Report on CATS IV
"Building Communities:
Asians in Search of New Pedagogies of Encounter"

Geoffrey Lilburne^[1]

The theme for CATS IV was developed by the Continuation Committee meeting in February 2002. In the wake of the events of September 11, 2001 and the resulting War on Terrorism, it seemed that the anticipations of CATS II had been too optimistic. Whereas CATS II had envisaged the emergence of cross-faith communities of discourse, it now seemed that we had to reconceive the task of actively building communities, if not rebuilding, communities of discourse. The catastrophic turn of events we had recently witnessed did not dissuade the Committee from the task of inter-faith encounter, but rather drove us to seek greater specificity about the pedagogies which might accomplish this goal.

Our meetings must always be placed in a global political context. As we gathered for CATS IV in Chiang Mai, it was clear that the privilege of meeting in a safe and peaceful country was not to be taken for granted. We welcomed new faces to the Congress from Thailand, and rejoiced to find a strong representation from Myanmar and Bangladesh. Yet we were disappointed to find others missing from our gathering. The Malaysian, Indonesian and Filipino delegations were smaller than previously. It was with regret that we noted that Christians from the Moluccan Islands were not with us. There can be no doubt that overtones of Christian-Muslim conflict in the "war on terror" had made it more difficult for some members from those countries to attend.

Keynote Address �
Building Communities: Asians in Search of New Pedagogies of Encounter

In the keynote address, Dr Wong Wai Ching summed up the dilemma we face in the world shaped by the re-emergence of Empire. "The sweeping tides of first world-led free market economy; the revival of military contests among major political power; and the emergence of new alliances for as much as against the dominance of the United States. The �old� vision of living in one peaceful and harmonious world is full of challenges."

Drawing on the work of Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Dr Wong pointed to the new nature of Empire, as comprised by "a series of national and supranational organisms and emerges as a new form of sovereignty. Rather than the old model of imperialism of territorial conquest, Empire needs no territorial center and can exercise its power from almost anywhere". It consists of "progressively expanding frontiers; ever incorporation of hybrid identities, flexible hierarchies, and plural exchanges through modulating networks. As complex as globalization, it differentiates as much as homogenizes, deterritorializes as much as it reterritorializes."

If this account of Empire is to be credited, then the kind of stock responses to the old model of empire will no longer be sufficient. Wai Ching cautioned that this definition of Empire distinguished it from the kind of Empire that emerged from Europe-led imperialism of the last three centuries in that it is not only about coercion and military conquest but moral persuasion. Further, this view of Empire "underlines once again the interconnectedness of our world, not only politically and economically but also socially and culturally; that the life of one is almost organically produced by what is happening in the world". Finally, "it highlights the complexity of the many processes of globalization�The interactive processes internal to Empire including the action and reaction of NGOs underline the active agency of peoples of the two-thirds world� The fast communication through technological advancement such as internet and alternative media made possible the organization of world scale protests in Melbourne, Seattle and recently the anti-American war movement around the globe."

Immediately, there is the emergence of alternatives. "These creative forces of people are capable of autonomously constructing an alternative political organization of global flows and exchanges. What Empire places before us is the need to deal with our world 'globally,' that is, both transnational and no longer territorial bound, and that our identity � whether it is religious or cultural � must be sought in dialogue with a global vision articulated for the building of a global civil society." While this global culture must honour cultural diversity, it must seek a balance between such diversity and a global vision of just and right. It poses all the more sharply the need for the articulation of some universal ethical norm. There is certainly a dire need for the creation of a counter-empire. The role of the theologian in this is a modest but significant one. It can fund a deep critique of the emerging situation and offer a motif in continuous engagement with hope.

Reflecting on the cultural and political context of Hong Kong, Dr Wong drew inspiration from the notion of �One Country, Two Systems�. She posed the question: might it be capable of generalization into �One World, Many Communities�? The genius of the �One Country, Two Systems� project "lies in its political ambiguities, its logical self-contradictions, and it historical 'un-precedence', which is in effect open for interpretation". In relation to the Chinese national identity, it is clear that "there has never been one unified Chinese, rather there is a prevailing tension between cooperation and competition in the creation of provincial, prefectural or village identities." For most Chinese, especially those of the coastal areas, there have always been "multiple identities".

