종교다원주의 사회에서의 전도-레슬리 뉴비긴을 중심으로

김선일 ( Sun Il Kim ) 한국복음주의선교신학회 2013 복음과 선교 Vol.24 No.-

It is widely admitted that the value of pluralism deeply permeates our society in general. Pluralism exercises its influence over the religious sphere as well. Coexistence between religions has been regarded as a norm in this pluralistic society. Can evangelism, which is the core practice of the Christian church, be compatible with the value of pluralism? People who are favorable towards religious pluralism are becoming more suspicious of Christians` intentional activities to convert people of other religions into Christianity. This paper seeks to consider the possibility of evangelism in the age of religious pluralism, noting the writings of Lesslie Newbigin, in particular, who had been missionary to India for 35 years and returned to England where paganism began to prevail to his shock. Newbigin has been known as the one who perceptively recognized the foible in religious pluralism and effectively responded to it with the unique Christian gospel. This paper divides into two sections. The first deals with the compatibility of evangelism with the society of religious pluralism. The Christianity faith has been missionary and exclusive in nature from its inception. Unparalleled to other ancient religions, Christianity claimed to its uniqueness and required exclusive commitment. However, its singular truth claim seems awkward and extraordinary to the eyes of religious pluralists. Is Christian witness still possible today? In order to tackle this problem, we must first establish the right understanding of pluralism, because pluralism understood in a religious sphere has tended to pursue an universal, totalizing truth which seeks to equate all religious quests. If religious pluralism claims that there is an universal truth that every religion seeks in a different fashion, it contradicts oneself since pluralism purports to recognize the truth claim of each religion in its own terms. Newbigin asserts that popular understanding of pluralism confuses facts with values. Religious pluralists often assume that facts are objective truth as they are. Facts are often considered as hard truths to which different approaches of knowing cannot be applied. Newbigin calls a myth this distinction between facts and values in terms of pluralism. In this scheme of thought, religious faith is regarded as a value pertinent only to individual`s favor and desire. According to Newbigin who bases his discussion on the recent works of the scientific philosophy, we receive facts not as they are but as they are interpreted within the purview of certain beliefs or assumptions. It is thus improbable to make a sharp distinction between facts and values. We are inevitably faced with value-laden facts. In addition, belief is not confined to subjective area of life at all. When we assert that we should hold a certain truth, we presuppose that it is applicable to public area of life as well individual. Christianity confirms its truth claims to historical and public area not just for salvation of individual souls. We also need be aware that most religions has evangelistic nature in that they witness to the public value of their particular teachings. Thus the matter of evangelism in the age of religious pluralism does not lie in the necessity of evangelism, but how we practice evangelism in light of the pluralist value. This leads to the second issue of this paper to explore what type of shapes evangelism must take today. The shape of evangelism drawn from Newbigin`s understanding of Christian mission in the age of religious pluralism can be discussed in three ways. First, we need to take into account the concept ``proper confidence`` Newbigin proposes. How can we properly and boldly proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ to a wider public world in this pluralistic age? age. It is on the basis of one historic person sent by God that we can tell the public truth of Christianity with proper confidence. We do not base our truth claims on objective and calculative data of evidence. Devotion to the lord of universe and history helps us be witness to the true truth. However, this confidence does not engender a kind of arrogant or superior attitude in doing evangelism. The truth is not what we own, but what has passed onto us in the wake of historic faith tradition. It is the spirit of humility which we need to take when we attempt to reach people of other religions. The way we do evangelism can be called proper only in this sense. Second, the congregation is ``the hermeneutic of the gospel`` in the words of Newbigin. This calls for the communal way of doing evangelism. It is true that any assertion cannot be properly communicated without its social embodiment. Truth must be proven through its viable reality. Evangelism cannot be an individual activity. The faith community itself is both the medium and message of the gospel. The communal nature of evangelism is more enhanced and strengthened when we take into account the publicity of the Christian truth which Newbigin highlights, since the community should demonstrate the power of Christ who is the master of the universe by its existence. The people of the Christian faith has been granted with an inherent vocation as witnesses to the Kingdom. With this in mind, it is worth considering the well known phrase, belonging is before believing, since people tend to come to faith through various contacts with the Christian communities. Third, evangelism needs to be understood as an answer to the questions about Christian faith. After looking into the Pauline Epistles in the New Testament, Newbigin concludes with caution that evangelism is seen more as an answer to questions in situations where the gospel was proclaimed. It is mostly the case that direct exhortations to evangelistic activities are rare in the New Testament. This means that evangelism is, first of all, not understood as a coercive and humanly initiating activity. Rather, evangelism as an answer is in accord with the New Testament teachings such as 1 Peter 3;15, which exhorts the faithful to be prepared to answer to the questions about the Christian faith. With the aids of Newbigin`s insights on the Christian mission in the age of religious pluralism, we can come to grips with the sustainability and viability of evangelism with a fresh look. Religious pluralism poses a new challenge to us to think hard the raison d`etre of evangelism and seek a more biblical way of doing with discretion.

