Crossing Borders: Shapping Faith, Ministry and Identity in Multicultural Australia
Edited by Helen Richmond & Myong Duk Yang
Constructing Cross-cultural Theologies in Australia
Pearson has described the
various empirical stages which have marked the emergence of an accompanying
biblical and theological interest. Writing in his ‘Changing the Subject’, he
notes ideas around texts and telling
stories , biblical studies around texts to describe what it is like to sing the
lord’s song in a new land, relate to cultural diversity, then some theology –
basically Christology and ecclesiology, some attention to the relationship of
gospel and culture.
That pattern can very
easily be demonstrated. Seongja Yoo Crowe took the initiative in encouraging
migrants to tell their stories, initially in ‘You and I & Our Stories'. The intention behind
the collection was to reflect on their experience in Australia and in the
church and for the wider church to know their stories in order to enhance mutual
understanding. Later Richmond and Yang also published a book titled ‘Crossing
Borders: Shaping Faith, Ministry and Identity in Multicultural Australia’,
giving voices to the migrant leaders to reflect upon their place in the
churches from their perspectives.
The purpose of these
stories was often merely one of providing a voice and sharing that voice with
others. Fumitaka Matuoka has described the importance of coming ‘out of
silence’. Matuoka recognized how difficult this exposure can be. It requires a
form of ‘holy insecurity’ and a willingness to inhabit a liminal space.
This findry of voice is
consisted with what Jung Young Lee has called the autobiographical dimension of
theology. Lee is not intending saying that auto biography is theology, rather
he is pointing towards how any theology must in some reports subjective and
embrace the story of the one who is reflecting on life and faith. David Ng has
decribes a diaspora theology in terms of pint expressing a life story. Lee digs
a little deeper and argues that autobiographical become a means by which a
doctrine of providence is played out. What he means by lkes claim is recognition
of how fod provides for the self is the new context. The telling of the story
is not unlike a form of testimony or what Rebecca Chopp has called a ‘poetic of
…’.
Few of the personal stories
included in the anthologies of the UCA are so self-consciously theological. The
nearest are there by Yang and Tupou-Thomas in Pearson’s ‘Faith in a Hyphen'. This story telling
represents a first stage. It leads into and in clearly related to the desire to
provide a range of biblical studies. The intention is not to set out a formal
hermeneutics, not is the intention to embark upon a scholarly, very detailed
and exegesis inquiry. The method is more one of pahupakia and reflecting a
texts in small groups. The purpose is to allow participants to form a
connection between their experience and the texts. Those is a sense in which there reflection are dederyed to encourage
participants to reflect out land in the presence of others. Their experience
and how my context resonate will a common text.
One approach
would be to fasten upon recurring a key biblical text which Korean migrant and
second generation employ and talking about themselves and identity in this
country. The following texts are selected for its obvious story many migrants
could relate living in a multicultural context and could bring a discussion on
cross-cultural issues.
1) Bible Reflection (Genesis 45:1-15)
Among
the many stories in the Bible, readers love particular stories which touch them
personally. However, even with the same
story, those who have grown up in a Western culture and those who have grown up
in an Eastern culture, may have different understandings and emphases.
Joseph’s story is one example.
From Genesis Chapter 37 to the end of the book, the story of Joseph has many
turnings and sub-stories. Reading stories of Joseph, a person from a Western
culture may feel moved by the individual Joseph who is honest, able and
faithful to God. As a boy, Joseph was taken from his home, survived in harsh environments and succeeded as a
prominent political leader.
However, those who are from
Asia and the Pacific region, feel particularly touched when they read of the
relationship of Joseph with his family. The love of Jacob, the envy among the
brothers, separation from the family, the forgiveness and tears of Joseph, and
the dramatic reunion with Jacob; all these family stories make the reader cry
inside. Many Asian people can relate the story to their own life.
When Jacob hears that his
beloved son is still alive, he says, “This is all I could ask for! I must go
and see him before I die” (GNB 45:28) All the lifelong bitterness and animosity
in his heart is breaking down as the family relationship recovers.
Individuals are often
sacrificed to honour the family in Asian
culture while personal freedom and decision are more respected in Western
society. For some cultures, it is important to know the family name while in
others, the given name is more commonly used.
2) Bible Reflection (Genesis 13:5-9)
A
problem arose between Abraham and Lot. After they had been to Egypt, their
possessions became so great that they were not able to stay together. Between
the uncle’s herdsmen and the nephew’s herdsmen quarrelling arose, which needed to be solved somehow.
There
is no record of Lot’s suggestion to the problem in the Bible. Abraham, however,
said, “If you go to the right, I’ll go to the left; I’ll go to the right, if
you go to the left.” Giving priority to
Lot, Abraham took one step back. Is it goodwill Abraham wanted, or does he want
to avoid bringing shame to the family name?
There
have been different ways of problem solving in each culture and even in individuals. In general, however, Anglo
people solve an issue through an eye to eye discussion. Through a series of
meetings, recording minutes, and majority vote, they then execute the motion.
Asians, on the other hand, developed
‘under the table’ or indirect communication. With proverbs, stories and
informal dining together, they try to convince others, or at least try to reach
a common point. When there is an extremely sensitive or difficult problem, a
third person who has their absolute trust will be asked to mediate.
Especially
if the issue is related to the family or
within a group, they try to solve the problem without it being known outside.
Family name and losing face are taken seriously.
For
Christians, the principle of problem solving is love. To listen to the other
and ‘stand under’ them may lead to not only an understanding but also accepting
one another. We know that Abraham’s generosity to Lot eventually turned out to
be a blessing to himself and to his family.
3)
Bible
Reflection (Daniel 1:8-17)
Nebuchadnezzar, the king of
Babylon, was keen on implementing an assimilation policy. He chose some of the
young Israelites from the royal family and nobility to teach them the language
and literature of the Babylonians, to feed them with royal food and wine, and
even to change their names. Furthermore, there was even a conspiracy to change their religion as
they were forced to worship an image of gold on the plain of Dura.
