영국에서의 宗敎와 國家- 잉글랜드 國敎會 法制의 변천을 중심으로

신명(Shin, Myoung),민경식(Min, Kyoung-Sik) 중앙대학교 법학연구원 2012 法學論文集 Vol.36 No.3

In the formation of relationship between religion and state or church and politics, the United Kingdom underwent a special course. From the aspect of state formation, the United Kingdom seems to be an alliance of such four non-independent states as England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Until the United Kingdom achieved the current system of kingdoms united, the four non-independent states had repeatedly combined or separated in order to obtain supremacy over the rest. In that course, religion played a crucial role. As a tool of their dominancy, political forces either gave a special position to a specific Christian denomination or church, thus making it a juristic person as a state church, or fought to reject other denominations as heresies, As a result, since the Middle Ages, occasionally repeated in the realm of the United Kingdom was the establishment of state church, which officially recognized a specific Christian denomination or church as 「a state church」, or the dis-establishment of state church, which broke away from the former position of approved church. Eventually, England has Anglican Church of Protestantism as its state church, whereas Scotland has Presbyterian Church of Scotland as the counterpart of England for the present. Therefore, the United Kingdom seems to have a peculiar system of religion and politics, namely one Parliament politically and two established Churches religiously. This study examined the establishment of Church of England in England and the change of its legislation. As supremacy of combined states, England was dominated by Roman Catholic Church and Vatican since Roman conquest of Britain. However, Henry Ⅷ denied Pope’s supremacy and broke away from the Roman Catholic System, thus establishing its own state church system on the basis of Anglican Church of Protestant Denomination. Once it returned to Roman Catholic System, but the United Kingdom has maintained a state church system until now, based on Anglican Church of confessed Protestantism. In this study, the general aspects of Anglican Church system in England, such as its meaning, characteristic and organization, were examined first (Ⅱ). And then the legislative change of state church was looked into, focusing on Acts of Parliament, out of a variety of legislative sources (Ⅲ). Acts of Parliament are a variety of state laws, enacted by Parliament to maintain the unity or separation of state and religion, and had played an important role of church laws in the formation of Anglican Church in England for a long time before the right of independent enactment of state church law was given to General Synod in 1919.

