Aiming for “the pan-universal community of love” in his heart, Kim Chai Choon tried to compare study with traditional religions placed on mainstream religion in Korean history. Confucianism became Kim’s key dialogue partner in developing his theology of historical participation and political theology. He integrated the positive elements of Confucianism while critically engaging with its limitations, aligning this dialogue with his theological vision of contextualizing Christianity within the Korean setting. A primary positive aspect that Kim identified in Confucianism was its strong emphasis on family ethics. He regarded Confucianism as a religion founded on the principle of filial piety toward one’s parents.²³ In Confucian society, the family serves as the starting point and center of all social structures. Genuine filial piety becomes the first step in realizing benevolence within society, expanding into relationships with neighbors, thus forming a broader social ethic. In this view, building a sound political system based on extending familial love to society through benevolence is one of Confucianism’s significant goals.²⁴ However, Kim also clarified that filial piety in Confucianism should not be equated with blind obedience or unconditional imitation.²⁵ He rejected exclusive familism rooted in familial selfishness.²⁶ During the Chosun dynasty, when Neo-Confucianism dominated the religious and ideological landscape, there was little space for individual expression on social or political matters that diverged from the official line. This was due to the thorough integration of religion and societal order, leaving no distinction between the religious and the socio-political realms.²⁷ Therefore, Kim pointed out the tendency for women’s rights to be ignored as one of the negative factors in Confucianism. In other words, the Confucian family ethic could produce a hierarchical ethic based on a patriarchal and androcentric system.²⁸ This distorted hierarchical principle became deeply entrenched in Korean society, where Confucian culture was dominant. Kim observed that this influence extended into many conservative churches in Korea, where it shaped a form of fundamentalist theology. Kim described the similarity of characteristics between Confucianism and the conservative church in Korea based on fundamental theology: “The reactionary nature of Confucianism is linked to the conservatism of orthodox theology. To reject new ideas, Confucianism politically persecuted those who opposed its academic tradition. Similarly, conservative churches used ecclesiastical authority to condemn dissenters as heretics. As Confucianism degenerated into formalism and literalism, the traditionalist church became overly protective of its dogma and rules—focusing solely on theoretical systems, detached from the movement of real life.”²⁹ Also, because an excessively hierarchical system gave rise to a formalistic and passive way of life, creativity grounded in critical spirit could not be expected. Kim especially believed that neoConfucianism exacerbated these tendencies in Korea. He described these negative aspects as follows: “Original Confucianism sought to renew lifestyles through morality and to revere heaven (天) with religious passion. This Confucianism, when revived as Neo-Confucianism, became the state religion of the Chosun dynasty. However, Neo-Confucianism interpreted heaven philosophically, confining it within the framework of reason. Its ethics leaned excessively toward formalism. This Confucian ‘Pharisaism’ became the state religion… Thus, Confucianism permeated every aspect of life—individual, familial, social, and national. Confucianism contributed to the Chosun dynasty’s downfall because it lost its vitality by becoming fixated on literalism and the preservation of the status quo.”³⁰ Kim criticized Confucianism’s exclusivist and conservative principles, especially Neo-Confucianism, by reflecting upon democratic values such as freedom and equality grounded in human dignity. However, he did not reject Confucian principles unconditionally. Rather, Kim embraced the positive elements, ethical values, and virtues of its humanistic orientation and filial piety, which he saw as compatible with the Christian ethic of love grounded in redemptive grace. Ultimately, Kim assessed the virtues of Confucianism in relation to Christianity: “Confucianism is a collection of ethical teachings. While Confucius himself may have become a saint through his discipline, no one else fully realized the ethical ideals of Confucianism. Christ, on the other hand, fulfilled benevolence, righteousness, propriety, wisdom, and sincerity (仁義禮智信) in his redemptive love.”³¹ For Kim, the Confucian virtue of benevolence means that “a benevolent person cherishes principle and takes the mind of the universe (heaven) as the virtue of human beings.” He integrated this virtue into Christ’s universal love, described as “the fountain of life springing from the believer’s heart.” Similarly, Kim affirmed that “the Buddhist teaching on the practice of mercy and the Christian teaching on the fruit of the Holy Spirit are compatible truths.”³² Moreover, Kim found compatibility between the Protestant principle that “only God is absolute, and nothing else should be absolutized” and the Daoist notion of nothingness. He acknowledged the linguistic limitations in speaking of God, noting that human language cannot fully capture ultimate reality. Hence, God in Christianity cannot be objectively proven or fully defined. Kim wrote: “Nothingness is deep and vast. It represents a religiosity that transcends the limitations and contradictions of language, which must always be relativized. Because it is absolute beyond calculation or definition, it cannot be grasped. Christianity replaces nothingness with God—who likewise cannot be objectified or defined.”³³ Kim reflected further: “If we imagine human beings who combine the insights of Daoism and Christianity, I believe a new form of humanity could emerge… I envision a sincere person (眞人) who embodies the cultural modes of both East and West in one body.”³⁴ For Kim, this sincere person is one united with Christ. The encounter between human beings and the divine implies the death of the self in Christ and the rebirth of a new being. This new being lives with and in Christ, as expressed in St. Paul’s confession: “I have been crucified with Christ, and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me” (Galatians 2:20). Kim emphasized the social dimension of this transformation over its inner religious dimension, advocating for interreligious dialogue as a means of bringing about amendable human change and forming a mature civil society. Thus, the primary principle for interreligious dialogue was an ethical life rooted in mutual respect, the recognition of human dignity, and a self-sacrificial spirit.³⁵ From the perspective of mutual relationships and points of contact between Christianity and other religions in the Korean context, Kim Chai Choon examined the practical foundations and goals of interreligious dialogue aimed at cooperation for social diakonia and peace. Dialogue, for Kim, entails the potential for mutual understanding and decision-making. In the process of sharing each other’s truth, dialogue partners may discover common ground and simultaneously recognize new challenges for mutual fulfillment.³⁶ Kim’s comparative study of religions was grounded in the process of finding common ground for social diakonia and peace. This process also deeply engages with his political, history, and ethics perspective. Therefore, in chapter three, I will examine how Kim’s socially engaged understanding of religion is interwoven with these three areas.