A Christian Educational Response to Multicultural Phenomenon in the South Korean Context

Journal of Christian Education in Korea Vol. 61(2020. 3. 30) : 263-294 DOI: 10.17968/jcek.2020..61.009

Towards Intercultural Christian Education: A Christian Educational Response to Multicultural Phenomenon in the South Korean Context

Heejin Choi (Ph.D. Student, University of Toronto) [email protected]

Abstract

In South Korea which has become a multicultural society, ethnic and cultural others have suffered from discrimination against them and iso- lation from society. Multicultural policies and multicultural public education have simply focused on the assimilation of cultural others without providing opportunities to build a reciprocal relationship between Kor eans and cultural others. Noting this reality, this paper proposes intercultural Christian education as a prophetic and educational role of faith communities in society. Intercultural education, intercultural theology, Miroslav Volf's drama of embrace, and Sang-Jin Park's theory of the ecosystem of Christian education offer theoretical foundations for intercultural Christian education. Based on these foundations, the paper dis- cusses the definition and goal of intercultural Christian education and argues for the roles of intercultural Christian education to help Christ ians "SEE" the self, the other, and the community through self-reflection, embrace, and ecological transformation. As intercultural Christian education pursues to nurture Christians to have a respectful and hospitable mindset toward cultural others, such education will help faith communities seek a multi-colored kingdom of God. 264 Journal of Christian Education in Korea

《 Keywords 》

Cultural others, Intercultural education, Multicultural education, Intercultural theology, Embrace, Ecosystem of Christian education, Intercultural Christian education

I. Introduction

As many people with diverse cultural backgrounds have entered and settled down in South Korea, multiculturalism has emerged as a critical issue in Korean society. In spite of the reality that the immigration of cultural others and the formation of multicultural families have accelerated cultural diversity and a demographic change in the society, a widespread climate of guardedness or even hostility against cultural others still exists. Additionally, many policies of the Korean government to respond to the needs of increasing numbers of cultural others are limited to a provision of hu- manitarian assistance to enable cultural others to adapt to society by helping them learn Korean language and culture(Seol, 2010; Lee, 2017). In particular, multicultural public education aims to target only those who have different cultural traditions and assimilate them into society rather than pursuing mutual learning through intercultural dialogue between ethnic Koreans and cultural others(Lee, 2018; Yang & Ham, 2018). Such policies, including education policy, which have tilted toward the assimilation of cultural others, have led many scholars to raise critical voices against the policies and public educators to actively discuss the right direction of multicultural education. Heejin Choi ┃ Towards Intercultural Christian Education 265

In the meantime, many Korean Christian educators have also paid attention to multicultural issues in society and of- fered valuable suggestions to resolve the issues in Christian educational ways. Hyun Sun Oh(2007) looked at the marginalized experiences of female immigrants and raised the need for multicultural Christian education as a response to them. Mi La Park(2011) suggested a group counseling approach to educate North Korean defector students in order to strengthen their psychological health. Jeung Gwan Lee (2014) analyzed the struggles of multicultural families and asserted how to care for them through Christian education. Sung Hoon Choi(2016) claimed for the multicultural competence of teachers and suggested alternative Christian education targeting North Korean defector students. Yhun So Ahn(2017) proposed a Christian educational model for marriage immigrant women with an intercultural perspective in order to help them discover the meaning of their lives. Notably, the common interest of these researchers lies in the establishment of the identity of cultural others, rather than seeking reciprocity between them and Koreans. Observing multicultural issues in society and the emerging necessity to create mutuality between cultural others and Koreans, this paper seeks to explore how Christian faith communities can respond to such a situation. As an active methodology to deal with multicultural issues in society, I will propose intercultural Christian education that pursues ways to nurture Christians to have a respectful and hospitable mindset toward cultural others. For this, this paper intends to outline how intercultural Christian education can be undertaken, by focusing on: (1) an examination of multi- 266 Journal of Christian Education in Korea

cultural phenomenon in Korean society; (2) four theoretical foundations for intercultural Christian education, including intercultural education, intercultural theology, the drama of embrace, and the ecosystem of Christian education; and (3) the definition, goal, and key roles of intercultural Christian education for the Korean context.

II. Multicultural Phenomenon in Korean Society

Korea, which was recognized as a single ethnic country for a long time, has been gradually changing into a multicultural society. Globalization as well as economic and technical development have enabled many foreigners to enter Korea with various cultures and Koreans to encounter multiple cultures through direct experiences, including tourism and study-abroad, and indirect experiences through the Internet. In particular, the entrance of many foreigners has resulted in a demographic change contributing to cultural diversity in society. Koreans have responded to such changes in both positive and negative ways.

