Galatians and Korean Immigrants

Sejong Chun[1]

LIFE CONTEXT

I. Generational Conflict in Korean immigrant Churches and Homes

1. Role of the Korean Ethnic Church for Korean Immigrants in America

Since the first Korean immigrants arrived in Hawaii in 1903 to work on the pineapple and sugar plantations, the Korean ethnic church historically functioned as the most significant social organization for Koreans in America. According to studies, almost 70 percent of Korean immigrants in America are affiliated with Korean ethnic churches and about 85 percent of them attend church regularly.[2] This percentage of Korean immigrants’ affiliation with the church is amazing, especially when compared to the fact that only a quarter of the population in Korea is Christian.

What would be the reason for Korean immigrants’ deep connectedness to their ethnic churches? It is believed that Korean immigrants’ active participation in the ethnic church is closely related to its multi functions in the immigrant society. The Korean ethnic church not only functions as a religious center but also as a social community for Korean immigrants. For Korean immigrants the Korean ethnic church is a “small Korea” in America. Because Korean immigrants can meet other Koreans who are experiencing a similar adaptive process in a foreign land and can share their problems with other Koreans at their ethnic churches.[3] Many new Korean immigrants come to the church in order to get information such as legal status, business opportunity, and educational system from other Koreans for their adjustment in a new country.

According to Ilpyong Kim, Korean immigrants who came to America in the 1970s and 1980s -the peak periods of Korean immigration- had an expectation that their economic situation would be significantly better than that of their reference group in Korea.[4] Koreans, however, achieved enormous economic growth during these years and the friends and relatives of immigrants in Korea displayed much more affluent lifestyles than the immigrants in America. With their expectation about the life in America unfulfilled, Korean immigrants faced existential questions concerning their struggling life in a new land. This realization created strong self-doubt among the immigrants and led them to search for the meaning of their lives through religious interpretation. Therefore, the social and religious needs of Korean immigrants lead them to be affiliated with their ethnic churches.

2. Problem of Korean Ethnic Churches

One of the most significant pastoral problems Korean ethnic churches face is a “silent exodus” of American-born second generations[5] from the church. According to Karen Chai, who investigated second-generation Korean Americans and their participation in Korean ethnic churches, 90-95 percent of post-college Korean Americans (mostly American-born second generations) no longer attend their ethnic churches where most of church members are first-generation Koreans.[6] Korean pastors believe that the problem is related to the generational conflict between the first and second generations and resulted from what we call “a lack of ideological vision” for unity on the both parts of generations. It is necessary to analyze the generational conflict in order to find a possible solution for the problem.

3. Reasons for Generational Conflict among Korean Immigrants

As other parents do, Korean immigrant parents put emphases on their good relationship with their children. Furthermore, they see a good education for their children as one of the main reasons for their immigration and harsh struggle in the foreign country.[7] For them, the conflict with their own children is the most painful problem they experience. Nevertheless, the relationship between Korean immigrants and their American-born children becomes increasingly precarious. The disappointed Korean immigrants are eager to find the reason for the generational conflict with their children.

First, the generational disharmony comes from the use of two languages, which raises miscommunication and misunderstanding among different generations. First-generation Korean Americans use Korean as their primary language, but second generation Korean Americans use English. When second generation Koreans are preschoolers and kindergarteners, they can understand and speak Korean fluently. As growing up, they begin to choose English as their primary language and to forget Korean terms and expressions. It is a common scene that Korean parents speak in Korean and their teenage children respond in English. This language barrier often creates misunderstandings between the two generations, which makes them tired of talking to each other. This lack of communication distances Korean immigrant parents from their children and vice versa. Use of two languages also pushes Korean immigrants and their children to have separate worship services with the same church where each group uses their primary language.

Second, generational discord originates from different cultural backgrounds that form each group’s distinctive value system. First-generation Korean immigrants lived in so-called a “mono-racial” and “mono-cultural” society, Korea. They are also under the deep influence of the Confucian tradition that emphasizes a strict social order in communities, a hierarchy in interpersonal relationships, and “outward show” mentality.[8] Second-generation Korean Americans influenced by western ideals of democracy and equality cannot fully understand their parents’ views on hierarchy and authority. Korean immigrant parents who regard a good education as a significant cultural value are willing to sacrifice their time and money for children’s education. As a result, they emphasize their children’s academic performance and social achievement often in an authoritarian manner. “This kind of intergenerational atmosphere goes against their children’s desire for autonomy and independence.”[9] As a result, when the children get older, they often attempt to avoid their parents’ advice and sometimes rebel against them.

