Inspirations, Visions, Thoughts and Meditations

Ministry means serving the people of God, with the fellowship of Christ, journey together towards the wholeness of creation. The essential element of doing ministry is healing the pain and sufferings of people. Therefore it is necessary, first of all, to find the source of pain, then apply it to our ministry.

In our contemporary global village, by the development of mass media and transportation, there is a more frequent impact of different cultures and religions than at any other time in human history. This new tendency causes an influx of individualism and relativism, hence without valuing each individual's culture, tradition and religion, we cannot have a communal life. In this perplexed social context, the traditional Christian theology lacks a relevance to the world and becomes alienated from reality. New theological developments in two thirds world and the feminist and black theology movement, by starting from our context, made the church’s proclamation relevant to the world. However these contextual theologies, staying within the paradigm of sin and salvation, can not answer exhaustibly the problems of the world.

For the solution of complex problems in our culturally diverse context, a paradigm shift is essential: han and its resolution. To develop the paradigm of han and resolution, it is necessary to examine the traditional doctrine of sin and salvation, and explore humanity’s pain and suffering in our context.

The traditional theology speaks of sin, only from the perspective of sinners, as humanity’s separation from God by personal interjection to self: pride, sensuality, self-love self-centredness, ingratitude, unbelief, moral imperfection, rebellion, pride, estrangement, slavery, surrender to the world, and the like. There are two problems with this classical doctrine of sin and salvation resulted from viewing this at the personal dimension. Firstly, the traditional theology misinterpreted the meaning of sinners; “sinners” in the Synoptic Gospels is the language of the ruling class, and they are the powerless people for whom Jesus ministered. Secondly, by referring the concept of sin to the fallenness, the traditional theology supported the ruling class for their misusing the concept of sin, thus oppressed the innocent powerless people. The doctrines of sin and salvation therefore have been used as an ideology, by the dominating power group, only for their benefits. The sinner/oppressor centred doctrine of sin leads the Christian mission to conquering the power of sin, hence it pays little attention to their victims. As a result, the church has been seeking the way for redeeming the sinners who are victimized, and teaches them for penitence and repentance of sin. In this context, salvation comes by God’s grace only for reconciliation by paying back the human sinfulness through Christ’s crucifixion. Through this way, the church has neglected the victims of the oppressors; and the victims have been regarded simply as recipients of pity, compassion, and mercy.

The contemporary political theologians and the two thirds world theologians recognize the problems of the world caused by the traditional doctrine of sin, and suggest that we must start from the context of human suffering in the terms of the oppressor and the oppressed. [1] They emphasize the social dimension of sin and understand it as an econo-socio-political concept. Through this new approach, they discovered that the term “sinners” in the Synoptic Gospels has a sociological essence that denotes those who are oppressed. [2]

In our multicultural society, when we stay within the paradigm of sin and salvation, in spite of these contemporary theologians’ efforts to solve the problems of the world, there exists untouched problems, and these still remain unsolved, since sin and evil are unique Christian concepts which have become a major part of understanding the troubles of the world. [3] Moltmann finds the answer to the theodicy question in human suffering as God suffers the sufferings of the people. However, when we stay within the boundaries of sin and salvation, Moltmann’s Crucified God does not answer all the different problems of today’s culturally diverse world. [4] Latin American liberation theologians suggest a base community, but it has difficulty applying it to our Canadian multicultural context. It is evident that the traditional and contemporary paradigm of sin and salvation simply does not work in our culturally diverse context. [5]

Before I discuss the nature of han [6], I would like to find a reference from the Bible why we need to develop a theology of han. From the scriptural witness to God’s liberation of the people, we learn that the content of liberation is the resolution of han rather than salvation from sin. The Exodus event of the Israelites and the cross event of Jesus Christ teaches us that God is with suffering people, minjung. From the Exodus event, we learn God’s preferential option for the minjung. In the cross event, Jesus represents the fate of the minjung, and Jesus identifies himself with the suffering people, minjung. It is not an event of after “sinned” but an event right at the locus of han. [7] It is clear that, in answering the world’s problem, the church must pay her attention to the victims of the oppressors through re-interpretation of sin and salvation in light of the concept of han. Through this way, we can find the complete basis upon which to understand and respond to the problems of evil and suffering. This is why we need to develop a theology of han for doing ministry in the culturally diverse context by counting han of victims as a vital element in resolving the world’s diverse problems for the salvation of the world.

