The Quaker Peace Testimony, Economics, and the Common Good - Keith Helmuth

The Quaker Peace Testimony, Economics, and the Common Good - Keith Helmuth



The Quaker Peace Testimony, Economics, and the Common Good
by Keith Helmuth on December 1, 2008

Quakerism and Economics of the Common Good

English Quaker John Bellers (1654‐ 1725) was the first social thinker to advance universal healthcare as a public policy. He based his case on the enhanced level of well‐being and economic efficiency that would result from an improved level of health across the entire society. Bellers was also the first social thinker to advance a comprehensive plan of vocational training and sustainable employment as a national solution to chronic poverty. This policy and investment proposal was also based on calculations of progressive improvement in the economic well‐being of those in poverty, and on the society‐wide benefits of ameliorating social degradation and its accompanying violence.

These are but two of many social and economic reforms that unfolded from the Quaker faith and moral vision of John Bellers. His social and economic analyses and his visionary moral response come to us from the beginning of Quakerism. His lucid and prescient approach to social and economic conditions was focused through the new light that early Quakerism was bringing to the sense of “right relationship.” Bellers was just a half generation younger than George Fox.

Bellers repeatedly petitioned the English Parliament to enact legislation that would implement the social policies and economic projects he proposed. He was not successful in convincing the national government of the time, or the holders of capital to whom he also appealed, that implementing his proposals would advance the common good and be beneficial across the entire economy. However, it was only a matter of time until the soundness of his proposals would be recognized and acted on in many progressive jurisdictions. One hundred and fifty years later, Robert Owen, England’s greatest social reformer and the originator of the cooperative movement, said he had gotten all his best ideas from John Bellers.

As far as I know, there is no direct evidence that John Woolman was familiar with the work of John Bellers, but there is no doubt that the same holistic vision informed both men’s social and economic analyses and moral witnesses for the common good. All of John Woolman’s discussions on spiritual life, and in particular on spiritual disorders, crossed over into their social and economic consequences. And all his discussions on social and economic behavior led back to their spiritual foundations. In his continual probing of these relationships, he repeatedly returned to the recognition that minds possessed by the spirit of domination lead to social and economic disorder. Woolman’s holistic understanding also went a step further and helped set the stage for ecological thinking. He clearly understood economic geography and ecological adaptation. He understood that unwise use of resources leads to ecosystem breakdown in the same way that unwise use of labor leads to societal breakdown.

Why is it that from the beginning of Quakerism, the life of the spirit and economic affairs converge into a single focus? Why is it that both William Penn and John Woolman amplified this convergence into the larger context of the human‐Earth relationship? Why is it that Quaker economist Kenneth Boulding (1910–1993) was one of the first social scientists to recognize Earth’s ecological context as the primary reference for all progressive thinking, policy, and action with regard to the human future? The answer, I suggest, is as obvious as the full moon in a cloudless night sky.
The Spiritual Basis of Economics and Ecology

In a deeply profound sense, economics and ecology are domains of relationship. Economics is about access to the means of life. Ecology is about the mutual interdependence of life communities. There is a deep sense of right relationship within a fully rounded understanding of these domains.

For example, in the right relationship of human solidarity, we see economic activity flowing from social relations that enhance the common good. In the right relationship of ecological integrity, we see the human economy as a wholly owned subsidiary of Earth’s ecology.

When we bring these two perspectives together, the lens of human solidarity and the lens of ecological science pivot into a single focus. Through this focus we can see right relationship in a more fully rounded and deeply instructive way. Right relationship then becomes the central motif in both the social design of human well‐being and in ecologically sound economic adaptation.

Our spiritual traditions teach us that in right relationship, we touch the fullness of human meaning and the presence of the Divine. The Friends Peace Testimony is about elevating all areas of human policy and practice into this zone of right relationship. Because economic behavior is so often excluded by policy from the zone of right relationship, it is a primary area of injustice, conflict, violence, and war. A Peace Testimony that does not address economics in a major and sustained way is not a fully developed or spiritually accountable witness.
A Fully Developed Peace Testimony

Near the end of his short life, Martin Luther King Jr. (1929–1968) saw how certain kinds of economic arrangements were directly connected to oppression, conflict, violence, and war. He began to focus his analysis through a vision of right relationship that challenged inequity and structural violence in U.S. economic behavior and its worldwide extensions. Within this enlarged context he asked the question, “What is the moral assignment?” This question of right relationship in economic policy and behavior is now central to the renewal of the Peace Testimony.

In this context we need to make a distinction between the economics of resource competition and the economics of the common good. The former is leading to resource wars, social disintegration, and ecological degradation. The latter has the potential of creating cultures of peace, social cooperation, and ecological resilience. A fully developed Peace Testimony will offer critical intervention in the former and creative advancement of the latter.

If Friends can now move the Peace Testimony into this arena, we will help advance an already substantial faith witness that has boldly challenged economic violence and injustice. For example, when the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops recently issued a document of social teachings strongly critical of the capital‐driven economy and its morally unacceptable inequities, some economists, politicians, and corporate leaders told them to butt out. They argued that the bishops had no business making pronouncements on economics and economic policy, and that they should just stick to religion. This naïve reaction failed, of course, to understand that Catholic social teaching has a long history in these matters.
Heritage as a Resource for Renewal

Quakerism, likewise, has a long genealogy of concern, thought, and action with regard to economics. The Peace Testimony applied to economics is not breaking new ground. We need only to update our heritage. In addition to the witnesses of Bellers and Woolman, the following more recent examples are worth noting.

In 1934, the Industrial Relations Committee of Friends General Conference prepared and published A Statement of Economic Objectives, which addressed the disaster of the Great Depression. This document offered a comprehensive strategy for equity‐based economic reform. (A significant number of Quakers were deeply involved in creating the New Deal.)

In 1969, Friends Committee on National Legislation issued a well‐crafted policy statement on Goals for a Just Society: Jobs and Assured Income. This document makes the case for the elimination of poverty through a combination of measures addressing health, education, vocational training, employment, and basic income.

In 2004, American Friends Service Committee published the report of its Working Party on Global Economics: Putting Dignity and Rights at the Heart of the Global Economy. With an acute awareness that poverty is a peace issue, this document calls for a Global New Deal, and for the moral leadership of Friends in fostering such a transformation. The authors write, “Just as the charges of ‘idealism’ have never made the AFSC abandon the commitment to the Peace Testimony and the power of love, charges that ‘the market doesn’t work that way’ should not distract us from our goal of a world of economic justice for all.”

The most recent work on this theme comes from the Friends Testimonies and Economics Project, which is now posting its three‐volume resource guide Seeds of Violence, Seeds of Hope on the website of Friends General Conference. (Copies are available from Ed Dreby at drebymans@igc.org.)

Our quest to renew the Peace Testimony will be lifted into a more fully rounded and relevant context if we bring this heritage into a position of central focus and if we see the economics of the common good unfolding as the central peace issue.
Strengthening the Peace Testimony in Its Moral Vision

The Peace Testimony is strengthened in its address to economics when we remember that economics is primarily a social science. It is further strengthened when we realize that economics, in its origin, was a moral discipline. It still is. And being a moral discipline, economics is precisely the arena where religion enters most fully into the service of the world. It is the arena of analysis and action where Friends can discover a more fully rounded expression of the Peace Testimony as it develops within the economics of the common good. Ongoing study and research will be needed to support and advance this witness. A certain fearlessness may be required. Those who benefit from human exploitation, resource domination, and the economics of war do not want the present financial architecture and economic arrangements altered.

In the time of spiritual crisis when Quakerism began, Friends decided they could not leave religion to the established Church. In our time of mounting social and ecological crisis, Friends should likewise not leave economic relationships to the current political‐financial establishment. Economics and finance have become, in effect, the modern world’s established religion, and they now need, for sake of the common good, the same wind of reform that Quakers brought to religion in the 17th century.
The Ethics of Human Solidarity

If the ethics of human solidarity and the economics of the common good are our moral assignment, can we pose a straightforward and helpful guide to action? To answer this question we can paraphrase Aldo Leopold (1887–1948), a founding figure in conservation biology and a thinker who formulated a “land ethic”: “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.” With this simple admonition, Leopold coined an ethical formula that has entered into the foundation of the ecological worldview and environmental ethics. It is an expression of solidarity at the level of the human‐Earth relationship.

