John Roxborogh, 1989
Although anyone can read Asian theology and critique it within its own terms
and values, there is some validity in saying that to do Asian theology in the creative
sense one has to be Asian. It will be for others to judge how far what follows is
adequate, from the perspectives of Asian Christianity and from those of the Church
in other times and cultures.
Theology can
be elementary or it can be profound; it can be the task of an individual and it
is the responsibility of the church. At any point it is provisional and subject
to improvement in its own time and place and to change with the passage of time
and changes in the surrounding culture. It must constantly be subject to the judgement
of Scripture.
At its most
basic Christian theology is what happens when those who follow Christ try to work
out their understanding of God and God's will in their time and place. In
this task there are things which do not change very much as they are given; and
there are things which change a good deal because Christian perception of the mind
of God is not static and it is considerably varied.
Part of the
process of theology is criticism and dialogue within and beyond the Christian community.
This is not simple. Attitudes, both Asian and non-Asian, can inhibit critical conversation.
The recognition of the limitation of someone outside a culture trying to tell people
what their theology ought to be, can be used as a way of avoiding hard questions.
Nevertheless someone has to ask whether all that is called Asian theology is what
it claims to be and worthy of the name. One does not have to be from any particular
culture to ask whether a body of reflection or even the work of one particular writer
is internally consistent. A foreigner may have inappropriate ideas about what Asian
theology ought to be but there are valid questions which he can ask. Romanticism,
reverse paternalism, guilt from past and present Western and missionary sins, and
straightforward laziness can all conspire against the sort of critical engagement
and enquiry which is essential for the discipline to gain further maturity.
The very term
Malaysian Theology without qualification means that of itself we are talking about
something which draws attention to the spiritual experience of the culture as a
whole and to continuities of theological agenda and formulation with other religions.
It also means that before we are talking of ideals and what that theology ought
to be, we are talking first of the mess and confusion of the reality of what that
theology is. It is important we accept the validity of this sort of enterprise and
recognize that theology is what it is and not what we would like it to be.
There may
be aspects of Malaysian spirituality, Christian and other, which we find repugnant,
but there has to be some principle of selection other than just choosing what fits
our own inclinations. Such principles of selection and evaluation are things that
need to be considered carefully. Without them our methodology is not self-critical
and is likely to be weak. Nevertheless to start with Malaysian theology good or
bad is what it is there even when there are parts we regard as more valid from our
point of view than others.
Malaysian
Christian Theology should interact with wider Malaysian theology and be on the way
to being self-critical and reflective, to being systematic and true to the experience
of the country in a way which can be more widely recognized. The task is not easy,
it requires time, patience, and the participation of many people. Remember how long
it took to sort out Christology in the early church!
Writing Malaysian Christian Theology is an aspect of the problem of Gospel and Culture and in Malaysia we are dealing not with one culture, but with many. Which of the many should provide the context which dictates these tasks? How are we to be fair to the contradictions that are found? Whereas some of the principles of doing local theology will be fairly universal, their application in different sub-cultures will not bring the same results because those subcultures are different. At the same time there are things about Malaysia as a whole which affect all Malaysian society. For example this is a society in which it is common to be religious and that is accepted; the agenda of Western theology which has long been dominated by wrestling with the questions raised by philosophical scepticism is very much less relevant here
The work of doing Malaysian theology has two important elements:
Task One: What items should be on the theological agenda because of the historical
experience of Malaysia? ie How does the context affect the content?
Task Two: What should be different about the form or presentation of theological
statements when they are being expressed in Malaysia? ie How does the context affect
not just the content but the form?
1. There is a local and particular form which is properly given to truths which
are universal.
This is an ideal statement. Christian truth is always in some culture or
another and you can argue, at length, about the idea of universal truth. Nevertheless
there is truth which is more than local which finds expression in different ways
in different cultural and different historical contexts. An example is bible translation.
The texts from which the translations are made are more or less fixed; the languages
and cultural contexts into which they are translated are various.
2. There are particular truths which are neglected or distorted in one culture,
but which may be recognised and highlighted by another culture or historical context
because the events of that culture enable those people to see things in Scripture
which are missed by others.
Different parts of scripture have come to prominence at different periods in
church history. What has happened at different times in history in one broad culture
stream also happens at the same time in history in different cultures (there is
no conceptual difference between saying cultures are different in space and saying
they are different in time; the `rules' for relating in space apply to time and
vice versa).
Hence we should
expect the contemporary historical experience of particular cultures and subcultures
to draw attention to aspects of God's revelation which have been/are neglected by
other cultures and subcultures. As a result Task One is important not just
for the Malaysian Church but for the world church. We may be uncovering things
about the Gospel that others have not heard.
