Black Seminary and Experience

Yung Suk Kim

Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity

Samuel DeWitt Proctor School of Theology

Virginia Union University

I am an Asian American scholar with Korean heritage—a Diaspora living in America as a citizen. With my hybrid identity, I enjoy teaching in a predominantly African-American school in the South—Richmond, once the capital of the Confederacy and the current capital of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

As a minority scholar within the minority culture, I often hear the importance of the black seminary and the black experience and ask the following questions: Is the black experience shareable with other cultures and people? Does blackness come from a collective or personal experience? Is it a human condition or a unique hermeneutical lens? African American seminary has an unparalleled role for “black” people and churches. The black seminary provides care to students in a more sustainable culture and community. It can be a safe place for their identity formation or reformation, deeply rooted in African-American heritage, culture, and experience. By being authentic to African American spirit and experience, a black seminary can foster critical spirituality and solidarity with others.

But critical questions remain to be answered down the road. In my view, the biggest challenge would be how the HBCUs set their position in changing contexts. How much can they adapt to fast-moving trends and conditions while keeping their traditions? What model of transformation or success can they establish?  

Redaction criticism (the water baptism of Jesus)

Redaction criticism seeks to answer why the author (the evangelist) changed the source material. To do so, readers must find changed parts. For example, in the baptism of Jesus, Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source and edited it, respectively. The changes or differences in Matthew and Luke reflect their community issues or theological perspectives. In other words, Matthew and Luke are not mere collectors of the source but redactors or theologians who are concerned with their communities.

Why does Matthew explain the need for Jesus' water baptism? What is going on with this community of Matthew? What kind of theology does Matthew advocate?

There are at least two plausible concerns or questions raised by some members of the Matthean community:

1) Why does Jesus need the water baptism by John since his baptism is for the forgiveness of sins?

2) Is Jesus's authority lower than John's since he was baptized by John?

   

Jesus's explanation is simple. His baptism is necessary for fulfilling the righteousness (of God), which is a prevalent theme in Matthew, not to mention the Hebrew Bible. Baptism means a surrender to God, a new start for his public ministry, and his commitment to advocating the justice of God. Otherwise, his baptism is neither about the forgiveness of sins nor about a matter of authority or ranking.   

The long conversational style of the Matthean baptism story is consistent with the didactical style of Matthew’s Gospel, composed of plenty of teaching materials such as the Sermon on the Mount and parables of Jesus.  

When it comes to Luke, why does Luke emphasize people's presence at Jesus's baptism and prayer of Jesus? Indeed, the Gospel of Luke as a whole is imbued with this theme of the down-to-earth ministry perspective along with the importance of prayer. Why did Luke omit baptism details from Mark? It would be hard to know. Perhaps, one plausibility is that in Luke's mind, those details are considered not crucial to the gentile audiences.  

Definition of Research in Humanities

"Research means digging into subjects deep and wide, connecting them with today's world, and thinking together about the future that is yet to unfold. Good or bad, all research projects involve certain levels of ideology. What we need is not so much objectivity as responsibility." (Yung Suk Kim, PhD)

Jesus and Confucius: "Human-centered thinking"

I am amazed at the great thinkers' concise, easy-to-understand expressions of truth. I find the examples in Jesus and Confucius, who lived at different times and in different cultural contexts. Both expressed the importance of human-centeredness with chiasmus.

Jesus: "The Sabbath was made for humankind and not humankind for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27).

Τὸ σάββατον διὰ τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐγένετο, καὶ οὐχ ὁ ἄνθρωπος διὰ τὸ σάββατον·

Confucius: "The person widens the way; it is not the way that widens the person" (Analects 14:35).

人能弘道、非道弘人

Confucius and Francis Bacon: Inductive reasoning

Analects 14:35

下學而上達。知我者、其天乎。
"Study from below and reach the top. Who knows me except for Heaven?" (trans. by Yung Suk Kim).

See also Analects 15:29

人能弘道、非道弘人
"The person widens the way; it is not the way that widens the person" (trans. by Yung Suk Kim).

Confucius's point is each person must begin with oneself, studying and reasoning from everyday life. This idea evokes Francis Bacon's empiricism and inductive reasoning.

