Religion and Violence: Contemporary Challenge to Theological Education in Asia

Victor R. Aguilan ^[1]

How do we do theology in our present context? I believe that doing theology is not something we do apart from our experiences (socio-cultural, socio-political, socio-economic and socio-ecological context).^[2] Hence, anyone doing theology in Asia should be sensitive to the Asian context. I suggest that the hermeneutical principle recommended by SEAGST (South East Asia Graduate School of Theology), the Critical Asian Principle,^[3] be used in interpreting and understanding our context.

As currently applied, the Critical Asian Principle "seeks to identify what is distinctively Asian, and uses this distinctiveness as a critical principle of judgment on matters dealing with the life and mission of the Christian community, theology, and theological education in Asia." SEAGST sets forth seven characteristics of Asia as a distinct region in which to do theology:

• Asia has a plurality and diversity of races, peoples, cultures, social institutions, religions, and ideologies.

• Most of the countries have had a colonial experience.

• Most of the countries are in the process of nation-building, development, and modernization.

• The peoples of this region want to achieve authentic self-identity and cultural integrity in the context of the modern world.

• Asia is home to some of the world's great living religions, and these have shaped the culture and consciousness of most Asians, thus representing alternative ways of life and experience of reality.

• Asian peoples are in search of a form of social order beyond the current alternatives. They are looking for a form of social order that would enable them and humankind to live together in dignity in a planetary world.

• The Christian community is a minority in the vast Asian complex.

Out of the 7 characteristics mentioned about Asia, the most important common fact concerning Asian nations is that, with the exceptions of Singapore, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and Malaysia, they are impoverished or desperately poor nations suffering all the consequences of poverty, such as hunger, poor health, illiteracy, serious iniquitous social stratification, and intense competitive struggle for survival.^[4]

But there is another emerging image common to all Asian nations regardless of their relative poverty. It is a picture of conflict abetted if not aggravated by religions, flaring up in open armed conflicts and bloody repression. Examples are the conflicts in Indonesia between Muslims and Christians; the bloody civil war between the Sinhalese Buddhist majority and the Tamil Hindu minority since 1983 in Sri Lanka; the communal violence between Hindus and Muslims in India; and, recently in Southern Thailand between its military and Muslim militants.^[5]

In my own Philippine context it is sad to say that we too have our share of open armed conflicts and bloody repression. We have witnessed intermittent conflicts between and among people who belong to diverse religions. Oftentimes, religions have aggravated some of these age-old conflicts. The conflicts in Mindanao have been portrayed as Christian-Muslim conflicts.

The challenge now is how to build a sense of community that goes beyond the traditional boundaries of clan, tribe, status, class, region and religion. A community with which each member and group can identify themselves, in which different groups feel responsible for resolving disputes and solving problems through joint action and dialogue and whose destiny, therefore, each can regard as its own. This is the context of theological education in Asia. This is where we do theology

Challenge to Theological Education

I would like to focus my paper on the challenge to theological education posed by religious pluralism in a violent context. Today no theology can be done responsibly without paying full attention to the fact of the existence of other religions and its implication to world peace, justice and solidarity of humankind. According to Hans Kung, there is no world peace without peace among religions and no peace among religions without dialogue between religions.^[6] This reality necessitates the need for focusing theological education in the field of interfaith relations and dialogue.

Religious pluralism is no longer an academic concept found only in books. It is a reality that we encounter everyday. People of other religions are our neighbors, our colleagues, our competitors, our foes, and our friends. Religious pluralism is a flesh-and-blood reality. The challenge of religious pluralism today comes from the living and believing people of other faith traditions. We are challenged by people who are different from us and are demanding recognition. This can create tension. An incident in Metro Manila that created a tension between Christians and Muslims is just an example.^[7] The owner of a shopping mall agreed to put up a dedicated Muslim prayer area inside the mall. But to some residents of this wealthy Christian area of Manila, any hint of a mosque in their neighborhood was tantamount to a Muslim takeover. They lobbied the mall owner to drop his plans, invoking visions of rising crime, fleeing homeowners, and sliding property values. A residents group said it was "an economic hara-kiri." I thought Metro Manilans would be more tolerant. I think if a similar plan is proposed in Silliman University, i.e., granting or allowing Muslims to have their own prayer room, some Sillimanians would surely protest. Religious diversity can cause conflict.

