OCTOBER 2006

ISSUE 8 - ISSN 1448- 6326

FIDES QUAERENS DIALOGUM: THEOLOGICAL METHODOLOGIES OF THE FEDERATION OF ASIAN BISHOPS' CONFERENCES

PETER N.V. HAI

Abstract

The theology of the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences (FABC), viewed over a thirty-one year period from 1970 to 2001, has been a development of great significance for the Churches in Asia, paralleling the more comprehensive event of Vatican II in its import for the whole Church. This essay begins with a discussion of the imperative of theological contextualisation using Raimundo Panikkar’s distinction between traditum and tradendum. After a brief review of the Asian context, it presents the contextual methodologies of the FABC’s theology and highlights its distinctive features. The paper suggests that the FABC’s theology is best understood in terms of the synthetic contextual model according to Stephen Bevans, and argues that it has in fact initiated a paradigm shift, based on Hans Küng’s hermeneutical framework, in response to the growing crisis inherent in the Asian Sitz-im-Leben. The essay concludes that the FABC’s theology is a contextual theology par excellence, a faith seeking triple dialogue with the cultures, the religions, and the poor of Asia.

Introduction

For Karl Rahner the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) marked the beginning of the Church’s “official self-realization as a world Church.”[1] In his view there were three great epochs in Church history. The first one was a short period of Jewish Christianity, followed by the second, much longer period of the Church in a particular cultural group, namely of Hellenism and European culture and civilisation. With Vatican II the Church has entered into the third period where the Church’s living space is the whole world, and has begun the transition from a Western Church to a universal Church.[2] Rahner contends that this caesura or break in the history of the Church can be compared to the opening up of the primitive Church to the Gentiles, and presents many challenges for the integration of non-Western cultures.[3] His world-Church vision suggests an ecclesiology that places emphasis on the local church. In his words, “a world-church as it exists outside Europe cannot simply import and imitate the life-style, law, liturgy and theology of the European church. In all these respects the churches must be independent and culturally firmly rooted in their own countries.”[4]

Indeed, with Vatican II the global character of the Church was underscored. It emerges as a worldwide community of faith made up of local Churches,[5] each of which is involved in a different cultural and social context. Such a sense of the Church in turn affects theology and its methods. One of these is the growing need for a contextual theology that takes into account human experience and the specific realities of cultures and social changes as these affect both the life of the Church and theological reflection upon it. The more the Church becomes the world Church, the more varied Christianity will become, and the more contextualised theology will be. Christian theology is and has been contextual by definition,[6] but since the event of Vatican II there has been a much greater emphasis on a plurality of theologies,[7] and a keener realisation of the need for a contextual theology that takes into account, or even as a starting point, human experience and contextual realities as resources for theological reflection. Regional and local Churches, including those in Asia, have been developing their theologies from their own cultural, social, and religious situations.[8] In his classic work on Method in Theology, Bernard Lonergan contends that “theology is an ongoing process mediating between a cultural matrix and the significance and role of religion in that matrix.”[9] It is concerned with the effective communication of Christ’s message while such communication presupposes that preachers and teachers enlarge their horizons to include an “understanding of the culture and the language of the people they address.”[10] Therefore, theology can be defined as fides quaerens intellectum in terms of a local context.[11]

Raimundo Panikkar The FABC’s theology, viewed over a thirty-one-year period from 1970 to 2001, has been a development of great significance for the Churches in Asia, paralleling the more comprehensive event of the Second Vatican Council in its import for the whole Church.[12] This essay begins with a discussion of the imperative of theological contextualisation using Raimundo Panikkar’s distinction between traditum and tradendum,[13] and a summary of Stephen Bevans’ models of contextual theology. After a brief review of the Asian context, it presents the contextual methodologies of the FABC’s theology,[14] and highlights its distinctive features. The paper suggests that the FABC’s theology is best understood in terms of the synthetic contextual model according to Stephen Bevans, and argues that it has in fact initiated a paradigm shift, based on Hans Küng’s hermeneutical framework, in response to the growing crisis inherent in the Asian Sitz-im-Leben. The essay concludes that the FABC’s theology is a contextual theology par excellence, a faith seeking both understanding and dialogue with the cultures, the religions, and the poor of Asia.

1. From Traditum to Tradendum: the Imperative of Theological Contextualisation

Contextualisation of theology or of the Gospel is not a new reality as theology is always contextually conditioned.[15] Throughout the centuries Christians have lived and witnessed to the values of the Gospel in different cultural, religious, social, political, and economic contexts. Contextualising theology can occur along four fronts: “as an ongoing process in Christendom; at the frontiers of mission, where the church meets other cultures; specifically in the encounter with other religions; and in the interpretation of the Bible.”[16] On the second and third fronts especially, the Church has to face different worldviews and is compelled to reflect on the relationship between the Christian faith and human culture, and between tradition and social change. The Church also has to constantly review the entire tradition both in terms of content and as a historical communication. Tradition as the traditum is what is handed on, and it is not context-free. Tradition as the tradendum is what should be transmitted, in a way that addresses a particular context.[17]

Thus, in this essay traditum means the deposit of faith that must be received, safeguarded and transmitted in all its integrity. On the other hand, the term tradendum implies the duty to communicate the Christian message in a manner that is deliberately sensitive to the cultural, historical, religious and social contexts of the intended audience.[18] Traditum, therefore, refers to the what of the depositum fidei, and tradendum suggests the why and how. There is a hermeneutical endeavour within both the traditum and the tradendum. Consequently, contextual theology is an ongoing process of interpreting the traditum and the tradendum in reference to the promises, needs, and possibilities of a particular cultural situation, in creative fidelity to scripture and tradition.

