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.
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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:
- Receive the
report.
- 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 .
- 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.
- Recommend that
the Korean Presbytery maintain the practice of the Korean Commission in
establishing a Second Generation Committee.
- Resolve to
review no later than 2017 the ongoing need for the Korean Presbytery.
- Continue the
Korean Commission as constituted and functioning at present until the date
of inauguration of the Korean Presbytery.
- 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.
- 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