정교분리의 관점에서 본 교회와 국가의 관계에 대한 비판적 성찰: 미국, 프랑스, 독일을 중심으로

이상조(Sang Jo Lee) 장로회신학대학교 세계선교연구원 2019 선교와 신학 Vol.49 No.-

오늘날 기독교 국가로 인식되고 있는 미국, 프랑스, 독일은 명시적으로 정교분리를 규정하고 있다. 역사상 정교분리를 헌법적 원리로 채택한 첫 번째 나라는 미국으로 1791년, 연방수정헌법 제1조에서 정교분리 정책을 채택하였다. 전통적으로 가톨릭 국가로 여겨지던 프랑스는 1905년, 제 3공화국 시절 “교회와 국가의 분리에 관한 법률”을 제정하여 정교분리를 천명하였다. 종교개혁의 나라 독일은 바이마르공화국 시절인 1919년에 제정된 법률에 따라 ‘국교’를 부인하고 정교분리의 원칙을 명시하여 오늘에까지 이르고 있다. 그렇다면 오늘날 세속화되고 정교가 분리된 사회에서 교회와 국가는 어떤 식으로 관계를 맺어야 각각 독립적이면서도 서로에게 견제·협력적이고 보완적인 존재로서의 기능을 수행할 수 있을까? 칼뱅의 개혁교회 전통에 따르면 교회와 국가는 각각 하나님이 만드신 제도로 서로 독립되어 있으면서도 때때로 서로에게 협력과 견제의 기능을 수행해야 하는 기관이다. 정교분리의 원칙을 규정한 우리나라에서 개혁교회의 신학적 입장처럼 교회가 국가에 대해 공적 책임을 지닌 기관으로 존재할 수 있을까? 아니면 교회는 사적(私的)이고 영적인 영역에만 관여해야 할까? 또한 국가는 신앙의 영역에는 중립을 지키며 어떤 종교에 대해서도 관용적인 태도만을 취해야만 할까? 교회와 국가가 서로의 영역을 침범하지 않으면서도 상호 협력적인 모습을 취할 방법은 있을까? 정교분리 사회에서 그러한 관계를 형성하고 있는 실제적인 예가 있을까? 본 논문에서는 정교분리를 헌법적 원칙으로 규정한 미국, 프랑스, 독일의 경우를 서로 비교하여 살펴보아, ‘교회와 국가 간의 관계’가 어떤 특징을 갖고 있는지 신학적으로 분석하고, 다종교사회인 우리나라에서 교회와 국가의 관계가 어떤 방향으로 나아가야 하는지 구체적인 대안을 모색하고자 한다. The United States, France, and Germany, which are recognized as Christian states, explicitly define a constitutional principle about separation of religion and state. Separation of church and state in the United States The first country in history to separation of church and state as a constitutional principle was the United States, in 1791, which adopted the policy of separation of church and state in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. France, traditionally regarded as a Catholic state, enacted the “Section of Separation of Church and State” in 1905, proclaiming the separation of church and state. Germany enacted in 1919, during the Weimar Republic, a constitutional principle about separation of religion and state. But, how can the church and the state be related in a secular society to function as independent, cooperative, and complementary ones? According to Calvin"s Reformed tradition, the church and the state are each God-created institutions that are independent of each other but sometimes have to function as co-operation. Can the church exist as an institution with public responsibility for the state, as in the theological position of the Reformed Church in our country that defined Separation of church and state? Or should the church only engage in private and spiritual realms? Should the state remain neutral in the realm of faith, and should only be tolerant of any religion? Is there a way for the church and the state to be cooperative without interfering with each other? Is there a practical example of such a relationship in a society separated from politics and religion? In this paper, we compare the cases of the United States, France, and Germany, which defined Separation of church and state as a constitutional principle, and analyze theological characteristics of the relationship between church and state. I would like to find a concrete alternative about the direction of the relationship between church and state in Korea.

A Study on Socio-Political Participation for Christian Churches

Lee, Eun-Kyoo 한국실천신학회 2009 신학과 실천 Vol.0 No.21

The socio-political participation of Christians in the world is directly connected with how they think of the world and, specifically, how they view the relationship between the church and state. Now, in Korean Churches, some of Christians have done forming a Christian political part, the issue of pastor's indiscreet declaration, and the role of pastor's leader of NGO, etc. as alternatives about Christian political participation. Most Christians ask that such participation is biblical. And the complication of liberal and conservative in society come from Christian community. Should the church participate in worldly affairs? Does the church reside above or within the state? In an attempt to answer these questions, this paper examines the relationship between the church and state and the problem of social participation from a biblical perspective. The argument presented in the first section is that as long as the individual Christian is a member of the church as well as a constituent of society, the church will always have a social as well as a religious character. As a result, the Christian should have a great deal of interest and concern about things in society and should not isolate himself or show apathy towards it. The second section provides a historical context to the relationship between church and state and also identifies the major ideologies that have shaped Christian views on this issue. The final section presents a methodology to apply the biblical principles of social and political participation to the Korean Church, as well as a review of historical applications and lessons. The biblical conclusion of the issues surrounding the independence and dependence of church and state (both under God’s authority) is active political participation and subordination to the institutions of the state and politicians. However, Christianity must be the nucleus that guides the interaction between the government and society and reforms political activities through biblical principles and evangelization. Therefore, Christian believer who are uncritical of politics must repent as when politics become more difficult they must bear the responsibility of "praying for the state and politicians" and must make greater efforts at evangelization to reform the political system through biblical principles. More importantly, they must not take sides during political turmoil. we must act upon the wisdom imparted in the Bible that says "fighting evil with evil to bring upon change is a slight to God's divine power of intervention." But the separation of church and state does not mean that they have no relations whatsoever. Church and state are mutually related in the normal affairs of life. Quite obviously there are grey areas in the relationship. But one thing is clear, neither church nor state should exercise over the other. History record that a free church in a free state proves a blessing to both.