Conflict is found in almost every realm of human interaction. But people manage to settle, even resolve their conflict without violence and to the mutual satisfaction of the parties involved. But there are conflicts that turn deadly and violent. Some of these conflicts have been inspired by religion.

Established religions have often divided people and nations and given rise to tensions and conflicts. They have held up scientific progress, resisted social change, supported the rich and powerful against the poor and weak, and have often added religious fuel to military conflagrations, making reconciliation more difficult. Of all the wounds human beings inflict on one another, religious wounds are the most difficult to heal.^[8]

Most people, however, consider religion to be the antithesis of violence and, in many places and times, religion has been a force for peace and social justice. But because history and current events show that religion is frequently involved in communal violence, intriguing questions about faith, religious organizations, and religious leaders are raised. Why is it that religious communities that teach about peace and solidarity are engaged in so many wars and violent conflicts all over the globe? Indeed, religious violence is among the most pressing and dangerous issues facing the world community.

Religion plays a determining role in many of the violent and deadly conflicts found around the world, which is not really that surprising considering the fact that religion and culture are so closely interwoven. Conflicts between ethnic groups often have a religious dimension. In such a situation, religion seems to be Janus-faced. In times of prosperity religious leaders speak of harmony and compassion, and the believers accept each other across denominational and religious boundaries. As soon as tension rises, however, religion presents another face: people dedicate themselves to a sacred cause and offer their lives in the defense of interests sanctioned by faith and stamped with a religious seal of legitimacy. Sacred writings often teach love and compassion, but in times of war religious adherents are very adept at finding other scriptural passages that justify violent confrontation within their own religion.

It could not be denied that religious pluralism causes conflict. Since religion deals with the ultimate and what is absolute, diversity of religious traditions generates competition. A careful analysis of the fundamental texts of various living religions explains how four resources have figured repeatedly in creating religious violence: competing sacred space (churches, temples, holy cities, promised land); the creation of holy scriptures (exclusive revelations, orthodoxy vs. heresy, infidel); group privilege (chosen people, predestined select people vs. rejected, reprobate people); and salvation (saints vs. damned). Thus, competing religious absolutes lead to religious conflict.^[9]

Religion is also a deep source of group identity. It is often used as a rallying point when a particular group feels economically, socially, or politically oppressed by another group. Invoking the "good" God on one�s side, the other is identified with the evil one. Destructive violence in the name of God then becomes possible. The war becomes a "holy war"�jihad or crusade. When religion becomes a source of identity in this way it becomes easy for the leaders to make people believe that a group that shares a particular religion also shares the same economic and political interests. This phenomenon is called communalism in South Asia. Economic and political struggles also become religious issues.^[10]

Because of the involvement of religious groups in war, genocide and mass hatred, social activists often call for the abolition of all religions. The existence of social injustice, oppression and evil as a consequence of religious belief forms one of the primary arguments in the case made against religion by its critics.^[11]

However, some have argued that "it is not religion per se" that gives rise to conflict but rather the followers with powerful vested interests who manipulate the emotional appeal for their own purposes. They are the perpetrators of deadly conflicts. In many countries and areas of the present world, conflict between religious groups "is more political than religious, though religious symbols are used" to legitimize it.^[12] In the book The Ambivalence of the Sacred: Religion, Violence, and Reconciliation, Scott Appleby repeatedly showed evidence that religion is susceptible to use, or rather misuse, by ambitious and powerful persons to attain selfish ends. Thus, religious militancy is usually closely linked with the project of an individual or group seeking to gain advantage from or power over others.^[13]

Religion though is not always the primary cause of conflict. Some of the most salient past and present causes of conflict are those that fall into the broad category of violations of civil, political, economic, social and cultural human rights: slavery and colonialism; apartheid, racism, segregation and casteism; exploitation and oppression of minorities, women, children, the poor and the vulnerable; the production and trade of arms and weapons of mass destruction, the harmful role of the entertainment industry, drug trafficking, and so on. The underlying causes of human conflict are of a chiefly non-religious nature.

