解放神學의 社會分析視角에 관한 硏究 = A STUDY ON THE SOCIAL PESPECTIVES OF LIBERATION THEOLOGY

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Theology of liberation is very interesting to usKoreans who have confronted Communist North Korea because it has influenced the fields of religion, religious life and social life of Koreans . Especially theology of liberation has adopted Marxian concepts and perspectives as its analaytical concepts and perspectives.
Thus the aims of this study are (1) to investigate the social perspectives of liberation theology and (2) to examine the relation between liberation theology and “people's theology”in Korea to help give the exact understanding liberation theology and suffice our intellectual interests and curiosities about theology of liberation. Generally speaking, theology of liberation from Latin America seems to have earnest motives and purposes to feel responsible and humanistic for the poor, to try to get rid of the causes of the poverty, but there seems tobe something wrong with the methods to realize such motives and purposes. So it is thought to be very important that the social perspectives should be analyzed on the base of the Marxian conceptual framework.
To examine the methodological defects of theology of liberation, we employed as the analytical framework the Marxian concepts and perspectives to destory capitalism and to build up socialism or communism;“orthopraxis,”“dual structure of society,”“class struggle,”“violent socialist revolution.” The results of the analgses of the perspectives of liberation theology are as follows:
The “orthopraxis”of liberation theology stems directly from Mark’s proposition, “philosophers have tried to only interpret the world, but what matters is to change the world.” There are largely two ways to change the world: reformation and revolution. Liberation theology chooses the latter like Marxism. But the 20 century has proved that the revolution theory of communism is inferior to the developmental theory of liberal capitalism.
Liberation theology asserts that Christianity has explained impoverishment, not to try to improve it. But that’s not true. Christianity has attempted to change society through individual repentance and the change of individual personality.
It is a serious fallacy that liberation theology has accepted the dualism of social structure which means dividing society in two hostile classes. In theological sense the dualism controdicts God’s impartial love for mankind and universal truth regardless of time and place. In terms of social science it is doubtful whether or not it is approfriate to apply the dualism indiscriminately to the various societies of Latin America though there is a huge gulf between rich and poor. In practical viewpoint the hostile dualism is thought not to help get rid of poverty from Latin America because it can not acquire national consensus and is deprived of many benifical strategies of capitalism through the separation from the western block.
The class struggle, which accompanies the dualism, also goes to a great degree against the impartial love and the universal truth of Christianity and produces a big problem in idiological sense of Christianity. The christian love means the reconciliatory love to tolerate others as well as the universal love for all hnman beings, while the class struggle of liberation theology impies hatred and hostility, not love of recociliation. The class struggle of liberation thelogy is alleged to include the simultaneous liberations of oppressors and oppressed. But the success of the oppressed in the class struggle is only the victory against the oppressors, never the liberation of the oppressed themselves, because the oppressed will use still more power and violence to prevent the revolts and resistances of the old oppressors who have been reduced to the oppressed. That means not the simultaneous liberation of both parties, but the exchange of the previous positions between the two.
One of the important responsibilities of the clergy of Latin America is that they must not confuse the unjust violence of the oppressors and the just violence of the oppressed in considering violence problems in Latin America. Theologists have asserted that they can not liberate the oppressed without violence, which also goes against the love for foes in the Bible. This means not worshiping the gospel of the Bible, but interpreting the universal love of Christianity to justify the socialist revolution.
The “people’s thelogy”of Korea came into existance through particular scio-economic and political situations of Korea during 1960s and 1970s. People’s theology was once named, “Industrial mission”in 1958 and “Urban industrial mission”in 1968. It has been influenced by liberation theology since the serious socio-economic and political adversities of 1970s.
People’s theology has refused to use the term “liberation”because the term seems to be related to the “People’s liberation”of North Korea, the violence of communism and kiberation theology, the rivalry in the dependency theory of Latin America, in the ethnic disputes of the United Ststes and in the class struggle. Even if people’s theology emphasizes its independence and originality, the influence of liberation theology on it is made clear by these common features between them, such as (1) the criticism of the orthodox theologies, (2) the confluence of people’s movement and the theological history of people (3) the relation between theology and the particular social situation like poverty, unfair distribution and infringement of people’s rights, (4) the emphasis of social salvation and praxis, (5) the special notice of the alienated class, (6) the citation of the Exodus as the ground of the Bible, (7) the assertion of Jesus Christ being the friend and emancipator of poor and sick, (8) the most criticism from outside on the excessive situational analysis, etc.
Onthe other hand, liberation theology has had a great deal of influence on our way of life and way of thinking. So intelligentzia and students have become interested in lower people's life and their culture.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 序 言
• Ⅱ. 硏究의 範圍와 方法
• 1. 硏究範圍
• 2. 硏究方法
• Ⅲ. 解放神學의 形成背景
• 1. 理論的 源流
• 1) 敎會的 背景
• 2) 神學的 背景
• 2. 解放神學의 社會的背景
• 1) 貧困과 貧富의 隔差
• 2) 從屬現象
• 3) 基督敎的 信仰
• 4) 民主主義의 失敗
• Ⅳ. 解放神學의 社會分析批判
• 1. 實踐의 優先性
• 2. 二分法的 社會分析
• 3. 階級鬪爭
• 4. 社會主義暴力革命
• Ⅴ. 解放神學과 民衆神學
• Ⅵ. 結 論