Yet to stay within the cultural-linguistic orbit for a moment in order to
have a handle by which to discuss the issues, 6 the point is that in our con-
temporary postmodern, postcolonial, post-Western, and even post-Chris-
tian time, it is accepted that there are many viable hermeneutical starting
points for Christian biblical and theological interpretation. 7 Cultural-
linguistic horizons and ways of life provide perspective on the biblical
and theological tradition that are understood to be representative of at
least some aspects of the diversity of world Christianity and are (generally)
assumed to enrich the ongoing task of Christian traditioning. 8 What needs
to be emphasized here is that the plurality of cultural-linguistic spring-
boards for hermeneutics ought not to be confl ated prematurely. Rather,
the process of each quest for biblical understanding and theological refl ec-
tion ought to be respected. In other words, multi-culturality, at least in
this view, emphasizes the distinctiveness of each cultural-linguistic project,
and the need for such to be attended to, each one on its own terms.
From a biblical and Lukan perspective, such hermeneutical multi-
culturality can be seen as embraced within the Day of Pentecost narrative.
Acts 2 notes that at the sound of winds (of the divine spirit), “the crowd
gathered and was bewildered, because each one heard them speaking in
the native language of each. Amazed and astonished, they asked, ‘Are not
all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each of us,
in our own native language ?” (Acts 2:6–8, italics added). 9 Following this
Lukan account, the particularity of each cultural-linguistic witness is not
to be subsumed too quickly under other discourses. 10 This does not mean
every cultural testimony is to be uncritically accepted, but that each needs
to be weighed and understood according to its own norms and terms, at
least initially. Translated into our contemporary global scene, such a multi-
cultural stance insists on the plurality of hermeneutical and theological
approaches in local contexts that need to be valued and engaged. 11
Yet even if we embraced multi-culturality, no cultural-linguistic frame
is static and, as already indicated, each is impacted by cross-cultural fertil-
ization. Hence without undermining the importance of cultural-linguis-
tic particularity and diversity, there is also no hard and fast line between
multi- and inter-culturality, the latter denoting the perennial and ongoing
meeting and overlapping of cultural-linguistic encounters. Over prolonged
periods of time, new syntheses emerge refl ecting an inter-cultural mixture
that often later becomes incomprehensible to those of the originally dis-
tinct cultures. In considering inter-cultural contact and transformation,
we need to take into account not just synchronic but also diachronic fac-
THE SCIENCE, SIGHS, AND SIGNS OF INTERPRETATION: AN ASIAN AMERICAN... 179