Editorial

How do we make sense of our faith in the face of such realities as war, poverty, economic globalization, religious and ethnic conflicts, gender injustice, and pandemics such as HIV and AIDS? How do we theologize in the face of such realities? What does our theologizing serve?

There is nothing new or unique about these questions. In fact, they have been asked many times before. But anyone in the ministry of theological education should raise such questions time and again in order to ensure a theological education that is faithful to our Christian calling and at the same time relevant and responsive to the needs and challenges of our times. And so indeed, these questions seem to be among those in the back of the minds of the writers/contributors for this edition of CTC Bulletin.

The questions do not imply that theology is the answer to human problems but that it can help us to make sense of our faith, which is often shaken or tested in the face of our problems. There are cases, however, where certain theological or faith statements are used to justify basic human problems such as discrimination against women and certain people, waging war against other people, keeping silence in the face of injustice, etc. Such a theologizing does not bear witness to the good news of salvation in Christ Jesus, which is the news of life in its fullness for all people. It is for this reason that theological education constantly needs to assess its mission and goal. The papers in this edition are few attempts at assessing theological education in the region.

In "Theological Education for Public Discourse on Theology in India", K. C. Abraham asserts that theology should be an education process for the whole people of God to be obedient to the God who serves. Therefore, theological education should re-inculcate in the whole people of God the spirit of service, which is the real Christian ministry.

Sharing from Indonesia, Zakaria J. Ngelow says that "Theological Education in Indonesia" is no longer seen as exclusively for the training of church ministers but of servant-leaders for the country and ecumenical life.

Reflecting on "The State of Theological Education in the Philippines", Melanio L. Aoanan calls for theological education that does not only strive for clear theological foundations for the church's life and work but also for sensitivity to and awareness of life�s realities and for unity and collegiality among those who work in solidarity with the marginalized.

Sharing on the "Challenges, Problems, and Prospects of Theological Education in Myanmar", Samuel Ngun Ling calls for a critical reconstruction of theological education. It should include Myanmar's religious-cultural thought-forms, dialogue with people of different faiths, liberation and healing, justice and freedom, and upholding the dignity and identity of Myanmar's ethnic groups.

In "Contributions of Feminist Leadership in Theological Education", Hope S. Antone asserts that both women and men are capable of feminist leadership, which comes not with one�s biology but with one�s commitment and lifestyle. Theological education can be enriched if feminist leadership is employed.

Writing about "Feminist Theological Pedagogy for Ministerial Formation", Limatula Longkumer describes theological education as a process of equipping and molding God's people, women and men alike, for the variety of leaderships in church and society. Therefore, theological education should not discriminate against any gender but should work to bring about gender justice.

Using his story as a Japanese, Kosuke Koyama explains the "Violence of Exceptionalism" as an idolatry, a parochial sense of self-aggrandizement that made Japan plunge into war. Today it makes any religious community disdain other communities. Implicit in the paper is the need for theological education to transform the tendency towards exceptionalism.

As a South Korean writing on "Pedagogy for Peacemakers of a Non-Violent World", Noh Jong-Sun suggests that pastors and lay people alike must be equipped with a peacemaking pedagogy. It includes deconstructing misuse of the Bible, and utilizes storytelling, situation analysis, rationale and methods for change, and personal commitment to peace.

Affirming that religious violence is among the most pressing and dangerous issues today, Victor R. Aguilan reflects in "Religious Pluralism in a Violent Context" on the challenge for theological education to be an instrument in promoting peace. This includes ensuring that theology does not become a tool that legitimizes deadly conflict, exposing violent codes in theology, and reforming curriculum.

In lifting up "Indian Contribution to a Spirituality of Pluralism", K. P. Aleaz guides readers through a survey of pluralism as theologically accepted in Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism and early Christianity in India. He asserts that for theological education to be relevant in India, a spirituality of pluralism has to become its backbone.

In "Integrating HIV&AIDS in Theological Education Curriculum", Tomas Maddela and A. Wati Longchar provide a challenge and a rationale for developing modules to help theological institutions in Asia integrate HIV&AIDS education in seminary courses. This is to help correct misconceptions that lead to stigmatization of people with the virus and to equip communities with more compassionate views and attitudes.

I am very grateful to the Rev. Dr. A. Wati Longchar, a colleague in the CCA-FMU program area who is joint consultant for CCA and the World Council of Churches for Ecumenical Theological Education in Asia and the Pacific. He very kindly and ably coordinated the collection of these papers, which were presented in various occasions. I am also very thankful to the writers/contributors for allowing us to share these materials more widely through this publication.
 

Hope S. Antone
Editor