INTRODUCTION

Some Notes and Reflections on the
Formation of the Congress of Asian Theologians
by Dr. Feliciano V. Cariño

I. PRELUDE TO PREPARATIONS

When the “Call for a Congress of Asian Theologians” was first issued by the Convenors’ Group at the end of July, 1996, there was great enthusiasm and expectancy about its significance but only a “cautious optimism,” at best, about the possible interest and response it would generate. Urgings from and conversations among various individuals for such an event to take place has been going on for some time. For various reasons, however, the convergence of needs, interests, initiatives, resources and of people’s time and interest that could create the climate in which the call could have been issued earlier had never taken place.

The reasons for the “delay” and the hesitance, and the “fears” for such a meeting, are understandable. There have been questions raised about the importance or feasibility of any “large gathering” on any subject that might be considered of any real ecumenical significance. Why then a Congress at this time and how large would it be? There have been questions raised even more sharply about what importance there might be of a gathering of “theologians” only. Who are “theologians” and what do such people “do” and talk about when they get together? One letter that was received, for example, warned about “arm-chair theologians” who do not really know what the Church is doing, and who are even much less involved in what is happening in the world! Then again there were those who expressed fears that a “Congress” of Asian theologians could only be a “jamboree,” in other words, basically a “playful” thing that would lack both focus and depth. Should we not say ahead of time what our “theological line” is, and invite only those who would commit themselves to such a line and be willing to pursue it? Still, there were others who expressed apprehension that such a “Congress” would transgress and do damage to the already established lines of differentiation of work and areas of responsibility that have been presumed to exist between institutions and associations of theological education, the mainline organizations of ecumenical life, and the independent network of Church-related but action-oriented institutes and centers of theological research and reflection. Then, finally, there were those who wondered all along about where the resources for such a gathering would come from in a situation where financial constraint and declining economic resources are being experienced all over the ecumenical world.

Embedded in these seemingly common place apprehensions were issues that clearly cut across the various expressions of ecumenical and theological work. They raise questions, for example, about the nature of the theological enterprise itself; about constituencies, structures and relationships; about the possible items in the theological agenda as we come to the end of the century and move towards the new; and about ecumenical resources and who would provide them. Thus, when the first meetings took place to consider the possibility of calling such a gathering, the plans and hopes that were projected were placed between two almost contradictory feelings. On the one hand, it was very clear to us that we were at a critical point in the development and elaboration of the Asian theological agenda and therefore we would have to be “daring” in opening up new areas of conversation and in involving all sorts of new participants. On the other hand, however, there was the feeling that it was important to bear in mind that in making any proposals we should be modest in our expectations and must exercise caution about proposing too much and expecting too much. We felt this especially in terms of the possible involvement and participation of people and of supporting institutions. We realized from the outset that we were moving amidst all sorts of sensitivities of work and relationships that should not be overlooked.

The immediate steps that led to the Founding Meeting of the Congress of Asian Theologians, now more widely known as CATS, started, like so many other ecumenical meetings, at an eating place, in fact, at a Chinese restaurant called Fung Lum in Tai Wai, Shatin, N.T., Hongkong. Fung Lum was a favorite eating place of Tosh Arai, the former Associate General Secretary of the Christian Conference of Asia (CCA), specially for its offerings of Shatin specialties such as roast pigeons and “tofu.” It is to this day one of the favorite eating places of officers and staff of the CCA. Yong Bock Kim, the President of Hanil University and Theological Seminary and a longtime participant and leader in various ecumenical initiatives, on his way back to Korea from another meeting, dropped by in Hongkong in March, 1996, to, among other things, extend his greetings to me as I began my new position as General Secretary of the CCA. Over dinner at Fung Lum with Tosh and myself, Yong Bock re-opened the idea of a gathering of Asian theologians that we had been thinking about together for some years. This time, however, the idea that had gestated for several years and had been shared informally with friends in the ecumenical fellowship in coffee shops, transit lounges, and dinner tables at various ecumenical gatherings began to take on concrete shape and assume a greater sense of urgency. It is time, we all said together, to gather as many Asian theologians as possible so that we could begin a process of knowing each other better and of sharing with each other what we are doing. It is time, in other words, to feel the wider theological climate in Asia, to feel the “pulse” of work that is going on in various theological fields and expressions, and to locate and discover the places where people are undertaking new and creative theological work

Beyond the agendas of personal growth and sharing, however, emerged a wider purpose. The time was ripe, we said, to more consciously energize and harness the resources and contribution of a broad spectrum of Asian theologians for the service of the life and mission of the Church in Asia, and to set up a continuing structure and mechanism for this mutual sharing and for the common work that is needed for an elaboration of the Asian theological agenda in the years ahead. It is propitious, we finally agreed, that the CCA, though not the only “sponsor,” should take primary leadership in initiating and organizing such an event.

