Wednesday, October 28, 2020
Flyer for "How to Read Paul"
Tuesday, October 27, 2020
Yonggi Cho's interview and his life story
Shamanism and Christianity in Korea
Shamanism and exclusivism represent a typical form of conservative, fundamentalist Christianity in Korea. Yonggi Cho, founding pastor of Yoido Full Gospel Church and now retired, along with fundamental pastors, stands out in this direction. He delivered a rare speech at the Buddhist Graduate School of Dongguk University, Seoul, Korea. As I hear him, his story begins and ends with a form of shamanism. After his speech, he said that each religion matters and functions on its own with a message of salvation. But later, he reversed his statement because of the pressures coming from his church.
I translated Cho's speech and interview (Q & A) because it gives us an opportunity to examine shamanism and exclusive Christianity in Korea. His speech centered on his conversion experience and the history of his church planting. After the speech, he had a time of Q & A. Someone asked: "Do you believe that Jesus or Christianity is the only way to salvation and that other religions are not true?" His answer was shocking to his fellow conservative Christians since he said Buddhism has its own message of salvation. Furthermore, he said, "We (Christians and Buddhists) need to coexist." Soon I heard that he corrected his position because of the pressures from his church.
1) Cho's distinct theology of the threefold blessing was well-marked in his lecture. As you might understand, his theology is just like saying this: "hope, hope! blessing and blessing! now and tomorrow!" Otherwise, there is no mention of the gospel of justice or the cost of discipleship. It is a typical example of charismatic/shamanistically driven faith. But his message appealed to many poor. He told a story about one woman who says: "Here is a hell already I live now. Show me a little bit of heaven now..."
2) He also made bold statements about other religions in his lecture, especially during the interview after the lecture. He said, religion is equal and Buddhism has its own concept of salvation and therefore it should be properly recognized.
Discussion questions:
Where is his theology rooted? What are some socio-political implications of his theology? Is he a shaman? How is his theology different from Shamanism? How does a shaman play in the contemporary religion or culture? Is Jesus a shaman for him?
---
YONGGI CHO'S SPEECH: "MY LIFE AND FAITH"
Yonggi Cho, Yoido Full Gospel Church, delivered this speech at the Buddhist Graduate School of Top Management, Dongguk University, Seoul, Korea, on May 18, 2004
Translated by Yung-Suk Kim
I am very glad to be here to speak to you. Actually, I was a bit hesitant with Dr. Han’s invitation because, as you know, I am not a professional executive or a trained scholar. As an ordinary pastor, I was not sure what I would have to say to a distinguished audience like you, but I made up my mind to come; I believe my speech would deepen our mutual understanding of different faiths. Often, debates aim at winning over the other party, but dialogue through mutual recognition of differences serves as a good opportunity for a better understanding of each other. I believe that we can make a better society if we work together through reconciliation and cooperation among Christians, Muslims, and Buddhists.
I take this opportunity to share my theology based on the essence of Christianity. Presently, I am serving as a pastor of the 750,000-member Yoido Full Gospel Church- a member church of a larger ecclesial body of Kidokkyo Daehan Hananim Sunghwe, which has 2,000 churches along with its 1.5 million members. Worldwide, we are part of 50 million members of the Assembly of God. Roughly, 200 million people worldwide share a similar faith with us.
Born into Buddhist culture, I did not grow up in a Christian atmosphere. It was not a coincidence that our house was surrounded by Buddhist temples such as SunnamTemple to the north Bulguk Temple down the road, and Tongdo Temple toward Busan. I went to bed listening to the bells in the temples and woke up with the same sound in the morning. My grandmother, as a devoted member of the Tongdo Temple, had a Buddhist name heaven-flower and studied Zen Buddhism for her life. As the first son in my family, I used to have Buddhist meditations. Often, my father said to me, “Heart is Buddha; Buddha is not somewhere else but in your heart; if you are enlightened in your heart, Buddha is there.” He also told me about “kae-you-bool-sung" which means that everything (all) has a Buddhist mind." I grew up with this kind of Buddhist teaching.
Then at the age of 17 toward the end of the Korean War in 1953, I collapsed due to an aggravated lung disease. Terminally ill, I vomited a large amount of blood. Because of the Korean War, our people massively suffered from poverty and hunger; our family fled to Busan to seek refuge, leaving behind the burnt house attacked by the communists. While in Busan, even with hard work, our daily condition did not improve at all. I came down with malnutrition with blood-vomiting continued. Later days at a hospital, I found the right side of my lung failed. Then a chief doctor told me that my life would soon end within 6 months. At that time a large-scale surgery could be performed only in Norway, but I could not afford it. I felt much fear and hopelessness, with an understanding that my life soon die out. I said to myself, “Hey, man! From a long-term perspective, what makes the difference between dying as a teen and dying in the nineties? Don’t worry about your death. It is eventually the same thing whether you die now or late.” I lay down on the floor of the rugged card-boarded house, and looked up at the roof; I could not resist the bitterness of my destiny, sadness, and hopelessness despite my own justification for an impending death.
Deep down in my heart, however, I had a yearning to live longer even though I did not know what to do given my condition of rough breathing with blood vomiting. In this darkest moment of my life, my father came to pray for me in a Buddhist way: “Being born-aging-sickening-dying is a matter of the heart. Transcend it.” At such a young age, however, I could not get over it despite my father's urge that I have Buddhist meditation. I cried one day, “I don’t care who will save me. It could be a Buddha, a Jesus, or a Mary. If anyone makes me alive, I will dedicate my life to the Savior until I die. Help me to live. I do not want to die now at the age of 17. Please give me another chance.” I made a last desperate shout in the midst of the gravest suffering.
A few days later, a friend of my sister's, a devoted Christian, visited my sick bed and asked me to have faith in Jesus Christ. With my father’s opposition to her visit, I received a Bible but did not feel good because I grew up in a Buddhist way. Upon her request, I began to read the books of Matthew, Mark, and John and found that they were very different kinds of storybooks; until that time I read only Zen magazines for a long time that were published in Japan. In Zen magazines, there is a vast amount of in-depth philosophy and logic - a level that defies our verbal expressions. I felt that this Bible seemed to lack the philosophy, logic, and profundity of the story.
However, the Bible's story touched my soul and body. Because I was a dying person with no hope of finding a cure by the contemporary medical advancement. I was indeed a person whom doctors and my family gave up. I needed a miracle. I needed this story of miracles because I searched for a person who would make me alive now here on earth, not a person who would lead me to the other world of the spirits after death. In the storybooks of the Bible, I found such a figure Jesus who expelled demons, healed the sick, erected dead persons, fed the five thousand people with the miracle of two fishes and five loaves of bread, and himself arose from the grave three days after his death. From the eyes of Buddhism with logical thoughts, the biblical stories seemed very foolish and unpractical, but for me, they were much-needed stories in my hopeless situation.
As a person of desperate hopelessness, I could not live by logic or theory but needed a supernatural miracle. My father’s teaching was a transcendence of the deadly situation; it is true that a living person dies; separation of life and death is evident. Nevertheless, in reality, I could not live with the transcendental spirit of Buddhism; rather, I was full of desires to live with. Such desires matched the Bible of Christ. Before this time, I never attended a church or read the Bible. Then I thought to myself, “If Christ is alive today as in the Bible, I can live.” So I knelt down and prayed: “If you let me live, I would be a monk for you, Jesus. So let me live.” Fearing my father’s scolding or opposition, I prayed by myself without being noticed. I thought, my in-youn (Buddhist term, close to the meaning of karma or fate) was connected with Jesus. Before this prayer, fear and terror of death bombarded me like a spiraling whirlwind hitting my head, but after this prayer, peace of mind visited me. I have an unthinkable conviction that I can live; it is not a psychological peace.
Though I vomited blood while coughing and received the doctor’s declaration of impending death, I could get a stronger belief that I could live. The Bible was accepted deep in my heart even though seemingly nonsensical through the mind’s eye. With this conviction that I would not die, I told my family members that I wouldn't die because of my faith in Jesus. Then all my family members wept, thinking that my last day came near. In other words, they thought that I had become confused or schizophrenic. My mother prayed (to Buddha) that in the next incarnation, I would be born into a rich family with a happy life because in this life I suffered a lot. But I said, “Don’t say that. I will live.” I wanted to sing songs even though I did not know any Christian songs; I felt peace and joy in the midst of hopelessness. Then I got up and sang a song “O, Night of Shilla, Hear the Bell of the Bulguk Temple” (note: this song is a popular folk song in Korea). My loud singing shook my house.
Gradually, my fever and blood vomiting disappeared. I began recovering the taste of the food. In six months, my breathing became normal. Finally, I recovered completely in a year. What a great belief (conviction) – something that cannot be accomplished by humans – that changed me! A great peace came to me even when I could not see, hear, and capture anything with my eyes, my ears, and my hands, or when my way ahead was so dark like black. The heaven (the kingdom of God) came into my heart, as it is said in the Bible that the kingdom of God (or heaven) is in one’s heart, not here or there.
To my surprise, however, nobody came to my church. They did not listen to me and my efforts of evangelism failed. They were the people of the poorest, making a bare living day by day. With this absolute poverty, what abounds was alcoholics, the vulgar, or thieves. Then, a turning point came to my life. A couple with their nine sons moved from Bukcheong, North Korea. The husband had become an alcoholic for the past ten years, drinking from morning to evening. This father of nine sons would take out some money from his sons who brought it home by hard working at the shoe polishing shops and used it to buy alcohol. The wife was very weak and had heart and stomach diseases. I knocked on the door of this family. She asked, “Who are you?” I answered, “I am an evangelist working at a tent church up the village. Let us go to heaven by believing in Jesus.” Then, staring at me angrily, she said to me, “I won’t go to heaven. You all religionists are liars!” I answered, “I did not tell a lie.” The woman continued to say, “If at death such a beautiful heaven is given, why it is not possible to have a little bit of heaven here and now on earth? In our home heaven is not an expensive thing.” “Heaven at our home is like this: we need a piece of the blanket with which my kids can sleep; rice to eat day after day so that they might go to school; the cure of my husband from an alcoholic. How in heaven can God lie if he cannot make these kinds of small things for us now? I do not need a beautiful heaven after death. You, religionists, are tricksters who make money by giving the poor psychological relief.”
This woman was a well-educated person from North Korea. I was shocked and dumbfounded. It was not I but she who evangelized me. She said: “Right? If there is a heaven up there, the place we go after death, why can you not show a little bit of such heaven here and now, and save us out of this miserable situation?”
