1. The Reality of Intercultural Marriage

According to data from the U.S. Census Bureau in 1990, the number of intercultural marriages increased from 310,000 in 1970 to 956,000 in 1988. This indicates a rapidly accelerating trend. Among Korean Americans, the rate of intercultural marriages is not lower than that of other Asian ethnic groups. Furthermore, the longer their immigration history, the higher the intercultural marriage rate becomes.

During the 1980s, 44.5% of Korean women who married in the United States were married to non-Korean partners, while only 7.5% of Korean men did so. However, there were significant regional variations. In Hawaii, 67.44% of Korean women married outside their ethnic group during the 1980s, whereas in California, only 30.6% did so in 1980. In the Los Angeles area, where statistics on Korean marriages began to be recorded in 1975, the rate of intercultural marriages among Koreans was 26.0% in 1975, 34.1% in 1977, and 27.6% in 1979. However, by 1984 it had declined to 8.7%, and in 1989 to 11.0%, with most of these cases involving women. A major reason for the decrease in intercultural marriages during that period was the deployment of U.S. military forces overseas, such as during the Gulf War, which led many Korean women married to American servicemen to relocate outside of California due to their husbands’ assignments.

Generally, women are more likely than men to marry outside their ethnic group. However, in Hawaii, since the 1950s, the rate of intercultural marriage among Korean men has nearly equaled that of women. In Los Angeles County as well, the trend among men has shown a steady increase.

Meanwhile, intercultural marriage has shown a clear upward trend with each successive immigrant generation. According to marriage license applications in Los Angeles County in 1989, among first-generation immigrants, the rates of intercultural marriage were 3.7% for men and 13.3% for women. Among second-generation immigrants, these rates increased to 33.3% for men and 62.5% for women. Among third-generation Koreans, the rates rose to 68.4% for men and 100% for women. When comparing the rate of intercultural marriage among Korean women in 1989 with other Asian groups such as Chinese, Japanese, Filipinos, and Vietnamese, Korean women in Hawaii had the highest rate (70.9%), while those in Los Angeles had the lowest (11.3%). For Korean men, the intercultural marriage rate in Hawaii was around 45%, placing them in the middle range similar to Filipino and Japanese men. However, in Los Angeles, the rate was the lowest at 4.5%.

Professor Harry Kitano of UCLA analyzed the contrasting patterns of intercultural marriage among Koreans in Hawaii and Los Angeles and identified several contributing factors. First is Hawaii’s historically tolerant social attitude toward interracial relationships. Second is the size and cohesion of the ethnic community. Unlike Hawaii, where the Korean population is small and geographically dispersed with a gender imbalance, Los Angeles has a large and concentrated Korean community, offering many opportunities for Koreans to meet potential spouses through churches, schools, social events, and recreational clubs. Third, and perhaps most importantly, is the influence of cultural adaptation. The longer Koreans live in the United States and the more exposure they have to American culture, the more they become detached from their ethnic community and experience changes in family structure, reducing parental influence over marital decisions. Women, in particular, tend to adapt more quickly to the new culture than men, which explains the higher rate of intercultural marriage among women. This process of cultural adaptation is closely tied to generational differences—second-generation Koreans show higher rates than first-generation, and third-generation even more so, in both Hawaii and Los Angeles.

2. Mixed Motivations

Why do people enter into intercultural marriages? Let us examine the reasons from demographic, historical, social, and psychological perspectives.

1) Demographic Reasons

As shown in [Table 1], schools in major cities of contemporary American society—now entering a new phase of immigration—are already racially mixed.

It is an undeniable fact that this trend is influencing every area of American society, including politics, economy, education, culture, and marriage. It is projected that by the mid-21st century, minority populations will surpass the White population in numbers. Specifically, non-Hispanic Whites, who accounted for 90% of the total population in the 1950s, are expected to drop below 50% before 2055.² The U.S. Census Bureau predicts that within the next 30 years, the White population will fall to 70%.

New York City is no exception. The New York City Department of Urban Planning announced that the proportion of the White population—which exceeded 60% in the 1970s—is expected to drop to 35% by the end of this century.³ On the other hand, this report predicts that the Hispanic population will increase significantly by the year 2000, surpassing the Black population for the first time in history. Based on birth rates and immigration trends of the 1980s, the report outlines how future racial composition may look. Joseph Salvo, a city demographer, stated that the racial makeup of the city is becoming increasingly diverse, and that a balance among major racial groups is expected to emerge.

[Table 1]

Student Population of Minority Groups (Black, Latino, Asian) in Major U.S. Cities

This trend suggests that racial and ethnic mixing among minorities in the U.S. will become an unavoidable reality in the future. In certain areas of the United States, the scarcity of a particular racial group may make it difficult for individuals to marry within their own race. Furthermore, as the minority population continues to grow, those who oppose interracial or intercultural marriage will increasingly be pressured to become more tolerant.

However, demographic change alone is not a sufficient reason to explain the rise in intercultural marriage.

2) Historical Reasons

Several historical events made the union between whites and non-white races possible.
The first event occurred in the early 20th century, when European immigrants began to gradually move to the United States, while African Americans migrated to the northern industrial areas as laborers.
The second event was the removal of racial segregation within the military during World War II.
The third was that American soldiers stationed overseas began returning home with “war brides” from Europe and Asia.
The fourth event was the 1967 repeal of anti-miscegenation laws, which had previously prohibited interracial marriages. The repeal of this law facilitated greater social interaction among different racial groups.

3) Social Reasons

Changes in social structure also influenced intercultural marriage.
In his book Mixed Blood, Paul Spickard outlines five socioeconomic reasons for intercultural marriage:⁴

(1) A gender imbalance within certain racial groups made it difficult to find a partner of the same race.
Due to historical factors like immigration patterns, wars, and slavery, minority groups have often struggled to find marriage partners within their own racial group. This trend is still evident in modern U.S. society.
For example, in 1980, about 45,000 Black women married white men, and this number increased to 69,000 by 1988. During this 8-year period, the rate of marriages between white men and Black women was higher than that of Black men marrying white women.
The Black male population is smaller than the Black female population in the U.S., especially in professional sectors. According to the 1980 U.S. Census, 66% of Black professionals were women.

(2) American society has become more open to racial and cultural differences.
Social changes that began gradually in the early 20th century accelerated over the past 20 years.
According to Gallup polls:

• In 1958, only 4% of the total population approved of interracial marriage.
• In 1968, that number increased fivefold to 20%.
• In 1978, it rose to 36%,
• And by 1983, it reached an impressive 43%.

Approval rates were even higher among Black Americans:

• In 1972: 58%,
• In 1978: 66%,
• In 1983: 71%.

Age also plays a significant role in openness to intercultural marriage. In 1983:

• 18% of people aged 65 and over supported Black-white marriages,
• 32% of those aged 50–64 supported it,
• 45% of those aged 30–49 supported it,
• And 63% of people under 30 approved.

Younger generations show a noticeably higher level of openness to intercultural marriage.

Given the continued trend, current statistics are expected to rise. As older generations pass and the average education level increases, acceptance of intercultural marriage is projected to grow. As intercultural marriage becomes more common, the perception that these families are unusual or abnormal will also fade.
However, this doesn’t mean that everyone will agree or support it.

One point to keep in mind is that survey results on acceptance of intercultural marriage may sometimes report inflated figures. This is because philosophical agreement and personal approval don’t always align.
According to a 1975 study, when white mothers were asked how they would respond if their daughters wanted to marry a Black man:

• Only 14% agreed both philosophically and personally accepted it,
• 32% agreed philosophically but could not personally accept it for their own daughter,
• 44% neither agreed philosophically nor personally accepted it.⁵

As people change, intercultural marriage becomes more acceptable toward certain races and minority groups. However, the underlying hierarchy of preference likely remains unchanged.
Even if more people become open to the idea, the invisible line dividing “us” and “them” may still persist.⁶

(3) Successful generations are more likely to be interested in intercultural marriage.
During the 19th and 20th centuries, most European immigrants arrived in America under oppression and persecution.
Though they came from different countries and for similar reasons, they initially lacked a strong common foundation to unite them.
However, they did share two key perspectives:

1. The need to quickly assimilate into American culture,
2. A belief that Black Americans held a socially inferior position.

As time passed, later generations who achieved success began to open themselves to relationships with individuals of other races.
Rarely did the first generation marry interculturally.
In the second generation, intercultural marriage became more common.
And by the third generation, many married without regard to racial or cultural boundaries.

[Tables 2, 3, and 4] illustrate the preference trends among Black Americans, Korean Americans, and Chinese Americans when choosing spouses in intercultural marriages.

For Korean intercultural marriages, the data show that Koreans tend to prefer White and Asian partners.

