Reimagining Christian Theology from Asian and Asian American Protestant Experiences: A Methodological Typology

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article under examination is particularly significant because it highlights various perspectives within Asian Protestant theology and the theology developed within the Asian diaspora, especially Asian American theology. The author analyses some theological currents that are representative of contemporary contextual theology. The first perspective considered is based on the use of conceptual categories specific to Asian thought, such as Tao and Han, drawing on the work of Andrew S. Park. These notions are crucial for understanding the configuration of Asian contextual theology. The author presents this position in a detailed manner, emphasizing how it enables a fruitful connection between Asian intercultural experience, the Christian tradition of faith and Western theological reflection. Next, the theologies of Yung Young Lee and Sang Hyun Lee whose reflections are deeply shaped by the marginalization experienced by Asian Americans are examined. The author then discusses the Theology of Struggle or liberation theology proposed by Eleazar S. Fernandez, who develops in dialogue with political and social struggles in the Philippines. Subsequently, the perspective of Fumitaka Matsuoka is presented, centered on the theme of racial identity (faith of color) among Asian Americans and its theological implications with particular reference to the “racial issues inherent in contemporary multicultural society”. Finally, the author introduces the Post-colonial Theology with particular attention to the theology of Pui-lan Kwok, whose postcolonial theology is illustrated through historical, dialogical, and diasporic perspectives, and Anne Joh who develops a postcolonial Christology within a feminist framework, drawing inspiration from her own experiences related to the categories of Han and Yeong.

Overall, the article offers a clear and well-organized presentation of the various theological perspectives examined, highlighting the specificity of Asian Protestant theology and its grounding in the intercultural experiences of the authors considered. However, the contribution presents some limits that should be addressed before publication:

1. Preliminary definition of Asian Protestant theology. It would be necessary to clarify what is meant by this expression and on what criteria the adjective “Asian” or “protestant theology” is based. The mere geographical origin or ethnic background of the authors is not, in itself, sufficient to qualify a theological elaboration as “Asian.” The issue becomes even more complex when diasporic contexts or dual-national identities are considered. Moreover, the article should explore how categories such as Tao, Han, and Yeong are integrated in order to define a truly contextual theology.
2. Absence of an original theological perspective from the author. As also emerges in the conclusion of the author, the contribution merely presents and summarizes the positions of the theologians discussed, without offering properly a personal elaboration that could advance theological research. The approach adopted thus appears more descriptive than critically constructive. An intercultural theology, instead, could provide a perspective capable of placing Asian elaborations in dialogue with the Western theological tradition, critically recognizing its limits but also its positive elements.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1, 

Thank you for your careful reading and constructive feedback. I greatly appreciate your affirmation of the manuscript’s organization and the value of presenting multiple streams of Asian and Asian American theology. I have revised the manuscript to address your two major concerns:

1) Definition of “Asian Protestant theology”

I added a clearer working definition of “Asian/Asian American” and “Protestant” in the Introduction. “Asian/Asian American” is not treated as a purely ethnic/geographic label, but as a theological problem-space shaped by diaspora, racialization, colonial modernity, and intercultural negotiation. “Protestant” is clarified as a broad theological grammar (Scripture-centered hermeneutics; grace–justice dialectic; reform/public witness; eschatological hope expressed as praxis), rather than merely denominational identity. I also explain how Asian categories such as han and Tao function methodologically (as translation strategies) rather than as decorative cultural references. 

2) Need for a more original/constructive contribution

I agree that the earlier version risked being read as descriptive. In response, I reframed the paper as a “methodological typology”: the article now differentiates the theologians by the ‘operative logics’ through which lived experience is translated into theological reasoning (rather than by themes alone). I operationalize these criteria in Table 1 (experiential site; theological question; operative method; normative aim; Protestant grammar; representative interlocutors) and revised section openers to foreground methodological differentiation. 

I also commissioned a professional English-editing service to improve clarity, style, and consistency, and I are submitting the English-editing certificate with the revision.

Sincerely, 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the reviewed article entitled “Reimagining Protestant Theology Based on the Experiences of Asian Christians”, it is impossible to find any clear references to Protestant theology. In fact, it is unclear why the author announces that he will discuss Protestant theology at all, since his synthetic presentations of the achievements of several American theologians of Asian origin do not contain any references to any type of Protestant theology. The reviewer managed to find two microscopic references to Protestantism. One is a sentence on page 10: ‘Thirdly, the church should work for a new reformation through repentance and conversion’ – this however does not yet reveal the connection between the theology discussed and the Reformation and the theology that followed it. The second reference is the mention of Moltmann's name in the last part of the article, but without any clear references to his theology. Similarly, there is nothing Protestant in the conclusions, apart from the information that the authors discussed are Protestants. It would therefore be necessary either to change the title of the article or to actually show the references of the theologians' ideas to the theological legacy of Protestant thinkers.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2, 

Thank you for your candid critique regarding the manuscript’s use of “Protestant theology.” Your comment was helpful in identifying a mismatch between the original framing and what the text actually demonstrated. I have revised the manuscript to address this directly.

