As the first piece of Hangul literature, the Korean Bible proved to be a thorn in the side of imperial Japan. It sparked a "Hangul movement," leading to the publication of newspapers, poems, and novels in the indigenous tongue. Throughout Japanese occupation, the Koreans’ desire for independence became closely linked with their desire to use their own language. As one student of Korean nationalism, Vernon Blake Killingsworth, has written, "The Bible did more than just sustain hope; for Christians and non-Christians alike, the Hangul Scriptures served as a symbol of Korean culture."
The independence nurtured by Korea’s indigenous church stood directly opposed to Japan’s imperial policies. Indeed, many congregations took risks to promote Korean freedom. Unlike other countries, where missionary congregations sometimes found themselves entangled with colonial powers, Korea’s church was always allied with Korean nationalism—an alliance that proved beneficial for both church and state.
How Christianity Liberated South Korea
Christian missions is not about replacing indigenous cultures with western or any other culture. It is about inserting truth into culture and tearing down falsehoods, and liberating people. The case of Korea is nicely outlined in this article from CT. Here’s a couple quotes:
Yes, the "truth" of Christianity. Like for instance, there is "truth" in "gay hatred."
This post is not about homosexuality. Stop being obsessed with one point of doctrine ;)
It is insulting to tell people that they needed "truth" inserted into their lives Seeker. It demeans whatever it was that they believed prior. People can change, and change can be good, but to write as if those people were cavemen is a tad condescending. At best.
Here is the difference between Christianity and just about everything else – objective truth.
Christians believe there to be absolute truths, that things are either/or, not both/and.
If Christianity is "truth" then it would be worse than "condescending" to not tell them about it.
Is it condescending to tell the people in the path of Rita that they should leave, even if they believe they will be okay and no damage will come to them? Does that demean what they believe or are you telling them the truth and don't want them to risk injury to themselves?
Christians view Christianity as a lifeline from a far worse fate than a hurricane and a far better result than being trapped in a rescue shelter.
If you want to see a Christian who does not love people or care about anyone else, it is the Christian who never shares his faith because they think have "got theirs" and don't care if anyone else does or not. Hateful Christians (if they are Christians at all) don't share their faith with people different from them because they don't care about them.
BTW, American culture needs truth too, and has for years – in the past, it was the truth that all man are created equal, and no man should be a slave. I'm glad some people had the hubris to to say so.
Yes Seeker, all men ARE created equal. We agree. Which is EXACTLY why gay relationships should be just as legally protected as straight ones. Thank you for finally making my point for me.
it took decades for South Korea to truly be democratic and free, even while American troops and Bibles were widely available, S. Korea remained authoritarian until the 1980s by most measures.
Immorality is not a right to be protected, but a vice to be tolerated, not sanctioned or punished by public policy.
Freedom does not mean that the govt has to approve or condemn all activities. It should criminalize actions that harm others, support those that build society, and remain neutral in those that fall inbetween. And that, as I have repeatedly stated, is where homosexuality falls.
However, based on my reasoning, I would have to also think about gays in the military. I haven't thought about that yet.
Also, if we want the govt to ensure that gays are not discriminated against in housing and employment, why not marriage?
Also, what about pet owners, smokers, or people who cook stinky foods? Do I have to rent to them too? By law, I know that a landlord can deny pets. Why not these others? Hmmmm.