In his book Marginality: The Key to Multicultural Theology
(Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1995), Jung Young Lee states
that his marginal experience is the basis for his contextual
theology. Furthermore, Lee affirms that marginality is a new source of power
(self-affirmation) in spite of its negative connotations.
Lee goes on to argue that Christian theology, mission
of the church, a habit of thinking, personal commitment and
all our hearts and minds have to be based in new marginality
of self-affirmation. A new marginal person is the one who
relentlessly hopes for harmonious justice beyond one's identity, defiantly protesting all abusive systems and evil in the world.
To support his thesis about new marginality, Lee rejects
the one-way, classical definition of marginality that emphasizes
the negative side of marginality such as alienation, rejection,
and struggles, and so forth. This classical definition is
the product of "centrality" according to which marginality is a situation of "got stuck" or "in-between."
But Lee defines
marginality from a marginal perspective, which upholds a "both/and"
and "in-beyond" approach. For example, Lee declares
that he is both an American and an Asian. "Both/and" approach
is a self-affirmation of both Asian and American.
He also
talks about a new marginality person who stands "in-beyond,"
which means standing beyond "in-between" and "in-both" (Asian
and American).
That is to say, such an "in-beyond" person
transcends the current time and space to form a new identity,
which is formulated both in "in-between" and "in-both" worlds.
Lee states that this kind of "in-beyond" thinking leads to living up to "the harmony of difference," as God's
creation itself is of plurality and differences.
Lee continues to explore marginality to the extent that
marginality should be the center of Christian theology. For
instance, God becomes marginal through incarnation of Jesus
Christ. Marginality is God's choice of loving humanity. Jesus
was also marginal, being rejected and crucified by the people. In other words, Jesus
lived "in-beyond," affirming the world that rejected him.
Likewise, Lee suggests that the church, seminaries, and all our Christian
works be a community of marginality that lives up to
the love and servanthood of Jesus. The author envisions the
whole church and Christian institutions to embraces a holistic "in-beyond" approach.
Lee does an excellent job because he reclaims a Christian
theology of marginality. Jesus came not to be served but to
serve (Mt. 20:28). As Jesus was a marginal person, so are
Christians. Christians' power comes out of serving others.
Another strong point is regarding the identity of minority.
Marginal experiences are certainly negative, but are not hopeless
altogether.
Lee suggests that we transform our marginal experiences
to form a new identity of hope and love beyond the current
conditions of the world. Lee also made a big contribution
to the understanding of multicultural society. Pluralistic,
multicultural society needs multiple centers and margins.
Lee seems to encourage all of us to play an active role in
making a better society.
He also lets us recognize the mystery
of creation that reflects diversity, plurality, and differences
in our culture. Everyone has his or her own place of margin,
because, according to Lee, margins and centers are not fixed;
rather, they are dynamic and moving. A multicultural society
is a kind of web that every unit of society has its own connection
to one another, modifying its place constantly.
Lee's book greatly has shaped my worldview and understanding
of multicultural theology. I became confident about my role
as a biblical theologian in multicultural society. Through
my upbringings, education, experiences in Korea and elsewhere
(including Latin America and USA), I came to view the world
through the lens of critical diversity or imagination.
When
I lived in a small rural village at my childhood, I liked
to play with things in nature and grasped the harmony of differences.
Not a single thing is the same as the other in nature: Different
colors of leaves, different trees, different flowers, different
stars, different birds, and so forth.
While we are different
with each other, we also share a common humanity. We are still
the same human being. In nature, dandelion is different from
the rose but it is still a beautiful flower.
God made all of us good, including nature. Why do we not maintain
such a beautiful world?
In a real world, we have yet to see this "perfect" world. That is where we need human transformation. That is why we need a journal like this: Journal of Bible and Human Transformation (JBHT).
I struggle daily with an identity question: Who am I in this country? I am still that I am. Yet I am not the same as before. I am like a watercolor.
I am good and bad. I am still painted with lots of options and changes.
P.S
Readers should not be confused about two kinds of marginality:
a marginality given due to social, cultural determinants and
a voluntary marginality as shown in Jesus or Paul. The latter is affirmed, and it is good since Christian theology is based on incarnation theology in that God becomes flesh.
But regarding the former, caution should be made: Whereas the marginalized person can affirm his or her identity amid degrading situations, it does not mean that he or she can tolerate marginal situations from
the perspective of justice. Some suffering or injustices
cannot be tolerated or spiritualized without making efforts
to improve or change the system that causes injustices.

0 comments:
Post a Comment