Addressing an international ecumenical symposium held at the University of Tübingen, David Tracy argues that “theology as hermeneutical can be described as the attempt to develop mutually critical correlations in theory and praxis between an interpretation of the Christian tradition and an interpretation of the contemporary situation.”[19] In his view, theologians have the task of “rendering as explicit as possible an interpretation of the central Christian message for a concrete situation …”[20] Each theologian, he contends, must “interpret both ‘constants’ (the ‘present world of experience in all its ambivalence, contingency and change’ and the ‘Judaeo-Christian tradition, which is ultimately based on the Christian message, the Gospel of Jesus Christ’).”[21] Following Tracy’s suggestion, traditum refers to the Judaeo-Christian tradition whose core is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, while tradendum is concerned with transmitting the Gospel faith in the present world of experience in all its ambivalence, contingency, and change.

Theologising, therefore, requires contextualising the gospel by taking into account the cultural, historical, political, and social contexts in which people live and experience the transcendent. It is not simply the case of id quod traditum est, id quod traditur. It is clear then that contextualisation is both an essential condition for theological thinking,[22] and an imperative for theological integrity.[23] This is particularly true in contemporary Asia. This vast continent is a mosaic of cultures and religions, as well as being, at times, a theatre of bloody conflicts in the midst of the massive poverty of its population. In this context, the FABC has endeavoured to draw on the fountain of traditum, and search for a tradendum to communicate to the Asian people. To understand and promote this process, let us now turn to the works of Stephen Bevans.

Models of Contextual Theology according to Stephen Bevans

Stephen Bevans describes contextual theology as the process of doing theology that takes into account four factors: the spirit and message of the gospel, the tradition of the Christian people, the culture in which one is theologising, and social change in that culture, whether brought about by Western technological progress or the grass-roots struggle for equality, justice, and liberation.[24] He then proposes five models of contextual theologies, depicted in a theological map (Figure 1), and provides a description of each one in relation to the polarities of culture and social change on the one hand, and the Gospel message and Christian tradition on the other.[25] The relative position of each model is determined by its leaning toward either of these two poles. Their use is also determined by the different ways they combine the four factors present in any contextual theology. It should be noted that Bevans does not consider that these models are mutually exclusive; nor do they constitute five different paths to contextual theology.[26] Keeping this in mind, let us take up each in turn.

Figure 1.

The translation model is the first and most conservative of the five. It places more emphasis on fidelity to the theological sources of scripture and tradition in its insistence that the message of the gospel is unchanging.[27] Its presupposition is that the essential message of Christianity is supracultural. Proponents of this model tend to distinguish between the kernel of the gospel and the husk of culture: an essential, supracultural Christian message can be separated from a nonessential, disposable cultural expression.[28] The contextualising process starts with stripping the Christian message from its cultural wrappings, usually its Western cultural husk. Once the pure gospel is identified, it can be rewrapped, as it were, in a particular cultural husk for communication to the intended recipients. In this approach, culture plays an ancillary role, subordinate to the unchanging Gospel message. Hence any conflicts between the values of the gospel and those of the cultures will be resolved in favour of the Gospel values which must be preserved. The Gospel in this view is the judge of all cultures, which are vehicles of the Gospel message. Thus the model presupposes that revelation is culturally free; that the Christian message brings something that is totally new into a culture; and that all cultures inherently have the same basic structures.

The anthropological model, on the other hand, takes human culture as the starting point.[29] It focuses on the validity of the human as the place of divine revelation as a theological locus on a par with the other sources of scripture and tradition. This model is primarily concerned to preserve and promote an authentic Christian cultural identity. To this end, it emphasises the dignity of the human person, the structure of human community, and the value of culture in its use of anthropological insights. In this regard, God’s revelation is viewed not as a separate supracultural message but as a stimulus to meaning and value found in the midst of human life, and in the relationships that constitute social existence. The anthropological model has a creation-centred orientation. It acknowledges God’s presence as revealed in the different cultural contexts, which affect both the content, understanding, and presentation of the word of God.[30] Necessarily, this model is also opened to insights gleaned from interreligious dialogues as material from which to develop a culturally sensitive theology.

Thirdly, there is Bevans’ praxis model of contextual theology.[31] It highlights the importance of social development, for the interpretation of the Gospel and articulation of faith cannot be politically or economically neutral. It is especially associated with political theology, particularly the theology of liberation,[32] in the recognition that God’s saving action is at work not only in the matrix of culture but also in the dynamics of history. Revelation is therefore related to the recognition of God’s presence in history, in social, economic and political structures, in the struggle against every form of oppression, as in the events of everyday life. The truth of the Gospel is not primarily on the level of theory, but in the praxis of historical conduct. In contrast to the previously elaborated models, this model is concerned with the promotion of cultural and social change. In this sense, all believers, not merely theologians, are engaged and called to know the truth by doing it.[33] We know God best by doing God’s saving will, and by uniting ourselves with his saving action.

A fourth model, which Bevans calls synthetic, aims to incorporate the best insights of the three previously described models.[34] As the “both/and” process, it is intent on keeping the integrity of the traditional message, and at the same time, taking seriously culture and social change. In a creative and dynamic dialectic, it promotes an ongoing dialogue between faith and cultures by accepting that every culture or context, though unique in its way, still contains elements common to all. Dialogue, complementarity, and transcultural communication are the key factors.