Confucius's practical approach to justice

Analects 14:34

或曰。以德報怨、何如。子曰。何以報德 以直報怨、以德報德。

Someone said: "How is repaying resentment with virtue possible?" Confucius said: "What then will you repay virtue? Repay resentment (or harm) with justice (lit. 'straightforwardness'). Repay virtue with virtue" (trans. by Yung Suk Kim).

My comments:

Repaying harm (resentment) with justice (straightforwardness) sounds contrary to Jesus's teaching that one must love one's enemy. But Confucius's teaching is practical and necessary because wrongs must be dealt with rather than condoned. Injustices cannot go unpunished or unchecked. So, we must consider the enemy situation and the nature of love. Otherwise, we cannot use Jesus's love command of the enemy apart from the context. Some might even ask: Is loving an enemy psychologically or morally salutary? Is it possible at all?

Summary of Confucius's Thought

I found a plausible room for a new interpretation of Confucius' thoughts against the traditional one, which begins with ren (love) and yi (righteousness), followed by zhi (knowledge or wisdom) and li (propriety). This tradition derives from Mencius (4th century BCE), a great interpreter of Confucius. In my critical reading of the Analects, however, I see a different key to interpreting Confucius. That is, Confucius begins with zhi and ren at the same time (for example, see Analects 4:1, 6:23, 15:33, 17:6, and 19:6), and his point is these two elements must be balanced in human behavior, just as the mind and heart go together. Otherwise, yi (righteousness) and li (propriety) are part of zhi and ren. In Analects 6:23, knowledge is compared to water while love is to the mountain. Knowing involves dynamic flow like water, and love is calm like the mountain. Knowledge must be flexible, nourishing, and reflexive. Love must be big and enduring. Below is Ana. 6:23.

The Master said, "The wise find pleasure in water; the virtuous find pleasure in hills. The wise are active; the virtuous are tranquil. The wise are joyful; the virtuous are long-lived." (trans).

Analects 13:23

“The most profound person (lord's son, kunzi) seeks harmony, but maintains differences. The small person is aligned with others (crowds), but does not seek harmony” (Analects of Confucius 13:23, trans by Yung Suk Kim).

Key phrases from Kongzi (Analects)

Translated by Yung Suk Kim, Ph.D

Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity

Samuel DeWitt Proctor School of Theology

Virginia Union University

Analects (Ana.) 6:23: "The knowing person likes water; the humane person likes mountains. The former is advancing and exciting, and the latter is calm."

Ana. 11:12: "Chi Lu asked about serving spirits. Kongzi said: "If you cannot serve humans yet, how can you serve the spirits? The disciple dared to ask about death. The master said: "If you do not know life yet, how can you know death?"

Ana. 13:23: "The most profound person (lord's son, kunzi) seeks harmony, but maintains differences. The small person is aligned with others (crowds), but does not seek harmony."

Ana. 15:24: "Zi Gong asked: “Tell us with one word as to how we can live during our whole life?" Kongzi said, 'Isn't it reciprocity?' Do not impose on others what you do not want for yourself."

  

Three Virtues in 1 Cor 13:13

Yung Suk Kim, Ph.D.

Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity

Samuel DeWitt Proctor School of Theology

Virginia Union University

"And now faith, hope, and love remain, these three, and the greatest of these is love" (1 Cor 13:13).

What is faith? Is it simply a will to trust God? Is it some form of conviction that God exists? Is it the knowledge or confession that Jesus is the savior? Or is it holistic faithfulness that seeks to imitate Jesus? How does faith relate to hope and love?

What is hope? Is it only personal emotion or feeling about security in Christ or God? Is it only future eschatological hope completed in the future? Is it manifested in the present even dimly?

What is love? Why is it the greatest among the three? What is love's relationship with faith and hope? Is love a charity? What does it say about the love of God and the love of neighbor? Does this love include the love of the self?

Which virtue comes first? Does Christian life begin with faith? Or with hope? Or with love? Or all at the same time? Thomas Aquinas thinks love is a charity that sustains faith and hope. For him, faith is a will or knowledge in God; hope is essentially the thing of the future; charity is a driving force that one can engage in the world, embracing the love of God for others. But for me, faith, hope, and love are inseparable. Whatever we do, our actions must be consistent with these three virtues in balance.