Why an international network of theological enquiry? What is the particular interest of the Council for World Mission (CWM) in such a project?
Many impulses went into the forming of CWM as a partnership of churches in mission. One of these was the perception of "a shift in the world church's centre of gravity from Western Europe to Africa, Latin America and parts of Asia and the Pacific".1 To this list I would add the Caribbean. In acknowledging this shift, CWM expected churches from these areas not only to have a greater share in determining the conduct of the missionary enterprise and the use of resources for it, but also more importantly to play a significant role in shaping the theological agenda and consequent practice for a new missionary organisation. As the founding document of CWM says, "We seek a form of missionary organisation in which we may all learn from each other, for in that fellowship we believe that the Holy Spirit speaks to all through each".2
Unfortunately, with just a few exceptions, CWM could not deliver on this promise. There was much progress in power-sharing both with regard to decision-making and access to common financial resources. But not "in learning from one another". The simple and rather painful reason for this is that churches do not really have much to share in this area.
For one thing, churches from the non-western part of the world tend to imitate uncritically the earlier thinking and postures of western churches. In my travels through the CWM regions I have found that many churches have stopped theologically at the points at which their parent missionary churches left them, even though the parent churches have subsequently moved on. When visiting a church in a rather warm part of the globe, I was told with some humour but with an underlying sense of seriousness that one may preach here without a sermon but certainly not without a jacket and tie! When I queried a church leader elsewhere as to why a man was head of the women's league of the church, he answered ingenuously, "because only men may speak in the assembly of the church." These may be frivolous examples, but they are symptomatic of a much deeper malaise.
For another thing, churches in all parts of the world are under the influence of a general global Christian tendency to equate mission with an understanding of evangelism as concerned with making converts and 'church planting'. In many CWM churches, not faith in and adoration of the Triune God but an unwavering adherence to evangelism in this sense is viewed as the touchstone of being truly Christian. This global tendency, in large measure, has prevented a more holistic approach to the understanding and practice of world mission. This is also why many churches in the non-western part of the world are timid in embracing home-grown indigenous theologies. The fear of syncretism, plowed deep into the hearts and minds of these Christians, has made it almost impossible to get churches to wrestle with issues of gospel and cultures except in very superficial ways.
The expectation is that this network of theological enquiry would help CWM and other progressive mission organisations to learn from those persons and places where there is an honest wrestling with the challenges for theology in reassessing the task for world mission today.
In this regard the choice of Christianity in Asia as a starting point is quite deliberate. By and large, the continent of Asia has been rather impervious to the traditionally stated objective of Christian missions to win adherents to the Christian religion. With the exception of the Philippines, Asia has remained largely a 'non-Christian' continent. Despite the accelerated growth of churches in certain countries like Korea and Singapore and in isolated pockets in other countries, a generous estimate of the Christian population in Asia is around 3%. In other words, over against the major religions of the world, Christianity has not been able to make much headway. This statistic becomes even more telling when we realise that Christianity came to Asia many centuries before the beginning of the era of modern Roman Catholic and Protestant Christian missions.3
Using an illustration of T K Thomas, an Indian Christian writer, the challenge of this situation for re-thinking Christian mission may be put this way. If I offer something that I know is good to someone and that person refuses the offer, I may assume one of three reasons for the refusal. One reason may be that the person has not understood the offer. In which case I would repeat the offer time and again, hoping that the person would eventually accept the gift that I know is good. The second reason may be that the person has understood the offer but has chosen to reject it. The third reason may be that the person has declined the gift because that person already has it. We are accustomed to dealing with the first two reasons, but the third one is theologically too horrendous to contemplate. But it is precisely the third reason that poses the major challenge for Christian mission and theology today – a matter that has not escaped the attention of quite a few Christian scholars in Asia.
A recognition of this challenge has had and will continue to have an impact on the theological task before us in two related ways. The first is in the area of mission studies and its biblical grounding which has a bearing on hermeneutics; and the second is in the attempt to bridge the gap created by the false distinction between the concerns of Christian theology and of religious studies.
"Christianity is missionary by its very nature, or it denies its very raison d'etre", asserts the missiologist David Bosch.4 While making this assertion, he also concedes that there are other missionary religions, and quotes Max Stackhouse who says that all religions which "hold to some great 'unveiling' of ultimate truth believed to be of universal import" are missionary. Christianity shares with other missionary religions a natural instinct or tendency to propagate the faith. This instinct is then supported with an appeal to biblical texts.