Bevans’ fifth model is described as transcendental.[35] Its focus is not on the content to be articulated but on the articulating subject. Genuine theology is possible only when it emerges from authentically converted subjects, from those who allow God to touch and transform their life. Thus, the starting point of this model is transcendental as it shifts from the world of objects to the world of subjects into the interior world of human persons in their conscious experience of both God and themselves. In this way, theology is a process of self-objectification, rather than a detached objective content. The believing and knowing subject is intimately involved in determining reality. This model presupposes the universal structure of human knowing and responsibility. Consequently, it enables the Christian to come to self-appropriation in the light of God’s Word, within the larger world of human experience. In this sense, the best agents of contextual theology are those who have been radically transformed in their deepest subjectivity, as they live and act in their differing religious and cultural contexts.

According to Bevans, each of the above five models is valid. Collectively, they offer a range of methodological options for theologising. Each model will operate more adequately within certain sets of circumstances. Underlying this flexible commitment to contextual theology is the recognition that theological pluralism is desirable in a world of cultural differences, especially in Asia, home to a multitude of cultures and religions. Theology is after all an interpretation of the Gospel for the Church’s life in society, and this is what the FABC has endeavoured to do in the particular context of Asia. The following section will provide a tour d’horizon of the Christian Church in the Asian context.

2. The Asian Context: Realities, Issues, and Challenges

FABC Most of the statements issued by the FABC begin with a discussion of the contextual realities in Asia.[36] Together these documents depict Asia as a continent of change and crisis, pregnant with difficulties but also showing increasing signs of hope. Right from its first meeting in 1970, prior to the official establishment of the FABC, the Asian bishops observed that Asia, a continent of ancient cultures and religions, home to “almost two-thirds of mankind,” is marked by poverty, and scarred by war and suffering.[37] Nearly 60 percent of its people are under twenty-five years of age.[38] With the demise of colonialism, Asian nations have endeavoured to seek and affirm their identity, and the poor masses have expected a better life for themselves.[39] The first plenary meeting of the FABC (1974) recognises that there is a “swift and far-reaching transformation,” in Asia, a continent “undergoing modernisation, social change, secularisation and the breakup of traditional societies.”[40] In the Second Plenary Assembly (1978) the bishops express a concern that the modern world threatens traditional values and this situation brings to the Church a true crisis.[41] In the following Plenary Assembly (1982) they see signs of hope and signs of the presence and action of the Holy Spirit.[42] The Fourth Plenary Assembly (1986) stresses the need to confront “the dark realities in the heart of Asia” which are associated with “misguided and selfish power politics,” and it highlights the plight of the youth and women.[43] It affirms that “the Asian family is the cellular receptacle of all Asia’s problems, poverty, repression, exploitation and degradation, divisions and conflicts.”[44] The Fifth Plenary Assembly (1990) raises concerns at the change caused by globalisation, continuing injustice, discrimination against women and the bleak future of young people.[45] The Sixth Plenary Assembly (1995) begins with a quick scan of Asian realities, retrieving the analyses of previous plenary assemblies, this time emphasising “whatever threatens, weakens, diminishes, and destroys the life of individuals, groups or people.”[46] Finally, in the Seventh Plenary Assembly (2000) the Asian bishops review in broad strokes problems associated with economic globalisation, authoritarian states coupled with rampant corruption, the rise of fundamentalism, the deterioration of the environment, and the increasing militarisation of societies.[47]

Despite all the dark realities signs of hope are emerging, and Asia remains “the context of God’s creative, incarnational, and redemptive action, the theatre in which the drama of Asia’s salvation is enacted.”[48] The poor and marginalised of Asia become more recognised, conscious of their human dignity, and do not accept that the situation they are in is an inevitable fate, but “something to be struggled against.”[49] There are movements for democracy and human rights, women’s movements and ecological movements, and people become more committed to ecumenical and interreligious dialogue.[50]

The Christian Church continues to face many problems, which are due to a triple marginalisation: Christianity as a minority religion in Asia,[51] the local Church perceived as a corpus alienum planted by Western missionaries on Asian soil,[52] and the universal Church seen to maintain an attitude of superiority towards other religions.[53] Therefore, the FABC is committed to the emergence of the Asianness of the Church in Asia by trying to be an “embodiment of the Asian vision and values of life, especially interiority, harmony, [and] a holistic and inclusive approach to every area of life.”[54] Only then can the Church become a “Church of Asia,” not simply a “Church in Asia,” and will it no longer be considered as an “alien presence.”[55] The Asian vision, which the FABC has developed over the past thirty years, consists of eight movements: first, “a movement towards a Church of the Poor and a Church of the Young” [Asian Bishops’ Meeting, 1970]; second, “a movement toward a ‘truly local Church’” [FABC I, 1974]; third, “a movement toward deep interiority” [FABC II, 1978]; fourth, “a movement toward an authentic community of faith” [FABC III, 1982]; fifth, “a movement toward active integral evangelization, toward a new sense of mission” [FABC V, 1990]; sixth, “a movement toward empowerment of men and women” [FABC IV, 1986]; seventh, “a movement toward active involvement in generating and serving life” [FABC VI, 1995]; eighth, “a movement toward the triple dialogue with other faiths, with the poor and with the cultures.”[56]