Protestant theology / title-content alignment

I try to clarify that “Protestant” is used in this study as an “analytic theological grammar” rather than a narrow confessional lineage. I added a dedicated subsection articulating four recurring Protestant features across the figures examined—Scripture-centered hermeneutics, grace–justice dialectic, reform/public witness, and eschatological hope as praxis—and I map these features across the five types in the typology (including Table 1 and the revised Conclusion). This revision is intended to ensure that the Protestant dimension is explicitly demonstrated in the analysis rather than implied only by authors’ affiliations. I revise Introduction (Section 1.2); Table 1 (“Protestant Grammar” column); and Conclusion related to your review.

Sincerely,  

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you so much for this article!

This article provides a great summary of key figures in Asian American theology. It also attempts to establish a new typology for the field, which I appreciate.

However, the manuscript requires further development in some critical areas. First of all, the author should engage with existing frameworks, such as the generational typologies proposed by Jonathan Tran and Heejun Yang in their books. Without reviewing some existing typologies, this article may not be adequate for other academic readers.

Second, the proposed typology lacks sufficient conceptual clarity. For example, it is difficult to see clear differences between Andrew Park, Eleazar S. Fernandez, and Jung Young Lee. They all somehow start their theologies based on their struggling experiences from their racial identity. Also, both Park and Lee use interreligious concepts to develop their theologies. Please remember their other works that utilize Eastern religions.  The concepts of Han, marginality, liminality, in-betweenness, struggle are all similar concepts, depicting Asian Americanness' difficulty in their lives. Anne Joh also talks about Han. What are the differences between Joh's and Park's concepts of Han? To differentiate these thinkers effectively, the author should consult a broader range of primary texts for each theologian. The author only uses one or two resources per figure. Also, to move beyond nuanced similarities, the author should highlight more of their distinct methodological contributions between the figures.

 

Thirdly, the article should broaden its representative scope for each category. For instance, while Andrew Park is an important figure, the author should acknowledge other Minjung-influenced theologians in the U.S. to demonstrate the breadth of that specific type. Similarly, the author might engage with the collaborative work in Journey at the Margin (ed. Jung Young Lee and Peter Phan), where various contributors commonly utilize autobiographical method and "in-between" experiences. Expanding the selection of post-colonial voices beyond Kwok Pui-lan or Anne Joh should be considered, because there are many other post-colonial Asian American theologians other than Kwok or Joh. The author should investigate more broadly to offer a typology. 

Fourthly, the author should address the underlying theoretical framework of liberation among all the figures mentioned. Because the selected figures rely heavily on identity and oppressed experience based on racial identity, they largely fall under the umbrella of liberation theology that utilizes one's own oppressed experience. They all use their own experience from their racial identity. However, there are other types of Asian American theologies. For example, the author should engage with the critique of essentialism, as articulated by scholars like Namsoon Kang, to provide a more nuanced evaluation of these identity-based approaches.

Finally, the typology could be enriched by including alternative lenses. The current focus could be expanded to include frameworks centered on racism, evangelicalism, the Trinitarian view, or critiques of capitalism, citing the work of Jonathan Tran, Amos Yong/Heejun Yang, or Daniel D. Lee. Additionally, the significant role of interreligious dialogue in Asian American theological construction deserves more sustained attention. There are tons of scholars who start their Asian American theology from interreligious dialogue.

While additional critiques could be offered, I believe the points mentioned can be a good starting point to strengthen the article's contribution to the field. 

If the author wishes to have more direct communication, I would be happy to offer more discussions via email or other channels.

Thank you!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3, 

Thank you for your generous assessment of the manuscript’s overview of key figures and for your detailed suggestions on how to strengthen the typology and its scholarly contribution. I have revised the manuscript substantially in response.

1) Engagement with existing frameworks/typologies (e.g., Tran; Yang)

I added discussion of recent organizing frameworks in the field and explicitly position our approach in relation to them. In particular, I engage Tran’s account of racial capitalism and Yang’s translation-oriented constructive proposal to support our methodological premise: lived experience is structurally mediated and must be analyzed in terms of how it is translated into theological construction in my introduction.

