전체 페이지뷰

2015년 2월 6일 금요일

Transforming Korean Churches in Australia

Transforming Korean Churches in Australia
           

1.         Korean Churches in Australia


Although many Korean visitors and residents in Australia had been Christians, the first Korean Church was born in Melbourne in 1973 and in Sydney in 1974. In the case of the Melbourne Korean church, it was in fact leadership of a lay person, Gi Young Nahm, who initiated the establishment of a Korean church. Nahm thought it was necessary for a Korean church to be formed in Melbourne because many Korean Christians were not attending any church due to cultural shock and language barriers. A Korean church would assist them to continue their worship life (Kim, 2004, 13). Soon Nahm made a visit to Alan Stuart who served as missionary in Korea for help. Interestingly, Stuart was initially not in favor of this idea.

Wrongly as I now recognize, I was reluctant to do this, thinking that since most of these Koreans had come to live in Australia, it would help their integration into Western society for them to worship regularly in their churches, albeit in English. Certainly and fortunately I failed to convince them. (Kim, 14)

Stuart’s memoir says that it was fortunate he failed to convince Nahm. Eventually Stuart was persuaded and was able to lead the first Korean congregation in 1973, with Nahm playing an important leadership role.
In the following year in Sydney, half a dozen Koreans met with John P. Brown who also was a missionary in Korea for 20 years on an occasion to welcome a visiting church leader from Korea. There they decided ‘to establish a Korean Christian Fellowship in order to provide opportunities for people to meet for worship in their mother tongue and provide an opportunity to meet for fellowship in the midst of the loneliness of migrant life’ (Brown, 264). This group would have also been encouraged by the establishment of a Korean church in Melbourne. Lay Korean leaders including the late Joon Hak Yoo, also played an important part in initiating Korean ministry in Sydney.
Not very long after the establishment of two churches, other Korean churches began to flourish everywhere in major cities in Australia. Soon after the two churches in Melbourne and Sydney joined the Uniting Church in Australia in 1977, a number of people began to establish separate congregations with different denominational backgrounds such as the Churches of Christ and the Presbyterian Church in Australia (Brown, 271).
In 1985, an interdenominational association called The Council of Ministers of Korean Churches in Australia was established by eight ministers in Sydney (Yang, 2004, 473). This then could mean that there were eight churches in Sydney. Since then, this ecumenical Council has been playing an important role in the Korean Christian community in Sydney, hosting events such as continuing education for ministers, evangelical revival rallies and monitoring certain heretical movements in the churches.
In January 1990, the newly launched monthly Korean magazine, Christian Review listed 39 Korean churches in Sydney. Through this magazine Korean Christians have become more informed about issues in Australia and beyond. The magazine remains a valuable resource for those who study the history of Korean immigrant churches in Australia.
In March 2005, the magazine listed 142 Korean churches in Sydney, two each in Wollongong and Newcastle, five in Canberra, 13 in Melbourne, 19 in Queensland, nine in Perth, three each in Adelaide and Tasmania, in total 198 congregations (Kwon, 2005). However, it is estimated that there are nearly 200 Korean churches in Sydney alone. As Gordon Dicker observed, ‘Koreans are of a religious disposition and when they join a church they attend regularly’ (Dicker, 1997, 7).
During the 1970s and 1980s, the role Korean churches played within the Korean community in Australia were crucial. They played a major role in terms of providing not only spiritual support but also ethnic identity and community welfare. Christian or not, many Koreans came to a church on Sundays ‘to share news of Korea, information about employment and accommodation, and news of other people’ (Brown, 266). The Korean churches provided a sense of fellowship for lonely immigrants and freedom from the pressure of speaking English. The Korean ministers often acted as counsellor, mediator, welfare worker, interpreter, guardian, friend, and even pick-up driver. As the Korean community grows, other social groups have taken over these services, but it has been an essential contribution of church ministers and leaders to the Korean community.
Among over 200 Korean churches in Australia, there are four different categories in terms of belonging to denominations. There are 1) independent denominations but not belonging to any denominations either in Korea or Australia, 2) denominations connected to  denominations in Korea, 3) denominations belonging to an Australian denominations, and 4) individual, independent congregations, not belonging any denominations (Yang, 2004, 31). Recently a group of Korean Presbyterian church has joined to a Korean denomination in America.  It would be an interesting task to research why these churches belong or do not belong to denominations in Korea and in Australia. There are complicated issues such as membership, identity, church growth, financial gains, theology, and mission relationship.
In a recent questionnaire done by Saesoon Presbyterian Church in Sydney, among the participants of Oceania Korean Ministers’ Couples Seminar, shows that Korean ministers consider ‘proclamation’ and ‘training discipleship’ the core values in their ministry. A large number of Korean churches are struggling to be financially self-sufficient and at the other pole, there are a number of large churches, with a membership of a couple of thousand (The 5th Oceania Korean Ministers’ Couple seminar folder, Sydney, 2005).
It would be safe to say that most Korean churches tend to be conservative in their theology and the word ‘evangelism’ has a key role among many Korean ministers. For that reason, ministers play a central role in terms of preaching and leading Bible studies, and there are few women elders and ministers. The first generation of Korean churches in Australia appears to be less changeable than churches in their homeland Korea, holding onto traditions more firmly. Han, therefore argues that the Korean Church in Australia hinders rather than helps Korean-Australians as they undergo the process of becoming global citizens in multicultural Australia (Han, 2004, 115).
At the 1996 Australian Census, the major religions amongst Korean-born were Catholic (7,249 persons), Presbyterian (5,250 persons) and Uniting Church (4,673 persons). Of the Korean-born, 21.4 per cent stated ‘No Religion’. This was higher than that of the total Australian population (16.6 per cent).

