The PTCA (Programme for Theology & Cultures in Asia) consultations that it has been my honor to attend over the last few years have invariably been at once stimulating and perplexing, and they have met a personal need to engage with Asians in overt theological reflection that I have seldom experienced in Thailand. Christian thinkers from other parts of Asia bring fresh perspectives to old issues, and they draw on resources strikingly different from those relied upon by Western theologians in the past. Yet, I have come away from virtually every PTCA event asking myself what those perspectives and resources have to do with the theological contexts of Thailand and, to an extent, all of Southeast Asia. PTCA deliberations are frequently dominated by the voices of Northeast and of South Asia, and while Southeast Asians are always present somehow the voices of the Indic and Sinic epicenters of Asian ecumenical theology seem to command greater attention. It may be that Southeast Asians, more often than not, are less articulate in English than especially participants from South Asia. At the same time, some of the most articulate Southeast Asians are the children and grandchildren of overseas Chinese parents who feel as much kinship with China as they do with their "native" countries in Southeast Asia. Be that as it may, the issues that burn brightly in other parts of Asia seem distant from the realities of local church life in Thailand —and distant from the ways in which those churches express themselves theologically.

The PTCA theological consultation at Tainan Theological College and Seminary, Tainan, Taiwan, held 16-19 August 2004 on the topic of "Religious Fundamentalism and Its Challenges to Doing Theology in Asia" was for me yet another stimulating and perplexing encounter with ecumenical theological thought from other parts of Asia. I would like to reflect here in a very personal way on what I heard and observed at Tainan. This is not intended to be a report on the consultation, and other participants who might read this essay may well wonder if we even attended

27

On first blush, the issue of religious fundamentalism is a timely, front-page headlines topic at a time when the Palestinian struggle and the battle for Iraq dominate the world's attention. The 11 papers and the discussions that followed each of them offered a wide range of definitions and viewpoints concerning fundamentalism, which stimulated us to struggle with the meaning of the concept in often lively exchanges that alternated between highly negative and more balanced attitudes towards the subject. Some participants declared outright that fundamentalism is a negative category and fundamentalists hold to an unacceptable, dangerous, and faithless form of religion. Most of these anti-fundamentalist perspectives revolved around the idea that fundamentalists have a dualistic religious worldview that is divisive because it condemns everyone who does not believe and behave according to its own dogmas and moralisms. Yet, time and again, other participants countered with more positive views of fundamentalists, arguing that they are frequently good people who are able to live and share their faith in commendable ways. Fundamentalists can often bring hope to people who otherwise have no hope. At times, our attention seemed to be focused on especially Islamic fundamentalism but also ultra-conservative Christian and Hindu movements; but, at other times, various participants looked at dominant world political powers and individuals (notably President George Bush) as being the "real" forces of global fundamentalism.

As we moved back and forth across the landscape of religious and political ideologies, it became clear that the consultation did not have a clear conception of or definition of fundamentalism. Or, rather, it had so many particular conceptions and definitions that collectively it could not shoe horn into a common perspective. In

28

The papers and debates raised, in any event, issues concerning the nature and impact of fundamentalism. That was stimulating, and the "failure" to arrive at a common definition and understanding only served to further encourage personal reflections. What was perplexing was trying to figure out what the whole debate had to do with the theological context of the Thai church. First, Thai Buddhist religious and Thai secular political thought takes serious pride in its willingness to accept people of other faiths. The sectarian religious and nationalistic political thought of other regions of West, South, and Northeast Asia seem to be more compatible to fundamentalist thinking so that the concept itself is relevant to theological reflection in those regions. But in Southeast Asia generally and in Thailand in particular, it is more difficult to see how dualistic, divisive fundamentalism is relevant to theological reflection in Thai contexts (except, perhaps, in Islamic southern Thailand where West Asian sectarian dualism seems to exert some influence).

Second, it is also difficult to see how the concept relates to the particular context of the churches of Thailand themselves—apart from foreign missionaries from the West and some other parts of Asia who tend to be dualistic in their thinking in ways alien to Thai culture itself. I have almost surely alluded to the following statement elsewhere on this website, but it bears repeating here: a national leader of the Church of Christ in Thailand observed in my hearing just a few years' ago that the denominational leaders of the CCT, the (Southern) Baptist Convention, and the Evangelical Fellowship of Thailand (EFT) get along just fine so long as there are no missionaries present. He was quite clear. It is missionaries who create divisions among the churches of Thailand. In actual fact, of course, the relationship between the various denominations and even between local churches is not that rosy, but it is true that Thai church leaders and members tend to be less ideological in their attitudes about people of other denominations and of other faiths than do Western missionaries. They, indeed, are not infrequently criticized by those missionaries for their lax attitudes.

