You are on page 1of 16

Critical Analysis of Jung Young Lees Marginality: The Key to Multicultural Theology

Hunn Choi Any theology that is not in touch with our life experience cannot be a living theology (2).

Introduction and the Purpose of the Book All theology is contextual,1 which means that theology never happens in a vacuum but always within a specific context, that is to say, context-sensitive and context-specific. As Catholic theologian Stephen B. Bevans writes, There is no such thing as theology; there is only contextual theology the attempt to understand Christian faith in terms of a particular context is really a theological imperative and cannot be something on the fringes of the theological enterprise. It is at the very center of what it means to do theology in todays world.2 As Robert J. Schreiter has put it trenchantly, there is now a realization that all theologies have contexts, interests, relationships of power, special concernsand to pretend that this is not the case is to be blind.3 In this book, Marginality: The Key to Multicultural Theology, Jung Young Lee,4 using marginality as a model for theologizing from his own particular experience in life as an Asian American immigrant,5 develops Asian-American theology as a contextual and autobiographical theology that aims to raise the voices of the marginalized and to seek

1 2

Angie Pears, Doing Contextual Theology (London & New York: Routledge, 2010), 168. Stephen B. Bevans, Models of Contextual Theology (Maryknoll: Orbis, 2011), 3. 3 Robert J Schreiter, Constructing Local Theologies (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1985), 4. 4 Dr. Jung Young Lee, professor of systematic theology in The Theological School at Drew University, passed on October 11, 1996. He was author of more than 15 books and 40 articles. He was born in North Korea and came to the US in 1955 where he attended Garrett Evangelical Seminary and Boston University. An ordained United Methodist pastor, he was also founder and first chair of the Korean Religions group of the AAR. 5 Lees Asian-American perspective is rooted in Northeast Asian culture and his theological training in the United States. He speaks as an immigrant and as one who is a visible minority. When he refers to Asian-American, he is specifically designating Northeast Asian-Americans, mainly Chinese-Americans, Korean-Americans, and JapaneseAmericans.

liberation.6 For him, the meaning of marginality is determined from the perspective of racial and cultural determinants, by using cultural contexts as the primary source for understanding the marginal experience that includes suffering, rejection, discrimination, and oppression (9). The puprose of the book is to basically write as an Asian-American person a multicultural theology for people on the margin, proposing a new model for developing contextual theologies without their becoming deminating. Rather than moving any one class or ethnic group or gender to the center, Lee redefines margnality as itself central and highlights what it can mean to follow the very paradigm of creative marginality, Jesus Christ (backcover).7

The Main Thesis of the Book Lees main thesis is that we need an inclusive approach as an alternative to contextual theology to make a marginal theology holistic and appropriate for a multicultural society (75). His marginal theology is a radically new theology of marginality, autobiographically assessed from an Asian-American multicultural experience. He critiques the classical definition of marginality, as being in-between but not part of any, for being a definition of the dominant group, one-sided, and incompleteself-negating, moving from in-between to in-both, then, to in-beyond. The classical version emphasizes only the negative aspects of alienation, rejection, struggles, and so forth, and it is self-negating. He, aware of this risk, suggests a creative approach to marginality that enhances a classical understanding of it rather than replaces it. He moves from in- between (classical marginality) to in-both (contemporary marginality) and later suggests in-beyond, which simultaneously affirms and transcends both

For Lee, Asian-Americans are North Asian-Americans, mainly Chinese-Americans, Korean-Americans, and Japanese-Americans with whom I closely identify (3). 7 As Steven Ybarrola points out, perhaps, no one has better articulated the theology of marginality than Lee, which I also agree with. See Steven Ybarrolas An Anthropological Approach to Diaspora Missiology (http://ureachtoronto.com/content/anthropological-approach-diaspora-missiology).

