Abstract
This book is a Festschrift in honour of Peter Phan, a Vietnamese-American Professor of Theology at Georgetown University as he approaches his eightieth year. It has fifteen chapters arranged in four parts. The first three parts are organised according to Phan's major thematic interests: World Christianity and Migration; Christian Identity and Religious Pluralism; and Eschatology. Part 4 is entitled ‘The Legacy of Peter C. Phan’. The editor of the work, Leo D. Lefebure, offers an insightful overview of the chapters in his Introduction, and this is echoed in an Epilogue written by Phan himself.
Parts 1 and 2 might be broadly considered as studying the one theme: World Christianity. Part 1 has a certain telegraphic quality, with different authors, relatively briefly, updating the reader on aspects of global Christianity today. Gemma Tulud Cruz describes the vulnerability of migrants in the Americas, not least women and children. Jonathan Y. Tan describes how migrants within Southeast Asia today include significant numbers of young professionals who spend much of their time travelling across the region and who, in search of a sense of community, convert to the Catholic Church. One article in Part 2 performs largely this same function. Stephanie M. Wong describes conditions of Catholics in China.
However, three chapters in Part 2 advance reflection on World Christianity to ask how systematic and moral theology can be challenged by it. William P. Loewe reflects on issues of Christology; Brian Flannagan on ecclesiology; and Chester Gillis on a theology of marriage. The shift toward systematic theology becomes yet more evident in Part 3. Here contributors note that Phan regularly returns to the theme of eschatology, which he describes as ‘the final border’ which all individuals must cross (p. 276). Alan C. Mitchell reflects on how all Christians can be considered ‘we who have taken refuge’ (Heb. 6:18) (p. 178); Brian M. Doyle explores the indebtedness of Phan to the thought of Karl Rahner; and Keith Ward explores just what Christian eschatology can learn from religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism.
Part 4 begins with an article by Debora Tonelli entitled, ‘Decentralizing Theology: Peter Phan and the Second Vatican Council’. The author declares that the central legacy of Phan is his success in helping Christian theology take steps toward the ‘inclusion of Christian traditions rooted outside of the West within a worldwide community, having as reference the prophetic vision of the Second Vatican Council’ (p. 219). In stating this, she makes explicit an appreciation of Phan that is clearly shared by virtually all the other contributing authors to this book. The article that follows is authored by Charles E. Curran, ‘Peter Phan and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’ (CDF). This addresses an issue to which many previous articles had made reference (cf. the list of references to ‘Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’ in the Index). In 2005 the Vatican issued a seven-page document entitled ‘Some Observations on the Book by Ref. Peter Phan Being Religious Interreligiously: Asian Perspectives on Interfaith Dialogue’, which identifies ‘serious ambiguities and doctrinal problems in the book’ (p. 235). Curran, himself a well-known recipient of attention from the CDF, describes how unjust are many of the procedures of this Vatican institution. Comments made by many contributors to this book tend to be dismissive of the arguments raised by the CDF and to energetically defend Phan. However, it is notable that at least two contributors adopt a mildly critical position toward Phan in a way that echoes the CDF. Both suggest that ambiguities exist in Phan's writings that could be clarified by more precise philosophical thinking.
One such author is Keith Ward, an eminent Anglican theologian, who is influenced by analytical philosophy. In his article, ‘On Religions, Peter Phan, and Christian Expansionism’, he states ‘It is important to distinguish questions about the truth of propositions from questions about the possibility of salvation’ (p. 207), and implies that Phan is less than clear about this distinction. He acknowledges that most religious language is metaphorical and analogical, but he claims the Christians still need to affirm that certain propositions about ultimate reality are true. He asserts: ‘probably after death it will be seen by all that the most adequate symbol for humans of this reality is the Trinitarian model’ (pp. 209–10). He raises a question about whether ‘Buddhists can be saved despite their religious beliefs [on life after death], or because of them?’ He notes, ‘Phan opts for the latter alternative’ and adds, ‘that is probably what worried the American Catholic bishops’ (p. 208).
A second critic of Phan is William P. Loewe, who comments on his Christology. Loewe declares that he is influenced by the critical realist philosopher and theologian, Bernard Lonergan, and issues a series of challenges to Phan. He questions the value of the ‘method of correlation’ that is widely adopted by Phan as a style of reasoning (p. 120). Next, in a way that has overlaps with what Ward says about true propositions, he suggests that Phan needs to clarify the difference between ‘Judgement in which the truth about the real is grasped, and understanding, which yields to a hypothetical intelligibility’ (p. 121). He avers that if theology does not make this epistemological clarification, it will be unlikely to maintain ‘the distinction between doctrines and systematics’ (p. 121.) Finally, and perhaps most radically, he asks: ‘Does the project of interfaith Christology fall after all within the realm of Christian theological discourse?’ (pp. 120–21). In the light of this last critique, he proposes that Phan's current project of an ‘interfaith Christology’ be substituted by a form of ‘dialogical Christology’ (p. 121).
Readers must judge for themselves what to make of the criticisms of Ward and Loewe. However, it is striking that, in the Epilogue, Phan responds to both these critics with respect and even with an openness to accept their criticisms. Concerning the comments of Ward, he praises the eminent career that this Anglican theologian has enjoyed and limits himself to stating, ‘he honours me with reflections on what he calls my “Christian expansivism”’ (p. 277). His response to Loewe is more interesting. He states, ‘There is no place here for a lengthy and detailed response to Loewe's critical questions, but I urge readers to pay close attention to them, especially if they themselves want to develop a Christology along the lines I have suggested’ (p. 276). There is a humility, a generosity, and a wisdom in this statement that serves as a helpful means to evaluate the legacy of Peter Phan: this priest is a path-breaking thinker who helped Catholic theology adapt to Vatican II and to accept that the signs of the times are as valid a source of theology as are Scripture and tradition. However, he left many questions unaddressed and looks to his successors to fulfil whatever is lacking in his work. For those interested in pursuing the question of how a Lonergan-based approach could illuminate reflection on World Christianity, one can recommend Joseph Ogbonnaya, African Perspectives on Culture and World Christianity (Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2017).