전통무용 용어 등장의 배경과 특징 -1950, 60년대를 중심으로-

김영희 국립무형유산원 2023 무형유산 Vol.- No.14

This paper studies the background and characteristics of traditional Korean dance, with a focus on the origins of the term “traditional dance” in the context of the traditional concepts that were used in the early twentieth century and developed in the 1950s and 1960s. The original concept of tradition encompassed not only customs, systems, and lineages passed down across generations but also the meaning of inheritance and transmission over time. However, from the 1920s, it came to refer to something uniquely Korean in contrast to imported foreign cultures. Tradition refers to a concept that encompasses unique ideas, customs, religions, production activities, and arts that were formed and transmitted in Korea before modern times. After the Korean War, the concept of tradition was invoked to establish a sense of history and explore spiritual roots for the reconstruction of the nation. In the 1950s and 1960s, the discourse on tradition discussed concepts such as discontinuity, absence, succession, and overcoming. Tradition emerged as an important thesis and the term was extended to the broader realm of culture, creating new terms such as traditional culture and traditional arts. One can draw important features of tradition theory and discourse that developed in the 1950s and 1960s. First, the period from 1910, when the Japanese colonial rule began, was set as the lower limit of tradition. Culture before that period was considered to have pure Korean tradition, but after that, it was not. Second, the direction was set to excavate and inherit folklore-centered tradition. It emphasized the core of tradition to be the figures, texts, and art forms of the common people in the late Joseon dynasty who tried to overcome the limitations of the ruling class society. This direction was reflected not only in academia and the arts but also in the initial designation of intangible cultural properties. Against the backdrop of the national interest in the tradition theory and discource, the term “traditional dance” began to be used in the late 1960s, and in the 1970s, it was used in various fields such as dance performers, dance research institutes, performances, government agencies, media, schools, and research. At the time, the prominent dance theorist, Jeong Byeong-ho, defined traditional dance as a heritage of the Korean people that absorbed and reflected the national spirit. This perspective was more limited to the past than the contemporary, and it was in line with the tradition discourse of the 1950s and 1960s, which set 1910 as the lower limit of tradition and fixed the concept of tradition. 본 논문은 20세기 초에 사용된 전통의 개념과 1950, 60년대에 전개된 전통론을 배경으로 전통무용이라는 용어가 등장한 배경과 특징을 연구하였다. 전통의 원래 개념은 선대로부터 이어진 관습, 체계, 전승된 계통 뿐만이 아니라 시간의 흐름을 함유한 계승, 전승의 의미를 갖고 있었다. 그러나 수입된 외래 문물에 대한 상대적 개념으로서, 1920년대부터 고유한 ‘조선적인 것’을 지칭하게 되었다. 전통은 근대 이전인 조선에서 형성되고 전승된 고유한 사상, 관습, 종교, 생산활동, 예술 등을 아우른 개념으로 통용된 것이다. 그리고 한국전쟁 후 국가의 재건을 위해 역사의식을 세우고 정신적 원천을 탐색하면서 전통의 개념이 소환되었다. 1950, 60년대에 전개된 전통론에서 전통의 단절론, 부재론, 계승론, 또는 극복에 대해 논하게 되었고, 전통은 중요한 테제로 부상했으며, 동시기에 문화 전반에 확대되어 전통문화, 전통예술의 용어를 생성시켰다. 이렇게 전개된 1950, 60년대의 전통론에서 중요한 특징을 도출할 수 있다. 첫째는 전통의 하한(下限) 시기를 일제강점이 시작된 1910년으로 설정하여, 그 이전의 문화는 순수한 조선의 전통을 보유하고 있지만, 그 이후의 문화는 그렇지 않다는 기준을 설정했다는 점이다. 둘째는 민속(民俗) 중심의 전통을 발굴하고 계승해야 한다는 방향이 정해졌다는 점이다. 지배계급이 아닌 평민의 문학, 봉건사회의 계급적 한계를 극복하고자 했던 조선후기의 평민의 인물이나 텍스트, 예술 형식들을 계승해야 할 전통의 핵심으로 삼았던 것이다. 그러한 방향성은 학계와 예술계 뿐만이 아니라 무형문화재의 초기 지정 종목에 그대로 반영되었다. 이상과 같이 전개된 전통론과 전통문화, 전통예술에 대한 국가적인 관심을 배경으로 전통무용의 용어가 1960년대 말에 사용되기 시작했고, 1970년대에는 무용가, 무용연구소, 공연, 정부기관, 언론 매체, 학교, 연구 등의 분야에서 전통무용의 용어가 사용되었다. 그리고 당시 대표적인 무용이론가 정병호는 전통무용을 민족 정신을 흡수하고 반영하면서 전승된 민족의 유산이라 했다. 당대적인 관점보다 과거의 것으로 한정하는 관점이 농후하며, 이는 전통의 하한(下限) 시기를 1910년으로 설정하고 전통을 고정시켰던 1950, 60년대 전통론의 연장선상에 있다고 하겠다.