In a similar way, and with respect to human solidarity, we can say: “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the human community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.” In a time when human solidarity is a preeminent requirement for decent human survival, this is a moral template against which all economic policy and behavior can be gauged and evaluated.

Renewing the Peace Testimony is, in large part, a matter of how Friends respond to the economic, social, and ecological mandate now placed before us by the converging crises of our time. This is the moral assignment. As a matter of religious responsibility, we can enter fully into reshaping economic policy and economic behavior on behalf of the common good and the integrity of Creation. Thus will the visions of John Bellers, John Woolman, and many Friends since their time be given new opportunities for realization. Thus will the Peace Testimony be renewed, and thus will Quakers be able to more effectively advance a moral vision of the common good.
————————
This article was inspired by the called meeting on the renewal of the Quaker Peace Testimony held by Philadelphia Yearly Meeting, November 18, 2006, at Arch Street Meetinghouse, Philadelphia, Pa.

Facebook
Twitter
Print
More





Keith Helmuth, a member of New Brunswick Monthly Meeting in Canada, recently completed a ten-year sojourn at Central Philadelphia (Pa.) Meeting. He is a founding member of Quaker Institute for the Future and secretary of the Board.Posted in: Features


Economics, Environment, Friends Testimonies, health, History, Peace, Social Action, Social Concerns

Lost Cause?: IS AFSC a Lost Cause for Friends? (Probably.) (Quaker theology Book 32) - Kindle edition by Chuck fager, H.Larry Ingle. Religion & Spirituality Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.

Lost Cause?: IS AFSC a Lost Cause for Friends? (Probably.) (Quaker theology Book 32) - Kindle edition by Chuck fager, H.Larry Ingle. Religion & Spirituality Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.








Lost Cause?: IS AFSC a Lost Cause for Friends? (Probably.) (Quaker theology Book 32)Kindle Edition
by Chuck fager (Author), H.Larry Ingle (Author)


Be the first to review this item




See all 2 formats and editions

Kindle
$3.77Read with Our Free App
Paperback




No sooner had the AFSC’s Centennial bash gotten underway in spring of 2017, when somebody rained on their parade: another multi-million budget shortfall was acknowledged, with more job and program cuts. 
This was getting to be an all-too familiar story; almost as familiar as the empty promises to “re-connect” AFSC with actual living Quakers. 
What had happened? In marketing talk, the answer is straightforward: besides foolishly wasting millions of dollars, AFSC had trashed and squandered its brand, and is paying the price. 
And what was that brand? 
Look at the name: It wasn’t “American.” 
It wasn’t “Service. 
And by god, it wasn’t “Committee.” 
It was “Friends. 
And more than that: the Society of Friends. 
Still more; the Religious Society of Friends. (Or RSOF.) 
What’s all this got to do with Quaker theology? Everything. The thesis of this compilation is that it is theology – or whatever is behind that term, which makes Quakerism real, and this this difficult-to-pin-down “quotidian” is what animates Quaker witness and service; and that without it, the service is fatally compromised. 
And that AFSC, in cutting loose from the RSOF, in all its messy “quotidian” (yet through which somehow the Spirit seems to work; after all, it birthed AFSC) has undermined the most precious aspect of its brand: its authenticity. Marketing experts agree that without that, the group is like a cut flower, the roots severed. 
This cutting is not a new phenomenon. Clarence Pickett, its most revered Director, said as far back as 1945 that “there is no legal connection between the S[ociety] of F[riends] and the AFSC.” “Theoretically,” he admitted, “the AFSC could become composed of non-Friends entirely.” 
As, in practice – not theoretically – it almost entirely has. 
What had happened? As one Board member put it in 1991, “If you look down the list of major donors, people say again and again, ‘I’m giving money to AFSC because it’s a Quaker organization and when Quakers do peace work, they do it right. . . .’” 
Well, maybe they once did it right. But in AFSC, Quakers aren’t doing it anymore. 
Alas, while drawing up their latest list of experts, AFSC has overlooked two of the most experienced analysts in the field, namely: professor H. Larry Ingle, and Chuck Fager. 
We stumbled into this assignment in1979, when a discussion of AFSC unexpectedly broke loose. I was the convenor, Larry an enthusiastic participant. We’ve been on this unfolding case ever since. This collection brings together most of the major pieces we have produced. 
Reading AFSC internal documents, it looks more and more like AFSC's “anti-oppression” thrust has indeed displaced “the formal Quaker identity” as the group’s sacred center. Certainly it’s been endlessly useful in internal politics. As one exasperated CEO put it in 2008 in an uncharacteristically candid moment: “There is a culture of white guilt in this organization that is stifling and patronizing.” 
But what if this exaltation is misplaced? What if the legacy of racism is a problem to be worked on rather than the successor to Quakerism as the group’s religious center? 
And what has happened when a culture’s sacred has been sucked out of its vessel, replaced with a farrago of imported and shifting notions, given over to outsiders, and the vessel is then paraded around to collect money from the credulous? 
Larry and I are aware that our work has not endeared us to many at the higher levels of AFSC’s rickety staff ladder, and likely frightened some at lower rungs who fear for their jobs (probably rightly, but not on our account.) It is a kind of consolation to find in its records evidence that some of its higher-ups have occasionally put in serious effort at not taking us seriously. No doubt our worst continuing offense is that we have insisted, unlike almost all the internal reshufflers and reformers, in doing our work openly, in the public prints, and online. 
And here we are, doing it again.


Length: 168 pages Word Wise: Enabled Enhanced Typesetting:Enabled
Page Flip: Enabled

Similar books to Lost Cause?: IS AFSC a Lost Cause for Friends? (Probably.) (Quaker theology Book 32)














Product details

File Size: 892 KB
Print Length: 168 pages
Simultaneous Device Usage: Unlimited
Publisher: Quaker Theology/Kimo Press (June 15, 2018)
Publication Date: June 15, 2018
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07DSPDCYS
Text-to-Speech: Enabled

Jung, Jiseok, Ham Sokhon’s Pacifism and the Reunification of Korea: A Quaker Theology of Peace,

Jung, Jiseok, Ham Sokhon’s Pacifism and the Reunification of Korea: A Quaker Theology of Peace,

Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 2006, 329 pp.

Introduction. Ham Sokhon (1901 – 1989) was the most influential religious leader in 20^th century Korea. In 1961, he started attending Seoul Quaker Meeting, and became a member of the Religious Society of Friends in 1967. However, Quakers influenced him  earlier when he learnt about Quaker pacifism and conscientious objection in 1947 and met British and American Quaker relief workers in Korea after the Korean War. Ham was in the vanguard of the reunification and democratization movements, and an advocate of nonviolence.  

Pacifism and the Just War Theory.  There have been two main attitudes to war and peace: pacifism and the Just War Theory. 

Pacifism, however, is not just one position. It embraces absolutist positions that reject force, killing, war, and the use of weapons - which are all apolitical (e.g. Tolstoy). It also embraces reformist positions which seek to abolish war through restructuring the political order (e.g. 20^th century Quakers). The term nonresistance is commonly used to apply to those who withdraw from warfare based on Scriptural proscriptions and who renounce all coercion, even nonviolent coercion (e.g. Mennonites). Nonviolent resistance is regarded as a more practical way of peacemaking and is illustrated by the activism of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. Nonviolent resistance believes that pacifism can be successfully applied to politics, and effect social change. It also works to prevent war. 

Christian pacifism began with the anti-militarism of the early Church. It ended when Christianity became the Roman state-church in 313 AD, but was later revived by the Anabaptists, and later still by the Quakers and Brethren. The Cross and the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5: 9-44) have been the key tenets of Christian pacifism. The Cross symbolizes agape love, forgiveness and non-retaliation. The Sermon on the Mount demands nonresistance and love of enemies. 

