Introduction

Unlike the first paper, the present paper will take an approach which is more subjective and personal. The author will attempt to speak as an Asian and from an Asian perspective, at times using Asian methods of speaking. Thus, there will be personal sharings, story-telling, use of symbols and metaphors as well as contextualized theories. This paper will explore the internal struggles confronting the Church as she engages in dialogue with the religions of Asia. It does this by means of a case-study and then extrapolating the trends to that of the wider society. It then looks at issues raised in the context of the analysis, making reference to how Asian theologians have tried to respond to some of these issues.

The story of a boy named Bok

Kim Bok, popularly known as Bok, grew up in a typical Catholic family in an Asian country where Christianity is but a mere five per cent of the total population. His mother was a third generation Catholic while his father was a Buddhist who converted to Catholicism in order to get married. Because Bok’s paternal grandfather had four wives (a common practice), Bok therefore had four times as many relatives who were Buddhist as were Christian. Bok was thus socialized into many of the Buddhist practices and worship rituals, even as his own immediate family were church-going Catholics.

As a teenager, Bok was very involved in numerous school activities during which he had intense interactions with his schoolmates, the majority of whom were adherents of Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism. Religious differences was never a barrier to their friendships and working relationships. Occasionally, he would accompany a Hindu friend to a temple for a Hindu feast, as his friend would join him for Mass on a Sunday. As far as his own religious life was concerned, Bok was a "Sunday-Catholic". He never participated in any Church activities nor did he have any special pietistic devotion. He was a nominal Christian, but led a pretty decent life.

When Bok completed high school, he decided to become a religious. He, therefore, spent some years in formation houses and studied in the seminary. The initial period was difficult since he was not familiar with the common prayers and religious observances and he also lacked the appropriate knowledge in basic catechism. He, however, worked at it and with time became quite a fervent Catholic. His knowledge of the faith grew as did his commitment to his vocation. But for every ounce of increase in his Catholic faith, he felt an ounce of burden upon his shoulders. He experienced a sense of fear and regret as he thought fondly about his numerous relatives and friends who were not Catholic. He constantly prayed for their conversion as he also frequently wrote to his best friend, Thangavelu, and shared with him all he was learning about the Catholic faith. When he returned home to celebrate Chinese feast days with his relatives, he would hesitate about lighting joss-sticks or bowing before the family ancestral shrine, something he had always done ever since he was a little child. Bok went through a crisis of sorts but was thankful for his religious vocation.

When Bok completed his religious formation, he enrolled at a teachers' college. For the first time after many years he had the opportunity once again to interact actively with Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and Sikhs. There was a small Catholic community of about a dozen students in the college of more than 4,000 students. While Bok organized the Catholic community for Bible-study sessions, he spent most of his time in association with persons from a variety of religious traditions. Many of them were fervent practicing Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists and some were also "Religious" who were training to be teachers of Islam. While still committed to his Christian fervour, Bok also began to appreciate the deep faith and commitments of his colleagues to their respective faiths. Bok then served as a teacher in a school in a small village. There was a total of three Catholics in the school of about 1,000 pupils. Bok lived in the village itself which was predominantly Muslim and Buddhist. The villagers could never understand why he was not married. All they knew was that it had something to do with his being an adherent of the "white man’s" religion. As for Bok, he saw his being in this new ministerial environment more as an opportunity to befriend these Buddhists and Muslims rather than to proselytize or convert them. He neither prayed for their conversion, nor did he compromise on his religious commitments.

Bok then had the opportunity to further his studies in the United States. It was there that he actively engaged in the study of religions. Besides reading Karl Rahner, Raymond Brown and Schillebeckx, he also had the privilege of reading Diana Eck, W. Cantwell Smith and Bede Griffiths, the latter three being scholars of Buddhism, Islam and Hinduism respectively. Not only did the studies provide him with more insights into the various religions, it also helped him to reconcile himself with the fact that his relatives and friends were not Catholic. He was now able to put into language and thoughts what his heart always wanted to believe, namely, that his relatives and friends need not be Catholic to be saved. It was, for him, a liberation from the dogmatic bondage which held him ever since he took to Catholicism seriously.

Theories to explain Bok's story

If the above story is to be made more meaningful, an analysis of Bok's life would be in order. Firstly, it would be important to look at how Bok struggled with his own attitudes towards his neighbours (relatives and friends) of other faiths. Secondly, it would be useful to look at this in the context of his own faith development and in light of his history and experiences.

