Free from Uchimura
Upon being freed from prison a year later, Ham's future seemed to be very grim indeed. Ham began to read even more of Lao-tzu and Chuang-tzu in order to enhance his inner strength. While he read on philosophical Taoism, Ham began to seriously contemplate the relationship between the role of religion (particularly the Non-Church Movement) and the unjust political regime (especially Japanese imperialism). Since Ham's return from Japan years earlier Ham had imitated the style and method of Uchimura's Bible study; the interpretation of the Bible and the way of worship. But in due time Ham began to be critical of the self-centred nature of the Non-Church Movement. As early as 1930, Ham tried various ways to move away from the philosophical shadow of Uchimura. There is no doubt that Uchimura's influence on Ham was overwhelming in the 1920s, in his 20s; but by the late 1930s Ham was determined to get away from Uchimura's teachings: "In my great admiration for Uchimura, I detected within myself an attitude of potential idol worship. Thus as a reaction against this I gradually began to avoid imitation of him and set out to determine my own distinctive thoughts [on Christianity]."
Despite Ham's efforts towards his ideological independence from Uchimura, only ten years later in the early 1940s, did Ham come to see the three main differences between Uchimura's view on Christianity and his own. Firstly, Ham questioned the indifference of the Non-Church groups toward the 'secular people' in society, and towards politics in general. The Non-Church Movement (NCM) emphasised the vertical relationship, the value of absolute loyalty between master and disciple, like the tradition of the samurai in feudal Japan, which was Uchimura's personal background. On the other hand, in Ham's view the NCM lacked horizontal or egalitarian relationships among its members, as well as with other people in everyday society. Since Ham's era was predominantly ruled by harsh political regimes he had to 'respond' and act as a Christian for the destiny of the whole of Korea, regardless of its religious orientation. Ham argued that: "Being a believer in God means being a friend of your neighbours. Without being a friend of one's neighbour one cannot be a believer in God." In this regard, as far as Ham was concerned, religion in vacuo was meaningless. Equally he considered that the affairs of the whole human race should be put before religious affairs.
Secondly, Ham held different views of Jesus Christ from Uchimura, especially regarding the issue of atonement. In theological usage atonement has come to mean the end sought through the atoning process, as in reconciliation, redemption and salvation with God accomplished through the death of Christ. In other words, Christ takes on the burden of our sins, becoming a kind of mediator between man and God. Uchimura also held this view of atonement. But Ham did not agree with this concept of atonement, holding that as a being with free will man must bear responsibility for his own sins: "As long as I myself also possess an autonomous personality, how can I accept the historical Jesus as the object of my faith and cry, 'Lord, Lord!' to him? How is the atonement of moral man, who possesses a free will, brought about?" As I mentioned in the previous section, for Ham the atonement of Christianity is 'at-one-ment', a oneness between God and oneself, occurring when one experiences oneness together with Christ. In other words, atonement can come only through one's personal closeness to Christ, not automatically.
In a totalitarian world, in either religious or political terms, there is one view or doctrine, which is imposed on the whole people. On the other hand, in a free world each individual is not only permitted to, but also must, make up his own mind. In a free world the status of each individual's role should be independent rather than submissive. Ham advocated the importance of free will and independent thought as against submissive acceptance, even though he was not a man of the free world but of a totalitarian epoch. Ham was also not content with the fixed concept of Lordship as the object of his faith. Rather, he wanted to cultivate his own inner faith without the constraints of doctrine or any established system. Ham believed very much in an individual and unique relationship with Christ, one that did not depend on man-made rules and the thoughts of a leader, ruler or minister. In George Fox's words:
"At another place they [earlier Quakers], with an ancient justice, said that if they had money enough they would hire me [to be their minister]. So I [George Fox] said then it was time for me to go away, for then they would not come to their own teacher, for that (viz. hiring) did and had spoiled them and many for not improving their own talents, for we brought every one to their own teacher."
The above statement by Fox corresponds with Ham's unconstrained and anarchistic disinclination to accept the human system and his exertion to cultivate his own inner faith. As he put it: "I revolt against all systems, secular as well as holy." Interestingly enough, despite the enormous gaps of time and space, Lao-tzu takes a similar view to Fox: "When the work is done it is time to withdraw: this is the Tao of Heaven."
