chapter i

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]

As J. Veenhof points out, “Reformed people, who seek after impulses for their faith in the midst of all secularization, go in greatly different directions in search of the answer.” [31] A unified effort of churches and theologians to assess secularization and define it biblically and theologically is now necessary, in order to deal with it effectively, as theology has to serve the Church as her “internal reflection.” [32] As A. van Egmond suggests, the Christian definition has to be spiritual and theological, dealing with the deeper “origin,” rather than being a mere analysis of its phenomenal “consequences.” [33] The continuity between the Western and Korean understandings of secularization will then be far more apparent, for both churches are after all Christian.

1.1.3 A Christian Definition of Secularization

Long before the use of the term “secularization” in sociology, the Christian churches were already well aware of the concept, for the biblical teaching of the “world” implied a strong warning against such a tendency. It is definitely far more comprehensive and penetrating than its sociological understanding. For practical reasons as well, we have no other choice than to make a working definition of it as it is used in the churches, if we intend to discuss it within the churches. The Christian churches are not concerned with a neutral definition of the secularization of any religion but only with the secularization of Christian religion.

In his dissertation, Saecularisatie als Probleem der Theologische Ethiek, Boudewijn Rietveld has contributed to the Christian and theological understanding of secularization in three ways, as he reflected the negative view within the churches. First, he distinguished secularization from de-christianization. In itself, secularization is a matter of a relationship with God, rather than the Church or Christianity itself. The decline of the Christian churches is a secondary and external phenomenon which appears as a result of the broken relationship with God. Therefore, to understand secularization merely as de-christianization is to confuse an effect with the event itself and mislead the churches from the right perspective and strategy. [34] Secondly, he understood that “the subject of secularization is the life of men in their world, as it functions in all connections with the heart as its center.” [35] Man and his spirit are secularized, because they are separated from God. [36] Its effect then necessarily and naturally appears in every area of his life, i.e., extending from his spirituality and morality even to his political, economic and cultural life. [37] Thirdly, he connected secularization with demonization, i.e., submission to the powers of this world. Because there is no “neutral area” between the Kingdom of God and the dominion of Satan, [38] secularization is “the way to demonization,” [39] even though we may not directly identify them. It is certainly an aspect that is hidden to the social scientists, and this spiritual view illuminates the spiritual history of mankind in the world. Accordingly, Rietveld said that “the history of the Fall (Gen.3) is the history of the beginning of secularization.” [40] Since then, the whole world has been in the process of secularization, while God launched the counter-process of sanctification. Between these two mega-processes, neither can be “a calm unbroken process,” and there is a continuous “struggle between life and death” in a “position war.” [41] In this universal and historical scheme of secularization, its true and objective understanding, whether the Western or Korean secularization, would be possible. After all, it is crucial to understand that secularization is a spiritual movement. So he defined “secularization as the emancipation of the world from the triune God, in an attempt to exist sovereign by itself.” [42]

In fact, the term “secularization” arose in the Christian world, and its etymological origin is connected to the Latin term “saeculum” and its derivatives. Especially in ecclesiastical Latin, saeculum was used as a corresponding translation of the biblical terms, i.e., olam in Hebrew and especially aion in Greek, which are generally used to refer to a long period of time, from a generation even to eternity. [43] And the biblical idea that this world is temporally limited with a beginning and end has naturally developed an extended meaning to this term, that is, “the age of the world” and “this world,” in contrast to “the age to come” and “the future world” (cf. Mk 10.30, Lk 18.30, Eph 1.21). [44] So Christian churches have often used saeculum in a negative sense as “the world,” “worldliness,” or “the spirit of the age,” and its derivatives like saecularis as “worldly,” saecularia as “worldly matters,” and saeculariter as “in a worldly manner.” Therefore, what the term “seculari-zation” means has been quite clear to Christian churches.