Attitudes towards the "other"

An appropriate paradigm to categorize Bok's attitudes is that used by most contemporary scholars when mapping out a theology of religions. It speaks of three attitudes or positions taken by Christians in apprehending persons of other religions or generally known as the "other":

(i) Exclusivists: They have a theological perspective which regards only themselves as the saved ones. All other religions do not have the power to bring peoples to salvation, despite the good which may be contained in them. Salvation is only possible for those who explicitly belong to the Catholic faith. This model is ecclesiocentric as it believes that the Church is necessary for one's salvation.

(ii) Inclusivists: They believe that other religions can mediate salvation for their respective adherents. However, they still believe that it is Jesus Christ who is the means of salvation. As such, salvation through other religions is ultimately mediated indirectly through Christ, and the people, unknown to them, are actually "anonymous Christians". This model is Christocentric since it is Christ who brings about the ultimate fulfilment of the other religions.

(iii) Pluralists: They regard the inclusivist model as patronizing. They prefer to think of all religions, including Christianity, as relative. Only God is Absolute. All religions are therefore means and ways to the Absolute. They are different, even as there may be similar features amongst them. But, ultimately they are as different as languages are different. None, they believe, can claim superiority over the others. Persons of other religions are saved through their own religious faith just as Christians are saved through their own Christian faith. This model is Theocentric since all peoples are ultimately saved by God.

Exploring Bok's story, one can suggest that Bok started off as a pluralist during his childhood and school days. His day-to-day interactions with persons of other religions enabled him to appreciate the goodness in the religions. He thought nothing about the salvific powers of the religions, just as he thought nothing about his own salvation. What mattered to him was that his relationships with friends and relatives across religion were authentic and harmonious. As far as he was concerned, religion was a private and personal matter, and certainly had no business making judgments about other people’s redemption.

But as he entered the novitiate and was initiated into the Catholic faith, his attitude changed. Not only because he was now isolated from persons of other religions but more so because the Catholic theology which he was exposed to was exclusivist in orientation. He therefore became very exclusivistic himself, especially since he was on his way to being a fisher of men and women.

His entrance into the teachers' college, however, marked another turning point in his attitudes towards the "other". While still believing in the importance of the Christian faith, he was now forced to recognize that others too have an equally deep faith. He was not prepared to hold on to his exclusivist commitment, but neither was he ready to embrace a pluralist faith where others are looked upon as co-pilgrims in faith. In his mind, therefore, he probably reconciled this as the inclusivist would, by regarding the religions as means of salvation, but that ultimately this salvation is brought about through the power of Christ, even though those saved might not know it.

Bok's exposure to the objective study of religion in a university setting in the West was yet another turning point for him. For it was here that he had the opportunity to explore in greater depth the various religions. This comparative study afforded him the possibility of looking at the religions in relation to one another, with God as the absolute centre. He thus was able to accept the differentness amongst the religions without having to posit that his own is superior to others. He became a pluralist in orientation and was comfortable accepting the various religions as legitimate ways of salvation without feeling that it compromised his commitment to his own Catholic faith.

Stages of Faith Development

In order to appreciate Bok's development of his attitudes towards the "other", the use of James Fowler's theory of faith development might help2. A Methodist pastor who was at once theologian and psychologist, Fowler developed his theory through an empirical research integrating the theories of psychologists such as Erikson, Piaget and Kohlberg together with that of philosophers and theologians such as Niebuhr, Riccoer, Tillich and Buber. He speaks of six stages of faith and that each person's faith development will be contingent upon the internal biological maturation as well as on environmental and social factors. For the purposes of the present paper, only three of these stages will be mentioned.

Stage 3 Faith (Synthetic-Conventional): Stage where interpersonal harmony and concordance is of paramount importance. Person's need for acceptance will dictate belief and value systems. Profound need to feel a sense of belongingness to the community or group. Thoughts and actions are largely based on others' judgments and expectations. Conformity marks this stage.

Stage 4 Faith (Individuative-Reflective): Stage where the locus of authority shifts to an internal control. Person takes responsibility for own life and strives towards a self-chosen faith. A sense of reflectiveness characterizes person's life which then leads to the need to have clear-cut answers to questions. There is an over-zealous need to be absolute, determinative, decisive, and dichotomous in one's choices and beliefs. This is the either/or stage of rigidity and no room is left for ambiguity or tentativeness. Boundaries are set to demarcate "we" from "they". In later Stage 4, the person goes through a period of deconstruction and demythologizes previously held beliefs to embrace a form of skepticism. The critical and dichotomous spirit characterizes this stage.