전통이 된 혁명, 혁명이 된 전통

오문석 상허학회 2010 상허학보 Vol.30 No.-

Modern Korean literature flourished with a conflict between tradition and modernity. In spite of the fact that tradition was used to stand up to modernity and even picture what might come after modernity, all discourses of tradition can be called “modern tradition” in that the discourses were defined in terms of modernity. Especially, from the late colonial period to the Korean war, the conservative writers in the name of “post-modernity” utilized the notion of tradition as dominant logic to restore a “mythical past.” One of the exemplary writers was poet Seo Jeongju who endeavored to eternalize the kingdom of Silla with the poetic devices of Buddist transmigration and repetitive incantations. However, the concept of tradition radically changed after the 4․19 revolution. The progressive poets such as Shin Dongyup and Kim Sooyoung sought to make a connection between tradition and revolution. Shin emphasized that the revolutionary spirit and collective imagination of the 4․19 revolution were repeatedly found in tradition. Likewise, while stressing the function of tradition and custom in the present, Kim strived to find the possibility of freedom in pursuit of trans-tradition. 한국의 근대문학사는 전통과 근대 사이의 대립을 배경으로 하여 성장해왔다. 전통을 가지고 근대에 맞서거나 그것을 통해 근대 이후를 상상한다 해도 모든 전통 담론은 근대에 의해서 호명되었다는 의미에서 ‘근대적 전통’이라 말할 수 있다. 특히 식민지 말기에서 한국 전쟁 직후까지 전통 개념은 ‘탈근대’의 가면을 쓰고 ‘신화적 과거’를 복원하려는 보수적 문인들의 지배적 논리로 사용되었다. 불교적 윤회와 주술적 반복을 통해 신라의 영원성을 복원하려던 서정주의 경우가 대표적이다. 하지만 4․19 이후 전통 개념에 혁신적 변화가 찾아오게 된다. 신동엽과 김수영으로 대표되는 진보적 시인들이 전통 개념과 혁명 개념을 서로 연결하는 방법을 모색하게 된 것이다. 신동엽은 4․19에서 발견한 혁명적 에너지가 전통에서 반복적으로 발견된다는 사실을 강조하였다. 반면, 김수영은 전통 및 관습의 현재적 작용력을 강조하면서 자유의 가능성을 탈관습의 추구에서 발견하고자 했다.

1970년대 전통 이념과 극단 민예극장의 ‘전통’

