|
*
José M. de Mesa In his book, The Church and Cultures, Louis Luzbetak tells of an Indian religious who was complaining to a group of missionaries about the mission methods which were being employed in his native India: "You say that you bring Jesus and new humanity to us. But what is this 'new humanity' you are proclaiming? We would like to see it, touch it, taste it, feel it. Jesus must not be just a name, but a reality. Jesus must be illustrated humanly". To this story Luzbetak adds the remark: "And how right on the target he was! All human beings are cultural beings. Jesus must be culturally relevant if he is really to be understood and appreciated. This is a most obvious fact unfortunately only too often overlooked".1 If evil and the sinful were presented as "a world without the sun" among the Khasis of India, or as "dirty water" to the fishpond entrepreneurs of Pangasinan, Philippines; and, conversely, if the good, the delightful and grace-filled as a "rooster who brings back the sun to this dark world" and "clean, fresh water" that enables people to live and be supported by their livelihood, then Jesus, perhaps, would be indeed real to people of these cultural contexts. And would the significance of Jesus not be more intelligible and meaningful to women who are battered or physically abused and who perceive their condition as "being asphyxiated" or strangled (and, therefore, they feel that they are gasping for breath or that they are short of breath), if Jesus and the "salvation" he brings are presented in terms of being able to breathe well? Christology needs to be intimately linked with the culture, the particular way of feeling, thinking and behaving of a given people. This is important because a recognizable reference to lived experience is the first criterion for the meaningfulness of a given theological reflection. A Christology which is rooted in a culture ensures the intelligibility and relevance of Jesus in that culture. In the past culture has been largely neglected in theology in Asia. 1. Trends in Asia Related to Christology It was largely colonization and evangelization in tandem that brought and propagated the western understanding of Jesus in Asia. Not only was it foreign to Asia, it was also an understanding which was polemical against non-Christian religions, disrespectful of indigenous cultures and insensitive to the injustices which colonialism brought about. As a rule, this Christ brought by the missionaries was one which was against culture and religion (Richard Niebuhr). It was at odds with other religions- often viewed as false-which were found in Asia. Although there were exceptions, the general altitude of Christian missionaries from the West was one of opposition. As one missionary to India put it, "The missionaries were sent out to eradicate heathendom in India, not to spread heathen nonsense over all of Europe."2 This foreign perspective on Jesus also significantly diminished its influence and, at times, militated against the possibility of being given a good hearing because it suggested the turning of one's back on one's own indigenous culture. In a way, although deplorable, this was understandable because Christianity has been largely a "potted plant in Asia. ..transported without being transplanted" and, therefore, "viewed by Asians as a foreign importation and imposition".3 And instead of challenging the oppressive and exploitative ideology and practices of colonialism, this Christ legitimated these instead by encouraging people to put up with their suffering for the sake of identifying with the suffering Christ and for the sake of a heavenly reward. Against this background of the widespread dissemination of classical Christology in Asia and the felt lack of its impact, the Asian churches since the late 1960s have increasingly become aware of the need to root the importance and relevance of Jesus in their respective situations and cultures, which were also religious. As I read it, it was the rediscovery of experience as an essential and constitutive element in theological understanding that provided the breakthrough. Rather than regarding the human situation as just a locus for applying theology what is happening in people and societies is a necessary ingredient in comprehending the faith. Coupled with this consciousness of the importance of the historical in theologizing was the new awareness that culture is not monolithic. Around this time, a shift occurred from a classical way of viewing culture to one which was empirical. There is a plurality as well as diversity of cultures, the Euro-American being only one of them and its assumed superiority is unfounded. Acknowledgment of cultural diversity easily led to the recognition of religions alive in and interwoven with cultures. A Triple Dialogue in Asia Theologizing When we survey the Christological reflections produced during the 1970s and the 1980s by local and expatriate theologians in local churches, we notice the many different attempts to interpret who Jesus is and what he means to diverse Asians. One way of categorizing these endeavours is to see them as results of the triple dialogue currently being carried out by Christianity with the poor, the religions and the cultures of Asia. While it may be possible to somehow delineate each of these areas of dialogue, it is important to remember that in reality the three are really intertwined, even if only in an implicit way. Prominent among the themes which have emerged and gained consensus among Asian theologians is liberation from social injustice, one which colonial Western Christology had generally bypassed and neglected. Expectedly, social analysis is given priority in the theological methodology espoused by most theologians advocating this standpoint. This development surfaced during the 2nd Inter-Continental Dialogue of EATWOT in Seoul in 1999 where an overview of the Christological debates in Asian theology was made.4 The dalit theology of recent years in India exemplifies this trend of liberation. The dalits (from the root word dal in Marathi language which means to crack, open and split), especially the women, are poor and discriminated in society and in the church. They are forced to live