Stage 5 Faith (Paradoxical-Consolidating): Stage where the person now restructures what Stage 4 made explicit and then deconstructed. It also integrates whatever the determinative Stage 4 previously suppressed. Person is relatively comfortable with opposing views and bipolar tensions and consolidates them into a both/and harmonious balance. Person has no need to be definite and acknowledges the importance of finiteness and human limitations. There is an active embracement of multi-dimensionality, pluralism and a sense of subjectivity. Person is comfortable with uncertainty and tentativeness and is open to the Mystery of Life. The dialogical spirit characterizes this stage.

Looking at Bok's life, during his school-days, when he was in close contact with persons of other religions, and in view of his age, personal and social development, he was probably at Stage 3 Faith. Thus, the need for acceptance by the community prompted him to conform to the larger society's religious pluralism. A pluralist orientation helped, since that enabled him to cognitively accept all peoples and hence enjoy a sense of belongingness to the larger community in school and at home with his relatives. But it was a sort of casual pluralism, marked by a pre-critical acceptance of differences and a naive sense of religious commitment. It, however, worked well for him in his context and in his state of life.

Things began to change when he completed high school. He was now at the crossroads where he needed to map out his own personal identity. He could not remain as a mere element in a salad mixture of numerous varieties. Bok was thus prompted to address the challenges posed by Stage 4 Faith. He was challenged to individuate from the larger community so as to seek his own personal faith and religious identity. He was challenged to find out who he really was and the characteristics which constitute his true identity. He thus spent some time in reflection and then applied to join a religious congregation, believing that this was the identity which fit him. Even as this was his self-chosen identity, from a psycho-social point of view, the decision was a convenient way to foreclose the rigours of an identity crisis. Instead of having to struggle and work out his own personal identity, Bok very easily jumped onto the bandwagon of an existing group and embraced its identity in toto. While he now had a self-identity, it was one which belonged to a group and not one which was tailor-made for his personal and individual self. It, however, suited his purposes well. It sufficed that he was now different from the larger society which he had come from. But Bok's choice did not seem to suggest that he had moved on to a Stage 4 Faith, even if he was initially motivated by the Stage 4 characteristics to be reflective and to individuate from his previous larger community. It looks more as if he had moved away from one large group only to jump into another group, albeit a smaller one and with a more defined identity. Instead of conformity to the pluralism of the larger community with a variety of religious beliefs, he was now conforming to the exclusivity of a smaller community with more rigid and clear-cut beliefs. While the Stage 3 spirit of conformity still characterized Bok's orientations, he was also much influenced by the Stage 4 characteristics of absoluteness and rigidity. He took on an either/or mind-set and became an exclusivist, with neatly drawn theological boundaries of the in-group as opposed to the out-group. It can be said he was at a Stage 3-plus Faith, since he was neither just Stage 3 nor had he arrived at Stage 4 yet. Moreover, his new homogeneous environment and the culture of isolation typical of novitiates and seminaries helped reaffirm his exclusivist orientation. His access to books which confirmed his attitude, coupled with the fervour of religious formation, helped nurture his dichotomizing faith.

The transition into the teachers' college and his apostolic experience as a teacher was yet another milestone in Bok's faith development. No longer surrounded by the confines of an exclusively Catholic institution, Bok had now to struggle with the pluralism which confronted him each day. The challenges posed by Stage 4 Faith again confronted him. In trying to individuate from his Stage 3-plus Faith he had to deal with his exclusivist mind-set. Aided this time by a heterogenous culture and the multi-religiosity of his colleagues and students, he was able to deconstruct some of his previously held exclusivist beliefs. He was also able to demythologise some extremist myths he harboured about other religions. The authenticity and goodness of his Buddhist and Muslim friends forced him to embrace a more inclusivist orientation. Because he had struggled out of the rigidity of an exclusivist and dichotomous faith, it indicates his having worked through a Stage 4 faith. However, it is not possible to say that he had arrived at the Stage 5 faith yet, since that calls for a genuine openness to pluralism. Thus, Bok would be best categorized as being at Stage 4-plus Faith during this phase. He no longer had an either/or mind-set but he was not ready to accept a both/and mind-set either. He, however, had the beginnings of the dialogical spirit.

This dialogical spirit was facilitated when he went abroad to study. Because he was now able to look at religion with his judgments suspended and prejudices and assumptions bracketed off, Bok embarked on an inner search to reclaim whatever the Stage 4 Faith might have suppressed. Specifically, he sought to integrate the bipolar tensions posed by his faith’s proclamation that Jesus Christ is the one and only saviour with the fact that two-thirds of humanity had never, and will probably never know Christ. This fact defied the other trend of theology which was dear to him, namely that God is a God of justice and love and wills the salvation of all. The inclusivist fulfilment theory model was no longer sufficient explanation. The decision of Bok to accept in faith that each religious tradition is true and constitutes a path of salvation in its own right, helped in his transition to Stage 5 Faith. He was now open to tentativeness and was comfortable not having the need to assert the dogmatism of his own Christian truths. Aware that religious truths cannot be simplistically reduced, he became more appreciative of pluralism, diversity and subjectivity. Not only were they no longer threats to his own religious commitments, he began to value them as parts of the glorious mysteries of life. In a way he seems to have reverted back to the relativism which characterized his younger days. This, however, is more like a post-critical relativism, which Riccouer suggests is why some call this phase the second naivete.