2.         Korean Churches in the Uniting Church in Australia
To be a member of existing Anglo denomination has never likely to be a straightforward process. The nature of any church is to make use of highly intentional language of the term ‘all are welcome’. In a cross-cultural situation, there are invariably obstacles and misunderstandings. There is the often expressed desire to reproduce in the new land the customs and practices of what was taken for granted from the homeland. Some diasporic theologians argue that the church takes on extra roles for immigrant communities, creating safe spaces where familiar patterns of leadership, language and authority are exercised.
It is also not uncommon for members of the existing host church to insist on new-comers becoming assimilated, integrated or ‘one of us’. One of the great difficulties facing Korean Christians in their relationship with the Uniting Church is theological. This Australian denomination has the reputation for being ‘liberal’. Exactly what this means has not been subject to close critical scrutiny. What does the claim mean? Is it true? For what political and cultural purpose is the claim made?
To some extent the negative nature of the accusation is a reflection of the particular evangelical background of Korean Christianity. Again, there is an irony here. According to its Basis of Union, the UCA sees itself as both Catholic and Reformed. It often sees itself as an evangelical church, but clearly not in the way that some Korean people do. Most Korean members take the Bible literally. Using modern methods of biblical criticism is seen as liberal, reflecting a lack of faith in the Bible as the Word of God. Part of the dilemma then lies in how the UCA sees itself as being open to contemporary scholarship.
The Uniting Church ‘acknowledges that the Church has received the books of the Old and New Testament as unique prophetic and apostolic testimony, in which it hears the Word of God and by which its faith and obedience are nourished and regulated’ (Basis of Union par. 5). What this means in practice is that the Bible is said to incorporate the Word of God rather than being the Word of God in a more literal manner. At the same time the Uniting Church values scholarly interpreters of Scripture and the inheritance of literary, historical and scientific enquiry (Par. 11).
There is a further irony here. It is no accident that it could be argued that the most creative work on the theology of immigration, living in diaspora, being second-generation, and what it means to be cross-cultural has happened in the Uniting Church. The perceived ‘liberal’ nature of its theology has allowed contextual theology and issues of Christian identity to be explored in a relocated home. Many theological issues arise in terms of addressing how Gospel and culture relate.
This kind of work, though, is part of a much more complex terrain. The degree of discomfort is most often felt in the matter of moral practice. The most vivid example of this difficulty is the recent extended debate over leadership and sexuality. Most, if not all, member churches of the Council of Korean Churches signed and published a statement saying that the practice of homosexuality is contrary to the teaching of the Bible and therefore they would not recognise or call homosexual leaders into their congregations. Regardless of this, other denomination Korean churches see the UCA as holding an unacceptable theology and continue to criticize the UCA. This ‘liberal’ image poses a continual obstacle for prospective new congregations to join the Uniting Church.
The inclusion of recently arrived migrant communities into an existing denomination is far from being a straightforward process. There are a number of liminal experiences to be negotiated both in relationship to the new host denomination as well as with regard to the homeland churches. The common tendency is for the issues that arise to do with the role of language and culture, the relationship of Gospel to the culture and generational differences.
It should come as no surprise that there gradually emerges a desire to put a more formed, organisational frame of reference around these matters. It soon became clear that the reliance on good will and key persons is not enough.
The Korean experience in the UCA has been to put in place a process, which has led recently to the construction of a Korean Commission. The establishment of this body has not happened in a vacuum. There have been a number of steps, which needed to be completed before hand. The pivotal event was the setting up of the Council of the Korean Churches.
In February 1988, the Council of Korean Churches (Korean Council) in the Uniting Church in Australia was established. Those Korean ministers who belonged to UCA regularly met to pray and support each other and soon they formed a formal organisation for better administration and ministry for their member churches. This Korean Council had no official status within the UCA at that time, but soon the Council became an unofficial advisory group to the UCA in relation to Korean churches and ministers. Eleven churches in total were the founding members, seven in Sydney, and one each in Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide and Canberra. Kil Bock Hong was elected as the first chairperson of the Council.
The Council declared four goals of their mission at the inauguration service. ‘Firstly, we affirm the responsibility of mission to our own people. Secondly, we affirm to seek working together with other ethnic people. Thirdly, we affirm the need of the common work with other bodies of the church on the basis of co-operation and understanding. Lastly, we affirm the way of God to continue the reconciliation and unity with other churches’ (Order of Service, February 28, 1988).
This statement clearly recognizes their position in Australia as Koreans and in the Uniting Church as Korean churches. It seeks to call to mission beyond ethnicity, denomination and generation. This still has been a key task of mission and ministry of Korean churches.
One task for the Council was to understand the Uniting Church regulations and see how they were similar to or different from Korean church regulations. In this light, the Council developed the Kong Dong Kyu Jung (Korean By-Law) for the unity of ministry practice within the Uniting Church. As the number of Korean churches and its members increased and ministers had various denominational backgrounds, there was an urgent need to adopt a consistent by-law within the Constitution and Regulations of the Uniting Church. This issue became part of the major agenda for Korean churches in coming years.
Most Korean churches basically followed the Uniting Church Regulations but there were these cultural issues and differences, especially the understanding of the terms of office bearers. In Korea, particularly in the Korean Presbyterian Church tradition, there is the option of calling a minister (Danimmoksa) for a life long tenure. Elders (Jangno) too can be offered lifetime recognition. In addition there are some roles of leadership in Korean traditions that do not have an equivalent in the Uniting Church such as Bu-Moksa (assistant ministers); Jibsa (for male and female – doing a steward and service role) and Kwonsa (a role for women that usually involves visiting and caring ministry) — in most Presbyterian Churches in Korea, women are not allowed to be Elders. So this is one role they have that is recognised though it does not carry the same status and does not involve being ‘ordained’ as is the case of Elders in Korea.
Developing the Alternative Regulations that were adopted by the National Assembly Standing Committee in 1999, was a significant achievement of the Council. Of the 25 Korean congregations in the Uniting Church, the vast majority are currently using the Alternate Regulations. A review conducted in 2006, heard that Korean leaders express their appreciation for the flexibility and openness of the Uniting Church to allow for alternate regulations.
Within the Alternate Regulations there is a strong recommendation for women to be recognised as elders, following the ethos of UCA. Until now, there have been only four women inducted as Elders. So it appears that most Korean congregations are not therefore practicing Alternate Regulations 3.1.35 (c) From the date on which these alternate Regulations come into effect, at least half of newly elected Elders be women until at least one third of the Elders in active service are women. A gathering of Korean leaders in June 2006 gave attention to address this issue and explore ways congregations could further encourage the leadership of women.
However, one of the most remarkable developments for Korean churches in the UCA has been the forming of the Korean Commission in the NSW Synod. Now it is the time to turn to the issue.
                                                   
3.         The Debate on Establishing Korean Commission in UCA
In February 2005, the Assembly Multicultural Ministry Committee of Uniting Church in Australia (UCA) held its annual meeting in Brisbane.  One of the important issues it discussed was the criticism leveled at both the idea and subsequent practice of a separate Korean Commission in the life of the New South Wales Synod. The necessity for this discussion had arisen because of an article on the Commission published in the August 2004 edition of Uniting Church Studies (Son YR, “Korean Commission: Womb of Mono-Ethnic Presbyteries and Doom of the Uniting Church’s Vision for a Multicultural Church“,Vol.10, No. 2, August 2004, 11-21).

This Commission had only recently been set up. For a number of years, there had been a concern hold by a significant number of Korean ministers that they were unable to address their particular issues with the existing polity of the Uniting Church in Australia. In particular, participating in the presbytery meetings had been a problem for them in terms of such as lack of translation support, of culturally appropriate decision making process and of opportunity for leadership.  For that reason, the Korean ministers brought a proposal ‘to establish a Korean Presbytery’ at the 1998 and 2001 Synod Meetings, and it generated much emotion and rhetoric at the meetings without any resolution. And yet it was felt that a language and cultural based presbytery or commission was desirable. Eventually in 2003, a proposal brought by Board of Mission of the NSW Synod on establishing a Korean Commission on behalf of the Korean Council has been approved and in the following year the Commission was instituted.

