Religion Between Engagement and Withdrawal

From Catholicism to Buddhism: Faith in the public sphere and a long tradition of religious engagement with history

Jeong Seong-su (정성수), religious affairs correspondent of the South Korean daily Segye Ilbo had an article published 5^th January titled “Salvation-Centered Religion versus History-Engaged Religion”.

See also Korea: Can Religion and Politics Be Disentangled?

See also Climate of Suspicion: Peace Reframed as Politics

See also Devotion of Japanese Wives in Korea Awarded

See also The Gospel of Service in One Woman’s Life

See also Faiths Caught in Expanding Political Crackdown

See also Fact-Based Clarification of Media Misreporting

See also State Failure and Non-State Peace Projects

See also Shared Prison Experience: Resonance of Two Souls

The question of whether religion should limit itself to the realm of individual salvation or extend its concern to society and history has long occupied theologians, believers, and critics alike. At stake is not merely a doctrinal disagreement, but a fundamental divergence in how religion understands its mission in the world.

Some religious traditions and movements insist that faith must remain detached from social and political realities, warning that historical engagement contaminates spiritual purity. Others argue that religion, by its very nature, carries moral responsibilities that cannot be confined to the inner life of the individual. Jeong’s article under discussion positions itself firmly within this latter view, presenting what it calls “history-engaged religion” as a recurring and legitimate pattern across world religions, and situating the Family Federation within this broader tradition.

The author begins by distinguishing between salvation-oriented religions that emphasize withdrawal from society and history-engaged religions that regard social responsibility as integral to faith. According to Jeong, certain mystical Christian groups, apocalyptic movements, or separatist communities view the world as irredeemably fallen and see historical intervention as a distraction ‒ or even a corruption ‒ of true belief. From this perspective, religious authenticity is preserved through distance from politics, institutions, and public controversy.

By contrast, history-engaged religion does not draw a sharp boundary between salvation and social order. It assumes that faith must be expressed not only through personal piety but also through ethical stances, institutional action, and engagement with the moral direction of society over time.

Crucially, the author emphasizes that this orientation is not an anomaly or a modern deviation. Rather, it has appeared repeatedly across major religious traditions. Catholicism, Protestantism, and Buddhism are cited as prominent examples of religions that, despite doctrinal differences, have consistently intersected with historical and political realities. These references are not incidental; they are intended to demonstrate that the Family Federation’s social engagement is neither unprecedented nor inherently suspect, but instead reflects a well-established religious pattern.

In the case of Catholicism, the author points to its long history of institutional engagement with political authority, particularly around issues of labor rights, human dignity, and social justice. From papal encyclicals such as Rerum Novarum to modern interventions on immigration, poverty, and human rights, Catholicism has repeatedly asserted that moral truth cannot remain silent in the face of unjust social structures.

This stance has often brought the papal church into conflict with state power rather than alignment with it. The author’s implication is that Catholic engagement with politics has not been understood simply as “collusion”, but as a moral obligation rooted in theological convictions about human dignity and the common good. Catholicism thus exemplifies a religion that sees historical engagement as a consequence of faith, not a betrayal of it.

Protestantism ‒ particularly evangelical Protestantism in the United States ‒ is offered as a second illustration. Over the past century, evangelical movements have played a significant role in shaping political discourse, most notably within conservative politics. This involvement has included advocacy on issues such as communism, family values, religious freedom, and national identity.

While this political alignment has been controversial and frequently criticized, it is rarely dismissed outright as illegitimate simply because it reflects religious values entering the public sphere. Instead, it is generally understood as an expression of a worldview that links moral order, national destiny, and religious conviction. By referencing Protestant evangelicalism, the author underscores that sustained political influence does not automatically equate to improper entanglement with power; rather, it often reflects a conscious decision to engage history from within a religious framework.

Buddhism, often stereotyped as purely contemplative or otherworldly, is introduced to challenge the assumption that historical engagement is unique to Western monotheistic traditions. Across Asia, Buddhist institutions have frequently intertwined with national identity, resistance movements, and state formation. Examples range from Sri Lanka and Myanmar to Korea and Japan, where Buddhism has at various times supported political authority, resisted colonial domination, or shaped cultural definitions of the nation itself.

These cases illustrate that even traditions emphasizing enlightenment and detachment have, in practice, responded to historical circumstances and collective moral challenges. Buddhism’s political roles demonstrate that engagement with history is not necessarily a deviation from spiritual aims, but can emerge organically from religious self-understanding.

Against this comparative backdrop, the author turns to the Family Federation and the accusation of “collusion between religion and politics” that has followed it especially in Japan and South Korea the last few years. The article argues that this label has been applied too loosely, without sufficient distinction between two fundamentally different phenomena: on the one hand, religion leveraging political power for institutional privilege, and on the other, religion articulating moral positions and acting on public issues as a member of civil society. According to the author, the Family Federation has been judged within the former framework even when its actions more closely resemble the latter.

The roots of this misinterpretation are traced to Cold War anti-communism and Korea’s broader suspicion toward non-mainstream religions. The Family Federation’s explicit value judgments about global order and its strong anti-communist stance were interpreted, in a cultural context that prized political neutrality, as improper intervention. Yet the author insists on a critical distinction: expressing values about history is not the same as seeking power over it. Where collusion concerns institutional exchange and control, value-based engagement concerns moral orientation.

While acknowledging controversies surrounding political donations and large-scale projects, the Segye Ilbo opinion piece suggests that many of the Family Federation’s initiatives ‒ such as advocacy for peace, reunification, and transnational infrastructure ‒ are better understood as public-interest interventions grounded in religious belief rather than as strategies for power accumulation.