Sin is the language of the oppressor and han is that of the oppressed. [8] Korean minjung poet, Chi Ha Kim, defines han as “minjung’s accumulated feeling” of angry and sad sentiment from oppression, which turned inward, hardened and stuck to their hearts [9]. The founder of the minjung theology, Suh NamDong, defines han as resentment and bitterness; a deep accumulated feeling that rises out of the unjust experience of the powerless minjung or a just indignation. [10] Han can be further defined as the collapsed pain of the heart due to psychosomatic, interpersonal, social, political, economic, and cultural oppression and repression. In summary, han is the condensed feeling of pain of the oppressed, [11] and the cause of han is from either social structural or individual oppression which points to “sin” as human fallenness.

It is easy to understand the meaning of han as a language of victims. However, han as merely the opposite word of sin narrows down the full meaning of it. The cause of han is not solely from the sin of oppressors. Especially in the culturally diverse society, insisting on one's own difference without opening to others, creates han to the powerless. In this sense, han is a culturally directed term. One of the most significant causes of han in our modern complex world is interjection of oneself into one’s own value system which is formed by her/his own cultural and religious experience. This closedness into oneself causes prejudice and develops into discrimination, thus one perceives her/himself as superior to other cultures or religions. Therefore racism, which comes from one’s perception of superiority, denies the order of creation which God installed, [12] and creates han.

There are also other personal aspects of han. Han comes from one’s own inability, own personality, and natural forces such as illness, accidents and disasters, or something that blocks one’s will to fulfil her/his goals. In the story of the blind from birth (Jn 9:1-5), we are able to notice han of the blind man. To the disciple’s question, “Who sinned, this man or his parents that he was born blind?” Jesus answers that “Neither this man nor his parents.” This clearly reveals han which comes neither from any political oppression nor cultural discrimination.

Han produces pain, sadness, resentment, aggression, hopelessness, shame, guilt and self hatredness. Continuous and prolonged shame, guilt and self-hate lead the han-ridden victim to the pseudo-safety of non-feeling or numbing state. [13] Han exists both in individuals and groups. Han can be distinguished as conscious and unconscious, and active and passive in its expression.

Han is frozen energy that can be unravelled either negatively or positively [14] Han of the oppressed in its active mode, in a negative way, can seek retaliation against the oppressor in a form which is often itself unjust. Han sometimes causes individuals and communities to sin against the enemy. Therefore the han-ridden victim is not excluded from sin. When han explodes in a negative way, the oppressor will in turn react in a way that is yet more harsh and unjust. As a consequence the vicious cycle of violence continues. [15]

Han develops frustration, and sometimes, hostility. However, people’s hostility, in many cases, cannot be steered directly to the source of frustration because the culprit is unknown or too powerful to strike back against. Sometimes they lose their control and “letting go” happens. This is realized by resignation, self-renunciation, and self-abnegation[16]; this is han. In Asian culture, where dominance-subordination has persisted for centuries, such an experience of han is evident [17] It appears in folk tales, folk songs, folk music and folk plays, releasing people’s sorrow, frustration, and anger.The source of han varies: oppression in a political dimension; discrimination in a cultural dimension; and inability in a personal dimension. However the common denominator of han is the pain and sufferings of the powerless. We also experience the complex entanglements of both sin and han in our complex reality [18], i.e., we are the oppressed and at the same time the oppressor; we are han-ridden at the same time han-giving. In our practical life, we realize only one side of han in ourselves. However the fact that we are in both categories at the same time is the most important aspect of han that we must pay attention to in doing ministry.

God is with han-ridden people regardless of whether they are sinful or faithful. It is clear when we compare the grace of God which is revealed in the stories of “the Prodigal Son” and “Abraham’s offering Isaac.” [19] From the perspective of han, we realize that God is revealed in the han of the suffering people. As in the Exodus event and Jesus' ministry with the marginalized people, God accepts us “as we are.” God's being with us by accepting us “as we are” does not mean a simple guarantee of comfort or preservation of the status quo. God is with us as the han-ridden Spirit [20], and suffers all through the resolution of han for the wholeness of creation.

Why do we have to focus on han instead of sin in doing ministry? The answer is fairly clear from the examination of sin and han. From the examination of han, we recognize that there are varieties of causes of han which comes from many things other than sin. I recognize who I am in the context of cultural diversity: han-ridden and at the same time a han-giver, by being both the oppressed and the oppressor; and this han comes from the varieties of sources such as from oppression, discrimination and personal inability. Resolution of han for us is not an easy task. How do we resolve han in these cases? With the traditional paradigm of sin and salvation, it is impossible to gain a resolution of han.

I am going to find the reference for the resolution of han in the ministry from the Bible since, to me, Jesus is the role model for the resolution of han in our ministry. [21 As I mentioned above in the story of the blind from birth (Jn 9:1-5), Jesus’ ministry clearly shows that Jesus comes to the han-ridden blind from his birth and ministers for the resolution of han. Jesus teaches that the blind man has nothing to do with sin. Jesus heals the blind man. Jesus' healing is not to demonstrate the supernatural power, but rather to move the han-ridden people towards the messianic koinonia; this is a process of the resolution of han. Jesus proclaims that ‘born as blind’ is for “God’s work might revealed in him.” It is certain that Jesus did not point healing towards a miracle or forgiveness of sin but rather to the resolution of han.

In the sermon on the mount (Mt 5:1-3), Jesus also shows us the resolution of han. In this context, han-ridden minjung is the subject of the kingdom of heaven: Jesus proclaims that they are already in the kingdom of heaven. On what basis does Jesus proclaim this good news? It is clear that Jesus does not romanticize the poor [22] The proper understanding of this text is not by the words themselves, but by recognizing the “event” of Jesus’ coming to the han-ridden minjung. By Jesus’ coming to and being with the minjung, they are happy and the kingdom has already been realized. This text teaches us the context of the kingdom of heaven. Jesus’ ministry is the work of the resolution of han for the people being oppressed by politico-socio-economical structural power and cultural discrimination.

In the Bible, there are numerous examples of the resolution of han; they are the works of God and Jesus’ ministry that create new life for the han-ridden victims. In our shared life experiences, we find that the Bible opens up the possibility of new life through the stories of God's partnership at work. However, in our contemporary world of modern civilization, and cultural and religious diversity, the Bible does not provide all the answers. As Letty Russell claims, the stories in the Bible are open-ended, therefore, there is "more to come" [23]: an invitation to the stories that provokes hermeneutical suspicion as well as a witness to God's grace in our own life of hanful situation. God wants to hear the story of han-ridden people: Where is Abel your brother?; What have you done?; The voice of your brother's blood is crying to me from the ground (Gen. 4:9-10). This is why we have to make the story of han our frame of reference for doing ministry in a multicultural context. The story of han is the story of the powerless in their own social experience and in their own language; and it is the most biblical story that witnesses to Jesus' life and mission. Therefore the story of han provides the most comprehensive historical context for the Christian mission and the most inclusive message to be proclaimed through the church. This is why we have to share the cries of the han-ridden Spirit that comes through our neighbour's pain.

Sharing the story of han is the process of the resolution of han, a process of new creation. It is not merely giving an information, but rather valuing each other. There is mutual respect and an intersubjective relationship in the process of sharing the han-ridden story. It is the very foundation of justice that leads us to the koinonia. Only through this process of the resolution of han, are we able to celebrate differences. Therefore sharing the story is our faith commitment in “God's being with the creation."; it is not an option for Christians, but an order to the disciples of Christ.

