Rethink on Minjung Theology of Ahn Byoung Mu and His Theological Method

  1.   Introduction

 

Korea is often described as the ‘Queen of Suffering’, simply because as a nation, ‘it has suffered great turmoil throughout its history’.[1] In the context of post-war Korea, people were desperately looking for ways to meet their needs in the present reality. In response to the poverty and oppression that lingered after the devastating war in Korea (1950-53), minjung[2] theology emerged as a major contextual and theological influence in Korea as people sought to address these problems. Ahn Byung Mu (1922-1996) was a leading theologian for the theological formation that took place during the 1970s-1980s

Stories of Minjung Theology is a book based on Ahn’s conversations with his students. In this book, his original and provocative theological insights are represented. This consideration of Ahn’s book will address his theological methods in the context of socio-political concerns. My interest leads me to explore carefully how his theological position has been formed, and with which theological methods so that I can critically evaluate it. This study will be conducted principally by consideration of his book and associated writings on these matters.

 

 

2.   Critical Analysis of the Theological Method

 

2.1.  Community and Experience

 

Ahn was born in Shinanjoo, North Korea today, which was then under the colonial power of Japan. He saw Koreans oppressed and suffered constantly at the hands of the imperial powers around his nation.[3] His heart and thoughts about minjung trace back to his experiences in Jiandao under Japanese colonial rule. He states,

‘The life of Koreans there during the colonial years was typical minjung life. Ever since then, minjung has been a deep-seated and fundamental concern for me. Why do they have to be oppressed and deprived like this? I experienced a bitter han’.[4]

In his negative recognition of the underside of history, Ahn was pursuing a desire to liberate the life of minjung. The time Jiandao, like Galilee during Jesus’ time, was the site of minjung life, a land of gentiles. This is the root of his interest in minjung, and he believes this interest theologically blossomed under the Yushin[5] system in the 1970s.[6] A young man, Jeon Tae-il, not minding his hunger, pleaded for help about the unfair treatment of his coworkers. But in 1970, after hitting a dead-end wherever he turned, he burned himself to death and stunned the world.[7] This event brought about the decisive turning point of Ahn’s theological formation. Jeon’s struggle by suicide turned people’s attention to the working conditions of laborers; it was this plight that led to him offering himself as a sacrifice for coworkers’ rights and interests. For him, ‘it is the continuation of the fire that Jesus started in the minjung’.’ Minjung enlightened Ahn for a mission to bring a new revelation into the world. He saw Jeon’s acts similar to the action of Jesus for his people, viewing it as a motif of the suffering Jesus for atonement.[8]  

In 1985 there was another tragic event when a university student also committed suicide by fire, shouting to his fellow students:

‘Now is the time to save the country by giving up our self. We have no violent means for resistance; nor are we in any position to kill...’ When his mother fell in such deep grief upon seeing his son dead, she perceived her son singing “Oh, Freedom! Oh, Freedom!” as thousands of people in thousands of voices... Long live my son who will never die.’[9]

Ahn interprets this event as being similar to the resurrection of Jesus, but as if a form of resurrection was occurring in the student’s mother, who does not even know the name of Christ. Ahn perceived the number of people who throw themselves under the wheels of systemic and historic evil as a form of testimony of resurrection, seeing the resurrection event of Jesus as continuing in this minjung event. He interprets the resurrection of Jesus in the light of the event he experiences in minjung.[10] In this manner, Ahn perceived political and economic oppression as the chief problem of society in light of the han of the minjung, and so he sought to find a solution by struggling politically for the people against the oppressor.[11] Küster points out that ‘his struggle for human rights and democratization, as Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945) opposed the Nazi regime, encouraged Ahn to confront the military dictatorship’.[12] Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that the han of his own experience and the community is very much an important source of Ahn’s theology and that this impacts and shaped the theological lens with which he approached his socio-political concerns.[13]

 

2.2.       Scripture and Tradition

 

According to Ahn, Bultmann (1884-1976) significantly influenced the formation of his theology’.[14] While placing a high value on the pursuit of historical understanding, Ahn also applied the scientific method to the formation of his theology. Ahn was helped by writings and ideas from Bultmann and the historical Jesus movement, and this exposure also appears to have informed his thoughts. In particular, Ahn had originally pursued a closer alignment with them because he had seen and admired their commitment to the scientific study of the Bible. Küster points out, ‘Ahn criticizes particular bible texts with the help of exegetical argumentation emphasizing the historical dimension of Christian faith’.[15] However, he came to realise it is not sensible for Koreans to know Jesus only by historical approach. He states,

