General Assembly Meeting Association for Theological Education in South East Asia (ATESEA), McGilvary Faculty of Theology, Payap University Chiang Mai, Thailand, October 13-21, 2005

Introduction:

It is my privilege to be among the speakers at this ATESEA assembly. The topic assigned to me is the main theme of this assembly: “Theological Education Challenges Amidst the Changing Context of Asia”, it is a challenging theme at a critical moment of the history of theological education in Asia. I am grateful to Dr. Sientje Merentek-Abram and members of the Executive Committee of ATESEA for the invitation they extended to me.

Concern for transformation of theological education has been widely shared ecumenically. In recent years, even within my limited knowledge, the Institute of Missiology / Missio (MWI), the Council for World Mission (CWM), the World Conference for Associations of Theological Institutes (WOCATI) and then just three months ago the United Board for Christian Higher Education in Asia (UBCHEA) successively held conferences and consultations on similar if not exactly the same topic aimed at the same purpose, to enhance theological education and religious studies in Asia and beyond. This phenomenon reveals to us not only the urgent need to transform our theological education, but also the critical time at which we are engaged in this challenging task.

Since its establishment 48 years ago, ATESEA has existed to serve theological education and theological institutes in Asia. An association of theological schools formed in Asia had at least two significant meanings: 1) to coordinate and to enhance solidarity for the theological struggle within and among the churches and theological schools in the region; and 2) to strengthen the formation of contextual theologies based upon Asian people’s experiences. Through publication of The Asia Journal of Theology, by providing accreditation services and operating the “South East Asia Graduate School of Theology”; in promotion of faculty development and theological renewal and contextualization in the light of the Critical Asian Principle, and as the agency of coordination and regional planning of theological education[1], ATESEA has, in the last half-century made significant contributions to theological education in south east Asia and Asia in general.

This assembly has served, among other significant purposes[2], as an occasion to celebrate and to reflect on theological education that has been done in this region for more than a century[3], particularly for last 50 years. It is probably out of this spirit that the Executive Committee of ATESEA has resolved to use this opportunity to revisit and re-examine the Critical Asian Principle, which was adopted by ATESEA and SEAGST as a guideline for Asian theological formation and as a criterion for accreditation of institutes of theological education. I am pleased to have been given the opportunity to be part of this important theological event.

Re-define The Tasks of Theological Education

Shoki Coe, a Taiwanese theological educator, saw education as a way of formation. He proposed three main tasks for theological education when he served as the director of Theological Education Fund of World Council of Churches. These tasks are: Christian formation, theological formation and ministerial formation.[4] These three levels’ formative functions have characterized theological education with spiritual, theological and missiological concerns. These tasks can serve also to distinguish the nature of theological education from the new rising trend of religious studies in Asian universities and academic institutions.

The rising trend of religious studies in Asian universities can be seen as an indicator of the awareness of Asian people towards the public role of religions in their societies. It is a positive step in the progress of religious affairs in the Asian world. The popularity of the religious studies in one hand contributes to and draws public attention to the interests and concerns of the role of religions in a society. On the other hand it also lays claim to resources and shares apportioned to the distinct tasks of theological education. Religious studies by nature are defined as among those universal academic disciplines implemented in the setting of universities or academic institutions. It is different from the traditional understanding of theological education which operates under the concern of Christian mission.

Even within theological institutes, different emphases have been stressed depending on the models of supportive powers behind the institution. For instance, a denominational seminary is concerned (though not exclusively) more with an ecclesial purpose. A cross-denominational seminary focuses on mission formation and a university-attached seminary may be more concerned to view theology as an academic discipline. In his book Theologia Edward Farley used a method of historical critique to review some dominant models of theological education in the west,[5] models that are pervasive in the south as well. He wrote of four models, each evincing an understanding of the role and function of the theological institution.

1) Model of habitus: theological education is seen as the process of developing "life wisdom." It is a model with the primary concern of developing a lifestyle of spirituality.

2) Model of science: theological education is perceived as a "science," a discipline of systematic inquiry and exposition.

3) Model of university: theology becomes the work primarily of theological faculties, with chairs in different specialized branches.

