한국교회를 위한 공공신학의 해석학적 모델로서 두왕국론 = The Two Kingdoms Theory as s Hermeneutic Model of Public Theology for Korean Churches

국문 초록 (Abstract)

이 논문은 공공성 회복과 공적 참여가 절실히 요구되는 한국교회에 적합한 공공신학
모델을 검토하고 분석하는 것을 목적으로 삼는다. 특히 개혁주의 공공신학 담론에서
활발하게 논의되는 두왕국론에 주목하여 역사적 맥락과 현대적 재해석을 살펴봄으로
써 한국교회가 처한 사회 정치적 상황에 적합한 공공신학 모델인지 평가하며 다음과
같은 주장을 펼친다. 첫째, 현재 한국교회의 공공성 담론은 본격적인 궤도에 오르지 못한 상태이지만, 그럼에도 공론장에서 종교의 역할과 책임이 대두되면서 한국교회의 이론과 실천에 있
어서 공공신학은 점차 그 중요성이 확대되고 있다. 공공신학은 크게 ‘보편성으로서의
공공신학’과 ‘교회됨으로서의 공공신학’으로 분류할 수 있으며, 두 관점은 서로 배척
하고 대립하기보다 상호보완적 관계 속에서 고찰되어야 한다. 공공신학은 한국교회가
교회됨의 본질을 유지하면서 동시에 다원화된 세상으로 나가 사회적이고 문화적이며
정치적인 책임을 감당하도록 촉구하는 학문이어야 한다. 둘째, 아우구스티누스의 두도성론으로부터 중세의 양검론과 종교개혁시대의 두왕
국론은 교회와 국가가 맺는 다양한 방식, 즉 대립과 갈등, 협력과 조화의 난해한 역
사를 보여준다. 두왕국론은 종교개혁 당시 혼란해진 교회와 국가의 관계를 재정립하
기 위해 모색되었다. 이런 이유로 두왕국론은, 남한과 북한의 분단과 대치 및 정치와
종교 분리의 헌법적 원칙이라는 특수한 상황 속에서, 한국교회를 위한 공공신학 모델
로 검토될 가치가 있다. 특히 제네바 종교개혁자 칼빈의 두왕국론은 교회와 국가를
구분하면서도 교회개혁을 통해 사회의 변혁을 이루고자 의도되었다. 셋째, 한국 근대사의 초기에 기독교는 공적이고 사회적인 종교로서의 책임과 역
할을 다했다. 하지만 해방 이후, 한국사회에서 이념적 대립이 격해지고 권위주의적이
ii
면서 비민주적인 정부가 들어선 이후, 한국교회는 정교분리의 가면 뒤에 숨어 정작
정교유착으로 이득을 보았다. 한국개신교회의 급격한 양적 성장 이면에는 불의하고
왜곡된 정치 이념을 교회가 침묵하거나 정당화해준 부끄러운 역사가 도사리고 있다. 한국교회가 처한 복잡한 사회문화정치적 상황은 칼빈의 제네바 종교개혁과 많은 부분
에서 유사한 양상을 보여주며, 그런 이유로 칼빈의 정치신학 모델인 ‘수정된 두왕국
론’은 한국교회에 가장 적합한 공공신학 모델이라고 할 수 있다. 본 연구를 통하여 얻을 수 있는 성과 및 중요성은 다음과 같다. 첫째, 한국교회
가 처한 위기를 공공성의 상실과 공적 책임으로부터의 후퇴에서 찾고 그에 대한 해법
을 모색하였다. 둘째, 한국교회의 위기를 극복해 가는 데 있어 적합한 모델로 아우구
스티누스부터 루터를 거쳐 칼빈까지 이어진 정치신학 모델인 두왕국론을 지정하고 분
석하였다. 셋째, 한국교회의 사사화를 극복하는 공공신학 담론과 실천을 보수적인 교
회가 취하는 하나의 선택지가 아니라 교회의 교회됨을 구성하는 본질적 요소로 제시
하였다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The purpose of this dissertation is to review and analyze a public theology
model suitable for Korean churches that desperately require public
participation and restoration of publicness. In particular, focusing on the
two-kingdom theory actively discussed in the discourse of Reformed public
theology, it examines the historical context and modern reinterpretation to
evaluate whether it is a public theology model suitable for Korean churches
in a special socio-political situation, and makes the following arguments.