칼 바르트(Karl Barth) 신학에 있어서의 교회와 국가

김명용 장로회신학대학교 장로회신학대학교 2009 장신논단 Vol.0 No.35

Karl Barth's understanding about the church and the state changes rapidly in his life. In the Roemerbrief(1922) the state has no relation to the kingdom of God, because God has no earthly tool in the world. The church also is not an agent of God's worldly action. The kingdom of God exists in the heaven, not on the earth. There is no analogy of the kingdom of God on the earth. In the period of Barmer theologische Erklaerung(1934) Barth thinks that there are three modes of God's Word. Jesus Christ, the Bible, and the church are these three modes. According to Barth in this period the church is the worldly tool which God uses. But in the world outside the church there is no holy tool which God uses. The state has no positive meaning in relation to the kingdom of God. In the Christengemeinde und Buergergemeinde(1946) we can find an important development in the understanding of Karl Barth about the church and the state. According to Barth we must try to make analogies of the kingdom of God in the state. Barth begins to understand the state in the light of the kingdom of God. The Lord of the church is the Lord of the world. Jesus Christ rules not only in the church but also in the state. The light of the kingdom of God must appear in the world. It must appear in the political area. Although Barth apposed any analogy of the kingdom of God in the political area because of Adolf Hitler in the period of Barmer theologische Erklaerung, he tries in this new period to build a theology which says worldly analogies of the kingdom of God. According to Barth the capital punishment must no longer exist, because Jesus Christ died for the sinner. The light of the death of Jesus Christ must appear in the state system of punishment. The state is not an agent of God's judgement. It must be an agent of God's grace. It is a total new idea of Barth to understand the state in the light of God's grace. According to Barth the analogies of the gospel must be established in the state. Must we kill Adolf Hitler? According to Barth we must kill him. It is an exception. It is an urgent case. In the urgent situation like Adolf Hitler God orders us to kill him. It is God's command. But in the normal situation killing must be forbidden. The capital punishment also must be forbidden. According to the christian tradition like J. Calvin and M. Luther the state uses coercive power to establish justice and peace in the world. But according to Barth the use of coercive power must be limited in the urgent situation. The state exists to help the people. The light of the gospel must be shone in the state. Is there any right war in the world? Yes, only in the urgent situation like Adolf Hitler. Jesus Christ on the cross teaches us that the real path to peace is love. Power against power is not the path to peace. The spirit of Jesus Christ must rule over the world to establish peace. The coercive power is not the path to peace. According to Barth in the situation of nuclear war there is no right war because it means total destruction. It is nonsense to insist that we must defend our nation with nuclear weapons.

교회-국가 관계에서 본 종교의 자유

최영호 한신인문학연구소 2009 종교문화연구 Vol.- No.12

This study aims to clarify the function of the freedom of religion, especially focusing on the church-state relationship in three countries-U.S.A., Germany, and South Korea. In Constitution level, freedom of religion is prescribed separately from that of conscience in Korea. On the other hand, in U.S.A., there only provided freedom of religion and that of conscience is construed to be included in freedom of religion, In Germany, both sorts of freedom are stipulated in the same clause. The differences of the latter two countries from the former one have roots in history that freedom of conscience had been obtained from struggles for freedom of religions and therefore mode of living in those societies has been formulated and regulated by religion. On the issue of church-state relationship, the Supreme Court of U.S.A. construed in former days that the state should be strictly separated from the church. But in recent days it has decided in some different positions, namely the position that the state should not be separated from but be neutral to the church, or the position that the state should appreciate the value of religion and therefore accommodate religion. In Germany, the Constitutional Court has accepted the position that the state should be neutral to the church. In this the term 'neutral' means non-intervention, non-identification, equality and co-operation. But among these four elements the former three are equivalent to separation. Therefore the characteristic element of Germany is co-operation of state and church. And in case of contradiction of separation principle and co-operation principle, C.C. pursues harmony by the principle of free and voluntary participation of individuals. In Korea, the principle of separation between church and state is clearly stated in the Constitution. This contains the following sub-principles: ban of establishment of state religion, Prohibition of religion education or practices by the state, prohibition of preferential/discriminative treatment of a specific religion or religions in-general, non-intervention of the church affairs by the state and vice versa. But the fundamental meaning of freedom of religion to spiritual existence of individuals and dignity of human being is not appropriately appreciated in related judicial decisions. The critical point of church-state relationship lies in how to deal with truthness of religion in relation to freedom of that. To my view the ideal model of church-state relationship could be founded in the principle that freedom of religion is an essential prerequisite to pursuing the truthness of religion.

