Heup Young Kim describes A Theology of Dao as “an example of doing theology from a Korean or East Asian Christian perspective” that helps locate the Christian tradition “more thoughtfully within the global community” (ix). Part 1 lays out a constructive foundation for considering theology as “theo-dao.” Part 2 offers dialogical engagements from this theo-dao perspective. Part 3 practices the theo-dao paradigm through essays on ecological theology and ethics.
Kim offers dào 道 as the foundation of a theology and ethic that is authentically East Asian. However, in addition to helping Christianity be more authentic in East Asian cultures, Kim employs dao to resolve the impasse between theology as logos or praxis. He argues the dao as a root-metaphor overcomes dualistic Western paradigms, embracing the “both-and” signaled by his reading of the yin-yang cosmology associated with dao metaphysics. As it embraces both being and becoming in harmony, Kim reasons, dao and its partner concept qì 氣 allow theology to take up a “pneumatoanthropocosmic trajectory” (31, inter al.) he thinks necessary for the third millennium.
The book contributes to both comparative and moral theology. In part 2 of the book, Kim introduces two thinkers rarely engaged in Christian theology: the Confucian master Yi T'eogye (1501–70) and Korean theologian Ryu Yŏng-mo. The engagement with Yi is most noteworthy, given his importance to the Four-Seven debate in Korean Confucianism. Additionally, part 3 offers helpful applications of East Asian concepts to the ecological crisis and related issues. As Kim notes, many of the ethical problems modern science faces are grounded in Western intellectual frameworks. Hence, Kim offers East Asian concepts as a way to gain a new field of vision that is effective and often compelling.
Apart from these benefits, the book has formal, sinological, and theological problems. Formally, the book is composed of several revised essays and lectures. Unfortunately, Kim often restates the same argument from earlier parts of the book, without developing it in a new way. Two clear examples are in his citations of Zhang Zai's Western Inscription and the Ugumch'i phenomenon; Kim simply repeats these citations for the same purposes in various chapters (e.g., 26, 64, and 89). Over the course of the book, these ideas aren't developed further, and therefore they eventually disappoint.
Sinologically, Kim's suggestion of dao as a root-metaphor for thinking about God and theology is compelling, but he fails to develop the concept sufficiently. Kim barely explains the concepts he employs apart from a few scant quotations from the Daodejing, and these are neither contextualized nor carefully exposited. Additionally, Kim relies heavily on the previous generation of sinology: W. T. de Bary, H. Fingarette, and principally Tu Wei-ming. There is no evidence Kim has consulted more recent research, including ground-breaking scholarship on the Mawangdui and Guodian excavations that have impacted interpretation of Kim's sources. More importantly, Kim leaves untouched the opinion of scholars such as R. Ames and Chengyang Li, who interpret dao in exclusively naturalistic terms. The book would be better for having considered how the dao might not fit into the Christian vision of the world.
Theologically, Kim presents the book as moving past the division between theo-logos and theo-praxis, offering theo-dao as a via tertia. However, Kim clearly and completely embraces the narrative of liberation theology's account of this division in the first place. Although he is a critical recipient of theo-praxis, Kim shows little inclination to take the “theo-logos” tradition seriously—it is merely an essentialist foil and a path to be avoided. Consequently, he uncritically accepts theo-praxis claims about the “myth of orthodoxy” and focuses on improving the theo-praxis perspective (e.g., 16ff). Kim's treatment of theo-logos is perfunctory and dismissive, making his claims weaker and unconvincing.
The central idea of Kim's project is undoubtedly praiseworthy, but the book's argument is unconvincing except to those already agreeable to it. Ultimately, Kim repeats rather than resolves many of the problems plaguing contemporary intercultural theology, such as his claim that Korean Christians drawing upon Western theology are not genuine participants in Korean cultural identity: “There is Christianity in Korea but no Korean Christianity! There are Christians in Korea but no Korean Christians!” (8). Still, despite these serious problems, academic theology is better off for his attempt that should call others to co-labor with Kim to discern how the dao might live in the Christian theological context.