4) The clerical paradigm: is "professional" in its approach and specifically concerned with the "inner-ecclesial' needs of the Christian community.[6]

It becomes important to re-define, or in a more adequate term, to retarget the role of theological education and its main tasks so as to draw a line between it and religious studies. Dr. Dan Beeby, a former missionary from England who served as the vice-principal of Tainan Theological College in Taiwan and headed its Old Testament Department in the 1970’s, was expelled by Taiwan’s then Nationalist Party colonial regime because of his involvement with the struggle of the church to raise a prophetic voice against government imposed injustices that existed in the society. After decades of being in black list and repeated refusals of a visa to return to Taiwan, he eventually was allowed back in for a visit. When he came back he impatiently repeated warning his fellow Christians in Taiwan: “Do not follow the steps of the British church, as European churches have demonstrated failure through their mission history.”

The phenomenon of rapid decline of European churches in terms of both quantity and quality has been declared the fall of Christendom in western countries, which has been taking its shape since the Middle Ages. Beeby’s alert for not to follow the steps of European churches can be interpreted in many ways. The factors that cause the fall of western churches are varied. In my personal observation, the way theological education been done in Europe is a very essential element among other factors. Taking into consideration Edward Farley’s typological analysis of the models of western theological education we discover that most theological institutes in Europe are university attached. The scientific academic world became gradually alienated from the domain of the church’s authority following the transformation taken in the history by the impacts of enlightenment. The role of theological education fell from its position as the queen of sciences to a marginalized servant. In places theological education came to be totally neglected within the university. University-attached theological schools may strive to fulfill the university requirements to make theology as an academic discipline, but they seldom pay attention or give special concern to the "ecclesial' needs of the Christian community. (Probably this term of “Christian community” has already lost its meaning within western society.) The alienation of theological education from ecclesial concerns creates illness for Christian faith and irrelevant leadership within the church.

Taking up Shoki Coe’s proposal of the tasks of theological education again, apart from theological formation, both Christian formation and ministerial formation (which must be taken very seriously by theological education) may not be of interest to university-attached theological institutes. The recent trend of the raise of the religious studies in many universities in Asia, particularly after the September 11 terrorist attack, is a commendable development of the academic world in this region. We must, however, draw a line in between theological education and university based religious studies. This is important and crucial to all theological institutes in Asia. ATESEA will find its role in helping its member schools to face this challenge through its accreditation service and other theological activities in the coming years.

Theological Education Serving Theology And Church’s Mission in Contexts

Theological education is distinguished from religious studies by being rooted in Christian mission and shaped by the particular trends of theologies. In other words, theological education is in a position to bridge Christian mission and theological formation. On the one hand, theological education in Asia, particularly are done by the ecclesia-based institutions, almost without exception, is mostly introduced with the clear purpose of to sustain and enhance the church’s mission. It demonstrates its focus on developing mission enablers and training of church leadership with programs of ministerial formation and mission skills equipment. This is also seen in its critical theological reflection of mission understanding. The long debates and struggles to clarify the meaning of Christian mission from traditional understanding of Evangelism among the churches and theological workers in Asia have impacted the formulas for implementation of theological education. Christian mission in Asia has been frequently referred to an endeavor of the church to respond to the calling of God in different contexts, to witness the good news and to demonstrate the reign of God in this world. Christian mission by nature is understood as a reflection of the incarnation of Jesus Christ, who was/is sent by God (missio Dei) to bring Love and redemption of God to the world:

Christ’s commission to all Christians is “you shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem and in all Judea and in Samaria and to the end of the earth” (Acts 1.8). The risen Christ says, “As the Father sent me, so send I you,” and he empowers his disciples by the Holy Spirit (John 20.21-22). That commission is given further expression in Paul’s words “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself…and he has given us the ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5.18-19). So Christians are called to share in the purpose of the God who is revealed throughout the Bible as the Creator and Redeemer of the world. In this purpose God uses the Church – the body of people for whom Jesus prayed, “Father I pray that they may all be one. May they be one, so that the world may believe that you sent me” (John 17.21).[7]

Beginning from this affirmation of Christian Mission, we may come to a conclusion that mission has to be at the center and stand as an essential and ultimate concern for Christian theology and theological education. It is this mission concern that gives contextual theologies and theological education in different contexts their distinguished characters. And it is probably also out of this concern that Emerito Nacpil, the former director of ATESEA, included the missiological principle in his formulation of Critical Asian Principle for theological education in Asia.[8] Christian Mission, whatever it could be, is primarily a concern for and commitment to people’s suffering and hope in particular contexts. It is a contextual activity to respond to the love and redemptive action of the universal God. Christian theological education which aims to develop leadership for mission, therefore must inevitably be contextually oriented.

