A Tao ()1 of Asian Theology in the 21st Century:
From the Perspective of the Ugumch’i Phenomon

by Kim Heup Young

I. A Call for a Macro—Paradigm Shift in Theology

There is no the theology, objective, universal, and relevant to every context. There are theologies, open-ended, always on the way, and in dialogue with surrounding cultures and religions. Historically, theologies have developed through continuous paradigm shifts with changes in their relating cultures.2 Even in the post-modern period, I argue, Western theologies are divided basically into two macro-paradigms - the logos paradigm (theo-logy) and the praxis paradigm (theo-praxis) - both marked by leftover traces of Greek dualism (form and matter, soul ancf body, theory and practice, etc.).

(1) The logos paradigm: Traditional Western theologies developed in dialogue with Greek philosophy and flourished for almost two millennia following the use of the key greek philosophical concept of logos, as the root-metaphor of theology (theos+logos). In the early Christian Church, theologia had wider meanings, interrelated with sophia (wisdom) and others.3 However, the narrower definitions of later Christian theologians, for instance, of logos as logical knowledge, and the excessive focus of Protestant theologians on the Word of God meant this paradigm grew more and more metaphysical, dogmatic, and phonocentric. The goal of theology, primarily as God-talk, is to transmit universal orthodoxy. However, most contemporary theologians claim that this logosphonocentric paradigm is anachronistic and no longer viable, not to mention criticisms from deconstructionists such as J. Derrida.

(2) The praxis paradigm: Since Latin American liberation theologies uncovered the sociological plots in the metaphysics of orthodoxy, the logos paradigm has been under fire. Various liberationist theologies and first world political theologies argue for the employment of that somewhat neglected root-metaphor, praxis. In the praxis paradigm, theology (precisely, theopraxis) is defined rather as God-walk, and orthopraxis becomes the primary issue instead of orthodoxy. The emancipatory emphasis of Christian practice is the necessary and legitimate corrective to the traditional theology. However, the praxis paradigm can hardly present an independent and comprehensive program, because it is incomplete without logos, caught within the bounds of Western dualism between theory and practice.

Both the logos and praxis paradigms hold to this hierarchical Western dualism and, hence, are basically heteronomous, whatever distinctions they make between superstructure/infrastructure or heteronomy/autonomy. A more subtle problem in the praxis paradigm is its uncritical belief in the dialectical progress of history. The strength of theopraxis is its expression of the emancipatory dimension, but it is weak in facilitating the ecological and dialogical dimensions, which are in high demand in our broken, polluted, postmodern world.

Yet, most Asian theologies seem to remain within the boundaries of these dualistic macro-paradigms. On the one hand, conservative Asian theologies uncritically import Western logos theologies with their blind belief in the myth of orthodoxy, while on the other hand, creative Asian theologiçs, in reaction to logos theology, do not move much beyond the corrective manifesto of liberation theology for orthopraxis. The socioeconomic situations of Asia do call on Asian theology to adapt the emancipatory tenet of theopraxis. However, Asian theology needs to admit that the hidden presupposition of the praxis paradigm consists in the modern myth of history, a belief in teleological progress, whose validity is now questionable.4

Furthermore, non-linear Asian religious visions challenge Asian theologians to demythologize this myth of history, the modern modification of salvation history inherited from Judeo-Christianity. Unlike its dualistic and mechanistic Western counterparts, Asian religious visions are characteristically more holistic, inclusive, and ecological; namely, “anthropocosmic” (humanity and cosmos interrelated) or even “theanthropocosmic” (God, humanity, and cosmos being interrelated).5 Eventually, these visions will provide rich resources for Asian theology. Asian theology in the 21st century, as an integrated articulation of the Asian Christian community of faith about God, humanity, and life in the world at a given time, should be not only emancipatory, but also open-ended, dialogical, ecological, inclusive, and holistic. However, Asian theology of religions, active in inter- and intra-religious dialogue, has been too politically naïve and too retrospectively romantic. A most important issue for Asian theologians today is how to construct an Asian revolutionary theology to break the vicious circle of the socioeconomic injustice prevailing in Asia without falling into Western dualism and historicism.6

(3) The Tao paradigm: Constructing such a viable Asian theology for the 21st century solicits a macro-paradigm shift beyond the two paradigms of the traditional logos-oriented theo-logy and the modern praxis-oriented theo-praxis. These two Western root-metaphors for theology, logos and praxis, have had their day. Asian theology in the day of new wine needs a new wineskin. I argue that the East Asian root-metaphor of tao is the new wineskin (though it is also as old as logos and praxis in the history of East Asian thought, it is, perhaps, new for Christianity).7