1. Immigration and the demographic change

There are three key groups that have impacted on the demographic change: foreign workers, North Korean defectors, and marriage immigrants. First, since the 1980s, with increased economic development, many foreign workers have entered Korea. The number of foreign workers has Heejin Choi ┃ Towards Intercultural Christian Education 267

constantly increased from 50,000 in the early 1990s to 863,200 in 2019(Kang, 2006, 17; National Statistical Office, 2019b, 12-13). 92.1% of the workers came from other Asian countries including China and Vietnam (National Statistical Office, 2019b, 14). The low fertility, aging population, and the resulting decrease of the working-age population that have occurred in the society will lead to the continuous in- crease of foreign workers(Kang, 2006, 17). Second, the number of North Korean defectors who have settled in South Korea has steadily increased. They escaped from North Korea due to many reasons including the cen- tralized system, the closed economy, and the spread of in- formation about other countries(Kang, 2006, 20-21). The defectors receive adjustment education for twelve weeks in order to overcome a sense of cultural differences between South Korea and North Korea, to gain psychological stability, and to establish their life plans. After finishing the education, they can settle down in society with the governmental pro- tection(Ministry of Unification, n.d.). Third, multicultural families have played a significant role in the demographic change. The formation of multicultural families has accompanied Korean modern history. After the Korean War in 1950, as American soldiers started to be sta- tioned in Korea, most of the international marriage were between American male soldiers and Korean women in the 1950s to 1970s. In the 1980s, as mentioned before, many foreign workers began to enter Korea and form multicultural families composed of immigrant workers and Koreans(Park et al., 2011, 36). Technical development also stimulated the international marriages. As the population grew rapidly in 268 Journal of Christian Education in Korea

the 1970s and 1980s, the Korean government recommended citizens to have one or two children. The use of ultrasonic imaging enabled parents to know their baby’s gender before its birth. The parents performed selective abortion because they preferred boys due to the importance of familial ge- nealogy(Tan, 2017). These factors caused a high gender im- balance so that a movement to marry Korean men especially in rural regions occurred in the early 1990s, resulting in the marriages between Korean men and foreign women(Park, 2011, 36). Thus, there have been various forms of multicultural families in society. Currently, most of the multicultural families are composed of a Korean man, a woman from other Asian countries, including Vietnam, China, and Thailand, and their child(National Statistical Office, 2019a, 5, 13). Accompanying the increased number of multicultural families, the number of children in the families has also increased. According to the Korean National Statistical Office(2019c), multicultural students—- students born into mul ticultural families— compose 2.2% of the total students in 2019. Although this seems marginal, the number of multicultural students has increased about 6.5 times for a decade, while the total number of students has continuously de- creased(National Statistical Office, 2018, 8). Additionally, giv- en that the birth rate of multicultural children— children of multicultural families— among all Korean children has been constantly increasing(National Statistical Office, 2019a, 22), it is obvious that Korean society is experiencing a rapid demographic change. Heejin Choi ┃ Towards Intercultural Christian Education 269

2. The response of ethnic koreans to cultural others

Although many cultural others have settled down and contributed to cultural diversity in society, foreign workers, North Korean defectors, and multicultural families have suffered from discrimination by ethnic Koreans. On the one hand, both foreign workers and marriage immigrants have encountered a language barrier and discrimination due to religious, ethnic, and cultural differences. Based on the fact that foreign workers and marriage immigrants have mostly come from other Asian countries, Koreans feel superiority over the workers and immigrants. On the other hand, North Korean defectors have also experienced a language barrier due to their dialect and South Koreans’ bias that the defectors are rough and dependent on others(Kang, 2006, 17-22). It is important to look at the case of multicultural families specifically, because they have functioned as the most powerful source for the demographic change contributing to cultural diversity in society. Most marriage immigrant women have nurtured their children without enough time to ad- just to the Korean language and culture so that they and their children have struggled to learn Korean, establish cultural identities, and form personal relationships with others. Additionally, multicultural students have grappled with adapting to public education partly because of ethnic Koreans’ lack of respect for other cultures(Chun, Kim, Nam, & Do, 2012, 42). Related to this, Haejeon Kim and Yonghee Hong(2018) conducted interviews with young children of 270 Journal of Christian Education in Korea

Korean men and Vietnamese women, which clearly illus- trates an example of what multicultural children encounter in their schools. According to the researchers, most of the pre-school children were proud of their mothers, but some primary school students were ashamed. This implies that as children in multicultural families enter a school, they are faced with problems because of their familial difference. The desires of parents in multicultural families for their children are two-fold: maintaining the children’s multicultural identity and helping them be assimilated to the society. By interviewing parents of multicultural families and teachers who teach multicultural students, Kim and Hong (2018) report that both parents and teachers need societal interest and support for multicultural children in order for the children to form their multicultural identity in desirable ways. At the same time, most of the parents answered that they want their children to be regarded as common Koreans (Kim & Hong, 2018, 161-65). Unlike the parents’ desires, however, Koreans have separated themselves from multicultural families through the mixed/pure-blooded binary and the term “multicultural” itself, which has become a negative label for multicultural families and children(Kim, 2017; Lim, 2013). This context requires appropriate education in order for ethnic Koreans to have respectful attitudes toward those who have different cultural backgrounds, on one hand, for cultural others to establish their own cultural identity, on the other hand. For this, public educators have performed multicultural education in schools. However, the focus of multicultural education has been simply on helping multi- Heejin Choi ┃ Towards Intercultural Christian Education 271

cultural students be assimilated to the society, with the re- sult that many Korean students have not learned how to respect cultural others through public education(Park & Park, 2014; Lee, 2018; Yang & Ham, 2018). In this situation, how then can Christian faith communities respond to this context? In what ways can the faith communities nurture people to respect cultural others? I suggest intercultural Christian education as an answer to these questions; the next portion will describe theoretical foundations for intercultural Christian education.