Bok's Story Writ Large

It would be useful now to draw parallels between Bok's personal faith development and the faith development of whole churches in Asia. Specifically, looking at the various stages of faith he passed through, one can more or less identify each of those stages amongst clusters of the Catholic population in Asia.

His school-days phase where he was generally a pluralist is very much what the majority of Catholics in Asia are staged at. Most of these are the Sunday-Catholics of our churches, where there is a certain dichotomy between religion and one's private and social life. For them, to be engaged in the ordinary dialogue-of-life with their neighbours of other faiths is more important than engaging in explicit discussions about religion or explicit demonstrations of their personal religiosity. They co-exist peacefully and harmoniously with persons of other religions, and in fact, more often than not, their religious differences are not a factor in their day-to-day activities. They are friends or colleagues not on account of their religious preferences or differences but on account of some other criteria. They are generally tolerant and accepting of religious pluralism since that is a fact of life, and having any other attitude would not serve in the interest of their need for social harmony.

Bok's religious formation and seminary years where he became very much exclusivistic in his attitude towards other religions parallels a small segment of Catholics in Asia. Many of these are people who have taken to their Christian faith seriously, perhaps after a time of crisis or some significant event in life. They are especially fervent and zealous in their commitments, at times tending towards fundamentalism and fanaticism. They are uncritically narrow in their understanding of religion and are usually unyielding when it comes to doctrines of biblical inerrancy, the virgin birth, the miracles of Jesus, depravity of the human being, substitutionary atonement, and certainly the uniqueness of Christ. They are inclined to place absolute authority in the Bible and stress the necessity of a personal faith experience in the Lord Jesus and are resolutely committed to converting the world to Christ. They are suspicious of modern theology and especially the historical-critical approach to Biblical studies and are generally averse to suggestions of interreligious dialogue. They are generally seen to form Catholic ghettos where most of their social relationships, aside from business and work, are with fellow Catholics. These are the soldiers for Christ and they are usually at the forefront of most aggressive evangelisation efforts.

Bok's college and teaching days where he harboured an inclusivist orientation has also clear parallels with another segment of the Church, probably a larger group than the previous one. These are those who have a reasonable grasp of their own faith and are reasonably committed to many of its injunctions. They, however, are at the same time very exposed to persons of other faiths and to the religions they adhere to. Because of the profound interactions with the "outside world" they strike a balance between their could-have-been exclusivist views and a total acceptance of "the other" as co-pilgrims in the journey of faith. In other words, while they would not assert that salvation is not possible without the Church, they are at the same time hesitant about asserting that salvation is absolutely possible independent of the Church. A kind of middle ground is that of the inclusivists' notion that while the other religions are means of salvation, eventually it is Christ who saves, since it is by no other name that one is saved. Many church leaders and members of the hierarchy ( aside from those with minimal interactions with the "outside" world ) would probably fall under this category. They are convinced about their faith, but at the same time they are appreciative of Asian realities and especially of the fact that the religions of Asia have much wealth and wisdom.

Bok's final phase where he was more or less a pluralist also finds parallels within the church community, albeit a significantly smaller group. These are Catholics who have gone through the phase of vigorous commitment to their Christian ideals and then later mellow on account of intense exposure to a variety of religious commitments other than Christianity. Exposure can take the form of formal study of the various religions of their neighbours or active engagements with persons other than Christians who live and preach the ideals of their religions. The witnessing power of the lives of these neighbours of other faiths usually has the potential of enabling one to take a more relative or relational stance as regards religion in general. Since one is at the same time also committed to one’s own religious beliefs, in the light of this powerful witness, one can only acknowledge the truth and goodness in the other religion, just as one acknowledges the same in one’s own. Persons on this level do not look at other religions as competitors but as allies and co-pilgrims. Partnerships and collaborative efforts to address human and social concerns are common with people who are pluralist in orientation. They are also the ones who are often at the forefront of formal interreligious dialogues.

Wrong Paradigm!