Then, what is Tao? First and foremost, just as God is, tao is inexplicable. You would be idolatrous if you define it with any intention. Compare “The Tao that can be told of is not the eternal Tao” (Tao-te Ching) and “You shall not make yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, on the earth beneath, or in the water under the earth” (Ex. 20: 4). In light of the biblical expression of Jesus, we might say provisionally that Tao is the ultimate way of life, as Jesus’ said, “I am the way, truth, and life” (Jn 14: 6a). In fact, Jesus did not identify himself as either verus Deus and verus homo or the incarnate logos, but he simply said that he is the Tao toward God (Jn. 14: 6b). He is Christ in such a way that he was a fully embodied Tao of God. In that sense, Jesus was the way to God (Jn. 14: 6b), without reference to any so-called exclusivism.

II. The Ugumch’i Phenomenon

What does the tao paradigm look like? Kim Chi Ha, a well-known Korean poet, once told an intriguing story in his essay, “The Ugumch’i Phenomenon.”8 This story suggests an example of the tao paradigm. It introduces some valuable insights helping us to envision a theology in the East Asian way of life and to solve the problematic of Asian theology, an inner conflict between the Christian liberation imperative and the Asian anthropocosmic vision. I will begin my search for a new tao paradigm of Christian theology with this story.

The Ugumch’i Phenomenon: In front of my house in Haenam,9 there is a little stream. This stream originates from Kumgang bo, the largest reservoir in the neighborhood of Haenam. In the past, the water was so clean and fresh that people could swim and catch fish in the stream. Now, however, it has become a smelly ditch, dark and rotten with waste water, synthetic detergents, charcoal briquet ashes, garbage, Coke bottles, cans, etc. Nevertheless, the stream changes entirely when it rains. At midnight, it makes a sound as big the refreshing rapids in Mt. Solak or Mt. Odae. And it sweeps wastes downward so that it becomes as clean again as it used to be. When I sat down by the stream and noticed that the fish jumping there were much better than before, I was greatly astonished. There are about ten big cement stepping stones across the stream, and rapid currents flow down between them like a water fall. This scene forms a little spectacle. Ah, so many fish jump from below, making their way upstream by jumpin~ over the stepping stones! What a wonderful scene it makes, with scores of fish of various sizes, from little daces to hand-sized crucians continuously jumping up and straining.

I sat down by the stream, pondering this over and over.

How on earth can those fish move upward against such strong downward currents? Is it only what evolution theory calls a groping in the dark which leads to endless failure? But I notice that some among them go upward very smoothly, so it does not seem to be a failure or a groping in the dark. What on earth is the mystery that enables them to do so? Unless those fish are fools, there is no reason why they so persistently put forth every ounce of their energies in vain. It must be obvious to them that they swim upward in opposition to the currents pouring down upon them. But I do not know more. Perhaps, the fish are returning to the reservoir to find the ecological conditions most appropriate to them in terms of water temperature, water pressure, water habitus, plankton, etc. But still, how can they swim upstream against currents flooding downward so rapidly and forcefully? It might be enough of an explanation to say that it is a mysterious creation of the Creator. But this still does not solve the mystery. It is easy and simple to say that it is a matter of adapting to the environment according to evolutionary theory. But that does not explain everything, either.

That night, I sat down cross-legged and gazed at my wife’s face, straight into the pupils of her eyes. At that time, a strange thought occurred to me. Through her pupils, I feel what she is thinking, and, through my pupils, my wife likewise feels that I could feel her thoughts. It was a matter of an instant. It was like the movement of spirit () or vital spirit () or vital energy ( [sin-ki]).10 I realized then that it is the movement of sin-ki insofar as one movement of sin-ki enables one to know the other movement of sin-ki and vice versa.

Aha, now I know.

The mystery of how a feeble fish can swim upstream against a turbulent downward current to return to its destined birthplace.

That is to say, such a thing occurs in the moment when the sin-ki of a fish is united with the sin-ki of the water flow. Nature () is another good word for this. In other words, it happens in the moment when the nature of a fish is united with the nature of water.