Moreover, religious people have served as agents of peace and reconciliation. They tender the spiritual wherewithal for the de-escalation of deadly conflict and sectarian violence; they offer moral and material resources for easing or resolving situations of contention and for promoting reconciliation, social cohesion and mutually beneficial communal life. When war ends and the houses lie in ruins and victims on both sides are staggering around in a daze and confusion, religious organizations and individuals are often among the first to bring aid and solace to the former combatants and traumatized civilian population in the form of shelter, food, concern, counseling and moral support. They contribute to reconstruction efforts and are involved in endeavors to establish and sustain peace and to foster understanding for one another.

Religion is ambiguous. Religion can be used to sanction deadly and violent conflict but it could also be used to contain and de-escalate conflicts. The issue that is facing seminaries in Asia is the role of theological/religious education in violent religious conflict. Since religion is ambiguous, could theological education contain violent religious conflict? Could our formation programs inspire violent conflicts? Are we sowing hatred?

The reality of violent religious conflict in Asia is a challenge to the churches. The seminary in Asia is challenged to ensure that theology does not become a tool that legitimizes deadly conflict. This issue is very relevant today considering the focus of the World Council of Churches on the Decade to Overcome Violence (DOV),^[14] which runs from 2001 through 2010. What can Asian seminaries offer to world Christian movements in meeting the challenge of contemporary religious violence?

Some Suggestions to Asian Theological Education

What can Asian seminaries do when churches exist as minority communities in pluralistic and often hostile environments? What credentials do we, Christians, have to proclaim the message of peace when our own histories and theologies are soaked in "violent evangelism"?^[15] Why are churches raising the alarm about religious violence of others when they themselves have used violence in the past? These are questions to ask before we can teach about peace and the practice of overcoming violence. I believe that Christian communities in Asia must express first their readiness to go through a process of overcoming violence, both within and outside of themselves to build a culture of peace. It implies an honest confession of our failure to be instruments of peace. It means simply that communities will submit to correction and go through a process of inner transformation in order to rediscover the full implications of being churches in a violent world. Seminaries in Asia will have an important role in this process of confession and transformation.

What is to be done? I would like to suggest the following theses or points. But my suggestions are undergirded by three presuppositions about theological education, namely:

• All theology is culturally conditioned and contextual but some contexts are to be transformed.
   

• Context is both global and local; that includes the political, economic and cultural elements of a given context.
   

• Theology is a radical critique of theological suppositions and existing models.

Acknowledging these presuppositions, I suggest the following points for reflection. First, there is a need for a critical review of courses, programs, pedagogy and curricula that we have in the seminary. I remember being asked by a young man I met in a local church in Manila: "What do you learn in the seminary? What is the main thrust of the Divinity School?" Well, of course, I answered that students learn about the Bible, Church doctrines, history, preaching, ethics, counseling, and church administration. But he was not satisfied with my reply. He expected more from the courses that we, at the Divinity School, offer. I think theological education in Asia has maintained the historic four-fold seminary disciplines � Bible, theology, church history, and practical theology. In meeting the challenge of religious pluralism, multiculturalism, globalization and escalating violence we have to revisit these four theological disciplines. Critical inquiry would help us see and uncover the hidden code of bigotry and hatred embedded in our disciplines.

In biblical studies, for example, we need to engage our students in the art of struggling with the text or narratives that would reveal the "hidden oppressive code." Consider the Exodus and Conquest narratives in the Old Testament; they may have a liberating message for the oppressed, but may have an opposite message for the indigenous people. There are also some biblical passages that justify violence and certain anthropological presuppositions that are used to legitimize the exclusion of people, and the subjugation of women. How do we deal with these texts (both biblical and church traditions)? Do we avoid them, ignore them in class?^[16] There are also attempts to uncover the relationship between violence and Christianity by examining aspects of Christian theology. Specifically, it examines violence and assumptions of violence in classic formulations of the central Christian doctrines of atonement and Christology.^[17] There is a clamor that church history should be taught without hiding or embellishing its violent history specifically the crusades and the history of mission from the 16th century of colonization until the early 20th century of American imperialism.^[18] Seminary students should view church history as their history and hence appreciate its accomplishments, as well as feel shame in its injustices. And because of the war on terrorism and the possible use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) there is a call to revisit and critique the just war theory (JWT).^[19] When we begin to question our courses, programs and pedagogy in light of contemporary challenges and living faith traditions, the door for reform of the curriculum may be opened. Critical theology recognizes that all theology is culturally biased and stands in constant need of reflection and reform.

