Korean | English

pISSN : 1229-8387 / eISSN : 2713-749X

2020 KCI Impact Factor : 0.7
Home > Explore Content > All Issues > Article List

2008, Vol., No.16

  • 1.

    고범서가 본 라인홀드 니버(Reinhold Niebuhr)의 기독교 사회윤리

    Park, Do-Hyun | 2008, (16) | pp.7~30 | number of Cited : 2
    Abstract PDF
    The goal of this paper is to see Reinhold Niebuhr's Christian Social ethics through Goh Bum-seo. He is a pioneer who opened a Christian social ethics and he founded Korean Christian ethics. He not only introduced Niebuhr to our Korean scholars, but also he showed that Niebuhr's Christian social ethics is right to our reality. This article have interests in seeing Niebuhr in the sight of Goh Bum-seo. For that, I will set three principles about how Goh Bum-seo studied Social ethics. The first principle is that his social ethics have ground in reality. He never leave the reality. The second is that his social ethics focuses on praxis. He strived for the question which comes from reality, and he thought about the possibilities of praxis. This kind of interest developed to system and politics. The third seem to be natural, but it is that he is a Christian. He thought that only Christians can activate these social politics in this society. Niebuhr thought that love which is the core of Jesus' ethics is impossible to practice in the reality. As a result, he insist Christian realism. It is impossible to practice in human society, but he thought that going there near is possible. This is called as a approximation, and Goh Bum-seo thought that this is the core of Christian realism. And this kind of impossible love is replaced as justice when it is adapted to society or nation. If justice is can be realized in society, then he thought that is the best way which Jesus' love is realized. Go Bum-seo accepted this kind of Niebuhr's realism, and he tried to adapt justice to system and politics. Goh Bum-seo take highly of Niebuhr's realistic ethics. That is because there are three principles before his social ethics.
  • 2.

    대화와 균형으로의 여정: 디트리히 본회퍼와 라인홀드 니버의 관계

    김현수 | 2008, (16) | pp.31~76 | number of Cited : 0
    Abstract PDF
    This article deals with the biographical and theological relationship between Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Reinhold Niebuhr. For doing this, we divide their relationship into three phases: theological exchanges at Union Theological Seminary, New York(1930~1931), personal advice(1933~1934), and political assistance and decision(1939). In the first stage, Bonhoeffer and Niebuhr become a critical dialogue partner for each other's theology and ethics. For Bonhoeffer, Niebuhr's socio-ethical concern lacks of dogmatic theology, while for Niebuhr, Bonhoeffer's Barthian dialectical theology has no any practical results in socio-ethical senses. In the second phase, Bonhoeffer asks Niebuhr to give him help and advice in regard to the political circumstances of German society. In the last stage, Niebuhr does his best for delivering Bonhoeffer from Hitler's hands. We come to a conclusion that through their friendship, both Bonhoeffer and Niebuhr get a balance between their theology and their ethics.
  • 3.

    The Christian Political Methods and reinhold Niebuhr's Christian Realism

    Janghyung Lee | 2008, (16) | pp.77~98 | number of Cited : 1
    Abstract PDF
    It is not difficult to find that those who took power supportive of certain religious beliefs or ideologies come to an undesirable end. In particular, those politicians who claim to be religious conservatives or evangelicals often make more political mistakes than others. What are the backgrounds and reasons for these phenomena? It seems that Ronald J. Sider's theories on evangelical political participation can provide helpful insights for Korean society amid increasing controversy surrounding political participation and responsibility. It is now more and more emphasized that religious expression should not remain within the private realm, but make its way into the public realm including politics to influence every sectors of society and expand the Kingdom of God. Under these circumstances, what factors and methods could be considered to pursue more effective and systematic political participation? First, this requires establishing a Christian political philosophy. In his methodology, Sider talks about systematizing norm as the first stage. Here norm can refer to the criteria for making moral decisions. As far as the question of the good and right is concerned, every political decision should be made necessarily based on religious or philosophical systematization of norm. Second, comprehensive understanding and analysis of society are needed. A biblical knowledge alone is not enough for a sufficient understanding of society. A better understanding of the human society demands a comprehensive study of social, economic, and political systems. This calls on us to look into the thought of Reinhold Niebuhr, a realistic social ethicist and activist. Third, a political participation based on a balanced human relationship is necessary. A human relationship always proves important for taking an ethical position. This is also true of political participation. A proper understanding of human nature should not be overlooked when it comes to political participation.
  • 4.

