Abstract

The anticipation of Christ’s imminent return provided comfort to Korean Christians during Japanese colonial rule, particularly as many resisted Shinto shrine worship. However, the Korean War brought a theological shift, as the war was seen as an apocalyptic event that redirected hope from the second coming to survival in a divided nation. From 1960 to 1980, as Korea focused on economic growth, the Korean church similarly shifted its focus from premillennialism and eschatological hope to building the Kingdom of God in the present world through human effort. This paper argues that the identity of the principal agent of the kingdom vacillated between God and people as eschatological perspectives adapted to historical and cultural changes.

Introduction

In times of extreme hardship, the concept of hope often takes on new meanings, adapting to the immediate needs of those who suffer. This transformation in concept was particularly evident in the Korean church during and after the Korean War. During the war, the daily struggle for survival overshadowed theological concerns about the future, so Korean Christians’ focus shifted from the anticipation of Christ’s return to the pressing need for daily sustenance and security. This localized change reflects the implications of a fundamental tension within Christian eschatology: the balance between hope for a future divine fulfillment and the immediate human need for survival.

Wolfgang Sauter, a German theologian of eschatology, offers a relevant perspective on this issue. He argues that true Christian hope lies not in human efforts but in the fulfilment of God’s covenant now through Jesus Christ, the Omega. According to Sauter, the future reality of Christ’s reign is anticipated and experienced in the here and now, rather than being confined to a distant, end-time expectation. 

This belief in the divine fulfilment of hope resonated with Korean Christians before the war. However, the devastating impact of the conflict led to a profound shift in focus. The anticipated kingdom of God seemed delayed, and survival became an immediate concern (Sauter, 1999). The pre-Korean War belief in the imminent return of Christ turned to disappointment because of the war’s devastation. People had to struggle to survive without any assurance that there would be a tomorrow. Hope became about relying on Christ’s help to endure today instead of about his return in a distant future. Daily struggles for food and shelter became the main concern, making the coming of the kingdom irrelevant if they did not survive now. This attitudinal shift from long-term to short-term thinking occurred not only in the Korean church but in the Korean people as a whole (Kim, 1999; Shinang, 2000). After the war, the Korean government took up the need for hope by pursuing immediate rebuilding through economic revival. 

The experience of the Korean people during the war is a poignant example of how extreme circumstances can lead to a reevaluation of religious expectations and the emergence of new theologies. In this case, eschatological hope became rooted in the realities of everyday life rather than in distant promises. A discussion of this shift in definitions of hope not only sheds light on the historical situation in Korea but also raises broader questions about the societal impact of Christian hope. I believe that understanding this shift is crucial for grasping how theological beliefs can evolve in response to social and historical contexts and for understanding how transformations in beliefs can, in turn, influence society.

Analyzing eschatology in Korea is a multi-faceted process that must account both for theology and for historical conditions. This article will tease out historical developments in Korea, Korean Christian theological debates, and the rise of minjung theology, all of which contributed to the shifts in eschatology in Korea during this period. It will conclude that the flow of history affected the general eschatology of the Korean church. Furthermore, this change in eschatology led to a more socially active church, one that saw itself not just as preparing for the next world but as transforming this one. Thanks to this change, the church became a vital force in movements for social justice and political change. Understanding these shifts helps us appreciate the dynamic, cyclical relationship between theology and context: how religious beliefs adapt to changing social circumstances, and how changes in beliefs in turn influence society.

Historical Shifts between the 1960s and the 1980s

Rebuilding and its societal impact

Between the 1960s and 1980s, Korea underwent rapid economic development and social change, leading to new confidence (Ko, 1989; Kim, 2014). People began to believe that they could not only achieve financial success but also rectify injustices. This newfound agency had profound implications for the Korean church’s eschatological outlook, as this period marked a shift from a traditional premillennialist view, which emphasized divine intervention as the agent of the end times, to a more human-centered perspective. Korean Christians increasingly saw themselves as active participants in bringing about the end through efforts to improve their world in the present. This shift is significant because it represents a move away from passively waiting for divine action toward a theology that emphasizes human responsibility in shaping the future.

At the beginning of this period, in 1961, Park Jung-Hee successfully overthrew the second Korean government and as president installed a military dictatorship that existed until 1979. During his dictatorship, the hope of better life provided through government policies coincided with the needs of the people. The military dictatorship tried from the beginning to justify its existence through appeals to the benefits of capitalism, reasoning that if the people could experience wealth thanks to capitalism, all would be well. 

