Multiple Perspectives, Same Spirit.
Grassroots Asian Theology by Simon Chan may take on the assumption of a basic approach to faith in Asia until opening the text. Chan approaches the content from an academic perspective, and while he lays a strong foundation for the differences between Asian Christianity and other parts of the world, it is technically and theologically connected to its elite opponents more than its grassroots members. Looking at God, Jesus and spirituality of Asian theology from below rather than above, Chan disqualifies the egalitarian nature of Christianity in the West. Chan is uninterested in elitist theology as it does not relate to the daily experience of Asian culture.
Contextually relating to Jackie Pullinger’s experiential writings of the work of the Spirit and the Pentecostal nature of Christianity in Asian culture, Chan extends her work into the theological realm, citing the ground up approach to spirituality not only in Hong Kong but throughout Asia. Time and again, Chan highlights the perspective of the poor in Asian culture, as Pullinger does, as not primarily interested in liberation but embodiment of the spiritual life of Christianity, namely the Pentecostal practice of Christian spirituality.
Henry Rowold observes, “Chan structures his book around five major theological loci: God, Humanity and Sin, Christ and Salvation, Holy Spirit and Spirituality, and Church. He introduces each topic, illustrates how representative “elitist” or traditional theologians approach each theme, and describes how the various theological affirmations are refracted by the life and theology of grassroots Christians from varying Asian contexts.”[1] Chan critiques the largely elitist version of theology widely known throughout Asian culture as removed from the people practicing the faith. While able to converse with the elitists his criticism is focused on their methodological approach to theology. Chan cites, “The task of the professional theologian is not to tell the church what is good for it but to listen carefully [to] what the Spirit of truth who indwells the church is saying through the people of God.”[2]
While attempting to listen to the Spirit of truth, Chan is critiqued by others in his perspective on hierarchy in Asian culture. Anh Tran recognizes the effect of the West on Asian culture and the possibility for opposition stating, “Chan’s claim that the “hierarchy” of church and family found in Asian cultures is more nearly biblical may pose a problem for those who support a “Western” egalitarianism of discipleship.”[3] On the other hand, Tran commends Chan’s fresh perspective on Asian Christianity, highlighting the experience of Asian people and their “contribution to the global church.” As Tran puts it, Chan’s writing is ecumenical in scope and can be used as a starting place for bringing together evangelical concerns with the broader Catholic, Orthodox, and mainline Protestant traditions.”[4] This is helpful when considering the church as catholic in nature and with the need to seek unity even within diverse contexts. Chan’s ecumenical approach, while heady, offers points of intersection and flavoring that are not readily recognized in the broader traditions of the church, namely Pentecostalism in Asia and its relation to Pentecostalism worldwide.
It seems there are two variant groups in Asian culture with a tension between them, just as in American culture. The elitist theology that tends toward Western perspectives on theological formation and practice and grassroots and even folk theologies that remain more closely tied to Asian culture.
Is the West so dissimilar in its split between the elites and the grassroots? From the Catholic and mainline protestant traditions to the nondenominational evangelicals, there are many versions and experiences of Christianity. While some focus on the justice of God and others on the embodiment of God in life, they often speak the same words while meaning very different things.
While living in Southern California I had the experience of living in one theological culture in the church and clashing regularly with another pastor on my team. Both Free Methodist, both seminary trained, both on staff at the same community, we would use the same words but have completely different meanings for them. We realized this as we would begin to practice our theology. I would go out into the neighborhood to be a witness for Christ while he would study often and considered his witness through his experience of pastoring from the presence of the building and congregation meeting in the neighborhood. Over time, we realized our seminary experiences, one of a United Methodist cultural theology and the other of an evangelical Wesleyan theological trajectory, led us to the same long-term conclusions while forcing us to spend much more time in dialogue and defining our terms to understand one another throughout the process of our ministry. Could this have been remedied? Possibly. However, in the end we both knew it was better to partner from afar, giving one another the space and grace to fully live out our ministry language and philosophy as we embodied it.
As much as Chan is recommending a grassroots theology of Asian culture, there are equal possibilities that the realities of the elitist theologies have much to offer to the roots while also learning from the grounded perspective of even the folk theology of Asia. They don’t have to work in the same spaces, fully agree or even adapt to one another, but humbling themselves to listen and learn is something that transcends all cultures and fits in perfect alignment with Christ.
[1] Rowold, Henry (2015) “Grassroots Asian Theology: Thinking the Faith from the Ground Up. By Simon Chan,” Concordia Journal: Vol. 41: No. 1, Article 22.
[2] Chan, Simon. Grassroots Asian Theology. Downers Grove: Il, IVP Academic, 2014, 30.
[3] Tran, Anh Q (2015) “Grassroots Asian Theology: Thinking the Faith from the Ground Up. By Simon Chan,” Theological Studies Journal: Vol 76: No. 2, 394.
[4] Tran, 395.
About the Author
Trisha Welstad
Trisha is passionate about investing in leaders to see them become all God has created them to be. As an ordained Free Methodist elder, Trisha has served with churches in LA and Oregon, leading as a pastor of youth and spiritual formation, a church planter, and as a co-pastor of a church restart. Trisha currently serves as leadership development pastor at Northside Community Church in Newberg, OR. Over the last five years Trisha has directed the Leadership Center, partnering with George Fox and the Free Methodist and Wesleyan Holiness churches. The Leadership Center is a network facilitating the development of new and current Wesleyan leaders, churches and disciples through internships, equipping, mentoring and scholarship. In collaboration with the Leadership Center, Trisha serves as the director of the Institute for Pastoral Thriving at Portland Seminary and with Theologia: George Fox Summer Theology Institute. She is also adjunct faculty at George Fox University. Trisha enjoys throwing parties, growing food, listening to the latest musical creations by Troy Welstad and laughing with her two children.17 responses to “Multiple Perspectives, Same Spirit.”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Hi Trish,
Thank you for your honest storytelling about Southern Cali and the other Pastor on your team. Your comments on how you decided to “partner from afar, giving one another the space and grace to fully live out our ministry language and philosophy as we embodied it” was interesting, and did not sound at all “elitist” as Chan says us Westerners can be. Well done!