‘I firmly believe that Korean people have to turn back to being Korean. They need to overcome Western influences… Patterns of thinking and ways of asking and answering questions are all becoming westernized. How do we fight against this?... How can we renew Korean Christianity into a Christianity of our Korean minjung?’[16]

Concerning his exposure to tradition and the influence that the school of Bultmann and historical Jesus had on him for a while, tradition itself was never the dominant theological authority for him. In recognising and categorising his context, he chose to pursue what he simply considered a pure theological expression of Korea as expressed in his heartfelt desire that ‘they can maintain purity by immune to the influence of foreign culture and power’.[17]

He attempted a contextual reading of the bible in the particular light of his socio-political concerns and sought to apply it towards social engagement in the context of Korea, being so very much concerned with the life of minjung. Ahn criticized any naïve reading of the Bible which failed to recognise its capacity for social context and engagement. He states, ‘If Paul had preached without taking a stance in the problems of his time, he would not have encountered any problems. But they struck him because he did not preach like that. That is why he was persecuted day and night and had to suffer again and again’.²⁹ As the main thrust of the Gospel of Mark is the portrayal of Jesus the suffering servant, Mark is very much an important source of his theology, especially in its account of the suffering and crucifixion of Jesus. Ahn derives this part of his theory from interpretations of όχλος (ochlos) in the Gospel of Mark, identifying Jesus as minjung in Korea and minjung as Jesus. He sees these events as being the same as he believes Jesus appears throughout ochlos in history. In this sense, it is clear that his hermeneutical priority lies in interpreting the text through the current reader’s perspective. A significant hermeneutical key for him is to see Scripture in light of minjung’s suffering.

Such a strongly contextual approach raises an important question: is this claim truthfully valid in light of other cannon and is it consistent with Scripture as a whole? Is it right to make such a foundational theological statement upon such a subjective viewpoint? Ahn’s emotive reaction to the hardships of minjung is understandable, but it seems that his theological methods lacked the proper integrative, contextual hermeneutics required by Scripture and the issues they were facing. Kim specifically criticises the lack of integration in minjung theology, because Ahn claims ‘the Gospel of Mark as the New Testament basis for his theological method while ignoring the other books of the New Testament’. Even more, ‘the Gospel of Mark as a whole does not support minjung theology appearing[mr2]  to appeal not to the whole Gospel of Mark but only to a few of its elements’.[18] According to Ahn, Jesus did not love all equally, but rather showed a partisan love for the ochlos-minjung, accepting them unconditionally and protecting them without evaluating them in any way. He did not even demand repentance from them.[19] his hermeneutics overtake any sense of real problems and goals for the sake of minjung, as he begins with the key problem of their suffering. Looking for paths out or a means of resistance to an unjust status quo, he seems to enforce his hermeneutical priorities in a way that pays less regard to the context of Scripture than to his own. As there is little or no evidence of an objective method or perspective, it appears as though all Ahn’s sources are filtered through his perspective. In the formation of theology, as we select and choose the resources which carry particular meaning, it becomes apparent that each method has its limit. Therefore we need to use or seek to understand a range of methods if we are to interact with new thoughts and integrate them towards a truthful theology which is more likely to accurately hold God's point of view. A truly fresh theological expression cannot work in any way which departs from or contradicts the truth in Scripture, but rather the truth should be correlated and affirmed. Moreover, in recognition that present revelation or interpretation is always based upon former revelation according to the Scriptural pattern, Scripture always serves as the guideline of the truth. It seems that Ahn’s central claim, which seems to stand without any other canonical support as far as Scripture itself testifies, is his weakness. Interpreting Scripture in light of our experiences is a natural process, but it needs to be thoroughly investigated and correlated concerning a broader understanding of Scripture. Such a personal[mr3]  interpretation should function more clearly in confirmation of truths reasonably experienced in the Spirit.[20] Ahn’s own hermeneutical lens, formed in light of his subjective experience and socio-political situation should not and can not be seen as a theological authority without evidence of valid integrative theological support.

