Abstract
Seven years after publishing his first book on public theology, Chung has released a second book on such matter, connecting that topic with postcolonial theology. This book provides a comprehensive investigation of postcolonial public theology from three perspectives, namely, (1) hermeneutical interpretation (Chs 1–3); (2) scientific understanding (Chs 4–6); and (3) interreligious dialogue (Chs. 7-9), as well as an afterword concerning ecology.
As an Asian-American scholar of world Christianity who has taught in a Lutheran seminary for many years, his interests on Asian theology and Lutheran theology are noticeable, especially his engagement with Kazoh Kitamori’s assessment of Luther’s theology of the cross (Ch. 1) and the correlation between Bonhoeffer’s status confessionis and Minjung theology (Ch. 2). Also, the book pursues an extensive investigation of interreligious conversations, especially with Buddhism (Chs 5, 8) and Confucianism (Ch. 2, afterword). It also deals with public theology in a colonised context, showing how those who were oppressed in the past can reconcile with the once-dominating power of the colonisers (Chs 4, 9).
The book offers a wide-ranging engagement with the ideas of public theology, highlighting the otherness of the colonised in a postcolonial world, and seeks to bridge the gap between the powerful and the powerless ones. Employing Luther’s hermeneutics of the gospel as viva vox evangelii, the book provides a helpful analysis of the complexity of the postcolonial context and suggests a Christian response to these dilemmas. While this book opens the dialogue of postcolonial public theology, several questions can be asked regarding the choice of topics. For example, although ecology is a huge topic in public theology, the afterword about ecology seems to be slightly irrelevant to the previous discussions. Moreover, while Confucianism can contribute to the conversation about ecology, its linkage with postcolonial theology is not obvious or, at least, is not shown in the chapter. Another minor issue is that this book has several typographical mistakes, especially as the word ‘public’ theology is sometimes written as ‘pubic’ theology (pp. 47, 62, 144). Nonetheless, as one of the first books that attempts to analyse this complicated matter, Chung’s book has begun this much-needed conversation and should be applauded for its efforts to engage in such dialogue.