Second, there is a need to design a curriculum that would have integrity. Integrity in theological curriculum means fidelity to our confessional identity and respectful of other traditions in our courses. We are to be sensitive to the various traditions of Christianity. We are to present or share those different traditions to our class with minimal, if not without, bigotry. We are expected to be critical but not judgmental. It does not imply that we don�t have our prejudices. We have our prejudices as teachers and as members of distinct community of tradition. But we acknowledge the biases and prejudices that we have in the courses that we teach, i.e., we are honest in sharing our confessional identity (Reformed, Lutheran, Greek Orthodox, or Catholic); we don�t hide our theological perspective (liberal, conservative or progressive); and we do not avoid, embellish, or distort traditions, historical events, biblical passages and theologies of the traditions just because of our confessional identity or preference. This is one way of teaching our students to respect other traditions.

In addition, we need to ask honest questions whether the four-fold disciplines are sufficient for a fragmented and violent world. Current students of theology are offered courses of other religions (comparative religions, philosophy, sociology or psychology of religion) giving detailed knowledge and their background in antiquity; yet, the contemporary religious situation in light of cultural, political, and economic realities is often totally untouched. These courses on religions may not be sufficient to help them appreciate the diversity of living religious traditions. We become aware of the diversity but there is still a need to exert effort to be conscious that the phenomenon of religious pluralism is a living concrete reality, which our students and church members encounter everyday. It may require an understanding of various Christian attitudes towards people of other faith-traditions. This would entail a theology that deals with religions � a Christian theology of religions (theologies of religions) or a theology of religious pluralism.^[20]

I realize the significance of developing a theology of religious pluralism when a pastor asked: "Do you still believe that Muslims will be saved with all the kidnappings and bombings perpetrated by them? What else has to happen before you realize that inter-religious dialogue is a hopeless enterprise, undertaken and pursued by people who do not see that religions are the cause of conflict and therefore incapable of bringing about peace and co-existence among religious communities? What we need today is evangelism!" When a theologically trained person raised these questions I felt the urgency to review our seminary curriculum and our church program on inter-religious dialogue and evangelism. Our attitudes toward people of other religions must be rooted theologically. We need a theological basis and some spiritual resources to accept and affirm the whole realm of human life as the stage of God�s love and activity. The theology we need is one

that is not less but more true to God by being generous and open, a theology not less but more loving towards the neighbor by being friendly and willing to listen, a theology that does not separate us from fellow human beings but supports us in our common struggles and hopes. As we live together with neighbors, what we need today is a theology that refuses to be impregnable but which is in the spirit of Christ, both ready and willing to be vulnerable.^[21]

Moreover, in order to meet the challenge of religious pluralism, theological education needs to be genuinely inter-disciplinary. Continuing scientific enquiry into reality has given rise to many other human and social sciences like psychology, anthropology, sociology, political science and economics. Today theological reductionism is not adequate to understand reality. We must realize that homogeneity within theological communities breeds intellectual myopia and tends to perpetuate a narrow perspective that reflects the dominant ideology and worldview. An integral (or holistic) analysis and understanding of reality has to take into account its various aspects studied by the various sciences. Today we look at reality from the economic, political, psychological (personal), social, cultural and religious points of view. The method of theology, therefore, becomes inter-disciplinary. Theological education integrates the perspectives of the other sciences. Today, more than ever, programs in seminaries need to dialogue with other disciplines like medicine, business, science, performing arts, media, ecology, and information technology. I think this will make our response less fragmented and more holistic.

In addition to courses or seminary disciplines, I think we need to cultivate the appropriate attitudes or virtues. These virtues are theological, namely: faith, hope and charity.^[22] Faith moves us to engage in learning and dialogue because we trust in a God who created the universe and all creatures. Hope in God enables us to be patient and sustains us to continue even amidst conflicts, frustration and division. Charity in learning allows us to abandon our self-interest, to be humble when a cherished belief is wrong, and to be generous in receiving the wisdom from others.