negative and positive experiences of marginal existence. Lees first main point of the book is that theology must abandon the exclusive thinking of either-or typified by the Aristotelian logic of excluded middle and adopt the inclusive thinking of marginal people represented by neither/nor (in-between) and both/and (in-both) exemplified. He introduces three key concepts as different ways to think about the relationship between the marginal (Asian) and the majority (American) dual identity of Asian-Americans: inbetween, in-both, and in-beyond (2975). First, inbetween (between two cultures, for example) is neither/nor, belonging to none. An in-between person is marginalized overtly or covertly by not being able to find a place of identity from which to relate to self and others. Experience of in-between cannot determine who I am. Second, inboth means that one can embrace both the old and the new places; for example, one can become both Korean and American without negating either one. At this stage, the inboth of marginality can affirm who I am wherever I live, not according to what others say I am. Third, in-beyond the paradoxical experience of being both in-between and in-both, is to say that one can stay in both places and go beyond them. One does not leave marginality, rather one becomes a new marginal person who overcomes marginality without ceasing to be a marginal person (62). One lives in both realms without being bound by either of them. (63) At this stage, one can identify with a greater community of all, beyond ones own cultural norms or comfort zone. The second point is that people are identified in multiple ways in terms of being on the margin or in the center. At times, they can be identified with those in the center in some areas of their lives, while being at the margins in other areas. For example, I am identified with those in the center in terms of my gender (male), education, and religion (Protestant), but in terms my race and ethnicity, I am identified with those on the margins in the United States, though I am in

the center in the Korean-American community. As Jaesang Lyu writes, Marginality and centrality are not opposite ends of a continuum in simplistic ways. They are interwoven in a web of dynamic processes in which interacting aspects of social identity place people in one moment on the margins and in the next moment in the center.8 The dynamics of marginality and centrality can be explained by describing multiple waves in a pond: I observed the peaceful pond. Suddenly a huge fish jumped up at the center of the pond, creating enormous sound of water and powerful waves lapped endlessly toward the shore. When the waves finally reached the edge, however, they began to ebb back to the center from which they originated. Their backward movement was an amazing discovery for me, even though I should have expected it from my study of elementary physics. Perhaps I have seen it, but had not paid attention. Why did I not pay attention to ebbs returning to the center, but noted only the waves coming out to the edge? Why was I interested only in something happening at and from the center? Why did I neglect what happened at and from the margin? (30) According to Lee, marginality and centrality are so mutually inclusive and relative that it is imbalanced to stress one more than the other. However, he stresses marginality because it has been neglected. By stressing marginality over centrality, we can restore the balance between the two poles. Such a balance, which creates harmony, finds a new center, the authentic center, which is no longer oppressive but liberative to the people located at the center or the margin. In this respect, stressing marginality in theology is not a mistake but the correct approach (31). The aim of his contextual theology is not to move one or another group from the margin to the center, but to redefine marginality itself as central. The third point is divine marginalization. In the person of Jesus, we see a marginalized person, who was born as a marginalized person (incarnation), lived a marginalized life and died a marginalized death. Lee, thinking that immigrants as marginal people can identify with this image of Christ, proposes a marginal Christ. He states,
8

Jaesang Lyu, Marginality and Coping: Communal Contextual Narrative Approach to Pastoral Care with Korean American Christians, (Ph.D. Diss. University of Denver, 2009), 32-33.

Jesus was a new marginal person par excellence... He was a stranger to his own people On the cross, he was rejected not only by his own people but also by his own Father. He was certainly a man in-between two different worlds without fully belonging neither Although he was rejected, he was a reconciler who broke down walls between Jews and Gentiles, between men and women, between the law and grace. He was a Jew by birth and lineage, but also a man of whole humanity by his act of love (71-72). For Lee, the incarnation can be understood not only as divine marginalization (78) but also as divine immigration (83). As Lyu rightly points out, Even though human immigration cannot be compared to divine immigration directly, divine marginalization can provide a paradigm of a new marginality, which is shown in the life of Jesus Christ. In this new paradigm of the divine marginalization, the experience of immigration is no longer understood as a passive form of marginality.9 Jesus chose to be at the margin by belonging neither to heaven nor to earth and yet fully living as both divine and human. In the same way, he lived an authentic life as a new marginal person through his death, which Lee describes as a total negation of life of neither/nor, and resurrection, which was a total affirmation of life, in both/and (72). Then, the margin is the locusa focal point, a new and creative corewhere two (or multiple) worlds emerge (60). Jesus Christ became the margin of marginality yet overcame marginality, living in-beyond and being in-between and in-both simultaneously. As servant he was in the world at the margin of marginality and suffered for the transgression of the world. As beggar he was despised and rejected by others but free from the worlds dominance that marginalized him. Jesus was in the world but not of it. He negated the world as a beggar but affirmed it as a servant (89). The fourth point is that in this paradoxical reconstruction of marginality, the marginalized can be empowered as new marginal people who participate in the work of transforming