김기란 대중서사학회 2020 대중서사연구 Vol.26 No.3

In this article, the “modernization of the tradition” constructed on the cultural politics and the way in which it appropriated in the korean theatre in the 1970s were analyzed. It is trying to reveal its implications. It is also a work to critically review the aspects of self-censorship in the korean theatre in the 70s. To that end, we looked at the theatre company Minye Theatre, which preoccupied the traditional discussions in the 1970s by creating national dramas. Until now, the evaluation of the theatre company Minye Theatre in the 1970s has focused on the achievement on the directing of Heo Gyu, who promoted the succession and transformation of tradition. However, the traditional ideology constructed in the state-led cultural politics in the 70s and the way in which it was operated cannot be evaluated only in terms of artistic achievement. The ideology of tradition is selected according to the selective criteria of the subject to appropriate tradition. What’s important is that certain objects are excluded, discarded, re-elected, re-interpreted and re-recognized in the selection process of selected traditional ideology. This is the situation in the ‘70s, when tradition was constantly re-recognized amid differences between the decadent and the disorder that were then designated as non-cultural, and led to a new way of appropriate. The nation-led traditional discussion of the ‘70s legalized the tradition with stable values, one of the its way was the national literary and artistic support. Under the banner of modernization of tradition, theatre company Minye preoccupied the discussions on the tradition and presented folk drama as a new theatre. As an alternative to the crisis of korean theatre at the time, the Minye chose the method of inheriting and transforming tradition. It is noteworthy that Heo Gyu, the representative director of the theatre company Minye, recognized the succession and transformation of traditional performance as both a calling and an experiment. For Heo Gyu, tradition was accepted as an irresistible stable value and an unquestionable calling, and as a result, his performance, filled with excessive traditional practices, became overambitious, especially when it failed to reflect the present-here reality, the repeated use of traditional expression tools resulted in skilled craftsmanship, not artistic creation. The traditional ideology of the 70s unfolds in a new aspect of appropriation in the 80s. In 1986, Son Jin-Cheok, Kim Seong-nyeo, and Yoon Mun-sik, who were key members of the theatre company Minye Theatre, left the theatre to create the theatre company Michu, and secured popularity through Madangnori(popular folk yard theatre). Son Jin-Cheok's Madangnori is overbearing through satire and humor. It gained popularity by criticizing and mocking state power. On the other hand, not only the form of traditional performance, but also the university-centered Madanggeuk movement, which appropriated on the spirit of resistance from the people to its traditional values, has rapidly grown. In the field of traditional discussions of the 70s, Madanggeuk was self-born through appropriation in which the spirit of resistance of the people is used as a traditional value. Madanggeuk as well as Michu that achieved the popularization of Madangnori cannot be discussed solely by the artistic achievement of the modernization of tradition. Critics of korean theatre in response to state-led traditional discussions in the 70s was focused only on the qualitative achievement of performing arts based on artistry. I am very sorry for that. As a result, the popular resistance of the Madanggeuk and the Madangnori were established in the ‘difference’ with the traditions of the theatre company Minye Theatre. Theatre company Minye Theatre was an opportunity for the modernization of tradition, but the fact that it did not continuously produce significant differences. This is the meaning and limitation of the “tra...

대전통ㆍ소전통 담론의 전복인가, 변주인가?

李有鎭(Lee, You-jin) 중국어문학연구회 2017 중국어문학논집 Vol.0 No.102

This paper examines Ye Shuxian’s contention, which is a part of the research of “Crucial Aspects of Chinese Academic Discourse on ‘Great Tradition and Little Tradition’, and Its Meaning”. This paper tries to critically review a topography of Chinese academic discourse on ‘great tradition and little tradition’ that has been being processed since the beginning of the 21st century. Ye Shuxian criticizes that the conception of ‘great tradition and little tradition’ presented by Robert Redfield is elitist. Also, he attempts to switch from that conception to a new one which is subversive. He regards preliterate tradition as great tradition while the written record tradition as little tradition. The new conception of ‘great tradition’, emerging in Chinese academic society from the beginning of the 21st century, sympathizes with ‘the eternality of China’ and ‘plurality and unity in the configuration of the Chinese nation’. It is ultimately connected with the expansion of Chinese time and space. Ye Shuxian justifies this new conception with ‘the ethics of scholarship’. However, there is a wide gap between his justification and reality of ‘inspiring Sinocentrism’. Ironically, the discourse, based on postcolonial theory, reaches the construction of Chineseness in the end. Therefore, we must debate on this academic issue lively and desperately.

