It is the year 2003 and a forum is being held at the Satow Room of Lerner Hall on the fifth floor. A long table seats five panelists: Karl Marx, W.E.B. Dubois, Friedrich Nietzsche, Michel Foucault, and Columbia’s very own Eric Foner. The first four panelists have been brought back to life via time travel. They will promptly be returned at the end of the discussion.
The audience is predominantly Asian American, with a great majority being Korean American, all undergraduates at Columbia University. To a passerby, the sight is odd because the guest panelists are all white males while the audience is a sea of black and brown haired heads with similar-looking Asian faces.
[the audience is still noisy as the forum has yet to begin; the guests speak among themselves; remarkably, all seem to know how to speak English proficiently, although some of them have thick European accents]
Nietzsche: My goodness, have we been transported to China to talk to a bunch of Chinamen?
Foner: No, actually this is Columbia University in New York City, America. And I believe some of these Asian students are of Korean descent as well as of Chinese.
Karl Marx: And of what kind of socio-economic category would they be?
Foner: Well, I would have to say that they are probably of varied statuses; some may be wealthy and others less so. They also come from various parts of the United States and maybe even directly from Asia.
Dubois: Are you for real? All these yellow-colored kids are getting a Columbia education? I know that in my day, Columbia is mostly for them white boys. You guys let my homeboy Langston Hughes in though – a very fine poet. Are there as many black kids on campus?
Foner: Well, there seems to be a greater number of Asian Americans on this particular campus, but rest assured, we have plenty of African American students as well.
[the moderator, a Korean American male student, gets everyone to quiet down and begins the forum]
Moderator: Hello ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to this most unusual forum. We are proud to introduce the renowned thinkers of modern times as we will be engaging in a discussion on a very specific topic and will ask these gentlemen to provide their spontaneous views. We don’t know what to expect or if anything will come out of this exercise at all, but please take advantage of this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity and pay close attention.
[the moderator introduces each panelist one-by-one with brief descriptions of each with a mention of some of their better known books]
Moderator: Alright, the topic we will be exploring today is one that will touch almost all of you. It is on the issue of religion, more specifically – the Korean American community and the role of Christianity within the community. These panelists have been given basic information on the general history of Korean Americans including the history of their immigration to the United States, the creation churches, the proliferation of the Korean Christian community, and also how this all corresponds to the history of Christianity back in Korea. So – having said this much, let’s begin with our first question: How can Christianity, a religion based on the history of the Jews and developed over time in Europe, become such a big part of a Korean American population?
Foucault: Well, I think in order to answer that question, we need to explore the details more carefully. We have to first examine how Koreans became Christian. Missionaries were deployed to Korea either in the late 19th century or early 20th century and a Christian population began to develop. Of course, if I have my facts straight, I’d say that Buddhism still claims the majority there, as well as ancestral Confucian practices.
Nietzsche: Absolutely – if we can see how these Koreans became Christian, we can see how it’s gotten to be so big for them now. I have a funny feeling that we’re going to see a lot of parallels between Jews and Koreans. For some reason, all this history of oppression that I’ve been told – with Japanese occupation and the Korean War – it seems like a perfect setting for some of its inhabitants to adopt a sort of slave morality. After getting pushed around enough times, you’re bound to adopt an ideology that assures you that being meek is a good thing.
Karl Marx: The way I see it, this seems like a clear case of imperialism: missionaries sent out to probe the East Asian markets and to establish the first channels of communication for eventual exploitation. The missionaries seem to have capitalized on what Mr. Nietzsche has termed a vulnerable ‘slave morality’ in order to convert at least a part of the population into Christians. Of course, through this conversion, the Western nations probably found a way to tap the market.
Moderator: I’m sorry to interrupt, but instead of digging so deep, would any one of you care to answer how Christianity has become such a big part of the Koreans living here in America? It’s just that most of these kids here want to know more about themselves.
Foner: Well, I guess in respect to that, the majority of Koreans who immigrated to the United States were of the Christian faith, the reason being that they were the minority in Korea and it was easier for them to come to America, naturally a very pro-Christian country. And from there on, they were able to establish their churches, which eventually served as ethnic community centers for new incoming Koreans.