항쟁파¹(Remonstrants)의 교회와 국가의 관계: 위텐보가르트(Johannes Wtenbogaert: 1557-1644)를 중심으로

안인섭 ( Insub Ahn ) 한국개혁신학회 2018 한국개혁신학 Vol.60 No.-

본 논문은 도르트 총회로 가는 과정에서 항쟁파(Remonstrants)의 교회와 국가의 관계를 연구하기 위해서 네덜란드에서 신앙의 문제와 국가가 어떤 관계를 가지는지 그 법적이고 역사적인 구조를 형성했던 헨트 평화조약과(De Pacificatie van Gent: 1576) 우트레크트 연합(De Unie van Utrecht: 1579)을 주목하여 살피고 있다. 그 핵심은 각 주는 칼빈주의나 로마 가톨릭이나 구별하지 않고 개인의 신앙의 자유를 보장해 주어야 한다는 것이다. 특히 우트레크트 연합의 제13조는 종교 문제는 주 정부가 의회의 조언을 따라서 제정된 법으로 다루라고 명시하고 있다. 이것은 종교개혁 이래 근대 사회에서 개인의 종교의 자유를 보장한 선도적인 중요한 개념이었다. 이에 근거해서 아르미니우스주의자(Arminians)나 호마루스주의자(Gomarists)나 모두 국가는 개인의 신앙적인 자유를 보장하며 교회의 문제에 국가가 간섭하지 않는다는 전제를 가지고 있었다. 이런 맥락에서 위텐보가르트(Johannes Wtenbogaert: 1557-1644)는 당시 네덜란드 지역에서 가장 강력한 주였던 홀란드의 의회에 신학적인 내용인 항쟁서(Remonstrance)를 제출했다. 그러나 호마루스는 이에 맞서서 국가가 회의는 소집하되 전국적 총회에서 이 문제를 해결해야 한다고 보았다. 이 둘은 지역주의와 전국주의의 차이는 있었지만 결국은 모두 헨트 평화회의와 우트레크트 연합의 정신과 연속성에서 이해하고 있었던 것이다. 위텐보가르트의 신학적 동반자인 아르미니우스는 국가교회적이고 지역분권주의적인 교회와 국가론을 견지하고 있었는데 이것은 위텐보가르트와 일맥상통하는 것이었다. 도르트 총회로 가는 과정에서 아르미니우스주의자들을 주도했던 위텐보가르트의 교회와 국가의 관계에 대한 사상은 1610년에 5대 항쟁서와 함께 출판된 “교회 문제에 대한 고위 기독교 위정자의 직무와 권위에 대한 논문(Tractaet van’t Ampt ende Authoriteyt eener hooger Christelijcker Overheydt in Kerckelycke Saeckken [Tractate on the office and authority of a higher Christian magistracy in ecclesiastical affairs])”에 가장 잘 나타나 있다. 이 중요한 책에 근거하면 위텐보가르트의 교회와 국가론은 인간의 이성과 자유 의지에 근거한 것이 아니었다. 국가의 최고 위정자를 하나님의 말씀의 권위 밑에 놓으면서, 국가의 위정자의 권세는 하나님과 그의 말씀 아래 존재하지만 성직자보다는 우위에 있다고 말하고 있다. 그러면서 위텐보가르트는 호마루스주의자들을 교황주의자들이라고 비판하고 있다. 위텐보가르트가 말하는 군주는 기독교 위정자여야 한다. 위텐보가르트는 위정자와 성직자 모두를 하나님 아래서 각각 동등한 권위를 가지고 상호 복종하는 관계로 보았으며, 교회와 국가는 하나님이 세우신 기관으로서 상호 상대의 권한에 침범해서는 안 된다고 주장했다. 그러나 위텐보가르트의 문제는 위정자들이 얼마나 성경의 깊은 의미를 깨달을 수 있는지와, 기독교 위정자들이 얼마나 신실하게 성경적인 정치 활동을 할 수 있는지를 담보할 수 없다는 데 있다. 또한 위텐보가르트는 국가가 신학을 결정할 수 있다고 믿었던 점에 있어서 신앙의 자유 차원을 넘어 국가에게 성경적인 정신을 초월하여 과도한 신학적 결정권과 권한을 부여해서 국가교회적인 에라스투스주의(Erastianism)의 함정에 빠지고 말았다. 또한 교회가 국가로부터 자유롭고 교회가 국가로부터 독립해야 한다는 점을 충분히 강조하지 못함으로 근세 역사 속에서 불의한 정부에 대한 저항을 설명할 수 없는 논리적인 약점이 존재한다. 이 점은 위텐보가르트가 호마루스보다 칼빈이나 베자로부터 더 멀리 떨어져 있다는 것을 보여준다. This thesis deals with the relationship between the church and the state that appeared in the Remonstrants with a focus on Wtenbogaert (1557-1644). In order to research this, we must turn our attention to the issues of the church of the Netherlands and its relationship with how its laws and history were formed by looking at “De Pacificatie van Gent” (1576) and “De Unie van Utrecht” (1579). The point was that each individual needed their freedom of religion to be insured and guaranteed so that meant the state should not persecute any kinds of religion. This is expressed clearly in the law that was established by state parliament regarding the issue of religion, especially in Article 13 of “De Unie van Utrecht.” This concept of protecting and ensuring one’s religious freedom has guided the society to modern times. Grounded on this, Arminians and Gomarists presume that the State should not interfere with the issues