III. Theoretical Foundations for Intercultural Christian Education

1. Intercultural education as an alternative to multicultural education

Agostino Portera(2011) distinguishes two epistemological approaches in educating culture: multicultural and intercultural education. First, the multicultural approach evokes ex- planatory components of each culture and concerns the peaceful co-existence between people with different cultures. This approach is supported by the theory of cultural relativism that all cultures are good so that one’s cultural choice depends on the one’s preference(Portera, 2011, 18-20). Multicultural education is an attempt to promote the respect for diverse eth- nicities and cultures and the acknowledgement of differences for the sake of the co-existence of various people. This goal shares a basic principle of the mosaic theory used in mul- 272 Journal of Christian Education in Korea

ticulturalism(Gibbon, 1938): each culture, similar to a mosaic piece, tolerates the existence of other cultural pieces. In the same way, multicultural education “uses learning about other cultures in order to produce acceptance, or at least tolerance, of these cultures,” as UNESCO describes(UNESCO, 2006, 18). However, multicultural education has had a significant limitation: people’s indifference to other cultures. In the European context, multicultural education has enabled students to accumulate the knowledge of other cultures but failed to arouse active interaction between students from different cultural backgrounds. Although multicultural education has helped learners recognize cultural diversity and tol- erate other cultures(Portera, 2011, 20), such education has led students from different cultures to simply observe cultural differences and diversity without building a reciprocal relationship between them. Thus, the lack of sharing and exchanging stories and cultural values has resulted in mutual indifference between people. In this context, intercultural education has emerged as an alternative to multicultural education especially in Europe. Intercultural education focuses on cultural exchange and interaction between participants. This is situated between cultural universalism and relativism. Portera describes the education based on cultural universalism as “education of the human being, regardless of color of skin, language, culture or religion” and the educational assumption on cultural relativism as “everybody should have the opportunity to as- sume and to show their own cultural identity; right of equality in the difference”(Portera, 2011, 20). This means Heejin Choi ┃ Towards Intercultural Christian Education 273

that the essential elements of intercultural education are the equity of human beings based on cultural universalism, on one hand, and cultural equality and diversity based on cultural relativism, on the other. With these elements, intercultural education seeks to “achieve a developing and sustainable way of living together in multicultural societies through the creation of understanding of, respect for[,] and dialogue between the different cultural groups”(UNESCO, 2006, 18). Hence, intercultural education is an active methodology to build a reciprocal relationship between participants based on human equity and cultural equality and diversity. Such educational effort ori- ents toward a relationship based on mutuality beyond pas- sive coexistence between culturally diverse people on the basis of temporary tolerance of cultural differences. This functions as the basic underpinning for intercultural Christian education that will be discussed later.

2. Intercultural theology as a paradigm shift

Intercultural theology is one of the theological disciplines that offer theological perspectives on intercultural education. Frans Wijsen(2001) defines intercultural theology and succinctly explains its feature. He writes, “Intercultural theology is the theological reflection upon the process of interculturation. Intercultural theology is not a new theological discipline, but a new perspective and a new method in theology”(Wijsen, 2001, 221). Intercultural theology is deeply engaged with different expressions of Christianity, because they exist among diverse cultures. 274 Journal of Christian Education in Korea

The emanation of intercultural theology stemmed from theological repentance in the northern part of the world, including Europe and North America, and the paradigm shift in mission in the 1970s(Ustorf, 2011, 11). According to Wijsen(2001), three sparks led to intercultural theology as a new perspective for mission. First, the number of Christians in the southern hemisphere rapidly increased, and local theologies and new church models emerged. This situation raised a recognition of contextual theology as a new frame- work of theology and the necessity of dialogues between many local theologies. Second, European theology experienced being marginalized due to secularization, on one hand, and multiculturalism because of migration and globalization, on the other hand. Third, as the Second Vatican Council acknowledged the World Church, local churches grappled with an issue of unity and diversity in the churches(Wijsen, 2001, 221-23). These three factors enabled Western theologians to realize their recognition of Western theology as “fully indigenized, inculturated, a finished product”(Bosch, 2011, 466). This self-reflection raised many voices criticizing the normativity of Western theology, which had long been taken for granted(467). Accompanying these situations, Western missionaries also reflected on inculturation, a commonly employed strategy throughout mission history. In the same vein, in the early 1980s, a Dutch bishop Joseph Blomjous(1980) urged that missionaries replace the term “interculturation” with the term “inculturation.” This is because the former better re- veals the idea that missionary works entail the interaction between various cultural orientations as well as between Heejin Choi ┃ Towards Intercultural Christian Education 275

gospel and culture(Wijsen, 2001, 221; Bargár, 2014, 306). With these concerns, intercultural theology pursues the promotion of interactions between different expressions of Christianity in order to enrich the field of theology(Cartledge & Cheetham, 2011, 2). Here, dialogue is a critical means to activate intercultural theology, which necessarily requires self-reflection, humility, and thereby the re- consideration of normativity. Through dialogue between local theologies, Western theologians began to accept their imperfection and change a singular form of theology into theologies as a plural form. Accordingly, intercultural theology brought up the necessity to decolonize and de-im- perialize the notion of normativity, which enabled the development of theologies as well as the maturity of theologians by broadening their perspectives(Ustorf, 2011, 4). Intercultural theology thus offers a crucial lesson: the understanding of Western theology was culturally created. This was available when Western theologians witnessed many local theologies and formed a reciprocal relationship with many theologians from different cultural backgrounds with a broader perspective. Related to the Korean context, this challenges Korean Christians to situate their cultural identity in the global context by reconsidering the normativity notion, which is one of the roles of intercultural Christian education.

3. The drama of embrace

Another theological foundation for intercultural Christian education is the drama of embrace that Miroslav Volf develops(Volf, 1996). He talks about eternal embrace as an essen- 276 Journal of Christian Education in Korea

tial task of Christians, following the way of Christ, and claims for creating a space for the other within the self. He regards the cross as a salient foundation for this, because at the heart of the cross exists Christ’s strong intention of not leaving the other as an enemy but forming space in Himself for the other. Volf affirms that peace cannot exist in people’s minds if they have mutual indifference without providing space for the other. He writes, “Much more than just the absence of hostility sustained by the absence of contact, peace is communion between former enemies. Beyond offering forgiveness, Christ’s passion aims at restoring such communion— even with the enemies who persistently refuse to be reconciled”(Volf, 1996, 125-26). Based on this Christological underpinning, Volf develops the drama of embrace with four structural elements: opening the arms, waiting, closing the arms, and opening them again. First, opening the arms signifies that the self creates space in one’s mind for the other. It is a signal of over- coming the self-enclosed identity, knocking at the other’s door softly, and welcoming the other. Second, the self should wait for a moment to see that the other has the de- sire to open their arms. Although the other does not open their arms immediately, the waiting moment itself motivates the other to take action toward the self without forcing the other. Third, closing the arms is the eventual goal of embrace, which is impossible without reciprocity. At this moment, the boundary between a subject and an object becomes blurred. This stage requires the inability to understand the other, in other words, the ability to recognize the other as a being that the self cannot fully understand. Heejin Choi ┃ Towards Intercultural Christian Education 277

Finally, opening the arms again is a movement to preserve both the self and the other in order to maintain their genu- ine identities. This step is crucial because the absence of this act changes the embrace from a movement of love to that of oppression(Volf, 1996, 140-45). It should be noted that this four-step embrace necessarily entails not only reciprocal actions, including opening the arms and closing the arms, but also soft touches. Warning against too tight an embrace, Volf argues that the self should preserve a boundary between the self and the other. This is the attempt to avoid embracing the other too tightly which means assimilating the other(Volf, 1996, 143). The self should recognize that the other is an other that I cannot fully understand and that the other remains as a stranger who cannot be absorbed in my life(Levinas, 1988; Levinas, 1997). Therefore, through a soft embrace, the self not only creates a relationship with the other through an embrace but also retains the otherness in the relationship. However, Volf’s too much emphasis on leaving the other as a question during an embrace misses a critical point: the self should endeavor to get to know the other consistently through the embrace. Although Volf’s drama of embrace is based on the Christological understanding, he overlooks Christ’s achievement that recovered His relationship with human beings through the cross— the climax of embrace. The important thing for human beings after the cross is our active and constant endeavor to get to know God. God, the absolute Other, is the being that humans should know better and love more rather than the being who simply remains a question. In a similar vein, through an embracing movement 278 Journal of Christian Education in Korea

between people, they should get to know each other actively and constantly, even if they can understand each other’s part only. Another point that Volf misses in his drama of embrace is the self’s change after an embrace. While the self before the embrace is the self that has nothing to do with the other, the self after the embrace becomes the self who is concerned with and interested in the other. Based on a personal relationship with the other, the self can also have an opportunity to meet with the collective other— the group of others that the individual other belongs to— or at least be open to communicate with the collective other. Thus, through the embrace, the self experiences a relational change and has awareness of the other by forming a new relationship with the other.

4. The ecosystem of Christian education

The final theological foundation for intercultural Christian education is Sang-Jin Park’s theory of the ecosystem of Korean Christian education(Park, 2016). This understanding is deeply engaged with the bioecological theory of human development that Urie Bronfenbrenner(1979) claims. He explains that an individual has multi-layered contexts sur- rounding the self: a microsystem, a mesosystem, an exosystem, a macrosystem, and a chronosystem. First, a microsystem is where an individual directly experiences a pattern of roles, activities, and relationships in a setting. This is the smallest environment that has a reciprocal relation with an individual including family, school peer group, and friends. Heejin Choi ┃ Towards Intercultural Christian Education 279

Second, a mesosystem consists of the interactions among at least two settings where the individual takes part in. This system is where an individual does not participate directly but is affected by social networks or communications between settings. Third, an exosystem means a setting or settings where an individual is not engaged as an active mem- ber but is indirectly influenced by some events such as a parent’s job, the parent’s social network, and a school activity where the child’s sibling attends. Fourth, a macrosystem comprises broader factors that affect an individual consistently, including ideology and culture. Finally, all ecological transitions and developments take place in processes throughout the life span—- the chronosystem. The micro system is embedded in the mesosystem, located in the exosystem, rooted in the macrosystem. All these surroundings, combined with the individual, construct the ecology of human development(Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Based on the bioecological theory, Park(2016) talks about the ecosystem of Korean Christian education and proposes the Pum model for its holistic recovery (see Figure 1). The term “pum” refers to breast but has multi-layered meanings including shelter, womb, touch, embrace, acceptance, and sacrifice. Connected to Christian education, the first level of pum—— a microsystem comprises parents and Sunday school teachers who provide rest for children. The second level of pum is called Pum-nuri, which constructs a mesosystem where family, church, and school are interrelated to one another. The third level of pum is Big pum-nuri—- a macro system— which includes an educational culture focusing on the Korean SAT, a patriarchal Confucian culture, Capitalism, 280 Journal of Christian Education in Korea

and ideological conflicts stemming from the division of Korea. As each individual is involved with every level of pum, Park maintains that the Korean church should not limit Christian education to Sunday schools but endeavor to recover the ecosystem of Christian education(Park, 2016, 377-384).

[Figure 1] Park’s Pum Model— Ecosystem of Korean Christian Education. From : Park, 2016, 384.

However, the Pum model is a Christian educational model to nurture Korean Christians and does not deal with multicultural issues. Considering that ethnic Koreans’ guardedness or hostility against cultural others is prevalent in society, multicultural issues, including multiculturalism, racism, and a tendency to classify various cultures, should be included in the ecosystem of Korean Christian education. Such multicultural issues can be situated in the macrosystem and its Heejin Choi ┃ Towards Intercultural Christian Education 281

effects need to be considered in the microsystem and mesosystem.

IV. Towards Intercultural Christian Education

The task now emerges to relate intercultural education, intercultural theology, the drama of embrace, and the ecosystem of Christian education to intercultural Christian education for the Korean context. Based on these four theoretical foundations, I will answer the following questions: What is intercultural Christian education? What does it aim for? What are the key roles of intercultural Christian education? With these questions, in this part, I will discuss intercultural Christian education as a Christian educational response of faith communities to multicultural issues in society.

1. The definition and goal of intercultural Christian education

Based on the definition and feature of intercultural education, I define intercultural Christian education as the attempt to create a reciprocal relationship between participants through the process of their intercultural interaction and mutual learning of a lived Christian faith. This indicates Christian education performed with an intercultural perspective, concerned with multicultural issues. This is different from “Christian intercultural education,” which refers to a Christian approach to intercultural education or intercultural education performed in Christian faith communities. 282 Journal of Christian Education in Korea

Rather, intercultural Christian education is the practice of Christian education with intercultural awareness. As revealed in the definition of intercultural Christian education, the goal of intercultural Christian education is deeply engaged with its cultural concerns in relation to faith —-a lived Christian faith embedded in each individual’s cul tural contexts. The attention of intercultural Christian education to multiple cultural factors is similar to that of multicultural and intercultural education. Cultural factors include not only race and ethnicity but also gender, socio-economic status, region, (dis)ability, and so forth. Intercultural Christian education seeks to ponder these cultural factors in the practice of Christian education. However, as mentioned earlier, while multicultural education focuses on the awareness of cultural diversity and the knowledge of various cultures, intercultural education pursues to create a reciprocal relationship between participants through their intercultural dialogue(UNESCO, 2006). Therefore, through intercultural education, the cultural factors do not remain in the area of individual knowledge but become a basis for a relationship between people. In the same vein, in intercultural Christian education, the cultural factors function as a facilitator to form a mutual relationship between participants. Hence, the ultimate goal of intercultural Christian education is to build a reciprocal and even interdependent relationship between diverse people in faith communities through intercultural interaction and sharing their lives embedded in their cultural contexts.