The prospect of such a Commission had always been contentious. The most common reservation was that its establishment would compromise the integrity of the denomination’s governance. Its tendency was to fragment and open up the possibility of other such presbyteries or commissions based not just on language or culture, but also distinctive theological persuasions. The UCA might well run the risk of becoming disuniting. Even within the body of Korean ministers, there was ambivalence. Ever since the idea of a Korean Presbytery was first officially raised at the National Korean Churches Consultation in 1994, Yang Rae Son had been a vocal voice to oppose its establishment. It was reckoned that such a body would reproduce the power structures to be in force in the ‘home land’ Korean churches in a new land. It would make the task of the Korean community finding its place alongside a raft of other culture in the UCA more difficult. This broad picture was the background against which Son wrote and the Multicultural Ministry Committee met.

The specific issues raised by Son should be clearly defined and identified. The importance of this task cannot be under-estimated. The metaphor of womb and doom had been used by Son for the sake of illustrating his argument as to how this Commission was likely to put an end to the multicultural vision of this denomination. Rather than being a helpful step forward in the polity and witness of the church, the establishment of the Commission would instead become the womb that nurtures other mono-ethnic presbyteries. The vision of the multicultural church first agreed to by the national Assembly in 1985, was doomed to fragment and splinter.

At this meeting in Brisbane, a Korean minister represented the perspective of the Korean ministers in the Commission who had been much disappointed by the tone and nature of Son’s argument. They were upset with the Son’s extreme expression of the ‘womb and doom’ analogy and with the timing of the arrival of the article when the Commission was just born. On this occasion, some members asked the Assembly Multicultural Ministry Committee to write a letter to Son expressing this body’s disappointment on the timing and content of his article.

The reason why the Korean ministers wanted such a letter to be written lies in the status of the National Multicultural Ministry Committee. In the past, the Committee has been to the forefront of helping frame policy on matters of cultural diversity in the wider church. It had shown a particular interest in the setting up of national ethnic conferences, the reception of ministers, negotiating guidelines between ‘homeland’ churches and the UCA. It has repeatedly striven to provide resources that related the stories of what it has been like for member of diverse cultures to migrate to Australia.

This Committee had fulfilled the function of being an advisory forum for multicultural discussion. In the life of the UCA, there is no better constituted body to consult on the kind of fears both Son and the Korean representative harboured. The language of ‘vision’ has been a recurring theme in the work of this national Committee. For the representative to bring the feeling of the Korean ministers to this Committee immediately placed its concern inside a national forum that was itself made up of several cultures.

And yet it so happened that the Multicultural Ministry Committee decided not to accept the request to write a letter to Son. The Committee wanted to respect a range of different opinions on how we understand the church is culturally diverse. However, this discussion did not mean that the Committee then agreed with Son. Their preferred strategy was to declare a respect for a diversity of opinion in the life of the church and pass a resolution congratulating the establishment of the Korean Commission. It was recognised that the Commission would face many challenges and prayerful support was offered. “The Committee requested the National Director to write to the Korean Commission to congratulate the establishment of Korean Commission on behalf of the Committee, acknowledge some of the challenges they face and offering our prayerful support.” (The Assembly Multicultural Ministry Committee Minutes, 27/2-2/3, 2005)

It seems as if the Committee did not think that the matter was one of womb and doom. The members of the Committee had Son’s article at their disposal. There was no extended discussion on his essay per se. It was assumed that an article in reply would be written, but to date that has not been done. The issues raised and so well argued by Son have not yet received the critical and theoretical response they deserve. This business of how the construction of a mono-ethnic presbytery or commission relates to the aims and ethos of an overt commitment to multiculturalism is still an open question.

In the course of this thesis, the argument raised by Son will need to be examined in more depth. For the moment, this Brisbane episode functions like a prologue. It demonstrates some of the competing tensions that the call to be a multicultural church inevitably attracts.

The multicultural situation is not simple. Not just one migrant ethnic culture nor is the receiving church a homogeneous entity. It is subject to theological difference and perceived differences between states, town and country etc.
How one part of the church might respond to cultural diversity is not the same as it might happen elsewhere. The experience of the Korean community is not necessarily same as the Tongan and the difference between Son and some Korean ministers indicates alternative responses within the life of that community as well. How one migrant community relates to another is further thread in this web. All the while, in the background, is how the Uniting Church lives out its faith on Aboriginal land and negotiates its way into a post Christian world.

The UCA strategy – declared itself a multicultural church. The language of multiculturalism is understandable. It deserves the presence of many culture in one nation and geographic location. It has been a term widely used in Australian politics and history. Whether it is the best model for what is happening in the practice of ministry and the development of an appropriate theology is a moot point. The purpose of this thesis is to examine the its benefit and weakness and propose an alternative.

The Korean experience alluded to in the Brisbane exchange of views furnishes a window into this much bigger debate. Son’s metaphors of womb and doom open up a theological imperative that requires a much fuller discussion.

One of the Son’s concerns on the Korean Commission has been the language and communication. When the establishment of the Commission was approved at the 2003 Synod, one of the rationales was ‘to increase the participation of Koreans’ (The 2005 Synod Minutes) in the life of the church. Korean ministers have been arguing that they could not fully participate in the decision making process of the Presbytery and Synod due to the language barrier and culturally unfamiliar meeting processes. Son expresses a pessimism that having a Korean Commission would improve the communication or the participation to the wider church. Through a communication example with Kong Dong Kyu Jeong (Korean Regulations before the approval of Alternate Regulations for Korean Congregations), he says “the leaders of Korean Presbytery and officers of the Synod would continue to face serious communication problems.” (Son, 13)

Son also argues that the motivation of establishing the Commission was more political rather than missional. Quoting the dissenting voices of Korean people, he argues “at its core, (it is) politically prompted to help Korean ministers secure life-time tenure in settlement” (Son. 14) He continues saying, “Some Korean ministers argue that a Korean Presbytery could help them ‘emancipate’ their congregations from the white people’s ‘imperialistic control’ over Koreans within ‘white peoples’ presbyteries”. (Son, 15)

Another serious concern Son raises is “lacking theological reflections on the self-contradictory coexistence of ‘egalitarian principles’ and the ‘Korean hierarchical structure’. (Son, 16) He says, “As the Korean hierarchical church structure in the UCA has been fortified with ‘a shroud of sacredness’, Uniting Church leaders have not yet been prepared to illuminate the Korean-style rules in the light of the Gospel”. (Son, 15)

The issue of unity in diversity is also highlighted in Son’s article. “Is a mono-ethnic Presbytery (non-geographic council consisting of same language congregations) able to witness to the unity of the Church?” asks Son. (Son, 18) Quoting Davis McCaughey, Son argues that the Presbytery is the symbol of the unity of the church and “to set up a Korean Commission would create many other mono-ethnic presbyteries, and furthermore, it would nurture soils for ideological minorities to form their own presbyteries and finally become ghettoised.” (Son, 18) He laments in conclusion, “At the establishment of the Korean Commission, the Uniting Church lost its heart for unity, envisaging other mono-ethnic presbyteries in the pipeline.” (Son, 20)

While Son’s article provides an excellent opportunity for the church to further their discussion on ‘what we mean by our church is being a multicultural church’, there are some serious pastoral and theological concerns.