II. CONCERNS, CONVENORS AND PARTICIPANTS

Several initial considerations came to the fore to provide what we thought were ample reasons to call such a gathering. We were struck by and concerned about the monumental and overwhelming changes that are occurring in the economic, social, political and religious life of Asia and the world, and how it is important for us to begin to appropriate and understand these changes. We shared, and thought it important for others to share with us, our experience of the new borders of life and thought and the challenges to the life and mission of the Church that have been brought about by these changes. We noted that a new “geography of international relations” was emerging in our time, and in this context, a new map of the “oikoumene” was also being drawn, with its demands of new relationships and new and more inclusive constituencies. We especifically noted the “passage” of a generation of Asian ecumenical and theological leaders, and how it is important that various processes and concrete endeavors be set in motion to develop new ecumenical leadership. We noted finally that the transition that ecumenical life and work is undergoing everywhere requires some fresh approaches to the ecumenical and theological task, and how it is important for Asian theologians to contribute to the task of nurturing a new vision for the ecumenical movement and for the life and mission of the Church in Asia. We agreed to exert concrete effort to pursue the idea and begin sharing it with other friends.

We met again in early May, 1996, at the CCA Centre in Hongkong. By this time the “brainstorming circle” had widened considerably and interest in the Congress had picked up. Leaders from the Program for Theology and Culture in Asia (PTCA), e.g., Archie Lee of the Chinese University of Hongkong, and the Association of Theological Education in Southeast Asia (ATESEA), e.g., Yeow Choo-lak of Singapore, not only showed interest but joined in the conversations for the holding of the Congress. In a sense, it was at this meeting that the decision was made to “call” for a “Congress of Asian Theologians” and it was here that its formal planning began. It was also at this meeting that CATS really began to take shape and assume the distinctive features and, in many ways, ground-breaking characteristics that have become its hallmark.

A. Concerns and Issues: In Honkong, at the CCA Centre in May last year, some general ideas were put into the “make-up” of a founding event:

(1) The background, purposes, objectives and possible outcomes of the Congress were enunciated more clearly and specifically. The initial draft of the concept paper for the Congress was put together, and the acronym “CATS” was adopted. .

(2) The theme was agreed upon. Asian theologians were going to be called to gather together to reflect upon “Asian Theology in a Changing Asia” and to begin a process of setting the “Asian Theological Agenda Towards the 21st century.” The theme was intentionally put in broad and future-oriented terms in order to be able to contain within it past effort, current concerns and future orientations. We were, in other words, going to recognize work that had been done in the past and build upon it, without precluding the possibility that “discontinuities” and the breaking of new ground may be needed on the way to the future. Within this general theme, sub-themes were identified around which more focused discussions were to take place.

(3) It was agreed however that, beyond the usual methodology of drawing attention to a number of critical themes which we wanted people to think about, we also wanted to ask people to tell us and to tell each other what they were doing in their respective fields and places of work. Thus, it was decided from the beginning that “disciplinary” and “inter-disciplinary” groups will be set up which will deal primarily with contributions to be made by participants. The thematic discussions would constitute the first “tier” of the program; the disciplinary and inter-disciplinary discussions would constitute the second. We were, in this sense, not only wanting to set up or propose an agenda; we were also wanting to know what the agendas were of people in the various fields of theological work and to see in what way these could be mutually enriched by the sharing and exchange of interest, experience and research. We were not only going to plant “seeds” for new theological work; we also wanted to let “flowers bloom,” to see the “buds” that may already be in the branches, or to discover and harvest the fruit that may already be on the ground. “There are more than three thousand theologians in Asia,” noted Yong Bock. Where are they? What are they doing, and how can we get them to be in touch with each other and to work more closely with each other? We wanted, to put it differently, to provide occasion not only for exploration and advocacy, but also for institution-building and professional growth.

