a review of Christ's Body in Corinth

I found a review of my book (Christ's Body in Corinth) at the following blog:

http://academiachurch.wordpress.com/2012/02/17/lawrence-garcia-reviews-yung-suk-kims-christs-body-in-corinth-the-politics-of-a-metaphor/

I copy and paste it below and give credit to Lawrence Garcia (reviewer):

QUOTE:

For those on whom it is being imposed, “unity” can be an ominous word. After all, history has proven such words—unity, concord, and harmony—are usually employed ideologically by the social elite upon the marginal, a sort of rhetorical tool in the ideological tool belt of those situated at the pinnacle of power. Ancient statesmen and philosophers like Cicero and Seneca—Rome’s ruling elite—wrote about homonoia (concord) in which everyone was to do their part within the empire by helping to maintain the status quo; the radical social division between rich and poor, free and enslaved, male and female. Was Paul’s “Body of Christ” metaphor analogous to the concept of homonia? Did Paul develop this image of the Christological body as a way to promote an ideology that served to maintain their positions of power? No, says Yung Suk Kim in his book titled Christ’s Body In Corinth: The Politics of A Metaphor, a radical break from the traditional ecclesial-organic understanding of Paul’s metaphor “body of Christ.” In his book Kim argues:

In the context of a deepening fragmentation of the world today, we need to embrace a different conception of community—a community of all diversity and solidarity. I believe such a conception is available in Paul’s new imagination of the body of Christ as a collective participation in Christ crucified. In that community, the image of Christ crucified deconstructs the conception of the community based on powers of wealth, status, and identity and reconstructs the community based on sacrificial love and solidarity with those who are broken in society.

However, if Paul’s metaphor is going to take on new relevance, the vulnerabilities in the traditional ways we have understood Paul’s body image will have to be exposed. To this end, Kim deals head-on with both the “organic unity” approach that often results in the silencing of the marginal by trumpeting the social-norms of the “hegemonic voices” in the community, and the “corporate solidarity” approach which has a “broader conception of community,” but still fails in alleviating the plight of those residing at the margins. What is needed is a proposal that won’t wind up being the functional equivalent to the Roman concept of homonoia, after all, the problems in the Corinthian body are because they are practicing the very social values of the wider culture—“concord.” Thus, we have to wonder how a re-affirmation of the wider Greco-Roman values actually solves the problem of abuse of the poor by the rich at Corinth. Kim writes:

A new conception of community in the context of marginalization and social fragmentation requires that we imagine anew the Pauline “body of Christ” as a social site for realizing the ethical, holistic, and life-giving potentialities of Christ’s life and death. In particular, the image of Christ crucified may be seen as deconstructing powers and ideologies of wealth, status, or belonging and reconstructing the community through sacrificial love.

This will likewise entail a re-sketching of the “in Christ” metaphor, not as a static boundary marker per se, but as a spatial “gathering of differences” where the “weak” in Corinth can claim a place of significance and appreciation. This theory has a practical strength to it as Paul is not just conjuring up abstract metaphors, but aiming at cruciforming concrete ways of life in Corinth. To be “in Christ” is neither mystical nor existential, but a manner of life that participates and identifies with those—“the not many mighty” in Corinth for whom Christ has died. Such a reading actually addresses the problems we see cropping up throughout the Corinthian correspondence: ideological power struggles linked either to Paul, Apollos, Cephas, or Christ; the freedom touting that caused the weaker in Corinth to fall; and the exclusion of the marginal by the rich at communal meals, and especially, at the Eucharist. So, far from solidifying the existing hierarchies in Corinth, Paul’s “body of Christ” metaphor urges the strong to practice an active identification with the marginalized in Corinth for whom God identified himself with at Calvary.

Among the many volumes in the Paul In Critical Contexts series, Kim’s proposal is one of the most plausible re-imaginings of Paul and his writings. It both lays bare our often uncritical use of the “body of Christ” metaphor which if used to maintain ideological or social hierarchy in the church can actually rub against Paul’s reason for employing it. And if allowed to do its deconstruction/reconstruction of how we understand Paul’s term we will certainly witness an improvement in the way the wealthy and powerful in our churches relate with the lowly and weak, crystalizing Paul’s grand vision of a new creation at last.

UNQUOTE

Wisdom begins with ...

There are things that God can help you and there are things that God cannot help you. If you know this, you have wisdom.

There are things you can do and there are things you cannot do. If you know this, you have wisdom.

There are things you have to do and there are things that you shouldn't do. If you know this, you are wise.

There are times that you have to work hard and try hard. But there are times that you have to stop working and wait. If you know this, you are wise.

There are things that God wants you to do. There are things that God does not want you to do. If you know this, you are wise. Wisdom begins with this kind of discernment.

We can find similar notes of the necessity of human limitations and humbling attitude in our lives in chapter 71 of Tao Te Ching:

知不知上 不知知病
夫唯病病 是以不病
聖人不病 以其病病 是以不病

Transliteration: jibuljisang bulgigibyung
 buyubyungbyung siibulbyung
sunginbulbyung igibyungbyung siibulbyung

Knowing you don't know is the best (acknowledge that you are limited).
Sickness is that while you don't know you pretend to know.
If you are aware of a sickness, it is no more a sickness (if you know you are sick, there is a way to cure).
A wise person does not have a disease because he or she acknowledges the sickness. That is not a disease.

Why do I love calligraphy?

First of all, I want to share my old calligraphy on my web site.

There I said:

"The following works are from 1980s after my college. I did not learn calligraphy from anybody. All these are from my own efforts and trials. I love calligraphy because it is a way of training my self and expression of my state. Black is a most deeply profound color in the sense that it absorbs everything. Black is the basis of every living color. Moreover, see the style of each letter; it has sort of rhythm, strong and sharp at some point, and soft and round at other point. In fact, these immature works had been kept in shade, almost forgotten, for more than two decades. Amazing is that thanks to digital camera these are now made available online. It is a mystery."

See below some of my old works:

 Yongbichon: "Dragon-flying spring"

Hangsan hangsim: "Constant production and heart"

mulwi kumil bulhaki yunail, mulwi kumnyun bulhaki younanyun:

If you don't study today, don't say there is tomorrow;

If you don't study this year, don't say there is next year.

Jung Do-Jeon's critique of 14th-century-Buddhism in Korea

Jung Do-Jeon (1342-1398) is a Korean Confucius scholar, politician and general in Korea in the 14th century, who helped Sunggae Lee to found a new kingdom called Josun (which lasted for five hundred years and was the last kingdom before the modernized Korea), demising the Koryo dynasty whose religious political foundation was Buddhism.

Jung's political or scholarly vision is to establish a new country run by commonsense and ethics. His spirit is very much like a modern political view: the emphasis of human well being, and the role of education for promoting justice. Because of this practical mindedness, he is very critical of Buddhism in those days and the elites who are drunk with other-worldly salvation, while accumulating wealth and power for themselves. Temples and elites are richer and yet people are poorer.

One of his sharpest critiques of Buddhism is to reject "reincarnation," the core doctrine of Buddhism, according to which persons may continue to live after death with a new birth (reincarnation). So people are advised to make hard efforts to have a good re-birth after death. The implication is that they have to attach themselves to the religion of the day to secure a good reincarnation. This is where corruption of the religion starts.

Namely, concerns about the future salvation blinds them to realities of everyday life, and the religious elites use this for filling their own bellies. In this context, Jung challenges the absurdities of such an idea of reincarnation in his book Bulsee Japbyun. When he does, he uses examples of nature. The first example of his observation goes like this: 'We look at the beautiful flowers or leaves in the spring and see them fading and falling off to the ground. They return to the place where they were.'

Here Jung clearly rejects the idea of re-birth, saying like this: "How is it possible that we may expect to see the same fallen flowers or leaves coming back to life in the next spring?" Simply, old life is gone and new life is born! There is no realization that the old is coming back and born again. What comes out from the ground in the next spring is a new life, though old leaves or flowers provide for a new life by dying and decaying into the ground. What he says is a simple claim that reincarnation is impossible, as he observes in nature. Furthermore, in his view, wanting "reincarnation" is an unnecessary selfish desire by which in some sense people want to prolong their lives even after death.

The other example is: "How can we inhale the same breath that we exhale? Each time we exhale a breath but inhale a new one, not the same breath." The other example is about a spring or well that has the ever-springing waters, which are not the same waters evaporated and turned into the clouds.

I think his critique makes a very good sense even today when people are over-concerned about their life after death, while ignoring their responsibilities in the world and diminishing the value of life meant to live fully in this world. I am admired by Jung Do-Jeon's erudite scholarship on one hand and his sharp analysis of the world and politics on the other hand. He is a modernist in a sense; in his view the main propelling engine of society is not God or religion but the responsible "thinking" persons.

This poem written by Jung DoJeon when he first met Sunggae Lee.

	蒼茫歲月一株松 / 아득한 세월에 한 그루 소나무 生長靑山幾萬重 / 푸른 산 몇 만겹 속에 자랐구나. 好在他年相見否 / 잘 있으시오. 훗날 서로 뵐 수 있으리까? 人間俯仰便陳蹤 / 인간 세상이란 잠깐 사이 묵은 자취인 것을.
	— 정도전, 《제함영송수 (題咸營松樹)》

This poem written by Jung DoJeon before he died (or was killed).

	操存省察兩加功 / 조심하고 조심하여 공력을 다해 살면서 不負聖賢黃卷中 / 책 속에 담긴 성현의 말씀 저버리지 않았네. 三十年來勤苦業 / 삼십 년 긴 세월 고난 속에 쌓아 놓은 사업 松亭一醉竟成空 / 송현방 정자 한 잔 술에 그만 허사가 되었네.
	— 정도전, 《자조》

Paidagogos in Gal 3:24 and 1 Cor 4:15

One of the most difficult issues in Pauline studies concerns the law. While Paul’s view of the law is positive, some or many people still stick to the old view of the law, found in dichotomy between the law and faith. They often resort to paidagogos (variously translated as disciplinarian, custodian, and guardian) in Gal 3:24 and 1 Cor 4:15.

That is to say, they argue that the law is replaced by faith in Christ. But there are problems in this view. The issue is how we understand paidagogos in these texts.

There is a negative use of paidagogos of which view comes from the Hellenistic culture. Paidagogos is like a slave-guardian, who is responsible for children of the wealthy; their primary job is to take these children (students) to school and to take care of them. In general, students in this Hellenistic culture do not like slave-guardians. The whole point of the negative use of paidagogos is that the law's role as a teacher ended with the coming of Christ. See below several English translations of Gal 3:24 and 1 Cor 4:15.

GAL 3:24
-“Therefore the law was our disciplinarian until Christ came, so that we might be justified by faith” (NRSV)
-“So that the Law became our custodian until Christ so that we might be made righteous by faith” (CEB)
-“So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith” (NIV)

1 Cor 4:15
-“For though you might have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers. Indeed, in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel” (NRSV)
-NIV also has “guardians”
-CEB has “mentors”

In my view, however, paidagogos is used positively in these texts. 1 Cor 4:15 shows its positive use: paidagogos as guardians or mentors (like teachers). In the Old Testament, the law serves as mother or nurse (Num 11:12). It is a gift of God. People are led by the law. The law is singular here, and it is an expression of God’s love and care. As Paul says in Rom 7:12, the law itself is nothing wrong by itself; the law is holy and good (Rom 7:12). 

The problem is people's uncaring, unfaithful mind and heart, demonstrated in the misuse of the law, blind faith, and in zeal for the law. Christ fulfilled the purpose of the law, which is God’s life or love to be manifested in the world. “Christ is the goal of the law” (Rom 10:4). 

Christ’s death did not nullify the law because the law is imperfect for human salvation (the opposite is true for Paul); rather, Christ’s death is the result of keeping the law, the law of God (which is life and peace).

Christ’s death is the expression of his radical faith in God, the law of God in particular. Believers also participate in his death or faith. That is what it means for believers to live righteously. For more, see  A Theological Introduction to Paul’s Letters: Exploring a Threefold Theology of Paul (Cascade Books, 2011).

New Online, Peer-Reviewed Journal: The Journal of Bible and Human Transformation

“Since the Bible is about “our” life, however limited, we can read the Bible for human transformation. The issue is, of course, what kind of transformation is ideal and good for us to pursue. That is why we need a Journal like this, Journal of Bible and Human Transformation. It is my hope that the Bible becomes a living document for those who read it “transformatively” – in the manner that everything in the text and the world is tested so that we may know what is good and acceptable to God, our neighbors, and to us. “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God – what is good and acceptable and perfect” (Rom 12:2).” - from an article by Yung Suk Kim

If you are interested in this journal published by Sopher Press, please like them on FACEBOOK and keep up with them at Bible and Transformation.com

Marginality and Christian Theology

In his book Marginality: The Key to Multicultural Theology (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1995), Jung Young Lee states that his marginal experience is the basis for his contextual theology. Furthermore, Lee affirms that marginality is a new source of power (self-affirmation) in spite of its negative connotations. Lee goes on to argue that Christian theology, mission of the church, a habit of thinking, personal commitment and all our hearts and minds have to be based in new marginality of self-affirmation. A new marginal person is the one who relentlessly hopes for harmonious justice beyond one's identity, defiantly protesting all abusive systems and evil in the world.

