고려전기 상서 6부의 겸직 운영

류주희(Ryu Ju-hee) 한국역사연구회 2010 역사와 현실 Vol.- No.76

Sangseo 6bu(尙書6部) is a governmental institution dedicated to the state affairs of Goryeo, and is given much weight in the political structure and power system. Therefore, many studies on pluralism of Sangseosung have been done so far. This study examines the state of pluralism of Sangseo(尙書)ㆍSirang(侍郞)ㆍNangjung(郎中)ㆍWonoerang(員外郞) in general. The provision of Jeonsigwa(田柴科) and Nokbong(祿俸) is also considered in related to pluralism. Even though Jeonsigwa and Nokbong is not a criterion to distinguish main occupation from pluralism, it tends to interrelate to each other. As a result of the study on the state of Sangseo, Sirang, Nangjung, Wonoerang under Sangseo 6bu, it is evidenced that pluralism was widely practiced among some departments. Secretariate administration such as Jungseomunhaseong(中書門下省), Sangseo 6bu, Jungchuwon(中樞院)ㆍEundae(銀臺), literary administration such as Samsa(三司), Eosadae(御史臺), Hallimwon(翰林院)ㆍBomungak(寶文閣) and Donggunggwanbu(東宮官府) had appeared. Pluralism of Sangseo 6bu was widely spread among Jungseomunhaseong and SamsaㆍJungchuwonimportant power institutions of Goryeo, and literary bureaucrat such as Eosadae, Daegwan(臺官) and HallimwonㆍBomungak. This meant that the nature of pluralism of Sangseo 6bu was to concentrate the central administration onto the king, and to intensify the King's authority. As shown in the study, Sangseo generally held an additional post ranked the third grade(3品), and Sirang and Nangjung were widely ranked at the fourth(4品) and fiften grade(5品). The official rank was reflected in concurrent rank thoroughly, which indicates that the range and status of concurrent rank was defined by the official rank. That pluralism in Sangseo 6u was rampant confirms that the state administrative affairs were basically run with special reference to Sangseo 6bu. The core of pluralism is the dual position of Sangseo and Sirang, as they commanded more than 90% of Sangseo 6bu pluralism practices. Furthermore, the fact that officers of Sangseo 6bu hold offices within the power institutions such as Jungseomunhaseong and Jungchuwon indicates that pluralism was directly linked between the king and Sangseo 6bu to run the state administration efficiently. Sangseo 6bu had contributed to an effective state administration as pluralism made a smooth process possible. Accordingly, Sangseo 6bu played an important role in not only running a state administration, but also connecting diverse political institutions at the same time. The fact that the minister and viceminister of Si(寺)ㆍGam(監), a practical department frequently held a Jibusa(知部事) post in 6bu supports it is true. Thus, Goryeo had maintained an organic state administration under the power system through pluralism whose power source was Sangseo 6bu.