    니버의 사회윤리에 관한 공공신학적 해석

    Moon, Si Young | 2008, (16) | pp.99~121 | number of Cited : 6
    Abstract PDF
    There are so many studies on Christian social ethics of R. Niebuhr. This paper is a proposal of new interpretation which concerns on his public perspective. Especially, this paper based on public theology of Max. L. Stackhouse. With this subject, this paper has some clues: (1) L. Rasmussen's view on Niebuhr as a public theologian or a theologian of public life, (2) M. Marty's guide Niebuhr as a public theologian, (3) Max. L. Stackhouse's Niebuhrian approach to Christian social ethics. On these basis, this paper tried to regard Niebuhr as an origin of public theology in contemporary meaning. Moreover, this paper applies Korean theologian Koh Bumseo's view of Niebuhr's Christian social ethics. According to Koh, Niebuhr has three points of view on social ethics: (1) Christian social ethics have to concern for social realities. (2) Christian social ethics must pursue the approximation of agape through social justice. (3) Christian social ethics have to treat the social structure as an important factor. Now, this paper mixed some clues of Rasmussen, Marty, and Stackhouse's view points and Koh's insights to understand Niebuhrian concept of Christian social ethics. So, this paper has focus on three points: (1) Niebuhr's concern for social realities could be connected with the anti-sectarian approach of public theology. (2) Niebuhr's concern for social justice could be connected with the concept of public concern of church in public theology. (3) Niebuhr's emphasis on social structure bears the concern for the political-economic structures in public theology. In conclusion, this paper proposed a possibility to interpret Niebuhr as a forerunner of public theology, the Christian social ethics in global era.
  • 5.

    장공 김재준의 경세사상

    Won-Don Kang | 2008, (16) | pp.125~162 | number of Cited : 1
    Abstract PDF
    In this article I would see into ethical thoughts of Rev. Jae Jun Kim as a prophetic theologian, who has been committed to struggle against the dictatorship and for human rights in the modern Korea. As a specialist for christian ethics he has endeavored also to elaborate principles and programmes for shaping the real life in the world on ground of Christian beliefs and visions. In this sense he can be regarded as a theologian who has suggested crucial points for governance of the world. Kim started from the vision for a “community of love embracing the whole world”. With such a formular he would like to indicate the reality of the Kingdom of God in the world. On the way to the universal community of love Christians should be concentrated to shaping all the sectors of human life with responsibility. In such an orientation of Christians to the community of love Kim has seen the so-called “life-connected belief”. In order to bring the life-connected belief into reality he has shown no hesitation to undertake an ideological option and a strategic thinking. In the article I investigate firstly theological ideas of Rev. Kim on the community of love embracing the whole world. Secondly I analyze which social ethical programmes he has developed from principles of the life-connected belief. Lastly I examine which ideological and political options he has made for shaping the real life in the world. Rev. Kim has advocated democracy from theological and ethical viewpoints and acted as a convicted anti-communist. But he has stood at the side of the so-called Minjung. He has been thoroughly engaged in solving problems of labor from the capitalist society.
  • 6.

    1920~30년대 한국교회의 사회복음 수용과 사회윤리에 관한 연구

    김권정 | 2008, (16) | pp.163~188 | number of Cited : 1
    Abstract PDF
    This thesis shall look into how Korean churches have dealt with and overcome the situation of 1920's~1930's in a socioethical point of view. Since the March 1st movement, the status of christianity in Korea which was considered as a pioneer of western civilization began to shake. Most of all, the indifference toward social problems of churches and anti-christianity movement of socialists caused a great deal of shock to Korean churches. To deal with these problems, Korean churches had tried prepare a social standard above all things. In Korean churches, the controversy of trying to prepare a definite social standard got into stride in the mid 1920's. The 'Social Gospel' which is called social gospel doctrine and christian socialism were accepted as the social ideology of christianity. The thing which had influenced the controversy of preparing socioethical standard was the 'International Missionary Council of Jerusalem' (1928). The socialization issue of christianity raised at this time became the opportunity for Korean churches to prepare a socioethical standard. The effort of christian community in trying to prepare a socioethical standard has proclaimed the christian group of faithful friends right after the International Missionary Council of Jerusalem and the Social Creed(1932) has expressed the position of christian churches on specific social problems to prepare a socioethical basis for all Korean churches to participate individually. Based on these, the current of various social gospel has been developed.
  • 7.

