Perspective of the Northeast Asian Mission
from the Viewpoint of Pauline Theology: Focused on Christology
Heon-Wook Park
Tokyo Union Theological Seminary, Professor of Practical Theology
Published in Featured Article of www.GlobalMissiology.org July 2011
This paper was originally presented at the TCU/TEDS Conference on
"Suffering and Hope in Jesus Christ: Christological Polarity and Religious Pluralism"
at Tokyo Christian University, July 21-23, 2010
Coordinated by Harold Netland (TEDS) & Takanori Kobayashi (TCU)
PREFACE
In the religiously pluralism came with globalization in our modern time. Following the trend of our time, there seems to be a search for a theology of religions by way of paradigm shift: - from Christo-centrism to Theo-centrism. According the Frankfurt Statement which reflected Karl Barths theology and its position, all religions are the attempt of human sin to rob Gods revelation and salvation, and are unfaithful as godless, human affairs.[1] Therefore religious pluralists criticize Barthian Christo-centrism.
If we consider this, Barths Christo-centric revelation idea means that there is an essential self assertion of Christianity, just as other religions have their own doctrines and the self
assertions. And the revelation of Christ includes exclusiveness of salvation. However, this understanding has a weak point, i.e. Christianity shows no interest in other religions. Consequently, the problem of exclusiveness and universalism (in Christianity in general and in Barthian theology in particular) is to be solved.
I. CONTROVERSY OVER THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGION
To solve this problem, some scholars advocate a theo-centrism. G. Rosenkranz, J. Hick, U. Schoen and P. F. Knitter are its representative scholars.[2] A Japanese religious philosopher who changed to the position of religious pluralism is Yagi Seiichi.[3] But the theo-centralism served to dissolve the identity of Christ into relativism and to shake the Trinitarian structure by the relativizing of Christ. On the other hand, Knitter insists that a dialog between relig- ions should be based on personal religious experiences and a steadfast demand for truth. But it is particularity limited by relativism.
Missiologist Lesslie Newbigin considers and criticizes the modernistic dichotomy which is behind the pluralistic understanding of religion namely, the distinction between science as fact and religion as value.
According to this distinction, modern people shut religion up into a domain of private taste and values. They separate
religion from science which is said to deal
with
fact and to be an official, universal (general) sphere. So while science succeeded in dominating in our view of the world, religion was transformed to the idea related to a free market
economy, as a free choice in a consumer society.[4]
However, even though religious pluralism could be criticized in such a way, a question of how theology with Christological concentration can really be related to other religions still rises among us. I think that the answer to this question could be derived from a viewpoint of the comprehensibility of Christ (such as K. Rahner) either the fundamental principle of Christ (such as P. Tillich), or from a viewpoint of synthetic perfection of religions in Gods future (such as W. Pannenberg). Moreover, the answer should be Trinitarianly given.
Christology as a main theme at this time cannot be cut off from ecclesiology and missiology. Of course this is also true n the Asian context. In other words, Christology could be productively discussed on the table of practical ecclesiology and missiology: namely, evangelism and the formation of the Body of Christ. Because we can positively consider a fundamental problem in the contact between revelation and religion, asking for what the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ means and what sort of horizon proclamation historically has had. If we try to discuss together suffering and hope in Christ from the viewpoint of the Bible and Today, we will also have to discuss Christology as connected with practical ecclesiology and missiology.
I will try to present a consideration of Christology from an Asian context. I will deal with this issue first theologically, second exegetically, and third missiologically.
II. CHRISTOLOGICAL AND PNEUMATOLOGICAL TRINITY
1. Reinterpretation of Christology
For several centuries, Western Christian missionaries came to Asian countries, where
non-Christian, traditional world-religions were already rooted, and new native Christians as minorities in the mission-fields were faced from the beginning with a society of religious pluralism. This religious situation is quite different from Western Christian countries. There- fore, the confession of Jesus Christ as Lord, Messiah raised a lot of tension and conflict and sometimes functioned as revolutionary powers for instance, in Korea, China and the
Philippines.
Anyway, because todays globalization lets people cross borders with dizzying frequency, the subject of peaceful coexistence and religious dialog among the mutually heterogeneous cultures and religions comes to the surface and requires a renewed theology of religion.
When we, from the position of Christianity, try to construct a new theology of religion, how exclusive Christology should be considered becomes an issue. In this paper we will not sketch the opinions of W. Pannenberg and Tillich concerning it, but we do want to observe the view of K. Rahner and the Catholic Church as references.