The challenge for the Asian Church is “to proclaim the Good News of the Kingdom of God: to promote justice, peace, love, compassion, equality and brotherhood in these Asian realities,”[57] and to “work for justice and peace along with the Christians of other churches, with people of other faiths, and with all the people of good will, to make the Kingdom of God more visibly present in Asia.”[58] The FABC has also endeavoured to motivate the Church of Asia towards a new way of being Church, a Church that is committed to becoming a community of communities, and a credible sign of salvation and liberation.[59] At the seventh Plenary Assembly, the FABC committed itself to direct its mission of love and service to the youth, women, the family, indigenous peoples, sea-based and land-based migrants, and refugees.[60] Facing the 21st century, the Asian bishops acknowledge that they are addressing “needs that are massive and increasingly complex,” and they recognise the “need to feel and act ‘integrally’,” “in solidarity with the poor and the marginalized, in union with all our Christian brothers and sisters, and by joining hands with all men and women of Asia of many different faiths.”[61] For the Asian bishops, “inculturation, dialogue, justice and the option for the poor” are aspects of whatever they do.[62] These Asian realities, issues, and challenges are the context in which the Church lives and theology is done in Asia today. In this Asian context, the Church is called to a renewed evangelisation, which requires “a new expression, renewed methods and a renewed fervor.”[63]

3. Theological Methodologies of the FABC

Since their first meeting in 1970, the bishops of Asia have consistently followed a contextual approach to theological reflection, “taking into account contextual realities as resources of theology.”[64] They draw a distinction between “sources” and “resources” of theology: Christian sources refer to scripture and tradition, and contextual realities are called theological resources.[65] The FABC has employed “the same method in its many conferences and seminars – to start from the analysis of the real situation in its many facets and to base its faith-reflections on the data thus perceived.”[66] This consistent pattern has been evident in the plenary assembly statements, the position papers, and the various institutes and workshops organised by the FABC offices. Here we will examine the FABC contextual theological methodologies gleaned from the structure of plenary assembly statements and the passages in the FABC documents that deal explicitly with the subject.

“See, Judge, Act” Process

Of the many documents issued by the FABC, the plenary assembly statements have the highest authority. Each of these statements shows how the Asian bishops confront various contextual issues and propose action plans based on their analysis of the situations, and their interpretation and application of Christian sources and magisterial teachings. Analysing the final statements of the first three plenary assemblies, A.J.V. Chandrakanthan asserts that “a conspicuous lack of methodology is a serious deficiency in almost all the statements of the plenary assembly.”[67] One would tend to agree with this contention if by methodology he means a formal, structured theological process, akin to the elaborate method proposed by Bernard Lonergan.[68] However, a detailed analysis of these statements and other documents that were subsequently issued by the FABC, shows that the Asian bishops have never intended to develop a systematic method of theology. Their approach is, and has always been, primarily pastoral and missionary. They analyse contextual realities with constant reference to scripture and tradition, aiming to respond to the needs of Asian Christians, and to interpret and devise ways to fulfil the evangelising mission of the Church in Asia.[69] They do not set out to face this enormous challenge by adopting or developing a systematic theological methodology. Instead, the starting point of their theological reflection and pastoral deliberation is the local, contextual realities, which they use as theological resources, which in turn have significantly shaped their theological method and content.[70]

The Asian bishops’ theological approach, expressed in the structure of most of their plenary assembly statements and other documents, seems to follow the simple methodology of “See, Judge, Act,” a pastoral process used by the Jeunesse Ouvrière Chrétienne movement, founded by the late Belgian Cardinal Joseph Cardijn (1882-1967).[71] In the first “See” stage of their approach, the Asian bishops use headings or phrases such as “Modern day Asia,”[72] “Some Aspects of the Present Religious Context of Asia and its Challenge,”[73] “The Presence of the Spirit and Signs of Hope in our Communities in Asia,”[74] “Challenges of Asia,”[75] “Challenge and Hopes,” [76]“A Vision of Life Amid Asian Realities,”[77] and “Issues and Challenges in the Mission of Love and Service.”[78] For the second “Judge” step of their theological process, they use a variety of phases such as “The Challenge of Discerning the Asian Way,”[79] “The Church’s Response and Resolve: To Become More Fully a True Community of Prayer,”[80] and “The Evangelization of the Church in Contemporary Asia.”[81] In the final “Act” phase of their methodology they use headings and phrases such as “Recommendations of the Assembly,”[82] ‘Our Commitment,”[83] “Pastoral Concerns,”[84] “Specific Pastoral Directions, at the Level of Doing,”[85] and “A Few Practical Directions.”[86] Besides this “See, Judge, Act” scheme, the FABC has also developed other more structured methodologies, which will be examined in the next section.

The Pastoral Cycle (1986)

In 1986, at BISA VII, for the first time since its inception, the bishops of Asia discussed a four-stage “pastoral cycle”[87] which revolves around “prayer as a covenantal relationship in faith”: exposure-immersion, social analysis, contemplation or ongoing theological reflection, and pastoral planning.[88] At this institute, the bishops endeavoured “to discover a liberative spirituality for social action among the poor and by the poor,” a spirituality that places “the Church at the service of the whole human race.”[89] In their view, “only through a deep spirituality grounded in interior prayer” can they experience God in the poor, reflect on that presence in day-to-day situations, and seek to bring to the oppressed what God challenges the Church to do.[90] Exposure brings us closer to the reality of poverty, but immersion enables us to “experience reality from the perspective of the poor themselves.”[91] Using social analysis “we evaluate the social, economic, political, cultural and religious systems in society,” and try to “discern God’s plan in the signs of the times, in the voices of our age, in the events of history as well as in the needs and aspirations” of the people.[92] Social analysis, the bishops affirm, is inadequate as a tool to grasp the whole of reality, and must be integrated with the religio-cultural reality in Asia to discern “its positive, prophetic aspects that can inspire genuine spirituality,” and not just its “negative and enslaving aspects.”[93] Contemplation, “the stage of ongoing theological reflection,” makes us “discover God’s presence and activity within social reality,”[94] while pastoral planning aims to “translate the previous three stages into actual, realizable plans.”[95] In 1995 the FABC declared that the Pastoral Cycle, depicted in Figure 2, must be used in “all expressions of the ministry of the Word, including catechesis.”[96] They dropped the term “exposure” from this methodology, and modified slightly the headings of the four stages, which now read as immersion into reality, analysis of this experience, faith-reflection and discernment, and pastoral planning and action. The four-stage pastoral cycle can be mapped to the “See, Judge, Act” process: exposure-immersion and social analysis correlate with “See”; contemplation or ongoing theological reflection corresponds to “Judge”; and there is a parallel between pastoral planning and “Act.”