    한국교회 성장과 유교문화

    Young-Il kim | 2008, (16) | pp.189~215 | number of Cited : 2
    Abstract PDF
    The purpose of this article is to show that the confucian culture of Korea is continually influencing the expansion of korean church. Critically practicing Western learning style in the context of confucian culture has been accomplishing a compass-like role in the process of localizing korean church. The cannonical writings, such as Cheonjusirui, brought about a popular interest on Western origin concepts, like Anima and God, as a result made the adaptation process church easy. In like manner, in order to revitalize korean church in our times, the dialogue between various religious groups will be needed.
  • 8.

    신학담론으로서 타자윤리의 가능성과 한계

    박원빈 | 2008, (16) | pp.217~237 | number of Cited : 7
    Abstract PDF
    This article explores whether Emmanuel Levinas's ethic of the Other can be regarded as a theological discourse. After publishing Totality and Infinity, there have been many serious questions of the relationship between transcendence and immanence; infinity and the finite among many philosophers and theologians. Interestingly enough, Levinas tries to mediate these concept by his ethic of the Other. I examine how Levinas integrate these two areas in his ethic of the Other. As a french phenomenologist, Jean-Luc Marion already mentioned, this kind of attempt has confronted a double-bind dilemma. One is that it would be a question of phenomena that are objectively definable but lose their religious speciality; and the other is that it would be a question of phenomena that are specially religious but cannot be described objectively. In order to explore his ethic of the other as a medication of philosophy and theology, one needs to examine his critique of theodicy. Levinas rejects theodicy because the history of twentieth century is sufficient proof of the falsity of theodicy. He asserts that every attempts to justify suffering for the theological vindication of God's justice through theodicy is bankrupt. Any kind of condolence for the sufferer is merely ‘my’ imposition and offensive rationalization as an interpretation coming from me. Through this rationalization, the other's suffering is meaningful to me though it is meaningless to the sufferer. Thus theodicy is a theological form of the doubling evil that occurs in rationalization of the suffering of the other. While refusing the use of theodicy to justify other's suffering Levinas argues that one can only meet the trace of God in taking a responsibility for the other. Ethics precedes epistemology because he understands ethics primarily as the moral obligation for the Other, which comes from infinity. Levinas wants to reconstitute the origin of all moral knowledge in the Other who has been darkened by the manipulating power of the self. The Other teaches the self about her destitution, vulnerability, and defenseless in the primary frankness of the revelation that only the face can convey. Thus the face is opened up in consciousness by the separation implied in the idea of infinity. The face's infinity is present only as the trace of an absolute alterity. The only access we can have to God is the face-to-face relationship with other persons. Levinas enables philosophy to be liberated from a tendency towards the theoretical and redirects its concerns to practical engagement. This place of engagement is a encounter of transcendence and immanence; philosophy and theology.
  • 9.

