Ham and Democracy with Reference to the Bible

It can be argued that Ham's non-separation of socio-political and religious matters can be seen as more truly Biblical than the evangelical thinking of the Korean church as in the life of Jesus, too, socio-political and religious matters were not totally separated. Ham imbued the fight against socio-political evil with as much importance as his experiencing the holy spirit. Ham did not want Korea to be overcome by socio-political evil, and tried to defeat socio-political evil with goodness. From the view of conservative Christians and autocratic rulers, Ham was seen as 'too political' and 'too interventionist in political matters' to be a Christian. On the other hand, from the point of view of radical-dissidents, Ham was seen as 'too religious' and 'too passive' to be a civil rights activist.

Jesus despite his humble background as a carpenter, was a 'self-taught' man within a subjugated area of the Roman Empire, with a clear awareness and knowledge of religious and socio-political issues. It is notable that even the prominent intellectuals, such as the Pharisees, Sadducees, high priests, legal experts, elders and even spies were not able to win against the lowly carpenter Jesus, not only in theological debate but also in various political, social, historical, legal and moral debates. An intellectual politician, Nicodemus, secretly asked a sincere question of an 'eccentric' Jesus. Furthermore such prominent leaders feared Jesus and were eager to kill him but held back only because they also feared "a riot among the people".

One may conjecture that, whatever Jesus' own inclination to detach himself from political claim, he was increasingly identified as the hoped-for national Messiah who would free Israel from Roman rule. This would unquestionably help to explain the authorities' concern to suppress him. Therefore, the conduct of Jesus can also be seen as 'too political' to be religious, and yet 'too religious' to be political. This ambiguity between political activist and religious thinker could be more clearly elucidated by considering the relationship between Jesus Christ and Judas Iscariot.

Generally speaking, Biblical historians suppose that Judas had a deep connection with the Zealots or was himself an active partisan Zealot. Zealots were a fanatical and political nationalist group of Jews, who regarded themselves as the vehicles of God in saving their nation from the alien oppressors.

Unlike Jesus, Judas was a radical activist prepared to deliver his nation by any means from an unjust regime. It seems that Judas joined with Jesus because of socio-political and nationalistic motives rather than religious ones. The main concern of Judas was bringing about 'socio-political justice' for his nation Israel, if possible with the help of Jesus. Judas and Jesus travelled together, discussed together, ate together and lived together for a considerable length of time. Three years' experience beside Jesus may well have assured Judas of Jesus' Messiah-ship. In this regard, it seems that Judas noticed in Jesus the potential achievement of a socio-political Messianic prophecy. Judas was the most enthusiastic nationalist of the disciples, more shrewd than the other disciples who were unsophisticated Galileans, and quick to identify the 'potential' of Jesus. It is likely that Judas, being an active socio-revolutionary, would not have stayed with the 'religious-evangelical' Jesus if he had not seen the 'political potentiality' of Jesus. Judas perhaps thought that Jesus would be the new political king in a real sense, and that he would align himself with Zealots in a physical battle to free the nation of Israel from the oppressed regime.

The common people also accepted Jesus as the expected Messiah who would lead them out of constraint and servitude. Even the Roman authorities perceived that this man Jesus could be the one to agitate the ordinary people into riots. It is indicative of the view of the Romans that Jesus was crucified, a form of death reserved for political prisoners, rather than stoned to death, which was the normal punishment for religious prisoners.

Jesus, on the other hand, was sharply aware of his own Messianic vocation, which was distinct either from the apocalyptic or nationalistic thought of Messiah-ship among the Jews and other religious groups. Unquestionably Jesus was not a politician and his goal was not gaining political hegemony. But at the same time, Jesus was never apathetic on socio-political issues, rather he was sincerely concerned about the socio-political problems of Israel. Eventually Jesus was put to death for threatening to destroy long-accepted political and religious rules. If Jesus was purely 'evangelical' or 'non-political' why did he become the main subject of fear to the political authorities and established religious leaders, causing "riots among the people"?

