Violin from Mexico - World Socialist Web Site

Violin from Mexico - World Socialist Web Site  

Part 1: For honesty and urgency in filmmaking - World Socialist Web Site

San Francisco International Film Festival 2007

Part 1: For honesty and urgency in filmmaking

David Walsh

12 May 2007

This is the first of a series of articles on the 2007 San Francisco International Film Festival, held April 26-May 10.

The recent San Francisco film festival, its 50th edition, screened some 200 films (108 features) from 54 countries. The largest number of films from any individual country, by far, came from the US, followed by France, Germany, Italy and Canada. A relative handful of films came from Africa, some of them important, and a somewhat larger number from Latin America, whose cinema is showing new signs of life. Asia contributed its share, but without, in general, extraordinary distinction. There was one film each from Iran and Taiwan, reflecting in some fashion the impasse that the film industries in those countries have reached.

Festival organizers bestowed various awards on filmmakers Spike Lee and George Lucas, screenwriter Peter Morgan (The Queen), actor Robin Williams, film historian and preservationist Kevin Brownlow and documentarian Heddy Honigmann.

Well-known theater and artistic director Peter Sellars delivered the festival’s annual “State of Cinema” address April 29. According to a press account, in his remarks, Sellars “came repeatedly back to the rise of fascism in Europe to underscore the challenges facing art and humanity today. Stressing how digital media empower global voices in the new century ... he ranged over millennia and continents in pursuit of his theme, touching perhaps closest to home with reference to California’s runaway prison industry and draconian immigration policies, which Sellars laid out in the starkest and most chilling of terms.

“‘At this moment,’ he argued, ‘where all over the world governments are the problem not the solution, we need to create as artists another possibility for a new set of states to which we can belong, adhere, subscribe, and that does have something deeply to do with what we believe in, hope for, and care about.’” (SF360)

A day earlier actor Danny Glover appeared at a press conference before a public screening of Bamako, the indictment of IMF and World Bank policy in Africa directed by Mali’s Abderrahmane Sissako, on which he served as executive producer (see WSWS review here). Glover spoke about “the growing debt, the growing inequality” in Africa and the devastation wrought by current “neo-liberal” economic policy.

In response to a question from a WSWS reporter about the current deplorable state of the American cinema, Glover praised such films as Good Night, and Good Luck and Syriana, then spoke about the need for a “real democratization” of the US film industry. He criticized those who were “married to a paradigm of success” that only measured box-office results. “We need to look beyond the media for a real picture of the world,” he suggested.

The most interesting films at this year’s San Francisco festival were the honest and urgent ones, works that attempt at least to show in an artistic fashion how people live and what they think and how they feel (“our life of three dimensions”), and what their strengths are and also their shortcomings.

The artists of course can do whatever they like, but to create work that has a profound impact and that endures, they need to bring important realities to bear, the truly indispensable realities. People are curious about everything, they love spectacle and drama. This can take morbid and cheap voyeuristic forms (and too often does at present), but it needn’t.

One of the keen interests that people have, or can develop—if encouraged!—is a fascination with history and the nature of their own society. This may take the form of novels, plays or films that concentrate in their individual stories the most challenging moral dilemmas of the day.

Cinema at present often falls far short of satisfying or even addressing humanity’s broader interests. We experience too much narrowness and self-involvement and egoism, lacking in depth and breadth.

Some of the more successful films in San Francisco included Rome Rather Than You (directed by Tariq Teguia) from Algeria; The Old Garden (Im Sang-Soo) from South Korea; Strange Culture (Lynn Hershman Leeson) from the US; Love for Sale: Suely in the Sky (Karim Aïnouz) from Brazil; Fish Dreams (Kirill Mikhanovsky) from Brazil-Russia-US; Sounds of Sand (Marion Hänsel) from Belgium-France; Violin (Francisco Vargas) from Mexico; A Walk to Beautiful (Mary Olive Smith) from Ethiopia-US and The Rape of Europa (Richard Berge, Bonni Cohen and Nicole Newnham), about the Nazi looting of European art.

There were remarkable moments in After This Our Exile (Patrick Tam) from Hong Kong-Malaysia and The Yacoubian Building (Marwan Hamed) from Egypt. Singapore Dreaming (Yen Yen Woo and Colin Goh) from, naturally, Singapore and Fresh Air (Ágnes Kocsis) from Hungary deserve some mention as well.

Rome Rather Than You

In Rome Rather Than You, Kamel and Zina are two young people in Algiers seeking a way out of a dysfunctional situation. “Come with me to Rome,” he says. “Marseilles, Barcelona, Naples, America.” He adds ironically, “Hurray for globalization!” She’s more skeptical about departing. She works in a clinic, including doing the mopping up. In a restaurant, he reads a newspaper with the headline, “Massacre near Algiers.” In the bloody struggle between the bourgeois nationalist establishment and Islamic fundamentalists from 1992 to 2002, 160,000 people died. Nothing has been resolved.

The pair go looking for a man who can provide false travel documents. All they know is he lives in a house with “concrete pillars and a garage.” They drive around a non-descript suburb, where the houses look alike and many appear unfinished. There are no street signs because “they don’t put them up until everything is built.” They ask about the individual in question, adding, “We’re not here to assassinate him.”

Kamel goes into a bar, still searching for this man, while Zina waits in the car borrowed from his uncle. Kamel meets someone he knows. They talk about life. “The best thing is a drunken sleep on the shore.” “Who said that, Cheb Hasni [famed Algerian popular singer, murdered in 1994 by fundamentalists]?” “No, Rimbaud—they understood each other.”

Independent, even a little pouty, Zina wanders down to the sea, the two men approach her. Kamel upbraids her for not waiting in the car. She says, “We were going to the beach, but you brought me to this lousy neighborhood.”

In the best (and lengthiest) scene of the film, while sitting in a café, Kamel, Zina and his friend are descended upon by a bunch of policemen. They know that Kamel is looking for a smuggler and phony papers, although he admits nothing. The cops are bullying, insulting, they work as a team. Their leader wants to intimidate Kamel and Zina, but he also philosophizes. He asks rhetorically, “In your opinion, has America a point of view on the world, or only interests?” He goes on about the US, “Coca-Cola and hijab [woman’s head-scarf], Coca-Cola and tight jeans, but always Coca-Cola.”

The cops take the trio to the police station, and hold them there for a few hours. After their release, they drive around, lost. And there’s still a curfew. They stay the night at the house of someone they know. Everyone is at loose ends, or fairly depressed. An ex-journalist tells Kamel, “They don’t print my articles.”

When they’re alone, Kamel tells Zina, “Come on, be brave, and I’ll take you to Antwerp.” “I don’t want anything,” she says. The question of a forged Swiss passport comes up. Zina points out, “How can we be Swiss?” She goes on, speaking of emigrating to Europe, “Am I supposed to live there as an illegal?” He replies, “How do you live here?,” and she has no answer for that.

Kamel can be romantic too: “I want to hear your breathing. The breathing of a living girl.”

Out of the blue, or perhaps not, tragedy strikes.

Rome Rather Than You is intelligently and sensitively made. One gets a sense of the mood and feelings of a certain generation, or one portion of a generation: young people who want no part of either side in the civil war, and who perhaps want no part of Algeria either. Nor do they have great expectations of what they will encounter in Europe. The film doesn’t condemn or condone, it considers their difficult situation.

Director Tariq Teguia, in his notes, explains, referring to his two main characters, “No, the girls don’t all lower their eyes in the street; yes, many young Algerian men wish to get out! Not only for material reasons—work, housing—but as a rejection, even an unconscious one, of an imprisoning society.”

He also writes that the film is “as much about politics as girls, cigarettes and terrorism, false papers and water cut-offs, in the language of those who pass through it. All arranged in a disorderly fashion to better understand what the social situation prevents the characters from having ... ”

It is not a demoralized work, although aspects of the situation it presents are potentially demoralizing: the oppressive atmosphere, the ubiquitous police, the fundamentalist Islamic presence, the lack of economic opportunity, the wasted political opportunities, the sense of being hemmed in and vulnerable to attack from any number of sides. In Algeria, the director explains, there is no “zone of open conflict. Violence is brief, even if it so happens that it takes the bloodiest forms ... A daily event, violence is no less present. It is not extraordinary, it is the ordinariness of everyday life.” Nonetheless, Teguia speaks of his hope “of bringing to life the joy lodged under the weight of the violence.”

The characters and their words ring true. They speak directly, but not simplistically. A good deal is said or implied about their situation without shouting or straining. This Algerian film has a level of moral and social sophistication that is sadly lacking in most American and most European films at present.

Films from or about Brazil

Something similar might be said of Love for Sale: Suely in the Sky from Brazil. Its story is even simpler. Hermila returns to the town of Iquatu—in the extreme northeastern part of the country—from São Paulo, with her infant son in her arms. Her husband, Mateus, is meant to follow her. “It’s expensive in São Paulo, we decided to come back.” She stays with her somewhat disapproving grandmother and her aunt, waiting for Mateus to show up. She makes regular trips to the pay-phone: “I love you too. I miss you. When are you coming?” It becomes painfully clear to us, and later to Hermila, that he is not coming. In fact, he vanishes in the city.

Hermila tries to get by, washing cars and selling raffle tickets. She takes up with an old boy-friend, but that relationship holds limited promise. She too wants to get away, to another part of the country and make a fresh start (she asks at the bus station for the name of the farthest possible destination—“Write that down, please”). Her best friend is a prostitute, Georgina. Hermila decides to raffle herself off. The holder of the winning ticket will get “A night in paradise.” She adopts the name “Suely” and begins selling tickets around town. It causes something of a scandal, her grandmother throws her out of the house, but she’s determined to go through with it.

Here too are more or less straightforward events and a sympathetic approach. People’s great difficulties as well as their pleasures are taken seriously. Director Karim Aïnouz (Madame Satã) explains, “When I look around Brazil, one question haunts me: what kind of future awaits a young woman from humble means, especially if she also has a child to raise and a body bursting with desires and aspirations?”

He notes that “Iguatu is a place of intense heat, unforgiving sun and vast blue skies. It is a remote small city in the middle of an extensive, deserted plain. It is a city where more people leave than stay. It’s a place of passage where the 21st century seems to arrive in small pieces, in fragments that echo a distant future. For most, it’s a place of departure. ...

“I wanted to portray its daily life, without exoticizing it. The Northeast of Brazil [the director’s birthplace as well] is a region that is also notorious for the amount of people who leave. Since the quality of life there is not very favorable, a lot of its young population leave to Rio and São Paulo searching for work.”

Why is “Suely” (Hermila ) “in the sky”? Because, writes Aïnouz, the sky “is a faraway place where anyone can be happy. The sky is everywhere and nowhere. The film is Hermila’s steps on how to get there.” That her hopes are mostly illusory and that things won’t be dramatically different in another town are not insignificant matters.

Also set in northeastern Brazil, though made by a Russian-born and US-educated filmmaker, Kirill Mikhanovsky, Fish Dreams takes the lives of its characters seriously as well. Jusce, a young fisherman and an orphan, dives every day 30-40 meters, illegally, for lobsters. He’s in love with Ana, a young woman desperate to leave. Ana and her family watch a favorite soap opera religiously.

The boss deducts expenses from their wretched earnings. The fishermen are angry. “It’s not fair.” He says, “I’ve got a family too.” Jusce is saving up to buy his own boat. At a meeting, an official tells the men, “Diving for lobster will continue to be illegal.” They say, “We have mouths to feed,” “If I stop diving, my life is over.” They go on breaking the law, dangerously. In fact, Jusce’s father died in the ocean.

His former friend, Rogerio, has a dune-buggy and a bit of money; he attracts Ana’s attention. Jusce has to take dramatic steps to win back her interest. Meanwhile one of his comrades dies in the water.

Again, there are clear and honest images in Fish Dreams. Things are not invented merely to impress or show off. We see people’s believable acts and their believable consequences. This film is a little more distant from its characters, but this may be an inevitable result of the director’s ‘foreignness.’

Mikhanovsky says about his work: “Fishermen pushing a boat in the water introduces the film’s key leitmotif—effort: it is through the efforts of Jusce, a young fisherman, both at work and in love (his l’amour fou extracting the greatest effort of all) that we tell a bigger story of one man’s struggle that goes so far that the sense of one’s acts is no longer discernible. ...

“I tried, to the best of my abilities as a director, to show the beauty and nobility of the work of fishermen by means of delving into their daily routines and rituals. The patient and respectful visual treatment of the specific details of their labor and their relationships was critical in order to convey the dignity and nobility of their profession and their lives.”

In this at least he has succeeded.

Violin from Mexico is a more explicitly political work, 

a story of military brutality and popular ingenuity during the peasant revolts of the 1970s. Don Plutarco is an aging musician, who lives with his son, Genaro, and the latter’s family. Plutarco plays the violin, Genaro the guitar and they make a meager living out of it. They also participate in the guerrilla struggle and when their village is taken over by the military, they have to devise a means of recovering the ammunition hidden in a corn-field.

Plutarco wanders back in the village, nothing but a harmless old man (missing part of an arm) with a violin. He engages the local army commander and his men with his music. The commander insists that he comes back every day to play. Meanwhile, Plutarco has to locate the ammunition and transport it to the fighters. Unfortunately, the military man is no fool.

Francisco Vargas has constructed a convincing drama, with a nonprofessional cast. Violin begins with a horrifying scene of torture carried out by the military against rebel prisoners. The film’s sympathies are clear. The scenes in the town, where the weapons are obtained, are well done. Don Ángel Tavira, born in 1924 in Guerrero, a musician himself and from a long line of musicians, plays Plutarco with considerable dignity.

What inspired director Francisco Vargas to make the film? “I’ve always wanted to write a screenplay about an ignored reality in Mexico, what Luis Buñuel in 1950 called Los Olvidados [The Forgotten Ones],” he explains. Moreover, “Through its deliberate realism, the film does make reference to those guerrilla conflicts which frequented the Mexican political scene of the 20th century.”

The film is not a tract, it offers a sobering view of Mexican social reality, past and present. The traditional music is haunting.