On the other hand, theological institutes in Asia are also expected by churches and Christians to create spaces for theological studies and theological formation. In a developing mission area such as Asia, theological schools have been also given a task and anticipation to develop particular theologies within their contexts. However, in the long history of theology and its teaching there was an understanding that European or Western theology was culturally ‘neutral’. Often it was exported as a universally valid, worldwide theology to non-western cultures to such an extent that the process of Christianization became equated with Westernization.[9]Theological education implemented under this concept is nothing but a forerunner of western cultural imperialism and colonizer of peoples who were the recipients of these western missions.

The awareness of that all theologies are culturally and contextually bounded, and that living theologies should be as numerous as living cultures has led to a critique of Euro-centric theologies. Contextual theologies have developed from different people on different continents and in different regions to challenge the classical theologies introduced by missionaries from the west which were declared to be universal theology. Francis X. D’sa, an Indian theologian, expressed his view of doing contextual theology in an article entitled: “Inculturating the Christian Message in the Hindu Context.” He wrote, “The Christ event is nowhere found, not even in the New Testament, in a form that is free of cultural conditioning. Hermeneutically speaking, all language, even revealed language, is always an expression of historical conditioning. There is no way out of this.”[10] Language is only one dimension of culture, yet it is fundamental to cultures and therefore to Christian theologies. The situational principle proposed by the Critical Asian Principle reflects this nature and demand of theological formation in context.

One’s context can be very complicated. It involves aspects of ethnicity, culture, religion and politics. Thus, theological formation must be comprehensive enough to take these complicate contexts into account. I offer my personal biography as an example. I am a first generation Christian born in Taiwan. My country received Christian mission with three waves. The first was in the 16th century from Spanish Dominican and Dutch Reformed clergy who accompanied East Indian trading ventures to Asia. In the mid-19th century, Spanish Catholics again and then British Presbyterians (under mission sponsorship of the London Missionary Society) arrived on Taiwan to spread the Christian Gospel. The third wave came after 1949 when a group of political refugees who flooded into Taiwan with the occupying forces of the dictatorial Chiang Kai-shek regime, which had been defeated by the communists in China, were accompanied by various denominations of Christians.

The first wave of Christian mission did not endure. The Dutch Protestants expelled the Spanish Catholics, and were, in turn, defeated and expelled by a general of the Chinese Ming dynasty who fled to Taiwan after the defeat of his government by the succeeding Manchurian dynasty. The church in Taiwan disappeared.

The second wave of Christian mission (launched in the 19th century) experienced violent confrontation when the 3rd wave, accompanied by a colonial dominating class supported by military occupation forces, created a line of division based NOT upon theological differences but on political ideologies. To be a Christian in Taiwan’s context involves complicated identity struggle. It is not simply a question of choosing between being a Christian or a member of another living faith, but more a matter of what kind of Christianity we want to demonstrate in this particular context.

Missionaries brought to people in their mission lands a dichotomized ‘either/or’ concept of the Gospel message. Christian identity has been upheld to oppose, if not totally deny, different cultural identities and even to make people indifferent to their political identities. For a long time choosing to be a Christian in Asia has meant to give up one’s traditional cultural heritage and deny one’s political loyalty to his or her mother country. The slogan of the “Anti-Christian Alliance,” organized by Chinese students in the early 1900’s, was, “one more Christian, one less Chinese.” It vividly expresses the sharp conflict of the identity struggle of Christian conversion in this part of the world. We are forced to choose either for becoming a Christian by forfeiting our traditional identities and heritages OR to be categorized as ‘pagan’ in order to keep our culture and ethnic identity. This dualistic concept of the gospel message has created within the formation of our new identity as Christians a gap or division not only from our previous cultural community but also within our own extended families. Christian faith has been introduced as a totally new and strange entity to the people in Asia. Nothing that existed in Asia was seen as worth preserving or as to be considered as having anything to do with Christian faith. Christian heritages have been regarded something created ex nihilo in the Asian world.

Theology in Struggle to Relocate in Context

Contextual theologies are radical critiques of such concepts of Christian faith and of traditional attitudes of Christians towards people’s contexts and their indigenous cultures. The emergence of contextual theologies in Asia and other third world countries were efforts to do theology with awareness of the important of the contextuality. Jose M. De Mesa describes five characteristics of the term ‘contextuality’[11]:

1. Attentiveness: it listens to the cry of the poor, the marginalized and the excluded and hearkens to the Spirit active in the history of humankind and in the world.

