7

CHRISTIAN MISSION AND

THE PEOPLES OF ASIA

D. Preman Niles

In the in-house theological conversations that took place in the IAMS* Executive Committee meetings, an Asian theology with the theme 'people' seemed to have an ecumenical appeal and significance. No doubt, the appeal of this theology had to do with the term 'people' itself, which is beginning to figure quite prominently in Asian theological thinking. Hence, the original title or subject assigned to me was "Theology of People"; and I was expected to deal with it as an Asian aspect or perspective on the IAMS Congress theme "Christ's mission with the multitudes." Incidentally, the Congress theme itself was prompted by our discussions on a theology of people.

Several subsequent encounters with theologians and missiologists from outside Asia in ecumenical arenas of debate have made me wonder about the wisdom of coming straight in with a theology of 'people'. There are too many quick transferences of ideas and terms into other contexts, and interpreting them in those contexts so that what Asian theologians are saying becomes distorted. For instance, the term 'people' is understood in terms of its general usage as referring to everybody and not with the specific connotations it carries in Asian contexts as for example in the Korean term 'minjung'.

Somewhat along the same line, another difficulty has to do with the matter of what one really hears. A theology which is a radical departure from a previous continuum is both a protest against something and a protest for something. When one looks at the New Testament vis-à-vis the Old Testament or Reformation theology vis-à-vis Catholic scholastic theology this fact becomes apparent. More recently, this problem has come up more sharply with the appearance of Latin American, Black American and Feminist liberation theologies. The reason why what is protested against is heard more loudly is that those who are making a new departure want to be sure of what they are rejecting and why they are rejecting it. That what they are rejecting is not all wrong and may have some good points is recognized but not affirmed. What does it really matter to the man or woman who is shackled whether the chains are rusty and dirty or shining new steel? The shackles have to be broken. Because of the loudness of the 'protest against', the 'protest for' is only dimly heard or not at all in a public forum of debate. To put it more specifically, if I were to come in straight with a theology of people, the centre of interest and debate will be on what we would consider the past that we are breaking away from rather than the future we are trying to discern, picture and symbolize. With these difficulties in mind, I feel that it would be more helpful to sketch the directions of a journey, "how did we get here", rather than deal purely and extensively with a theology of people. Such a sketch would help, I hope, to lay bare historically and theologically the Asian context so that it would make it possible to understand what Asian theologians are both saying and doing theologically.

________

* International Association of Mission Studies

8

Traditionally, Asia has been the object of mission and Asian churches and Christians have been considered the products of Christian mission and not the subjects of mission or an integral part of church history.¹ Traditional missiological thinking has had to do with mission fields out there (in Asia, Africa, etc). Usually, one would work out the missiological (out there) implications of a theology that had to do with the faith as it is lived in the church (in here). For us in Asia, however, theology and mission have become almost coterminous. The world is at our doorstep. Hence, it is difficult to think of our faith and its practise apart from mission. Whenever and wherever we have tried to practise the faith apart from mission, we have borrowed our theology from the west and retreated into a ghetto. Being content to fish out from time to time souls from a non-Christian world and putting them into a ghetto church.

Protest as a theological starting point

A significant stream of Asian theological thinking has been a protest against this dichotomy of theology and mission, and a protest against traditional understandings of theology and mission, and have emerged from these protests as new theological positions. In other words, these theological voices began at the periphery and, I suppose very arrogantly, still keep asserting that the periphery is the centre.

There are good theological precedents for such a stance. The prophet Jeremiah berates a people who would still put their hope in Jerusalem – the political and religious centre – and draws their attention to Shiloh the previous centre that was destroyed (Jer. 7:4,12). Instead, he points to the exile in Babylon as the place where Israel will be reconstituted as the people of God (Jer. 29:10-14). Earlier, Hosea sees the wilderness as the place of hope to which Yahweh will allure recalcitrant Israel and heal her sin and disobedience (Hos. 2:14-15). John the Baptist proclaims in the wilderness the coming of the Kingdom of God and calls people to turn (repent). Jesus makes his preparation for the ministry in the wilderness and begins his ministry in Galilee, the place of the 'am ha'aretz, the non-people, and moves towards Jerusalem.

The inner poetic depth of this theological stance with its awe and hope is captured by the Irish poet), William Butler Yeats in his poem "The Second coming":

The darkness drops again; but now I know

That twenty centuries of stony sleep

Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,

And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,

Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

It is significant that Yeats wrote this poem in the midst of the agony and protest of the people of Ireland against the domination of the English. It would seem that in this poem the beast is no new superman. It is the 'people' themselves, the nobodies on the periphery, seizing their right to be the subjects of history – a movement that is full of fear as well as promise. The periphery is where Jesus began his ministry – in Galilee. That is also where the risen Lord

9

appeared to his disciples – in Galilee.

If voices from the periphery are to be heard aright, there has to be a radical re-orientation of one's view point, priorities and theologies – more pointedly, an experience of conversion. Otherwise, one simply reacts defensively to what is protested against and will not hear aright what is protested for.

To hear Jesus aright we are required to turn from Jerusalem, the seat of -political and religious power, to Galilee the place of the 'am-ha' aretz. We are called upon to break our identification with the centres of political and economic power and identify ourselves with the ochlos, the multitudes, the minjung. To do so would be to go through a profound experience of conversion, to rediscover Jesus in the midst of the multitudes, and to understand what it means to live in Christ with people or better to live with people in Christ.²

It is not without significance that many of our Asian theologians, who are speaking in a new way in our situation, speaking of their experience of conversion as a primary ingredient and motivation for a new theological enterprise. Bishop Lakshman Wickremasinghe speaks of coming down the ladder of Anglicanism and being confronted by the reality of the people as the beginning of a new Christ experience.³ For him this experience is crucial for understanding the nature, presence and mission of the church in Sri Lanka. The Korean theologians Suh Nam-dong and David Suh are using as the framework for their theology their personal biography which has been transformed by the impact of the social biography of the 'people' (the minjung)⁴. The Filipino theologian (painter and poet), Edicio de la Torre, speaks of his experiences of being with the people as a crucial experience of conversion – of moving from the mass (the liturgy) to the masses and celebrating with them a new liturgy of Christ's presence, a liturgy that in the end took him to prison. ⁵