Third, generational conflict is deeply related to different senses of identity of first- and second-generation Korean Americans. Immigrant parents usually identify themselves as Koreans who are living in America. They hope that their children could be “Koreans,” even though they were born in America and raised in American environments. As a result, they often push their children to learn the Korean culture and keep their Korean language ability. However, Their American-born children who identify themselves as “Americans” often keep a distance from their parents and Korean culture and act as they are accustomed to: American style.

II. Root Problems

The root problem of the “silent exodus” from the Korean ethnic church can be “a lack of ideological vision” for harmonious unity in Christ. This root problem is closely related to each group’s own root problem: a lack of true sense of identity for second-generations and a bondage under the old ideology for first-generations. The analysis of this problem from the perspective of Paul’s letter to the Galatians can provide an insight for each group’s root problem.

1. Peter’s Lack of True Sense of Identity and Second-Generation Korean Americans

Peter’s hypocritical behavior in Galatians 2:11-14 is related to his lack of true sense of identity. Before some people from Jerusalem arrive, Peter was eating with the Gentiles. However, when they come, he withdraws and keeps a distance from the Gentile Christians because he fears their criticism for his table fellowship with the uncircumcised. Paul rebukes Peter that if he does not observe Jewish dietary restrictions, Peter should not compel the Gentiles to follow Jewish law. It seems that Peter’s hypocritical behavior originates from a lack of true sense of identity. This lack of true sense is expressed by his “in-between” attitude; he is neither a sincere Jew who keeps Jewish practice faithfully nor a trustworthy Christian leader who can have table fellowship with the Gentile believers as brothers and sisters in Christ.

It seems that Peter’s lack of a true sense of identity is a result of his lack of the ideological vision for a new world that Paul calls “new creation” (6:15). Paul believes that Jesus’ cross event has inaugurated an eschatological new world. Thus, from Paul’s perspective, we can say that Peter not only experienced the death and resurrection of Christ but also became a new person through the power of the Holy Spirit that is a new standard and guide in the “new creation.” Despite his experience of the new realm, Peter still remains in the old realm: Jewish religious boundary. Even though the text does not say that the Jewish Christians criticized Peter, he could be attacked by them because of his fellowship with the Gentiles. His “in-between” behavior causes him to face a conflict not only with Paul but also with the Jewish Christian delegates from Jerusalem.

There are, on the other hand, some Christians who scarcely experience any identity problem. A group of Galatian believers seem to follow the teaching of Paul’s opponents[10] that Gentile Christians should be circumcised in order to be “true heirs of Abraham.” It seems that these Gentile Christians let themselves be circumcised and are obliged to obey the law (5:3). Paul accuses those Galatians that they so quickly have deserted the one who called them in the grace of Christ and turned to a different gospel (1:6). He insists that if some Gentile believers let themselves be circumcised, “Christ will be of no benefit” to them (5:2). Furthermore, he agues that if the Galatians could be justified by keeping the law, “Christ died for nothing” (2:21). In terms of Paul’s perspective, although some Gentile believers who are following the teaching of Paul’s opponents do not have any problem of lack of true identity, they only have a wrong identity.

Peter’s situation of being “in-between” leads us to understand the root problem of second-generation Korean Americans: lack of true sense of identity. As mentioned earlier, second-generation Korean Americans identify themselves as Americans who have Korean parents. They often hope to establish their own identity by distinguishing themselves from their Korean parents.[11] They try to keep distance from Korean identity “as an attempt to conform to the larger society. They also attempt to prove that they are “real Americans,” by behaving “whiter than white.”[12] Those behaviors of second generations often become one of the reasons for generational conflict. Even though they act like “real Americans,” the reality is that, as non-white, they might never be fully accepted by the dominant group in American society.[13] Their lack of true sense of identity often becomes the reason for being censured by both Korean and American society. In the Korean immigrant community, they are often reproached for not being Korean enough; while in the American world, they are despised for not being American enough.[14] The root problem of second-generation Korean Americans is that they do not know who they really are.