separately from the common people, they are barred from using common wells, roads and other common facilities and dalits converted to Christianity have separate seats in the church and separate cemeteries for the dead. Liberation from the dehumanizing caste system in all aspects has been and is the deepest longing of the dalits. Dalit theology provides us with a vivid description of the marginalization and depredation of the dalits who are despised and exploited outcasts within the Hindu caste system. It unveils the ideology both in the hierarchical and the ecclesiastical caste system through social analysis, and articulates the hope and the struggle of the dalits for liberation. Moreover, Asian theologians have been cognizant of another dimension in their articulation of Christologies, the presence of and dialogue with other religions. For Aloysius Pieris of Sri Lanka "our desperate search for the Asian face of Christ can find fulfilment only if we participate in Asia's own search for it in the unfathomable abyss where Religion and Poverty seem to have the same common source: God, who has declared Mammon his enemy" (Matt. 6:24).5 Thus, the "church must be given time to step into the baptismal waters of Asian religion and to pass through passion and death on the cross of Asian poverty. Until this ecclesiological revolution is complete, there will be no Asian Christology".6 In step with this orientation, by way of illustration, the Korean Minjung theologians are convinced that Jesus Christ is present among the poor and the disinherited. Minjung (people) theology began when military dictatorship was enforced in Korea (1961-1988) and when workers, farmers and fisherfolk were exploited to boost the Korean economy. Its Christology drew from the messianism found in the biblical tradition and from the popular messianic traditions inherent in Korean Maitreya Buddhism and Donghak religion.7 It was inevitable that a specific dialogue between Christianity and the other religions as religions would also occur. What, for instance, does one make of Christianity's claim to religious superiority over and against other religions? C.S. Song from Taiwan, who is heavily influenced by Confucianist and Taoist ideas, postulates that Christianity needs to give up its exclusive claims of special election or privileged access towards salvation history and to meet instead the non-Christian histories, cultures and religions without theological prejudices. He centres his understanding of Jesus Christ on the mysticism of the incarnation in which he sees an expression of the fundamental unity between creation and salvation. For him the incarnation is more of a theological interpretative model than a historical fact of the divine becoming human. 8 In the Philippines this sort of exchange is taking place between official and popular Catholicism. Benigno Beltran, who looked for elements for his Christology in the folk religiosity of scavengers living and working at a huge dump site, discovered that the traditional dogmatic teachings on Christology have been re-interpreted according to the local worldview. As a result Jesus is mainly the Child Jesus (Santo Niño) on the one hand, and the Suffering Christ (the Black Nazarene) on the other. However, many of the changes which the people have introduced into their Catholicism seem to be closer to the thinking of the bible than to the Western dogmatic tradition. These elements constitute valuable material for the construction of a Filipino Christology in the future.9 The distinctively cultural approach to Christology is also found in the Asian theological enterprise and this, eminently, in the field of art. A good example of this is found in the collection of Christian art in Asia published in 1975 by the Christian Conference of Asia (CCA).10 Here the focus on the cultural is aimed at expressing cultural identity within Christian faith which includes the recovery of self, distinctiveness of culture and attentiveness to contemporary issues in one's country. Jesus' crucifixion, for instance, is expressed by Indonesian artist Bagong Kussudiardja through the Batik-style figure of a traditional Indonesian puppet, which intensifies the feeling of tragedy. A contrast through colours is also made between Christ's head covered by green light and the darkness of the background". 11 Included too in the collection of CCA is K.C.S. Paniker's "Sorrow of Christ', a sculpture expressing the compassion of Christ, identifying with the misery of suffering people. His nose is distorted. His mouth is mis-shapen and his eyes pop out.12 When asked what led him to do this sculpture, he replied, "I am a Hindu. We contemplate, and pray and fast. We meditate on the way of compassion. I read the Bible at Madras Christian College where I studied. I was impressed to find that this man, Jesus of Nazareth, not only prayed for, but actually related himself to the misery of marginalized people, such as those who suffered from leprosy."13 In terms of Christological reflections one can mention Kosuke Koyama from Japan. His understanding of Christ derives from the image of Jesus carrying a "handle-less" cross as well as Christ crucified. The "handle" represents for him efficient control. A crucified mind is a mind that does not seek to control or manipulate. Koyama thinks that "the image of Jesus under the weight 'of the bulky and handleless cross is a pregnant missiological image in the light of which the theological meaning of our every-day Asian situation must be sought" because God does not come to human beings in Jesus Christ with "handle-mindedness".14 Today, Asian contextual theologies are flourishing. Some follow a socioeconomic model in the line of liberation theology, while others prefer a cultural paradigm of inculturation, and still others attempt a mix of the two.15 This growing movement seems to say that faith in Jesus as the Christ is too precious to be consigned to irrelevance, it deserves the best expressions the local Asian churches can muster. Thus, theologians like those mentioned earlier as well as authoritative bodies like the FABC (Federation of Asian Bishops Conference) are attempting to contextualize the meaning of Jesus for our times. At the recently