Nevertheless, I still insisted, “You go to hell if you don’t believe.” Then, this woman, laughingly answered, “The hell? Wake up, man! Here is the hell we live in now. We, eleven family members, live in a small square-foot room, and we are worse off than dogs or pigs. For the past ten years, we never have eaten white rice but flour. With no shoes, clothing, or hospitals to go, we have here a living hell, hotter than any other thing, no matter what you say about the hell. I have pains in my neck because of my nine sons. What can your religion provide for us?” I returned to my tent church without saying further.
This woman’s saying sounded a bang to my ear: “If there is a heaven, we need a heaven now, not the one after death. Heaven now!” Then, my father’s Buddhist teaching also whispered to my ears: “Heart is thus a Buddha. Buddha is not only in paradise but also in my heart.” Wherever Buddha is, there is a Christian heaven/paradise or a Buddhist paradise. If one lives now the living hell and goes to heaven only after death, can such a thing not be an actual lie? The heaven must come here as she insists. In fact, she lives now in hell. Then what should I say to her?
Therefore, the simple message is that whoever believes in him will receive the three-fold blessing: souls are well; all things go well; you can live a healthy life. That is why we call this holistic salvation, which is not just about the soul but also about the spirit (soul), the body (flesh), and the present life. Such a holistic message of salvation is central to our Christianity. Our Christianity sometimes teaches that we have to keep the commandments rather than believe in Jesus. Though some churches incessantly teach that we have to keep the law and the commandments, I believe that by the simple faith and God’s grace, we are forgiven from sin; being free from curses; receiving the blessings of God; healed from diseases; and being saved.
Furthermore, a new house was built with the help of this church. This story appears to prove my preaching about the hopes. This woman, within three months of believing in Jesus, saw the manifestation of the Christian message in such a way that “your soul is blessed with health, and everything works together.” I felt good about this message of great hope – the threefold blessing, and the holistic salvation. Through preaching about hopes, our church grew fast to a membership of 500 in three years since I worked in this village. With much enthusiasm for these newly hopeful members, through their prayers and dedication, our church grew faster and made another big move to Seodaemoon, Seoul in 1961. Many people laughed at me when I started a church there because there were already big established churches such as Independence Church, Ahyun Methodist Church, Jungdong Church, and Saemoonan Chruch in the region of our church. They had reasons to say that because I, a 26-year-old young person, entered that established region without fear.
They thought that I was crazy. But I knew one thing. In the 1960s, Korea began to undergo a process of modernization. President JungHee Park launched the Saemaeul (New Village) Movement and ambitious economic development programs. As a result, many people from Jullado and Kyungsangdo came to Seoul to find a job and lived in the boarded houses of the poor among the poor, on the top mountain of Ahyundong. They used charcoals for heating and cooking day and night, sometimes putting them inside a room. They were gassed. They were not allowed to take their lives in the midst of this suffering and miserable incident. At times, the wind blew into the poor houses, with people half-killed. They survived only to suffer more.
I preached hope to these people living on the margins. I did not teach the commandments or the law. I did not teach about religion. I did not preach about Christianity but about hopes through which one can get holistic salvation in Jesus Christ. I continued to preach the message of hope in spite of many accusations from every corner of other denominations and church leaders. However, in fact, so many people came to our church to find hope and slept at our church to listen to the message of hope.
People of our church were often blamed for praying aloud with unspeakable gestures or shouting. They say, “Church must be quiet, solemn, and holy. How come they are praying with noises, weeping, and clapping?” It is right that middle/upper-class people of intellectuals did not have to weep or clap. But these people had to cry because they didn’t have a background, education, family fame, money, and life. That’s why they cried aloud listening to the message of hope at the church. One has to cry to live in this situation. Otherwise, one cannot live due to the depression. I, therefore, told the members of my church to cry. They were told to feel like children who have a father and to pray aloud crying like kids. Our church was like a funeral house because of victims or the oppressed, all kinds of miserable people came to pray with shouts. After this crying and shouting, I asked them to sing aloud like children before their father to rejoice. Praying aloud in unison, and singing with hands, people experienced healing and spiritual salvation, with their stress washed away, and with their hearts calmed down. With this faith and experience, they find God to help them. Moreover, they help each other.
Positive, creative thinking and attitude change their life. If one has a negative, hopeless, destructive, and pessimistic attitude toward life, it does harm to the self and others as well. Norman Vincent Bill, a famous American, wrote a best-seller book Positive Thinking. One day a shabby person, visited Dr. Bill and said, “Dr. Bill, I am broke, and I am nothing. Do I have any hope? If I don’t find hope after listening to you, I am going to die” Bill then asked this poor man to write on the blank sheets of paper, “Write down what I asked you to write”: “First of all, do you have a wife? Yes, I have. Even though I am not good enough, she is still with me. Second, do you have children? Yes, I have. Though I do not educate them well, they are good.
Third, do you have friends? Yes, I have some good friends. Fourth, do you have tastes? Yes, I have. I can eat well if any. You can eat whatever you wish whereas a sick millionaire cannot eat at all. Fifth, do you have good sleep? Yes, I sleep well though I don’t make good money. You are blessed because famous people have a hard time sleeping. And are you healthy now? Yes, I am.” Then this poor man read what he wrote: I have my wife, children, friends, tastes, good sleep, and health. Dr. Bill said, “Why did you tell a lie? Entering my office, you told me you didn’t have anything with you. See how much you have. Why do you see what you don’t have without seeing what you have? This man nodded and said, “I didn’t know that I had this much. I thought I didn’t have anything when I came to you. But now I see I have many.” This man, changing his attitude for life, went out with confidence and got a job. I feel my job is to give hope and dreams to the people who need them. If one has hopes and dreams, one can go anywhere. I have traveled the entire globe as much as 80 rounds of the earth and wherever I went, Africa, North America, Europe, and South America, I found a common want of people: they search for hopes and dreams. One and a half million people gathered in Sao Paulo, Brazil. I told them to find hope and a dream in Christ.
We work throughout the world to give hope and dreams. We founded Hansedae, Gukminilbo, Ellim (social agency) to train the unfortunate young, Bethesda College in the USA, and Good Samaritans, and others in Africa and Asia, and North Korea. For me what matters in life is to find hopes and dreams by believing in Jesus Christ. Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam are equal as religions. I, as a pastor who grew up in a Buddhist home, find much commonness between Christianity and Zen Buddhism: “Buddha is in your heart” is similar to Jesus’ saying that the kingdom of heaven (or God) is not said to be here or there; Jesus is in your heart. “Buddhist paradise is accomplished here in your heart, not after death.” Likewise, Jesus’ teaching goes hand in hand with a Buddhist teaching; the kingdom of heaven must be here in your heart. Don’t look forward to heaven after death. Law and commandments reveal your sins but faith in Jesus and salvific life automatically bring forth energy or capacity with which to keep the law or the commandments. That is why I like the thought of Wonhyo, a Buddhist monk, who emphasized simple salvation that can be available to all through reciting the four letters of na-moo-ami-tabul. Then people are able to keep the rules. All these parallel teachings show the common character of faith in both religions.
I like a Buddhist TV channel. I benefit from this channel, and feel peace of my mind when I watch and listen to the lecture of this TV program; I feel at home with Buddhism. So I listened to the whole series of lectures by Professor Byungjo Jung. I find, however, others’ lectures hard to follow because of their complex, philosophical contents. I consumed his TV lecture series and books as well. I like him because his lecture is easy to understand. Why do I listen to Buddhist lectures often? Because of those lectures, I was able to deepen my faith in Christianity. In that respect, I realize the necessity of inter-religious dialogue.
I went to a foreign missionary because I swore that I would live for Jesus as a monk if I recovered. With the guidance of that missionary, I came to Seoul to study theology and graduated in 1958. I bought a piece of 24-persons-tent at the Namdaemoon market and pitched it as a church at one of the poorest villages in Seoul. Many poor people coming from Kyungsangdo and Jellado lived on the top of the mountain at Bulkwang village and temporarily built boarded houses. I had my tent pitched there to evangelize people. I said, “Go to heaven with faith in Jesus and if you don’t, you will go to hell. Repent by believing in Jesus.”
Christianity considers it important to give hope to the needy. How is Christianity the religion of hope? In the doctrine of Christianity, God created heaven and earth and made the Garden of Eden in which God put Adam and Eve to live joyfully. But they rebelled against God and fell into sin. As a result, three disasters were brought in. The first disaster is this: humans became slaves of the devil after sinning. All kinds of injustice, evil, and corruption took place. The second disaster: Because of the curse of the environment, the earth produced thorns and thistles, and humans had to work hard with sweat to live. The third one is that humans become old, sick, die, and return to earth. All humankind from their birth lives in these three disasters, sinning, becoming slaves of the devil, and living and dying with the suffering of hunger, sickness, and poverty. Christ came to save us from these three disasters. Christ came not to teach ethics or religion. He is the Lord who came to redeem us. Such is the principle truth taught by the Bible.
Doctrines or commandments come after Jesus Christ, who came to rescue us from his death and who took all our burdens of sins, curses, sickness, and death. Therefore, whoever believes in Jesus, male or female, young or old, poor or rich, is saved. I was reminded of my father’s teaching of WonHyo, a great Buddhist monk in Korean history. WonHyo says: “There are too many commandments, but a person can be saved not by keeping all of them but by reciting ‘namooami-tabul.’ Likewise, Jesus Christ, with the blood on the cross, atoned for our sins and took instead of us the curses, death, and infirmities.
I have been connected with Jesus Christ because of this hope. Out of complete hopelessness, I read the Bible and found a great pillar of the fire of hope. I realized that what this woman needs are hopes, not heaven or hell that people go after death, or by keeping the law. So I went to see that lady again. She said, “Why did you come back? I don’t have anything to give you.” Then, I replied, “No, won’t you change your destiny?” This lady retorted back, “What can you do to change my life?” “I know a person who will change your lot. If you turn to him, you will have your husband back with no more alcohol addiction, have food to eat, have free education for your children, and have a good house with sanitary facilities,” I said. This woman asked, “Who is he? Where?” I said, “Follow me and I will let you meet him.” She followed me with sandals on her feet. This was a surprise to me. She did not listen to me when I tried to win her through the law and the commandments of the gospel. In fact, she resisted my efforts of evangelization. But now she follows me when I talk about hopes.
Arriving at my tent church on the field, where the floor was covered with straw mattresses, she asked, “Where is your church?” I said, “Here is my church.” Looking around the tent church, she roared with a big laugh, pulling her stomach, “What are you talking about? You and I have the same lot of poverty.” I said, “You are right. The life of you and me is equally poor, but we are hopeful in Jesus Christ. Let us believe in him so that we are spiritually saved, materialistically blessed, freed from curses, lived healthily, cured of sickness, and we gain an everlasting life of resurrection.” She was not angry about my talks about hope. She began to come to my tent church and did so almost every day. We talked about hopes and prayed together. Amazing things happened. This woman, with this kind of hope, began to rejoice, smile, and sing praises, and finally, her psychologically driven diseases (related to stomach or heart diseases) were cured. Then after three months of prayer for her husband, her husband began to attend our church after stopping alcohol. With the help of the North Korean Refugees Association, this family managed to live with rice and got a job. Gradually, the nerves of this broken family began to move toward normality. Kids could go to school. Thank you.