2. Bondage Under the Law and First-Generation Korean Americans

Paul’s confidence in the new world[15] and his accusation against his opponents who faithfully adhere to their old Jewish tradition can assist us to understand the root problem of first generation Korean Americans: their adherence to their old world. First generations cling to their previous custom often prevents them from being fully adjusted to a new world. Their narrow fellowship with other Korean immigrants keeps them from having broad social interactions with other people who have different ethnic backgrounds. This attitude often limits their capability in making broader social network and having more business opportunity with other Americans and immigrants, which not only keeps them from earning more income but also prohibit them from making positive contributions to a broader society. As mentioned earlier, first generations’ stick to their old value and custom can cause a generational conflict with their American-born children. The root problem of first-generation Korean immigrants is the bondage under their previous habits and perspectives.

CONTEXTUAL INTERPRETATION

I. New Creation

The notion of “new creation” (kainh. kti,sij) in Galatians 6:15 not only contains Paul’s key theological idea but also sums up his arguments of the letter. Paul affirms that the cross of Christ brought an eschatological new realm, “new creation” in the middle of “this present evil age” (1:4).[16] With this assurance, at the conclusion of the epistle, Paul strongly proclaims: “Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is anything, but new creation” (6:15). How can we understand Paul’s term “new creation”?

A. Different Approaches to New Creation

Scholars have different perspectives on the Pauline notion of a “new creation” and their ways of interpretation have divided them.[17] Among other possibilities, I want to emphasize here two types of interpretations because they are particularly relevant for the above contextual issues. Some commentators understand this phrase anthropologically, while others cosmologically.

Several scholars perceive “new creation” primarily from an anthropological point of view focusing on the transformation of the individual believer. Moyer Hubbard argues, “The primary support for an anthropological reading of kainh. kti,sij in Galatians 6.15 is its coherence within the argument of Galatians itself.”[18] Through his brief investigation of Galatians as a whole, Hubbard reaches the conclusion: “Paul has in mind God’s new creative work within the individual.”[19] Hubbard’s emphasis on the believer’s conversion leads him to see “new creation” as God’s work in an individual. In the same line of thought, Alan Cole insists that “new creation” refers to “the regenerating work of God in the individual Christian rather than to the total cosmic result.”[20] Hans Dieter Betz, furthermore, argues that “new creation” not only “sums up Paul’s soteriology” but also “interprets Paul’s anthropology.” He explains that “old creation” is simply referring to simply “man” and “flesh.” He argues, “Through the Christ-event the Christian is enabled to participate in the new human existence ‘in Christ’….God did not simply ‘recreate’ man, but he has sent his Son, Christ, into the old creation…, in the middle of which he accomplished salvation.”[21] Those scholars believe that “new creation” indicates God’s creative work happening in an individual believer, which is closely related to personal salvation.

Other scholars understand “new creation” primarily from a cosmological point of view. Those scholars see the cosmic effect of Christ’s cross and argue that “new creation” is the radical newness of the whole world. J Louis Martyn sees Paul’s use of “new creation” as emphasizing the radical change between the old age and the new: “God had to invade enemy territory, sending his Son and the Spirit of Son, and thereby confronting those powers in an apocalyptic war. The result is that, far from repairing the old cosmos, God is in the process of replacing it.”[22] Jefferey Weima also articulates that “new creation” is not simply referring to an individual person’s renewal but to “the presence of a radically new world.”[23] In the similar line of thought, Charles Cousar believes that “with the death and resurrection of Christ a whole new world has been created, which exists simultaneously to and in contention with the passing world.”[24] Those scholars understand “new creation” in a broad sense of God’s replacement of the old age with the new one.

It is clear that any interpretation needs to account for both the anthropological and the cosmological aspect of “new creation”; otherwise it would not fully explain Paul’s text. Then, the issue of interpretation of the phrase will be the primary emphasis between them: One aspect is primary and the other secondary.