대전통과 소전통의 이중 변주

李有鎭(Lee, You-jin) 중국어문학연구회 2016 중국어문학논집 Vol.0 No.96

This paper examines a topography of Chinese academic discourse on ‘great tradition and little tradition’(1980’s-1990’s), which is a part of the research of “Crucial Aspects of Chinese Academic Discourse on ‘Great Tradition and Little Tradition’ and Its Meaning”. The goals of this research are to clarify national identity-building in today’s China. Robert Redfield presented the concept of ‘little tradition and great tradition’. The twin concept stands for ‘high and low culture’ or ‘classic and folk culture’ or ‘learned and popular culture’. The core of this paper is to describe and analyze different concepts of ‘little tradition and great tradition’ in China. For this purpose, this paper investigates the opinions of some scholars on the concept of ‘little tradition and great tradition’. Yu Yingshi, Li Yiyuan, Chen Lai, Ge Zhaoguang, and Fei Xiaotong, these scholars focus on either ‘great tradition’ or ‘little tradition’. In my view, it is all a question of ‘tradition’ handed down within in their community. Tradition is a flexible concept. And of course, the same is true for ‘little tradition and great tradition’. The social circumstances at the time are the key drivers of the change related to these concepts. This is why I contextualize Chinese academic discourse on ‘great tradition and little tradition’(1980’s-1990’s) within a sociocultural framework. The two traditions are interdependent. Dual variation of great tradition and little tradition circulates on a Möbius strip named ‘Tradition’.

Mонгол төрийн албан бичгийн уламжлал

S.Otgoljii 한국몽골학회 2009 몽골학 Vol.0 No.26

Mongolians are the nation who has prehistoric statehood tradition. Rule of the state affairs note is very impotent in this tradition. But this issue was relatively studied so lesser. There are usually research works about letters sent to king of France and Pap of Rom. Story writer S. Otgoljii tried to show documentary tradition of Mongolian state based on historical resource and materials. In the period of ancient Mongolian states, they had the tradition to note Mongolian state affairs in writing. In the period of Huns, Sumbe and Nirun, they made agreement with foreign countries and sent order and letters. Mongolians has been using Uigarjin Mongolian script that was used as official script from the period of Chinggis Khaan, but they used many other scripts in their history. In opinion of writer, Mongolians regarded that script was a state symbol, not only an instrument of official documents. In certain periods of historical changes, trying to compose new script was notified by historical resources. As it, state documents were very important for Mongolians. Mongolian documentary proceeding and documentary development may be classified 3 parts such as 1. Prehistoric period (from Huns to beginning of XIII century), 2. Great Mongolian empire and the period keeping its documentary tradition (from beginning of XIII century to beginning of XX century), 3. Modern time (From beginning of XX century to up to now). There are few materials about 1st period, but as some monuments, rule of some documents was inherited from that time. Documentary proceeding and documentary composition and descriptions were formed and inherited in the period of Great Mongolian Empire. This tradition was used in the period of Minor Khaans and also Manchu Empire. So, it may be said that time is a period that documentary classic tradition of Mongolian state was formed. Mongolians are the nation who has prehistoric statehood tradition. Rule of the state affairs note is very impotent in this tradition. But this issue was relatively studied so lesser. There are usually research works about letters sent to king of France and Pap of Rom. Story writer S. Otgoljii tried to show documentary tradition of Mongolian state based on historical resource and materials. In the period of ancient Mongolian states, they had the tradition to note Mongolian state affairs in writing. In the period of Huns, Sumbe and Nirun, they made agreement with foreign countries and sent order and letters. Mongolians has been using Uigarjin Mongolian script that was used as official script from the period of Chinggis Khaan, but they used many other scripts in their history. In opinion of writer, Mongolians regarded that script was a state symbol, not only an instrument of official documents. In certain periods of historical changes, trying to compose new script was notified by historical resources. As it, state documents were very important for Mongolians. Mongolian documentary proceeding and documentary development may be classified 3 parts such as 1. Prehistoric period (from Huns to beginning of XIII century), 2. Great Mongolian empire and the period keeping its documentary tradition (from beginning of XIII century to beginning of XX century), 3. Modern time (From beginning of XX century to up to now). There are few materials about 1st period, but as some monuments, rule of some documents was inherited from that time. Documentary proceeding and documentary composition and descriptions were formed and inherited in the period of Great Mongolian Empire. This tradition was used in the period of Minor Khaans and also Manchu Empire. So, it may be said that time is a period that documentary classic tradition of Mongolian state was formed.

