Reading Jurgen Moltmann in Asia, David Thang Moe
Stories of Minjung Theology: The Theological Journey of Ahn Byung-Mu in His Own Words
"Minjungtheology is" what a renowned German language theologian Jürgen Moltmann (1926-), a cordial friend of some Minjungtheologians, including Ahn Byung-Mu (1922-1996) called "the showtime liberation theology to come from Asia, with critical questions put to the First World." By now, Minjungtheology has gained its international stature, representing a paradigm of Asian political theology of liberation. Some Western universities, especially in Federal republic of germany are offer some seminars on minjungtheology. Some Ph.D dissertations have been written on minjungtheology. The authors of these dissertations include Korean and non-Korean theologians from the W and Asia (nineteen). Why is minjungtheology so significant? Who does play a cardinal function in developing minjungtheology? Ahn is the answer for both questions. Ahn was not only 1 of the fathers of Minjungtheology, but he was too one of the first proper professional New Testament scholars in Asia. After completing his doctorate in 1965 at Heidelberg University in Germany under the supervision of GünterBornkamm, a old educatee of the famed German New Testament scholar Rudolf Bultmann, Ahn returned to South korea to atomic number 82 the minjungtheology motion together with Suh Nam-dong and other pioneer minjungtheologians since 1975 (ix). This was the gilded age of contextual liberation theologies in the Third World in general and Asia in particular. Ahn adult a liberative reading of the New Testament, specially the Gospel of Marking in the suffering context of minjung(suffering masses). Ahn was a professor of Hanshin University, scholar, a pastor, and an activist. Due to his prophetic resistance confronting the dictatorship of President Park Chung-hee, Ahn was imprisoned twice and expelled from his university position.
This volume is a fine autobiography that combines the story of Ahn and the birth of the minjungmotion that Ahn helped to develop hermeneutically. This is the first English language translation of Ahn's autobiography, considered one of the best works inminjungtheology and contextual biblical interpretation. This book is based on Ahn's conversations with his students when his heath became poor (ix). It begins with a curt profile of Ahn written by Rev. Jin-ho Kim and an introduction penned by today's all-time known New Testament trained Asian postcolonial scholar R.S. Sugirtharajah of Sri Lanka followed by a preface past Ahn himself written on May five, 1987 before his expiry. The book has iii parts.
Part one begins by describing Ahn'south early life and his enkindling discovery of minjungtheology as a movement of the minjung(people praxis) and as a theological reflection on that movement (reflection). Using sociopolitical suffering of the minjungequally a theme, Jesus's solidarity with the ochlosin the Gospel of Marking (Mk. ii:15-17) as a source, Ahn made an important interpretation of minjungcontextual political theology of liberation (32). His proposal for the tasks of Korean Christians is to rethink theology that is liberated from the Western doctrinal captivity and is relevant for the suffering masses. Having said this, Ahn expressed a story of how he debated with a Western theologian Moltmann over the relationship between Jesus and minjung. While Ahn believed that Jesus is minjungand minjungis Jesus based on their common identity of suffering, Moltmann accustomed that Jesus is minjung, merely rejects the fact that minjungis Jesus based on regarding minjungas the object of salvation by Jesus (24).
Part 2 discusses some major contents and contextual forms of minjungtheology. While some major contents tend to focus on describing some major themes of minjungtheology, some contextual forms tend to focus on prescribing how minjungtheology should be adult as a contextually relevant theology. Ahn is faithful to both the descriptive and prescriptive hermeneutics of minjungtheology. The major themes and contextual forms include reading the Bible as the public volume of minjung, Jesus as minjung, God as the liberating God of minjung, sin as structural system that causes han orsuffering of minjung, the church as the community of minjung,minjungliberation motility equally the event of the Holy Spirit, and the prophetic office of the church in witnessing the kingdom of God as the kingdom of minjung (35-197).