These different approaches to the “new creation” by diverse scholars should be respected. The decision of what is the more preferable interpretation will be determined by the existing evidence: What is the evidence that Christ’s death on the cross and resurrection has primarily a universal effect on the whole world? Or conversely: What is the evidence that Christ’s event has primarily a personal effect within an individual believer? Beyond this, it is necessary to ponder the difference between the two interpretations. This difference can be sketched in a preliminary way. In the cosmological understanding of “new creation,” God’s establishment of a radical new world is primary and the transformation of individuals is secondary. It is because God has intervened and continues to intervene in a radical way to establish a radically new world so that individuals can be transformed by entering this realm. In contrast, in the anthropological interpretation, individual believers’ transformation by the power of Christ’s event, which is intermediated by the Holy Spirit, comes first and the establishment of God’s new world comes next, which is comprised of those transformed individuals. It will be useful for actual application in the following section to say that cosmological interpretation will have an emphasis on the entire community instead of individuals; anthropological approach will have a foremost focus on individuals instead of community.

B. New Creation as a New World

Why does Paul say that “neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is anything” in 6:15? Is he implying that he does not care whether anyone is circumcised or not? How is this phrase related to the crucifixion of the “cosmos” to Paul and his crucifixion to it in 6:14?

The term “cosmos” (ko,smoj) in 6:14 can be understood as the antithesis of “new creation” in 6:15. Weima articulates the difference between these two worlds. According to him, “cosmos” is indicating “a realm where boasting in the flesh” is important and “where the distinction between circumcision and uncircumcision is of paramount importance.” He believes “new creation” contrasts with that realm. It is the world where one boasts only of the cross of Jesus and “where persecution is not selfishly avoided but willingly accepted, and where distinctions such as circumcision and uncircumcision cease to be important.”[25] In the similar line of thought, Martyn defines the meaning of “cosmos” by saying that “the world that is now passé is not Judaism as such, but rather the world of all religious differentiation.”[26] It seems reasonable that “cosmos” should be understood as the old world where religious differentiation such as circumcision or uncircumcision is important and where ethnic differences are significant.

“New creation,” on the contrary, is the world where religious and ethnic distinctions are no longer valid. The Christ’s event has inaugurated this new world and in this world the believers are living by the Spirit. The universal power of the Christ’s event enables those who are “in Christ” through baptism to realize the overlap of two different ages: the old and new one.

Those findings lead us to conclude that “new creation” refers to the new world, which is totally different from the old religious and ethnic realm. In this aspect “new creation” has a cosmological sense. Nevertheless, this sense does not totally ignore its anthropological sense, because the change from “cosmos” to “new creation” is deeply connected with believers’ experience of existential replacement.

Those who participate in the event of Christ can experience the change of the age, which causes their own existential shift from the old age to the new. The new world, which is already present in this world, can be realized through believers’ experience of an existential shift. “Paul refers to the cosmic event experienced by every member of the Galatian churches.”[27] This experience leads them to realize that they are living both in the new world and at the same time in the old world. In this manner, “new creation” could be understood cosmologically: God’s establishment of new world comes first and the transformation of individual believers follows.

In conclusion, the Christ’s event has brought the new cosmic order that has changed the realm of the existence of those who have participated in the cross and life of Christ. This new world enables the participating believers to find their true identity in it. The Galatians’ identity change has occurred through their new relationship with God in this new realm.

C. Application

This conclusion is helpful in understanding the situation of first- and second-generation Korean Americans. Paul’s teaching of “new creation” encourages both Korean parents and their children to realize that they are all in a certain “new world,” which is called “Korean-American community” as a part of large society, America. From the cosmological perspective of “new creation,” Paul invites all Korean Americans to find their new identity in this new community. To have a new identity in the Korean-American community requires new attitude and standard of life: respect each other by overcoming their linguistic and cultural differences, and love one another by realizing their true relationships as parents and children.

II. True Identity of the Galatians through Being “In Christ”

One of the main issues of the Galatians is a conflict between Paul and his opponents, other Christian missionaries who argue that the Gentile Christians should be circumcised. This conflict originates from their different understandings of the Galatians’ identity. Paul’s opponents, on the one hand, believe that the Gentile Christians are children of Abraham who sincerely followed the law and that they should keep the law in order to be the real heirs of Abraham. Paul, on the other hand, argues that the Galatians are children of Abraham who was regarded as “righteous” by faith and that those who have faith would be the true heir of Abraham. Then, how can the Galatians gain their true identity as children of Abraham? How does Paul understand the story of Abraham in Genesis? What kind of relationship is there between Abraham and the Gentile Christians? What kind of impact does Paul’s conviction that the eschatological new realm, “new creation,” have on Paul’s understanding of the Galatians’ identity.