다원주의 사회에서의 종교교육 : 한국에서의 종교교육 가능성 탐색

정문선,유재봉 기독교학문연구회 2014 신앙과 학문 Vol.19 No.3

The purpose of this paper is to explore the meaning of religious education in a pluralist society such as Korea. To accomplish this end, we tackle the following issues: the notions of pluralism, critical examinations of religion, and the possibilities of religious education in a pluralist society. Plurality and pluralism are not the same. The former is related to the matter of fact, whereas the latter is related to the matter of beliefs, i.e., a kind of ideology. Therefore, we may accept plurality, not pluralism. Religion should be understood as ‘a public knowledge’ which consists of a system of beliefs about Reality or God rather than ‘a mere belief’. Accordingly, religion is a public knowledge containing beliefs rather than clotted private tastes or choices. What should be religious education in a pluralist society? The possibilities of it would be the followings. First, religious education in schools should be religious ‘education’, neither religious instruction(RI) nor religious studies(RS). Religious education(RE) tends to pursue reasoned faith rather than inculcation of religious doctrines. Consequently, religious education in a pluralist society has more or less theological or philosophical characteristic. Second, religious education in schools should be grounded in the committed pluralism which stresses the relationship among objects, subjects and knowledge rather than the agnostic pluralism which claims that Reality or God doesn't exist. Although RE would not still satisfy the perspective of faith education, it might be a useful strategy or alternative in the Korean context which prohibits religious instructions. 본 논문의 목적은 현대 다원주의 사회에서 종교의 의미를 검토하고, 종교교육이 나아가야 할 방향을 모색하는 데 있다. 이를 위해 ‘다원주의’의 개념을 명료화하고, 다원주의 사회에서 종교를 바라보는 관점을 검토하며, 다원주의 사회에서 종교교육의 방향을 탐색함으로써 그것이 한국의 종교교육에 주는 시사점을 제시하고 가능한 반론들을 검토하고자 한다. 다원주의(pluralism)는 다원성과 다르다. 다원성이 사실과 관련된 것이라면, 다원주의는 다원적 사실을 지적하는 것을 넘어 다원성을 장려하고 허용하는 것이 좋다는 의견 내지 태도를 의미한다. 다원주의 사회에서 종교교육의 방향은 크게 두 가지로 생각해 볼 수 있다. 하나는 종교‘교육’(Religious Education)이고, 다른 하나는 ‘헌신된 다원주의’(committed pluralism)를 지향하는 것이다. 종교‘교육’은 종교를 교육의 개념적 기준에 부합하게 가르침으로써 단순히 종교를 비교종교학적으로 가르치거나 종교교리를 주입하는 종교‘수업’의 수준을 넘어서도록 한다. 헌신된 다원주의는 지식을 형성함에 있어 앎의 주체와 대상이 통합되어 있음을 드러내줄 뿐만 아니라, 가치중립적인 지식은 존재할 수 없다는 것을 지적함으로써 다원주의의 가치중립주의 신화에서 벗어날 수 있도록 해준다. 그러나 종교‘교육’은 적극적으로 기독교적 진리를 제시하지 않는다는 점에서, 그리고 헌신된 다원주의는 다원주의 그 자체가 가지고 있는 근본적 한계 때문에 기독교적인 관점에서는 여전히 온전하지 못하거나 불만족스러울 수 있다. 한국사회 맥락에서의 종교교육의 방향은 교육의 개념에 충실하면서 철학적·신학적 성격을 지닌 종교‘교육’이어야 한다. 이것은 가장 온전한 기독교적 종교교육이라기보다는 적극적 종교교육이 금지되어 있는 한국의 상황에서 하나의 전략적 선택 내지 대안으로서의 가치를 갖는다고 볼 수 있다.