Reticence

The filmmakers mentioned here, with the possible exception of Vargas, are reticent about making any general pronouncements. Aïnouz, in fact, goes out of his way to explain that he wanted to look at the Brazilian situation “without making any generalizations.” Teguia also emphasizes the particulars, explaining that it was his intention to film “not a big story, just a landscape of events.”

A kind of social-aesthetic dogmatism will not help anyone. It’s good to be careful, but not to such an extent that one accommodates oneself to a bad atmosphere or a terrible social situation. These filmmakers are forthright and honest. They are not intentionally accommodating themselves to anything. The world disturbs them.

But one can also accustom oneself to the present political difficulties, the deep sense of a lack of an alternative to the status quo. In Algeria, the population seems trapped between the bankrupt secular bourgeoisie, corrupt and privileged, and the reactionary fundamentalist elements. Lula, the champion of the Brazilian working man and woman, has turned out to be another defender of the rich and powerful. There is no immediate solution to the political impasse in Mexico and the cruelty of the present system.

The artists don’t yet see a way out anywhere. So there is a tendency to treat the present situation—disastrous for the mass of humanity—as quasi-inevitable, as “life” itself, and the search for improvements or social progress as perhaps beside the point.

So, Teguia writes, “But, if one has to say tragedy, it is to be reminded that something persists, something consubstantial with disaster, life, nothing less. So making a happy film, what does that mean? A film without guilt, about the simple joy of being alive even if the life here only amounts to a supposed good mood of the characters who cross an urban desert.”

In any event, there’s no reason to speak about “guilt” and “the simple joy of being alive” is fine, but one should not cross the line where this process becomes a means of making a virtue out of necessity, or rather, what is precisely not necessary, the existing wretched social conditions.

알라딘: 도시를 어떻게 구원할 것인가? - 도시에 관한 신학적 성찰과 상상 김승환 Seung Hwan Kim

알라딘: 도시를 어떻게 구원할 것인가?

도시를 어떻게 구원할 것인가? - 도시에 관한 신학적 성찰과 상상   

김승환 (지은이)새물결플러스2021-01-18

248쪽

책소개

전 세계적으로 근대 도시 기획이 실패한 오늘날, 후기 세속화의 흐름에 따라 종교가 도시 속에서 새로운 위치를 점하게 되었음을 전제로 이야기를 시작한다. 그는 이러한 시대에 도시의 재생과 개혁 방향을 신학적 관점에서 고찰하고 교회의 공적 역할을 제안하는데, 이때 공공신학과 급진정통주의의 관점을 모두 다루면서 상호 보완적인 입장을 취하고자 했다. 공공신학이 삶의 자리에서 출발하여 도시 건설 및 도시 변혁에 대한 실질적 참여를 추구한다면, 급진정통주의는 기독교 전통에서 출발하여 도시의 거룩함 회복 및 대안 공동체 형성을 강조하는 관점이다.

우선 이 책의 1-3장은 주로 근대 세속 도시의 실패와 탈근대화한 현재의 상황을 다룬다. 1장에서는 근대적 세속 도시에서 사라지는 듯했던 종교가 후기 세속화와 함께 도시로 귀환했다는 것과 그 양상을 설명한다. 혼종성과 다양성을 특징으로 하는 탈근대 도시 속에서 종교는 시민들의 정체성을 재형성하는 등의 새로운 역할을 요청받고 있다. 2장에서는 인간의 이성에 대한 믿음에 기댄 근대 도시의 기획이 무엇이었는지 구체적으로 설명하고 그에 따른 문제점을 비판한다.

목차

서문_ 도시 신학의 흐름

1장 도시로 돌아온 종교

성스러움과 장소의 탄생 | 도시의 재영성화 | 도시의 혼종성과 관계성 | 공간 정체성의 재형성

2장 왜곡된 도시의 근대적 욕망

도시의 기획자들 | 도시의 근대성 비판 | 앙리 르페브르의 도시에 대한 권리 | 비인간화된 도시민의 삶

3장 땅에 건설된 유토피아

건축가, 도시의 새로운 제사장 | 땅에 건설된 유토피아 | 끝없는 욕망의 소비와 육체화된 삶

4장 성서의 도시, 이중적 자화상

야웨, 땅, 이스라엘 | 하나님의 대항자로서의 도시 | 새로운 예루살렘과 예수

5장 새로운 예루살렘을 향한 비전

거주의 신학화 | 종말론적 도시 공동체 | 새로운 예루살렘 | 세속적 욕망의 성화

6장 공적인 그리고 공동체적인 도시

공적인 열린 공간 | 지역의 공동체성 형성 | Faith in the City | 정의와 평화의 도시 비전

7장 도시의 순례, 성찰적 여정

도시의 성찰자, 만보객 | 도시의 순례자 | 제자도의 정치학

8장 예전적 도시 공동체

예전적 존재로서의 인간 | 성만찬 정치체로서의 교회 | 화해와 포용의 성만찬 도시

9장 정의와 환대의 평화 공동체

시민성과 초월성 | 장소성과 초월성 | 정의와 환대의 공동체

후기

접기

책속에서

한국 사회는 오래전부터 부동산 열풍으로 몸살을 앓고 있다. 부동산 투기 세력은 강남과 비강남, 서울과 수도권의 이곳저곳을 들쑤시고 있다. 세속화된 도시 공간은 자본의 노예가 된 탐욕스러운 인간들을 양산해낼 뿐이다.…도시의 급격한 성장과 쇠퇴 속에서 종교는 어떤 역할을 할 수 있을까?

_서문_ 도시 신학의 흐름

세속화 이론가들은 사회가 고도로 발달하고 인간의 이성이 향상될수록 종교 의존도가 낮아지면서 종교는 결국 쇠퇴에 이를 것이라고 전망했지만 현실은 전혀 그렇지 않았다. 종교의 새로운 가시성은 서구에서만이 아니라 전 지구적으로 목격되는 현상이며 이를 ‘후기 세속화’라고 부른다.…후기 세속화의 흐름은 사회 전반에 걸친 종교적 해석과 실천... 더보기

근대적 도시화로 인간관계, 생활 양식, 거래 방식, 규제 양식 등에서 합리성을 근간으로 비이성적·감성적·초월적인 것들이 거세되었다.…인간의 행복조차 수치화되고 계량화된 우리의 현실에서, 도시는 유토피아가 아닌 통제된 파놉티콘인지도 모른다.

_2장 왜곡된 도시의 근대적 욕망

근대 국가와 교회는 목적이 같은데, 그것은 바로 인간 구원이다. 물론 두 입장에서 말하는 구원의 개념과 의미에는 차이가 있다. 근대 국가가 제시하는 구원은 삶의 안정과 평화와 번영이며 이것은 교회의 구원론과 대치되는, 교회 구원론의 아류로 볼 수 있다.

_3장 땅에 건설된 유토피아

이스라엘이 받은 땅은 단순한 정복지가 아니라 야웨께서 다스리는 정치 체제를 실현할 공간으로서, 그들이 하나님 아닌 다른 신을 섬길 때 언약은 파기된다. 땅이 목적이 아니라 하나님과의 언약과 규례가 일차적인 것이고, 그것을 실현할 공간으로서 땅이 선택된 것이다.

_4장 성서의 도시, 이중적 자화상

더보기

추천글

전환적 위기의 시대를 살아가는 21세기 초반 한국의 신앙인들에게 가장 우선적인 과제는 무엇일까? 오늘의 대한민국에서 신앙인다운 삶과 교회다운 교회됨은 무엇일까에 대한 질문이, 부동산에 대한 신앙적 관점과 태도, 도시 재개발에 대한 교회의 바람직한 관점과 역할, 지역 사회와 교회의 관계 등의 과제와 같은 맥락에 있는 것임을 인식하는 데 도움을 준다는 점에서 이 책은 가치와 의미가 있다. 신학을 전공하는 이들은 공공신학과 급진정통신학이라는 관점을 통하여 말씀과 교회/전통과 현실을 이어 보려고 애쓰는 현대신학의 분투에 초대받게 될 것이다. 또한 개인적 관점을 넘어 하나님 나라 중심으로 신앙을 살아내려 애쓰는 이들에게는 신앙인으로서의 지평 확대를 경험케 해줄 것이다. 무엇보다 하나님을 사랑하고, 그와 같이 네 이웃을 사랑하라는 말씀 실천의 구체적 영역인 ‘도시’에 대한 신앙적·선교적 비전과 도전의 과제를 받게 될 것이다. 이와 함께 이 책이 제시하는 비전과 도전을 통하여 우리는 오늘의 도시와 교회의 현실에 대하여 깊은 반성과 절절한 아픔을 더하게 될 것이다. 그러나 저자와 함께 우리도 ‘샬롬의 도시’를 상상하며, 아니 더욱 ‘열망하며’, 그러한 도시를 이루어가는 신앙인들과 교회의 실천이라는 열매 맺기를 소망한다. - 임성빈 (장로회신학대학교 총장, 프린스턴 신학대학원 철학 박사) 

나는 이 책을 읽으면서 겸손해질 수밖에 없었다. 처음 읽을 때는 추천자로서 접근했으나, 점점 읽으면서 어느덧 열성적인 학생이 된 나 자신을 발견했다. 도시, 공간, 신학에 관한 내 흩어진 앎의 구슬들을 한 가닥으로 꿸 수 있으리라는 기대도 하게 되었다. 오늘날 대부분의 사역은 도시를 배경으로 하지만 도시에 관한 신학은 빈곤했다. 특히 국내 저자에 의해 집필된 도시 신학 서적은 찾기 힘들었다. 그래서 이 책은 매우 진귀하다. 신학과 인문학, 사회과학을 넘나드는 저자의 박식하고 탄탄한 이해는 풍성할 뿐 아니라 허술함이 없다. 최근의 선교적 교회론이나 팀 켈러의 센터처치와 같은 논의들이 도시에 대한 혜안을 기반으로 하고 있기에, 이 책의 쓰임새는 독자에게 신학적 만족을 주는 데 머무르지 않고 설렘을 일으키는 데 이를 것이다. 교회가 도시의 창조적 해석자이자 사이의 공간으로서, 현대 도시인들에게 하나님 나라의 정체성을 부여하는 아름다운 소명의 장소가 되기를! - 김선일 (웨스트민스터대학원대학교 실천신학 교수, 『전도의 유산』 저자) 

‘도시 신학’을 전개하는 김승환 박사의 ‘도시 신학적 상상력’은 급격한 도시화에 대한 영적 관심에서 기획된 수준 높은 책이다. 김 박사는 근대화와 도시화의 폭거에 절망적인 현대인들에게, 비인간화되어가는 도시를 다시 순례할 영적 공간으로 소환한다. 그는 도시의 ‘공시성’과 예전적 공동체의 ‘통시성’의 조화를 통하여 미래의 교회 공동체가 나아가야 할 방향을 예언자적으로 제시한다. 공공신학의 책무를 다하는 제자도의 정치학을 통하여 교회가 앞장서서 건설하여야 할 “화해와 포용의 도시”는 이제 모두가 추구하여야 할 목표로 자리매김하게 된다. 정의와 환대의 공동체를 제안하는 ‘도시 신학적 상상력’을 통하여 한국교회와 사회가 더 성숙한 “시민 공동체”로 변모하기를 간절히 소망한다. - 유경동 (감리교신학대학교 교수) 

도시에 관한 담론은 철저하게 인간의 본성에서 시작해야 하는 과제다. 오늘날 교회는 창조신학적인 관점에서 예수 그리스도를 통한 하나님의 구속적 경륜에 나타난 인간을 ‘살리며’ 공간을 ‘창출하는’ 정치·경제적인 차원을 직시해야 한다. 더 나아가 교회는 삼위일체 하나님에 의해 보냄 받은 시공간인 하나님의 창조세계를 공적 영역으로 인식하며 새로운 상상력을 동원하여 회복하고 갱신하는 새 창조를 목표해야 한다. 이 책은 인간성이 철저하게 말살되는 현대 도시의 공허한 “공간”(space)을 하나님 백성들의 기억을 끌어냄으로써 공적 창조가 이루어지는 “장소”(place)로 재생하려는 시도들을 다양한 각도에서 피력한다. 또한 이 책은 하나님의 선교 현장인 도시에 관한 신학적 함의들을 제시할 뿐 아니라, 대안 문화적이며 대조 사회적인 도시 재생과 공동체 형성에 관한 총체적이고 실천적인 담론들을 폭넓게 다루고 있다. 따라서 이 책은 세속적 욕망으로 점철된 소비주의와 해체적 개인주의에 함몰되어 폐허로 변해가는 도시에서 새 창조를 향한 순례의 여정을 하며 타자에 대한 환대의 공동체와 하나님의 공의가 구현되기를 고대하는 이들이 탐독해야 할 필독서다. - 최형근 (서울신학대학교 선교학 교수) 

우리는 ‘땅의 도시’(civitas terrae)에 무관심한 채 ‘하늘의 도시’(civitas caeli)만을 갈망해서는 안 된다. 몸을 멸시하고 영혼의 가치만을 희구하는 영지주의적인 오류에 빠질 것이기 때문이다. 그렇다고 해서 하늘의 도시에 무관심한 채 땅의 도시에만 집착해서도 안 된다. 이 경우 우리는 영혼의 가치를 멸시하고 육체의 가치만을 희구하는 물질만능주의의 나락으로 떨어질 것이기 때문이다. 몸과 영혼이 유기적으로 관계되어 연결되어 있는 것처럼 땅의 도시는 하늘의 도시와 유기적으로 관계되어 연결되어 있다. 요한계시록의 그림 언어, 즉 새 예루살렘이 하늘에서 땅으로 내려오는 것에 대한 비전(계 21:10)은 종국적으로 하늘의 도시는 땅의 도시로 내려와서 땅의 도시를 하늘의 도시로 ‘변모’(transfiguratio)시킬 것이라는 미래에 대한 전망을 우리에게 보여주고 있을 뿐만 아니라, 땅의 도시를 욕망과 투기의 대상으로만 파악하는 오늘날의 시대정신에 경종을 울리고 있다. 저자는 공공신학, 해방신학, 급진정통주의 그리고 아우구스티누스를 위시한 교부들의 도시에 관한 다양한 신학적 관점을 섭렵한 후, 능숙하고 시의적절하게 오늘날, 지금 여기에서(nunc et hinc) 우리에게 절실하게 필요한 ‘도시 신학’을 전개하고 있다. 저자는 또한, 비록 교회가 땅에 속해 있는 공동체이지만 하늘의 가치, 즉 욕망과 투기, 차별과 혐오에 대항하여 공평과 정의, 연대와 환대를 구현하는 샬롬의 공동체가 되어야 함을 역설하고 있다. 그렇다면 우리는 어떻게 이러한 교회 공동체를 구현해낼 것인가? 그리고 이러한 교회 공동체의 구성을 통해서 어떻게 우리가 살고 있는 땅의 도시를 새로운 샬롬의 도시로 재건축할 것인가? 이 책은 이러한 질문에 대하여 대단히 유익하고, 구체적이며 번뜩이는 통찰들을 제공해준다. 뜻이 하늘에서 이루어진 것처럼 땅에서도 이루어지기를 원하기에, 기쁜 마음으로 이 책을 독자들에게 추천하며 일독을 권한다. - 이동영 (서울성경신학대학원대학교 조직신학 교수) 