In our multicultural society, it is evident that the traditional and contemporary paradigm of sin and salvation simply does not work. Valuing others means to recognize the varieties of sources of han from oppression in a political dimension; discrimination in a cultural dimension; and inability in a personal dimension. The common denominator of han is the pain and suffering of the powerless. Therefore the resolution of han is the very fundamental element of doing ministry; our faith commitment to God’s preferential option for the victims. We also experience the complex entanglement of both sin and han in our complex reality. However our openness to others with mutual respect gives us a solution; it is God-given justice.

The church of Christ as the church under the cross in a multicultural context means that we value each other. Valuing others is an invitation of Christ for the koinonia in the coming kingdom of God through solidarity with the minjung by sharing the story and life of han-ridden people. To be the church that proclaims the gospel and witnesses to it for all classes, age groups and cultural differences, the church must be the place where han is resolved. To be the church that lives by the Spirit of Christ, it must be with the minjung and speaks out their han-ridden story for the resolution of han. These are what the Scripture witnesses to God’s being with the minjung of Israel, and Jesus’ identification with the minjung through the passion of the cross event. This is the reason why we need to develop the theology of han and recognize that the resolution of han is the locus of the ministry of Jesus Christ.

The church becomes the true ministry of Christ when the story of han is shared and, through this sharing, moves towards the hope of the resolution of han through reconciliation and healing. The transformation occurs in this process and we experience the power of the life-giving Spirit. The resolution of han sets up the church's mission and carries it out among the people, enabling them to become inter-dependant subjects in the messianic kingdom. This is how the church takes part in Christ’s mission and exists and lives among the people for the people. In this process, the subjectivity of minjung is restored, hence the church becomes the community that witnesses the cross and the resurrection of Christ; we as the body of Christ become the partners of God’s new creation.

End notes

[1]. As an example, see Juan Luis Segundo, The Liberation of Theology (New York: Orbis Books, 1991), pp. 39-47. In his discussion ‘Ideological Infiltration of Dogma’, Segundo points out the problems of the traditional theology and claims that “the Church stopped listening to the voice of Christ and began to listen to the voice of ruling classes and their selfish interests.”

[2]. Byungmu Ahn, “Jesus and the Minjung in the Gospel of Mark,” in Minjung Theology, ed. Yong Bock Kim (Singapore: The Christian Conference of Asia, 1981), pp. 148-149. Ahn equates minjung with ochlos and amhaaretz in the gospel of Mark, and points out that those are the ones who were called sinners by the ruling group, Pharisees. Ahn clearly explains that the term “sinners” is not a religious term, but rather a sociological one.

[3] See Andrew Sung Park, The Wounded Heart of God: The Asian Concept of Han and the Christian Doctrine of Sin, (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1993), p.129. Park points out a significant problem in sin oriented traditional theology in his discussion on interreligious dialogue. In our multicultural context, it creates more problem in church’s claiming her relevance to the world.

[4]. Jürgen Moltmann, The Crucified God, trans. R. A. Wilson et. al. (London: SCM Press, 1974). Moltmann attempts to find the relevance of theology to the world’s problem by finding the answer to the theodecy question as ‘God’s being with us in our suffering and takes up the sufferings’. However his discussion is limited only within the political dimension, thus omits the great part of the world problems.

[5] . Contemporary political theologian’s approach speaks in a great deal about han from oppression, but I want to focus my discussion on han in “multicultural context.”

[6] . Byungmu Ahn, Minjung and the Scripture Byungmu Ahn Collection Vol. 5, (Seoul: Hangil-sa, 1993), p. 330.

Han is a Korean word that means “unresolved pain and suffering from powerlessness.” Ahn’s definition describes the inclusive meaning of han: an unresolved resentment against injustice and a feeling of the total abandonment.