THE MISSIONAL IMPLICATIONS OF LESSLIE NEWBIGIN’S SHIFT OF EMPHASIS FROM INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUES TO RELIGIOUS PLURALISM DEBATES

Heo Seong-Sik(허성식) 장로회신학대학교 기독교사상과 문화연구원 2015 장신논단 Vol.47 No.3

한국의 다원 종교 상황 속에서 개혁주의 변증적 설교 가능성 연구 -레슬리 뉴비긴의 신학사상을 중심으로-

조영석 개혁신학회 2007 개혁논총 Vol.6 No.-

In religiously pluralistic context, I think that the Korean religious mind has Zung Cheng Seong. It means when a new religion flows into a Korean mind already possessed by an old religion, the old one is not destroyed by the new. Even when the two religions are in conflict, they do not compete or merge into one but coexist in different religious strata. Zung Cheng Seong, the Korean religious mind, is seemed to be changed into religious pluralistic mind when it is challenged. It is no except to the Korean Christians. How can the Korean preachers help them to be pure Christians? I suggest a apologetic preaching in the pulpit. For this one, Lesslie Newbigin is selected. The reason for selecting Newbigin is clear: as he is missionary, he knows Asian religious complicating context. As he is Western reformation scholar, he knows the limitation of Enlightenment modernism. Therefore, he has an apologetic opposed to religious pluralism. In my essay, I tried to apply Newbigin's critic to pluralism into the Korean religio-plural context. Especially, as a method of apologetic, 'proof', 'defence' and 'offence' is suggested. As a result, Newbigin's apologetic attitude to religious pluralism shows to be helpful to Korean pulpit opposed to the challenge of religious pluralistic idea. In religiously pluralistic context, I think that the Korean religious mind has Zung Cheng Seong. It means when a new religion flows into a Korean mind already possessed by an old religion, the old one is not destroyed by the new. Even when the two religions are in conflict, they do not compete or merge into one but coexist in different religious strata. Zung Cheng Seong, the Korean religious mind, is seemed to be changed into religious pluralistic mind when it is challenged. It is no except to the Korean Christians. How can the Korean preachers help them to be pure Christians? I suggest a apologetic preaching in the pulpit. For this one, Lesslie Newbigin is selected. The reason for selecting Newbigin is clear: as he is missionary, he knows Asian religious complicating context. As he is Western reformation scholar, he knows the limitation of Enlightenment modernism. Therefore, he has an apologetic opposed to religious pluralism. In my essay, I tried to apply Newbigin's critic to pluralism into the Korean religio-plural context. Especially, as a method of apologetic, 'proof', 'defence' and 'offence' is suggested. As a result, Newbigin's apologetic attitude to religious pluralism shows to be helpful to Korean pulpit opposed to the challenge of religious pluralistic idea.