The Statement on The Relationship between Church and non-Christian Religions in the Second Vatican Council provides a flexible Christian relationship with other religions. The Statement surely reflects Rahners theological attempt which tries to avoid Christian exclu- sive thinking and regards other religions as tools of Gods revelation and salvation. The Council grasps Jesus Christ as the essential and decisive foundation of salvation. This thinking coincides with anonymous Christianity, to use Rahners term. It presumes that Jesus Christ is the sole absolute norm of salvation. But it doesnt have an exclusive or specific character; rather, it is understood as the revelation of the ultimate, inclusive, and universal norm. So even if other religions do not consciously accept Christ, they fully need the inclusiveness in Christ. Whenever believers of other religions receive the grace through their own religion and respond to it, the grace of Christ is also effective for them. The responder is the anonymous Christian redeemed by Christ.[5]
This opinion met with much approval. Interestingly, the China Christian Council (୰ᅜᇶ╩
ᩍ协. CCC) seems to accept this opinion. The CCC was founded in 1980 as an umbrella
organization for all Protestant churches in the People's Republic of China with the bishop K. H. Ting (ග, 1915 ) as its president. The CCC leads the Three-Self Patriotic Movement with the Communist States ideology and obviously utilizes this opinion. Chi- nese Christians, including house churches, are now rapidly growing to the present to exceed
8 percent of whole population, over 1 billion 3 hundred million, in China. Bishop Ting did a
lecture in England, entitled Christ of the Universe for the members of The Friends of The Church in China. He interprets the cosmic Christology of Ephesians and Colossians in the context of the Chinese church and intends to characterize the Chinese Christian religion by expanding and integrating it into the universal and cosmic Christology, not into the thought of atonement as related with individual forgiveness.[6] I would like to deal precisely with
these interesting assertions on another occasion.
But Rahners view was criticized by other scholars. They think as follows. Even though Rahner recognizes Christs mysterious, universal, and anonymous working in all religions, he presumes normative Christology after all. Therefore its attitude prevents actual dialog. Moreover, if only latent faith of non-Christians is referred to, actual faith of other religions' believers clearly doesnt come into view. Eventually, such Christianity may stray into a mo- nolog with itself. J. Hick puts off the Christian inclusiveness which appears in Rahners concept of the anonymous Christian, because in Hicks eyes, it presumes the doctrine of Christian superiority against other religions. He calls himself a Christian pluralist who aims for equality of religions, radically relativizes Christianity, and comes to the same position as
that of JaJaludin Rumi who wrote, The lamps differ from one another, but the light is same. Light comes from far beyond.[7]
However, if we push forward with this criticism and abandon such a view as Rahner's in which Christ is the essential ground of all salvation, we may come to think that many kinds of roads lead into salvation, such as Hick thought. Another Catholic theologian who is like Hick, H. Kuǐ ng, looks at the doctrine of the church, not in relation to the conversion of other religions' believers, but in relation to the effort to realize the Kingdom of God by
love and justice on the earth.[8] But his insistence was criticized by the Roman Catholic
Church.
2. Christological, Pneumatological Trinity
In Japan, Yasuo Furuya, who wrote Theology of Religion was in the spotlight.[9] After he actively considered in this book the academic and social situation on the plurality of
religions, he says that you must not undermine the focus on Christology, when you build up theology of religion. Christianity without Christological focus doesnt deserve its name. Rather, he says, the problem is in how to develop this Christological focus.
After he actively considered in this book the academic and social situation on a plurality of religions, he says that you must not undermine the Christological focus, when you build up a theology of religion. Christianity without a Christological focus doesnt deserve its name. Rather, he says the problem is in how to develop a Christological focus.
We can go to the wide world through the narrow gate of a Christological focus. We believe in the Father as Creator through His only Son and meet the wide cosmos God created. And we believe in God as the Holy Spirit through Gods Son, and meet the humankind whom God guide by speaking to each individuals spirit. The church has expressed this reality in the doctrine of the Trinity.
Gods love and justice appeared intensively in Christ, and are still the universal love and jus- tice toward all the world and humankind which are the actions of the Spirit God, namely, the Holy Spirit in Christ. So Gods love and justice which appeared intensively in Christ are universal love and justice. That is, a focus on Christology has never been of a specific and ex- clusive character, but, quite to the contrary, there is much universal and inclusive expanse. We go out to a wide road within the Trinitarian God through the narrow gate of Christ. Nevertheless, if a Christological concentration gives a very specific and exclusive impression,
the reason is that Christological concentration may be not fully developed by the Trinitarian
God because only the Son of God, Christ, is proclaimed and emphasized.
H.R.Niebuhr warned once about the danger of the theological Unitarianism which doesnt refer to the Trinity.[10] A denomination which believes only the Creator Father as God is usually called Unitarian, to which belong Monarchianism, Arianism, Deism, and Socinianism (the antitrinitarian movement, since1579) from ancient times too. Next there is another Unitarianism which believes only the Son Jesus Christ. For example, Marcion of the early Christian era denied the God of the Old Testament. In modern times, the adoration of Jesus in Pietismus, Jesus-ethics-ism, and many kinds of Christocentrism come under this second kind of Unitarianism. A third type of Unitarianism emphasizes only the God of the Holy Spirit
into which the Father and the Son may be absorbed. Joachim of Fiore of the Middle Ages and the spiritualism of Quakers as the Society of Friends in the Modern Age belong to this type as well.