The ch’i (ki [])11 of water moves in both directions of yin and yang.12 While the yang of water runs downward, the yin of water runs upward. While water flows downward, water flows upward at the same time. In the river, there must occur counter-currents in the majestic movement of big waters! This is a phenomenon that occurs simultaneously in the movement of il-ki () of water.13 This phenomenon arises exactly when the nature of a fish’s sin-ki becomes united with the nature of this ch’i. Does history progress forward only? No. While history progresses forward, it goes backward at the same time. Although it is described in terms of quality and quantity, this is a matter that arises simultaneously. Certainly, it is not right to say this in terms of either front and back or progression and retrogression. Rather, it would be better to say this in terms of a simultaneously converging-diverging movement of “in and out” and “quality and quantity.” And all the movements after all return to their origin. They return, not in vain but creatively. This is the yin-yang movement of il-ki, i.e., the primordial vigor of the cosmos. Humans can do this with self-consciousness.

Aha, now I know this too.

From the palpitation of the persistent and dynamic sin-ki of the fishes in returning home, [I now understand] the mystery of the Ugumch’i War14 where the exulted sin-ki had several hundred thousand minjung15 soaked with blood, jumping, going persistently upstream.

We should not understand this simply as a battle or a struggle in terms of victory or failure between this and that. With such an understanding, we fail to see or, after all, misconceive the mystery of that tremendous collective life energy discharged by the minjung in the Tonghak Revolution in 1894. It may end with such misconceptions as a literary expression like the explosion of continuously accumulated han16 or as a superficial socio-economic observation like an upward uprising or a poverty uprising.

But it is not.

Although it looks like that, that is not what it is.

Han, poverty, or the demand for class liberation, without the knowledge of the movement of the minjung’s collective sin-ki that acts in everything, cannot uncover the mystery of Ugumch’i. Nor can han, poverty, or the demand for class liberation be legitimately evaluated on the basis of historical meaning.

What on earth kind of forte was it that made the several hundred thousand minjung, armed only with firelocks and bamboo spears - almost bare-handed -- attempt to climb the hill through the scorching fires of the demonic cannons of Japan and the Yi Dynasty17 What was the origin of the power that empowered them to advance for freedom, forming a mountain of corpses and a sea of blood, experiencing failure after failUre, and crossing death over death?

Where is the clue to understanding the mystery of Tonghak () that fed unceasingly the roots of the main forces in the righteous armies () of 1895, in the second and the third great righteous armies, and in the Minhoe () Movement during the Russo-Japanese War, and then again in the March First Movement, in the Ch’ungudang Movement18 of the Ch’undogyo, in many tenancy disputes in the peasant history of Choson19 in strike movements in the labor history of Choson, in the movements of numberless liberation armies in Kando (), Siberia, Tumen River (), and in the region of the Yalu River (), and in the movements of the underground organizations to support them, and going further even in the change of the forms of ideologies and organizations?

In short, it is in the great self-awakening of minjung on the collective sin-ki through Tonghak. Minjung became aware of and is the embodiment of kihwa silnyong (, vitalization and spiritualization) and chiki () that endlessly, and on an immense scale, socializes, seJf-sanctifies, and self-divinizes.

The collective sin-ki of the self-conscious minjung is a great cosmic movement to be united with the primordial sin-ki of history, i.e., the yin-yang movement of ch’i, against the demonic currents of the history which poured down against them. I will call this the ugurnch’i phenomenon.

Ah, Ah. The sin-ki of our minjung, the kihwa silnyong, with the climax of 1894, has been displaced, alienated, rooted out, oppressed, disgraced, divided, imprisoned, neglected, destroyed, and enslaved — slaughtered therefore until now -- by the wrong foreign ideas of the West or Japan. Even now, the flags of death are waving in the street. Only a few people are searching for the true subjectivity of minjung.

This is the time when we look into the ugumch’i phenomenon in order to find our genuine subjectivity.

Yes. For, even against the demonic currents of the history, we have not failed completely or gone down to defeat, but have ascended this much!

III. The Phenomenology of Sin-ki

This provocative story of the ugumch’i phenomenon puzzles the dualistically oriented Western mind in general and the analytically trained modern mind in particular (including the westernized Asian mind). However, it is a very original East Asian way of grasping reality, and it is theologically profound. Furthermore, it includes some passwords that open the vision of a new East Asian paradigm in theology. Although it requires further thematization, it would be worthwhile mentioning five points at this juncture.

(1) Neither the logos nor the praxis paradigms fit simply with this phenomenology of sin-ki and both fall short of the analogical imagination which it presents. If the polluted flood metaphorically refers to the force of destruction, the feeble fish represent the force of life. Deconstructionists have revealed that the logosphonocentric paradigm has had more affinity with the force of destruction than the force of life. Rather it has helped the demonic movement of the historical flood, by its involvement with sociological plots such as androcentricism and ethnocentricism, and by endangering life through its dualistic fragmentation.