수피주의에 나타난 종교적 다원주의 사상 연구

김정명 명지대학교(서울캠퍼스) 인문과학연구소 2016 인문과학연구논총 Vol.37 No.2

This article aims to study the idea of religious pluralism in the Islamic Mysticism or Sufism. Since the 20th century the Muslim society has experienced the most frequent inter-denominational and inter-ethnic conflicts in the world. In this context, it is expected that the rediscovery of the pluralistic values in the Islamic tradition itself will help modern Muslims to develop new means necessary to coexist with other religious worshipers including Christians, Jews and Buddhists in the global society of the 21st century. According to John Hick, religious pluralism means a mutual acceptance of the world religions as different but equally valid relationships to the ultimate reality. He also points out that it is an error to say that religious pluralism is a product of post-Enlightenment western liberalism. He stresses that mystic thinkers of all the great religious traditions such as Meister Eckhart, Maimonides, Ibn ‘Arabī and Rūmī preached the basic pluralist ideas. Seyyed Hossein Nasr, a modern Muslim philosopher, also points out that it is in the perspective of Sufism that the most profound encounter of Islam with other traditions has been made. Ibn ‘Arabī(1165-1240) and Jalāl ad-Dīn Rūmī(1207-1273) are considered as early Sufi thinkers who have established the concept of Waḥdat al-adyān(the transcendental unity of religions), which is very similar to John Hick’s concept of religious pluralism. Ibn ‘Arabī’s idea of religious pluralism originated from the concept of Waḥdat al-wujūd(The unity of Being), which explains that God creates the universe to manifest the fullness of His own nature. According to him, God’s self-manifestation(tajallī) takes diverse and different forms in accordance with the creature’s capacity. Ibn ‘Arabī thought that religious pluralism is a natural consequence of the diverse appearances of God’s tajallī. Rūmī, who has been influenced by Ibn ‘Arabī, also thought that all the religions are essentially one, even though they look different in forms. That’s why he considered it necessary to go beyond dogmatic barriers of a particular religion to reach the Reality. Religious pluralism doctrine of Sufism contributed a lot in the propagation of Islam in the Indian subcontinent. Many Sufi orders(tarīqa) in India were generally tolerant to the non-Muslims. Especially the Qadiriyya order was famous for its pluralistic views towards Hinduism. For example, Abd al-Karīm al-Jīlī(1366~1424) described the Hindus as adherents to the religions of Abraham and said that their scriptures contain the universal message of God. The religious pluralism of the Qadiriyya has influenced the tolerant religious policy of the Mughal Empire. For example, Dara Shikih(1615-1659), a prince of the Mughal Empire as well as a famous devotee of Ibn ‘Arabī, thought that the prophets had been sent by God to India to spread the Divine Revelation. He was responsible for the translation of many Hindu works, including Bhagavad Gītā, Yoga Vasistha, Upanishads, into Persian in the mid-17th century.

East Asian Appropriation of Religious Pluralism: the case of Hick’s religious pluralism in Korean Theology of Indigenization

Iljoon Park(박일준) 연세대학교 신과대학(연합신학대학원) 2022 신학논단 Vol.107 No.-

본 논문은 존 힉(John Hick)의 다원주의와 한국신학 간의 상요작용을 탐문한다. 힉의 종교다원주의는 한국 토착화 신학자들에게 종교 간 대화의 필요성을 자각시켰다. 비록 한국 사회가 역사적으로 그리고 전통적으로 다-종교적 사회이긴 했으나, 이 여러 종교들은 각자의 종교의 정체성을 위해 갈등과 투쟁에 몰입하기 보다는 민중들이 각자의 도(道)와 덕(德)을 함양하는데 기여해왔던 사회문화적 전통이 있다. 그런데 이런 문화전통은 역설적으로 다른 종교들과의 만남을 타자와의 만남이 아닌 자기 자신과의 만남 혹은 내면의 독백으로 만들어버리는 효과를 갖고 있었다. 힉의 종교다원주의가 한국신학자들에게 자각시켜 주었던 것은 바로 종교 간 대화의 필요성인데, 이는 인격 내면의 통합과 성숙을 위한 도와 덕의 차원에서라기 보다는 다른 종교를 타자 혹은 타자성으로 인식해야 할 필요성을 자각시켜 주었던 것이다. 대화는 기본적으로 나의 독백이 아니라, 타자와의 만남과 소통이기 때문이다. 보다 정확히 말하자면, 우리가 우리 자신의 일부로 당연시 여겨왔던 다른 종교들을 나와 전혀 다른 타자로 인식하는 문제로서 말이다. 따라서 이는 더 나아가 한국 신학자들에게 ‘타종교의 신학’ 개념을 촉매했는데, 기독교 신학자가 주체가 되어 타종교를 대상으로 탐구하는 학문분야로서의 신학이 아니라, 타종교인들이 주체가 되어 신학적으로 기독교 신학자들과 대화하는 신학, 즉 종교-간-대화의 신학의 필요성을 촉진하였다. This paper explores interactions between John Hick’s religious pluralism and Korean theology. Hick’s idea of religious pluralism awakened Korean theologians of indigenization about a necessity of interreligious dialogue. Although Korean society has been multi-religious, different religions have worked for people to build up the Way (Dao, 道) and to nurture Virtue (De, 德). It means that encounter with different religion for Koreans has been internal dialogue or monologue for develop one’s personality. However, Hick’s idea of religious pluralism stimulated Korean theologians to think of interreligious dialogue not only for inner maturity but also for acknowledging the otherness or alterity that has taken as ‘us’ for granted. It further catalyzed an idea of theology of other religions whose subject is not Christianity but other religions.

