이 정석 교수의 신학 문답 Q&A

1.1 The Problem of Secularization

​

1.1.1 Secularization of the Churches

​

In his inaugural address in 1902 Herman Bavinck protested the secularization of theology, as Dutch state universities were undergoing the change of theology to religious studies: “Gentlemen, that is not theology any more; that is none other than the complete secularization of theology... Not in secularization, but in keeping holy what is holy lies the life of theology!” [1]   It was a far-reaching prophecy, when he said that the process of secularization would not rest until it secularized Christian churches, schools, and theology.  Almost a century later, we see how right he was.  A recently published study, Secularisatie in Nederland 1966-1991, shows that 95% of the population of the Netherlands was Christian in 1909 [2] but the Christian percentage has decreased to 43% in 1991. [3]   And it will continue to drop, so that only 24% of the Dutch people will be Christian in 2020, according to its forecast. [4]

From the ecclesiastical point of view, our time is doubtlessly an age of secularization.  At present, the Western churches as a whole are losing members far beyond measure and control.  Though the secularization and decline of the church is primarily a Western phenomenon, in the age of the global village the Christian Churches of the West and the non-West are encountered by the common problem of secularization.  As Walbert Bühlmann correctly pointed out,  “If anyone thinks that secularization is a European matter and that Africa and Asia should be left in peace, he is deceiving himself.” [5]   It is true that the membership of most non-Western churches is increasing, but it is also true that they too are being confronted with secularization.  Leo Oosterom, who studied the rapidly growing Korean Church for ten months in 1988, concluded that “Secularization is the issue that all churches in Korea will face in the near future.” [6]   As a matter of fact, the survival and progress of Christianity in Europe, Korea and the whole world now depends on the question of how we can successfully overcome this powerful trend of modern secularization. Therefore, all the theologians and leaders of the Church are demanded to solve this problem.  This project is an attempt to respond to this task in particular, an attempt to solve the rising problem of secularization in the Korean churches.

​

Our starting point is the question of whether the secularization of the Korean churches has any connection with that of the West, as what is meant by the term “secularization” is significantly different from one context to the other.  While the Western churches understand secularization primarily as “dechristianization (ontkerstening)” and its social effects, the Korean churches use the term unequivocally to describe the spiritual corruption of the churches through the introduction and toleration of worldly spirits, including contemporary ideologies, popular trends, and religious syncretism.  It is almost identical with “conforming to the world (suschematizesthai toi aioni toutoi)” in Rom 12.2 and therefore “worldliness (verwereldlijking).”  While the Western understanding is concerned with its social and phenomenal aspect, the Korean view emphasizes its spiritual and ecclesiastical aspect.  Because this study aims to deal with secularization of the Korean churches in particular, we will use the Korean definition throughout this dissertation.  However, because we assume that it is quite related to that of the West, we will first look at the Western understanding of secularization.

​

In the West, secularization has been discussed heavily in the areas of sociology and theology.  As a result, the Western understanding of secularization offers an in-depth analysis of and penetrating insight into the phenomenon, but it also caused serious confusion with its bewildering debates on the subject and the countless definitions of secularization. [7]   To clarify our understanding, therefore, it will be necessary to trace the process of development in the sociological and theological discussions of secularization.  As it is a significant social development in the modern West, sociologists attempted to define it and produced a whole list of definitions.  Larry Shiner presents an often-quoted summary of these in five categories: (1) the social decline of religion, (2) the conformity of religious groups to the world, (3) the desacralization of the world, (4) the privatization of religion, and (5) the transposition of beliefs and patterns of behaviour from the “religious” to the “secular” sphere. [8]   This inclusive definition is generally agreed upon, but the  problem lies in the understanding of “religion,” as the subject does not belong to descriptive sociology.[9]   Because the sociologist has to make a personal choice out of diverse views of religion, which necessarily involves his own “interpretation,” [10] there is a lack of objectivity as to the definition of what is religious and what is secular.  Further, because it claims to be religiously neutral, though it seems scientific and objective, it is too abstract and therefore they cannot account for secularization in real cases, such as a transfer from one religion to another.  For example, let us take a real situation such as what happened in Korea, where a massive transfer from traditional religions to Christianity has taken place in this century.  In this case, it is secularization from the viewpoint of the traditional religions but not from that of Christianity, according to the sociological definition.  This demonstrates the fact that the concepts of secularization and religion are inseparable and therefore religiously neutral sociology has a definite limit in dealing with it in the real and genuine sense.  As a result, some sociologists suggest giving up the use of the term “secularization” itself. [11]   But “the abolition of a term which is in common usage is merely an illusion,” [12] so it is suggested that “everyone who uses this term will have to make clear just exactly what he or she means by it and must stick to this specific sense.” [13]