concluded Synod for Asia the need for inculturation and for a continuous exploration of its possibilities were reaffirmed. More specifically, there was a call to develop an Asian approach to theology and inculturated approaches to the proclamation of the Gospel. Not only was there persistence regarding such exigency, but increased discussion of it as well.16 Clearly, the local churches of Asia not only want to put to rest the impression that Christianity is a foreign religion from the West, but also that they have as much right as the West to see Jesus in their own cultural, historical and religious ways. However, both situations — the spread of classical Christology and the present attempts of contemporary Asian theologians and institutional ecclesial bodies to inculturate Christological reflection — still imply in differing ways the "application" of ready made Christological understandings worked out by experts to more specific situations of local communities or groups through adaptation and translation to understandable language. Of course theological reflections arising from the locality and done by local theologians have an edge in terms of meaningfulness to Asia on those adapted from outside Asia. They are genuinely a step forward for they stimulate fresh thinking about Jesus which may not have occurred as yet locally and, thus, suggest new possibilities in the area of Christological reflection. As such professional theologians have an important and continuing role to play in the endeavour which is inculturation. Through their study and dissemination of alternative ways of viewing the significance of Jesus, local communities become more aware of the contextual nature of classical Christological formulations. But these new perspectives still leave communities and groups, who are the primary subjects of theologizing, disempowered to work out their own understandings of who Jesus is for them. These may even unintentionally strengthen the belief that the community as a whole are only recipients of theological constructs of theologically professional individuals or bodies, only learning and applying already worked out theology but not doing it themselves. To a growing number of theologians, people would be in a better position if they were enabled to "do Christology" themselves,17 much in the same way that communities in Solentiname (Nicaragua) were empowered to reflect on the relevance of scripture in the decade of the 1970's.18 Publications explaining the way to "do theology", with some even describing step by step methodologies with illustrative examples, have started to appear. Surely, these are encouragement to communities and pastoral agents to engage in actual theologizing. 19 Catholic communities in Asia today are taught how to reflect on scripture vis-a-vis their situations, by the so-called ASIPA (Asian Integrated Pastoral Approach) method, a method adopted from the Lumko Institute of South Africa. This ASIPA approach, which is "Christ and Community centred", is intended to train the laity in their pastoral mission in the Church and in the world by involving "participants of workshops to search for themselves and allows them experience a new way of being church.20 It is when people themselves appropriate the significance and relevance of Jesus and express this in their own way that Jesus becomes more real to them. And what better way than for people to "do Christology" themselves rather than be taught Christology (read: someone else's Christology).21 When people are taught how to do theology rather than just learn it, their potential and capability to reflect on their experiences themselves are activated. Christology being done by communities (pastoral agents) rather than by professional theologians (whose thoughts are put in understandable language and taught to the faithful) has a particular advantage. To state the obvious: The communities involved can easily "own" this Christology because it has been worked out from their experiences and they have formulated it themselves. A Christology articulated, however inchoately and imperfectly by a community is, to me, more meaningful to that community than anything done, as it were, for them by theologians or official church bodies. What they have struggled to express in their own way has much better chances of being owned than anything provided them. Drawn and guided by their experiences, such Christological reflections can more easily speak to them. It is not somebody else's Christology (i.e. designed by theologians or a church body) which has to be propagated and adapted if deemed useful. 2. Why a Cultural Approach to "Doing Christology?" Around the 1950's an important change in viewing culture occurred, a shift from a classical understanding of culture to an empirical one. The myth, for that was what it really was, that there was only one culture for all peoples, namely, the Euro-American civilization, was debunked with the discovery and recognition of cultures, different and varied. Belied too was the West's claim to cultural superiority. Local, pluriform cultures are now, rightfully, clamouring for more recognition in this post-colonial period. More and more, the many indigenous cultures of the world will strive for self-definition while the Euro-American West will be seen increasingly, though still important, as only one among the many cultures of the world not only in theory but also in actual practice.22 Stimulated by this change, Christian churches on a global level both Catholic as well as Protestant, have seen the need to review their understanding of institutional existence and of their mission in the world. The Catholic church, after holding the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), stopped talking about "transplanting" the European church in other lands as the aim of disseminating Catholicism. Rather, it began speaking of the importance of culture in the life and mission of the church as well as the development of "local churches", churches that are rooted in their respective local cultural contexts and that have the history and life of the peoples their own. `the catholic church moved from adaptation to indigenization to inculturation; from attention to