종교 다원주의에 대한 오해와 이해

김영태(Young-tae Kim) 전남대학교 종교문화연구소 2009 종교문화학보 Vol.6 No.-

그리스도교 신학의 경우, 종교다원주의는 종교신학적 노력의 일환이다. 종교신학자들은 이웃 종교들과의 대화와 협력을 통하여 종교간 평화와 세계평화를 수립하려고 노력한다. 그러나 이들의 목소리에 비하여 학자군은 아직 약한 편이다. 근본주의자들, 보수주의자들은 여전히 ‘오직 예수’라는 배타적 신앙을 가지고 종교신학자들의 노력을 달갑지 않게 생각하거나 계속해서 견제한다. 이러한 태도 이면에는 커다란 오해가 자리잡고 있는데 그것은 곧 “종교다원주의=혼합주의” 라는 등식이다. 종교다원주의란 자신의 종교를 여러 종교 가운데 하나로 생각하고 이웃 종교들과의 대화 및 상생을 시도하는 종교간 대화의 바람직한 태도외의 다른 것이 아닌데도 불구하고 오해는 쉽게 풀리지 않고 있다. 이러한 어려운 시도를 감행하는 그리스도교 학자들은 쉴라이엘마허(1768-1834), 트뢸취(1865-1923), 틸리히, 존 힉, 한스 큉, 사마르타, 폴니터, 스위들러, 존 캅 등이다. 본고에서는 특히 힉(John Hick)의 종교다원주의를 하나의 예로 설정하여 종교다원주의의 하나의 면모를 드러내 보이려고 하였다. 그는 배타적인 그리스도 중심주의를 극복하기 위해 신중심주의, 더 나아가서는 신의 이름까지도 배제한 실재중심주의를 펼침으로써 매우 설득력 있는 종교간 대화 노력을 하고 있다. 힉을 비롯한 종교신학자들의 부르짖음이 아직은 미약하지만 점점 증대해지는 추세이기 때문에 종교다원주의 이해를 통한 종교간 대화는 매우 희망적이라고 생각된다. 이러한 노력은 결국 다른 인종, 다른 종교, 다른 정치적 신념을 가진 사람들이 같은 사회에서 평화롭게 함께 사는 분위기를 조성하게 되어 세계평화에 기여하게 될 것이다. In the case of Christian theology, the religious pluralism is a link in the attempt of theology of religions. Religious theologians try to realize the interreligious peace and world peace through the religious dialogue and cooperation. However, because the members of theology of religions are not many now, their claims are not strong or persuasive yet. Fundamentalists and conservativists in Christianity dislike or constraint religious theologians’ attempt constantly with their exclusive belief ‘the only Jesus’. In the background of such attitude, there is misunderstanding, so called ‘religious pluralism is religious syncretism.’ It is true that the religious pluralism is a thought, which is each religion is one of many religions and all religions are equal, so all religious people have to work together for better life and world peace. The vanguards of Christian theologians in this field are Schleiermacher, Ernst Troeltsch, Paul Tillich, John Hick, Hans Küng, Paul Knitter, Stanley Samartha, Leonard Swidler and John Cobb, Jr. etc. In this paper, I tried to reveal John Hick's theology of religions among them as a sample. John Hick tried to overcome Christocentrism in suggesting Theo-centrism or Real-centrism. I think this attempt is more persuasive any other efforts. I guess the voice of religious theologians is relatively not strong now but it is increasing more and more, so I hope their effort would be succeed at last. Their dreams will come true in establishing world peace for the different races, different religions and different political ideologies.