2. To SEE the self, the other, and the community Heejin Choi ┃ Towards Intercultural Christian Education 283

On the basis of the theological foundations— intercultural theology, the drama of embrace, and the ecosystem of Christian education, I assert that intercultural Christian education helps Christians “SEE” the self, the other, and the community. This acronym signifies the key roles of intercultural Christian education that enables self-reflection, embrace, and ecological transformation (SEE). These represent Christians’ reflection on themselves and their recognition of cultural others, their active embrace through mutual learning and respect, and the transformation of ecological environment that Christians construct and are influenced by. First, intercultural Christian education seeks to encourage Christians to do self-reflection. As mentioned before, intercultural theology provides a lesson that the Western theologians’ understanding of Western theology was culturally formed. In a similar vein, intercultural Christian education challenges people to reconsider their cultural identity by witnessing cultural diversity within a faith community and by practicing to distance themselves from the perception of their normativity. Through intercultural dialogue in faith communities, individuals share each other’s culture or understanding of a certain discussion theme based on their cultural perspectives, discover the common ground and difference between their cultural traditions, and relativize their own cultures. Cultural exchange and mutual learning help Christians look at themselves with different angles from the other’s viewpoint. In particular, such activities can enable Korean Christians to discover the obliviousness of our otherness: we are also others who have different language and culture in culturally other people’s eyes. This discovery, in 284 Journal of Christian Education in Korea

turn, enables us to realize that our obliviousness has caused us to idolize ourselves as superior to cultural others, thus perverting the images of the self and the other. Accordingly, intercultural Christian education allows participants to cor- rect the distorted recognition of the self and the other that has brought about ethnic Koreans’ exclusivity and discrimination against cultural others. Second, intercultural education helps people embrace each other. In other words, intercultural Christian education is the attempt to embrace the cultural other through intercultural interaction and form a reciprocal relationship with the other. With respect to this, Volf’s drama of embrace offers a valuable understanding that an embrace is not an assimilating movement but an action of preserving the other’s alterity as well as accepting and loving the other. However, as I pointed out earlier, it should be equally highlighted that (1) the embrace is an expression of one’s active will to get to know the other and that (2) the embracing activity changes the self in relation to the other. On one hand, engaged with the first point, intercultural Christian education promotes people to have the will to get to know each other and their cultural contexts continuously. In other words, it seeks the constant endeavor not to leave the other as a simple question but to understand even the small part of the other. Through repeated sharing and embracing of each individual’s lived faith embedded in their cultural contexts, individuals are invited to build a harmonious and loving relationship between them beyond solely accumulating their knowledge of each other. On the other hand, related to the second point, as the Heejin Choi ┃ Towards Intercultural Christian Education 285

self becomes different after an embrace, intercultural Christian education enables people to have a better relationship with and more interest in the other. During and after intercultural interaction, each individual does not leave the other as an unrelated being to the self but continues to communicate with the other actively and develop the relationship with the other. In this sense, preserving the other’s alterity means differently before and after the interaction. Before the interaction, the other simply exists without any relationship with the self so that the other’s alterity has nothing to do with the self. However, after the interaction, the other becomes a meaningful being to the self; although the self cannot fully understand the other, the self forms a reciprocal relationship with the other with a deeper interest in the other. Additionally, based on such a relationship, the self obtains more opportunities to encounter the collective other, become open to them, and broaden one’s relationship with various others. Therefore, intercultural Christian education can not only form an educational community where each individual embraces each other within the community, but also expand the community based on the created relationship between culturally others. Finally, self-reflection and embrace go together towards the ultimate task of intercultural Christian education—- eco logical transformation. Park’s Pum model provides a critical insight that intercultural Christian education and its con- sequence should be ingrained in whole spaces in the ecosystem of Christian education. However, as we already no- ticed, his account of the ecosystem of Christian education does not deal with multicultural issues in society and the 286 Journal of Christian Education in Korea

ensuing effects on individuals. If we consider the multicultural issues and individuals’ experience related to them in every system in the ecological environment of Christian education, we will draw the map of the micro-, meso-, exo-, and macro-systems as followings: in multicultural children’s case, for instance, the microsystem contains their self-identity and attachment to their parents, the mesosystem includes the church’s intercultural Christian education and activities for multicultural families, the exosystem involves in- comes and social networks of parents in multicultural families, and the macrosystem encompasses Koreans’ single ethnic identity and their exclusive attitudes against those who have various cultural backgrounds. The ecologically transforming role of intercultural Christian education becomes clearer in relation to for whom it is needed and meaningful. To accentuate again, the starting point of intercultural Christian education is the attention to those with various cultures, including both cultural others and Koreans, and the resulting multicultural issues in society. Intercultural Christian education is not simply the education or care for families or communities solely composed of cultural others who have been marginalized and isolated from society. Rather, it is the educational endeavor in order for people with different cultures— both the majority and the minority—- to establish and broaden their networks by build ing an interdependent relationship between them and creating another new relationship with multiple others. Anyone whose cultural identity has multiple factors and layers, including race, ethnicity, gender, region, class, and so forth, thus can participate in intercultural Christian education, as Heejin Choi ┃ Towards Intercultural Christian Education 287

they can teach and learn from each other with their own cultural values. In this sense, intercultural Christian education is for all people who have different cultural backgrounds. Based on this feature of intercultural Christian education for all people, the vision for a multi-colored kingdom of God becomes available. Intercultural Christian education allows each individual to reflect oneself and reconsider the normativity of the group to which the self belongs at an in- trapersonal level, and to practice embracing the other at an interpersonal level. When Christians develop a hospitable at- titude toward cultural others and form a reciprocal relationship with each other through intercultural Christian education, the congregation’s maturity can have a good influence on the society beyond the boundary of the church. Therefore, intercultural Christian education seeks to achieve the multi-colored kingdom of God gradually in society, even if it is imperfect, through which to transform the whole ecological environment.