Marc Spindler, another missiologist, questions the use of biblical texts to buttress mission as an instinct of the church. He argues that "the biblical grounding of mission" should be a "polemical concept" that challenges the traditional understanding or instinct of Christian mission.5 Following Spindler, I would prefer to speak of the biblical grounding of mission not just as a polemical concept but as polemical activity that goes against the grain, and provides fresh insights and perspectives for different and liberating understandings and practices of mission.
To talk of biblical grounding in this way is to enter the arena of hermeneutics with its concern for contexts and presuppositions, and how these affect our readings of texts. Also of interest here is the method of cross-textual or trans-textual readings in which texts from several traditions are brought together to inform each other to generate new meanings in ways that illumine the context for more appropriate and meaningful mission engagement.
The relevance of this area of enquiry for Christian mission becomes apparent when one looks at three of the latest themes of CWM Councils. In 1993 CWM spoke of going "beyond ourselves", in 1995 of "daring to dream" to perceive new frontiers and to cross new boundaries, in 1997 of being "called to be a blessing to the nations", and the theme for 1999 is "what does the Lord require of us?" We need 'biblical grounding' as explained above and relevant cross-textual readings, if these themes are not to remain empty slogans but are to chart the course of a new missionary journey.
A needless gap has been created between Christian theology and religious studies in theological discussions in general and in academia in particular, thereby aborting a profitable debate between both disciplines. In his paper to the first meeting of the network, David Ford, Regius Professor of Divinity at the University of Cambridge, argued that the distinction between Christian theology defined as an outflowing of a God commitment and religious studies defined as a scientific, historical, discipline is untenable. Questions regarding meaning, truth, beauty, in short, "the ethical dimension", which has to do with informed engagement in life, and "the dimension of God involvement" soon or later appear in both areas of studies.
As Asian theologians, we have been conscious of this fact for a long time because we have to deal not just with religious systems but also with people of other faiths in the traffic of life in Asia. Their lives, beliefs and value systems affect ours and ours theirs, especially at a time when the fractious element in religious adherence is coming to the fore and there is a type-casting of people of certain faiths, such as Muslims or Sikhs, as terrorists. In other words, especially in Asia, we have to deal with the false distinction, which David Ford contests as a life issue.
In the decade of the 1970s, Asian Christian scholars became conscious of this fact, and began a new theological discourse that attempted to free itself from the shackles of western missionary and theological domination, which perpetrated this flase distinction, to converse with Asian realities.
So, with a sense of joy at the end of the old and the birth of the new, Choan Seng Song, an Asian theologian, said in 1975 that we celebrate the end of foreign missions and the growing confidence of the church in the Third World which makes demands for "entirely new relations with the church in the West", and refuses to be judged and evaluated by ethical, cultural, and religious standards and values prevailing in the West.6
The signs of a new, emerging era for mission were evident in new theological thinking and action in Asia. The Three Self Patriotic Movement in China gave birth to a post-denominational, indigenous church. Minjung Theology (Korea), Theology of Struggle (Philippines), Biculturalism (Aoteoroa), Homeland Theology and Chhut-thaau-thi'n (Taiwan) are just a few examples of a theological ferment that swept across Asia. These theologies conversed not only with prevailing social and political realities but also with religious realities to give birth to new contextual expressions of the Christian faith.
Similar theological and ecclesiological movements were also evident in other continents. In the continent of Africa, there was a call for a moratorium on foreign missions. Churches in Africa were in effect saying to Western mission boards, "give us the space to be obedient to God's calling in our own context in our own way." African Christians began to speak theologically from within and in terms of the various African contexts in which the churches were witnessing to the gospel. Far more important, indigenous African churches, of which the Kimbanguist Church is the best known, received ecumenical recognition.
In Latin America, Liberation Theology began to speak of the hope and struggles of the poor. The winds of the new era of mission were also blowing in the West. Black Theology in North America was a revolt from within the very citadel of white Christianity, and so too was Feminist Theology as a protest and correction of white male theology. More can be added to this list which heralded in the new. Regional ecumenical organisations emerged to co-ordinate this theological and missiological ferment.
Equally important were the responses of Western mission societies and boards. Most of them welcomed this change not only as the coming of age of the churches they had founded, but also as a liberation for themselves. They did not have to carry the burden of mission. They were equally keen to learn from the others. What was needed was a partnership. This was the situation in which CWM as a new missionary organisation and arrangement was born.
However, in academia as well as in mission societies these theologies were sidelined. In academia they were taught, if at all, as courses on this or that theology while European theology was taught as systematic theology. The gap between Christian theology and religious studies, which theological articulations particularly from Asia and Africa tried to overcome, was also maintained in academia. After an initial euphoria over the emergence of new theological articulations, mission societies and churches ignored these in favour of 'evangelism'.
