When “Critical Asian Principle” (CAP) was introduced in 1972, I was in the beginning of my undergraduate studies in theology at Duta Wacana Theological Seminary, Yogyakarta. At that time Duta Wacana was already involved in SEAGST. I remember when I started my matriculation year, my senior colleague Djaka Soetapa had graduated from the SEAGST’s Master’s program and had been continuing to the Doctoral Program in Islamology. When I was in the second year, Kosuke Koyama visited us as Director of ATSEA. One morning he gave a course to the students, and as a student I was immediately attracted by his simple way of teaching, using many examples from everyday life, such as chicken, goats and banana trees. What do you think when you see a chicken? As it was close to noon and because many of us were already hungry, we answered: “fried chicken” (which never became part of our daily menu at the hostel. At that time we received a piece of meat only once a week). Koyama smiled and explained: you see, it is your situation that influences the contents of your thinking. So it is with theological thinking. Very quickly we learn about the meaning of contextualized theology. In my fifth year I concentrated in Old Testament studies, and graduated in 1977 after writing an undergraduate thesis on the question of myth in the Old Testament, with reference to texts referring to creation texts in Genesis. From there I studied the context of Ancient Near East as the context of Israel. In 1982, close to the end of my doctoral studies in Glasgow (1978-1982), I wrote a small book on the relationship between present-day contextualization in Indonesia and the “contextualization” done in Ancient Israel. For the title I borrowed a title of Choan Seng Song’s article, “From Israel to Asia”[1]. If it were not for ATESEA, I would probably end up as a traditional biblical scholar, trapped in the past context of ancient Israel, with no interest at all in the present context of Asia in general, and Indonesia in particular. What is CAP? In 1975 it was decided that the whole program of SEAGST-ATESEA should be implemented with CAP. But what is CAP? In the SEAGST-ATESEA Handbook of 2003-2005 the meaning and function of this phrase is described, based on the “personal interpretation” of the Executive Dean, which must be Rev. Dr. Emerito Nacpil[2]. CAP describes seven traits which summarize the characteristics of Asia: 1.There is plurality and diversity in races, peoples, cultures, social institutions, religions etc. 2. Most of the Asian countries have had a colonial experience. 3. Most of the Asian countries are striving for modernization, social justice, economic growth and self-reliance. 4. People are searching for an authentic identity and cultural integrity. 5. In Asia there is the world living religions. 6. There is a longing for social order beyond the current alternatives, and 7. The Christian community is a minority in the vast Asian complex. These seven characteristics form a frame of reference in making critical judgments and decisions. But when it is used as a frame of reference, there are at least four ways in which CAP can be implemented: 1.As a situational principle, 2.As a hermeneutical principle, 3.As a missiological principle, and 4.As an educational principle[3]. The problem is of course how to see the relationship between the seven characteristics and the four principles. In the description there is no explanation about this relationship. In the next paragraph I will try to draw a picture of how these principles could be applied in the Program, without loosing sight of the seven characteristics. After 33 years it is interesting to see whether the seven characteristics are still valid for to-day. We are members of ATESEA, which has the context of South-East Asia rather than Asia. Most of the countries of South-East Asia are members of ASEAN (Association of South-East Asian Nations), and the interests of ASEAN are not always in harmony with the interests of other Asian countries such as China, Japan and India. So why are we referring to Asia? For many of us Asia is too vast, and we need to focus on our immediate context. The term “Asia” and “Asian” should then be changed with the term “South-East Asia”, and “South-East Asian”. During the course of 33 years many of the South-East Asian countries were under the yoke of military dictatorships. Now most have become democracies. But these democracies have to deal with the acute social problems which under the military dictatorships had been swept under the carpet. The region of South-East Asia today seems to have undergone a severe identity crisis. It was torn by religious-ethnical conflicts, and as a result many resort to acts of terror. Many point at “globalization” as the cause of this identity crisis. In the seventies the term “globalization” has not come into being, but in the theological circles the term “contextualization” has gained ground. At that time we used the term “secularization” in relation with strive for modernization. I remember how as students we have to learn to distinguish between “secularism” and “secularization”, where the first is to be viewed negatively as a product of ideology, while the second is to be regarded positively as a historical process, which is encompassing the whole world. Just as the first and the second world had been through a process of secularization, becoming “secularized”, so the third world is now under the same process, and that is why Christians in South-East Asia should identify their faith with secularization, and look at culture in a more dynamic way as involving transformation of human values. I remember that Shoki Coe and company in the TEF relate contextualization with this dynamic idea of culture rather than indigenization, which according to them is a nostalgic looking back to the revival of a no longer relevant traditional way of life. Implicitly, they also acknowledge that many, or even the majority of Asian peoples