Dubois: It’s kind of like it was for the blacks in America. After emancipation, the church replaced the plantation as the community center for blacks. And as we all know from the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, black churches took an active role in fighting for equality. It looks like these Koreans are using the church as a community center for exchange of cultural and ethnic values.
Moderator: Great. Next question is: Korean American churches are known to take an evangelical approach to Christianity and to emphasize a non-scholarly, strong-faith belief. This is especially evident in the second or ‘1.5’ generation of Korean American youth. Why might an evangelical form be so popular and effective, and what ramifications might it have on the development of the future of the Korean American community?
Nietzsche: I guess there’s no other explanation than to state the obvious: Korean Americans are an insecure group who take refuge behind Christianity. I see it as absurd how a group that is totally unrelated to the Jews could so blindly worship a Jewish idol and care so much that he died on the cross. Can’t they find a better excuse to congregate? Is their history so lacking of a formidable figure that they have to borrow one from the Jews?
[the crowd does not like the answer and lets Nietzsche know with boos and hisses; Nietzsche sits calmly and smiles smugly]
Audience Member: Fuck you Nietzsche! You’re going to burn in hell!
Nietzsche: Wow, an incredible manipulation job by their respective clergy. I bet they even know some lines from the Scripture by heart!
[the Moderator urges the crowd to calm down and asks the other panelists if they have anything else to add]
Foucault: I see it as a very convenient device for the distribution of power within the Korean American community. Using religion, which already has a built-in hierarchical structure, the Korean Americans are able to broaden the reach so that the wealthier members of the congregation who give greater sums of offering each week will have more control over the social activities of the church as an ethnic community center and as a religious institution. And at the same time, we see the younger Korean Americans being inculcated with the doctrines of evangelical Christianity at a young age, so that they may become even more devout Christians than their parents. Because the success of the church depends on its volume, the church seeks out more and more Korean Americans to be subjected to this power structure.
Marx: That’s a very interesting point, and I agree with Monsieur Foucault. Of course, from there, we see how Korean churches, as separate, independent institutions, begin to compete with each other for a larger congregation. Of course, they will each form corporate identities – maybe one church will have nicer facilities while the other goes out to have more outdoor picnics – but either way, each church will adopt business strategies and seek ways to expand. The ‘Korean American Christian’ undoubtedly becomes a commoditized member, losing his or her individuality, and becoming, instead, a pawn for the church to use in its expansion. I don’t think this phenomenon has been clearly exposed to the younger Korean Americans, who find refuge from denominational or organizational competition in their college campus groups. Is that not correct, Professor Foner?
Foner: Well, from what I know, there are several Christian clubs here on our campus. I know that groups such as InterVarsity and Campus Crusade for Christ seek membership of students. I don’t think they are openly ‘competitive,’ but each has a considerable amount of Asian Americans as part of the group. I think that with Korean Americans, no matter how evangelical they may be, the fact that they are Korean plays a great role in their decision to remain Christian.
W.E.B. Dubois: Yeah. The Professor is on the money. Just like you won’t see a black person go to a white people’s church, you won’t see no Korean go to a non-Korean church. I’m sure there are interracial or multicultural congregations around, but for the most part, the religious motivation of the group is largely based on the desire of Korean Americans to be with other Korean Americans.
Moderator: Following up on that point then, do Korean American churches promote the political and social advancement of Korean Americans?
Marx: Absolutely not. When you have churches going against each other, it implies that Korean Americans are turned against each other. A minority group as small as the Korean Americans will be even more insignificant if they cannot find common grounds for any type of concerted activity.
Foucault: I’m not totally sure about that. There have been cases of Korean American churches across the United States coming together for large revivals and other ‘united’ efforts. And while churches may compete with each other, they usually hold similar beliefs when it comes to politics and social issues. For example, most Korean churches are bound to be against rights for homosexuals and also against government appropriation of funds for abortion. Such conservative leanings will affect the overall population of Korean Americans, and in that sense, create a more homogenous ideology that can lead to united action.
Nietzsche: But is it really uniting them or brainwashing them? Proclaiming themselves to be worthless sinners while at the same time breeding a feeling of self-righteousness, it feels like these Korean Americans are every bit hypocritical as the rest of the bunch. And of course, these ‘believers’ all claim that they are united by ‘faith,’ which just means that they really don’t have any arguments to stand by.