Although the praxis paradigm aggressively resists the force of destruction, it remains within the limits of narrowly defined historico-socio-economic concerns which do not proceed completely beyond the logic which the force of destruction constitutes. It does not propound a self-sufficient description for the force of life, but ends with a reactionary articulation against the force of destruction. Nor does it retain a profound understanding of the complex relation among God, humanity, and the cosmos such as those expressed in the Asian theanthropocosmic vision and the phenomenology of sin-ki.

(2) The ugumch’i phenomenon lures Asian theology one step forward. For example, Korean minjung theologies have made some valuable contributions to contemporary theology with their prophetic call to the Christian movement for justice and freedom in solidarity with minjung. Yet, from the perspective of Kim Chi Ha’s ugumch’i pehnomenon, this call seems to be too narrow, romantic, or Western to grasp fully the Asian profundity.

Kim Yong-bock has argued that the social biography (the underside history) of minjung is a more authentic historical point of reference for theological reflection than the doctrinal discourses (the official history) superimposed by the Church and in the orientation of Western rationality.20 It was an important creative proposal for Asian theology to be situated on concrete ground so as to evoke the self-awakening of minjung as the subjects of history. To employ the sociobiography of minjung as a main theological agenda serves as a legitimate correction to traditional theology, primarily based on autobiographical (psychological) or church (official) narratives. Nevertheless, this more or less exclusive focus upon the political economy of God looks too historical to be liberated fully from the myth of history in Western modernism and to locate Asian religious dimensions properly.

Chung Hyun Kyung’s provocative proposal of “hanpuri” (a participatory event to release han-riddenness) was an authentic appeal from the perspective of Korean women.21 Asian theology should take seriously the reality of han, the accumulated psychosomatic experiences (and dangerous memory) of collective suffering. The hanpuri does have psychologically and socially therapeutic and salvific dimensions. Nevertheless, with such a simple hermeneutics of han, we cannot reach the depths of Asian spiritual complexity, as Kim Chi Ha claimed in the ugumch’i phenomenon. To thematize Christian confessional agendas more comprehensively in the profundity of Asian spiritual complexity, Asian theology needs to move forward beyond the proposals of these minjung theologies so as to overcome such potential reductionism (and misconceptions, in the words of Kim Chi Ha).

(3) The Hermeneutics of Ch’i: Kim Chi Ha’s phenomenology of sin-ki, though based on his creative interpretation of the original Tonghak, offers some fascinating clues for the revisioning of Asian theology for the 21st century beyond the (Western) logos paradigm and the (Asian) praxis paradigm. It illuminates the way in which ch’i, a term very comparable to pneuma, renders a significant hermeneutical key and rich theological resources for Asian theologies in the future. He argues lucidly that ch’i (more correctly, sin-ki) is the key to reveal the reason for the mystery of how the feeble fish in the turbulent flood and the multitude of minjung in the Ugumch’i War could manifest such a tremendously life-empowering force. Ch’i is a very East Asian term, like pneuma, not dualistic and analytic, but holistic and embracing, while it is both the source (primordial energy) and the medium of primordial empowerment. Hence, with this new hermeneutics of sin-ki, we can develop an appropriate answer to the question we began with; how to construct a revolutionary theology to fight against the vicious structure of socio-economic injustice without falling into dualism and historicism. An answer would be a revolutionary theology of sin-ki with the hermeutics of ch’i.

(4) The pneumatoanthropocosmic vision: The phenomenology of sin-ki expands the East Asian anthropocosmic vision to the new horizon in the unity of Heaven (God), the human, and Earth (cosmos) through the spirit (ch’i). Neo-Confucianism developed a vision of “cosmic togetherness” in an organismic unity with Heaven, Earth, and the myriad things. This is expressed well in Chang Tsai’s Western Inscription:

Kim Chi Ha enhances this East Asian anthropocosmic vision dramatically by the phenomenology of sin-ki. Since it implies a spiritual communion between humanity and the universe through the interpenetration of ch’i, I call it pneumatoanthropocosmic vision. In East Asian thought, this vision is heavily embedded in the yin-yang correlation, the sophisticated cosmology of I-Ching (, Changes), the Neo-Confucian metaphysics of T’ai-chi, etc. The anthropocosmic vision expressed in various Asian religions should be a reservoir of great potential to heal, vitalize, and even save today’s fragile and fragmented Christian theologies from the swamp of postmodern crises, as many Asian and Western scholars suggest.