(4) The third “tier” of the program, we agreed, would be organizational. CATS would not be a single event, with perhaps the usual good harvest of resolutions and recommendations, and its intellectual and inspirational impact upon participants. We wanted to provide time for the participants to consider the setting up of a “continuing mechanism,” a loose but operational “structure” of continuing work that would ensure that the results of the Congress will not be lost and will become a building-block from which other activities will flow.

B. Convenors, Advisers and Participants: We actually thought first of convenors and participants before we discussed content and program. We knew in theory and from experience that given the importance of concerns and issues, themes and programmatic activities that are put into a gathering, in the end, even more important and crucial are those who are invited to participate and who are given positions of responsibility and leadership. The people who make up the composition of any meeting provide it also with its primary character and the parameters of its work. It is for this reason that the distinctive characteristic and perhaps the lasting contribution of CATS show themselves most clearly in the decisions that were made about the Convenors’ Group and its participants.

(1) In setting up a Convenors’ Group made up of individuals and leaders of existing ecumenical organizations, theological institutions and associations of theological schools, and independent but Church-related centers and institutes of theological research and activity, CATS combined official support and “sponsorship” with freedom from any specific institutional or organizational agendas. The Convenors have clear institutional links and responsibilities. As Convenors however they also had wider space to go beyond specific organizational or institutional programs and constituencies. The latter was specially important in the determination of participants. The Convenors’ Group cut across various “divides” of current ecumenical and theological work. It had a president of a university and theological seminary and various faculty members of other universities and theological seminaries. It had officers and staff from ecumenical associations of theological education. It had an officer and staff of a regional ecumenical organization of Churches and Councils of Churches. It had a staff member of a Church-related institute for theological research, documentation and action. Geographically, it covered the vast territory of Asia and its sub-regions. It also had Asians in “diaspora” who are working in ecumenical and ecclesiastical organizations outside of Asia. Finally, it drew representation from a wide spectrum of confessional, professional and academic interests and perspectives and a wide range in “age.” Both “older” and “younger” theologians were intentionally put in the leadership of the Congress. While the Convenors were never able to be together at one time and place, the communication among them was constant and suggestions and responses to proposed plans came through the various media of correspondence.

(2) The decision to set up a Council of Advisers underscored further the desire to link past, present and future together. M.M. Thomas, K.H. Ting, Masao Takenaka, Kosuke Koyama, Ivy Chow, Kang Won Yong, C. S. Song, Kiyoko Takeda Cho and U Kyaw Than constitute a list of some of the most established and respected ecumenical and theological leaders in Asia. Seven of those who were invited responded and gave suggestions and strong encouragement for the Congress. Kyaw Than participated fully in the Founding Meeting. M.M. expressed great interest in attending; unfortunately, he passed away unexpectedly in December last year.

(3) The “policy” that was adopted for participation in the Congress embodied the same “principles” that were put into effect in the composition of the Convenors and the Council of Advisers. Participation in CATS, we stressed, should be “open.” All theologians in Asia, which, following the CCA “area,” included Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand, would be invited and could in principle attend. We also agreed that Asians who are in “diaspora” outside Asia should be given the opportunity to participate. We agreed further that non-Asians who have lived and worked in Asia and who continue to pursue interest in Asian theological concerns could, if they were interested, attend. We agreed finally that we would even consider a number of participants from other regions where such interest also existed. We knew, of course, that in the end we would need to balance participation in terms of nationalities, subregions, disciplines, confessions, gender and other considerations. When we laid down the policy of participation, however, we did so intentionally to cross and open up borders rather than close them, and we did so in a manner that would reflect the conviction that as we faced the 21st century, the increasingly “borderless” world that is emerging in our time demanded of us also to expand the borders of our theological world. While Asia was our focus, we recognized that its boundaries have expanded. As a result, not only must its theological concerns expand; so also must its theological network. The decision on participation expressed the desire for that “opening” and “expansion” at the same that it was determined to ensure that its regional roots were not compromised.

