초기 안병무가 바라본 서구신학의 빛과 그림자

전철(Chun Chul) 한신대학교 신학사상연구소 2011 신학사상 Vol.0 No.152

이 연구는 심원 안병무(心園 安炳皮, 1922. 6. 23~1996. 10. 19)의 민중신학 형성의 사상적 동기와 발생과정의 해명을 구체적인 목표로 한다. 특히 이 연구는 안병무의 전 시기에서 1952년부터 1965년까지의 시기를 그의 사상의 초기 시기로 규정하고, 이 시기에 있어서 그의 사상적 변화를 추적한다. 안병무의 민중신학은 반신학의 성격을 지닌다. 그 성격의 뿌리에는 서구신학에 대한 집중적인 연구를 통한 한계와 비판이 매복되어 있다. 이 연구는 안병무의 초기 사상의 시기에 그 자신이 서구신학과 교화를 어떻게 이해하였고 비판하였는지를 분석한다. 안병무가 지적한 서구신학과 서구교회의 그림자는 다음의 두 가지이다: 1) 국가 권력과 결탁된 기독교 교회 2) 그레꼬로만 사유로 변질된 기독교 신학이다. 이 연구는 이를 바탕으로 그가 바라보았던 서구신학에 대한 4가지 문제점을 분석한다. 이를 통하여 안병무가 1956년 독일로 떠났을 때 가졌던 분명한 목적, 즉 예수를 학문적으로 밝히는 과제와 구라파 교회의 실력을 가늠하는 과제가 어떻게 수행되었는지를 발생사적으로 해명하고자 한다. 이 연구를 통하여 우리는 안병무의 민중신학의 사유 형성과 발전에 초기 안병무(1951-1965)의 서구신학에 대한 인식이 어떻게 기여되는지를 선명하게 파악할 수 있을 것이다. Ahn Byung-Mus (23.6.1922-19.10.1996) Minjung-Theologie kann als Anti-Theologie bezeichnet werden. Er studierte von 1956 bis 1965 Theologie in Heidelberg und promovierte zum Thema Das Verständnis der Liebe bei Kung-tse und bei Jesus. Obwohl er in Europa Theologie studierte, ist Ahn sehr skeptisch gegenüber westliche Theologie, weshalb Ahn Byung Mus Minjung-Theologie als Kritik an der westlichen Theologie gesehen werden kann. Nach Ahn Byung Mus Ansicht liegt die große Differenz zwischen westlicher Theologie und Minjung-Theologie in ihrem unterschiedlichen Verständnis von der Aufgabe der Theologie. Seine Kritik an westlicher Theologie zielt daher auf die wahre Suche nach Bedeutung und Ursprung der Theologie. Für Ahn Byung-Mu liegt eine Aufgabe der Theologie in der kritischen Rekonstruktion der Wirklichkeit im Hinblick auf die biblisch-christliche Uberlieferung. Er sieht eine Schwäche der westlichen Theologie darin, dass sie durch griechisch-römisches Denken verschlechtert wurde. Aus diesem Verständnis heraus erwächst als ein zentrales Anliegen in Ahn Byung-Mus früher Minjung-Theologie der Wunsch, eine Anti-Theologie zu entwickeln. Der vorliegende Aufsatz hat zum Ziel, Licht und Schatten der west1ichen Theologie in der Wahrnehmug des frühen Ahn ByungMu im Hinblick auf seine Erfahrungen mit der Theologie in Europa zu untersuchen. Dadurch so11 diese Untersuchung Klarheit darüber schaffen, wie Ahn Byung Mus gedankliche Entwicklung der Minjung-Theologie bereits-in seiner frühen Zeit (1951-1965) grundgelegt war.

민중신학의 태동과 발전

강원돈(Won-don Kang) 혜암신학연구소 2022 신학과교회 Vol.18 No.-

민중이라는 빈 공간

정대인 한신대학교 한신신학연구소 2019 신학연구 Vol.56 No.2

This article attempts to put forward an idea regarding ‘Minjung’ as a subject by making a connection between the concept of ‘Minjung’ from Suh Namdong’s Minjung Theology and ‘the Real’ of Slavoj Žižek, a modern philosopher. Suh Namdong did not confine the meaning of Minjung to ‘ptokos (the poor)’ politically and economically. Instead, his concept of Minjung precisely refers to ‘ochlos (the excluded),’ those who are not protected by the system. Thus, rather than simply discovering and defining Minjung, Suh Namdong’s Minjung Theology focuses on how Minjung can become the ‘subject’ in the structure that generates separation and exclusion. In this regard, Suh Namdong’s Minjung Theology has similar characteristics with the concept of ‘the Real’ in Slavoj Žižek’s thought. In psychoanalysis, the Real is a domain that is completely oppressed and excluded from ‘reality,’ or the ‘symbolic,’ which is a fictional space exquisitely constructed with languages and laws. Still, the Real does not vanish and maintains within the symbolic as a ‘void’ that cannot be signified. So, due to the presence of the void as an empty space, the symbolic only exists as a deficient state that cannot be completed. In this sense, the Real is resistance and subversive to all kinds of harmonious systems. Slavoj Žižek claims that the Real is the subject and that it is essential to introduce the Real as a subject to make the transition into a new system. When associating Slavoj Žižek’s the Real as an empty space and Suh Namdong’s idea of Minjung together, it is possible to discover that they share a common aspect insofar as Suh Namdong’s argument relies on similar insight. According to Suh Namdong, the Minjung will become the subject of history that will bring with it a new era. In this, they play the role of the Messiah that will bring forth the new order into an empty space that manifests within capitalism.