[Table 2]

Intercultural Marriage Patterns among African Americans

Source: Paul R. Spickard, Mixed Blood: Intermarriage and Ethnic Identity in Twentieth-Century America (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1989), p. 355.

[Table 3]

Patterns of Korean Intercultural Marriages

Source: Based on a 1994 telephone survey of 500 Korean-American men and women aged 20–35 in New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles. See Appendix [C-1].

(4) Socioeconomic class has become one of the influential factors.

Although there is no definitive statistical data showing which class is more accepting of intercultural marriage, it is generally recognized that *”those who are college-educated, knowledgeable, and possess a sense of art and culture tend to accept intercultural marriage more readily.”*⁷ Increased mobility and higher levels of education are contributing factors that make people more favorable toward intercultural marriages.

(5) Changes in family structure have made intercultural marriage more feasible.

There is no greater influence in society than the changes occurring within the family. The traditional family structure—typically a married couple with two to three children from the same race and cultural background—is rapidly changing. The number of single parents raising children has dramatically increased. Many people are also remarrying, and intercultural marriage has become common in remarriages. In these cases, children are often the first ones to interact with people of different races and cultures.

Table 4]
Patterns of Intercultural Marriage among Chinese Americans

Understandable but Unacceptable | Different Chinese dialect       | White Americans, Africans     |
|                         | White Americans                   | Koreans                              |
|                         | Japanese                           | Filipinos                             |
|                       | Koreans                           | Mexicans                             |

| Unthinkable        | Filipinos                       | Mexicans                             |
|                         | Mexicans                         | Black Americans                      |

Source:
Paul R. Spickard, Mixed Blood: Intermarriage and Ethnic Identity in Twentieth-Century America (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1989), p. 354.

Another significant factor influencing intercultural marriage is the adoption of children from other racial backgrounds. In most cases, white families adopt children from Africa, Asia, and Latin America. A large number of these adopted children end up marrying individuals of different races within the same cultural context. Their choice of spouse often reflects social, economic, and educational backgrounds, but their racial backgrounds are shown to be highly diverse.

Another significant influence on intercultural marriage is indeed this adoption of children from other races. Most of these adoptions involve white families adopting children from Africa, Asia, or Latin America. Many of these adopted children eventually engage in intercultural marriages with individuals of different races within a shared cultural context. Their patterns tend to be influenced by socioeconomic and educational backgrounds, but their choices in racial partners are strikingly varied.

4) Psychological Reasons

Although often speculative, psychological reasons sometimes become recurring patterns and are thus widely accepted as facts. Some consider intercultural marriage as a form of neurosis or abnormal behavior. Ernest Porterfield outlines six psychological reasons behind choosing a partner from another race: hostility, idealism, rejection, rebellion, demotion, and sexuality. It is important to note that all of these are considered to be driven by negative psychological responses.

(1) Hostility

In some cases, individuals may marry someone of a different race as a way of exerting control over or retaliating against a dominant culture. This hostility may arise from personal experience or as a reaction to being hurt while trying to serve or support their own racial group.

(2) Idealism

Some people marry someone of another race to prove they are open-minded and not narrow or obstinate. This can sometimes be a compensatory psychological behavior by individuals who habitually feel defeated, attempting to mask their self-pity with a gesture of broad-mindedness.

(3) Rejection

When individuals fail to adapt to their own racial or cultural group, they may choose intercultural marriage. In some ways, they can be seen as “misfits” in their own society. Couples like this may even go as far as making mutual declarations to reject each other’s ethnic customs or backgrounds.

(4) Rebellion

The nature and intensity of parental authority can become a strong hidden reason behind intercultural marriage. When parents exerted strong control over a child’s life before marriage, the child may respond with rebellion by marrying someone from another race. Such children often view parental care as oppression, and when they reach adulthood, they may choose intercultural marriage as a way to resist and break free from that controlling authority.

(5) Demotion

People who have low self-esteem or who have repeatedly felt devalued by members of their own race may, as a form of compensation, seek attention by choosing a spouse from another race. This can explain, for example, why white prostitutes might work under Black pimps. Likewise, during the 1960s in America, some liberal white middle-class women became involved with lower-class Black men due to a lack of self-worth.

(6) Sex

This involves sexual curiosity or sexual addiction toward individuals of a different race.

The above statistical, historical, social, and psychological theories often appear in combination—sometimes one, sometimes two or three together. However, these explanations have lost credibility today because they are superficial and may stereotype intercultural marriage in a negative light. These studies are also problematic because they fail to address the most central motivation for marriage: love.

Robert Staples once said, “People often say that those who engage in intercultural marriage do so out of rebellion against their parents, out of sexual curiosity, or other psychological reasons. But many people who marry within their own race do so for the same reasons. … Even when people marry someone very similar to themselves, they often do so for strange reasons, but no one questions those marriages.”

Distinguishing between healthy and unhealthy motives for marriage is difficult. Sometimes, marriages formed from problematic motivations survive and even thrive into happy families. These reasons—positive or negative—can apply to any kind of marriage. When any marriage is built on love and commitment, it has the potential for strength and success. Because intercultural marriages face social bias and prejudice, couples in such marriages may have to make an even greater effort to build a successful relationship.

It is now time to change the question we are asking. Instead of asking, “What did they do wrong?”, we should be asking, “How can we teach our children to be open and accepting toward people of other races?”

3. The Psychological Attitudes of the Public Toward Intercultural Marriage

1) Mixed Feelings

Over the past ten years of observation, it has been found that white children tend to hold a single concept of family, just as their parents do, and consider it as a standard. In the real drama of our lives today, there are many roles to explore and understand. Through conversations with children who have parents in interracial relationships, the following four reactions have been discovered:

(1) Denial

The topic of interracial marriage is treated much like divorce was understood a generation ago. That is, it is considered an “unspeakable and unforgivable sin.” Divorce was once stigmatized as a sin, and good families believed it was right to hide the fact and not mention it to their children. Some parents even deny the very existence of interracial marriages. Absolutely no photos of such children’s interracial marriages are found in the parents’ homes or wallets. These children are always hidden in the shadows. They only whisper about their marriages in private, with those who already know the fact.

(2) Explanation / Clarification

“Last Saturday, my child said they were going to marry a ‘blue baby’ (a derogatory term for a person of another race). What should I do? I can’t believe it!” Parents share their news in this way, seeking sympathy from others. Interracial marriage and dating remain taboo subjects in our society. It is viewed as a shameful issue, similar to an unmarried daughter having a child or a child choosing a same-sex partner. Such parents treat their daughters-in-law, sons-in-law, or grandchildren with great sadness. This remains a deeply distressing problem in their thoughts and conversations.

(3) Acceptance (Accommodation)

“My son is dating a Hispanic girl! It’s unbelievable! But what can I do? He’s going to live with her… it’s none of our business. Even if we don’t approve, since he says he will marry her anyway, we just have to accept it…” Even when others agree with the parents’ statements, these parents emphasize that they have not given permission to inform others of this fact. Parents try to gauge whether others support or oppose by the tone and attitude in their responses. These parents dislike being seen as old-fashioned, stubborn, or racist. Therefore, they try to hide their uncomfortable feelings about their children’s decisions by taking a middle-ground attitude.

(4) Support

“If parents who insist on their viewpoint would genuinely try to protect their children, and approach it with love, then these issues would greatly diminish!” When children marry and bring their spouses into the family, becoming one household, family restructuring is not an easy matter. Especially when race and culture differ, the tension and problems are expected to be serious. Whether the new relationships formed among extended family members will be strengthened or weakened, and what the content of those relationships will be, remain serious concerns.

Of course, as shown in [Table 5], even if interracial and intercultural marriages increase rapidly in the future, it remains doubtful whether society will automatically and positively accept these unions. Individuals may recognize and accept them within their personal relationships. Intercultural families are expected to receive cooperation regarding interracial marriages. Those who know of some mixed-race couples who have failed or whose children struggle with identity issues are likely to hold negative attitudes. On the other hand, those who know successful interracial marriages with well-adapted mixed-race children will likely have cooperative attitudes. Just as it is uncertain whether marriages within the same race will succeed or fail, it is also clear that intercultural marriages remain uncertain. New attempts always involve higher risks. Almost all interracial families who cooperate and love each other believe that their difficulties ultimately make them stronger.

[Table 5]

Annual Statistics of Intercultural Marriages in the United States

According to U.S. Census Bureau statistics: data from 1990 shows that the number increased from 310,000 in 1970 to 956,000 in 1988. Intercultural and interracial marriages continue to show rapid growth.

4. Reasons for the Change in Attitudes Toward Intercultural Families

1. Recognition as Healthy Marriages

A minority of people are interested in interracial marriages as a social ideal, and some groups even recommend interracial marriage as a step toward the unity of all humanity.