Q & A follows:
Q: What is your hope now? Do not take it too seriously.
Cho: Religion is a foundation for intellectual, cultural life. As an understanding of Christianity is essential to know the West, so to know Korea it is also essential to understand Buddhism and Confucianism. But now the Korean situation is chaotic because there is no central, dominating religion to put order; Young people are very confused because of the existence of communists, and pleasure-seeking practices.
I think we can solve this problem by creating a dominating religion under which ethical, moral, practical, and philosophical worldviews and life will be established. Therefore, Buddhism or Christianity should be stronger in this country. Because there is no such powerful dominating religion, even excellent government policies will not be implemented or accepted by the public.
For this reason, I hope that Buddhism/Christianity will flourish and also that Buddhist-Christian dialogue will take place. If I live a longer life, I would like to go overseas to preach the gospel and also to contribute to making a space for dialogical culture, because I believe that through the recognition of mutual differences and dialogue, we will have an opportunity to work together aiming at reconciliation. I am considering inviting Dr. Han to a Christian meeting. For example, the mercy of Buddha and the love of God is not different from each other as seen from its practice. I like to spend more time working on this business of mutual cooperation.
Q: About twenty years ago, one student insisted that there is no salvation except through Jesus. I told him/her to check with his/her pastor and come back to me. However, he/she repeats the same answer.
Cho: That is right. Buddhism has been an elder religion as a religion of Korea for a long time. What if Buddhism excludes all other religions without recognizing differences? Because pastors think exclusively by repeating the absoluteness of Christianity, not recognizing the differences and distinctiveness of other religions, there might be a danger of conflicts. After retiring, I think I need to work on this reconciliation through dialogue. Religions are equal.
Q: I know there is no other way of salvation except through Christ. Based on your sayings today, may I think that there are other ways of salvation than Christianity, Jesus, or God?
Cho: There are differences with each other. Buddhism has its own message of salvation. Likewise, Christianity has its own message of salvation. No one religion can transcend the limit of each; that is why I suggested a mutual dialogue with the recognition of mutual differences. We can not criticize what Buddhism says. We don’t have such rights to do so. We have to respect each religion as they are formulating salvation. My point is that we should live together with the common ground of religion, that is to say, with respect for the differences. Within my family side and relatives, there are still Buddhists, but I don’t feel any resistance from them because we recognize mutual differences. My brother is confident about his salvation through Buddhism and I acknowledge it. Though I am a Christian pastor, I cannot insist that only Christianity is true and that salvation is possible only through it. We cannot gain a principle of mutual living if one thinks, “I have to kill you and I will live.” That is not something that Buddha or Jesus wants. It is a violation of the principle of the mercy (of Buddha) or the love (of God).
Q: You are leading the biggest church in Korea. You said that the smallest unit of the Church is a 15-member church, in which sense you said, “I am a pastor of the smallest church.” What do you mean by it?
Cho: I once fainted during the sermon because of overwork in 1964. My doctor at the hospital recommended I stop working as pastor of four or five thousand members’ church because my body and mind were so much ruined. I got stuck in my hospital bed for a while. So I could not continue to preach, counsel, or visit members and I realized this: Why should only pastors work in ministry? I could train laypersons, who can take responsibility for five or ten homes for each trained lay leader. They could counsel, and visit with comfort; then I could save my burden. I, therefore, began to train laypersons. The five-homes-bound unit functioned like a church where they studied the Bible, prayed together, and evangelized people. As a result, the church membership grew to like the snowball. We have about 50,000 unit leaders now. By this unit organization, we certainly have an advantage that more genuine and comfortable fellowship is taking place in the homes where they meet. This way our total members of 700,000 are being cared for. I cannot take care of all these people. We also use the internet as an important tool for our ministry efficiency. 700,000 listen to my preaching every Sunday and 5000,000 people get access to my internet preaching of mine. These days’ young people do not attend church services. They have internet service at home and send offerings via the internet too. Each cell leader or member sends questions via the internet and I answer them through the internet. Now is a time of dialogue, and I cannot deliver a sermon unilaterally. Sunday preaching must be careful because people ask preachers online, which is a great contrast to the old way of preaching, one-way delivery. The church can make use of the internet for its benefit. In cyberspace, people gather, pray, worship, and send questions to me and I send back my own answers to them. This is how our church functions with 700,000 members.
Q: In modern medicine, the mind/heart is reacted to or caused by the play of the brain. Do you think that the heart/mind is in the area of the brain or outside of it? You said, “Let us find Christ in the heart.” Is the heart within or without?
Cho: According to a materialistic or evolutionary view, humans are mere materials. But I am sure that from a religious point of view, the heart resides in our brain. And the brain is a tool for the heart. In my ministry experiences, I used to observe persons who had mysterious experiences. A staff pastor in our church died from a heart attack. A death certificate was issued and in three days a corpse was put in a coffin. Then suddenly he arose and lived. He told us about his spiritual journey after death. It is sure evidence that body and spirit were separated. In our religious life with deep meditation, we often experience an enormous journey into our heart without going through the brain. I also through meditation experience such mysterious feelings, whose world transcends time and space, and it is an eternal world of peace. This kind of mysterious experience cannot be made by the brain only. Heart resides in me and myself is the heart. In other words, my heart owns my flesh.
Q: The ultimate hope is to overcome death in Christianity, and thus resurrection is at the center of the Christian message. We are going to ask you about this next semester. This age is in danger of an environmental crisis. Arnold Toynbee suggested that the root cause of this ecological crisis lies in Christian thought. What do you think about this? Based on Genesis 1:27, 29.
Cho: A materialistic perspective poses a human-centered dominance of nature, resulting in the destruction of the environment. Taking care of nature has nothing to do with its merciless destruction. From another angle, divinity resides in everything in the creation of God; God created all. Therefore, if there is divinity in all things, we should rule all things with God’s presence, not for our own selfish purposes. Like Buddhist teaching, one cannot kill even a small insect because Buddha is kind and merciful. God in Christianity cares about all things and resides in all, and at the same time goes beyond them. God resides in all creation and therefore in grass and insects as well. Therefore, we cannot do harm to nature. Ecology is important from God’s perspective.
Monday, October 19, 2020
Sunday, October 4, 2020
Sunday, September 27, 2020
E.P. Sanders's book
Sanders, E. P.
Paul: The Apostle’s Life, Letters, and Thought
Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2015. Pp. xxxv + 862. Paper.
Price $39. ISBN 9780800629564.
This introductory book on Paul by Sanders is the longest book (862 pages except for front matters) that I have ever reviewed and is also the most comprehensive volume of Paul and his major letters (1 Thess, 1-2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, and Romans). This book is, in a way, a compilation and the product of his lifelong studies on Paul, aimed at first-time readers of Paul. But this does not mean that this book’s content is easy or shallow, or that its argumentation is naïve or simplistic. Part 1 (with 4 chapters of more than 140 pages), Paul’s Life, is very clear and profoundly handles Paul’s life from critical historical perspectives. Then Part 2 (which is 20 chapters long!), The Letters contains a vast amount of complex information and discussions partly because it covers too many topics given space and partly because the topics themselves are difficult exegetical issues (for example, homosexual activity in 1 Corinthians). There are two appendixes attached at the end of the book, which is very helpful for in-depth researchers who want to go deeper into matters of Paul’s theology: “Homosexual Practices in Greece and Rome”; “Where Was Galatia? Who Were the Galatians?” This book also includes various helpful indexes plus a short glossary: an index of ancient and biblical literature, an index of authors, and an index of subjects. There is no question that Sanders is one of the most erudite Pauline scholars who not only has published a number of important works on Paul, but has paved a new way of understanding Paul’s relationship to, or background of, first-century (and Second-Temple) Judaism, which is not a legalistic religion but the religion of grace. But even with this new understanding of Judaism in the first century, I cannot help but say that in the end, Sanders’ conclusion about Paul’s thought or theology is very limited, as I shall come back to this later.
First, obviously, Sanders’ method is a historical-critical literary approach, and he seems to say that he is not interested in the theological interpretation of scriptures, having an attitude that Paul is Paul and he is not us. Well, that is a good position taken by historians. But this dichotomous position between then and now is not really desirable to take because virtually every interpretation, including a self-proclaimed, objective historian like Sanders, is contextual and ideologically minded. I say this because every interpretation is presupposed. For example, one of Sanders’ undergirding pillars for his view of Paul is the so-called Two Dispensations (Law’s period and Christ’s era), which is his hermeneutical choice. Otherwise, the text does not refer to the two periods in a pellucid context. Another example is his interpretation of the Greek genitive pistis christou (“faith of Christ”), and he chooses to go with the objective genitive meaning (“faith in Christ”) even if he acknowledges that a majority of scholars go with the subjective genitive meaning (Christ’s faithfulness). Otherwise, he never refers to Christ’s faith. That is clearly his choice in matters of translation and interpretation. An irony is that while Sanders attacks Luther’s legalistic interpretation of Judaism and Law, he ends up with another Luther interpretation because his primary interpretation of Paul is always “righteousness by faith in Christ,” which is called the forensic salvation perspective (like an imputed or imparted righteousness in the case of Augustine and Luther). When Sanders says, “What is wrong with the Jews is that they are not Christian; what is wrong with Judaism is that it does not accept Christianity” (681), this conclusion reflects his own hermeneutical lens about Paul; in other words, he read Paul’s mind through his own mind. Otherwise, there are no crystal-clear references to this in Paul’s text. I will come back to this issue later. Again, while Sanders’ historical-critical literary method produces a wealth of good, sound information about Paul and his thoughts, his interpretation is very limited because of his reading lens as such, exposing weaknesses here and there.
Second, Sanders’ major arguments in this book are many, so I will list some and briefly explain them below:
1. Eschatology: The dominant view of Paul’s eschatology is the imminent Parousia when there will be a one-time complete transformation. So much so that in 1 Thessalonians, one of his early letters, Paul told the Thessalonians to earnestly wait for the day of the Lord. But as time went on and new situations arose in Paul’s ministry such as in Corinth or in Galatia, Paul needed to deal with them, and the solution was to comfort them with realized eschatology: God is already here and the Spirit is already here for Christians. While Paul’s imminent eschatology did not change drastically, he adopted elements of realized eschatology in dealing with local congregations. In the end, Paul’s eschatology may be characterized by the “already but not yet” slogan.