In moving these perceptions in the direction of a theological proposal, Wai Ching lifted up the biblical tradition of "the stranger" as a means to call us beyond static understandings of identity and to open up new ethical perspectives. Acknowledging the hermeneutical ambiguity of the text relating to Ruth, she nevertheless found here a clue to the kind of theology which may move us beyond fixed boundaries or areas of security and comfort to meet a destiny known to God but not necessarily to us. While the stranger may first appear to threaten our world, it is soon apparent that the stranger does not simply challenge or subvert our assumed world of meaning; he or she may enrich, even transform, that world. In the light of this text, it appears that we have been setting boundaries upon ourselves in terms of culture, religion and identity politics among the various communities in Asia.

In responding to the keynote address, Dr Noh Jong Sun instanced the branding of Korea as part of the axis of evil by the President of the United States, George W. Bush. In light of such events and the apparent risk to the life of all Koreans, Jong Sun pondered whether Wai Ching's use of "us" and "them" should not be redrawn as US and the non-US. He further challenged her to point to concrete expressions of the "counter-empire" she envisaged. Does it lie in the resistance of the two-thirds world to the imperial project of the US? It seemed to Dr Noh that Dr Wong's reference to the stories of Exodus, Moses and Ruth could not be done without risking contamination by the "Joshua Syndrome". He indicated that this syndrome was apparently adopted by nations of the 21st century who claim this biblical heritage as their own towards Palestinian and native American inhabitants of the land. Dr Noh insisted that the polarized world-view espoused by liberation theology be applied to the debate about community in an era of globalization.

A direct challenge was thus issued to the methodology adopted in the keynote address. Could the polarities of liberation theology expose the valuation of ambiguity and multiple identities of the emerging world Empire? Dr Wong's response to this challenge was to suggest that new times call for new theological methodologies, and the complexity of the era into which we now enter requires greater flexibility and openness in theological method than that which is immediately past. This emphasis meshed well with the method pursued by Dr Clive Pearson in the first thematic presentation.

Theme 1 Presentation �
Strategic Teaching for Christ's Sake (in a Locus of Cultural Diversity)

If our keynote address moved us towards new ways of doing postmodern theology, Dr Clive Pearson took up that challenge in a manner, which was both challenging and playful. The challenge Clive issued was for Asian theology to be somewhat more expansive and to include the voices of the diasporic Asians who find themselves living on the margins of two cultures, such as a Korean and Australian culture, the so-called "hyphenated Asians". He drew attention to the emergence of multiple hybrid identities in the "global flow" of people from one part of the world to another. This is an aspect of globalization not often considered in Asian contextual theology, and from it develops groups of people who describe their identity by using a hyphen, Korean-Australians, Tongan-Australians, Vietnamese-Australians, and so on.

While the founding brief of CATS sets a place for such voices, the suggestion here was that these voices have been somewhat marginalized in debates about "Asian theology." The advantage of including such voices lies in the fact that "they open up the possibility of moving beyond impasses that may at times arise between eastern and western ways of doing theology". Further, people who must daily construct new hyphenated identities, often see themselves as cross-bearers and bridge-builders. Their ways of doing theology may act as "textual foils and models", illustrating how a theology has been constructed for the sake of encountering the self and the other in a web of actual cultural and political realities.

Dr Pearson's image for the theological project was a "patchwork", which could be a quilt or a kimono. He then proceeded to tell us about his "patch" and how it is for him to teach theology in the Australian setting. Here the image of the "room" was used, with attention being given to who was in the room and who was excluded. Clive described a pedagogical style, which offered students readings reflecting a variety of culture, gender and theological persuasion. The encouragement was given to identify both "allies" and "aliens" among the voices heard, with particular attention being given to the alien, on the assumption that "Christ comes to us as guest and host in and through the experience of the other." In other words, the room in which this pedagogy took place is organized in such a way as to explore identity and difference.

The Christian tradition functioned in this pedagogy to provide a kind of transcendental question. The example of Christology was offered. The christological question: "Who do you say that I am" was seen to be as much a question about the identity of the answerer as it was of the figure of history. For Clive the encounter with the living Christ is possible when a privileged christology is subverted in the encounter with the alien voice. It would perhaps need to be demonstrated in the context of CATS how this approach did not prejudge the outcome of dialogue with other faiths in the multi-faith settings. For some, there seemed to be echoes of a "Christ above culture" method at work here.

Sister Mary John Mananzan found herself in agreement with many of Dr Pearson's ideas, but issued challenges at a couple of points. First, it seems an error to assume that all hyphens carry the same weight. There must "be a difference between a New Zealand-Australian and German-Australian from a Tongan-Australian or Korean-Australian. In the first two instances both sides of the hyphen share a Western culture which has fundamental similarities; in the second two instances this is not the case. Second, it would be helpful to hear more of how the methodology Clive outlined worked in practices and what actual experience Clive could share in relation to the outcomes of this pedagogy. There is value in having pointed to ways in which a more inclusive understanding of what it means to be Australian shapes an Australian pedagogy. Still, it would have been useful to give more information on how this range of insights might inform what it is to be doing hybridized Asian theologies.