Before the religious
assimilation attempt, the cultural assimilation was carried out through
language and food. Daniel and his three friends, however, rejected eating and
drinking the royal food and wine. They wanted nothing but vegetables to eat and
water to drink for ten days and then to compare their appearance with other men
who had the royal food and wine. Verse 15 tells us the result, “At the end of
the ten days they looked healthier and better nourished than any of the young
men who ate the royal food.”
The reason Daniel rejected the
royal food was that Israelites considered food from the king’s table to be
contaminated as it was offered to idols. Furthermore, it is also true that they
would not want to be assimilated into the cultural imperialism of Babylon.
Some Anglo Australians still
commend assimilation practice which had already failed in this country in the
1970’s. Some new Australians from overseas also down play their own culture and
tradition in order to be part of a dominant culture and of a new church.
Is it a result of human sin to
have different languages, various worship styles, and diverse church systems?
Or is it a blessing of the creative God?
4)
Bible
Reflection (Matthew 28:18-20)
Church
buildings exist to facilitate three tasks: worship, mission, and education.
Before Jesus ascended, according to Matthew, Jesus gave his disciples the Great
Commission to go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name
of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and to teach them to obey everything He had
commanded. All Christians are called to be
disciples of Jesus and are to carry out this Gospel imperative. As the
early church fulfilled the tasks of worship, mission, and education, all the
Christian churches in history have existed to fulfil these same tasks.
Presbytery and Synod exist
also for the same work, assisting and helping
God’s mission in each parish. The Presbytery provides pastoral and
administrative oversight for the mission of the local congregations while the
Synod provides support, resources and encouragement. All church property should
be used to worship God and bear faithful witness to the Gospel in the local
community.
Therefore, if a parish cannot
fulfil its tasks any more, or if it has lost a conscious mission strategy, the
parish should be disbanded (remember what Jesus said to his disciples about the
Jerusalem Temple in Matthew 24:1-2) or combined
to another parish. The property should be transferred to another group
for the best interests of God’s mission.
It is heart-warming to hear
the story of Steve who has loved and cared for the church building for 30
years. Many members in Anglo parishes have special historical relationships to
a particular church property through many generations. However, that
relationship alone is not sufficient reason for the continuing possession of
the building. Church buildings should not be a museum or a memorial hall. It
should be a centre for active worship, mission, and education.
5)
Bible
Reflection (Luke 4:16-30)
Every group of people have
their own home town. Migrants in particular have their motherland to which they
want to return or at least visit sometime. They bear hardship in foreign lands,
dreaming that someday they will visit their home town with hard won success.
Jesus is coming home. People
in Nazareth are waiting anxiously to welcome this son of the town. They have
heard from outsiders that Jesus has become a good teacher, ‘who was praised by
everyone’. (4:15)
When Jesus arrived, he read
Isaiah 61:1-2 in the synagogue on the Sabbath. The people in town responded
with a ‘gentle stir of admiration’. As a son of the town, Jesus does not
disappoint the people.
However, this scene of respect
changes to anger and results in murderous behaviour by the people. What has
happened? What has Jesus said that makes his people so outraged? It is two
stories from the Old Testament that Jesus has given. The first story is from 1
Kings 17:1-6 of a gentile widow, and the other story is that of Naaman from 2
Kings 5:1-19. It was an apparent compliment that Jesus paid to gentiles.
At this point, the people have
become angry. They cannot accept these
stories of blessed gentiles. In their faith and prayer, there is no space for
other traditions, races or religions. They believe that ‘God had created the
gentiles to be fuel for the fires of hell ’. The new message of Jesus is
nonsense and outrageous. It is heretical. It is something that has to be pushed
off the cliff.
Is Jesus still too
uncomfortable, too controversial and too upsetting to be our Lord?
6)
Bible
Reflection (Acts 15:1-11)
In
the Christian community of Jerusalem, there was a group of Pharisees who
insisted that before a person could become a true Christian, that person must
keep the law of Moses, and the test of such compliance was circumcision. Some
of these went to the Christian community in Antioch saying, “unless you are
circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.”
(15:1)
This caused a sharp dispute
and debate within the community. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along
with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders
about this question.
Through Phoenicia and Samaria,
they arrived in Jerusalem and gave a report on how the Gentiles had been
converted. Then the Pharisee Christians again stood up and said, “the Gentiles
must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses.” (verse 5 ) It was
Peter who got up and addressed the
apostles and elders.
Peter made three points: 1)
God chose Peter to proclaim the Gospel to the Gentiles, 2) God accepted
Gentiles by giving them the Holy Spirit, 3) God made no distinction between us
and them. A key phrase lie in verse 8, “God, Who knows the heart.” People look
for a sign from outside, whereas God searches our heart. To listen to the heart
is a key to accepting each other as family.
Communication in a
multicultural society is the same. Although we communicate with verbal and body
language, if we do not listen to the heart of other people, misunderstanding or
no understanding is inevitable.
It was not that the Korean
pastor’s English had improved dramatically, but
more it was the opening of the heart of the old lady. Through
fellowship, they both began to listen to each other, which made communication
possible.
7)
Bible
Reflection (Acts 13:1-3)
In
the church at Antioch, the Christian community set Barnabas and Saul apart to
be sent as missionaries. There were prophets and teachers in the community and
five names were mentioned in verse one.
After the killing of Stephen,
the early Christians scattered as far as Antioch, and a great number of people
there became Christians as a result of telling the good news about the Lord
Jesus. As the news reached the ears of the church at Jerusalem, they sent
Barnabas to Antioch. Barnabas went via Tarsus to bring Paul to Antioch in order
to work together. For a year the Antioch church was taught by these two good
teachers.
As the people in the Antioch
church were worshipping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit asked them to set
the two apart. The people in Antioch knew the reason for it. They fasted,
prayed and placed their hands on them, and sent them off. This was the
beginning of the first missionary trip of Paul.
What we are interested in here
is the process of decision making of the Antioch church. There is no record of
big meetings and debate on finance, but as the Holy Spirit guided them, they
boldly followed.
Think of all the committee
meetings we have. Two hour meetings are common without even a short pause.
Fasting and praying have no important role here. Having meetings like this
seems unavoidable in a church organised as we are. Through a rational
discussion, solving an issue democratically lead to fewer mistakes but is also
less creative.
In other cultures, however, a
decision is made first on the basis of vision and trust, which may induce more
mistakes, but also provides a challenge and a new possibility.