At the 2003 Synod meeting when the Synod passed the resolution for an establishment of the Korean Commission, Son was one of the few people who had the final speech, because the Moderator asked whether they, who opposed the establishment of the Korean Commission, could move on with the decision taken by the Synod. Son at that time spoke that although he had been opposing the proposal, he wished God’s blessing for the new journey the Korean community were to embark on. It was just a number of months later that he wrote the provocative article titled “Korean Commission: Womb of Mono-Ethnic Presbyteries and Doom of the Uniting Church’s Vision for a Multicultural Church”.

Some people within and outside of the Korean Commission expressed the pain and disappointment on the arrival of the article at a time of birthing the Commission. They feel like a child who is just trying to walk and having someone pushing them over. As a member of the Uniting Church, we are invited to respect the decision of the church, although we may not agree with it always. At the same time, Son knows that the Korean Commission is approved for an initial period of three years and the Synod will later have an opportunity to evaluate the viability and mission of the Commission. Son could not be avoided a criticism for the pastorally ill-timing deliverance of the article.

On the unity in diversity, Son’s anticipation on the development of many other ‘mono-ethnic presbyteries’ and ‘ideological minorities to form their own presbyteries’ is not only over exaggerated but also unfounded. In the minority ethnic communities in UCA, the needs have not been the same for their mission and ministry. Some communities experience a minimum level of language and communication problems since English has been one of their common languages. Some of the Pacific Islanders seem to be settling well in the local Presbyteries and participating in the process. In fact, a large number of Pacific Island leaders believe that their congregation should be part of the local Presbytery so that the members can be integrated into the UCA and the Australian society in large. At the same time, the National Conferences such as Tongan and Samoan provide a safe place for them to share their joys and struggles in UCA in their own languages. Only a couple of Pacific groups, who have a stronger connection with their home churches than the UCA, may express an interest in forming their own decision making body, but becoming a Presbytery would take a long time, if that is possible at all, in the given complex situation.

For the Asian background congregations, there are no other groups who have enough church numbers to consider becoming a Presbytery. Only a couple of Indonesian congregations showed their interest to be part of the Korean Commission but with very different reason. They see becoming part of the Commission as a refugee from whatever result of the coming Assembly Meeting regarding the ordination of same sex leaders in the church.

On political motivation of some Korean ministers to secure lifetime tenure in settlement, Son sees this as a core to the Korean Commission. However, regardless of the establishing of the Commission, some Korean congregations have already decided to have their minister as life tenure according to the Alternate Regulations for Korean Congregations and some others have followed the general five years term appointment. These placements were a matter for the local Presbyteries even before the birth of the Commission. As the Commission now has the power together with the Synod to approve the call and the term of appointment, the Commission has inducted three new Korean ministers in the short span of the life so far. Those three placements are in accordance with the general UCA regulations, five year term appointments. It is by and large the decision of the each congregation whether they would follow the Alternate Regulations or the general UCA regulations, not the Commission itself.

Within the Commission meetings, the ministers may influence on the discussion and on the decision making but the whole idea of having a Korean Commission is to maximize the participation of lay leaders. It would be true if it is the Council of Korean Churches which has been an ordained ministers’ meeting but the Commission is very different organisation from the Council which has now a much lesser role in the life of Korean congregations. (On 22 May 2005, at the Annual Meeting of the Council of Korean Churches it was decided to continue the Council as a largely minister’s fellowship group and assist those Korean congregations outside of the NSW Synod.) Except a number of Korean congregations, many of them now experience calling a new minister and there will be more changes in the future.

Son is also concerned that “Some Korean ministers argue that a Korean presbytery could help them ‘emancipate’ their congregations from the white people’s ‘imperialistic control’ over Koreans within ‘white peoples’ presbyteries”. (Son, 15) It would be good to provide a reference to make this statement which gives a strong impression that some Korean ministers are anti-‘white peoples’ presbytery’ and therefore anti-‘white peoples’ UCA’. This may be true to a certain extend, although it would not be as racial as Son implied. There is a number of UCA Korean ministers who do not want to use the UCA logo on their Order of Service sheet or on the name cards. This is mainly due to the Assembly debate on the ordination of same sex leaders rather than anything else.

However, if Son’s statement is true, the church in turn, should be able to ask why some Koreans see presbyteries as ‘white peoples’ presbytery’ and as ‘white peoples’ imperialistic control’, from where, what and why they want to ‘emancipate’ from. These may be painful questions to try to answer but are good theological questions the church should take seriously. Our church needs to approach this issue not from the position of a dominant center but from the position of marginal and powerless. It is true that our church has proclaimed ‘UCA is a multicultural church’ in 1985, but without enough theological reflection on ‘race and culture’ and ‘power and privilege’ in multicultural local context. Many congregations have been struggling to find out what it means to be a church that is a culturally and ethnically diverse in terms of sharing property, decision making, common mission to community, worshipping etc. If there are any minority groups which think UCA is a ‘white peoples’ church’, we as a church could not afford ignoring those voices but compassionately try to listen to what they have to say.

Son has also been criticizing the Korean churches for the authoritarian hierarchical structure. This criticism is something that many Korean ministers cannot avoid not only in Australian context but also in Korea itself. This is the very reason why the Korean Commission has come into being. They want to embrace and practice the ethos of UCA in their decision making collectively. It is not just the ministers’ Council of Korean Churches any more. Within the Korean Commission, lay and ordained, men and women, young and old, all come together to discern common mission of God. The Commission also is actually the first bi-lingual ‘presbytery’ in UCA. English speaking representatives from Presbyteries and the Synod freely make contribution to the life of Korean churches. It may not be perfect as it likes to be but it certainly has taken a significant step toward the ethos of UCA.

When there was fierce debate on the issue, a short paper called ‘The Ten Most Asked Questions about the establishing Korean Presbytery’ was published by Myong Duk Yang who worked as Cross-cultural Consultant at Board of Mission, the NSW Synod. This paper was nationally circulated by the Assembly Multicultural Ministry and attempted to answer to some of the hard questions asked.

  1. Why have Korean churches expressed the desire to have their own Presbytery?
The way presbyteries work at the present time does not make it easy for Korean ministers and members of Korean congregations to participate. Many Korean ministers and lay people are not equipped with efficiency in English language to function and be able to contribute. Korean churches through the Council of Korean churches have already been trying to look at how they might more effectively develop and coordinate outreach and evangelism directed to Korean people in Australia. A Korean Presbytery with their own language and experience would be a good vehicle for mission planning, for education and resolving conflict, and may be able to better handle matters of pastoral oversight of congregations and ministers. A Korean Presbytery, it is envisaged, would be able to reach out to Korean congregations who at the present time feel the language and cultural obstacles are stopping them from being part of the UCA. It will be a ‘trial’ presbytery with more flexibility and creativity relating with other existing presbyteries.