A. Children of Abraham

Paul presents the true identity of the Galatians in 3:6-29: children of Abraham (3:7), sons of God (3:26), Abraham’s seed (3:29), and heirs according to the promise (3:29). Paul starts his Abraham argument with a quotation from Genesis 15:6: “Just as Abraham ‘believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness’” (3:6). This passage is important for Paul, because it assists him to find a close relation between “believing” and “being righteous.” In 3:7, Paul provides his own interpretation of what he has just quoted: as Abraham became righteous by believing, those who have faith become his children. Martyn argues that “the Teachers have already spoken of the children of Abraham, identifying them, in a reasonable way, as those who follow Abraham in faithful observance of the Law, beginning with circumcision.”[28] In order to counter his opponents’ argument that they are the children of Abraham by observing the Law, Paul quotes Genesis 15:6 where he finds the term “believe” (pisteu,w), which may help him realize the close relationship between the faith of Abraham and those of the Galatians. Richard Hays correctly explains:

Genesis 15:6, of course, says nothing about Abraham’s children or how their identity is to be determined….The inference lies readily at hand, therefore, that Paul is countering something the Missionaries have told the Galatians: that only those who are circumcised can be Abraham’s true children…. Paul is saying, “No, it is not the circumcised who are Abraham’s children; rather, those whose identity is derived from faith, these are Abraham’s children.[29]

In the perspective of Hay’s plausible interpretation, Paul picks up the expression that his opponents used in order to make their assertion reasonable for the Galatians. He adjusts that phrase for his own purpose: the Galatians who have faith in the faithfulness of Jesus Christ (2:16),[30] are children of Abraham.

At this point, I believe that it is necessary to mention briefly about the debate on “faith of/in Jesus Christ” between Hays and James D. G. Dunn,[31] because this debate is closely related to the understanding of the identity of the Galatians as Abraham’s children.

In summary of his earlier work, The faith of Jesus Christ, Hays argues that Christ’s death, “in obedience to the will of God, is simultaneously a loving act of faithfulness (pi,stij) to God and the decisive manifestation of God’s faithfulness to his covenant promise to Abraham.”[32] He believes pi,stij Cristou/ as “the subjective genitive” and translates it: “faith of Christ.” He argues this reading is more preferable than Dunn’s “the objective genitive” understanding: “faith in Christ.” He defines the debate between “subjective genitive” and “objective genitive” as “a distinction between the christological and anthropological interpretations of pi,stij Cristou/” and argues, “The christological reading highlights the salvific efficacy of Jesus Christ’s faith(fullness) for God’s people; the anthropological reading stresses the salvific efficacy of the human act of faith directed toward Christ.”[33] He understands that Christ, “the single sperma of Abraham”, is an exemplar of Christian’s faith: “Christian faith is Christi-faith.” Those who are “in Christ” are children of Abraham. “Abraham is the Biblical type to whom the promise was given, Christ the eschatological antitype thorough whom the promise becomes effectual for those who are ‘children of promise’ (4:28), Abraham’s sons (3:7).” In short, Hays thinks that God’s promise to Abraham is fulfilled through the faithfulness of Christ, a true seed of Abraham.

Dunn, on the other hand, argues “anthropological” interpretation of pi,stij Cristou/: “faith in Christ.” He criticizes Hays that “on Hays’ thesis we have no clear reference to ‘faith’ of believers….Hays leaves us with no noun counterpart, no noun to denote the Galatians’ act of believing. Hays’s thesis vacuums up every relevant reference to ‘faith’ in order to defend the subject genitive reading of 2:16, 20 and 3:22.”[34] He argues: “The logic of Paul’s argument is that Christians are Abraham’s children by a twofold action – by sharing in Abraham’s faith (3:7), and by being ‘in Christ’ (3:28-29).”[35] He insists that “Paul was in effect attacking the traditional Jewish understanding of Abraham which saw him as the archetype of faithfulness….Abraham’s pi,stij meant his faith, his naked trust in God’s promise…and therefore not his ‘faithfulness.’”[36] In short, Dunn argues that as Abraham had faith in God’s faithfulness, Christians who share the faith of Abraham have faith in God’s faithfulness, not Christ’s.