2. Conditioning: conscious as it is of being affected by the context in which it is done.

3. Intentional rootedness: in the culture, in religion, in the historical currents, in the social locations and situations of people as well as in gender.

4. Transforming: It takes shape according to the demands of the context, but is also aimed at altering conditions in the church and in society that are counter to the deep intent of the Gospel.

5. Inclusivity: as it endeavors to include voices which have been excluded in the participative process of theologizing.

De Mesa further elaborates his observation about the nature of contextual theology by saying: “All theology is contextual. Every theology, for good or ill, is conditioned by its context. In this sense, there can be good and bad contextual theology. If context affects theology this way, it must be said that theology done in a contextual manner also affects context and aims at transforming it. Doing theology in a contextual manner means taking experience as a constitutive element in understanding, appropriating and communicating the faith. This implies a dialogue with praxis and requires taking in accord with the Gospel, a stance vis-a-vis the context.”[12] It is thus, doing contextual theologies in a non-western context is a journey to seek a home for theology, a home wherein people can retain the hope in their struggle for life and death. It is a relocating process for theology in order to preserve its vital and coherent qualities.

Out of this theological commitment, Asian gurus of theology: Shoki Coe, M. M. Thomas, D. T. Niles, Emerito Nacpil, Kosuke Koyama and C.S. Song and others have launched and handed over to us a process for a Contextual Theology movement in Asia. The theological organizations that exist on this continent: The Commission on Theological Concern of the CCA (CTC); The Program for Theology and Cultures in Asia (PTCA); The Asian branch of Ecumenical Association of Third World Theologians (EATWOT); The Asian Church Women’s Conference (ACWC); and, of course, The Association for Theological Education in South East Asia (ATESEA) have all joined the current of this theological endeavor. Profound theological attempts have sprouted from different countries of Asia with strong impacts to the churches and people since the 1970’s. These theological trends includes: Mingjung theology from Korea, Homeland Theology and Theology of Chhut Thâu Thin from Taiwan, Grassroots Theology from the Philippines, and Interfaith Dialogue from India and other South Asian countries. Asian Christians confronted a strong ‘must’ demand to change the theologies they adopted from western missionaries and to work for a theology that could respond to the experiences of people to whom the churches are responsible in mission.

New Settings Confront Contextual Theologies

If the last generation of Asian theological gurus were driven by the ‘must’ sentiment to open up for us a new direction of doing Asian contextual theologies. What they achieved was to shift the theological paradigm from western missionary theologies introduced to Asia and found ways to do theologies with Asian Resources.[13] It pioneered creation of new forums of theology for Asian churches and people. We are fortunate to inherit this prophetic theological mission handed down from our forefathers and mothers. However, changes have come over the last 30 years in outside circumstances and inner theological circles. The ‘must’ sentiment, though still existing in the minds of many theological leaders in Asia, is no longer the cardinal driving force to impel the path of theological construction. After 30 years of efforts of theological formation to develop various contextual theologies in Asia, we are now facing challenges to demonstrate the qualities of our contextual theologies. Questions are posed to us now more on ‘how’ to develop good contextual theologies in Asia. In other words, the ‘must’ in the theological movement in Asia has shifted from “counter the western theologies imposed by the missionaries”, to “construct theologies responsive to contextual demands of the people.”

A theology driven by the sentiment of ‘must’ functions when there is a target, namely missionary theologies, against which to rebel. But that is simply a struggle to escape from an existing circumstance. The concern of constructing a theology is not so much on the western theology inherited from missionaries, but on the methods and ways to construct relevant and responsive theologies that are naturally rooted in context and respond to the experiences of people.

Theological construction today faces a dual challenge by the changes of reality: on the one side is a change of the psychology of contextual theological workers from offensive to defensive, which has significantly impacted the climate of theological activities in Asia. On the other side are the great changes in the world surrounding Asia over the past 30 years. Politically, most Asian countries (except China and North Korea) have gone through a certain degree of progress towards democratization. Even China in its pursuit of economic growth has had to loosen the communist imperialist domestic control through a so-called “socialist market system”[14] The economic development of China has enhanced its military power to enables it to challenge the dominant role of United States on the geopolitical map of Asia and even worldwide. The already forceful exploitative nature of globalization is strengthened by the ‘war on terror’ project to shape the United States as a sole empire in the world. The nuclear issue in Korean peninsula and the rise of military power of China creates political and military tensions and competition with the US. People in the region suffer innocently from security threats to their lives and properties.