Third, since theology is an interpretative science, we need to develop a hermeneutics of suspicion with a hermeneutics of appreciation and a hermeneutics of appreciation with a hermeneutics of suspicion.^[23] We are familiar how the hermeneutics of suspicion is incorporated in "doing theology". Its methodology makes its practitioners conscious and critical of the social and cultural underpinnings of any theology. With its social analysis component, it brings to the fore the realization that context - concrete historical situations - affects understanding, including the way we comprehend the Christian faith.^[24] A hermeneutics of suspicion gives us the tool to be suspicious of how our theology has been captivated by violent ideologies. We begin to glorify violence. We succumbed to the myth of redemptive violence, which Walter Wink describes as "the belief that violence saves, that war brings peace, that might makes right�Violence simply appears to be the nature of things. It�s what works. It seems inevitable, the last and, often, the first resort in conflicts." ^[25]

A hermeneutics of suspicion also allows us to question whether or not a pacifist and nonviolent option strengthens the hands of the perpetrators of violence and helps maintain the status quo. Reinhold Neibuhr insists that "a pacifism which really springs from the Christian faith, without secular accretions and corruptions, ... possesses an alternative for the conflicts and tensions from which and through which the world must rescue a precarious justice."^[26]

However, although a hermeneutics of suspicion is necessary to uncover the ideological captivity of our theologies, it is inadequate to inspire us to engage in a theological reconstruction to meet changing contexts. There is a need to incorporate in "doing theology" a hermeneutics of appreciation. Jose de Mesa, a professor of Systematic Theology at the De La Salle University, has expressed the need to integrate a hermeneutics of appreciation to theological education with regard to cultural identity and integrity, stressing the importance of self-respect in the colonial setting of the Philippines. Quoting de Mesa at length:^[20]

This form of hermeneutics includes a number of elements. It embraces a broad understanding of culture as a worldview representing the fundamental perspectives and values of a people, and culture as a set of institutions and structures consisting of patterned modes of social relationships of this human community. It incorporates, too, an approach to culture which, methodologically, not only looks at this way of life primarily from the insider�s point of view, but also focuses first and foremost on the life-giving elements that can be found in it. To this end we suggeste[d] a set of attitudinal principles which those who wish to inculturate that Faith can follow in order to develop an emphatic "listening heart" to the strengths of the culture�

In interpreting reality, the hermeneutics of appreciation which we envision is one that utilizes combined cultural and social analyses. Though insight into the why of specific behaviors is a sine qua non that cultural analysis provides, present-day understanding of the structural or institutional elements of culture also demand procedures worked out by social analysis. The emphasis of this integrated form of scrutinizing reality remains the positive, life-giving elements which are latent equally in the beliefs, values and customs of people as well as in the social structures of their society.

A hermeneutics of appreciation, moreover, requires also a methodology for "doing theology" which ensures that the appreciative stance will be the foremost in the dynamics and process of theological reflection�

Thus in practice a hermeneutics of appreciation would use its own indigenous resource (myths, symbols, stories, music and vernaculars), embrace the multi-religious context of one�s heritage, and nourish the imagination by listening, seeing and appreciating the beauty in diversity of one�s culture and the culture of others.

Dialogue becomes vital in a hermeneutics of appreciation because the encounter is between people. And people come from different contexts. Dialogue, a fundamental notion in human inter-subjectivity, gives form and direction to the interaction between the two. In dialogue both parties must have a listening attitude, and respectful of each other�s particular context. We are expected to bring and share our knowledge, traditions and practices. People involved in dialogue must be committed to learn from each other. Dialogue does not happen if one person or group concludes in advance there is nothing for them to learn from the other. It is analogous to a meal-table fellowship as describe by Hope Antone:^[28]

�. like an open mealtable, in the traditional Asian sense. It is lavish, warm and welcoming to all. Careful preparation would be done to make the sharing joyful and celebrative of the similarities that may be shared and to begin building a sense of trust among partakers. In order to make it affirming and respectful of differences among those around the mealtable, care and sensitivity would be taken in preparing what is served on the table, considering the needs of the partakers. As in the literal mealtable, an ecumenical or pluralist Religious Education in Asia would be lavish and abundant in color, smell and taste. It would be nourishing and delightful, offered freely for everyone to enjoy. In sharing together, partakers celebrate their common need for food and life. In the moment of sharing, they live out true communion and real companionship. Together they build community.^[29]

Dialogue, like mealtable fellowship, is a process with the objective of transforming partakers. In dialogue listening and understanding is not the end; genuine dialogue also aims to transform both parties, to transform relationship and to build something new. Dialogue, like mealtable fellowship, creates community.