As Niebuhr says, the problem of such kinds of Unitarianism is not what each emphasizes, but the problem rests in an exclusiveness which rejects the others. Unitarianism errs in insisting on the One, excluding the other Two; rather, the Three, as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, should be emphasized as the one and only God. Although the three types of should always be in mutual dependence, Unitarianism occurs instead of Trinitarianism, if just One of the Three walks by itself.
If we grasp Barths Christological concentration from this viewpoint, a danger of the Unitarianism of Jesus Christ must lurk behind it, although, to be sure, Barth does try to unfold a properly Trinitarian theology. Correcting the exclusiveness of Barths theology, theologians of religion advocate a theocentric Christology. But the problem is not with the alternatives themselves that is, not with God or Christ in themselves nor with Christocentrism and Theocentrism as such. Rather the problem arises when we do not affirm the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as the Trinitarian God, that is, as the Three but One and as the One but Three.
When this affair is rightly understood, the exclusiveness of Christ doesnt contradict his inclusiveness. And the particularity of Christ is not in conflict with his universality. In the following quotation about the Cross of Christ, Moltmann shows the relationship between the exclusiveness and the inclusiveness in Christ. If the Cross becomes more central, an interest in other religions will be open all the more. The pneumatology will become richer and wider.[11]
The above explains a summary of what Furuya insisted. I think too that a key connection between the exclusiveness and the inclusiveness may be in the Trinitarian structure, just as chapter 4, from verse 7 through 12 in Second Corinthians presents the extent of Christs death and resurrection within the Trinitarian structure. Paul interprets his apostolic
suffering and hope as participation in Christs death and resurrection, interpreting the apostolic experiences in close association with the Corinthian church members. So next, we will exegete this text.
III. PAULS UNIQUE CHRISTOLOGY
EXEGETICAL CONSIDERATION OF 2CORINTHIANS 4:714
Steven Strauss points out that the source for ecumenical unity between the Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestant Churches (separated into many denominations) is the ancient ecu- menical creeds and the Bible as canon upon which the former were based.[12] Among the bib- lical books the primary example of such a function can be found in the Pauline letters written by a prominent systematic thinker. This is also true when we talk about Christology.
However, it should be noted that Paul's Christology has some features which differ from what we today recognize as normal Christology. For instance, in II Corinthians 10-12, we read:
Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body. For we which live are always delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh. So then death worketh in us, but life in you.
The one baptism, which Paul refers to in Romans 6:3ff, namely the participation of believers in the death of the cross and the life of the resurrection of Christ, is perceived as an event repeatedly experienced in the Apostles entire life. This Christology is mentioned moreover by the Trinitarian structure of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (cf. a form of the Trinitarian benediction in 2 Corinthians 13:13) in a church community as vivid relationship between I (Paul) and You (the Corinthian church).
Missiologist Lesslie Newbigin insists that no other passage in the New Testament shows the evangelical character of the church more clearly than II Corinthians 4:7ff (cf.4:5). He says, this is a classical definition of evangelism or mission.[13] This passage characterizes mission
as an eschatological event. The tension between suffering and glorification is held just by hope in the believers bodily and holistic resurrection at the last day.
This passage is evangelical, or missional Christology that reflects the experiences of the Apostle who spent all of his life preaching the Gospel. This Christology can be regarded as a specific development of traditional Christology, namely the understanding of Christ and
faith in Christ, of the earliest church. Paul expresses the similar idea also in Philippians
1:29-30 and Colossians 1:24.
1. Exegesis of verses 7-14
What Paul (we form) shares in Christ through his apostolic activities which are followed by death and life (7-11) this works as life for the church (you in verse 12). When he says this in this paragraph this paragraph being bound up with a preface in praise to God using the keywords suffering and comfort in 1:3-11 Paul emphasizes his apostolic suffering, because he intends to defend against those enemies who will not admit his spiritual competence. Paul fully understands that he, in his suffering, doesnt appear to be Gods powerful messenger in Christ. Against his opponents, he enumerates stoically[14] his distress situations (periστασειj) which preventing human life[15] in 1 Corinthians 4:11-13, II Corinthians 6:4-10, and 11:23-29 as well. Of course he doesnt show a stoic anthropology, that is, he does not tell about an immovable mind which may overcome bad conditions and not be influenced by them.