1.1.2 Secularization and the Western Churches

​

How have the Christian churches in the West then understood and dealt with this problem of secularization?  The first response was strongly negative, since in 1928 secularism was identified as the greatest rival to Christianity. [14]   Viewing Western secularism as pseudo-religion preaching a gospel of human autonomy throughout the world, Hendrik Kraemer demanded a fundamental separation between cultural Westernization and Christian missions:

​

Although man, through science and creative criticism, immensely progressed in the mastery of life by the organization of all human activity, the inner structure of his life has been imperceptibly but steadily undermined by forces of disruption and dissolution.  For the West this is rooted in the development of the inner trends of its civilization in the last centuries.  For the Eastern peoples it has come as a result of the impact of the Western peoples. [15]

​

The spell of the erroneous identification of Christianity and the progressive Western culture is broken, and, still deadlier... To promise that Christianity will dispel economic misery and social disturbance is to invite disillusionment... “christianizing” the social, economic and political order, although necessarily included in the living act of manifold missionary expression, cannot be the real motive and ultimate purpose. [16]

​

He also pointed out that the secularization of the non-Christian religions would even cause a negative impact on Christian missions, as it promotes a separation between religion and real life. [17]

​

Since the Second World War, however, the second response developed in European theology.  Friedrich Gogarten advocated that secularization is the ultimate aim and development of Christianity.  In the Netherlands Arend Th. van Leeuwen presented the most striking and extremely positive view of secularization.  In the twilight of Western colonialism, he insisted that the expansion of Western civilization did not end but rather achieves “conquests greater than any it has made hitherto,” [18] declaring the verdict that “For him who has once eaten of the tree of Western civilization there can be no turning back.” [19]   Based on his own interpretation that the destiny of human history is exclusively fixed on a historical line from Israel to the West and from the West to the world, he claimed that Christianization is westernization as well as secularization. [20]   So van Leeuwen suggested recognizing the cultural form of Western missions for spreading the “Christian civilization” of the West as “new channels of advance,” [21] for which “the secularization of Christianity” had to occur first. [22]   This radical view of secularization is also found in the Secularization Theology and the Death-of-God Theology in America, though it had “scant appeal and little compelling power.” [23]   But it affected theological discussions and ecumenical movements especially in the 1960's, as this positive view was dominant in European theological circles, though it was a reactionary expression to the negative and futuristic view of the world of the past for most theologians.

​

Today it is changing.  According to Rob van der Zwan, following the periods of rejection (1928-1950) and acceptance (1950-1975) “a certain euphoria which characterized the earlier period gave way to a more realistic consideration of the position and possibilities of Western Christianity, after theologians became conscious of the ecclesiastical and religious disruption caused by secularization.” [24]   This realism reflects some development of “crisis” consciousness in European theology, as the marginalization of Christianity has now entered a serious stage in Europe.  First, the positive support of secularization brought a sense of emptiness to European theology, as it made no positive contribution either to the church or society but only had negative and self-destructive effects in losing influence and frame of reference and becoming a minority in society.  Secondly, sociology of religion could no longer maintain its religious neutrality and it now carefully seeks to assume its social responsibility.  Stating that “in sociology of religion it is frequently claimed that society cannot continue to exist without one or other form of religion,” G. Dekker suggests that secularization is not a desirable development for the society, as it destroys “the system that gives meaning” (zingevingssysteem) and “the system of value” (waardensysteem) which are indispensable for a healthy society. [25]   The sociological change of direction is awakening theologians, who have depended significantly on sociology of religion in their discussions of secularization.  Further, as we pointed out above, sociology finally declared that there is no authentic definition of secularization.  In fact, theologians of secularization have been so confused by sociology that they even called what had been traditionally included in “sanctification,” such as declaring idols of the world as not divine and liberating spiritually enslaved people from them, as “secularization.”  Now, they are going back to the primary and essential meanings of the term, like the decline of church membership and conformity to the world, while clarifying some confused concepts through the use of new appropriate terms.  Thirdly, the myth of post-religious society has broken down, as new religions are replacing Christianity.  As Anton Wessels pointed out, “The occurrence of the revival of religion in our time, not only of Islam, lets us see another trend, to the regret of all secularization theories.” [26]   Thomas Molnar explains persuasively that a massive repaganization movement in the vacuum of Christianity is a great possibility if it is not prevented by a Christian movement of reversal. [27]   Hans Küng also contends that “Not religion, but its dying off, was the grand illusion” [28] and concluded: “Waiting for God or vain, meaningless waiting for Godot--that is the alternative today.” [29]   Fourthly, theologians are coming to identify themselves more closely with the churches and struggle together with the problem of secularization, as Christian churches have now become a minority in Europe.  In fact, theologians have tended to be critical of the churches in the last decades and therefore could not be sympathetic with the churches' attitude toward secularization, which was predominantly negative. [30]

​