Theme 2 Presentation �
Socio-Political and Economic Concerns

Dr Ninan Koshy outlined several current threats to Community Building in Asia:

� globalization
� transformation of the state
� militaristic notions of national security
� the empire
� imperialist redefinition of war

Following the distinction drawn in the Copenhagen Seminary for Social Progress, Dr Koshy suggested it is useful to distinguish globalization as trend from globalization as a project. The trend can be seen as one of growing interdependence, "an unstoppable course of history moved essentially by the application of human reason to the development of science and technology, and a general direction of change that can be navigated by human decision. As a project it is precisely that of global capitalism, the application of ideas and insititutions of the market economy to the world as a whole � actively pursued by the US and a number of other governments from small and large countries, by most powerful international organizations and by economic and financial elites of the world.

The document, The Christian Community within the Human Community, ascribes to the state a dynamic role, "not merely as a guardian of peace and order but as the chief organizer of human welfare and promoter of the growing sense of national self-hood." This function is being challenged in a fundamental way by the combined forces of globalization and imperialism, to the point where it often appears that in a host of Third-World countries the nation-state has come to represent the interests of global finance rather than that of its own people. The threat to the human community posed by globalization is heightened by the "imperial project" of the United States "to open up and take over the economies of its satellites or dependences in East Asia." In Ninan's view, the 1997 Asian crisis was an integral part of this US project. Unfortunately, no evidence was offered in support of this central claim.

Dr Koshy suggested that in the light of these factors, the declaration of the War on Terrorism in the wake of September 11, 2001 appeared in a new and unsettling light. The main theatre of the War on Terror is Asia, and the immediate result has been an arms race of unprecedented proportions in the region. Whereas in the 10 years following the end of the Cold War there was no significant arms race in the region, now all countries, big and small, across Asia are in the race to strengthen military forces. The 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review also moved the geographical emphasis of US policy towards Asia, and troop movements have followed this direction. The erosion of human rights has been dramatic. With the direct encouragement of the United States, governments in Nepal, Thailand, and the Philippines have introduced new national security/anti-terrorism laws, while Indonesia and Pakistan have made existing laws even more stringent.

These developments reflect a new focus on Imperial security, as distinct from National security. What is needed, in Ninan's view, is the development of a new paradigm of People's security, which is based on human rights, gender justice, ecological justice and social solidarity.

The development of this devastating new Global Imperialism calls for a reworking of both ethics and theology. New US doctrines of pre-emption, �first strike�, and �regime change' amount to a massive rewriting of the ethical framework within which war has been justified in the past. Now it is possible for the US to attack any state it wishes to name part of the ill defined �terrorist network�. The willingness to develop �usable� nuclear weapons is an integral part of this shift, so that the framework of deterrence and defensive military action no longer applies. Indeed, the Just War Theory can no longer be advanced in support of this new doctrine. It is little wonder that both the Vatican and the World Council of Churches have nothing but condemnation for the emerging US stance. By any international code of conduct, this makes the US by definition a "rogue state", a conclusion the New York Times editorialized.

Dr Koshy pointed to the fact that this ethical shift was supported by three strong "religious" movements within the US: the fundamentalist religious right, the idolization of the market, and the god of natural rights. The right of a people to liberty as defined by US political philosophy can be used as a justification for the military domination of a sovereign nation. It is clearly part of the rhetoric of George W. Bush to invoke the calling of God Almighty in support of this new definition of warfare and the global role of the United States. From a conference of theologians, none of this can stand uncontested.

The immediate response from the floor to Dr Kosy's presentation was to call for direct action, possibly the declaration of some kind of economic sanctions against the world's remaining 'super power'. Such a response was not endorsed, however, by the official respondent, Revd Sylvania Ranti-Apituley. Speaking from the perspective of an Asian woman involved in interfaith work in Indonesia, Revd Ranti-Apituley flatly rejected some of Dr Koshy's claims. The institution of the "New Order" regime in 1967 in Indonesia saw the weakening of economic independence. On the other hand, lobbying and negotiation with countries such as the United States, the Netherlands, United Kingdom and France brought much needed capital into the country, which, at that point, was one of the poorest in the world. Yet in the light of the economic crisis of 1997 and the collapse of the New Order regime in 1998, Indonesia has been left in the situation of beginning a democratization process while at the same time having to service a burgeoning foreign debt which swallows up most of the national income.