2. The Two Dispensations: Paul thought about his relationship with Judaism through these two dispensations: Judaism and Christianity. The logic is that if one is right, the other must be wrong. Law is good because it is God’s gift, but it must be bad because it is not Christ.
3. Erga nomou (“Works of the law”) in Gal 2:16 and elsewhere does not refer to the Torah in general or to good deeds, but it refers to specific laws that regulate matters of Jewish identity; for example laws regarding circumcision, food, and the Sabbath. That is, a different gospel preached at Galatia, according to Paul, is a strings-attached gospel. What is wrong with this attachment is not because it is law but because gentiles are forced to become Jewish. Compulsion is a problem because such laws are not essential to the Gentiles.
4. Pistis christou: As I mentioned before, Sanders persistently translates this famous phrase (e.g., Rom 3:21-26 and Gal 2:16) as “faith in Christ” (an objective genitive sense). This decision by Sanders has to do with his view of the Two Dispensations.
5. Dikaiosyne theou (“the righteousness of God”) in Rom 3:21-26 and Gal 2:16 is understood as individual righteousness (so the objective genitive meaning). Otherwise, he does not talk about God’s righteousness (the subjective genitive).
6. Soma christou (“The body of Christ”) is found in 1 Cor 6:15-16; 10:16; 12:27, and Rom 7:4. Sanders clearly connects “the body of Christ” in 1 Cor 12:27 to an organism metaphor. However, “the body of Christ” in 1 Cor 6:15-15; 10:16, and 12:27, in particular, has more to do with “union with Christ,” which requires participation in Christ in some way that he does not specify.
7. Christology: In Rom 1:4, Jesus is “declared to be the Son of God,” which implies that Jesus was adopted as the son of God. This language of adoption seems to be Paul’s main Christology. At other times, however, his Christology is high, as he employs the Christ hymn in Phil 2:6-11.
8. The role of the Spirit: Sanders articulates Paul’s diverse expressions of the Spirit. The Spirit is the Spirit of God, and at other times it is also the Spirit of Jesus. The Spirit is responsible for Christian life from beginning to end. The Spirit language also has to do with sonship: children of God are those who are led by the Spirit.
9. The role of Jesus’ death: In Rom 3:21-26, Jesus’ death is necessary for the redemption of Christians once and for all. There will be no salvation without Jesus’ death.
10. Resurrection body in 1 Cor 15: Paul’s view of the resurrection body is not a resurrection of the flesh, but it is a spiritual body, an oxymoronic expression.
11. Place of Israel: Paul defends the place of Israel (Rom 9-11): “All Israel will be saved” (Rom 11:26); similarly, Paul says, “For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all.” This sounds like universal salvation in the end.
12. Law: Paul’s view or use of the Law is mixed and conflicting: 1) according to the two dispensations, the Law must be bad because there is a new way of Christ which is through faith in Christ; 2) but it must be good as well because it is God’s gift. Yet, there are other kinds of good ethical laws that must be kept all the time (for example love of God and love of neighbor), whereas some laws (“works of the law”) are not essential to keep for the Gentiles.
Third, Sanders’ strong points in this book will be briefly mentioned. He is most erudite in the area of Second-Temple Judaism’s literature and its intersections with Paul’s life and thought. Part 1, Paul’s Life (about 140 pages, a book length), is, in my view, the treasure of the book because there are ample information and discussions about Paul’s life. Overall, Sanders’ reading of Paul’s method is very convincing; that is, he argues that Paul starts with local contextual issues and draws conclusions first, followed by his various supportive arguments, sometimes with terminological arguments. In that sense, Paul’s scriptural interpretation method is not unique but similar to other Jews. The only difference with his contemporaries is that he has his Christ-leaned conclusions already. So Sanders is right when he says that Paul is not a systematic theologian but a minister-theologian (traveling) who deals with everyday issues throughout his Gentile mission.
However, there are a few weaknesses in his arguments. First, there is no consideration of the subjective genitive meaning of pistis christou (“faith of Christ”) in his interpretation of Paul. In fact, as many scholars already pointed out the importance of the subjective genitive meaning (Christ’s faith), the subjective interpretation makes more sense than the objective one. Second, likewise, dikaiosyne theou (“the righteousness of God”) was understood as an individual righteousness. But in fact, Paul’s gospel begins with God (“the good news of God” in Rom 1:1; 15:6). So it would be certainly very plausible to read the dikaiosyne theou phrase as a subjective genitive (God’s righteousness) because it is God’s initiative of love and justice, which is shown in the world through Christ’s faithfulness (Rom 3:22). This subjective meaning makes a smoother and more logical sense than the other. This understanding seems clear in Rom 3:22: “God’s righteousness through Christ’s faith for all who have faith.” Look, what Paul says here is that God’s righteousness coming through Jesus’ faith may reach people who also have faith like Jesus or like Abraham (I may call this kind of Paul’s gospel “threefold theology of Paul”). Third, Sanders’ interpretation of soma christou (“the body of Christ”), as I stated before, is very limited because the body metaphor can be read as a living metaphor. He is actually close to that possibility of reading in 1 Cor 6:15-16 and 10:16 where he talks about unity and participation in Christ. It would have been better if Sanders had thought about a “living” metaphor—so “the body of Christ” as a Christ-like body because the body is a site of living. Fourth, the Two Dispensations theory is weak because, for Paul, Christ can be understood as fulfilling the law as in Rom 10:4, not replacing it. The problem is not the Torah itself but the crooked human heart, the misuse of the law, or the narrow interpretation of the law, which is shown for example on the issue of circumcision in Galatians.
Paul: The Apostle’s Life, Letters, and Thought
Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2015. Pp. xxxv + 862. Paper.
Price $39. ISBN 9780800629564.
This introductory book on Paul by Sanders is the longest book (862 pages except for front matters) that I have ever reviewed and is also the most comprehensive volume of Paul and his major letters (1 Thess, 1-2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, and Romans). This book is, in a way, a compilation and the product of his lifelong studies on Paul, aimed at first-time readers of Paul. But this does not mean that this book’s content is easy or shallow, or that its argumentation is naïve or simplistic. Part 1 (with 4 chapters of more than 140 pages), Paul’s Life, is very clear and profoundly handles Paul’s life from critical historical perspectives. Then Part 2 (which is 20 chapters long!), The Letters contains a vast amount of complex information and discussions partly because it covers too many topics given space and partly because the topics themselves are difficult exegetical issues (for example, homosexual activity in 1 Corinthians). There are two appendixes attached at the end of the book, which is very helpful for in-depth researchers who want to go deeper into matters of Paul’s theology: “Homosexual Practices in Greece and Rome”; “Where Was Galatia? Who Were the Galatians?” This book also includes various helpful indexes plus a short glossary: an index of ancient and biblical literature, an index of authors, and an index of subjects. There is no question that Sanders is one of the most erudite Pauline scholars who not only has published a number of important works on Paul, but has paved a new way of understanding Paul’s relationship to, or background of, first-century (and Second-Temple) Judaism, which is not a legalistic religion but the religion of grace. But even with this new understanding of Judaism in the first century, I cannot help but say that in the end, Sanders’ conclusion about Paul’s thought or theology is very limited, as I shall come back to this later.
First, obviously, Sanders’ method is a historical-critical literary approach, and he seems to say that he is not interested in the theological interpretation of scriptures, having an attitude that Paul is Paul and he is not us. Well, that is a good position taken by historians. But this dichotomous position between then and now is not really desirable to take because virtually every interpretation, including a self-proclaimed, objective historian like Sanders, is contextual and ideologically minded. I say this because every interpretation is presupposed. For example, one of Sanders’ undergirding pillars for his view of Paul is the so-called Two Dispensations (Law’s period and Christ’s era), which is his hermeneutical choice. Otherwise, the text does not refer to the two periods in a pellucid context. Another example is his interpretation of the Greek genitive pistis christou (“faith of Christ”), and he chooses to go with the objective genitive meaning (“faith in Christ”) even if he acknowledges that a majority of scholars go with the subjective genitive meaning (Christ’s faithfulness). Otherwise, he never refers to Christ’s faith. That is clearly his choice in matters of translation and interpretation. An irony is that while Sanders attacks Luther’s legalistic interpretation of Judaism and Law, he ends up with another Luther interpretation because his primary interpretation of Paul is always “righteousness by faith in Christ,” which is called the forensic salvation perspective (like an imputed or imparted righteousness in the case of Augustine and Luther). When Sanders says, “What is wrong with the Jews is that they are not Christian; what is wrong with Judaism is that it does not accept Christianity” (681), this conclusion reflects his own hermeneutical lens about Paul; in other words, he read Paul’s mind through his own mind. Otherwise, there are no crystal-clear references to this in Paul’s text. I will come back to this issue later. Again, while Sanders’ historical-critical literary method produces a wealth of good, sound information about Paul and his thoughts, his interpretation is very limited because of his reading lens as such, exposing weaknesses here and there.
Second, Sanders’ major arguments in this book are many, so I will list some and briefly explain them below:
1. Eschatology: The dominant view of Paul’s eschatology is the imminent Parousia when there will be a one-time complete transformation. So much so that in 1 Thessalonians, one of his early letters, Paul told the Thessalonians to earnestly wait for the day of the Lord. But as time went on and new situations arose in Paul’s ministry such as in Corinth or in Galatia, Paul needed to deal with them, and the solution was to comfort them with realized eschatology: God is already here and the Spirit is already here for Christians. While Paul’s imminent eschatology did not change drastically, he adopted elements of realized eschatology in dealing with local congregations. In the end, Paul’s eschatology may be characterized by the “already but not yet” slogan.
2. The Two Dispensations: Paul thought about his relationship with Judaism through these two dispensations: Judaism and Christianity. The logic is that if one is right, the other must be wrong. Law is good because it is God’s gift, but it must be bad because it is not Christ.
3. Erga nomou (“Works of the law”) in Gal 2:16 and elsewhere does not refer to the Torah in general or to good deeds, but it refers to specific laws that regulate matters of Jewish identity; for example laws regarding circumcision, food, and the Sabbath. That is, a different gospel preached at Galatia, according to Paul, is a strings-attached gospel. What is wrong with this attachment is not because it is law but because gentiles are forced to become Jewish. Compulsion is a problem because such laws are not essential to the Gentiles.
4. Pistis christou: As I mentioned before, Sanders persistently translates this famous phrase (e.g., Rom 3:21-26 and Gal 2:16) as “faith in Christ” (an objective genitive sense). This decision by Sanders has to do with his view of the Two Dispensations.