From a purely biological standpoint, it is a proven scientific fact that in all living organisms—plants, animals, and humans—mixing different lineages within the same species strengthens the species. Those who accept this fact tend to believe that interracial or intercultural marriages produce relatively “stronger” offspring.

Another view held by those who believe intercultural marriage is normal and healthy is that such marriages can bring about true equality in this land. Joseph Washington stated in his book Marriage in Black and White that “Only through marriage can Black people be fully accepted equally among White people, and Whites also be fully accepted among Blacks.”11

No religion currently officially endorses intercultural marriage as doctrine. However, the Bahá’í Faith, which emphasizes human unity, teaches this view. It sees interracial marriage as a service to humanity, resolving racial conflicts and as the first step toward uniting all races.

2. Acceptance as Special Marriages

Some believe marriage is a destiny that must face challenges, so it should be formed and maintained between similar partners. This philosophy can be summarized by “the rare, the disabled, the superior.” These people think the more similar personality traits spouses have, the higher the chance of success. Similar ethnic backgrounds, education levels, social status, religious beliefs, racial identity, and values are believed to reduce tensions in relationships.

Those who hold this view restrict individual freedom to choose a marriage partner and, while reserving judgment on the equality of all people, argue that the best marriages occur between similar people. Interracial couples who go against social norms are choosing a special and unique path. When interracial couples make such choices, their determination to live with the strong opposition from the system must be accepted and respected.

Pastor C. Eugene Askew supported this view in his article titled “Must My Daughter Marry a Black Man?” stating:

“I hope my children will find suitable partners among young people similar in religion, culture, economic background, and race. However, if circumstances around them decide otherwise, my wife and I declare that we will love and understand their spouses, friends, and even grandchildren.”12

Social problems and pressures continue to be strong obstacles for those pursuing such marginalized and “risky” paths. Intercultural couples recognize these obstacles but do not see them as insurmountable. This is because once they choose to take the risk, there are supporters who willingly accept and assist them in maintaining this “special relationship.”

3. Opposition Due to Problems

Some say interracial marriage causes too many problems and raises too many questions. Their opposition is not based on minority or racial superiority but on sociological and cultural dynamics.

Many forces try to prevent or destroy mixed marriages. Among the strongest are economic and relational reasons. The parents, family, and friends who could most support intercultural couples may be the strongest opponents. One major reason for opposition is the belief that children born to such couples have no other choice but to suffer. Mixed-race children are expected to suffer from identity confusion, racial slurs, and stereotypes. Moreover, interracial families often face discrimination in jobs, housing, and even when such discrimination is illegal.

These opponents think society still doubts the motives of intercultural couples, and many believe that those who decide to marry interracially negatively affect many others. Regardless of how much the couple truly loves each other, the price they pay is too high.

4. Rejection as Destructive Marriages

There are groups united in opposing interracial and intercultural marriages from a different philosophical standpoint. They believe these marriages are wrong because racial mixing weakens races. Particularly, Whites argue for separation to protect the purity of their blood. Groups such as White Supremacists, Ku Klux Klan, and Skinheads oppose interracial marriages on this basis.

Other groups oppose intercultural marriages, believing that continued interracial and intercultural marriages lead to identity loss and even cultural suicide. In the 1960s, militant Black activists emphasized the necessity of racial and cultural separation to avoid assimilation into the dominant society. They declared that intercultural marriages weaken or destroy identity—this was Malcolm X’s argument.

Marriage is ordained by God. God entrusted men and women with the mission to share life’s joy and bring children into the world. Every individual must carefully consider whether or not to marry and with whom, clearly understanding God’s blessing and guidance. Because the choice of marriage is very important, brides and grooms must receive the blessing of their families and society.

5. Prayer for Intercultural Families

Because the number of intercultural families is still very small, stereotypes about them are easily formed and once established, are hard to change or remove. When one listens to these stereotypes or myths far from reality through dialogue or observation, they include:

(1) Intercultural marriage contradicts biblical teachings and examples.
(2) Partners in intercultural marriages cannot adapt to the environment or have neurosis.
(3) Only Whites can question whether intercultural marriage is recommendable.
(4) Divorce rates in intercultural families are higher than in same-race marriages.
(5) Children of intercultural families will be rejected by both racial groups.
(6) Children of intercultural families inherit inferior genes.
(7) Children of intercultural families are victims of their parents’ choices.

Such stereotypes should be researched to measure their reliability, and their negative concepts must be corrected as soon as possible. Most Korean women in intercultural families live in extreme loneliness, thorough alienation, and fear. Especially, mental illness, maladjustment, and juvenile delinquency issues in intercultural families remain hidden except for cases reported to the police. Due to cultural reasons related to shame and face-saving, psychological problems are often not acknowledged. Most problems are dealt with within the family rather than seeking outside professional help.

Korean women in intercultural families represent a prime example of the ongoing issues of gender and racial discrimination in this land. To help understand this, one must first understand Korean cultural consciousness. If the ultimate solution to racial conflict and discrimination is placed on intercultural families, understanding interculturality and taking measures for the restoration of disadvantaged families should be seen as a great earthly mission God has given us, and our missional duty above all else.

For reference, organizations supporting intercultural families are provided.13

[Notes]

1. New York Korea Times, January 31, 1995, A7.
2. Henry III, William A., “Beyond the Melting Pot,” Time (April 9, 1990): 28-31.
3. Korea Times New York Edition, Korean language version, March 30, 1995, p. B.
4. Spickard, Paul R., Mixed Blood: Intermarriage and Ethnic Identity in Twentieth-Century America (Madison: University of Wisconsin, 1989), p. 69.
5. Ibid., pp. 293-294.
6. Ibid., pp. 371-372.
7. Ibid., p. 7.
8. Portfield, Ernest, Black and White Mixed Marriages (Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1978), pp. 59-84.
9. Bode, Janet, Different Worlds: Interracial and Cross-Cultural Dating (New York: Franklin Watts, 1989), p. 81.
10. Spickard, Mixed Blood, p. 313.
11. Joseph R. Washington, Jr., Marriage in Black and White (Boston: Beacon, 1971), pp. 326-327.
12. C. Eugene Askew, “Should My Daughter Marry a Negro?” in Marrying Across the Color Line, edited by Cloyte M. Larsson (Chicago: Johnson, 1965), p. 33.
13. Appendix [C-3]

Church Background and Context

1. Regional Background

This church is located geographically on the eastern boundary of the borough of Queens, New York City, adjacent to the western edge of Nassau County, New York. The boundaries of the area include Union Turnpike to the north, Francis Lewis Boulevard to the west, Murdock Avenue to the south, and Belt Parkway, Cross Island Parkway, and Winchester Boulevard to the east. The Grand Central Parkway, which connects to the Northern State Parkway, runs through the northern part of the neighborhood, as does the Long Island Expressway, making this location a major transportation hub between Long Island and New York City. The Clearview Expressway, which connects to the Throgs Neck Bridge leading to the Bronx and Connecticut, ends at Hillside Avenue in the northern corner of the neighborhood. The church itself is located just one block north of the well-known Jamaica Avenue and 220th Street, making it easy to find even for first-time visitors.

According to The Story of Queens Village (1), settlers from Connecticut arrived in the 1640s and settled in Hempstead. Around 20 families among them wanted to move westward, so they traded with the Native Americans for land between Hempstead and Canarsie in exchange for two guns, a coat, and some gunpowder and lead. On March 21, 1656, they settled in Jamaica (near Hawtree Creek, Lewis Boulevard, and 206th Street). On March 7, 1663, they purchased additional land from Native Americans between Spring Creek to the west (now the Brooklyn-Queens border) and Hook Creek to the east (now the Queens-Nassau border).

Queens Village slopes from a height of 200 feet above sea level along the Grand Central Parkway in the north to about 60 feet along Murdock Avenue in the south. While the plain stretching from western Queens to Wantagh was known as the “Great Plain,” Queens Village was known as the “Little Plain” until the 1600s (2). Because only coastal grass grew without any trees, a law was passed in the 1600s forbidding people from cutting grass before July 8 to ensure fodder for animals. In 1661, anyone who cut grass before August 10 had to pay a fine (3).

The church is part of the Queens Village administrative district in New York City. It belongs to Community Planning Board #13 and is within School District 29. The public schools in the area include one high school (grades 9–12), one middle school (grades 6–8), and four elementary schools (grades K–5). Private schools include one prep school (K–8), one Lutheran school (K–8), and two Catholic schools (K–8). Religious institutions include 3 Jewish synagogues, 3 Catholic churches, 1 Episcopal church, 3 Lutheran churches, 1 United Methodist Church, 1 Reformed Presbyterian church, 1 United Presbyterian church, 1 Korean church, 3 Baptist churches, and 1 Pentecostal church. There is also a YMCA, a library, a police precinct, and two post offices. The area is divided into three postal code zones: 11427, 11428, and 11429.

It is estimated that Queens Village became part of New York City’s administrative structure between 1898 and 1919 (4). According to the Queens County Times, a local newspaper published on September 23, 1971, the village was named Queens Village in 1685 in honor of Queen Catherine of Braganza, wife of King Charles II of England (5). The first post office was established in 1850, and the first school district was designated in 1857. A train station was established in 1871. In 1889, the village had its first fire department and firehouse. Telephones became publicly available in 1896, and trolleys began running along Jamaica Avenue in 1897. Electricity was introduced in 1898, and water supply from the city began in 1899. The subway arrived in 1905, and a city bus depot was built in 1924, with over 10 bus lines running through or terminating in the area. The first high school in the village was established in 1955 (6).

According to the 1980 census, the population of the village was 59,734. By 1989, it had grown to 60,680—a modest increase of 946 people over nine years. While overall growth has been slow, the population is changing due to the arrival of Indian, Filipino, and West Indian immigrants, who are replacing retiring and relocating white residents. Though population growth is moderate, the demographic makeup is shifting significantly toward minority groups. The number of households grew from 18,909 in 1980 to 20,447 in 1989, an increase of 1,538 households. This 16% growth is much lower than the global population growth rate of 1.72%, the U.S. growth rate of 9.8%, and New York State’s 2.5%, indicating a modest, steady growth. This increase is not due to natural births, but to the in-migration of minority populations such as Indians, Filipinos, and Jamaicans, significantly changing the area’s demographic composition.

Average household income rose from $23,217.67 to $38,873.67 over ten years—an increase of $15,656—showing that the village is home to a typical American middle-class population. The details of household income by ZIP code are as follows (7):

As shown in [Table 1], the average age has increased from 35.6 to 37.7, indicating an aging trend of 2.1 years. However, as seen in [Table 2], the areas where the church is located—zip codes 11427 and 11428—have significantly higher elderly populations (65 years and older), at 20.1% and 14%, respectively, compared to 9.7% in the 11429 area. Additionally, as [Table 3] shows, there is a racial contrast between these regions. In zip codes 11427 and 11428, where the church is located, White residents make up 76.8% and 75.7% of the population, respectively, whereas in 11429, Black residents make up 77.5%, revealing a stark racial difference within neighborhoods of the same village. The 11429 area, which begins just across the street to the south of Jamaica Avenue, one block from the church, is a region with a concentrated Black population.

The “Others” category, Table 3, is primarily composed of Indians, Filipinos, and a very small number of Chinese and Hispanic people.

As shown in [Table 4], the White-populated areas of 11427 and 11428 have more elderly people living alone compared to the predominantly Black-populated area of 11429.

As shown in [Table 5], the 11428 area is considered the earliest settled part of the neighborhood, followed by 11427 and then 11429. The parsonage of Embury United Methodist Church, built in 1780, is the oldest house in the area and was originally the home of the first settler and farm owner in the village.(8)

2. Ecclesial Background

The English congregation of Embury United Methodist Church traces its origins to October 1924, when the Eastern Conference of German Methodists commissioned Miss L. W. Buettner to investigate whether there was a sufficient population in the area to establish a German-speaking Methodist church. The survey revealed that over 100 families desired a church offering worship in English. As a result, a founding worship service was held on Sunday morning, January 25, 1925, with 115 people in attendance, under the leadership of Rev. Dr. Hubert B. Munson, then the District Superintendent of the Brooklyn and Long Island Society. The church was officially organized on March 1, 1925, and Rev. William H. Stewart was appointed as its first pastor on May 6, 1925. Groundbreaking for the church building was held on December 12, 1926, and the dedication service was held on April 10, 1927.(9)

As of now, the church has 256 registered members, with an average of 99 attendees participating in worship and giving offerings on Sundays.(10) About 60% of the congregation are retired elderly people, and 75% are white. The church’s administrative board, which makes decisions about church activities, is composed of 90% white members. Therefore, their values tend to be rooted in past customs, nostalgic memories, and social fellowship with longtime friends.

Queens Village is on the outskirts of New York City, near enough to Nassau County that it could be reached with a stone’s throw. Over the past several years, many families—particularly young white families—have moved to the Long Island area, and in their place came African Americans, Hispanics, Indians, Haitians, and Asians. As Christian families moved away and older church members continued to pass away, churches in the area, including Embury, have steadily lost members since the 1960s. Sociologically, many African Americans attend churches south of Jamaica Avenue and tend to avoid the predominantly white churches north of it.

On June 26, 1983, Embury Methodist Episcopal Church merged with the neighboring Calvary United Evangelical Church.(11) Rev. Thomas Fisher was appointed to the new church and, with a ministry focus on African Americans, the congregation began to see an increase in younger Black families.

In 1987, Rev. Taeheon Yoon, a Korean pastor, was appointed to lead the church, marking a new phase. In 1989, the church board unanimously decided to start a Korean-language ministry.(12) Rev. Yoon began holding Korean-language services at 1 PM with his family, and within a year, the Korean congregation held its founding worship service on December 9, 1990. By the first anniversary in December 1991, the Korean ministry had grown to 31 members with an annual budget of approximately $40,000.(13)

A notable characteristic of the Korean congregation is that 13 members have been involved in intercultural marriages. Of them, five are currently in stable intercultural marriages, two are in the process of divorce, two are divorced and living alone, one has remarried a Korean man after divorce, and one is cohabiting with a Korean man after divorce. They range in age from their 30s to mid-50s and come from various areas such as Astoria, Woodside, Jackson Heights, Elmhurst, and Flushing—not necessarily because of proximity, but due to the human relationships and the unique nature of the church.

Overview of the Issues

To prepare for this study, the author worked with a research team of seven members from the church, and they identified the following facts. The adult Korean congregants can be classified into the following nine types:

1. Recently immigrated Korean couples
2. Korean couples who have lived in the U.S. for over ten years
3. Women living alone after divorcing Korean husbands
4. Women in the process of divorcing Korean husbands
5. Couples in separation
6. Women divorced from African American or Hispanic husbands
7. Women in the process of divorcing African American or Hispanic husbands
8. Women currently in their first intercultural marriage with African American, Hispanic, or white husbands
9. Women in their second intercultural marriage with African American, Hispanic, or white husbands
10. Women divorced from such husbands and now engaged or remarrying Korean men

It was discovered that more than half of the Korean congregation struggles with serious family issues, and the severity varies. Often these issues are not visible on the surface—not because they’ve been resolved, but because they have become more deeply internalized. These hidden problems are not exclusive to Embury’s Korean congregation but are widespread among Korean immigrant communities, especially those involving intercultural marriages.

Many adults are receiving psychological counseling or therapy. Korean women with intercultural marriage experience are often seen at the Embury Homeless Shelter, and some end up in state mental hospitals or even prison. T. Richard Snyder refers to such individuals as “the used, the marginalized, the unstable, the despised, the discarded.”(14)

Among the Korean-speaking congregation at Embury, 41% are women with intercultural marriage experience, and 8 out of 13 have been divorced. Due to the psychological, economic, social, moral, and spiritual consequences of divorce, these women often suffer from low self-esteem and severe depression or mental illness, leading to daily lives of poverty and alienation filled with anxiety and struggle.

Root of the Problem: Alienation from Wholeness of Life (Shalom)

The root of this alienation is partially the neglect of established immigrant churches. These churches are often preoccupied with numerical growth, traditional charismatic spirituality, and educational policies focused on church school growth. Several issues emerge here:

1. Alienation within Christian families
2. Alienation of Christians from society

Following Christ requires a faith that can present the unchanging Christ to new times, places, and cultures—even within the same congregation as society evolves. Alienation occurs when individuals cannot adapt to new cultures. Therefore, even within the same church, there must be continual regeneration for a new era. This requires transformation and sensitive, ongoing responses from the church.

The more critical problem is that no current research, strategy, or practical implementation exists within the church to guide those with “broken wings” or “marginal value” toward the wholeness of life—toward shalom.

This study identifies that the issues at Embury are rooted in alienation from this wholeness and is presented as a humble attempt to respond to the need for transformation through urgent Christian prayer.

Theological Response: Three Areas of Ministry Toward Ecclesiogenesis

1. Healing Ministry for Personal Transformation
   • Practices for personal transformation toward recovery, aimed at discovering individual identity (Exodus generation).
2. Communal Ministry for Church Transformation
   • Practices for building a community of equality through collective humanization (Cruciform generation).
3. Preventive Ministry for Social Transformation
   • Practices by small communities to transform social structures into communities (Peace generation).