29

So, then, what does the concept of fundamentalism have to do with Thai theological reflection? Again a few years' ago, a somewhat younger CCT denominational figure, who is generally considered to be quite "liberal" in his theology and politics, declared to me in so many words that the whole evangelical-ecumenical split that seems so evident in churches around the world today has nothing whatsoever to do with the Thai church. It is foreign, he argued with some intensity, to the very way in which Thai peoples think about religion. In teaching Thai church history at the seminary level, I have found that Thai theological students have a good deal of trouble comprehending some aspects of missionary religious thought, particularly when it comes to that same distinction between "evangelicals" and "ecumenicals."

In a better world than the one we live in, Thai theological thought would almost certainly not have to concern itself with the fundamentalist-ecumenical split, and the Thai church could have long since gotten on about the business of constructing Thai theologies without further ado. However, fresh generations of foreign evangelical missionaries—as aggressive, insensitive, and ideological as ever—keep shoving the Western dualistic agenda back onto the Thai church's plate. In terms of Thailand, their agenda is a fundamentalist one, although they themselves might reject the label; and, as such, influences Thai churches in a number of ways that should engender more theological reflection here than actually takes place, at least overtly.

Viewed from the perspective of the CCT, an ostensibly ecumenical denomination, the influx of evangelical and then Pentecostal missions has reaped a mixed bag of benefits and headaches for the Protestant community. The Pentecostal churches, much more than the "straight" evangelical ones, have contributed new liveliness and enthusiasm to that community. They have also, however, sown the seeds of division and dissension born out of impatience and even disdain for the older churches they found in place. They came judging more than was necessary and loving less than was needed, and they have reaped the sad harvest of judgmentalism, one that taints the spiritual fruits they otherwise have to offer. Thus, fundamentalism remains a major issue with which the Thai churches have to contend, theologically as well as ecclesiastically.

30

Yet having said this much, my own sense is that the Thai churches have been quietly working out a range of distinctive Thai Protestant meldings of Thai and Protestant religious cultures that go beyond simplistic distinctions between fundamentalism and ecumenism (see, for example, the paper, " Northern Thai Protestant Attitudes Towards Other Faiths: Analysis of a Questionnaire "). There is some evidence to suggest that the leaders and members of the more recent evangelical and Pentecostal churches are on their own journeys melding and integrating their Thai-ness and Protestant-ness into theologically viable mixes (see the doctoral dissertations by Nantachai, McLean, and Zehner listed in the " Bibliography of Materials Related to Christianity in Thailand "). Their journeys are inevitable; and while the constant re-infusions of missionary dualistic fundamentalism mean that each new group of Christians has to start the process over, the process of accommodating faith and culture itself goes on and results in a wide, creative range of theologies. That is to say, that while the issue of fundamentalism is important to the Thai churches, perhaps the best theological response they can give to fundamentalism is the one they are already giving—the quiet melding of Protestant and Thai cultural and religious themes into individual Thai Christian faith systems in ways that foreign missionaries are hardly even aware of and can in no way subvert.

Or, to put the matter back into the context of the Tainan consultation, the issue we were discussing is relevant for Protestants in Thailand. The dualistic, good guys-bad guys way we dealt with it is not.

The Tainan consultation reinforced the conviction that theological reflection is intimately tied to the language in which it is conducted. PTCA consultations are necessarily conducted in English, and no one feels particularly comfortable with that fact. Everyone connected with the PTCA movement understands that Asian theological reflection is best done in Asian languages, although few, I think, would subscribe to the notion that it can be done only in those languages. Yet, as I sat as a native language speaker of English listening to our discussions and trying to process them back into my second language, Thai, I could feel the constraints of English intruding on our thinking.

31

Take, for example, the whole thorny issue of gender-inclusive language. The use of such language is very much of a theological issue in the PTCA context; and it is basically understood that if one wants to participate in PTCA events one had better write and speak gender inclusive, politically appropriate English. No problem. Except this issue, which often commands the energies and attention of participants, is largely irrelevant to theological reflection in Thai. It's not that Thai isn't a sexist language. It is. But Thai linguistic sexism is not to be found in the use of sexist language per se; rather, it is obscured by the hierarchical nature of the language, which gives superior status to older, well-educated, wealthy males. Thai linguistic sexism, that is, is located in a complex lexicon of status, and it is all but impossible to separate out the question of sexist language from the larger issue of hierarchical-ist language. The difference is not merely a matter of word usage but has to do, instead, with the very focus of theological reflection.