of religion since the State supports and ensures that the individual can have religious freedom. Following in the same of thought, Johannes Wtenbogaert presented his theological Remonstrance to the council of Holland which was the most powerful region in Netherlands at the time. Arminius, theological companion of Wtenbogaert, showed particularism and decentralization concerning Church and State matters, which echoed those of Wtenbogaert. The Gomarists tried to summon a national conference that in order to solve this issue they must have a national synod. Though there were differences between regionalism and the whole country, they could understand the mentality and the continuity of De Pacificatie van Gent and De Unie van Utrecht. Following this, the Gomarists tried to summon a national synod saying that in order to solve this issue they must have a national synod. In the process of the coming of the Synod of Dort, we can see most clearly the ideology the Arminians, led by Johannes Wtenbogaert, regarding the relationship between the church and the State in the published “Remonstrance” and “Tractate on the office and authority of a higher Christian magistracy in ecclesiastical affairs” (Tractaet van’t Ampt ende Authoriteyt eener hooger Christelijcker Overheydt in Kerckelycke Saeckken). Based on this important book, Johannes Wtenbogaert did not want to base his ideology of the church and the State on human reason or freedom of will. He placed the Chief of State to be under the authority of God’s Word. The Chief of State’s authority exists under God and His Word but is above clergy. At the same time, Johannes Wtenbogaert criticizes Gomarists as those who follow the Pope. The monarch that Wtenbogaert wants is one who is the head or on top of the Christian church. Wtenbogaert states that statesmen and clergy are all under God and each have equal authority which they both have to mutually adhere to. He saw it that the church and the State are both God-established institutes so they must not encroach on the authority of one another. But the problem with Wtenbogaert is that there is no guarantee of how deep of an understanding of God’s Word the states person or those who govern have realized nor how faithful the Christian leader is in doing political activity according to the Bible. Also, Wtenbogaert believed that the State can decide and determine the theology of the nation which goes beyond religious freedom to granting excess authority and decision-making power regarding the matters of theology to the State which makes it fall under the trap of Erastianism. Furthermore, due to the fact that the point that the church must be free from the government and State was not emphasized enough, there exists the weakness of not being able to logically explain the resistance of the immoral or unjust government in modern times. From this we can see that Wtenbogaert was farther away from Calvin or Beza than Gomarists.