The experience of conversion, to which these theologians give a crucial place in their theological construction, is not simply a personal private affair, but rather an affirmation of their belonging to and identification with the 'people' – the ochlos, the nobodies or non-people of our societies – and a recognition of their place in a confessing Christian community within this larger human community. Hence, these theologians are not theological gurus but theological interpreters who speak for and along with ecclesial communities who are confessing their faith in Jesus Christ as an affirmation of life in defiance of death. In other words, Christian witness which often leads to martyrdom is increasingly becoming a reality in Asia. Furthermore, there are other faith communities also which are making similar affirmations of life in defiance of death. The Christian confession has to be made alongside these other affirmations and in dialogue with them. It is in this context that we have to articulate our faith in Jesus Christ who is both a specific historical presence and a cosmic presence.

With broad strokes I have sketched something of the character and demands of the theological situation we are in – (a) the demand for conversion, for a new spiritual experience and journey to rediscover Christ in the midst of the people; (b) a change in the language of theology from rational discourse – drawing conclusions from given doctrinal positions – to the language of confession, story doxology and poetry that is attempting to capture the creative

10

movement of the divine Life-giving Spirit. It is a language that should be able to probe the future and express an alternative, a new future not just for the church but for all humanity.

All that I have struggled to say thus far is more aptly expressed in the poem of a Sri Lankan woman worker, a Moslem.⁶ Let me end this section by reading a translation of her poem to you.

For Sure the New Age Will Dawn

In the distance I see a new vision.

Won't you come quickly and see?

Look, its scattered glow is everywhere!

So, I will sing a new hope.

We are the free ones in slavery,

Flowers duped into withering;

Let us all join together and fight,

Let us in dying seek life.

The desolate places we turned into oases,

Made tender green shoots come up;

Yet we have nothing saved for the future,

Nor have we hate in our hearts.

We are the gods who have toiled for others,

Those who gained now seek our harm;

Was it wrong that we toiled for you? No!

Then why should we remain dumb?

Enough that others lived by our blood,

Now a new generation must live;

If they come to harm us we'll not cringe,

We'll stand ready to resist.

Burnt daily by the heat of the sun,

We are shrivelled human forms;

Yet, no longer shall we wilt in fear,

For e'en God weeps with our pain.

Now, in these blackened souls there is life,

In our eyes there's a new flame;

It will burn as unquenchable fire,

For sure, the new age will dawn.

It's our task now to kindle a light

To burn in the eyes of the poor;

We shall live no longer as cowards,

For in victory our thirst will be quenched.

Having indicated an intention to sketch the direction of a journey, I have without warning jumped to the end – where we are at now. It would seem that the conclusion has preceded the argument! I have done this in order to indicate, or rather hint at, a problem which we in Asia face, namely, that there has to be a widening of our horizons – theological as well as missiological – if we are to

11

keep faith in our context. The directions of the journey which I will now sketch are intended to show how and in what ways this broadening took place. Let me begin with some of the initial protests that started the movement.

The Beginning of the Protest

At the Edinburgh Conference (1910) on Mission, Azariah of India and C.Y. Cheng of China began to protest the fact that Asia was simply an object for mission. They called for greater participation in making decisions about executing the mission of the church. Azariah made his protest in words which we would now consider quite innocuous. "Send us friends," he said. But at that time it seemed to have sounded like treason, for apparently there were missionary voices which felt that young Azariah should be censured.

In the post-Tambaram (1938) years, the protest of Azariah was developed in the East Asia Christian Conference as partnership in mission. A landmark in this movement was the meeting between heads of mission boards and Asian church leaders in Hong Kong in 1954. Although the whole movement of partnership in mission was to a large extent subverted by the rise of world confessional bodies, with their vast financial resources and their determination to make younger churches tow the denominational (ideological?) line, the essential protest of Azariah was not lost. It was a plea to allow us to decide our missionary task and an invitation to friends, who would make the attempt to understand a new context in mission, to join with us in discharging the mission of the church.

A different kind of protest, again a voice from the periphery, was made by an Indian Christian layman, Justice P Chenchiah, at the IMC Conference in Tambaram (1938). At this Conference the major theological voice was that of Henrick Kraemer who decried syncretism – "the indiscriminate mingling of different religious elements" and argued for 'adaptation' – to 'translate', 'interpret' and 'incarnate' Christianity against the background of other religions. In actual fact, it was his warning of the danger of syncretism that was heard and not his plea for adaptation. To this day the fear of syncretism has stymied most attempts to relate to Asian religions and cultures, inspite of M M Thomas' valiant effort to rescue this word and give it a more positive content and direction.⁷

Undaunted by this tremendous tide of theological opinion Chenchiah ventured the argument that other faiths have a rightful place in the understanding of God's dealings with all humanity. His personal view was that the Upanishads are the rightful Old Testament for many Indian Christians and that the Christevent, or what he described as the "raw fact of Christ", could be understood and communicated more cogently in India in terms of Upanishadic concepts. The basic thrust of Chenchiah's protest was that other religious and historical traditions must be taken seriously as vehicles of divine revelation in Christian theological thinking.

The protest of Azariah, raised largely in the area of mission, together with the protest of Chenchiah, raised largely in the area of theology, are essentially pleas

12

for the widening of our theological and missiological horizons.

Towards a Theological/Missiological Broadening of the Base

From the time of Azariah and then of Chenchiah, it had become apparent that it will be difficult to discharge our theological as well as missiological tasks as long as we feel constrained to justify ourselves at the court of western theological and missiological thought.⁸ It would be difficult to perceive, understand and execute the mission of the church in Asia simply by engaging in theological conversations with western churches. The umbilical cord of theological and missiological dependency had to be out if we were to discern the novum in our midst.

