The Politicized Pulpit: South Korea's Churches at a Crossroads Between Radicalization and Renewal
Change won’t be easy, as it requires the Church to admit its shortcomings, potentially losing its power and members who prioritize political alignment over religious conscience.
Recent Articles
The Student Body calls for accountability from the National Election Commission
Following the ballot shortages, the student body of Seoul National University (SNU) issued a statement urging the state and National Election Commission (NEC) to take action and accountability, one of 18 universities that came forth across the nation on June 10th 2026. This shortage occurred during Korea’s ninth local elections held on June 3rd, 2026, which aimed to appoint a total of 4,227 public officials nationwide. As the elections progressed, confusion began to arise from certain voting booths, culminating in the public revelation that some voting booths did not have enough ballot papers to accommodate all of its voters. Initial estimates put the number of such booths at 50, but the count soon rose to 91, with potential for further increase as investigations continue. 26 of these booths, of which 22 were located in Seoul, had so little paper that voting had to be temporarily suspended. This led to lines of potential voters being left stranded for up to 105 minutes. In its statement, the student body of SNU outlined three demands directed towards the NEC, which administered the election and the preparation leading up to it. The first was to immediately instigate a thorough and transparent investigation into the causes and circumstances of the shortage of ballot papers. The second asked the NEC to wholly acknowledge the fact that their incompetence directly resulted in undermining the trust of the people regarding the election process, and to ensure that those involved will take rightful responsibility. Finally, the third implored that the NEC learn from this incident and use it as an opportunity to evaluate and revise the entire election preparation process, and establish effective measures to prevent recurrence. The rest of the statement reflected much of what was discussed during the student assembly, emphasising that the ballot shortage is an explicit violation of Korean voters’ rights as some voters had to abandon their right to vote due to time constraints, and the voters who persisted received little to no information during their long wait. The student body also took care to highlight that it is not in support of or advocating for any political party. In fact, it explicitly stated that this situation is a matter of the appalling disregard for democratic rights, and should not be used as a political tool to question previous election results or raise distrust in the democratic election process as a whole. Beginning by reminding audiences of the significance of democracy in Korea’s contemporary history, the statement referred to SNU alum and democratization activist Park Jong-chul’s unjust death by torture during former president Chun Doo-hwan’s military regime. Given that the statement was published on June 10th, the date that marked the start of the June Democratic Struggle of 1987—ignited in part by Park’s death—the impact of this reminder strikes even heavier than usual, only amplifying the emergency of the situation and the necessity for the government and the NEC to take action to secure and protect Korea’s hard-earned democracy. The last time the SNU student body issued a similar statement was on December 5th, 2024, decrying former president Yoon Suk-yeol’s declaration of martial law and demanding his resignation. Similarly to today’s statement, the 2024 assembly urged for the restoration of the nation’s democracy aside from bipartisan interest, also beseeching students to remember Park’s legacy alongside all those who fought for democratic liberation in 1987. While the ballot shortage incident continues to be investigated, students must hold onto this unceasing democratic spirit in order to prevail. If not us, who? This article was co-written by Kang Dayoon (A&C Editor), Chae Soomin (Editor-in-Chief), and Hyun Jooyoung (Short Articles Editor)
Welcome to Korea! Are you here for BTS?