로마제국과 초대교회와의 관계사

김유준 한국대학선교학회 2017 대학과 선교 Vol.35 No.-

In the first and second centuries the early Church obeyed the Roman Empire through patience and martyrdom, and in the third century that differ- entiated itself from the secular state. After the fourth century when Christianity was legalized, however, it was generally that the Church closely cooperated and agreed with the secular state, except for a few venerable church fathers. While the Roman Empire of the first and third centuries main- tained a persecution or a hostile attitude toward the Christianity, but after the fourth century, it assigned the Church's tolerance and preferential treatment as the imperial religion for the unity and peace of the Roman Empire. Although the legalized Church restrained and criticized the problems of the State, the secularization was general. And the priority of the Church-State re- lationship was in the State. As having a superiority of the faith and doctrine, the supremacy of the Church over the State intensified. Although the religious freedom was obtained from the fruits of martyr- dom, the identity of the Church perverted with the reason of personal ambi- tions and political intentions. Then, pious church fathers indicated criteria which were not based on the power and law, but based on the biblical faith and ethics. While the early church dialecticians estimated that the early Church Christians had favorable and pragmatic attitudes of the State, even if in the pressure and persecution. The reverend church fathers considered the Church and State as the es- sential relationship of complementary cooperation for the realization of the reign of God in this world. However, they asserted the complete supremacy of the Church over the State in the region of doctrine and faith. In other words, church fathers such as Athanasius, Ambrosius, and Augustinus in- sisted obviously their opinions for the protection of doctrine, faith, and church order, even though they were infront of Romanemperors. This atti- tude, in the Eastern Church, was succeeded to the Emperors as the protector of the genuine faith, but in the Western Church, this attitude was gradually inherited to the aspect of the separation of the Church and the State with so diverse factors. 1-2세기의 초대교회는 인내와 순교를 통해 로마제국에 순응했고, 3세기 에는 세속국가로부터 구별을 더욱 엄격히 했다. 하지만 기독교가 공인된 4세기 이후에는 일부 경건한 교부들을 제외하고는 세속정치화를 위한 긴밀 한 협력과 동조가 보편적이었다. 반면, 1-3세기의 로마제국은 박해나 적대적 인 입장이었지만, 4세기 이후에는 제국의 통일과 평화를 위해 국가종교로서 의 관용과 특혜를 부여했다. 공인된 이후에 교회는 국가에 대한 견제와 비판 을 가했지만, 세속화가 일반적이었고, 주도권도 국가에 있었다. 교회의 신앙 과 교리적 영역에 대한 우위를 드러내면서, 교회의 주도권은 점차 강화되었 다. 순교의 열매로 획득한 신앙의 자유가 오히려 개인적 야심과 정치적 의도 로 교회의 정체성이 변질되자, 경건한 초대교부들은 권력과 법률이 아닌, 하나님의 말씀에 기초한 신앙과 윤리의 기준을 제시했다. 한편 초대교회 변증가는 핍박과 순교의 상황 속에서도 그리스도인들이 국가에 대해 호의적 이며 공리적인 태도를 취했다고 보았다. 경건한 교부들은 하나님의 나라를 이 땅에 실현하기 위해 국가를 필수적 인 존재로 보며 교회와 상호보완의 관계로 여겨졌지만, 교리와 신앙의 영역 에 있어서는 교회의 철저한 우위를 주장했다. 즉 아타나시우스와 암브로시 우스, 그리고 아우구스티누스와 같은 교부들은 교리와 신앙, 그리고 교회질 서 수호를 위해서 황제의 권력 앞에서도 강력하게 대처했다. 이러한 태도가 동방교회에서는 황제가 교회의 순수한 신앙 수호자로 계승하게 되었지만, 서방교회는 점차 다양한 요인으로 교권과 속권의 분리 양상으로 나타났다.