Problem Analysis

1) The Human Condition in Immigration

This study addresses the suffering of immigrants who face racial and gender-based discrimination and identity crises. After five years or more in the “land of opportunity and freedom,” many immigrants begin to ask, “Who am I?” They wrestle with:

1. Economic survival
2. Generational conflicts due to cultural and linguistic differences with their children
3. Personal struggles in understanding American culture
4. Shame and frustration from not being able to utilize their professional skills or credentials

These struggles cause a loss of self-realization and dissatisfaction in key areas of life:

1. Physical needs
2. Safety needs
3. Social needs
4. Self-esteem needs

Immigrants experience invisible pressures and tensions from many directions.

God sees those who suffer—immigrants who have lost freedom in a land of freedom. God desires their liberation. America is a land of pioneers, competition, and enterprise. While it promises crowns to those who demonstrate ability, free competition can also lead others into poverty, hunger, or even death. This creates moral stains in society.

Behind these issues lies the power of systems that dominate individuals. The paradox of religious and social abundance is continually controlled by the demon of conflict. Human relationships are dehumanized, unrecoverable by respect, religion, or social means. Immigrants need help.

Churches must humanize invisible systemic powers while securing the well-being and stability of suffering individuals. Depression results when immigrants lose their dignity. They need motivation to fulfill their hopes.

Therefore, the church must engage in:

1. Healing ministry for consciousness-raising: Helping individuals rediscover their identity
2. Transformational ministry for humanization: Empathy training for group equality
3. Preventive ministry for generative community: Becoming leaven through voluntary suffering to transform society

2) Immigration Process

The history of Korean immigration, particularly the pioneer wave (1882–1905), is generally recognized as beginning with the Treaty of Amity and Commerce in 1882, which established diplomatic relations between Korea and the United States. This treaty allowed Koreans the opportunity and freedom to visit and reside in the U.S. While diplomats and students came over soon after, formal immigration is considered to have begun between 1903 and 1905, when 7,226 Koreans traveled on 65 ships to work on sugar plantations in Hawaii. Over 80% were adult men, mostly farmers, laborers, soldiers, church workers, and students. A significant portion—about 40%—were Christians, and most immigrants participated in church life in Hawaii. This initial immigration ended when, in 1905, the Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued an order to ports including Incheon to prohibit Koreans from emigrating.

From 1906 to 1949, immigration resumed with around 2,000 Koreans entering Hawaii and the U.S. West Coast between 1906 and 1924. Immigrants of this era fell into two groups: political exiles and students, and “picture brides”—women who immigrated after agreeing to marry men they had only seen in photographs. A significant number of those early Hawaiian immigrants later relocated to the mainland U.S. and Mexico. Over 2,000 moved to California to work in rice farming and railroad construction, while another 1,000 moved to Yucatán, Mexico, to work in sugar plantations, with many later relocating to Cuba. Today, notable Korean communities still exist in Mexico and Cuba due to these migrations.

In 1924, a highly restrictive U.S. immigration law passed, greatly limiting immigration from Eastern and Southern Europe and completely halting immigration from Korea and other Asian countries. From 1924 to 1945, fewer than 20 Koreans immigrated to the U.S. annually.

Between 1950 and 1969, immigration gradually increased and accelerated in the 1960s. Two reasons contributed to this: (1) U.S. military, political, and economic involvement in Korea following the division of the peninsula and the Korean War, and (2) the reform of restrictive immigration laws in 1965, which opened up immigration from Asian countries. Initially, only 100 immigrants per year were allowed from Pacific Rim nations, but between 1950 and 1969, 32,957 Koreans immigrated to the U.S., and 75,241 entered as students, government delegates, or temporary visitors. Many of these visitors overstayed or obtained permanent residency.

Korean immigrants during the 1950s and 1960s can be categorized into four main groups:

1. Women married to U.S. servicemen stationed in Korea. Since 1950, over 40,000 Korean women immigrated as spouses of U.S. citizens, most of whom were soldiers.
2. Orphans adopted by American citizens. A New York Times article (March 1, 1977) noted that over 1,300 Korean orphans had been adopted between 1955 and that date; today, the number is much higher.
3. Students, trainees, employees of Korean branches, correspondents, and temporary visitors who later gained permanent residency. According to Korea’s Ministry of Education, over 10,000 students studied in the U.S. between 1953 and 1973, most of whom did not return to Korea.
4. Professionals such as nurses, doctors, and pharmacists, who immigrated after the 1965 law revision along with their families.

Unlike Korea, where the gender ratio is balanced, Korean-American communities have a female majority—a unique characteristic. In 1970, the male-to-female ratio among Korean immigrants was 33:67. By 1984, this had balanced somewhat to 42:58. This female predominance is attributed to three factors:

1. Many U.S. soldiers stationed in Korea married Korean women and brought them to the U.S.
2. A higher proportion of adopted Korean orphans were girls.
3. A large number of Korean nurses immigrated to the U.S.

The gender ratio became more balanced in the 1980s due to the decline in nurse immigration.

Professor Byung-Kap Min identifies two primary reasons why gender equality is difficult to achieve within Korean immigrant communities:

1. Many Korean families run small businesses, where women often work alongside their husbands. However, this shared labor does not translate into independent economic power unless the woman is independently employed and paid under her own name.
2. Since most work in Korean-owned environments, Korean language and culture are preserved longer, reinforcing traditional male-dominant customs. Korean language and customs inherently reflect gender distinctions, making gender equality difficult without broader cultural assimilation.

3) Understanding Bicultural Families

Bicultural families typically refer to international and interracial marriages—households formed between partners of different nationalities or cultural backgrounds. As a multicultural society built through immigration, the U.S. has been the subject of numerous sociological studies on such families. With the rise of Korean immigration, many churches have begun focusing pastoral care on bicultural families.

In particular, the families this study focuses on are those formed by about 130,000 Korean women who married U.S. servicemen stationed in Korea after the Korean War. Many 1.5 or second-generation Korean-Americans are also entering interracial marriages, especially in smaller cities or rural areas with low Korean populations, where interracial marriage rates exceed 50%. Thus, ministry for international and bicultural families must expand and diversify.

4) Historical Background of Bicultural Families

According to Korean Ministry of Health and Immigration data, Korean immigration surged after the 1965 law reform. But even before this, many immigrants were family members or acquaintances invited by Koreans in international marriages. Post-Korean War society suffered from poverty, instability, and urbanization, and women faced unequal access to education, jobs, and fair treatment. For many young women—especially from rural or low-income urban areas—international marriage offered a rare chance to immigrate to the “dreamland” of America.

Korean women who married U.S. servicemen endured deep loneliness. Leaving their homeland to marry foreigners often meant permanent separation from their families. In the 1950s, ’60s, and early ’70s, cultural isolation and poor adaptation led to serious emotional distress, unlike today when Korean churches, restaurants, airlines, and media provide some cultural connection.

5) Understanding Bicultural Families

Military families formed through international marriage face frequent relocations and cultural misunderstandings, including conflicts over food and family norms. These challenges often lead to divorce or separation. Difficulties also arise in transmitting Korean culture to children and maintaining relationships with American in-laws. Women face language barriers, adjustment issues, feelings of alienation, stress, abuse, and social neglect. Emotional distress can manifest as instability in marriages and church communities. Yet many women endure and build successful bicultural families through faith and pride in their heritage.

These women exhibit patience, loyalty, cooperation, adaptability, strong faith, patriotism, and familial devotion. Many became exemplary figures in the immigrant community through perseverance and moral strength.

They contributed significantly to Korean society, both financially and socially, and played a cornerstone role in developing immigrant churches. Many quietly supported family reunification and welfare, though their efforts remain largely unrecognized. They acted as ambassadors, sisters to students, relatives to adoptees, and advocates for minority rights in the U.S. Despite being isolated and unsupported in a foreign land, their contributions deserve gratitude and recognition.

(1) Three Stages of Alienation Experienced by Most Internationally Married Women in the U.S.

The first stage of alienation begins when internationally married women arrive in the U.S. with high hopes and dreams, only to experience disappointment and disillusionment. In many cases, these women come from difficult family backgrounds or adverse life circumstances in Korea. Marrying American soldiers, they crossed the Pacific dreaming of a Cinderella-like happiness in the U.S. However, upon arriving at their “homes,” their dreams often collapse. Their husbands’ low income, communication difficulties with in-laws due to language barriers, cultural differences, and the husbands’ indifference—stemming from the end of their own isolation in a foreign country—all contribute to marital tension, especially when the wives face language and cultural shocks. One Korean woman married through international marriage reported that 85–90% of such couples divorce within a few months of marriage.