이 책은 성경적 땅의 신학이 개인적이고 탐욕적인 ‘부동산 신학’이 아니라 관계를 회복하고 덕을 추구하는 진정한 ‘도시 신학’으로 연결되도록 우리를 인도한다. 저자는 교회가 공공선의 추구에 동참(engagement)해야 한다는 공공신학의 접근과, 초월적 가치를 통해 도시에 도전하는 ‘도시 안의 도시’로서의 교회 정체성을 강조하는 급진정통 신학의 접점에서, 성만찬을 중심으로 하는 예전을 통한 정의·환대·평화 공동체로서의 교회를 이야기한다. 또한 이를 통하여 21세기 도시 환경 속에서 교회의 존재 이유와 선교적 방향을 뚜렷하게 제시하고 있다. 오늘날 이 땅에서 복음과 세상, 교회 공동체의 삼각적 상호 관계를 늘 의식하며 “미션얼 교회”(missional church)를 고민하는 모든 이에게 이 책을 강력하게 추천한다. - 지성근 (일상생활사역연구소 소장) 

코로나19 이후의 ‘뉴 노멀’에 대비하는 일이 교회와 그리스도인들에게도 중요해졌다. 특히 도시적 삶에 익숙한 현대인들이 비대면 사회 혹은 온라인 가상현실을 받아들여야 하는 만큼, 신앙 공동체 역시 변화된 상황에 적응하지 않을 수 없게 되었다. 이런 국면에서 도시적 삶에 대한 분석과 신학적 대응, 그리고 무엇보다 도시와 교회와 인간 사이에서 발생하는 다양하고 방대한 내용을 제시하는 김승환 박사의 이번 저서는 새로운 도전을 준비해야 하는 한국교회에 있어 매우 고맙고 의미 있는 자료가 될 것이다. - 성석환 

더불어숲동산교회는 “공교회성과 공동체성과 공공성을 회복하는 선교적 교회”라는 비전을 품고 2010년 화성 봉담 땅에서 시작되었다. 여기서 “공동체성”은 삼위일체 하나님의 사랑의 사귐을 구현해야 하는 교회가 대조 사회, 대안 사회, 그리고 대항 사회의 역할을 해야 함을 말하고, “공공성”은 교회가 선포하는 복음이 공적 진리이기에 교회는 공적 영역에서 공공선을 실천하는 타자를 위한 공동체여야 함을 말하며, 이 두 가지는 균형 있게 상호 작용하면서 내용을 더욱 풍성하게 만들어간다. 이것은 공간과 도시에도 그대로 적용된다. 내가 『페어 처치』(새물결플러스)에서 소개한 공공성 실천을 위한 여덟 가지 키워드 중 첫 번째는 “함께 짓는 공간”이었다. 앙리 르페브르의 “도시에 대한 권리”를 소개하면서 교회가 공간 주권을 회복하는 데 동참해야 하며, 교회도 공유 공간이 되어야 한다고 했다. 또한 『성자와 혁명가』(새물결플러스)의 마지막 장은 “헤테로토피아, 환대와 평등의 도시”였다. 교회 공간은 세속 도시 공간에 대한 이의 제기로 기능해야 하며, 속도와 효율성만 추구하는 세속 도시를 환대와 평등의 도시로 만드는 일에 참여해야 한다고 했다.

『도시를 어떻게 구원할 것인가?: 도시에 관한 신학적 성찰과 상상』을 읽으며 지금까지 추구했던 방향이 틀리지 않았다는 것을 확인할 수 있었다. 내가 보기에 급진정통주의는 “공동체성”을, 공공신학은 “공공성”을 강조하면서 도시에 대한 새로운 상상력을 우리에게 불어넣어 주고 있다. 이 책은 세속 도시의 한계를 정확히 지적하고 있으며 후기 세속 사회에서 교회가 어떤 도시적 비전을 제시해야 하는지를 잘 정리해주고 있다. 에덴동산에서 새 예루살렘이라는 도시로 향하는 구원의 이야기를 간직한 교회는 순례의 공동체요 성만찬의 공동체이기에, 지역과 도시가 혼종성과 복합성, 관계성과 가치성, 개방성과 성스러움을 수용할 수 있도록 환대와 평등의 공동체, 정의와 평화의 공동체가 되고 공적 영역에서 공공선을 위해 참여해야 함을 역설한다. 나는 이 책을 신학생과 목회자의 필독서로 강력히 추천한다. 모쪼록 이 책을 읽고 예언자적 상상력으로 교회를 새롭게 하는 일에 매진하기를 바란다. 그래야만 한국교회가 새로워질 수 있기 때문이다. 도시 신학을 깊이 있고 알기 쉽게 소개해준 저자의 노고에 깊이 감사드린다. - 이도영 (더불어숲동산교회 목사) 

저자 및 역자소개

김승환 (지은이) 

저자파일

 

신간알리미 신청

장로회신학대학교에서 신학을 전공하고 동 대학원에서 신학(Th.M.) 석사와 철학(Ph.D.) 박사를 마쳤다. 도시공동체연구소에서 연구원으로 활동하고 있으며, 인문학&신학연구소 에라스무스 회원이기도 하다. CTS 4인 4색, 새물결아카데미, 청어람아카데미 등에서 공공 신학과 기독교 공동체주의를 강의해 왔다. 

공저로 『우리시대의 그리스도교 사상가들』 (도서출판100, 2020), 『혐오와 한국교회』 (삼인, 2020)가 있고, 저서로는 『남자, 영웅을 꿈꾸다』 (책과나무, 2014)와 『도시를 어떻게 구원할 것인가』 (새물결플러스, 2021)가 있다. 접기

최근작 : <공공성과 공동체성>,<도시를 어떻게 구원할 것인가?>,<혐오와 한국 교회> … 총 6종 (모두보기)

출판사 제공

책소개

기성세대의 “부동산 불패 신화”는 끈덕지게 이어져 내려와, 오늘날 “영끌”(영혼까지 끌어모은 대출)로라도 집을 사려는 3040 세대의 추세가 사회의 화두로 대두되기에 이르렀다. 지금의 도시 공간은 불안에서 벗어나기 위한 투자의 대상이며, 그곳을 걷는 사람들의 시선은 온통 주식 차트에 고정되어 있다. 근대화에 따른 비인간화와 자본주의적 양극화가 고착되면서 시민들은 이제 부동산과 주식에 유일한 희망을 걸게 되었다. 하늘의 시민권을 가진 그리스도인이라고 해서 세속 도시의 공공 영역에서 유리된 채로 살아갈 수는 없다. 그렇다고 위에서 말한 세상의 흐름 대로 살 수도 없다. 이 책은 그러한 잿빛 도시 속에서 “사이 공간”으로서의 교회를 꿈꾸며 신학적 상상력을 빛내고 있다.

저자는 전 세계적으로 근대 도시 기획이 실패한 오늘날, 후기 세속화의 흐름에 따라 종교가 도시 속에서 새로운 위치를 점하게 되었음을 전제로 이야기를 시작한다. 그는 이러한 시대에 도시의 재생과 개혁 방향을 신학적 관점에서 고찰하고 교회의 공적 역할을 제안하는데,

이때 공공신학과 급진정통주의의 관점을 모두 다루면서 상호 보완적인 입장을 취하고자 했다. 공공신학이 삶의 자리에서 출발하여 도시 건설 및 도시 변혁에 대한 실질적 참여를 추구한다면, 급진정통주의는 기독교 전통에서 출발하여 도시의 거룩함 회복 및 대안 공동체 형성을 강조하는 관점이다.

우선 이 책의 1-3장은 주로 근대 세속 도시의 실패와 탈근대화한 현재의 상황을 다룬다. 1장에서는 근대적 세속 도시에서 사라지는 듯했던 종교가 후기 세속화와 함께 도시로 귀환했다는 것과 그 양상을 설명한다. 혼종성과 다양성을 특징으로 하는 탈근대 도시 속에서 종교는 시민들의 정체성을 재형성하는 등의 새로운 역할을 요청받고 있다. 2장에서는 인간의 이성에 대한 믿음에 기댄 근대 도시의 기획이 무엇이었는지 구체적으로 설명하고 그에 따른 문제점을 비판한다. 특히 대표적인 근대 도시 기획자들의 도시설계가 어떤 것이었는지를 알아본 후, 정신적 삶의 상실, 파편화된 사회, 불평등, 소외, 비인간화 등의 문제를 지적한다. 3장은 도시 공간을 인간의 욕망과 거짓된 상상들로 채우고자 한 근대 도시의 기획을 특히 급진정통주의 신학의 관점에서 비판한다. 근대 도시는 건축가를 제사장으로 내세우고 합리성을 기초로 땅에 유토피아를 건설하고자 했으나 이는 창조주가 부여한 인간의 참된 욕구가 아닌 왜곡된 소비 욕망만을 자극하는 공간이 되면서 인간을 허무함과 탈인간화로 이끌 뿐이었다.

4-6장은 성서와 공공신학을 기초로 새로운 도시의 비전을 제시한다. 4장은 성서에서 땅이 어떤 의미인지와, 성서에 나타난 도시의 이중적 자화상을 설명한다. 성서에서 도시는 하나님에 대항하면서 나타난 타락의 장이자 새 예루살렘으로 묘사된 바와 같이 다시 회복되어야 할 하나님 나라의 모형이다. 5장은 그렇다면 새로운 예루살렘의 비전이 과연 무엇을 뜻하는지에 관해 고찰한다. 저자에 따르면 새 예루살렘은 구체적인 도시의 설계도라기보다, “다양성 속의 일치와 연대, 모두를 포용하고 한 중심을 향해 이끄는 도시의 정신과 영성의 필요성을 가시화한 것”이다. 6장은 공공신학의 관점에서 세속 정부의 정책적 한계와 근대 도시의 폐해를 극복하는 교회는 역할을 고민한다. 공적 공간의 공유와 지역 공동체성의 회복을 중심으로 정의와 평화의 공동체라는 비전을 제시하며, 이때 신앙적 자본의 역할을 강조한다.

7-9장은 도시를 변혁하는 주체이자 공적 파트너로서의 교회의 실천 방안을 제시한다. 7장에서는 발터 벤야민이 도시를 재해석하는 경험으로 제시한 “도보”를 “순례”라는 제자도적 삶과 연결한다. 공간을 새롭게 이해하고 성육신적으로 참여하는 것, 예언자적 통찰로서 하나님의 정의를 선언하는 것, 예언자적 상상력을 발휘하여 비전을 제시하는 것이 바로 그리스도인의 순례 여정이다. 8장에서는 교회가 예전적 공동체로서 사회 계약적 메커니즘의 허구성을 폭로하고 진정한 연합을 통해 도시를 변혁할 것을 제안한다. 예전은 단지 종교적 영역에만 자리하는 것이 아니라, 그리스도인의 삶을 통해 사회를 변혁하고 새 예루살렘을 지향하게 하는 강력한 동기로 작용해야 한다. 9장은 교회가 다원적인 현대 도시 속에서 하나의 공동체 혹은 공공의 파트너로서 어떤 모습이어야 하는지를 제안한다. 교회는 시민을 존중하고 사회 전체를 진심으로 배려하며, 지역 주민들과의 관계 형성을 위해 환대와 정의와 샬롬의 공동체를 추구해야 한다.

교회는 종교적인 공간인 동시에 공적인 기관이다. 사회가 부동산 문제로 몸살을 앓고 있는 오늘날의 상황에서, 한국교회 역시 도시의 한 구성원으로서 이 땅에 임할 하나님 나라를 구현하기 위해 대안 도시로 존재하는 동시에 세상을 변혁해가야 한다. 이 책은 교회가 하늘에 속한 땅이자 도시의 공적 파트너로 어떤 역할을 해야 하는지를 고찰함으로써, 한국 도시에 새로운 희망과 상상력을 불러일으킬 토대가 될 것이다. 접기

---

구매자 (0)

전체 (1)

공감순 

     

도시에 관한 신학적 사고를 할수 있어서 참 좋았다. 저자가 성실하게 연구한 흔적들이 보여서 풍부한 자료로 흥미를 더해준것 같다. 

kimhanbin 2021-02-01 공감 (0) 댓글 (0)

Thanks to

 

공감

The Wisdom Jesus: Transforming Heart and Mind--A New Perspective on Christ and His Message

Amazon.com.au:Customer reviews: The Wisdom Jesus: Transforming Heart and Mind--A New Perspective on Christ and His Message

The Wisdom Jesus: Transforming Heart and Mind--A New Perspective on Christ and His Message

The Wisdom Jesus: Transforming Heart and Mind--A New Perspective on Christ and His Message

byCynthia Bourgeault

FILTERED BY

CriticalClear filter

54 global ratings | 33 global reviews

From Australia

There are 0 reviews and 0 ratings from Australiawith Critical

From other countries

starling

3.0 out of 5 stars ultimately weak

Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 16 October 2015

Verified Purchase

Started well with new understanding of Jesus' teachings which I found excellent, but then she lost her nerve and regressed to unclear understanding of birth, crucifixion and resurrection stories, so following the old and surely outdated accounts of magical beginnings of a new god, no explanation of the later added idea of atonement - how can a loving god even demand that? - and then the magical rise to heaven. She even suggests that certain adepts in other traditions can do this - well, their followers may believe it. Did they rise with their clothes on too?