In May 2000, the FABC’s Office of Theological Concerns referred to the Pastoral Cycle as a cycle of “social analysis” of the signs of the times, “theological reflection” to discern them in the light of the Gospel, and planning for the future and specifying missionary response.[97] This cycle begins with “our faith in Jesus Christ, the experience of that faith in prayer and in the covenant relationship that we share with our Christian brothers and sisters.”[98] It is “a cycle which continually repeats itself and results in a theology different from that of former times, a living theology which constantly strives to discern the working of the Spirit in a rapidly changing world.”[99] Five months later, in October 2000, its Office of Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs discussed this Pastoral Cycle Methodology again in the context of formation for interreligious dialogue and simplified it into three R’s: review of experiences, observations and learning, reflection in light of histories and traditions, and responses in the context of present and existential realities.[100] The following year, at the Second Asian Laity Meeting in 2001, the Asian bishops encouraged the use of this process of “exposure, reflection and action” in the formation of the laity.[101] At this meeting, the term “exposure” was used to encompass what is meant by “immersion” as exposure was seen as a means to help Christians “to learn, to see, to feel and share in the suffering of others.”[102] By interpreting the Pastoral Cycle Methodology as a three-phase process in the last three interpretations, the Asian bishops have clearly opted for a simplified methodology that fits in with the “See, Judge, Act” process, a framework that they have effectively applied in structuring most of the final statements of their plenary assemblies.[103]

The “ Mission Process” (1990)

At the Fifth Plenary Assembly in 1990 the Asian bishops declared that their reflection on Asia’s realities in the light of their mission of evangelisation [italics mine] has led them to realise “the enduring validity of a process of: (a) dialoguing with the realities of Asia from within; (b) discerning the movement of God’s Spirit in Asia; and (c) translating into deeds what the Spirit bids us to accomplish (italics in the original).”[104] For them, this process has to be the general approach for their total response as Church in Asia.[105] We call this process the “mission process” as the bishops would later emphasise the use of this methodology of “dialogue, discernment and deeds” in the context of Christians as the evangelising and liberating force in the struggle for fullness of life,[106] or the explication of this process of “Dialogue-Discernment-Deeds” as “Dialogue with the World of Asia and Discernment as Church in the light of the Gospel” leading us “to be a Prophetic Church.”[107]

Figure 2 provides a graphical summary of the main theological methodologies of the Asian bishops. It highlights our argument that it is the “See, Judge, Act” process that underlies their theological and pastoral reflection. Other methods and insights, such as the Asian Integral Pastoral Approach and the discussion on the work of theology in Asia, are also discussed in this section as they provide further clarification and amplification of the FABC’s theological methodologies.

Figure 2.

The “Communion Process”: Asian Integral Pastoral Approach (1993)

The Asian Integral Pastoral Approach (ASIPA) came into being in 1993 at a Consultation sponsored by the FABC’s Office of Human Development and Office of Laity.[108] It is not a theological methodology, but a pastoral process that seeks to promote a new way of being church, a participatory church envisioned and encouraged by the FABC during its Fifth Plenary Assembly meeting held in 1990.[109] The bishops’ vision, articulated at this assembly, is that the Church in Asia will have to be “a communion of communities, where laity, religious and clergy recognise and accept each other as sisters and brothers,” and “a participatory Church where the gifts that the Holy Spirit gives to all the faithful – lay, religious, and cleric alike – are recognised and activated, so that the Church may be built up and its mission realized” (italics in the original).[110]

ASIPA is “Asian” because it seeks to implement the FABC’s vision and to face the realities of the Asian peoples.[111] It is “integral” in terms of content, collaboration of different pastoral agents, and coordination of structures at different levels. With regard to content it includes “standing up against injustice,” “ecumenical interreligious dialogue,” “direct proclamation of the Gospel,” “active participation of the laity,” “the quest for integrity of creation,” “deepening the faith,” “aiming at small Christian communities,” “forming of communion of communities,” [and] “centered on the Presence of the Risen Lord.”[112] It is “pastoral” in that it aims to implement “the vision of the new way of being church,” involving “the participation of the entire community” and “a new style of leadership which will be an enabling and animating one.”[113] ASIPA is both an “approach” and a concrete realisation of the vision of a participatory church. It is also a “community building approach” which awakens the laity at the grassroots level “to discover their common mission and realise their social responsibility.”[114] For the FABC, ASIPA is a useful methodology that helps basic ecclesial communities to grow and develop, and as such, it is an indispensable tool in fostering an ecclesial communion marked by authentic participation and coresponsibility.[115] Therefore, we venture to refer to it as a “communion process.”