 

 

3.   Critical Evaluation on His Theology and Legacy  

 

How then do we contextualize the biblical message in the complex globalised world of today? For anyone who attempts to respond to contemporary issues of social justice and inequality, there are important tasks that need to be confronted and addressed. On the one hand, we have a task to exegete Scripture concerning any contemporary questions and concerns, but when we do this we need to grapple with the question of how to read historical sources contextually. It is critically important that we interpret the events of Scripture in terms of the multifaceted historical contexts In which it was written, giving proper regard to the specific times, places and people described. On the other hand, we also need to apply the prophetic message of Scripture into our own contemporary multifaceted context. The relationship between Scripture and our own cultural context is complex and multidimensional.[21] There seems to be much evidence that a lack of hermeneutical integration of biblical and personal contexts is evidence of a serious flaw in Ahn’s theological claim. As Kuster points out, ‘minjung theology was rather an indication of the problem,’ simply supposed to give the minjung a voice at the time’.[22] Ahn shows this tendency in a similar way to the other minjung theologians, perceiving Korea in a perspective solely concerned with a Marxist analysis of society’s structure as oppressive and seeking to empower minjung to resist their oppressors. [23] ‘Is his perception of the community in his day rightly analysed?’ Did most people in Korea recognise the military government in his day as compared to the Nazi regime? Is interesting to note that Ahn’s view of the military regime of his day as being like the Nazi regime is a different perspective from that of most South Koreans at the time. This in turn raises the question of whether his ideas come from the minjung of Korea themselves or more personally from him and minjung theologians? Evangelicals in Korea highlight criticise such matters.[24]

When looking closely at the issues of society in its wider context with a broad range of multidimensional perspectives, other concerns arise. It can be argued that minjung theologians failed to correctly analyse the geopolitical situation of Korea at a time when the country was caught up in the cold war between USSR and the USA; in those days North Korea continued to be a great threat and the Korean war, though officially over in 1953, had still not ended completely and practically. In a time of desperation and a struggle for freedom, Korean people could choose a Marxist revolution or commit themselves to development through engagement of the popular masses, economic planning, and effective foreign aid under the authoritarian government of the time.[25] Ahn attempts to offer an alternative way with a synthesis of Christianity and Marxism for the sake of minjung. In my view, resident Park chose an authoritarian type of government to achieve greater national security and an economic development plan; because of the geopolitical context Korea was facing, most Korean people followed his direction. History itself testifies which way was the right path for minjung. 

The ultimate test of Ahn’s claim is not found in a precise theological system but rather in claims of a ‘transformative power leading to a positive way of life’.[26] It seems doubtful that their response was as productive and fruitful in leading the community towards transformation as a way of life. Many minjung resisted and struggled against the government as he proposed, with some young men even deciding to commit suicide by burning themselves ‘sacrificially’ for the cause. However, Korea was also experiencing its biggest economic growth at that time, and many people found themselves recently liberated from severe poverty and many other kinds of oppression since the country had gained independence from the colonial power of Japan. It is interesting, with hindsight, to see that the minjung in his day came out of poverty utilizing national economic growth under the military government and its economic projects. It is not my purpose here to discuss these events in detail but in many ways, this national recovery was an economic miracle; Korea had one of the fastest-growing economies in the world, and its national transformation mostly took place over a period of 20 years under the authoritarian government he opposed.[27] In this short time, South Korea moved from being one of the poorest nations in the world to become a significant economic power. Korea was on her way to liberation and widespread transformation at that time, and those who still felt oppressed politically and economically were far fewer than before, their numbers have decreased significantly since those prior years.

Therefore, these challenges regarding the integration of a proper interpretation of scripture and personal context are of vital significance for an effective and accurate application; our approach to the methodological challenges of this hermeneutical process can make a huge difference in terms of outcomes and conclusions, especially in understanding the timeless truths of Scripture. There is no more minjung today, as most of them have come out of poverty and are relatively rich now. What then is Ahn’s theological claim for today?

 

 

4.   Conclusion

 

There is much to admire about Ahn’s theological concern for the poor and the oppressed in Korea at his time, especially in his willingness to respond to issues of social justice and engage with them. We have many words from him expressing love toward minjung who were oppressed and experienced han in their life. Ahn’s theology was born to console and give them hope Jesus who always is with them in their suffering. He attempted to contribute a contextual theology in the confrontation political and social realities by raising a prophetic voice for the sake of the minjung. It is clear that exposure to the extraordinary context of this particular community had a significant influence on his hermeneutical lens, though not necessarily for the good. As he used this experience and context as a foundational source for his theological authority, and as this community and their experience remained his hermeneutical priority, Ahn’s theological method can be best explained as one which is drawn from and justified by community and experience as the primary authority. His great strength and positive legacy are found more in his attempts to contextualise the message of Scripture to its own context by responding to the socio-political concerns of the day, and in rightly raising various issues of injustice, then in his results. Though this strength and resulting influence remain, Ahn’s theology clearly suffers from a lack of integration with other theological sources and other disciplines that are needed to better interpret the context of Scripture and benefit his community. In particular, his evident failure to correctly interpret his nation's context within the wider geo-political situation led him to unnecessary and unhelpful modes of praxis and application, as he opposed the governmental authority which actually brought lasting transformation and benefit to the minjung. These problems are made more striking when we see how heavily Ahn relies on only Mark’s gospel, apparently again in light of his emphasis on personal experience in theological formation. Again his theological method clearly suffers from a lack of integration with other theological sources.