2) Conceptual overlap and typological clarity (Park/Fernandez/Lee/Joh; han similarities)

I revised the typology so that the differentiating criteria are “methodological rather than merely thematic”. Each type is defined by experiential site, theological problem, operative method, normative aim, and Protestant grammar (Table 1). I also added explicit clarification to distinguish similar vocabularies operating differently across thinkers (e.g., han as a healing-oriented soteriological diagnostic in Park versus han as abjection within a postcolonial/feminist Christological critique in Joh) in the end-note. 

3) Broader representative scope and additional sources

I broadened the representative scope by situating each type within adjacent discourses and naming selected interlocutors and genealogies (summarized in Table 1). For example, I anchored liminality/communitas in Turner and place coerced in-betweenness in conversation with Bhabha’s Third Space; we position struggle/praxis in relation to Sobrino and Bonino; I placeed the race/peoplehood type in conversation with Carter and Jennings; and I grounded postcolonial re-writing in Spivak and third-world biblical interpretation (Sugirtharajah). 

4) Liberation framework/essentialism critique; alternative lenses

I acknowledge that several figures share liberationist commitments. To avoid flattening differences under a single liberation umbrella, our revised typology differentiates ‘how’ experience becomes theology (healing; liminal creativity; praxis; communion; postcolonial re-writing). I also added a limitations/future research note recognizing other significant Asian/Asian American Protestant trajectories not fully treated here (e.g., evangelical and Pentecostal/charismatic streams; sustained interreligious dialogue as a primary method; extended critiques of capitalism), which could be used to test and extend the typology in future research. 

 

Sincerely, 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your hard work in developing this article and for your openness to my previous suggestions. This is an "exciting" article, and I appreciate that you are working on this project.

I would like to start with affirming the significant improvements you made: 
1) I think incorporating the work of Tran and Yang provides a much stronger foundation. It is good that you recognize that there are some other works that attempt to go beyond using Asian American experiences to overcome the problem of essentialism. In doing so, you confined your discussion to the types of Asian American theologies that utilize Asian American experiences.

2) I also believe that it is a smart decision to move the analytical lens from themes to methodologies strategically. is a highly effective strategic move. In the previous article, the themes were overlapping one another. However, by analyzing the figures' methodologies, the differences among them became clearer.

3) The inclusion of tables is a good addition because it gives clearer comparison and understanding for the reader.

Although the manuscript has progressed significantly, I offer some more critical suggestions to make the typology sharper and enhance the article's contribution:

1) To strengthen the proposal of a new typology, it would be necessary to examine the previous scholarship/typologies. For example, there are some theologians who offer a typology by generation/era, in the cases of Tan’s Introducing Asian American Theologies and Yang’s Asian Case Studies on Translating Christianity. So, I recommend reviewing the existing typology and explaining why we need another typology if you are trying to offer a new typology for Asian American theology.

2) To make the internal logic of the article stronger, I recommend more explicitly limiting the scope of your typology to Asian American theology that utilizes "experience" as a primary source.  As noted in your engagement with other scholars, not all Asian American theological works necessarily begin with the category of experience today. So, it will be good to recognize other types of theology in the beginning of your article and limit your scope of research.

3) I strongly encourage you to reconsider the use of "Protestant hermeneutics" in your title and throughout the article. The methodologies you describe do not appear to be exclusively or essentially Protestant in origin or application. For example, Peter Phan and Anselm Min, other foundational figures in Asian American theology, utilize in-between experiences just like Lee Jung-Young, while they are Roman Catholics. In addition, the emphasis on orthopraxis and lived experience is a hallmark of Liberation Theology, which was pioneered largely by Latin American Catholic theologians. Their focus on ecclesiastical practice and social location also overlaps with other Protestant hermeneutics, while Catholics have historical originality. Also, the wound-healing discussion appears in the Catholic theology as well. Please note Baltasar's theology and other Catholic trauma theories. In this sense, the "Protestant lens" feels incidental rather than essential to your argument. Since there are many non-Protestant theorists/theologians share the same themes and methodologies, it is unclear what makes this a uniquely Protestant hermeneutic. You need to get rid of it, or you need much more analysis. I am having a hard time understanding your usage of Protestant theology, as you offer some elements all together with harmony. And these elements are often overlap with other traditions today.