기독교적 관점에 따른 존 힉의 신중심적 종교다원주의 비평

제해종 ( Hae Jong Je ) 한국조직신학회 2012 한국조직신학논총 Vol.34 No.-

This study is about the theocentric religious pluralism of John Hick, who has offered one of the most sophisticated and influential interpretations of religious pluralism. According to John Hick religious pluralism is the view that the great world religions are different responses to the ultimate real, and thus the transformation of human existence from self-centeredness to Reality-centeredness is taking place in different ways within the contexts of all the great religious traditions. Hick`s main thesis is that there is not merely one way, but a plurality of ways to salvation or liberation. Since Hick`s thought that each of the great world religions is a response to the divine Real and is thus salvific is theocentric (or realocentric) in nature, God is at the center of all religious traditions in Hick`s theology of world religions. In fact, Hick`s theocentric religious pluralism, which offers salvific transformation for all religious adherents, seems to be the solution for the apparent problem of the plurality of religions and their tensions in relation to each other. Therefore, to critically evaluate Hick`s religious pluralism I have focused primarily on how Hick`s theocentric model of world religions works as a theory both in itself and in its relationship to Christian theology. Though theocentric religious pluralism seems to offer a valid answer to the problem of religious diversity today, it has several critical implications that are fatal to Christian theology. This study points out three critical problems of Hick`s theocentric model of world religions that weaken his concept of pluralism from a Christian perspective: 1) the problem of the inaccessibility of the Real is never overcome by his Kantian epistemological insights ; 2) the theocentrism proposed inevitably implies the denial of the doctrine of incarnation; and 3) the theological problem of universal salvation is implied in this theocentric model of world religions. Accordingly, Hick`s theocentric model of world religions cannot be considered as the answer to the problem of religious diversity.

WCC와 존 웨슬리의 에큐메니즘 그리스도교 다원주의를 향하여

이찬석 ( Chan Seok Lee ) 한국조직신학회 2012 한국조직신학논총 Vol.32 No.-

This article tries to understand the ecumenism of the WCC(World Council of Church) based on John Wesley`s theology after examining Korean church`s critique about the ecumenism of the WCC. This article will conclude that the official theology of the WCC should be understood as Christian pluralism rather than religious pluralism. Korean church`s standpoint on the 10th assembly in Busan is divided into two parts. The first part as a positive attitude emphasizes that the 10th assembly will contribute to the unity of Korean church and be a good chance to inform Korean church into the world. However, the second attitude as a negative attitude points out that the 10th assembly will bring division into Korean church. Those who think of the Busan assembly negatively show many critiques. Among them, religious pluralism is the most important issue. Based on the reports of the WCC, they criticize that the WCC declares that God`s grace exists in other religions, distorts christian truth, and minimizes missionary passion. However, one can easily meet exclusive and inclusive statements in the reports of the WCC. The WCC assemblies declared the uniqueness of Jesus Christ. It clearly suggests that Christians should keep christian perspective when they have a conversation with nonchristians. Therefore, it is possible that the WCC is exclusive or inclusive rather than plural. In other words, there is no an official theology in the WCC because it intends to diversity. John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist Church, differentiates christian essence from opinion. He insists that a right opinion can be not religious and a wrong opinion can be religious. According to Wesley, there is diversity in opinion and it originated from human limitedness. Becase human being is finite, there are many opinions. Therefore, John Wesley strongly criticizes predestination but takes Calvinist`s hands. The reports of the WCC assembly show us not only religious elements but also exclusive elements. Therefore, the religious pluralism cannot be the official theology of the WCC. In other words, religious pluralism is not a essence but a opinion of the WCC. For the 10th Busan Assembly, Korean church and theology should have a full discussion on Christian pluralism rather than religious pluralism. The report of the WCC assembly is the most significant material for Christian pluralism.