Fourth and final point is about the aim or thrust of theological education. I believe that theology is the work of the whole church. It is accepted that a basic task of theological/religious education is to prepare each new generation for their responsibilities as disciples of Christ and peaceable people of God. Theological education is not just a matter of learning basic facts about the institutions and procedures of Christian life. It also involves acquiring a range of dispositions, virtues, and faithfulness that are intimately bound up with the practice of Christian discipleship. The aim of theological education affects what subjects are taught, how they are taught, and in what sorts of classrooms. In this sense, theological education is not an isolated subset of the curriculum, but rather is one of the ordering goals or thrusts that shape the entire curriculum.

I believe one of the aims of theological education in the seminary is to train church leaders to empower the congregation to sow the seeds of charity, justice and forgiveness in a pluralist society marred by violence and fragmentation. According to R. Scott Appleby, an informed laity that knows the scripture and is at home with sacred texts and traditional practices can be mobilized as an important resource for deterring extremist groups from promoting violence and religious confrontation.^[30] An informed laity can question the legitimacy of religious violence and can object to religious confrontation on religious grounds. A pious and committed laity cannot be easily ignored or viewed as outsiders. The influence of the congregation is in its ability to hold dialogue with and challenge the extremists from within the theological tradition itself. When we, Christians can show to the world that we can dialogue with one another and settle conflicts without violence, I believe that we will have made a stronger testimony than the many statements on peace that the churches have issued. The challenge to the churches is whether we are preparing and working for peace while the "powers and principalities" of this world prepare for war and domination.

Conclusion

Religious violence is among the most pressing and dangerous issues facing the world community. Although religion may contribute to violent conflict, it is not always the main cause of conflict. There are non-religious factors as well. The challenge for theological education in Asia is to be an instrument in the promotion of peace and not violence. The seminary is challenged to ensure that theology does not become a tool that legitimizes deadly conflict. The discussion above only shows how theological education can meet this challenge. We need to criticize our own theological curriculum by exposing the embedded violent code in our theology. There is also a need to reform our curriculum incorporating in its design fidelity to one�s confessional identity and respect for the other traditions. It should be genuinely interdisciplinary. Students need to learn not only the what but how we have taught them as well. In theological education we need to incorporate a method of doing theology that combines a hermeneutics of suspicion with a hermeneutics of appreciation. Any reform in theological education needs to be aligned with its primary thrust, which is the empowerment of the laity, the congregation, to transform relationships and build a pluralist community. It is only an informed laity that can truly sow the seeds of justice, charity and forgiveness with the hope that our children�s children shall reap the fruit of righteousness, which is peace.^[31] Today, no theology can be done responsibly without paying full attention to the fact of the existence of other religions and its implications for world peace, justice and solidarity of humankind.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Antone, Hope S. Religious Education in Context: Of Plurality and Pluralism. Quezon City: New Day Publishers. 2003.
Appleby, R. Scott. The Ambivalence of the Sacred: Religion, Violence, and Reconciliation. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2000.
Aquinas, St. Thomas, Summa Theologiae ed. Anton Pegis. Basic Writings of Saint Thomas Aquinas, Vol II. NY: Random House, 1945, p 478.
Ariarajah, Wesley. "Is Jesus the Only Way?" in International Christian Digest 1, 4 (May 1987).
__________. The Bible and People of Other Faiths. Switzerland: World Council of Churches, 1985.
Ateek, Naim. Justice and Only Justice: A Palestinian Theology of Liberation. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1989.
Bevans, Stephen B. Models of Contextual Theology. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 2002.
Chase, Kenneth R. & Alan Jacobs, eds. Must Christianity be Violent? Reflections on History, Practice, and Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Brazos Press, 2003.
De Mesa, Jose. Why Theology is Never Far from Home. Manila: De La Salle University Press, 2003.
Dupuis, Jacques. Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1999.
Engineer, Asghar Ali, et. al. Sowing Hate and Reaping Violence: The Case of Gujarat Communal Carnage. Mumbai. Center for the Study of Society and Secularism. 2002.
Engineer, Asghar Ali. Communalism in India. New Delhi: Vikas, 1995.
Hauerwas, Stanley. Character and the Christian Life: A Study in Theological Ethics. San Antonio: Trinity University Monograph Series in Religion, Vol 3.
__________. Vision and Virtue: Essays in Christian Ethical Reflection. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1974.
Hick, John. A Christian Theology of Religions: The Rainbow of Faiths. Westminster John Knox Press, 1995.
Holland, Joe and Peter Henriot. Social Analysis: Linking Faith and Justice. Washington, D.C.: Center of Concern, 1983.
Juergensmeyer, Mark. Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2000.
Kassmann, Margot. Overcoming Violence: The Challenge to the Churches in all Places. WCC Publications: Geneva, 1998.
Knitter, Paul F. No Other Name? A Critical Survey of Christian Attitudes Toward the World Religions. Maryknoll,NY: Orbis Books, 1985.
___________. Introducing Theologies of Religions. Maryknoll NY: Orbis Books, 2002.
Kroger, Daniel. Disarming Peter: Retrieving a Christian Ethic of Nonviolence in the Philippine Context. Manila: De La Salle University Press, 2002.
___________. "Everything is Changed: Just War Ethics after the War in Iraq". Unpublished paper, 2005.
Kung, Hans. Christianity and the World Religions: Paths to Dialogue With Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. NY: Doubleday, 1986.
Mosala, I. J. Biblical Hermeneutics and Black Theology in South Africa. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1989.
Netland, Harold. Encountering Religious Pluralism: The Challenge to Christian Faith & Mission Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2001.
Niebuhr, Reinhold. Christianity and Power Politics. New York: Charles Scribner's, 1952.
Ricoeur, Paul. Freud and Philosophy. Yale University Press, 1970.
Rivera, Luis N. A Violent Evangelism: The Political and Religious Conquest of the Americas. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992.
Salgado, Pedro. "Church and Violence: The Philippine Experience," in CTC Bulletin. Vol. X, No. 1 (April 1991), 35-51.
Samartha, Stanley J. One Christ � Many Religions: Toward a Revised Christology. Maryknoll NY: Orbis Books, 1991.
Sugirtharajah, R.S, ed., Voices from the Margin: Interpreting the Bible in the Third World. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1997.
Wink, Walter. The Powers that Be: Theology for a New Millennium. NY: Doubleday, 1998.