III. RESPONSE, RESOURCES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

The Convenors met again in late July, 1996, this time at the Women’s Center of the Methodist Church in Seoul and hosted by Hanil University and Theological Seminary. Here, Yong Bock Kim was elected chairperson of the Convenors’ Group and I was elected Secretary. Here, also, the plans and responsibilities for the first meeting of the Congress were finalized. The dates for the Congress were set, a tentative program was drawn up, including suggested speakers, presenters of papers and responders. A tentative list of participants was also put together, with the proviso that this would be augmented or pruned as the case may be after communication with contact persons in various countries. The content of the concept paper was refined, and I was asked to convert it into and draft a “Call for a Congress of Asian Theologians” which was to be issued within a month of the meeting. We were glad to receive the news that Somang Presbyterian Church had offered to host the Congress at the Somang Academy House in Suwon, Korea, a city that is about an hour away from Seoul. With a tentative budget that was drawn up by Tosh, we were ready to announce the holding of the Congress and go into full preparations. The CCA, through its Staff for Theological Concerns, was designated as the organizing center for the Congress.

A. The “Call for a Congress of Asian Theologians” was issued and sent out in mid-August. When the “Call” was first issued, and when both the venue and the tentative budget for the Congress were accepted, we were cautiously anticipating applications from up to fifty participants. We wondered in fact whether there would be any interest at all. We have not had, after all, a meeting like this before, and we were clearly moving in uncharted waters and untried ground. Within a short time after the “Call” reached its various destinations, we were overwhelmed by the response and could not cope with the numbers of those who wanted to participate despite the fact that there was no promise of full financial assistance to any one. We received 220 applicants. Nearly half of those who applied indicated that they were willing to cover their own expenses or seek their own support in order to participate, something that in a long history of organizing ecumenical meetings in Asia and elsewhere I had not encountered before.

Applicants came from nearly all of the countries of the CCA area. Applicants came also from Asians and non-Asians in Europe and North America. There were inquiries from other Regional Ecumenical Organizations (REOs) for possible participation. Five staff members of various Units of the World Council of Churches (WCC) sent in applications to participate. Of great importance was the fact that the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences (FABC) of the Roman Catholic Church indicated its decision to send 7 representatives, at their own expense, to the Congress.

It obviously dawned on many people in various ecumenical organizations that at a time of ecumenical transition we dare not forget theological roots. We dare not in short be stuck only in structural adjustments and financial constraints; on the contrary, we need to mobilize substantive discussion on substantive issues, and “theological concerns” is unquestionably one of these. We thought at first that we could take in 120 of those who applied. In the end, limitations of accommodations at the Somang Academy House necessitated the decision to cut the number of participants to the 96 that finally constituted the Founding Congress of CATS. While some have commented that it was a “happy problem” to be cutting participants rather than being short of them, all of us in the Convenors’ Group were nevertheless sad that so many had to be turned away from participating. We obviously touched, in the calling and planning of the Congress, fertile ground of interest at a moment in which concerns, interest and people converged.

B. Of the 96 participants, 20 were Koreans drawn from a number of ecumenical and theological institutions and organizations in Korea. Only Vietnam, Cambodia, Mainland China, New Zealand and Bangladesh among the countries in the CCA area could not be represented. We were glad that a participant from Laos could attend, and we were exhilarated that at a time of great political difficulty, 6 participants could come from Myanmar, representing the main theological institutions and ecumenical organizations in the country. In the end, 5 official participants came from the FABC and 2 from the WCC.

C. Many have wondered how at a time of economic recession among all ecumenical organizations we were able to hold such a gathering and obtain the resources for it. The fact of the matter is that when we began the process of conceiving and planning the Congress, we had nothing in terms of resources and financial support, and certainly of budgets. The initial conversations could take place only as they coincided with other meetings. Members of the Convenors’ Group mostly paid for their own travel, either from their own institutional budgets or personal resources. When at last the plan to hold the Congress was launched, CCA could allocate only US$15,000 from its meager resources. In the end, and in a very encouraging way, several ecumenical organizations and institutions pitched in. ATESEA contributed US$10,000 for the travel of ATESEA participants. The Program for Ecumenical Theological Education of the WCC contributed Sfr.15,000. PTCA contributed US$2,000. We were quite gratified that even the Lutheran World Federation (LWF), upon knowing of the Congress, gave encouragement for the meeting and supported the travel of two participants.