The valuable treasure (qhsauro.ς) of verse 7 includes service under the new covenant where proclaiming the Gospel is closely connected with ministering in the new covenant. And it includes knowledge of Gods glory, transfiguring into the Lords likeness and Gods light to shine within us (=Paul). These are the excellence of the power (cf. ὑπερβολὴ τῆς δυνά ΅εως . II Cor. 1:8, 4:7, 17, 12:7, Romans 7:13, I Cor. 12:31, Gal 1:13) composing a theology of glory. But it is explained at once how this treasure is connected with the dis- appointments of our present reality. Ministering under the new covenant can indeed let be- lievers participate in Gods righteousness and the new life of the spirit; however, the minis-
ters have this treasure in fragile earthen vessels (ἐν ὀστρακίνοις σκεύεσιν. Ge.2:7, Isa.64:7-8, Lamen.4:2. Cf. Seneca Dial 6, 11, 3). In illness stricken, Paul had to proclaim the Gospel, being in derision by his opponents. The power overcoming various obstacles comes only from God, not from himself (12:9-10, 1 Cor. 2:4). His weakness is used only to prove this affair, not to veil or to prevent it (4:3, 3:12-13).
The effect of Gods power appears in a series of the antitheses in verses 8 and 9. On the one hand, the first half of each antithesis comprehensively[16] describes oppression by persecution, while on the other hand, the latter half asserts the maintenance and affirmation of life by God's intervention, not by self-supported human will (cf. 1:8). Be troubled (qlibo,΅αι of v.8a) is paired with be comforted, a central theme in 1:3-7. Its expression reminds us, beyond Pauls personal experience, that an eschatological suffering will happen just before establishment of Gods reign (Matthew 24:21). Persecuted, but not forsaken (v.9a) concretely explains more strongly the situation of struggle and persecution. Just as a Stoic philosopher still lives by reason and the righteous man still lives by Gods help, so the apostle knows that he is supported by Gods power.
The first negative half of the each antithesis is summarized as (the suffering of) death, but then the second affirmative half is summarized as life." The origin of that power by which people can endure until the end is to be found in faithful unity with Jesus Christ who died upon the cross and was highly exalted. Notably, Paul repeats the simple name Jesus (v.5a and v.14 too), because he concentrates on the suffering of the earthly Jesus. He still refers to the life of Jesus in a passage where the resurrection-life is obviously considered, because he emphasizes the identity of the crucified Jesus with the resurrected Christ. Paul interprets his suffering experienced in his work as an apostolic as a concrete and bodily (ἐν τῷσώ΅ατί ) participation in the death of the crucified Jesus (1:5).[17]
There is herein Paul's incomparable, Christological understanding of suffering.[18] How the participation in the death of the crucified Jesus is concrete, is clear in Pauls scars (Gal. 6:17, ἐν τῷ σώ΅ατί [19]) as a result of the stripes he received as punishment and as a result of his being stoned during his missionary work (11:24-25). The apostolic servants work together with poverty, pain, and persecution form a perpetual process where the death of Jesus ap- pears in Pauls bodily life involved with the world. The Greek νεκρόςις (death) characterizes medically bodily extinction, which differs from the present, one-time death in baptism (Rom.6:5), but which is a process of constant death in outward humanity (v.16). But the participation in the power of Christs resurrection accompanies the participation in the suffering of Christ, because the death and resurrection are, for Paul, closely connected with
each other.
The once-for-all death and resurrection by the sacrament of baptism is grasped as an extension into the entire apostolic life. This refers to each believer in Corinth whom Paul here ad- dresses as you." When the believers proclaim and witness Jesus as messiah, as the disciples and the apostles did, they can participate in Christ's suffering.[20] Where then can the power of Christs resurrection be seen in Paul's involvement? It appears now in what we are perplexed about, but not in despair about, and so allows us to continue proclaiming the Gospel.
In v.11, when he says be always delivered unto death (εἰς θά νατον παραδιδό΅εθα) in this current earthly life, this surely signifies the acceptance of a central usage within the tradition on suffering which Jesus experienced since he was delivered at the night (Rom.4:25, 8:32, I Cor.11:23). The accusative apposition, for Jesus' sake (διὰ Ἰησοῦν), clarifies that only suffering in obedience for Jesus can make the apostolic suffering meaningful, so that his suffering can be never be identified with Jesus. The life of Jesus resurrection appears in the continuing death of Paul and, thus, in our mortal flesh (evn th|/ qnhth/| sarki.). In this way, therefore, inexhaustible comfort and hope for immortal life, in spite of hardship, will be
given. Flesh (σὰρξ) cant originally carry the life of ultimate resurrection (1 Cor.15:50). However when he tells us that flesh will be the place where the new life appears, Paul shows consciously the fragility of the human body (sω΅α, basar in Hebrew). So Jesus life appears in the apostolic painful life now.