“You must love K-pop!” These were the words that I heard when receiving an award for an extended essay on Korean war geopolitics, a topic seemingly far removed from the world of K-pop; they were words spoken to none of the awardees on stage but me, the sole foreigner. The presence of non-Koreans in South Korea is often depicted according to a certain, similar narrative—international fans and consumers, often young women, K-pop crazed or seeking out the latest K-fashion trend. That is not to say that cultural tourism is not significant in South Korea—according to the Korea Tourism Organization Report, roughly 42% of visitors in 2024 claimed that their visit was related to Hallyu, or the Korean wave. It does, however, highlight the prevalence of a certain trend: that the dominating image of foreigners in Korea reduces them to consumers of Korea’s pop culture. This is further compounded by the prominent narrative that Korea’s role on the global stage is that of a cultural exporter, supported by both the emphasis on cultural experiences for non-Koreans by the Korean government and the prevalence of hypernationalism. Although contributing to both Korea’s economy and their advancement on the global stage, such practices reduce non-Koreans to consumers rather than participants in Korean society. Rather than neighbors, friends, and peers, the portrayal of foreigners as tourists, fans, and Korea-enthusiasts places a glass roof on the potential for genuine social integration. One prominent case that highlights this phenomenon is that of global idol group BTS’s recent comeback and its portrayal in South Korean news outlets, particularly the depiction of foreign nationals that were said to be ‘flocking to Seoul’ for it. A plethora of news sources framed BTS’s comeback relative to the increase in tourism to Korea. The Korea Times boasted headlines describing how “Foreigners account for 25% of BTS comeback concert crowd” and The Joseon Ilbo wrote on how “Foreign Fans Flock to BTS Sacred Sites Post-Comeback”. Major news sources emphasized tourist presence as a dominant part of the comeback, often with little to no mention of the domestic influence (given that the projected revenue for the comeback was ~2.9 trillion won according to IBK forecasts) nor reference to the music itself. Moreover, fans were depicted as pilgrimaging to Korea not only for their love of BTS, but also for a more profound interest in the nation. K-pop tourism became synonymous with a larger cultural experience that includes exploring food, historical features, and sights whilst there. Their comeback album, Arirang, was described by producer Chairman Bang as the group’s “return in their most distinctly Korean form”, further synonymizing K-pop tourism with an overall affection for the nation by outsiders: to enjoy BTS is to appreciate and, importantly, consume Korean heritage and culture. Government initiatives coincided with this, encouraging tourists to engage with Korean culture whilst visiting for the concert: The Seoul Tourism Organization installed promotional booths at key tourist areas and hospitality campaigns were launched to expand multilingual services. Many of these initiatives were intertwined with traditional Korean cultural events such as palace tours and gugak performances, emphasizing Korean heritage in tangent to contemporary cultural pulls. The increase in tourism feeds a depiction of tourists as passionate about Korea as a nation, portraying their enthrallment in exploring Korea as a natural extension of their interest in ‘K-culture’, and bolstering a nationalistic rhetoric of Korea’s global success as a cultural exporter. Although useful for those navigating Seoul for the first time, it left a bitter taste in the mouths of those who permanently reside in the country. Those that had worked to achieve Korean proficiency were assumed to need translation services; those in Korea for work and school were grouped with tourists as ‘visitors’; and a label of ‘consumer’ was unilaterally assigned to many who were actively contributing to their local communities. Foreigners were defaulted as willing consumers rather than active participants as Koreans are. In this way, cultural exportation as the core identity marker for Korea creates a system that predominantly benefits two parties: the producers (the Korean Government and, in turn, citizens benefiting from economic growth) and the consumers (tourists in Korea for the sole purpose of experiencing, and spending in, Korea temporarily). But what about those who fall through the gap? When foreigners in Korea are presented as an attestation of Korea’s soft power, a glass ceiling on social integration is assigned by the temporality placed on them. The widely acknowledged exclusion of foreign residents from social participation seems undeniably connected to the emphasis on foreigners as cultural consumers; a novelty that designates foreign residents as observers from the outside, regardless of the status of their stay in Korea. The comeback concert’s lower turnout than forecasted however—only an alleged half of the predicted 100,000 attendees—perhaps suggests an overconfidence that presses to be addressed in South Korea’s navigation of global stardom. Is the emphasis on foreigners as Korea-loving fans an indicator that Korea is becoming globalized, or does it signal that Korea is not ready to truly embrace and integrate newcomers to the nation?
Does the Boycott March Onward?
