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 20th 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. 20th 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 20th century. In
the 20th 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 19th 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 20th 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 19th century, members
who violated the QPT, were disowned. In the 20th 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 20th
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 20th 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 20th 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 20th century
the QPT shifted from the anti-war position of the 19th 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 20th 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 20th 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 20th 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 20th 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.