한국 현대 음악의 전통 담론

이희경 한국음악학학회 2007 음악학 Vol.14 No.-

This article explores the problem of 'tradition', a key issue under Korean composers. Unlike the European, it is difficult to grasp the substance of 'musical tradition' in Korea; for some composers it is associated with western classical or modern music, whereas for others it is related to Korean 'traditional music'. In any case, 'musical tradition' in Korea is not regarded as a living process of a prerequisite as well as a creation, but rather as a not-living object of the past. Interestingly, since the 1960s when the Korean society turned into a modernized one with a will, the problem of tradition has been prominently issued in a form of discourse. It means that Korean tradition began to be dissolved in this period and the emphasis of tradition shows a symptom of crisis of tradition. This article examines three main discourses on tradition in the socio- political context, especially during the 1960~80s: first, the discourse of tradition in the 'newly composed Korean traditional music'(Shin-gukak or Ch'angjak-gukak) related to the tradition ideology of the regime of Park Chung-Hee; second, the tradition in the works of the composers following western modern music in the 1970s; third, the issue declared by the 'Third Generation Group', the creative succession of tradition in the 1980s.

논문 : 박종홍에서 "전통"의 문제 (1) - 전통 인식을 중심으로 -

박영미 ( Young Mi Park ) 한국철학사상연구회 2015 시대와 철학 Vol.26 No.1

우리에게 근대는 서양의 근대를 수용할 것인가 거부할 것인가를 선택해야만 하는 것으로 시작되었다. 이는 곧 전통에 대해 어떤 태도를 취할 것인가와 연관되어 있었고, 이에 따라 서양의 근대와 전통의 관계에 대한 여러 논의들이 이루어졌다. 그 가운데서 전통에 대한 전면적인 단절은 해외 유학생과 경성제국대학 졸업생이 주축이 된 서양철학 1세대에 의해 이루어졌다. 그들은 자신들의 사유에서 전통을 완전히 배제했고, 전통은 나에서 타자로 전도顚倒되었다. 박종홍은 서양철학 1세대 중에서 예외적으로 전통의 전승을 강조했다. 더 나아가 서양철학과 전통철학의 상호이해 위에서 ‘우리의 철학’ 건립을 주장했다. 하지만 이 역시 서양철학 1세대와 동일하게 전통에 대해 성찰도비판도 수행하지 않은 가운데 이루어졌다. 그리고 서양철학과 전통철학의 재해석을 통해 이루어진 박종홍의 철학은 박정희 정권의 국가주의적 통치를 뒷받침하는 수단이 되었다. 이렇게 ‘만들어진 전통’, ‘기획된 전통’은 전통의 또 다른 타자화이다. 현재 서양철학, 동양철학 연구 모두에서 전통의 단절은 동일하게 나타나고 있다. 한국 현대철학은 한 번도 제대로 전통을 성찰하고 비판한 적이 없었다. 이 연구를 통해 우리에게 나타나는 전통에 대한 지나친 ‘배제’와 ‘옹호’ 모두 동일한 인식의 기원을 갖고 있음을 확인하고, 우리에게 주어진 책임은 무엇인지를 묻고자 한다. The purpose of this study is to examine the awareness of tradition of the first generation in Western philosophy and Park Zhong-Hong. What modern means to us is from deciding whether or not Western modern is accepted. This is related to the attitude toward tradition; in addition, it brings on many discussions on the relationship of Western modernism and tradition. The entire severance of tradition comes from the first generation in Western philosophy, which is composed of students studying abroad, mainly from Kyungsung Imperial University. They eliminated tradition from their way of thinking; as a result, tradition was interpreted as separation from their philosophy. Park Zhong-Hong emphasizes on upholding tradition, even though he is the first generation in Western philosophy. Furthermore, he insisted on establishing our own philosophy based on the mutual understanding of Western philosophy and traditional philosophy. Park Zhong-Hong, however, also did not criticize nor examine tradition like the first generation in Western philosophy. His philosophy made with reinterpretation of Western philosophy and traditional philosophy became the means to support former president Park Jung-Hee``s regime. ``Made-up traditon`` and ``Planned tradition‘ are another separation of tradition as well. Nowadays the severance of tradition is common in studies of both Western philosophy and Eastern philosophy. Korea Contemporary Philosophy has never examined nor criticized tradition properly. Moreover, this study confirms that the excessive elimination and advocate of tradition is on the basis of the same awareness and opens the question of the responsibility upon us.