Unity in tension between the suffering of death and the life of resurrection comes to be rhetorically divided in v.12 to death for Paul on the one hand and to life for the church (you) on the other. Of course, it doesnt mean that Paul will be excluded from the hope for ultimate life, but it means that life is endowed to believers precisely by the message of the cross Paul proclaims, meeting with suffering. So here Paul is not speaking ironically as he does 1 Corinthians 4:10 nor is he speaking in criticism (We have already heavenly life, but you wait for only earthly extinction).[21] He doesnt keep life in v.10-11 for himself, but he offers it for the church.
V.13-14 supplies the present viewpoint of the former verses by pushing the conviction of future resurrection to the front, against the realized eschatology that the Corinthians' pneu- maticers (=spiritualists) conceived. That the faith filled by the Spirit promoted his apostolic proclamation of the Gospel (τὸ αὐτὸ πνεῦ΅α τῆς πίστεως ),[22] Paul tries to confirm by appeal to Psalms (LXX) 115:1 (MT: Ps 116:10. to. Auvto. in the same). I believed, and therefore I spoke out. This Psalm's text is a hymn of personal thanks composed by death and hardship, relief and life, community and openness, thanks and grace. Paul certainly interprets his circumstances in the light of this Psalm. The faith defined by the Spirit makes the Apostle Paul a messenger of the Gospel.
An oldest primitive Christian faith form takes this Psalm's as its source. Namely, he who raised the Lord Jesus (participle: ἐγείραντος τὸν κύριον Ἰησοῦν, Rom. 4:24, 8:11, Gal. 1:1. Cf. Rom. 10:9, 1Thess. 1:10, Apost.3:15, etc.) will with Jesus raise us too. The Spirit (v.13) is a pledge (1:22, 5:4-5, Rom.8:23). This future form points to the eschatological resurrection of believers which was promised by Jesus resurrection on the earth (cf. with Jesus).[23] This incident let people come near to God. In other words, at the return of Christ, it will be allowed that the Apostle and church will stand (παραστῆσαι. 11:2 too) together
(with yours) as the saints before God (cf. Col. 1:22).
2. The Trinitarian God
In the exegesis (see footnote 20) of the Spirit of faith in v.13, we said that the Spirit is Gods Spirit which has a interrelation with faith (cf.1Cor. 12:3). Then, we confirmed that the Spirit becomes a pledge for affirming the believers position as Gods children (Rom.8:15), so that the Spirit is a foundation of hope for the future (Rom.8:23, Gal.6:8).
Paul verifies in Rom.8:17 that believers will be, through Gods Spirit, not only Gods heirs as His children, but the believers may also be allowed to share Christs sufferings, if they are also to share his glory. He verifies that this is not for himself alone, but also applies to theRoman believers (we). The Holy Spirit put them both to suffering and to the glory of
Christ that believers may experience these things in the world that they may participate in the suffering and glory. The extremity of this suffering and glory is preached in this passage from 2 Corinthians 4 as a process of the participation in the death and the resurrection of Christ. The Lords Spirit clarifies the rich expanses and diversity. Besides these passages, the moral life of Christians (Rom. 8:4-5, 13, Gal.5:16, 25), service to God (Phil.3:3,) and prayer (Rom.8:15, 25-26) also happen by Lords Spirit. The Spirit explores the depths of Gods own nature (1 Cor.2:10). The Lords Spirit can reach into the depth of the human spirit and religiosity (cf. the spirit or the hearts in Rom.8:16, 26-27). It is interesting that the paragraph of v.7 ff. unfolds God as a Trinitarian God. V.7 talks of God as the origin of power, verses 10-11 talk of the working of Jesus death and resurrection, and v.13 mentions the Spirit of faith. It takes obvious form in 13:13 as a benediction of the Trinitarian God.
IV Significance of the Christological Trinity in Northeast Asia The Case of Korea - In Asian countries of non-Christian tradition and culture, major religions such as Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism exist in national life, while Christianity coming from the West struggles as a minor religion in a heterogeneous society. Especially, when the colonization of Western countries conflicted with the native peoples in Asia, nationalism connected with indigenous religions and put up a strong resistance against Western countries and their religions. Therefore, when Christianity began to take root in Asian countries, it had to be persecuted politically and religiously. Japan is not an exception, because early Christianity called Kirishitan in Japan has a history of martyrdom. Such a situation is latently continuing in some sense even until the present. The percentage of Christians in Japan, which is the most modernized state in Asia, is less than 1% of the population.
Whenever the witness of Christ stands at the front of evangelism, the witnessing individual could suffer badly from the outside and yet endure. There are many reasons for this, and people have to find effective solutions to achieve better conditions. But suffering and struggle follow originally and inevitably whenever proclaiming the Gospel as the Word of the Cross in this world. This remains true even when the Christians are no longer a small percentage of the entire population. (For example, the percentage of Christians in South Korea is roughly 25%). It simply means participation in the Cross and resurrection of Christ, just as Paul explained in his letters. We recognize such suffering as a sign of Gods children and the gate through which they may partake in the glory of the Lord.
