4th of a 4 part series adapted from a final research paper for my Asian American Theology course
– Part 1: Introduction
– Part 2: Collectivity
– Part 3: Invisibility
LIMINALITY
Definitions
The third lens that Asian Americans have proximity to is that of liminality. Whereas invisibility presses into the experience of marginalization, liminality presses into creative possibility. As mentioned above Asians Americans are made to feel like they are not Asian or American enough and they often live on the margins of Asian and American. To be clear, they do exist in the overlap of the two as they are both Asian and American – Asian by heritage and/or ethnicity, American by immigration and/or citizenship – but not at the center of either spheres. As Sang Hyun Lee articulates so well, they occupy this unique liminal space. Despite all the particularities that make Asian Americans different from each other there is this common thread repeated in the literature of the unique perspective of liminality in which Asian Americans are socially located – called by different names with different nuances – betwixt and between, productive ambivalence, interstitially, hybridity, a third space.[1] I choose the term liminality as it capture the sense of being part of something but also at its limits, or its cutting edge so to speak.
Potentials and Problems
The vision of liminality for Asian Americans is a compelling way forward with such creative, prophetic, and communal potential. A more Eastern “both/and” approach can provide a corrective balance to the more western “either/or” traps of false dichotomies.[2] It is a space from which we can critique and challenge hegemonic centers in the spirit of the prophetic.[3] To take W.E.B. Dubois’ concept of “double consciousness” a step further, it is a way that acknowledges the connective possibilities of a “triple consciousness,” with the potential of understanding not only the consciousness of the dominant culture as well as the culture of those like them, but also the consciousness of a foreign born culture.[4] As Jonathan Tran reminds us it is a way to be engaged with but not at home in this world.[5]
However, even here there are potential problems. The both/and approach of a dialectical monism like Taoism has its shortcoming in its tendency to unify and blur that which should remain distinct (ex. good and evil). A both/and approach is also not always the answer just as an either/or approach is not always helpful or accurate. I would press further to add in the element of “neither/to an extent” for a more holistic thought process as a liminal approach. Another danger in a liminal approach is it can leave us vulnerable to syncretism that is overly relative and selective without an accountable firm ground to stand on. Last but not least, liminality is hard to live into not only because it can have a foreignizing effect but some on the margins are just trying to survive and some on the other hand, who have established themselves, are drawn into the temptation to merge with dominant worldly powers or develop hegemonic centers within the margins.[6]
In Scripture
Reading the bible with the lens of liminality allows us to see those in scripture who have navigated a way forward. Moses, as a key figure in the Exodus, was raised in the places of power of Egypt, but was ethnically of the powerless people of Israel, yet he occupied a liminal space of not always feeling fully at home in either space. God met him in that space and, possibly because of it, Moses was more receptive to YHWH and more able to not only speak truth to the Egyptian powers but to lead a people that felt powerless. Moses operated from the liminality of understanding the oppressor and the oppressed to partner with God to create a reformed Israel in covenantal relationship.
Then there are also Joseph, Daniel, Esther, and Paul that occupied these liminal spaces, living displaced under dominant worldly power. Joseph and Daniel were involuntarily displaced from their homeland and in this sense were the 1st generation in another land. Whereas Esther and Paul were born and raised in the shadow of empire, Esther in the Achaemenid Empire and Paul of Tarsus as a citizen of the Roman Empire, the only apostle of Jesus named with that privilege. Roy Sano points out the journey of Esther in its special resonance to the Asian American experience. Esther initially tried to assimilate with the Empire but grows into her identity and her role in redemption. [7]
Through faithful reliance on God they all made the most of their liminality in using whatever resources or privileges they had to cross boundaries, speak truth to power at great risk to their lives, and usher in God’s holistic salvation. Jesus voluntary displaced himself into the liminal space[8]: leaving his heavenly home to dwell amongst his earthly creation; he was conceived out of wedlock by the Holy Spirit to a teenage mom, raised amongst the poor as a Galilean from the marginal hood of Nazareth, broke bread with the sinners and outcasts, and crucified amongst criminals outside the holy city. Though both fully God and fully human, “his own people did not accept him. But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God.”