Theology as Service to Life (1994 & 2000)

In 2000, the FABC’s Office of Theological Concerns (OTC) issued a lengthy document on theological thinking in the Asian context,[116] stating that “it is rather a continuation of the tradition of the Church, a living tradition which today in Asia experiences an encounter with other Asian religious traditions and Asian cultures.”[117] It discusses the question of pluralism, provides an overview of “traditional Christian theological methods in the east and the west,” considers the resources used by Asian theologians to develop an Asian theology, investigates the nascent Asian biblical hermeneutics and methods of interpreting the scriptures of other religions in Asia, and finally reviews “the question of the use of symbol, narrative, and myth in the Asian religious traditions.”[118] The document aims “to shed some light on the emerging theological methods used by Asian theologians,” and not “to define ‘An Asian Method of Theology’.”[119] It mentions briefly “the methods of theological reflection” employed by the FABC.[120] These methods display a consistent pattern in the thinking of the Asian bishops, who consider contextual realities as resources of theology, embodying and manifesting the presence and action of God and His Spirit. Using these resources has become integral to their thought process, and as a result introduced a significant change in their theological methodologies. In 1994, in a statement issued by their Theological Advisory Commission, they assert that theology in Asia is “more than faith seeking understanding but faith fostering life and love, justice and freedom.”[121] This theology is first and foremost “a service to life.”[122] For them, theology must become “a dynamic process giving meaning to and facilitating the Asian journey to life,”[123] by starting from below, “from the underside of history, from the perspective of those who struggle for life, love, justice, and freedom.”[124] Asian theology, they insist, has to “reflect systematically on themes that are important to the common journey of life with other peoples in Asia, to the life of Christians and their churches in Asia, and to the work of the Asian Episcopal conferences.”[125] Theology, in this way, becomes “part of the process of becoming and being Church in Asia.”[126] It is, according to Vietnamese American theologian Peter C. Phan, “essentially ecclesial” in the sense that it is “at the service of the mission of the church.”[127] The salient features of this theology and its Asian way of theologising will be taken up in the next section.

4. Characteristics of the FABC’s Contextual Theology

There is no doubt that readers of the documents of the FABC issued between 1970 and 2001 will find that its contextual theology, which continues to evolve in a highly creative way in response to the changing context of Asia, is multi-faceted and very rich in content. Therefore, it is simply too daunting a task to attempt to capture all of its features. However, within the limited scope of this essay, we would like to draw out five of its major characteristics, which complement and enrich each other: (1) a synthetic contextual character, (2) a similarity between the FABC’s theological methodology and that of Latin American liberation theologies, (3) a faith seeking dialogue, (4) an approach that encourages theological pluralism and aims to achieve harmony, and (5) a development that constitutes a paradigm shift in theology.

Synthetic Contextual Theology

Stephen Bevans SVD Discussing inculturation of theology in Asia, Stephen Bevans contends that the FABC’s treatment of inculturation implies a “transcendental model” of contextual theology because in this model “what matters is not so much the content of what is written or spoken, but the authenticity of faith and cultural connectedness with which theology is done.”[128] For him, the FABC’s theology may use concepts and symbols that are not exclusively Asian, but it may still be considered as “authentically Asian” because it is the result of a “community which has striven to express Christian faith as an authentic cultural subject.”[129] This view has the advantage of highlighting the sustained efforts of the Asian bishops in their dialogue with the cultures of Asia. However, a close reading of the documents shows that the FABC’s theology displays the bolder features of a synthetic model, which incorporates the insights of three models of translation, anthropological, and praxis. First, at the Second Plenary Assembly the bishops state that the handing-on of the traditional values to present and future generations “calls for creative assimilation and ‘translation’ into contemporary cultural expression.”[130] Secondly, this theology reveals an anthropological character in that it takes human culture as a theological resource on a par with other sources of scripture and tradition.[131] Thirdly, it also shows major elements of a praxis model because, according the bishops, “doing the truth comes before the formulation of doctrine,” and “Churches in Asia should not wait [for] a satisfactory theological answer before going further in praxis of dialogue and proclamation.”[132] The bishops stress that it is “in this systematic reflection on sustained praxis that we discover what God is saying to the Churches.”[133] In short, as the synthetic contextual model, the FABC’s theology holds in balance four contextual elements of Gospel, tradition, culture, and social change in its ongoing dialogue with the cultures, the religions and the poor of Asia by way of a three-fold strategy of inculturation, interreligious dialogue, and liberation.

Liberation Theology

There is a close resemblance between the FABC’s theological approach, which generally follows a “See, Judge, Act” process, and the method employed by Latin American liberation theologies,[134] which is based on “three mediations - socioanalytic, hermeneutical and practical.”[135] In contrast to Western theologies which deal with the challenges to faith posed by the non-believer, the locus of liberation theologies is the non-person, understood as the poor, the oppressed, the exploited, and the marginalised. By reflecting and expanding on two motifs of liberation, considered to be the best translation of salvation, and the preferential option for the poor, liberation theology is not just a “theology about the poor,” but a “theology for the poor.”[136] Francis Schüssler Fiorenza stresses this point observing that “the interpretation of experience as an experience of oppression is common to all liberation theologies.”[137] Therefore, the key questions for liberation theologies are “how to proclaim God as Father in an inhuman world? and “how do we tell the ‘non-persons’ that they are the sons and daughters of God?”[138] In the context of Asia, Asian bishops seek to address problems and issues associated with, not only the massive poverty of the population, but also the plurality of soteriological religions and the diversity of local cultures. [139] Triple dialogue with these realities is the Asian bishops’ theological and pastoral orientation.