In the 1960s, Park tried to relieve poverty and rebuild the nation with a Five Year Plan for economic growth. This plan emphasized industrialization. In the 1970s, this pursuit of economic growth whatever the cost continued through the SaeMaEul Movement with its slogan of “Let’s live well.” The SaeMaEul (New Village) Movement defined the good life as economic prosperity. It began to modernize farm villages while seeking well-balanced regional development. Chung and Nam see the SaeMaEul Movement as a psychological movement to overcome socioeconomic difficulties in line with the tenets of modernity. They position this movement as the government’s effort to gain the people’s cooperation in the rebuilding efforts by training them to believe that they can achieve what they need to “live well.” Toward the end of the 1960s, the government’s focus on economic growth started to be reflected in real changes in society (Ko, 1989; Chung and Nam, 2013; Kim, 2000; Kim, 2014; Chung, 2014). 

Yet while capitalism increases free economic production and exchange, when economic gain becomes the most important goal of society, commodification, economic oppression, and greed can result. Many Christian scholars, including Lee and Kim, believe that the government and the church started to share the ideology that economic growth is the most important factor in society. As Lee says, this ideology denigrated anything nonmaterial and redefined human identity as “homo economicus” (Lee, 1991; Kim, 1999; Lee, 2005/4). 

As the nation’s development centered on economic growth driven by top-down policies, protests began to take place against the authoritarian military government and in favour of democratization. These protests began in the 1980s. The reality of these government programs was that while GDP increased, not everyone benefited. Some people still struggled to survive, care for the disadvantaged was lacking, and this slogan of “Let’s live well” did not transfer to all individuals. 

The Korean church during these movements and the shift in eschatological outlook

While one might assume that rapid prosperity would lead to materialism and a waning interest in religion, the reality in Korea was more complex. Industrialization and urbanization created undercurrents of anxiety. The very speed and intensity of socioeconomic changes disrupted traditional ways of life and resulted in uncertainty and fear of the unknown. The sudden shift from rural, community-centered living to an urban, industrial society uprooted many people, leading to feelings of isolation and alienation. The demands of a modernizing economy challenged traditional values and left many Koreans searching for something stable and meaningful to hold onto. 

Furthermore, as the government’s focus on economic growth created widening social inequalities, religion became a refuge and a source of hope for many. It offered an alternative vision of society that emphasized compassion, justice, and human dignity. This religious resurgence was not just a response to material needs but also a reaction to cultural and political pressures (Lee, 1991; Kim, 1998; Kim, 2003; Min, 2004). While the government tried to force swift national economic well-being, the church promised actual experiences of well-being to individuals as the actual, lived fulfilment of what the government was promising. For the basis of well-being promised by the government was different from the basis of well-being promised by the church: whereas society based well-being on effort, the church based well-being on faith. 

Yet that foundation in the church began to shift in three basic ways. As Korean churches tried to minister to neglected people, they began to intermix faith with present blessing, gibok shinang, a blessing-centered faith, focused on here and now rather than on looking ahead

First, according to Jang, the society’s ideas of prosperity, abundance, and social climbing began to enter the church unopposed (Jang, 2018/1). As Kim argues, the church began to concentrate on concrete growth (Kim, 2000). It started to focus on the reconstruction of physical churches and on the growth of congregations in ways that corresponded to government economic policy. To achieve numerical and financial growth, the church began to position material wealth as a blessing from God. 

Furthermore, Kim points out that Korean Christian theology actually shifted in its account of the kingdom of God: “The concept of the Kingdom of God held by the leaders in this period was of a visible kingdom that would be manifested in the institutional church” (Kim, 2003). While before this period, the focus was on a kingdom of God in the future with the coming of Christ, during this effort to achieve material well-being, the church started to focus on building the kingdom of God here and now. It justified this shift by positioning the desire for material wealth as a morally upright aspect of believers’ contribution to social stability. 

Third, this shift in the concept of the Kingdom was actually due, at its deepest level, to a change in the Korean church’s definition of hope. Before the Korean War and during the Japanese colonial occupation, hope was placed in the coming Kingdom, but when Christians experienced the “end” during and after the Korean War, hope itself shifted toward what accorded with government policy on the economy in the belief that that policy could give stability. Ultimately, the church turned from future eschatology to realized eschatology.