At the end of this presentation, I would like to refer to the case of Korea which, like Japan, has been influenced by Buddhism and Confucianism. In so doing, I will attempt to show how the Gospel could operate in culture, religion and political environment, how the Christological trinity could give meaning to the human world and become a source for its trans- formation, and what kinds of problems the Christological trinity leaves unresolved.
As a Christian theologian and a religious theologian, Yu Dong-Shik understands the ethnocultural spirituality, namely, Korean (= 㡑ⓗ) spirituality as Pung-Ryu-Do, which in Chinese characters 㢼ὶ㐨means wind-flow-road).[24] Pung-Ryu is a word expresses generally the thought of Shinseon- do (⚄㐨 means holy hermit road) , which is an aesthetic expression for the state of the complete harmony between nature, life, and art. The era of the three states, namely Shinra (᪂⨶), Koguryo (㧗ྃ㯇), and Baekche (ⓒ῭) continues from the 1st century B.C. until the 7th Century A.D.. Confucianism,[25] Buddhism and Taoism were conveyed to the three states in the 4th Century A.D until the beginning of the 5th Cen- tury. Through the introduction of these higher religious cultures, the ancient Korean culture was largely changed and the primitive spirituality, which believes in a heavenly, presiding God (= Hanunim) and worships this God with ritual,[26] was sublimated by it for example, Farang-Do in the Shinra era of the 6th Century. So it is said that Pung-Ryu-Do includes these three Asian religions. If the essence of these three religions is questioned, people can answer as follows. Confucianism is a polite requital with self-control. Buddhism is the heart as source of ultimate unity. And Taoism is nature as unconsciousness. The common thread running through these three religions is that human beings should return to nature, overcoming self-adherence in the egoistic world. In this case, nature means that human nature/self as given by the heavenly God. It is Gods mind. The single word road of wind-flow (=Pung-Ryu-Do), through which human beings can be unified with God, includes the common essence among the three religions.
As we can know from the affair mentioned above, Pung-Ryu-Do is not a concept characterizing a particular religion; rather, it is a spiritual principle or an ethnic spirituality flowing at the ground of Korean cultural history from antiquity until today. It is a place and a principle on which both the three religions and other many kinds of Asian religions could be accepted and unfolded.
The elements composing the ethnic spirituality of Pung-Ryu-Do are understood by means of the following three concepts, which are important elements in our daily life and which are widely used with a depth of meaning. They are Mo(t), Han, and Sam. Mo(t) ex- presses cultural and artistic value, Han expresses religious and metaphysical value, and Sam expresses social and ethical value. Yu says that the three important concepts arestructurally similar to the concept of the Trinitarian God in Christianity.[27] The Trinitarian structure of Pung-Ryu-Do with the three concepts can be grasped by the intrinsic existence of each in relation to each other. Each concept includes other two concepts. So Mo(t) is formed by the creative harmony between Han and Sam. Han means a transcendence that includes Mo(t) and Sam. And Sam should be the life based on Han. Namely, the three are three, but yet form one idea.
A typical cultural form of this Pung-Ryu-Do may be clearly observed in the ancient ritual of worshiping the heavens and in agricultural music. For example, a book called the
Wi-sa(㨯ᚿ), which was part of a larger Chinese historical book written about three states
(Samguksa ,ࠗ୕ᅜᚿ࠘), describes an ancient ritual of worshiping Heaven in an ancient three Samhan, this being a religious ritual of agriculture.[28] Religion (Han), Production (Sam), and Art (Mo[t]) are in unity. These rituals continue even today. Most of the general and representative folk arts in performance are connected with the agricultural music.
Why then, if religion may be understood, accepted and unfolded by particular spirituality, also world religion including universal truth will be conveyed into and along the structure of indigenous ethnic spirituality, not into a perfect vacuum. Therefore, an ethnic religious culture is formed by the integration of the pre-existing ethnic spirituality and of the idea of a foreign religion, with a concrete historical situation as a place in which this encounter takes place. Then how is the case of Korea? The religious history in Korea was developed by the intermingling of Buddhism, Confucianism and Christianity. Buddhist culture dominated in Shinra-and Koguryo-era. Confucian culture dominated for 5 centuries in Chosen (=Korean) dynasty. And today, Western Christianity is playing dominant role. However, the three elements mentioned above (Mo(t), Han and Sam) are delicately involved together and operated throughout each eras religious culture.