Some husbands provide no financial support at all, leaving women—who lack language skills and understanding of societal norms—completely abandoned. They are suddenly thrust into a state of anxiety and fear of the future, feeling completely rejected by society. In extreme cases, they lack shelter, income, access to their children, stable employment, and even worry about getting three meals a day. They become what society would call “third-class citizens,” suffering severe psychological trauma.

The second stage of alienation manifests as follows: women who leave their homes often move to cities where their friends live. With no job skills or preparation for the workforce, about two-thirds end up working in massage parlors, where prostitution is frequently practiced alongside massage services. In an attempt to forget their past and escape from extreme loneliness and fear of the future, many turn to alcohol and drugs.

The third stage of alienation is the final phase of life for some of these women. Due to mental instability, schizophrenia, or chronic illness, they lose their jobs and often end up moving from one homeless shelter to another, or are institutionalized in mental hospitals. When they are deemed a threat to themselves or others, local clinics or hospitals in each borough diagnose them and transfer them to state psychiatric hospitals (e.g., in Queens Village). Since hospitals do not release patient information, it is difficult to determine the exact number of Korean patients. Some women are imprisoned for drug use or trafficking, awaiting the end of their sentence in city or state correctional facilities. Even when released on probation, they lack shelters or advocates to support them, leading many to return to massage parlors or drug-related activities. This is clearly a form of social evil created by the system. Yet, there are no shelters specifically for Korean women to address these issues. This is the tragic reality of being alienated from a life of wholeness—SHALOM—in a foreign land.

(2) Three Forms of Alienation Among Korean Women in International Marriages in the U.S.

The dehumanizing issues faced by internationally married Korean women can be categorized into three forms of alienation. A wholeness of life comes from personal integrity and responsibility, mutual respect in human relationships, and commitment to social justice. However, society fails to provide the foundation for such a life for internationally married families. Thus, the following categorization of alienation helps us seek directions toward solutions.

I. Alienation from Personal Integrity and Responsibility (Issue of Consciousness)

Our church’s research group has found that the intense loneliness (the first stage of alienation) experienced by international marriage women leads easily to low self-esteem. While they are aware that their problems are serious, they often do not understand the root causes. These women, underestimating their abilities, fail to achieve inner peace even as homemakers. Without understanding the question, “Who am I?,” peace and a whole life are not possible. This paper views the discovery of personal identity (Who I Am) as the foundational starting point in the transformation process toward biblical ecclesiogenesis.

II. Alienation from Mutual Human Respect (Issue of Humanization)

Our church study group discovered that international marriage couples often struggle to form genuine relationships due to differences in language, culture, food, and thought between husbands and Korean wives. Deep-seated jealousy disrupts even church life and causes frequent conflict with close friends. These issues often occur against the will of the women. Although they try to overcome their alienation, their lack of training in patience and resilience means that church life has little positive effect on their relationships.

Consequently, many women hesitate to participate in church events, although they are comfortable sharing feelings and thoughts with each other. Nevertheless, conflict and confrontation frequently arise among them, only to disappear as if nothing happened. They also tend to change churches often rather than settling in one place. These interpersonal issues reflect a lack of experience with personal responsibility and perseverance. Thus, peace cannot be found within family, friendships, or community. These women live in isolation from the Korean community, missing many opportunities to serve or engage. Some even hide the fact that they are in international marriages, avoiding social contact altogether. This is similar to how some Korean churchgoers avoid social service. It is deeply unfortunate, yet undeniable, that the Korean community has historically discriminated against international marriage women, both verbally and behaviorally. Without knowing who we are or understanding others, a whole and peaceful life is not possible.

III. Alienation from Structural Peace (Issue of Dialogical Community)

Most internationally married couples maintain personal relationships within their own circles, often based on the husband’s race. Thus, no strong or effective social organization exists for them. Though some women once formed a social club with about 30 members, it dissolved after three years. When their husbands abandon them, these women have no institutions to turn to for help—and often hide their situations out of shame. There is one shelter run by the Asian Women Center in Manhattan, but it only accepts victims of domestic violence, making it largely inaccessible to many Korean women.

Additionally, we must not overlook the invisible but deeply rooted discrimination within the Korean community against internationally married women. It is rare to find peace or reconciliation grounded in social justice within the immigrant community on behalf of these women. Considering how few Korean parents approve of their children marrying someone of another race, it is clear that the Korean immigrant community needs a strong awakening of communal consciousness to escape structural racism and achieve genuine social justice.

The Embery faith community models a church that forms a faith-based community for women on the margins, much like Jesus ministered to outcast women and focused his mission on ecclesiogenesis. This may seem a small effort, but the theories and methods applied here can be used in any situation of alienation so that the church may continuously be generated as the living body of Christ.

Our church research group has come to a shared understanding of these issues. We agree that these problems must be deeply studied and addressed at their root. The church, as the Body of Christ, is not merely an institution or building—it becomes a healing and transforming community through the recognition of individual identity (self in the image of God), relational identity (dialogue within community), and responsible identity (creative, outward engagement for social transformation). This transformation moves through a continuous process of personal awareness, church humanization, and social creation. Through such a repeated and ongoing practice, the church—together with its structures, buildings, and members—can become a newly generated church, equipped for true mission.

[Notes]

1. Vincent F. Seyfried, The Story of Queens Village, New York, The Centennial Association, 1974, p. 11.
2. Ibid., pp. 7 & 9. See Appendix [A-1-2]
3. Ibid., p. 11
4. Ibid., p. 87.
5. Queens County Times, September 16–23, 1971, pp. 8–9. See Appendix [A-1-1]
6. Queens Village Chamber of Commerce, The Queens Village Guide, 1989, p. 19.
7. [Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 5] are from MARKET STATISTICS, a division of Bill Communications, Producers of the Survey of Buying Power, 633 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, May 15, 1990.
8. The 5th Anniversary of the Church Merger: Church History, June 26, 1988, p. 5.
   Vincent F. Seyfried, Story of Queens Village, Ibid., and Appendix [A-1-4]
9. From the 102nd Anniversary Worship Program of Embury United Methodist Church, March 3–10, 1935, and Appendix [A-1-3]
10. The 1991 Annual Charge Conference Report of the Embury United Methodist Church, p. 7.
11. The 5th Anniversary of the Church Merger: Church History, Ibid., p. 1.
12. Minutes of the Administrative Board of Embury United Methodist Church, September 1989.
13. 3rd Congregational Report of Hallelujah United Methodist Church, December 29, 1991. See Appendix [D-1]
14. T. Richard Snyder, Once You Were No People (Bloomington, IN: Meyer Stone Books, 1988), p. xiv.
15. Min, Byung-Gab, Minority Ethnic Groups in the United States, (New York: Queens College, 1990), p. 158.
16. Ibid., p. 159.
17. Ibid., pp. 170–171.
18. Ibid., pp. 185–186.
19. Lee, Boo-Duk, “The Direction of Ministry for Intercultural Families,” United Methodist Family, Vol. 5 No. 2, Fall Issue, pp. 14–15.
20. The term Ecclesiogenesis was coined by Father Leonardo Boff in Brazil, South America, in a context of poverty and political dictatorship, to express the idea that traditional church structures could not realize freedom, justice, and love. He combined the words Ecclesia (church) and Genesis (creation) in his book Ecclesiogenesis. In this paper, the author adopts and interprets this term as “Church-Birthing.”

In this paper, Ecclesiogenesis is defined as the spiritual practice and collective process of Christians who strive to transform the deeply rooted causes of alienation in society and in the church. This ongoing process of transformation is referred to as “transforming praxis.” Thus, the author regards church not as a building or institution, but as a dynamic event and process.

1. 요약

            ‘聖書的 敎會 生成을 향한 變形縯習'(THE TRANSFORMING PRAXIS TOWARD ECCLESIOGENESIS)이라는 제목은 필자가 다음의 몇권의 책을 읽는가운데 붙여지게 돼였다: Leonardo Boff’s Ecclesiogenesis, T. Richard Snyder’s Once You Were No People, Byung-Moo Ahn’s Christ in the Minjung Event, John Bradshow’s The Family & Home Coming, Paul f. Knitter’s No Other Name, Orlando E. Costas’ Christ Outside the Gate, Joe Holland and Peter Henriot’s Social Analysis, and Fred & Anita Prinzing’s Mixed Messages – Responding to Interracal Marriage, James H. Cone’s God of the Oppressed, Quentin Lauer’s Hegel’s Concept of God, Richard M. Zaner’s the Context of Self, Donald Dorr’s Intergral Spirituality, Sallie McFague’s Metaphorical Theology & Models of God, andrew Sung park’s the Wounded Heart of God, H. Richard Niebuhr’s the Responsible Self, Walter Brueggemann’s Finally Comes the Poet, Roger G. Betsworth’s Social Ethics.

          변형 연습(變形縯習, TRNASFORMING PRAXIS)이라는 개념은 필자에게 23년전에 한국 서울에 소재한 감리교 신학대학을 다니면서 본훼퍼 목사의 신학과 신앙에 심취하면서 시작이 되였다. 그 후 청계천 빈민지역에서 도시산업선교회의 훈련생으로 ‘변형연습’ 즉 의식화, 인간화, 조직화에 몸을 담은 것이 신학교 2학년 때부터 시작됐다.

그 이후의 모든 사역이 한국과 미국에서 어디에서든지 변함이 없었다. 장소과 교인은 한국사람에서 미북부 백인으로, 다시 백인에서 이민 한국인으로 바뀌였을지라도, 변형연습에는 변함이 없다. 앞으로도 꾸준히 이 발걸음을 할 것이다. 이것은 하나님이 나에게 주신 길이요, 내가 걸어왔고 앞으로도 가야할 길이다. 특히 이길위에 하나님은 특별한 사람들을 만나게 하셨다. 그것은 인종의 차별을 받으며 살아가고 있는 이민자들이요 둘째로는 그 여성들이다. 이중에 인종차별과 성차별을 동시에 받아야하는 사람들이 한인 이중문화가정의 여성들이다. 이들 중 많은 여성들은 미 주류 사회에서 놀라운 일을 담당하거나, 이상적인 가정과 자녀 양육에 성공한 사례가 적지 않은 것은 고무적이다. 한편 사회 저변에 방관 되여있는 이들을 위한 선교기관으로 한미여성연합선교회를 세우고, 소외되여 비인간화된 이들을 만나고 섬기고 있다. 특히 본 논문의 한 부분에서는 소외의 극심한 예로 가정이 이민가정의 기능상실이 표면화되는 가정폭력을 위한 변형전략과 여성차별을 넘어 비인간화에 이르러 전 사회를 병들게하는 매춘부를 향한 변형전략에 촛점을 맞추고 있다.

            세계 2차 대전 이후, 미국의 교회들이 사람들로 가득했으나, 사회가 전쟁의 두려움이 사라지면서 경제적 안정이 되어감과 더불어 사람들은 다른 신들(gods)을섬기려고 교회를 떠났다. 마치도 히브리인들이 약속의 땅 가나안에 들어간 후, 주위의 이방신에 저들의 마음을 내어준 것과 비교가 될 것이다. 이것은 이 시대를 결국 두가지의 벙어리 모양으로 만들고 말았다. ‘나’밖에 모르는 극도의 주관주의에 빠진 개인주의는 자신 속에 갇혀 극도의 소외의 심연에 빠져 버렸고, 반면 하나님 밖에 모르는 극도의 객관주의에 빠진 맹신주의는 극도의 분노와 두려움의 심연에 빠져 버렸다. 이 모두가 한 가지의 공통점이 있는데, 그것은 양쪽 모두 대화를 잃었다는 것이다. ‘더불어 삶’을 잃은 그들은 바로 하나님의 형상을 잃은 결과를 낳은 것이다. 그들의 존재 근거 즉 ‘관계적 실체’를 잃어버린 까닭에 오늘의 교회는 성서적으로 볼 때, ‘변형’의 내용인 대화의 형태를 지니고 있어야하며, 그 대화로 인해서 공동체는 비로서 현재 속에 실재하는 실체가 되는 것이다. 교회의 현재가 바로 공동체적인 인간 자아의 정체성인 것이다. 회중이라 함은 바로 공동체의 삶 자체를 말하는 것이다. 따라서 그리스도인의 삶은 하나님과 인간과의 계속적인 관계룰 통한 변형적 생성을 말하는 것이다.

            1970년 이후 한국인 이민자의 급증으로, 천천히 그러나 분명히 일어나고 있는 현상은 한인 이민 사회 속에 이중문화가정이 늘어가고 있다는 사실이다. 한국내에서 미군과 결혼해서 미국으로 건너온 여성들만이 아니고 한인 이민 2세, 1.5세 그리고 간혹 1세 사이에서 까지도 이중문화결혼을 하는 수가 날이 갈 수록 늘어간다는 말이다. 이민 생활의 어려움으로 인해 파괴되고 삐뚤어진 가정이 늘어가고 있다. 분명한 것은 한인 이민 사회는 이제 생성 공동체로 저들의 고향을 삼아야하는 때를 맞은 것이다. 인종차별과 성차별의 외국 땅에서 평등의 가치와 참 자유의 삶을 누릴 생성 공동체를 역사적인 안목으로 볼 때, 분명히 요구되고 있는 것이다.

            본 논문은 엠버리교회 미국인 회중으로 연구반이 시작되었고, 저들에 의해서 한인 교회가 창립되였다. 그 이유는 미국인 교회에 남편 따라 나오던 한인 여성들에 의해서 한인교회가 시작되였고, 그 후 한인교회를 중심으로 한미여성연합선교회가 설립되였다. 따라서 본 논문은 소외되고 변두리 인생으로 살아가는 이들의 인간화를 위한 변형연습을 위한 시도로 보아야할 것이다. 크게는 이민 한국인 전체의 소외당한 삶으로부터 평화 (Shalom)의 삶에로의 생성을 위해서, 기초 공동체에로의 변형연습 의 노력이 요구되는 때라고 믿는다.

            단절되고 소외된 변방(邊方)적 삶으로, 싫던, 좋던 삶의 정황 속에 던져진 이민자들 가운데 이민자의 여성 특히 이중문화가정의 한인 여성들에게는 생성을 위한 변형연습이 절실히 필요한 것이라고 사려된다. 변형연습은 3가지의 단계를 갖고 있다.

첫째 단계는 개인의 의식화(意識化)의 단계로서 바로 인간의 고귀한 평등한 가치를 깨닫는 정체성(正體性)의 확인단계(確認段階)이요, 이는 관계적 생성의 기초가 되는 것으로 필자는 이것을 ‘출애급생성’ (出埃及生成, EXODUS-GENESIS) 이라 부른다. 둘째단계는 이렇게 정체성이 확인이된 개인들이 모여 대화(對話)를 이루되 평등(平等)하게 이루어질 때, 비로서 교회적 변형을 일어난다. 이렇게 비인간화의 인간화(人間化)에로의 변형은 ‘관계적(關係的) 자아(自我) 정체성(正體性)’에로의 변형으로 가능한 것으로, 이를 십자가 생성(CROSS-GENESIS)이라고 필자는 부른다. 의식화(意識化)는 인간화(人間化)의 기초요, 인간화는 생성화(生性化)의 기초이다. 생성화는 영원히 쉬임없는 내용이요, 책임적(責任的) 자아(自我) 속에 있는 것이다. 따라서 선교(宣敎)는 생성(生成)공동체가 다른 공동체를 향한 공동체 간의 관계를 말하는 것이다. 이익사회가 잃어버린 인간관계를 회복하는 자원봉사(自願奉事)를 통해서 공동체롤 생성이되는 것이다. 누룩이요 빛으로 서는 것이다. 성육신 이후에도 하나님은 끊임없이 인간을 위하여 자원하시며 관계 맺으시고, 봉사하고 계시지 않는가? 이러한 새 생명을 향한 공동체적 부활이 바로 삶의 생성이다. 책임적(責任的) 자아회복(自我回復)을 필자는 삶의 생성(LIFEGENESIS)이라고 부른다.

            관계는 하나님의 본질이요 인간이 실존할 근원이다. ‘더불어 삶’ (COMMUNION)은 소외와 분노 속에 대화 잃은 이민자와 여성에게 생성으로 서는 교회의 본질이 되어야 한다. 성서적(聖書的) 교회(敎會) 생성(生成)을 향한 변형연습(變形縯習)은 하나님의 선교(宣敎)자체(自體)이다.

2. 발견

            첫째로 성서는 아담에서 상실된 인간의 원형을 예수에게서 회복하고 있다. 하나님의 거룩한 역사는 이것을 인식함으로 시간의 과거와 미래가 현재에서 의미로 살아난다. 그리스도 안에서 치료받은 자아가 회복하는 것을 정체성을 찾는 다고 말할 수 있다. 모세의 정체성은 3번 바뀐다. 바울도 사울이였다. 이민사회내에서의 자아 변형은 교회의 정체성 분열과 가정의 분열로 그 모습을 드러낸다. 이혼은 겉으로 드러나지만, 노름 술 매춘등에 중독자와 가정내의 폭행자들은 표면으로 드러나는 보고가 크게 없어 드러나지 않는 무서운 자기분열의 모습으로 증가하고 있다. 자기의 정체성을 발견하는 의식화 문제가 더욱 심각한 것을 연구를 통해서 깨달았다.