These changes in theological definitions – of wealth as a mark of God’s blessing and as an ethical contribution to societal stability, of the Kingdom as here-and-now rather than in the future, and of hope as fulfilled in present prosperity rather than in an ultimate apocalyptic renewal – provided a justification for increasing materialism among Christians (Lee, 2005). The Korean church started to connect spiritual blessing to material blessing and made it instrumental to faith. Churches became corporations focusing on results and seeking material abundance. Spirituality was measured by the number of congregants and the size of offerings. Park goes so far as to denigrate the church at this time as a colony of materialists (Park, 2006). Lee claims that this prioritization of growth shifted the paradigm of success from the spiritual to only what is visible in capitalistic society (Lee, 2003). 

As socioeconomic changes produced distraction from the future coming Kingdom, Korean Christians increasingly no longer understood the parousia to be imminent. In fact, some Christians stopped believing that Jesus Christ would come imminently and started believing that he would probably not come at all. They focused without guilt on the pursuit of glory in this world. Some Korean pastors stopped preaching about how to prepare for the imminent end and started preaching only about how to live well in the present world. Shin states that these types of sermons became the majority during this time (Shin, 2006/1). The church’s message increasingly equated material success with spiritual righteousness, leading to the idea that wealth and prosperity were signs of God’s favor, while poverty and hardship were indicators of a lack of faith or effort. According to these teachings, individuals could achieve stability through work for the church in this world.

If we look far back over the centuries to the early church, we see that the delay of the coming of Christ did not diminish ancient eschatological expectations (Cullman, 1950). By contrast, the Korean church’s expectation of the imminent return of Christ lessened due to its experience during and after the Korean War. While some Korean theologians still tried to hold to Cullmann’s view of the tension between the “already” and the “not yet” aspects of the Kingdom developed from the ancient church, broader Korean Christian perspectives shifted from what is to come to what is now. The church’s spiritual mission became overshadowed.

So, as the government worked towards a better future, the Korean church followed suit, focusing on the visible kingdom of this world. According to Yoo, the Korean Church grew from 800,000 members in 1964 to 3 million in just five years, and the number of churches increased from 6,800 to 12,800 (Yoo, 1993; Lee, 1998/6). While there are differing opinions on the reasons for this growth, it is clearly related to the growth of the Korean economy, triggered by social changes, which fueled a hunger for the church’s message that complemented not only social but also economic well-being. Church leaders linked the blessings in one’s current life to offerings and evangelistic efforts. The church offered not only the hope of heaven but also the hope of this world, which could be achieved as a reward for efforts made for the church. This exchange required absolute faith and material dedication, and this faith and dedication led to the extensive expansion of the church as the kingdom of God here and now. These changes ultimately influenced Korean eschatology. 

Theological Shifts between the 1960s and the 1980s

Shift from premillennialism

This section will discuss what changed with the shift from premillennialism to amillennialism and what effect it had on the eschatology of Korea. During this period, eschatology was not a discussion merely about millennialism but about how one understood the theological concept of the Kingdom of God. The past focus on premillennialism’s imminent second coming shifted to a discussion of not when but how these historical events would usher in a new kingdom. While some still waited for the Kingdom of God, some went ahead with building the kingdom of this world. We will explore their differences and how they affected discussions of eschatology.

First, some definitions will be helpful. The major difference between premillennialism, postmillennialism, and amillennialism lies in what brings about the “golden age” or the Kingdom of God and the second coming. For premillennialism, the catalyst of the Kingdom is the traumatic events of the tribulation. Premillennialists derive their narrative of these events from a literal interpretation of scripture that reads the end as being near. For postmillennialism, the catalyst of the Kingdom is the progress of the gospel. For amillennialism, it is the will and sovereignty of God. While postmillennialists emphasize people as agents of God’s coming through the spread of the gospel and other virtuous deeds, other millennialists claim that the postmillennialists actually only put emphasis on the works of men.

After the Korean War, amillennialism began to arise in the eschatologies of the church around the world, including in Korea. Many in the Korean church accepted amillennialism and reduced an emphasis on the imminence of the Kingdom (Park, 1992/4). Focus on the timing of the return of Christ decreased and was replaced by a focus on the identity of the principal agent of eschatological restoration and on the Kingdom’s physical manifestation. 

I believe that the shift from premillennialism to amillennialism, from holding the imminence of the Kingdom to pursuing its physical manifestations here-and-now, can be attributed to two key factors. 

First, the historical situation vastly improved during this period, lessening the need for a hope that the coming of Christ would save people from martyrdom and tribulation. No longer were lives in physical danger; the only threats were economic, and that was being dealt with by the government. People started to see a way out of the poverty caused by the Korean War. The change from persecution by the Japanese to religious freedom meant that the intervention of God to save physical lives was no longer imminently required. Premillennialism’s second coming is about judgement, but Koreans no longer needed a judge; they needed an everyday helper. Physical safety, growing prosperity, and religious freedom drastically lessened the felt need for the second coming.

Second, the theological concept of the Kingdom of God underwent significant transformation during this period, driven by changes in the historical context. Initially, under Japanese colonial rule, the Kingdom of God was predominantly understood in eschatological terms, with a strong focus on the afterlife. According to Kim Young Jae, this period emphasized a heavenly realm that existed beyond death. The Kingdom of God was a spiritual reality accessible only after one’s life on earth had ended (Kim, 1993/1). However, as the historical situation evolved, the concept of the Kingdom of God expanded. It came to be seen not just as a distant, otherworldly realm, but as a present and active force in the world, influencing societal structures and human affairs. This shift supported a new eschatological outlook, where the Kingdom of God was perceived as something that could be realized on earth through human action and social transformation, rather than solely awaiting fulfilment in the afterlife. To give one concrete example, this concept was adopted by the Presbyterian Church of Korea (Ladd, 1974). 

Before this period, discussion of Christ’s return centered on an urgent “soon.” During this period, discussion of Christ’s return became a secret “when.” Churches lost the sense of urgency concerning the coming Kingdom. As the sense of urgency disappeared, churches’ interest in eschatology disappeared; eschatology was no longer a frequent topic of teaching. Instead, churches prioritized physical blessings that would offer a fresh start after difficult times. This historical trend demonstrates that discussions about eschatology are not determined by theological discourse but are shaped by societal perceptions. Currents of sociopolitical and socioeconomic change drove theological change away from future-facing thinking.

Minjung theology 

Through the influence of Western theologians like Jurgen Moltmann, Wolfhart Pannenberg, Johannes Metz, and Harvey Cox, some Korean theologians began to position the “people’s experiences of political oppression, poverty, and social miseries in Korea” within the theologies of liberation (Park, 1997/1). In particular, starting in the 1960s and progressing into the 1970s, Korean Methodist theologians began to seek to escape the subordination of Korean theology to Western theology and to reposition Korean theology within the theologies of liberation. To make this move, they developed a uniquely Korean perspective on pain. They argued that, having suffered injustice, foreign invasion, colonialization, and abuses of power and wealth, Koreans had a unique feeling, han (Cho, 2001):

Han is an essentialist Korean sociocultural concept that is popularly understood as a uniquely Korean collective feeling of unresolved resentment, pain, grief, and anger. Han is often described as running in the blood of all Koreans, and the quality of Korean sorrow as being different than anything Westerners have experienced or can understand. (Kim, 2017)

Some key Presbyterian thinkers within this movement included Ahn Byung-Mu and Suh Nam-dong. According to Byung-Mu and Nam-dong, because of the intensity of the Korean experience of han, the gospel should not be a distant fact from 2,000 years ago but should be incarnated today so that it can deal with the accumulation of Korean suffering; as Suh summarizes in parallel, Koreans should see “Jesus as the theological truth for interpreting the reality of today’s people, not as the subject of theology… and only when they make the suffering of the people their own suffering can they become a human being and the road to recovery of the community is opened” (Suh, 2001/1). Suh concludes that people must participate in the suffering which will bring about the return of the Kingdom; this return can come only through liberation from han. 

This movement in Korean theology came to be called minjung theology. While minjung theology was not something completely new, it contextualized itself within the Korean history of oppression. It combined liberation traditions, human rights, and the democratic movements in Korea with the mission of God, stating that God’s work is not simply in past history but is being realized now in the midst of the minjung. (Minjung means “the masses” or “the oppressed people.”) Minjung theology contextualized Christian thinking as a response to the political oppression, economic exploitation, and social injustice experienced by the common people under the government policies outlined above. It emphasized the liberation of the marginalized, particularly their just freedom from military dictatorship and rapid forced industrialization. In addition, it critiqued traditional Christian doctrines for aligning with the interests of the powerful; instead, it portrayed God as standing in solidarity with the suffering, and it read the Bible through the lens of the minjung, seeking stories of liberation from suffering. (Examples include the Exodus and the life of Christ. Christ is understood not only as a savior of individuals but as one who fights for the liberation of the oppressed.) 

According to Chae, this situation in Korea was not too different from that in other Third World countries at the time. These Korean liberation theologians, who also included Kim Yong-Bok and and Hyun Young-Hak, were very much aware of the liberation theology of Latin America and did not hide the fact that they were influenced by Jurgen Moltmann, Gustavo Gutierrez, and James Cone (Chae and Kim, 2003). 

Yet minjung theology was more than a contextualization of liberation theology into the Korean situation. Rather, it became a uniquely Korean theology stimulated by “contradictions” in Korean culture, society, and economics (Park, 1993/1). Most of all, according to Suh, the task of minjung theology is to deal with the han of the minjung. He redefines orthodox Christianity’s idea of sin as a label that the strong attach to the weak. The minjung are not sinners but the victims of sin. Because of the Korean history of suffering, the Kingdom must be realized physically in this world; individuals must understand their responsibility to bring about the Kingdom in society here and now. For minjung theologians, the realization of social justice in a democratic society is the ideal Kingdom. This understanding, which positions the Kingdom on earth, goes beyond the spread of the gospel (text) to participation in and solving the experiential problems of society (context). 

The rise of minjung theology created tremendous problems among Korean churches. Equating the work of liberating the minjung with salvation and the coming of the Kingdom disrupted Christian teaching and action. For conservative churches, salvation relies on God’s work in Christ; Jesus is the agent of salvation on the cross. Minjung theology violates these core beliefs, as it states, “Minjung is messiah.” This statement implies that humanity’s process of self-liberation is a manifestation of God’s saving work. From minjung theology’s perspective, as the minjung meet Jesus in the liberating process of history, the two become one, and the history of salvation is the history of liberation. 

Minjung theologians believe that the justice of God will be fulfilled despite injustice and oppression. They hope for a complete change to elevate all minjung, who are the humble in all places (Kim, 2001). Although minjung theology does not specifically affirm postmillennialism, it does align with postmillennialism by focusing on the work that is needed now to make this world a better place – just as postmillennialism focuses on the Christian moral behavior needed to bring about Christ’s return. 

I believe that minjung theology was not a force that shook Korean eschatological discussions. Instead, it was the natural outgrowth of the socioeconomic and sociopolitical changes outlined above. As society began to improve, there was no need for belief in a far-distant future coming of Christ; as inequalities widened, people decided that they themselves could bring about the Kingdom here and now. Minjung theology only crystallized this new emphasis on humans as agents of change. 

Conclusion

I have explored the history and theology of the period from the 1960s to the 1980s in Korea. After the Korean War, as the nation’s focus turned to rebuilding, the church redefined hope as rooted in this world. Because hope was put in this world, the agent of hope became humankind, not God. In the church, premillennialism eroded as an eschatology, and minjung theology repositioned the Kingdom of God as coming now through the liberation of the oppressed from han and injustice. While minjung theology may not have succeeded in dominating mainline Korean theology, aspects of it did come to be accepted both in liberal and in conservative churches. It forced believers to rethink traditional definitions of salvation, sin, sanctification, and the Kingdom, and its effects on life here-and-now continue to reverberate in Korean churches.

Author Bio: Dr. Seung Hyun Kim specializes in church history in East Asia, focusing on modern Korean history and eschatology. He holds a PhD from the University of Leeds and has taught at institutions in Korea, the United States, and the University of Leeds. 

References

Chai, Soo Il, and Heung Soo Kim. “The Theological Foundation for the Social Engagement of     the Progressive Christians in the 1970s.” Christianity and History in Korea 18 (2003): 9-        35.

Cho, Choung Kwon. “HAN and the Pentecostal Experience: A Study of the Growth of the Yoido Full Gospel Church in Korea.” Ph.D. diss., University of Birmingham, 2001.