복음주의 진영의 사회 참여에 나타난 교회와 국가의 관계

김명배(Myung Bae Kim) 장로회신학대학교 세계선교연구원 2007 선교와 신학 Vol.20 No.-

The purpose of this dissertation is to study the relation between Church and state in the social participation of Conservative Group in Korean protestant church at 1980s. Because of the lack of political theology, Korean protestant churches show the theological differences in the relation between Church and State, and also act the diverse practices in the social participation. In this period, On the one hand Progressive Group devoted to democratization and human dignity movements, On the other hand Conservative Group devoted to evangelization, asserting the separation between church and state. This opposition between Progressive Group and Conservative Group basically originated from the differences of perspective on the relation between church and state. Meanwhile, Conservative Group divided into two Groups. the one was a middle and evangelical Group, the other was a fundamental and conservative Group. The former positively asserted the social participation of church as a duty of christian. The latter negatively saw the social participation of christian, asserting the separation between church and state. The Korean Presidential breakfast Prayer Meeting is representative to the social participation of a fundamental and conservative Group during these days. But, In fact, this dissertation deals with the relation between church and state of the middle and Evangelical Group among the two groups. This dissertation primarily aims at a study about the social participation of the Evangelical Group in Korea Protestant Church. Therefore, this dissertation is historically to study the social participation of Evangelical Group, and then theologically to analyze the relation between church and state the social participation of Evangelical Group. At the same time, this dissertation is to inquire into the dimension of diversity in the social participation of Korean protestant Church. In order to obtain these purposes, this dissertation used the description-method of ecumenical church history that is seek to ‘unity in diversity’. This dissertation described the specific history of Korean church at the dimension of diversity, and then compared it with the universality of history of World Church at the dimension of unity. Specially, tills dissertation examined the theological relationship between two historical traditions, and compared the relation between church and state in Korean protestant church with the relation between church and state in 16 Century-Reformers(Luther, Calvin). As a result, in this dissertation, I have concluded that the relation between church and state of the middle and evangelical Group in korea is the a theory of Lordship of Christ that is a tradition of Reformed Church. And also in a notion of the right of resistance, the Evangelical Group has the right of resistance of Calvin.

한국 기독교에서 교회와 국가 관계: 선교 초기부터 해방 이전까지 정교분리 논의를 중심으로

최영근(Choi Young-Keun) 한신대학교 신학사상연구소 2012 신학사상 Vol.0 No.157

정교분리는 한국 개신교의 교회와 국가 관계를 규정하는 근본 원리로서, 종교의 자유와 종교 본연의 순수성을 지키기 위해서 정치적 중립과 정치 불간섭을 표방하는 종교적 신념이기도 하다. 그러나 정교분리는 주류 개신교의 사회 종교적, 정치적 이해관계를 지키기 위한 정치적 수사학의 기능을 하면서 다양한 맥락에서 복잡한 의미를 지녀왔다. 한편으로는 기성체제를 옹호하면서 정치적 저항을 금하기도 하였고, 다른 한편으로는 종교의 기치를 걸고 기독교의 이해에 반하는 정치 세력에 저항하기도 하였다. 이 논문은 선교 초기부터 해방 이전까지 한국 개신교의 교회와 국가 관계들을 정교분리의 관점에서 살펴봄으로써, 정교분리의 다양한 함의를 역사적 맥락에서 파악하고, 그 안에서 복잡하게 얽혀 있는 교회와 국가와 민족의 관계를 고찰하며, 이를 통해 오늘날 교회의 세속화와 정치화의 문제를 비판적으로 성찰하는 데 그 목적이 있다. 이 논문은 정교분리의 초기 네 시기를 개관한다: 기독교에 대해 배타적인 선교지에서 보호기제로 작용한 선교 초기, 정치적 민족주의로부터 교회를 분리하기 위해 자기정화의 기제로 작용한 대부 흥운동기, 일제의 탄압에 맞서 기독교적 가치와 교회를 보호하기 위해 예언자적 저항의 기제로 작용한 삼일운동기, 그리고 군국주의적 전체주의 국가에 의해 교회가 압도당한 일제말기. 결론적으로, 주류 개신교에서 정교분리 논의는 교회와 국가의 분리와 단절을 추구하기보다는 정치적 위기와 도전 속에서 기독교의 가치와 교회의 이해관계를 지키기 위한 수사학적 기능을 하였다. 오늘날 한국 교회에 심각하게 제기되고 있는 기독교의 정치화와 세속화의 문제는 교회가 본연의 순수성을 지키기 위해 자기정화의 기제로 정교분리를 우선적으로 회복할 것을 요청하고 있다. 그 바탕 위에서 교회는 사회를 향한 예언자적 사명을 감당할 수 있을 것이다. Separation of church and state has been a fundamental principle defining church-state relations in Korean Protestantism. It has been a religious rhetoric expressing political neutrality or noninvolvement to sustain religious freedom and integrity for Protestantism. Nevertheless, it often worked as a political rhetoric to maintain the socio-religious interests of the mainstream Protestantism: it prohibited political protest against state to support status quo on the one hand, and more actively offered religious resistance to the repressive political powers against Protestantism on the other hand. In this regard, separation of church and state is not so simple to define its reality without considering the varied contexts, in which the theory has been conditioned. This research historically investigates initial forms of churchstate relations in Korean Protestantism that would help to understand the later development and shed light on today’s problem about secularization of the church. This paper focuses on four initial stages, investigating how the rhetoric of separation of church and state worked in the different contexts. In the early period of Protestant mission, it functioned as the Protestant defense mechanism against the Confucian state hegemony. It worked as self-purification at the time of the Great Revival in 1907, through which the church separated from political nationalism, and conformed instead to the colonial hegemony. By contrast, it facilitated prophetic resistance to the repressive colonial state during the March First Movement in 1919 in order to protect Christian values and churches. In the last decade of Japanese imperialism, it hardly worked out while the totalitarian colonial state overwhelmed and maneuvered religion as a whole. Consequently, the discourses of separation of church and state advocated Christian values and defended ecclesiastical interests from political powers. Today’s problem on the secularization and politicization of Kor