To support his thesis about new marginality, Lee rejects the one-way, classical definition of marginality that emphasizes the negative side of marginality such as alienation, rejection, and struggles, and so forth. This classical definition is the product of "centrality" according to which marginality is a situation of "got stuck" or "in-between."

But Lee defines marginality from a marginal perspective, which upholds a "both/and" and "in-beyond" approach. For example, Lee declares that he is both an American and an Asian. "Both/and" approach is a self-affirmation of both Asian and American.

He also talks about a new marginality person who stands "in-beyond," which means standing beyond "in-between" and "in-both" (Asian and American).

That is to say, such an "in-beyond" person transcends the current time and space to form a new identity, which is formulated both in "in-between" and "in-both" worlds. Lee states that this kind of "in-beyond" thinking leads to living up to "the harmony of difference," as God's creation itself is of plurality and differences.

Lee continues to explore marginality to the extent that marginality should be the center of Christian theology. For instance, God becomes marginal through incarnation of Jesus Christ. Marginality is God's choice of loving humanity. Jesus was also marginal, being rejected and crucified by the people. In other words, Jesus lived "in-beyond," affirming the world that rejected him.

Likewise, Lee suggests that the church, seminaries, and all our Christian works be a community of marginality that lives up to the love and servanthood of Jesus. The author envisions the whole church and Christian institutions to embraces a holistic "in-beyond" approach.

Lee does an excellent job because he reclaims a Christian theology of marginality. Jesus came not to be served but to serve (Mt. 20:28). As Jesus was a marginal person, so are Christians. Christians' power comes out of serving others. Another strong point is regarding the identity of minority. Marginal experiences are certainly negative, but are not hopeless altogether.

Lee suggests that we transform our marginal experiences to form a new identity of hope and love beyond the current conditions of the world. Lee also made a big contribution to the understanding of multicultural society. Pluralistic, multicultural society needs multiple centers and margins. Lee seems to encourage all of us to play an active role in making a better society.

He also lets us recognize the mystery of creation that reflects diversity, plurality, and differences in our culture. Everyone has his or her own place of margin, because, according to Lee, margins and centers are not fixed; rather, they are dynamic and moving. A multicultural society is a kind of web that every unit of society has its own connection to one another, modifying its place constantly.

Lee's book greatly has shaped my worldview and understanding of multicultural theology. I became confident about my role as a biblical theologian in multicultural society. Through my upbringings, education, experiences in Korea and elsewhere (including Latin America and USA), I came to view the world through the lens of critical diversity or imagination.

When I lived in a small rural village at my childhood, I liked to play with things in nature and grasped the harmony of differences. Not a single thing is the same as the other in nature: Different colors of leaves, different trees, different flowers, different stars, different birds, and so forth.

While we are different with each other, we also share a common humanity. We are still the same human being. In nature, dandelion is different from the rose but it is still a beautiful flower. God made all of us good, including nature. Why do we not maintain such a beautiful world?

In a real world, we have yet to see this "perfect" world. That is where we need human transformation. That is why we need a journal like this: Journal of Bible and Human Transformation (JBHT).

I struggle daily with an identity question: Who am I in this country? I am still that I am. Yet I am not the same as before. I am like a watercolor. I am good and bad. I am still painted with lots of options and changes.

P.S
Readers should not be confused about two kinds of marginality: a marginality given due to social, cultural determinants and a voluntary marginality as shown in Jesus or Paul. The latter is affirmed, and it is good since Christian theology is based on incarnation theology in that God becomes flesh.

But regarding the former, caution should be made: Whereas the marginalized person can affirm his or her identity amid degrading situations, it does not mean that he or she can tolerate marginal situations from the perspective of justice. Some suffering or injustices cannot be tolerated or spiritualized without making efforts to improve or change the system that causes injustices.