출애굽기 33:7-11에 나타난 회막전승

배정훈 장로회신학대학교 기독교사상과문화연구원 2011 장신논단 Vol.0 No.43

Even though there have appeared a number of studies about the Meeting of Tent tradition, further study about the Tent of meeting is necessary as follows: the place of Moses as a mediator distinct from people, the traditional relation between the Tent of Meeting and the Tabernacle tradition, and the function of the Tent of Meeting tradition in its literary context. This study explores the place of the Exodus 33:7-11containing the Tent of Meeting tradition in Exodus 33. For this study, I study the text itself, compare various texts to show the Tent of Meeting tradition, and contrast the Tent of Meeting tradition and the Tabernacle tradition. The typical features in Exodus 33:7-11 are as follows. First, this text shows the origin of the Tent of Meeting tradition and its function by describing it as repeated action through imperfect verbs. Second, God appears with cloud in the Tent of Meeting outside the Camp with cloud. Third, God appoints Moses as a mediator between God and people by allowing Moses to face God. Fourth, people worship God at the entrance of their tent. While in the Tabernacle tradition God appears through legitimate priesthood in the Camp, in the Tent of Meeting tradition God appears outside the Camp under Mosaic authority as a mediator. When Exodus 33:7-11 is placed right in the present verses, it comes to get new function. The place inside the Camp becomes more legitimate than the place outside the Camp. When the place inside the Camp is corrupted, the place outside the Camp becomes the starting point for recovery. When people cannot experience God’s theophany because of the broken covenant, the covenant is recovered by the experience with God’s theophany outside the Camp through Moses as a mediator between God and people. Through this study, we can understand the diachronic understanding of the Tent of Meeting tradition in Exodus 33:7-11 and its function in its literary context. 기존에 회막전승에 관한 연구가 많이 진행되었지만 다음과 같은 점이 미흡하다고 여겨졌다: 이스라엘 백성들과 구별되는 모세의 위치, 성막전승과 회막전승의 역사적인 관계성, 그리고 회막전승이 본문의 문맥에서 차지하는 역할에 대한 연구. 이 연구는 회막전승의 기원이 담긴 출애굽기 33:7-11이 최종 본문 안에서 어떠한위치를 차지하는지를 연구하고 있다. 이 연구를 위하여 회막전승이 나타나는 다양한 본문들을 비교하고, 다시 회막전승과 성막전승을 비교하였다. 본문에서는 전형적인 회막전승의 특징이 다음과 같이 나타난다. 첫째, 동사를 미완료 형태를 사용하여 반복적으로 일어난 일로 묘사함으로 회막의 기원과 회막의 역할을 보여준다. 둘째, 하나님은 진 밖에 세운 회막에 구름으로 현현하신다. 셋째, 하나님은 모세와직접 대면함으로 모세에게 하나님과 백성사이에 중보자직을 수행하게 하신다. 넷째, 백성들은 자기 장막에서 현현하신 하나님을 예배한다. 성막전승에서는 하나님이 진 안에서 합법적으로 이루어지는 제사제도를 통하여 현현하시는데 반해, 회막전승에서는 진 밖에서 모세의 중보자직의 권위 아래 하나님이 현현하신다. 출애굽기 33:7-11이 최종본문으로서 현재의 위치에 놓임으로 이 본문이 홀로 존재할 때와는 다른 역할이 부여된다. 진 안은 진 밖보다 합법적이지만 진 안이 타락할 때진 밖은 회복의 출발점이 된다. 진 안에서 깨어진 언약으로 인하여 더 이상 하나님의 현현을 경험할 수 없을 때 백성들은 진 밖으로 나와서 중보자 되는 모세를 통하여 하나님의 현현을 경험하고 다시금 공동체를 회복시킨다. 이 연구를 통하여 출애굽기 33:7-11에 나타나는 회막전승의 통시적인 이해 및 33장의 문맥에서 그 역할을 이해할 수 있다.