After a great deal of thought, Ham answered his own question on the relationship between himself and Jesus Christ by maintaining: "It is not the historical man Jesus [in] whom I believe, rather I believe in Christ. He is the eternal Christ, who not only is in Jesus but who also by nature is in me." In other words Ham believed in the faith of Jesus rather than a faith in Jesus.
It seems to me that the concept of 'atonement on behalf of another' and 'Lordship' are legacies of a feudal society which maintained the Divine Right of Monarchy, when there was no concept of natural liberty or human rights. However, I think that with God or the supreme being, humankind has come face to face with ultimate authority, but not with authoritarianism. In my view, the notion of natural liberty and republicanism was introduced to mankind only in 1690 by John Locke (1632-1704). Through his writing Locke argued that:
"The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of Nature for his rule. The liberty of man in society is to be under no other legislative power but that established by consent in the commonwealth, nor under the dominion of any will, or restraint of any law, --- A liberty to follow my own will in all things."
Locke's phrase "Govern by consent" maintains that those who rule even by 'Divine Right' cannot rule without the consent of the people. What is more, the ruler can be removed or replaced by the ruled as necessary. In terms of the relationship between an individual and God, no one can act as a substitute on another's behalf. Individuals should be held responsible for their own odyssey. This is the integrity of free human beings in the contemporary world. There is no evidence that Ham was directly influenced by Locke's conception of "the natural liberty of man". However, it seems to me that Ham's insight on atonement within Christian religions bears a considerable resemblance to Locke's political thought.
Ham developed these thoughts despite the fact that he was a member of a society which was subjected to Japanese imperialism. The concept of individuality should have been alien to Ham, but his individuality brought him to believe in a personal and intimate relationship with Christ rather than forgiveness by proxy. This sense of individualism is also reflected in the Bible. As time passed on, the relationship between Jesus and his disciples changed to a more egalitarian one and away from the hierarchical one, as Jesus pointed out to his disciples: "I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends."
Thirdly, and somewhat more importantly, Ham noticed the different historical standpoints and contexts between Japan as a coloniser, and Korea as its colony. Uchimura, naturally, was a member of the race that had brutally crushed and colonised Korea, while Ham had suffered under the colonisation by Japan. Uchimura was not opposed to the Japanese colonisation in Korea, though he scrupulously hesitated to bow before the signature of the Japanese emperor in 1891 and as a pacifist opposed the Russo-Japanese War.
Uchimura wanted the relationship between Korea and Japan to be like that of Scotland and England part of the same nation but with some autonomy. Uchimura also failed to react to the massacre of 5,000 Korean people after the Tokyo earthquake. When 5,000 Koreans were massacred by an enraged Japanese mob in 1923, Uchimura maintained an indifferent attitude towards the victimised Koreans. But while Ham was in Japan he was not aware of Uchimura's view on Korea and the Korean people. Only later, in the year 1938, did Ham hear through Kim Kyosin of Uchimura's reaction and views. Uchimura's views and attitude were irreconcilable with Ham's. As a Korean, Ham tried to find his own religion and the religion which contextually suited a colonised Korea. In this respect, Ham maintained there were differences of belief between himself and Uchimura.
The distinction Ham made between himself and Uchimura magnified the fact that Uchimura did not have a great regard for East Asian philosophy. This is not an unexpected thing since the Non-Church Movement (NCM), as most other Christian denominations, was based on the principle of sola-Scriptura (reliance on the Scripture of the Bible alone, and rejection of other religious Scriptures). Ham disagreed with Uchimura's point of view: "Uchimura stated that Oriental [East Asian] philosophy could be of no help. I am not sure that he maintained an absolute position on this but his assertions were to that effect." As time went by, Ham's opposition to Uchimura's attitude towards East Asian philosophy hardened. Overall, through his inner contemplation, it became clear to Ham that his own way of thinking was separate and something quite different from the NCM. This was the beginning of Ham's opposition to the Christo-centric belief that Christianity was the sole religion, which he was later to state clearly in his 1953 writing, "The Declaration".