Conclusion: A Critical Examination of Yus Theory
Yu concludes as follows: The Trinitarian structure in the three concepts, Mo(t), Han, and Sam, show mutual inner relations, not only in one religious culture, but also within Buddhism, Confucianism, and Christianity. Todays Korea is building a religiously pluralistic society; each religion should be aware of the ethnic spirituality and deepen an understanding of its own religion through mutual understanding and stimulus.[29]
But herein is a problem. Though it may be inevitable from the position of religious science, Yu tries to fix the ethnic spirituality, which has a Trinitarian structure, as the unchangeable context, then interprets each of the three religions as a text, and lets each religion adapt to the context. So he tries to make good use of the religions for ethno-spiritual creativity and activities. Also, in this view, Christianity is merely one religion among the world religions. Yus theory is in danger of falling into religious syncretism although in his book he argues that a compromising syncretism doesnt achieve a real dialog between religions,[30] and so he leaves himself open to falling into that very danger against which he complains. If we observe his theory from the position of Christian theology, we might well conclude that his argument is fraught with the danger of changing the truth of Christs incarnation through the Holy Spirit (Gods truth subsisting in humanity) to a truth matching well with the historical situation, excluding the transcendence of God, and also with the danger of reducing the Holy Spirit in the Trinitarian God to a religious spirituality of the human being.
Instead of doing as Yu does, we need a Christological Trinity as the principle of salvation. According to it, Christs Spirit should subsist in the Trinitarian structure of Koreas (㡑ⓗ)spirituality, clarify and change its limitation and sinful quality, revive radically Koreas(㡑ⓗ) spirituality and its elements of truth common among the three religions. What I regard as the elements of truth are as follows: a return to nature by overcomingself-adherence in the egoistic human world and belief in one heavenly god. This principleshould be applicable to all the three religions which uphold the Korean spirituality; from a Christian theological point of view this can be a principle operative for Buddhism and Confucianism also. In order to take such a view, we dont need to bring up the theology of Rahner and of Protestant theologians, but it is enough for us to point out Pauline theology which can support this view.
The Republic of Korea is the Asian country in which Protestant Christianity is currently the most vigorous. People can find a reason for the growth of Protestantism in Koreas recent painful history (because of the Japanese colonial policy). But if people, in parallel with such a sociological explanation, were to seek another reason in Koreas native religious and spiritual soil, it would have to be found in Koreas ethnic spirituality and its idea of God (faith in
the Heavenly One) as Yu excellently analyzed and explained.[31] But such theories are often attended by a danger of religious syncretism caused by a remarkable approach to Shamanism or Buddhism, so that doctrinal Christology and the Trinity based on the Bible become ambiguous which often results in heretical problems. Nevertheless, the mainline Protestant de- nominations in Korea are realizing healthy growth and a deeper self-understanding through the dialectic relationship, conducted by its leaders, with Oriental religions.
Choe Byeuong-Heon who was a leader of the early Korean Protestant church was one such excellent leader. Choe was a pastor and theologian of the Methodist church. It was his mission to investigate the Gospel for his fellow countrymen who were living in religious traditions such as Confucianism and Buddhism. He serialized the literary articles Seongsan- Yurangi (⪷ᒣ㐟,A Travel Journal on the Holy Mountains) in the Monthly Theo- logical Journal (⚄Ꮫ᭶ሗ) published in 1907 and serialized another set of articles Theology of Religion in the Theological World, published from 1916 until 1920. His opinion shown in these articles stands even now, when we see it from todays viewpoint. He pre- sented us with a classic, traditional, and yet quite remarkable theology of religion. If we may summarize his teaching, we should say that he was sure that the truth of salvation Oriental religions were seeking will be realized by Christ, and the salvation of the Korean people, with their well-rooted religious and cultural traditions, will be accomplished by Christianity. He took never an exclusive and self-righteous attitude toward other religions. But at the same time, he took never the position of relativism such as the objectively observing religious science. He was the first Christian to produce a theology of religion for Korean Christianity.
We know that in the history of Christian missions, the proclamation of Christianity didnt cause a dialog with Confucianism and Buddhism, rather, it caused violent conflict with them which resulted in hardship for both the Christian missionaries and the believers. In the ancient Confucian states of China and Korea, worshipping ancestors was not only a personal ritual act, but also obligatory courtesy which was expected of the people for maintaining the order of the state and society. Christianity being contrary to the custom was excluded as a heresy and therefore many martyrs shed much blood. Of cause there was a significant issue as to how to proclaim the way of the Gospel and to develop an effective mission method. However on the other side, the conflict between Christianity and the indigenous traditions was essentially inevitable.
Given our analysis of the passage in II Cor.4, such distress had to be. It can be understood in terms of the believers suffering and hope for participating in Christs cross and resurrection. Such a meaningful participation in Christs suffering and hope, in his cross and resurrection, continues to be witnessed in Korean history. Gods Spirit in Christ is working through such participation even now.
2 G. Rosenkranz, Der christliche Glaube angesichts der Weltreligion, Berlin/Muǐ nchen 1967; J. Hick, Der Mythos vom fleischgeworden Gott, Guǐ terslohr 1979; U. Schoen, Das Ereignis und die Antworten. Auf der Suche nach einer Theologie der Religion heute, GoΕNttingen 1984; P. F. Knitter, No Other Name? A Christian Attitudes Toward the World Religion, New York 1985.