Although the matter of a disjunction from western Christian history and theology had been in the air for some time, it was C.S. Song, the Taiwanese theologian, who articulated it clearly, in theological terms. In his article "From Israel to Asia – A Theological Leap,"⁹ Song argues that each new experience of redemption brings with it an experience of discontinuity with the past, for it would be a new act of God breaking into history. Looking at the history of Asia, especially the Long March in China of 1949 which he calls China's Exodus experience of liberation,¹⁰ Song proposes a methodological leap from Israel to Asia by-passing western missionary history. He feels that that history with its vision of Corpus Christianum is too heavily yoked to the colonial and later the neo-colonial expansion of western states.

Having said this, it is also necessary to echo the words of our Indian brethren, who while fighting the British to gain independence for India, could also say that the coming of the British to India was part of divine providence. It sounds paradoxical. But what is really being said is that we are not ungrateful to those heroic missionaries who brought the message of Jesus Christ to Asia. But every movement, as Leslie Newbegin points out, is made up not only of the obediences but also of the disobediences of those who were involved in it.¹¹ The protest is against that dimension of 'sin' or 'disobedience' which has become too heavy a load to bear as we seek out new paths of obedience in a changing context. No doubt, a future generation will have to deal with our disobediences as well as obediences.

The process of de-linking, to which C.S. Song gave theological cogency, provided a fresh impetus for some of the theological movements that had already started in Asia.

Creation rather than redemption as a basis for doing theology in Asia

In his book, Christian Mission in Reconstruction – An Asian Attempt,¹² C.S. Song himself proposes creation rather than redemption or salvation history as a proper framework for doing theology in Asia. He argues that during the period of the exile, Israel saw herself as a part of the nations and that her history with Yahweh was part of a much larger history. It was during this time that Israel came to a more mature understanding of the theme of creation as the backdrop

13

against which several histories of redemption, including the history of Israel, could be understood. He perceives a similarity between the context of Israel in the midst of the nations during the exile and that of Asian churches in the midst of communities of other faiths. He therefore feels that creation rather than redemption history narrowly interpreted in terms of the ideology of Christendom would provide the tools to break away from a mission-compound Christianity.

While Song was essentially right in pointing to creation rather than redemption as a starting point for theology in Asia, he stopped short. He did not push further with the theme of creation which has greater relevance for theological construction in Asia. The motif of creation is more than a backdrop for redemption. It is a motif in its own right in the theology of Second Isaiah and the Priestly Writer. Especially in the way Second Isaiah uses it, the theme of creation bears witness to the fact that the Creator God can do the radically new thing in history. From this perspective, it would be possible to understand theologically the radical breaks in church history which Song notes as well as the new breaks of the peoples of Asia for liberation and new possibilities. In this theological context it would be possible, as Second Isaiah did, to re-appropriate past traditions and re-interpret them so that the 'old' speaks to the 'new' and the 'new' illumines the 'old'. The motif of creation also permits us to view other traditions as witnessing to the manifold wisdom of the Creator God so that these speak in their own terms without our imposing a Christian or biblical principle of selection. Other faith traditions too have to be re-interpreted so that they speak meaningfully to the Present, for these contain the experiences of our people, both their hopes and their fears. Theology in Asia, therefore, could meaningfully be a shared enterprise rather than simply a Christian activity.¹³

It must be noted in this connection that the argument is not that we have creation rather than redemption as a theological centre or a primary concept for theology in Asia. The contention is that creation, rather than redemption history narrowly understood in terms of the ideology of Christendom, should provide the basic framework and emphases for doing theology in Asia. As will be evident in the discussions that follow, this is not a new proposal, but the clarification of a basic Asian theological stance which under-girds missiological perceptions and theological constructions in Asia.

Towards a deeper understanding of Christian Mission in the context of Other Faiths

A recognition of creation rather than a particular redemption history as a framework for theology and mission poses the problem of the relationship between the Christian faith and other faiths in a new way. In order to show how Asian theologians perceived and responded to this problem, let me first mention three identifiable approaches to the issue of other faiths in post-Christendom thinking and then delineate the Asian approach by comparing it to a western approach. Recognizing that there is a considerable degree of overlapping, the

14

three identifiable approaches are:

(i) To set out a theological or philosophical basis for relating the Christian faith to other faiths which overcomes the traditional denigration of other faiths. A theology or philosophy of pluralism may aptly summarize this approach.¹⁴

(ii) To delineate the methodology of dialogue and analyse the dynamic of dialogue as a style of living and discourse which helps to clear past misunderstandings, creates new and deeper understandings of each other's faith positions, and works towards the building of community.¹⁵

(iii) To discover the significance of other faiths for a deeper understanding of the Christian faith and its mission. As we shall see, this approach is increasingly becoming a primary concern of Asian Christians and theologians.

A basic difference between some western approaches to the issue of the relationship between Christianity and other faiths and that of Asian approaches may be illustrated by comparing the concern of John Hick, God and the Universe of Faiths, to that of Asian Christian theologians and philosophers.

For John Hick the denigration of other religions in favour of Christianity is a moral problem that requires a philosophical solution. He is dissatisfied with every solution that attempts to deal with the reality of other religions, however enlightened these may be, from the standpoint of the Church/Christianity as the centre. He argues that this Ptolemaic system, with all its qualifying epicycles, of viewing other religions from the standpoint of the church as the centre be discarded. Instead, he proposes a Copernican model with God as the centre and views all religions, including Christianity, as circling around God.¹⁶

The religious triumphalism of the church, that herein is the only true salvation, was not only a religious position but a political experience of Asian churches during the colonial period. However, once Asian countries gained their independence from western colonial masters, there was a deep questioning of not only the political concept of Christendom but also its religious implications. Contrary to missionary expectation, Christianity did not sweep Asia inspite of the political backing it had from western powers. With the exception of the Philippines, no other country in Asia has a majority Christian population. Taking the whole Asian population into consideration, Christians are only 2%.