Are boycotts effective at all? It is a question that needs to be raised after Coupang’s audit report on February 26th, stating that its total net revenues were $8.8 billion: up 11% Year-over-Year on a reported basis (or up 14% on a constant currency basis). Many will recall the Coupang boycott of late 2025, after a massive data breach that exposed private user information — likelihood says that you know at least one person affected by it. The Coupang breach leaked the information of 33.7 million customers—more than half of Korea’s population. In response, the company issued an apology and offered users compensation via coupons. The total usable money in these coupons amounted to 50,000￦ — albeit split into smaller amounts between various Coupang platforms (Coupang Eats, Coupang Travel, and Allux) and only 5,000￦ for all Coupang products. While some took up the offer, others viewed these actions as inadequate, as this compensation method would require users to return to the platform. Users also complained about the coupons themselves, citing limits on where they could be used and the lack of expiry notifications. The information leak and subsequent coupons were not the only grounds for the protest. Coupang’s “Rocket Delivery” system—which promises same-day or next-day delivery—is its key advantage over other delivery services in Korea, but is built off of alleged ethically ambiguous labor practices. This includes charges of work hours over the Korea’s 52-hour legal standard, extreme workloads, and employment blacklisting. This background added to the fuel to the fire of boycotting, and a significant percentage of people boycotted Coupang’s use. This grew to the point of becoming a buzzword: ‘Talpang’, or to withdraw from Coupang. Of course, there are ways in which the Coupang boycott worked. The audit does reflect that, stating “(t)he data incident is estimated to have adversely impacted Q4 2025 revenue growth rates, active customers and WOW (paid) membership, as well as profitability beginning in December.” Despite showing a growth in total net revenues, the result of $8.8 billion is actually short of the projected $9.1 billion: a lower growth rate than anticipated. However, this effect is expected to be short-term as the data breach incident becomes old news. As indicated in Coupang’s audit, it is predicted that the company will recover from their losses by the next quarter. It is not entirely surprising: Coupang has a tight grip on the delivery industry in Korea with its aforementioned “Rocket Delivery” system. The convenience of same-day delivery is one most consumers are reluctant to give up. This is amongst the examples of unethical practices that the company continues even after the massive leak, with another example being pressuring suppliers to cut prices and shoulder additional costs to meet profit margins. In addition, the fact that Coupang is US-based makes it harder to hold the company accountable in Korea. It is made even more difficult as they expand to other countries such as Taiwan. Could the Talpang movement have succeeded, despite these conditions? Given the initial impact the boycott had on Coupang’s profits, it is possible that a greater effect could have been achieved. However, the initial burst of action originated from the large data breach rather than the issues of labor and similar unethical business practices that continue. As such, once outrage around the data breach dimmed, the Talpang movement failed to retain people’s attention. This could have been remedied if the boycott was organized around a specific action, which requires a goal that it intends to achieve. The Talpang movement lacked concrete purpose to show disapproval towards the lackluster compensation, labor issues, or the information leak, and thus lacked a united front to achieve such ends. As such, the boycott lost momentum. This is not to diminish the effect the Talpang movement has had already; it has shown that people want Coupang to change in terms of how it treats its workforce and its customers. That said, a cohesive goal to work towards and continual participation would have helped for that impact to land and aid changes. Boycotts within Korea have generally been viewed cynically, for there is no guarantee that the target company will not repeat the action that caused mass disapproval. However, the end lesson here should not be that boycotting is ineffective: it is meaningful for customers to have a say in the market. While not the perfect solution to prevent unethical actions of major corporations, it can be improved with concrete goals and continued support to achieve change. There is a great need to reflect on previous shortcomings of boycotts and attempt to push for change, rather than assume the method itself is ineffective.
Editor's Picks
FEATURES
Korea's Stablecoin Dilemma: Innovation, Risks, and the Future of the Digital Won
SNU SOCIETY
The Death of Campus Dining at SNU
ARTS & CULTURES
Is Korea's Baseball League Throwing Curveballs?
OPINION
Why I Believe in Journalism in the Age of AI
Quill Videos
Photojournals
Destinations imagined beyond the span
Forms surface in light, shadows cast
Momentum gathering along parallel paths