3Yagi Seiichi, Common Ground of Buddhism and Christianity, Houzoukan,1975. Yagi Seiichi / Abe Masao, Buddhism and Christianity-Ask for the dialog with Takizawa Katsumi- , Sanichi Shobo, 1981.
4Leslie Newbigin. Foolish to the Greek The Gospel and Western Culture. 1986. Cf. DCosta, Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered. New York 1990.
[5] K. Rahner, Anonymous Christentum und Missionsauftrag der Kirche, Schriften zur Theologie IX, 498ff.
[6] Tomisaka Christian Center (ed.), Original Source. Material Collection of Modern Chinese Christianity, Shinkyo Publisher, 2008, P.493-501.
[7] JaJaludin Rumi, The One True Light, in Rumi:Poet and Mystic, trans.R. A. Nicholson, London and Boston, 1978, P.166; John Hick, A Personal Note in: his Disputed Questions in Theology and the Philosophy of Re- ligion, London, 1993.
[8] H. Kuǐ ng, Die Herausforderung der Weltreligion, In: Christ sein, Muǐ nchen, 10.Aufl. 1980
[9] Yasuo Furuya, Theology of Religion, Jordan Publisher, 1986/1990.
[10] H. Richard Niebuhr, Theological Uniterianisms (1946), in: Theology Today, July 1983.
[11] Juǐ rgen Moltmann, Kirche in der Kraft des Geistes, 1975, S.177.
[12] Steve Strauss, Creeds, Confessions, and Global Theologizing, in:Craig Ott/Harold A. Net- land(ed), Globalizing Theology ,-Belief and Practice in an Era of World Christianity-, Michigan, Grand Rapids, 2006, P.140-156.
[13] Lesslie Newbigin, Mission in Christs Way, Geneva: World Council of Churches , 1987, P.24.
[14] Epik.Diss 1, 24, 1; 2,19, 24 so on. Cf. early Jewish writings like slav. Hen 66, 6; Test.Jos 1, 4-7; 2,4; Pesach X, 5 too.
[15] Cf. V. P. Furnish, II Corinthians, AnchB 32A, Garden City 1984,280-283.
[16] On every side (evn panti), the head of v.8
[17] But the title Christ instead of Jesus in 1:5 is so used twice, that his pain realizing salvation (v.5a) and an existence-form of the resurrected (v.5b) are emphasized. This point is different in a viewpoint from 4:10ff.
[18] W. Schrage, Leid, Kreuz und Eschaton, EvTh 34, 1974, 165.
[19] Against circumcision of Jewish enemies who boast of self- fresh (Gal6:13).
[20] J. Moltmann, Das Kommen Gorres, Christliche Eschatologie,Bd. 5
[21] E. Guǐ tgemanns, Der leidende Apostel und sein Herr, FRLANT 90, Gφttingen 1966, 309.
[22] Pauline evangelism by the Spirit in faith is emphasized here. R. Bultmann understands the usage of the spirit of faith merely as way of faith in comparison with 1 Cor.4:21, Gal.6:1 (evn pneu,mati prau<thtoj,,, nominative genitive. It is mind of faith, namely paraphrase of faith itself). But because of referring resurrection in v.14 (cf. pneu/ma of 5:5), pneu/ma is Gods Spirit (V. P. Furnish, 258). Because hope is connected with the Spirit and faith in Gal.5:5, pneu/ma th/j pi,stewj, shows an interrelation between both words. As H. D. Wendland, Die Briefe an die Korinther, NTD 7, Gφttingen, 190, indicates rightly, Gods Spirit caused faith in mind (accusative genitive) and believers receive the Spirit. Moreover the Spirit put them into a new communi- cation with God and affirms them as Gods children (Rom.8:15). Paul summarizes all of these affairs with us- age of the Spirit of faith.
[23] Paul emphasizes here a close relationship between Jesus resurrection and that of the believer.
[24] Yu Dong Shik, Korean Christianity,Tokyo National University Publisher, Toyo Series 5, 1994, p 6ff.
[25] Dealing with Confucianism being ethical thought as a religion is difficult. But if people estate it for a pseu- do-religion which has a religious world view, putting it into category of religion can be allowed.
[26] A book Wiseo(㨯᭩) within Chinese historical book written about three states Wi(㨯), Oh(࿋) and Chok(⻎) tells that there was such religious ritual in Puyeo, Koguryo, Samhan (Mahan, Shinhan, Beuonhan), etc which were the ancient tribal union states.
[27] Op.cit. p.10f.
[28] Op.cit. p.10f.
[29] Op.cit. p.18.
[30] Dong Shik Yu, Korean Religion and Christianity, Youyou Publisher, 1975, p.199f.
[31] Op.cit. p.18.