Strategic Teaching for Christ's Sake in a Locus of Cultural Diversity
Mary John Mananzan, OSB[1]

Introduction

I am sure you will agree with me that it is easier to write a paper than make a response to a paper. When you write a paper you are free to choose your subject, you may go the direction you wish. In responding to a paper you have first to try to understand what the author is really saying and to follow his/her flow of thoughts. I am lucky that Dr. Pearson believes in contextualization and shows clearly where he is coming from. I also think I can follow his conceptual flow.

Summary of Dr. Pearson's Paper

Let me first recapitulate Dr. Pearson's paper as I understand it. His geographical context is Australia. He is a white male Caucasian New Zealand-Australian and a Theology Professor. He teaches theology to what he calls hyphenated groups of people�Korean-Australian, Filipino-Australian, Indian-Australian, Tongan-Australian, etc. What are the assumptions, perspective, objectives and methodology of such a theological pedagogy in order to cope with or to make most out of the multi-cultural diversity of the studentry?

The underlying assumption is that "our theological ideas are informed by our relationships and where and when we live." This means an understanding not only of the Anglo Celtic dominant culture in which the students live but also of the diverse cultures of the students themselves. The objective of such a theology is not to simply "replicate what has been left behind or alternatively letting go the received, birth culture and assimilate as far as possible to the dominant acquired new." It is to come up with a qualitatively new. The methodology is two-fold � "orthoakousis" or "right hearing" of the multi-cultural readings provided in the classroom and orthopraxis or right doing and reflecting instead of orthodoxy , because this theology is not only academic; it is concerned "with exploring the praxis of Christian faith in a culturally diverse, multifaith and yet at the same time secular democracy." The function of the professor is not a pontificating fount of wisdom but that of a midwife that could give birth to a new theologizing that could emerge from the interaction of cultures.

What mediates the plurality of horizons? Pearson chooses Christology as hermeneutical link fully aware that there are various kinds of Christology which have been used to exclude and silence subaltern voices and which have justified all kinds of oppressions. He chooses it because "Christology opens up the route to considering the very nature of Christian identity." In one's honest attempt to respond to Christ's question, "Who do you say that I am", one is forced to ask the question "Who am I?" and "Who are you?"  It is an invitation "for each of us to consider our respective soteriological necessities." In a situation of diaspora which is the situation of the students in Dr. Pearson's classroom, this concern for Christian identity can enable them to clarify who they are and to encounter themselves as well as the cultures on either side of the hyphen. They have a role in the public domain of theology: "The prospective hyphenated theologian must not only mediate the experience of the specific diasporic community but also situate this ethnicity inside the �real world� of a wider social and political order." And they definitely have a distinctive role among Asian and world theologies. They are cross-bearers and bridge-builders/makers. As Dr. Pearson puts it: "It may well be that their hybrid theologies still bear the marks of a history of a previous colonialism, but also open up a possibility of moving beyond impasses that may at times arise between eastern and western ways of doing theology."

My Response to Dr. Pearson's Paper

Just as Dr. Pearson clearly delineates where he is coming from, I also have to locate my own personal and theological position. I am a Filipino Roman Catholic nun�a Missionary Benedictine. Although I finished college in the Philippines with an AB-BSE, major in History, my graduate studies were western�in Wilhelmsuniversitaet in Munster Germany and the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, obtaining a Ph. D. in Philosophy, major in Linguistic Philosophy with minors in Systematic Theology and Missiology. During the time of the Marcos dictatorship in the Philippines I became a political activist which later included feminist activism. I spent 25 years in school administration as college dean and later on as President of a women's college, St. Scholastica's College. But the most relevant involvement I have to this conference is my being a member of the EATWOT (Ecumenical Association of Third World Theologians) where I served as International Coordinator and co-founder of the Women's Commission and later on served as Executive Secretary-Treasurer for 5 years till September 2001.

I resonate with most of Dr. Pearson's ideas. One response I can give to the paper is to describe our methodology as Asian Feminist Theologians belonging to EATWOT. In our first Asian Theological Consultation in 1985, we came up with the following features of our methodology which follows the EATWOT methodology in general but applied specifically to women's realities:

1. Contextualization. The starting point of theologizing is the experience of Asian women and their struggle in a male-dominated world. Women tell their stories consciously and politically, and in this act they begin to understand themselves and their reality better. So story-telling is a widely used methodology in EATWOT theologizing. We have found this to be both cathartic and empowering aside from showing the specific context from which each woman comes.