The “world” in the Bible has both positive and negative senses. In the Old Testament the world is primarily the creation of God and therefore His property. The Hebrews did not even have a single word for the world or universe. The LXX's use of kosmos is a translation of the Hebrew terms for “heaven and earth,” “all,” etc. [45] This positive view continues in the New Testament, where “the world” is expressed mostly in two interchangeable Greek words, aion and kosmos. Its negative use, however, was developed in the New Testament. In the primary sense, the world is the universe or simply the earth with its plants and animals. But, because man is the primary being of the world in relation to God, the secondary sense of the word refers to the world community of men with its environment. And with the Fall “sin entered the world” (Rom 5.12) and Satan reigned as “the prince of this world” (Jn 12.31, 16.11) and “the god of this age” (2Cor 4.4). So the men of the world have been “in slavery under the basic principles of the world” (Gal 4.3), and the good world fell into “evil” (Gal 1.4). It is in this third sense that the world was given its own spiritual and personal identity. Such a fallen and rebellious world has its own spirit, “the spirit of the world” (1Cor 2.12), as well as its own wisdom, “the wisdom of the world” (1Cor 1.20, 2.6, 3.19). Now, the evil world lures even the believers to love and care for the world with “the power of the world,” while it hates and persecutes those who do not associate with the world (Jn 7.7, 15.18f, 17.14, 1Jn 3.13). On the other hand, “God so loved the world” and sent His only begotten Son “to save the world” (Jn 3.16f). Jesus' mission to the world was “the reconciliation of the world” with God (2Cor 5.19).

Whoever believes Him, therefore, has to keep him “from being polluted by the world” (Jas 1.27) or from “the corruption of the world” (2Pet 2.20), because “the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world” (Gal 6.14, Col 2.20). Further, he is called to fight against the power of the world for the Kingdom of God (Eph 6.10-18, 1Tim 1.18-20, 2Tim 2.3f). In this life-long struggle, a definite rule of antithesis is set: “friendship with the world is hatred toward God” and “a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God” (Jas 4.4). So, “the children of God,” who are opposed to “the children of the world” (Lk 16.8), are ordered not to “love the world” (1Jn 2.15) or “conform to the pattern of this world” (Rom 12.2). Jesus, the Lord of the Christian community, did “overcome the world” (Jn 16.33), and so His churches must and can overcome it (1Jn 5.4f). His victory over the world has set the limited term for the existence of this world, and in this remaining time, the eschaton, the Christian community, which lives in this world but belongs to a new world, is called to make a victorious fight against this evil world with the help of the Holy Spirit (Eph 6.12). In this biblical scheme, “fellowship with the world” is the most undesirable and dangerous threat to the Church, especially when it is a collective and continuous trend. Therefore, the Christian churches have ever been careful of this tendency toward the saeculum, which later became known by the term “secularization.”

But the negative use of the “world” in the Scripture is purely spiritual and it does not mean this visible and cosmic world. Nevertheless, it has been misused as for promoting monastic or pietistic “world-renunciation.” This negative worldview has been significantly corrected, however, especially during the 1960's. Anton Houtepen traces the shift by in-depth analysis of the documents of Vatican II and the World Council of Churches in this period. According to him, both Roman Catholic and Protestant churches had a negative worldview until 1960's, but it has changed from “other-worldly” to “this-worldly,” from encounter to solidarity, as “Both the view of the unceasing redeeming activity of God as well as the view of the task and the existence of the church lead, thus, to a positive concept of saeculum.” [46] His explanation of the reason is very persuasive, for the “mission” consciousness of the church for the reconciliation of the world would generate Christian love of the world. Further, he suggested that the dynamic understanding of the saeculum as the “history” of salvation worked out by the active God and responsible men would overcome both historical utopianism as well as eschatological pessimism and establish a unified ecumenical worldview of Christianity. [47] As Augustine emphasized, the saeculum is the locus of two eschatological cities, which are invisibly interwoven and will be separated only eschatologically. [48] Therefore, the Christian worldview has to be both positive and negative, not neutral, and the “tension” [49] between the two aspects is inevitable and necessary for Christian approach to the world. In this context, secularization means a denial of spiritual tension and a spiritual movement toward the negative dimension of the saeculum. Here we find a spiritual continuity in the understanding of secularization between the Western and Korean churches.

