In his The Wounded Heart of God, Sung Park
delineates on the other side of harmatology which has often been overlooked –
the victims of sin (p.10). This theology of 恨Han springs out from the problem of the world. It
is intended to be the answer to the problem of the world. Park uses the term Han to refer to the pain of the victims
of sin (p.12). Han is “essentially
untranslatable” as it is beyond articulation (p.15). Its reality is
emotional (p.16), painful (p.17) resentful, bitter (p.19) and wounded (p. 20). The
people of Han or the victims of sins
are people who need healing. Who is han? Han can be both individual and group and even nature. It
is active or passive in its reactions. It wills to revenge, revolt, it feels
bitter, helpless, resentful (chapter 2).
The author concludes
there are three major root causes of han;
Capitalist global economy, patriarchy and racial and cultural discrimination
(chapter 3). One striking question that occurs to the reviewer is “what
about the victims of sexual exploitation?” for they cannot be characterized
into neither of these three root causes. Shouldn’t the author delineate the
root causes of han to human greed,
fear, lust or under the category of the seven deadly sins?
Park also challenges
traditional harmatology that only emphasizes on the sinner and neglect the
victims of sins (p.69). Park delineates on interwining relationship between sin
and han. Han which is the oppressed of sin can seek to retaliate which
consequently create a vicious cycle (p.70).
According to Park,
Jesus’ theology of forgiveness focuses on the oppressed, however the church has
shifted away from this original theology, which means it only concentrates on
the perpetrators and omits the victims (p.91). Park points to the command of
Jesus on forgiveness deriving from the gospel of Matthew (5:23-24) and
concludes, “the terms justification and
sanctification make sense only in our right relationship with the victims of
our sins” (p.96). Park examines several theologians from various schools of
thoughts regarding the theme of salvation and concludes that their concepts of
salvation have not deeply touched the victims. Han’s concept of salvation is “freedom from han for the oppressed and
freedom from sin for the oppressors” (p.101). For Park, “the oppressors (sinners) cannot be saved unless the
oppressed (victims) are saved or made whole (p.101). Park’s understanding of
salvation as wholeness places the salvation of the oppressors on the healing of
the oppressed. In this case, the oppressors’ salvation is totally dependent on
the wholeness of the oppressed. What if the oppressors have truly repented
whilst the oppressed reject recovery due to their deep hurts? If salvation is
divine grace, does it mean before the oppressed received their wholeness from
God, the oppressors have no chance to be forgiven?
In his reading of the
parable of the prodigal son, Park sees the father as the victim of sin. And
thus, he believes that the healing is not based on I-Thou relationship but it
should extends to Thou-We relationship (p.104). Can the victim be healed only
in the process of I-Thou relationship? What if the oppressor does not feel he
or she has wronged or hurt the oppressed? What if the oppressor does not even
realize that he or she has wronged or hurt the oppressed?
The reviewer thinks
the case of Joseph, the son of Jacob offers the best example of relational
healing process. The perspectival alteration between the victim, Joseph and the
oppressors, Joseph’s brothers is completed when Joseph said, “You intended to harm me, but God intended
for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives” (Gen
50.19). Unfortunately, such perfect dialectical healing process does not often
occur in the Bible. Did all the oppressed or the victims experience healing
process with the oppressors in the Bible? What about the Israelites and the
pharaoh of Egypt at Moses’ time? What about Tamar, the victim and her rapist,
Amnon which is also her brother?
Using the theology of
Anselm, Luther, Kitamori and Moltmann, Park consolidates his theology on divine
passibility – the han of God. Park
believes that the cross is not only God’s intention to save humanity but also
the symbol of God’s need for salvation (p.121). Park interprets Jesus cry (Eli, Eli lama sabach-thani) as God’s
yearning for salvation. The han is
not only expressed in the cross but also on the 33 years ontological living of
Christ. Park criticizes the church for her highlights on the suffering of
Christ on the cross and leaving out Christ’s suffering in various aspects of
His life (p.125). Park urges to reevaluate the three traditional knowledge of
God’s attributes - omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience. Park marries the
knowledge of God’s attributes with the han
of God giving new meanings to knowledge of God’s attributes. Omnipresence (God is crucified everywhere we are
oppressed), Omniscience (God knows
our deepest sorrow) and omnipotence (God’s
vulnerable love shown on the cross is more powerful than anything we know) (p.126).
Park offers the
theology of Han to serve as
interreligious dialogue. Park urges all religions to be united and cooperate to
overcome the sufferings of humanity. Idealistically thinking, Park wishes the
cooperation among religions will bring forth the future of humanity. However,
how can human religions repair the han
of humanity? Without trying to sound pessimistic, it is true that religious
harmony is worth striving for in order to reduce more han in society, however it is also true that human beings are
incapable of resolving han and hence
the han of God is crucial.
Park’s final chapter
on the resolution of han begins by
offering four steps to resolve han –
awakening, understanding, envisagement and enactment. Park also urges the
envisionment for a new world order. On one hand, Park advises the church not to
be involved with the politics of the world whilst on the other hand, Park urges
the church to take leadership role challenging the global system such as
capitalism. The church has to create a church banking system and politically
democratic community and ecologically sound community. Does the church have the
power to do that in reality without being involved in politics? This proposed
new order is basically challenging the whole global systems of injustice,
capitalism as well as governmental system. The church will be fighting various
self-interest, group-interest, nation state-interest. Seemingly, the church
needs a tremendous military force as well as strong leader boards to carry out
such tremendous tasks. Park’s proposal of the new world order sounds like an
exquisitely dreamed dream. Supposedly, Park is over confidence on humanity, on
the power of han. Whereas, Park also
points out that “han-ridden person may
revenge, sometimes killing the oppressors” (p.138). Han-ridden people are
the wounded who desperately need help. With so many people han-ridden people in the world, how could the new order be
accomplished? Will the new order pacify han
or creating more han?
The reviewer believes
the theology of han in itself is incomplete and hence, the reviewer
suggests the theology of 恨Han
to be complemented by theology of 疼Teng. Teng in Chinese means to love, to care as well as
to feel pain. When someone says, Jesus loves (teng) you, it also means Jesus is
painful (teng) because of you. To love someone is to feel painful or hurtful
for someone. To love the han-ridden
world, also means to be painful for the world. Definitely, han is not favored by anyone, but no one
can resolve han once and for all
except for God Himself. Religious harmony as well as world-harmony is much
sought-after; however, without the supreme power of God to end the old world
and create the new heaven and new earth, there is no way the problem of han can be resolved. Even with new
heaven and new earth, how about the han
of the hell?
