Phan's latest book is his personal and theological apologia in response to the investigations of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) and the USCCB's Committee on Doctrine (CD) of his Being Religious Interreligiously: Asian Perspectives on Interreligious Dialogue (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2014). The book begins with Phan's account of the period following the notification of investigation that he received from the CDF and, shortly thereafter, from the CD. Essentially, here we get his side of the story. He explains the process by which he was notified and the expectations communicated regarding his reply to the investigation charges. The appendix includes a complete record of communications received from the CDF and CD and Phan's reply letters.
The book gains momentum as it progresses, moving from the relatively staid historical account of the investigation correspondence (chapter 1) and an exposition of different kinds of theological magisteria and methodology (chapter 2) to a full-throated defense of his earlier work (chapters 3 to 6). What begins as a seemingly narrow personal narrative of controversy opens up to a rich argument for using Asian Catholic theology as a model for the universal church, particularly in light of religious pluralism.
Chapter 3 counters the accusation that Being Religious Interreligiously fails to adhere to the “proper” method of Catholic theology by making the case for “contextual” theology. After establishing his contextual way of proceeding, Phan puts forward a self-described Asian pneumatology that creates space for the Spirit to work outside Christianity in ways that cannot be reduced to praeparatio evangelica yet still comprise a single economy of salvation.
Chapter 4 tackles Dominus Iesus and offers a direct response to particular objections raised by the CDF and CD regarding Phan's earlier work. Phan does not limit himself here to a mere rebuttal but builds on the work of other Asian theologians to raise the possibility of an authentically “interfaith Christology.”
Chapter 5 crosses from storytelling about Phan's personal interreligious encounters to the development of a theology of religions that values soteriologically the home traditions of religious others. Phan suggests that “non-Christians” can be saved because of, not in spite of, their own religious traditions. He envisions a mutual complementarity between religions in which “Christianity no longer considers itself the center around which other religions orbit” (114). Underpinning this notion is a “kenotic” theology of religions in which Christianity “empties” itself in order to be more open to learning from religious others. Chapter 6 follows up with a “kenotic” ecclesiology that entails a decentering of institutional structures to privilege the reign of God as the focus of the church.
By the epilogue, I had practically forgotten that the impetus for the book lies in the Vatican and USCCB investigations. As Phan extols the “joy of religious pluralism,” he lays out a positive argument for taking seriously both other religions and religious others. In this way, the book goes beyond being merely a defensive reply to the investigations.
The author's characteristic sense of humor is evident throughout the text, as theological insights and critiques are coupled with wit, charm, and quips about his own shortcomings. Self-effacing remarks about Phan's erudition or holiness accompany the sharpest pokes at the CDF and CD. Additionally, the text consistently reflects Phan's awareness that some of his terminology and ideas (e.g., “non-Christian” and “complementarity”) may draw criticism from those who are engaged in comparative theology and interreligious dialogue. A couple of aspects of the text left something to be desired. First, the author's emphasis on the particularity and pluralism of the Asian context is subverted at times by his treatment of Asia as a monolithic whole. Second, the fifth chapter's argument for a “kenotic” theology of religions left me intrigued and eager for more specifics about what this approach would entail.
Scholars, particularly those interested in the inner workings of the doctrinal investigations, are the target audience of the book. Those engaged in systematics will appreciate Phan's robust theology, which is simultaneously indebted to classical sources and to his lived experience as an Asian theologian. For comparative theologians, Phan's constructive “kenotic” theology of mutual complementarity is worthy of consideration in light of his commitment to a precise-yet-expansive Asian Christian vision of religious pluralism.