The deep questioning of the idea of Christendom both as a religious idea and a political concept is reflected in the fact that in the thinking of Asian Christian theologians neither the Church nor Christianity figures often as a central point of departure for relating to other faiths. Instead, and this is the important point, the centre is Christ.

Starting with one of the earliest attempts in relating .to other religions, J.N. Farquhar sees the best in other religions "reproduced in perfect form, completely fulfilled and completed in Jesus Christ."¹⁷ In his book The Unknown Christ of Hinduism, Raymond Panikkar attempts to identify Christie (not Christian) elements in a branch of Hinduism.¹⁸ Both Justice P. Chenchiah and

15

P.D. Devanandan are concerned with the Cosmic Christ in relating to other faiths. M.M. Thomas, in a response to Panikkar, attempts to identify the Acknowledged Christ in the Indian Renaissance.¹⁹ When he turns to the Asian Revolution, M.M. Thomas speaks of the New Humanity in Christ²⁰ The centrality of Christ is also evident in the theology (The Hindu Response to the Unbound Christ)²¹ dialogue concerns²² of SJ. Samartha.

Although there are differences in the way in which these thinkers approach and understand the reality of other faiths, I have taken all of them together to point to the central place given to the figure of Christ in relating to other faiths. Inspite of all the moral, theological and philosophical problems involved in relating the Christian faith to other faiths, there is an almost unanimous concern to proclaim Christ. This evangelistic concern or impetus for mission remains central in relating both to people of other faiths and to other faith systems.

The proposal of John Hick, which is a revised version of a Hindu model, which sees all religious apprehensions as partial realizations of the reality of Brahman,²³ seems not to have struck Asian Christians or appealed to them, because it blunts the impetus for mission – the proclamation of Christ. If the intolerance of Christianity, which is the other side of mission, is in placing itself over against other faiths in a position of superiority, the intolerance of Hinduism is in neutralizing specificities and historical particularities and at best flattening all differences or at worst reabsorbing other faith positions into itself. (Compare what happened to Buddhism in India and almost happened to it in Sri Lanka).

The Christ-centred approach to other religions, advocated by Asian Christian thinkers, is not to be considered simply as a variant form of the position John Hick argues against. It comes out of a particular context and has its own theological and missiological interest, both of which we shall now clarify.

Although the Christ-centred approach to other faiths began earlier, it was during the post-colonial period that the context which prompted this stance was sharpened. During this period it became apparent that Asian Christianity was but a pale reflection of western Christianity and Asian churches were quite often viewed by those of other faiths as colonial outposts of western Christendom. As Christians we had a foreign identity vis-à-vis our own countries and cultures. It was because of this problem, experienced on a massive scale during the post-colonial period, that Asian Christians embarked on a programme of indigenization – to give Christianity in Asia an Asian face. Inspite of all its shortcomings, indigenization was an effort to belong to the soil of Asia.

This problem, raised by the Asian context, may be focused more sharply by using John Hick's classification of world religions. He sees these as particular cultural and historical crystalizations of certain geographically identifiable religious streams or impulses.

...Islam embodies the main response of the Arabic people to the divine reality; Hinduism, the main (though not the only) response of the peoples of India; Buddhism, the main response of the peoples of South-East Asia and parts of northern Asia; Christianity, the main response of the European

16

peoples, both within Europe itself and in their emigrations to the Americas and Australiasia.²⁴

Where in this scheme do we Asian Christians belong? For us, this is not simply an academic question. It is an existential problem. It has to do with our identity as persons – as individuals who confess Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour. It also has to do with our identity as churches – as communities witnessing to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

I have raised this question as more than a problem of identity in a particular context. I have raised it also as a matter of confessing and witnessing, in short, as a missiological problem, because both problems belong together. Let me explain.

In his article, "Towards an Asian Theology of Liberation." 25 Aloysius Pieris shows how the metacosmic or soteriological religions of Asia have fused with cosmic (wrongly termed 'animistic') faiths, which are concerned with the worldly affairs of economics, politics and societal arrangements, to form the great Asian religions as we know them now. He goes on to indicate that while metacosmic religions have been immensely successful in absorbing cosmic religions to form new religious amalgams, they have hardly succeeded against each other. There have usually been only small movements from one to another. This situation explains why Christianity, a late-comer into the religious scene in Asia, had immense success in the Philippines and among various tribal religions in Asia, all of which were cosmic religions as yet uninfluenced by other metacosmic religions, but had few gains elsewhere in Asia. Viewing this situation as a problem for mission in the present, it becomes apparent that since Asia has already been missionized by the various metacosmic religions, there seems to be little room left for Christian missionizing or for producing a specifically identifiable Christian culture – a Christian meta-cosmic plus cosmic fusion to produce an Asian Christian civilization. There is, therefore, the need to work out a Christian approach to other faiths in the post-missionizing period.

Leaving aside for the time being the mission component of the problem, let us probe further the component of cultural identity. Although in origin Christianity was an Asian religion, it came to Asia largely as a missioning religion after it was culturally shaped in the west. Consequently, (i) in those cases where it fused with cosmic religions it maintained its heavy western cultural identity, partly because this was the form in which it came and partly because it came as the religion of the colonizing forces and was concerned to obliterate or suppress native religious sentiments and aspirations which could be inimical to western Christianity, (ii) Where Christianity won converts from other major faiths, there was the need to maintain a cultural separateness (a phenomenon which we call mission-compound Christianity) lest there be a reabsorption into the religious culture from which the converts came. Taking these two general trends together, Christianity in Asia by and large has a western cultural identity with some Asian ingredients.

