We can observe functional and exclusivistic structure of culture and the gospel in the theologies of Yun Sung-bum and Ryu Tong-sick. As we noted in Chapter 2, these structures are phenomenenal when we do not consider the relation between culture and the gospel in the ‘culture vs. culture’ structure, which is a dualistic view. Then theologians who indigenise their culture could not justifiably treat it as a subject of cognition but treat it as an object of mutation to be functionally manipulated. In particular, the colonial mission structure emanated from an exclusivistic attitude of the first era of Korean mission suggesting that the Christian culture of Korea is subordinated to the Western Christian culture. Jun Kyung-yên, who occupied a middle ground in the indigenisation disputation between Ryu and Yun, is a spokesperson for an exclusivistic attitude that is based on a colonial mission view.
We have noted the seed-soil theory, which sees the gospel as the seed and culture as the soil, in Ryu’s pung-ryu theology. Ryu contends that the problem is not whether or the traditional religions in Korea have room for salvation, salvation can only be found in the gospel of Christ. The views of the religions of Korea on salvation are dependent on how they reflect the gospel of salvation in Christ (Ryu 1989:123). For Park, the hermeneutical structure in his indigenous theology is a structure of monologue (Park J.C 1991:72-3). His indigenous theology and his hermeneutical view of traditional religions of Korea are lopsided instead of a communal circulation between the gospel and the traditional religious culture of Korea.
However, Ryu’s theology does not ignore the subjectivity of the religious culture of Korea. Kim mentions that his theology involves the grafting model, making the ‘subject-subject’ encountering possible. He explains that the benefit of this model is to make possible the subjectivity of both the gospel and the traditional religious culture of Korea, and to make mutual illumination and mutual growth possible, in terms of a hermeneutical circulation (Kim K.J 1994:215). In addition, the ‘subject-subject’ meeting might guarantee an equality of both subjects. In Pung-ryu theology, the self-subjectivity has a minor role, whilst the Western subject has a principal role. This signifies a lack of equality. While he argues that Christianity has to be understood in the traditional religious culture of Korea, if this traditional religious culture is already interpreted as functional translation in Christian viewpoint, how then can we recognise it has equal subjectivity? Thus, when Christianity regards the traditional religious culture of Korea as functional, it cannot ensure justifiability from other religious cultures in intercultural communication regarding the equality of mutual subjectivity.
On the other hand, Ryu translates the logos of Christology through the ideology of doh, which means truth, and the Divine Trinity through Dangun myth. Park criticises Ryu’s interpretation of the process of indigenisation in the principle of translation thus:
That he made his observation through functional translation as a prime theme not only gives an un-rightful burden for the hermeneutical subject to embrace, and to explain a universal truth of original meaning; but he also forgets the distance between the text and our context (Park J.C 1991:72).
In the disputation between Ryu Tong-shik and Jun Kyung-yên in the 1960’s, Jun (cf. 1963: 86- 88) reflected an exclusivistic attitude, which prevailed in Korea at that time. In the disputation of 1963, he divided Christianity and culture, and then argued that the Western Christianity is a
universal one. For him, we cannot think without Western Christianity because the primitive gospel grew on Western soil, fought with false faiths, formed the culture of the West, and sustained it for over 1900 years. As a result, this Western theology is the original gospel. The role of the gospel is to exist, as it is wherever it goes; it cannot be changed into a culture because the gospel and culture are different. Only Western Christianity can be regarded as universal Christianity and for Jun, the existence of regional theologies or particular Christianities should be rejected.
Jun (cf. 1963:90) contends that “Ryu’s indigenisation theology through the Dangun myth is a result of inquisitiveness because he does not know the history and universality of Christianity.” His ideology recognises a dualistic idea, which divides culture and super-culture, from a colonial attitude in mission. These colonial attitudes regard other religious cultures as fixed attempt to control them because of their qualitative differences. Moreover, based on his exclusivistic view, he considers Ryu’s indigenisation theology as religious pluralism or theology of compromise, even though Ryu’s viewpoint is actually close to inclusivism. It is not too much to state that his exclusivistic attitude speaks for the most conservative of Korean theologians.