A great pity not to have re-examined Jesus' life in the way she began, as an outstanding teacher in a well-developed cultural tradition of wisdom teachers, linked to others in distant parts of the world probably through the silk road and other trading, finally over-taken largely by politically or magically motivated followers, trying to get more power by more members in a way the original teacher most certainly did not imagine.

8 people found this helpful

Report abuse

Johnny

2.0 out of 5 stars Fell short of expectations

Reviewed in the United States on 23 October 2018

Verified Purchase

"Wisdom Jesus" is a three-part book. In Part I, Cynthia Bourgeault presents Jesus as a radical teacher, and not as a savior or as the Messiah. According to her, Jesus was nothing like how he is presented by the traditional church. He was an enlightened person whose only purpose was to reprogram or upgrade human consciousness from the innate dualistic "operating system" to a non-dualistic one. That Jesus was much more like a Zen master than a Jewish rabbi or priest. Bourgeault's analysis resonated completely with my own conclusions about Christianity, namely that traditional or orthodox beliefs are really much more about the person of Jesus and who he was rather than his message. In its current form, Christian teachings ares based more on those of Saul of Tarsus than those of Jesus of Nazareth – traditional Christianity should really be called Paulism in my opinion. The church hierarchy is modeled after the imperial Roman government, where it became its enforcement arm. In contrast to western/Roman style version, introduced some of the so-called heretical texts, such as The Gospel of Thomas and The Gospel of Mary Magdalene to illustrate the fact that some early Christians believed in a very different Jesus and a very different message compared to what is currently taught in Sunday schools. So far so good. I really enjoyed Part I.

Then came Part II. Here the author revealed herself as an Episcopalian priest and a professional director of medieval passion plays, contradicting virtually everything she said in Part I. In Part II, she took us back to Sunday school all over again, quoting chapter and verse from Matthew, Mark, Luke and John about Jesus's life, his ministry, his crucifixion, burial, resurrection and bodily ascension into Heaven. In these accounts, she takes everything stated in the four Gospels as literally true and historically accurate. She also presents us with her own non-biblical account of Jesus' descent into Hell, which occurred prior to his resurrection, and how the components of the trinity fit together and complement each other.

Part III delves into Christian meditation techniques, which aren't as much about quieting the mind as much as expressing the intent to upgrade the mind to a non-dualistic operating system. This upgrade is accomplished primarily by "letting go" with Jesus as the facilitator.

I must say that I was very disappointed in this book. It started off very well, but inexplicably devolved into orthodox Christian dogma, which cannot be be validated by evidence or reason, but must simply be believed as it was written in the Bible. The author does not explain why the writings in the Nag Hammadi scrolls were not included in the Bible if they were in fact closer to revealing the true message of Jesus than the four Gospels. Nothing in Parts II or III resembles any of the teachings of Nag Hammadi or the other Gnostic texts.

I didn't find the Christian Wisdom Practices in Part III of the book to be much different than yoga, transcendental meditation, or Buddhist mediation. The Centering Prayer seems a bit like the mantra technique, except that it includes an "intent" to become one with God. Some meditation experts say that stating such an intent takes you in the opposite direction because it implies there is still a gulf that needs to be crossed to get there, whereas as Jesus stated, the Kingdom of Heaven is already at hand.

Bourgeault suggests performing the Lactio Divina (sacred reading) method, which involves reading scripture "between the lines." This may be a good starting point for seekers, but it won't take them very far. For one thing, the scriptures have been edited and mistranslated into various languages, plus the meanings of words change over the years, so it's very easy to be misled by the words. One example of this is this famous quote, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven." This metaphor doesn't really make sense, but some "experts" insist that Jesus was talking about a small gateway into Jerusalem called the "eye of the needle" which a camel could barely pass through. Actually, the saying probably stems from an obvious typographical error: "gamlo" in Aramaic, which means rope, was transcribed as "gamla" meaning camel. Interestingly, the Greek word for rope is also very similar to the Greek word for camel (kamilos vs kamilon) and this verse eventually came down to us from Greek through Latin (where camel = cameli and rope = funem). It would have made a lot more sense to compare something very difficult to a rope passing through the eye of a needle instead of a camel, but biblical scholars refuse to make the correction of "camel" to "rope" because they would be admitting the Bible contains errors. Ruminating scripture filled with errors and improperly translated into modern languages isn't the best way to get to the truth.

The "wisdom practice" of chanting and psalmody described in Part III is similar to Buddhist and Hare Krishna chanting. The wisdom practice the author refers to as "welcoming" recapitulates "letting go" she discussed earlier in the book, and Part III finishes off with the practice of celebrating the Eucharist, a full-on Christian ritual that never really made any sense to me. There was nothing new to report in Part III.

I gave Part I four stars and only one star each for Parts II and III, which averages out to two stars overall.

101 people found this helpful

Report abuse

Charlie

3.0 out of 5 stars Interesting but not earth shaking.

Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 18 January 2013

Verified Purchase

Firstly I think it should be made clearer how far from the orthodox this book is. The author presents the Gospel of Thomas as if it was unknown before the discovery of the Nag Hammadi scrolls. However there have been a number of orthodox Christian commentaries on this text in existence for centuries before. The author also contends that that Gospel of Thomas is not gnostic yet the whole tenor of her book is gnostic to a degree presenting salvation as something that is available only to those who have studied and understood the text. This is the antithesis of the message of Christianity as I understand.it,that is salvation open to all whether learned or not. The book is interesting but the Christian reader should be aware of what exactly they are purchasing.

5 people found this helpful

Report abuse

PK

1.0 out of 5 stars False Christ

Reviewed in the United States on 29 September 2018

Verified Purchase

Cynthia Bourgeault’s book is pure heresy and the fact that she remains a priest in the Episcopal Church speaks volumes regarding the tragic depths to which the Anglican Church has fallen. She would no doubt dismiss such a judgment as proof of her thesis that western Christianity has too long been under the sway of a false binary (i.e. – either/or, right/wrong) way of thinking which places logic over the intuition of the heart. She evidently does not see the irony that in arguing against the binary way of thinking she is using it: claiming that since her unitive, nondual way of thinking is right then my binary thinking must be wrong! She appears to be oblivious to this massive contradiction that pervades the book from cover to cover, but if logic is thrown out the window then I suppose it doesn’t matter whether one’s thinking is fuzzy or not.

It is not surprising then that the Jesus that emerges from this nonsense is a very different Jesus than the one revealed in the canonical gospels. The biblical Jesus in very binary fashion claims to be the “light of the world” (John 8:12) and stood in judgment of men who “loved darkness instead of light for their deeds were evil.” (Jn. 3:19) Bourgeault’s ‘wisdom’ Jesus avoids the “fatal trap in the ‘God is light’ roadmap” opting instead for an ultimate reality that holds the darkness together with the light “not judging, not fixing, just letting it be in love (p. 123).

Her Jesus is very different from the Scriptural one in another way as well. The Jesus found in the pages of the Bible is presented as the eternal God and Lord of all, the Maker of heaven and earth. Bourgeault’s Jesus is far more pedestrian: a very wise man to be sure but “typical of the wisdom tradition from which he comes,” (p. 62) an “enlightened master” in the mold of many great wisdom teachers of the past such as Buddha, other eastern mystics and Moslem sufi wise men: indeed he is presented as another “Tantric Master” (ch. 7). He is not uniquely different from us, just further along the path of nondual consciousness. She specifically asserts that she intends to present a “sophiological Christianity” that emphasizes “how Jesus is like us, how what he did in himself is something we are also called to do in ourselves…” as opposed to a soteriological Christianity that “tends to emphasize how Jesus is different from us… uniquely positioned as our mediator.” (p. 21) If this Jesus is ‘god’ at all he is so only in the pantheistic sense. Indeed, God is not to be viewed as “an object in the first place, a ‘someone’ or ‘something…’” (p. 87) Such a Jesus fits in nicely with the intellectual fads of our culture but is not even remotely credible from an historical perspective. Bourgeault asks us to believe that Jesus, who was steeped in the monotheistic and very binary thinking of the Torah and Jewish prophets such as Isaiah and Jeremiah was somehow actually a pantheistic eastern guru.

But then, Bourgeault’s understanding of Jesus is not derived from the Bible as most of us know it. She must pay lip service to it since she claims to stand in the Christian tradition, but she uses it sparingly and only when it suits her purpose – which is quite rare. Nor is she afraid to dismiss Scripture when it fails to conform to her theories. Thus Paul’s kenotic hymn in Philippians 2 is accepted but not his “long lists of rules and moral proscriptions that dominate his epistles.” (p. 70) In other words, she cherry picks whatever in Scripture suits her thesis and discards the rest. Furthermore, she not only ignores Scripture that don’t fit her thesis, she eagerly accepts the non-canonical Gnostic gospels such as the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene as better sources for our knowledge of Christ. Never mind that these “gospels” were written long after Christ lived by those who were trying to achieve the impossible: to syncretize Christian faith with Greek philosophy and eastern thinking.

Indeed, in typical Gnostic fashion, her ultimate source of knowledge is not any external book or gospel but the internal and subjective witness of one’s heart – something she refers to as “our own power of inner recognition” (p. 3) or one’s “own direct knowingness.” (p. 7) According to Bourgeault, knowing about Jesus actually gets in the way of this inner subjective process. This intuitive knowledge clearly trumps Scripture or any other sacred writing – which at best can only confirm or obscure “one’s own inner authority.” (p. 7) Here is Bourgeault’s ultimate authority, not Scripture but her heart. The problem is that the Bible specifically warns us that “the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked.” (Jer. 17:9) Rather than a source of truth or wisdom, the inner human consciousness tends to be corrupt and self-serving.

It is not surprising then that all of this leads to a massive reinterpretation of the gospel. There is no place for sin or guilt in Bourgeault’s system of thought. Sin is replaced in her theology with what she calls an “egoic operating system” (I kid you not) which those of us unenlightened souls still stuck in the binary way of thinking have not yet evolved beyond. Indeed the idea that Christ died for your sins as it is normally understood is described as “bad, manipulative, guilt-inducing theology.” Contrary to Scripture God is not angry over our sin (ctr. Rom. 1:18) and Christ’s death was not an atoning sacrifice (ctr. Rom. 4:25). Rather, salvation is “a sacred mystery… to create empowerment….” It is “deepening your personal capacity to make the passage into unitive life” (p. 106) whatever that means. No longer is salvation obtained by faith in an objective Savior and Mediator. It is achieved through techniques of meditation that are intended to connect us to our subjective inner nondual awareness and higher consciousness – techniques that she describes in some detail towards the end of the book. Once again, whether we like it or not we are faced with a very binary choice: salvation by grace through faith in God’s atoning sacrifice or self-salvation by meditative techniques.

In the end Bourgeault devotes an entire book to tearing down binary thinking all the while arguing in very binary fashion that we must choose between binary alternatives: either the eastern guru wisdom Jesus or the divine Savior of the world; either mystical enlightenment by meditative technique or salvation from sin by faith in the One who died and rose again; either human effort or divine grace. It would be humorous if it were not so sadly momentous, for whether she likes it or not, a very binary fate – either heaven or hell - hangs in the balance. My fear is that Bourgeault’s Christian credentials and reinterpretation of Christ will deceive many who were raised in a nominal Christianity but whose faith is not well grounded. Wise seekers will avoid the Bourgeault’s “wisdom Jesus” and trust in the real Savior found in the pages of the Bible instead.

52 people found this helpful

Report abuse

Kindle Customer

2.0 out of 5 stars New Age Mish-mash

Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 14 December 2012

Verified Purchase

Cynthia Bourgeault seeks to create a "wisdom" Christ according to her own pet theories. Terms like the "egoic operating system","binary mind","energy centres","instantiation", "mythic" consciousness, and vibration, amongst others, reveal ideas not intrinsic to the Gospels but common to New Age thinking.

She wants a Christ who dispenses wisdom to us as individuals. She mentions a Tantric Christ?

However the Gospels give us a clear picture of Christ and his activities which bear little resemblance to the picture invented by Bourgeault. Christ was not some guru who dealt with individuals. In the tradition of his Jewish roots he was concerned with society as a whole. It says very explicitly in the New Testament that he inaugurated a new covenant between man (plural/community) and God. He almost always preached to crowds and groups, not on a one-to-one basis like a guru. He was not a "navel gazer" but a preacher, healer and activist. His audience were first century Jews not twenty-first century intellectuals.

Bourgeault makes much of the Gospel of Thomas with its wisdom sayings. She is completely wrong when she states that it is accepted as containing the words of Jesus. Serious biblical scholars remain unconvinced.

I have no qualms about the section on centering prayer and lectio divina. These are established Christian practices, but you can download them for free off the Internet.

All in all a great disappointment. She follows in a long line of books that cobble together a so-called new understanding of Christ which turn out to be erroneous in the extreme.

13 people found this helpful

Report abuse

J. Grothues

1.0 out of 5 stars Begins with the Gospel of Thomas

Reviewed in the United States on 12 March 2019

Verified Purchase

This is actually a review of just the first sentence of the book. She quoted the second or third verse of the gospel of Thomas then wrote that it is "now largely accepted as an authentic teaching of Jesus." But, it's not. Yes, about half of the verses from Thomas kind of resemble verses from one or more of the canonical Gospels, but this verse is not one of them. So, I read that first sentence and thought, "Gee, if you are going to write a book about Jesus, at least START with the canonical Gospels. It's a pity, too. I really liked the title.

13 people found this helpful

Report abuse

Michael Lomax

2.0 out of 5 stars Thumbs down

Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 25 February 2013

Verified Purchase

It's the old line: that the church was hijacked somewhere in about the 4th century by people who wanted to use the Church for their power - and of course phallocratic - ends. And we, with the help of the Gospel of St Thomas and other documents they did not want us to read, miraculously refound, we have rediscovered the true Christianity. And remake the Church as we want it: of course women priests, pro-gay etc., etc.

This is too simple. In particular there is a glaring absence of knowledge of the ascetic tradition of the church.

