CRITICAL ASIAN PRINCIPLE

(Note: In 1972 the phrase: "Critical Asian Principle", was adopted as the basic perspective for establishing and operating the doctoral studies program of the south east Asia Graduates School of Theology. In 1975 at the ATESEA meeting in Taiwan, Republic of China, there was general consensus that the whole graduate school program of ATESEA to be carried out in the light of the Critical Asian Principle. In view of significance of this phrase for the work of the Graduate School, it is imperative that there be a common understanding as to its essential meaning and function. So far the Graduate School has not adopted an official statement as to the sense and use of the phrase. What follows is a personal interpretation of the Dean of the south East Asia Graduate School of Theology as to the essential meaning and function of the phrase).

As used in the circles of the Association for Theological Education in south East Asia and in South East Asia Graduate School of Theology, the phrase, "Critical Asian Principle," seeks to identify what is distinctively Asian, and use this distinctiveness as a critical principle of judgment on matters dealing with the life and mission of the Christian community, theology, and theological education, in Asia.

The geographical territory that is immediately meant by the word "Asian" in the phrase is South East Asia, since this is the territory in which the Association for Theological Education in south East Asia and the South East Asia Graduate School of Theology operate. Asia, of course, is much bigger than this territory, and so the phrase by intention includes all of what is traditionally and properly Asia, excluding however the Middle East and Pacific and Australasia.

What is distinctively characteristic of the territory? Without being exhaustive and detailed, perhaps it is possible to mention at least seven features, which are characteristic of the region.

First, plurality and diversity in races, peoples, cultures, social institutions, religions, ideologies, etc., characterize this region.

Second, most of the countries in this region have had a colonial experience.

Third, most of the countries in this region are now in the process of nation-building, development and modernization. They want to modernize through the use of science and technology. They want to develop and achieve economic growth, social-justice, and self-reliance.

Fourth, the people of this region want to achieve authentic self-identity and cultural integrity in the context of the modern world.

Fifth, Asia is the home of some of the world's living and renascent religions and these religions have shaped both the culture and consciousness of the vast majority of Asians. They represent alternative ways of life and experience of reality.

Sixth, Asian peoples are in search for a form of social order beyond the current alternatives. There is an apparent resort to authoritarian forms of the government as an emergency measure. There are efforts to revise and reformulate alternative forms of socio-economic system and adapt them to the Asian context. All this is an indication that the human issues in Asia today are of such a magnitude that none of the current ideological systems seem adequate for dealing with them. And so, like the rest of the peoples of the world, Asians are looking for a form of social order, which would enable them and humankind to live together in dignity in our planetary world.

Seventh, and finally, the Christian community is a minority in the vast Asian complex.

Now, what we want to do in ATESEA and in the SEAGST is to take these distinctive characteristic of our situation in Asia and use them as a frame of reference in making critical judgments and decisions on matters that have to do with our work as vocationally engaged in carrying out tasks of doing theology, of Christian formation for leadership and ministry, and of helping the Christian community in Asia to assume its missionary responsibility.

The characteristics of the Asian situation, which are enumerated above, raise many questions and imply many issues for us in ATESEA and SEAGST to consider. For example: What does Asian diversity and plurality mean for the life of the Christian community? What does the experience of colonialism mean for the understanding of oppression, injustice, and human dignity, and alternatively for understanding human liberation and development? How does one do theology in the context of modernization and what can it contribute to the search for a new global social order? How does one interpret and communicate the Christian Gospel in relation to alternative patterns of experiencing reality and way of life? What does the experience of being a minority community mean for the life of the church? These are only a few of the many questions raised by the distinctive features of our situation.

As a frame of reference, we wish to use the Critical Asian Principle in at least four ways:

1. As a situational principle, by which we seek to locate where we are and thereby indicate our area of responsibility and concern, namely, the varieties and dynamics of Asian realities.

2. As a hermeneutical principle, suggesting that we are to understand the Gospel and the Christian tradition with these realities. Accordingly we must approach and interpret the Gospel and its traditions in relation to the needs and issues peculiar to the Asian situation. Alternatively, we must approach and understand Asian realities not only through variety of academic disciplines available in study and research, but also in the light of the Gospel and its traditions.

3. As a missiological principle, which aims at the responsibility of equipping people with a missionary theology capable not only illuminating Asian realities with the flood – light of the Gospel, but also of helping manage and direct the changes now taking place in the region along lines more consonant with the Gospel and its vision for human life in God.

4. And finally as an educational principle which should give shape, content, direction, and criteria to our educational task in our member-schools and in the South East Asia Graduate School of Theology.

From what has been said above, it can be seen that the critical Asian principle is a way of doing theological contextualization. It is primarily a method, and a method is judged by how well it works. Unless it is put to work to produce results, it cannot be evaluated and improved or discarded. It is hoped that we in ATESEA and in SEAGST will do our theological task experimentally with this method. The time for evaluation will certainly come.

A Historical Footnote

The phrase “Critical Asian Principle” has its genesis in the meeting of the Senate of the South East Asia Graduate school of Theology in Bangkok, 1972. At this meeting, a report on feasibility of a theology doctoral program in the region was submitted for consideration and action. The report made six points on why there should be such a program and how it is to be carried out. (See report attached to the Minutes of The Senate of SEAGST, Bangkok, February 1972). Point 2 of report says, that “the degree should be Doctor of Theology, a professional degree with a distinctly Asia Orientation.” (Underlining supplied) in approving the establishment of a doctoral studies program, the senate on my suggestion made Point 2 above of the report as “the critical principle for the whole program”. (Minutes of the Senate of SEAGST, 1972, GS7208). Thus, the distinctly Asian orientation is to be the critical principle of the whole doctoral studies program. From this was born the phrase,” the critical Asian principle.” Subsequent developments showed that the phrase is critically significant not only for graduate theological education in the region but also the task of theology and the mission of the Church. []

.