Having said all of the above, which to a certain extent has been useful and valid, it is important now to point out certain issues arising from the methodology used as well as the contents of the analysis. Firstly, an examination of the paradigm used is in order. As far as the exclusivist-inclusivist-pluralist model is concerned, numerous Asian theologians have pointed to its insufficiency. Not only does it take as its criterion for categorising people an element foreign to Asians, but it also operates from an assumption that people need to be categorised according to their commitment to a certain ideal. An illustration might help here. If in Vietnam evaluating a person's wealth according to her/his mode of transportation (bicycle, motorcycle or car ) might be legitimate, in the Vatican City it might not ( since everyone probably drives a car ). The categories are invalid on two counts. One, the mode of transportation is not a very good index for measuring wealth in the Vatican (perhaps bank account balance or the number of credit cards might be better). Two, wealth is not a good index to categorize people in the Vatican (perhaps age or nationality might be better).

Likewise, Indian theologian Felix Wilfred suggests that the use of the exclusivist-inclusivist - pluralist paradigm begins with an epistemology which gives primacy to the principle of non-contradiction, a principle alien to the Asian mind. Moreover, it is also derived from a culture which gives importance to history, where particular events or persons and their uniqueness matter. Whereas, the Asian mind is one which accepts mutuality between the various religious traditions and appreciates the inexhaustibility of the Divine Mystery. It therefore has no problem in embracing pluralism and in fact accepts plurality as the structure of reality. Next, it does not operate from an Aristotelian logic of exclusion ( either/or ) but from the yin-yang logic of complementarity ( both/and ). As such, ambiguity and paradoxes are aspects common to the Asian psyche.

Sri Lankan theologian Aloysius Pieris, on the other hand, points to the fact that uniqueness of Christ or Christianity is never the starting point for Asians when relating with other religions. Such a paradigm seems to follow from a hierarchical structural model which quantifies everything into higher or lower, better or worse. Whereas in Asia, such comparisons are alien, since people are generally able to hold more than one thing, event or person, with equal worth. Asians, therefore, have no problem in acknowledging more than one lord or saviour and more than one path of salvation.

Hence, in using the above paradigm, one keeps in mind that it is not the best and has severe limitations. Moreover, having had to transpose what might have worked for a particular culture to an Asian context raises other issues which need to be addressed here.

Wrong Training!

The use of the paradigm above was inevitable as appropriate models have yet to be articulated and systematized for use in Asia. Moreover, the author, having had a Western training himself, knows no better. Thus, while it is generally recognized that Western methodologies and analyses have their shortcomings, it is also acknowledged that at present Asia has yet to develop its own methodology and theology independent of the West. This is where the problem lies since resources within Asia are severely limited. Most of the books Asian theologians read come from Orbis, Crossroad or Harper SanFrancisco. Asian theologies have more quotations from Aquinas, Descartes or Hans Kung than from ibn-Arabi, Mencius, or Tagore. Suffice to say, Asia is still lagging behind many countries in the West when it comes to theological resources, be they books, journals or scholars. Conceding to this shortcoming, many church leaders have no choice but to rely on the West for the formation and training of their brighter young men and women. Thus, it is not uncommon to hear of leading scholars, theologians and church leaders of Asia who have had their training either in Rome, Belgium or America. This, in itself, exacerbates the problem even more, since if the best of Asian minds continue to go West for their training, how can Asia develop its own resources? On the other hand, if Asia's best brains limit themselves to studying in Asia, how would they be able to develop to their fullest potential with sub-standard formation and inadequate resources? Such, is the dilemma faced by most Churches in Asia.

Leaving aside the question of how a person's psyche can be shaped by the socio - cultural influences of foreign lands, the type and nature of theology picked up from the West is of even more significance in this discussion. Specifically, theologies oriented towards explaining and expounding concepts inherited from Judeo-Christian scriptures and Church Tradition may be rendered irrelevant when brought back to Asia. theologies developed even by the most intelligent scholar would also be rendered irrelevant, no matter how profound or insightful, if account were not taken of the insights and theologies of scholars who are other than Christians. Besides, theologies developed with no concern for the Asian realities of poverty and religious pluralism will also not find a home in Asian soil. It is sad but true that many of the seminaries and formation houses in Asia are doing just that, dishing out theologies which have little bearing to Asian realities.

It is important, therefore, that theologies even if done in the West raise questions about scriptural authority and take cognisance of the fact of the Asian realities of the suffering masses and the diverse traditions of Asian religiousness. Hence, scholars, such as the Hong Kong theologian Kwok Pui Lan, advocate a multi - scriptural approach, accepting non - Biblical revelation as sources for theology and thus placing the canons of other faiths alongside the Judeo-Christian canon. Taiwanese C.S. Song develops a theology which concerns itself not so much with "truth-talk" but with "love-talk", taking as his sources the struggles of Asia's poor as well as the popular religiosity of Asian peoples. The French Benedictine Monk, who took the name of Swami Abhishiktananda, after spending decades in India as a Hindu-Christian sannyasi (holy man), attempted a reconciliation of the Hindu advaitic (non-duality) experience and the Christian Trinitarian experience.