This is not just me been bitchy: we read it in our Christian book club (Anglican, Protestant, RC and Orthodox) and all gave it the thumbs down

7 people found this helpful

Report abuse

pastorchuck

3.0 out of 5 stars Mixed Thoughts

Reviewed in the United States on 11 March 2020

Verified Purchase

Parts of this book resonated in profound ways, and there were a number of hidden gems along the way. At the same time, there were a number of bold assumptions and some interpretations that fit the author’s agenda, but are highly questionable. I am glad I read it, and I have some wonderful things to reflect upon, but I am not sure I would recommend it as the best work in the mystic, wisdom tradition.

Report abuse

C. R. Andrews

3.0 out of 5 stars Cynthia writes "It was not love stored up but love poured out that brought the ...

Reviewed in the United States on 5 June 2016

Verified Purchase

Cynthia writes "It was not love stored up but love poured out that brought the Kingdom of God to us." Her wisdom is so refreshing & different from most Spititual writers I have read many books where the authors quote her prolifiky I intend now to read of her books ColinAndrews Souyh Africa

2 people found this helpful

Report abuse

Bonnie Fredensborg

3.0 out of 5 stars Difficult book

Reviewed in the United States on 22 January 2015

Verified Purchase

This was an extremely difficult book to understand. Took it as a book study at church twice and still struggled through it.

2 people found this helpful

Report abuse

Eleanor Stoneham

5.0 out of 5 stars Are we ignoring the real message of Jesus?

Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 14 November 2012

Verified Purchase

What is wrong with modern Christianity? Did Christianity get off on the wrong foot almost from its inception? That is the thesis of this thought provoking and challenging book, a fascinating new take on the Jesus Christ we thought we were familiar with.

The starting point of the book is the Gospel of Thomas, restored to us when it was found among the Nag Hammadi scrolls in the Egyptian desert in 1945. These scrolls date back to early Christianity, being at least as old as the four canonical gospels, now widely regarded as the authentic teachings of Jesus, and give us a radical new take on Jesus and the metaphysics of his teaching.

Referring also to the 1960s Syriac studies, the Qumran Dead Sea Scrolls, Celtic poetry, Chinese Jesus Sutras, the African desert fathers, and so on, the author convincingly argues that the familiar Christian creeds and doctrines put together in the fourth century get in the way of understanding Jesus as a master in ancient spiritual wisdom, who was teaching the meltdown and recasting, the transformation, of human consciousness. This is the Eastern-like wisdom path of Jesus the life giver, a Jesus who is like us, calling us to put on the mind of Christ, telling us that the Kingdom of Heaven is a metaphor for a state of consciousness, a transformed awareness, a nondual or unitive consciousness, of divine abundance. There is then no separation between God and human, between human and human, all dwelling together in mutual loving reciprocity. The Kingdom of Heaven is within us and at hand, here and now, something we awaken into, not die into. This contrasts with the Pauline image of Jesus as Savior, who died for our sins, who is different from us, and has come to atone for mankind's depravity.

Today in Western Christian tradition we rely too much on logic, and doctrine and dogma. The author challenges these Western assumptions about Christianity and Christ, as she reminds us that whilst Christians take the events surrounding the resurrection as basic to their faith, the apostles who chose to follow Jesus knew nothing of what the future held. They had to see something else in this man, and we are long overdue, she writes, for a re-evaluation of how we understand the Jesus events and our religion based thereon, and of us understanding Christianity as a spiritual contemplative tradition. Indeed we see the first hopeful signs of this transformation.

The author examines our familiar Christian stories in this new light, as radical calls for the transformation of our consciousness; indeed shows how some of them become more readily understood within this new context. Jesus came to transform our brain led egoic operating system into a non-dual unitive system that is led by the heart, an organ of spiritual perception. In this light "repent" means to "go beyond the mind", or "into the larger mind", which is somewhat different from our classic understanding of repentance.

The book's thesis is lucidly explained step by step through Parts 1 and 2, respectively the Teachings of Jesus, and the Mysteries (Incarnation, Passion, Crucifixion, and the Great Easter Fast (not a spelling error!). It concludes in Part Three with core Christian wisdom practices available to us all; Centering Prayer Meditation, Lectio Divina, Chanting and Psalmody, and the Welcoming Prayer, the last being a pathway of vibrant spiritual strength and creativity connecting us to our energetic fields. The author takes us through these practices in detail, step by step. If we are diligent with these practices she tells us that we will find, as Jesus promised for ears who could hear, that the spirit lies within each one if us, connecting with reality and with each other.

The core Christian practice of the Eucharist can then be seen as more than a cultic ritual, experienced within the lower mythic or rational ranges of consciousness (as per Ken Wilber). It can instead be recognized as being at heart a wisdom practice originating from a non dual level of consciousness, when the celebration comes into its own.

I loved this book. I have already read it twice! As a Christian who has thought much and written something myself about the possible interface between new ideas on consciousness and the spirituality within religion, especially Christianity, this book is a breath of fresh air. Mainstream Christianity is losing ground, losing sight of the real gospel message of Jesus, the Jesus who came first and foremost as a teacher of the path of inner transformation, the deep level of consciousness he was trying to tell us about, a spiritual path that is found through self-emptying kenosis.

Christianity is either destined to change and grow into a proper form to match the consciousness of the twenty first century: or it will disappear as an institution and we shall then be left face to face with the naked presence of Christ.

48 people found this helpful

Report abuse

Mr. M. Donovan

5.0 out of 5 stars Serious Spirituality

Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 8 December 2011

Verified Purchase

I have been enormously inspired by this book. It challenges and affirms and sends me out again into a changed world where there is a God - bigger than the one I had previously perceived. Are you serious about knowing God in yourself and in others? Read this.

22 people found this helpful

JP. Case Rev of JY LEE'S THE TRINITY IN ASIAN PERSPECTIVE

 Aldersgate Papers, Vol 1 September 2000

REVIEW

WHEN TWO ARE THREE:

JUNG YOUNG LEE'S

THE TRINITY IN ASIAN PERSPECTIVE

by

Jonathan P. Case

I. Introduction: Lee's Contribution to the Wider Discussion

Jung Young Lee has offered an interpretation of the doctrine of the Trinity, from an East Asian perspective, that he hopes will contribute to our changed context of globalization, in which our understanding of Christianity has come to require what he calls a "world perspective."148 Interpretations of the Trinity and/or Christology from eastern religious perspectives have become more and more popular over the past few decades. Now The Trinity in Asian Perspective, with its appropriation of the doctrine of the Trinity from Taoist and Confucian perspectives, can be added to such works as Raimundo Panikkar's The Trinity and the Religious Experience of Man,'49 Michael von BrUck's The Unity of Reality, 150

148 Jung Young Lee, The Trinity in Asian Perspective. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996), 11

"p Raimundo Panikkar, The Trinity and the Religious Experience ofMan: Icon, Person, Mystery. New York: Orbis; London: IJarton, Longman& Todd, 1973.

"0 Michael von Ertick, The Unity ofReality: God, God-Experience, and Meditation in the Hindu-Christian Dialogue. New York! Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1991.

69

Case Review: When Two are Three

John Keenan's The Meaning of Christ'5' and Masao Abe's influential essay on "Kenotic God and Dynamic Sunyata."52

But Lee is interested not only in the East - West theological encounter; along the way he is concerned to show how an Asian interpretation of the doctrine of the Trinity can also answer significant questions raised by feminist and liberation theologies. These are laudable aims, surely, and Lee's work has been praised by significant figures working in the area of East - West interreligious dialogue. And Lee does provide helpful material on what he conveniently terms "yin/yang symbolic thinking" represented in Confucianism and Taoism. Upon close examination, however, I believe that this book, considered as a contribution to contemporary discussions of Trinitarian theology, is flawed seriously by questionable presuppositions, misreadings of the history of Christian thought and instances of sheer incoherence passed off as examples of creative theological thinking. J have no wish to pillory Prof. Lee's work, but it is imperative to scrutinize his book carefully and subject it to stringent criticism, for in it he proposes a far-reaching, programmatic reinterpretation of the doctrine of the Trinity on the basis of East Asian thinking, and to all appearances this book will have a significant impact in the area of interreligious dialogue.

II. Questions of Method

In terms of theological method laid out in his introduction, 153 Lee admits unabashedly to the priority of the apophatic. "I begin with a basic assumption that God is an unknown mystery and is unknowable to us directly.. ..The God who said to Moses 'I am who I

am" is the unnameable God......154 This statement revealed to Moses is compared, incredibly, to the familiar passage from the Tao te ching, "The Name that can be named is not the real Name." One hopes that Lee will encounter one day the name of YHWH in his reading of the Exodus story, and the importance of this name for the doctrine of the Trinity (Robert Jenson no doubt would be happy to help on that point)." But perhaps this is an unfair criticism, since Lee claims that his method is not "deductive," i.e., relying on "special revelation," but "inductive," i.e., relying on natural revelation given in cultural or natural symbols.'56 It is not at all clear what difference "special revelation" would make--even though Lee generously assumes that "the divine Trinity is a Christian concept of God implicit in Scripture""'--since every theological statement we make, the author assures us, does not speak of the divine reality, but rather only "of its meaning in our lives... [A]ny statement we make about the divine reality is none other than a symbolic statement about its meaning"."' The symbol of the Trinity, therefore, gives "meaning" as it participates in the life of the community, because this community is none other than that which "produces and sustains it". "9 In the Unity of Reality, Michael von Bruck was intemperate enough to state that "whether Christ or the Upanishads are 'true' depends on a personal faith experience"° --and many of us were (and are) understandably suspicious of those who do not scruple to put truth or true in quotation marks Lee, however, appears to be uninterested altogether in asking the truth-question.

Although Lee means to confess that "the symbol of the divine Trinity itself transcends various human contexts," the

'' John P. Keenan, The Meaning of Christ A Mahayana Christology. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1989.

52 In The Emptying God: A Buddhist - Jewish - Christian Conversation. John Cobb, Jr. and Christopher Ives, eds. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1990.

113 Lee, The Trinity, Chapter One.

70

114 Ibid., 12-13.

"'

See Jenson's analysis in The Triune Identity: GodAccorthng to

the Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982) 1 - 18.

156 Lee, 229.

' Ibid., 15.

Ibid., 13.

' Ibid., 14.

160 Michael von Erlick, The Unity ofReality, 5.

71

Case Review: When Two are Three

meaning of this symbol does not.16' Theological statements are invariably contextual, so much so, Lee says, that if the context of controversy were not present in the early centuries of the church "the divine Trinity would never have become a doctrine or norm for orthodoxy to defend.. ,,162 The familiar lament about Hellenistic ways of thinking imported into the church's doctrinal thinking is sounded, as well as the familiar warning that traditional terminology is not meaningful or relevant to contemporary contexts--the East Asian, for example. How then, exactly, does culture determine meaning? "How we perceive and think are directly related to our conception of the world. All images and symbols we use in our thinking process area directly taken from the world. Thus our thinking is closely connected with cosmology."63 Since "the yin - yang symbol can be regarded as the paradigm for East Asian thinking"TM the interpretive upshot is easy to predict: 'The Asian way of thinking" serves as Lee's hermeneutic key to understanding the Christian faith, "especially as to reinterpreting the idea of the

divine Trinity". 161

In chapter two, "Yin - Yang Symbolic Thinking: An Asian Perspective," Lee goes on to explain the basic dynamic of "yin - yang symbolic thinking" by first locating it within a Taoist cosmology characterized by cyclical bipolarity. The I Ching or Book of Change is, of course, at the heart of Lee's exposition. The necessary and complementary opposite forces (seen, e.g., in such oppositions as light/dark, hot/cold, male/female, action/nonaction, etc.) which characterize everything in the world are known in terms of yin and yang, forces whose complementary opposition constitute

"the basic principle of the universe". In this cosmology, change is

understood as prior to being; hence yin and yang must be seen not

161 Lee 14

162 Ibid., 15.

163 Ibid., 18.

164 Ibid.

165 Ibid., 24.

166 Ibid.

72

as independent, substantial realities but rather as a symbol of continual movement or relation. Because of this relational character, yin - yang thinking is best characterized as a holistic "both/and" thinking, as opposed to (but supposedly also encompassing) the "either/of" thinking characteristic of the West. While "[t]he either / or way of thinking splits the opposites as if they have nothing to do with each other.. .the both / and way of thinking recognizes not only the coexistence of opposites but also the complementarity of them")67 We are told that while "either / or" thinking has its uses in certain situations, in the big picture of things it cannot hold up. "In our organic and interconnected world, nothing can clearly and definitely fall into either a this or a that category"."' It is more than a little interesting to consider how a judgment that claims "nothing can..." is exempt from the kind of charge leveled against either / or kind of thinking. But Lee apparently has little time for such logical niceties; he has theology to do. And for theology especially, which deals with questions of ultimate reality, the "either / or way" is clearly inadequate. Such a way of thinking is appropriate for only "penultimate matters",'69 and not with a symbol like the divine Trinity, which has universal import.

The notion that the "symbol" of the Trinity might have the potential for calling into question "yin - yang symbolic thinking" and its woridview is never considered. For a supposedly groundbreaking book, the central assumption is a tired, old liberal one: that an a priori , cultural worldview with its concomitant way of thinking is fundamental and that Christian doctrine must remain secondary and derivative; theological concepts must be trimmed to fit this already-existing picture. It is worth quoting Lee at length on this point, as he introduces us, in chapter three, to his notion of "Trinitarian Thinking":

167 Lee, 33.

Ibid., 34. 169 Ibid.

73

Case Review: When Two are Three

The Trinity is a meaningful symbol, because it is deeply rooted in the human psyche and is manifested in various human situations. It is then the human situation (both inner and external, or psychic and social situation) that makes the Trinity meaningful...

Today we seek how the Trinity can be meaningful to us rather than the Trinity as reality, because our situation has changed. The reason is that what is meaningful to me is real to me, even though it may not be "objectively" real. Thus divine reality does not precede its meaning; rather, the former is dependent on the latter. What is meaningful to me must correspond to my conception of what reflects my situation as an Asian Christian in America. If yin and yang symbols are deeply rooted in my psyche as an Asian and manifested in my thought-forms to cope with various issues in life, what is meaningful to me must then correspond to this yin-yang symbolic thinking. Similarly, the Trinity is meaningful if I think in Trinitarian terms. Unless the yin - yang symbolic thinking is a Trinitarian way of thinking, the idea of Trinity is not meaningful to me. 170

Seldom has the self-centeredness at the core of so much contemporary theology been articulated so clearly, and without embarrassment. Lest anyone think this too severe a judgment, consider Lee's estimation of the importance of the theologian's "personal journey" in theological construction.