Basically it was this problem of mission with its dual components – the need for a Christ-centred relationship with other faiths and the need for an Asian Christian cultural identity – that Chenchiah faced. At Tambaram 1938, Henrik

17

Kraemer as an European could speak of other cultural adaptations of the Gospel which should avoid the pit-fall of syncretism understood as the indiscriminate mingling of various religious elements. For Chenchiah the problem was more acute. In what sense is Jesus Christ ours within our own history and culture? In other words, the question for us Asians is not just, how can we make Christ Asian? Rather, the question is, how can we conceive, understand and confess Jesus Christ as present in Asian cultures and histories? It may help to pose the radicality of the second, may we say Asian, form of the question if I share with you one of several answers. Hyun Yonghak, a Korean theologian, states: "We do not believe in an invalid God who was carried piggy-back to Korea by the first missionary. He was here working in our history long before the missionaries came."

In facing this question Chenchiah ventured a solution which we may not find totally acceptable. However, he did understand the problem. His suggestion that we jettison the Old Testament (the Scriptures of Israel) may be too simplistic. But he was indicating the fact that a scripturally bound Christ understood in the context of a specific history would remain an alien figure. Because it is to the "Unbound Christ" (to borrow Samartha's terminology) that there can be truly Asian responses.

In suggesting that we use Upanishadic concepts, that is, a particular religious tradition in a particular context, Chenchiah was hinting at two things. First, a general theological position. If the Jesus Christ to whom we bear witness is not simply a parochial saviour but a cosmic presence, then other faith traditions and histories too bear witness to him but not necessarily in forms and ways that have already been theologically identified in the Judaeo-Christian tradition which we have inherited through the course of western church history. Second, while this theological position or affirmation is essential for broadening our theological/missiological horizon and to provide a theological basis for dialogue, ²⁶ what is called for is not a general search for the riches of the cosmic Christ, but to a dialogical and historical engagement in a particular context.

Elsewhere I have called this task "the problem of the two 'stories'."²⁷ As Asian Christians we inherit two 'stories'. One is that of the Bible which comes to us through the church and more specifically the western missionary enterprise. The other is that of our own people and culture from which we have often been alienated. The theological/missiological task we face in Asia today is to discover ways of relating these two stories.

It will not be possible to cover all the significant experiments in this area. Instead, let me refer to one, namely, theological construction in a Buddhist context, which indicates some of the salient factors in this enterprise.

In his essay, "Some Problems and Possibilities for Burmese Christian Theology,"²⁸ Khin Maung Din argues that in Asia there is the need for several Christologies, that is, several Christ-centred attempts to relate the two stories. Having made this point, he concerns himself with one attempt, namely, to relate the two stories in a Burmese Buddhist context, that is, in a particular geographical and historical situation (Burma) and within a particular religious-

18

cultural tradition (Buddhism) to which he belongs. In the process, what concerns him is not simply to relate the verities of the Christian faith to Buddhist thought, important though this be in the matter of relating the two stories. Rather, "...to discover more about the gospel itself with the aid of some Buddhist and other oriental categories. Genuine theology, in my opinion, should not only try to broaden the present boundaries of Christian theology. It should also try and discover new dimensions for theology with the help of the spiritual experience and concepts of persons of other faiths."²⁹

Khin Maung Din speaks mainly, though not exclusively, of one aspect of a genuine dialogical encounter in context. It is to reappropriate one's spiritual and cultural heritage from a Christ-centred perspective through which one's own understanding and experience of Christ is enlarged and enriched. Bishop Lakshman Wickremasinghe and Lynn de Silva, also speaking out of a Buddhist context, indicate the second aspect which is equally important, namely, to communicate in dialogue this enlarged and enriched understanding of Christ.³⁰ For such understandings are not simply one's own private possession. They are gained in and belong to a common search for what it means to be fully human. Within it, from a Christian perspective, decisions are constantly being made for or against Christ, so that it is imperative that we witness to the Cosmic Christ.

Since I am sketching the directions of a journey, that is, raising certain significant methodological issues, I have made few references to the results of our theological enterprise. Let me now refer briefly to the main clusters of theological emphases that are emerging from the Christ-centred approach to other religions; theological emphases and questions that will be engaging our attention for quite some time to come.

By and large, the main cluster of symbols, themes, etc. which have emerged through this approach have to do with the motif of liberation from various forms of oppression. In this search (i) there is the attempt to cut back behind the various institutionalized forms of religion to the liberational thrust of the life and teaching of the founder of a particular religious tradition, and to re-appropriate this stance in the present. Along with this effort (ii) there are attempts to rediscover the moments in the history of the people where the symbols and motifs arising from the life and teaching of a religious founder have played a key role. (iii) Another important component in this search is the investigation of popular faiths and art forms of 'people' as expressions both of their suffering and aspirations. The main reason for the preponderance of this search is that it is a response to the problems of massive poverty and oppression in Asia to which multi-religious groups, sharing a common ideological commitment or stance, are responding.

The second cluster, which is gradually beginning to re-emerge in a Christ-centred approach to other faiths, coheres in what we may call the mystic experience of the Cosmic Christ. This probably is one of the earliest responses to the reality of other faiths particularly in Christian ashrams. But the monastic locus of this search seems to have been the reason for it being gradually left aside.

19

A stance that was essentially apart from the world and seemingly "other worldly" could find no real place in a milieu created by forms of historical thinking brought about by the impact of secular ideologies.

Now, however, several factors are bringing about a change in thinking. First, there is the growing realization that the leaders who set in motion certain political movements and historical currents did so not in spite of but because of metacosmic or transcendental dimension in their faiths. Second, in Asian countries where confessing churches are under political constraints and the experience of martyrdom is a reality, e.g. Korea and Taiwan, it is apparent that these witnesses are enduring or keeping faith because of their inner spiritual depth and resources. This point was succinctly made by Bishop Lakshman Wickremasinghe in interpreting the Eucharist to Budhists present at a Workers' Mass. It was held at a time, when the Sri Lankan government was ruthlessly putting down a Workers' protest for adequate wages and for justice vis-à-vis their employers. The bishop explained that while we continue in the struggle, there is the need to be in communion with the Eternal Reality of Justice, Peace and Compassion which not only undergirds and affirms the struggle for justice but also provides the spiritual resources for the struggle.³¹ Again, in the words of Bishop Lakshman, in our Asian context we are called upon not only to proclaim "the ideological Christ" – the historical Christ who responds with divine compassion and justice to the struggles of the oppressed – but also to experience the reality of the "Cosmic Christ" in whom all things cohere, all divisions are transcended and all contradictions finally resolved.³²

Discerning the Presence and Activity of the Cosmic Christ in the Asian Revolution

As we have already seen, the Christ-centred approach of Asian thinkers to other faiths was not simply to work out a theological or philosophical basis for understanding the place of other faiths in the divine economy. Rather the concern was deeply missiological, namely, to discern and to respond to the presence and activity of Christ in other faiths. While such a search and response would take place in terms of a dialogical engagement within a particular religio-cultural tradition to which a particular Christian and/or Christian community belonged, the validity of such an engagement lay in the fact that it was taking place in the context of the presence and activity of the Cosmic Christ.