are still staunch supporters of traditional ways of life, and that they belong to the traditional non-Christian religions and beliefs. I wonder why “secularization” is not put in a line with “modernization” in the seven characteristics above. But if secularization is a challenge to traditional ways of life, then it means that people of South-East Asia are not having a recent identity crisis, but has been undergoing a long process of identity crisis, firstly with secularization and secondly, with globalization! For many in South-East Asia, globalization is seen as an extension of secularization, with the difference that in globalization, economics rather than technology seems to be the deciding element. In the seventies and in the eighties, technology and industrialization bring economic development to the South-East Asian countries, but it is economics that bring down the newly gained prosperity into ruins in the nineties, which we termed as “economic crisis”. I am aware we are now living in the beginning of 21st century, and for most of South-East Asians, this economic crisis is now history. But I am writing as an Indonesian, and in Indonesia we feel that we are sailing from one crisis to another. We use the word terpuruk for this situation, which means “plunged” because of the economic crisis triggered by economic factors, but this economic crisis in turn triggered other kind of crises. Still, it is the dynamics of dealing with globalization that makes the other countries of South-East Asia able to overcome their difficulties, and I think it is still valid to say that now globalization is the most important term that should be included in the characteristics of South-East Asia. Yet globalization is not a neutral term. The other South-East Asian countries are able to overcome their economic difficulties by aligning themselves with the neo-liberal policies of the Northern part of the world. However, by doing this they lost to a certain extent the capability to pursue their own independent policies and to fulfill the aspirations of their own people. The economy has been revived, but the country becomes entangled in the web of a global economic system, which to-day are criticized by many as being insensitive to the needs of the poor, who are mainly living in the Southern part. And so, reference to one of the characteristics of CAP that many Asian countries have had a colonial experience should be continued. But it is now disguised in the form of economic domination (many in Indonesia use the term “neo-colonialism” for this economic domination). This economic domination is one of the main factors that keep the identity crisis going in an ever increasing way. Because people are weak in economic terms, they cannot withhold the flood of global mono-culture, which is symbolized in huge shopping-malls in every cities of South-East Asia and in MTV (I stop using McDonald as a symbol of globalization as it was usually done, as I think that in Indonesia, McDonald has capitulated to the demands of the people who prefer to eat chicken and rice rather than hamburgers!). This global mono-culture is also threatening the plurality of religions and cultures of South-East Asia. I acknowledge that religion and culture are dynamic concepts and that in the course of time, every religion and culture has experienced a take and give movement. They can maintain their identity while at the same time show openness to the other influences. However, what is now termed as “openness” is actually a closed system which exists in many religions and cultures of South-East Asia, which is recognizable in its features. In this closed system there is apparent plurality, but in reality both in religions and in cultures we find the same and uniform expressions. I have mentioned MTV which is imitated by all the other TV stations as an example of this global mono-culture. In religion you can find this mono-culture in the same and uniform “charismatic” ways of worship. I put the term in brackets, so that you know that I am not referring to the charismatic churches, but to a certain expression which is now preferred against all the others, and could be seen not only in Christianity in South-East Asia, but also in the outward expressions of other religions as well. All the seven characteristics above can be retained, as long as we put globalization as the background. If like Karl Popper in his book on knowledge states that we cannot just observe reality, we can only observe problems which form reality[4], then it means that globalization is our problem, which is at the same time our reality in South-East Asia. And as with secularization in the past, so we have to struggle with globalization in the present. It is not just a matter of accepting or refusing globalization. On one hand we welcome a true ecumenical spirit of openness which motivate people to come together and try to build communities, which can help each other in achieving social justice and economic prosperity, on the other hand we have to be critical against globalization as a closed global system of domination, and its effort to push a global mono-culture upon the South-East Asian countries. A Note: during the discussions concerning my presentation, Rev. Professor Lo Lung Kwong proposed that since I refer to globalization in relation to contextualization, then it is better to say that glocalization is one of our perspectives. We are concerned with both the global and the local. I accept his proposal. The implementation of CAP in our programs At the end of the explanation of CAP in our Handbook, Dr. Nacpil added a “historical footnote”. He reported that in the meeting of the Senate of SEAGST in Bangkok, 1972, the members of the Senate on his suggestion made CAP as the critical principle of the whole program. But the context of the discussion is the doctoral studies program. However, the “Note” at the beginning of the explanation refers to the ATESEA meetings in Taiwan, where