Economic development, though it has created dragons and tigers in Asia in recent decades and has improved the material life of the people significantly, comes not without its costs. The serious exploitation of the environment has caused natural disasters. Whenever an earthquake or typhoon accompanied by heavy rain occurs, numerous lives are claimed and properties destroyed. Epidemic diseases long known and newly discovered mutate and spread rapidly and globally once established in any corner of the world. These are not the only consequences of economic development. The corruption of human spirituality by materialism promoted by the capitalist market creates the lifestyle of consumerism, the mindset of competition and eventually shapes the human spirit according to selfishness. Globalized capitalist economic activities act not only to widen the gap between rich and poor, but also weaken the sovereignty of individual nation states by the interruption of capital powers. Its operation is backed up by information technology and military power, and has led to the decline of weaker cultures, discrimination against minorities such as aborigines, and exploitation of women and children.

The issue of peace and security for human beings and for God’s creatures becomes a challenging issue in this age. Peace is not only the absence of war, but the Biblical concept of shalom with love, harmony and prosperity. Regardless of ethnic, religious, and gender variety, all are offered life with dignity and peace. Unfortunately, under the forceful process of globalization, contextual theologies with concerns for class liberation, gender equality, racial dignity and religious harmony that once made strong impacts on the world by their theological efforts to respond to the suffering experiences of people have gradually withered. The force of globalization is experienced, in the words of Kim Yong Bock, “as a totalistic process of domination over the whole of life by the principalities and powers that be on earth. The whole of life is at stake everywhere on earth, for we discern the dominant forces of death and killing that destroy the whole life.”[15] Yet, theology that responds to the life and death of people is fading. We face a totally new setting within which to do contextual theology in Asia.

Reading The Signs Of The Times in Contemporary Asia

Theological education is rooted in God’s mission, serving God’s people in the world. This entails the equipping of whole people of God to participate in this mission. Theological education has to read the signs of the times and to take the challenges that facing the church in a different age. As education in the model of contextual theology aims at equipping the church community theologically, it must provide opportunities to prepare discipleship for Christian mission.

Theological institutions in Asia were mostly started by churches or individual missionaries, these institutions began with clear objectives of training mission enablers. The history of theological education in Asia for the last half-century, though not without efforts to become contextually rooted, has been essentially of captivity to western theological education by following the steps of the fashions of western theologies. Generally speaking, Asian churches are mostly conservative. Theological thinking that prevails in theological institutes established by these churches is traditional and fundamental. On the other hand, liberal trend of theology that was developed by European scholars since the 19th century and was introduced to Asian theological schools has been preserved as the main content of curricula of many theological schools even to today. The tendencies of the liberal theologies and neo-liberalism are to drive and deliberately modify the beliefs and practices of the churches (especially evangelical ones) to conform to cultural modernism and post-modernism.[16] These have gradually moved theological education to a rational and intellectural exercise, weakening its connection with missiological concerns of the church. In some cases, theological institutes are considered in a position opposed to the churches. Churches are seen as conservative by theological scholars, while theological educators are criticized by churches and congregations as being unhelpful.

Furthermore, the way that traditional western schools implement education has been by compartmentalized disciplines. This has been applied to theological education as well. The divisions of the departments and disciplines, with their emphasis on specialization and intellectual excellence creates problems not only of fragmentation of knowledge and tearing apart the integrity of education, but also formats an indifferent mindset among theological students toward the church’s mission. This is not to say that it is insufficient to respond to both the demands that Asian churches and Christians confront from particular Asian contexts and challenges facing churches and Christians worldwide.

Striving For Contextual Theological Education

It has been more than 30 years since contextual theology emerged from the Asian world[17]. Labors of theological leaders in Asia were not only applied to constructing theologies from Asian resources, much effort has also been put into developing of theological libraries with Asian resources and transformation of theological education, including faculty development, curriculum redesign, etc. For instance, the SEAGST and Asian Theological Teacher’s Institutes operated by ATESEA, the Forum for Asian Theological Librarians (ForATL) organized under the supports and encouragement of PTCA, and many consultations on theological formation, theological education and theological curriculum have been held by different organizations concerned with theology in Asia in recent decades.