It is. ..one's personal life that becomes the primary context for theological and religious reflection. That is, a theology that does not reflect my own context is not meaningful to me. That is why any meaningful and authentic theology has to presuppose what I am. ..The theology that I have attempted here is based on my autobiography. In other

170 Ibid., 51.

74

words, 'what I am' is the context of my theological reflections .171

Feurbach wins, Freud wins, as well as innumerable talk show hosts, new age gurus and pop theologians and therapists. In what age other than one which has been characterized by the "triumph of the therapeutic"72 could one get away with claiming that "what I am" is the context of one's theological reflection?

In order to find out if Trinitarian thinking is "meaningful" to him, Lee attempts to answer the question, "Is yin-yang thinking also Trinitarian thinking?"73 This may seem like a nonsensical question. After all, to the outsider at least, Taoism and "yin-yang thinking", with polarities of darkness/light, soft/hard, female/male, etc., seem committed to a dualism that is claimed to be resolved (I dare not say "sublatcd", for fear of being branded too "western") in a higher monism. Threeness does not seem to have much to do with this worldview. Actually, Lee says, this way of looking at Taoism is mistaken, and proceeds from holding on to a substantialist metaphysic. Seen within a relational framework, "when two (or yin and yang) include and are included in each other, they create a Trinitarian relationship".'74 Lee attempts to illustrate this from the familiar Taoist diagram of the Great Ultimate, where one is symbolized by the great or outer circle, and three is symbolized by the yin, yang and the connecting dots in each. To express this linguistically, Lee says we must understand that the preposition "in," when saying (for example) that "yin is in yang" and vice-

versa, is a relational, connecting principle. "In the inclusive

relationship, two relational symbols such as yin and yang are

'' mid., 23.

172 The description is taken from Philip Rieff, The Triumph of the Therapeutic: The Uses of Faith After Freud New York: Harper and Row, 1966. In a world understood solely therapeutically, Rieff says that there is "nothing at stake beyond a manipulatable sense of well-being" (13).

113 Lee, 51.

04 Lee, 58.

75

Case Review: When Two are Three

Trinitarian because of 'in,' which not only unites them but also completes them". 175 The same sort of relational understanding must be applied to the word "and" in the phrase "yin and yang." "JYlin - yang symbolic thinking based on relationality is Trinitarian because 'and' is a relational symbol that connects other relational symbols."76 One can see where this logic proceeds long before Lee draws the conclusion that "[t]wo.. are three because of the third or the between-ness, but each is also one because of their mutual inclusiveness". 177 With this logic operating, Lee is able to examine such pronouncements of Jesus as "Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me"78 and "I and the Father are one"179 and conclude that such statements are Trinitarian. "In" and "and" in these statements are ciphers for the Spirit.

There are troubling aspects to this "relational" logic. Could Lee be serious about extending the logic? If "two are three" because of the relational "and" between yin and yang or Father and Son, what about other combinations? To what absurd lengths could this logic lead? Are two "and" two not only four but also five? And what are we to do with the Trinitarian formula—"Father, Son 'and' Holy Spirit"? Remove "and" so as not to wind up with four relations? The most Lee can say to head off these kinds of absurdities is that in Taoism, "[t]hree does not give birth to four. Rather three gives birth to all things.. .Three is the foundation of existence. It is the symbol of completion and fiilfillment".'8° Apparently "ii" and "and" are relational categories when dealing only with one, two and three, but somehow not so when dealing with other combinations of relations. As far as I am able to determine, we do not have a thoroughgoing relational way of thinking here, but rather a Taoist convention.

'"Ibid.

116 Ibid., 60.

'"Ibid., 61.

'7' John 14:11.

"9

John 10:30.

"° Lee, 62-3.

76

Another, perhaps more troubling, aspect of this logic involves Lee's criticism of western theology and its substantialist logic. According to Lee, from this perspective "in" and "and" are meaningless, because they cannot be a part of substance or being, while from a "relational" perspective, " 'and' is a relational symbol that connects other relational symbols".'' According to Lee, however, " 'and' is not only a linking principle in both/and thinking but also the principle that is between two"."' This is just silly. The early church fathers understood conjunctions and prepositions like "and" and "in" not as "meaningless" words but precisely as relational terms, because that is how they function in grammar. One cannot read, for example, Basil of Caesarea's treatise On the Holy Spirit without gaining an appreciation for his insights as to how the doctrine of the Trinity generates a theological grammar that enables us to speak responsibly and coherently about the triune relations and our place in the economy of salvation. The Fathers used words like ousta and hypostases, and they have been roundly criticized for that (often by people who do not understand the discussions), but it seems to me that, after criticizing the fathers for not paying attention to "and" and "is" because these terms were not substantial, Lee is the one guilty of reifying these words. For example, Lee says that while "substantial thinking overlooks 'and' as if it does not exist... [i}n reality, 'and' is a part of everything in the world, just as the spirit exists in all things."183 It seems incredible that one could damn the fathers for merely being intelligent grammarians, then pride oneself on committing the error they had sense enough to avoid.

On the basis of his "relational" understanding of the Trinity, Lee proffers a few criticisms and revisions of "Trinitarian thinking." Among such criticisms, the one aimed at Karl Rahner's "simplistic understanding of the divine Trinity" (!) is the most memorable in this chapter. The depth of Lee's misunderstanding of

181 Lee, 60.

182 Ibid.

183 Ibid.

77

Case Review: When Two are Three

Rahner's position can be seen in the former's judgment that "[i]f God's presence in the world is completely unaffected by the world, it is possible to conceive that the economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity and the immanent Trinity is the also the economic Trinity".'" It is, of course, precisely "Rahner's Rule" (to use Ted Peter's apt description '85) that gets Rahner himself in trouble with his grip on the classic immutability thesis. Perhaps we should forgive Lee for his lapse in rigorous attention to this important argument, since early in the book he admitted to spending "more time in meditation than in library research and more time in rereading the Bible than reinterpreting existing theological works on the Trinity."86 But it is no light matter to shrug off one's commitment to scholarly integrity and fidelity to one's subject matter--especially when interpreting works the likes of Fr. Rahner's, whose "simplistic understanding" of the doctrine of the Trinity has been one of the most important contributions in this century to the ongoing discussion.

III. The Trinitarian Relations A. The Son

Chapters four, five and six are devoted to understanding the divine persons, but, surprisingly, Lee's order begins with a discussion of the Son (chapter four), then moves to the Holy Spirit (chapter five) and finally to the Father (chapter six). Chapter four is by far the most interesting, with chapters five and six working out Lee's logic expressed in four. In this chapter, his attempt to begin the discussion with the Son has a biblical flavor to it, but here Lee's methodological confusion is plain. He has already claimed that his

Lee, 67. That the economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity, and vice versa, is Rahner's central thesis in The Trinity. New York: Herder and Herder, 1970.

'85 Ted Peters, God as Trinity: Relationality and Temporality in Divine Life (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1993), 22.

116 Lee, 12.

78

method is "inductive" or based on natural theology rather than a deductive approach based on special revelation. Yet here he claims that we begin with the Son because "God the Father was revealed through God the Son" and therefore "the concrete and historical manifestation of Christ becomes the foundation for our understanding of God," --immediately adding, incoherently, that "the traditional approach to the Trinity is deductive; our approach to it is inductive. 487 However the reader is supposed to make sense of this, it is clear in what follows that Lee is concerned not so much with the story of Jesus found in the Gospels as he is with an abstract discussion of the Son "who has two natures, divinity and humanity, just as we have begun our Trinitarian thinking with yin-yang symbolic thinking.""' This is a natural place for us to begin, Lee explains, since the Christological issue preceded the Trinitarian formula -- apparently forgetting that Nicea preceded Chalcedon.

Leaving that aside, how exactly are the two natures of the Son supposed to function as a key to understanding the Trinity? To begin, Lee explains that "[i]f Christ is the symbol of divine reality, Jesus is the symbol of humanity.. .He is both Jesus and Christ or Jesus-Christ, who is different from Jesus as Christ. Jesus as Christ means Jesus is equal or identical with Christ, but Jesus-Christ means that Jesus and Christ are neither equal nor identical. Just like yin and yang, they are different but united together."' 89 One would be hard pressed to find in contemporary theology a more palpable lack of understanding the meaning of "Christ." But, bolstered by his understanding of familial symbols taken from the S/iou Kua or Discussion of the Trigrams, in his appropriation of the biblical material for his Trinitarian musings, Lee continues to venture where sane exegetes would fear to tread, by claiming that in the nativity narratives in Luke two distinct divine powers are actually involved in the conception of Jesus - "the Holy Spirit" and the "power of the

IS? Lee, 70. 188 Ibid.

"9 Ibid., 74.

79

Case Review: When Two are Three

Most High."° Thus Lee concludes that "[t]he familial symbols of the Trinity are definitely established in this story: the Most High as the father, the Holy Spirit as the mother, and Jesus to be born as the son. In this Trinitarian relationship, the Son possesses the natures of both Father and Mother. The Father is represented by the yang symbol and the mother by the yin symbol." 'It seems the doctrine of the Trinity is not all that difficult to understand--just one big happy divine family. So much for Mary as The otokos.

There are in this reinterpretation a number of implications for liberation and gender concerns. Jesus becomes the perfect symbol of "marginality," being in touch with the world of heaven and the world of earth, belonging to both worlds yet neither in this world nor in heaven, transcending both. So "Jesus-Christ [sic] as the Son, possessing the two natures of humanity and divinity, becomes the margin of marginality, the creative core, which unites conflicting worlds .,,192 But because the Son includes the Father and the Spirit while simultaneously excluding both of them, he is at the margin of the Father and the Spirit, and therefore he acts as "the connecting principle between the Father and the Spirit."93 The implication for the gender issue is that, although according to the biblical witness Jesus was male, yin - yang "both /and" thinking enables us to affirm that "Jesus was a man but also a woman," (and "not only men but also women"94) since human beings are microcosms of the universe. Like all other creatures, Jesus was subject to the yin-yang polarity, and in terms of gender, the upshot of this polarity means that the existence of male (yang) presupposes the existence of female (yin). "In this respect, Jesus as a male person

presupposes that he is also a female person."95 Of course there is a Trinitarian pattern discerned here by Lee, since Jesus not

'° Cp. Luke 1:35. '' Lee, 74.

192 ibid., 77.

193 ibid.

194 Ibid., 79. '95 Ibid.

80

only brings male and female together but also transcends them. Further, if Jesus was not only male but also female, then he was more than a single person--he was "one but also two at the same time"--and by now it should be clear as to where this kind of rhetoric leads. If one symbolizes singularity and two symbolizes plurality, then Christ is a single person representing individuality but also a people representing a community.

What is disturbing about all of this, soteriologically speaking, is that on this score we are re-presented in the incarnation of the Son not because the divine nature comprehends and sanctities human nature; rather, such re-presentation takes place by virtue of an East Asian communal "cosmo-anthropological" principle that can be

extended to all persons. When this principle is extended

theologically to the triune fellowship, the results are ridiculous. It means that "Jesus as the Son is not only a member of the Trinitarian God but is also the Trinitarian God's own self."96 When this principle is applied hermeneutically to the story of Jesus, the results are horrific. It means that that death of Jesus on the cross was the death of the Father, and the death of the Spirit as well. 197 ,It was then the perfect death ......

198 Lee is motivated to make such extravagant claims partly by his desire to redress the traditional notion of divine apatheia, but this is assuredly not how to do it. The resurrection of the Son, then, is also the resurrection of the Trinitarian God. Now how can this happen, if--to put not too fine a point on it--everyone is dead? Quite simply, we have in Lee's reading a resurrection by principle, by virtue of the fact that 'lust as yin cannot exist independently without yang.. .we cannot speak of death without resurrection."Mthough Scripture speaks of death as the result of sin and the enemy of life, an enemy that is overcome through the resurrection of Christ, the cosmo-anthropological perspective animating Lee's reinterpretation reveals that death and

196 Lee, 82.

'' Ibid. 198 Ibid.

'99 Ibid., 83.

81

Case

life cannot exist apart from each other--and hence are not truly enemies to each other after all. Moreover, our perception is so skewed that we fail to understand that there is no genuine gap between death and resurrection in eternity; death and resurrection take place simultaneously. Thus, "[t]he death of God occurs in the resurrection of God, just as the resurrection of God occurs in the death of God."200 In answer to the question, "Oh Death, where is thy sting?," Lee's response seems rather anemic. Death never really had much of a sting.

In attempting to draw out some implications for creation and redemption from the relation of the Son to the Father, Lee makes some startling claims, the most disturbing of which bears upon the equality of Father and Son in the Godhead. As a Father has priority over his son, so, Lee reasons, creation must take precedence over redemption; indeed "salvation means restoring the original order of creation, which is distorted because of sin."20' Hence the work of the Savior is dependent upon the work of the Father, which creates what Lee terms a "functional subordination of the Son to the Father."202 Fair enough. But then Lee draws the wholly unjustified judgment that it was "[t]hus a mistake of the early church to make Christ coequal with the Father, by placing the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit side by side... [the Father and the Son] are one but not the same. This is precisel why it is not possible to make the Son coequal with the Father."2 3 They are one but not the same, therefore they cannot be equal? Perhaps I have missed Lee's point here, but he appears to be committing the elementary blunder of reading into the inward Trinitarian relations an order he believes he has discerned in the outward works. For someone so enamored of "both/and" thinking, with these intemperate (some would say heretical) comments it seems to have never occurred to Lee to affirm "both" functional subordinationism "and"

200 Ibid.

201 Ibid., 88.

202 Ibid.

203 Ibid.

82

Review: When Two are Three

equality of being or essence. Subordinationism is hardly a new idea in the history of Trinitarian theology, and many people have held various forms of it while still adhering to the central insight expressed at Nicea as to the consubstantiality of Father and Son.