개혁교회 전통에서 본 교회와 국가의 관계에 대한 연구

최윤배 한국조직신학회 2020 한국조직신학논총 Vol.58 No.-

기독교 역사 속에서의 “교회와 정치와의 관계 유형”, 곧 교회와 국가의 관계 유형을 다섯 가지로 분류하는 바, 그 유형들은, 곧 ① 중세 로마 천 주교회나 오늘날의 로마 바티칸공국처럼 교회가 정치권력을 지배하 는 경우, ② 국가가 교회를 지배하는 에라스티언니즘(Erastianism)의 영국 국교회인 성공회의 경우, ③ 16세기 재세례파처럼 교회와 국가가 서로 완전히 분리된 경우, ④ “루터파” 교회처럼 상호 독자적이면서 상 호 불간섭하는 경우, ⑤ “개혁파” 교회처럼 상호 독자적 영역을 인정하 는 동시에, 양자(兩) 영역에서 하나님의 주권(主權)을 실현하려는 경 우이다. 우리가 본 논문에서 분석한 바와 같이 “개혁교회 전통”에서 교회와 국 가의 관계 유형은 다섯 번째 유형에 속한다고 볼 수 있다. 다시 말하면, 개혁교회 전통은 대체로 교회와 국가의 독자적인 영역을 인정하면서, 양 영역에서 하나님의 주권을 실현하려는 유형이며, 두 왕국 사상에 따 라 교회와 국가의 독자적 영역을 인정하되, 국가의 영역에서도 하나님 의 말씀에 대한 순종이 이루어져야 한다고 주장한다. 그러나 교회와 국 가의 관계에 대한 이해가 개혁교회 전통 속에서조차도 넓은 틀 속에서 공통점을 가지면서도 각 시대에 따라 또는 같은 사람일지라도 그의 생 애에 따라 어느 정도의 편차(偏差)도 발견된다. The five types of “relationship between church and politics” in the history of Christianity, that is, the relationship between church and state, are: ① like the medieval Roman Catholic Church or today’s Roman Vatican, the church dominates the state, ② the Anglican Church, the state church of the Erastian- ism, where the state dominates the church, when they are mutually independent and mutually intrusive, ⑤ it is a case of realizing God’s sovereignty in both domains while acknowledging mutually independent domains like the “Reformed” church. As we have analyzed in this paper, the type of relationship between church and state in the “Reformed tradition” belongs to the fifth type. In other words, the Reformed tradition is a type that seeks to realize God's sovereignty in both domains, generally acknowledging the independent realms of the church and state, and acknowledges the independent realms of the church and state according to the ideas of the two kingdoms. However, while the understanding of the relationship between the church and the state has something in common in the broader framework, even in Reformed traditions, some variation is found in each age or even in the same person, depending on his life.