IV. Sok Hon Ham and Taoism.

"As Jesus Christ recognized the impossibility of salvation by following the doctrine of the Pharisees, so Lao-tzu and Chuang-tzu recognized the impossibility of salvation by following the Confucian doctrine."¹⁰³

Sok Hon Ham was born into a nation heavily influenced by Confucianism but his education, unlike the majority of Koreans at his time, had a Christian background. His ideas spanned several philosophical fields ranging from the Presbyterian, and Non-Church Movements through to the influence of Uchimura Kanzo; the philosophical Taoism of Lao-tzu and Chuang-tzu; Buddhism, Gandhi's Satyagraha and Quakerism. But in categorical terms, he was a pure Christian thinker. Nevertheless, the era he lived in, the historical situation, political climate and religious tendencies forced him to subject his own Christian beliefs to searching scrutiny. This chapter examines the influence of philosophical Taoism on Sok Hon Ham's life and thought and relates it to the particular historical era in which he lived. It also analyses why he was fascinated by Lao-tzu whilst remaining a Christian thinker. I will analyse how and why he came into contact with Lao-tzu and Chuang-tzu. I will, more generally examine what effect the term "Oriental" had on both his life and his thoughts.

In 1907, when Sok Hon Ham was six years old, Christianity was in its embryonic stage in his hometown, having been introduced by his uncle Sok-kyu Ham. Sok-kyu Ham later became a Presbyterian minister and was the man who introduced Sok Hon Ham to a "new education", Christianity.¹⁰⁴ The Presbyterian teaching of this period was close to puritanical, with rigid adherence to stern doctrines. But Sok Hon Ham recalled this period of puritanical teaching with great appreciation:

"To this day I am grateful for this background. If we had not received such Christian education in that critical period of national destruction, the conscience of our society surely would have collapsed."¹⁰⁵

At the time of the March First Movement, Sok Hon Ham began to examine exactly what "Korea" meant in relation to its colonization under Japan. Equally, he began, critically and seriously, to question the meaning of life as a young Presbyterian. From this time on, he became dissatisfied with following the established belief and doctrine of the Presbyterian Church. Subsequently, he began to seek for a faith more truthful and absolute, a search that proved impossible within the confines of the Presbyterian Church.¹⁰⁶

At this time, Sok Hon Ham first came into contact with Uchimura Kanzo, the distinguished Japanese Christian thinker, with Lao-tzu and Chuang-tzu through his teacher Young-mo Yu in 1921 while at Osan School in Korea.¹⁰⁷ Young-mo Yu brought his own Oriental philosophical interpretation to his teaching. But at this time, Sok Hon Ham was not well versed in Lao-tzu, Chuang-tzu and other Oriental philosophies. Nevertheless he retained enough of an impression to return later to Lao-tzu and Chuang-tzu beliefs. In 1923 he departed for Tokyo to further his studies at university, and in the following year, his class-mate, Kyo-Sin Kim introduced him to a Bible study group led by Uchimura Kanzo. Subsequently, Sok Hon Ham attended this Bible study group with five other Korean students. The meeting with Uchimura proved to be a major turning point in his search to relate nation and religion.

Uchimura (1861-1930) was one of the most remarkable interpreters of the Bible at a time when Japan was experiencing a move toward modernization after the Meiji Restoration of 1868. He proclaimed a faith linking humans to God through prayerful use of the Bible alone. His later writings introduced the Bible and the product of Christian culture to Japan.¹⁰⁸   Uchimura and his followers were dubbed the "non-church people" or, in Uchimura's translation, "Christianity of no-church principle". They did not relate to any specific denomination or church, but attempted to live the devout faith of the Bible. They continually made an effort to break away from the inclination to congregate into established and conformist groups, and to bring about a community based on Christian fellowship.¹⁰⁹ Sok Hon Ham was deeply influenced by Uchimura and his "non-church movement" with its stress on the Cross. Uchimura defined the relationship between his country and religion: "I love two J's one is Jesus and the other one is Japan",¹¹⁰ an indication of both his religious faith and his nationalism. Sok Hon Ham could not forsake either the Bible or Korea, and on returning to Korea in 1928, he and his five "non-church group" friends published the magazine, entitled Bible Korea.¹¹¹ During the time Sok Hon Ham attended Uchimura's Bible study class his inner turmoil relating to the role of religion and state was alleviated and he made a solid conviction to live as a real Christian as well as a Korean patriot. Later, Sok Hon Ham recalled how strong was the influence he received from Uchimura in the early period of his life: "this one man [Uchimura] alone is more than enough to compensate for my thirty-six years of servitude under the Japanese."¹¹²