B. The Spirit.

In his treatment of the Spirit, Lee is out to help remedy the short-shrift this member of the Trinity has gotten in the history of Christian thought. "The Spirit is often regarded," Lee says, "as an attribute of the Father and Son without having a distinctive place in the Trinity."204 A bit overstated, perhaps, but intending to "clarify" the place of the Spirit is a genuinely praiseworthy aim. The real question for Christians in this chapter, however, is whether we can afford (or stomach) Lee's "clarification". According to Lee's Asian Trinitarian thinking, the Spirit is known "as 'she', the Mother who complements the Father." Then, Lee adds this for the feminists: 'The Spirit as the image of Mother, as a feminine member of the Trinity, is important for today's women who are conscious of their place in the world."205 In Lee's reading, "[i]t is the two primary principles of reality, the Father ["the essence of the heavenly principle"] and the Mother or Spirit ["the essence of the material principle"], who have logical priority over the Son," so in this respect, "it is not the Spirit which proceeds from the Father and the Son, but the Son who proceeds from the Spirit and the Father. ,106

Lee attempts to identify the Spirit with the Asian idea of c/i 'i, or the vital energy which animates and transforms all things in the universe. The Spirit is "the essence of all things, and without her everything is a mirage," and Lee does not hesitate to compare this notion to the Hindu prana when speaking of the function of c/i 'i

to unite matter and spirit. The author realizes that he is on

204 Lee, 95.

205 Ibid.

206 Ibid., 103.

83

Case

dangerous ground (even for him) in talking like this, and does his best to explain that "[t]he unity of the Spirit as c/i 'i and the Spirit as Godself does not mean that the former is identical with the latter even though they are inseparable."207 So, while the Spirit as chi , the essence of life, must manifest herself in "trees, rocks, insects,

animals and human beings," Christianity is "more than animistic or pantheistic because the Spirit is not only chi but also more than chi. She is more than chi, because she is also God."208 There you have it; theism rescued by the conceptual clarity offered by yet another variation on "both/and" thinking. Harnack's familiar comment about Augustine avoiding the charge of modalism by the mere assertion that he did not wish to be a modalist might well be tailored to fit Lee on the question of pantheism.209

Because Lee cannot successfully navigate the problem of pantheism entailed by his position, he cannot, not surprisingly, successfully navigate the problem of evil or (in his terms) the problem of the relationship between ch'i and evil spirits ("I do not know how this disharmonious element occurs in the universal flow of the Spirit")."' This does not prevent him, however, from presenting a kinder, gentler Spirit, oriented to the K 'tat hexagram in the Book of Change. "Because fragility is the nature of the Spirit, the Spirit is always gentle."21' Gentle metaphors for the Spirit (drawn from the Discussion of the Trigrams) such as cloth, a kettle, water, a large wagon, form, and multitude are all investigated, but, interesting as some of these are, by far the most interesting metaphor for the Spirit is a cow with a calf or a pregnant cow, insofar as such metaphors "signifies the fertility of the earth mother."212 These metaphors signify "the self generating power inherent in the

207 Ibid., 99.

208 Ibid., 100.

209 Adolf von Harnack, History of Dogma, vol. IV (London, Edinburgh and Oxford: Williams and Norgate, 1898)131.

210 Lee, 102. 288 Ibid., 105. 282 Lee, 106.

84

Review: When Two are Three

Spirit," so that the Spirit is the authentic mother of Jesus, while Mary was the "surrogate mother." Again, commenting on Luke 1. 34ff: "If the Holy Spirit represents female divinity, the Most High may represent male divinity. In other words, the relationship between God the Mother and God the Father caused the conception of Jesus in Mary."213 One might say that St. Thomas had it wrong: the real relations should be Paternity, Maternity, Filiation, etc.284 We are assured that Mary fully participated in the process of conception and birth, yet Lee laments that "[w]hen the church failed to recognize the feminine element in God or to recognize the Spirit as God the Mother, the church had to elevate Mary as God the Mother. Divinizing Mary was a tragic mistake."285 Elevating Mary to God the Mother? Is that what Lee thinks those sneaky Roman Catholics have been up to? Or what church is this man talking about? Try as one might, it is difficult to see why this fictitious error would be worse than the paganism Lee proposes; at least Mary as "God the Mother" might not land one so squarely in Docetism, as Lee's position does, despite his protests to the contrary.

Two of the dominant motifs which characterize the work of the Spirit are integration and transformation. At first glance, these motifs strike one as reasonable enough, pneumatologically speaking, but they are expounded without the slightest hint of subjecting to theological criticism what is being integrated and transformed. "Integration," we are told, encapsulates that "inclusivity without discrimination" and "complementarity of opposites" characteristic of what Lee calls love. 216 And why the Spirit's transforming work enabling movement "from one stage to another in human growth and spiritual formation" is such a big deal remains a

mystery. After all, as Lee tells us, "[a]ny sharp distinction

between the secular and the sacred.... is not only contrary to the

283 Lee, 107.

214 See Thomas' discussion of the real relations in Summa Theologica1. 28. 4.

285 Lee, 106.

286 Ibid., 108.

85

Review: When Two are Three

Case

Trinitarian principle but also unacceptable from the cosmo-anthropological perspective of Fast Asian thinking. "21' Although the New Testament distinguishes between flesh and spirit, we need not operate with a division between them, what with the blessing of yin-yang thinking. In fact, " 'what is born of the flesh' has the potential for becoming 'what is born of the Spirit.' "218

Lee explains that "[t]he Spirit in all things makes up the continuum between saints and sinners, between the flesh and the spirit, between the bad and the good. Thus, the continuum itself is the power that moves us from one pole to the other."219 It is not without good reason, of course, that the creed refrains from referring to "the Continuum Itself, the Lord

and Giver of Life." With his unstudied, unbiblical and

undifferentiated amalgam of flesh and spirit, no wonder Lee can conclude that "because the Spirit is immanent in the world, the world is the church."220

If all of this sounds like so much pneumatological gurgling from the contemporary liberal pluralist agenda, it is. "In this pluralistically and ecologically oriented age," Lee says, "we have to rethink our theological task. An exclusive and absolutist approach, which has been fostered by a Christocentric perspective, must be revised. Our theological focus must change from Jesus-Christ to the Father, and from the Father to the Spirit. "22' And despite Lee's assurances that "the Spirit-centered approach" does not exclude a Christ-centered approach, we have heard all this before. "Because the Spirit is truly immanent and inclusive of all things in the cosmos, a theology based on the Spirit must include all.. .From the perspective of the Spirit, all religions are manifestations of the same Spirit."222 Such groundbreaking pneumatology.

217 Ibid. 115.

218 Ibid., 116

219 Ibid., italics added.

220 Ibid., 117,

221 Ibid., 123.

222 Ibid., 123.

86

C. The Father

In chapter six we see the political quandary in which Lee is landed as a result of his hermeneutical commitments. Nearly one quarter of the chapter is devoted to explaining why the Father has preeminence in the Trinitarian relations. This has very little to do with the Son's relation to the Father in a biblical perspective. In the West, because of liberation and feminist concerns, Lee suggests we do not have to take seriously the patriarchy expressed in the Scripture. But because he is committed to reinterpreting the doctrine of the Trinity from "the contextual reality of Asian people," and in that context the dominant familial structure is patriarchal, he has no choice but to argue for the preeminence of the Father. So, while Lee is aware of, and sympathetic to, Western calls to dismantle patriarchy, and while he attempts to soften an unyielding patriarchal structure in the doctrine of the Trinity by reimagining the Spirit as a feminine member of the Trinity, he must admit nevertheless that "[s]ince the purpose of this book is to present the Trinity from an Eastern perspective, not from a Western perspective, I have to accept reluctantly, with some reservation because of my Western influence, the biblical witness that the Father (the male) is more prominent than the Spirit, who represents the image of the mother (female) .1,223 Make no mistake, that "biblical witness" is "accepted" only because of the East Asian perspective on the family. "The Eastern perspective is relative to the context of Eastern people at the present time, and any theological treatise from an Eastern• perspective must reflect the context of Eastern people. ,224 It is touching indeed to see a liberal theologian torn between his sympathy for a western feminist political agenda and his commitment to a radically contextual hermeneutic that will permit him to reinterpret the Trinity from only an East Asian (i.e., patriarchal) perspective.

223 Ibid., 129.

224 Ibid.

87

Case Review: When Two are Three

The remainder of this chapter is devoted largely to

interpreting the Father from the perspective of Chien or the symbol of heaven found in the Book of Change. This hexagram bears four cardinal virtues which Lee explicates in relation to heaven's attributes: origin, success, advantage and correctness—reinterpreted as the Father's love, harmony, justice and wisdom. Following this,

Lee examines a number of metaphors from the Discussion of the Trigrams for unfolding the character of the Father: the 'round,' the prince, the father, jade, metal, cold, ice, deep red, a good horse, an old horse, a lean horse ("1 would like to think that the Father in the Trinity is like my own father, working like a horse for his Trinitarian family.....), a wild horse, and tree fruit. Yet among the various characteristics discussed, the creativity of the Father and the universal moral principle or order originating in him constitute his "centrality," which unifies the relations and the cosmos. But speaking this way about "centrality" in reference to the Father's place smacks way too much of patriarchy and subordinationism, and once again Lee has to scramble to salvage a more egalitarian way of distributing power. Fortunately, "in yin-yang thinking, everything changes and transforms itself. The center changes as an entity or as a relation change. Thus, the center is redefined again and again in the process of creativity and change."225 Hence, Lee can claim that the Spirit is also central because she represents the centrality of the earth, and the Son is also central because the centrality of the Father is marginalized through the Spirit and recentred in him (the Son), who is between both Father and Spirit and heaven and earth.

It becomes clear by the end of this chapter that Lee is unable to reconcile his commitment to traditional Eastern "family values" (my term) with his sensitivity to contemporary gender concerns. He believes that "the Trinitarian structure is fundamental to human community" and can serve as "the archetype of the human family." In the face of crumbling family life, Lee maintains that no sound family can exist without either a mother or a father, and that without children the family is incomplete. Yet "[w]hat is needed in family

225 Ibid., 149.

88

life today is not to change the images of father, mother and children, but to reinterpret their images to meet the ethos of our time."226Not changing the images, but merely reinterpreting them for our time? That is a bit like offering clarification without clarity. But the underlying ideology has at least become clear. In his concluding remarks on this chapter on the Father, Lee admits that "[tihe real issue regarding the Trinity is neither the familial images nor the gender of the Father. To me the real issue is the lack of the feminine member of the Trinity. ,227 By this point in the book, it come as no surprise to learn that is the real issue, even in a chapter on the Father.

IV. "The Orders of the Divine Trinity."

In chapter seven, Lee says he "hopes to examine how using one's imagination and drawing from one's existential context shows us new ways in which the Trinitarian members can be interrelated in the mystery of divine life, '12' and he is out to do this unencumbered by both Greek and Latin ways of conceiving the relations within the Godhead. Lee's interest in Trinitarian "orders" is somewhat baffling, and although he says that in general theologians tend to be fascinated by the inner workings of the divine life, it appears that Lee's real fascination in this chapter is with less divine questions of hierarchy and power. The political and hermeneutical dilemma, for example. is evident again in full force. "Although I lean strongly toward feminist and liberationist interpretation of Trinitarian doctrine in terms of equality, mutuality and community, my approach to the orders of the divine Trinity is distinct because of my Asian background, which presupposes not only a cosmo-anthropological and organic worldview but also a hierarchical dimension in the order of the divine Trinity. ,219 In the traditional order, "the Father,

226 Lee, 150.

227 Ibid.

228 Ibid., 151.

229 Ibid., 150.

89

Case

the Son, the Spirit, "Lee judges that commitment to the coequality of persons should be questioned, since the idea of coequality of the three persons "is based not on the biblical witness but on the aspirations of equal rights advocates and a democratic society."° One learns such invaluable lessons about the history of theology from Prof Lee's book. Instead of countenancing such egalitarian idealism in our doctrine, Lee reminds us that "[i]n praxis, there is no equality of all people. Ethnic minorities and many women are oppressed, class structure cannot be eliminated, and utopia is only a dream of those who suffer injustice today. If we truly want to reflect the contemporary situation in which we live, we must not be too idealistic."231 This is truly a pathetic picture. Here is a theologian who accuses the Fathers of something that they could not possibly be guilty of (viz., being democratic idealists), who then reminds us to be hard headed pragmatists on account of the political realities in our world, but who all along has admitted to reimagining the Spirit as feminine in order to balance but the patriarchy of the traditional interpretation. One almost would counsel Lee to develop a more active political imagination, so at least he could appreciate the error he mistakenly attributes to the Fathers.

The other orders imagined are "the Father, the Spirit, the Son" (the "distinctively Asian" order 23), "the Spirit, the Father, the Son" (admittedly difficult to support from the biblical witness, but not if taken "from human imagination based on human experienee"233);'the Spirit, the Son, the Father" (a matriarchal family structure supported by "shamanism, often regarded as the religion of women in Asia, ,234), "the Son, the Father, the Spirit" (an order against the norm of the East Asian idea of family structure but one which can be salvaged by virtue of the yin-yang principle") and

230 Ibid., 157.

231 Ibid., 158.

232 Ibid., 153.

233 Lee, 161.

Ibid., 166. 235 Ibid., 169.

90

Review: When Two are Three

finally, "the Son, the Spirit, the Father" (Lee's favorite paradigm because it represents 'The existential situation of human experience,"). Each of these orders is explicated with the aid of a hexagram.

What is the significance of these Trinitarian "orders"? Lee admits that these different orders "are based purely on the imagination of human experience and may have no relevance to the inner life of the divine Trinity. ,217 Yet, he insists that such an exercise is not merely a pointless exercise. "Rather, I have attempted to discover the meaning of the divine life from my own experience. ..My imagination of the divine Trinity is rooted in the meaning of my familial life. The orders of the divine Trinity are then meaningful images of my experience of life.""' So although what he has done in this chapter cannot be identified with what the life of God is like, it is "not sheer nonsense but has a meaning that relates my life to the divine. ,239 If one is baffled initially by Lee's fascination with Trinitarian orders, the bafflement increases by the time the chapter is at an end and the realization sinks in that these orders do not have anything to do with God but only with Lee's search for "meaning" for his life--yet still, somehow, the church is supposed to profit by reading a chapter of his personal imaginings.