Therefore, I conclude that secularization is universal, spiritual, and antithetical. Secularization occurs on two levels, the individual and the collective, and the common usage of the term in our times particularly means the latter, i.e., mass secularization, which begins with spiritual emancipation from God and ends with physical emancipation from His Church. This last stage of secularization is active in the Western churches, while the first stage is operative in the non-Western churches. This leads here to our particular concern, i.e., the secularization of the Korean churches, but we will approach it by first considering some general features found in the secularization of the non-Western churches.

1.1.4 Secularization of the Non-Western Churches

Since the end of the era of colonialism, non-Western churches began to reflect upon Western Christianity as to whether it was identical with genuine Christianity and whether Western culture was truly Christian. The general response was more or less negative. For example, Choan Seng Song, a Chinese theologian, argued that Western Christianity had been born from the unfortunate wedlock of Christianity and Western culture, and their divorce seems inevitable by the pressure of contemporary secularization. [50] If it is true, it means that the Western missionaries have unconsciously brought an impure and secularized Christianity to the non-Western world.

But is it true? It is a difficult and painful task, but both Western and non-Western theologians have to work together in order to solve the contemporary crisis of global secularization, rather than blaming others and defending themselves. Lesslie Newbigin opens the way in recognizing that “Missionaries in Asia and Africa have been agents of secularization even if they did not realize it.” [51] But, it is quite natural and even praiseworthy that Western missionaries have been agents of modernization and westernization. Out of a simple compassion, the Western missionaries tried to improve the materially impoverished situation by importing Western civilization. The only problem was that they lacked a proper view of culture, as they did not recognize some crucial problems embedded in modern Western culture. [52]

To be sure, it is generally agreed that modern secularization is “linked to the modernization process which has taken place in the Western world in the past few centuries, or even as an inherent part of this process” and therefore it “is automatically expected to take place in every society where a modernization process is taking place.” [53] And in the non-Western world modernization means Westernization. Therefore, it can be assumed that the modern culture of the West is a source of secularization for non-Western churches, as it is generally regarded as the major cause of modern secularization in the Western churches. The Western concept of modernization does not mean merely a pursuit of scientific and technological culture but also involves its futuristic tendency of denying the authority of tradition and therefore secularization of traditional religion. [54] As this idea has permeated the West and then the whole world and caused global secularization, “modern culture” is a cultural continuity, which is indispensable in understanding secularization of both Western and Korean churches.

However, Christian insight cannot limit the source of secularization to a particular culture. Rather, it is universal, as we have seen in the Christian understanding of secularization. Its origin is far earlier, even at the beginning of human history, and its sphere is far wider, extending even to the whole world. Therefore, it is not correct to blame Western and modern culture only for having the seed of secularization within it. All the local cultures in the world are more or less in bondage to the power of the world. It is our suggestion, therefore, that non-Western churches have to reflect critically on their own cultures, especially religious cultures, in order to understand fully their problem of secularization.

Of two sources of secularization in the non-Western churches, we will deal first with the problem of the modern secularization, which has taken place in Western culture and spread over the whole world, as the general context of our study. For the particular context of Korean culture as another source of secularization in the Korean churches, it will be discussed fully later in chapter 4.

1.2 Modern Secularization

Secularization is a perennial and universal phenomenon. However, this process is culminating in our times, so that it is properly called “the Age of Secularization.” Tired of controversy over secularization, Martin E. Marty denied the uniqueness of contemporary secularization. [55] But I do not agree with him, because it is quite different from the secularization in the past. Modern secularization is rather systematic and dominant, so that “At the international missionary conference at Jerusalem in 1928, Secularism was put alongside Hinduism, Islam and the rest as one of the rivals with which the Gospel has to deal, but described as the greatest of them.” [56] As Lesslie Newbigin wrote, “The most significant fact about the time in which we are living is that it is a time in which a single movement of secularization is bringing the peoples of all continents into its sweep.” [57] It is “the supporting atmosphere” or “like the air about us.” [58] It is not a mere subjective judgment but “an objective process” and “a matter of history.” [59]