8) Bible Study (Acts 9:1-19)
Saul was very dedicated to
following the God of the Jews. His God could only be found in the tradition of
the Old Testament. This belief drove Saul to arrest and persecute followers of
‘false God’.
In Acts, Saul is introduced as
a violent, active, committed persecutor of the Christian community. The
sovereign God whom Jesus proclaimed, who included the Samaritans and the
Gentiles was false to Saul. With the permission of the high priest, he
stubbornly determined to exterminate the believers of the ‘false God’ not only
from Jerusalem, but also from Damascus.
This violence, however, was
suddenly interrupted. The God of the people
intervened. “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” Saul fell to the
ground, then got up from the ground and opened his eyes, but could not see a
thing.
In fact, he was extremely
confused. He could not understand why God had scolded him. Saul believed that
he persecuted those Christians just for the glory of this same God. No wonder
he did not eat and drink anything for three days. It was not easy for him to
give up the God of mono-culture. His conversion was a turning from the God of
one race or one culture, to the God of all races or identities.
The change of his name from
Saul to Paul symbolised that he was now called to be a bridge between the Jews
and the Gentiles. When Jesus was taken to heaven, he said that the Good news
must be preached to all nations (Lk. 24:47). Now in Acts, the names of those
nations were mentioned, and Paul was one of the instruments used to carry out
that mission.
Conversion is a process more
than a moment. It takes place throughout the life of all Christians. The
stories of conversion in the Bible are not only of people moving from being a
non-Christian to being a Christian, but also being a Christian in a wider
sense. It is to see not only the God of my culture but the God of all people,
the God of the universe.
9) Bible Reflection (Acts
10:24-33)
In Acts 10, a story that is
one of the great turning points in the history of the church is introduced.
Peter, the representative of the Apostles, and Cornelius, a Roman centurion
meet for the first time. The unlikely encounter itself has a lot of teaching
for many of us.
Although
we read plenty of Peter in the Gospel, there is just a brief story of how and
why Cornelius is called. “Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a
memorial offering before God.” It is evidence that the God fearer Cornelius had
been prepared for this moment for a long time. One person had been trained, as
the older son at home, and the other, younger son had been prepared outside the
family circle. Furthermore, there is the Father in between the two.
Both
of them are also able to meet each other in their prayers. Peter and Cornelius
heard the call from God while they were praying. In fact, Cornelius immediately
dispatched messengers to invite Peter, and Peter did not waste time responding
to the call. For the work of God’s Kingdom, a Jew and a Gentile come together
without reservation.
It
would not be easy at all for Aboriginal people, Anglo people and more recent
migrants to co-operate with an open mind. Without prayer, it seems impossible.
However, it is God who mediates between different people, and each people needs
to respond to the invitation for the shared future and common goal. Like
Cornelius wants to listen to the will of God through Peter, each group needs to
listen more carefully to each other group about how God works there. This is
where reconciliation and mission begin.
“It
was good of you to come. Now we are all here in the presence of God to listen
to everything the Lord has commanded you to tell us.” says Cornelius.
Recent migrants to Australia should
be able to say “sorry” to Aboriginal people for the past and present, and
Aboriginal people should be able to accept other groups who share their future
in this land. The common
practice for cross-cultural studies in Australian churches was first to
identify some key texts which could be used for discussion purposes. For
example, the following stories made use of the biblical texts. They were
selected because of the initial obvious connection of ministry of Jesus with
other cultures apart from the Jewish one. They were also accompanied by a range
of questions. The purpose of the questions was….
This use of
scripture is designed to help people reflect on their experience. It is a way
of bringing together ‘my story’, scripture and providence. It does not
necessarily require a critical scholarly knowledge of the Scripture. Nor does
it necessarily require a cross-cultural hermeneutics.
These studies were discrete, occasioned and designed for a specific
purpose. The selection of the texts indicates that some parts of Scripture lend
themselves more early of a practical engagement with experience of migration.
The study of specific texts might itself to them to the examination of
particular themes. Such themes may compromise hospitality, engaging with
strangers, justice. It notes how ambiguous the biblical material can be. Susan
Synder is aware of the problem and hermeneutics in her writing on Asylum
Seekers, Migrants and the Culture.
What Synder’s work does is anticipate the need for the development of an
appropriate biblical hermeneutics for the Korean diaspora.
One other approach would be to isolate biblical stories to do with
cultural studies. In the OT, the most familiar are Ruth, Naomi going to the
foreign land. In the Gospels, there are encounters of Jesus meeting with such
as Samaritan woman and Centurion. They could become iconic biblical figures and
references. The benefit of these iconic encounters is that they revealed Jesus
crosses cultures. The rest of the NT is a wash in cross-cultural encounters.
The book of Acts represents the spread of Christian faith beyond the initial
Jewish setting. The example of Antioch church…The apostleship and missionary
journey of Paul single him out as pivotal and foundational follower of Christ
who is committed to proclaim the Gospel to a diversity of the cultures.
One might say
that Paul looms a large as a potentially candidate for being the patron saint
of a cross-cultural hermeneutic. (refer Paul’s cross cultural stuff here)
These first tentative steps
in biblical and theological relevance do not exist in a vacuum. They exist
alongside diverse reports and statements
which have been made by various church councils, especially to the
Assembly. The most notable of these have
been on hospitality and a church for all people.
The report on hospitality
was provided by the Assembly’s multi/cross cultural reference committee. It was
designed to provide a theological sets of ideas to underpin the desire to
manage property better. The idea of hospitality is, of course, a rich biblical and
theological metaphor. The most substantial recent treatment of such is Margaret
Pohl’s Making. Writing from within
the Uniting Church Seforosa Carroll has made use of Pohl’s work and coined the
term hospitaleity.
The benefit of a formal
report is that is makes a particular biblical or theological idea accessible to
a broader church audience. The report may have been on property but it made
available the following ideas.
It is evident that the
theme of hospitality should play a pivotal role in the cross cultural theology
of the Uniting Church. The particular theological points worth emphasizing from
this report and which can be carried over into a future constructive theology.