Chenchiah himself formulated a general understanding of the presence and activity of the Cosmic Christ in terms of which one could relate to other religions and secular domains. Using the incarnation as his theological starting point, Chenchiah spoke of the irruption of a super human divine force in history which was the beginning of a New Creation gradually evolving to its culmination in history.³³ Following Chenchiah, P.D. Devanandan also speaks of the presence and activity of the Cosmic Christ leading to the New Creation, but shifts the theological starting point from incarnation to redemption:

God's act of redemption in Christ Jesus concerns the whole of his creation.

20

Biblical faith repeatedly affirms that the work of Christ is of cosmic significance in that the redemption wrought in him has affected the entire creative process.³⁴

In shifting the theological starting point from incarnation to redemption, Devanandan while keeping Chenchiah's emphasis on the work of the Cosmic Christ leading to the New Creation could avoid a purely evolutionary understanding of this process. As M.M. Thomas was to state more clearly later, "Every new stage in creation has its fall; and every creativity in turning to false realms of meaning and sacredness becomes self-destructive and betrays the human liberation which it seeks and which is promised in Christ."³⁵

The theological position that "God's act in Christ concerns the whole of his creation" provided Devanandan with the basis to relate to other faiths. M.M. Thomas following Devanandan extends it to include the whole historical process understood particularly in terms of the emerging New Humanity in Christ in the process of the Asian Revolution.

In actual fact, M.M. Thomas does not simply extend Devanandan's thinking on the Cosmic Christ to include the New Humanity in Christ emerging in the Asian Revolution. Rather, this is his starting point from which he moves to embrace other understandings.

M.M. Thomas affirms this stand-point in his essay on "Christ-centred syncretism" as a post-Kraemerian approach to other faiths.

My own entry into the realm of theology has been through politics and the concern for political and social justice. Therefore, while agreeing with Kraemer that the Gospel is from God and should ever remain centred in the Christ of God, some of us began to affirm with Arend van Leeuven the other side of the medal, namely, that the Gospel is 'for men' (sic!). Therefore, Divine Truth should not be divorced from human values and social ideology. A Christ-centred Humanism is integral to the Gospel and has its own evangelistic dimension. If theology is Christologically oriented, it need not be opposed to anthropology.³⁶

Here M.M. Thomas attempts to fit his approach within a neo-orthodox framework which was the theological heritage of many of the Asian Christian thinkers of his generation.

In his approach to other religions too, M.M. Thomas affirms the same starting point. With reference to John Hick's "God and the Universe of Faiths," MM. Thomas speaks of "Man and the Universe of Faiths."

...the common humanity and the self-transcendence within it, more especially the common response to the problems of humanization of existence in the modern world rather than any common religiosity, or common sense of the Divine, is the most fruitful point of entry for a meeting of faiths at spiritual depth in our time.³⁷

M.M. Thomas affirms with Chenchiah the penetration of the Cosmic Christ into all areas of creation thereby inaugurating the process which would culminate in the New Creation. While accepting as theologically crucial the reality

21

of the incarnation, he does not accept a biological theory of evolution in a theological guise. Rather, he perceives with Devanandan the pervasive reality of human sin. Consequently, while affirming the presence and activity of the cosmic Christ in other faiths and ideologies, especially as they respond to the Asian revolutionary process aiming at the building of societies which realize the highest possible quality of human life, he also recognizes within them the distortions and betrayals which lead to human misery and death. This is why for him, "Jesus Christ crucified and risen is both the prototype of true manhood in history and the source of ultimate humanization of human nature and mankind."³⁸

We may now bring our discussion of the last two sections to a close by quoting from an EACC document which sets out what we have said in clearly missiological terms.

...we believe that Christ has more of his truth to reveal to us as we seek to understand his work among men (sic!) in their several Asian cultures, their different religions, and their involvement in the contemporary Asian revolution. In the past we have been too inhibited by our fear of syncretism and too tied to inherited traditional and conceptual forms of confession to make such ventures. Such formulations have been sign-posts and pointers to the truth, but we have often interpreted them, or had them interpreted to us, as the final word of truth so that we have encamped around them, forgetting that even as people of other times and cultures made their own confession, we too must do the same in our time and culture.³⁹

An Emerging Focus on 'People' (Minjung) as the Subjects of History

In describing or sketching the emergence of a theological/missiological stance in Asia, I have concentrated almost exclusively on representative thinkers in the Indian subcontinent. This is not to deny the richness of other Asian theological developments or their relevance for understanding this emerging theological/missiological stance. I have stayed with the Indian sub-continent for several reasons. (1) At least at the beginning, the challenge of other faiths was felt and responded to more sharply here than elsewhere. (2) We also find here the problems which colonialism raised for Christian mission when both went hand in hand.