  1. Why do Korean churches want to be part of the Uniting Church?
There has been over 100 years of mission history between Korea and Australia and past missionary efforts helped plant the Gospel in Korea. There were even Korean congregations in the Presbyterian church prior to the coming into being of the Uniting Church. Sharing a common faith heritage, it is not surprising that many have found their home in the UCA. The fact that the Uniting Church is known as a multicultural church has also been a drawing factor. Many of the Korean ministers serving Korean congregations are going through the Reception of Ministers process and are deeply committed to serving and working within the UCA. Today, many Koreans migrating to Australia come from a Presbyterian or Methodist heritage, representing a mission opportunity and it would be hoped we can find ways to welcome them into our midst.

  1. Would a Korean Presbytery alienate Korean churches from the wider church community?
No, in fact, this process could well help Korean churches feel more able to participate in the UCA and feel a greater sense of belonging and connection. At present, except for a very small number of ministers and lay people, there is little involvement in the life of Presbyteries and very few are involved in decision making beyond their own congregation. If Korean churches have their own Presbytery, they will be represented on Synod boards and committees, and be involved in inter Presbytery activities which would mean an increased visibility and contribution of Korean members to the wider church.

4.    Are Korean churches able to handle the pastoral and missional responsibilities of a Presbytery?
The present form of the Churches of Korean Council has already been doing some of this work over the last 10 years. Presbyteries and the NSW Synod frequently approach the Council for Korean Churches in an advisory capacity. No doubt Korean church leaders would have a lot to learn but with the support and help of the wider church and the guidance of the Holy Spirit it would not be impossible. It would be important to ensure that a presbytery minister and key office bearers serving a Korean presbytery are well-informed about processes within the Uniting Church.

5.    Would it give more power to Korean ministers?
The Korean Council at the moment is largely a decision-making body of ministers. If a presbytery is formed there would need to be the normal representation of lay and ordained participation and gender balance. Regular presbytery meeting will bring a better communication and sharing.

6.    Should all Korean churches belong to the Korean Presbytery?
No. If a Korean Presbytery is formed each Korean congregation would have the option to remain within the existing Presbytery or join the new Presbytery. Some will feel their ministry and mission is best furthered by remaining in their present presbytery. However, a Korean Presbytery could play a supportive role to Presbyteries that have Korean congregations. It would be helpful too for Korean congregations that join a Korean Presbytery to have some link with the regional presbytery, in ways that would still need to be determined; perhaps through the sharing of an annual gathering or/and report.

7.    If Koreans have their own Presbytery, would other ethnic groups also want to have their own?
Maybe, (but probably not). We should not assume that the needs identified by one community are the same for other communities. In terms of numbers, the Tongan community is about the same size however, for a number of reasons most Tongan churches are well integrated into existing presbyteries. Command of English does not appear to be as major a problem for all communities as it is for the Korean community.

8.    Would Korean Presbytery need more money to operate?
Not more or less than other Presbyteries. There is a need to have a full time mission officer but already there is a planned half time coordinator for the Korean Council. On the other hand, it would be responsibility of Korean churches to give their share to the Synod like other congregations.

9.    Are we failing Korean brothers and sisters, specially the second generation if we move in this direction?
Over the last years, the wider church has been assisting Korean churches in many ways; welcoming them into the life of the UCA; providing intensive courses for ministers; assisting financially and in finding church properties etc. It is now a sign of maturity that Korean congregations want to take up their responsibility to contribute more actively to building the future of our church. If we choose not to do anything we would be failing our Korean brothers and sisters, expecting them to remain frustrated and silent and thereby be closing ourselves off from the gifts they want to bring. It is true that those expressing the need for a Korean Presbytery are first generation migrants. It is unclear whether the next generation will continue to feel this need. A Korean presbytery may have a limited life. It should be reviewed every 5 years with a decision made as to whether it is still needed. There could well be great value in young people in a Korean presbytery being able to network together and share similar issues and needs.

10.  Wouldn’t the setting up of a Korean presbytery be a betrayal of our vision of being a multicultural church?
There are possibilities and risks; advantages and potential problems but initially for a trial period should we not be willing to take this new direction. This move may in fact manifest a mature stage of being a multicultural church, affirming our diversity, recognizing we have different needs and taking seriously our ethnic and linguistic diversity in the way we order our church’s life. Korean congregations want to be at the stage of mutual giving and receiving of the gifts given by God. Our unity will continue to be expressed through common worship and mission at different levels, in our common affirmation of the Basis of Union and shared way of being a church of pilgrims open to the new things the Spirit brings. Having heard the constraints that are being felt hindering full participation a multicultural church seeks to respond to the needs and create more flexible structures so that, in this instance, the gifts and talents of our Korean members can be made more fully available. This would not be a betrayal of our vision but a strategy to build a more inclusive and missional church.

On the issue of language and communication, some members of Korean Commission have expressed a feeling of ‘emancipation’ using their mother tongue at the meetings. Some of them finally have come out of silence and have found their words at decision making meetings in the UCA. As Pearson argues in his article ‘The Case for a Korean Presbytery: Using the language of our Heart’, “to find their voice, to say what it means for them to have come from another part of the world, to make their home inside the Uniting Church, to live in and between two or more languages”. (Pearson, 2003, 1)

Whether we use English or Korean, the language is a vehicle of communication and of expressing our heart to God and to one another. It is not so much the language itself is a barrier to us but it is more how we practice cross-cultural communication. As a multicultural church, we are not able to learn all the ethnic languages we neither have nor expect all of them to speak good English. Rather, our church needs to learn more of how to use interpretation and translation and how to use our non-verbal languages, and how to learn skills of cross-cultural communication. We should not be afraid to see intra-groups meeting with their own languages for them to have a safe place, but also encourage to meeting as an inter-group so that we can affirm the one body of Christ.

For some multicultural denominations outside the UCA, like Presbyterian Church of Aoteroa-New Zealand, learning a second language during the theological studies is a requirement for ministry candidates. UCA should be value more the work of bi-lingual leaders and cultural interpreters we have, and be more intentional for leaders and potential leaders to be better equipped as a bridge builder. In the 2001 National Church Life Survey, one of the areas of highly felt need in ministry formation has been the area of cross-cultural ministry. Among the 50% of UCA clergy in NSW congregational placement who answered the survey, 65% overall felt poorly or not at all equipped with cross-cultural ministry and 19% in basic outline, and only 10 % said that they are well prepared. (2001 National Church Life Survey: Unpublished paper)

Language and communication are mutual responsibility to make an effort in inclusive community rather than asking other small groups to be assimilated into the dominant culture and way of church administration.