            둘째로 교회의 모습이 자신과 가족의 사업과 성공을 위해서 하나님께 충성하는 자기중심의 신앙과 하나님께 모든 것을 맡긴 타자 중심의 맹종의 양극단에 빠져서 사실상 인간으로서의 대화를 잃고 있다는 점이다. 예배를 보고, 교육을 하고, 찬양을 하고는 있는데, 이것도 기능주의와 이익사회의 연장된 모습으로 보일 때가 있다. 행사가 커진 것은 복받은 것이고 작은 것은 믿음이 부족한 것으로 보는 기복신앙이나, 물질만능주의적 교회내에의 신앙의 태도와 실천에는 막상 대화를 잃은 소외된 모습을 보게된다. 대화를 잃고 자시 속에 갖힌 교만한 사람들은 부족함 없이 행동하기 위해서 늘 피곤한 삶을 살아가며, 더우기 부족함을 인식하는 겸손의 힘의 부족으로 서로를 위하여 중보기도할 수 있는 영적 대화 능력도 부족한 상태에 빠지게 된다. 자기의 정체를 잃은 분열된 모습 중에 하나이다. 이러한 분열의 극대는 철저한 대화의 상실이다. 따라서언제나 지배와 피지배의 원리가 대화의 자리를 차지하고 공동체 대신 이익사회의 모습을 교회 내에 자리를 피는 보습을 보게 된다. 교회가 일반 사회보다 더 지배와 그 희생자가 많음도 발견의 배용이라 할 수있다.

            셋째는 사회 속에 선 교회의 모습이다. 교회가 사회의 다른 단체와 경쟁 상대가 되어서는 않될 것이다. 오늘날에는 기업체가 그 이익금 중의 얼마를 사회에 환원을 한다. 교회가 사회 단체와 다른 것이 무엇인가 술 담배를 않하기 때문에 다른가? 아니면 주일 날 운동경기를 않함으로 다른가? 교회가 다른 것은 ‘먼저’ 찾아가고 되돌려 받는 것 없이 ‘거저”주는 ‘더불어 삶’을 살아 감으로 ‘자원 봉사적’ 삶을 사는 것을 말한다. 나누는 일을 책임으로 안다는 것이다. 이것은 선택 사항이 아니고 이것 때문에 교회가 교회일 수 있고, 이것 때문에 교인이 그리스도인 일 수 있음을 발견했다.

3. 제안

            첫째로는 그리스도인이란 하나님 앞에선 진실한 인간을 말한다. 즉 인간이 인간일 수 있는 것은 인간이 자신의 모습을 찾는 데 있다. 하나님께서 본래 창조하신 인간의 모습은 에덴동산의 아담인데 그것은 예수 그리스도 안에서 인간원형을 찾을 수가 있다. 체면문화는 내가 남에게 어떻게 보이느냐에 지대한 관심을 보이나 정체성 확인으로 하나님께 어떻게 보이느냐를 더욱 관심을 갖게 되어야하리라 본다. 정체성을 찾는다는 것은 하나님과 늘 대한다는 것이다. 그리스도는 바로 거울이 되는 것이다. 자신을 찾아야 한다. 자신을 찾아보지 않은 사람은 자신과 남을 학대한다. 잘못된 상상의 모습을 가지고 지배고 누른다. 자기 정체를 아는 사람은 무리가 없다. 한국인이며 동시에 미국인으로 그 특징을 자랑하며 행복해질 수 있다. 이중문화가정한인여성은 한국인으로 미국인으로, 그리고 이미 한단계 앞장선 인종화해의 선구자로, 여성해방의 기수로 그 정체성을 찾는 것이다. 여기에는 분열증이 있을 수가 없다. 창피의 근거가 아니요 오히려 특징이요 자랑 거리가 된다. 자아 정체성의 생성이란 하나님과 대면한 끊임없는 자기성찰로 끊임없이 자기해방(출애급)을 체험하는 의식화이다. 이것이 시어머니를 따라 고향 땅을 떠나 새로운 이국의 땅에서 정착했던 룻의 정체성로 다윗 왕의 조모가 되였음을 우리는 알 수 있다.

            둘째로는 교회가 교회일 수 있는 것은 더불어 사는 모습이다. 교회는 관계의 탄생지이다. 죽음과 탄생이 만나는 장소요. 과거와 미래가 만나는 장소이다. 교회의 주인인 예수로 인해서 시간의 과거와 미래가 재 해석된다. 인간과 하나님이 만나는 장소이며 시간이다. 사회는 교회로 인해서 그 존재의 의미가 재 해석되어야 한다. 그런데 교회가 재 해석될 수 있는 근원을 상실하면 세상은 그 표준을 잃고 어두움의 깊은 늪으로 빠진다. 그 곳과 그 시간에는 철저한 단절을 상징한다. 어둠의 실체는 단절이다. 그러나 빛의 실체는 관계이며 대화이다. 그것이 십자가의 생성이다. 하나님이 인간을 만나는 장소와 시간이며, 인간이 다른 인간을 평등하게 만나는 장소와 시간이 된다. 인간이 인간일 수 있는 것은 대화 속에서 그 자아의 정체를 발견할 때이다. 인간이 인간이기 위해서 만나는 곳이 교회이며 이를 가능하게 하기 위해서는 기초생성공동체를 이루어야한다. 법보다 사랑으로 지배하는 곳이 가정이라면 교회는 가정의 확대된 모습이다. 대화는 서로의 위치를 평등하게 인정하고 서로 존경할 때에 성립된다. 몸의 피의 순환은 마치 대화와 같은 모습이다. 사회 속에 가장 모범된 대화의 모체가 교회이다. 예수가 대화 자체이기 때문이다. 환언하면 예수는 관계 자체이다. 태초에 관계가 있었고 관계가 육신을 입고 우리 가운데 거하셔서 단절되고 왜곡(병든)된 관계를 변형하여 참된(건강한) 관계를 생성코자 오신 것이다. 교회는 세상에 모범된 관계의 형식을 보여주어야만 한다. 이를 위해서 끊임없는 관계의 훈련을 서로 해야할 것이다. 개발도 해야할 것이다. 잘 듣는 훈련과 말하는 훈련을 해야할 것이다. 물론 하나님과 이웃과 더불어. 이것이 인간화를 이루는 십자가의 생성이다. 이중문화가정에 대한 새로윤 인식으로 이중문화가정한인여성과 교회의 관계가 새로와지고 한인사회의 통념의 변화롤 한인이 바라보는 이중문화가정의 미래를 향한 공헌을 볼 수 있어야 한다.

            셋째로는 온전한 관계를 이루는 교회가 교회내의 사업에 만 머무르면 그것은 이미 폐쇄적인 친교단체에 불과하고, 이 땅위에 존재하며 확장되가는 하나님의 나라는 아닌 것이다. 교회가 교회로서 그 생명을 유지하기 위해서는 대내적인 관계 자아의 개발과 더불어 교회가 처해 있는 사회 속에서 생명세포의 역할을 잘 감당해야 할 것이다. 대내적인 교회 사업에 만 신경을 쓰면, 교회는 닫힌 사회로 전락 과거의 실체가 된다. 그러나 그 문을 열고 ‘먼저’ 그리고 ‘거저’ 생명세포로서의 손을 내밀면, 이익사회는 교회의 내용인 공동체로서의 관계를 모방할 것이다. 그 관계의 원형인 하나님이 말씀과 복음 자체인 예수 그리스도가 전해지는 것이다. 대외적인 관계를 지니는 것은 교회의 책임적 자아의 회복이며, 이것을 다른 말로 선교라고도 한다. 여기에서 생명을 유출되고 비로서 그리스도인으로서의 개인의 새로운 자아 정체성이 확인되며, 관계적 자아가 완성되는 책임적 자아로 서는 것이다. 이것으로 인해 미래의 부패(腐敗)나 발병(發病)을 예방(豫防)한다. 이 생명은 인류의 죄악인 인종차별과 성차별의 문제를 해결하며 넘어갈 것이다. 하나니의 나라 확장은 하나님의 목적이고, 예수의 본질인 것이다. 이것은 선택사항이 아니고 교회의 존재의 근거이다. 따라서 이중문화가정을 향한 사역을 필수적인 선교라 하겠다.

            이로서 성서적(聖書的) 교회(敎會) 생성(生成)을 향한 변형연습(變形縯習)의 방법은 의식화(意識化), 인간화(人間化), 생성화(生性化)이고, 내용물은 관계(關係)의 사건(事件)인 것이다. 이것은 기존 교회와 교인 가운데서 일어나야하는 사건이다. 여기에서 시간(時間)은 영원(永遠)해진다. 그것은 현재(現在)의 거룩함을 뜻한다.