On his graduation from the College of Education in Tokyo, Sok Hon Ham returned to Korea and taught at Osan School from 1928 until he was expelled by the Japanese authorities in 1938. During his time at Osan School, he was a devoted Christian in the Non-Church Movement along with other Koreans. He and his five friends organized a Bible study group like Uchimura had done in Japan, and the study group grew in popularity. Eventually the Non-Church Group became quite sizeable. It is undeniable that the Uchimura's version of the Bible played a large part in Sok Hon Ham's thinking. But in 1940 he began to be critical of the self-centred characteristics of the Non-Church Movement, at the same time as he developed an interest in Oriental philosophy. Eventually, he expressed his suspicions regarding the Non-Church Movement through his magazine Bible Korea.¹¹³ What made Sok Hon Ham move away from the Non-Church Movement, and why did he become so interested again in Oriental philosophy?

The answer can be seen in his own words:

"Once having a strong distaste for denominationalism, the Non-Church group avoided the use of the name Non-Church Movement'. But the Non-Church Group also began gradually to stress its own peculiarities and revealed inclinations of becoming still another denomination".¹¹⁴

In addition, Sok Hon Ham gradually came to see three main differences between Uchimura's philosophy and his own. Firstly, they had different views of Jesus Christ, most 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.¹¹⁵ But Sok Hon Ham did not agree with this concept of atonement and held the following view:

"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?"¹¹⁶

After a great deal of thought, Sok Hon Ham answered his own question 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."¹¹⁷   It is clear that through the influence of Oriental philosophy, Sok Hon Ham recognized that his own way of thinking was separate from the traditional Christo-centric idea. He also tackled the issue of atonement in this way: "Atonement occurs through Christ, only when Jesus and I no longer divide characters but experience oneness together."¹¹⁸ Thus, his belief became incompatible with Uchimura's.

Secondly, Sok Hon Ham noticed the different historical stand-points and contexts between Japan as a colonizer, and Korea as its colony.¹¹⁹ Uchimura, naturally, was a member of the race that had brutally crushed and colonized Korea, while Sok Hon Ham had suffered under the colonization by Japan. In this respect, Sok Hon Ham did not deny there were differences of belief between himself and Uchimura.

"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 thought."¹²⁰

This distinction Sok Hon Ham made between himself and Uchimura magnified the fact that Uchimura did not have a great regard for Oriental philosophy. Sok Hon Ham maintained he had some difficulty with Uchimura's theology: "Uchimura stated that Oriental 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."¹²¹ Sok Hon Ham disagreed with this point of view. Subsequently it was the first "Declaration of Independence" for Sok Hon Ham against the pro-Western belief that Christianity was the sole religion.

There was yet a third reason why Sok Hon Ham disagreed with the Non-Church Movement. He questioned the indifference of the Non-Church groups toward the "secular people" in society, and towards politics in general.¹²²   Since his era was ruled by strict and harsh regimes - the Japanese atrocities, Communist totalitarianism in North Korea, the arbitrary corrupt regime of Syngman Rhee and the military dictatorship of Chunghee Park in South Korea - Sok Hon Ham had to "respond", as a religious thinker as well as a civil rights activist, to external oppression.

Meanwhile, as the Second World War began, Sok Hon Ham's opposition to Uchimura's attitude towards Oriental philosophy hardened. In the mid-point of the War (1942) Sok Hon Ham was jailed, accused of anti-Japanese behaviour through his publication of the magazine, Bible Korea. While he was in prison, Sok Hon Ham read several Buddhist Scriptures along with a variety of other Oriental philosophies and reached the belief that "Buddhism and Christianity are not fundamentally different."¹²³ One year later (1943), when he was released from prison, he began to read more of Lao-tzu and Chuang-tzu. He was deeply impressed by its philosophy of pacifism, and "gained conviction that all religions, in the final analysis, are one."¹²⁴

The year of 1942-3 was the peak of the Second World War. At this time, Sok Hon Ham linked the evil of imperialism - both Japanese and Western - to the evil of strong statism. He argued that in the fight against imperialism and statism was necessary for the dignity of the common people (Ssi-Al). He assumed a oneness between God and the common people, there being no difference between service to God and "service" for the common people¹²⁵: "God is the common people, highest is lowest, holiness is secular, biggest is smallest and the common people are the Truth".¹²⁶ He further believed that "God's message came from the common-people's mouth".¹²⁷ In this way he felt the responsibility and the consciousness of "sin" toward the common people's suffering and misery as if it were his own.¹²⁸

Considering the Second World War as the elevated production of strong statism, Sok Hon Ham predicted that the era of imperialism and the Great Powers would fade. Equally, he foresaw that: "if statism continues, armed conflict cannot be avoided among nations, and if a further world war bursts into flame, the seed of humankind will be completely eradicated from the earth."¹²⁹   He therefore, had confidence that the concept of the state should be revised and the nature of the state should be changed in order to prevent further global war and ensure the survival of the human race.¹³⁰ His era was ruled by Imperialism; subsequently, the common people were oppressed and had their freedom fettered by imperial powers and tyrannical rulers.