First, the current discourse of publicness in the Korean church has not
been in full swing, but as the role and responsibility of religion emerges in
the public sphere, public theology is gradually increasing its importance in
the theory and practice of the Korean church. Public theology can be
broadly classified into ‘public theology as universality’ and ‘public theology
as being church,’ and the two perspectives should be considered in a
complementary relationship rather than rejecting and opposing each other.
Public theology should be a discipline that urges the Korean church to
maintain the essence of ecclesiastical nature and at the same time go out
into a diversified world and take on social, cultural and political
responsibilities.
Second, from Augustine’s two cities theory, the two swords theory in
189
the Middle Ages and the two-kingdoms theory in the era of Reformation
show the difficult history of confrontation and conflict, cooperation and
harmony between the church and the state. The two kingdoms theory was
sought to re-establish the relationship between the church and the state,
which was confused during the Reformation. For this reason, the theory of
two kingdoms deserves a review as a public theological model for the
Korean church in the special circumstances of division and confrontation
between South and North Korea, and the constitutional principle of
separation of politics and religion. In particular, Geneva’s Reformer Calvin’s
theory of two kingdoms was intended to achieve social transformation
through church reformation, while separating church and state.
Third, in the early days of modern Korean history, Christianity fulfilled
its responsibility and role as a public and social religion. However, after
liberation, ideological confrontation in the Korean society became
intensified, and authoritarian, undemocratic governments were established,
the Korean church has been hiding behind the mask of ‘segregation of
politics and religion’, and has actually benefited from ‘the fusion of politics
and religion.’ Behind the rapid quantitative growth of the Korean Protestant
Church lies a shameful history in which the church has silenced or
justified unjust and distorted political ideologies. The complex socio-cultural
and political situation faced by the Korean church is similar in many ways
to Calvin’s Geneva Reformation, and for that reason, Calvin’s political
theology model, ‘revised two kingdoms theory’ is the most appropriate
public theological model for Korean churches.
The results and contribution of this study are as follows. First, the
crisis of the Korean churches is found in the loss of publicness and retreat
from public responsibility, and the solution was sought. Second, as a
suitable model for overcoming the crisis of the Korean church, the theory
190
of two kingdoms, a political theological model that extends from Augustine
to Luther to Calvin was designated and analyzed. Third, the discourse and
practice of public theology overcoming the privatization of the Korean
churches were presented not as a choice of conservative churches but as
a constituent element of the church.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 초록 ·········································································································· ⅰ
• 감사의 글 ·································································································· ⅲ
• 목차 ·········································································································· ⅳ
• 그림 목차 ·································································································· ⅷ
• Ⅰ. 서론 ···································································································· 1
• 1. 문제 제기 ···················································································· 1
• 2. 선행연구 고찰 ·············································································· 8
• 2.1 공공신학의 일반적 접근 ························································ 8
• 2.2 한국교회의 공공신학 담론 상황 ············································· 12
• 2.3 공공신학에서 두왕국론에 관한 최근 논의 ······························· 14
• 3. 연구 목적 ···················································································· 17
• 4. 연구 방법론 ················································································· 17
• Ⅱ. 한국에서 논해지고 있는 공공신학의 이론적 토대 ····································· 19
• 1. 서론 ···························································································· 19
• 2. 공공성과 공공신학 ········································································ 19
• 2.1 공공신학의 개념 ·································································· 20
• 2.1.1 공공신학 담론의 필요성 ············································· 20
• 2.1.2 공공성 논의에서 종교의 위치 ····································· 22
• 2.1.3 교회의 공공성을 기반한 공공신학의 개념 정의 ············· 26
• 2.2 공공신학 담론의 종류 ··························································· 30
• 2.2.1 보편성으로서의 공공신학 ··········································· 31
• v
• 2.2.2 교회됨으로서의 공공신학 ··········································· 38
• 2.2.3 보편성과 교회됨으로서 공공신학의 상호보완적 역할 ····· 41
• 3. 결론 ···························································································· 42
• Ⅲ. 공공신학 모델로서의 두왕국론 ································································ 44