The Just War Theory is a set of principles designed to restrain war by defining the permissible ethical limits. It was developed by Augustine as a synthesis of Christian morality and Roman culture. He believed that war could be an instrument of God’s will, and the state, as a legitimate authority endowed by God, could be justified in its use of violence. His ideas were elaborated upon by Aquinas, Luther and Calvin and the synthesis has been accepted by the mainline churches. The Mennonite, John Howard Yoder, points out that the Just War Theory seeks to measure good and evil in causes and methods, but there are no clear, neat ways to do this. 

For the pacifist, nonviolent and suffering love is the only path to true justice. For the Just War Theorist, the pursuit of justice, even by force, is the only path to true peace.

Quaker Peace Testimony. Early Quakers pursued the reclamation of Primitive

Christianity, including its pacifist faith, but many early Quakers had participated in the English Civil War. There were two heritages:  the political reform movement and the spiritual reform movement. The Puritans were seeking to establish the Kingdom of God on earth through violence in the Civil War, whereas the spiritualists rejected the use of force in building the Kingdom of God. The main groups of radical Puritans were the Baptists, the Independents, the Levellers, the Diggers, the Ranters, and the Seekers. There are many similarities between the radical Puritans and early Quakerism, such as a rejection of Sacraments and seeking a direct personal experience of the Spirit in silence. Quakerism arose from these diverse roots.

George Fox played a key role in founding Quakerism. He proclaimed that the Spirit of Christ dwellt in all people and that it was this Christ Spirit that taught them. 

Furthermore, he said, neither a study of the Scriptures, nor an Oxford education, nor the preaching of a learned man was needed to experience it. Fox, personally, refused all kinds of war or violence, but was,at times, harsh and vengeful.

The Lamb’s War. The Quakers adopted the term ‘Lamb’s War’ to describe their spiritual struggle with the world. For early Quakers, the Kingdom was present and was to be experienced.. This meant that early Quakers were involved in a cosmic struggle against the forces of religion, and economic and political repression, and they modeled a different social order. The Lamb’s War was consistently nonviolent. Human sinfulness led to war and fighting with carnal weapons. Fox’s rejection of war and the belief that the Light Within meant ‘universal saving grace’ which was available to everyone, became the spiritual ground of the Quaker Peace Testimony.

Fox was beaten mercilessly, but never resisted or struck back. In the 1650s Quaker soldiers and Quaker pacifists were found side by side. Sometimes Fox’s pacifism appeared to be ambiguous: he didn’t offer pacifist preaching to Quaker soldiers and he urged war to destroy the Inquisition in Catholic countries. Fox’s attitude was pacifist toward himself, but was not absolute toward society. 

Scholars agree that 1660 was a turning point for Quakerism. The vision of a ‘nation of the Saints’ came to an end and many Quakers were arrested suspected of insurrection. The first official Declaration on pacifism was produced and signed by 12 leaders in 1661. From then on this statement became the standard of the Quaker Peace Testimony.. It was significant in two ways. After the Declaration, Friends who did not adhere to its pacifist principle were expelled from membership. Secondly pacifism henceforth became the hallmark of Quakerism. However this did not mean that Quaker actions were always consistent with Quaker principles. For example, in the American Civil War Quakers were split into participants and non-participants. Afterwards though, American Friends agreed that war was evil.

Quaker Peace Testimony in the 20^th century. In the 20^th century the understanding of the Quaker Peace Testimony shifted from a testimony against war, to a testimony for peace; from a Christian-centered basis to also include non-Christian and non-religious bases; from a prescriptive to a permissive attitude; and from a narrow to a broad concept of peace.

These shifts reflected the influence of liberal Quakerism and the changing historical context. Friends were faced with conscription, world war, weapons of greater lethality, etc. Prior to World War I a debate arose within British Quakerism whether it was tenable to hold the pacifist idea that condemned Christian governments’participation in war. John William Graham argued that the expansion of the British Empire should be supported, rather than the pacifist principle. During the Anglo-Boer War, many British Quakers criticized British imperialism as a root of war, and this led to a broadening of the anti-war basis of the Testimony to include anti-militarism and social justice. This shift changed a passive attitude against war to positive peace-making. 

There are spiritual, scriptural and humanitarian grounds for the Quaker Peace Testimony (QPT). The first statement is based on the spiritual arguments: ‘The Spirit of Christ which leads us into all Truth will never move us to fight…’ George Fox used scriptural grounds to refuse to accept a commission in the army. Humanitarian reasons were not employed by the first generation Quakers. In the evangelical period of Quakerism in the 19^th century, Scripture formed the Christian basis of the QPT. Some individual Quakers, e.g. John Bright, in this period, used pragmatic and humanitarian ideas to support the QPT. By the 20^th century the use of scriptural grounds was reduced and spiritual and humanitarian arguments were increasingly used. The concept of the Inward Light led Friends to the conviction that wars and strife were contrary to the Spirit of Christ. This was different to the understanding of early Quakers. Now the QPT was a testimony against the spirit that leads to war; it was a positive testimony. Opposition to war and engagement in peacemaking was done, not only through the Christian faith, but also through the universal spirituality and humanitarian ideas that included non-Christian and non-religious people. Prevention of war, and relief and reconstruction work, were seen as important tasks of peace-building. The ideas of democracy and world federation became grounds for the QPT. 

…………………

In the 19^th century, members who violated the QPT, were disowned. In the 20^th century there was a shift to increase tolerance towards different interpretations of the QPT. During World War I many young Friends in Britain enlisted in the army but in America the split was more serious. 120 prominent Quakers announced their official support of America’s participation in war. Swarthmore College established a military training unit for students. Henry J. Cadbury was forced to resign from Haverford College, because of his anti-war views. No one who took a pro-war stance was disowned. Liberal Quakerism emphasized individual spiritual experience, which led to a permissive attitude. Quaker peace theology did not become a pacifist dogma, but was broadened to include various interpretations. Quakers supported liberty of conscience on conscription and volunteering for military service. 

Quaker peace work took various forms: conscientious objection, alternative work, relief work, political lobbying and negotiations, and cooperation with other peace churches and faiths. The American Friends Service Committee was established in 1917 and the No Conscription Fellowship in 1916.There were some tensions but overall there was an optimism the different interpretations of the Inward Light could be combined. The decision whether or not to participate in World War I was a question for individual discernment, not for unconditional obedience to the Society’s traditional tenets. 

Peace was more than ‘no war’; it included the whole sphere of life and social justice. True peace involved freedom from tyranny and could only be built upon cooperation and forgiveness. Nonviolence was a way to overcome evil with good. 

The period from the Manchester Conference in 1895 to World War I was a period of Quaker Renaissance and recovery of the spiritual distinctiveness of early Quakerism. The concept of the Inward Light was reclaimed. Rufus Jones focused on mysticism as the spiritual origin of Quakerism, and the intellectual and activism were connected with mysticism. The emphasis on the Inward Light led to consistency between faith and life of the individual. Religious authority was characterized by personal spiritual experience instead of the Bible, and Truth had historical relevance instead of being a fixed concept. Quakerism was ever open to new Light. The concept of the Inward Light became associated with ‘that of God in everyone’.  Jones saw the Inward Light as a source of optimistic and positive belief in human beings and their capacity for goodness. This became a fundamental idea of liberal Quaker humanism in the 20^th century and human sacredness and anti-violence became core principles of the QPT.  

Conscientious objection formed an important part of Quaker peace theology in the 20^th century. It entailed anti-war sentiment and the defense of individual conscience against state power. The advent of World War I brought the challenges of participation in the war and conscription to British Quakers. The official position of the Society of Friends was not absolute objection, but alternative service. The Society said ‘we hold that the present moment is not one for criticism, but for devoted service to our nation.’ When the conscription law was introduced, Friends argued that compulsory conscription was immoral. London Yearly Meeting encouraged young Quaker men to claim exemption before the Tribunals, indicating that, though it held a position against the principle of the conscription system, in reality it didn’t want to defy legal authority. The Tribunals classified conscientious objectors (COs) into three categories: non-combatants, alternative and absolute. Most Quakers were unwilling to be non-combatants, because they regarded this work as supporting warfare. When the army transformed the Friends Ambulance Unit into a quasi-military organization, British Friends were embarrassed. 