More broadly, one cannot help but wonder what it means for theological reflection in Thailand that much of PTCA's stimulating theological reflection does seem to come from, as mentioned above, either South or Northeast Asia. What does it mean that a good deal, although not all by any means, of the more academic theological reflection on the Thai situation is done by missionaries and foreigners? One of the main points that I have been arguing throughout this bulletin and on this website is that local Thai theological praxis/reflection is quite creative. Koyama found this to be the case forty years' ago (see Water Buffalo Theology ), and, if anything, it is even more so today. I, personally, have seen some indication that most local Thai church members tend to be considerably more articulate in their faith than are most of the local temple faithful. Why, then, is there such a dearth of systematic, written theology in Thailand ? Why do Thai church leaders and scholars devote so little attention to overt (i.e. written) theological reflection such as is found in other Asian nations? We can guess that Thai Buddhist culture's supposed emphasis on praxis over philosophy might have something to do with the lack of overt Thai Christian theological reflection; but I am coming to the conclusion that the matter is much more complex than that. Thai theology is "done" in a way quite different from that of Europe, and the English-speaking nations while PTCA for all of its "Asianness" still "does" its theological reflection in a European fashion.

32

One does wonder how relevant the whole PTCA process is to even the churches of India, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan, and Korea. I felt, again, in Tainan how apparently Western was the format, the language, and even many of the attitudes being articulated by participants from across Asia. But, then, many of them have received their theological training in Europe, Britain, the USA, or Australia and New Zealand. They have learned how to be critical in a Western sense and engage in scholarly debates outside of their own theological and ecclesiastical settings, and while there is nothing wrong with that at all, it still renders the PTCA ecumenical Asian theological process highly problematic in most ethnic Thai settings.

I say, "ethnic Thai," because, interestingly enough, some of the most stimulating and creative exercises in critical theological thinking that I have observed here in Thailand have been carried out in Karen tribal contexts where the PTCA process has had more direct influence than it has had otherwise in Thailand. Otherwise, several attempts to introduce the PTCA process into the CCT, using different formats and strategies, have failed to produce much of any substance; and have not resulted in a long-lasting theological movement.

Another of the perplexing issues emerging out of the Tainan consultation, again speaking personally, is that of the place of political correctness in theological reflection. Word usage was heavily patrolled, and virtually all of the heated moments in the consultation arose because of the politically incorrect usage of certain terms, notably "tribal" and "animistic." One participant, new to the PTCA process, used the term "tribal" in a pejorative sense, speaking about "tribal divisiveness" in his own national context. While he was not referring to tribal people, this negative use of the word sparked an angry response from a tribal participant from Northeast India, which was strongly reinforced by one or two other participants. They insisted that the word tribal should be used only in a positive sense and that it is unjust to tribal peoples to see "tribalism" as being in any sense negative.

Fair enough. For the great majority of us, the images attached to the word "tribal" are not much of an issue, but for those who are known by the word they are significant especially in national contexts where tribal people are subjected to second-

33

Yet, I was struck by the manifest intolerance of those who corrected the Tainan participant's apparent misuse of the term "tribal." The point he was making was that in his national context ethnic and religious ("tribal") differences, bolstered by fundamentalist attitudes, were a prime cause of national injustice and suffering. Sad to say, the strong reprimand of his unintentional use of an English word led the consultation to largely overlook the larger point he was making. Nor did those who attacked him for his misuse of the term "tribal" take into account the fact that he is not a native-language speaker of English. (For that matter, none of those who took serious exception to his use of the term are themselves native-language speakers of English).

The usage of the term "animist," when applied to the beliefs of certain groups in Southeast Asia, drew a similar and equally abrupt response from an Indian participant, who in an informal moment shared with several others after a plenary session angrily refused to explain his understanding of the word itself. He stated that to call any people "animistic" is pejorative, demeaning, and reprehensible; he asserted that the word had not been used in India for a century.

Again, fair enough. To judge by the American Heritage Dictionary (1969), the term animism refers to "primitive" beliefs regarding spiritual powers in nature, which can be seen as a rather demeaning way to refer to the beliefs of modern day Asians. Yet, the term continues to be used among academics of Southeast Asia in a relatively neutral sense, and it actually names an important aspect of Thai religious consciousness having to do with the place and power of local spiritual powers and beings. There does not seem to be another term for "animism." The term "traditional

34

religiosity," for example, is much broader and does not necessarily name that aspect of traditional religious thinking having to do with spirits and spirit propitiation.

