2021, Vol., No.51

The Korean Journal of Chiristian Social Ethics 2023 KCI Impact Factor : 0.58

pISSN : 1229-8387 / eISSN : 2713-749X
https://journal.kci.go.kr/csethics

This study aims to analyze the concept of civil courage of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and to show its legal, ethical implications. For Bonhoeffer, this term means an attitude that is resistant to authority and the realization of free responsibility. On this basis, he focused on political resistance. At the same time, criticism of the law and concrete action for its improvement was attempted. Bonhoeffer’s theories and movements provide a perspective that civil courage must be implemented in the political and legal fields. Bonhoeffer’s approach explains the theological basis of civil courage and establishes the criterion and orientation for theological, legal ethics. The implementation of the Christian based on his idea can promote the realization of civil courage in society and then contribute to the development of democracy and the rule of law.

This study criticizes the antiintellectualism of Korean Protestantism and pro- poses the possibility of religious reason as a public reason for the public participation of the church. The religious reason is not separated from public reason, and it is possible to participate complementarily in a post-secular society. First, through Richard Hofstadter, I will explore the anti-intellectualism of American Christianity and deal with the situation of the Korean church. In addition, to ex- plain how religious reason can contribute to public reason, I will investigate John Rawls and Jürgen Habermas’ concepts of public reason. Rawls accepts the possi- bility of religious participation as a reasonable doctrine in the process of ‘overlapping consensus.’ Habermas also suggests participation in religion that guarantees ‘communication rationality’ in the public sphere. Through these, reli- gious reason could be a component of the public sphere. Finally, this study examines Volf’s “enlarged thinking” and “double vision” to suggest “reasonableness,” “inclusiveness,” and “publicity” in religious reason.

Hauerwas and Barth share a similar theological starting point in that they explore the task and role of the church through Christological concentration. However, they express almost opposite positions on the relationship between church and state or, specifically, church and liberal-democratic political system. While Hauerwas strongly criticizes the church's assimilation into a liberal democracy, which pledges religious freedom, Barth regards liberal democracy as an 'analogy' to the Kingdom of God proclaimed by the church and emphasizes its cooperation with civil society for the development of liberal democracy. This paper does not aim to force a choice between the two poles. Instead, the article shows that an exclusive attitude toward liberal democracy, as Hauerwas does, is not the only conclusion that results from the Christological concentration of theological exploration. That church's cooperation with civil society to develop liberal democracy can be an alternative conclusion of Christological concentration will be issued. In the process of comparing Hauerwas and Bath, it will come to light that Hauerwas' assessment of his own ecclesiological, Christological attention and his criticism of liberal democratic state as being a legacy of Barth's theology is nothing but a misunderstanding to Barth's thought.