Nevertheless, this potentiality does not necessarily endorse a retrospective and uncritical romanticization of Asian religions and cultures. On the contrary, it should be underscored that Asian religious visions are not totally innocent in the genealogy of distortion and exploitation. Historically, they also committed much evil against minjung and women. For example, Cheng Chung-ying succinctly characterized the East Asian mode of orientation in terms of “natural naturalization” (nature and naturality in Chinese philosophy: I Ching/Fao Te Ching) and “human immanentization” (Confucianism and Neo-Confucianism), which contrasts with the Western mode in terms of “rational rationalization” (reason and rationality in Greek philosophy: Socrates/Plato/Aristotle) and “divine transcendentalization” (JudeoChristianity).23 Although this is a lucid distinction, we must question whether such a beautiful mode of natu’ral naturalization and human immanentization does not contain the dimension for a paradise-indwelling, the myth which has been broken. (A big question is why those who inherit those beautiful ecological traditions now live in the most polluted regions in the world?) The human reality people experience today is rather in a post-paradise situation. Christianity is at least correct in that observation. After the lost battle vis-á-vis Western modernization, we Asians can no longer be “innocent dreamers” (Paul Tillich). We need to employ modern critical thinking and a hermeneutics of suspicion. At the same time, we must admit with the postmodern consciousness that the modern mode of thinking has reached its limits and that there might be hope in our own resources, though they must be reinterpreted in new ways.

From this vantage point, the revolutionary theology of sin-ki should take very seriously Asian hermeneutics of suspicion including minjung, feminism, neo- and post-colonialism, and orientalism. Asian theology of the future will solicit an entirely new paradigm which can utilize fully the profundity of the Asian pneumatoanthropocosmic vision, while remaining faithful to these Asian hermeneutics of suspicion.

(5) The Sociocosmic Narrative of the Exploited Life: By reinforcing Kim Yong-bock’s proposal with the pneumatoanthropocosmic vision, we could commence the thematization of an Asian revolutionary theology of sin-ki. In addition to the sociobiography of minjung, Asian theology should embrace also the cosmic biography of the exploited life (metaphorically, the feeble fish in the turbulent currents). Asian theology should liberate the underside of the history of exploited life including animals and nature from the captivity of modern imperialism and scientific fundamentalism which could bring us the doomsday of massive ecological destruction. As hinted in the ugumch’i phenomenon, the Asian

pneumatoanthropocosmic vision cultivates a symbiosis of the life network through the communication of ch’i. This vision fosters the human race’s relationship with other lives mo holistically and profoundly than societas (by contract), communitas (by fellowship [koinonia]) While being enhanced by a holistic vision, Asian theology should demythologize dimensions of innocent dreaming and individualistic mysticism in the Asian anthropocos visions. To do this, Asian theology needs to thematize what I call the sociocosmic narrative the exploited life, creatively pushing beyond the sociobiography of minjung and anthropocosmic vision. Asian theologians are impelled to tell the story of the sociocos network of the exploited life constituted by the spiritual communion of ch’i whose primordial energy is salvific, both emancipatory and reconcilatory. The ugumch’i phenomenon is example of such a sociocosmic narrative of exploited life, metaphorically telling the story two exploited lives, the feeble fish in the turbulent stream and the multitude of minjung the Ugumch’i War.

IV. Conclusion

A Tao of Asian Theology in the 21st Century. God can be reduced neither to logos nor praxis. God cannot be fully grasped with these two dualistic root-metaphors. God transcen Greek dualisms such as form and matter, body and soul, divinity and humanity, logos a praxis. I have argued that the tao as a root-metaphor articulates God more appropriately th these two metaphors. I call this theological paradigm to be constructed with the ro metaphor of tao theotao (theos+tao) vis-á-vis theology (theos+logos) and theopraxis (theo praxis).

In the light of the ugumch’i phenomenon, theotao, as a proper Asian theology in the 21 century, envisions the Tao of God operative in the pneumatoanthropocosmic trajecto Theotao introduces an Asian pneumatological hermeneutics of ch’i that embodies the vi energy in exploited lives so when they swim dynamically upward against the demon down-flood of history, e.g., in our time the manipulative global market controlled b technocratic dictatorship and centralized cyberspace. To do that, theotao calls Asian theolo to make a macro-paradigm shift from the mechanistic cosmology to that of life, from materialistic paradigm to that of ch’i, and from an ontological paradigm to that of life-generating ().