비해체적 해체신학

윤원준(Won Jun Yun) 한국기독교학회 2010 한국기독교신학논총 Vol.70 No.-

Like other postmodern theorists, Mark C. Taylor questions whether traditional ontotheology has valid foundations and principles for understanding reality. Instead of ontotheological foundations, Taylor`s a/theology seeks sensitivity to otherness, difference, and nothing. For Taylor, ontotheology leaves nothing unthought. Traditional ontotheological and metaphysical systems require principles or reasons that can gather all facets of reality to a dor` ernable whole. Also ontotheology femls tond isider nothing as nothing and difference as difference. In order to overcht. thosas hortchtings of ontotheological traditions, Taylor tries nce, inks", e unthinkable," that is nothing. In order to think nothing, Taylor wants to deconstruct traditional understandings of God, self, history, and book. In developing his thought, Taylor adopts the ideas of Hegel, Kierkegaard, and Derrida. For Taylor, nothing is the embodiment of the divine. While Altizer thinks the incarnation of God as the total immersion of deity in secularity, Taylor interprets the incarnation as the embodiment of the divine in writing. Therefore, for Taylor, the traditional understanding of personal God in Christianity should be eliminated. Through this death of God, the sacred returns. Likewise, for Taylor, the self should disappear. However, the disappearance of the self does not mean the total rejection of self. Rather, the self remains as a trace and is present in its absence. Instead of ontotheological archeo-teleological history, Taylor suggests erring history that does not have the origin and the telos. Instead of the idea of the book that gets its authority through the author, Taylor talks about textuality that has no authority and no referentiality. One contribution by Taylor is the understanding of the mediating role of language. He correctly points out the danger of the ontotheological illusion seeking a total system, a unifying structure, or a immediate experience. However, Taylor`s thought shows several weaknesses also. Instead challenging the structure of God, the structure of the self, or the structure of the reality, Taylor`s a/theological critique focuses on God himself, the self itself, and the reality itself. After the process of the critique, Taylor constructs another ontological system that needs to be deconstructed. Taylor`s a/theology does not look like a Christian theology. Rather, it looks like a Buddhist atheology.

전환 시대에 교회를 위한 민중신학: 죽재 서남동의 ‘두 이야기의 합류’를 중심으로

허석헌(Sukhun Huh) 한신대학교 한신신학연구소 2023 신학연구 Vol.60 No.2

This article attempts to discover Christianity’s response to the questions raised by the contemporary phenomenon of postmodernism. Christian theology has the dual tasks of accepting the liberating function of desubjectivation and simultaneously discovering a base for the divine revolution for liberation beyond the reality of God’s death brought about by desubjectivation. This article clarifies what message Jukjae, Suh Nam-Dong’s theological thought throws to Minjung theology in the paradigm of desubjectivation and dereligionization, and what the values and roles of Minjung theology contribute to the Korean church in our contemporary context. To fulfill this goal, this article explains his theological structure and feature by reconstructing the theological meanings implied in the ‘confluence of two stories,’ which is the core concept of Jukjae’s theological methodology, into three: “two” (counter-theology), “story” (a holistic theological interpretation method), and “confluence” (the church as a base of confluence). In conclusion, the article proposes two theological tasks that Jukjae’s theology poses for change in the Korean church. Minjung theology should encourage the Korean church to be open to its role of bearing witness by delving into the multidimensional infrastructure of the suffering people that occurs in a rapidly changing era without being bound by dogma.

죽재 서남동의 소수자신학 연구

한정헌(Jung-Hun Han) 연세대학교 신과대학(연합신학대학원) 2017 신학논단 Vol.88 No.-

The purpose of this study is to compare the theology of Seo Nam–Dong with the thought of Deleuze/Guattari, and to reconsider his Minjung theology as a minority theology. Seo Nam-Dong tried to overcome traditional Western theology critically and put the minjung as minorities at the center of his thinking, largely on the basis of empiricism, ontology of becoming, and panentheism. In the background of his thought, there is a constant dialogue with various ideas including philosophy of organism and process theology. I noticed that in many of his theological questions, Seo has a considerable affinity with the minority theory of Deleuze/Guattari. Thus I have tried to relate these two reasons — especially focusing on such notions as “confluence of two stories”, “counter theology” and “post theology”, and the theory of Minjung-Mesiah, ect. —and sought for a possibility of “Minority Theology.” Through this study, I hope to be able to provide a useful viewpoint for creative interpretation and succession of Minjung theology of Seo Nam–Dong. And I hope, as well, the theological interest in the minority, which is becoming in various forms in our society, would continuously be evoked among us. The purpose of this study is to compare the theology of Seo Nam–Dong with the thought of Deleuze/Guattari, and to reconsider his Minjung theology as a minority theology. Seo Nam-Dong tried to overcome traditional Western theology critically and put the minjung as minorities at the center of his thinking, largely on the basis of empiricism, ontology of becoming, and panentheism. In the background of his thought, there is a constant dialogue with various ideas including philosophy of organism and process theology. I noticed that in many of his theological questions, Seo has a considerable affinity with the minority theory of Deleuze/Guattari. Thus I have tried to relate these two reasons — especially focusing on such notions as “confluence of two stories”, “counter theology” and “post theology”, and the theory of Minjung-Mesiah, ect. —and sought for a possibility of “Minority Theology.” Through this study, I hope to be able to provide a useful viewpoint for creative interpretation and succession of Minjung theology of Seo Nam–Dong. And I hope, as well, the theological interest in the minority, which is becoming in various forms in our society, would continuously be evoked among us.