However, if we look into the curricula of theological education in the region, we may feel frustration at the failure to transform Western fashions of curriculum after 30 years of effort towards contextual theological formation done by former theological leaders. The distinguished methodology of ‘from below’ introduced by contextual theologies has not been taken seriously by the theological education structure. Most theological curricula remain tied to structures inherited from western theological schools. Some institutes, though consciously making efforts to transform their curriculum, merely add a single course on contextual theology or feminist studies to an existing curriculum structure. This includes the school where I, myself, am president.

Many proposals for structural transformation of contextual theological education in Asia have been made to urge theological educators to take action for the improvement of theological education. David Suh, for example, challenges us to change of the contents of theological education in Asia, he says:

I have argued that the work of Asian Christian theologians has been significant in the last half of the 20th century. It has overturned colonial theology. It has created the post-colonial discourse of doing theology with Asian resources responding to the Asian realities. What Asian theological education has to do is to incorporate the work of Asian Christian theologians. I am proposing a paradigm shift in Asian theological education. Western theologies cannot be at the center of our teaching and curricula. The Asian way of doing theology should come into the center stage. It is likely to bring a Copernican revolution in Asian theological education. The sun is no longer the Western theological figures. Asian religions and poverty, and the people of Asia, will have to be the source of energy for Asian Christian theology.[18]

Kim Yong Bock, on the other hand, argues that the theme of life occupies a prominent place in Protestant deliberations at the end of 20th century and proposes: “The Paradigm for the study of life as a foundational framework for theology and theological education.” He continues: “Here I am not using theology as a part of academic study. I take theology as the study of life as a whole in the perspective of Christian faith. Therefore theological education is not to be confined to the discipline of theological study at the theological education institutes such as universities and seminaries. The study of life is a radical alternative to the modern academic system as a whole. This demands to challenge the whole of academic and scientific studies.”[19] Leonard Fernando based upon his experiences, suggests a concrete implementation of a three-year program with the central themes of:

Theme 1. God within history and the response of faiths

Theme 2. God in Jesus Christ, Church and sacraments

Theme 3. Christians in the world[20]

This formulation of themes for theological education has a rationale of curriculum structure that starts with reflection on our faith experience context with a critical socio-cultural analysis in the light of Christian vision. It enables students to situate the human quest for meaning and the response of the religions through a history of sin and suffering, evil and struggle.[21] It leads students from the exploration of the divine-human encounter to the second stage of God’s manifestation in Jesus Christ as evidenced in the Gospels and the life of the church, highlighting the eschatological and universal mission of Jesus to save all with his special option for the poor and the oppressed which led to his passion, death and resurrection by which we are redeemed[22]. The final focus is on Christian life and mission in the world, with particular preference to reflect upon ethical questions and global concerns that threatens life in its myriad forms.[23] This model of curriculum structure reflects the theological methodology of the ‘from below’ principle and is worthwhile for us to explore in a more detail.

Covenant With The Churches in Asia

Christian churches in Asia, particularly the mainstream churches, following the western churches that their missions came from, face threats of decrease in membership, loss of prophetic impact regarding morality, and marginalization in their role as the conscience of their societies. While many Christians in Europe are gradually convinced that they are entering to a so-called “post-Christian era,” whether we Asian Christians will accept this phenomenon as an irresistible trend of its theological destiny is a matter of churches’ life and death determination in Asia.

As we consider this survival struggle of the church in our age two major tasks facing us: 1) to finish the yet incomplete de-colonization of theology and theological education in Asia; and 2) to accelerate the modes and equipment of theological capacity to respond to current issues challenging to people on this continent.

Western intellectuals have described the current world as “post-modern.” This concept is derived from western historical experiences, particularly in reference to the 18th century enlightenment movement that created the so-called “modern” society. Western modernism that was sustained by rationalism is considered as the seedbed of liberal theologies. Until today it remains the main content of theological education in many Asian theological institutions. Liberal trend of theologies, on the one hand reflected the worldview and intellectual orientation of the enlightenment era to guard the Christian faith from scientific critiques and attacks on orthodox theologies of Christianity. It is doubtless a product of the European struggle of historical evolution. On the other hand, liberal theologies by nature shift their theological foundations from the objective authorities of Scriptural and ecclesiastic sanction to a subjective pursuit of individual experiences and concerns. One of its influences is to distance the theological formation and theological education from ecclesiastic concern, if not to totally oppose the church’s mission. I am not saying that theologies or theological education should be servants of the church. I am deeply aware of the limitations and corruption of the church throughout its history. What I am saying is, even taking the critical position that theological education has to be closely related to and concerned with Christian mission done by the churches in this world. The world moves too fast (or maybe I should say that our steps are too slow), so that before our theologies have been able to turn away from the colonization of western modernist influences, the so-call “post- modern” theories have overwhelmingly flooded our theological languages and syllabi.