After the Second World War, capitalism grew throughout the world. This led Sok Hon Ham to view with suspicion the whole future of civilization. He saw that profit was the sole purpose of the capitalist world and asserted that:

"Using scarce materials for luxurious living is one of the causes of war. In capitalist countries, where profit is the motive, expensive goods are produced rather than more essential goods because more profit is possible."¹³¹

Thus, in several cases, military conflict between nations has occurred primarily for political and commercial hegemony. In this light, Sok Hon Ham began to question "What can we do in order to rescue this world from another potential conflict?"¹³²

Accordingly, Sok Hon Ham speculated on the necessity of the "new way" as a new hope for the human race, and he had confidence that the "new way" stemmed from the re-interpretation of the past; that is, classical philosophy,¹³³ which was created at a time when the world was "less-polluted". He was convinced that the Oriental classical philosophies could be used to refresh and create a foundation for the coming civilization.¹³⁴ But in order to apply classical philosophies to the contemporary world, he emphasized the importance of re-interpretation, rather than simply repeating the scripts: "History requires a constantly renewed interpretation, for it is a continued opening up of a virgin forest of the future."¹³⁵ In this light, he commented that: "even the same Old Testament Script held totally different meanings for the Pharisees and Jesus Christ".¹³⁶ Unlike Uchimura, Sok Hon Ham did not expect the "new way" to come from Western classical philosophy: "While Western philosophy came about through the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the Industrial Revolution, these Western philosophies had already massively influenced the past".¹³⁷ As a consequence of this, Western philosophy had led to the contemporary capitalist and materialist world. He argued that: "Humankind cannot rely on Aristotle and Plato in the future".¹³⁸ He believed that the Western classics had had their opportunities, had performed and were no longer valid. It was time to examine the previously ignored Oriental classics:

"The people of the West, being secular and dynamic, rational and empirical, analytical and methodological, played the leading role. Now, they are completing their work, and they are about to pass it on to someone else."¹³⁹

But neither did he look to Confucianism for the "new way", since the history of the Orient¹⁴⁰ was already dominated by Confucianism. Therefore, Confucian philosophy had been thoroughly exhausted.

Sok Hon Ham looked to a new and fresh utilisation of the Oriental classics, in particular Lao-tzu and Chuang-tzu, to supply the guide for the revitalization of the stagnant Western civilization.¹⁴¹ This interest was deepened by the fact that after he escaped from North Korea in 1947, he was able to reunite with his Oriental philosophy teacher, Young-mo Yu, in South Korea. While he was attending Young-mo Yu's Oriental study group in South Korea, Sok Hon Ham came to appreciate anew the value of Oriental philosophy.

Another reason for his interest in Oriental philosophy at this time was that Sok Hon Ham considered peace among nations to be the "peremptory command" of History¹⁴²:

"We should pursue the way of peace, it is not a matter of possibility or our ability, it is a `peremptory command' from History. Take the way of peace or destruction of all humanity, the way of peace is only before us."¹⁴³ That is why he was attracted to the pacifism of Lao-tzu, and why he saw Lao-tzu as the first pacifist¹⁴⁴ claiming that: "Lao-tzu and Chuang-tzu stressed the futility of war and violence as instruments of national policy, recommending that peaceful solutions be found".¹⁴⁵   One can examine the pacifist attitude of Lao-tzu through the contexts of Tao Te Ching:

"A large state is the lower reaches of a river - The place where all the streams of the world unite. --- the large state, by taking the lower position, annexes the small state; The small state, by taking the lower position, affiliates itself to the large state --- If each of the two wants to find its proper place, It is meet that the large should take the lower position."¹⁴⁶   "The highest attainment is free from attainment. Therefore, there is attainment. The lowest attainment is never free from attainment. Therefore, there is no attainment."¹⁴⁷

Sok Hon Ham's attempt to re-think Christianity through the philosophy of Taoism was regarded as "heretical" not only by the mainstream denominations of Christians but also by the Korean Non-Church Group. They criticized his views, stating: He has forsaken the Cross, he doesn't pray, he is too Oriental. Sok Hon Ham explained why he held the so-called "heretical" views as a Christian thinker:

"I do not deny the Cross. I only say that the Cross is not for us to simply adore and behold from a distance, rather we must strive to bear the Cross in our bodies. I do not neglect prayer. I only maintain that public prayer is all too often no more than a formality and the self-flattery of men and thus we should avoid public prayer as far as possible. Finally, I am prepared to fight with conviction against the rejection of things Oriental by the Church. This is because most of the opposition to Confucianism and Buddhism is done only on the basis of narrow denominationalism without any understanding of their real meaning."¹⁴⁸

In addition, Sok Hon Ham argued positively for the connection between Christianity and Taoism:

"The God of Christianity is the Tao of Lao-tzu and Chuang-tzu. If we analyze this conceptually, there may be differences. But those who believe in a true faith, will regard it as the same in the end."¹⁴⁹   He also compared the doctrine of the Pharisees and Confucian doctrine in this way:

"As Jesus Christ recognized the impossibility of salvation by following the doctrine of the Pharisees, so Lao-tzu and Chuang-tzu recognized the impossibility of salvation by following the Confucian doctrine."¹⁵⁰ Perhaps Mahatma Gandhi's comment can be used as a suitable example to explain what was in Sok Hon Ham's mind: "Truth like a diamond, has many facets and men can only glimpse some of them."¹⁵¹   Sok Hon Ham spoke about the characteristic of religion in this way:

"From the Supreme Being's prospect there is only one way, yet from the human beings' prospect there are limitless ways. God cannot be confined in `a' religion, God is too Big to be grasped in `a' religion."¹⁵²   "God is limitless, so the way of God is limitless. Can we reach to the limitless God through only one limited way, is it not a contradiction?"¹⁵³

In a similar fashion, he stressed the parallel between God and Tao:

"All Beings come from a Non-Being. God does not have a name. When Moses asked the name of God, God's answer was; `I am that I am', because God is omnipotent, is it not more that He knew we would be unable to understand the answer He would give about Himself more than `that I am.' The universe and nature can exist because of a Non-Being, which is Limitless. Thus, Lao-tzu declared that: `The Tao [Way] that can be told [defined] is not the constant Tao'<sup>154</sup> or `The Tao that can be spoken of is not the Tao itself."¹⁵⁵

Sok Hon Ham further illustrated the close resemblance of beliefs between Taoism and Christianity, by citing passages from the Tao Te Ching (T) and the Bible (B):

T: "Gaze at it, there is nothing to see. It is called the formless. Heed it, there is nothing to bear. It is called the soundless. Grasp it, there is nothing to hold on to. It is called the immaterial. We cannot inquire into these three[Ways]." (Ch.14). B: "The door [Way] to heaven is narrow. Work hard to get in, for the truth is that many will try to enter but when the head of the house has locked the door, it will be too late." (Luke 13:24)¹⁵⁶

In particular, Sok Hon Ham compared in detail, the suffering and sorrow of Christ and Lao-tzu through the context of Isaiah 53, and Tao Te Ching Chapter 20:

B: "In God's eyes he was like a tender green shoot, sprouting from a root in dry and sterile ground. But in our eyes there was no attractiveness at all, nothing to make us want him."
T: "How aimlessly I wander, with no home to turn to. People all have many ambitions and desires. I, alone, seem to have left all of them."

B: "We despised him and rejected him - a man of sorrows, acquainted with bitterest grief."
T: "People all have their motives. I, alone, am good for nothing and uncouth."

B: "Yet it was our grief he bore, our sorrows that weighed him down."
T: "People are glorious and shining. I, alone, am dark and dull."

B: "He shall live again and God's program shall prosper in his hands."
T: "I am not like the others. I am nourished by the Original."

B: "When he sees all that is accomplished by the anguish of his soul, he shall be satisfied".
T: "How tranquil I am, like the placid sea. How lofty I am, as if I am bound nowhere."¹⁵⁷

If one compares Sok Hon Ham with Uchimura one can see the distinction of Sok Hon Ham as both an Oriental and a Christian thinker. He was concerned about his Oriental philosophical roots as much as Western Christianity, and combined Christianity with the philosophy of Taoism and other Oriental philosophies, blending them together into a unity and suggesting this combined philosophy as the New Way for the coming civilization. Therefore, in his view it was very important that there should be a philosophical interchange between the Orient and the West so that they could understand each other's outlook. He asserted his universal view regarding the essence of the major religions in the Orient and the West as follows: "We should think of the Spirit of God as impersonal as does Confucius with Jen, Lao-tzu with Tao and Hinduism with Brahman."¹⁵⁸ Similarly he considered Agape of Christianity was seen by Confucius as benevolence, by Lao-tzu as the Way, and by Gautama Buddha as void.¹⁵⁹