As its Chinese word consists of two ideographs, meaning “head” (, being) and “vehicle”(,becoming), tao means both the source of being (logos) and the way of cosmic becoming (praxis). Accordingly, tao can be reduced neither to being nor to becoming, rather it is being in becoming or the logos in transformative praxis. Tao is not an either-or option, embraces the whole of both-and. It does not force one to stay at the crossroad of logos (bein and praxis (becoming), but actualizes one to participate in a dynamic movement to be united with the cosmic track.24 The tao as the ultimate way and reality embodies the transformative praxis of the sociocosmic trajectory of life in the unity of knowing and acting. Hence, while theology is the perspective from above and theopraxis that from below, theotao is the perspective from an entirely different dimension, theanthropocosmic intersubjectivity, or in the light of the ugumch’i phenomenon, pneumatoanthropocosmic communion (through the network of ch’i). Furthermore, as already mentioned, it particularly focuses on the sociocosmic biography of the exploited life.

Theotao argues that Asian theology can be neither logos-centric (knowledge) nor praxis-centric (acting), but tao-centric (sophia in action). Asian theology as a theotao can be reduced neither to an orthodoxy (a right doctrine of a church) nor to an orthopraxis (a right practice in history), but should embrace holistically the right way of life (orthotao), the transformative wisdom of living in a pneumatoanthropocosmic trajectory. The issue is neither orthodoxy only nor orthopraxis only, but an orthotao, i.e., whether we are in the right way of God revealed in Jesus Christ and live wisely under the direction of the Holy Spirit. Remember that the Greek word hodos (the Way, also meaning path, road, route, journey, march, etc.) was the original name for Christianity (Act 9:2; 19:9; 22:4; 24:14, 22). Hence, the key issue is whether we are m proper communication with the Spirit to participate fully in the loving process of theanthropocosmic reconciliation and sanctification. See the end of 1 Corinthian 13! If orthodoxy emphasizes faith and orthopraxis hope, orthotao focuses on love. Whereas the primary theme of traditional logos theology was the epistemology of faith and whereas that of modern praxis theology the eschatology of hope, the cardinal theme of Asian tao theology is the pneumatology of love (that is the goal of the hermeneutics of ch’i). A comparison between the following two Christian and Taoist statements illuminates the gravity of this pneumatology of love:

Love never ends. But as for prophecies [theopraxisl, they will come to an end; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge [theology], it will come to end. For we know only in part, and we prophesy only in part; but when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways. For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully; even as I have been fully known. And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love. (St. Paul, 1 Cor. 13:8-13).

The fish trap exists because of the fish; once you’ve gotten the fish, you can forget the trap. The rabbit snare exists because of the rabbit; once you’ve gotten the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words exist because of meaning; once you’ve gotten the meaning, you can forget the words. Where can I find a man [sic] who has forgotten words so that I can have a word with him [sic]? (Chuang Tzu [369?-286? B.C.]).25

Asian theology as theotao would be defined as love-seeking-tao rather than the classical definition of theology, faith-seeking-understanding (fides quaerens intellectum [theology]), or hope-seeking-practice (theopraxis). Whereas theology (God-talk) focuses on the right mderstanding of the Christian doctrines and whereas theopraxis (God-walk) the right ractice of the Christian ideologies, theotao (God-live) searches for the way and wisdom of Christian life. In fact, Jesus taught neither an orthodox doctrine, a philosophical theology, a manual of orthopraxis, nor an ideology of social revolution, but the tao of life and living26 Jesus Christ cannot be divided between the historical Jesus (theopraxis) and the kerygmatic ihrist (theology). Hence, with the first Korean Catholic theologian Yi Pyok (1754~1786)27 heotao conceives Jesus as the crossroad of the Heavenly Tao and the human tao; that is to ay, the pneumatoanthropocosmic Tao. Further, theotao comprehends Jesus as the crucified [‘ao that reveals the way of salvation, with his own sociocosmic biography of the exploited ife. Furthermore, theotao sees Jesus as the Tao of resurrection, the way of cosmic ‘econciliation and sanctification that teaches us how we, cosmic sojourners, can live fully iuman in solidarity with other cosmic co-sojourners, particularly with the fullness of other ‘xploited lives.