3. Some would wish to extend the concept to include theological concerns and
insights which do not necesssarily have some clear biblical basis -
ie there is a move from discussing things which are recognisably Christian to things
which do not have that as a particular concern. The process of localisation and
what can be learnt from it also applies to pre and non-Christian experiences. Islam
and Buddhism, for example, face these issues as well.
There is a
fair degree of consensus that contextualisation of a given theology is a good idea,
but mixed feelings about how far it is appropriate to determine the content and
emphasis of theology from local needs and interests. However this hesitation probably
has as its real focus not the expression of theology in local dress, or even the
fact that different historical experiences will have different theological agendas,
but the need to affirm that the revelation of God stands outside all our cultures,
all our theologies, and all our agendas. The whole exercise can appear - an
indeed become - hopelessly adrift in a sea of cultural relativism. While this is
an occupational hazard, it is not the necessary consequence. People do local theology
anyway; the main thing is whether they do it well. The criteria for this judgement
also need discussion.
It is not so much impossible as dangerous to attempt to do local theology without
an understanding of local history. If the particular historical context is ignored
the real meaning and significance of theological expression is lost. Christianity
is an historical religion. Local theology which is attempted using faulty history
will itself be distorted, though it will still say something about people who thought
something happened and thought this is what it meant. For local theology to be of
significant quality the tasks of theology and history must go hand in hand.
However the
idea that there could be significant diversity in theology is a fairly modern one.
The Jesuits, some of whom worked hard at accommodation were also those who as the
"shock troops of the Counter-Reformation" were arch defenders of the narrowly defined
theology of the Council of Trent.
Until fairly
recently the question of local theology arose only in terms either of accommodation
or of contextualisation. It arose in answer to the question how can these truths
be expressed in such a way that they can be understood in a particular context of
time or place.
The acceptance
of the idea that behind the different local dresses there was not necessarily one
theology, but many, and that some of those `many' have a contribution to make back
into `world' theology is very recent. For long in Malaysia theology meant catechism
and obedience to the teachings of the church; creativity did not come in to it.
It is possible
to blame missionaries for this, and in terms of responsibility it is difficult to
do anything else. However it is also important to say that we are all children of
our time, and missionaries were and are no exception. As long as the common idea
of what theology was, and this was both a Catholic and a Protestant assumption,
was that it was essentially given and static, and at most we could talk about contextual
expression of what was given, then a major component of what we now understand by
local theology simply did not conceptually exist.
I am not sure
we should talk of blame when somebody does not know something which has not been
invented! It was the nature of the case that it took time for people to realise
that the theological formulations they wished to translate into other cultures were
themselves culturally conditioned statements and were therefore themselves relative
and not absolute. This is a realisation which people of all cultural backbrounds
have difficulty bearing in mind when they very strong convictions on some issue.
The most `liberal' Western Christian or Asian Christian who has strong convictions
about something will try and tell everybody about it - whether it is appropriate
to do so or not. I have heard those who are very critical of Evangelical and Western
missionaries for stuffing a Western theology down the throats of others doing exactly
the same thing themselves. I can only conclude this is human nature.
In a sense what we are talking about in all this is to do with the universal
and the particular. Christianity is both universal and particular; Christ is both
above cultures and within Cultures. We must be true to all these dimensions.
A particular
local theology has then the task of translating the universal theology into its
context; but it also has the task of discovering things within the universal theology
which other particular contexts have not recognised.
The Philippines under Marcos gave rise to thinking on the relationship of Church
and State.
The experience
of China gave rise to sensitivity on the ambiguities of missions and imperialism.
The experience
of Christians on Bali gave encouragement towards thinking through Christianity and
culture in the sense of drama, dance and the arts.
The ecumenical
movement in the West helped Western Christians to work through the theology of the
Church and the churches.
In general
experiences of War stimulated Western rather than Asian thinking about pacifism
(significantly Japan is the exception); the threat of nuclear annihilation has led
to theological reflection as to whether the medieval theology of a `Just War' is
still adequate to deal with these issues.
Concern for
the environment has had its theological counterpart.
The experience
of living in the midst of other religions has raised the question of revelation
and salvation in other faiths.
WHAT HAS BEEN THE STORY OF THEOLOGY IN THE HISTORY OF MALAYSIA?
In many cases it is necessary to remind ourselves that we are mostly just talking
about the obvious and looking at familiar things in a different way.
WHO DO THE THEOLOGIES REPRESENT?
Do they reflect the spirituality of all the people or of only some. Who do those
doing Asian theology really represent?