Clearly, through the various Oriental philosophies Sok Hon Ham could comprehend more deeply the meaning of Western Christianity, and he believed in the universality of the truth rather than insisting on one religion's "superiority". At last, on the 4th of July in 1953, he proclaimed his universal religious view through his poem, "The Declaration":

"Christianity is great. But the truth is greater! I can die for the truth in the Churches. Perchance my bones can abide at the bottom of the Church tower, but my spirit will never be bound there!"¹⁶⁰

This "Declaration" was Sok Hon Ham's formal announcement of his official separation not only from the Non-Church Movement but also from other established Christian denominations. Equally, he viewed Christianity as one of many religions, not possessing the sole truth. Truth could be achieved though from various other religions.¹⁶¹   His announcement showed his determination and will for the "pursuit of the Truth" rather than the confining of his search to one religion.

Furthermore, just as Korean Manaism¹⁶² (Sin-Sun Sasang) resisted and was hostile to conventional systems or authoritarian restriction, Sok Hon Ham resisted the tyrannical restriction and systems of the regimes throughout his era. He demonstrated his commitment to the advocacy as well as the pursuit of "anti-values" as against secular-compelling rigid-values. Besides, his beliefs have several similar points with Mana (Sin-Sun). For example, both refuse to accept the authoritarian historical conditions of Korea, choosing rather the adversity of their life. Likewise Sin-Sun, pursued eternal life through the protection and helping of other creatures, the Sin-Sun lives with everyday people, trying to alleviate their suffering by any means possible, Sok Hon Ham made the same effort to relieve people's (Ssi-Al) suffering by any means. Also as one aspect of the Sin-Sun character has been compared to that of "Robin Hood"; fighting for the rights of all oppressed peoples, Sok Hon Ham fought for the rights of all oppressed Ssi-Al under various dictatorial regimes.

For Sok Hon Ham, religion and politics were inseparable within our lives. He reflected on religion and saw it as the symbol of human's inner life, and politics as the symbol of human's outer life.¹⁶³   Therefore, he 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. When religion became more powerful than politics, as it did in the Middle Ages, the balance is tipped, subsequently religion monopolized all disciplinary activities within society as a whole, and the period became controlled as a means to standardize and regulate, regardless of the varieties within humanity. On the other hand, when politics ruled over religion in the 19th century, the result was the "Age of Imperialism".

Also, to Sok Hon Ham, individual human beings always existed within the wider context of society and history.¹⁶⁴   He saw the inseparable relationship between peace and social justice: "Our ultimate aim is peace, but without social justice, bringing peace is an impossible dream."¹⁶⁵ Thus, when society and history is faced with social and political difficulties, Sok Hon Ham, as a pacifist, felt that difficulty as well. That is why he had to "respond" as an individual against the "challenge" of both society and history. In particular, when the arbitrary regimes pressured the people of Korea and himself, he could draw breath through the philosophy of Lao-tzu and Chuang-tzu as a ventilating channel.¹⁶⁶

Since Taoism holds a high respect for the value of meekness, modesty, and softness as means of achieving a loftiness of pathos, tranquillity of mind, harmony, seat of passion, and a purity of heart, Sok Hon Ham also upheld these values against those promoted by Western imperialism. Just as Chuang-tzu wished human beings to abandon all unnatural characteristics such as slyness and craftiness, states of mind in which Tao cannot reside, so Sok Hon Ham saw Western imperialism as bringing fierce characteristics of cunning and deceit.

To sum up, I have shown the meaning of Uchimura's Non-Church Movement and the philosophy of Lao-tzu on Sok Hon Ham's life and thought. Because Sok Hon Ham was a Christian thinker, living in the Orient at a time of chaos and turmoil, his understanding of the term Christianity, was to be different from the Western view. And although Uchimura, too, was an Oriental, he was a Japanese who belonged to the colonizer state, whereas Sok Hon Ham was a Korean who belonged to the colonized state. His fascination with Taoism was an attempt to discover his own identity as an Oriental-Christian, as a means of fusion between the Orient and the West. At the same time, he was neither a "Warrior" against Christianity nor a chauvinistic Oriental. He was a "Healer" of the conflict between a Herculean West and a Feeble Orient. Finally, he was an advocate of freedom and pacifism against political restriction, social injustice, and the structural evils within his historical era. And he saw the values of Taoism as offering an alternative to the violence and materialism of Western civilization and hope for humanity.

---

Return to Table of Contents   Go to "V. Sok Hon Ham and Quakerism"