Finally, the tao of Asian theology in the 21st century is to invite us to participate in the common quest for the true subjectivity of exploited life including minjung, women, and polluted nature through the hermeneutics of ch’i. In light of the ugumch’i phenomenon, the tao of Asian theology revitalizes us by the outpouring power of the sin-ki (ch’i) through self-wakening. That has been manifested in the sociocosmic narratives of exploited lives in Asia, but “has been displaced, alienated, rooted out, oppressed, disgraced, divided, imprisoned, neglected, destroyed, and enslaved - therefore, has been slaughtered until now -- by wrong )reign ideas.” To re-vision us with the correction of those wrong foreign ideas and re-embody us in the outpouring power of ch’i through self-awakening is an important task of theotao, as a new paradigm of Asian theology in the 21st century.

1. This title includes the two basic meanings of tao; (1) a simple meaning, equivalent term to the English word, way (tao), and (2) a deeper meaning, the ultimate Way of ljfe (Tao).
2. According to Hans Küng, there are six macro-paradigms in the development of Christianity; Early Christian apocalyptic paradigm, Early Church Hellenistic paradigm, Mediaeval Roman Catholic paradigm, Reformation Protestant paradigm, Enlightenment modern paradigm, contemporary ecumenical paradigm (postmodern). See Küng, tr. by John Bowden, Christianity. Essence, History, and Culture (New York: The Continuum Publishing Co., 1995).
3. See Jean Pepin, “logos,” in The Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol. 9, ed. by Mircia Eliade (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1987), 9-15; also Edward Farley, Theologia: The Fragmentation and Unity of Theological Education (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), pp. 3 1-44, 162, 165-169.
4. On this point, we need to listen carefully to Raimond Panikkar’s analysis; see his The Cosmotheandric Experience (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1993).
5. For the anthropocosmic vision, see Tu Wei-ming, Centrality and Commonality: An Essay on Confucian Religiousness, rv. ed. (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1989), pp. 102-107. For the theanthropocosmic vision, see Panikkar. For a comparative study of these, see Heup Young Kim, Wang Yang-ming and Karl Barth: A Confucian-Christian Dialogue (Durham: University of Press of America, 1996), pp. 175-177, 185-188.
6. Among Asian theologians of the first generation, this dichotomy appeared saliently between Raimond Panikkar and M. M. Thomas; cf. Panikkar, The Unknown Christ of Hinduism, rv. ed. (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1964) and Thomas, The Acknowledged Christ of the Indian Renaissance (London: SCM Press, 1969). Aloysius Pieris formulated this issue in slightly different way; according to Paul Knitter, “a non dualisitc understanding/experience of the liberative activity of God and the liberative activity of the poor as ‘one indivisible Saving Reality,’”Asian Theology of Liberation (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1988), p. xiv.
7. As the widely used root-metaphor of all classical East Asian religions including Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism, tao is a very inclusive term with various meanings. Tentatively, I use the Confucian definition formulated by Herbert Fingarette: “Tao is a Way, a path, a road, and by common metaphorical extension it becomes in ancient China the right Way of life, the Way of governing, the ideal Way of human existence, the Way of the Cosmos, the generative-normative Way (Pattern, path, course) of existence as such” (Confucius•The Secular as Sacred [Harper & Row, 1972], p. 19).
8. In Saengmyong [Life] (Seoul: Sol, 1992), pp. 188-192. Since this essay is theologically profound and worthwhile introducing among Asian theologians, I have translated the whole essay here with the permission of the author. Although Kim Chi Ha recently changed his name to Kim Hyung, I will use his old name in this paper, because he has been better known as Kim Chi Ha.
9. Translator: A city located in Chollanamdo, located the Southwestern part of Korea.
10. Translator: The Chinese character(in Chinese, shen; in Korean, sin) has various meanings such as ghost, spirit, soul, vitality, sacred, etc. Although this word is translated as vitality in this paper, it includes a connotation of divinity. And (in Chinese, shen-ch’i; in Korean, sin-ki) is translated as vital energy, but this paper uses primarily the Korean romanization, sin-ki, because of its special meaning.
11. Translator: The Chinese romanization of this word is ch’i, while the Korean romanization is ki. Ch’i is very similar to pneuma and translated variously such as energy, vital force, material force, and breath. When this word alone is used, this paper takes ch’i instead of ki, translating as energy.
12. Translator: Ch’i is interpreted to have two forms of movement, the yin (negative or female) and the yang (positive or male) which forms a unity of complementary opposites such as T’ai-chi.
13. Translator: (in Korean, il-ki) means the one or primordial ch’i or the primordial vigor.