there was general consensus that the whole graduate school program of ATESEA should be carried out in the light of CAP[5]. I understand this as to include things other than the doctoral studies program. So our problem is to see how to implement CAP in our doctoral studies program and the other programs as well. What I attempt here is just concerning the doctoral studies program. First we have seen that there are seven characteristics of Asia, which form the background of four principles. As I have stated above, there is no explanation how to relate the seven characteristics with the four principles. Is the seven characteristics pressed to become four principles, or is it the background for the four principles? I propose to see globalization as the background for the seven characteristics, so maybe the four principles can be seen as a kind of framework for the seven characteristics. They are 1. Situational Principle in which we place ourselves in our situation and realize our responsibility towards that situation, 2. Hermeneutical Principle in which we try to understand the Gospel and the Christian tradition within the situation of Asia, and how the Gospel evaluates that situation, 3. Missionary Principle in which we prepare ourselves for a commitment towards Christian Mission, and 4. Educational Principle, in which we try to give form, content, direction and criteria towards our curricula. These four principles are well-known, and if the decisions of 1972 and 1975 are to be heeded, then every doctoral thesis’ writing in SEAGST-ATESEA should follow the procedures of these four principles. But you can not find this procedure in our Handbook! Someone who wants to write a thesis has to work in four areas of concentration, but these areas of concentration do not follow the four principles of CAP. The context of Asia is taken into account but in a very general way, and if you see how a biblical doctoral thesis is to be written, then the areas of concentration described there are: 1. Principles of biblical interpretation in an Asian setting, 2. Either God’s people in the Old Testament or God’s people in the New Testament, 3. Either major theological themes in the Old Testament or New Testament in an Asian setting or selected themes of significance for the Asian church, such as: covenant theology; the messianic hope; the mission of the people of God; the resurrection of Jesus etc, and 4.A selected area from another field. From these descriptions of areas of concentration you can see that only two papers have to deal with the Asian setting or at least have the background of an Asian setting, and that the titles of these two (and the other two) do not have to relate to one of the four principles of the CAP[6]. So here by using my imagination, I try to perceive how a doctoral thesis should be written in the light of CAP. As a biblical scholar I can only give an example of a biblical thesis, say, “The Law and Wisdom in the book of Amos: an exegetical-theological study”. Before this thesis is to be written, the writer has to prepare four papers which are related to the four principles. The first paper is an argumentation why the writer chose that kind of topic in his/her present situation. Maybe in his/her situation, people tend to veer into a legalistic tendency, which place importance to the application of the law and many other precepts (“a state of law and order”), or is the situation totally in the other direction, where people tend to disregard laws and regulations by placing emphasis on the wisdom of the people (“folk-wisdom”). The first paper has to show the writer’s strength in articulating which tendency is dominant in his/her situation, and how a way out is proposed from these two extreme positions, of course by imagining, what if Amos were present in the described situation. The second paper is related to hermeneutics. The problem is, of course, how to understand the term “hermeneutics”. Some view it as the framework, from which we try to understand the biblical texts and other texts, and from there also how to understand all the contexts, whether it is the context of the text or our present situational context. This framework consists of the gist of a system or a set of inherited doctrinal teachings. If the writer comes from a Calvinistic denomination, then the colour of his/her hermeneutical explanations is understandably Calvinistic. If his/her inheritance is the Pentecostal-charismatic teaching, then his/her hermeneutics will be characteristic of that denomination. In the description of the second principle in our Handbook there is no explanation on what is meant by “the Christian tradition”. As you can see from my description, I understand it as being related to the Christian denominational inheritance which we in Asia receive from the Western missionaries. If this understanding is followed, then the writer has to explain that the problem of relation between the Law and Wisdom is also related to the interests of denominational teachings. If the writer is someone who is used to the freedom of a charismatic ways of worship, then he/she will stress that Wisdom is essential in the life of the Church, and that Wisdom does not come from dead letters but from the Spirit which enlivens. Who is Amos? Clearly he is a charismatic one. That is why he clashes with Amaziah, the head of the synod in the cathedral church of the capital city… If the writer is a staunch Calvinist, then he/she will place emphasis on the Law as a fence, which prevents liberty and freedom from becoming manipulated to achieve self-interest. Who is Amos? He is the first prophet to be critical towards the societal life of his own religious people, and his critic is directed towards those who tend to disregard the Law. Of course, you can remind me that this second principle is about hermeneutics which is related to biblical texts and not to denominational teachings, but I expressly start from discussing denominational