your words seriously.

You can disagree with Western style theology without showing such contempt for it.

I am personally sympathetic toward narrative theology, but I think systematic theology serves an important purpose too and is not merely to constrain God's word into a human mold. Since you teach systematic theology, I'm quite sure you believe there is some value in it too.

I fully believe you have the right to be passionate while defending your positions, but I find the lack of winsomeness in the tone of your writing troubling.

Yes, traditionally, systematic theologians have looked down on folks who did not/could not do systematic theology, and have not recognized that there are other ways to do theology, especially in an Asian context. And yes, these theologians were mostly from the West. But do we really have to return the favor, and worse, characterize all Western theology as rigid and overly cerebral and then cast veiled aspersions on them?

It seems to me that this would not be the right way about it.

Dear Paul,

Thank you for your honest comments, which I assure you, I take in good spirit. I'm unsure if you're Asian or Western. If you're Western (and I suspect you are, although it's not entirely clear in your comment), your concern for my alleged misrepresentation is understandable.

It really does take an Asian with a particular colonial historical consciousness to understand better the seeming characterisation I attribute to Western theology. It also takes an Asian who is entrenched in the present state of the Asian Church to develop certain strong sentiments about how colonial Christianity has impacted the state of the Asian Church, and to think about how things might have been different. Beyond that, it also takes an Asian to observe just how much of our Asian Church's life and theology is still being imperialised by Western formulations.

I'd like to think that everyone perceives himself and his methodology to be "moderate" by his own standards. But do take my reactionary stance not as an accidental unnecessary measure, but rather, as a deliberate way of saying something I mean to say (even to those in the West). Whilst I am a lecturer in Systematic Theology (supposedly Western), my methodology is gradually progressing towards something beyond the Western speculative and linear-logical way of articulation. Being in Asia, I'm glad that I have been accorded this prerogative.

My disagreements with Western theology stems from my academic engagements. And much of my contempt stems from how I have observed and tasted the effects of Western imperialism upon the life of the Asian people and the Asian Church. For me to express disagreement whilst withholding my contempt would constitute being less than entirely true to my prerogative of expression. As you can see, theology for me is not just a cerebral exercise - it involves something I want to express pertaining to the experiential realities of the Asian Christians. So it involves feelings; yes, even intense feelings.

For what it's worth though, if it has offended you (since you perceive yourself to be moderate in your stance), I offer my apologies - I'm probably not talking about you in these posts.

Thanks for dropping by!

"If anything, theology must lead us to a posture of prayer."

How can any practicing Christian argue with that? So beautifully put! Thanks for yet another quotable quote.