Unless more Asians begin to treat the realities of Asia when doing theology, the Western mind-set will continue to dominate much of the Church's thinking in Asia. And unless the Churches in Asia make room for Asian thought in their own seminaries and formation houses, the theologies of the Church will continue to be irrelevant to more than 95 per cent of Asia's population.

Wrong Cultural Roots!

An even more serious concern is the fact of the Western-ness of the Church in Asia. Bishop Oshikawa of Japan, in his intervention at the recent Synod of Bishops for Asia, raised the issue as he pointed out that the norms for Christian living, Church discipline, liturgical life and theological orthodoxy seem to be mainly Western. In fact, when the Instrumentum Laboris for the Asian Synod came out, a scholar pointed out that the entire document had numerous Western names, from Francis Xavier to De Nobili to Pope John Paul II, but it did not contain a single Asian name, save for those of Jesus and Mary!

The late theologian George Soares-Prabhu describes the Church in Asia as thoroughly Western in her doctrine, administrative structures, attitudes and forms of worship. In itself it is not so bad, but to exist alongside religions which have equally efficient structures and rich doctrines and worship experiences but which are totally in tune with Asianness, the Church might appear to some as a fish out of water.

It therefore is not too surprising that after so many centuries Christianity is basically still not accepted by the masses of Asia. As far as the peoples of Asia are concerned, the Churches in Asia might appear as no more than ghettoes of European Churches. Some of these Churches in Asia seem to give the impression of being subsidiary or local branches of European trans-national corporations. It is as if Christianity was potted and transported into Asia without the opportunity of it ever transplanting itself into Asian soils, not to even speak about gaining rootedness. In that way, Christianity can be said to be counter-cultural, but it is counter - cultural in the literal sense and not so much in its prophetic stance or witnessing effect.

Bishop Bastes of the Philippines, also at the Asian Synod, calls for a shift from an Euro-centred Church to an authentically Asian Church. The Archbishop of Nagasaki, Shimamoto, puts it even more pointedly. He posited that if evangelisation were to proceed in Asia, the European cultural characteristics have to be shed first. Another bishop called for greater freedom of action so as to allow for broader initiatives. That instead of translating official liturgical texts written in Rome, the Churches in Asia ought to be encouraged to write their own.

Having said that, it must also be pointed out that while the Church is basically rejected by the peoples of Asia, Jesus and the Gospel are not. In fact, if Jesus and the message he preached were offered to the peoples of Asia independent of Christianity, there might be a better chance that they will be accepted and become more widespread than at present. A more important mission, therefore, seems to be mission to the Churches in Asia, so as to bring about their conversion to become truly Churches of Asia. It is a mission to help the Church individuate from Western dominance and control so as to be free to map out an identity of her own, one which is fully Asian as well as fully Christian.

Remnants of a Helicopter Church in Asia

Indian theologian Stanley Samartha3 has an amusing way of describing the predicament of the Asian Church. He uses the helicopter to illustrate this. He speaks of the Church as having a Christology which looks more like a helicopter. When descending upon Asia, from above of course, she made so much missiological noise and kicked up so much dust that the peoples of Asia found it difficult to listen to the message she had to share. But despite the message not being heard, the helicopter still remained in Asia, and continues to affect the developing local Churches of Asia. Specifically, the helicopter Church had the following features.

Firstly, she came as a mysterium tremendum et fascinans. She was awe-inspiring on the one hand, but evoked fear and mistrust, on the other. Even though she was not something the peoples could identify with, yet with her power and might, she was able to wield a certain amount of control and influence on Asian soil. For instance, with her economic power and international connections, she was able to appeal to those seeking material benefits and social uplift. While there is certainly nothing wrong with that, the beneficiaries, mainly amongst the poor and especially the tribal and indigenous peoples, eventually seem to convert to Christianity. They, therefore are referred to as "rice - Christians" by the more educated Hindus and Buddhists who often bring this up as a sore point of Christian mission. It is as if the Church operates from the maxim: "your soul for our service". Moreover, the continued use amongst some quarters of triumphalistic language and the patronizing attititude of having come to save the peoples of Asia or to give them abundant life muster up a lot of anti-colonial sentiment. Besides being presumptuous that they alone can save Asia or give it abundant life, Christians have also presented the crucified Christ as the conquering Christ, a further symbol and remnant of Western imperialism. This good-news of domination, therefore, has certainly not been perceived as good news by the peoples of Asia.