5. Dikaiosyne theou (“the righteousness of God”) in Rom 3:21-26 and Gal 2:16 is understood as individual righteousness (so the objective genitive meaning). Otherwise, he does not talk about God’s righteousness (the subjective genitive).
6. Soma christou (“The body of Christ”) is found in 1 Cor 6:15-16; 10:16; 12:27, and Rom 7:4. Sanders clearly connects “the body of Christ” in 1 Cor 12:27 to an organism metaphor. However, “the body of Christ” in 1 Cor 6:15-15; 10:16, and 12:27, in particular, has more to do with “union with Christ,” which requires participation in Christ in some way that he does not specify.
7. Christology: In Rom 1:4, Jesus is “declared to be the Son of God,” which implies that Jesus was adopted as the son of God. This language of adoption seems to be Paul’s main Christology. At other times, however, his Christology is high, as he employs the Christ hymn in Phil 2:6-11.
8. The role of the Spirit: Sanders articulates Paul’s diverse expressions of the Spirit. The Spirit is the Spirit of God, and at other times it is also the Spirit of Jesus. The Spirit is responsible for Christian life from beginning to end. The Spirit language also has to do with sonship: children of God are those who are led by the Spirit.
9. The role of Jesus’ death: In Rom 3:21-26, Jesus’ death is necessary for the redemption of Christians once and for all. There will be no salvation without Jesus’ death.
10. Resurrection body in 1 Cor 15: Paul’s view of the resurrection body is not a resurrection of the flesh, but it is a spiritual body, an oxymoronic expression.
11. Place of Israel: Paul defends the place of Israel (Rom 9-11): “All Israel will be saved” (Rom 11:26); similarly, Paul says, “For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all.” This sounds like universal salvation in the end.
12. Law: Paul’s view or use of the Law is mixed and conflicting: 1) according to the two dispensations, the Law must be bad because there is a new way of Christ which is through faith in Christ; 2) but it must be good as well because it is God’s gift. Yet, there are other kinds of good ethical laws that must be kept all the time (for example love of God and love of neighbor), whereas some laws (“works of the law”) are not essential to keep for the Gentiles.
Third, Sanders’ strong points in this book will be briefly mentioned. He is most erudite in the area of Second-Temple Judaism’s literature and its intersections with Paul’s life and thought. Part 1, Paul’s Life (about 140 pages, a book length), is, in my view, the treasure of the book because there are ample information and discussions about Paul’s life. Overall, Sanders’ reading of Paul’s method is very convincing; that is, he argues that Paul starts with local contextual issues and draws conclusions first, followed by his various supportive arguments, sometimes with terminological arguments. In that sense, Paul’s scriptural interpretation method is not unique but similar to other Jews. The only difference with his contemporaries is that he has his Christ-leaned conclusions already. So Sanders is right when he says that Paul is not a systematic theologian but a minister-theologian (traveling) who deals with everyday issues throughout his Gentile mission.
However, there are a few weaknesses in his arguments. First, there is no consideration of the subjective genitive meaning of pistis christou (“faith of Christ”) in his interpretation of Paul. In fact, as many scholars already pointed out the importance of the subjective genitive meaning (Christ’s faith), the subjective interpretation makes more sense than the objective one. Second, likewise, dikaiosyne theou (“the righteousness of God”) was understood as an individual righteousness. But in fact, Paul’s gospel begins with God (“the good news of God” in Rom 1:1; 15:6). So it would be certainly very plausible to read the dikaiosyne theou phrase as a subjective genitive (God’s righteousness) because it is God’s initiative of love and justice, which is shown in the world through Christ’s faithfulness (Rom 3:22). This subjective meaning makes a smoother and more logical sense than the other. This understanding seems clear in Rom 3:22: “God’s righteousness through Christ’s faith for all who have faith.” Look, what Paul says here is that God’s righteousness coming through Jesus’ faith may reach people who also have faith like Jesus or like Abraham (I may call this kind of Paul’s gospel “threefold theology of Paul”). Third, Sanders’ interpretation of soma christou (“the body of Christ”), as I stated before, is very limited because the body metaphor can be read as a living metaphor. He is actually close to that possibility of reading in 1 Cor 6:15-16 and 10:16 where he talks about unity and participation in Christ. It would have been better if Sanders had thought about a “living” metaphor—so “the body of Christ” as a Christ-like body because the body is a site of living. Fourth, the Two Dispensations theory is weak because, for Paul, Christ can be understood as fulfilling the law as in Rom 10:4, not replacing it. The problem is not the Torah itself but the crooked human heart, the misuse of the law, or the narrow interpretation of the law, which is shown for example on the issue of circumcision in Galatians.
Before closing, I like to mention the book’s stylistic issues. There are too many repetitions and/or redundancies of the same ideas or words throughout the book; I read the author’s excuses about this in the Introduction. But those excuses cannot justify this. Chapters in Part 2 may need a clearer structure than the current one because there are some topics that keep coming up throughout. I also have to say that I noticed an embarrassing error in the middle of the book; there are four columns of translations (four different versions), but they were completely messed up with the author’s translation missing and with mistaken headings of versions (512).
Even if there are some limitations in his arguments or things to which I cannot agree, there is no question that I owe Sanders a lot in my in-depth understanding of Paul. I admire his critical spirit and rigorous approach to Paul and his letters that defy an easy compromise with any. I thank him for this lengthy, yet informative book on Paul that will last long for generations to come. I have no hesitation that I will highly recommend this valuable book to anyone who wants to engage Paul in his historical context, especially in view of first-century (and Second-Temple) Judaism and Jewish Diaspora experience.
Even if there are some limitations in his arguments or things to which I cannot agree, there is no question that I owe Sanders a lot in my in-depth understanding of Paul. I admire his critical spirit and rigorous approach to Paul and his letters that defy an easy compromise with any. I thank him for this lengthy, yet informative book on Paul that will last long for generations to come. I have no hesitation that I will highly recommend this valuable book to anyone who wants to engage Paul in his historical context, especially in view of first-century (and Second-Temple) Judaism and Jewish Diaspora experience.
Wednesday, September 16, 2020
Wednesday, September 9, 2020
Bible and Human Transformation
The Nature of the Bible
The Bible is composed of many books of different genres, written and rewritten over more than a thousand years, “interpreted and reinterpreted, in different times and places, and thus contains many views or theologies,” as I wrote in the Journal of Bible and Human Transformation (JBHT), a new peer-reviewed online journal started a few years ago. Therefore it is very difficult to articulate what it is, let alone what it means. By and large, it can be read as history, theology, and myth. All biblical writings, albeit in a different way, have a mixture of history, theology, and myth. 1-2 Kings and 1-2 Samuels can be read as history and inform us of ancient Israel’s political events. However, even these purported historical writings are written not to record what exactly happened as modern historians attempt to do but to deal with particular life issues in the community.
Accordingly, the Bible includes divergent perspectives of theology or ideology; for example, there are four sources (J, E, D, and P) or traditions about God in the Torah, which reflect four different views of God and the world. In a similar fashion, there are four gospels in the New Testament that interpret Jesus' tradition differently in view of his significance in their lives. In addition, the Bible also contains myths of shared beliefs or traditions about the desired life in a community.
The Bible and Human Transformation
No matter how disparate biblical writings may be, the bottom line is that they are life stories involving some sort of change, whether it is personal or communal change: a change in terms of human behavior, a change in terms of human attitude, or a change in terms of society. When there is a split in the community, it needs restoration for which new knowledge or exhortation, for example, is provided to members of the community. For example, the post-exilic Jewish community (as seen in Nehemiah and Ezra) is exhorted to return to God, purifying their lives and renewing the Mosaic covenant. When there is a personal tragedy, he or she needs comfort, strength, and encouragement to continue life. Here the needed change is trust in God without falling prey to despair. Psalm 13, a shortest yet typical lament, deals with such a terrible life experience. The psalmist begins with the three times “how long” questions: “How long, O Lord? Will you forget me forever? How long will you hide your face from me? How long must I bear pain in my soul, and have sorrow in my heart all day long? How long shall my enemy be exalted over me?”
In sum, biblical writings or stories, although to a different degree or in kind, can be read as stories of changes that biblical audiences were in need of Ancient Jewish prophets call for a change in terms of seeking God (shub in Hebrew as “turn to God”). Jesus asks for a change of the heart (metanoia in Greek, Mark 1:15), and Paul for renewal of the mind (Rom 12:2).
What Kind of Human Transformation Do We Expect?
As we have seen, the Bible can be read with a focus on change or transformation. All change is transformation, but not all transformation is equally valid or helpful to readers. On the one hand, we need to explore the positive side of transformation in the Bible; for this purpose, we will look into Jesus’ parables (in Part 2 of the blog) and miracles (in Part 3 of the blog). On the other hand, we also should be aware of the negative aspects of transformation in the Bible. For example, conservative gender ideology reflected in 1 Tim 2:11-15 is resisted because it is the voice of patriarchal church leaders, and a more egalitarian voice in Gal 3:28 is reaffirmed to promote gender equality. So the critical issue is how to discern sound transformation.
To help explain what I mean by sound transformation, my personal observation will suffice now. One day there was an opening worship service at a conference, and the preacher read the text from Acts 3 and preached about it. The text is about Peter and John who walk up to the Temple to pray and heal a lame beggar in the name of Jesus Christ. The speaker’s point was simple and clear: These disciples received transforming power from God and therefore they could do anything in Jesus’ name. The speaker asked the audience to receive the same power from God and asserted that they could live a powerful transformation life. However, I felt uneasy and questioned how God or Jesus could be different from shamans or other deities who proved to be powerful enough to give healing to the devotees. If what really matters is only power from God, and for that matter, people are required to pray to receive such power, Christian good news would hardly be different from other religions or shamanistic rituals. In such good news, there is not much ethics or human transformation other than receiving power from God. Rather, I am more interested in what motivated these disciples to move toward the beggar or what may have happened to this beggar when he listened to them. Therefore, we have to ask many transformation questions, as I suggested in my book, A Transformative Reading of the Bible (2013); below are some questions we have to ask in the study of transformation in the Bible:
What kind of transformation occurs, from what to what?
How can we balance different, difficult life experiences?
Who or what is being changed or who or what are we changing?
What does transformation look like if it happens to self, neighbor, and God?
What roles do these subjects (self, neighbor, God) play in transformation?
What degree of change might be considered “transformative”?
Are all transformative aspects equally valid in all situations?
What is the method to get there?
Parables and human transformation
The Nature of Jesus’ Parables
A parable (parabole in Greek) is a fictional story about everyday life; para means alongside, and bole comes from ballo (meaning “to cast”). Literally, it means a story thrown alongside life. About one-third of Jesus’ teaching in the synoptic gospels is done through parables and his teaching focus is about “God’s rule” (basileia tou theou) in the world, the recurrent theme of the gospels. Jesus’ parables invite the audience to see something radically different from the status quo of society or community.