V. Conclusion

The demographic change and multicultural issues that have continuously occurred in Korean society require Koreans to look at the necessity to establish their identity as citizens in a multicultural society and to develop mature hospitality toward cultural others who live with Koreans. As an active response to the call, intercultural Christian education intends to help Korean Christians do self-reflection, enable both 288 Journal of Christian Education in Korea

Koreans and cultural others to perform eternal embrace for one another, and thereby encourage Christians to achieve the ecological transformation of Christian education. Accordingly, intercultural Christian education aims to target all faithful people, aids them to SEE the self, the other, and the community through mutual learning, and nurture them to grow mature as citizens of the kingdom of God. When the church encourages Christians to SEE the self, the other, and the community with the help of intercultural Christian education, they will contribute to God’s project of transforming the Korean society into a multi-colored kingdom of God. As I have explored the definition, goal, and key roles of intercultural Christian education, I will finalize this paper by offering two suggestions for further research. First, future research needs to develop the curriculum with a perspective of intercultural Christian education for many forms of churches. Because the majority of Christians in Korean society are Koreans, many congregations have a lack of interest in cultural others. Thus, the educational curriculum needs to be developed according to each type of the church context: a church solely composed of Koreans, a church that includes both Koreans and cultural others, and a church where the majority members are cultural others or immigrants. Second, future research also needs to consider how to perform intercultural Christian education in theological schools. If seminarians, who are trained to be pastors and good Christians, can learn the beauty of the multi-colored kingdom of God through theological education accompanied with intercultural education, they will be more effective as seminary students and pastors in carrying out intercultural Heejin Choi ┃ Towards Intercultural Christian Education 289

Christian education in the church. I hope that intercultural Christian education can be gradually extended from such theological education to faith communities and even society. 290 Journal of Christian Education in Korea

Bibliography

Ahn, Y. (2017). A Christian educational study for marriage migrant women in korea: Focused on the story of syrophoenician woman from the intercultural perspective. Journal of Christian Education in Korea, 52, 361-88. Bargár, P. (2014). Niebuhr’s typology reconsidered: Reading Christ and culture through the lenses of the praxis matrix. Communio Viatorum, 56(3), 294-316. Blomjous, J. (1980). Development in mission thinking and practice 1959-1980: Inculturation and interculturation. African Ecclesial Review, 22(6), 393-98. Bosch, D. (2011). Transforming mission: Paradigm shifts in theology of mission. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cartledge, M., & Cheetham, D. (Eds.). (2011). Intercultural theology: Approaches and themes. London, UK: SCM Press. Choi, S. (2016). The multicultural competence of teachers and Christian alternative education for north korean adolescent refugees. Journal of Christian Religious Education in Korea, 47, 255-311. Chun, J.-W., Kim, S.-H., Nam, B.-H., & Do, S.-J. (2012). Activities for multicultural youth: Multicultural counseling, mentoring & youth development. Seoul, Korea: ShinJeong Books. Gibbon, J. (1938). Canadian mosaic: The making of a northern nation. Toronto, Canada: McClelland & Stewart Limited Publishers. Kang, H.-W. (2006). Integration of korean multicultural society: Factors and policy directions. Public Policy Review, 20(2), 5-34. Kim, J. (2017, February 28). “Stay, multicultural people!” still ongoing discrimination. Hani. Retrieved from http://www.hani.co.kr/ar- ti/society/schooling/784475.html/ Kim, H., & Hong, Y. (2018). A qualitative study on the multiple identities of the young children of vietnamese immigrant married women. Early Childhood Education & Care, 13(1), 139-74. Lee, M.-Y. (2017). A study on the multiculturalism for the develop- Heejin Choi ┃ Towards Intercultural Christian Education 291

ment of social rights: Focus on the multiculturalism-related legislation for female marriage immigrants in korea. Local Government Law Journal, 17(4), 395-422. Lee, J. (2014). Caring for children of multicultural families in Christian education. Journal of Christian Religious Education in Korea, 38, 307-29. Lee, J.-K. (2018). Exploring the direction of multicultural education policy in the future korean society. Journal of Education & Culture, 24(1), 549-67. Levinas, E. (1988). Totality and infinity: An essay on exteriority (A. Lingis, Trans.). Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press. (Original work published 1961) Levinas, E. (1997). Difficult freedom: Essays on judaism (S. Hand, Trans.). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. (Original work published 1963) Lim, T. (2013, May 2). “They tease me because of my chinese moth- er,” the wounded heart from the multicultural label. SBS News. Retrieved from https://news.sbs.co.kr/news/endPage.do?news_id =N1001766209/ Ministry of Unification. (n.d.) Process of entrance and settlement. Retrieved from https://www.unikorea.go.kr/unikorea/business/N KDefectorsPolicy/status/entry/ National Statistical Office. (2018). 2018 statistics on adolescents. Retr ieved from http://kostat.go.kr/assist/synap/preview/skin/doc.ht ml?fn=synapview367381_1&rs=/assist/synap/preview National Statistical Office. (2019a). 2018 statistics on multicultural population. Retrieved from http://kostat.go.kr/assist/synap/preview/skin/doc.html?fn=synapview378479_1&rs=/assist/synap/preview National Statistical Office. (2019b). 2019 results of the examination of immigrants’ status and employment. Retrieved from http://kostat.go.kr/assist/synap/preview/skin/doc.html?fn=synap- view379451_1&rs=/assist/synap/preview National Statistical Office. (2019c). 2019 statistics on adolescents. Ret -rieved from http://kostat.go.kr/assist/synap/preview/skin/doc.h tml?fn=synapview374490_6&rs=/assist/synap/preview Oh, H. (2007). A response of Christian education to the female immigrants in Korea. Journal of Christian Religious Education, 15, 247-81. 292 Journal of Christian Education in Korea