Secondly, in order to operate a helicopter, people need to have the right knowledge. Therefore, precise theories and accurate information are emphasised. It is not surprising then that the Church took on a very dogmatic stance, where one's beliefs and thinking were the measure of one's entitlement to remain a rightful member of the Church. Thus the stress on creeds and doctrines and catechism, obviously learned through books. This, again, is an element foreign to the peoples of Asia. Religion, to them, is more a way of life than a set of beliefs. The emphasis on orthodoxy instead of orthopraxis makes Christianity a "heady" religion instead of a "heart-felt" one. The Christian theologian from Korea, Chung Hyun Kyung, describes herself as possessing bowels that are shamanistic, a heart which is Buddhist and a head which is Christian. Moreover, even the dichotomistic tendencies of Western thought have been adopted by much of Christian thought in Asia. At issue are the dualist separation of church from society, soul from body, salvation history from human history, all of which do not resonate well with the Asian psyche. Is it any wonder then why Christianity does not seem to appeal to the peoples of Asia?

The third factor is one which continues to awaken the most resentment amongst the peoples of Asia. This has to do with the phenomena of proselytism and conversion. In the minds of Asians, the Church's primary objective seems to be to convert as many people as she can so as to increase her little flock. As alluded to above, Church expansion is also seen as Western extension. The increase in the number of Church movements engaged in aggressive and militant evangelisation is certainly cause for concern for our brothers and sisters of other faiths. Some of the less than discreet and less than ethical means used in these proselytism efforts make one wonder if these were really followers of Christ. To make matters worse, many of these groups have blessings from the hierarchical leadership of the Church. In fact, they draw their inspiration from statements such as "People everywhere, open the doors to Christ" ( Redemptoris Missio, n. 3 ) and challenges to participate in the New Evangelisation and to engage in mission ad gentes. But most of all, they take the "Great Commission" of Mt 28:19 as their missionary mandate: "Go therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit". However, from the way some of these Christians go about evangelising, one wonders if they have ever known of the existence of the "First Commission", love for one's neighbours. Otherwise, how can one claim to be loving one's neighbour if one does not even have respect for the religion and God of one's neighbour? Perhaps it might be good to be reminded of the Golden Rule which nearly all the religions speak of, but whose quote here is from Confucius: "Do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself" ( Analects ).

Towards a Bullock-Cart Church of Asia

Samartha then goes on to speak about an alternative form of Christology, one which would probably be more welcome in Asia. He uses the bullock-cart to illustrate this. With its wheels touching the unpaved roads of Asia, the bullock-cart is more in touch with Asian realities and for it to move ahead, it has to be in continual friction with the ground. Moreover, the bullock-cart continues to move even if the driver falls asleep, and there's no provision for remote control by anyone, least of all by some control stations in far-away Rome! A bullock-cart Christianity would include the following features:

Firstly, like the bullock-cart which trudges along the dusty roads of Asia, the Church also needs to humbly walk the dusty earth in order to discover God in the soils of Asia. Felix Wilfred speaks of the dusty soil as the meeting ground of all religions. For, it is there that the realities of Asia, the landless peasants, the oppressed labourers, the starving street - children and the other "non-people", become the starting point for theology. Hence, theology does not begin in the skys of Europe or America but from the dusty soil ( title of Wilfred's book ) of Asia. The Church therefore has to be grounded on the dusty soil in order to be credible. It is in this regard that many see the colonial Church, for all her grandiosity, power and might, as not having had the authority she needed to be in Asia. She had failed to identify herself with the non-peoples of Asia. Her institutional power and wealth, even if it had contributed to welfare services, makes it difficult to come down to the dusty soil. But that is exactly what the Church has to do if she seeks the authority to function in Asia. As Aloysius Pieris puts it, the ultimate source of authority is from he who entrusted the mission to us. And he has chosen to identify with the poor as victim-judge (Mt 25), and so the Church receives her authority from none other than the poor, the non-peoples of Asia. With the blessings of this grassroots magisterium, the Church, even if she lacked the power and wealth, would have been conferred the authority to be amongst the peoples of Asia. At the Asian Synod, Cardinal Paul Shan of Taiwan was emphatic that the Church had to become "not only a Church for the poor, but also a Church with the poor".