We will attempt to overview some special characteristics of the modern secularization for deeper insight into this critical phenomenon. Every aspect of culture is considered in relation to it, but three particular aspects receive the most intense illumination, i.e., political, philosophical, and technological developments. It is generally agreed that modern secularization started in the political weakening of the ecclesiastical power and its subsequent transfer of power to the secular powers. The leading ideas of this movement were then developed and strengthened in the area of philosophy, especially the philosophy of history. Finally, it is said that the birth of the technological culture accelerated our contemporary and future secularization. Our discussion in the three sub-sections will concentrate on these three aspects of modern secularization.

1.2.1 Political Secularization

Historians generally agree that the latter half of the nineteenth century is crucial in this trend. [60] Owen Chadwick, in his monumental work entitled The Secularization of the European Mind in the Nineteenth Century, set the crucial period for the European secularization as “from the publication of the Origin of Species in 1859 until the downward turn in French, German and English churchgoing statistics during the 1880s, or in part until 1914.” [61] This agrees approximately with Gary Scott Smith, who analyzed American secularization as follows in The Seeds of Secularization: Calvinism, Culture, and Pluralism in America 1870-1915: “Many of the secular seeds planted between 1870 and 1915 have borne mature fruit only in our time.” [62]

What or who caused this radical turn in the history of Christendom? Most scholars find its distant origins in the Greek philosophy of human autonomy or the Church Fathers' progressive interpretation of history, but they cannot be its direct and decisive causes. It is a typically modern phenomenon and its cause should be found rather within more recent centuries. Many revolutionary thinkers are suggested as influential in the rise of modern secularization. No doubt they have contributed to this universal movement in their own way, but it is difficult to conclude that a small number of intellectuals created this movement, for “Enlightenment was of the few” while “Secularization is of the many.” [63] Rather, they seem to reflect some historic change which was happening at their own time with a keen sensitivity.

Then, what was the historic event or movement which caused a massive departure from Christianity in our times? Because it is a religious change, it is natural to turn our attention to the most revolutionary event in church history--the Reformation. However, if the two movements are related, secularization may be an unintended development of the Reformation. Concerning this possibility, it is interesting that a consensus is emerging in recent studies. In the 1947 Evanston Conference on Secularism, church historian John T. McNeill suggested an idea: “The increasing subjection of the churches to the state in all European countries produced its fruits of secularism among the clergy.” [64] Later, after the heated discussions and analyses on secularization in the 1960s and 70s, the leading sociologist David Martin concluded that secularization was caused by the failure of differentiation between church and state. According to him, church and state are two major organizations in human society, and the social differentiation between these two safeguards their distinct and constant development. However, “it [the Church] constantly encounters the centripetal power of society, either converting the body of the Church into the body of citizens without remainder, or making Christianity merely the vehicle of local continuities, reciprocities and values.” [65] Secularization is the result of the Church's failure to resist “the pressure against Christian differentiation.” This failure is followed by the collusion of Church and state, marginalization, and attenuation. [66] Therefore, the Barmen Declaration (1934) is significant in this aspect: “We repudiate the false teaching that the church can and should expand beyond its special responsibility to take on the characteristics, functions and dignities of the state, and thereby become itself an organ of the state.” [67]

Wolfhart Pannenberg recently published a treatise entitled Christianity in a Secularized World, where he agreed with the analysis that secularization is the consequence of the Church's subjection to the state, and that this transition of power occurred because of the public resentment against the endless confessional wars caused by the Reformation in the post-Reformation era:

People realized that religious passion destroys social peace...The doubt which grew under the impact of the wars of religion in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, led in the seventeenth century thinkers Hugo Grotius and Herbert of Cherbury seeking instead the basis of social order and also of peace between states in the natural law, and in connection with that, in a natural religion common to all human beings... That became the starting point for a secular culture in Europe... (Thereafter) the religious question was subordinated to the decision of state sovereignty. [68]

Accordingly, he suggested church unity, the failure of which has brought this situation, as a necessary condition for overcoming our contemporary secularization. [69] David H. Hopper also agreed with this analysis in his recent book (1991), [70] where he also pointed out that even the Reformation itself inspired this development by its “change in the attitude toward change.” [71] This insightful consensus is very significant in our discussion. The failure in proper relations with the state, i.e. political secularization, leads to the subsequent development of secularization.

