ABSTRACT Church and Secondary Societies in Korean Ecclesiology and the Christocentric Perspective of Karl Barth Sung Wook Oh, Ph.D. Mentor: Bob E. Patterson, Ph.D. My purpose is to critically map out the relationship between Church and society in the current Korean context in light of three models: difference, identity, and harmony, and to propose a better relationship between Church and society in the Korean context from Karl Barth‘s Christocentric vision of the Church. First, the difference model between Church and society is represented in the ―Fourfold Gospel Theology‖ whose theological basis is John Wesley‘s teaching of sanctification. This theology says that the Church and society are two distinctive territories and have their own different tasks, not to be confused with each other. Second, the identity model of ―Korean Indigenization Theology‖ has emerged as a theological position that contradicts the difference model. This theology holds that the ultimate reality of Christianity already exists everywhere; salvation can be found outside the Church, and thus there exists an essential identity between Church and society. Third, the harmony model is an alternative position between the difference model and the identity model, and is proposed by ―Minjung Theology.‖ Minjung Theology focuses on the poor who suffer economic crisis and domestic violence and supports Christian‘s active participation in the socio-political conflicts. Hence, the Church and society should cooperate toward building a utopian society as an ―all-comprehensive society‖ within which the Church fulfills its function as a subsystem. By contrast with these three models, Karl Barth (1886-1968) suggests a new vision of the relationship between Church and society. Barth unfolded his theory of Church and society under a Christocentric perspective: Christ the Lord is at the center, the Church is in the inner circle next to Christ, and society is in a more distant outer circle. Although Church and society cannot be mixed and confused, Barth believed that society is not an ―independent entity,‖ and the Church is not a neutral space completely independent of politics. However, Barth prioritizes the Church over society. As an ―asymmetrical‖ relationship, society becomes secondary to the Church in God‘s redemptive economy. Consequently, the Church has a duty toward secondary societies as a model of peaceful behavior and should serve as a non-violent judge. Church and Secondary Societies in Korean Ecclesiology and the Christocentric Perspective of Karl Barth by Sung Wook Oh, B.A., M.Div., M.T.S. A Dissertation Approved by the Department of Religion William H. Bellinger, Jr., Ph.D., Chairperson Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Baylor University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Approved by the Dissertation Committee Bob E. Patterson, Ph.D., Chairperson Jonathan Tran, Ph.D. Jerry Z. Park, Ph.D. Accepted by the Graduate School May 2011 J. Larry Lyon, Ph.D., Dean Page bearing signatures is kept on file in the Graduate School. Copyright © 2011 by Sung Wook Oh All rights reserved CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙ v DEDICATION ∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙ vii CHAPTER ONE. INTRODUCTION A Story of the Korean People Encountering Christianity: Conflict and Reception∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙1 The Relationship between the Church and Society in Korea and Karl Barth‘s Christocentric Vision of the Church ∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙13 Purpose and Significance ∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙17 Methodology ∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙19 Plan of Study ∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙23 CHAPTER TWO. CHURCH AND SOCIETY IN THE FOURFOLD GOSPEL THEOLOGY The Korean Spiritual and Evangelical Context ∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙28 Developmental Interpretations of the Fourfold Gospel Theology ∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙35 The Apocalyptical (Eschatological) Vision of the Church ∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙44 The Radical Difference between Church and Society ∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙50 CHAPTER THREE. CHURCH AND SOCIETY IN KOREAN INDIGENIZATION THEOLOGY The Korean Religious and Cultural Context ∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙64 Emergence of Korean Indigenization Theology ∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙73 The Cultural Vision of the Church ∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙85 The Essential Identity between Church and Society ∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙92 iii CHAPTER FOUR. CHURCH AND SOCIETY IN KOREN MINJUNG (PEOPLE) THEOLOGY The Korean Socio-political Background ∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙103 Theological Features of Korean Minjung Theology ∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙109 The Political Vision of the Church ∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙122 Harmonious Cooperation between Church and Society ∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙132 CHAPTER FIVE. THE CHRISTOCENTRIC RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CHURCH AND SOCIETY IN KARL BARTH Seen as a Radically Contrasting Relationship ∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙140 Seen as an Analogically Correspondent Relationship ∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙148 Seen as a Practically Pacific Relationship ∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙155 Seen as an Asymmetrically Christocentric Relationship ∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙161 Reconsidering the Korean Interpretations of Barth‘s Christocentric Vision ∙∙∙∙∙∙166 CHAPTER SIX. A POSITIVE CONCLUDING PROPOSAL Summary ∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙175 The Christocentric Vision of the Church and the Economical Issue in Korea ∙∙∙181 The Christocentric Vision of the Church and the Political Issue in Korea ∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙188 The Christocentric Vision of the Church and the Environmental Issue in Korea∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙194 BIBLIOGRAPHY∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙∙202 iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project required a lot of patience and help from numerous people. With my all heart, I would like to list names of all who participated in this project with academic brilliance, tenacious prayer, and financial support. I wish to express special thanks to the members of my committee – Dr. Bob E. Patterson, Dr. Jonathan Tran, and Dr. Jerry Z. Park – and to my fourth and fifth readers, Dr. William H. Bellinger and Dr. Bill Pitts. I am grateful to those professors for their theological insight and valuable comments. I owe thanks Dr. Patterson for the completion of my dissertation. He always encouraged me not to give up on my project. In the whole process of writing my dissertation, I have experienced a lot of difficulties due to my poor English ability and theological insights. Nevertheless, Dr. Patterson always gave me encouragement. I respect and love his encouragement and positive thinking. Dr. Tran read my dissertation, and mainly focused on examining the reason and logic of forming a dialogue between Asian theology and Western theological thought in my project. Dr. Park examined my Korean sources and their proper translation into English, and reviewed my project from the sociological perspective. Dr. Bellinger reviewed my dissertation from the perspective of Biblical theology. Finally, Dr. Pitts inspected my project from the viewpoint of historical theology. However, all mistakes in this project are totally due to my own inability and limitations. I also wish to express my thanks to Dr. Barry A. Harvey who taught contemporary theology and enhanced my theological logic, to Dr. Daniel H. Williams who instructed me in Patristic theology, and to Dr. Dan McGee who taught Christian v ethics. Outside Baylor, I would thank Dr. Geoffrey Wainwright and Dr. Teresa Berger who taught Systematic Theology and Third World Theology at Duke Divinity School. I also wish to express thanks to theological faculties of Seoul Theological University in South Korea who introduced me to basic theological knowledge and encouraged me to study theology in the United States: Dr. Chang Guen Mock, Dr. Suk Sung Yu, Dr. Sung Yong Jun, Dr. Chongnahm Cho, Dr. Young Tae Han, Dr. Shin Keun Lee, Dr. Deuk Hyung Whang, and Dr. In-Shik Choi. I would also mention my pastors and express thanks to them: Rev. Ho Yoon Chung, Rev. Kyung Ho Choi, Rev. Wan Soo Park, Rev. Shin Bok Lee, Rev. Peter K. Hong, and Rev. Hyung Soo Kim. I would also give thanks to my family who provided financial support: my dear parents (Chul Ha Oh and In Oak Kim), three sisters (Sung Ae Oh, Sung Shin Oh, Sung Hee Oh), and my younger brother (Sung Gyu Oh); my uncle and aunt (Ja Ha Oh and Cha Duek Ryu); my parents-in-law (Du Myong Kang and In Hee Chung), and my sister-in- law (Yun Joo Kang). I have to express special thanks to Christina Boyles of Baylor Writing Center who read my