Taking into account the relationship between Judas and Jesus, it is not difficult to imagine the relationship between politically radical (undong-gwon) students and Ham and his followers. Radical students thought or expected that Ham and his followers would be the new leaders in the socio-political sense, and that he would side with them in a real battle to free the nation from the unjust regime, the military dictatorship. On the other hand, the radical students did not think at all that a conservative or an evangelical Christian leader, such as Rev.Cho Yongki (David Cho) of the Full-Gospel Church, would be the new leader in the socio-political sense, nor that evangelists would side with the undong-gwon in a real battle to free the Korean nation from political oppression.

In other words, the radical students did not accept one of the evangelical or conservative Christian leaders as the long-expected socio-political leader. But they thought that Ham and his followers would lead them from the constraint and servitude imposed by the military regime whether Ham personally considered this option or not. Like the Roman authorities in the time of Jesus, the South Korean military authorities perceived that Ham and his followers could be the ones to agitate the ordinary people into political demonstration. In my view, that is why Ham was repeatedly arrested and imprisoned during the military regimes. As Sohn Hakkyu pointed out, under the military regimes active political dissent came from only a small section of the Korean church, predominantly consisting of liberal-democratic laymen, such as Ham, Chang Chunha, Ahn Byungmu, Kim Donggill and others. That is the reason the military regime at times treated these liberal-Christian dissidents as mediators during negotiation. For example, under the military regime of Park Chunghee, the military authority met liberal-Christian dissidents to disclose the blueprint of their regime regarding the release of political prisoners jailed under Presidential Emergency Measure. The military regime tried to use the co-operation of these liberal-Christian dissidents in drawing written promises from the prisoners in exchange for their freedom.

On the other hand, the military authorities did not consider at all that the more evangelical or conservative Christian leaders might agitate the ordinary people into socio-political riot. It is worth noting that the most important political statements always involved the participation of the liberal-Christian dissidents.

Meanwhile, regardless of the chaos all around him, Ham was acutely aware of his own view, which was far removed from both the fundamental evangelists and from the radical activists. In this respect Ham was 'neutral'. Also in this sense, Ham's various activities for democracy in Korea were very 'Biblical', not only in terms of their perception but also in their basic nature. As Ham put it, "Surely the aim of Jesus was not being a politician in this world, but was he indifferent towards this world? Rather he was enthusiastically concerned about this world!"

Democracy was not first declared in Korea when Korea actually became a democracy. Ham and his followers first declared democracy in Korea under the military regime, thus opening the way for democracy. In my view, for Ham, belief and having faith meant working for democracy in Korea.

Although maybe not a radical activist, Ham was certainly active. One key element of a democracy is freedom of speech and Ham was clearly a force for democracy in Korea in establishing free, forward-looking journals, with liberal and thought-inspiring articles. Ham criticised the suppression of basic rights, called for the release of prisoners of conscience, and advocated that the effective means of fighting Communism was the promotion of freedom. That is why, during the 1970s and throughout the 1980s, Ham rose as a symbolic figure for the democratic movement in Korea. When, in the minds of countless Koreans democracy was but a dream, not a reality, Ham was the symbol of the free man and the personification of democratic ideals.

The former Chief of the Han'gyore Newspaper, Song Konho, recalled Ham's fearless activities during the epoch of Park's 'reign of terror' in this way: "At that time, no one dared speak or write anything against the dictatorial Park regime. No journalist, or professor, or any member of the intelligentsia dared to comment on the arbitrary power of Park. Only Ham vigorously criticised Park's injustice and the illegitimacy of his regime. I still wonder, how did Ham do that without any fear?"

At that time any criticism of Park was held to be a criminal act. Perhaps Ham's fearlessness flowed from his communion with God or the Supreme Being. Ham also had nothing to lose apart from his family. He was a 'free man', he did not have any property, no regular income, no 'post' in society and no affinity with any political faction, he was an 'unfettered man', Ssial. As Lao-tzu remarked, "The more he does for others, the more he possesses. The more he gives to others, the more he has." Ham was prepared to die and this was his main weapon - "love casts out all fear".