Like other history-engaged religions, the Federation risks criticism and distortion. History has of course shown examples of history-engaged religion treating its own historically conditioned beliefs, decisions, or institutional authority as absolute and unquestionable. Thereby, faith was turned into rigid ideology, and the capacity for self-correction was weakened.

However, such risks do not negate the legitimacy of engagement itself.

Ultimately, Jeong’s article reframes the debate as a broader societal question: in democratic societies, should religion retreat into private spirituality, or should it assume responsibility within history, even at the cost of controversy? The author argues that dismissing the Family Federation solely on the basis of its engagement obscures this deeper issue. To understand such a religion, one must begin not with suspicion, but with an acknowledgment of its refusal to separate salvation from history ‒ and its insistence that faith, if it is to be meaningful, must confront the world as it is.

See also South Korean Drama: A Scarf and a Tie Too Much

See also At Issue: Religions Taking Reality Seriously

See also Devotion of Japanese Wives in Korea Awarded

See also The Gospel of Service in One Woman’s Life

See also State Coercion Justified by Invoking Religion

See also Religious Leaders’ Meeting: Response to Remarks

See also When Special Prosecutors Become Political Tools

See also Korea: Can Religion and Politics Be Disentangled?

See also Hunger Strike Escalates Clash over New Probes

See also Continuation of Trial: Who Was Really in Charge?

See also Climate of Suspicion: Peace Reframed as Politics

See also Faiths Caught in Expanding Political Crackdown

See also Some Religions Are Welcome in Politics, Some Not

See also Fact-Based Clarification of Media Misreporting

See also State Failure and Non-State Peace Projects

See also Shared Prison Experience: Resonance of Two Souls

See also Federation Expands Community Service Efforts

Text: Knut Holdhus, editor

Featured image above: Religion, withdrawal and social engagement. Illustration: Chat GPT, 7th January 2026

See also Some Religions Are Welcome in Politics, Some Not

See also President’s Own Party Drawn into Lobbying Claims

See also Faith, Finance, Fairness: Rethinking the Narrative

See also Balcomb: “Prosecutors’ Case Is Politically Driven”

See also Likely Long Legal Battle Ahead for Mother Han

See also Bail Hearing with Mother Han’s Spiritual Message

See also Trial Day 1: Mother Han Denies All Allegations

See also Asia Today Editorial: “Avoid Detention of Clergy!”

See also Complaint Filed Against Lead Special Prosecutor

See also SKorea’s Polarization Shapes Views of Mother Han

See also Inside the Detention Center: A 10-Minute Visit

See also Health Concerns: 82-Year-Old Pretrial Detainee

See also In Tiny Solitary Cell: Irreversible Harm Caused

See also Mother Han Briefly Released for Medical Reasons

See also Message of Religious Unity from Detention Cell

See also Over 50 Days in Vigil Outside Detention Center

Related to between engagement and withdrawal: Mother Han’s December Trial: Long Detention Ahead

Also related to between engagement and withdrawal: A 10-Minute Visit to Mother Han in Detention

Also related to between engagement and withdrawal: Denying Allegations: Hak Ja Han (82) in Inquiry

Also related to between engagement and withdrawal: SKorean Court’s Sharp Criticism of Prosecutors

And also related to between engagement and withdrawal: Detention: Harsh Cell Conditions Spark Outcry

More, related to between engagement and withdrawal: Ugly: Arrest Warrant Sought for Hak Ja Han (82)

And more, related to between engagement and withdrawal: Critics Warn of “Authoritarian Drift” in SKorea

Even more, related to between engagement and withdrawal: Court Decision to Prolong Detention Condemned

Still more, related to between engagement and withdrawal: Co-Founder, 82, Questioned 9 Hours by Prosecutors

Also related to between engagement and withdrawal: Democratic Party’s Assault on Family Federation

And even more, related to between engagement and withdrawal: Mother Han (82) in Poor Health in Damp, Cold Cell

And still more, related to between engagement and withdrawal: Korean Crisis: “True Democracy Must Serve Heaven”

And yet more, related to between engagement and withdrawal: Faith Leaders Protest State Assault on Religion

Also related to between engagement and withdrawal: News Release Blasts Indictment of Hak Ja Han, 82

More, related to between engagement and withdrawal: 70 Years On: Detention History Repeats Itself

And more, related to between engagement and withdrawal: Trump Raises Alarm Over Church Raids in Korea

Even more, related to between engagement and withdrawal: Mike Pompeo Calls Probe of Co-Founder “Lawfare”

Still more, related to between engagement and withdrawal:  Korean Faith Crackdown: USA Urged to Confront It

Yet more, related to between engagement and withdrawal: Korean Bribery Scandal: Media Clears Federation

And also related to between engagement and withdrawal: Raids Blur Line Between Justice and Politics

More, related to between engagement and withdrawal: Heavy-Handed Raid on Sacred Sites Condemned

And more, related to between engagement and withdrawal: Scholar Sounds Alarm: State Raiding the Sacred

Even more, related to between engagement and withdrawal: Raids as Political Spectacle and Media Trials

And even more, related to between engagement and withdrawal: Religious Freedom: 330 Faith Leaders Speak Up

Yet more, related to between engagement and withdrawal: Yonhap: Repeated Allegations Create Public Bias

Still more, related to between engagement and withdrawal: Japan Following the Way of China

And still more, related to between engagement and withdrawal: Warning of Threat from CCP Fearing Korean Unity

And also related to between engagement and withdrawal: Japan’s Dissolution Case Echoes China’s Playbook