From my own understanding of the Thai context, it seems to me that it is possible to raise a number of issues regarding the role of political correctness in Asian theological thought. First, it does seem that Asian theologians could exercise a bit more patience with each other; and, perhaps, it would be wise to sort out more carefully exactly why the use of certain words is rejected so adamantly. Those speaking from one Asian context should especially be careful not to universalize their understanding of certain English-language terms to all other Asian situations.

Second, the PTCA and other ecumenical-liberal forums would also do well to reflect more carefully on their reliance on apparently Western approaches to the political correct usage of certain English-language terms. The call for political correctness can be seen as reflecting an inherently Western dualistic approach, one that assigns "good" and "bad" uses of terms like "tribal" and "animism" without any recognition of gray areas or differences in Asian contexts. While ecumenical-liberal Christians criticize fundamentalists for their rigid dualism, on this issue of political correctness ecumenicals frequently display virtually the same rigidly dualistic approach—a kind of ecumenical fundamentalism, if you will. Perhaps it is necessary to "fight fire with fire," but such an argument is not self-evident. The point here is that while the international ecumenical Asian theological movement is stuck with using English as its medium of exchange, it would be wise to consider how Asian Christians can best use the language in a non-dualistic, more Asian-like way.

Third, in Thai, at least, there is an approach to political correctness that is different from that seen among native language speakers of English. For some time now, there has been a movement afoot to transform the meaning of the Thai term for people who are "crippled" ( khon phikarn ). In English, now, we have to put the term "crippled" in quotation marks, because political correctness all but forbids the use of the term at all. In Thai, however, there are no strictures against using the word cripple, but there is an ongoing move to change its meaning—a movement symbolized Thailand 's active, proud participation in the Special Olympics. This transformation of meaning seeks to present crippled people in positive terms and to

35

make the point that they have skills and abilities and values in spite of their condition. While there are those who will object in English to the idea that crippled people are still people "in spite" of their condition, the terms applied to the "differently challenged" in English can amount to polite euphemisms that still highlight the different-ness of people who are "handicapped." In a much less than perfect world, the Thai language approach of retaining the original words and packing new meanings into them seems just as viable as the English-language speakers' approach of discarding terms entirely—and less aggressive, less dualistic in a way that seems to better fit, at least, a Southeast Asian world view.

The use of the English language for Asian theological reflection, in sum, inevitably removes that reflection from its Asian context, not wholly, of course, but in important part. It also, frankly, renders those reflections less relevant to local situations in Thailand where problems where haggling over with the meaning of certain English words and terms has no meaning at all. More largely, the very use of English as a medium for theological reflection seems to encourage linguistic approaches and dualistic attitudes that are, if anything, inimical to Asian theological reflection.

As mentioned in the Introduction, I find these PTCA consultations invaluable, in part, because of the fresh perspectives the various participants bring to them. One of the most intriguing discussion of the Tainan consultation followed a paper on the role of the media in creating and fostering fundamentalisms. In the drive for using Asian resources for Asian theological reflection, it seems that the use of media analysis as a tool for that reflection has not received much attention. The media, particularly the press and television, play a huge role in the creation of images and myths, ones that profoundly influence world opinion. Local channels of communication are being usurped more and more by global networks, which all too often present uncritical and even ignorant images and data concerning even local events. The media generally thrives on sensationalism, and they transform complex issues into small, superficial bites that mislead as much as they inform. At the same time, however, the media also reflect what people want to hear about, so that there is a

36

The paper and the discussions that followed raised important questions concerning how theologians should respond to the media, using it both as a source of reflection and subjecting it to critical theological rebuttal and comment. How can pulpits be used to counter the negative (evil?) side of the media? How does the use of the media for Christian evangelism impact local Christian peoples? In what ways can peoples of faith foster new channels of communication? And, while we had more questions than answers, the direction of the discussion provided food for thought in the Thai context as well.

Another highly stimulating discussion revolved around one of the participant's use of Augustine and Aristotle as sources for Asian theology in his paper. Other participants objected that there are perfectly good Asian sources that make the same points as these Western sources. One other participant argued that Augustine's anti-feminism discredits him as a source for Asian theological reflection. Still another participant argued that Augustine is also an elitist source and therefore also "anti-minjung," that is source that does not reflect the suffering of poor Asians. These objections generated counter-objections of their own, especially the observation that if contemporary theologians use only sources that are not "anti-feminist" they will have precious little left to work with. Feminism is a recent movement and theological sensitivity to its issues is a recent phenomenon. More largely, other participants argued that Asian theologians should be allowed to "play" with whatever sources they deem useful; and the validity of that usage should be tested by the results of their theological conclusions. In this case, it was noted that virtually everyone agreed with the paper's conclusions, which suggests that its use of Western sources for Asian theological reflection was valid and helpful. One participant also argued that we should not take a dualistic approach to such sources as they combine both positive and negative aspects. Theologians need to discern what is useful in a source rather than reject it because some of its contents are "bad."