Son is correct in saying that “the issues surrounding the ‘Korean Presbytery’ are not limited to Korean congregations in a multicultural ministry arena but impact upon the whole ‘pilgrim people’ under the Uniting Church banner.” (Son, 11) “Through the 10 years debate of ‘establishing a Korean Presbytery’ at Synod meetings, even representatives from rural area which do not seem have a relevance with a multicultural church had painfully become aware that they were part of the multicultural church community.” says Yang in 30 Years Korean Ministry in Australia (Yang, 2004, 487). Although it had been a difficult process, the debate created a positive opportunity for the church to talk about ‘what it means to belong to a multicultural church for me’. Furthermore, our church now humbly stands with the new cross-cultural development among us and see what the Holy Spirit does through the Korean Commission. The Korean Commission is not certainly a sign of doom of our vision for multicultural church but it is a manifestation of our faith and trust in God who will continue to work through the diversity and new ways.

4.         Towards a ‘Korean Presbytery’
There are a number of Korean congregations who chose not to belong to the Korean Commission and continued to be part of the local presbyteries. Korean congregations in other synods also relate to their own local presbyteries. Some are happy to stay that way and some Korean congregations have expressed the desire to be linked to the Commission.
The Korean Commission meets bilingually with some English-speaking representatives. It comprises eleven congregations and they are on the way to discover what it means to be a Commission and to be part of the UCA. At the moment, each congregation appoints four people as their representatives for the Korean Commission, which includes one minister and three lay members. Also, there are members from outside the Korean community including representatives from the Synod and the Presbyteries. Total membership is 59 at the time of a report to the Council of Synod in June 2005 (Jang, 2005).
The Standing Committee of the Commission has been the most active decision making body of the Commission. Members consist of lay and ordained, men and women, Koreans and non-Koreans. Although Korean women members have been absent in the Committee, there has been a balance of lay and ordained, Korean and non-Koreans. Meetings are often conducted bi-lingually with both English and Korean translations and so are the recordings of minutes for these meetings. In 2005, the Standing Committee approved and conducted three induction services and one recognition service.
The leaders of the Commission have been participating in different decision making Committees in the Synod. Their voice and contribution have been much visible and vocal. For example, at the Synod Mission Resource Fund consultation in 2005, for the first time the Korean Commission was represented and able to present a case and achieved significant funding for one of their member churches. There have been more positive signs of ‘coming closer’ to the UCA than ‘departing further’ from it, as some expressed a concern.
However, it is not all a perfect picture. While the Commission has developed a good relationship with the wider church, some internal relationships have been frustrating. Members have expressed a concern that much expected development of second-generation group has not been achieved to this date. There is also an issue of trust and respect among Korean ministers. There has been inevitable confusion about the roles and expectations for the office bearers.
The first Annual General Meeting of the Commission in August 2005 began with exciting reports from various leaders about mission activity but the meeting ended with bitter feelings expressed on the process of renewing terms of the office bearers. When UCA meeting procedures are mixed up with the practice of Korean culture, it creates inconsistency and confusion. Since there are also issues of power and status attached to the office positions, conflict is not uncommon during the election time. One young representative expressed at the Annual Meeting her disappointment with the process. Some lay members showed their discontent at the disunity within the Commission.
However, as the time goes on, the Commission becomes more confident in their mandate and clearer in the mutual role expectation. At the same time, after a round of leadership change, the Commission has been more focused on their mission and ministry for their member congregations.

In October 2007, there was a three year review on the Commission by the Synod. The report written by Review Committee appointed by the Synod, focused on three areas; how well the Commission has: functioned as a council of the church, fulfilling the responsibilities entrusted to it; assisted and equipped its member congregations and leaders for ministry and mission within the UCA and wider Australian context; and assisted its member congregations and leaders to be integrated into the life of the UCA. The finding of the Committee was positive. “The Review Committee believes the Commission is making good progress in educating its congregations and members in their understanding of Uniting Church ethos and procedures... and in equipping them for mission in an Australian context”(2007, 1). The Synod this time received the report and made a several resolution such as affirm members of Korean Commission for the competency with which the Commission has fulfilled its responsibilities, approved continuation of the Korean Commission in its present form for a further four years, request the Council of Synod to conduct a consultation with the Commission in 2010/11 to consider the possibility of the Commission taking on the remaining responsibilities of a Presbytery (The Synod Meeting, 2007, 196/07S). The Synod also recommended that the Commission works with the United Theological College to ensure the process.

It looks that the Synod gives an opportunity to the Commission to become a Presbytery in the future, given the Commission work with the College in terms of equipping Korean candidates and of providing field education opportunities for Korean and non-Korean candidates in Commission congregations. This is a remarkable development to see a change of mind of the Synod in relation with a minority ethnic group. The multicultural Uniting Church has been finding another meaning of what multicultural church entails.

5.         First non-geographic Korean Presbytery

On December 11, 2011, a multicultural milestone in the Uniting Church was set. The inauguration of the Synod’s Korean Presbytery was finally happened. In the words of the Moderator, the Rev. Dr Brian Brown, “an extremely important occasion in the life of the Uniting Church”.

Dr Brown preached on “Our Mutual Authority Under Christ”, saying that because trust had prevailed Korean and non-Korean members of the church could say they were “in this together as equals”.
He said, “The step we take together today is in fact the final long stride in a journey that has taken over ten years to complete. And what a joyful step it is!
“Joy is what we feel when a vision becomes a reality.
“Joy is what we feel when hard, committed work bears its fruit.
“Joy is what we feel when we celebrate what it means to be a truly multicultural church.”
He said as he read again the Uniting Church statement about being a multicultural church, certain sentences stood out:
·         A multicultural church encourages people from different ethnic backgrounds to take up their life in the church and contribute to that life
·         A multicultural church develops policies and processes to assist the full participation of all its members
·         A multicultural church reflects equality and partnership in sharing the resources God has given.
So, today we celebrate an occasion when what we say with the best of intentions equates with what we do in practice.”
He said the new presbytery would face many challenges that would test both faith and patience.
“One of those challenges arises from the fact that some come with a strong traditional cultural ethos. This may vary at some points or to some extent from the ethos of the Uniting Church that flows from the founding denominations and has continued to be formed in the crucible of a sometimes turbulent national and global community over the last 34 years.
“There are and will be points of tension that will have to be faced and dealt with.
“In some things you may be assertive; in others you may decide to submit to the process of change.”

Two things would guide the presbytery, he said. One was the authority of Jesus Christ. The other was the trust that underpinned relationships in the Uniting Church in Australia, “a church of which we are justly proud, and whose ethos we highly value”.
Dr Brown said, “Be positive about the church of which we are a part. We have the strongest possible foundation in Jesus Christ.
“We have a sound ethos built on the recognition that we are called to love both God and our neighbour, so our spirituality embraces the call to compassion and justice for all people.”
He said, “We are witness to significant and exciting fresh expressions of mission in the life of our church, clearly obvious in the growth of some of our migrant-ethnic congregations.
“Yes there are areas of struggle and challenge but nothing that cannot be endured and transformed if we are willing to follow God, walk with Jesus, be led by the Spirit, and trust one another on new and risky paths.” (Insights, 19 Feb, 2012)

When the Synod Meeting was held in September 2011, seven years work of Korean Commission was evaluated and generally received as positive.

