This is not a review of the book “Asian Christian Theology: Evangelical Perspectives,” edited by Timoteo Gener and Stephen Pardue (2019). That being said, I would like to say a couple of things that I do think qualify as a review of sorts.
First, I think the book generally does what it says it wants to do. It is a book about Christian theology— looked at through “Asian eyes” in relation to the “Asian context(s).” Additionally, it definitely draws generally from what might be considered the faith tradition of Evangelicalism. This is actually high praise considering how often books don’t really do what their title claims.
Second, there is a fairly broad range of writers— taking different topics from systematic theology. Some chapters look broadly at a topic within systematic theology and sees how it interacts with the Asian context. For example, chapters on the God’s revelation (in this case referring to Holy Scripture) or the Trinity are fairly broad. Others, take a broad topic, but then narrowly focus on one or two issues that are considered important. An example of this would be the chapter on Diaspora Missions.
Third, some writers were willing to express positively issues that many would not consider to be “Evangelical.” An example of this was one writer who tentatively suggested that embracing that being saved by Jesus Christ may be better understood as “Fulfillment” rather than “Conversion” and such a view may open the door to some form of Pluralism or at least Inclusivism. While some may say such forays “across the border” to be problematic, I personally do welcome consideration of such matters rather than simply considering some topics to be false and not to be explored.
So if I was a reviewer, I would recommend the book. For some reason, I found the latter chapters more captivating than the early chapters. I am not sure why. I read the book over several months, so I don’t know— perhaps I just slowly got into the book.
I also have some reflections, because I struggle with both parts of the title. These struggles may be “just me.” But perhaps as I write, some of the struggles will clarify themselves.
#1. What should Asian Christian Theology look like? If the book is the judge— Asian Christian Theology looks an awful lot like American (Evangelical) Christian Theology. It looks like that because: (a) It appears to focus on the topical structure of Western Systematic Theology. Does that structure make sense for Asia… or was it written for people trained up in Western Systematic Theology to wrap their head around variations caused by the Asian context. (b) What really defines the Asian context. It seems like the focus was on religious pluralism, poverty, and oppression. That makes sense, but are there completely different ways to go, such as focusing on worldview patterns relevant to Asia such as honor, patronage, harmony/balance. Did the writers go far enough, or did they stick to the presumptions of most Western Evangelicals regarding the atonement, for example. (I probably should reread some of the earlier chapters to see if my perception holds weight or not.) (c) The theological presentation was very much driven by concepts or propositions. Is that the best way for Asian Christian Theology to be presented and understood. Perhaps story is better, or discursive or presentative symbols. Again, I don’t know the answer, but I suspect that the writers were writing based on their own training and their own presumptions as to the audience.
#2. I am a little curious what to make of the term “Evangelical Perspectives” in the sub-title. I know that the term “Evangelical” has become a bit of a loaded term in recent years. If one means by it that one takes the Bible as being authoritative, I am most certainly an Evangelical. If one means that one is drawing from the faith tradition that developed out of England and the United States during the 19th and 20th centuries, I am also an Evangelical. If one means that one embraces all the popularized traditions regarding eschatology, the atonement, the nature of heaven and hell, or politics— well, I don’t necessarily fit in very well. But that leads to the question of what is meant in the sub-title. I don’t really think that it can mean that it takes the Bible as authoritative. An awful lot of Christian groups (and some that many of us would not identify as Christian) would lay claim to the Bible as authoritative. The writers were much more narrow than those who simply base their beliefs on the Bible. I suspect that they are using the term “Evangelical” due to its vagueness to mean ‘mainstream conservatives,’ if such a term exists, a group they could see themselves as being members of. This is a rather ill-defined (liminal) space because Evangelicals likes to be quite dogmatic in saying that they base their beliefs on the Bible, which is wholly reliable… but are often reticent to say that they based their beliefs on some popularized interpretations of the Bible, which are potentially quite unreliable. Looking at the writers chosen and the topics covered, it is pretty clear that the the writers generally have their roots in American Evangelical denominations… and more specifically from the missiological activities of these denominations. I suppose it makes sense to say “Evangelical Perspectives” rather than “Perspectives Influenced by Decades’ Involvement by Missiological Work of American Evangelical Denominations in Various Asian Settings.”
You might be thinking that I am being snide in these later reflections. I am, however, truly not. These are things I am reflecting on and have come to NO FIRM CONCLUSION. I find the book to be valuable regardless of any concerns I have and regardless of whether my concerns have any validity (or not). In the Philippines, I am seeing a SLOOOOOW movement towards original theological reflections and work by Evangelical perhaps not-so-Evangelical theologians. I look forward to seeing what they will produce.
