The Trinity in Asian Perspective. By Jung Young Lee. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996. $19.95 paper
Jin Young Kim
THE REVIEW OF KOREAN STUDIES 2, 1999.9, 228-231(4 pages)
Jin Young Kim
As a result of his life-long venture to establish Korean theology, Jung Young Lee, a Korean-American theologian, endeavors to reinterpret trinity, which is regarded as the core of Christian theology, through the perspective of Asian traditional culture and worldview in The Trinity in Asian Perspective. The concept of trinity has been a battleground for theological debate since the formation of the Christian church. This paradoxical notion of trinity, which proposes that God is both "One in Three" and "Three in One," has been interpreted in a Western way of thinking since the Christian church was established. Thus, the explication of the doctrine of trinity has always been controversial. The history of interpretation of this polemical theme has been claimed to be found in the tendency of Western theology's individualistic and dualistic pattern of interpretation.
Lee points out these shortcomings and suggests his own method of interpretation of trinity through remaking it in an Asian way of thinking, i.e., from an Asian perspective. Among East Asian concepts, Lee selected the yin-yang symbol as a hermeneutic key of the paradox of trinity, "one in three, three in one." Lee maintains that the limitations of Western theology can be overcome through this perspective. His argument seems to be quite bold for Western readers because of his extraordinary way of thinking. Even though he suggests an alternative understanding of Biblical paradox, he does not attempt to criticize or to replace the traditional Western view but to present an alternative view of the trinity from an Asian orientation, In this sense, Lee's effort can be understood as an inclusive and holistic way of thinking that adopts the both/and way of thinking rather than the either/or way prominent in theology and philosophy.
Lee's intent in this project is driven from his idea that theology and life cannot be separated in the theological thought process. Lee begins his discourse with points in his life experience:
My own life and my life with my family are my life. In this respect, I accept that my own life is my life with my family. However, my own life without my family is not identical with my life with my family. My life with my family, which corresponds to the economic Trinity, involves a new dimension of relationship with the "other." This relationship with others makes my life with my family different from my life outside the family (or without the "other"), which corresponds to the immanent Trinity (67).
According to Lee, Western theology has been derived from the anthropocentric approach to cosmology. As an alternative perspective, he proposes a distinctive characteristic of East Asian philosophy that emphasizes the inseparable relationship between humans and the world, i.e., cosmology. He suggests that the Asian perspective can be termed anthropocosmology. While the West is interested in an anthropocentric approach to cosmology, in East Asia anthropology is part of cosmology. In this sense, Lee maintains that Asian thought and perspective, namely, the yin-yang symbol, can complement Western theology.
His presupposition of God-talk is not a mere human imaging of the divine but a meaningful correlation of human imagination with human experience of the divine. Lee insists that the symbol is meaningful because it is part of human experience. Using his description, the task of theology is not to replace the symbol of the divine trinity with a new symbol, but rather to find its new meaning for our context.
For this project, Lee uses yin-yang philosophy for interpreting the paradoxical concept of trinity in a creative way. While the author has investigated the notion of yin-yang philosophy closely in earlier books and articles,1 his application of this concept to the trinity seems more elaborate and profound than in his prior research. Yin-yang are not two independent entities; moreover, they are not only one but also two at the same time. "It is then clear that in the yin-yang relationship the whole or the absolute self is not relative but is related to parts or yin and yang (30)." This statement is analogous to trinity theology. He contrasts the both/and mode of thought through elaboration of yin-yang to the either/or way of thinking, i.e., the Western way of reasoning. Through this effort, Lee complements the Western way of thinking for the postmodern generation. Through his
1. Lee's earlier works on this topic include: Patterns of Inner Process (Secaucus, NJ: Citadel Press, 1976); Cosmic Religion (New York: Harper & Row, 1978); Embracing Change: Post Modem Interpretations of the I Ching from a Christian Perspective (London, Toronto: Associated University Presses, 1994).
230 The Review of Korean Studies
own experience as an Asian-American theologian, he draws a new way of thinking which can grasp Christian theology, especially the trinity doctrine with the experience of yin-yang concept. Lee claims that the paradoxical perception of trinity is due to the dualistic thinking of the West. In order to overcome dualistic thinking, both/and philosophy is an alternative strategy for Trinitarian thought. Furthermore, Lee explicates that yin-yang thinking is not merely complementary but also a holistic philosophy. The yin-yang symbol makes it possible to reinforce our characteristic of dependence on knowledge.
The primary thesis of this book is that yin-yang thinking is basically Trinitarian rather than dualistic. His elaboration of the diagram of the Great Ultimate (or Tai chi) provides the key to explaining his way of thinking derived from yin-yang thinking. "Yin cannot exist without yang, just as yang cannot exist without yin (58)." The yang is in the yin, and yin is in the yang. This relationship between yin and yang unites these two as one in the Trinitarian way. From this fundamental basis of understanding Trinity, he develops his theological concepts on the persons of the Son, the Spirit, and the Father. He relates the Spirit to chi, the animating power and essence of the body and the existence of evil spirits. Also, he compares the ministry of the Spirit to a mother's in the manner in which the trinitarian entities and power is merged and integrated through its integrative and transforming force.
Lee draws hexagrams from the I Clung (The Book of Changes), e.g., i (gain), chien (advance), feng (abundance), tai (peace), hsien (influence), and chieh (regulation) for overcoming the traditional order of Father-Son-Spirit. From his understanding of the hexagrams of the I Clung, Lee complements the Western way of order, gender, perception of cosmos, and so on. Lee studies the persons of the Son, the Spirit, and the Father in that order. As mentioned above, he insists that yin-yang thinking is not just non-dualistic and complementary, but also trinitarian per se.
While I read this work, I questioned what the author was trying to accomplish. From his own conclusion, I was able to find his purpose through a parable looking at the moon through a finger pointing to it. There are many religions in IKorea. Christians cannot avoid being with and living with practitioners of other religions. Without a cosmo-anthropological understanding of the trinity, we cannot grasp the mystery of its meaning.
Lee's relational and inclusive approach to reinterpret trinity can be a most valuable contribution in the doctrinal history of the East and West.
Even though Lee's dichotomy of relation and substance in understanding the trinity seems to be naïve and simplistic to contrast with, his effort to reimage and reclaim the meaning of trinity should be useful and notable to many postmodern thinkers and researchers. His analogy of trinity to family system would seem controversial to traditional theologians. Additionally, feminists would challenge his statement on the hierarchical view of family structure. However, his reinterpretation of trinity to find the true meaning of invisible God through explication of trinity in the perspective of Asian thought has to be considered as the most creative and boldest interpretation, unmatched by any other Asian theologian.
His approach, derived from his Korean religious-cultural background, creates a more inclusive and holistic perspective for those who seek a more profound way of reinforcing and overcoming shortcomings in Western dualistic and individualistic modes of reasoning. This tendency is seen in postmodern thinkers. In particular, Lee's experiential thinking style provides a challenging structure toward thinkers from the West colored by objectivism and idealism.
As a matter of fact, reaffirmation of the divine mystery through applying I Ching and yin-yang concepts seems to further contribute to the study of Christian theology in an age of a multi-religious environment. Borrowing Lee's terms, this study should serve as a catalyst for those who are seeking the meaning of trinity in their own lives.
(Pyongtaek University)