Because of the parable’s nature as such, it has a double entendre. On the one hand, a parable must be easy to understand because it is taken from everyday life (as shown in the parables of the sower and the mustard seed). On the other hand, however, it is very difficult to understand because the parable involves figurative language which needs careful attention and skill from the reader.
Meaning of a Parable as Engagement
Since the meaning of a parable is not self-evident and the parable is open-ended, hearers always have to struggle and interpret it for themselves by drawing on metaphors or symbols in it. For example, in the parable of the sower (Mark 4:1-20; Matt 13:3-23; Luke 8:5-15; Thom 9), there are at least four metaphors that we have to interpret: the sower, soil, the seed, and the harvest. The interpretive task and question is how can we relate God’s rule with each of these metaphors? That is, how can we understand a link between God’s rule and each metaphor? It is like swimming in a deep sea where readers have to decide what to do and what to explore in such a place. What follows is an illustration of human transformation in the parable of “the seed growing secretly” found in Mark 4:26-29.
The Seed Growing Secretly (Mark 4:26-29)
Jesus’ parables are a perfect place for studying human transformation. At each step of the metaphoric interpretation of a parable, our understanding and challenge about God’s rule are indescribably big. Mark 4:26-29 reads:
26 He also said, "The kingdom of God is as if someone would scatter seed on the ground, 27 and would sleep and rise night and day, and the seed would sprout and grow, he does not know how. 28 The earth produces of itself, first the stalk, then the head, then the full grain in the head. 29 But when the grain is ripe, at once he goes in with his sickle, because the harvest has come."
In this parable, we can identify several metaphors: the sower (someone scattering a seed), the seed, the ground or the earth, and the harvest. One caveat is that this parable should not be read as an allegory although such an interpretation has been popular and practiced for so long beginning with the early church. The reason is clear: an allegorical interpretation of the parable deprives not only the diversity of meaning but also very challenging metaphoric messages hidden in the story, which readers have to struggle to understand; that is possible only by readers’ engaging the parable.
First of all, we can think about God’s rule and its relationship with the sower, which, in theory, can be variously compared to God, Jesus, Jesus’ disciples, or any person. But God and Jesus may not be a good option because verse 27 says the sower does not know how the seed would sprout and grow. Readers assume that God and Jesus must know how the seed grows. Then another option may be that Jesus’ disciples take the role of the sower, who plants the seed and waits patiently for the harvest. The transformative lesson is that the disciples have to endure until harvest while doing good works of planting. In addition, we may think of the sower as any person like a farmer, who may realize that he or she cannot have a harvest without good weather. Here the transformation is the recognition that we cannot live alone without God.
Second, we can relate God’s rule with the seed, which is sown on the ground and grows. At least, there are two metaphorical relationships between them. On one level, the seed’s mystery can be looked at and the seed grows because of it. The seed is certainly not human-origin and it can be understood variously as God’s power, grace, word, or teaching. So the lesson about human transformation is that we depend on the seed as a source of life: God’s healing presence (not human-made presence), God’s grace (not human efforts), God’s word and teaching (not human wisdom or philosophy). The caution is that this parable assumes that the seed itself is good. In the real world, there may be bad seeds that may bear bad fruits. But that issue is not dealt with in this parable. This means a parable does not deal with all situations; therefore, it should be interpreted in context, however complex or diverse it may be.
On another level, we may think about the seed’s sacrifice. The seed must die and bear fruit. Jesus teaches the way of the cross in Mark 8:34-38, and his followers (his disciples and the crowd) must deny themselves to follow him, taking up their cross: “If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel, will save it” (Mark 8:34-35). So the transformative lesson is: “Die like the seed and bear fruit.”
Third, we can relate God’s rule to the ground or the earth. Once the seed is sown on the ground, it sprouts and grows. The seed alone cannot do anything unless sown on the ground. It is the ground that accepts the seed and supports it with calmness and sincerity. In this sense, the ground is a God-given blessing. In theory, we can think of various conditions of soil as shown in Mark 4:10-20, which is an extended interpretation of the parable proper in 4:1-9. But the proper context of this parable limits us to focus on the theme of God’s grace, which is compared to the image or metaphor of “the seed growing secretly.” That is to say, the ground represents the gift of God along with the seed. Once sown on the ground, the seed will sprout and grow. What we can do is to scatter or plant the seed and wait until the harvest. There are things we can do and there are things we cannot do. What we cannot do is God’s part. So the transformative lesson is to turn to God for life. Our job is not to create or manipulate God’s world but to care for it.
As we see above, the meaning of a parable is not fixed but very invitational and challenging precisely because God’s rule involves complex realities and diverse ongoing participation. The other important thing is the fact that parables are open-ended, and therefore hearers/readers have to come up with their own responses to the unfinished or unanswered questions with metaphoric links in the parable. Readers are often surprised, challenged, and awakened to a new awareness of God’s rule or presence in the world. In this regard, the parable does something to us to the extent that we are asked to re-create our own transformative stories in accordance with God’s rule in the here and now.
Miracles and human transformation
The Nature of Miracles
What do miracles in the Bible have to do with us? If we read them only as God’s power, we would miss the point of the transformation we need today. As we hear of miracle stories in the Exodus event (such as the parting of the water or striking the rock to get water), we are challenged to rethink about miracles because they call for certain actions with faith. Similarly, if we read the story of Jesus’ feeding of the multitudes in the wilderness, we are challenged to think and act differently than is normally thought of. Here the point is not simply that Jesus could do anything as the Son of God. In fact, miracle stories are placed in particular literary or historical contexts in which biblical audiences have to deal with their life circumstances. Otherwise, they are not told in a vacuum. In this sense, a miracle is not merely about God or Jesus but about people in the world who face various life struggles and difficulties. In the following, we will briefly look into transformative lessons from the exodus miracle and Jesus’ feeding of the multitudes.
The Exodus Story (Exod 7-12)
Scholars believe that the early stage of the exodus story begins with a few hundred Hebrew slaves in the Nile Delta area (Ramses) who flee Egypt for their liberation at all risks. These slaves believed Yahweh would help them. They were on foot and could cross the marsh reeds or shallow lakes (not the Red Sea; the Hebrew word yam suph means “sea of reeds”) without being struck down by the Egyptian chariots. The Egyptians gave up chasing them because they could not enter the lakes with chariots. Moreover, a few hundred slaves were inconsequential to the Egyptian economy. But to a group of these slaves, their escape was nothing short of a miracle. Reflecting on and remembering what just happened to them, these slaves firmly believe that this event is none other than a miracle, possible only through God’s power and grace. The Lord (Yahweh) made it happen and their faith confirms it. This experience gives them words of confession and encouragement that God is the source of everything.
Actually, this miracle would not have been possible if they had not left a place of shackles in Egypt for a new home of freedom and justice. It was a miracle not because supernatural things happened but because what they thought was impossible came true in their eyes. They could have been captured and killed, but in fact, they were saved.
The transformative lesson is clear: we can break the shackles of oppression by trusting God. Hebrew slaves did not wait for angels to come to rescue them in prisons or their workplaces. If they had stayed in their place with fear and despair, they would not have enjoyed freedom. Scholars believe that as time goes by, this seemingly simple story of faith that calls for action for liberation has been embellished and expanded. But the whole point of the story is not about the graphic, majestic description of how fleeing Israelites crossed the sea by the miraculous act of God, but about people’s courage, faith, action, dream, and hope for a free home even with the cost of death on their run.
Feeding the Multitudes
Jesus’ feeding of the multitudes appears in all four gospels (Matt 14:13-21; Mark 6:30-44; Luke 9:10-17; John 6:1-15) and has similar transformative lessons for us. The power of this miracle story does not lie in the supernatural power of Jesus as if Jesus could provide anything for the needy but lies in a little child's faith and action through which many people are supposedly motivated to give their own, too. Imagine people gathering in a dry, sunny wilderness. Even a little bread amounts to tons of bread for the hungry bodies and souls. A little thing of sharing could ignite others to do the same. Sharing is a miracle! This miracle story is a symbolic, moral story that challenges others to do the same as a little child and those who gathered and participated in the boy’s faith and action. Otherwise, if we focus only on Jesus’ power that feeds the five thousand people, we would miss this important aspect of a sharing miracle sparked through a little child and completed through the participation of the crowd in the desert.
In this sense, a true miracle in this story has to do with a change of heart – from a self-feeding attitude to an other-feeding attitude by sharing a little thing. This miracle is not merely about the power of God or Jesus who does supernatural things like changing the tree, the stone, or the wind. Many people are starving to death even today not because the food is short in the world but because people are as dull and hard as not to break their hearts for others. A miracle begins with one’s heart and with small things.
The Bible is composed of many books of different genres, written and rewritten over more than a thousand years, “interpreted and reinterpreted, in different times and places, and thus contains many views or theologies,” as I wrote in the Journal of Bible and Human Transformation (JBHT), a new peer-reviewed online journal started a few years ago. Therefore it is very difficult to articulate what it is, let alone what it means. By and large, it can be read as history, theology, and myth. All biblical writings, albeit in a different way, have a mixture of history, theology, and myth. 1-2 Kings and 1-2 Samuels can be read as history and inform us of ancient Israel’s political events. However, even these purported historical writings are written not to record what exactly happened as modern historians attempt to do but to deal with particular life issues in the community.
Accordingly, the Bible includes divergent perspectives of theology or ideology; for example, there are four sources (J, E, D, and P) or traditions about God in the Torah, which reflect four different views of God and the world. In a similar fashion, there are four gospels in the New Testament that interpret Jesus' tradition differently in view of his significance in their lives. In addition, the Bible also contains myths of shared beliefs or traditions about the desired life in a community.
The Bible and Human Transformation
No matter how disparate biblical writings may be, the bottom line is that they are life stories involving some sort of change, whether it is personal or communal change: a change in terms of human behavior, a change in terms of human attitude, or a change in terms of society. When there is a split in the community, it needs restoration for which new knowledge or exhortation, for example, is provided to members of the community. For example, the post-exilic Jewish community (as seen in Nehemiah and Ezra) is exhorted to return to God, purifying their lives and renewing the Mosaic covenant. When there is a personal tragedy, he or she needs comfort, strength, and encouragement to continue life. Here the needed change is trust in God without falling prey to despair. Psalm 13, a shortest yet typical lament, deals with such a terrible life experience. The psalmist begins with the three times “how long” questions: “How long, O Lord? Will you forget me forever? How long will you hide your face from me? How long must I bear pain in my soul, and have sorrow in my heart all day long? How long shall my enemy be exalted over me?”