The statement of a church
of all nations is designed to build upon the 1985 declaration of being a multicultural
church. It is in a manner of speaking a form of implicit ecclesiology. That
reference to an implied theology resonates with the pioneering work of Martyn
Percy. Writing in his Shaping the Church
Percy referred to the ‘promise’ of such theological understanding.
The standard approach to an
ecclesiology is to consider the biblical images, various models, classical
marks, the sacraments, the nature of ministry and how the church relates to the
kingdom of God and mission. Daniel
Migliore has laid these concerns out in his Faith
Seeking Understanding. It is now recognized that content plays an important
part in how we compose our understanding of the church. Johannes van der Ven
has written on ecclesiologies in context. Of much more critical significance is
the work of Veli-Matt Karkkainen who seeks to give an ecumenical and global
perspective. There has not been a great deal of work done by Australians on
ecclesiology. The exceptions are Scott Cowdell’s God’s Next Big Thing.
None of these writings seek
to address the ecclesiology of a culturally diverse church. Neither Cowdell or
Pickard appear to be conscious of the need to engage with the existence of such
in an Australian context. Nevertheless these combined writings provide an
agenda, a shape into which an ecclesiology can be framed. And, furthermore,
they provide a lens through which to interpret a report like A church for all
nations.
Of all
the churches in Australia, the Uniting Church is the one most likely to
initiate a cross-cultural theology. Its declaration of being a multicultural
church has been part of its ecclesial aspirations for more than quarter of a
century. With the passage of time the necessity for an authentic theology to
support and embrace a raft of missional and ministerial practices has emerged.
The underlying assumption here is that a cross-cultural theology does not just
emerge as an idea which is then imposed as an unsuspecting church. Rather it is
a response to practical changes in the life of the church which then require
theological meaning.
The imperative lying behind a cross-cultural theology is
thus embedded in diaporic history. The imperative for such comes from
within the desire of the various ethnic
communities to find a space with the hosting church. The theological imperative
is not one-sided, however. The church which represents the core Anglo-Saxon
imaginary of Australia
The question naturally arises then what kind of
experience should serve a cross cultural theology. The posing of such a question
should not be taken for granted. There is a risk in appealing to this source.
The basic orientation of theology could be diverted away from theology’s very
reason for being which is the study of God, the praise of God, and not the
internal struggles, hopes and aspirations of the human subject{s}. Some
theologians express a genuine skepticism towards the role of experience.
The Australian experience has seen the telling of many
such tales. These stories are like a first step. They are like a prolegomena to
a subsequent theology. They are revealing things which need to be disclosed
first before the constructive task of an actual theology is done. They also
provide a groundedness to the context in which theological reflection will be
put into place.
Now it is at this point that some care should be exercised.
Jung Young Lee is clear: the tale he tells is autobiographical, but he rightly
insists theology is not autobiography. What the best of these diasporic theologians
do is situate the autobiographical inside a doctrine of the providence of
God.
This coming together of the autobiographical experience
and providence is a critical foundation for a cross cultural theology. It
manages to bridge the divide over whether experience in such a theology is
dealing with only religious experience or life in general The everyday,
ordinary experience of those seeking to relate to a neighbor in their otherness
is now situated in the way in which God provides for and envisages the
encounter. The transcendent dimension is now established and the cross cultural
enterprise cannot be collapsed into a sea of self-serving stories imperfectly
and provisionally told..
There is still yet another question. What kind of
experience counts for inclusion in a cross cultural theology. The critical
distinction to be made here is between being diasporic and now crossing
cultures. The diasporic experience is often hyphenated. It has to do with the
little dash that exists between one’s original cultural ethnicity and homeland
and arrival in a new land. That new land is a new slice of theological
geography for the diasporic self.
Notice the focus of those examples. It is on two cultures
and does involve a certain kind of crossing over but only between two cultures.
The contemporary context within Australia and many other societies is one of
much greater pluralism and cultural diversity. The writings of Bouma, Richmond
and Yang, Pearson all testify to a much more variegated society. What might a
cross cultural experience mean in this setting? Is it more than that captured
in Lee’s parable of the dandelion and Phan’s metaphor of the accidental
theologian?
The basic contour of a cross cultural theology has been
identified by Humphries and Pearson. It is shaped by a coming together not to celebrate
cultural diversity and harmony. It is established in the cross of Christ. It
would seem as if a cross cultural theology should view experience in this
light.
It can be a temptation to rest content with experience as
a source for such a theology. Bevans would disagree. The normative source for
any theology has usually been how Scripture is used.
The benefit of organizing metaphor of the cross is now
clear. It has an obvious theological appeal and possesses a greater sense of
dynamics than does its alternative, multicultural. It has the effect of
situating this level of cultural diversity with a concentrated web that weaves
in Christology, eccleciology and the doctrine of the Christian life.
Serene Jones has claimed that doctrine is not about
belief system or rtntines ideas. In her opinion doctrine is a ‘theater of the
imagination’ which expects performance and improvisation. There ideas then are
to be lived out; they are part of a drama of relationality between in ass care
are always, ‘other’ to one another. It is taken for granted that all human
subjects hear the image of God but they are also always other to God. They are
God’s creatures.
These two initiations
are like next steps in the construction of a cross-cultural theology. With
respect to a critical reading of a Scripture from perspective of migration and
diaspora. There has been an increasing body of work dedicated to intersection
at the biblical and critical studies.
There has not
yet been the emergence of a specifically cross-cultural hermeneutics.
Comparison can be made with what is happen to other newest disciplines
(eco-theology and public theology). What is happened in the fields begs the
questions. What would be a cross-cultural hermeneutics look like.
There is then
another approach. That is, the time has come to divide a set of principle which
would assist in the cross-cultural reading of any biblical text. The following
set has been devised via a class studying the practice of a cross-cultural
ministry and theology.
The purpose of
the cross-cultural hermeneutics is to develop a understanding of how Jesus
Christ is to be apprehended in a culturally diverse location. That claim
depends upon a pneumatology and a reading of a ascension of Christ. From the
perspective of the person and work of the Holy Spirit, there are two critical
steps. The first has to do with the Johnniie witness with the Spirit will lead
the disciples into a full confession of the truth, confession the Son with the
relationship with the Father.