If you want to keep the "Protestant" framework, it is necessary to identify more specific theological markers that distinguish this approach from broader ecumenical methodologies. You might consider grounding your analysis in traditional Protestant distinctives, such as: Word of God theology, Trinitarian theology (e.g., in the tradition of Luther or Calvin). Or, at least, American evangelical theology, which goes beyond your research scope. 

4) While the first table provides a helpful visual summary, the second table presents several logical and chronological leaps. There are notable historical anachronisms in your alignment of scholars. For example, Sang-hyun Lee and Jung Young Lee are established figures who preceded Homi K. Bhabha. It is historically improbable to suggest they were influenced by Bhabha’s later work. Furthermore, both Lees are not post-colonial theorists. Similarly, Andrew Park is older than Chung Hyun Kyung. Although Chung talks about Jung, she talks about it in a different sense compared to Minjung theology, precisely. As a result, I suspect many of the theologians cited would resist being grouped in this manner. Most importantly, you barely have analysis on this categorization; you need more discussion and evidence for this part.

While their approaches may appear similar at a superficial level, I think that their specific methodologies are distinct and unique. They do not need to be necessarily categorized with other scholars outside of the field. It seems quite imperialistic.

5) And I suggest expanding your conclusion with more precision for the beauty of the article's structure. Perhaps, you can also include some more specific further research topics by introducing more resources around.

 

In sum, I hope my suggestions are helpful. I tried to be concise and constructive. I would recommend major revisions with critical suggestions. 

Best wishes,

Author Response

Thank you for your encouraging comments and insightful critique. I particularly appreciate your point regarding the potential pitfalls of the "Protestant" framework and the historical arrangement in the table. Based on your suggestions, I have made the following major revisions with blue marks:

1. Clarification of the "Protestant" Grammar (Response to Point 3)

I agree that themes like marginality and praxis are shared with Catholic theologians. I have revised Section 1.2 to explicitly acknowledge this ecumenical overlap. However, I have clarified that the figures in this study operate within a specifically 'Protestant' logic of justification—prioritizing Scripture-centered hermeneutics and the grace-justice dialectic over magisterial tradition. I have refined the definition to prevent essentialism.

2. Modification of Table and Genealogical Claims (Response to Point 4)

You rightly pointed out the chronological risk of placing figures like Jung Yong Lee alongside Homi K. Bhabha, and Park alongside Chung. To avoid the impression of anachronistic influence, I have removed the "Interlocutors" column.

3. Engagement with Existing Typologies (Response to Points 1 & 2)

I have expanded the Introduction to engage with Jonathan Tan’s generational typology. I clarified that my contribution lies in offering a methodological typology (focusing on the mechanism of translation) rather than a chronological one. I also explicitly limited the scope to theologies that utilize "lived experience" as a primary source, acknowledging that other approaches exist.

4. Expansion of Conclusion (Response to Point 5)

I have expanded the conclusion to suggest specific areas for future research, including.

Thank you. 

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your diligent revisions. After two substantial rounds of editing, the paper is significantly improved in its clarity, purpose, and overall framework. The additional explanations included in each section are very appropriate and helpful. Your five-type methodology is much more cohesive and clearer than in previous versions.

I have one minor correction regarding the work of Tan and Yang. They both offer a generational typology within Asian American theology (categorizing theologians by first, second, and third generations, in the case of Yang). I believe their views have been misunderstood in the current draft, so I urge you to revisit that section. 

Finally, I believe it would be beneficial to address the potential danger of essentialism when using Asian American experience and identity within Protestant hermeneutics in your conclusion. While Spivak offers the concept of 'strategic essentialism,' I think highlighting this risk is necessary for the field. I recommend incorporating Namsoon Kang’s article, 'Who Are Asian Americans?: An Overview of History, Immigration, and Communities' (in Asian American Psychology: Current Perspectives), to support this point.

 

Thank you again for the opportunity to review this article. I enjoyed it.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer   Thank you so much for your hard work. Thanks to your review, I was able to significantly improve my article. I have done the minor revision below, as indicated in green on the paper.   Comment 1: Correction regarding typology I have clarified that existing scholarship—including the work of Jonathan Y. Tan and Heejun Yang—describes Asian and Asian American theologies in terms of first- and second-generation developments, and I now briefly characterize the distinctive features of these generational frameworks while distinguishing our methodological typology from them as I explain more in the endnote.   Comment 2: The potential danger of essentialism I have added a new paragraph in the Conclusion that addresses the potential dangers of essentialism when invoking Asian American experience and identity as a theological locus, engaging the concept of “strategic essentialism” to underscore the need for ongoing critical vigilance within Protestant hermeneutics.     peace... Author