Ahn’s example strongly suggests that anyone who has theological concerns needs to be diligent to consider both a multi-dimensional contextual reading of Scripture and their own context. As each theological method, together with its sources and emphases, has its own limits, a truly integrative method, which includes an ongoing dynamic interaction with other academic disciplines is needed to effectively consider the theological sources and the multidimensional context to which they must be applied. Other academic disciplines such as sociology, geopolitics, and history can also helpfully support a more complex analysis, especially in the multi-dimensional context of a more dramatically globalised world, but the foundation should be Scripture itself.

  

---

[1] Ham, 'Korean Theology’, 266.

[2] Minjung means mass, people indicating politically oppressed, economically exploited, socially isolated in Korea.

[3] An, Stories of Minjung Theology., 3, 10-11.

[4] An, 10. han is deep feeling caused by sustained experience of injustice and is considered one of the characteristic emotions of the Korean people.               

[5] The Yushin system is the three powers of administration, legislation, and judicature were all at the president’s discretion. Therefore, it was criticized for being the instrument of president Park Jeong-hui’s permanent dictatorship.

[6] An, Minjung Theology., 10.

[7] An, 78.

[8] An, 78-79.

[9] An, 255-6.

[10] An, 268-9

[11] Kim, ‘The Problem of Poverty’, 44.

[12] Küster, ‘the Minjung Revisited’, 3.

[13] Phan, ‘Method in Liberation Theologies’, 49.

[14] Interview with Ahn Byung-Mu, 20th July 1988, cited by Küster, ‘Jesus and the Minjung Revisited: The Legacy of Ahn Byung-Mu (1922-1996).’ 3.

[15] Küster., 9.

[16] An, 32.

[17] An, 32.

[18] Kim. S, ‘Is “Minjung Theology” a Christian Theology’, 270.

[19] Ahn, "The Subjects of History in Mark," in Minjung and Korean Theology in Korea, 181, cited by Kim. S, 'Minjung Theology’, 271.

[20] Thorsen, Quadrilateral, 137.

[21] Flemming, 306.

[22] Küster, Minjung Revisited., 24-25.

[23] An, 31-32.

[24] Kim, ‘The Problem of Poverty’, 47,

[25] Kirk, Liberation, 17.

[26] Costas, ‘Evangelical Theology’, 12, cited by Flemming, Contextualization, 305.

[27] Lee, Park Chung-Hee, 324.

---

 

Bibliography

An, Pyŏng-mu, In Hanna, and Park Wongi. Stories of Minjung Theology: The Theological Journey of Ahn Byung-Mu in His Own Words. International Voices in Biblical Studies 11. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2019.

Flemming, Dean E. Contextualization in the New Testament: Patterns for Theology and Mission. Leicester: APOLLOS, 2005.

Kim, Sebastian C H. ‘The Problem of Poverty in Post-War Korean Christianity: Kibock Sinang or Minjung Theology?’ Transformation 24, no. 1 (January 2007): 43–50.

Kim, Seyoon. ‘Is “Minjung Theology” a Christian Theology’. Calvin Theological Journal 22, no. 2 (November 1987): 251–74.

Küster, Volker. A Protestant Theology of Passion: Korean Minjung Theology Revisited. Studies in Systematic Theology (Leiden, Netherlands) 4. Leiden: Brill, 2010. 

———. ‘Jesus and the Minjung Revisited: The Legacy of Ahn Byung-Mu (1922-1996).’ Biblical Interpretation 19, no. 1 (February 2011): 1–18.

Lee, Chong-Sik. Park Chung-Hee: From Poverty to Power. Palos Verdes, Calif.: KHU Press, 2012.

McFarland, Ian Alexander, and Cambridge University Press. The Cambridge Dictionary of Christian Theology. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014.

Phan, Peter C. ‘Method in Liberation Theologies’. Theological Studies 61, no. 1 (March 2000): 40–63.

Thorsen, Donald A. D. The Wesleyan Quadrilateral: Scripture, Tradition, Reason & Experience as a Model of Evangelical Theology. Lexington, KY: Emeth Press, 1990.