In support of Dr Koshy's argument, the war on Terrorism has provided an obvious legitimisation of Indonesian military action against the Acehnese. The violation of human rights by the military has increased and the freedom of the press severely limited in its reporting on events in the province. Opposition political groups are also being silenced. Clearly, these are critical times for Indonesia, and while much of Dr Koshy's analysis can be endorsed, important caveats must be added.

In times such as these, the Indonesian experience would suggest that simply to oppose the emerging imperial world order would be counter-productive. Rather it is appropriate to see globalization as offering other opportunities besides conformity or marginalization. Claiming a room to negotiate, Revd Ranti-Apituley suggested that the opportunity for a reconstruction and redefinition of identity is still present. This possibility is being grasped in Indonesia by interfaith groups, which mounted protests against the invasion of Iraq by the United States headed coalition and rallied in support of the Acehnese during the military operation in that province. For a state like Indonesia to survive it is necessary to cooperate with the forces of globalization, yet still there exists the possibility of a kind of subversion and even transformation from within. Interfaith solidarity between Muslims and Christians in Indonesia point to this kind of possibility within the framework of a civil society. In addition, this emerging civil society needs to be informed by a feminist perspective and a critique of patriarchal imperialism.

Conclusion: Seven Key Lessons

While each of the presentations addressed a common theme, the points of view were quite disparate. It is a shame that there was not the opportunity for the speakers to gather in a joint forum to dialogue the theme. Such a forum might have given us some clues as to how the various perspectives might mesh and inform one another. As we seek to draw together the learnings of this Congress, we will probably need to be imaginative and creative in seeking a synthesis of insights. Yet such imaginative projection would best be done in dialogue. If I may be so bold, I offer the following, merely as starting points for a dialogue about the lessons we can draw from CATS IV in relation to our theme, "Building Communities: Asians in Search of New Pedagogies of Encounter."

• We have seen that no single culture can work untouched or unaffected by the reach of the emerging global Empire. Since the emergence of the neo-conservative government in the United States, the dark side of this Empire has gained in intensity. Its economic and military effects have re-invigorated this Empire, but at the cost of an increasing sense of victimization in our region.
   

• Our Congress exemplified again that there is no single cultural configuration in Asia. To take two examples represented at CATS, the religious pluralism of India is very different from the emerging multiculturalism in Australian society. Secularism is at work in both places, but at different speeds and with different consequences for the cultural and religious life of the different societies. Both India and Australia are constituted as secular democracies, yet there is great difference in the religious experience of secularity in each country. It is as difficult for the Indians to grasp the profundity of Australian secularity as it is for an Australian to comprehend the fullness of religious pluralism in India.
   

• The intensification of the reach of the US Empire and military machine may occasion the re-emergence of some familiar themes of liberation theology. For example, we heard of the ways in which Korea has become an object of oppression, and the nations, which formed the "coalition of the willing", the oppressors. Yet the stark juxtaposition of "us" and "them" seems to merely replicate the genius of the imperial mind at a symbolical level. While this may be useful for the sake of theological identity and project development, it really leads to a theological stalemate.
   

• We have caught a glimpse of a newer theological possibility, which takes as its starting point the need for flexibility in our theological engagement with the Empire. Such flexibility can include resistance and even the ultimate aim of subversion. We learnt that the Indonesian nation state must seek capital resources from the Imperial states, even as it seeks to overcome the worst economic effects of the lending policies of the first World.
   

• We have learnt that the liberative impulse present in ethnic and indigenous communities must never be disallowed in the search for a unified statist identity � yet there are important ways in which the State protect freedoms. It can act as a bulwark against the economic exploitation and cultural homogenizing, which seem to be implicit in the central agenda of the Empire.
   

• Pedagogies of encounter cannot be developed apart from the growth of communities constituted by the rule of justice and the order of peace. In each of our constituted societies in Asia, there are local approximations of such communities as well as gross deformations of the ideal.
   

• The pedagogy we seek must be informed by economic and socio-political analyses, yet must avoid too rigid an ideological commitment. It will not draw its inspiration from ideologies so much as from the richness of the local encounters in specific communities of faith.

The waves of post-modernity in theology were felt at CATS IV. We inherit a proud tradition of social analysis and this tradition was carried further in many of the reflections offered at this Congress. But now we are hearing calls for greater flexibility in the ways in which social analysis informs theology. The role of play and imagination have for many of the younger members of the Congress become as important as those of ideology and sociology. At the same time, we all realized the fragility of the peace we enjoy and the slender foothold we have against ecological disaster. In this threatened environment, we heard again the call to do theology out of Asia in response to the creating and saving acts of God.

_______________________