It is the
Spirit which allows us to confess that its first century Palestinian Jew was
crucified and resurrected to become the Lord. The function of the Holy Spirit
is to confess Jesus Christ as the Lord.
The second
step has to do with the story of the Pentecost. People who were at the location
of the miracle could understand in their own language. What this reading of
Pneumatology means is that Christian theology must be centred on Jesus Christ
and what the Gospel can be perceived and talked about proclaimed a wide variety
of cultures and languages.
It does not
need to be housed in the Anglo-Celtic imaginary. The story of Pentecost frees
us from such constrains. It presupposes the dominant majority may need to
create more room and space for the culturally other if justice is to be done to
the narrative of Pentecost.
With respect
to the doctrine of Ascension, there was a further foundation. The purpose of
this doctrine is to recognize that Jesus Christ is no longer born to the first century
Palestine. There is a sense that a risen and exalted Christ is risen out of a
particular time and place in order to be available and every time and place.
What has
emerged has been a series of theological fragments and themes. The present
could be now seen as a kairos moment, the right time, to a more disciplined
approach. One way of doing this is draw upon the core systematic agenda and
consider how it might be informed by an appropriate hermeneutic in this
particular Australian context. What might this mean?
The core
systematic agenda has been well described by the Cambridge based theologian
David Ford. This agenda is often set out in the table of contents of many
standard systematic theologies. One good example of this practice is Daniel
Migliore’s Faith Seeking Understanding. In the course of his discussion on the systematic
agenda, Ford speaks of the need of an organizing theme. This is a motif which
will hold the various elements on the agenda together and create a coherent, consistent
theology. One example of such an organizing theme is how Douglas John Hall
makes use of a theology of the cross in his monograph in The Cross in Our
Context: Jesus and the Suffering World.
How might this
method then work for a Korean diaspora theology in contemporary Australia? Here
the themes and signifiers like hyphens, hybrids, kimchi and borders are to be
found. It is arguably the case that the theological metaphor of the cross holds
them together and provides both a hermeneutical tool and an organizing symbol.The
Cross inevitably grounds this emerging theology in the Christ event. It binds
the discussion into theology rather than more sociological or historical descriptions
of a migrant culture. The Cross can of course be glorified and be like a cosmetic
veneer for faith. This way of thinking is much more in keeping with luminal,
inbetween spaces, borders, hyphens and hybridity. It is more down to earth and
engaged with the joys and struggles of life.
One way of
reading Christ and the cross for such a setting is the work of Jung Young Lee.
His overarching concerns for a multicultural theology viewed through a lens of
marginality. That is his organizational theme. For Lee, Christology is the hermeneutical
tool for the Christian faith. What we see here is an understanding of Christ
embedded in the experience of margins and hyphens. This is a location which
expects moment and a discovery. It is one requires the capacity to negotiate
boundaries and the moving in and out of spaces. It is cross-cultural ministry
in the manner in which Jon Humphries describes in Faith in Hyphen.
What we have
here is only one item on Ford’s agenda. There are still many theological
doctrines requiring attention. The dilemma is that it takes time for the full
core to be explored. Jung Young Lee, for instance, follows a well trod path and
basically deals with only two other key areas of doctrine: what does it mean to
be human and the church.
5.1 Andrew
Dutney
For the sake
of constructing multicultural hermeneutics, one possible strategy is to examine
the writings of Andrew Dutney. There is good reason for this preferred tactic.
Dutney has written extensively on the Uniting Church and highly regarded. At
the national Assembly of the UC held in Sydney in 2009 he was voted to be the
next president of the church, his term of office due to begin in 2012.
Dutney has
written on a wide variety of subjects. He has a particular interest in
systematic theology and ethics. One of his most well known texts in this area
is on Playing God. Here he considers
a theological response to a raft of difficult biotechnological ethical issues
now arising. However, there is little recognition of cultural diversity in Playing God. The importance of this
silence cannot be underestimated. The issues being raised are also faced by
those who come from a non-western background and where cultural practice and
custom functions in a different way. The potential dilemma here for the UC and
the development of a cross-cultural hermeneutic is how Dutney can structure his
argument for his own denominational audience. Playing God is like a work of public theology. It is designed to be
read in three audiences: the church, the academy and the public domain. The
text is highly regarded. For the present purpose, though, it could be set
alongside an earlier article Dutney wrote on the ethics of abortion to be found
in Uniting Church Studies. Here
Dutney is concerned with how the UC makes up the moral mind on a matter like
this. He makes a comparison between UC processes and those of the Anglican and
Roman Catholic Churches. What is of critical concern for a cross-cultural
theology is how Dutney establishes a UC ethic in a catholic reformed tradition.
What he is effectively doing is grounding the UC’s theology and ethic inside
the received tradition of the three denominations which went into the making up
of the UC: the Presbyterian, Congregational, and the Methodist.
Such a way of
making an argument is hardly surprising and it has considerable merit. Dutney
is inviting the UC to consider and respect its foundation documents. He is
particularly well-placed to do this. His doctoral thesis was on the formation
of the UC. Dutney’s focus is inclined to fall upon the ecumenical praxis of how
these three denominations came together and be one? His reading of the Basis of
Union has been one which is ecumenical and, in more recent times, missional. That
latter concern is understandable also in the light of how the UC is currently
faring in terms of its membership, resources and witness.
There is a
tension hidden away in Dutney’s reading of the UC, nevertheless. The tendency
of his interpretive optic is to look back to origins and consider how they may
inform the present. That present is still essentially written about in terms of
the original demography and constituency of the UC. Although there are occasional
exceptions, there is very little awareness of non-Western cultures who make up
the UCA in a new millennium. The construction of a cross-cultural hermeneutic
would warmly affirm Dutney’s valuable work, but also pose some questions. It
must do so because he has published a number of key popular and introductory
texts to the UC including Manifesto for
Renewal (1986), .and more recently Introducing
the Uniting Church in Australia (2010). Among these books, Introducing the Uniting Church in Australia
has been translated into a number of non-English languages and being much
appreciated by the relevant ethnic groups.
For a
cross-cultural hermeneutic, there are a couple of points which must be raised.