Ibid., 34-5.

negative marginality, not at the margin defined by dominant groups, but the new margin, the margin of marginality (60). For Korean Americans, marginal Christ means experiencing the authentic reality of life by being neither fully Korean nor fully American, yet being both Korean and American to the fullest extent. The new marginalized people do not seek a center, a place of dominance, but discover and actualize their vocation as the new marginalized people, yielding positively, rather than reacting against opposites. By yielding they will eventually overcome their marginality, and the centralist perspective will give way to marginality (89). New marginal people are committed to follow the model of Christ, who is a new marginal being, through the life of discipleship (101-102). Marginal way of life has a special meaning to Christians. Christs way is to love one another as he loved us (72). The marginal way of both neither/nor and both/and life is the Christian way of life. Christian love denies all and accepts all. Love denies our selfishness in order to accept others; love accepts other in order to deny our selfishness. The neither/nor negates our selfishness, but the both/ad accepts all. In love the total negation and total acceptance take place simultaneously Love is not exclusive but always inclusive (72). So the power of new marginality is love, which is willing to suffer redemptively by accepting others unconditionally as Jesus did on the cross (73). Such life of radical love can be possible when the new marginal people realize that they are part of creative corethe very creativity of God manifest in Jesus Christ (152). They are now part of a not old but new marginality, which Lee calls as in beyond. This is to be in the world but not of the world (72). A new marginal person is the one who overcomes marginality without ceasing to be a marginal person and who is in both of them without either being blended (62). By fully accepting the call to become a new marginal people, the marginalized can have agential power to transform the reality of oppression not through their automated

reaction to the dominant at the center but through their participation in the transformative works of God in Christian love.10 Also, we are called to be marginal people in a positive sense, not only because Jesus was marginal, but also because marginality is an intrinsic part of creation, which could not continue without its marginal members and components. Thus marginality is part of life and makes its essential contribution. Jesus became the margin of marginality by giving up everything he had. To be a servant means to have no personal worth, no innate value. Servants do not belong to the dominant group. To take on the nature of servitude after having had the nature of God means to become the precise margin of marginality (82). Jesus becomes the pioneer of new marginality and the exemplar of all marginal people (99). For Christians the par excellence of living in multiple worlds without being captured or exhausted by them. Jesus own consent to his distance from the majority cultures of his day enabled him to use his marginality creatively in service of his call. The final point is the extention of the previous that the mission of the new marginal people is to overcome marginality, not by becoming the center, but through marginality. Genuine liberation comes only when the marginal people refuse to accept the norms of the center. They must deconstruct the centralist ideology and become the anti-structural community of liminality (153). They do so through the power of love and suffering. Lee concludes his book with reflections on how marginal people can overcome feelings of rejection, humiliation, alienation, loneliness, nothingness, and come to a vision of wholeness and new life: Marginality is overcome through marginality. When all of us are marginal, love becomes the norm of our lives we then become servants to one another in love (170).

10

Ibid., 36.

Analysis of the Methodological Approach of the Author First of all, let me address about Lees sources for his contextual theology. One extremely important source for his contextual theology is his personal experience of marginality including suffering, rejection, discrimination, and oppression. As Bevans rightly points out, doing theology is not only a matter of identifying ones sources; it is about how these sources are employed, about which sources receive a certain priority, and about which source serves as its starting point. History is personal. History happens when persons are engaged in the story of history. For Lee, this is where theological work begins. Telling a personal story is not itself theology but a basis of theology, indeed the primary context for doing theology. This is why one cannot do theology for another. If theology is contextual, it must certainly be at root autobiographical (7). Theology and personal story are inseparable. Individual stories offer an autobiographical context of theology (7). Basically, for Lee, Asian American contexts and stories are a vital source for the construction of Asian American theology. Secondly, writing from an Asian (Korean) American perspective, what Lee is proposing is a new theology based on marginality, which serves not only as a hermeneutical paradigm but as a key to the substance of the Christian faith (1), because most Asian Americans, when speaking of their own cultural and social experience and predicament in the U.S., identify with the image of marginality. For Lee, an Asian American hermeneutics is quite different from a hermeneutical method of Western intellectual developments. His fundamental question is: Why should Asian American Christians who have quite different histories and religious traditions be governed by the Western hermeneutic method?11 He writes, No hermeneutic method is universally applicable. A method of interpretation is always conditioned by a particular culture and historical context: method and
11

