In his book Marginality: The Key to Multicultural Theology (Jung Young Lee, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), Lee states that his marginal experience is the basis of a contextual theology. Based on his marginal experiences in the United States, he affirms that marginality is a new source of power (self-affirmation) in spite of its negative connotations. The author strongly affirms that Christian theology, mission of the church, a habit of thinking, personal commitment and all our hearts and minds have to be based on new marginality of self-affirmation through suffering love. A new marginal person is the one who relentlessly hopes for harmony on the one hand, and fights against the negative side of marginality through suffering love, on the other.

To support his thesis about new marginality, Lee rejects the one-way, classical definition of marginality that emphasizes only the negative side of marginality such as alienation, rejection, and struggles, and so forth. This classical definition is the product of "centrality." The central power groups who view marginality as 'got stuck' or 'in-between' cannot define marginality. Now the author defines marginality from a marginal perspective, which upholds 'both/and' and 'in-beyond' approach. For example, the author declares that he is both an American and an Asian. 'Both/and' approach is a self-affirmation of both Asian and American. He continues to show us new marginality - a new marginality person stands 'in-beyond,' which means standing beyond 'in-between' and 'in-both' (Asian and American). That is to say, such a 'in-beyond' person transcends the current time and space to form a new identity, which is formulated both in 'in-between' and 'in-both' worlds. Lee states that this kind of 'in-beyond' thinking leads us to live up to "the harmony of difference" as God's creation itself is made of plurality and differences.

Using his insights on new marginality, Lee continues to explore marginality to the extent that marginality should be center of Christian theology. For instance, God becomes marginal through incarnation of Jesus Christ. God became a human being in the form of flesh to help us see God incarnated in Jesus Christ. Marginality is God's choice of loving humanity. Jesus Christ's life, ministry, and resurrection tell us of his marginality. Jesus was rejected and crucified by the people but he loved the people in the world. In other words, Jesus lived 'in-beyond', affirming the world that rejected him.

Lee suggests that the church, seminaries, and all our Christian works should be a community of marginality that live up to love and servanthood. The author envisions the whole church and Christian institutions are transformed by marginality that embraces a holistic in-beyond approach.

Lee does an excellent job because he reclaims a Christian theology of marginality - which embraces a servant of the servant Lord. Jesus came not to served but to serve (Mt. 20:28). As Jesus was a marginal person, so are Christians. Christians' power comes out of serving others, giving themselves, and by being rejected by the world but affirming it. Another strong point is the author's contribution to the understanding of minority’s identity. Marginal experiences are negative but are not hopeless. Lee suggests that we sublimate our marginal experiences to form a new identity of hope and love. Still the other strong point is his application of Eastern thought such as YIN/YANG or Harmony through which we can better understand meaning of theology today. Lee also made a big contribution to the understanding of multicultural society. Pluralistic, multicultural society presupposes multiple centers and margins. Lee seems to encourage all of us to play an active role in making a better society. He also lets us recognize the mystery of creation that reflects diversity, plurality, and differences in our culture. Everyone has his or her own place of margin, because, according to Lee, margins and centers are not fixed; rather, they are dynamic and moving. Depending on contexts, one can become marginal or central. A multicultural society is a kind of web that every unit of society has its own connection to one another, while not losing its unique character.

Despite many strong points, I cannot help but to point out some weakness, which is related to the condition of marginality. Lee seems to define marginality as a condition given by external determinants, such as race, culture, religion and gender. And later on, he talks about marginality of Jesus Christ and God, as he tries to extend his argument of marginality to Christian theology. In this place, he seems to suggest to us that we need to choose marginality as a Christian responsibility. Readers are confused by his mixing two kinds of marginality: marginality given because of social, cultural determinants vs. marginality by self-choice. Self-choice marginality belongs to God, Jesus, and Paul. Self-choice marginality is different from marginality given by external conditions. Marginality given by external conditions such as poverty should be overcome than embracing it. In some situation, marginality is not to be accepted easily without taking into account why marginality continues. For instance, we cannot allow for an urban ghetto situation because it is a marginal condition. Rather, we have to tackle those unfavorable marginal situations from the perspective of justice and prophetic line. Likewise, some suffering or injustice cannot be accepted easily without making efforts to improve or to change system of injustice.

Lee's book greatly shaped my worldview and contributed to my understanding of multicultural theology. I became confident about my role in multicultural society. Through my upbringing and experiences in Korea, encountering Latin America, and having theological journey in the United States, I came to view the world through the lens of commonness and difference.

When I lived in a small rural village during my childhood, I liked to play with nature. I grasped the harmony of differences. No single thing is the same as the other in nature: Different colors of leaves, different trees, different flowers, different stars, different birds, and so forth. While different with each other, there is also commonness with each other in nature. For example, dandelion is different from the rose but it is common in terms of flower. My encounter with Latin America was another opportunity to learn about differences and commonness. I lived in Panama and frequently traveled a lot the Central and South American countries. There were a lot of differences in terms of food, language, customs, songs, fruits, weather and the trees. Different things got me immediately. But gradually, I found sort of commonness between them and me, between Korea and those countries. Universal emotion such as joys and sorrows is same. They also smile, cry, think, sing, talk, and dance. I realized that God made all of us good. We look different but we are the same human beings. I learned from them many. They also learned from me some.

Through my theological journey in the United States, I was keenly exposed to racism, individualism, and materialism. In many ways, this time was an opportunity to test my identity and conviction (framework). I struggled with an identity question. Who am I in this country? I was just like a powerless child in front of Goliath. I was suspicious of my conviction that God made us good but different. Differences were sharply rejected by the power group.

With this struggle, I found I changed a lot for the last ten years or so. I was not a "typical" Korean in a sense because I had lived away from home country for a long time. I am not a "typical" American either. Nor am I Korean-American, which is a term reserved for second generation Koreans, who usually were born here or came early on to this country. No matter what life experiences and framework I have, I am always categorized into the Korean first generation. Often, mutual distrust between the first and second generation is so deep. I lament over this situation of division by generations. I find this cause of division that has to do with a lack of understanding through commonness and differences.

The framework of commonness and difference applies to our immigrant churches including society in general. Our Korean church should celebrate both difference and commonness. The first generation is different from the second, but has commonness with the second one. Commonness can be found in our reclaiming of Korean heritage while differences can be found in different social location. In this regard, I embrace a "both/and" perspective. Now I think that I am a Korean and American. Korean represents common roots or heritage, and American stands for differences. Likewise, a human being is made not by one color but by many colors -- like watercolor. My work of watercolor can be comparable with that of others in which we can find common and different colors. Despite differences of colors, each watercolor has its own beauty and design.