universality to a consideration of what is local. In evangelical missionary circles, a major re-evaluation of the place of culture in mission has also taken place. Thanks to events like the 1974 Lausanne International Congress on World Evangelization and the meeting which produced the Willowbank Report of 1978 as well as to the international conference organized in 1996 by the World Council of Churches Commission on World Mission and Evangelism in Brazil, the attitude of Reformed Protestantism towards culture has changed. From viewing culture as an obstacle to evangelism, it has began to look at it as important in church life. Cultural alienation is being replaced by cultural familiarity and identification. Churches have to be closely related to their culture. Contextualization has started to become the new norm for evangelical missions.23 People are Inextricably Cultural In a sense, a cultural approach to Christology is unavoidable. We are all inextricably cultural. It is second-nature to us because of social conditioning within human communities. If experience in life is understood as necessarily interpreted experience, then it can surely be claimed that it is necessarily culturally interpreted experience. Thus, any understanding of Jesus, whether we are conscious of it or not, is inevitably culturally conditioned. We are aware, however, that a distinctive focus on the cultural dimension of Christology has not always been attended to. Beyond the recognition of the necessary connection that exists between ourselves and culture, it may perhaps be more advantageous to consciously cultivate a primarily and mainly cultural approach to Christology.24 Considering the recent changes which have occurred in society and in Christian churches regarding culture, now is a most opportune time to utilize a cultural approach to Christology. 3 Facilitating "the Doing of Christology " in a Cultural Context In harmony with developments in theology and culture which I have described above, I have been sharing with pastoral agents from Asia (lay community organizers, catechists, religious educators, religion teachers, seminarians, pastors) a method of "doing Christology" for the past ten years. From the projects to articulate the significance of Jesus in their own cultures which were worked out by these participants during the learning sessions, I have seen indications of what they are capable of and of the fruitfulness of going through a process of "doing Christology". Let me share this with you by first describing what I do during these learning sessions. I first introduce Christology as a process to be undergone rather than a set of doctrines to be learned and applied in different situations, explaining why and how it is so. This implies that Christology needs to be understood as a continuing endeavour in changing contexts and circumstances and not as a once and for all effort. The learning of this Christological method is done, first of all, by elaboration of the principles for theological interpretation and of the phases involved in the process. Secondly, the process is clarified through the giving of examples for each of the principles as well as for the phases of the method. Thirdly, the success of the learning is further ensured by inviting the participants to "do Christology" themselves. By applying the principles and phases of the Christological process, they learn by doing, a long-standing educational insight which continuously finds new expressions. The sharing of the results at the end of the module also helps the participants to see the possibilities of the method which they may not have noticed themselves. In being led to understand the principle and the process of articulating a Christology by using their own indigenous cultural resources, they are somehow prepared to accompany the communities they are or will be serving in the actual process of theological reflection on Jesus Christ. The intention is to "train" them to facilitate the doing of Christology in other pastoral situations, not to simply pass on, as it were, a ready-made Christology. The reason for this is that we need to work out, as faithful disciples, an understanding of Jesus as "the Christ" which is not only in consonance with the Christian tradition but which is also culturally meaningful for us today. In this way the relevance and the challenge of Jesus will be readily seen as connected with contemporary experiences. The Phrases of the Christological Process Thanks to the scholarly efforts on Christology of many exegetes and theologians, we now have at our disposal information about Jesus which was not available to previous generations of Christians. From the very substantial and insightful three-volume project of the Belgian theologian Edward Schillebeeckx on Christology,25 for instance, we have solid information on what has been called "the way of the disciples". The phrase refers to the process which the first disciples underwent from their initial encounters with Jesus, to their growing understanding of who he might be and finally to their recognition of who he was for them after his death and resurrection. In short, it is the process of their identification of Jesus as "the Christ", a cultural title given to him by the disciples after the resurrection in order to articulate his significance to them. Identification and synthesis of key elements involved in any given Christological reflection have helped very much in the working out of a procedure such as doing Christology. Particularly helpful are the theological and hermeneutical principles and the delineation of the three phases discernible in this very process. Three hermeneutical principles are involved. First, God reveals Self and offers "salvation" in and through human experience. If this was the case, then, it was in the disciples' human experiences of Jesus, the man from Nazareth, that God and God's "salvific" power were revealed. Second, human experiences necessarily include either implicit or explicit cultural interpretations. Without them there are no experiences. Insight into the interpretations employed by the disciples in the New Testament disclose to us just how cultural they were. Culture was a major source for bringing