    레비나스와 본회퍼의 책임윤리

    Jongkyunn Park | 2008, (16) | pp.239~265 | number of Cited : 4
    Abstract PDF
    This essay interprets the implications of Levinas and Bonhöffer's idea of ethics of responsibility. Through this interpretation, similarities of ethical motivations between the greatest philosopher and the respectable theologian in 20c is revealed naturally. First of all, Levinas gives ethics the status of first philosophy. By ethics, Levinas does not mean a quest for personal accomplishment, but the responsibility to the Other from which the ego cannot escape and which is the secret of its uniqueness: no one can replace me in the discharge of this responsibility. The Other is not the object of knowledge, representation or comprehension; we do not grasp the Other. Nor is the Other the object of a description. What can be said positively about this Other is just that he/she evades all that we know, that evades Being. The Other is the “face,” not in the sense of a face “seen,”; the “face” obligates me and demands response, help, solicitude, compassion. And thus we come to the expression that is perhaps the most often employed by Levinas: “unlimited responsibility to the Other.” The relation to the Other is fundamentally asymmetrical in Levinas. It is not an encounter between two people on equal footing, nor is it a friendship based on reciprocity. The unexpected arrival of the Other wrests the ego from its condition, and places it in a relation of infinite obligation. For Bonhöffer, Christian ethics is a matter of “formation” into the likeness of Jesus Christ, of “conformation” with the unique form of him who was made man, was crucified, and rose again. The World is the sphere of concrete responsibility which is given to us in and through Jesus Christ, it follows that man must live and act in responsibility and thereby allow the world ever anew to disclose its essential character to him. Responsible action is limited by our recognition of the responsibility of the other person. Responsible action is not its own master, because it is not unlimited and arrogant but humble, that it can be sustained by an ultimate joy and confidence. And the structure of the responsible life includes both freedom and readiness to accept guilt, but only on the ground of selfless love for the Other. Consequently, according to Levinas and Bonhöffer, we have to be responsible for what the others do or suffer. This status of being stranger, widow, and orphan, whose very epiphany summons us to respond.
  • 10.

    아동의 소비주의에 대한 기독교윤리학적 연구

    Yong-Hun Jo | 2008, (16) | pp.267~289 | number of Cited : 1
    Abstract PDF
    This study aims to investigate the consumerism of children and its problem from the perspective of Christian ethics. Children are today significant consumers with particular concerns of their own as well as purchasing power. They spend big money and influence their parents on what to buy. The children's consumer behavior are characterized by their strong desires for demand, worship for top brand and acceptance of new things. However, unhealthy consumer behavior like this affects their physical, social, emotional and spiritual health. It causes many ethical problems like as following: increasing the aggressive behavior, distortion of gender role of men and woman, causing conflict between children and parents, a sense of incompatibility between the poor and the rich children, shopaholic and excessive materialism. The responsibility of church and Christian parents is focused on the critique of consumerism. Consumerism permeates our society and in many ways it is the religion, in that sense they find happiness in shopping and give loyalty to it. However, it is a pseudo-religion, because it can never meet their demands. Christian parenting is also educating children to conscious consumers who understand their rights and duties. Parents need to think about their own buying habits, because their own history of buying affects their approach to buying for their children. Children are unable critically comprehend televised advertising message, therefore, advertising targeting children should be restricted. For reducing their children's exposure to advertising, parents need to set limits on television.
  • 11.

    문헌조사를 통해 본 기독교경제윤리의 주요 문제의식과 분야에 대한 연구

    황희영 | 2008, (16) | pp.291~333 | number of Cited : 1
    Abstract PDF
    Since a little more than two decades ago, we have been getting understanding of Christian ethical issues in economy. These issues range from teachings of Christian values in economy by Words of Bible, applying of biblical principles into business management to economic injustice on global scale. However, there are so many authors - economists, theologians, business people, church ministers - having as many fields, ideas and approaches concerning Christian ethical issues in economy. So it would be better if we have a comprehensive map, based on literature survey, so that we may use this map for a better communication among people. This map will help us understand relative context and position of issues among the literature. To deal with the literature of Christian ethics in economy, we use two criteria: (1) level of topics - individual, organization, or nation - and (2) focus of issues - understanding or applying. From these criteria, we can have six areas from <individual-perception> to <nation-application>. According to the mapping, we found out some interesting results; on both individual level and firm level, most of the issues converge toward ‘stewardship’; Korean authors focus on understanding biblical principles of wealth, poverty, or justice while American authors focus on how to deal with debt or business management processes. And there is a tension among six areas. Approaching <individual-perception> area, people may rather stay around the church than taking part in social issues, while when they get nearer to <nation-application> area, they may indulge in policy making and social action at the cost of intimacy with God. To solve this tension, we need to remember that the starting point of Christianity is, in any area, righteous relationship with God and being guided by the Spirit.