We need to
apply some of the same sort of radical criticism to those who do this exercise as
some of them apply to others. Who pays? Who benefits? When they hold American
passports and are funded from America then the dress of their theology may or may
not be Asian; but the theological body inside the dress is less likely to be Asian.
This is true whether we are talking about ecumenical/liberal theologies or evangelical
ones.
I doubt if
anyone is really taking very seriously the full range of Asian spirituality as it
is actually lived. I sense there is a reluctance to take seriously some of the very
basic aspirations of Asian spirituality without which it is impossible to understand
Asia. Singapore has been written off the ecumenical map, yet who has really taken
seriously the theology implicit in the growth of the charismatic movement in Singapore?
It is just assumed by some that it is a Western import more than a valid local expression,
but the real questions have to do with the way in which classic Pentecostal aspirations
and spirituality have found congruence with aspects of the blend of Chinese culture
and Western forms, not to mention leadership styles, found in Singapore. We must
deal with the theological aspirations of people as they are if we really are to
do Asian theology.
This exercise needs to be done not only for the Christians, but for all the groups
in Malaysia at any given point in history.
There were Christians among traders in Melaka before the Portuguese and possibly
in an earlier trading community which existed for a time well before the Melaka
Sultanate. There was no interest in evangelism, rather an attitude of respect and
live and let live. Christianity was seen as the religion of a particular foreign
community and the boundaries of the community were the boundaries of the faith.
It was a lay phenomenon with priests and a more firmly Christian environment a long
way away.
This was a period when Christianity was bound up with the political power and
weakness of the Portuguese and where opponents of church and opponents of the faith
were seen to be the same. As the 16th century developed the effects of Counter-Reformation
Catholicism were felt even half-way round the globe. Catholicism became stricter
and more narrowly defined, but also more energetic. What Catholics believe was now
set forth by the Decrees of the Council of Trent. In India and China it more seriously
faced coming to terms with people of other cultures and religions. This raised theological
questions which were unresolved. Francis Xavier was attracted by the Japanese and
by China; locally prayer was about dealing with the hazards of life away from a
supporting Christian culture, particularly recurrent crises as people went off to
local battles perhaps not to return. Faith was about survival under siege and in
the face of suffering generally. Malaya did not have a Roberto de Nobili, Matteo
Ricci or Alexander de la Rhodes.
The official religious leadership changed from Catholic to Protestant, and there
was even less concern for Christian outreach outside the community itself. At a
popular level the Catholics are able to keep their form of the faith in the face
of Dutch repression. Yet for both beliefs are static, Christianity was a given and
religion something identified with and bounded by particular communities.
Early in this period the Protestant churches of the West changed their perception
of the will of God for the Church and begin to think in terms of missionary outreach
to those who were not Christian - in other words a new theology of mission brought
about by changing political circumstances as well as by theological reflection.
This did not mean this was the theology carried by every Christian, clerical or
lay, who came to the area, but it was found among some and a growing number. There
was a loosening up of Calvinism and of the complacency which could easily use predestination
as an excuse for inaction. From the 1830s many Anglicans became less willing to
co-operate with other Christians because of the theology of the church formulated
by the Tractarian movement.
These new
theologies also had to come to terms with the knowledge of God some began to see
as existing within other religions. This experience was the seed-bed of a theology
of religions and of cultures, but it was early days, the thinking was not settled
and many different possibilities were tried out. The way in which China `opened'
to missions after the Opium wars of 1839-42 provoked thinking about Providence;
the existence of different churches in the mission field provoked thinking about
co-operation.
The theological
understanding and agenda of the missionaries was thus modified by their experience
of other cultures, religions and Christian denominations. These were Asian, African
and Pacific concerns, not just specifically Malaysian. Some missionaries were more
sensitive and thoughtful, others were less. William Milne in Malacca realised the
problems of relating to Malay and Chinese cultures, but some others were not so
open. The editorials of William Shellabear who was also fairly sensitive and others
who wrote in the Malaysia Message from 1885 would be an important source of how
the theology of the missionaries was changed by their being here.
For expatriate church leaders imprisoned by the Japanese this raised questions
of the need for co-operation and localisation of leadership. This resulted in the
decisions to found Trinity Theological College Singapore and the Malayan Christian
Council after the War (even though a decision to found the Council was in fact made
before the fall of Singapore).
We still need
to find out more about what Malaysian Christians who took over leadership of the
churches thought at the time. Along with others their confidence in the invincibility
of the British was broken, and they must have become more aware of Christianity
as a faith which was independent of the British, something which was both truly
universal and genuinely local (both go together). However this awareness had to
develop further before a truly local theology was possible. We need to remember
nobody much was thinking about local theologies at this time; the model was still
that of universal truths applicable everywhere with limited changes in local dress.