The first has to do with core texts. The Basis of Union was ecumenical and
missional – but it was more than that. Dutney has rightly observed that the UCA
was sep up to be a genuinely Australian church; this Australia was in the ethos
of taking leave of the white Australian policy and adopting a more liberal immigration
policy. The Basis of Union had specified that this new church would be
responsive to the Asia Pacific region.
It believes that Christians in Australia are called to bear
witness to a unity of faith and life in Christ which transcends cultural and
economic, national and racial boundaries, and to this end the Uniting Church
commits itself to seek special relationships with Churches in Asia and the
Pacific. (Basis of Union, para 2)
It was
accompanied by a ‘Statement to the Nation’. Now the full flowing cultural
diversity of the UCA still lay in the future at this time, but here we have recognition
of a wider ecumenism. In the course of time, the UCA declared itself to be a
multicultural church in 1985.
When then do
these developments sit within Dutney’s corpus of writings which can be viewed
as representing a mainstream in that churches discourses about itself?
The other
point of tension lies in how the then regard for origins sits with the emphasis
the Basis of Union places on the UCA being a pilgrim people, on the way.
The Uniting Church affirms that it belongs to the people of God on
the way to the promised end. The Uniting Church prays that, through the gift of
the Spirit, God will constantly correct that which is erroneous in its life,
will bring it into deeper unity with other Churches, and will use its worship,
witness and service to God's eternal glory through Jesus Christ the Lord.
(Basis of Union, para 18)
Its documents
to do with ministry have always held open the possibility of transformation,
change, and in effect, always reforming. Now this tension raises a standard
issue for debate on national and ecclesial identity. Should the original
culture and ethos of an entity set the parameters of what ought to evolve? And
if so, on what basis?
This dilemma
has been well explored by Miriam Dixson on the Australian imaging and Julia
Pitman with respect to the UC.
5.2 Ecclesiology
of All Nations
The key theoretical
document for establishing the policies of the Uniting Church Uniting
Church
However, there is a problem
from the beginning. The term ‘multicultural church or multiculturalism’
requires definition and is also susceptible to diverse interpretations. Exactly
what it meant by the term is uncertain. It is of course a term which has come
from the field of politics and sociology and the church has imported it into
the self-understanding of what it means to be this particular church.
The cross-cultural
committee of one presbytery defined the ‘multicultural church’ as one “where
members journey together with people from many different cultures whilst
allowing members from minority cultures also to feel secure within the wider
church”. Such a definition, it was argued, “allows ethnic congregations the
possibility of preserving their cultural heritage, worshipping in their native
tongue, but also hold the hope that eventually this ‘multicultural’ diversity
will also be found within the life of individual congregations.” And again,
from one rural congregation, it means that “we give due recognition, acceptance
and encouragement of those who are of different ethnic background. We are not
to be imperialistic acting as if our way (Anglo-Saxon) is best.”
It was recognized that some
members of the Uniting Church are suspicious of the term ‘multicultural’. It
can be seen as an endorsement for different ethnic communities to establish
their own churches in Australia under the ‘umbrella’ of Uniting Church in
Australia, but with little commitment or loyalty to the ethos of the Uniting
Church. It was also recognized that there is legitimate debate going on
‘whether or not the nurture and encouragement of mono-ethnic congregations is a
helpful policy in developing a multicultural church.
It was evident that there
is an implicit theology at work in how members of the church wrestle with the
practice of multiculturalism. The church was reckoned to be ‘quintessentially
multicultural’ because it is made up of ‘a great multitude from every nation,
from all tribes and peoples and languages.’ In a variation on this theme, it
was reckoned that the church proclaims God’s reign over all ethnic groups and
therefore encourages and supports different cultures in their spiritual
pilgrimage.
The question arises whether
some of this implicit theology needs to be rendered more explicit. The
underlining assumption here is that the practice of multiculturalism or
cross-culturalism and the more effective implementation of current policies are
best served when policies speak into and out of a recognizable pattern of
belief. The dilemma is that policies and guidelines are often responses to ad
hoc issues that arise. They are not always connected to a supportive theology
which establishes their purpose in an emerging understanding of what it means
to be a people of God on the way (B23-4).
However, it is all not
based on theology. When the Uniting
Church Uniting Church
in Australia , and of the
understanding of what it means to be part of the church
of Jesus Christ in Australia Mission
This report was a policy
proposal to the Synod by a policy working group of Division of Ecumenical
Mission, Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Committee and largely deals with
immigration issues. However, some theologies that were illustrated in the
report were the early attempt of founding work on theology of a multicultural
church.
“The
Old and New Testaments contain many incidents and principles which speak
directly to our experience of immigration, both as a personal journey and as
larger scale social behavior. The theological task here is to link our informed
perceptions of contemporary events with the imperative of scripture in order to
gain insight, strength and direction for the planning and practice of the total
ministry of the church.” (4)
In terms of settlement in
the foreign land and of process of integration, the report recognizes that
pressures towards assimilation of immigrant people have always been strong in Australia
“The
biblical figures of Esther and Ruth can be helpful here. Ruth has long been
upheld as the foreigner who was blessed by God when she identified totally with
the Israelite through marriage and family involvement. Yet Roy Sano sees much
contemporary interpretation of Ruth as the secular ideology of the ‘melting
pot’ turned into gospel truth. While the ‘Ruth experience’ is valid for those
who chose it, the church should lend its support to public policy which
respects ethnic and cultural integrity rather than creating assimilationist
pressures through social structures.” (5)
The Working Group considers
Esther has more significance for many migrants and children of migrants who
have gained social acceptance and advancement in Australia
5.3 Jesus
the Border Crosser
One significant ecumenical
book that had a serious attempt on theologizing the multicultural church
published in 1986 was The Cultural Pearl.
With a subtitle ‘Australian Reading in Cross-cultural Theology and Mission
In his article in the book,
Carrington asked a couple of questions relating theological educators
confronting a multicultural world.
“The
key theological issue raised before any other by a serious consideration of
contextualization was how we Christians to cope with the diverse pluralism they
encountered in creation? … How could Christians respect people who were
different from themselves and so embodied genuine pluralism in God’s creation?