Jung Young Lee, Multicultural and Global Theological Scholarship: An Asian American Perspective, Theological Education, 37:1 (Autumn 1995): 43-55.

context are inseparable, for method is a product of context. A different context produces a different method. Because the context of Asian Americans is different from that of European Americans, Asian Americans need a different hermeneutic method to understand their Christian faith Asian Americans must develop their own indigenous hermeneutic...12 So Lee offers a specific Asian American perspective, an example of reading Scripture from another perspective, perspective of marginality, perspective of himself as a marginal person, or from his own social location. Fernando Segovia and Mary Tolbert, in addressing the importance of social location, write, Thus, factors traditionally left out of consideration were now becoming areas of exploration-for example, gender, race, ethnic origins, class, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, and sociopolitical contexts-with a focus on real, flesh-andblood readers who were always and inescapably situated both historically and culturally and whose reading and interpretation of the texts were seen as affected by their social location.13 It is without doubt that social location matters. Lees social location and cultural experiences of marginality led him to a unique approach to reading the Bible. He offers a fresh perspective, viewing Scripture through marginality. He reinterprets the main themes of traditional (the Western dominant) theology such as God, Jesus, creation, the fall, people of God, and the church. All of these themes are dealt with in this book through his new marginality paradigm. For me, what Lee employs here is a hermeneutics of marginality at best. As Wonhee Anne Joh rightly points out, By way of being in-both, Lee suggests what he terms as in-beyond to signify a new hermeneutics of marginality.14

Critique First of all, in this book, Lee builds his theology out of what is called an anthropological
12 13

Ibid., 44. Fernando F. Segovia, And They Began to Speak in Other Tongues: Competing Modes of Discourse in Contemporary Biblical Criticism, in Reading from This Place, Vol. 1: Social Location and Biblical Interpretation in the United States, eds. Segovia and Tolbert (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995) 32. 14 Wonhee Anne Joh, Heart of the Cross (Louisvill: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), 64.

model. In the anthropological model, human experience is placed at center. Humankind is viewed as the place of the revelation and a source of theology. Revelation occurs in the culture. Without any doubts, Lee treats Korean American life experiences, situations, questions and interests very seriously. The anthropological model would emphasize that it is within human culture that we find Gods revelation not as a separate supracultural message, but in the very complexity of culture itself, in the warp and woof of human relationships, which are constitutive of cultural existence.15 Theology is a form of cultural activity.16 As Bevans rightly points out, for me, Lee starts where the faith actuall lives, and that is in the midst of peoples lives. It is in the world as it is, a world bounded by history and culture To ignore this would be to ignore the living source of theology.17 However, in my view, Lee goes far beyond what the anthropological model suggests: But to listen only to the present and not to the past as recorded in scripture and tradition would be like listening to a symphony in monaural when, by the flick of a switch, it could come alive in full stereo.18 As Bevans notes, [I]n some way or another every effort of contextual theology is an effort of translation: not only the presentexperience, culture, social location, and social changeneeds to be attended to; the experience of the pastscripture and traditionneeds to be attended to as well. Simply to discover the gospel emerging from a particular situation is the ideal of the anthropological model, but that is, to my knowledge, never the real situation. In my view, Lees theology of marginality is a balanced combination of theology from above and theology from below. He uses experiences as starting points. In the past Western systematic theologians divide theology into 1) theology from above, which centers in Gods communication and 2) theology from below, which centers on the communitys experiences. According to Lee, unlike contemporary liberation theology, which approaches from below or
15 16

Bevans, 56. Kathryn Tanner, Theories of culture: a new agenda for theology (Fortress, Minneapolis, 1997), 63. 17 Bevans, 61. 18 Ibid.