In his ‘seed-soil theory,’ Yun Sumg-bum, differs with Ryu, as he was more concerned with the fertility of the soil than the seed itself. In other words, even if the seed is same seed, it can bear different qualities of fruit. Yun argues that the identity of gospel, which is symbolised as seed, can change depending on the quality of soil. He also opposes Ryu’s theology, which is explained through translation. Nevertheless, the problems of exclusivistic dualism and functionalism can also be identified in Yun’s indigenisation theology.
First of all, his framework of gam, somsi, and mêt, can be made to correspond with the preparation stage, the method, and the unfolding process of the result. In the theory of gam, he uses an idea of a priori or Bultmann’s vorverständnis (pre-understanding) to explain the relation between the gospel and culture. It is possible to establish a matter and to interpret it through
vorverständnis. Therefore, for Bultmann, the vorverständnis is compulsory for understanding the
gospel. When he applies the idea of vorverständnis to the religious culture of Korea, he also deals with the traditional culture of Korea as accessory for understanding the gospel.
If we do not have adequate information about traditional religious culture of Korea, there is great possibility of accepting Christianity as a way of thinking and an expression of Confucianism, Buddhism, and Shamanism. However, if we have adequate knowledge of
these religions, Christianity will not be mixed, and accepted, as it is now (Yun 1963:31).
Consequently, Yun’s application of vorverständnis or the attitude to the other religious tradition of Korea is exclusivistic, even though he emphasises the Sitz-im-Leben in his theological structure. Kim criticises Yun for wandering between Barth’s pneumatology and hermeneutics based on Bultmann’s vorverständnis (Kim G. S 1987:51). What kind of role does Korean culture that he sets as vorverständnis play in its problematic relation with the gospel? Yun believes that without vorverständnis, sound indigenisation is impossible. On the other hand, he claims that the indigenisation of the gospel is not achieved in the form of projects, and cannot also be rectified artificially but cultivated gradually through continual encountering (Yun 1963:29). The problem is that for him, vorverständnis is just one a way of separating the pure gospel from the Korean religious culture. In other words, his focus is not seeing the religious culture of Korea as the subjective other but translating Korean culture in a Christian-like way.
This view is clearer in his seed-soil theory. He gives tangible examples of the matters of receptive capacity, subjectivity, and indigenisation of the gospel as biblical foundation for indigenisation. In another sense, the receptor can only accept the gospel on self-subjectivity. In content, his model resembles the history of redemption, (jowhami); the beauty of harmony accomplished through a dialectical process of the Sitz-im-Leben and the gospel of gam by somsi. Therefore, in form, it signifies the mutual operation between Christianity and Korean culture but in the seed-soil theory, the traditional religious culture of Korea is treated passively and peripherally without vitality, and is not considered a viral subject. The role of the religious culture of Korea is not mutually operated, but translated functionally in the relationship with the gospel. We can understand the reason we have to consider his theology of sung as only having formal subjectivity but lacking standard in terms of interculturation, which guarantees mutual subjectivity, in the interpretation of the Dangun myth when encountering Christianity and religious tradition of Korea in detail.
He translates Dangun myth into Christianity one-sidedly and functionally, considering the
whanin, whanwoong, and whangum in the Dangun myth as originating from the Divine Trinity.
His stance is a functional attempt to translate the Western frame, (specifically the Western theology adopted from Bultmann and Barth) to the religious culture of Korea considering culture as an object of one-sided transformation by the gospel. Therefore, on account of the fact that these two modern indigenous Korean theologians still do not recognise the subjectivity of the
religious tradition of Korea, they treat the relation between the subjectivity of Christianity and the religious culture of Korea as an unreasonable monologue structure. Additionally, we clearly can note the colonial attitude to mission regarding subjectivity of Korean culture in the theology of Jun Kyung-yên, who holds an exclusivistic view of indigenisation.