During the period of the battle for democracy in Korea, in 1963 Ham received the First Wolnam Press Prize from Sasang-gye magazine for his contribution towards democracy. Ham was also twice nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, once in 1979 and once in 1985, by the American Friends Service Committee. In 1987 Ham was also awarded the First Inch'on Press Prize from the Tong'a Newspaper Company in recognition of his contribution in the Voice of the People to the freedom of the Press in South Korea during a period which included two military coups. Chong Chinsok argued that: "Although Ham was not a professional journalist, during the era of the military dictatorships, he actively promoted the development of the freedom of the press in Korea as a freelance journalist."

Ham firmly believed that today's press should play the same role that Jesus did for Jews and Romans, as Buddha did for Indians and Hinduists, as Socrates did for Athens and the Sophists and as Confucius did for the ancient Chinese: "Today's religion is today's press. The press should act as the conscience of society as Jesus, Buddha and Confucius did for their societies."

During his attempt to bring about democracy in Korea, Ham was often defeated, but he was never discouraged. The defeats disappointed Ham a little, but did not hurt him a great deal. Ham believed the seed had been sown that would produce fruit. His cause of civil liberty was timeless and in a sense, imperishable. It seems to me that, democracy was to Ham a kind of religion, and that he wanted it to be in a real sense the religion of his fellow Koreans.

Ham always held the view that "humankind was not only Homo-political but also Homo-religious." For Ham, religion and politics were inseparable and intertwined. Ham saw religion as the symbol of man's inner life, and politics as the symbol of man's outer life. Thus Ham was unable to think about the term religion without including politics and vice versa. He believed that religion should not rule over politics just as politics should not rule over religion. In consideration of this Ham argued, "I do not agree with the idea of a Christo-centric political party, although a man can act politically with the spirit of Christ. A religious goal should not be achieved through political means, if that were to happen it would be a fallen religion." Ham thought that everything, including political power, human knowledge and culture should be integrated, rather than monopolise or be concentrated in one place.

In December 1992, Korea held a presidential election. Since the first military coup in 1961, the presidents of South Korea had all been military Generals or ex-Generals. However, as the Financial Times pointed out at the time of the 1992 election, "the South Korean presidential election is the first in more than 30 years not to have a single candidate who has a military background." Neither Kim Youngsam, who was the ruling party candidate, nor Kim Daejung, who was the opposition party candidate, had military backgrounds. In the 1992 election, Kim Youngsam was elected as President and for the first time in many years the president of Korea became a civilian without military connection and in the following 1997 election, Kim Daejung was elected as President of South Korea; Both of the above political leaders had fought against the Park regime in the 1970s under the influence of Ham. When Ham held public meetings while Korea was under martial law, they had joined his meetings and on a number of occasions were arrested together with him.

To sum up, I have examined Ham's activities in contributing to the bringing about of the democratisation of South Korea and made comparison with the activities of Jesus in the time of the New Testament. As I discussed, under military regimes, the common people of Korea were thought by their dictatorial rulers to be unfit to govern themselves. However, due to the civil rights activities of liberal Christians including Ham, in today's Korea the threat of military dictatorship has gone, and Korea is drawing closer to a democracy than at any other time in her history. On the other hand it can also be argued that in spite of all the oppression and atrocities of the military regimes, South Korea did prosper economically under their rule, although the population paid a terrible price in terms of poverty, terror, even violence and lack of shelter.

It is also arguable that economic recovery is most likely achieved by low wages, poor living and working conditions and brutally hard work. This can also be considered the case on an individual basis in the Western world when a man builds up his business by long hours and hard work. But the fundamental and most profound difference is that he does it voluntarily under a democratic system rather than forcibly by dictatorial order. In economic terms, Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) coped more 'effectively' than Franklin Roosevelt with the Depression of the 1930s. But who would prefer living under the dictatorial regime of Hitler to living under the democratic government of Roosevelt? In this regard, democratisation of South Korea is a triumph for Ham personally, but also for his principles and sense of morality. It is a triumph too for the common Korean people, and for human rights activists.

6.3. Ham's Merging of Western Christianity with East Asian Philosophies     Table of Contents