In sum, biblical writings or stories, although to a different degree or in kind, can be read as stories of changes that biblical audiences were in need of Ancient Jewish prophets call for a change in terms of seeking God (shub in Hebrew as “turn to God”). Jesus asks for a change of the heart (metanoia in Greek, Mark 1:15), and Paul for renewal of the mind (Rom 12:2).
What Kind of Human Transformation Do We Expect?
As we have seen, the Bible can be read with a focus on change or transformation. All change is transformation, but not all transformation is equally valid or helpful to readers. On the one hand, we need to explore the positive side of transformation in the Bible; for this purpose, we will look into Jesus’ parables (in Part 2 of the blog) and miracles (in Part 3 of the blog). On the other hand, we also should be aware of the negative aspects of transformation in the Bible. For example, conservative gender ideology reflected in 1 Tim 2:11-15 is resisted because it is the voice of patriarchal church leaders, and a more egalitarian voice in Gal 3:28 is reaffirmed to promote gender equality. So the critical issue is how to discern sound transformation.
To help explain what I mean by sound transformation, my personal observation will suffice now. One day there was an opening worship service at a conference, and the preacher read the text from Acts 3 and preached about it. The text is about Peter and John who walk up to the Temple to pray and heal a lame beggar in the name of Jesus Christ. The speaker’s point was simple and clear: These disciples received transforming power from God and therefore they could do anything in Jesus’ name. The speaker asked the audience to receive the same power from God and asserted that they could live a powerful transformation life. However, I felt uneasy and questioned how God or Jesus could be different from shamans or other deities who proved to be powerful enough to give healing to the devotees. If what really matters is only power from God, and for that matter, people are required to pray to receive such power, Christian good news would hardly be different from other religions or shamanistic rituals. In such good news, there is not much ethics or human transformation other than receiving power from God. Rather, I am more interested in what motivated these disciples to move toward the beggar or what may have happened to this beggar when he listened to them. Therefore, we have to ask many transformation questions, as I suggested in my book, A Transformative Reading of the Bible (2013); below are some questions we have to ask in the study of transformation in the Bible:
What kind of transformation occurs, from what to what?
How can we balance different, difficult life experiences?
Who or what is being changed or who or what are we changing?
What does transformation look like if it happens to self, neighbor, and God?
What roles do these subjects (self, neighbor, God) play in transformation?
What degree of change might be considered “transformative”?
Are all transformative aspects equally valid in all situations?
What is the method to get there?
Parables and human transformation
The Nature of Jesus’ Parables
A parable (parabole in Greek) is a fictional story about everyday life; para means alongside, and bole comes from ballo (meaning “to cast”). Literally, it means a story thrown alongside life. About one-third of Jesus’ teaching in the synoptic gospels is done through parables and his teaching focus is about “God’s rule” (basileia tou theou) in the world, the recurrent theme of the gospels. Jesus’ parables invite the audience to see something radically different from the status quo of society or community.
Because of the parable’s nature as such, it has a double entendre. On the one hand, a parable must be easy to understand because it is taken from everyday life (as shown in the parables of the sower and the mustard seed). On the other hand, however, it is very difficult to understand because the parable involves figurative language which needs careful attention and skill from the reader.
Meaning of a Parable as Engagement
Since the meaning of a parable is not self-evident and the parable is open-ended, hearers always have to struggle and interpret it for themselves by drawing on metaphors or symbols in it. For example, in the parable of the sower (Mark 4:1-20; Matt 13:3-23; Luke 8:5-15; Thom 9), there are at least four metaphors that we have to interpret: the sower, soil, the seed, and the harvest. The interpretive task and question is how can we relate God’s rule with each of these metaphors? That is, how can we understand a link between God’s rule and each metaphor? It is like swimming in a deep sea where readers have to decide what to do and what to explore in such a place. What follows is an illustration of human transformation in the parable of “the seed growing secretly” found in Mark 4:26-29.
The Seed Growing Secretly (Mark 4:26-29)
Jesus’ parables are a perfect place for studying human transformation. At each step of the metaphoric interpretation of a parable, our understanding and challenge about God’s rule are indescribably big. Mark 4:26-29 reads:
26 He also said, "The kingdom of God is as if someone would scatter seed on the ground, 27 and would sleep and rise night and day, and the seed would sprout and grow, he does not know how. 28 The earth produces of itself, first the stalk, then the head, then the full grain in the head. 29 But when the grain is ripe, at once he goes in with his sickle, because the harvest has come."
In this parable, we can identify several metaphors: the sower (someone scattering a seed), the seed, the ground or the earth, and the harvest. One caveat is that this parable should not be read as an allegory although such an interpretation has been popular and practiced for so long beginning with the early church. The reason is clear: an allegorical interpretation of the parable deprives not only the diversity of meaning but also very challenging metaphoric messages hidden in the story, which readers have to struggle to understand; that is possible only by readers’ engaging the parable.
First of all, we can think about God’s rule and its relationship with the sower, which, in theory, can be variously compared to God, Jesus, Jesus’ disciples, or any person. But God and Jesus may not be a good option because verse 27 says the sower does not know how the seed would sprout and grow. Readers assume that God and Jesus must know how the seed grows. Then another option may be that Jesus’ disciples take the role of the sower, who plants the seed and waits patiently for the harvest. The transformative lesson is that the disciples have to endure until harvest while doing good works of planting. In addition, we may think of the sower as any person like a farmer, who may realize that he or she cannot have a harvest without good weather. Here the transformation is the recognition that we cannot live alone without God.
Second, we can relate God’s rule with the seed, which is sown on the ground and grows. At least, there are two metaphorical relationships between them. On one level, the seed’s mystery can be looked at and the seed grows because of it. The seed is certainly not human-origin and it can be understood variously as God’s power, grace, word, or teaching. So the lesson about human transformation is that we depend on the seed as a source of life: God’s healing presence (not human-made presence), God’s grace (not human efforts), God’s word and teaching (not human wisdom or philosophy). The caution is that this parable assumes that the seed itself is good. In the real world, there may be bad seeds that may bear bad fruits. But that issue is not dealt with in this parable. This means a parable does not deal with all situations; therefore, it should be interpreted in context, however complex or diverse it may be.
On another level, we may think about the seed’s sacrifice. The seed must die and bear fruit. Jesus teaches the way of the cross in Mark 8:34-38, and his followers (his disciples and the crowd) must deny themselves to follow him, taking up their cross: “If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel, will save it” (Mark 8:34-35). So the transformative lesson is: “Die like the seed and bear fruit.”
Third, we can relate God’s rule to the ground or the earth. Once the seed is sown on the ground, it sprouts and grows. The seed alone cannot do anything unless sown on the ground. It is the ground that accepts the seed and supports it with calmness and sincerity. In this sense, the ground is a God-given blessing. In theory, we can think of various conditions of soil as shown in Mark 4:10-20, which is an extended interpretation of the parable proper in 4:1-9. But the proper context of this parable limits us to focus on the theme of God’s grace, which is compared to the image or metaphor of “the seed growing secretly.” That is to say, the ground represents the gift of God along with the seed. Once sown on the ground, the seed will sprout and grow. What we can do is to scatter or plant the seed and wait until the harvest. There are things we can do and there are things we cannot do. What we cannot do is God’s part. So the transformative lesson is to turn to God for life. Our job is not to create or manipulate God’s world but to care for it.
As we see above, the meaning of a parable is not fixed but very invitational and challenging precisely because God’s rule involves complex realities and diverse ongoing participation. The other important thing is the fact that parables are open-ended, and therefore hearers/readers have to come up with their own responses to the unfinished or unanswered questions with metaphoric links in the parable. Readers are often surprised, challenged, and awakened to a new awareness of God’s rule or presence in the world. In this regard, the parable does something to us to the extent that we are asked to re-create our own transformative stories in accordance with God’s rule in the here and now.
Miracles and human transformation
The Nature of Miracles
What do miracles in the Bible have to do with us? If we read them only as God’s power, we would miss the point of the transformation we need today. As we hear of miracle stories in the Exodus event (such as the parting of the water or striking the rock to get water), we are challenged to rethink about miracles because they call for certain actions with faith. Similarly, if we read the story of Jesus’ feeding of the multitudes in the wilderness, we are challenged to think and act differently than is normally thought of. Here the point is not simply that Jesus could do anything as the Son of God. In fact, miracle stories are placed in particular literary or historical contexts in which biblical audiences have to deal with their life circumstances. Otherwise, they are not told in a vacuum. In this sense, a miracle is not merely about God or Jesus but about people in the world who face various life struggles and difficulties. In the following, we will briefly look into transformative lessons from the exodus miracle and Jesus’ feeding of the multitudes.
The Exodus Story (Exod 7-12)
Scholars believe that the early stage of the exodus story begins with a few hundred Hebrew slaves in the Nile Delta area (Ramses) who flee Egypt for their liberation at all risks. These slaves believed Yahweh would help them. They were on foot and could cross the marsh reeds or shallow lakes (not the Red Sea; the Hebrew word yam suph means “sea of reeds”) without being struck down by the Egyptian chariots. The Egyptians gave up chasing them because they could not enter the lakes with chariots. Moreover, a few hundred slaves were inconsequential to the Egyptian economy. But to a group of these slaves, their escape was nothing short of a miracle. Reflecting on and remembering what just happened to them, these slaves firmly believe that this event is none other than a miracle, possible only through God’s power and grace. The Lord (Yahweh) made it happen and their faith confirms it. This experience gives them words of confession and encouragement that God is the source of everything.
Actually, this miracle would not have been possible if they had not left a place of shackles in Egypt for a new home of freedom and justice. It was a miracle not because supernatural things happened but because what they thought was impossible came true in their eyes. They could have been captured and killed, but in fact, they were saved.
The transformative lesson is clear: we can break the shackles of oppression by trusting God. Hebrew slaves did not wait for angels to come to rescue them in prisons or their workplaces. If they had stayed in their place with fear and despair, they would not have enjoyed freedom. Scholars believe that as time goes by, this seemingly simple story of faith that calls for action for liberation has been embellished and expanded. But the whole point of the story is not about the graphic, majestic description of how fleeing Israelites crossed the sea by the miraculous act of God, but about people’s courage, faith, action, dream, and hope for a free home even with the cost of death on their run.