Among these two very plausible interpretations, I will follow Hays’ argument, because his “Christological” understanding is more helpful to me than Dunn’s “anthropological” interpretation. In other words, Hays’ understanding assists me to have a strong connection between my previous argument of cosmological interpretation of “new creation” focusing on community instead of individuals and it allows me to apply biblical teachings effectively to the current Korean immigrant church’s problem emphasizing communal approach to it. I will develop following arguments from this perspective.

Paul articulates in 3:16 who is the recipient of God’s promise to Abraham. He insists that only the seed of Abraham will inherit God’s blessing and this seed is Christ. In 3:16, Paul treats the term “seed” (spe,rma) as singular. In the Abrahamic promise, this term “seed” is a “generic singular that was always understood within Judaism to refer to the posterity of Abraham as an entity, excluding only the descendants of Abraham through Ishmael…and those born of Esau.”[37] Paul, however, intentionally uses “seed” in singular form in order to claim that Christ is the only true heir of the inheritance given to Abraham. According to Martyn, Paul asserts that there are only two persons given God’s covenantal promise: Abraham and his singular seed. The focus of Paul is the identity of the seed to whom the covenantal promise was made. Paul argues that the seed is not the ethnically distinct plural descendants but the singular person, Christ.[38] Paul believes that only Christ is the true heir of Abraham’s inheritance with God’s blessing, and those whose identity derives from faith will share this inheritance by participating into the life of Christ by baptism. Therefore, in 3:29 he uses “seed” as a collective noun that refers to Abraham’s numerous descendants through Christ.

The conclusion of Paul’s long discussion of Abraham in chapter three appears in 3:26-29. In 3:26, Paul presents another identity of the Galatians: Children of God. Paul declares that Gentile Christians are children of God through the faithfulness of Christ Jesus. Paul explains why Gentile Christians are true children of God in 3:27-because they are baptized into Christ and are clothed with Christ. By being in Christ through baptism, the Galatian Christians begin to realize that their identity is being transformed from Gentiles to children of God; in other words, their relationship with God is being changed. 3:27 is the only explicit reference to baptism in Galatians.[39] “Being baptized into Christ” and “putting on Christ” are Paul’s expressions describing the mysterious union with Christ, which is depicted in 2:20. The image of baptism is closely related to the identity transformation of the Galatians.[40] The Galatians’ participation in the death of Christ through baptism enables them to share Christ’s status as son of God and to be called children of God. According to Paul, baptism changes the Galatians’ relationship not only with God but also with Christ, for it brings them a new identity: children of God.

In 3:29, Paul declares a new identity for the Galatians as Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise made to Abraham. Paul asserts one condition for being Abraham’s seed: “If you belong to Christ” (3:29a). Paul argues that the only condition to be the heir of the promise that contains God’s blessing is to be in Christ; in other words, “being baptized into Christ.” Leander Keck explains baptism into Christ as “the ‘objective’ transference into a domain of power. To be baptized into Christ is to be included in the domain of Christ, his field of force.”[41]

According to Martyn, the order of events is significant: “The crucial point is the order of events. Members of the church are not related to Christ via Abraham; they are related to Abraham via their incorporation into Christ.”[42] Christians’ participation in the event of Christ will qualify them to be the seed of Abraham. Gentile Galatians can be Abraham’s seed by being united with Christ, who is the only seed of Abraham. The Galatians’ participation in Christ enables them to become heirs of Abraham’s inheritance that contains God’s blessing. The Gentile Galatians have become children of Abraham not by being incorporated into the Law-observant patriarch or into the line of his plural descendants, according to Paul’s opponents, but by being incorporated into Abraham’s singular seed, Christ.[43]

B. Children of the Free Woman

Paul presents another eschatological identity of the Galatians in 4:21-31: children of the free woman. In 4:21, Paul begins with the law that the Galatians heard from the Teachers.[44] Martyn understands that “the Teachers have been remarkably successful, changing even the Galatians’ desires.”[45] Paul wants to reinterpret the story of Abraham’s two sons, which the Teachers already told to the Galatians.[46] The Teachers persuaded the Galatians to receive circumcision along with the gospel in order to be the true heirs of Abraham, like Isaac. Paul is urging the Galatians to hear what the law really says (