[7] . Sobrino’s perception of doing theology best describes the theology of han. See, Jon Sobrino, Jesus the Libeator: A Historical-Theological View, trans. P. Burns and F. McDonagh, (New York: Orbis Books, 1993), pp. 252-53. Sobrino states that “...we are not doing theology after Auschwitz, but during Auschwitz.” I would like to quote Casaldaliga’s poem, “Inside Auschwitz” which is at the end of Sobrino’s discussion: “How do we talk about God after Auschwitz?,” / you ask yourselves, / over there, on the other side of the sea, in plenty, // “ How do we talk about God inside Auschwitz?,” / ask my friends here, / laden with reason, weeping and blood, / immersed in the daily deaths of millions...”

[8]. Nam-Dong Suh, in his speech at Toronto Korean United Church in May, 1984.

[9] . Nam-Dong Suh, “Towards a Theology of Han,” in Minjung Teology, pp. 58.

[10] . David Kwang-sun Suh, “A Biographical Sketch of an Asian Teological Consultation,” in Minjung Teology, p. 58.

[11]. For more detailed meaning of the reality of han, see Park, Wounded Heart of God, pp. 15-30. Park summarizes minjung theologian’s definition of han and other ralated thoughts with true life story of han.

[12]. This discussion is based on Park’s explication of racism. For detail, see Park, Wounded Heart of God, pp. 65-66. Park further argues that racism contradicts the first and second Commandments of the Decalogue, the work of the Trinity.

[13] . Hyung Kyung Chung, Struggle to Be the Sun Again, (New York: Orbis Books, 1992), p. 42.

[14]. Park, Wounded Heart, pp. 137-38. This paragraph is my summary of Park’s illustration of han as frozen energy.

[15] . This is the point where we need to transform han into creative energy. Minjung theologian Nam-Dong Suh suggests theology of dan: overcoming han, for individual, by negation of self; and, for group, cut off from vicious circle. For detail, see Nam-Dong Suh, Minjung Shin Hak ui Tamgoo, (Seoul: Hangil-sa, 1983), pp. 100-101. Dan is what resolution of han means. Dan, in a trinitarian concept, means to create an intersubjective relationship of mutual respect and openness.

[16]. Ibid., pp. 16-18.

[17]. In our Korean community, there are so many pains overlooked under the name of Korean culture or tradition. During the introduction of the church in Ethnic Rally in 1994, one of the Korean church members stated in public that we value men more that women because it is our culture and tradition. People laughed because it was a joke. But I could not laugh because it was our reality and I knew that he really meant it. During my conversation with members of UCW of my home church, I insisted on women's right in the church and family life. I was a bit surprised when they disagreed with my idea. Their answer was that they were used to patriarchical culture thus feel comfortable with it, and they did not want to create any problems by raising it as an issue. It seems like that there is peace. However peace without justice is not true peace. It is frozen-han led to “letting go” which needs resolution.

[18]. Park, Wounded Heart of God., p. 70.

[19]. Harpers Bible Commentary, ed. James L. Mays et. al., (San Ffrancisco:Harper & Row Publishers, 1988), pp. 99-100 and 1033-34. The prodigal son leaves home for his own desire, and experiences pain and suffering. Abraham’s journey to the land of Moriah with faithful obedience is also a painful experience to him. Both develop han in their jourey even though their motives are different from each other. However, regardless of their motives, God resloves their han: Father accepts the son without any question; God provides the burnt offering for Abraham.