Yet another discussion period capsulized in many ways the quality and intensity of the exchanges that took place at Tainan. In response to a paper that

37

presented a relatively positive picture about the reality of Christian evangelicalism-fundamentalism in the Philippines, some participants observed that in particular contexts fundamentalists show many positive traits. They show a real depth of faith and unity in the Spirit. It was also observed that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to make any clear distinctions between terms such as evangelicalism, fundamentalism, Pentecostalism, and that these terms do not make a lot of sense in Asian contexts anyway. One participant said, for example, that Asians had not gone through the Enlightenment so that all of the discussion about modernism and its relationship to fundamentalism was irrelevant. He asserted that Asian theology must start with the Asian historical and contemporary experience, which renders many Western philosophical and theological terms irrelevant.

Other participants observed, however, that we cannot make a simple distinction between Western and Asian experiences anymore. He pointed out how Western in appearance, for example, our own group was even though it was composed largely of Asians discussing Asian theology. Another person stated that there are people in Asia who are genuinely post-modern and who even reject much of traditional Asian culture. An Indian participant noted that in his country the concept of post-modernism is largely irrelevant since India did not participate in the European Enlightenment, but the concept of fundamentalism is highly relevant even if it originated in the West.

Finally, a brief exchange concerning the term, "separate but equal," indicates how different national contexts influence the thinking of Christian Asians. One of the Indian participants stated that Indian minority groups sought to be separate but equal within the Hindu majority culture. An American participant observed that such a goal was dangerous, and he reflected on the ways in which White Americans used the doctrine of "separate but equal" to force Black and Native Americans to live in oppression. The Indian participant responded immediately that in India, minority groups feared being engulfed by the majority culture and the separate but equal doctrine helped to protect them from that fate.

38

PTCA consultations always remind me of a complex continent Asia is, both geographically and culturally. It also serves to remind one of the complexities of theological reflection in the diverse context of Asia. Whatever the drawbacks of the PTCA process, it serves to remove its participants from their own situations and encourages them to reflect cross-contextually as well as cross-culturally. One cannot help but be impressed by the forthright declaration of his desire for full independence for Taiwan as Taiwan by one of the Taiwanese participants. The evident pain of discrimination of tribal peoples in South Asia sensitives one to those same pains in Thailand. An Indonesian Catholic spoke with that same evident pain about the tensions caused by fundamentalists within his own religious tradition. There were more such moments than I can record here, and the real value of those moments was that they helped all of us to think our own situations in new ways or, at least, with a refresh perspective.

The following are a few brief statements made by various participants in the course of the PTCA consultation discussion in Tainan :

"Theology must always be local and contextual."
"Fundamentalists can be good, but fundamentalism is always bad."
"Whether they are fundamentalists or anyone else, people engage in interfaith dialogue only when it is in their best interests to do so."
"Syncretism is inevitable."
"We all have a tendency to be fundamentalists, and it is good to have that tendency because it pushes us to seek the basics of our faith."

Padmini Solomon (Malaysia/India), "Religious Fundamentalism: Whose? Where?"

Luna L. Dingayan ( Philippines ), "A Study on the New Religious Movements in the Cordillera Region ( Philippines )."

Matheus Purwatma ( Indonesia ), "Orthodoxy and Orthopraxy in Doing Local Theology: The Challenge of Fundamentalism in the Doing of Theology in an Asian Context."

Chellaian Lawrence ( Sri Lanka ), "Religious and Political Fundamentalism: A Christian Response."

Herbert R. Swanson (Thailand/USA), "Reconstructing Fundamentalism: a Preliminary Analysis of Protestant Strategies for Religious and Cultural Accommodation in Northern Thailand."

Jinkwan Kwon ( South Korea ), "Fundamentalism in Korea —in Comparison with Minjung Theology."

Joshva Raja ( India ), "Media Myths of Fundamentalism and a Need for Theology of Dialogue at the Grassroots."

George Oommen ( India ), "Dalits and Hindu Religious Fundamentalism: Countering Aggressive Majoritarian Constructs of Nationhood."

Pratap Gine ( India ), "Tribalism: A New Form of Religious Fundamentalism—A Challenge for Doing Theology in Asia."

K.P. Aleaz ( India ), "The Challenge of the Sangh Parivar in Doing Theology in India."

40