Secularization theologians insisted that secularism and secularization are not essentially related and therefore to be distinguished. According to Harvey Cox, while secularism is “the name for an ideology, a new closed world-view which functions very much like a new religion,” secularization is “a historical process, almost certainly irreversible, in which society and culture are delivered from tutelage to religious control and closed metaphysical world-views” and therefore “an authentic outcome of biblical faith.” [72] However, secularization is not only a departure from Christianity but also a pursuit of some different ideal. No doubt, there must be some leading idea for secularization, and it is none other than secularism.

1.2.2 Philosophical Secularization

Then, what is the essence of secularism? Rudolf Bultmann is correct to say that “the loss of the supernatural can be and was replaced in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries by the belief in progress and its accompanying optimism.” [73] When John Baillie says in The Belief in Progress that “Historians agree in regarding belief in progress as one of the ruling ideas in the Western thought of the last hundred and fifty or two hundred years,” [74] it is but an another name for secularism. The idea of progress is called a “belief,” because it “is of a speculative or a priori kind, and not such as readily to be suggested by the observation of historical data alone.” [75]

And, the belief in progress is called “a Christian heresy,” because “it is within Christian civilization and nowhere else that the modern belief in progress has arisen.” [76] Hendrikus Berkhof seems to agree with this positive understanding:

This concept came into the world only after and through Christianity...in short, in the struggle for what we call progress--an activity is taking place throughout the world to the honour of Christ. It is sometimes performed by people who know and desire it; it is more often performed by those who have no concern for it, but whose labour proves that Christ truly received--in full objectivity--all power on earth. [77]

Therefore, “pessimism of culture” is criticized as “an ungrateful blindness.” [78] On the other hand, all the progressivists are praised even as “evangelists and missionaries in their own kind.” [79] But, it is too positive and too inclusive. As a result, Berkhof has fallen into a dilemma. If it is true that “Sanctification and secularization progress together” [80] and therefore “The growth of the opposition forces, then, is an indication of the growth of the Kingdom of God,” [81] there will never be a solution.

Rather, we need to raise a basic question: What is progress? Simply, is it “a movement in a direction deemed desirable”? [82] It is certainly not a sufficient definition, because it is relative to what is desired. Concerning this problem Baillie made a penetrating statement: “Human history can therefore be thought of as progressive only if it is in some sort conceived as a single action. But the conception of history as a single action involves the conception of an universal agent, that is, of God.” [83] Therefore, from the Christian point of view, the belief in progress without God is logically impossible. But, an essential element of secular progressivism is “without God.” As Karl Löwith pointed out, divine providence has been replaced by the idea of progress and thus man became the subject of history in place of God. [84] That is why Martin Heidegger called this age as the epoch of subjectivity (Subjektivität), the era of human autonomy. That is why humanists attempt to erase even the concept of God. [85] But true progress is progress toward God, the center of history, and the true hope of progress “is thus a hope radiating from a single centre and existing only for those whose lives are determined by a positive relation to that centre.” [86] Therefore, claimed progresses in wrong directions are not progress but “progress against Progress.” [87]

Moreover, a genuine progress must be a human progress. Economic, scientific, or informational progress alone may not be true progress without the progress of humanity. However, no historian testifies to the moral progress of human race. [88] Our century is said to be one of the most immoral centuries in the human history: brutal warfare and killing, compassionless neglect of the starving and poor people, insane addictions to immoral pleasures, and, most of all, egoistic rebellion against family and God. Therefore, Hendrikus Berkhof recognized that there are limits to progress. He listed three such limits: (1) it is not applicable to art, the human ethos, love, empathy, and religion; (2) one cannot speak of progress in the sense of happiness; (3) fundamentally, the fact of sin limits it. [89]