자크 뒤퓌의 종교다원성의 신학

김연희(Kim, Youn Hee) 광주가톨릭대학교 신학연구소 2012 神學展望 Vol.- No.176

필자는 본고에서 벨기에 예수회 신학자 자크 뒤퓌(Jacques Dupuis, 1923-2004)의 “종교다원성의 신학”(Christian theology of religious pluralism)을 소개하고 논의하고자 한다. 본고는 뒤퓌의 문제작, 『종교다원성의 그리스도교 신학을 향하여』(Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism)를 중점적으로 다루는데, 이 책은 2년여의 기간 동안 교황청 신앙교리성(the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith)의 심의를 받은 바 있다. 이 책이 야기한 신학적 논란의 배경을 염두에 둔 채, 본고는 신앙교리성이 문제시한 주제들을 중심으로 뒤퓌의 신학을 고찰한다. 뒤퓌는 하느님의 구원사 안에서 타종교들의 영속적 역할을 인정하는, 곧 ‘종교다원’의 정당성을 논증하는 종교신학적 모델을 추구한다. 그는 자신의 모델을 “포괄주의적 다원주의”(inclusive pluralism)라고 부르는데, 이것은 포괄주의의 핵심사상인 그리스도 중심주의(Christocentrism)와 종교다원성의 구원사적 정당성(pluralism de iure)을 서로 충돌 없이 통합하는 모델이다. 그는 이 목적을 위해 통일성과 다원성의 결합을 특징으로 하는 삼위일체론의 해석학적 반성을 시도한다. 그가 삼위일체론의 해석학적 반성을 통해 의도하는 것은 하느님의 구원 경륜 안에서 예수 그리스도의 구원 사건보다 더 포괄적이고 초월적이며, 독립적인 하느님의 활동의 실재를 확보하려는 것이다. 그는 그 실재를 하느님의 “비육화적 말씀”(Logos asarkos)의 작용과 “성령 그 자체”(the Spirit as such)의 제약받지 않는 행위로 설명하고 있다. 요컨대 뒤퓌는 “비육화적 말씀”과 “성령 그 자체”의 작용에 대한 논증을 통해, 하느님의 구원의 경륜 안에서 타종교들이 그분 은총의 매개자로서의 정당한 위치를 차지하고 있음을 밝히고자 한 것이다. 본고는 결론에서 뒤퓌가 시도한 종교다원성의 신학이 새로운 종교신학적 모델로서 어떤 의의가 있는지를 평가한다. Jacques Dupuis’ book, Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism, brought about enormous responses and reactions from theologians in different continents, some of them, including the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican, were very concerned by Dupuis’ theological positions. The aim of this paper is to examine Dupuis’ “trinitarian Christology”, on the basis of which he grounds his theology of religious pluralism. His main arguments consist in the insistence of the universal presence and action of the Word as such(Logos asarkos) and the Spirit as extending beyond that of the risen incarnate Word(Logos ensarkos). For him, these arguments serve for a more positive appreciation of the salvific role of other religious traditions in view of that these traditions are the partakers in the salvific economy of the unbound Word and Spirit. The central question raised from this study of Dupuis’ theology of religious pluralism is the following: Is Dupuis’ attempt on “trinitarian Christology” successful, as he wishes, for providing adequate resources for claiming both the authenticity of Christian revelation and a genuinely positive acceptance of religious pluralism(pluralism de iure)? Our analysis shows that his theological attempt for achieving the above-mentioned goal left some important points unclarified, and this lacuna contributes to making the prospective of his theological model dubious for the future of the theology of religions.