10

from the praxis of the poor and the oppressed, a marginal theology approaches from the margin and connects above and below, and left, right, and center (73). Though Lee criticizes traditional Western theology as theology from above, that is, from the Word of God as a universal truth from all people regardless of context (74-5), his approach is not either/or but both/and, or, I might say, yielding positively, rather than reacting against opposites, enhancing the theology from above rather than replacing it. For example, Lee criticizes that in the history of Christianity, Jesus was understood from the perspective of centrality. He was regarded as the center of centrality (78). On earth, Jesus-Christ is the center of marginality, but later on Christ-Jesus is also a new center, the center of centrality in a new way: He, a new center or a creative core, emerged among marginalized people (96). After resurrection, Christ-Jesus appeared to many. We must acknowledge both his Lordship and his servanthood. Lee interprets the the Son of the Living God phrase differently: To be the Son of the living God does not mean at the center of centrality. It means to be at the margin of marginality, the servant of all servant (96). However, not Jesus-Christ, but Christ-Jesus, after resurrection, appeared to the marginalized people as the Lord. The lordship of Jesus takes on a new form, this time, not through humiliation and humility, but through resurrection and exaltation. Now, the lordship of Christ-Jesus became the creative core of marginalized people (96). What Lee attempts to do in this book is to see and think of ourselves from the other side, the side of the margin: to observe, to understand things from the perspective of marginality, and to see what role the margin plays in our understanding of the Christian faith (31), even Jesus Christ. Lees intention in stressing marginality was to restore the balance between marginality and centrality, because such a balance creates harmony and find a new center. Indeed, [Jesus] was human and divine, fully human and fully divine.

11

Secondly, Lees marginal theology is not merely a process of faih seeking understanding, but a process of faith seeking intelligent action.19 Lee takes praxis seriously, rejecting as irrelevant an academic type of theology that is divorced from action, assuming a radical break in epistemology which makes commitment the first act of theology, and enaging in critical reflection on praxis.20 According to Schreiter, a Christian praxis of faith, emerged in oppressive in situations, has a theoretical and a practical moment, both of which as considered essential to the theological process.21 For Lee, theoretical moments came when daily existential experiences of marginality in the form of suffering, rejection, discrimination, and oppression came real for him. He criticizes the vision of America as a melting pot in his early migrant life, by describing the ethnic minority as marginal people. Marginal people usually belong to subordinate groups, while those at the centre usually belong to dominant groups. Marginal people are then the oppressed, the powerless, and the rejected. Those who are not part of the institutions that dominate can be regarded as marginal people. It is impossible to discuss all types of marginality; however, all such forms and intensities of marginal experience share one thing in common: they allow the individual to know what it means to be at the edges of existence (33-4). Taking from R. E. Parks theory on the process of marginalisation, Lee states four stages, evisioned in the American idea of melting pot: contact or encounter; competition, accommodation; assimilation. He stresses that the first stage is the initial contact or encounter between the central people who are white and the marginal people who are colored. He asserts that this contact itself is an experience of marginality. He also correctly points out that, in theory, in the final stage marginality due to racial and cultural distance is suppsed to disappear, but it is not; marginality is only a temporary condition and an in-between stage of assimilation process, but, because total assimilation is impossible, marginality persists (36). Also, his theological
19 20

Bevans, 73. Ibid. 21 Schreiter, Constructing Local Theology, 91.

12

moments are not without reflection on how God is active in human history,22 just that his marginal experiences allowed him to reflect on God from a new perspective, a marginal perspective. His analysis, view, and understanding with the perceived activity of Godfor example, incarnation as divine marginalization and immigration, and Jesus self-marginalization (self-emptying, a transition from divinity to humanity, but also self-giving, self-sacrificing, even unto death on the cross)lead to transformative action on the part of the community of believers. Life of in-beyond was a result of a dialectical process of reflection and action. Lees theology of marginality does not remain only with reflection nor does it be reduced to pratice. Good reflection leads to action, and action is not complected until it has been reflected upon. Lee did not stop at in-between or in-both but went beyond and found a new horizon, in-beyond.

Conclusion Asian-American immigrants live on the hyphen between their Asian origins and the American culture in which they live. Their hyphenated existence is one of both-and in which one cannot exist without the other, without being incomplete. As such, the hyphen signifies that two separate entities are now joined and belong together.23 As articulated by the author, the O.T. patriarchs, the children of Israel, the disciples, and Jesus himself lived lives of marginality, and therefore to be followers of Christ the church needs to see itself as being in-between and in-both, and in-beyond. For Asian-American Christians, it is their devotion to God, their sincere faith in the midst of various difficulties, and their desire to learn Gods word and obey Him that place them in the center of Gods kingdom. It is human nature to move away from the margins to be part of the center of the dominant society. However, Jesus, as a marginal person, lived a
22 23

Ibid. Yoka van Dyk, HyphenatedLiving: Between Longing and Belonging: An Exposition of Displacement as Liminality in the Transnational Condition. See http://aut.researchgateway.ac.nz/bitstream/10292/273/1/vanDykY.pdf.