In order to develop those major themes as the foundations for the contextual forms of minjungtheology, Ahn criticized both some conservative Korean Christians and some Western theologians whose interpretations are irrelevant for the suffering contexts of minjung. Arguing confronting some conservative Korean Christians who read the Bible for their private affairs of spirituality and Bultmann who treated "the OT merely as a secondary material" (35-69), Ahn proposed to read the whole Bible as the public volume for the sociopolitical issues of minjung. He drew upon the stories of God's involvement in the lives of the State of israel and of Jesus's solidarity with the ochlos(oversupply) in the Gospels, especially in the Gospel of Mark, every bit the sources for developing minjungtheology. He paid particular attention to Christology and its cosmic reign of love and justice for the suffering masses as a unified theme of the Bible. He criticized Western Christology for its focus on the person of Christ without focusing on the life of Christ and proposed to reemphasize the actual life and work of Jesus for the liberation of minjung.
Function three further develops what has been said in parts one and two. What is fascinating nigh this role is a particular way Ahn explored the Markan concept of the relationship between Jesus and ochlosand its implication for Jesus'due south solidarity with minjung. This is arguably a distinctive area where Ahn achieved his creative hermeneutics. In order to accomplish his goal, Ahn came up with 2 questions: who are minjung? How is Jesus'south identity related to minjung? Ahn defined minjunginto two ways: one is that minjungare the people who are politically oppressed and economically exploited. The other is that minjung are the object of everyday exploitation (221). He so related the identity of minjungto the Markan'due south use of ochlos(outcasts). Central to Ahn'due south hermeneutics is the relationship between the commonage identities of ochlosand of minjungand Jesus'south collective solidarity with them. Ahn retrieved Jesus from the kerygmatic linguistic communication and prioritized the messianic consequence language of Jesus'due south actual suffering and resurrection. At a fourth dimension when New Testament scholars read the Gospels from the perspective of the imminent arrival of or postponement of the kingdom, Ahn argued that the gospels were about the people or minjung. For Ahn, one should read the NT from the optics of the common people.
I have two observations. First, how is Ahn's proposal for reading the NT from the perspectives of the ordinary people or minjungrepresentative for the voices of the grassroots people? It is not articulate how he integrated the voices of grassroots minjunginto his bookish reflections on minjungtheology. Second, how is Ahn's hermeneutics of Jesus'southward relationship withminjung normative for the suffering Asian context today? While his exegetical piece of work on ochlosand Jesus's solidarity with them is creative and relevant for minjungin the homogeneous Korean context, the implication of minjungtheology as a model for Asian political theology is questionable in the multi-ethnic context. For instance, in Sri Lanka and Myanmar, the minority ethnic Christians are marginalized by theochlosof the majority elite Buddhist and grassroots Buddhist nationalists. Minority indigenous Christians are marginsof the political margins who represent religious majority. Focusing on the political oppression of the homogeneous minjung, Ahn failed to integrate the concerns of the indigenous margins. In other words, in those two Asian nations, some politically oppressed people are another oppressors of the minority indigenous Christians. In Asia, we demand to recognize the plurality of oppression and marginalization.
Despite these two aspects of limitation, this volume is a creative contribution to the body of minjungtheology. For those who thinkminjungtheology is dying today in the context of Korea'due south socio-economic growth, this book serves every bit a living source. It helps the readers with a fresh understanding of the relationship between the historical Jesus's human relationship with the common people in the first century and Jesus's continued solidarity with the suffering masses in the twenty-first century global contexts. One of Ahn's helpful proposals was non just to particularize minjungevery bit Koreans, but to universalize minjungas politically oppressed and economically exploited people. Since this volume was rooted in Ahn's personal experiences of sociopolitical oppression and imprisonment and in his verbal expressions, it is an original source for understanding minjungtheology. No readers will agree with Ahn on every point he argued, but such disagreements should exist dialogued, discussed, and debated through the appreciative and critical engagement with this original work of—the father and founder ofminjungtheology.
David Thang Moe
Asbury Theological Seminary
Categories: (T) Book Review
Source: https://aatfweb.org/2020/12/08/stories-of-minjung-theology-the-theological-journey-of-ahn-byung-mu-in-his-own-words/
0 Response to "Reading Jurgen Moltmann in Asia, David Thang Moe"
Post a Comment