Absolute objectors claimed unconditional exemption from war and were willing to suffer to follow the Prince of Peace. Their intransigence rejected any kind of compromise with militarism. They were misunderstood and wrongly treated by the public, but also by relatives and fellow Friends. 

The British Society of Friends recommended the path of alternative service. However this position was not easy. Those who chose it ‘had to face a double-edged charge of shirking – from their country in the eyes of the public and from their principles in the eyes of their pacifist comrades.’ Absolutists criticized alternative work as a compromise with state power. 

The rigid principles of the past were replaced by tolerance. The Quaker soldiers were regarded as ‘conscientious fighters’, while the Quaker Peace Testimony was never renounced. In Britain 1/3 of eligible Quaker men enlisted in the armed forces. In America popular feeling ran higher against conscientious objectors than in Britain and the law was less tolerant. More than 2/3 of eligible American Quaker men served in combat roles. All American Yearly Meetings reaffirmed the Quaker Peace Testimony, but individuals followed their own leadings and not a corporate discipline. The American conscription law did not allow for alternative service. The only options for the conscientious objectors (COs) were imprisonment or non-combatant service. The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) offered counseling to COs, organized the Friends Ambulance Unit, and visited prisons where absolutists were held. 

During the Second World War, AFSC was more active in the area of alternative service, with Friends joining with the Mennonites and the Church of the Brethren. The new conscription law allowed members of 13 denominational churches with pacifist tenets to be COs. The resistance against peacetime conscription was so strong prior to the war that the government accepted the idea of alternative service. The AFSC administered some of the camps and when the absolutists lost their civil and political rights as citizens, the AFSC tried to advocate on their behalf, while the Mennonites and Brethren did not. 

The position of an uncompromising anti-war stance was revived during the Vietnam War. Philadelphia Yearly Meeting wrote to the US President demanding American withdrawal from South Vietnam. AFSC created a campaign to repeal the draft and provided draft counseling. In 1965, the Quaker, Norman Morrison, self-immolated outside the Pentagon as an extreme form of witness against the war. At the same time Richard Nixon, a birthright Friend, directed the war as President of the United States. The immorality of the Vietnam War became a decisive element in making pacifist arguments persuasive, and compulsory conscription in America was abolished after the war. 

Quaker relief work became a type of peace movement in the 20^th century. Early Quakers had provided help to imprisoned Friends and relief to oppressed Friends and their families. Later Friends provided aide to those suffering from war, slavery, religious persecution and natural disasters. During World War I, British and American Quaker relief work became part of the peace testimony. The AFSC provided people, devoted to service and relief, with an organizational approach, and cooperation with outside agencies, e.g. The Red Cross. 

The Friends Ambulance Unit of British and American Friends provided medical care to soldiers and civilians wounded in battle. The Friends’ War Victims’ Relief Committee was set up to aid civilians and refugees in wartime. It worked in France, Belgium, Serbia, Russia, Austria, Hungary, Poland and Germany, providing food, medical care, shelter, and agricultural help and reconstruction. A third group was the Emergency Committee for Helping Aliens, established to protect those classified as ‘enemy aliens’, who were the victims of war hysteria. They worked to alleviate conditions in the internment camps. 

The Quaker motivation in relief and service was humanitarian and peace. Quakers happily failed to distinguish between friend and foe. This work assumed a politically neutral position and was practical and victim-centered. In 1947 the Nobel Committee awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to both the British and American Quakers for their humanitarian work. 

In summary, early Quakerism included the Lamb’s War and Fox’s pacifism, and was a mixture of pacifism and non-pacifism. This lasted until Quakerism adopted the Declaration of the Peace Testimony (QPT), which became a corporate behavioral rule. In the 20^th century the QPT shifted from the anti-war position of the 19^th century. It also moved from being Christian-centered to a Christian, non-Christian and non-religious base. It became permissive in attitude and broadened the concept of peace.  The idea of the Inward Light promoted individual interpretation and behavior, based on personal spiritual experience. Liberal Quaker theology and the concept of  ‘that of God in everyone’ became a core belief of the QPT.

CO and Quaker relief work demonstrated expressions of the QPT as a constructive pacifism. British and American liberal Quakers were tolerant of absolutist resisters and those who enlisted in the military. The 20^th century QPT developed an organizational peace movement as well as individuals with concerns. The QPT influenced Ham Sokhon’s ideas of peace.

Ham Sokhon’s ideas of peace. Ham Sokhon was a major figure in 20^th century Korea. He influenced education, history and theology and was associated with independence, democratization, human rights, reunification, nonviolence, and peace movements. He was born in North Pyongan Province (North Korea) where the people under the Confucian class system were poor and oppressed. He grew up in a peace-loving village as part of a family with an inherent sense of democracy without class distinction. When Japan annexed Korea his family actively participated in the patriotic enlightenment movement.  Christianity was seen as a way to save the country from Japanese rule, and he and his village became Christian. 

The 20^th century in Korea was a time of colonialism, war, ideological conflict and tyranny. Ham was jailed eight times (four times by the Japanese, twice by USSR’s communist power, once by the South Korean national security and once by the military dictatorship). In addition, he was subjected to house arrest several times and lived under surveillance and investigation. While he was in prison he read philosophy and theology. For the first half of the 20^th century Ham’s ideas were developed under Japanese colonialism (1910 – 1945), liberation, the rule of the US and USSR and the division of North and South Korea (1945 – 1948). During this time the main influences were Christian nationalism and Non-church belief. In the second half of the century there was the Korean War, the military coups (1961, 1980) and the resulting military dictatorships (1961 – 1987). It was during this period that Ham’s thoughts on pacifism, nonviolence and minjung  (the theology developed from the suffering of the people) came to maturity.

For Ham, peace was a way of life, not a notion or theory. Japan won two imperialistic wars (Sino-Japanese War, 1894; Russo-Japanese War, 1904), established control over Korea in 1905, then annexed it in 1910. In response to this, two streams arose; a civilian army movement and a patriotic enlightenment movement. The first was initiated by Confucian scholars and former Korean soldiers and aimed to achieve liberation through military means. The second sought independence through nonviolence means and education. Christianity rapidly increased in the period 1897 – 1906 and brought ideas of democracy, equality and freedom. The new religion was seen as a way of saving the country through social reform. Genuine conversion went hand in hand with social and political aspirations. Christianity was conflated with nationalism. 

While some Christians pursued military struggle (Just War Theory), the majority advocated nonviolence (Pacifism). In his childhood, Ham went to a Presbyterian Church and a Christian school and his Christian faith became the foundation of his peace-loving personality. He loved the Sermon on the Mount. 

The March First Independence Movement was a national nonviolence movement, influence by President Woodrow Wilson’s proposal for national self-determination at the Paris Peace Talks at the end of World War I. Ham gave up his ambition to become a medical doctor to participate in this movement. After the Movement, the Korean churches withdrew from politicization. Ham criticized this position and kept away from the church. 

In 1921 he entered Osan School, a school of the national independence movement, established by Yi Sunghun, a leader of the March First Movement and advocate of nonviolence. The principal of the school, Yu Yongmo, attempted to provide a synthesis of western Christian ideas and eastern philosophy (Lao-Tzu). Ham learned of Uchimura Kanzo’s Non-church belief. He read Tolstoy, Gandhi, and H. G. Wells. Ham continued his studies in Tokyo from 1923 – 1927. He was attracted to socialism, but rejected socialists’ use of violence. It was at this time he met Uchimura Kanzo.