out the significance of Jesus for the first disciples. Third, religious Tradition which interacts with experience also played an indispensable role in the identifying of Jesus as "the Christ". Jewish as the first disciples were, they saw Jesus in the light of their own religious tradition. As for the phases which the first disciples actually went through in their experience and eventual identification of Jesus, it was the question of "salvation" which became the starting point for them. It was the first phase of their Christological journey. This experience of "salvation" refers to the positive change which they experienced in the totality of their lives because of their relationship with Jesus. The over-all impact of Jesus on them was liberating; they were radically transformed by it. They "passed over" from what they regarded as death-dealing negative condition to a life-giving positive one. And they felt "whole". Because they were so changed by their experience of Jesus, they began to ask about his real identity: "Who is he who is able to accomplish this?" From the phase of their experience of "salvation" (which was culturally interpreted), they utilized names or titles (the Christ, Lord, Prophet, Saviour, Good Shepherd) and even images (Lamb of God, Mother Hen, Bread from Heaven, Living Water, the Vine, the Gate) to precisely bring out and express such "salvific" impact on their lives. This was the phase of projection: the giving of such cultural names or titles and the use of cultural images to articulate Jesus' redemptive meaning to them. But the disciples were also very careful in using these appellations for Jesus for they had clear recollections as to who he really was. Somehow, those names or titles as well as images must faithfully represent the person of Jesus. To avoid distorting the person of Jesus, they regauged these projections, evaluating the worth of such names or titles in terms of what aspects could be affirmed, what needed to be purified, or what simply had to be negated. This last stage, virtually a phase simultaneous with the second, was the phase of regauging. It ensured an understanding of who Jesus was which was faithful to who he actually was. This process, with all its attendant elements and phases, provides us with a pattern to follow in bringing to birth an understanding of Jesus today in our very own cultural contexts. It functions as a guide for us who desire to walk "the way of the disciples" today in the context of our own cultures. Cultural Group Project in "Doing Christology" A good grasp of doing Christology according to "the way of the disciples" requires not only theoretical understanding but also a practical insight. It is not enough to understand that it is a process; one must undergo this process to have a real grasp of it. This exercise is an essential and integral component of the learning sessions. To realize this practical comprehension of the method, we group ourselves according to our cultural areas. Each group is invited to do its own Christology by following the three phases described above in the context of their own culture: the question of "salvation", the phase of projection, and the phase of regauging. Each cultural group carefully chooses a cultural concept or notion of wellbeing ("salvation") drawn from the everyday language of people they decide to deal with. Rather helpful for this activity is the idea that concepts of wellbeing are situated in a framework of contrast experience. What people long for and desire is the opposite of the situation they want to be delivered or freed from. The cultural notion of "salvation" is the positive pole of such contrast experience. Hence, yasha (Jewish), soteria (Greek), salus (Roman), salvation (English), liberación (Latin American) and ginhawa (lowland Filipino) are positive cultural notions of well-being in contrast to their respective negative poles of tsarar (Jewish), apolenia (Greek), infirmitas (Roman), damnation (English), dominación (Latin American) and hirap (lowland Filipino). Then each group does a thematic cultural exegesis or analysis of this concept of well-being which indicates and explains (a) its basic meanings; (b) connotations as well as (c) its distinctive characteristics, noting and pointing out what is positive ("salvific") and what is negative ("non-salvific") in such characteristics. The pin-pointing of the cultural notion of "salvation" and the subsequent analysis of the concept constitute the first phase of the Christological process, the question of "salvation". Entering into the second and third phases, those of projection and regauging, the members of a cultural group next determine a meaningful and an appropriate cultural name or title which they can project or apply to Jesus, indicating (a) what meanings and associations can be affirmed; (b) what meanings and associations have to be negated or (c) which meanings and associations need to be, qualified or purified. They, of course, need to explain also how and why the title or name is applicable or not applicable, or only partly applicable to the person of Jesus. The apostolic witness which we find in scripture, particularly in the New Testament, serves as a norm for this regauging activity. As part of their task in these phases of the process, all the formed groups are asked to explain how this cultural name or title with its cultural characteristics make people understand Jesus' significance within their culture (indigenous theological reflection). In explicitating how this name or title highlights Jesus' life and ministry as well as his message of God's Kingdom, the potential inherent in the indigenous culture is disclosed. Visualizing the Name or Title in Picture Finally, each of the groups is also invited to create an original image, a drawing or picture of Jesus which represents and expresses all the elements of the Christological process. This representation should somehow convey (a) the cultural concept of "salvation", and (b) the projected and regauged name or title given to Jesus. This image, drawing or representation must be new or original. The groups are instructed not to use for this exercise any traditional representation of Jesus as the Sacred Heart, the