Continual de-colonization of theological education in Asia is an essential task for theological institutes in Asia to achieve. The de-colonization engineering of theological education involves: physical changes to syllabi; transformation of curricula; re-orientation of faculty (faculty development); and contextual theological formation. It also requires: psychological liberation from distrust of contextual resources for theological construction; and the overthrow of the mindset of worship everything western. The rabbinical saying, “it took one day to lead Israelites out of Egypt, but 40 years to take Egypt out of Israelites” indicates that the most difficult and essential part of transforming theological education is not the outward hardware or structure but changing the inward mindset and mentality of inferiority of being Asian Christians in a Christian world. Continual conscientization of Asian consciousness and Asian values through all channels of education is urgently needed. While ATESEA was originally created as an umbrella of Asian theological institutes and driving force of theological education, it will find a new role in the process of theological education transformation through its coordination and accreditation works as it continues to make contributions.

I have mentioned previously[24] the challenges facing theological education today are not from a single dimension. Terrorism has erupted from religious fundamentalism entangled with its historical ambivalence. High tech developments in genetic science, cloning and information technologies are other aspects of threats to human life today. Above all, economic globalization has deeply affected the world order. Eventually theologies and theological education (particularly theologies of the two-thirds world that emphasize rootedness in experience and culture and theological methodology “from below”) will inevitably be challenged to reconstruct their frameworks. The recent phenomenon of the setback of third world theologies is a clear sign of the needs to reorganize theological constructions and find new ways to implement theological education. The situational principle is therefore challenged by the globalization impacts of the new world order today.

Based on my personal involvement in theological education for more than 25 years and knowledge gained from accreditation visits to the member schools of ATESEA, I find most theological institutes are struggling for financial survival, particularly those schools have attempted to operate independent of support from western funding agencies. Financial constraints have compelled schools to operate exclusively as teaching organizations. Faculties are overloaded with teaching obligations and administration, and are left no time to conduct research. In Taiwan as well, with very few exceptions, universities are also mainly designated for teaching rather than research. Only because research awards and subsidies are available from both schools and government agencies, and because there are sufficient numbers of faculty members so the individual administrative load is less, are some universities able to obtain substantial research output from their teaching staffs. But such an abundance of resources is difficult when the seminaries are considered.

Without the capacity for deep and systematic research work, teaching faculties mostly merely “pass on what they have learnt”, and seldom attempt or are incapable of tackling the emerging issues and subjects that challenge Christian mission and trouble the churches and Christians in response to the demands of the people from their contexts. The proposal made by Shoki Coe on the tasks of theological education to ministerial formation has thus failed. It is therefore my contention that creation of research capacity in seminaries and theological institutes is urgently needed. Output from centers or projects for the research on inter-religious relations, gender equality, minorities and poverty, peace and people’s security etc. are helpful for the revision of syllabi of theological teachers. Seeing the limitation of resources in the region, inter-change sharing and cooperation among theological institutes must be encouraged.

Finally, two more issues must be touched upon. They are Christian spiritual formation and field-work education (church/organization placement). Christians are minorities in most countries of Asia. What distinguishes Christians from their surrounding world is a critical question posed to Churches and challenging to their mission. Why should one take up a Christian identity in a “non” Christian world? Spiritual formation does not necessarily follow the charismatic way of particular outward behavior, but what marks a Christian as a Christian must be spiritually unique. To put spiritual formation together with placements takes into consideration the fact that spirituality has two aspects: inherited and responsive. To be a Christian in a context, besides the inheritance of a Christian heritage and conversion to Gospel teachings must also be lived out in witness to the surrounding community. Church or organization placement provides not only skill training for pastoral service, but also the opportunity to become acquainted with the realities of people and their contexts, and to demonstrate and witness Christian love to the world.