Secondly, again, Pieris points out that the Church also needs to get her authority from the other religions of Asia. Even though the Church has been in Asia for so many centuries, she has never been initiated into the pre - Christian traditions which have long been in existence in Asia. She, therefore has to come under the tutelage of the ancient gurus and the wisdom-sages of the various religious traditions of Asia. Even if individual Catholics, bishops and theologians have done so, the institutional Church is by and large still very isolated from these religions of Asia. But, if Jesus, who before beginning his ministry, chose to submit to baptism by John, then the Church ought also to be baptized by the great sages in the Jordan of Asian religions. Of course, sometimes the temptation is to baptize rather than be baptized. But, unless the Church sits at the feet of Asian religiousness, she will continue to lack the authority and the peoples of Asia will never be told: "Hear ye him". Bishop Julio Labayen of the Philippines reminds us that "we are not the saviours of Asia", we are but "guests" in the house of the religions of Asia.

It is in this context that the Church has to be in constant dialogue with the religions of Asia and to embark on this with great seriousness. Indian theologian, Raimundo Panikkar, speaks of the need to truly experience God and Christ from within other religions. Taking seriously the affirmation that Christ is the way, the truth and the life, he therefore feels he cannot reduce Christ's significance to historical Christianity or to Jesus of Nazareth. There may be more truth about God and life than those made known to us through the Jesus of history and the Church. As such, Christians who take Christ's injunctions seriously must search for this Truth in the various religions of the world. Michael Amaladoss, also from India, adds that we already know what God has done for us through our religions, but how much do we know about what God has done for others in and through their religions? How, then, do we dare to dominate and posit that Christianity has monopoly over truth and salvation. Amaladoss suggests that we approach the other religions not so much to proclaim Christ but to discover Christ who is already present there. As such, the mission of the Church needs to shift from proclaiming Christ to peoples of other religions to encountering Christ in peoples of other religions.

Thirdly, like the bullock-cart, the Church exists primarily to serve, and not to be served. Cardinal Stephen Kim of Korea, in his welcome address at the Asian Synod, pointed to this in no uncertain terms. Trying to respond to how the Church is to witness to Jesus, the Cardinal said that there was no other way but to follow the Lord who came "not to be served but to serve" (Mk 10:45). Thus, if the helicopter Church operated from a "Jesus Saves" mentality the bullock-cart Church ought to operate from a "Jesus Serves" mind-set. Mission, therefore, is understood not so much in terms of numerical growth or Church expansion but more in terms of participation in the creative mission of God, healing of brokenness, and bridging of the rifts between humanity and the cosmos. Moreover, the Church also needs to trudge along that same road which Christ trudged along, namely service and self-sacrifice even unto death. Like her Master, the Church's uniqueness ought to lie in the washing of feet, walking another mile and of turning the other cheek. Also, following in her Master's footsteps, the Church ought to "empty herself" and "assume the condition of a slave" ( Phil 2:7 ). This kenosis or "self-emptying" of Jesus, a point also brought up at the Synod by Cardinal Shan, will be the authentic sign of true discipleship. If the Church is ready to empty herself of her power and strength so as to be in the total service of the peoples of Asia, it will be the beginnings of her walking the way of the Cross. In walking the way of the Cross, she would, in the words of Cardinal Shan, be "a suffering servant of the Lord, who shares the pain, poverty, rejection and exploitation of the Asian peoples". Such a Church, because she no longer has glory and power, risks losing membership, but would certainly gain in credibility and relevance for the peoples of Asia.

Towards the Third Millennium

As can be imagined, the sort of "self-emptying" and openness to baptism as discussed above requires a great deal of maturity on the part of the Church. It would certainly require that at least a Stage 5 Faith is reached. Without the ability to renounce absoluteness and the sense of self-righteousness, the Church would find it difficult to embrace the way of the Cross, the way of submission and the path of humility. However, considering that the Church has only just opened her doors to the outside world ( with Vatican II ) and that the Church of Asia is just beginning to understand her true self-identity in the midst of Asian religiousness, it might be unrealistic to expect growth and change to take place so quickly. It suffices that encouraging signs of growth are seen amongst different sectors of the Church at different moments in time. For now, as the new millennium approaches, one's hope and prayer is that the Church will be ever more faithful to her "mission of love and service in Asia" so that, indeed, with the other religions of Asia, she will be able to say, "that they may have life, and have it abundantly" ( Jn 10:10 ).

NOTES

1 Paper presented at SEDOS Annual Research Seminar, Ariccia, Rome, 19-23 May 1998.

2 J.W. Fowler, Stages of Faith: The Psychology of human development and the quest for meaning, USA: Harper & Row, 1981.

3 S.J. Samartha, One Christ — Many Religions: Towards a revised Christology, USA: Orbis Books, 1991.

〔source from: http://www.geocities.com/jej89/interfaith.html 〕