Park, S.-J. (2016). An alternative approach to church education for recovering the Christian education ecosystem: The “Pum” model. Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology, 48, 361-88. Park, J.-D., & Park, J.-H. (2014). A study of policy of multi-cultural society in korea and suggestions for an advanced policy response. The Journal of Cultural Policy, 28, 35-63. Park, C.-O., Ji, S.-A., Kim, M.-K., Lee, B.-M., Chae, Y.-L., Kim, H.-K., & Kim, S.-J. (2011). Multicultural education for children. Seoul, Korea: Changjisa Publishing. Park, M. (2011). A study on north korean defector student education with multi-cultural Christian education perspective: Focusing on Christian group counseling. Journal of Christian Religious Education in Korea, 27, 243-70. Portera, A. (2011). Intercultural and multicultural education: Epistemological and semantic aspects. In Carl A. Grant & Agostino Portera (Eds.), Intercultural and multicultural education: enhancing global interconnectedness(pp. 12-30). New York, NY; Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Seol, D. (2010). Problems of social policy on multiculturalism in korea and alternatives for it. Orbis Sapientiae, 8, 48-70. Tan, Y. (2017, January 13). 100 women: How south korea stopped its parents aborting girls. BBC News. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-38362474/ UNESCO. (2006). UNESCO guidelines on intercultural education. Paris, France: UNESCO. Ustorf, W. (2011). The cultural origins of ‘intercultural’ theology. In M. J. Cartledge & D. Cheetham (Eds.), Intercultural theology: Approaches and themes(pp. 11-28). London, UK: SCM Press. Volf, M. (1996). Exclusion and embrace: A theological exploration of identity, otherness, and reconciliation. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press. Wijsen, F. (2001). Intercultural theology and the mission of the church. Exchange, 30(3), 218-28. Yang, K.-E., & Ham, S.-H. (2018). Ethnic minority children’s sense of school belonging: Empirical patterns and social policy implications. Social Welfare Policy, 45, 60-81. Heejin Choi ┃ Towards Intercultural Christian Education 293

한글 초록

상호문화적 기독교교육: 한국의 다문화현상에 대한 기독교교육적 응답

최희진(/) 토론토대학교 박사과정

다문화사회가 된 한국사회 속에서, 여전히 많은 인종적 및 문화적 타자들은 그들을 향한 차별과 사회로부터의 고립으로 인해 고통받고 있다. 한국의 다문 화정책과 다문화교육은 한국인과 문화적 타자 사이의 상호적 관계를 형성할 수 있는 기반을 마련하지 않은 채 문화적 타자들을 사회적으로 동화시키는 데 초점이 맞추어져 있다. 이러한 현실에 주목하여 , 본고는 신앙 공동체가 사회에 서 교육적 역할을 감당하기 위한 방법으로 상호문화적 기독교교육을 제안한다. 상호문화적 기독교교육의 이론적 토대는 상호문화교육, 상호문화신학 , 미로슬 라브 볼프의 포옹의 드라마, 그리고 박상진의 기독교교육 생태계 이론에서 찾 을 수 있다. 이러한 이론적 기틀을 발판으로 본고는 상호문화적 기독교교육의 정의와 목표를 논하고, 상호문화적 기독교교육이 기독교인들로 하여금 자신과 타자, 그리고 공동체를 바라보며 자기성찰 , 포용 , 그리고 생태계적 변혁의 역할 을 감당할 수 있도록 도울 수 있음을 주장한다. 상호문화적 기독교교육은 기독 교인들이 문화적 타자들을 향한 존경과 환대적 태도를 가질 수 있도록 교육하 며, 이를 통해 신앙 공동체가 다양한 색깔을 가진 하나님 나라를 추구하도록 도울 것으로 기대된다.

《 주제어 》

문화적 타자, 상호문화교육 , 다문화교육 , 상호문화신학 , 포용 , 기독교교육 생태 계, 상호문화적 기독교교육 294 Journal of Christian Education in Korea

∙ Received: 02/21/2020 ∙ Evaluated: 03/04/2020 ∙ Accepted: 03/23/2020