Feeding the Multitudes
Jesus’ feeding of the multitudes appears in all four gospels (Matt 14:13-21; Mark 6:30-44; Luke 9:10-17; John 6:1-15) and has similar transformative lessons for us. The power of this miracle story does not lie in the supernatural power of Jesus as if Jesus could provide anything for the needy but lies in a little child's faith and action through which many people are supposedly motivated to give their own, too. Imagine people gathering in a dry, sunny wilderness. Even a little bread amounts to tons of bread for the hungry bodies and souls. A little thing of sharing could ignite others to do the same. Sharing is a miracle! This miracle story is a symbolic, moral story that challenges others to do the same as a little child and those who gathered and participated in the boy’s faith and action. Otherwise, if we focus only on Jesus’ power that feeds the five thousand people, we would miss this important aspect of a sharing miracle sparked through a little child and completed through the participation of the crowd in the desert.
In this sense, a true miracle in this story has to do with a change of heart – from a self-feeding attitude to an other-feeding attitude by sharing a little thing. This miracle is not merely about the power of God or Jesus who does supernatural things like changing the tree, the stone, or the wind. Many people are starving to death even today not because the food is short in the world but because people are as dull and hard as not to break their hearts for others. A miracle begins with one’s heart and with small things.
Sunday, September 6, 2020
Sewol Ferry Tragedy
Yung Suk Kim
Note: I wrote this post right after the incident in April 2014.
My mind has been restless for the past few days as I cannot stop thinking about the tragic incident of the Sewol ferry disaster. The ferry was carrying 476 passengers from Inchon to Jeju Island in Korea, out of which more than 370 were high school students on a school trip. Unfortunately, the ferry sank, and only about 170 passengers managed to be rescued while over 181 bodies have been found so far. There are still 121 passengers missing, most of whom are young high school students in their teens. Despite the ongoing rescue efforts, their survival remains uncertain. As I was grieving this tragedy, I came across various news reports detailing the extent of the disaster.
1. In 2012, a ferry was brought over from a Japanese shipping company. It had been in operation for 18 years and was close to retirement in Japan. Before 2012, the official retirement age for a ferry boat in Korea was 20 years old. However, this age limit was changed under the Lee Myung-bak government, allowing for a 30-year-old ferry boat to continue operating. This decision was made as a result of Lee's promotion of new capitalism with deregulation policies during his presidency. Unfortunately, due to this law change, the current ferry was imported in 2012 as a used vessel, which had already been in operation for 18 years. This decision is frustrating and unfortunate, as it was a result of the senseless government and Sewol's choice to import such an aging ferry for Korean passengers.
2. It is reported that the ferry boat has been imported and rebuilt to increase its passenger capacity and space. However, it is important to ensure that the rebuilding is carried out by the safety codes. Additionally, a thorough investigation of the ferry's technical issues is necessary. The government's official inspection agency should also be investigated to ensure safety standards are met.
3. On the day the ferry sunk, there were two inexperienced crew members in charge - one controlling the ferry and the other navigating. Both had less than a year's experience. The captain, Lee Joonsuk, who was 69 years old, had left them in charge for a while. It is unclear how many containers and cars were on board or whether they were properly secured. Reports suggest that many containers fell when the ferry suddenly tilted to the left and began to sink. It should be noted that Lee was a replacement for the regular captain who was on vacation. Unfortunately, the situation only got worse.
4. A terrible incident occurred when a ferry began to tilt and sink for 90 minutes. If the captain, Lee, had made the right decision to evacuate all passengers immediately upon sensing that something was wrong with the ferry (due to a loud roaring sound), most passengers could have been saved. However, crew members repeatedly told passengers to stay calm and stay inside the ferry, leading to a waste of critical time. Most students stayed inside, trusting in vain. It is unclear why the captain did not ask all passengers to immediately wear life-saving jackets and prepare life-saving boats for evacuation. According to one report, only two life-saving boats were working. It is also unknown whether there were enough life jackets for all passengers. Captain Lee and other crew members abandoned the ferry and passengers in danger of their lives, leaving their posts to be among the first group of people rescued by the rescue team. Even after being rescued, Lee tried to hide his identity and acted like a passenger. This incident is deeply distressing.
5. However, there is one young lady named Ms. Park Ji-Young in her early twenties, who was a crew member for passengers. She helped young students escape from the sinking ship, but unfortunately, she was unable to rescue herself. Her story brings tears to my eyes.
6. It seems that the high school where the students came from is partly responsible for the unfortunate incident that took place. The school authorities should have conducted a thorough assessment of the safety of the ferry trip. Unfortunately, the ferry had set sail several hours behind schedule due to adverse weather conditions. Moreover, it is with great sadness that I learned about the Vice Principal's tragic death by hanging himself on a pine tree. The Vice Principal was a chaperone of the trip and had been rescued from the accident. However, he was unable to cope with the pressure and guilt of the incident.
7. The overall emergency response and rescue efforts made by the government have been disappointing. There are lots of concerns, inefficiencies, and complaints about this rescue operation. I understand that it's not easy to handle situations during emergencies. However, we should learn from past tragedies and try to implement those learnings in the present. The current government's leadership is being questioned due to this. There were enough lessons learned from past experiences, but are we implementing them today? My heart goes out to all those affected by this senseless tragedy. They are constantly in my thoughts and prayers.
8. Conclusion
It is tragic to note that this accident could have been prevented, or many lives could have been saved. The accident was caused by human error, which is morally unacceptable. There was a system failure that involved various parties, including the government (both former and current) and its overseeing agencies, who did not perform their duties appropriately. The ferry company was also at fault for importing an old ferry and renovating it carelessly, adding more space while neglecting proper management. The crew members were unprepared in case of an emergency, which made the situation even worse.
*Last-minute text messages sent by students trapped in the sinking ferry:
(Photo courtesy of Newsis)
Note: I wrote this post right after the incident in April 2014.
My mind has been restless for the past few days as I cannot stop thinking about the tragic incident of the Sewol ferry disaster. The ferry was carrying 476 passengers from Inchon to Jeju Island in Korea, out of which more than 370 were high school students on a school trip. Unfortunately, the ferry sank, and only about 170 passengers managed to be rescued while over 181 bodies have been found so far. There are still 121 passengers missing, most of whom are young high school students in their teens. Despite the ongoing rescue efforts, their survival remains uncertain. As I was grieving this tragedy, I came across various news reports detailing the extent of the disaster.
1. In 2012, a ferry was brought over from a Japanese shipping company. It had been in operation for 18 years and was close to retirement in Japan. Before 2012, the official retirement age for a ferry boat in Korea was 20 years old. However, this age limit was changed under the Lee Myung-bak government, allowing for a 30-year-old ferry boat to continue operating. This decision was made as a result of Lee's promotion of new capitalism with deregulation policies during his presidency. Unfortunately, due to this law change, the current ferry was imported in 2012 as a used vessel, which had already been in operation for 18 years. This decision is frustrating and unfortunate, as it was a result of the senseless government and Sewol's choice to import such an aging ferry for Korean passengers.
2. It is reported that the ferry boat has been imported and rebuilt to increase its passenger capacity and space. However, it is important to ensure that the rebuilding is carried out by the safety codes. Additionally, a thorough investigation of the ferry's technical issues is necessary. The government's official inspection agency should also be investigated to ensure safety standards are met.
3. On the day the ferry sunk, there were two inexperienced crew members in charge - one controlling the ferry and the other navigating. Both had less than a year's experience. The captain, Lee Joonsuk, who was 69 years old, had left them in charge for a while. It is unclear how many containers and cars were on board or whether they were properly secured. Reports suggest that many containers fell when the ferry suddenly tilted to the left and began to sink. It should be noted that Lee was a replacement for the regular captain who was on vacation. Unfortunately, the situation only got worse.
4. A terrible incident occurred when a ferry began to tilt and sink for 90 minutes. If the captain, Lee, had made the right decision to evacuate all passengers immediately upon sensing that something was wrong with the ferry (due to a loud roaring sound), most passengers could have been saved. However, crew members repeatedly told passengers to stay calm and stay inside the ferry, leading to a waste of critical time. Most students stayed inside, trusting in vain. It is unclear why the captain did not ask all passengers to immediately wear life-saving jackets and prepare life-saving boats for evacuation. According to one report, only two life-saving boats were working. It is also unknown whether there were enough life jackets for all passengers. Captain Lee and other crew members abandoned the ferry and passengers in danger of their lives, leaving their posts to be among the first group of people rescued by the rescue team. Even after being rescued, Lee tried to hide his identity and acted like a passenger. This incident is deeply distressing.
5. However, there is one young lady named Ms. Park Ji-Young in her early twenties, who was a crew member for passengers. She helped young students escape from the sinking ship, but unfortunately, she was unable to rescue herself. Her story brings tears to my eyes.
6. It seems that the high school where the students came from is partly responsible for the unfortunate incident that took place. The school authorities should have conducted a thorough assessment of the safety of the ferry trip. Unfortunately, the ferry had set sail several hours behind schedule due to adverse weather conditions. Moreover, it is with great sadness that I learned about the Vice Principal's tragic death by hanging himself on a pine tree. The Vice Principal was a chaperone of the trip and had been rescued from the accident. However, he was unable to cope with the pressure and guilt of the incident.
7. The overall emergency response and rescue efforts made by the government have been disappointing. There are lots of concerns, inefficiencies, and complaints about this rescue operation. I understand that it's not easy to handle situations during emergencies. However, we should learn from past tragedies and try to implement those learnings in the present. The current government's leadership is being questioned due to this. There were enough lessons learned from past experiences, but are we implementing them today? My heart goes out to all those affected by this senseless tragedy. They are constantly in my thoughts and prayers.
8. Conclusion
It is tragic to note that this accident could have been prevented, or many lives could have been saved. The accident was caused by human error, which is morally unacceptable. There was a system failure that involved various parties, including the government (both former and current) and its overseeing agencies, who did not perform their duties appropriately. The ferry company was also at fault for importing an old ferry and renovating it carelessly, adding more space while neglecting proper management. The crew members were unprepared in case of an emergency, which made the situation even worse.
*Last-minute text messages sent by students trapped in the sinking ferry:
(Photo courtesy of Newsis)
Thursday, September 3, 2020
My signature articles in biblical studies
There were times I could put all energy and effort to write something. If I still feel great about what I wrote and think they represent my scholarship very well, that may be called signature articles. I have a few of these (2 from OT; 2 from NT). I don't know whether I can write more than these signature ones.
1) Lex Talionis in Exod 21:22-25 (Journal of Hebrew Scriptures)
2) The Story of Hannah from a Perspective of Han (The Bible and Critical Theory)
3) ““Imitators” (Mimetai) in 1 Cor. 4:16 and 11:1: A New Reading of Threefold Embodiment,” Horizons in Biblical Theology 33.2 (2011): 147-170. (ATLA accessible)
4) “Reclaiming Christ’s Body (soma christou): Embodiment of God’s Gospel in Paul’s Letters,” Interpretation 67.1 (2013): 20-29. (ATLA accessible)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)