REPORT FROM THE KOREAN PRESBYTERY
The Korean Presbytery had begun in unique circumstances, and had been expected to cover a variety of roles as a Presbytery and also roles beyond that of a Presbytery: being a model of a multicultural Uniting Church and its relating church policy, administration, education and ministry.
In these roles, the Korean Presbytery has encouraged Korean congregations to participate and to be involved in things of the wider Uniting Church community whenever possible. These expectations for the Korean Presbytery will continue to be placed upon the Korean Presbytery as long as it exists.
The Korean Presbytery has continually helped the Korean congregation ministers and the congregations in Korean Presbytery, other Presbyteries and other Synods for their placement calling processes, settling in their Presbyteries and the UCA body for the first time, regular face to face conversations, telephone and email contacts. We have also tried to keep our connections through various ways with the Korean ministers working in the English speaking congregations in the NSW-ACT Synod.
There has been marvelous and vital progress, growth in the number of members, activities, which are blessed and joyful things, and challenges.

I. FINDINGS ON BODY, MINISTRY, EDUCATION AND MISSION
1. Growing Membership.
 Korean Presbytery has continued its growth in numbers of congregations, members and committees for various activities. We are still being approached by other Korean churches in Sydney and other cities within our Synod. We have guidelines to accept new churches, including information sessions for the history, polity & ethos, church structure, brief UCA theology, and requesting them to participate in the Korean Presbytery meeting twice for their/our understanding about each other, before the final decision is made. We are at the moment having a conversation with four Korean churches. They are not members of the UCA at the moment. The Korean Presbytery has eight committees, including two newly established committees since the Korean Presbytery has begun, like the Candidate Ministerial Committee and the Minister Stipend Support Committee.

2. Increased involvement and understanding of the UCA.
The Korean Presbytery is now well on its way to becoming a well-integrated body of the UCA. The Korean Presbytery appoints members for their increased involvement in any committee and working group in the Synod and Assembly whenever invited, and the representatives of those committees reports back to the Korean Presbytery about their experiences and reflection. I found that their reports to the Korean Presbytery for their reflection also help the other members to be more familiar with the situation of the UCA as members. We would like to express through this report a special thank to Rev Dr Dean Drayton for his leading about the Basis of Union for years. Rev Dr Dean Drayton explained the meaning of the Basis of Union for each number for twenty minutes before we move to our meeting agenda.

3. Continuing participation in the meeting, events of the Korean Presbytery.
 Korean congregations and members of our Presbytery have well supported and participated in the meetings and events initiated and organized by the Korean Presbytery. One of the thankful things we experienced is that the youth and young adults have shown their willingness to be active in participation and leadership when events for them were opened. It is thankful that youths from each congregation have had gatherings initiated by the 2nd generation committee of the Korean Presbytery for prayers for their own congregations, Korean Presbytery and the UCA.

4. Strong attendance in the Presbytery meetings by lay members.
 There are 4 regular meetings of the Presbytery: in February, May, August and
 November of every year. Each congregation appoints 4 members for the Presbytery, Consisting of 1 minister and 3 lay members. We normally have 40 to 50 members in every meeting, which means that we have more lay members than ministers, including young adult members.

5. Commitments in mission: rural and indigenous ministry and North Korea.
 Generally Korean congregations have had strong commitments in mission and evangelism. Most of the congregations have connections with the mission fields. The Korean Presbytery and its congregations have continually had conversations with the UME for rural ministry and the UAICC NSW. Our Presbytery has decided that we would be fundraising mission funds for mission in rural and indigenous community in Passion Week, and gifts for children in the Ra Sun orphanage house in North Korea through the Uniting World. It is thankful that all Korean congregations of the Korean Presbytery generously participated in our fundraising event in 2012 to support Camden Theological Library of the UTC in order to bring more Korean books to the people.

6. Website.
 We recently established a Website for the Korean Presbytery with the support of the SMRF. We are going to use the Website in order to promote and inform the Korean Presbytery and the UCA. It includes any information about the UCA including regulations, policies and materials helpful to the Korean congregations and its members. Our website is already opened, but still on the process of updating. The Website address is www.koreanchurchuca.org . At the moment, most of the information is written in Korean, but will be changed into Korean & English.

7. Intensive education sessions and workshops.
 We irregularly arrange education sessions for ministers and lay leaders. We have encouraged all ministers in the Korean Presbytery to take courses on Misconduct Sexuality, Safe Church Workshop. We are especially aware that all paid people including ministers, people in youth ministry and any lay persons in the congregation needs to take the workshop for the Safe church workshop as compulsory, while other volunteers for children in the congregations and organizations in the UCA are recommended to take the workshop. We already had workshops for the ministers. The workshops for the volunteers relating with children will be arranged. Many thanks to Ms Emma Parr in the UME.

8. Invite agencies of the NSW-ACT Synod for sharing and reporting to the Presbytery
 Meeting. We sometimes invite people working in Synod agencies for greetings and to also speak about their ministries. We cannot invite them to every meeting, but we will continually invite them to visit our Presbytery to broaden our understanding of the UCA.

9. Cooperation with other Presbyteries.
 Korean Presbytery has members from all 5 Presbyteries within the Sydney area. They have shared experiences in their Presbyteries, when we had to ask them about dealing with certain issues within the Presbytery. We still continually post out our meeting minutes. We also experienced the support and openness of the Presbyteries towards the Korean Presbytery and congregations in relation to property usage for worship and mission. We also contact leaders in other Presbyteries in order to hear their advice and suggestion on specific issues.

II. CHALLENGES
1. Property.
 Some Korean congregations have to start their worship and mission without any property and worship spaces. It means that Korean congregations, as the minority group, have relied on the generosity and hospitality of the English speaking congregations. We really express our deep thanks to our friends, English speaking congregations, Presbyteries, the Synod and the Assembly for their endless endeavor and support. Nevertheless, it is true that we are still seeking worship spaces for more Korean congregations. Seeking worship space is not just for the benefit of Korean congregations, but also gives everyone further chances to share and cooperate within our relationship and responsibilities.

2. Limited resources for continuing education programs for ministers and lay leaders.
 The past years have seen the limitation of resources for Korean congregation
 ministers and lay leaders for their continuing education. This is one of the most serious issues the Korean Presbytery faces. We wish the UME and UTC consider how they could help ethnic congregations beyond the Korean congregations within the Synod for continuing education programs.

3. Needed resources for Sunday schools and youth.
 All of the congregations within the Korean Presbytery have Sunday schools, youth gatherings, and young adult worship and bible studies. To the present, each congregation have used materials for their gathering relying on their Sunday school teachers and leaders. We do not know what organization within the UCA we need to contact or to consult for education resources. This issue has been raised as critical by the Sunday school community in the Korean congregations, but we have not been able to sufficiently deal with this issue.

4. Financial difficulties.
 Unlike other presbyteries, the Korean Presbytery have started their role and
 responsibilities as a Presbytery without any assets and funds. That’s why the Korean Presbytery could employ a paid staff for the Korean Presbytery with the synod’s Presbytery Grant. In relation to the financial concern, we are also aware of the Synod’s potentially major financial difficulties in the next few years. We are also aware of the potential decline in ongoing budget allocations within the Synod. Nevertheless, it is a realistic fact that any decision in this coming Synod 2013 will impact to the ministry, mission, and
activities of the Korean Presbytery. (C7.17.1-4)

Although there was some discussion as to whether the Synod was fully convinced to approve a presbytery for a group who felt they had been alienated from the wider community, the Synod finally agreed to the motion.

Resolution for the Korean Commission

That Synod:

  1. Receive the report.
  2. In accordance with Regulation 3.5.12(b) resolve to form a Korean Presbytery within the bounds of the Synod, with all the powers and responsibilities of a Presbytery, and with these provisions:

(a)     that the date of inauguration of the Korean Presbytery and the name of the Korean Presbytery will be determined by the Synod Standing Committee no later than February 2012;
(b)     that all Korean congregations and faith communities within the Synod which are currently part of the Korean Commission will join the Korean Presbytery, unless they choose otherwise ;
(c)     that any Korean congregation or faith community can decide with at least 3 months’ notice to vary their previous decision regarding joining or not joining the Korean Presbytery;
(d)     that the membership of the Korean Presbytery will be in accordance with the Regulations plus additional members comprising:
·         the General Secretary of the Synod or his/her nominee
·         the Principal of United Theological College or his/her nominee;
·         two persons appointed by Uniting Mission and Education one person appointed by each other presbytery in whose geographical bounds there are present one or more Korean congregations or faith communities which are part of the Korean Presbytery;
·         three Koreans in specified ministries trained in recognised colleges of the Uniting Church, appointed by the Synod Standing Committee;
·         additional lay members under Regulation 3.4.15(d)(ii) to provide for each Korean Congregation to appoint up to four representatives to Presbytery in order to include at least one woman and at least one person under 40 years of age in their Presbytery representation;
·             and authorise the Synod Standing Committee to seek Assembly approval if needed for the above membership provisions;
(e)   that Synod funding will be provided to the Korean Presbytery from the date of its inauguration consistent with the funding provisions made for other presbyteries within the Synod .

  1. Recommend that the Korean Presbytery continues the practice of the Korean Commission in operating in both Korean and English languages at Presbytery meetings and Presbytery Standing Committee meetings.
  2. Recommend that the Korean Presbytery maintain the practice of the Korean Commission in establishing a Second Generation Committee.
  3. Resolve to review no later than 2017 the ongoing need for the Korean Presbytery.
  4. Continue the Korean Commission as constituted and functioning at present until the date of inauguration of the Korean Presbytery.
  5. Remind each Presbytery of the availability of the Cross-culturalism  relationships Workshops that are now in the hands of the Assembly.
   8.  Take steps to ensure that a regular section of insights be published in the       Korean Language.
   9.  Encourage the English-speaking Presbyteries to undertake to learn about the Korean churches and develop meaningful relationships with Korean members of the church.

  1. Emerging uncertainty in the Future

In the 2013, the tales on Korean presbytery has been unfolded again to an uncertainty. Financial crisis of the Synod in general hits the Korean presbytery as well. The support has been cut down to 50%. It means that the presbytery could only approve half time placement for presbytery staff from 2014. Since the role of paid Executive Secretary has been crucial for the presbytery, relating member congregations and the wider churches, this cut would bring a limitation to its future activity.

In fact, a crisis within the Presbytery has emerged around the reduction of the placement and appointment of the staff. Consultation on the future of the Presbytery was carried out. At the regular presbytery meeting in November 2013, the term of Presbytery staff Executive Secretary was a major agenda. The Secretary had served for 10 years from the time of Korean Commission and he was seeking an extension. However up to the point, there has been much tension and conflict among ministers on the issue. The first issue on reduction of placement from a full time to less than half time position since the cutting of the fund from the Synod provided not much option to the presbytery leaders. But the second issue on whether there should be a new mandate and direction for the presbytery contained many implications including staffing.

Some ministers held an opinion to approve the extension of his term saying that the Presbytery continued in need of his experience and ability in the Synod.

On the other side, others argued that his term should not be extended and finding a new person who would serve the changing situation of Presbytery. The division of two groups became deep on the issue, there was a serious communication breakdown which emerged to surface during the presbytery meeting.

At the meeting, emotional debate continued from both sides. Lay members also began to engage in the debate, usually supported their congregation minister’s side. The presbytery experienced intense turbulence over the agenda. Representatives from the Synod and the Assembly were also present at the meeting. After the meeting, one of the representatives expressed that he has never seen a presbytery meeting like this and could not understand why the Synod representatives did not interfere and rendered some assistance. Trust among the members of Presbytery was seriously tested.

The Presbytery finally agreed on not reappointing the current Secretary but to form a selection committee to find a new staff on the based on the budget available that is 40-50% placement.

Furthermore some outside element of the Presbytery has been reinforcing the uncertainty of the Presbytery’s future. Within the Synod, there has been a discussion on structural reform on ‘one Synod, one Presbytery’. If this picture comes into reality in anyway, the place of Korean presbytery in the Synod will also be a matter of debate. The future of Korean Presbytery is much depended upon the changing priority of wider church and the debate on the need and effectiveness of the mono-ethnic Presbytery will not only be continued but would also be inevitable.

<Bibliography>
Jang KS, ‘Report to the Council of Synod on the Korean Churches’, June, 2005.

“Our Mutual Authority Under Christ”, Insights, 19 Feb, 2012.

Pearson C, ‘The Case for a Korean Presbytery: Using the language of our Heart’, Unpublished Paper, 2003, 1.

‘Resolution for the Korean Commission’, C7.17.1-4, The NSW Synod, 2011.

‘Review Committee Report on the Korean Commission’, The Synod Meeting, 2007, 196/07S.

Son YR, ‘Korean Commission: Womb of Mono-Ethnic Presbyteries and Doom of the Uniting Church’s Vision for a Multicultural Church’, Uniting Church Studies, Vol.10, No. 2, August  2004, 11-21.

The NSW Synod Report on the Korean Commission, C7.17.1-4, 2011.

The Assembly Multicultural Ministry Committee Minutes, 27/2-2/3, 2005.


Yang MD, ‘The Ten Most Asked Questions about the establishing Korean Presbytery’, Board of Mission, the NSW Synod, 2003.

Copyright Myong Duk Yang

댓글 없음:

댓글 쓰기