Jung
Young Lee’s Trinity in Asian Perspective
departs from the author’s view on the needs to present and share Asian
perspective of the Trinity to the Western world. As the world has become more and
more interrelated as the result of globalization, therefore no longer can Europe
be seen as the axis of world civilization. The rapid growth of Christianity in
Asia has changed the once “Christian West” into “Global Christianity” (my terminology).
Lee’s attempt in introducing the Trinity in Asian perspective is not to replace
the traditional theology of the Trinity but to complement it. Lee
modestly presents this new insights or new dimension of thinking in his thesis.
He equates his thesis to his daughter’s Sunday School drawing of God – a
flat-faced person with big eyes. Due to our finitude, we cannot have full
understanding about the infinite God. God is far beyond our comprehension to
grasp.
The
reviewer agrees with the author on the understanding of God as “an unknown
mystery” (p.12). God is beyond human comprehension. Lee has rightly said,
“When we speak of God, we therefore mean the God of our understanding, who is
not identical with Godself” (p.13). Lee is right when he adds “everything we
say or attempt to say about God is not about God himself but about our
perception of God through the symbols or images that are meaningful within the
limits of our own existence in time and space” (p.50). Lee also reminds that
every theological statement we make is “a symbolic statement” because we cannot
talk about the reality of God for we can only understand God in terms of its
meaning to our lives (p.13). Hence, the task of theology is not to replace
symbols but to find its meaning to our lives. Lee understands the task of
theology as “symbolic quest” seeking the meaning of divine reality (p.14). With
this in mind, we can move forward to explore Lee’s delineation on the Trinity
in Asian perspective.
Yin Yang symbolic
thinking is used by Lee as East Asian way of thinking to examine the concept of
Trinitarian God. Lee believes that yin-yang symbol is deep-rooted in the sub
consciousness of the East Asian mindsets (p.23). He calls it “collective
sub-consciousness”, imprinted and resides in East Asian worldview. Similar to
David Kwang Sun Suh, Lee also thinks that theology is autobiographical, however
Lee adds that theology is more than an autobiography, it is the story of a life
journey (p.23). This is Lee’s prolegomena in developing his minjung theology.
Yin-ying
symbolic thinking is relational thinking, non-conflicting but “complementary
dualism” (p.31). Lee calls the yin-yang complementary dualism as “both-and”
thinking different from Aristotelian either-or
logic. By “both-and” meaning it also includes “either-or” because
“both-and” that rejects “either-or” is an “either-or” itself. According to
“I-Ching” change is the ultimate reality whilst being and substance is its manifestation
(p.27). Hence, in order to understand yin-yang we need to shift our basis of
thinking from ontological to changelogical (p.27). “Change is the
ultimate reality in yin-yang symbolic thinking” (p.53).
Lee urges his
readers to preserve the symbol of “one in three and three in one” (p.57). Lee
affirms that replacing the numbers “three and one” with other symbols such as
“plurality-singularity or unity-diversity” does injustice to Trinity (p.55). Jesus’ Trinitarian statement “I am in the
Father and the Father is in me” (John 14:11) is the best proof for the
co-existence and non-contradictory for one
and three and three in one according to yin-yang thinking (p.59).
“If everything
in the world can be described in terms of yin-yang symbolism, then everything
that happens in the world can be regarded as a trinitarian act” (p.63). Lee
uses East Asian notion of Trinity: heaven, earth and humanity in correspondence
with Christian Trinity - heaven as Father, earth as the Holy Spirit and
humanity as Christ (p.64). Lee explains that God is both personal and
non-personal being (p.65). In the reviewer’s understanding, God is personal
because He relates, He is deeply involved in His creation and God is impersonal
in His various manifestations in His creation.
Lee demonstrates
that Christ is beyond male for Christ is both male and female as He is a single
person but also a people representing a community (pp.78-79). Thus, according
to yin-yang thinking system, Christ is both the Son and the Daughter of God.
Ironically, Lee’s yin-yang thinking system is open for Christ to be the
Daughter of God but cannot accommodate God the Father as God the Mother. Lee firmly
states that the view of God as Mother is making Christianity into an
“ahistorical religion” (p.191) because Christ Himself calls God as Father.
Isn’t it more ahistorical if we call Christ the Daughter of God? Does Jesus
have to be a female in order to be able to represent individuality and
communality?
The most
important aspect of the doctrine of the Trinity is its connectivity and
relevancy to living. We can probably view “Trinitarian Living” as the pinnacle
of Lee’s doctrine of the Trinity (p. 180). Lee has clearly explained in the
beginning of his book that theology is autobiographical, it is a life story and
our knowledge of God is derived from His revelation as well as our experience
with Him. Hence, we cannot take “Trinitarian Living” out of the doctrine of the
Trinitarian God. God the Creator, Provider and Sustainer of Life will never be
apart from living. Our living is dearest to Him, for He cares and loves to
relate.
Lee’s cosmo-centric
approach to anthropology can be a good bridging point to bring across the
gospel to the Chinese community as the Chinese tends to use cosmological
approach to explain about the human person. Yin-yang philosophical thinking is
the best example of this kind of approach. The role of human beings in the
world is an important point for reflection for it determines the meaning of
life. Lee uses Chi in parallel with
the Spirit. Seemingly, Lee is unconcerned to differentiate between Chi as the
Holy Spirit and Chi as any other spirits. The reviewer thinks it is important
to differentiate between Chi and the Holy Spirit. Using the term Chi to explain
about the Holy Spirit can be helpful but it will be harmful if differentiation
is not made. Other spiritual entities or demonic spiritual entities are to be
carefully considered and observed.
Hopefully, Lee’s
modest presentation of the Trinity in East Asian perspective inspire more Asian
theologians to explore and develop theology in Asian perspective to complement the
so-called western theology. With the help of the
Internet, communication becomes much easier. Theology from various parts of the
world can interact and complement one another. It is time for Global
Christianity.