Uchimura Kanzo sought a spiritual Christianity which stressed direct communication with God and followed Jesus Christ through spiritual ties with Christ. He opposed the institution of church because of its hierarchy. He stressed a personal relationship with God unhampered by regulations. He argued for a continual spiritual revolution based on a fellowship of believers in Christ. The Non-church movement had similarities with German Pietism and British Quakerism. 

Originally Kanzo was not a pacifist, but thought that the Sino-Japanese War of 1894 was righteous. But he came to see that it was an imperialistic war and he then adopted a pacifist position and preached the complete abolition of war. After his death in 1930 his followers continued his pacifist legacy which developed a strong anti-war movement in Japan during the Manchurian War of 1931 and during World War II. Not all in the Nonchurch movement were pacifists. 

In 1924 Ham attended Uchimura’s Bible study meetings in Tokyo. Ham followed the Non-church faith at the Osan School during 1928 – 1938 where he taught history. He criticized the churches’ non-political attitude. Only religious writings were allowed by the Japanese authorities, so Ham was forced to express his ideas in religious language. Consequently Ham read religious writings. He stressed God’s righteousness as a priority to achieving earthly justice and power. He was skeptical of accomplishing peace through an ideal society (socialism) or by international law (internationalism). He stressed the need for fundamental change in human hearts in order to achieve peace. He asserted that Christians needed to pursue spiritual experience and national salvation at the same time. Loyalty to God was placed above the state.

Ham wrote Korean history from a biblical perspective. He interpreted the meaning of suffering under Japanese colonialism in terms of a theology of the Cross. The weak, who were prey of the strong, were the faithful people who comprised the Kingdom of God. His theology criticizes the violence of the powerful and the counter-violence of the people, but also places the role of the weak and powerless in historical context. Ham developed this idea as the theology of minjung;  the suffering of the people. He also opposed Shinto worship and bowing toward the Japanese emperor at every public meeting, which had been demanded by the Japanese authorities. Ham saw Shinto worship as justifying imperial warfare and statism. Because his writings challenged Japanese imperialism, they were frequently suppressed and he was imprisoned in 1942.

When Japan invaded mainland China in 1937, Ham wrote that ‘the Christian’s weapon is to repent’. The Korean peninsula was used as a supply base for the Japanese wars. Ham worked for national independence and spiritual enlightenment for the suffering people.  He stressed spiritual experience and koinonia (community, sharing and intimacy). For Ham, a religious faith-based peace was only possible through spiritual regeneration. His minjung theology first appeared in the form of a book, Korean History from the Biblical Perspective. Ham did not seem to be greatly influenced by Uchimura’s pacifism, but developed his pacifist ideas as an outgrowth of his spiritual and scriptural seeking after Truth. Like George Fox, Ham was engaged in a spiritual war. 

Ham’s pacifism. Ham’s pacifism developed in the context of the politico-military tension caused by the division of Korea into North and South. The threat of war continued after the armistice in 1953 and there were at least three serious crises of war, in 1968, 1976 and 1994. 

Ham spent his twenties under the influence of the humanitarianism and pacifism which followed World War I. During World War II Ham was expelled from the Osan School and twice imprisoned for two years. These experiences led to his ideas of anti-statism, anti-imperialism, and consciousness of the relationship between state and church. But it was the Korean War that affected him most directly. It was only after the war that he expressed anti-war and anti-military pacifism in the writings. His pacifism was grounded in the ideas of the Sermon on the Mount, the prophet Isaiah, Quakerism, Gandhi, Tolstoy, Lao-tzu and Chang-tzu. 

Quaker pacifism awakened in Ham the concept of Christian pacifism. He was not a Christian pacifist until after he came into contact with Quakerism. He saw Christian pacifism as inseparable from a recovery of a free spiritual faith, liberated from the spiritual and political bondage of being a state-church. He read Tolstoy in his twenties and was impressed by his religious belief-based humanitarian ideas. There were many similarities between Ham and Tolstoy, especially in their anarchistic views and their criticism of institutional churches.  Gandhi was influenced by Tolstoy, but admitted there was a place for government and sought political change, while Tolstoy withdrew from politics. Ham sought social change through political activism. For him Gandhi was an ideal mentor. 

Ham also enriched his pacifism with the ideas of anti-war, anti-militarism, non-killing, and anti-statism of Lao-tzu and Chuang-tzu. Lao-tzu’s ideas were revolutionary for him in the military-dominating world around him. Chuang-tzu was the second great pacifist of the early Taoist school.  Chuang-tzu’s ideas were cosmic, absolute and infinite. Ham’s nonviolent thinking was deepened by Lao-tzu and Chuang-tzu.

In 1940s Ham read Buddhist scriptures while in prison. This led him to conclude that all religions have a common pursuit of Truth, but there is little evidence of a Buddhist influence in his peace ideas. He felt that Buddhism had done nothing meaningful for social justice during the Japanese colonialism. He emphasized the power of spirituallyrenewed religion to forge history and lead society. Gandhi and Quakerism gave him the most relevant guidance. 

Ham’s anti-war ideas. Ham believed war was endemic to humanity and based on instinctive impulses rather than spirituality based on love. This was similar to George Fox, who said all wars arose from human lust. Ham felt that a spiritual transformation could overcome war, and thus pacifism was only possible through the power of the soul, inspired by religious truth. When Ham insisted on non-resistance, contrary to South Korean Government policy which was based on the military conquest of North Korea, he was viewed as subversive and pro-North Korea. He was arrested and tortured in 1958.

Ham recognized a gap between political realism and religious truth. His pacifism was criticized in the light of the ‘realistic’ threat of North Korea. For him, the realistic way forward was for a world peace organization, composed of ordinary people with some from the ‘Third World’ playing a significant role. His pacifism was closely related to his idea of minjung theology and his idea of reunification expressed his realistic pacifism, based on a political program. His pacifism embraced political alternatives, absolute conscience, and an honest study of cases.

Anti-militarism. Ham expressed opposition to militarism as a way of eradicating the causes of war. This was done through conscientious objection, a stance against the military regime and his desire for peaceful reunification. 

Ham’s idea of conscientious objection began with his learning about the Quaker CO movement in 1947. After the Korean War, Ham advocated conscientious objection in peacetime. He denied the necessity of the army, proclaiming the military’s role to kill people was not a good vocation. He demonstrated his anti-militarism through his strong nonviolent resistance against the military regime in South Korea. When the regime started to use national security as an apparatus to maintain its power, Ham criticized it. 

He also advocated peaceful reunification between the two Koreas. His program,was to conclude a treaty of non-aggression between North and South Korea, then to work at mutual disarmament and then a national policy of peace.

He criticized Christianity for not leading human civilization through self-denial and selfsacrifice. The Catholic Church brought about wars and the Protestant Church compromised with the State and thus with Mars, the god of war. Christianity was no longer playing the role of peace. It had been silent on conscientious objection and compulsory conscription. He also criticized the Churches for their materialism. He maintained that the Churches needed to be liberated from the state in order to recover their ability to be peace-makers. 

Nonviolence.  Ham based his nonviolence views on Gandhi’s nonviolent political resistance. He became aware of Gandhi when in his twenties he read Mahatma Gandhi by Romain Rolland. However instead of leading a national movement as Gandhi did, Ham devoted his energy to the Non-church movement and spiritual enlightenment of the people. He read the Bhagavad Gita and attempted to apply Gandhi’s ideas in a Korean context. He established Ssial Farm, based on Gandhi’s Ashram. He tried to educate young Koreans as Gandhi had done with young Indians at Tolstoy Farm in South Africa. His approach was practical and religious. He translated Gandhi’s books into Korean and in 1970 visited Gandhi’s community in India. In his own country he was known as a Korean Gandhi.

He understood that Gandhi’s nonviolence was based on religious truth, i.e. Satyagraha (firmness in truth).  Satya means truth and agraha means firmness. Gandhi described his life as experiments in truth. He applied religious truth equally to individuals and to the nation, and followed the truth as Jesus, Buddha, and Confucius did. (Nonviolence in its positive form is called Ahimsa (non-injury) and this means I must love my enemy.)