teachings, to show that our tendency to say that this is “biblical” and that is “unbiblical” is actually a device to set aside discourses which are not in line with our denominational teachings. If someone is to write a biblical thesis, then he/she has to try hard to write a real biblical theology thesis, and not a Christian dogmatic thesis, but disguised as “biblical theology”. By making a distinction between a real biblical theology and Christian dogmatic theology, I have broadened the meaning of hermeneutics above. Hermeneutics is not only a matter of how to understand a text through a certain framework of theological thought or even a model of interpretation, but is concerned with various frameworks of theological thoughts, various models of interpretation, and how the text is placed in dialogue with other texts (“intertextuality”). In our courses on hermeneutics this is called our “filters”, and it is these filters that makes some texts clear to us, but then they also makes some texts unclear to us, or makes us simply overlook the texts. Because most of the doctoral students are ministers and seminary teachers, then they all have their “filters”. In itself it is not a problem. The problem precisely appears, when we deny that these “filters” exist in our minds. If these theological “filters” are acknowledged, then as Hans-Georg Gadamer said in his book on hermeneutics, we can move from “prejudice” (which is not a negative term in his book) to “understanding”[7]. It includes our effort to overcome our prejudices. At least we are able to control them to a certain extent so that the text becomes a little bit free from our previously applied theological meanings. It does not mean that there is no theology in the Bible. It depends on what we mean by “theology”. If theology is something uniquely Christian, then we cannot automatically applied the word in discourses on biblical texts which are pre-Christian (texts which we regard as “the Old Testament”). Jewish biblical scholars are showing their exasperation with Christian biblical scholars who, according to them, are talking about “the theology of Amos”, “the theology of P”, “the theology of the book of Chronicles”, “Exile theology” etc. The Jewish people do not produce theology but jurisprudence[8]. It is also common for the Muslim scholars to state the same. But I also notice that others are starting to use the term “theology” in explaining about their teachings. Some Indonesian Muslim theologians are using it in their writings. And so I think now it is not a term which is exclusively Christian. Actually Plato already used it in Republic![9]. And so even if the Jewish people produce only jurisprudence, I do not think that it should be placed in antithesis with theology. The language maybe jurisprudential, but the content could be still, theology! On the other hand, I am aware that there are Christian theological treatises, which employ jurisprudential style… And so we can say that not only there is theology in the Bible, but that even the Bible is a product of theology. If you call it “the Holy Bible”, then it is clear that you are talking about the result of a long historical process of doing theology with the texts. The third paper is concerned with the Missiological principle. The one who is going to write a thesis with the theme of Law and Wisdom in the book of Amos, has to show that his/her thesis is related to Christian Mission. But what is Christian Mission? Some understand it as a missionary spirit which is already inside the thesis writer, so that his/her thesis becomes missionary in the sense that, in theory, the thesis is attractive to people who live outside Christianity, and could persuade them to become members of the Christian community. If the writer is convinced that the dominant way of thinking within society is legalistic due to the influence of the religion of the majority (read: traditional Islam), then the thesis is offering a balance: the legal aspect is not set aside, but is put in a balance with the aspect of wisdom. In Christianity there is a balance between the legal way and the wisdom way, which is lacking in Islam. This could be a proof of a Christian advantage over against Islam. Mission is an effort to show the superiority of Christianity over the other religions (and especially the religion of the majority). Amos is a missionary who went to Bethel to show the superiority of his faith over against the religion of the North Israelites. But some others understand Mission in a different way. Christian Mission is not the advertisement of Christian way of life as being superior over against the others. Missiology has nothing to do with Marketing, and is totally different from Marketing. Mission and Missiology is concerned with the practice of Christian values and life in the midst of the world. In the curriculum of many theological schools, you cannot make a neat separation between Missiology and Church & Community Development. There is awareness of Christian identity, but this identity is lived in openness to the others and not in a closed, exclusive way. We do not accuse the Muslims as being legalistic, as we are aware that within the body of Christianity, the same traits would be recognizable. We do not claim that Christianity is a religion of wisdom, as we are aware that in all the world religions and even among the primal religions there are always sapient ways of thinking. It could be asked whether in practice Christianity is a religion of wisdom. The teachings of Paul on Jesus Christ as Saviour, seems to be more influential than the teachings of Jesus as a Teacher of Wisdom in the Sermon on the Mount. It is more a religion of salvation rather than a religion of wisdom. Of course in other contexts there are people who used this understanding of Christianity over against the religion of the majority (read: Buddhism), which is a religion of wisdom. This understanding of Christian Mission as the practice of