I am still trying to figure out everything Chan says about “elitist theologies” but I think I will be using your example to help me. Thank you.
Thanks Jay. I think we can still have unity even when we don’t always work on the same team. I still support this pastor and cheer him on even though his methodology and mine were very different. Part of our parting ways was so we could both flourish. No hard feelings, just realizing the need for fruitfulness in both of us.
Trish, good post. there certainly is an interesting theology. I often find myself getting more frustrated with the academic theology as opposed to the folk theology. Where do you find yourself getting more frustrated?
Kyle, good question. I have been around more academics of late and am appreciating their perspective although I tend toward a more grassroots approach myself. Yet, sometimes I become frustrated with the grassroots and folk theologies because I wonder if we are attempting to think deeply or if we are just going with what we know and experience of the world. Basically, I am living in the tension between the two and dig it. I get to be challenged and challenge both sides.
Hi Trisha,
Thanks for linking Pullinger with Chan, something I overlooked til you mentioned it. One is the experiential living out of the gospel, the other is the academic base for it.
I agree Mark. I noticed it a bunch and wanted to have little vignettes of Pullinger to bring to life some of Chan’s text to reveal how the grassroots theology actually is lived. He spoke to the academics and I felt like he missed some of the heart of the Pentecostals he defended.
I appreciated you bringing out some of his egalitarian bashing, which of course I didn’t agree with, even though I understand that the Asian culture is primarily hierarchical. I also disagreed with his perspective on the Trinity being hierarchical. I feel like the concept of the Trinity is very much egalitarian in that the three are equal to the one. I also appreciated your real-life example of the fellow minister that you had to agree to disagree with, I’m sure he has not been the last pastor you have had to do that with 🙁 Great post once again Trish!
Thanks Jake. I am curious how others have considered the trinity in Eastern/Asian culture and if the idea of hierarchy is normative.
Fortunately, I have not had many places I have had to leave due to difference of philosophy or methodology. Although I do see it a lot, I have chosen to vet opportunities a bit more before jumping in so as not to go through the same long painful process of building and then leaving a ministry like that.
I appreciate how you took this to the personal realm, talking about the differences you had with a colleague. The theortical becomes much more of a challenge when we bring it into the practical.
I often wonder if those tensions need to be resolved. I like the solution you came to, but I also wonder how we can learn from different perspectives and grow and change, and how we discern where and when givng space is the best answer.
Good thoughts here.
Jenn, I think generally we could learn how to resolve the tensions but it takes grit and the right set of accompanying factors. In my case, I had tensions from outside the workspace that caused more stress and did not allow for change and growth within the work relationship. However, if given the time and ability, as a loyalist, I would have stuck it out indefinitely. Yet, as my spouse pointed out, I may have lost part of my own leadership self in accommodating. It’s a bigger conversation but I think you speak to it a bit in your own post.
Trish,
We have the same tensions in the SBC as well. I have watched two churches within a half mile of each other, both with seminary trained pastors have widely differing views on how to “do” theology and ministry and both be extremely confident in their ideas. One thing I admire in your writing is that you and your other pastor were able to come to an understanding with each other. This happens so rarely in the southern baptist life, it really is sad.
Jason
Jason, it bums me out to hear stories like this. I wonder what sort of ego we must have when we are not even on the same staff or team but we have to oppose another church in our community. Why can’t they agree that they can partner through reaching different groups in different ways and then cheer one another on as they do? It just seems we are all fighting for the same small group of people and the Spirit has little to do with the way we go about focusing on the ministry or the opposition of others.
Thanks for this post, Trisha,
I was struck by your insight that Chan’s work “is technically and theologically connected to its elite opponents more than its grassroots members.” You do well to develop this theme of the way this “split” is apparent not only in Asian culture by also in the US and even among our denominations and traditions. So, the nuance that you show is that while Chan is trying to demarcate himself from “elitists”, his terminology and approach also reflects the places where he was trained and the kinds of “elite” scholarship that he practices. Interesting stuff!
Dave, I was a bit annoyed at some of the text really as it did not come across as grassroots in verbiage. It seems that Chan has taken a position of opposing the elitists in a debate with them, rather than teaching others about the nature of the theology he speaks of. Just my take on it but it was not an easy read and I am guessing those doing folk theology especially will not find this very accessible. Also, the tension seems so similar here in the US with regard to how we live our theology.
Trisha,
I have begun to see the western model, of building a church and letting people come to you rather than going into the world, crop up from those that have studied in seminaries overseas. I think we have taken the “theologian in residence” farther than it was intended. I think recognizing cultural and theological differences does help us work better together.
Thanks for your insight Greg. I really think we need to go out into the world no matter how much we are responsible for the building. It just seems like missed opportunities for engagement and I can’t help but think that people will, at least in Western culture, not care one bit about what’s happening inside a structure unless it affects them in someway or they are cared for by the people who inhabit the space.
Trish great job. I agree that the split in the west is just as big, or perhaps bigger. The difference is though, that in the west, many people view everyone else as close-minded elitists, and themselves as the more modest down-to-earth practical Christian. Both sides of the elitists camp only view the opposing as elitist. That or they view them as hokey folk theologians. I see a lot of “the righteous mind” playing out here.