Chung, Si Ku. “Study of Economic Development in 1960s before the SaeMaEul Movement of     Park Chung-Hee.” Korean Association of Governmental Studies (2014): 540-59.

Chung, WooYeul, and HeungBum Nam. “Process Development and Direction of Korean  SaMaEul Movement.” Hankuk HangJungSaHaJi 32 (2013): 271-301.

Cullmann, Oscar. Christ and Time: The Primitive Christian Conception of Time and History.        Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1950.

Jang, Soo-Han. “The Simultaneity of the Growth of Protestant Church and the Modernization in  South Korea (1960-1995).” Gospel and Practice 61 (2018/1): 61-86.

Jung, Il Woong. “Kingdom of God and Korean Society.” Presbyterian Theological Quarterly 56  (1989/4): 75-99.

Kim, Chang Rak. “Justification from the Minjung Theology’s View.” Institute of Korean  Theological Information Network Service 13 (2000): 61–79.

Kim, Heung Soo. Study of Korean War and Spread of Gibok Shinang. Seoul: Korea Christian       History Research Institute, 1999.

–. “Gibok Shinang: Changes in Christianity after Korean War.” Korean Church History Journal  (2000): 9.

Kim, In Soo. History of Korean Christian Church. Seoul: Presbyterian Theological University     Press, 1998.

Kim, Jung Ki. “Study of Development Process for SaeMaEul Movement in 1970.” Hankuk          HangJungSaHaJi (2014): 34.

Kim, Jung Sook. “Minjung Theology in 21st Century Globalized Era: Minjung Spirituality as      Eschatological Spirituality.” Theology and the World 72 (2011): 97-122.

Kim, Keun Soo. “Kingdom of God in Korean Presbyterian Church (Hapdong): From 1885           1988.” Ph.D. diss., University of Wales, 2003.

Kim, So Hee. “Korean Han and the Postcolonial afterlives of “The Beauty of Sorrow.” Korean    Studies 41 (2017), 254.

Kim, Yung Jae. “Eschatology of Korean Church.” Hapshin Theological Journal 11 (1993/1):       261-87.

Ko, Jun Suk. History of Korean Economy 1876-1979. Translated by Ki Chul Park. Seoul: Dongyeuk Press, 1989.

Ladd, George E. The Presence of the Future. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974.

Lee, Chul. “Theory of Secularism and church growth.” Kidokyo Sasang 42 (1998/6): 53-69.

Lee, DongWhee. Spirit of Christianity and Commercialism: Study of Korean Protestant Effect on Modern Korean Socio-Culture. Seoul: Korea Theology Study Center, 2005.

Lee, Sanggyu. “Sermon in Korean Church, History and Evaluation.” Hermeneia Today 30            (2005/4): 51-69.

Lee, Won Kyu. Crisis and Hope of the Christianity: From Religious-Social Perspective. Seoul:    DaeHanGidokkyoSuhwe, 2003.

Lee, Young Hyun. History of Korean Christianity. Seoul: Concordia Press, 1991.

Min, Kyong-bae. A History of the Korean Church. Seoul: Yonsei University Press, 2004.

Park, Aaron. “Chongshin’s Eschatological Tradition.” Presbyterian Theological Quarterly 59       (1992/4): 4-6.

–. “Minjung Theology Is Minjung Theology Even If It Is Born a Hundred Times.” Presbyterian  Theological Quarterly60 (1993/6): 4-8.

–. “Theology of Hapdong Side Presbyterian Church.” Presbyterian Theological Quarterly 60      (1993/1): 4-6.

–. “Three Newly Formed Theological Thoughts and Evangelical Church.” Presbyterian   Theological Quarterly 64(1997/1): 114-30.

Park, Young Shin. Modern Korean Society and Christianity: Role of Church in Change Korean    Society. Seoul: Handl Publishing House, 2006.

Sauter, Gerhard. Einfuhurng in Die Eschatologie. Korean Edition. Seoul: Handl, 1999.

Shin, Hyung Kwang. “Negative Aspects of Growth of Korean Church 2.” Gospel and Practice    11 (2006/1): 320-354.

Suh, Chang Won. “Toward a Korean Theology: Its Reflection and Perspective.” Korean Journal  of Christian Studies 22 (2001/1): 173-200.

Yoo, Dongshik. A Trace of Korean Theology. Seoul: Jumangas, 1993.