“Asianness” in Asian Theology

What is “Asian” about Asian theology? Is it that Asian theology uses Asian cultural and philosophical resources instead of Western ones? Is it that it employs Asian ways of thinking and knowing to construct theology? Or is it simply that it is theology done by Asians for the Asian church? The answer to this question is not as obvious as it might seem. In fact, a lack of clarity about what is uniquely “Asian” in Asian theology has hindered the discipline from advancing in the way that it ought.

In order to understand why this is the case, it is helpful to trace Asian theology’s development in history. In the 1970s, following the call of Shoki Coe and the TEF’s call to contextualization, many Majority World theologians were empowered to do their own contextual theologies.¹ While contextual theologizing had been taking place long before this, the TEF’s definition of “contextualization” gave Majority World theologians new tools and lenses to do theology.²

The cultures and religions of Asia, which had long been viewed negatively by Christians, were seen positively through renewed eyes. For many theologians of this era, doing Asian theology meant turning to Asian cultures and religions or to the experiences of Asian people (e.g., poverty) as the major source of Asian theology. This is how Asian theology was distinguished – it meant doing theology with Asian resources instead of Western ones.

However, such approaches were not without problems. Evangelicals felt that the cultural turn made by ecumenical theologians compromised the traditional doctrines of Scripture and revelation. If Asian theology simply meant theological reflection on culture, then anything could become God’s revelation! One example of this was the WCC’s “Salvation Today” conference in Bangkok in 1972-73, in which the gospel’s central message was framed as socio-economic and political liberation.³ Other theologians identified God’s saving work in places where it clearly was not. For example, C.S. Song and Aloysius Pieris praised the Chinese Cultural Revolution and the Iranian revolution respectively as liberation movements in which God was at work.⁴ The Asian liberation theologies that Song and Pieris represent were too politically and ideologically charged, as well as too liberal, for many conservative Asian Christians. Another common type of Asian theology can be categorized as “religious dialogue,” often involving theological synthesis between Christianity and other religions.⁵ For many Asian Christian leaders, such theologizing did not reflect their own conservative theologies and caused worry in local seminaries and churches.

Another major issue in Asian theology is the way Asian theological identity was articulated in contradistinction to the West. This was true not only of ecumenical theologians and their often wholesale replacement of Western theological ideas and norms with Eastern alternatives. Asian evangelicals also embraced the call to contextualization and Asian theology eagerly, especially in the context of mission and evangelism.⁶ However, Asian evangelicals also recognized the need to identify and remove Western cultural elements embedded in traditional theology for more Asian and holistic alternatives. For example, many scholars identified the inherently rationalistic and detached nature of Asian theology as stemming from the Enlightenment and incompatible with the holistic worldviews of Asia.⁷ Hwa Yung has critiqued Western theology’s materialistic and rationalistic worldview, Enlightenment-influenced skepticism, and its lack of engagement with real life and preference for idealistic conceptions of truth.⁸ His vision for Asian theology centers the idea around “mission,” which reflects the grounded and pastoral character of the Asian church. Others sought to find positive points of connection within their own cultures and religions that would allow for more effective evangelization or theology.

The Asian theologies that emerged from the 1970s onwards were largely formed around these basic assumptions about the nature of Asian cultures/religions and the articulation of Asian theological identity in light of the Western theological tradition. Their diversity represents the different ways in which the integration of these issues took place in the process of theological contextualization. Lee Moonjang categorizes the representative Asian theologies of this era into three groups: (1) theology negotiating with the social, political, and economic reality in Asia, (2) theology negotiating with the cultural reality in Asia, and (3) Asian theology as interreligious dialogue.⁹ While much more can be said about these different approaches and the writers who represent them, we must remember that each denotes the articulation of a particular vision of Asian theology in context, shaped by local issues and forms.¹⁰

Problems in Asian Theology

When we speak of Asian theology, these are the writings and writers that are typically referred to. One glaring problem, however, is that much of the work that was done in this era has had little impact on the seminaries and churches in Asia. Many have found Asian theology to be too scholarly and esoteric, disconnected from and irrelevant to the Asian church.¹¹ Asian theology has also been criticized for being too liberal, written more for open-minded Western scholars than for the Asian church.¹² In contrast, grassroots level Christian movements, especially Pentecostal and Charismatic churches, have had greater success in engaging the existing cultures and worldviews of Asian peoples, despite their disconnect from academic Asian theology.¹³ Another problem is that methodologically, Asian theology has also lacked structure and unity. This is seen in the many different approaches, yet the lack of overall clarity in how to actually do it.

The reasons for these difficulties are not difficult to explain. To do “Asian theology” is already a problematic task. Asia is a vast continent, filled with many different cultures and religions. It is impossible to identify or speak of an essential “Asianness” that can serve as a keystone for doing Asian theology, just as one cannot do theology out of “Westernness.”¹⁴ Too much concern with identifying “Asianness” can lead to overemphasis on one or more characteristics as being typically “Asian.” For example, scholars like C.S. Song or Aloysius Pieris have gone too far in their insistence that Asia is defined by its poverty.¹⁵

However, one of the biggest problems in Asian theology is that “Asianness” has been defined as the antithesis of “Western.” Kang Namsoon has argued that Asian theologians’ eagerness to reject the West actually resulted in them unknowingly buying into and reinforcing an occident-orient binary that not only essentialized the West, but also essentialized themselves.¹⁶ For example, generalizing the experience of Asian women as “oppressed” or “poor” is to universalize and homogenize the diverse experiences of actual Asian women.¹⁷ It ignores the actual experiences, thoughts, concerns, and values of those on the ground. Many Asian theologies have thus reinforced orientalist stereotypes in this way, attempting to speak for all, but actually speaking for no one.