Good Shepherd, the Child Jesus, the Suffering Jesus, etc., as it may stifle the creativity of the participants or inhibit the development of new ideas in this regard. Imaging Jesus by creating a new visual representation of him enhances the significance of the name given to Jesus. It presents in picture form the projection which had already been regauged. Such pictorial representation combines and synthesizes the projection and the regauging in a visual manner. It therefore summaries in a way the entire Christological process by giving in a condensed form the notion of "salvation" presupposed by the picture, together with a name or title given (projected) to Jesus which has already been regauged. It is helpful to bear in mind that all names or titles of Jesus, whether from the New Testament, from the history of theology, from Christian art or common piety, elicit and reveal psychological and existential aspects of people who believe in Jesus. Serving as images they reach down into the very depths of the reality of Jesus and then bring up some aspects of his person that appeal to the human psyche. Depending on the particular image or symbol of Jesus which is chosen and utilized, certain sentiments are evoked and specific forms of behavior suggested. Images of Jesus are capable of transforming a person's attitude toward life. They can integrate perceptions, change value systems, reorientate loyalties and create a sense of commitment and attachment far stronger than abstract concepts. They also suggest attitudes, feelings, courses of action and devotion of believers who utilize them as well as help unite people into a common bond of affection and commitment. Truly, naming Jesus is in a real sense naming our lives. Sharing the Results Presenting the results of each group's endeavour according to the three phases described earlier has been found helpful during the period in which this method was presented. It makes the Christological process embodied in the way of the disciples concrete: people actually see the outcome, albeit only in an initial form. The presentations further illustrate the diversity of Christologies possible while maintaining the units of faith. The use of cultural resources to articulate the significance of Jesus, however, not only expresses the meaning of Jesus, it also honours the culture and enhances its dignity. This is especially important when we consider cultural identity and integrity as a soteriological issue. Helpful too is the realization that communities can "do Christology" rather than just study a ready-made Christological reflection of some other group or individual. While professional theologians do have an important role in the church, they do not have the monopoly of theologizing. Community leaders who are in touch with their respective concrete situations ought to be able to engage in theological reflection themselves and to "do Christology". The attempts at theological articulation by small cultural groups and individuals following this process have shown me the real possibility of doing Christology anew. But as with any new endeavour, they only represent initial efforts rather than well-honed systematic reflections. The attempts, however, uncover the possibilities latent in the methodology as well as the difficulties which one can expect to encounter in going through a process like this. For me, such creative efforts are only appropriate for a gospel that is ever new: Jesus of Nazareth. He whose name is above all names deserves no less. 4. An Example of "Doing Christology in a Cultural Context" I began with a story about the challenge of an Indian to a missionary (Luzbetak) to make Jesus real. Allow me now to give you an example of an initial Christology in the context of the culture of the Khasi tribe in India's North East corner which has been worked out according to the Christological process elaborated above by a native pastor.26 The Khasis regard themselves as autochthonous to the place where they are found today. it is thought that the Khasis belong to the Mon-Kher family, a sub-group of Austric-speaking people who intermingled with the Mongoloid population of the South China area. They are also believed to be related to the Mons and Palaungs of Burma and other tribes of the Malay Peninsula. As you will notice, the presentation of the reflection below has been made according to the three phases of the Christological process. The Christological Process in the Khasi Context In the indigenous understanding the state of well-being, the highest good, is when there is Ka Hok in the human heart, in a person's relationship with God, other fellow-human beings and fellow creatures. Ka Hok literally means "righteousness". The basic concept of Khasi indigenous religion is Kamai is Ka Hok which means "the earning of righteousness". The term connotes more than that. It suggests justice, truthfulness, peace, harmony, happiness, equality, solidarity, strong bond with God, and goodness. Where there is a reign of truthfulness, justice and goodness, haba synshar ka hok, there is the state, from our Christian perspective, of "being saved". After determining the experience and understanding of "salvation" in the cultural context which, in this case, is related to Ka Hok, the process moves into the phase of projection. If the situation of Ka Hok is perceived and acknowledged as having been brought about by Jesus, then what name or title shall be given to him within the Khasi culture? To understand the meaning of "salvation" and the bringer of this "salvation" interpreted as Ka Hok, there is a need to examine the cultural tradition of the tribe. There are particularly two interwoven stories or myths27 which throw light on Ka Hok and on the bringer of Ka Hok. In the very beginning there were sixteen families of beings dwelling with God in the heavens. Seven of these (represented by huts) came down to the earth with the blessing of the almighty God, to dwell on it, to till it and to make it fruitful and beautiful. They came down through a huge sacred tree which stood in the middle of the earth. This tree served as a ladder that connected heaven and earth and was called "the umbilical cord of heaven". Through it the seven families