And what does acceptance of God given plurality do to the traditional
understanding of the way God operate? Does acceptance of God given plurality
affect the way theological educators must work?” (14)
Carrington critics one of
the characteristics of colonial empires that all subjects and colonies are
expected to exist with one epistemology which governs all things. Likewise the
Empire theology becomes a way of life and its religion becomes a monolithic
determination of successful thinking, indeed the only successful epistemology
possible. This is a challenge for theological educators confronting a multicultural
world in the post colonial era.
A few years later in 1998,
a small booklet ‘The Vision of a Multicultural Church’ carries a theological
perspective on multiculturalism. As this paper reaffirms the 1985 declaration
on the Uniting Church
This paper contains some
reflections on the Old and New Testaments witness on cross-cultural journey of
the Hebrew people. New insight this article provide is particularly on
Multiculturalism and Theology of Justification.
“A
fundamental article of faith in Judaism in Paul’s time was that Israel was the
elect people of God, called to be set apart from all other races and
cultures…It was out of zeal for keeping the law and preserving the difference
that Saul persecuted the church, because the church seemed to be annulling the
law, breaking down the invisible wall and mixing Jews and gentiles…Paul’s
argument is that no one, either Jew or Gentiles, is justified by works of the
law, rather it is by grace through faith that all people are justified.” (9)
During the Reformation,
this doctrine of justification became very important but Luther understood it
somewhat differently. As a result, Christians today tend to understand the
doctrine in a rather individualistic way quite apart from the context of
racialism in which Paul expounded it. This understanding of the doctrine is not
wrong. It is a legitimate extension and reinterpretation of it, but there has been
a serious loss if the church only understands Paul’s teaching in this way and
fails to recognize how Paul applied the doctrine to racial and cultural issues
in the first instance.
“The
New Testament doctrine of justification should help us to cope with racial and
cultural diversity. The doctrine means that as God accept us all in our
differences through Christ, so we are to accept one another, without first
requiring everyone else become like us and without having to become like them.
In fact, we do not think in terms of them and us at all. People are all
different and we do not need to fear differences or reverence sameness.” (11)
5.4 Faith in a Hyphen
From early 2000, active
theological attempt on multicultural church emerged at United
Theological College
in Sydney
Much of this background
which led to this publication was the course ‘Christologies in Context’ Pearson
taught in New Zealand and now in Australia. In the classrooms, he usually
encounters students who are migrants or second generation. They are generally
rather quite but Pearson knows that they have a different kind of discipline,
therefore different images of Jesus Christ from their lives. They may not yet
to know the precise nature of their hermeneutics of suspicion, but experience
has warned them to be wary. The role of theological educator plays a
significant part here as to whether the educator will represent them and their
interest or listen to their story and let them articulate their kind of
theology. It has been Pearson’s merit that a number of non English speaking
students begin to be more confident to articulate their ‘dislocate and
relocate’ tales and to reflect them in theological terms.
In his article
‘Criss-Crossing Cultures’ in the book, Pearson elaborates the meaning of life
in-between immigration and settlement which symbolized as a hyphen. As
Tongan-Australian or Chinese-Australian, the small dash in between of the
identity provides a theological wealth to ponder.
“At
the best of times the hyphen is ambiguous. It is employed because it seems to
join into one the culture and place of origin with the dominant or core culture
of a new place. It seems to unite, in keeping with its Latin etymology of
‘under’ and ‘one’…It conveys the impression that the hyphen marks the linking
of two discrete, homogeneous, stable ethnicity. Is that hyphen seeking to
bind the ‘essence’ of being Tongan or Korean with the ‘essence’ of being
Australian?” (8-9)
In the experience of
multiple and fluid identity, translation task into a theological language has
been less priority for the church. “Almost all of the discussion on migration
and hybridity occurs in the absence of theology. That lack of presence begs the
question: In what ways might an overt Christian commitment inform the
self-understanding of both the first generation migrant and those that inhabit
the liminal space expressed by a hyphen or a back slash? What role does
Christian belief perform in this experience of alterity?” (22)
Tupou-Thomas also finds a
comfort in the hyphen saying “I am like this hyphen, inbetween the past and the
present. For me this grammatical sign is like a little island in Oceania …My thinking about God takes its shape from this
floating little dash. Its heart lies hidden away inside this hyphen.” (3)
Hyphen may be a form of vehicle or even a life line for many people living in a
diverse world.
The hyphen, however, is not
as innocent as it seems. “It cannot be
taken for granted that the language of being a hyphenated person will commend
itself right across the spectrum of discourses concerning diaspora.” (9) Many
times the word is also ambiguous as it seems to unite, connect or even bond. It
seems assuming the crossing over in equal term between the two or more
communities and identities. If the hyphen is fixed but not fluid without
justice, it could become a deceit for the cross-cultural relationship.
In doing diasporic
theology, the languages matters. Since the word ‘multicultural’ causes some
concern in the Australian politics relating to the multiculturalism debate, the
word ‘cross-culture’ receives theologically much better. More critically,
the
metaphor of the cross is rather rich and can stimulate the theological
imagination. The cross of Christ imagery centres a cross-cultural approach to
contextual theology in the person and work of Jesus Christ. It provides for us
who are Christian a unifying element for the church despite the diversity of
cultures that exist within. (169)
The word cross also implies
movement, a crossing, between cultures. Therefore a cross-cultural theology is
also about crossing over into the experience and context of the other in order
to listen, see and ‘breathe in’ who they are, so that we might discover what
the good news of Jesus is for them and for us. Humphries in his article
‘Crossing into the Unknown’ rightly points out “Thus cross-cultural contextual
theology is about evangelization-the discovery of Jesus Christ, who is
God-with-us.” (169)
Another attempt to develop
a diaspora theology from the experience of ‘drifting seeds’ has risen from
Korean community in Sydney. A bi-lingual book came out to celebrate the ‘30
years of Korean churches in Australia
Lee argues “The churches in
Korea
“The
church have drifted in confusion, and damaged their ecclesiology through
multiple schisms. In this situation, the Korean migrant ministers cannot help
but see the urgent need of migration theology.” (240)
Chang sees that the role of
Korean churches in Australia
“The
Korean ethnic church is a ‘contact zone’ in the sense that it mediates between
the Korean ethnic community and the Anglo-Australian society and with various
minority ethnic groups. However, this contact zone is crossed by intersections
such as politics, economics, culture and gender issues, and so on, and thus it
open onto a space of negotiation in which dialogue takes places.” (410)
Another
major publication called Crossing
Borders-Shaping Faith, Ministry and Identity in Multicultural Australia reflects the changing nature of
church landscape of Australia
Some
20 writers in different ethnic background including from Europe, Asia and
Pacific region in the volume describe why some of their community members have
become diaspora in Australia
In
his article ‘Re-Imagining God in Diasporic Communities’, Dr Hettiarachchi who
has a Sri Lankan origin remembers the Hebrew diaspora experience and try to
compare it with his own Sinhala community in Melbourne.