Christian values and life could still be used in the framework of the first understanding of Mission. It is not expressly advertised but its superiority is shining by itself. But it can be asked whether you can say that your life as a Christian is superior to others. Superiority or inferiority are not categories to be applied to life. So whether advertised or not, our life cannot be compared with the life of others. If missiology is concerned with life, then a discourse on the relation between Law and Wisdom should focus on how to get a better life for our common good. If life is in danger, then Amos is a missionary who dares to challenge his own people for the sake of saving life. The fourth and the last principle is Educational Principle. It is related to Christian Education in general and Christian Theological Education in particular. What is the significance of Law and Wisdom in the book of Amos for them? Those who have studied the literature concerning the book of Amos must be aware that there is a debate on the source of Amos’ prophecies. Is it the Law, which is a religious source, or is it Wisdom, which is a popular secular source in the Ancient Near East? In the end there is consensus: although originally there might be two different sources, these two become one in the message of Amos. This consensus would have an enormous impact on the context of many Asian countries, where people cannot agree whether Education should be secular-based or religion-based. In matters of Educational policy, the secular and the religious should not be placed in an antithetical stance. God as Creator is working both in the secular and the religious realms. The prophetic ministry of Amos has both the characters of a secular and a religious outlook. If the writer is looking at the relevance of his thesis with Christian Theological Education, then the fourth principle should be related to the curricula of the theological schools. They should not reflect the workings of the Law, in which students are taught to master traditional matters in a narrow way (which is usually represented by the conservatives), but neither are they to reflect the workings of Wisdom, in which the students are taught to bypass thick walls of traditional rules (which is usually represented by the liberals). The curricula should be the result for the effort to find a middle way which could be accepted by all (although not all will be satisfied with this compromise). At the end of this discussion, it is clear that the four principles need to be explained in the full. I have to use my imagination in order to get a picture of what is to be done. But it is also clear that these four principles should be understood in a plural way. There is no single meaning of the words situation, hermeneutics, missiology and education. Although in the seven characteristics above, plurality is mentioned, it is true that in the seventies we are not yet used to plurality, which includes religious plurality. Some critical remarks towards CAP At the end of this paper, I will report to criticisms towards CAP, the first by my friend Yeow Choo Lak, and the second by my colleagues from the Eastern Indonesia Area. Although CAP is related to the context of Asia, it is strange that the term “context” does not appear in the explanation above. The first principle uses the term “situation”, but it can be asked whether context is the same as situation. After describing the four principles, the explanation refers to CAP as a way of doing “theological contextualization”[10]. But how CAP as a method is to achieve that is not explained. Yeow Choo Lak deals precisely on this point. He proposes that CAP needs to be revised “in the light of contextual ministry”[11]. A contextual ministry demands in-depth study of the context. It is necessary for theology to look for new sparring-partners such as the social sciences (sociology, cultural anthropology) rather than (Western) philosophy as it is in the tradition of Western theological education. Choo Lak also pays attention to women issues and women perspectives. Theology also needs spirituality, and on the whole theological education should endeavour for a more holistic approach. This contextual ministry should not only concern itself with the praxis of the church but also with the cultural-religious context of Asia. Theological education in Asia should breathe in a typical Asian spirituality, rather than Western spirituality. I think Yeow Choo Lak is doing two things here: first, he is trying to give explicit description of what was already implicit in the explanation of CAP in our Handbook. Second, he is broadening the explanation from being just principles to become concrete ways in responding to the challenges of the context. By referring explicitly to the women issues for instance, he brings to the surface one of the most burning issue in South-East Asia, which could only be faced squarely by using the gender perspective. I can only remind you of the plight of hundreds of thousands of women migrant workers, who in some countries in South-East Asia are branded as “illegal workers”, and because of that could be punished by whipping and deportation. My colleagues in the Eastern Indonesia Area directed their criticism towards the term “critical” in CAP. What does “critical” means? Does it mean that as Christians we always have to be critical towards our Asian or our South-East Asian context? Or does “critical Asian principle” also means that the Asian world/cultures/religions can also be critical towards us? It is interesting to see that for many of us, our existence in the world is a critical existence towards the world. That is our inheritance from the Christian understanding of Faith and Mission, which always regard the world as something that needs to be transformed. The description of the second principle in our Handbook suggests that we understand the Gospel and the Christian tradition with the realities of Asia, and that