Ham sought to solve national problems on the basis of religious truth as Gandhi did. This led Ham to be concerned with political problems and to fuse religion and politics. Religion and politics must be in harmony for a warless society. Gandhi and Ham did not seek political power, but a release of suffering for their people. 

Minjung (the people). Gandhi’s concept of a people-centered nonviolence movement had a deep impact on Ham. It was a movement from below. It began with people’s education, and for Gandhi it consisted on publishing Voice of India, Young India and Harijan as well as setting up his ashrams. Ham saw a people’s movement as a way to achieve reunification of Korea.

Ham criticized the military coup of May 1961. This criticism foreshadowed his nonviolence resistance to the military regime. The regime’s economic development program oppressed laborers, farmers and freedom of the press, and the rights of assembly and association were also curtailed. Ham aroused public opinion by calling for the need for democracy. His ideas were published in a monthly magazine, The World of Thought, by Chang Chunha, one of his followers, who suffered a mysterious death in 1973. After this magazine folded, Ham published his own monthly magazine, Voice of the People. 

In 1965, Ham undertook a two-week fast and cut his hair, in protest to the regime’s diplomatic ties with Japan. He continued his nonviolent protests until after democracy was achieved in the 1980s. His stance was strengthened by his mysticism. He believed that human conscience had the capability to recognize and conquer evil. 

His nonviolence was absolute in principle, but in practice he once slapped a policeman’s face in order to stop his harsh treatment of a woman resister. He saw nonviolence as not merely a strategy to resist the military regime, but as a way to effect fundamental change in society. His thinking about violence was similar to Rene Girard’s theory, which discusses the vicious cycles of violence and the sacrifice of Christ. Girard asserts that violence can put the entire society in jeopardy because of vengeance and imitation (mimesis) unless it is controlled. The mechanism that was developed to control it arose in primitive religion and was the ‘scapegoat’. Sacred violence resolved violence violently, creating a chain of violence. This chain was broken by the power of the Cross, with repentance and empathy for the victim and forgiveness. An example is the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa.

Ham viewed both Communism and Liberal Democracy as following a philosophy of power. Nonviolence offered an alternative to this and was also essential for peaceful relationships between nations. He believed that corporate evil could only be challenged by a cooperative spirit of corporate nonviolence with involved self-sacrifice. 

His nonviolence was criticized by South Korean radicals, especially after the Kwangju massacre in 1980 when several hundred civilians were killed. The radicals argued for counter-violence, based on liberation theology and Marxism, but Ham kept resolutely to nonviolence. He was criticized by conservatives, as an agitator and by members of the Non-church movement who believed Christians should be non-political. 

Ham emphasized the importance of corporate actions by the minjung, rather than the individual. However followers of the minjung theology were inclined to advocate the use of positive violence.

In 1979, Ham spoke to Quakers at Woodbrooke about his nonviolence philosophy. His underlying principles were a criticism of the falsehood of the government, without hatred; working openly, not secretly; keeping his word to all, including the government; having no political ambitions. These principles are similar to Gandhi’s.

In the early 1970s when tensions between North and South Korea increased, Ham saw the movement of living together as promoting the Kingdom of God. He believed that this could be realized by awakening the minjung to the truth in themselves. Such a movement would be a revolution in its struggle against evil, and in changing the national character through spiritual power. 

Outline of Ham’s idea of Minjung. The word minjung is a combination of two Chinese characters: min (people) and jung (mass).  Ham viewed the minjung as the suffering people. Their suffering was also redemptive; they were the vehicle to achieve true peace. Ham hoped that religion would awaken the minjung, but was disappointed that the Church was a slave of the state. He was influenced by the March First Movement and by the idea that Christianity was connected with national enlightenment. He was also influenced by the ideas of post-World War I humanitarianism and the writings of Gandhi, Tolstoy and H. G. Wells. 

Ham first expressed his concept of minjung in the early 1930s. He wrote the book, Korean History from a Biblical Perspective, in which he explains that the suffering of the minjung was to be understood in the light of Jesus Christ’s suffering on the Cross. The suffering of the Korean nation was an example of how suffering like Christ’s could be seen as redemption for the sins of the world. He recognized a religious and sociological dimension to the minjung movement.  It represented a suffering, poor and oppressed people in its social and historical contexts, and simultaneously in a religious notion, the eschatological and salvific nature of redemptive suffering. The negative understanding of suffering was to be overcome historically, and suffering in a positive sense was to be encouraged religiously. He hoped to find a way to relieve the minjung of their suffering and awaken the minjung through the suffering.

 Ham introduced the idea of ssial that is a combination of ssi (seed, life, eternity) and al (immutable essence). He thought the word min was being corrupted by those wishing to control people, and ssial would be a more appropriate term to convey the underlying principles of minjung. The nuance of ssial involves a more positive image than minjung, as the will towards realizing freedom. Ssial represents the dynamic unity between God (transcendence) and humans (immanence) where the life of the universe is condensed in a seed, and the life of the universe and God are contained in human beings.

Minjung humanism. Ham believed that God being present in the minjung, gave the minjung a dignity, whereas they had been treated as slaves by the ruling class. God was the head and the minjung were His feet and people who abused the minjung, slighted God. Secondly, the minjung were the vessel of God’s revelation. Minjung humanism, which connected the minjung and God as one, was similar to Gandhi’s faith in the immanent God in every one. The innate human goodness gave a capacity to overcome evil, and the goal of the ssial movement was to encourage this goodness. It expressed the universal humanitarianism that all human lives are equally valuable. 

Ham saw minjung humanism as a way to save the whole of life. His idea of the whole was a practical way to transform the body-politics. 

The belief of God’s presence in every one was central to Quakerism, and Quaker influences, through their conscientious objection and relief work, were important in the formation of Ham’s ideas, as was Gandhi’s belief of the presence of God in every one. The Quaker influence was clearer in the development of Ham’s idea of ssial. George Fox used the term Seed of God many times to express religious enlightenment. Howard Brinton in his book, Friends for 300 Years, described the Quaker belief in human goodness, based on the idea of divine Light and seed. Ham translated this book into Korean in 1967.

Minjung pacifism. Ham argued that the minjung opposed war and militarism because they had always been the victims of them. The peacefulness of the minjung had been distorted by political and economic powers, and a new religion was needed to awaken the minjung. The ideologies of statism and nationalism were the main causes of war and of obstructing the reunification of Korea. He believed that when the minjung were enlightened they would become peacemakers. He criticized the Korean churches for their separation from the minjung. 

Anti-statism. Ham first expressed his ideas on anti-statism in the mid-1930s. ‘The state has been based on armed force and has likewise perished by the force.’ He was imprisoned for criticizing Japanese militarism in 1940. He realized that statism resided deeply in the minds of political authorities and in the mind of the minjung. This allowed the rulers to manipulate the people in the name of patriotism. The greatest threat to world peace was the politicians of the Great Powers, who governed by means of armies and technology. He tried to find alternative to striving for power as in statism, and found it in the writings of Lao-tzu, Chuang-tzu and Mencius’ politics of right rule. He saw the United Nations as an alternative to statism. 

Ham and the Quaker Peace Testimony. Ham was deeply impressed by George Fox. Both Quakerism and the Non-church movement rejected formal, institutional faith. He was impressed by the stories of young Quakers choosing to go to prison rather than joining the military. He was also impressed by the Quaker relief work in Korea when his country was ravaged. As a consequence of this relief work in Korea, Ingle Wright and Yi Yun’gu established the first Friends Meeting in Seoul. Ham started to attend regularly because of his own experience of existential distress. It was a time when he felt alone and lonely as he had been involved in a sex scandal in 1960 and all his friends had abandoned him. The Quaker Meeting welcomed him unconditionally as a friend. He found that Quakerism was not only a religion of peace, but also a religion of Friends. This became a turning point for Ham and left the Korean Non-church and became a Quaker.

In 1962, when the US State Department invited Ham to speak to them as one who had boldly criticized the military coup in South Korea, he took the opportunity to visit Quaker Meetings and colleges, and to talk to many Quakers. He was impressed with the Quaker historical records. He went to Pendle Hill and learned about Quakerism from Howard Brinton and took courses on Tolstoy and nonviolence. He then continued his journey to Woodbrooke, where he took courses on Effective Witness for Peace and the United Nations General Assembly. 

In 1967, Ham attended the Fourth World Conference of Friends in North Carolina. He decided then to become a member of the Religious Society of Friends, but continued to be a spiritual seeker. He attended the Triennial meeting of the Friends World Committee for Consultation in Sweden in 1970, London Yearly Meeting in 1970, and Triennial meetings of FWCC in Switzerland in 1979 and Kenya in 1982. 

Ham’s understanding of Quakerism.  He saw Quakerism as a young and vital religion, showing possibilities as a religion for peace, unseen in Buddhism, Catholicism and Protestant Evangelicalism. The Fourth World Conference in North Carolina was a turning point for him. The conference produced four statements: the Vietnam War, racial conflict, sharing of world’s resources, and the service of the Friends World Committee for Consultation (FWCC). 

U Thant, Secretary-General of the United Nations addressed the conference and Lewis Benson led a discussion on the future of Quakerism. Wilmer Cooper urged Friends to keep a Quaker identity within their diversity. John Yungblut stressed the importance of balancing the inward Quaker spiritual experience with the passion for social reform. Hugh Doncaster addressed the tension between the creative encounter of the diverse forms of Quakerism and respect for one’s experience of truth. When Ham returned to Pendle Hill he started to translate Howard Brinton’s book, Friends for 300 Years, into

Korean. He agreed with Brinton that there were important connections between

Quakerism and the religions of Asia. He respected the Quakers’ attitude not to proselytize their religion and, after becoming a member, he assumed a spontaneous responsibility.

Influence of Quakerism on Ham’s ideas of peace. Quaker conscientious objection impacted on Ham because of its roots in Christian pacifism. In spite of his Presbyterian and Non-church experience, he had previously not heard of any Christian teachings about war being absolutely wrong. He was impressed by Quaker conscientious objection as a form of resistance to the state. Uchimura Kanzo was an absolute pacifist, but the Nonchurch members did not feel obliged to practice pacifism. Until he learned of the Quaker Peace Testimony, he did not recognize that pacifism could be implemented in the historical and social context and that Christian faith was incompatible with war. He then re-read Gandhi from the perspective of the peace movement. This led him to an interest in nonviolence grounded in religious faith and truth, and a political concern for peace. 

Gandhi, too, had been impressed by the Quaker Peace Testimony. He had first encountered Quakers and their relief work in South Africa during the Anglo-Boer War in 1900. When he went to London for the Second Round Table Conference in 1931 to discuss India’s constitutional future, he went straight to Friends House. Gandhi also visited Woodbrooke. 

In 1953, American and British Friends started joint relief work when a team of medical doctors and nurses, social workers and physiotherapists arrived in South Korea. This work continued until 1957. Ham was deeply impressed by the Quakers’ humanitarian work, which he saw as an essential expression of the Quaker Peace Testimony. 

Ham did not participate in political action until 1963. The Non-church movement, being grounded in orthodox Evangelicalism, regarded politics as a secular matter. After Ham was ostracized by the Non-church group because of his ‘sin’ in 1960, he became a

Quaker and his faith position changed. He now saw religion and politics as inseparable. 

Korean reunification theology. The division between North and South Korea can be characterized under three categories: colonialism, Cold War and Korean War. The colonization of Korea by Japan lasted 36 years and ended in 1945 with the conclusion of World War II. But instead of building a unified country the two Cold War superpowers divided it into two and tried to create two governments in their own images. The concept of reunification was not abandoned, but both governments viewed it in terms of conquest by force, and the Korean War broke out in 1950. The war solved nothing. There was an armistice in 1953, but technically the war never ended. The division hardened and mutual distrust became ingrained in the Korean psyche. A cycle of arms races increased tension.

In South Korea there were two approaches to reunification; one by force and the other by peaceful means. The government and conservative groups, including churches, supported the former position. The progressive groups accepted North Korea as a reality and as a potential partner for dialogue. The Yi Sungman Government in South Korea viewed all North Korean proposals for peaceful reunification as propaganda and the government’s strategy was to control the reunification discussion and to suppress the progressives. Cho Pongam, who ran for president in 1956 with the slogan ‘Peaceful unification through free election,’ was executed in 1958 as a North Korean spy. In 1960, a people-centered reunification movement brought down the Yi Sungman dictatorship. However this movement was terminated in 1961 by the coup d’etat led by Major-General Pak Chonghui, who revived hostilities toward North Korea. 

In the 1970s the issue of reunification was used to suppress anti-Pak groups, who were labeled as pro-North communists and sentenced to death or life in prison. Progressive Christian groups dedicated themselves to working for human rights and democratization, as well as reunification. In the early 1980s there was a turning point. Pak Chonghui was assassinated and his regime collapsed. However, the aspirations of the people that a civilian democratic government would be formed, were thwarted when there was another coup, and thousands of civilians were killed or injured at Kwangju.

The movement realized that the military was controlled by American power, which then gave rise to radical anti-American action, e.g. the fire-bombing of the American Cultural Institute in Seoul. 

Korean Reunification Theology. Korean Reunification Theology developed in the early 1980s. After liberation from the Japanese, many Christian leaders in the North, influenced by American Presbyterian missionaries, were pro-American and anticommunist This caused oppression of Christians by the North Korean communists. 

There were also neutral Christians who wished to prevent the partition of the Korean peninsula but they split into two factions: socialist and liberal democratic and supported different sides when the Korean War broke out. 

After the Korean War, the number of Christians in the North rapidly decreased. The number of churches increased in the South and the Yi Government regarded itself as Christian, anti-communist and pro-American. For a short time there was a challenge after the April Democracy Revolution in 1960, when Yi’s government fell, and some theologians criticized the blind commitment to anti-communism, but this stopped with the 1961 coup. In the 1970s progressive Christians criticized both communism and capitalism. Participation in the democratization movement against the military dictatorship was seen as a mode of reunification. This had the effect of undermining the South Korean Churches’ fixed stance on reunification and contributed to changing the North Korean Government’s negative attitude toward religion. 

Ham’s ideas of reunification. In 1958, Ham expressed his idea of reunification based on Christian pacifism, and stressed absolute nonviolence between North and South. His idea was to create a brotherhood of reunification. In the 1960s he included the concepts of anti-war, anti-militaristic pacifism, nonviolence, national independence and minjung. National division was sinful, and war could only work for the entrenchment of division. For Ham, a change in human spirituality was essential for solving the problem of national division. His political struggle was an expression of his religious faith. Reunification would only be possible when the minjung in both North and South demanded it. He attempted to build trust between North and South and, instead of considering northern people as enemies, he considered them to be sisters and brothers. This was directly opposed to South Korean Government policy and the faith of South Korean Churches. 

Ham’s neutral reunification aimed at transcending the ideologies of both North and South. His purpose was to eradicate statism. He wished to liberate the minjung, who were oppressed by internal and foreign political powers. Minjung democracy was essential for true reunification and Ham stressed enlightenment of the minjung as the method to achieve peaceful reunification. 

The main reunification theologians. An Pyongmu (1922 – 1996) was the most influential reunification and minjung theologian. He studied sociology in Korea and obtained a Doctorate in Divinity from Heidelberg University. He was born in North Korea and was a Christian nationalist under Japanese colonialism. After liberation he experienced oppression and, because of his anti-communism, he escaped to South Korea. There he participated in the anti-dictatorship democratization movement and was imprisoned and tortured. As a result of his suffering he developed a minjung theology, viewing capitalism and communism as oppressive. He became a key member of the National Council of Churches in Korea’s Committee of Reunification. 