In large measure, it was the thinkers coming from this area, especially M.M. Thomas, who have helped to shape the thinking in the Asian ecumenical movement and through it affected the Christian thinking in other parts of Asia. Along with M.M. Thomas one should include other theologians like T.B. Simatupang of Indonesia and Masao Takenaka from Japan who also helped in the shaping of Asian ecumenical thinking. Equally to be included in this group is D.T. Niles who not only helped to push the frontiers of the theological thinking in response to the Asian reality, but also provided a vision and challenge to move further. He spoke of the function of the ecumenical movement in Asia as:

...in building up within the life of each church and country a group of men and women, both older and younger, who are willing to probe the frontiers of

22

the Christian enterprise..., to venture into uncharted territory, whether of thought or action or organization, and to risk the mistakes that that kind of adventure demands. To give to these frontiers people a sense of solidarity, encouragement and sharpened insight is a prime concern for such an organization as the EACC.⁴⁰

This vision, articulated by D.T. Niles in a particular context but also pervasive in other contexts which were not directly influenced by the Asian ecumenical movement, has prompted a second generation to embark on a further theological/missiological journey which may be considered a radically new departure, but in many ways is actually a deepening of previous insights. We may call this new stage "an emerging focus on people as the subjects of history."

The impetus for this new stage has come largely, though not exclusively, from the north east region of Asia, particularly from Korea and Taiwan and from a theological recognition of the emergence of the political reality of the New China. Here again, it will not be possible for me to cover the whole waterfront. I will concentrate on Korea⁴¹ to set out this missiological stance.

As it happened in the other colonial situations, it was a wrestling with the colonial and post-colonial contexts in this region that prompted a new understanding of mission. However, the colonial context here was different from that of Asian countries under western colonial domination. Here the colonial power was Japan which permitted foreign mission boards to work in Korea and its other colonies provided the mission boards and its missionaries remained apolitical.

To a great extent, the missionaries maintained this stance even under great provocation partly because their concern was to save souls that were being damned in the wretched conditions of sinful living and partly because their concern was to provide the necessary medical and educational services through which evangelisation could take place. An apolitical stance was also needed to negotiate with the colonial government when there were instances of political harassment of local churches.

However, there were other factors which militated against the strict separation of faith and politics advocated by the missionaries. As a foreign religion without the backing of a dominating power, Christianity won few converts from the upper echelon of society. With its promise of salvation and the offer of a new hope in Jesus Christ, it appealed more to the lower echelon of society, the minjung. The differences in education, class, the life-style between the missionaries and the minjung Christians produced two significant results. (a) Although the Christians separated themselves from the rest of the Korean population in living a socially pure life, the experience of colonial oppression affected them just as much as it did others, thereby creating a national consciousness in which there was a fusion of the hope of personal salvation with the hope for national liberation, (b) Since the target of evangelism was perforce the common people, the language used was not the Chinese script through which philosophical and theological concepts could be expressed more easily, but Hangul, the script used by the common people. While it was difficult to

23

express metaphysical ideas through it, its earthy character dealing with everyday affairs and its richness of metaphoric and poetic expressions made it an ideal vehicle for communicating the stories and parables of the Bible. In fact, the biblical narratives were so readily taken into Korean that without apparent contradiction Korean Christians viewed Korea as Israel and Japan as Egypt.

In brief, there was a considerable gulf between the theological concepts and dogmas which the missionaries taught and through which they attempted to control Christian behaviour and thinking and the faith and thinking of Korean Christians. There was a considerable gulf between the two in Christian identity. Consequently, the Korean appropriation of the gospel was much faster; and the biblical language began to function more readily in the political and religious thinking and aspirations of the Christian minjung. This fact explains, for instance, the flowing together of the Donghak Messianic Movement and the Christian Messianic Movement to struggle against Japanese imperialism.

Apparently, the spiritual and theological strength of a church seems to depend on its political vulnerability. In such a situation the church identifies itself more readily with the sufferings and aspirations of the people to which it belongs.

Such an identification produces an important shift in perspective. The culture and history to which the church or the Christian Koinonia belongs is understood from the view-point of the "people" – those who share in a culture of oppression. This radical shift of perspective and the critique of previous understandings of culture and history inherent in this perspective is aptly captured in the following affirmation:

People in Asia have a long history and a rich culture which span thousands of years. Many of the world's greatest religious movements started in Asia. Many of the finest expressions of the creative human spirit are in Asia. Up to now people have been taken for granted. The abundance of their tradition and culture has often been ignored. The reason for this is that we tend to see the people through the eyes of the rulers and the empire builders. History is often written from the perspective of the rulers and their boastful claims to fame.

A new mood is emerging in Asia – an awakening of the people themselves. A new history is being written in our time. No longer are the victories and exploits of the powerful the central points for an understanding of history. Now the deep movements of the human spirit and the growing solidarity of the people are the reference points for a perception of history. Empires rise and fall, Kingdoms come and go, but the people remain as the permanent reality of history.⁴²

This shift in perspective not only influences the way in which we re-appropriate the Asian Culture and history to which we belong, but also the way in which we understand the biblical story. The same affirmation goes on to state Jesus lived with people (ochlos) and ministered to them. It was in living with people that Jesus understood the shape and the purpose of his own ministry. He put the outcastes, dispossessed and victimized at the very centre of his

24

teaching and proclamation of the Kingdom of God. It is from this perspective that we must view the deep aspirations of the people to be the subjects of their own history.

In brief, we are called to discern the presence and activity of the Cosmic Christ as the Christ of the people in the sufferings and aspirations of the people themselves.

Let me now restate what I have said in clearer methodological terms.

(i) Because of the sense of belonging to a particular culture and history, the relevance of the gospel is seen in terms of and in reference to this totality. In other words, one does not start with the gospel and attempt to work out its relevance for a situation. Rather, the context itself is the starting point from which the relevance of the gospel is perceived and appropriated. To be sure, such a way of doing theology produces theologies. To quote Chenchiah at this point, "...more portraits than one are needed to catch the transcendental beauty of Jesus of Nazareth."⁴³ This stance also permits "the riches of the Cosmic Christ" to flow in from other faiths and historical traditions for a larger experience and understanding of Him whom we worship and serve.