[20] . Park, Wounded Heart of God, p. 123. Park’s discovery of the divine han by referring to the father’s han in the story of Prodigal Son is the most significant contribution in his discussion. I further elaborate the notion of the han-ridden Spirit on the basis of Moltmann’s trinitarian history in Jürgen Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom of God: The Doctrine of God, trans. Margaret Kohl (London: SCM Press, 1981) and The the Spirit of Life: A Universal Affirmation, trans M, Kohl (Minneapolis:Fortress Press, 1993), pp. 60-65. In the cross event, Jesus affirms that Jesus is a part of minjung, the han-ridden people. Jesus did not have a simple death. The fact that Jesus was murdered on the "cross" signifies the depth of han in Jesus' death, and identifies the reality of han-ridden minjung. The cross event is the event of self-giving for humanity by Jesus' identifying himself with the minjung. Moltmann argues that Jesus' calling "Abba Father" is possible by the Spirit's being with Jesus in his prayer. If it is so, Jesus' cry-out on the cross "Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?" is the cry-out of the han-ridden Spirit which is the same Spirit of God, the life-giving Spirit. The crucifixion where we hear the cry-out of the han-ridden Spirit is the very locus of the resurrection

[21] . I would like to start from my own perspective by clarifying who I am: Through my faith journey, the Bible has had authority in my life, because it makes sense of my experience and speaks to me about the meaning and purpose of my humanity in Jesus Christ. On this basis Jesus is the role model in my life. In my journey as an ethnic minority in Canada, the Bible teaches me who I am. "God's creation of humanity in God's image and likeness" is certainly a universal truth to me. On this foundational basis, I find the cause that all human beings are to be equally valued (not valued as equal) regardless our cultural religious background. My new understanding of han leads me to interpret the Bible, and in a same way, I believe that all the varieties of experiences such as liberation, feminist’s black theologians perspectives have their own key to their unique hermeneutics. My exegesis shows that my new understanding and experience of han works as a text and controls the story of the Bible as a context.

[22] Edward Schweizer, The Good News According to Matthew, trans. David E. Green, (Atlanta: John Knox Press1975), pp. 78-98.

[23]. Letty M. Russell, “Authority and Challenge of Feminist Interpretation” in Feminist Interpretation of the Bible, ed. Letty Russell (Philadelphia: West Minster Press, 1985), p. 140. Russell does not finalize what is more to come. However, it is clear, in my opinion, this anticipation can be realized by confluence of two stories: the story in the biblical witness and the story as the cry-outs of the han-ridden Spirit. To the question of which story from our context is legitimate as a "text," I suggest the minjung's han-ridden story is a "better" story since the han-ridden story is the very locus we can find the presence of the han-ridden Spirit.

Ahn, Byungmu. Minjung and the Scripture Byungmu Ahn Collection Vol. 5. Seoul: Hangil-sa, 1993.

, “Jesus and the Minjung in the Gospel of Mark,” in Minjung Theology, ed. Yong Bock Kim. Singapore: The Christian Conference of Asia, 1981.

Chung, Hyung Kyung. Struggle to Be the Sun Again. New York: Orbis Books, 1992. Harpers Bible Commentary, ed. James L. Mays et. al.. San Ffrancisco:Harper & Row Publishers, 1988.

Moltmann, Jürgen. The Crucified God, trans. R. A. Wilson et. al. London: SCM Press, 1974.

. The Trinity and the Kingdom of God: The Doctrine of God, trans. Margaret Kohl. London: SCM Press, 1981.

. The the Spirit of Life: A Universal Affirmation, trans. M, Kohl. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993

Park, Andrew Sung. The Wounded Heart of God: The Asian Concept of Han and the Christian Doctrine of Sin. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1993.

Russell, Letty M. “Authority and Challenge of Feminist Interpretation” in Feminist Interpretation of the Bible, ed. Letty Russell.

Schweizer, Edward. The Good News According to Matthew, trans. David E. Green. Atlanta: John Knox Press 1975.

Sobrino, Jon. Jesus the Libeator: A Historical-Theological View, trans. P. Burns and F. McDonagh. New York: Orbis Books, 1993.

Suh, David Kwang-sun. “A Biographical Sketch of an Asian Theological Consultation,” in Minjung Theology, ed. Yong Bock Kim. Singapore: The Christian Conference of Asia, 1981.

. “Towards a Theology of Han,” in Minjung Theology, ed. Yong Bock Kim. Singapore: The Christian Conference of Asia, 1981.