This
reconstruction of the ‘diaspora narrative’ of the Sinhala community in
Melbourne create order and concordance out of all discordance depicted by
political instability, institutional decay, continued violence and political
apathy towards the tsunami survivors (December 2004) of their nation. Obviously
there are different voices and representations in this ‘diaspora narratives’,
sometimes with incoherent segments. Yet what it provisionally provides is an
identity enhancing, spiritually nourishing disposition and sense of meaning in
the adopted land. (309)
Diasporic
experience provides an opportunity for the people to re-image God and
themselves as to who they are and where they are going, and through the
experience a transformation may be possible.
In
2008, a cross-cultural journal called Cross
Culture has been published again by United Theological College in Sydney. The
editor of the journal describes the purpose of such volume “to facilitate
further thinking in diasporic and cross cultural ministry and theology…It is
designed to be a forum and provide a nurturing outlet for biblical and
theological voices that requires an airing and some scope for experimenting,” (13)
The hope of the editorial team lies that such thinking can be interdisciplinary
and also committed to engaging with the more formal organization of the
received discipline of a Christian theology. In the environment of using
theological resources mostly from North America ,
this was a welcome occasion for people doing theology down under.
In the
journal a couple of Anglo-Australian theological students attempt to articulate
their experience of encountering cross culture and to find Christ in it. Hobson’s
article ‘Dining Together at Christ’s Table: The Adventure of Pot-luck Dinners’
shows the pot-luck dinner in contemporary multicultural context serves as
metaphor for human being, for human-ness. Human beings are creatures made for
communion with one another and with a triune God who is source of life and
creative community. Another article ‘Shepherding for Christ’ by Earl also
appropriate a metaphor of ‘shepherding’ which has both biblical and sporting
overtones to argue that those used to the historical, systematized theological
discourse can best serve the multicultural context and the Gospel by being
‘Shepherders for Christ’.
Habel , NC
(ed), Religion and Multiculturalism in Australia , Melbourne
References
Bevans, S, Models of Contextual Theology,
Maryknoll, Orbis Books, 2002.
Bouma, G (ed), Many Religions, All
Australian: Religious Settlement, Identity and Cultural Diversity, Melbourne
Breckenridge J &
R, What Color Is Your God? – Multicultural
Education in the Church, Grand
Rapids
Carroll, S, ‘Weaving New Spaces:
Christological Perspectives from Oceania and Oceanic Diaspora’, Studies in World Christianity, Vol. 10,
Part 1, 10.1, UK
Docker J & Fisher G (eds), Race, Colour and Identity in Australia and NZ, Sydney
Dutney, A, Introducing Uniting Church in Australia ,
Uniting Church Press, Sydney
Elmer, D, Cross-cultural
Connections, Downers Grove , Inter Varsity
Press, 2002.
Emilsen
W & S, Making Twenty Years, Sydney
Fredrickson, GM, Racism: A Short History, Melbourne
Greene, CJD, Christology in Cultural Perspective, Grand Rapids
Goldberg, DT, Multiculturalism: A Critical Reader, Oxford
Han, GS, ‘Korean Christianity in
Multicultural Australia: Is it Dialogical or Segregating Koreans?’, Studies in World Christianity, Vol. 10,
Part 1, 10.1, UK
Hughes P & Bond S (ed), A Handbook for Cross-cultural Ministry, Adelaide
Jupp, J, From White Australia to Woomera, Cambridge ,
Cambridge University
Kivisto, P, Multiculturalism in a
Global Society, Oxford
Law, E, The Bush Was Blazing But Not Consumed, St Louis
Inclusion: Making Room for Grace, St Louis
Lee, JY, Marginality
– The Key to Multicultural Theology, Minneapolis
Lingenfelter S, Transforming Culture, Grand Rapids, Baker Books, 1998.
Mackay, H, Turning Point, pan Macmillan ,
Australia
Matsuoka, F, The Color of Faith: Building Community In a
Multicultural Society, United Church Press, Cleveland
May, S (ed), Critical Multiculturalism, London
Migliore,
DL, Faith Seeking Understanding, Grand Rapids
Ng, D
(ed), People on the Way, Valley Forge , Judson Press, 1996.
Pearson C, Faith in Hyphen,
Adelaid, Openbook Publishers, 2004.
Phan,
PC & Lee, JY (eds), Journeys at the
Margins: Toward an Autobiographical Theology in America-Asian Perspective,
Collegeville, Liturgical Press, 1999.
Pohl, C, Making Room: Recovering Hospitality
as a Christian Tradition, Grand
Rapids
Rhodes,
SA, Where the Nations Meet, Downers Grove , InterVersity Press, 1998.
Robin,
C, Global Diasporas, London
Schreiter, R, The
New Catholicity, Maryknoll, Orbis Books, 1997.
Son, YR, ‘Korean Commission: Womb of Mono-Ethnic
Presbyteries and Doom of the Uniting Church’s Vision for a Multicultural
Church, Uniting Church Studies, Vol.
10, No 2. 2, August, Australia
Stone,
J & Dennis, R, Race and Ethnicity,
Oxford
Tavan
G, The long slow death of White Australia , Melbourne
Talvacchia,
K T, Critical Minds and Discerning Hearts
– A Spirituality of Multicultural Teaching, St Louis
Theophanous
A, Understanding Multiculturalism and
Australian Identity, Melbourne
Yang
& Pearson (ed), 30 Years Korean
Ministry in Australia , Sydney
Yang,
MD (ed), Growing Multicultural
Congregations, Sydney, BOM, 2003.
Copyright Myong Duk Yang
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기