Furthermore, the belief in progress involves an element of illusion and even idolatry, because it is an empty notion without any empirical or theological ground. Some have confused the idea of progress with the doctrine of divine providence, but, as J. B. Bury concluded in his pioneering work The Idea of Progress, those two concepts are “incongruous.” [90] For the providence of God neither guarantees a simple forward progress of human history nor imposes His will with a total disregard of human response. It is mysterious and inscrutable in most details. The Kingdom of God will be ultimately realized, but how and when is not revealed. It is ambiguous, but the way to realize His Kingdom lies in judging the world rather than in making it an Utopia. Some criticize this optimistic pessimism as naive and ignorant, [91] but this apocalyptic expectation seems a more biblical and realistic picture. [92] In reality, this belief in progress finally met the “watershed event” of World War I. As Carl L. Becker recognized, “Since 1918 this hope has perceptibly faded. Standing within the deep shadow of the Great War, it is difficult to recover the nineteenth-century faith either in the fact or the doctrine of progress.” [93] But, it did not die out. Becker himself turned to another hope in progress--the hope of technological progress grounded upon the mastery of power. [94] After World War II and Holocaust, a great return to the Christian faith had been expected, but “the revival of religion in the early post-war years was no more than an episode.” [95] Rather, secularization has been more accelerated than ever with the pride and belief in the technological progress.

1.2.3 Technological Secularization

Suddenly we are in the midst of “technological culture.” As Jacques Ellul writes, “we are all in this game.” [96] “Technology is our environment, the new `nature' in which we live, the dominant factor, the system.” [97] It threatens our natural environment, humanity, society and culture, [98] and creates far bigger problems than what it solves, and some of them are irreversible and irreparable. [99] The more technology advances, greater unpredictable disasters will follow. [100] In addition, its damages and dangers are assessed only in monetary terms, and its problems and solutions are analyzed only in technological terms. [101] Technology humiliates men into serving machines [102] and appreciating any and all technological products. [103] It is absurd. It is even more absurd, when we consider the unreasonable fact that we cannot dispose it, even if we wish to do. [104] We simply cannot resist the attractions of modern technology, whatever problems and threats it entails. As technocrats always conclude, “we cannot stop progress.” [105] “To be sure, there are growing efforts at resistance from the environmentalists concerned about the degradation of the natural environment and also from some religious traditions that seek to preserve the social structure and religious meanings of an earlier time,” as David Hopper observed, “but by and large the pace of technological innovation and its spread are little altered by these efforts.” [106] It seems that this technological mechanism, coupled with human problems of pride and avarice, is leading the human race to a “global death.” [107] Ellul even called it an invincible and demonic “terrorism.” [108]

At present, there is a growing anxiety that technology is “beyond our control”. René Dubos commented: “Technology cannot theoretically escape from human control, but in practice it is proceeding on an essentially independent course.”; John Kenneth Galbraith stated: “I am led to the conclusion... that we are becoming servants in thought as in action, of the machine we have created to serve us.”; Martin Heidegger also said: “No one can foresee the radical changes to come. But technological advance will move faster and faster and can never be stopped. In all areas of his existence, man will be encircled ever more tightly by the forces of technology--these forces--have moved long since beyond his will and have outgrown his capacity for decision.” [109] Almost every intellectual worries about it and some of them even imagine a future in which human beings would actually be slaves of powerful artificial intelligence, but they cannot find any fundamental solution. Jacques Ellul provides an insightful explanation of the puzzle of why we cannot control technology. “What all those who think they can master technique lack is,” he explains, “a basic understanding that technique is simply power, that no one can master power, and that by its very nature power forbids all questioning and slips away from all attempts to seize it.” [110] Therefore, it “cannot be controlled unless the whole be controlled.” [111] Who could control the worldly power if not the Christian churches? As he sees it, however, the churches are the worst victim of the modern technological culture rather than a leading force to overcome it. [112] Ellul simply became pessimistic and negative. [113]