오늘날 신학함(doing theology)에 있어서 전통과 교도권의 문제

정희완(Jeong, Hee-wan) 수원가톨릭대학교 이성과신앙연구소 2017 이성과 신앙 Vol.62 No.-

오늘날 신학하는 방식은 과거와 다르다. 신학한다는 것은 오늘의 전망에서 신앙의 전통을 재해석하고 수용하는 일이며, 신앙의 관점에서 당대를 분석하고 당대의 문화와 학문들과 대화하는 일이며, 신학의 실천적이고 사목적인 차원을 성찰하는 일이다. 이러한 세 차원의 변증법적 순환은 신학의 쇄신을 낳는다. 신학은 단순히 전통과 교도권의 문헌을 설명하고 주석하는 것만을 의미하지는 않는다. 전통이란 단순히 어떤 특정한 물질적 객체를 의미하기보다는 전승의 행위다. 전통은 고정되고 불변적인 것이 아니다. 전통은 어떤 실천들로 구성된다. 전통의 핵심은 소통의 실천이다. 전통은 신념과 태도와 행동을 포함하는 결합체다. 전통은 언제나 토착화의 과정 속에서 재탄생된다. 살아있는 전통이란 새로운 맥락에서 재탄생된 것이다. 전통에 충실하다는 것이 전통의 형식적이고 언어적 반복과 재현을 의미하지는 않는다. 전통에 대한 충실성은 옛 실천들의 고착적 반복에 있는 것이 아니라 살아있는 수행 속에 있다. 전통은 언제나 재전유되어야 한다. 전통을 재전유한다는 것은 단순히 옛 개념들을 새로운 개념들로 교체하는 것이 아니다. 물론 전통을 현대의 맥락에 맞게 번역하는 것은 신학의 과제의 하나다. 하지만 좋은 신학이란 전통의 단순한 번역을 넘어선다. 살아있는 신학이란 무엇보다 오늘의 신앙적 실천들에 대한 비판적 성찰이다. 신학은 어제의 신앙, 오늘의 신앙, 내일의 신앙에 대한 성찰이다. 또한 신학은 언제나 사목적 지향성을 갖는다. The way we do theology today is quite different from the past. Doing Theology in this century means to reinterpret and receive the traditions of faith from the contemporary perspectives, to interpret the world from the perspective of faith, which is open to dialogue with contemporary culture and the sciences, to reflect on the pastoral and practical dimension of theology. The dialectical circularity of these three elements entails a theological renewal. Theology does not merely mean to add comments or explanations on traditional and magisterial documents. Tradition is not primarily to be defined by a particular material object, but by the act of transmission. Tradition is not a fixed and immutable thing. Tradition is constituted as a set of practices. The heart of a tradition is a communicative practice. Today a religious tradition is best understood as a nexus of belief, attitude, and pattern of action. Traditions are invented and reinvented whenever and wherever they are inculturated. A living tradition is the one that is always reinvented in a new context. Our fidelity to tradition does not means the formal and linguistic repetition and representation of tradition. Our fidelity is not preserved in practices frozen in the past but in living performances. We have to reappropriate our tradition, which means exploring its relevance for our contemporary situation. Reappropriating our tradition does not simply mean to exchange from old concepts to new ones in a linguistic level. Of course, to translate our tradition into contemporary context is an important theological task. But good theology is beyond that. A living theology is to make a critical reflection on today’s Christian practices. Theology has to reflect on the faith of yesterday, the faith of today, and the faith of tomorrow. Today, many theologians place the emphasis on the pastoral orientation of theology.