2. New biblical hermeneutics. Confronted with women's situation, participants emphasized the need for a new reading of the Bible. Such reading would see parallelisms in the situation of biblical women, reinterpreting passages that confirm the subordination and discrimination of women, and situating these in their cultural contexts. In many instances biblical incidents begin to appear differently and new insights are acquired when read from women's perspective.

3. Religious and cultural critique. The plurality of cultures and religions in Asia calls for a critical study that would identify the liberating as well as oppressive forces in them. We have seen how culture is used to justify and perpetuate women's oppressions (e.g. women circumcision, suttee, etc.). But we insist that culture is not absolute. It has to undergo critique and change. Practices that have been done for thousands of years have to be given up when shown to be oppressive or exploitative.

4. Recovery of the authentic value of women's experience. Women recognize their religious heritage while rejecting imposed tradition. Women realize that their spiritual heritage goes beyond the institutionalized religion and official theology. We have also seen values in indigenous traditions from which women come that could enhance women's spirituality.

5. Reinterpretation and reformulation. As women bring into their religious traditions their own experiences and the analysis of their situations, new translations, new interpretations, and new languages emerge. Religious insights are expressed in various religious forms and symbols.

6. New visions. Women envision new possibilities for community and social relationships, and they struggle to realize these possibilities. Asian feminist theology is not mere academic theology. It leads to liberating action. The condition for Asian feminist theologizing is involvement in the women's struggle. It is through political action for social transformation that women's theologizing is verified.

I am also familiar with the theologizing of what he calls hyphenated groups, because EATWOT counts among its members cultural minorities of the United States who have been developing such a multi-cultural theology situated in a dominant culture for the last 25 years. Notable among the theologians of this group are James Cone, Jacqueline Grant, Kelly Brown Douglas from the African-Americans, Hung Kyung Chung and Rita Nakashima Brock from the Asian-Americans, George Tinker from the Native Americans, and Jose David Rodriguez, Pilar Aquino and Ana Maria Isasi-Diaz from the Latino-Americans. In our General Assemblies we noted a real difference between African and African-American theologies, Asian and Asian-American, and Latin American and the Latino-American � not so much in methodology but in issues, concerns, and points of emphasis. For example, Asian, African and Latin American theologians put much emphasis on economic issues, globalization, militarization, etc. Cultural minorities in the United States are much more sensitive to issues of racism. There is also a feeling among them that white American theologians are more ready and in fact eager to dialogue with so-called Third World Theologians than with them.

I can visualize Dr. Pearson's classroom. It is characterized by "theological hospitality" giving room and space for everyone's experience and opinions and although the structure of its conversation is, as he says, furnished by the conventional areas of doctrine, it is not a rigid one and its content sacrosanct. They are considered building blocks that could be re-arranged. He provides reading that is not only multi-cultural but gender-fair and reflective of various theological persuasions. I am sure he gives an input once in a while but the greater part would be sharing and discussions and once in a while prodded by questions, akin to the push a midwife makes to facilitate birth. I don't think there is always consensus in such a classroom. I think there is an atmosphere which seems to say: "Here any topic can be discussed but no one is required to accept what one is not psychologically prepared to agree with."

Dr. Pearson's choice of Christology as a mediating hermeneutical link and his reasons for his choice are understandable. I would have appreciated it if he concretely described how it has functioned in his classroom.

I also think there are still differences among hyphenated groups depending on what are on either side of the hyphen. I mean there must be a difference between a New Zealand-Australian and German-Australian from a Tongan-Australian or Korean-Australian. I suppose there is a difference in the sense of identity of the first two groups where both sides of the hyphen come from basically the same Western culture than the last two. I would like to know what Dr. Pearson's experience is in this matter.

As an EATWOT theologian, I cannot agree more that theology has a public domain. It is of course academic and its social consciousness should not be an excuse for sloppy thinking. It cannot do away with rigorous research and disciplined thinking. But it refuses to be limited to the classroom. As we in EATWOT say, it must lead to liberating action. I can imagine that in the Australian context, this would mean engaging the Prime's Minister's interpretation of multiculturalism in fruitful debate. It would mean consciousness-raising in the ethnic community where the students come from. It would mean coming up creatively with mechanism to preserve the best in one's original culture but likewise to contribute positively to the emergence of a truly inter-cultural community where the best of all the cultures represented are celebrated.

I do not doubt that Dr.  Pearson's prospective theologians have a role in the shaping of Asian theology and that of acting as bridge-builders between eastern and western ways of doing theology. I would recommend a meeting of theologians doing this kind of multi or inter-cultural theology in the Australian context and theologians of the cultural minorities of the United States who have had some experience in theologizing in similar circumstances. In fact there are also such theologians in Europe, Brazil and other parts of the world. A sharing on a global scale could be a future vision.

_______________________
Notes: