Ham Sok Hon - Between the City of God and the Secular City

Ham Sok Hon - Between the City of God and the Secular City

 

By Sung-Soo (Steven) Kim

             Ham, as a `maverick' Christian, eroded the borders between the divine and mundane worlds. on the other hand, the mainstream of Korean Christians argued their case by applying the strict principle of the separation of religion from politics in other words `neutrality'; the church must not participate or become involved in the political realm. Hence they viewed Ham's civil rights activities as a deviation from a Christian's proper field.

             In my view, ideally religion must have both, the elements of transcendentalism for eternity, and secular participation for a historical reality. Ham perceived God not only as a transcendental being but also as an immanent being.[1]  Thus he combined this-worldliness and transcendentalism. Human beings are born in a specific historical era, yet they also aspire to infinity and everlastingness. Therefore, the components of eternity and historical reality are indispensable for the existence of the human race. Both participation in the historical event, as well as maturation of religious faith were essential elements in consolidating Ham's belief in God. Ham showed that Christians should not position themselves away from what is happening in this world, because Christians have more to participate in within this world than with the other world.

             In my consideration, individual human beings have always existed within the wider context of society and history. Thus there should be no distinction between the City of God and the Secular City. For Ham, religious faith was a channel to connect the City of God and the Secular City, to connect the Supreme Being and human beings, since God's love could be revealed through humanism and the human spirit.

             Although Ham's era was a time of constant dichotomy, Ham refused the logic of any dichotomy between God's history and secular history. For Ham, the full history of humanity is God's history. In his own ｅxpression: "[entire] history is a record of humanity seeking God" and "a conversation between God and mankind."[2]  In this light Ham believed that the revelation of God's will had come through humanity and not from a castle in the air.[3]  Thus the living human race itself signifies heaven and God.

             The concept of Heaven and God should evolve just as the human race has evolved. It ought to be a constant developing and conflicting process. Ham viewed the history of religion as secularisation from `holiness', and the concept of heaven as the eternal present, here-and-now.[4]  Inasmuch as religion secularises, politics should also spiritualize, because they are inseparable from the life of humanity. In this regard, Christians should confront the secular evil as much as pursuing heaven. Ham also saw the inseparable relationship between peace and social justice. As he put it; "Our ultimate aim is peace, but without social justice, bringing peace is an impossible dream."[5]  Hence when a society is faced with difficulty, Ham, as a pacifist, felt that difficulty as well. That is why he had to `respond' as an individual to the `challenge' of society.

             What is more, Ham's use of the philosophy of Lao-tzu and Chuang-tzu and Western Quakerism enabled him to help others to see that one can still preserve self-respect and inner strength in the face of a mightier power. Ham saw the philosophy of Lao-tzu and Chuang-tzu as turning weakness to strength through its idea of tenderness and `feebleness', As Lao-tzu remarked, "The big and strong will be laid low; the soft and tender will be lifted up."[6]  Thus by symbolising weakness as strength, Ham helped Koreans to cope with the Herculean task of resisting colonialism, and subsequent repressive totalitarian regimes.

             In a similar way, Ham saw the philosophy of Quakerism as cultivating inner strength through its Inward Light and outward social concerns, which served to restore the will of the Korean nation. Ham's courage and the spirit of resistance are more apparent, but at the same time, Ham's gentleness and tenderness were equally indispensable to his make-up.

             While it must be admitted that judged by worldly standards Ham's achievements were few, to accurately appreciate this, one must recall the circumstances of the Korean peninsula. The politics of post-war Korea can be seen as the hottest of conflicts between the world's left and right ideologies. The South Korean `fascism' of Park and Chun began in a similar way to the North Korean `Communism' of Kim Ilsung. Most of the pro-Japanese Korean fascists also maintained their status quo within South Korea. In this environment even after Korea's liberation, Ham found himself having to resist. This time it was against an internal enemy, the pro-Japanese Korean rulers. That is why in his words Korean history was shaped like a `Broken Axle' and consisted of `Disaster upon Disaster'. The true calamity of Korea was that so frequently its fate had been determined by outsiders. Another reason why Ham's achievement cannot readily be assessed is that, like Giuseppe Mazzini (1805-1872), Ham worked on the minds of people rather than through the more easily studied means of politics, diplomacy or military conquest.[7]

             If we measure the success of Ham's activities in terms of his ability to organise and mobilise the people for protest against unjust regimes, he may also be seen as a `failure'. In the Korean peninsula at the zenith of the Cold War, to organise needed ruthlessness; unlike Kim Ilsung in the North, and Syngman Rhee and Park Chunghee in the South, Ham did not have these qualities. But more importantly, throughout his life, Ham pursued the `way of right' rather than the `way of success'.    

             As a frail man, Ham had his limitations, weaknesses and imperfections. He showed no strong leadership to organise the people into a socio-political force. He neither formulated a programme for their activity, nor did he force anybody to do anything and did not seek to be a leader or commander, but somewhat `passively' resisted with them against unjust rulers.

             Further examples of Ham's ambiguity include his occupation. How did he earn his living? Was he employed? Did he look after his family as their patriarch? Though he was a family man he was rarely able to support them financially. Ham's wife may have liked him as a `righteous man' but living hand to mouth under the poverty line possibly shows him as a man unfit to be the head of a family. Though his son admired him as a great leader of the nation, he also regarded Ham as a `tiger father' rather than a `friendly daddy'.[8]  Obviously Ham lived as the head of a family in a somewhat constrained environment with frequent financial difficulties. Thus as to the question of `did he look after his family as their patriarch?', the answer must be `no'. Then how did he survive in a modern society without a regular job? Was Ham's life a failure if we base success on the above questions?

             Ham was a total failure in the worldly sense. But in thinking about Ham's `failure' we also capture something profound about the man. For Ham never had a steady job and, apart from the period of 1928-1938, never had a regular income. It seems to me that like an exemplar Confucian scholar, Ham had no clear idea about earning a living. In sociological terms, Ham was a marginalised individual. But Lao-tzu, Jesus, Socrates and John the Baptist were also marginalised individuals in their time. Perhaps it was this social marginality that helped to form his unique character. Ham described himself in the following terms:

 

"I love the Albatross. This creature is so strong and powerful in flight that it is referred to as the Emperor of the Pacific, yet it cannot even catch its own fish; it lives as a scavenger off the occasional scraps that the seagull leaves behind. Thus the Japanese call this bird a `foolish bird'. The reason for my favouring this creature is because of its name. Perhaps my life-style is the same as the Albatross. Though my heart beholds and stays with the blue sky, I cannot even earn a piece of bread for my mouth. My daily bread is given by my friends, so I am a foolish bird!"[9]

 

             Not surprisingly, Ham also saw his personal life as a continuous failure, and described his own failures as those of a `foolish bird', in his ironical monologue, Beyond the Horizon:

 

"I tried to study to become a medical doctor but dropped out, meant to study arts but stopped, wanted to study education professionally but never became an educator, was very much interested in farming but never became a farmer, meant to research history but threw the history books away, wanted to study the Bible but only held it in my hand. In the family I could not fulfil the role of a proper father, in the nation, not a good nationalist, not even a scholar, a technician, a thinker, only a fisherman[10] but I have never caught a fish."[11]

 

             I would define Ham more as an idealist, Korea's most influential idealist, who was faced with the harsh reality of Korea. When his country fought for independence from Japanese oppressors he resisted, relinquishing his dream of becoming a medical doctor and throwing the history books away. When South Korea desired democracy, Ham pursued the freedom of the press for the common people through his fearless speeches and writings; that is why he never fulfilled the role of father to his family or had the time to `study arts', which would have been too much of a luxury for him. Ham's son spoke of his father's characteristics in this manner: "My father was not interested in our family matters nor trivial household things. His main concerns were always `the destiny of our country', `independence', `nation', `justice', `peace', and `truth' --- whenever my father gave us a gift, it was always books or something to read. He never gave us something to eat, no candy or sweets."[12]

             Busily engaged with various activities for socio-political justice Ham had probably returned to his home late at night, long after his children had gone to sleep, and departed early in the morning before they woke. Ham's son-in-law also remembered the strong impression Ham had made on him: "He taught me that one should `live for justice and die for justice."[13]  It can be argued that Ham was a great father for the nation but not a friendly father for his family. From the East Asian point of view, Ham had not been a model father for his family. In this sense, Ham was a deeply contradictory man. I am reminded of the comments made by Nelson Mandela's children: "We thought we had a father and one day he'd come back. But to our dismay, our father came back and he left us alone because he has now become the father of the nation."[14]

             It appears to me that Ham had abandoned his wife and family for the welfare of his nation. It seems to be the fate of freedom fighters to have unsettled personal lives. When one's life is a battle there is little room left for family. For Ham's commitment to his nation, his family paid a terrible price, perhaps too dear a price. As Nelson Mandela questioned himself, "Is it justifiable, to neglect the welfare of one's own family in order to fight for the welfare of others? Can there be anything more important than looking after one's ageing mother?"[15]

             Jesus said that he who is not responsible in small things cannot be responsible in great things. However, in certain times of turmoil and oppression, if every individual put his own family's interests ahead of public interests and no one pursued a goal single-mindedly, it would not be possible to achieve social reform. John Woolman, as an antislavery activist, left his own family for long periods to do the work of God, the emancipation of the Black Americans. While Mahatma Gandhi was tirelessly working for the liberation of India from the British Empire, his own son was a drunkard, which could point to neglect by the father. Certainly in his son's eyes Gandhi was no hero and he criticised him saying, "If you are so great, you owe it all to Ba."[16]  Nelson Mandela's first wife, Evelyn, had irreconcilable differences with her husband: Mandela could not give up his life's struggle, and Evelyn could not live with Mandela's devotion to something other than herself and the family. In Mandela's view, Evelyn, as a member of the Jehovah's Witness, was a very good woman, charming, strong and faithful, and a fine mother.[17]  It seems to me that she was a responsible person in small things as Jesus instructed, but Mandela felt Evelyn's faith taught passivity and submissiveness in the face of national oppression, which Mandela could not accept.[18]  In the end Mandela could not make his marriage with Evelyn work and could be considered a failure as a family man.

             Leo Tolstoy sensed bitterly the agonising discrepancy between the life of comfort and ease that the family lived and the life he wanted to live, the plain life of a religious hermit, free of secular property and dedicated to the service of others. Tolstoy conceived that his own standing made a ridicule of his professed religious beliefs.[19]

             In this regard, if we judge human beings according to family-centred rather than public-centred values, John Woolman, Gandhi, Tolstoy, Mandela and Ham, can be seen as "irresponsible failures" as family men. The irony is that Ham definitely was a poor husband and father, but then he had a higher calling than that of his family, although some may not agree with this justification. Ham believed that he had something special to offer his nation as a defender of freedom and an advocate of democracy.

             As Mandela argued, in life, every person has twin obligations - obligations to one's family and to one's parents, and an obligation to one's people, one's community, and one's country. In a civil and humane society, each person is able to fulfil those obligations according to his own inclinations and abilities. But in a country under an oppressed regime and totalitarian society, it is almost impossible for an oppressed person to fulfil those obligations. In an oppressed society an individual who attempts to live as a free human being is punished and isolated. In a totalitarian society, an individual who tries to fulfil his duty to his people is inevitably ripped from his family and his home and forced to live a life apart.[20]  Like Mandela, in the beginning, Ham did not choose to place his people above his family, but in attempting to serve his people, Ham found that he was prevented from fulfilling his obligations as a son, a father, and a husband.

             It was the desire for democracy and for the freedom of the Korean people to live their lives with dignity and self-respect that inspired Ham's life and thoughts. It was this that transformed a shy man into a brave one, that drove a loyal and peaceful man to become a `rebellious criminal', that turned a family-loving father into a man without a family life, that forced a `gentle' ordinary man to live like an extraordinary freedom fighter.

             When his religion, Christianity, insisted on its own superiority and showed an attitude of exclusivism against East Asian religions, Ham continued to consider the position of other religions and advocated that most of the hostility towards East Asian religions was founded on the basis of biased denominationalism without any comprehension of the true meaning of such religions.

             In the name of `nationalism', numerous crimes have happen and been glorified, for example under the reigns of Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini (1883-1945). When Ham's country advocated her own nationalism, Kim Ilsung's Chuch'e (principle of Self-Reliance) in the North and Syngman Rhee and Park Chunghee's authoritarian power in the South with its emphasis on a strong economy and anti-Communism, being a South Korean became synonymous with being anti-Communist. Both North and South Korean leaders defined Koreans' national identity but with opposing ideologies.

             However, Ham considered the rights of other nations and asserted the importance of internationalism, believing that the age of nationalism was ended and that one should come out of the womb of nationalism into the world of internationalism.[21] For Ham, the nation or state was not the ultimate aim, but a corporate part of mankind. For this reason Ham was not a `good nationalist', from the point of view of either the North or South Korean regimes. Accordingly, Ham was perceived as not national enough for the nationalists, too `old-fashioned' for the deceptive demagogues, and too `liberal' for the conservative Christians. But to Ham, the Korean people were much more important than partisan Koreans, and the people in the whole world were much more significant than just the Korean people. In my view, Ham was a humanist and idealist as a member of the global community who transcended his own race, nationality, ideology and era.

             In spite of his continual `failure', Ham was ever convinced that history was the movement up the steps of eternity, and the stepping stone to moral growth, from family to nation and from nation to the world community.[22]  Ham believed that humanity had to have roots in order to make progress both forward and upward.[23]  In this regard, I am sure Ham would be delighted with his pursuit of belief, whether he failed or not, as he confessed: "Why doesn't the mixture of ignorance, passion, corruption and distrust make the world a failure? It's because all of them are as one. We will not know failure when we can appreciate that Jesus, knowing that he was being betrayed by a cold kiss, could call Judas a `Friend'."[24]

             Ham even saw a `failed' Judas as the other side of Jesus.[25]  Therefore, Ham did not distinguish between failure and success, just as he did not distinguish between secular (socio-political) matters and sacred (religious) matters. Ham believed one's whole life should be sacramental beyond any specific space and time.[26]  In this light, Ham stated the parallel terminology using the illustration of the human body structure: "The same mouth is used for one's physical need, eating, as well as for one's mental need, speaking. The same organ is used for evacuation as well as for the birth of new life."[27]

             Human beings can experience God's World through their secular world affairs, that is the phenomenal world. All the forms of life are different, but God contains all forms of life, thus to God, sacred and secular are one. Likewise in the Tao of Lao-tzu, God embraces all but never discriminates between them. Hence one can claim that secular is sacred and sacred is secular. Therefore, the City of God is the Secular City, the Secular City is the City of God, and Ham's life and thoughts have stood there.

             If we measure a man's success according to the historic age he lives in, Jesus can be seen as a failure and a loser. As Ham argued: "Seen from the Christian viewpoint, the crucifixion was Jesus' victory, but from the secular perspective, a disastrous end to a thirty-three-year-old youth."[28] After His death on the cross, His disciples ran away in fear, even His most favoured disciple, Peter, denied knowing Him and more willingly cursed Him. How brilliant a `failure' and `loser' in history He was! As Lao-tzu put it, "Great completion must appear as if inadequate: thus it becomes infinite in its effect; Great talent must appear as if foolish."[29]  No one can escape his own history, and humans cannot live beyond their era, can they? Perhaps Ham's secular failure was a triumph for the truth, and God's salvation will come only when humans end in failure. While God is love and the experience of God is totally overwhelming, yet God is still a mystery that makes humanity shake, and yet fascinates.

             Obviously, today we cannot live without organisation and established institutions. But to Ham, fixed organisation meant an end to the vitality of life: any organised regime was reflected as a symbol of violence; and any established institution a curb to the free spirit of humanity. That is why Ham regarded the smallest organisation as the finest organisation.[30]  In this respect, Ham was a free thinker rather than a political organiser.

             Ham constantly considered interconnected relations between an individual's spiritual quest and the struggle for social justice. Nevertheless, to Ham, these two values, the individual's spiritual quest and social transformation, must not impose upon each other. In other words, Ham pursued messianic politics through political consciousness rather than political messianism through political power. The latter can make an `idol' of politics as well as encourage the superficial appearance more easily than the essence of it.

             A man running at high speed will face a stronger wind. To borrow the well-known ｅxpressions of Mencius, Heaven disciplines one's mind with suffering and one's bones and sinews with toil because Heaven confers a great task on us all. Through his stormy life, Ham found himself too close to suffering, yet he tried to stand on top of it. Ultimately his adversities and hardships made him a man of love and tenderness.

             To sum up, as I have shown, Ham's life and work can be seen as the `answer' and `response' to the `question' and `challenge' of his epoch, the twentieth century in the Korean peninsula. Through his `answer' and `response', Ham had a profound impact on the national identity of the Korean people, that is, the way in which Koreans understood themselves as a nation. As Anthony Smith has pointed out, "nationalism provides the sole vision and rationale of political solidarity today. one that commands popular assent and elicits popular enthusiasm".[31]  Within such a framework, "nations must have an example of a civic ideology, a set of common understandings and aspirations, sentiments and notions, that bind the nation together in their homeland."[32]

             In a paradoxical way, Ham's ideal of nationhood - Korea as a `loser', `failure' and downtrodden - challenged the Western concept of nationhood (`winner' and `success', especially in warfare) yet served to bind the nation together. Ham's ideal of nationhood added crucial new elements, more adjusted to the very distinct surroundings and trajectories of a non-Western nation. Ham also tried to encourage Koreans to think about their distinctiveness and to believe in themselves, so he offered a model for Koreans' national identity. Ham's quest of "who am I?", "who do I feel?", was his spiritual endeavour to discover Koreans' (`losers', `failures' and oppressed people's) identity within world history. It was also paradoxical, because Ham was a committed internationalist. As Ham asserted, "It is time for the world to become one [and] only the realisation that we are brothers and sisters of common ancestors will bring an end to fighting."[33]

             In the world today, in many cases a relevant phrase would be "the end justifies the means", particularly on the Korean peninsula. Not only Syngman Rhee, but also Kim Ilsung and Park Chunghee, seemed to reflect the "man of success" in public judgement even to the present time. What is more, compared with Park Chunghee's image of nationhood, (authoritarian power, strong economy, anti-Communism), or Kim Ilsung's image of Chuch'e, Ham's ideals of pacifism as `losers', and his goal of religious-political freedom for humanity, can be seen as hopelessly `idealistic', not suited to solving the problems of realpolitik or of Korea herself. Possibly Park's simplistic belief could be more appropriate than Ham's ideal in the law of the jungle in human history. As Park once said: "In human life, economics precedes politics or culture."[34] Equally it is arguable that people must eat before anything else. But at the same time it is said that human beings do not live on bread alone. As Jonathan Dale averred, "Can there be any doubt but that the world needs to hear the voice of other values than those of success, power and wealth?"[35]

             Ham directly participated in the reform of various problems during his lifetime, along with his idealistic and religious vision. Therefore, the Korean intelligentsia looked to Ham as the most significant Korean Christian thinker and civil rights activist; if not always as an inspiration for democracy, then as a challenge against authoritarian Korean society, politics and religious culture. Ham has been the principal intellectual impetus in the Korean liberalism as a latitudinarian. Yet for all the clarity with which Ham responded and expressed the finest assumptions and ideals of his era, Ham was not its most representative man, inasmuch as "intellect is not life".[36]  Perhaps no historian has ever talked or ever will talk about "the era of Ham Sokhon". Post-Second World War Korea was the era of Syngman Rhee, Park Chunghee and Kim Ilsung.

             However, Ham's idealistic view can be compared to the position of the Pole-Star, which at vast distances can prove to be a more definite mark than a nearby hill. No matter how far one walks in the direction of the Pole-Star, one may never reach it. But that is no reason to suggest that the Pole-Star is not there or that it is a vain goal. Rather if one can reach the goal like the nearby hill, it cannot be of use any more as a definite mark. Human beings live only in a limited time scale, but someone like Ham thinks of eternity and pursues infinity. Humans aim for perfection yet they need to grow continually at every level of their lives. Life is a composite of endless change, and the life of humanity is an eternal creation and re-generation, thus it is an everlasting incompleteness.

             Can the values of authoritarian power (a strong economy, anti-Communism and `Self-Reliance') be a goal for humanity, or should they be used as a definite guide for mankind? The Pole-Star can serve as a guide, precisely like the ideal of Ham, as an eternal goal for humanity. one cannot capture it no matter how far one goes. In this comparison, in order to evaluate a man's place within history, what really matters is, as John Ruskin pointed out, one's morality rather than one's ability". In Ham's view humankind is basically moral. Thus he saw the central value of human beings as moral beings more willingly than anything else.[37]

             While Park Chunghee and Kim Ilsung were considered by some to be heroes on account of their successful economic policy and successful political indoctrination of the people respectively, Ham can be considered a moral hero. Ham was not a dextrous politician, but was a moral man and eternal visionary. Both Confucius and Mencius assume that the nature of man is originally good. At the same time they admit that this wicked world is full of temptations to corrupt man's goodness.[38]  Christianity, while based on a concept of original sin, also stresses the temptations of this world. Chuang-tzu noted that in this world good men are few and far between, while the bad are numerous.[39]  To adopt Reinhold Niebuhr's phrase, Ham was "a moral man in an immoral society."[40] 

             It seems to me that everyone is born an idealist, but as they grow most of them lose their `natural piety' when faced with the real world, the world of "War against All" in the word of Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679).[41]  Only a few good people maintain their ideals and dreams, regardless of the harsh conditions of the outside world. Certainly Ham was one of them.

             I am also not so completely sure of Ham's `political influence', considering after all that Ham was not a political figure within the modern history of Korea but more a humanitarian figure. Ham was a `failure' politically, yet in the end democracy (however imperfect) in South Korea came about as the result of political action, and one might argue that Ham's refusal to engage in the messy business of politics limited his influence, or was even an abdication of responsibility. 

             However, I am confident that the conscience of humanity, or moral influence, has more value than politics, as Jesus showed clearly to humankind. Ham used to be called the `conscience of Korea'. But can a man of conscience become a leader in a corrupt society? In the history of humankind there have been only a handful of truly conscientious leaders in their particular corrupt surroundings, and Ham was one of them. The mottos of Lao-tzu and Jesus are suitable in summarising the essence of Ham's entire life and thoughts: "To the good, I show goodness; to those who are not good, I also show goodness."[42] "He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."[43]

---

[1]. Ham, Sokhon. Works 13, p.128, p.239.

[2]. Ham, Sokhon. Queen of Suffering, p.14: and Works 17, p.210.

[3]. Ham, Sokhon. Works 18, p.12.

[4]. Ham, Sokhon. Works 5, p.274: Works 8, p.239; and Works 18, p.310.

[5]. Ham, Sokhon. Works 5, p.142.

[6]. Tao-te Ching Ch.76.

[7]. See, Smith, Denis Mack. Mazzini, p.2.

[8]. Ham, Uyong. "Abonim Ham Sokhon [My father Ham Sokhon]", Voice of the People, September 1989, p.178.

[9]. Ham, Sokhon. Works 5, p.349.

[10]. The term `fisherman' is used to refer to being a disciple of Jesus in the New Testament.

[11]. Ham, Sokhon. Works 6, p.3.

[12]. Ham, Uyong. op cit., p.178, p.181.

[13]. Choi, Chinsam. "Ham Sokhon Sonsaeng Kyoteso Osipnyon [My 50 year with Ham Sokhon]", Voice of the People, July, 1989, p.190.

[14]. Mandela, Nelson. Long Walk to Freedom, p.720.

[15]. Ibid., p.212.

[16]. Ba means mother, and so it is Gandhi's wife, Kasturba, who is being referred to. See, French, Patrick. "Mahatma's other half", The Sunday Telegraph April 12, 1998, p.15.

[17]. Mandela, Nelson. Long Walk to Freedom, p.242.

[18]. Ibid., p.239.

[19]. Simmons, Ernest J. "Tolstoy" in The Encyclopaedia Britannica vol.28, p.707.

[20]. Mandela, Nelson. Long Walk to Freedom, p.749.

[21]. Ham, Sokhon. Works 8, p.465.

[22]. Ham, Sokhon. Queen of Suffering, pp.13-15: and Works 17, p.133.

[23]. Ham, Sokhon. Queen of Suffering, pp.1-2.

[24]. Ham, Sokhon. Meditation at Pendle Hill, p.16.

[25]. Ham, Sokhon. Works 18, p.32.

[26]. Ham, Sokhon. Works 12, p.200: and Works 18, p.184.

[27]. Ham, Sokhon. Works 2, p.140, p.309.

[28]. Ham, Sokhon. Queen of Suffering, p.7.

[29]. Tao-te Ching Chapter 45.

[30]. Ham, Sokhon. Works 3, p.145.

[31]. Smith, Anthony. National Identity, p.176.

[32]. Ibid., p.11.

[33]. Ham, Sokhon. Queen of Suffering, p.4.

[34]. Higgins, Andrew. "South Korea runs out of miracles" from The Guardian, January 11,1997, p.17.

[35]. Dale, Jonathan. Beyond the Spirit of the Age, p.32.

[36]. This ｅxpression is borrowed from R.K.Webb. See his book Modern England: From the 18th Century to the Present, p.301.

[37]. Ham, Sokhon. Works 19, p.357.

[38]. See, Lau, D.C. Mencius (London: Penguin, 1970), p.19, p.237, p.240.

[39]. Chuang-tzu (London: Penguin, 1996), p.77.

[40]. See, Niebuhr, Reinhold. Moral Man and Immoral Society (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1960).

[41]. See, Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan.

[42]. Tao-te Ching, Chapter 49.

[43]. Matthew 5:45. NIV.