However, pessimistic defeatism or technological negativism may not be Christian, because God still reigns this technological world and the power of darkness cannot ultimately succeed. A Christian philosopher Egbert Schuurman offers a “liberating perspective for technological development.” [114] Upon his critical analysis that transcendentalists and positivists, technocrats and revolutionary utopians are altogether heading toward a cul-de-sac because they commonly share a wrong belief in the “autonomy” of technology, [115] he seeks a “religious” solution, for “it is not science or technology but man that bears the blame.” [116] Technological development itself is a divine call, [117] as it works for the redemptive process of liberating the world. [118] But, it is the secular motive(s) of secularized men rather than technology itself that causes technological secularization. [119] Of course, it is debatable whether technology has an internal mechanism that causes secularization. From a Christian point of view, however, the ultimate problem certainly lies in the sinful mind of man, and his salvation is given by grace, making man free from the power of sin and empowers him to serve God responsibly for the redemption of the world. As he correctly pointed out, nothing or nobody could block the progression of the Kingdom of God, which “is forging a path right through the disturbances and dislocations of meaning occasioned by the technological development led by secular motives and fraught, today, with far-reaching consequences.” [120] The present form, however, is not so optimistic. Technology is so secularized, and the problem is still increasing. So Schuurman called for immediate action to restrain and halt the deepening secularization of technology, [121] though its fundamental solution should be religious, that is, a restoration of relationship with God.

As a matter of fact, there are several powerful movements which resist the wrong developments of technology. First, the environmental movement arose in the midst of technological society and has now gained sufficient political power to control unrestrained industrial developments globally. Moreover, scientific research has proved that uncontrolled technological developments will result in global death. Second, the anti-Western movement arose in the Third World countries and corrected the concept of “development.” Though the Western idea of development in technology and economy is still powerfully influential in the Third World countries, it has been significantly controlled by cultural criticism of the superiority of Western technological culture, and the concept of development as Westernization is no longer dominant. This movement has also led for the West to reflect seriously on their own understanding of “culture.”

Most significantly, another movement is emerging now. Disillusioned with technological culture and disappointed by rationalistic thinking, people are turning to seek for the meaning of life. Now, people are beginning to realize “the technological bluff” which has promised an Utopia. [122] “Technology now provides a lesser hope,” says Hopper: “Sometimes the vision of a new technology revivifies briefly the old political hope, the hope of deliverance..., but with a passage of five or six years, the excitement, the stir, the resolve are gone.” [123] Peter Berger analyzed the “built-in” limits of secularization in terms of “homelessness”: modern technological culture necessarily produced a general feeling of homelessness and alienation so that a massive counter-modernization movement would arise to reverse the trend. As examples of this movement, he listed the Third World nationalism, youth culture, leisure culture (labour movement), liberation movement of race and women, and religious resurgences. [124] Pannenberg agreed with this diagnosis, and listed “three signs of a reversal” of the trend toward secularization: a widespread disappointment with the passion for social revolution, a tendency to withdraw from social commitment into private life, and the renewal of religious life in the sub-cultures of society. [125] Because “long term effects of the secularization of culture”--the loss of legitimation in the institutional ordering of society, the collapse of the universal validity of traditional morality and consciousness of law, and the loss of a meaningful focus of commitment--are too destructive to tolerate, he believed, there would certainly be a break and reversal. [126] He then raised an important question: “What can theology contribute to this?” [127]

As clearly stated from the beginning, this study attempts to offer a theological solution to the problem of modern secularization, particulary the secularization of the Korean churches. In our discussion of the problem of secularization (1.1) and some special characteristics of modern secularization (1.2), we found that secularization is a mass emancipation from God toward the world and the effects tragically appear in every area of life, especially in the political, philosophical, and technological aspects of our modern culture. Our task will be to find a way out of the problem of secularization, and therefore the next section will be devoted to that purpose.