we interpret them in relation to the needs and issues peculiar to the Asian situation, and also that we understand the Asian realities in the light of the Gospel and the Christian tradition. But in my good friend’s Yeow Choo Lak’s interpretation of this second principle, he used a stronger expression, “to see how the Gospel judges them”[12]. I gather that the meaning of “critical” in CAP can be seen in various ways. First, it is meant to make us aware that theological education and teaching methods in member schools of ATESEA should start from the context of Asia or South-East Asia. It should do precisely the opposite of what many secular educational institutes are trying to do in this era of globalization: they try to widen their wings and establish branches everywhere in the world! It is of no use to have a theological institution which is located in Asia but having a curriculum which reflects the context of Europe or America. But there is a second meaning of being critical. The emphasis is on academic activities which should always be analytical and thus critical. Many theological institutions in Asia are just training schools for ministers, and in these schools traditions and assumptions derived from these traditions are regarded in par with the Gospel. The graduates are not trained to think critically. And there is a third meaning: we inherited the prophetic tradition and also the missionary tradition from the West which tends to be critical towards the Asian world as a non-Christian world. I refer back to my description of a certain understanding of the Missiological principle, in which the Gospel is judging the Asian traditions and cultures. What I want to do is to give qualifications to these three meanings. First, to be contextual does not mean to be closed, but to relate one context with the other (“inter-contextuality”). If we want to build bridges to communicate and relate with other communities, and together strive for a better world, then contextualization is to be placed in a dialectical relationship with globalization. On one hand, globalization makes us aware of our own location, but on the other hand, it is precisely this awareness which makes us also aware of the other locations. Second, a student of theology is like other students who deal in the academic world, he/she is to be trained to think critically in an academic way. But this critical position needs also to be directed towards every theory which is regarded as universal and true. The mark of an academician is not only that he/she is open to grand-theories, but that he/she is also aware of the holes in the these theories. This awareness will prevent us from identifying our context with a certain theory. Theories are useful but they should not be absolutized. In Indonesia we say tak ada gading yang tak retak, “every ivory has its broken lines”. We have to be critical not only to grand-theories but also towards critical theories! Third, I do not deny that the Gospel has the characteristics of judgement. But we have to be aware that the Gospel is judging the world and us, the people of the world and the people of God, society and church. There are many things which have to be condemned in the cultures of Asia. The criticism of our Asian feminist friends towards the domination of patriarchy is remedial. The criticism of those who live “the preferential option for the poor” over against the structures of injustice, which result in the pauperization of many in Asia, is not without foundation. But beside evil things, the cultures of Asia and South-East Asia also has good things. And we can confirm these good things. Long ago, I wrote a small booklet on contextualization, in which I state that the Gospel confronts abut also confirms, and both are done together. My Eastern Indonesia colleagues are confirming the extended family system of many parts of Eastern Indonesia, which includes members of the family and relatives who have already departed from this world (“the Ancestors”). This system has its positive and negative sides, just as the nuclear family system introduced by the Western missionaries has its positive and negative sides. But in past, very often the extended family system is branded as being incompatible with the Gospel. My colleagues ask whether it is possible to hold on to this extended family system in expressing one’s faithfulness to the Gospel? They start the discussion by looking at three parts of Doing Theology: we will reach what we mean by “Critical Asian Principle” by struggling with 1. Our Context of Doing Theology, 2. Our Way of Doing Theology and 3. Our Substance of Doing Theology. In the first part we struggle with the context, in the second part we struggle with methodology, and in the third part we try to bring up ethical and spiritual values. I struggled together with them and in the end of the discussion we agree that our context is the main ingredient of CAP, that Context is related closely to Life, and in turn it consists of three main components, i.e. 1. Religious-cultural Life, 2. Multi-ethnic community Life, and 3. Environmental/Ecological Life.[13] As Christians we relate ourselves to these three components, and by doing that we can see both the positive and negative aspects of our Life. If so then CAP is context, and context is Life! My colleagues are not only criticizing but also proposing something. With this I end my presentation. I apologize to Sientje Merentek, Lo Lung Kwong and Anna May Say Pa for the long delay in completing this paper, but I think you understand the reasons of the delay.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Presented at the 2005 ATESEA General Assembly, McGilvary Faculty of Theology, Chiangmai, Thailand, October 17, 2005. The Rev. Professor Emanuel Gerrit Singgih, Ph.D. is Dean of the Theological Faculty, Duta Wacana Christian University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, and Area Dean (Western Indonesia) of SEAGST-ATESEA.