We see, therefore, that defining “Asian” in Asian theology is by no means an easy task. Part of Asian theology’s story has been the struggle to properly articulate its identity in a complex and changing world. Despite this, many today are still hopeful in the possibility of Asian theology. Books continue to be written that provide new visions for Asian theology. Across Asia, teachers and students continue to wait for textbooks and other resources that can help them deal with theological issues and read the Bible better in their own contexts.

Lessons for Asian Theology Today

What lessons can we learn from the struggle to define “Asian” in Asian theology that can better inform our own theologizing today? While I cannot do full justice to this question in an article of this length, I suggest a few points that I hope will be helpful to those eager to do Asian theology.

First, Asian theologies should not seek to speak to the experiences of all Asians, but must recognize and embrace specificity. Asian theology has been misleading in that it can often assume that the worldviews and situations of all Asians are more or less the same. To do Asian theology in this current age is not to speak into broader “Asianness,” but to emphasize specificity. Rather than doing theology for all Asians, the more successful Asian theologies have been done within certain regions and have addressed specific issues, recognizing the importance of denominational identity or individual church worship. Done well, such theological reflections can demonstrate what Christians in differing Asian contexts can offer theologically to the rest of the world.

Second, Asian theologies must reflect the actual experiences of Asian Christians, not just idealized conceptions of them. One way in which many earlier Asian theologians went wrong is that they assumed that culture was itself a form of revelation on the level of Scripture or tradition. Instead, Asian theologies must begin with where God is actually at work in Asia – in the grounded and historical experiences of Asian churches. Simon Chan has been particularly influential in his vision for a grassroots turn in Asian theology.¹⁸ Chan grounds theology in Asia in the reality of the Holy Spirit’s work in the world in and through the church, reflected in the church’s living tradition.¹⁹ When we consider the astounding growth in the church across Asia in the last century, despite persecution and other difficulties, it is difficult to deny that God has been at work. Reflection on specific instances of the undeniable work of the Spirit, whether in the surprising conversions of tribal hill peoples or in thriving persecuted churches, can be a helpful starting place for Asian theologies in many different contexts.

Third, Asian theologies must be grounded in Scripture. As much as mainline Asian theologies have tried to center culture, Christianity in Asia has been largely conservative and evangelical. Simon Chan has observed that the largely evangelical character of Asian Christianity does not align well with mainline theology, but actually reflects the innate spiritual instincts of Asians.²⁰ The early work of ATA emphasized Asian Christians’ concerns about gospel integrity and the centrality of Scripture in a decidedly evangelical way.²¹ Theology done well in Asia cannot fall prey to the false dichotomy of culture versus Scripture in the way common to the theological tradition, something that conservative Asian Christians seem to grasp.²² Instead, looking to Scripture as authority, Asian theologians must learn how to turn to Scripture and theology in a way that meets the needs of local contexts and provides perspectives on the gospel that much of the rest of the church has forgotten or neglected.²³

Fourth, Asian theologies must reflect Asia in its current complexity, rejecting simplified and universalized notions of culture. As we have seen, cultural or political/social turns have been popular in Asian theology. In the evangelical world, the term “cultural contextualization” has been a helpful tool, not only in mission, but in theology. But at times, too much emphasis on culture and cultural differences in Asian theology can lead to essentialization. For example, the characterization of Asia as honor/shame is not incorrect, but to assume that theology and evangelism must center on honor/shame is problematic. To center East Asian theology around the concept of “filial piety” might look nice on paper, but may be difficult in application.²⁴ A good deal of Asian theology, both ecumenical and evangelical, has placed too much emphasis on these distinctive cultural and social elements, resulting in theologies that feel like they are frozen in time. The reality is that people today are complex and hybrid beings.²⁵ The cultural, social, political, and economic contexts of developing Asia require much more work to understand them fully, rather than simple cultural paradigms. To do theology well in Asia today requires deeper understanding of individual and complex contexts that in turn allows for more effective theologizing.

Conclusion

So, what is Asian about Asian theology? Rather than centering an abstract cultural idea of “Asianness” as an antithesis to “Westernness,” Asian theology must be grounded in the work of the real and living God amongst the real and living peoples of Asia. Asian theology cannot be a top-down endeavor, shaped or determined by arbitrary cultural and social categories, but must be a bottom-up collaborative effort in which Asians of various nationalities, ethnicities, and tribes reflect together on the ways in which God has been and is working amongst them. Asian theology can and must be the application of Scripture and theology to the complex issues and diverse cultures of Asia. But it must also be the lived wisdom of the grassroots Christians and the stories of the Asian church. In considering the possibility of theology beyond traditional academic norms and standards, we can not only see what Asian theology has been, but also the possibilities for what Asian theology has to offer the rest of the global church.

Dr. Justin Joon Lee is an Associate Professor of Systematic and Historical Theology at Singapore Bible College. He joined the faculty in 2019. Dr. Lee’s research interests lie largely in the field of Patristics. His research project as a Teach @ Tübingen fellow was on the exegetical methodology and sources of the fourth-century church father Basil of Caesarea. His doctoral dissertation examined the pneumatology of the third-century theologian Origen of Alexandria. He has also written and presented on the Antiochene Fathers. Before coming to Singapore Bible College, Dr. Lee served in pastoral ministry both in the States and in the UK, mostly in the Korean church and in parachurch ministries. (Source: Singapore Bible College)