Faith Seeking Dialogue

The theological concept of dialogue occupies a special place in the mind of the Asian Catholic Bishops right from their first Plenary Assembly held in 1974 to consider issues and strategies relating to the “Evangelization in Modern Day Asia”.[140] This notion has permeated their entire corpus, and culminated in the coinage of the phrase “triple dialogue” or “three-fold dialogue” in the Sixth and Seventh Plenary Assembly.[141] The three-dimensional dialogue, social, religious, and cultural, is differentiated into four types: “dialogue of life, dialogue of deeds, dialogue of experts, and dialogue in sharing the experiences of faith.”[142] For the bishops, dialogue is, first of all, a “dialogue of life”[143] where people collaborate to promote whatever leads to unity, love, truth, justice, and peace. True dialogue has to respond to the realities in Asia where the majority of people live in poverty, and should lead to “a genuine commitment and effort to bring about social justice” by seeking “the change and transformation of unjust social structures.”[144] This dialogue is based “on the firm belief that the Holy Spirit is operative in other religions as well.”[145] As “God is present and working through the Spirit in the whole of creation,” Christians, together with people of other faiths, must endeavour to discover the transforming love of God and make it “a more living experience.”[146] There is also dialogue with the Asian cultures, as the primary focus of evangelisation is to make “the message and life of Jesus truly incarnate in the minds and lives” of the people of Asia.[147] To meet the challenges of evangelisation, the Asian bishops follow the lead of Vatican II,[148] and use the “signs of the times methodology,”[149] to discern particular challenges of the times and formulate pastoral strategies and responses.[150] For them, “identifying and analysing the signs of the times” is the task of the Asian Churches if they want to discover the path that God wants them to follow.[151] The Church, they affirm, becomes truly inculturated when it decentres itself, is catholic in its concerns, appreciates the gifts of others, is ready to “work with others for a world at once more human and more divine,” and stands with its “sisters and brothers of other faiths in confronting issues of life and death.”[152] At their first Plenary Meeting in 1974, the bishops stressed that the primary focus of the evangelising mission was “the building up of the local church.”[153] And building up a local Church means undertaking a threefold dialogue with the cultures (inculturation), the religions (interreligious dialogue) and the poor of Asia (liberation).[154] The local Church thus is called to be a community of dialogue to proclaim “Jesus Christ to their fellow humans in a dialogical manner.”[155] This dialogical model, for the FABC, is “a new way of being Church”[156] in a continent marked by a diversity of religions and cultures, which in turn implies and requires an openness to theological pluralism.

Theological Pluralism

Indeed, in Asia, each local Church has to confront a different set of issues when it seeks to dialogue with its local cultures, religions and the poor. Their starting point for reflection on Christian faith is the variety of contextually conditioned experiences, which themselves dictate a theological pluralism. Since their first gathering in 1970 the Asian bishops have encouraged this pluralism in theology.[157] In their view, pluralism is a “positive and creative sign” that “unity is deeper than whatever the concrete technical analysis or viewpoints might show.”[158] “Pluralism also gives the advantageous value of complementarity.”[159] The bishops affirm “a stance of receptive pluralism” recognising “the fact that people encounter the Spirit within their context, which is pluralistic in terms of religions, culture and worldviews” (italics in the original).[160] For them, “it is important to cultivate an all-embracing and complementary way of thinking,” as it is “very characteristic of Asian traditions” to “consider the various dimensions of reality not as contradictory, but as complementary (yinyang).”[161] They also recognise the “insufficiency of current human expressions” of the Christian faith, and “such insufficiency allows for pluralism in theology.”[162] In their view, diversity “represents richness and strength” and “the test of true harmony lies in the acceptance of diversity as richness.”[163] Harmony, they affirm, embodies “the realities of order, well-being, justice and love as seen in human interaction.”[164] They believe that “there is an Asian approach to reality, a world-view, wherein the whole is the sum-total of the web of relationships and interaction of the various parts with each other, in a word, harmony, a word which resonates with all Asian cultures.”[165] According to the FABC, “one of the serious obstacles to harmony is the attitude of exclusivity,” and “the failure to view the complementarity which exists between peoples, cultures, faiths, ideologies, world-visions, etc.”[166] Therefore, they conclude that some of the common, national and regional problems that the nations of Asia face today are due to a lack of harmony. [167]

The FABC first discussed the theme of harmony in 1984, stating that “harmony seems to constitute in a certain sense the intellectual and affective, religious and artistic, personal and societal soul of both persons and institutions in Asia.”[168] Hence, there is an imperative for a study in depth of the theology of harmony in the Asian context, which could lead to interreligious dialogue.[169] For the bishops, “scripture offers a pluriformity of models for harmony: Creation, Covenant, People of God, and Kingdom of God. Although all four models contain the dynamics of God’s presence, the Kingdom of God is the core of Christ’s proclamation and embodies the first three,” and “provides the most action-oriented model for fostering harmony within society.” [170] However the FABC stresses that “the promotion of harmony and commitment to action is not the preserve of the small Christian community of Asia.”[171] As it is a common task, Christians should “strive for a holistic realization of harmony together with others,” including the resources of other faiths to “achieve mutual enrichment.”[172] The FABC is “committed to the emergence of the Asianness of the Church in Asia. This means that the Church has to be an embodiment of the Asian vision and values of life, especially interiority, harmony, a holistic and inclusive approach to every area of life.”[173] It is clear, then, the transition from a Eurocentric theology to a plurality of theologies in an Asian context has taken place. In the process, it has started a “paradigm shift” in theology. Let us now look at the meaning and implications of this phrase by calling on the work of Hans Küng.