Notes:

1. Victor R. Aguilan is a faculty member of the Silliman University Divinity School in Dumaguete City, Philippines.

2. Stephen B. Bevans, Models of Contextual Theology (Revised and expanded, Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2002).

3. "Critical Asian Principle" from the SEAGST Handbook, The Association for Theological Education in South East Asia and The South East Asia Graduate School of Theology, 2002-2003 (Philippines: ATESEA 2000), 76-77.

4. As of the year 2003, the per capita gross domestic product (GDP) and purchasing power parity (PPP) of North Korea was $1,000; Cambodia $1,700; Nepal $1,400; Myanmar $1,900; Bangladesh $1,900; Laos $1,700; Vietnam $2,500; India $2,900; Indonesia $3,200; Sri Lanka $3,700; China $5,000; the Philippines $4,600; Thailand $7,400; compared with Malaysia $9,000; South Korea $17,700; Taiwan $23,400; Japan $28,000; Singapore $23,700; see http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0908762.html accessed May 4, 2005.

5. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0904550.html accessed May 4, 2005; and CrisisWatch 1 May 2005 No. 21 found in http://www.crisisgroup.org accessed May 24, 2005.

6. Hans Kung, Christianity and the World Religions: Paths to Dialogue With Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism (NY: Doubleday, 1986), 440-443.

7. Anthony Vargas, "Bishops, ulama call for sobriety on Greenhills mosques," The Manila Times. 16 October 2004, (www.manilatimes.net) accessed May 10, 2005.

8. Stanley J. Samartha, One Christ � Many Religions: Toward a Revised Christology (Maryhill: Orbis Books. 1991), 37.

9. Mark Juergensmeyer, Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2000); and R. Scott Appleby. The Ambivalence of the Sacred: Religion, Violence, and Reconciliation. (Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2000).

