Abstract
The twentieth century saw the emergence of a number of theologians and seminal thinkers from Asia, such as C S Song (Taiwan), Peter Phan (Vietnam), Sang Hyun Lee (Korea) among others, who for political and economic reasons took up residence in America. Among them, the Korean-American theology professor Jung Young Lee (1935-1996) specifically analyzes the doctrine of the Trinity from the perspective of an East Asian-originated metaphysical framework.
In aid of his ambitious theological reconstruction of the cardinal Christian doctrine, Lee appropriates the dialectical paradigm of Change from the eponymous Yijing (the Book of Changes), a collection of symbols originally used for divination but subsequently given philosophical meaning by imperial and Confucian commentators over many centuries. Lee makes the tenets of the Change metaphysic and its constituent elements of yin and yang the entire interpretive grid of his doctrinal system, which results from an attempt to read the Christian Scriptures from that framework.
On the basis of the comprehensiveness of the scope and intention of Lee’s theological enterprise, Lee can be assessed to be a systematic theologian in his own right. The aim of this dissertation will be to make that case. In engaging in a description of Lee’s theological system, we will consider the personal, intellectual, and cultural context of Lee’s theology (Ch. 1); expound his doctrine of God as Change with an outline of yin-yang philosophy (Ch. 2); and articulate his reconstructed doctrine of the Trinity (Ch. 3).
In the second major section, we will assess and consider Lee’s theological system on the basis of four conditions he identifies as goals and guidelines in The Trinity in Asian Perspective (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1996; TAP). These are the system’s agreement with the testimony of the Scriptures (Ch. 4; TAP, 12); its complementarity with existing theological systems (TAP, 12); its ability to comprehend the social dimensions of Trinitarian thought (TAP, 17); and its relevance to culture. In regard to the three latter points, we will explore how Lee’s theology serves to enrich social Trinity theory (Ch. 5) and the classical Trinitarian tradition as represented in the thought of the Cappadocian Fathers (Ch. 6) in a culturally relevant way. We conclude with a statement concerning the reason Lee should be considered to be a true systematic theologian from the East who brings Asian philosophical thought-forms to bear on present-day discussion of the doctrine of the Trinity (Ch. 7).
Along the way, we will examine how Lee’s theological construction satisfies other self-identified conditions including balancing masculine with feminine aspects in the Trinity (TAP, 17), not being dependent on Western validation, addressing the symbolic nature of theological conceptions of God, being cosmocentric in its approach (TAP, 18), being able to reinterpret ideas about the divine persons, and holding practical implications. We will also examine theological consequences of Lee’s doctrine and its cultural reception. The object of this study, to establish Lee as a systematic theologian, is crucial given the relative lack of attention to Lee’s major works from the systematic theological fraternity.