Paradigm Change

An international ecumenical symposium was held at the University of Tübingen in 1989, entitled “Paradigm Change in Theology”. There, in the first of his papers, Hans Küng applies Thomas Kuhn’s notion of paradigm shift to the whole of Christian theology.[174] Using the latter’s definition of paradigm as “an entire constellation of beliefs, values, techniques, and so on shared by the members of a given community,”[175] Küng discusses parallels, differences, and analogies between paradigm changes in natural sciences and those occurring in theology, and endeavours to interpret the present theological situation in terms of paradigm changes.[176] He formulates five theses, the first of which postulates that the “theological community has a ‘normal science’ with its classical authors, textbooks and teachers, which is characterised by a cumulative growth of knowledge, by a solution of remaining problems … and by resistance to everything that might result in a changing or replacement of the established paradigm.”[177] His second thesis states that “in the theological community, awareness of a growing crisis is the starting point for the advent of a drastic change in certain hitherto prevailing basic assumptions and eventually causes the breakthrough of a new paradigm or model of understanding.”[178] According to his third thesis, “an older paradigm or model of understanding is replaced when a new one is available.”[179] In his fourth thesis, Küng argues that “… in the acceptance or rejection of a new paradigm, not only scientific, but extra-scientific factors are involved, so that the transition to a new model cannot be purely rationally extorted [sic], but may be described as a conversion.”[180] His fifth thesis states that “… it can be predicted with difficulty, in the midst of great controversies, whether a new paradigm is absorbed into the old, replaces the old or is shelved for a long period. But if it is accepted, innovation is consolidated as tradition.”[181]

Küng firmly believes that a paradigm change does not involve a total break, and “in every paradigm change, despite all discontinuity, there is a fundamental continuity.”[182] He contends that “every paradigm change shows at the same time continuity and discontinuity, rationality and irrationality, conceptual stability and conceptual change, evolutionary and revolutionary elements.”[183] In his view, the tradition is not recovered but formulated anew in light of a new paradigm.[184]

In his second contribution Küng attempts to “periodize the paradigm change in theology and the church,”[185] and identifies the underlying consensus that exists in each of these periods through and within their differences in theological approaches and methodologies. For him, “several theologies are possible within a single paradigm.”[186]

In the third presentation at the symposium on paradigm change Küng explains that a paradigm develops and matures slowly in a matrix of varying social, political, ecclesial and theological factors, and that it “includes not merely gradual but also drastic changes.”[187] For theology, an important criterion for a new paradigm is the capacity to be aware of crises and to cope with them.[188]

According to Küng, “the paradigm theory is no more than a hermeneutical framework.”[189] He concludes that it is possible to reach a basic hermeneutical consensus despite all our theological differences and divergences, and that a number of different theologies can co-exist within the one post-Enlightenment, post-modern paradigm of a Christian theology.[190]

In 1970, when 180 Asian bishops met for the first time around Pope Paul VI in Manila, they described the situation in Asia as “grave crises,” and sought to discover new ways through which they might be of greater and more effective service to both Catholic communities and other people.[191] They stressed the necessity of the triple dialogue with the religions, the cultures and the poor, and this marked the beginning of a paradigm shift in the Catholic theological refection in Asia.[192] From this momentous meeting the FABC’s theological project has gradually matured and become a well-developed theology which originally started with a recognition that Asian Churches were facing a crisis.[193] This fact seems to confirm Hans Küng’s contention that an important criterion for a new paradigm is the capacity to be aware of crises and to cope with them.[194] The FABC’s theology also does not represent a total break with the tradition as its documents constantly refer to the teachings of Vatican II and papal magisterium. Küng has stressed this point arguing that “in every paradigm change, despite all discontinuity, there is a fundamental continuity.”[195] At this stage, it is still too early to assess the full impact of this paradigm shift on the Asian Churches; however, signs of this change have been identified as local Churches and their members continue to be challenged to reinvent themselves.

Concluding Remarks

This essay has discussed the imperative of contextualisation in theology highlighting the dynamics between traditum as the deposit of faith and tradendum as the duty to communicate the Christian message in a manner that is sensitive to a particular context. As a contextual theology par excellence, the FABC’s theology, while displaying several characteristics of the transcendental model, is best understood in terms of the synthetic model, which incorporates the salient features of all three models of anthropological, praxis, and translation, and hence keeps in balance four key elements of contextual theology, viz. Gospel, tradition, culture and social change. Underlying the FABC’s theological methodologies is a pastoral and contextual process, which consists in an exposure to and an analysis of contextual realities (See), a reflection and discernment in light of the Gospel and tradition (Judge), and a planning of responses and concrete actions (Act). This contextual methodology translates into the Asian Integral Pastoral Approach, or “communion process,” to address the needs and aspirations of basic ecclesial communities and lay people in the Church. Theology, the bishops of Asia insist, must be a service to life.

Taken as a whole, the FABC’s theology constitutes a theological “event” for the Churches in Asia, and its impact on the Asian Church and Asian Christians continues to be more discernible. While the transition from one paradigm to the next is not always clear-cut, there are increasing signs that the FABC’s theology, as faith seeking triple dialogue, has instituted a paradigm change in theological reflection as the bishops reflect and respond to the growing crisis inherent in the Asian Sitz-im-Leben. As this theology is still evolving, it is difficult to encapsulate it in an encompassing framework of understanding. However, it is possible to make some preliminary observations as to its major features. As an Asian contextual theology, it has a predominantly pastoral and missionary orientation, aims to build up the local Church, is liberative, prophetic, and committed to all things human, encourages a theological pluralism, and has harmony as a goal. But, first and foremost, it is both a faith seeking understanding through discerning the signs of the times, and a faith intent on engaging in a triple dialogue with the cultures, the religions and the poor of Asia. [196]