10. Asghar Ali Engineer, et. al. (eds) Sowing Hate and Reaping Violence: The Case of Gujarat Communal Carnage. (Mumbai: Center for the Study of Society and Secularism, 2002); and Asghar Ali Engineer, Communalism in India (New Delhi: Vikas, 1995).

11. Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Mao Tse-tung and Sigmund Freud are known critics of religion.

12. Engineer (2002).

13. R. Scott Appleby, The Ambivalence of the Sacred: Religion, Violence, and Reconciliation (Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2000).

14. Margot Kassmann, Overcoming Violence: The Challenge to the Churches in all Places (Geneva: WCC Publications, 1998).

15. Luis N. Rivera, A Violent Evangelism: The Political and Religious Conquest of the Americas (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992). See also Kenneth R. Chase & Alan Jacobs (eds.), Must Christianity be Violent? Reflections on History, Practice, and Theology (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Brazos Press, 2003), and Pedro Salgado, "Church and Violence: The Philippine Experience" in CTC Bulletin Vol. X, No. 1, (April 1991), 35-51.

16. R. S Sugirtharajah, ed., Voices from the Margin: Interpreting the Bible in the Third World (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, New Edn., 1997); Naim Ateek, Justice and Only Justice: A Palestinian Theology of Liberation (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1989); Wesley Ariarajah, The Bible and People of Other Faiths (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1985); and I. J. Mosala, Biblical Hermeneutics and Black Theology in South Africa (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1989).

17. Richard J. Mouw, "Violence and Atonement," in Must Christianity be Violent? Reflections on History, Practice, and Theology, eds. Kenneth R. Chase & Alan Jacobs (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Brazos Press, 2003) 159-171.

18. Pedro Salgado, "Church and Violence�", 35-51.

19. Daniel Kroger, "Everything is Changed: Just War Ethics after the War in Iraq," (unpublished paper, 2005); and Disarming Peter: Retrieving a Christian Ethic of Nonviolence in the Philippine Context (Manila: De La Salle University Press, 2002).

20. To mention some theologians who have written books and have proposed the need to incorporate in the present theological curriculum a course in Theology of Religion(s) distinct from Missiology and comparative religions: Paul F. Knitter, Introducing Theologies of Religions (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2002) and No Other Name? A Critical Survey of Christian Attitudes Toward the World Religions (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1985); Jacques Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism (Orbis Books, 1999); Harold Netland, Encountering Religious Pluralism: The Challenge to Christian Faith & Mission (Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2001); John Hick. A Christian Theology of Religions: The Rainbow of Faiths. (Westminster John Knox Press 1995).

21. Quoted by S. Wesley Ariarajah in "Is Jesus the Only Way?" in International Christian Digest, 1, 4 (May 1987), 33.

22. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I-II, Question 62, Art. 3. Anton Pegis., ed., Basic Writings of Saint Thomas Aquinas, Vol II (NY: Random House, 1945), 478. See the works of Stanley Hauerwas, Character and the Christian Life: A Study in Theological Ethics (San Antonio: Trinity University Monograph Series in Religion, Vol. 3); Vision and Virtue: Essays in Christian Ethical Reflection (University of Notre Dame Press, 1974).

23. In his highly influential work, Freud and Philosophy, Paul Ricoeur (1970) draws attention to three key intellectual figures of the twentieth century who, in their different ways, sought to unmask, demystify, and expose the real from the apparent. "Three masters, seemingly mutually exclusive, dominate the school of suspicion: Marx, Nietzche, and Freud." (Yale University Press, 1970), 32.

24. Joe Holland and Peter Henriot, Social Analysis: Linking Faith and Justice (Washington, D.C.: Center of Concern, 1983).

25. Walter Wink, The Powers that Be: Theology for a New Millennium (NY: Doubleday, 1998), 42.

26. Reinhold Niebuhr, Christianity and Power Politics, (NY: Charles Scribner's, 1952), 32.

27. Jose de Mesa, Why Theology is Never Far from Home (Manila: De La Salle University Press, Inc. 2003).

28. Hope S. Antone, Religious Education in Context: Of Plurality and Pluralism (Quezon City: New Day Publishers, 2003), 69-120.

29. Antone, 104.

30. R. Scott Appleby. The Ambivalence of the Sacred: Religion, Violence, and Reconciliation (Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2000), 284-288.

31. Isaiah 32:17; James 3:18.