Dubois: I feel like Korean Americans, in trying to emulate a white man’s institution while being an exclusive group at the same time, impede their own social progress. Sure it’s great to have a double sense of unity in sharing the same ethnicity and the same religion, but look at the bigger picture. Can white folk really take Korean American Christians seriously? I mean, by virtue of being Christian, they readily admit to the superiority of whites. At least black folk think Jesus was black. I don’t think any Korean American believes in a yellow Jesus.
Foner: The answer remains to be seen. As much as Korean Americans hold their churches dear, some are finding other ways to advance politically and socially, either through non-Christian political activist groups or by assimilating and participating in society without any connection to the rest of the Korean Americans. The landscape of Koreans in America may drastically change in a decade, when less and less Korean Americans make a living as grocers or dry cleaners and a greater number become professionals with college education. At that point, we may see a great change in the Korean American community; perhaps Korean Americans will strive more towards a political voice that lacks affiliation with religion or we may see an increase in the secularization of Korean American cultural activity with non-religious Korean American community centers popping up.
Moderator: One last question: many Korean American youth claim Christianity to be a ‘personal religion’ that depends on the individual’s communication with God. Some youth, while acknowledging the importance of the church as an institution, believe that it is not totally necessary. In such a case, where Christianity resonates strongly among Korean Americans as an ideology rather than a physical entity, is there something to be said about such a deconstructive affiliation with the religion?
Dubois: Well, anyone can believe whatever they want because this country allows them to do so. But I think that these believers of a “personal” Christianity are mostly ignorant of the cultural and ethnic significance of the church in the Korean American community. They probably haven’t cared to realize their parents or grandparents carrying on a prolific social life at church and how important it is for them to maintain constant contact with this ethnic network.
Marx: Perhaps we’re seeing the emergence of a bourgeoisie Korean American, one with a professional career in sight and personal features that allow them to feel assimilated enough in American society. They might not have the leverage yet to dictate the direction of the Korean American church, but they can still claim membership in a mythic “Korean American Christian community” while going about their private business.
Foucault: It feels like such Korean Americans are actually partaking in a strategic maneuver to distance themselves from the ethnic conclave of the Korean American church in order free themselves of any social obligations; at the same time however, these Korean Americans do not want to sever ties which may provide backup or a reserve resource that they may access by merit of being a ‘believer.’ It’s a very smart way of advancing in society while still retaining all the perks.
Foner: Perhaps it’s a small step towards secularization. How good of a “Christian” can you be without actually attending church or being an active member in it? That is a question I don’t think I can answer, but one which may be more evident as time passes.
Nietzsche: Such people are even worse than those who attend church. I would call these people ignorant Christians. It’s almost as bad as Korean American Catholics who don’t hail the Pope as a major figure in their life and claim that they can find meaning for themselves in the Bible. What a confusion of self-identity! As for ignorant Christians, their primary aim in detaching themselves institutionally is to escape criticism for their personal behavior. I’m talking about excessive drinking, promiscuity, and other “evils” that they are ashamed to deal with at church. By making their “relationship with God” a personal one, they are asserting their right to act in a manner they want because they can consult with God immediately afterwards for any moral clarification, which most likely means that they uttered a “sorry God” and felt better about themselves. It is a total perversion of Christianity that arises from a complete lack of knowledge of the institutional infrastructure and of the rudimentary lessons taught by Christ. Why not be bold and sever the tie completely if you are willing to be this ignorant? The inability to take this crucial step is the key weakness of the Korean American Christian – whether you’re a hardcore Bible hugger or a part-time churchgoer. As long as you’re tied down to this self-perpetuated guilt of owing your life to God, you’ll pretty much amount to nothing as a people, much less an individual.
[more boos and hisses come from the crowd. The Moderator begs for order.]
Moderator: Well, this has been a most interesting discussion. It is unfortunate that our historical guests must, at this time, be returned to their respective time periods. Of course, Professor Foner will be available to take any questions. But at this time, we would like to thank all the panelists for participating in this discussion.
[some applause and some jeers from the crowd, most of which are directed at Nietzsche]
End.