V. "Trinitarian Living."

As another episode in Lee's theological autobiography, chapter seven could be excused perhaps as one theologian's imaginative ramblings. But theology must be more than a privatistie, imaginative vision quest. Once one's search for personal meaning is divorced from the search for truth, disaster cannot be far behind when one attempts to think about other people, and nowhere is that

236 Ibid., 172.

237 Ibid., 175.

238 Ibid., 176.

239 Ibid.

91

Case Review: When Two are Three

more apparent in this book than in chapter eight, where Lee holds forth on what he calls "Trinitarian living" with respect to church life, family life and community life.

With respect to his understanding of church life, we have in Lee's proposals nothing short of a pagan reinterpretation of the life of the Christian church. Baptism represents the ebb and flow of yin and yang. "Just as yang changes to yin, which again changes to yang, life dies in the water and rises up to new life. In this process, the old yang (old yang) becomes new yang (new life) because of yin (death)."240 This symbolic representation of cosmic forces is seen throughout the church year, most notably during the Christmas and Easter seasons, when we experience the "cycle of life-death-new life."24 The paganism is furthered in Lee's treatment of the service of holy communion, which he relates to the Asian practice of ancestor worship or ancestral rite. In Lee's Trinitarian model of preaching, we do not see paganizing so much as we do his implicit assent to outright clichés about genders. A good sermon, he says, has an ethical or rational axiom (related to the mind), an emotive axiom (related to the heart) and a volitional axiom (related to the "lower abdomen" or seat of strength). The rational or ethical component belongs to the Father (the masculine principle), the emotive element to the Spirit (the feminine principle) and the volitional component to the Son, who mediates the Father and Spirit (mother). In Lee's final reflections on church life, he suggests that meditation is "the soul of the church's life," and that "the real crisis of today's church life comes from a lack of meditation."2 In response to this crisis, the church needs to either revive its mystic tradition or learn meditation techniques from Asia. In meditation, Lee explains, we are connected or "yoked" to the divine. All separation from the divine life - whether that separation is caused by

240 Ibid., 182.

241 Ibid., 183.

242 Lee, 188.

92

thinking, self consciousness, sound or sensory images - is eliminated, so that "we are 'in' the life of divine Trinity.'3

In Lee's treatment of what he calls "Trinitarian family life,'! the gender issue once again comes to the fore. We are told that "remaking the image of God with feminine members"—for example; changing the name "Father" to that of "Mother"—"can create the• same problem that patriarchy has created." So, to avoid that problem, Lee says his strategy has been to reimagine the Spirit as the feminine member of the Trinity, as "the mother who complements the Father," thus completing the "Trinitarian family of God." The glaring, unexamined assumption in all of this is that while one cannot change "Father" to "Mother" for fear of repeating the same kind of problem that patriarchy has created, somehow one can with impunity feminize the Holy Spirit. Apparently, while names in the Holy Scripture such as "Father" and "Son" provide gender boundaries Lee is unwilling to cross, he has no reservations about ignoring in Scripture the existence of mere pronouns (he, his) in reference to the Spirit. This inconsistent and uncritical hermeneutical posture carries over into Lee's estimation of the trinity as the "archetype" of our family life. Although the heavenly model was "influenced" by our human context, Lee will not admit that he has sold out to a "contextual approach, where the present family context might be used as a norm for interpreting the familial life of the divine

24

Trinity... We cannot attribute our family experience to the divine ."5 Has this man read his own book? For the better part of two hundred pages he has done just that; why get sentimental about revelation now?

The Trinity as the archetype of the human family does more than provide a theological blueprint for families which are able to exhibit the traditional thther-mother-child structure; in Lee's reading this archetype should also provide hope for families that do not manifest this structure. Single-parent families, childless

243 Ibid., 189.

244 Ibid., 191.

245 Ibid.

93

Review: When Two are Three

family system or as a "mosaic" of many family units. In this section the author executes an amazing backflip away from his early position on the notion of "coequality." Whereas earlier in the book he was sharply critical of the church's judgment that the divine persons are coequal, here without explanation he claims that "[j]ust as the coequality of the three is an essential ingredient of the Trinity, the coequality of different ethnic and racial groups in society is imperative for Trinitarian living in the world.. .Society is an extension of the family, and our family is a reflection of the familial image of the divine Trinity."249 Yet, even as a functional hierarchy is also at work in the Trinitarian "family," so a hierarchy of power must exist in any society. The power in the structure of that hierarchy, however, should be based on an individuals' capacities and not on racial origins or ethnic orientations. A more masterful exposition of the obvious would be hard to find, but the socio-economic platitudes continue. In surveying actual society, Lee soberly admits that

"classes are inevitable in this life."250 But in response to

liberationists' concerns, Lee says that the liberation theology he affirms "does not liberate us from the reality of the poor itself but from the unjust structure that is oppressive for the poor and weak. ,,251 The poor, I am sure, will be grateful for that clarification.

However, Lee tells us we must consider "the possibility that the structure of the social classes reflects the functional hierarchy in the Trinity. ,252 In a poignant display of naiveté, he attempts to explain from yin-yang thinking why this position does not merely endorse the social and economic order. Governments should not attempt to fix the order of society so that only certain groups are benefited, "for everything must change according to yin-yang cosmology. Just as yin changes to yang when yin reaches its maximum and vice versa, people change from the lower class to the

Case

couples, even single persons are regarded as families "in transition," and even in this transitional phase all of these groups manifest, nonetheless, the divine archetype. What is highly revealing in this portion of chapter eight is a complete lack of interest m•"alternative" family structures, such as de facto arrangements and homosexual partnerships. In particular, one wonders if homosexuals in the

church have an ally in Lee or not, especially given his commitment to complementarity of opposites, male and female forces, etc. This seems to be one more of example of how, from the traditional East Asian understanding of family, Lee is restrained from capitulating wholesale to predominantly western concerns, no matter how sympathetic he might be. Granted, because of this restraint, Lee can

at times sound very conservative. "No matter how firm the

commitment made by the husband and wife, how much they love each other, their marriage and family do not succeed unless they have the right structure, based on a firm foundation."246 One of my Sunday School teachers might have said the same, and I believe it. But then almost immediately the theological craziness resumes. "What is needed is to build the family on the archetype of the Trinitarian Family.. .Thus, it is not only mutual commitment but also meditation that reaches the depth of God the Family, which then becomes the foundation of the human family. ,247 No organization is more sacred than the family, for this basic unit reflects the structure of the Trinity. Hence the church itself must be regarded as "the extension of the family unit," and Lee even makes the accusation that, since the church tends to look at the home as a secular realm and the church as the only sacred realm, "the church is indirectly responsible for the deterioration of family structure."' Chalk up one more disaster for which the church is responsible.

Lee discerns familiar Trinitarian "principles" in his treatment of "community life" or society, which is envisioned as a large

246 thud., 197. 24? Ibid.

248 Lee, 197.

249 Ibid., 201.

250 Ibid., 204. 253 Ibid., 205. 252 Ibid.

94

95

Case VI. Lee's Conclusion

upper and from the upper class to the lower .,,213 How long do we have to pray, and wait, for this kingdom (of sorts) to come? We really don't just wait for it, Lee says, for "we are fully participating in the process of change," since God is immanent in the whole process of our collective efforts to fulfill the needs of a just society. However, the middle class is particularly important in Lee's vision of society, since "[i]f society truly reflects the Trinitarian image of God the Family, the people of the lower strata and those of the upper strata are complemented through the middle strata, which acts as a mediator.. .It is this middle [class] that provides the stability of society and prevents conflict between the upper and lower classes .,,254 So when, for the benefit of society, the Tao is allowed to work through us its ceaseless ebb and flow of yin and yang, in our enlightenment we will come to recognize.. .the middle class in all its glory? Hegel has found a Taoist soulmate.

In the last few pages of this chapter, Lee includes his take on the concept of time from a "Trinitarian perspective." This is a strange little addition to the chapter; it was added, I suppose, because all of our Trinitarian living takes place, well, in time. But, no surprise, Lee's "Trinitarian perspective" on time is little more than a cover for a Taoist/Confucian perspective. "Linear" time is an illusion or "a limited perception within human experience," while

an ultimate sense, our time is cyclic, because our time is cosmic time."255 Lee's contribution to this discussion is neither unique nor interesting. Eschatology is associated with "dualistic concept of time," which is infected with the strange division of time and eternity, while in "Trinitarian thinking" now is eternity, since the Son serves as the "present" connecting principle to the "past" of the Father and the "future" of the Spirit. Why is it so difficult for people to understand that one can dress up an unchristian worldview with a Christian formula, and that worldview will still remain

253 Ibid.

254 Ibid., 206.

255 Ibid., 208.

96

Lee's conclusion (chapter nine) briefly reviews the main themes of his book, and in important respects a few of these themes summarize the unexamined assumptions, confusion and errors running through his project. All he has done in this book, Lee admits, is to have drawn "a picture of the divine Trinity based on imaginations coming from my own experience, which is deeply rooted in Asian tradition. Realizing that I, as a human being, am incapable of the knowing the reality of the divine mystery, I have searched for the meaning of the divine Trinity in my own life." Lee warns us that "[w]hat is meaningful to me my not always be meaningful to others," but he hopes nonetheless that his book will function as "a catalyst for those who are seeking out the meaning of the Trinity in their own lives. ,256 This sounds so very humble, but it is the outcome of a theology almost wholly concerned with contextual "meaning" and not with truth. Lee uses Scripture in his construction, and one would think that some recognition of special revelation would factor into his claims. But, as we have seen repeatedly, he eschews the claims one might make on account of special revelation, preferring to use snippets from the Gospel merely as stimuli for his own imaginative and so-called "inductive" theological method. As we all know, there is using Scripture and then there is using Scripture. Bereft of the ability to make robust universal truth claims, Lee can only finally wonder, "Does my imagination of the Trinity, which is translated into my Trinitarian thinking, have anything to do with the divine Trinity itself? I do not know. However, if my Trinitarian thinking is intrinsic to my creaturcliness, the Trinitarian God who created the world has something to do with my Trinitarian thinking. This gives me hope

256 Lee, 212-13.

97

Review: When Two are Three

unchristian? With Lee's revision of eschatology, his pgaiizin, program is complete.

Case

that my Trinitarian thinking is not completely out of focus."257 Lee's thinking is not completely out of focus. That is cold comfort. This is hardly a full-blooded Trinitarian theology for the community of faith; to the degree that Lee's faith remains primarily in the "Trinitarian thinking intrinsic to [his own] creatureliness," his theological project remains a private affair. As Lee has reminded the reader again and again, "[t]he Trinity is meaningful to me because 1 think in Trinitarian tenns."258 For over two hundred pages, the author has extolled the corporate virtues of family, community, etc. It is a pity he never made the connection between the theological enterprise itself and the life of the people of God--which is public, confessional and mission-minded. To the degree that this work stumbles at this point, despite the concerns for holism, pluralism, racism, feminism and a host of other postmodern "-isms," Lee's project remains an eminently modern way of doing theology.

Lee's indebtedness to modernity is made clearer in some of his final comments on the relationship between the religions. As opposed to dialogue, in which "one religion relates to another religion because they are strangers to each other," Lee suggests what he calls trilogue, an inclusive conversation which moves beyond the constraints of oppositional, "either/or" thinking. In trilogue, the religions "relate to each other because they are part of each other"259 since, if we are all part of the Trinitarian family of God, we cannot help but be part of the religious traditions of our brothers and sisters. "In trilogue, many religions are in one religion and one religion is in many religions, because every religion bears the image of the Trinity."260 Such trilogue is common enough in the East Asian religious context, Lee assures us. What, then, becomes of the vast differences between many religions? How do we think about such differences? Apparently, rational discrimination is the problem.

257 Ibid., 219.

258 Ibid., 213.

259 Ibid., 217.

260 Ibid., 218.

98

Review When 7%w are Three

Trilogue "transcends talking, discussing, arguing,,

cnticizing, analyzing, judging, classifying, or agreeing wzth =R

­

other. In trilogue one simply accepts other religions as part ofo4. own Tnlogue is a spontaneous act of communication, which iia. direct recognition of the presence of 'one in many A "spontaneous act of communication," transcending

discussion, argument, criticism, analysis, etc.? We have in the idea of "trilogue" a most extreme manifestation of what George Lindbeàk

in his Nature of Doctrine calls religious "experiential - expressivism,"2 the notion that at the core of all religions is a common, pre-linguistic experience of the sacred, the Absolute, etc. (pick your religious abstraction). The most well known exponent of this holdover from nineteenth-century religious romanticism is, of

course, John Hick, and Lee's understanding of religious "trilogue" fails at the same basic point that Hick's model of the religions and

religious experience does: seeing the very obvious differences among the religions, it throws its hands up in despair and claims no single religious perspective has the absolute truth, but assumes for itself a Babel-like, absolute perspective in order to make this claim, and then falls back on some vague, pre-linguistic religious experience. With respect to the relations between the religions, in the final assize Lee looks like a garden-variety pietist of a higher (or, depending on your point of view, lower) order.

At the close of this review, I find very little by way of which to commend Lee's work. There are interesting expositions of Taoist and Confucian ideas, but Lee betrays such little understanding of why the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is important, and misunderstands so many critical discussions in the history of Christian theology, that this work has only marginal importance in contributing to the genuine issues in the current discussion. A good, basic question for Lee to ask would be why the Gospel story

26! Lee, 218.

262 George A. Lindbeck, The Nature ofDoctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1984.

99

Case

(rather than an abstract discussion of "two natures") is important to the doctrine of the Trinity!3 But, committed as Lee is to his so-called "inductive" method, Holy Scripture cannot help but receive the short end of the stick. What Lee fails to realize is that, given his unexamined hermeneutical and theological assumptions, The Trinity in Asian Perspective is a predictable deduction, republishing a number of liberal clichés about religion, politics, gender and Christian theology.

263 See, for example, Eberhard Jungel's discussion of "The Humanity of God as a Story to be Told," in God as the Mystery of the World (Grand Rapids, Ml: William B. Eerdmans, 1983) 299 - 314.

100