D. In the end, however, the bulk of the resources of CATS came from the participants themselves and from Korean friends. Of the 96 participants, only 37 received any financial support for their travel and quite a few of these covered portions of their expenses. The rest paid for their travel either from personal resources or from resources which they themselves raised from the institutions in which they worked or from other supporting institutions The support that Somang Presbyterian Church provided in the hosting of CATS at the Somang Academy House was incredibly generous. All of the facilities of the Academy House were made available free. Board and lodging was also given free, and food in generous servings was excellent. The Women’s Association of the Church added to the hosting by providing the snacks for the morning and afternoon coffee breaks. Suwon Young-Eun Presbyterian Church, a local congregation in Suwon, contributed funds and hosted a cultural evening of Korean music and poetry. Hanil University and Theological Seminary and the Christian Institute for the Study of Justice and Development provided not only funds but also staff and services. Theological students from a number of Korean theological schools volunteered their time for the meeting of participants and their transport to and from the airport.

E. The manner in which CATS was enabled to take place gives encouragement for new possibilities of ecumenical support. It was clearly one of the first major ecumenical events, in recent times, that was supported primarily by Asian resources. As I indicated in my remarks at the Opening Session, when we began conceiving the event, we did not, as we often do, draw up a project proposal and sent it to a European or North American donor. We dug into our own resources in order to support it, and hoped that its relevance would generate its resources. It was also one of the first major regional ecumenical events that was supported very substantially by local congregations. About one-half of the total expenditures of the event came from this source. The large percentage of support given or raised by the participants themselves ensured that CATS was largely “self-supporting,” something that has become rare among ecumenical activities in recent times.

F. All of these may have been exceptional. They could also however be an indication of a possible new understanding and expression of ecumenical sharing of resources and therefore a sign of what it might take to do ecumenical work in the future. At the very least, it says that there are ample resources of ecumenical support from the whole people of God where activities are conceived in such a manner that they touch the nerve-centers of interest and concern in the lives of people and institutions in Asia. It may be that the decline in ecumenical resources we are experiencing is indicative of the fact that we may have been touching nerve-centers that are located elsewhere and which can therefore have access primarily of resources and people that are not where we are. The question of ecumenical resources may have less to do with availability and more with where our ecumenical roots are and what ecumenical hopes we project.

The Founding Congress of CATS formally opened on the morning of May 26 at the Chapel of Somang Academy House. When it closed in the late afternoon of May 31, it had gone through, with minor modifications, the program that was prepared for it. There were no “drop outs” from those who were included in the final list of participants. Up to the last days of preparation, there were many who called to indicate their continuing desire to attend. There were in fact a few who simply arrived at the venue without having sent in their application before.

Many participants have written indicating how important the event has been for their work. Several have referred to it as an event of unique and monumental significance. I am sure that there are countervailing evaluations, and that others may have been disappointed with what went on. In my view, what happened at Suwon is only a beginning. Its harvest of ideas, papers, recommendations and enthusiasm, however modest or important they may be, must not be judged in themselves but in terms of what they will generate further into the future.

At the final Plenary Session, a Constitution for CATS was approved and a Continuation Committee was set up to oversee future work and be responsible for the implementation of recommendations. At the Closing Worship on May 31, the Officers and Members of the Continuation Committee were announced. Two Working Groups were also formed: one on Resource Generation, and the other on Publications. The composition of the Continuation Committee embody the same principles that composed the Convenors’ Group. Of great importance is the fact that the FABC has indicated interest in becoming a Supporting Body. The inclusion of two Roman Catholics, one from China, in the Continuation Committee gives evidence of the broadening ecumenical base and interest that CATS has engendered.

It was also announced that the decision was made to hold the Second Congress sometime in 1999. A letter has now been received from the Ecumenical Christian Centre in Whitefield, Bangalore which indicates their desire to host the Second Congress as part of the culminating events of the 10th Anniversary celebrations of the Indian School of Ecumenical Theology. I anticipate that there will be great enthusiasm on the part of the Continuation Committee to accept this invitation.

Meanwhile, what happens between the first and the second Congress will depend largely on what the continuing bodies will do. Financially, we start again with “nothing.” The continuing structures and supporting bodies however are now in place. The enthusiasm and interest generated by the First Congress are strong. There is no question in my mind that the energy, the commitment and the hopes that brought about the first Congress will move on to the second, and to those things that we hope to do in between.