(ii) There is a similar shift in missiological thinking. To put it in its most radical form; the imperatives for mission are emerging not from within the church in terms of its inherited dogmas and doctrines, but from the world of our people in whose midst Christ is at work. Kim Yong-bock, a Korean theologian, states this missiological stance thus: "I am not really concerned with a mission that derives its impetus from within the church. Rather, I am fundamentally concerned with the mission of the people to the church - their cries and their sufferings, their aspirations and their demands, which should elicit from the churches not a 'churchy' response but a 'people' response." Only in this way can the church or the Christian koinonia as the bearer of the promise of the Messianic Kingdom and as witness to the presence and the activity of the Cosmic Christ carry out its mission.

This theological/missiological stance is increasingly becoming evident also in other Asian countries where churches and Christian groups, recognizing their own vulnerability, are identifying themselves with the "people" and find that they are being called to a new adventure in mission and a new experience of grace.

Notes

1. T.V. Philip, "Theological Tradition in India," to be published in The Lotus and the Sun - A Theological Response to the Reality of India, ed. K.C. Abraham CTC-CCA publication, Singapore.

2. "Living in Christ with People" was the theme of the Seventh Assembly of the CCA.

25

3. See his paper "Living in Christ with People," Niles Memorial Lecture at 7th CCA Assembly published in A Call to A Vulnerable Discipleship edited by G.R. Karat, CCA, Singapore, 1982.

4. Articles to be published in Minjung Theology Vol. II edited by Suh Nam Dong, CTC-CCA, Singapore.

5. See his sermon at 7th CCA Assembly published in A Call to A Vulnerable Discipleship (see note 3 above).

6. Poem by S. Ismalika. See The Dawning of the New, edited by Jeffrey'Abayasekera and D. Preman Niles, CTC-CCA, 1981 Singapore.

7. See his "Christ-centred Syncretism," Varieties of Witness, edited by D. Preman Niles and T.K. Thomas, (CCA, Singapore, 1980), pp. 9-19.

8. See M.M. Thomas' introduction to Robin Boyd, An Introduction to Indian Christian Theology, Madras: CLS, 1969.

9. "From Israel to Asia - A Theological Leap," Theology (March 1976), pp. 90-96.

10. "The New China and Salvation History – A Theological Enquiry,' SEAJT XV, 1 (1974), pp. 52-67.

11. IRM XX, 280 (1981), p. 242.

12. Christian Mission in Reconstruction – An Asian Attempt, Madras: CLS, 1975.

13. D. Preman Niles, "Towards a Framework for doing Theology in Asia," The Human and the Holy, ed. Elwood and Nacpil, (Manila: Newday, 1978), pp. 267-290.

14. See for example John Hick, God and the Universe of Faiths, (London: MacMillan, 1973). Wesley Ariarajah, "Towards a Theology of Dialogue," Dialogue NS vol. Ill, 3 (1976), pp. 88-97. Lakshman Wickremasinghe, "Christianity in a Context of Other faiths," Colombo: Centre for Religion and Society, 78/7/4-1.

15. S.J. Samartha, Courage for Dialogue, Geneva: WCC, 1981. Lynn de Silva, "The Understanding and Practise of Dialogue," Dialogue NS IV, 1-2 (197'7.), pp. 3-8.

16. God and the Universe of Faiths (see note 14 above), pp. 120-147.

17. See his Crown of Hinduism, Oxford 1913.

18. The Unknown Christ of Hinduism, London 1964.

19. The Acknowledged Christ of the Indian Renaissance, London: SCM Press, 1969.

20. See especially his Man and the Universe of Faiths, Bangalore: CISRS, 1975 and Salvation and Humanization, CLS: Madras 1971.

21. Bangalore: CISRS 1974.

22. Courage for Dialogue (see note 15 above) especially chapter VII - "The Lordship of Christ and Religious Pluralism.

23. God and the Universe of Faiths (see note 14 above), pp. 139f.

24. Loc. cit.

25. Varieties of Witness (see note 7 above), pp. 21-42.

26. See Samartha, Courage for Dialogue (see note 15 above), p. 11.

27. See "Some Emerging Theological Trends in Aisa," CTC Bulletin vol 2, nos 1-2 (1981), pp.l0f.

28. What Asian Christians are thinking, edited Douglas Elwood, (Manila: New Day Publishers, 1976), pp. 87-104. In this connection also see Lynn de Silva, "Theological Construction in a Buddhist Context," Asian Voices in Christian Theology, ed. G.H. Anderson, (New York: Orbis Books, 1976), pp. 37-52.

29. "Burmese Christian Theology," What Asian Christians are thinking, (see note 28 above), p. 88.

30. See their articles listed in notes 14 and 15 above.

31. Published by the Christian Workers' Fellowship, YMCA Building, Colombo, Sri Lanka.

32. See especially MM. Thomas, The Acknowledged Christ of the Indian Renaissance (see note 19 above) and his MOM and the Universe of Faiths (see note 20 above).

26

33. See the discussion of Chenchiah's theology in K.C. Abraham, "Some Theoloical Responses to the Challenges of New India," to be published in The Lotus and the Sun (see note 1 above).

34. The Gospel and Renascent Hinduism (London: SCM Press, 1959), p. 47.

35. Quoted by K.C. Abraham (see note 33 above).

36. "Christ-centred Syncretism," (See note 7 above). p. 13.

37. Man and the Universe of Faiths (see note 20 above ) p. vi.

38. The Secular Ideologies of India and the Meaning of Christ (Madras: CLS, 1976), p. 198.

39. "The Confessing Church in Asia and its Theological Task," EACC Statement in What Asian Christians are thinking (see note 28 above), p. 43.

40. Ideas and Services (EACC, 1968), pp. 7f.

41. See Minjung Theology - People as the Subjects of History, edited by Kim Yong-bock, CTC-CCA, Singapore 1981. See especially chapters 4 and 5 and also the discussion in CTC Bulletin vol 2, nos. 1-2.

42. From a CCA Staff writing team (1981).

43. Quoted by Khin Maung Din in his article (see note 28 above).