[1] See Emanuel Gerrit Singgih, Dari Israel ke Asia, Jakarta: BPK Gunung Mulia, 1982.

[2] See SEAGST-ATESEA Handbook 2003-2005, p. 82.

[3] See SEAGST-ATESEA Handbook, pp. 82-84.

[4] See Karl Popper in Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach, Oxford: Clarendon Press, revised edition, 1979, pp. 259-261.

[5] See SEAGST-ATESEA Handbook, p. 84.

[6] See SEAGST-ATESEA Handbook, p. 121.

[7] See Hans-Georg Gadamer in Truth and Method, New York: Crossroad, revised edition, 1991, pp. 306-307, 374-375.

[8] See, for instance, John Levenson, “Why Jews are not interested in Biblical Theology”, in J.Neusner, B.A. Levine and E.S. Frerichs, Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987.

[9] See The Republic of Plato, translated, with notes and interpretive essay, by Allan Bloom, Basic Books, New York, 1968, 379a.

[10] See SEAGST-ATESEA Handbook, p. 84.

[11] See Yeow Choo Lak, Church and Theology, Singapore: Viva Lithographers, 1985, pp. 102-105.

[12] See Yeow Choo Lak, Church and Theology, p. 96.

[13] See also the report of Area Dean (Eastern Indonesia), Rev. Zakaria Ngelow, Th.D., “Consultation on Rethinking/Revisiting the Critical Asian Principle”, Eastern Indonesia Area, Delia Hotel, Makassar, Indonesia, April 4, 2005. But in his report the reference to the Ancestors is lacking…