Conclusion

The Asian world has changed rapidly in all aspects of economic, political and social development. Christian churches in Asia continue to struggle to witness the message of the Gospel and the promise of the reign of God to be actualized among the people in Asia. Theological education has traditionally been regarded as at the heart of the church. It is a driving force of Christian mission, which is today challenged to continue providing power for the church to do its mission. In order to fulfill its tasks, the call for reform of theological education in Asia has been clearly sounded. We as theological educators in the family of ATESEA are obligated to take up the responsibility entrusted to us. I hope that our meeting here will provide us the opportunity to re-engineer contextual theological education for Asian people and churches. (Thank you.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] A Historical Note, The Association For Theological Education in South East Asia, Handbook of The Association For Theological Education in South East Asia and The South East Asia Graduate School of Theology, Compiled by Sientje Merentek-Abram, 2003-2005, p. 1.

[2] See the Circular Letter of Dr. Sientje Merentek-Abram, the Executive Director of ATESEA, SEMATE 05/70, May 25, 2005

[3] The arrival of Christian church to Asia, though can be traced back to as early as Jesus’ time, the modern institutional theological education launched by the western church organizations or western missionary is no longer than 2 centuries.

[4] Shoki Coe, Contextualization as the Way Toward Reform, Asian Christian Theology – emerging Themes, Douglas J. Elwood, ed., Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1980, pp. 49-50

[5] E. Farley, Theologia: The Fragmentation and Unity of Theological Education, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983

[6] Ibid., pp. 31-124; see also Christopher Duraisingh, “Ministerial Formation For Mission: Implications For Theological Education”, International Review o f Mission, vol. LXXXI no. 3 21, Geneva: WCC, Jan. 1992, p.37

[7] Handbook of the Council for World Mission (London: CWM, 1984) 5 (3.2), the quotation is taken from D. Preman Niles, From East and West – Rethinking Christian Mission, St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2004. p. 58

[8] The Critical Asian Principle see the Handbook of the Association for Theological Education in South East Asia and The South East Asia Graduate School of Theology, 2003-2005 pp. 81-83,

[9]Annette Meuthrath, Welcome Address for the Conference to Evaluate the Curricula of Theology in Asian contexts, held in Bangkok from Dec. 1-6, 2002. taken from Charting the Future of Theology and Theological Education in Asian Contexts, ed. By David Kwang-sun Suh, Annette Meuthrath and Choe Hyondok, Delhi:ISPCK, 2004, p. xv

[10] Francis X. D’sa, Inculturating the Christian Message in the Hindu Context, Kyistu Jyoti 17, 1 (2001) p.41.

[11] Jose M. De Mesa, Being Mindful of Context: Characterizing “contextual Theology” Charting the Future of Theology and Theological Education in Asian Contexts, ibid., p. 244

[12] Ibid., p. 245

[13] It was in early 1980’s, some Asian theological leaders include C. S. Song, Yeow Choo Lak, Takenaka, John England and many others started a theological movement by launched an annual theological workshop to encourage young Asian theologians to do theology with Asian resources. The series of workshops later led to the establishment of PTCA.

[14] The concept of “socialist market system” was proposed by Chu Jung Chi, the former prime minister of China, which was a mandate to open up its markets in China to the capitalist world, while tried to keep its political communist system. This doctrine of “socialist market system” is considered a momentum to raise the economic power of China in recent years.

[15] Kim Yong Bock, An Asian Proposal for the Future Directions of Theological Curricula in the Context of Globalization, Charting the Future of Theology and Theological Education in Asian Contexts, ibid., p.249

[16] Ref. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

[17] Different opinion regarding the time of emergence of contextual theology in Asia was discussed widely in many occasions. My contention of the date for the emergence of the contextual theologies is based upon two criteria i.e. the awareness of the theologians of doing contextual theology, and the autonomous role of local resources in the theological construction.

[18] David Suh, Is it a Crouching Tiger or a Hidden Dragon? – Theological Education in the University Setting, Charting the future of theology and Theological Education in Asian contexts, ibid., p. 283

[19] Kim Yong Bock, ibid., p. 250

[20] Leonard Fernando, Religious and Cultural Resources Meeting social Challenges, India, Charting the future of theology and Theological Education in Asian contexts, ibid., p.138

[21] Ibid., pp. 138-139

[22] ibid., p. 139

[23] ibid.,

[24] Huang Po Ho, From Galilee to Tainan, ATESEA Occasional Paper No. 15, (Tainan: ATESEA, 2005) p.64