14. This was the last and fiercest battle during the second uprising of the Tonghak minjung which broke out on a hill in Kongju, named Ugum, in December 1894. (Translator: Tonghak [], literary meaning Eastern Learning) was a religious movement founded by Ch’oe Che-u [1824-1864] in reaction to the so called Western Learning [], i.e., Catholicism.)
15. Translator: Minjung literally means the multitude of people, but in Minjung theology this term is closely related to the oppressed, exploited, and marginalized groups.
16. Translator: This term became well-known through its use by Korean minjung theologians. According to Suh Nam-dong, han is “the suppressed, amassed and condensed experience of oppression caused by mischief or misfortune so that it forms a kind of ‘lump’ in one’s spirit” (“Towards a Theology of Han”, Minjung Theology [Singapore: CCA, 1981], p. 65). In fact, Suh’s theology of han was heavily influenced by Kim Chi Ha’s thought. However, afterwards, Kim changed his mind on this issue and has gone beyond it, as shows in this paper.
17. Translator: Yi Dynasty is the last dynasty in Korea (1392-1910).
18. Ch’ungudang was a national movement organization of Ch’ondogyo () organized in North Korea with the institute of religious affairs of Ch’undogyo in North Choson after the independence of August 15, 1945. It attempted a revival movement of the March First Movement in 1948 to develop a general election for the unification of the South and the North. However, the plan was revealed beforehand, many people were arrested, and the movement has been systematically suppressed since then.
19. Translator: Choson is the original name of Korea.
20. See Kim, “Theology and the Social Biography of Minjung,” CTC Bulletin 5:3-6:1 (1984-5), 66-78.
21. See Chung, “‘Han-pu-ri’: Doing Theology from Korean Women’s Perspective,” The Ecumenical Review 40:1 (Jan, 1988), 27-36.
22. Chan Wing-tsit, tr., A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy (Princetion, N.J.: Princetion University Press, 1963), pp. 497-8. Wang Yang-ming further developed the doctrine of the Oneness of All Things, as expressed in the following. For more discussion, see Heup Young Kim, pp. 42-46:
    “The great man regards Heaven, Earth, and the myriad things as one body. He regards the world as one family and the country as one person. As to those who make a cleavage between objects and distinguish between the self and others, they are small men. That the great man can regard Heaven, Earth, and the myriad things as one body is not because he deliberately wants to do so, but because it is the natural humane nature of his mind that he do so. Forming one body with Heaven, Earth, and the myriad things is not only true of the great man. Even the mind of the small man is no different. Only he himself makes it small. Therefore, when he sees a child about to fall into a well, he cannot help a feeling of alarm and commiseration. This shows that his humanity [jen] forms one body with the child. It may be objected that the child belongs to the same species. Again, when he observes the pitiful cries and frightened appearance of birds and animals about to be slaughtered, he cannot help feeling an “inability to bear” their suffering. This shows that his humanity forms one body with birds and animals. It may be objected that birds and animals are sentient beings as he is. But when he sees plants broken and destroyed, he cannot help a feeling of pity. This shows that his humanity forms one body with plants. It may be said that plants are living things as he is. Yet, even when he sees tiles and stones shattered and crushed, he cannot help a feeling of regret. This shows that his humanity forms one body with tiles and stones. This means that even the mind of the small man necessarily has the humanity that forms one body with all. Such a mind is rooted in his Heaven-endowed nature, and is naturally intelligent, clear, and not beclouded.” (Chan Wing-tsit, tr., Instructions for Practical Living and Other Neo-Confucian Writings [New York: Columbia University Press, 1963], p. 272)
23. Cheng Chung-ying, New Dimension of Confucian and Neo-Confucian Philosophy (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1991), pp. 4-22.
24. Tu Wei-ming said: “Since the Way is not known as a norm that establishes a fixed pattern behavior, a person cannot measure the success or the failure of his conduct in terms of the degree of approxiation to an external ideal. The Way is always near at hand, and the journey must be constantly renewed here and now... It is like the art of archery... The Way, then, does not provide an ideal norm or a set of directives to be compiled with. It functions as a governing perspective and a point of orientation.” (Tu, Humanity and Self-cultivation [Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press, 1979], pp. 36f.; also see pp. 35f.).
25. Translation from Burton Watson, trans. The Complete Works Of Chuang Tzu (New York & London: Columbia University Press, 1968), p. 302.
26. For a preliminary proposal for Tao Christology, see Kim Heup Young, pp. 180-188.
27. See Jean Sang Ri, Confucius et Jesus Christ: La Premiere Theologie Chrestienne en Coree D’apres L‘oeuvre de Yl Piek lettre Confuceen 1754-1786 (Paris: Editions Beauchesne, 1979).