• 1. 서론 ···························································································· 44
• 2. 아우구스티누스의 두도성론 ··························································· 44
• 2.1 두도성론의 배경 ·································································· 44
• 2.2 두도성론과 두 종류의 사랑 ··················································· 46
• 2.3 변혁적 모델로서의 두도성론 ·················································· 49
• 3. 중세로마교회의 양검론 ·································································· 50
• 3.1 양검론을 통해 본 교회와 세속군주의 대립 ····························· 50
• 3.2 양검론에 대한 비판: 윌리엄 오컴과 존 위클리프 ···················· 53
• 3.2.1 윌리엄 오컴의 비판 ··················································· 53
• 3.2.2 존 위클리프의 비판 ··················································· 55
• 4. 루터의 두왕국론 ··········································································· 58
• 4.1 중세의 정치와 루터 ····························································· 58
• 4.1.1 중세시기 교회와 국가의 관계 ····································· 58
• 4.1.2 루터의 두왕국론 형성배경 ········································· 60
• 4.2 루터의 두왕국론에 관한 해석들 ············································· 63
• 4.3 초기 루터: 교회와 국가의 분리 ············································· 67
• 4.4 후기 루터: 교회와 국가의 병존과 협력 ·································· 69
• 5. 칼빈의 수정된 두왕국론 ································································ 71
• 5.1 16세기 제네바의 정치적 상황 ················································ 71
• 5.2 제네바 종교개혁의 정치모델로서 두왕국론 ······························ 74
• 5.3 제네바 종교개혁을 위한 기구, 컨시스토리 ······························ 76
• vi
• 5.3.1 제네바 컨시스토리의 설립과 조직 ······························· 78
• 5.3.2 제네바 컨시스토리의 역할 ········································· 81
• 6. 결론 ···························································································· 82
• Ⅳ. 개혁파 공공신학 모델 ············································································ 85
• 1. 서론 ···························································································· 85
• 2. 아브라함 카이퍼의 공공신학 기획 ·················································· 86
• 2.1 19세기 네덜란드의 정치사회적 배경 ······································· 86
• 2.2 카이퍼의 일반은총론과 공공신학 ············································ 90
• 2.3 영역주권사상과 두왕국론 ······················································ 92
• 3. 헤르만 바빙크의 공공신학 ····························································· 96
• 3.1 로마가톨릭과 종교개혁의 이원론 극복 ···································· 96
• 3.2 기독교와 교회의 보편성 ························································ 98
• 3.3 자연법과 두왕국론 ······························································· 100
• 4. 클라스 스킬더의 공공신학 ····························································· 101
• 4.1 문화명령 ············································································· 101
• 4.2 그리스도로 회복된 문화적 사명 ············································· 104
• 5. 개혁파 공공신학 모델 평가 ··························································· 107
• 5.1 문화변혁 모델에 관한 비평 ··················································· 107
• 5.2 개혁파 공공신학 모델의 개선 필요성 ····································· 111
• 6. 결론 ···························································································· 114
• Ⅴ. 한국교회의 공공신학 ·············································································· 116
• 1. 서론 ···························································································· 116
• 2. 한국교회의 공공성과 공적 참여 ······················································ 116
• vii
• 2.1 한국사회에 나타난 보편성으로서의 공공신학 ··························· 116
• 2.1.1 근대초기 한국교회의 사회적 영향력 ··························· 117
• 2.1.2 평양대부흥과 사회적 영향력 ······································ 119
• 2.1.3 한국교회와 3·1운동 ·················································· 120
• 2.1.4 한국교회와 신사참배 ················································· 124
• 2.2 한국교회 공공성의 상실 ························································ 125
• 2.2.1 해방 후 한국교회와 정치 ·········································· 125
• 2.2.2 한국전쟁 이후 1970년대까지 한국교회의 사사화 ·········· 128
• 2.2.3 1980년대 이후 형식적 정교분리 ································· 133
• 2.2.4 1990년대 민주화 이후 실질적 정교분리 ····················· 137
• 2.2.5 촛불혁명 이후 현재까지 대립적 정교분리 ···················· 139
• 3. 한국 근현대사에서 교회의 공적 위치 ············································· 143
• 4. 한국교회 공공성의 회복과 갱신 ······················································ 145
• 4.1 공공신학적 패러다임 전환 ···················································· 145
• 4.2 한국교회를 위한 공공신학 모델의 필요성 ······························· 146
• 4.3 교회의 본질로서의 공공신학 ·················································· 149
• 4.4 교회의 소명으로서의 공공신학 ··············································· 153
• 5. 결론 ···························································································· 157
• Ⅵ. 결론 ···································································································· 158
• 1. 회고 ···························································································· 158
• 2. 전망 ···························································································· 160
• 참고문헌 ··································································································· 162
• Abstract ··································································································· 188