13

marginalized life and died a marginalized death. Being at the margin enables the marginalized to share the experience of Jesus marginalization and adds meaning to their own multiple aspects of marginalization. Being on the margin, Asian-American Christians can exemplify and empower other Asian-Americans as well as Americans, to live in the center of Gods Kingdom and will for their lives. Just as those in the Bible who lived a hyphenated existence, like Joseph living in Egypt and the prophet Daniel living in Babylon, as worshippers of Yahweh living in a foreign land, so Asian-American Christians are also called to live lives in which they negotiate competing sets of loyalties and responsibilities, finding new ways to be all three: Asians, Americans, Christians.24 Thus Asian-Americans should see a new possibility, that the margin of a new society can become, as Sinyil Kim rightly observed, a place of Gods calling (Genesis 28:l0-20; Exodus 3:l12; Judges 10:2-3), a place of Gods training (Daniel 19-17; Jonah 2:l-10; Matthew 4:l-ll), a place for a new beginning (1 Kings 19:l-18; Acts 8:26; 1 Timothy 3:16), and a place for a new ministry of shalom, Gods original plan for harmony, right relationship with God and others, and the proper functions of all elements in the world.25 Suddenly, a new task arises in the new context of bringing shalom in all aspects of life ethnically (Jonah 1:ll-13; Romans 10:12), culturally (Daniel 1:3-21), and spiritually (John 3:16; Acts 16:30-34).

24

Kate Bowler, Generation K: Korean American Evangelicals (Books and Culture, May/June 2011, online: http://www.booksandculture.com/articles/2009/mayjun/generationk.html). 25 Sinyil Kim, Korean Immigrants and Their Mission:Exploring the Missional Identity of Korean Immigrant Churches in North America Doctor of Missiology Dissertation (Asbury Theological Seminary, 2008) 7.

14

Asian-Americans must find a new way of reading and interpreting culture and scripture that will enable them to see themsleves as Gods people who are in the process of moving from the margins of society to the center of Gods kingdom.26

Bibliography Bevans, Stephen B. Models of Contextual Theology. Maryknoll: Orbis, 2011. Bowler, Kate. Generation K: Korean American Evangelicals. Books and Culture, May/June 2011, online: http://www.booksandculture.com/articles/2009/mayjun/generationk.html. Joh, Ann Wonhee. Heart of the Cross. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006. Kang, Steve. The Bible and the Communion of Saints: A Churchly Plural Reading of Scripture. In This Side of Heaven: Race, Ethnicity, and Christian Faith. Eds. Robert J. Priest and Alvaro L. Nieves. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Kim, Sinyil. Korean Immigrants and Their Mission:Exploring the Missional Identity of Korean Immigrant Churches in North America. Doctor of Missiology Dissertation: Asbury Theological Seminary, 2008. Lee, Jung Young. Multicultural and Global Theological Scholarship: An Asian American Perspective, Theological Education, 37:1 (Autumn 1995). Lyu, Jaesang. Marginality and Coping: Communal Contextual Narrative Approach to Pastoral Care with Korean American Christians. Ph.D. Diss. University of Denver, 2009. Pears, Angie. Doing Contextual Theology. London & New York: Routledge, 2010). Schreiter, Robert J. Constructing Local Theologies. Maryknoll: Orbis, 1985.

26

Steve Kang, The Bible and the Communion of Saints: A Churchly Plural Reading of Scripture, in This Side of Heaven: Race, Ethnicity, and Christian Faith, eds. Robert J. Priest and Alvaro L. Nieves (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 234.

15

Segovia, Fernando F. And They Began to Speak in Other Tongues: Competing Modes of Discourse in Contemporary Biblical Criticism. In Reading from This Place, Vol. 1: Social Location and Biblical Interpretation in the United States. Eds. Segovia and Tolbert. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995. Tanner, Kathryn. Theories of culture: a new agenda for theology. Fortress, Minneapolis, 1997. van Dyk, Yoka. HyphenatedLiving: Between Longing and Belonging: An Exposition of Displacement as Liminality in the Transnational Condition. See http://aut.researchgateway.ac.nz/bitstream/10292/273/1/vanDykY.pdf. Ybarrola, Steven. An Anthropological Approach to Diaspora Missiology (http://ureachtoronto.com/content/anthropological-approach-diaspora-missiology).

16