At this time, a network of theological enquiry, such as we envisage, has to tackle a dual task. On the one hand, it has to help bridge the gap between Christian theology and religious studies which many find to be clearly untenable in order that a new theological discourse may emerge. On the other, it has to help mission societies chart a new programme of mission thinking and action.
In undertaking this dual task, clearly the theological ferments mentioned above will be of help. But we also need to take into account changes that are taking place both globally and regionally.
One of these changes was a topic of discussion at the theological round-table at Hong Kong, and serves as an illustration. Previously, a major contribution of Latin American theology has been the many-faceted exposition of the theme of liberation. Now Christians in Latin America have been caught up in the pentecostal movement. As Julio de Santa Ana, a Latin American theologian, said, "my friend Gustavo Guttierez opted for the poor, but now the poor have opted for the pentecostal church." It is still not clear whether or not the two movements will combine and change to provide a new agenda for theology.
But the fact and impact of the pentecostal movement in Latin America and all over the world cannot be ignored. To take a parallel from the past, David Thompson, a church historian from the University of Cambridge, said, "when the Methodist movement started in Britain there was an assumption that this would be transitory, but it stayed on to have a tremendous impact on church life not only in Britain but all over the world." How the concerns of liberation and pentecostalism will combine (or would they?) will be an area for enquiry, because as Feliciano Cariño, the General Secretary of CCA, said at the first meeting, "the universal euphoria over socialism is gone".
In attempting to isolate and deal with the over-arching questions that are arising out of a dialogue with life, we face a sort of methodological tussle. At the first meeting, David Ford listed in sequence the issues that vex academia. He moved from the untenable distinction between Christian theology and religious studies, to "the fascinating phenomena" or a plethora of issues and areas in religious studies, to make some sense of these in what he called "a four-dimensional ecology of the field which tries to take account of its fascinating phenomena, its extraordinary demands, its inexorable particularities, and its divine involvement".
Of particular concern for us is his setting out of the extraordinary demands where he lists three responsibilities: (a) to the academy and its disciplines, (b) to the religious communities and (c) to society and the whole realm of public life. Clearly each of these responsibilities informs the other, so there can be no simple progression from one to the other. But, one cannot help but feel that in processing these responsibilities the academy will have a certain pre-eminence in deciding what are the primary "questions of meaning and truth, both empirical and theoretical" which include "questions of commitment, norms and values". The nature of the location in the academy becomes clear when he says, "The requirement is excellence in the study of texts, history, laws, traditions, practices, institutions, ideas, the arts, and so on, as these relate to religions in the past and in the present."
The question for me is, can academia be left to decide on these questions by itself? Does it not need partners who live in the midst of and are particularly vexed by these questions to participate in deciding on the precise nature of the questions being posed and on the approaches to be taken in dealing with them? Feliciano Cariño approached the issue from the other end talking of the questions that emerge from a dialogue with life. He spoke of the collapse of the socialist dream and consequently the loss of the 'liberation' framework, the questions raised by the new economies in Asia (their rise and fall?) and the problems these pose for ethics and for mission and therefore for theology. He then went on to say, "the high points in ecumenical theology have been where the ecumenical movement has called the churches to grasp the meaning of the times in which they were living and to provide some insight in regard to what it means for Christians and churches to live and to witness and to understand their life and mission in those times and places."
The ergo for this location of theology is that it "is not so much a way of talking about ourselves as it should be a way by which we participate in the universal discourse about the world in which we commonly live with other people whether they are of our faith, or of other faiths, or of no faiths in order to build a common human future." After giving a sweeping description of the changes in the reality of life, especially Asian life, he ends by saying, "We are pushed as it were to fundamentals as we are confronted with some of the most basic questions of the common life." But, as Cariño says, "precisely at the point in which the most creative form of Christian witness is needed and some of the most critical issues are before us, we experience a dry spell in missiological theology and in Christian economic, social and political thought."
The problem here is that the eliciting of the questions themselves and their implications for the doing of theology take up so much time and energy that there is little energy and resource left to probe the questions themselves. Archie Lee, an Asian theologian, puts it this way, "our positions are not often backed up by credible academic research." We seem to be good in setting up an agenda for research than in doing the research itself.
David Thompson observed that while for those from Cambridge the order seems to be academia, religious communities, society, for the Asians it is society understood in the broadest possible ecumenical terms, religious communities including Christian communities, academia.