Theology was still seen as essentially given to be believed. Theological thought
is about dealing with problems inherited from the west such denominational differences
and the possibilities of church union. Western theological thought was also dominated
by the blow to Western confidence after two world-wars where the principal protaganists
had been Christian. Barth and Brunner reigned supreme. Those who talked of Bultmann
met with blank stares, though his existentialism was closer to much Evangelical
piety than either recognized.
The structures
of the church were also seen as given from elsewhere, things to be followed whether
or not they were appropriate. Some of those lax with regard to theological innovation
were anything but when it came to departure from American and British authority
structures and committee systems. D T Niles and Raja B Manikam were influenced by
Barth and worked within Methodist and Lutheran structures, but were very much aware
that looking to the future the East Asian Christian Council could not and should
not be the voice of the WCC in SEA, but needed to be a Council of local churches.
Niles was accused of being inappropriately slavish in his acceptance of Barth, but
his hymns are a reflection of Asian concerns not just language and a considerable
legacy to the world church.
With the Emergency
in Malaya, the agenda of the churches under expatriate leadership related not only
to the pastoral needs of people in a war situation, but also the evangelistic and
social opportunities and obligations which resulted from the formation of the New
Villages and the openness of the government to having expatriate workers among the
Chinese at least. Co-operation in mission led to ecumenism, but both the problems
and the solutions did not seem to have local roots. Leaders in Syrian Orthodox churches
might discuss with real passion theological battles a millenium and more ago, most
were concerned with practical and ethnic issues near at hand. We need to know more
how or whether these were seen in theological terms.
From the 1950s
the agenda for the churches moved to that of independence and greater efforts for
transfer to local leadership. Again it is difficult to think how much these issues
had a primarily theological base since their origin lay so obviously in the political
changes which culminated in Independence for Malaya and Singapore. More recently
again politics has shaped ecumenism by encouraging the formation of the Christian
Federation of Malaysia.
Many of the
theological issues that were and are discussed were imported from a world theological
agenda. This is not necessarily bad, but it does indicate it is not just somebody
else's theology which may arise in this way. These concerns included women's issues,
environmental concerns, racisim, techniques of evangelism, and charismatic gifts,
though not peace issues strong elsewhere.
Perhaps there
is a capacity to resist modern forms of theological imperialism though it is something
Christians ought to think about more. The rights and wrongs of migration have led
to some local theological reflection and the "multi" context has been a seed-bed
of neigbourology. The Christian social service agency, Malaysian CARE has a unique
concept of spiritually based community social concern and social work. National
planning for "2020" has invited and received Christian reflection.
In much of
this it is notable that patterns of leadership seem to arise out the culture and
received tradition more than out of Scripture. Much of prayer and worship is a rather
unreflective contextualisation and the theology behind it is relatively unexamined.
Resistance to the idea of contextualisation, as elsewhere, is often a form of contextualisation
that simply goes unrecognized and uncontrolled.
The agenda for Malaysian theology today. Some suggestions:
1. Some issues discussed under Asian theology have something to say to Malaysia.
Some will some will not, Asia is a big place. Some issues from other "Third World"
situations will apply and again some will not. The fundamental difference between
Asia and Latin America is that while both are religious environments (compared with
the West which is one reason why Western preoccupation with the existence of God
is largely though not totally irrelevant), and both have endemic poverty alongside
considerable affluence, one context is that of widespread nominal Catholicism, the
other is that of other world religions - Hinduism, Islam and Buddhism. Even the
Philippines which has superficially the closest historical and religious parallels
to Latin America must recontextualize the Latin American contextual theology - Liberation
Theology, before it is properly applicable locally.
2. Do not be in a hurry. Be prepared to do work on methodology - there must be
critical thinking on the how not just the what of theology.
3. Malaysian Christians have to take seriously the theological concerns of the
different components of the total Christian community in Malaysia. It is not just
Malaysian Chinese, not just Malaysian English and Bahasa educated Chinese, not just
Eurasian, not just Indian - it is all these things in some sort of balance. This
is one of the distinctive things of Malaysian Christianity and it must be reflected
in sensitivity to one another and in theology.
4. The religious and political context will continue to set some important items
on the theological agenda, but it should not set all items on the agenda.
5. The writing of a systematic local Christian theology is a large task which
requires careful and systematic planning.
6. Malaysian theology and spirituality need to be worked out in non-systematic
forms as well, short stories, novels, poetry, art and architecture. The value of
this to the Christian community cannot be overemphasized. Asia Beacon has an important
role, so has the opportunity of the building of new worship facilities during times
of relative affluence.