Application
Liminality, redeemed through Christ, gives us the way of true life. But to follow Christ into the liminal space means the way of the cross. It means being in relationship with those on the margins out of our comfort zones. It means sharing power and resources generously. It means dying to the world and its false and short-sighted promises of life. It means counting the cost.[9] Suffering is not an end itself but rather it is a means through which things that need to die are laid down and where life and solidarity with Jesus and the crucified people of the world is found.[10] There is no resurrection without the cross. Peter exhorts us to view ourselves as “aliens and strangers” in this world who are now His people who can walk in His “marvelous light.”[11] The space of liminality is also open to any who would embrace the Way in that it is only in the surrender of our lives that we will find true life. Though not the only ones, I believe Asian-Americans are uniquely positioned to be potential peacemakers,[12] with proximity to the liminal space, that we’ve lived in for a while now.[13] Jesus leads by example and empowers us to walk into liminality and He will meet us there as the true center of all life.
CONCLUSION
If scripture is our “norming norm”[14] than we need the perspective that each unique context has to bear to see the bigger picture. This is not to add to scripture but to see more clearly what has been there the whole time. Asian Americans have a unique perspective that can contribute to the larger Body of Christ through the lens of redeemed collectivity that holds together the tension of individual and community, invisibility that can give us solidarity with others who suffer overlooked, and liminality that steps into the potential of the radical way of Jesus. Asian Americans DO have something to bring to the larger conversation to help work together for oneness, not sameness, until God’s Kingdom comes here on earth as it is heaven.
[1] Betwixt and Between (Peter Phan in Christianity with an Asian Face), Hybridity (Amos Yong in Soundings From the Asian American Diaspora), Productive ambivalence (SueJeanne Koh in chapter on “Health Care” from Asian American Christian Ethics), Interstitial (Rita Nakashima Brock in Off the Menu), and Third space (Homi Bhabha in The Location of Culture)
[2] Hertig, Yinist Spirituality.
[3] Wilkens, Christian Ethics, 165-195.
[4] Rah, The Next Evangelicalism, 181-187.
[5] Tran, “Why Asian American Christianity is the Future” (from the 7:43 mark)
[6] Lee, Daniel D. “Lecture: Marginality and Liminality”
[7] Roy Sano points out the journey of Esther in its special resonance to the Asian American experience. Esther initially tried to assimilate with the Empire but grows into her identity and her role in redemption (Sano, “Shifts In Bible Reading”).
[8] Though he had the power of heaven at his disposal chose to empty himself and live amongst the marginalized rather than grasp for worldly power.
[9] When push comes to shove, what is our priority, to be accepted by the dominant society or to be disciples of Jesus? It doesn’t mean that this is a strict “either/or” and they cannot overlap but in the space or “both/and” acceptance by the world way should not come at the expense of the way of Jesus.
[10] Cone, Cross and the Lynching Tree.
[11] 1 Peter 2:11 (NASB 1995). Jeannette Ok, points out that this puts Asian Americans in a double “perpetual foreigner” situation (Ok, “Always Ethnic”). But if we consider the other side of Peter’s argument, put positively, it can drive us to even more deeply embrace our “eternal citizen” status as our core identity. This doesn’t mean that our ethnicity is of no value as we will retain them in heaven as Imago Dei, it is rather that even our ethnicity can serve to express the manifold beauty of God.
[12] Not peacekeepers who are about keeping the status quo
[13] Many of us can understand the oppressed (living with America’s notions of “Perpetual Foreigner”) and the oppressor (used as a wedge against other people of color as the “Model Minority” to merge with the dominant powers). It takes intentionality and continual surrender to Jesus’ way of the cross to press into this liminal space on the margins, as there’s always the temptation to merge with the dominant worldly powers.
[14] Lee, Daniel D. “Lecture: Encountering the Word of God”
treevalley in the inner city 
3 thoughts on “The Bible Through an Asian American Lens: Liminality”