could still go up to the heavens to be in fellowship with the other nine families that lived there. That was the most beautiful of all times for everyone. Ka Hok reigned: there was peace, harmony, truthfulness, happiness, justice, solidarity and love. The goodness and righteousness of God were experienced by all. The tree that bridged heaven and earth grew bigger and bigger until it covered much of the earth's surface. At the prompting of the "evil one", two brothers cut down the tree. Heaven was separated from the earth and it went far away up in the sky and the seven huts (families) could not communicate anymore with God or with the other nine families. The whole world became dark. The sun went and hid itself in a cave plunging the whole earth into darkness. In this darkness there was chaos, confusion, evil and misery. Where "Ka Hok" reigned previously, now it was the state of Ka Pap Ka Sang: a situation of sinfulness and evil.28 At this juncture the concerned humans called a meeting of all earth's creatures in order to do something about the state of affairs. The humans wanted a volunteer from among all the creatures who was innocent, good and holy to go and coax the Sun to come back and to give life and light to the earth. All creatures were present in the meeting, so the humans thought. And when everyone was examined, many were found wanting of the necessary qualities, while others excused themselves one way or another. So the humans inquired from the assembly whether someone had been left out of consideration or whether there was anyone who had failed to come. It was only later that the assembly found out that there was one creature missing in the meeting: the rooster. So the rooster was called from the place where he was hiding and was reprimanded by the humans. The rooster replied that he did that only because he felt that he was too insignificant and too simple and small to do such a solemn and honourable job on behalf of all. Besides, he said he was naked and unworthy to appear in public, for at that time the rooster did not possess any feather on his body. Nevertheless, the humans coaxed and eventually persuaded the rooster to do what had to be done. And if he succeeded, he would be robed in royal attire as a reward. So the rooster agreed to be a mediator and intercessor between all creatures and the sun, and to bring it back for the benefit of all. He managed to coax the sun to come out of the cave and to once again shine on the earth. With the sun once more shining came light warmth and life. According to the ancestors of the Khasis, this is why to this day it is only after the cock crows three times that the sun would rise. And true enough, he was rewarded as promised. He was covered with a royal robe of feathers, explaining why the colours of the rooster now are so beautiful and majestic. From then on the rooster became a sacrificial animal in the indigenous religion of the Khasis. For any religious ceremony cock sacrifice is a must. The cock had become the mediator between God and human beings, and God now speaks only through signs and oracles as read through the entrails of a sacrificial cock. With the coming of the sun and the reopening of communication with God, the reign of Ka Hok (peace and righteousness) began again. But the situation was never the same as it was at the beginning of times. However, the ancestors of the Khasis believed that one day there is someone who will restore all things basck to what it was before. This someone is referred to as U Bahok (The Righteous One) or U Nongpynim (The One who gives Life). In the indigenous religion the cock is a mediator, the righteous one. He brought back the sun, thereby bringing light, warmth and life. Since he is U Bahok (The Righteous One, the Holy One), God can speak to human beings trough signs and oracles as deciphered from the entrails of the sacrificial cock. The cock prefigures and symbolizes Jesus because for us Christians. He is the only one who is really U Bahok who brings true life, peace, harmony, righteousness, justice, truthfulness, right relationship with God, fellow human beings and fellow creatures. Moreover, Jesus is much, much more than the rooster or the cock. He is not only a sacrificial victim who mediates with God trough signs and oracles, but he is himself divine and human. He is not only the ladder or the "umbilical cord" of heaven, but in him God and people meet. He is God-with-us, Emmanuel. Jesus in the embodiment of righteousness, truthfulness, honesty, peace, harmony and right relationships. He not only brings light and life, he is light and life itself. He not only restores right relationships with God, people and the cosmos, he is himself God-with-us, truly human and centre of the whole cosmos. As St John says, "All things were made trough him and without him nothing came to be. Whatever has come to be, found life in him, life which for humans was light. Light that shines in the dark: Light that darkness could not overcome (Jn 1:3-5). Notes: * José M. de Mesa is a Catholic Filipino lay theologian who obtained his Ph.D. in Religious Studies from the Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium. Specializing in Systematic Theology, he is an Associate Professor in the Religious Education Department of De La Salle University in Manila, Philippines. He has authored among others, In Solidarity with the Culture: Studies in Theological Rerooting and a God Said, "Bahala Na!": The Theme of Providence in the Lowland Filipino Context and has co-authored with a colleague Doing Theology: Basic Realities and Processes and Doing Christology: The Re-Appropiation of a Tradition. 1 Louis J. Luzbetak SVD, The Church and Cultures: New Perspectives in Missiological Anthropology, Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1988, 374. 2 As quoted in Anton Wessels, Images of Jesus: How Jesus is Perceived and Portrayed in on-European Cultures, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1990, p. 114 after A.H. Franke (1663-1727); see also J. R. Chandran, "Development of Christian Theology in India." in S. Torres (ed.), The Emergent Gospel, Maryknoll: Orbis, 1978, 157-172, esp.160. 3 Gerald Anderson (ed.), Asian Voices in Christian Theology, New York: Orbis Books, 197 6:5. 