An Pyongmu contrasted the Exodus tradition (liberation of oppressed people) with the

Davidian monarchy, which he saw as the fundamental cause of the Israelite division between the northern Israel and the southern Judah. He felt this division, like the Korean division, was caused by the desire for political power and the idea of military reunification opposed God’s sovereignty. True reunification was only possible through the minjung. He stressed that national independence was necessary for reunification. He also stressed a peaceful reunification and the necessity of arms reduction, the need of an anti-war movement, democracy and economic equality, and criticized the logic of national security. 

An Pyongmu read Ham’s book, Korean History form a Biblical Perspective, and contacted him. He sought Ham’s spiritual and academic advice and, in turn, stimulated Ham’s struggle against the military regime. An’s ideas of reunification were similar to Ham’s and he accepted Ham’s idea of ssial. However An stressed the importance of minjung liberation as a prerequisite to peace, whereas Ham argued that liberation was impossible without experiencing the peace of God. An was a social realist, Ham was religious and individualistic. An stressed a social peace and the need to overcome individualism. An’s ideas arose from a theological basis, whereas Ham’s were philosophical, arising from Lao-tzu, Chaung-tzu and Gandhi. Gradually An came to follow Ham’s idea of peace. 

Kim Yongbok: (1938 - ) studied theology at Yonse University and then obtained a Ph. D. from Princeton Theological Seminary. He used the biblical concept of the Jubilee as a basis for reunification theology. The Jubilee Year (every 50 years) is when the lost land is returned to its original owner, and there is cancellation of debts and emancipation of all slaves. It is a concrete expression of God’s sovereignty in the world and a realization of the Kingdom of God. Kim stressed socio-economic repentance. He argued that the minjung’s identity is realized through their struggles against politico-economic oppression. Minjung messianism regarded the crucifixion as the beginning of messianic politics. He advocated a global Korean nationalism and liberation of all oppressed people in the Third World. Peace, for him, meant the realization of social justice. The context of Korean peace with justice was based on socio-economic security, a peace treaty, disarmament and the removal of nuclear weapons. Kim was deeply influenced by Ham’s Korean History from the Biblical Perspective. His idea of minjung reflected Ham’s ideas. Ham’s interpretation of the suffering nation in the light of Christ on the Cross, underpined Kim’s idea of nationalism of the oppressed people. 

Noh Chongson: (1945 - ) studied theology at Yonse University and received a Ph. D. from Union Seminary in New York. He argued that from the biblical perspective, division is a sin (which has its prototype in the severance of the relationship between God and humanity, with the sin of Adam). He observed that the dependence on foreign ideology is the main cause of the Korean division. Both capitalism and communism, for him, were foreign ideologies. He viewed the Jubilee as an inclusive worldview for reunification. Noh criticized first world theologies used to protect the political, economic and cultural interests of the imperial and neo-colonial powers (e.g. Reinhold Niebuhr’s and John Bennett’s theologies which supported America foreign policy during the Cold War). Noh stressed national independence and security as essential elements of peace, and prefered gradual disarmament to enhance the social welfare of the minjung.

Noh read Ham’s book, Korean History from the Biblical Perspective, and it fascinated him. He attended one of Ham’s lectures in America and was impressed by his criticism of idolatry (Ham called for the removal of Korean and US flags from the altar). Noh’s ideas on reunification and national independence were influenced by Ham, but unlike Ham,  he advocated the necessity of military force for national independence and security. 

Hong Kunsu: (1937 - ) studied theology at Hanshin Seminary in Korea and received a doctorate in theology at the Lutheran Seminary in America. Hong saw the South Korean Churches’ anti-communism as the main spiritual obstacle to the Christian reunification movement. He was influenced by the Marxist, Ernst Bloch, and stressed the need for a dialogue between Christianity and Marxism. He argued that ‘we should repent the sin to hate compatriots because of ideological difference,’ as there is a close relationship between the division of a nation and the division of Church. The Church should transcend ideology and proclaim a revolutionary community of shalom, which is spiritual and politically progressive. The minjung reunification aims at developing an egalitarian and democratic community. Christ is a servant of peace and reconciliation. Hong was influenced by Quaker conscientious objection and the thoughts of the Mennonite theologian, John Howard Yoder. He advocated pacifism, but was not an absolute pacifist as he saw peace as impossible while the situation of division exists. He called for withdrawal of US troops, removal of nuclear weapons, a peace treaty, disarmament between North and South, abolition of conscription and a conversion of the military industry to a peace industry.  

Hong read Ham’s book, Korean History from the Biblical Perspective, and was impressed with the concept of the suffering nation. His idea of minjung reunification was similar to Ham’s but he differed from Ham by having a positive attitude toward socialism, whereas Ham criticized capitalism and communism equally. 

Pak Sungyong: (1923 - ) is a woman who studied theology at the Methodist Theological Seminary in Seoul and received a Ph. D. at Drew University in America. She showed an influence of Karl Barth on her reunification theology. She felt that Korean national liberation had common ground with God’s people in Exodus. Her concept of a nation included both the nation oppressed by imperialistic powers and the minjung socioeconomically oppressed. She stressed that a main task of feminist theology should be the national reunification and social revolution, rather than women’s rights. She adopted Helmut Gollwitzer’s criticism of capitalized Christianity and viewed Christian anticommunism as caused by the capitalization of Christianity. As socialism was seen as an ideal social system but one that could not bring about the transformation of humanity she called for a complementary relationship between Christianity and socialism to achieve a unified egalitarian community. She saw herself, not as a pacifist, but as a peace advocate. and claimed no influence from Ham as she objected to Ham’s criticism of both capitalism and communism. 

All of the reunification theologians advocate peaceful reunification based on anti-war strategies and anti-military pacifism. However Noh stresses the need for military force for maintaining national independence and security. He sees nonviolence as a tactic for achieving social change rather than as a moral concept. Pak agrees with Noh. Hong’s idea of nonviolence reunification is a moral strategy of a weak nation; the military competition of the superpowers is an unrealistic way.  He sees Noh’s military realism as unrealistic. An and Kim agree with Hong and with Ham.

The reunification theologians agree on their idea of the minjung reunification, however there are clear differences about eschatological and socialistic approaches to reunification. Aside from Pak, the other theologians have read Ham and have been influenced by his ideas: peaceful reunification, the reunification of national independence and the minjung, based on minjung democracy and the reunification between the minjung in North and South Korea. Pak’s reunification is nation-centered, aiming for an egalitarian society. 

Conclusion. 

Shared elements of QPT, Ham’s ideas of peace, KRT together with other influences on Ham.

Quaker Peace  Testimony	Other  Influences on Ham	Ham’s Ideas of Peace	Korean Reunification Theology
Anti-war and antimilitarist pacifism, Christian, and inclusive (non-Christian and non-religion based) pacifism	Gandhi Tolstoy Lao-tzu Chuang-tzu Korean War	Anti-war and anti-militarist pacifism, and inclusive (nonChristian and nonreligion based) pacifism	Anti-war and antimilitarist pacifism, Christian pacifism
Quaker nonviolent activism based on Gandhi	Gandhi’s nonviolence	Nonviolence and nonviolent activism based on Gandhi	Nonviolent reunification
Quaker humanitarianism, Quaker idea of seed, Quaker belief in ‘that of God in everyone’	Gandhi, Nonchurch, Lao-tzu, Tolstoy	Minjung humanitarianism, idea of ssial, minjung democracy and reunification	Minjung humanitarianism, minjung democracy and reunification
	Gandhi’s national liberation	National independence	National independence and social revolution

Ham’s pacifism was influenced by Quakerism.  The idea of ‘that of God in everyone’ became basic to Quaker humanitarianism. Ham saw a divine nature in the minjung and developed the idea of ssial, an inherent goodness of the minjung. His influence on reunification theology included anti-war and anti-militarist pacifism, nonviolence, the minjung and national independence. His pacifism was the basis of this idea of peaceful reunification. He undertook nonviolent political resistance for democracy and human rights. He stressed the minjung’s human dignity and peacemaking capability. 

 Jiseok Jung teaches Ethics of Peace and Peace Education at Hanshin and Songkonghoe Universities in Korea. He is a Korean theologian who has served at a minjung church, and has studied at Pendle Hill and Woodbrooke.