A network of theological enquiry that includes academies and ecumenical bodies can support and enrich each other in the quest for 'theologies of life'.
The first big area is the world market and the global economic order. When Feliciano Cariño presented his paper at the first meeting in March 1997, there was a note of optimism perhaps even enthusiasm that Asia was going to be a leader in the world economic and political scene. This euphoria like the euphoria over the socialist dream has now been tempered by turbulences in the Asian economies. This in itself calls for a very careful in-depth analysis of the world market and the global economic order. It would be foolish to assume that what happened to the Asian economies will not happen in Western Europe or the USA.
The second big area is the plurality of religious, ethnic and cultural realities. We need a post-Kraemerian, perhaps even a non-Kraemerian approach, because we seem to be at the threshold of a new more inclusive ecumenical vision which would have an impact on understandings of mission practice, social ethics and much more. How are we to relate the specificities of particular cultural/ethnic theological explorations to the concerns of a universal discourse, so that contextual relevance does not lead to a sectarian outlook?
The third area is the process of globalisation itself and its effect on the theological task. At the first meeting, Kim Yong-bock, an Asian theologian, observed that in all areas of life and thought we have moved from a universalism imposed by colonial realities to contextual thinking and from there to a new globality. The problem, as Kim Yong-bock observes, is that contextual approaches tend to lead to needless fragmentation either with claims to universal validity or with claims to contextual uniqueness. As K C Abraham, an Asian theologian put it, "the challenge is to be culture specific without being culture bound."'
To understand 'globalisation', we must realise that it is created primarily by the world market and world information technology. It is given to us as a reality "in which we are condemned to live" (Kim Yong-bock). What is the nature of this reality? Who controls it? And what is to be our response?
The network that we propose to have arises out of a global trend which is already evident. Feliciano Cariño calls it "a new koinonia of theological endeavour". Kim Yong-bock speaks of it as "a newly emerging global context as churches and ecumenical bodies are being challenged to serve new missiological tasks as well as to renew the life of faith communities." David Ford describes it as the breaking down of the barriers between academic disciplines which have in turn been imposed on 'life', a practice that Alfred North Whitehead called "the fallacy of misplaced concreteness". A new ecumenical vision/awareness is emerging that is breaking down walls of separation between denominations, religions, cultures and academic disciplines. Arising out of this new ecumenical vision, this network is called to serve the ecumenical movement.
At present, the instruments of the ecumenical movement do not seem to be able to generate the ideas and visions that are needed today to help churches and Christians enter into a meaningful dialogue with life. Many of the major international ecumenical meetings are becoming more and more talk-shops where old ideas are rehashed rather than occasions for generating new ideas and insights. There are also, of course, the usual balancing acts so that what is politically appropriate and acceptable takes precedence over needed explorations and new departures in thought and action.
This problem has been compounded by the fact that little or no place is accorded to those who have made a special study of issues, and have something to contribute. Writing on the World Convocation on Justice, Peace and the Integrity of Creation (Seoul, Korea, March 1989) Douglas John Hall notes how some sixty 'experts', who were qualified in a variety of disciplines and could have contributed to a deeper understanding of the theme, were sidelined and felt utterly helpless.7 Equally frustrating at this meeting was the argument voiced again and again that a global theological approach was incompatible with contextual commitments. The tacit position of many who spoke was something like this: "if it is not part of my experience I will have nothing to do with it." This sectarianism which also pitted activists against academics could not really contribute to what many of us in the JPIC movement were concerned to bring out the inter-connectedness of justice, peace and the integrity of creation and the need to forge new coalitions with covenants of commitment to life.
Several persons involved in the work of the ecumenical movement share our desire and hope that the network of theological enquiry will grasp the freedom to serve a new emerging ecumenical vision.
1 Sharing in One World Mission, proposals for the Council for World Mission, London, 1975, para 2,6.
2 Sharing in One World Mission, para 2,7.
3 See John C England, The Hidden History of Christianity in Asia: The Churches of the East before 1500, CCA, Hong Kong, 1996.
4 Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission, Orbis, New York 1991, p 9.
5 "The Biblical Grounding and Orientation of Mission", Missiology: An Ecumenical Introduction, eds A Camps, L A Hoedemaker, M R Spindler, William B Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1995, pp 123-43.
6Christian Mission in Reconstruction An Asian Attempt, Christian Literature Society, Madras, 1975, p 2.
7 "State of the Ark, Lessons from Seoul", Between the Flood and the Rainbow, ed D Preman Niles, Geneva, WCC Publications, 1992, p 34.