4 Georg Evers, "Asian, African and Latin American Contributions towards Christology", Yearbook of Contextual Theologies 96, Aachen: Missionswissenschaftliches lnstitut Missio, 1996, 184. 5 See in John England (ed.), Living Theology in Asia, London: SCM, 1981, 175-176. 6 A. Pieris, An Asian Theology of Liberation, Maryknoll, New York: Orbis, 1988, 63. 7 Georg Evers, "Asian, African and Latin American Contributions towards Christology", 85. 8 Ibid., 187. 9 Benigno Beltran, The Christology of the Inarticulate: An Inquiry into the FilipinoUnderstanding of Jesus the Christ, Manila: Divine Word Publications, 1987. 10 Masao Takenaka, Christian Art in Asia, Tokyo: Kyo Bun Kwan, 1975. 11 Ibid., 27-28. 12 Ibid. 107. 13 Masao Takeneka, God is Rice: Asian Culture and Christian Faith, Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1986, 33-36. 14 Kosuke Koyama, No Handle on the Cross, London: SCM Press, 1976, 6-7. 15 Cf. G. De Schrijver, Liberation Theologies on Shifting Grounds: A Clash of Socio-Economic and Cultural Paradigms, Leuven: University Press, 1998. 16 Cf. Luis Antonio Tagle, "The Synod for Asia as Event." East Asian Pastoral Review 35 (1998): 370-375; Bishop Francisco Claver SJ, "Personal Thoughts on the Asian Synod". East Asian Pastoral Review 35 (1998): 248. 17 F. Claver of the Philippines emphasizes the role and importance of the grassroots theologians. For him the ecclesial community is the primary theologian. Professional theologians systematize the reflections of people on a higher level. See Chapter 6, "Synthesis, Evaluation, Conclusions" of Ladislav Nemet, Inculturation in the Philippines: A Theological Study of the Question of Inculturation in the Documents of CBCP and Selected Filipino Theologians in the Light of Vatican II and the Documents of FABC, Doctoral Dissertation, Pontificia Universitas Gregoriana, Roma, 1994. Leonardo Mercado thinks that the people are the real theologians who give birth to a new theology; the professional theologian is the "midwife" in this birthing process. Cf. Stephen Bevans, Models of Contextual Theology, Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1992: 12-13. 18 Ernesto Cardenal, The Gospel in Solentiname, New York: Orbis Books, 1976. 19 Some examples are Charles Kraft, Christianity and Culture, Maryknoll, New York: Orbis, 1985; Robert Schreiter, Constructing Local Theologies, Maryknoll, New York: Orbis, 1985; José M. de Mesa and Lode L. Wostyn, Doing Theology: Basic Realities and Processes, Quezon City: Claretian Publications, 1990; Stephen Bevans, Models of Contextual Theology, Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books 1992; John Cobb, Jr., Lay Theology, St. Louis, Missouri: Chalice Press, 1994; Robert Kinast, Let Ministry Teach: A Guide to Theological Reflection, Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1996; and Clemens Sedmak, Doing Local Theology: An Exploratory Study in Theopragmatics. unpublished manuscript, Innsbruck, 1998. 20 "Adult Formation Towards a Participatory Church: The Asian Integral Pastoral Approach (ASIPA)," Colloquium on Church in Asia in the 21st Century, Manila: Office for Human Development, FABC, 1997, 316-317. 21 I would like to think that the triple-dialogue (with the poor, with cultures and religions) espoused by the Federation of Asian Bishops' Conferences (FABC) implicitly encourages this. A real dialogue with culture needs to be done by everyone who shares in the particular culture and, therefore, means that it should be done from the base. See "Journeying Together Toward the Third Millennium: Statement of the Fifth Plenary Assembly, Bandung (Indonesia), 27 July 1990" in: Gaudencio Hosales and CC. Arevalo (eds.), For All the Peoples of Asia: Federation of Asian Bishops' Conferences, Documents from 1970 to 1991, Quezon City: Claretian Publications, 1992: 282-283. Cf. also FABC Office of Evangelization, "Conclusions of the Theological Consultation in Hua Hin, 10th November 1991" in Ibid., 338-340 and "Being Church in Asia: Journeying with the Spirit into Fuller Life (Final Statement of the FABC International Theological Colloquium", East Asian Pastoral Review 32 (1995): 347-350. 22 Thus we are beginning to witness business executives and negotiators recognizing cultural pluriformity being trained in cultural sensitivity to ensure that deals are successfully made across cultural boundaries. Diplomats are made aware of the cultural customs and sensitivities of the localities in which they work to ensure harmonious relations with the local populace and government. Multicultural programs are given more and more space within the educational system of a number of countries where foreign migration has been significant. Anton Wessels in his book, Europe: Was It Ever Really Christian?" (London: SCM, 1994) cites a German writer who suggests in a story that the white man and the culture he represents will be the only useless culture in the world of cultures for refusing to relinquish its assumed sense of superiority. 23 James Scherer and Stephen Bevans (eds.), New Directions in Mission and Evangelization 3: Faith and Culture, Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1999, 7-11. 24 This is already happening in biblical studies. See, for example, Bruce Malina and Jerome Neyrey, Calling Jesus Names: The Social Value of Labels in Matthew, Sonoma, Ca.: Polebridge Press, 1988; and Bruce Malina, The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology, London: SCM Press, 1983. 25 Edward Schillebeeckx, Jesus: An Experiment in Christology, New York: Seabury Press, 1979; Christ: The Experience of Jesus as Lord, New York: Seabury Press, 1980; and Interim Report on the Books Jesus and Christ, New York: Crossroad, 1981. 26 This example has been worked out by Wilfred Kharpuri, ST, a native and a pastor in the region. 27 For the importance of mythology in human life and in society, see Joseph Campbell with Bill Moyers, The Power of Myth, New York: Doubleday, 1988. 28 Ka Pap refers to the state of sinfulness and Ka Sang suggests a situation that is very wrong and a taboo. The term Sang literally means incest within the clan.
Ref.: Exchange (Journal of Missiological and Ecumenical Research), Vol. 30, n. 1, 2001.
|