국제법 담론에서 법다원주의의 함의에 관한 연구

김성원(Kim SungWon) 국제법평론회 2017 국제법평론 Vol.0 No.47

The impact of globalization would be prevalent in every respect: politics, economics, culture and law. The aftermath of globalization would be marked as both opportunity and challenge in international law discourse because it dismantles the very foundation of international law, which is preserved in mothball of the state-centric structure of international society. Although states are still playing a pivotal role in shaping and operating the international society, this role of states is critically circumscribed by the rapid proliferation and increased role of the non-state actors in every aspect. Furthermore, this new phenomenon would not be limited in factual situation of the international society. Due to the very nature of law which is well described in Latin maxim Ubi societas ibi ius, international law is requested to reflect realities molded by the impact of globalization triggering the advent of heterogeneous legal norms of international institutions, international organizations, supranatioanal organizations, hybrid entities and non-state actors. These heterogenous legal norms such as non-state law, unofficial law and postnational law provide legal subjects with various rights and duties in overlapping jurisdictional situations. In this regards, as the fundamental legal system of the international society, international law should pay critical attention to the way of arranging the relationship with these heterogenous legal norm in relevant order. For the purpose of identifying international law as the fundamental legal system of the international society rightly, the alternative legal perspective would be desperately needed because the legal positivism understood as the mainstream perspective in the international law discourse would not have the flexible attitude towards the relationship between law and social realities. In this respect, legal pluralism, which pays considerable attention to legal realities via ‘living law’ perspective, would be suggested as the alternative legal perspective to the chaotic development in global legal system. This article seeks to grapple with the complexities of legal norms in a world where a single act or actors is potentially regulated by multiple legal or quasi-legal regimes. From the lens of legal pluralism, especially strong legal pluralism, this paper mainly tries to explore the possibilities of international law to transplant main gist of legal pluralism. This exploration would be examined through case studies addressing the debates about global constitutionalism, politics of self-contained regime conflicts, the relationship between international law and lex- and the encouragement of international law studies in comparative perspective. Owing to the risk, which might disregard the very assumption of legal pluralism, these case studies attempting to apply legal pluralism to international law discourse should be made in very cautious way. In this regard, the anticipated outcome of these case studies might not be welcomed by both scholars of international law and scholars of legal pluralism and global legal pluralism. However, this somewhat negative vista would not be used as a manifesto for blocking the channel for alternative studies demanded in the age of globalization. The attempt to apply legal pluralism to international law discourse might be turned out as much ado about nothing. Also, if case studies would be made upon the condition rooted in definitional stop approach, an attempt to apply legal pluralism to international law would be proven as sterile one that only confirms that there is nothing common about the relationship between international law and various kinds of heterogenous legal norms. Against all odds, it is high time for international law to rethink the positive impact of legal pluralism for identifying international law’s true status in the age of globalization because international law could not turn a deaf ear to roars other kinds of legal norm dema

다원성과 통합성의 조화 -고려사회와 라이프니츠의 조화론을 중심으로-

이근세 ( Keun Se Lee ) 한양대학교 동아시아문화연구소(구 한양대학교 한국학연구소) 2015 동아시아 문화연구 Vol.63 No.-

본 논문은 라이프니츠의 조화론을 개념 틀로 활용하여 고려 다원사회를 조명함으로써 사회의 안정적 운영 방안을 논의한다. 라이프니츠의 사상과 고려사회는 역사적으로 아무 접점도 없는 이질적인 영역을 각기 구성하지만 양자 모두 다원성과 통합성의 조화를 추구한다는 점에서 구조적인 유사성을 보인다. 고려사회는 다원성과 통합성이 조화와 균형을 이룰 때 번성한 반면 다원성과 통합성의 간극이 커지면서 결국 붕괴되었다. 이런 관점에서 다원성과 통합성을 가장체계적으로 조화시켰다는 평가를 받는 철학체계를 통해 역사를 조망함으로써 국가의 안정적지속성을 확보할 수 있는 방안을 모색하려는 것이 본 논문의 기획이다. 사회운영 방안과 관련하여 다원성은 이중적 측면의 잠재성을 갖는다. 한편으로 다원성의 확산은 견고한 통합성이 동반된 경우라면 중심세력과 지방세력이 적절한 긴장 속에서 서로 상대적인 자율성을 확보함으로써 사회의 안정과 발전에 기여하는 핵심적 기제가 된다. 다른 한편, 다원성과 통합성의 균형이 와해될 경우는 사회 구조의 변형이 불가피해지며 기존 사회가 붕괴되거나 다른 유형의 사회로 대체된다. 다원적 구조로 출발한 고려왕조의 발전과 쇠퇴는 바로 다원성과 통합성의 조화와 균형 여부에 의해 결정된 것으로 보인다. 라이프니츠의 조화론을 매개로 고려사회를 바라봄으로써 도출할 수 있는 현실적 교훈이 있다면 그것은 다원성과 통합성의 균형을 유지할 수 있는 구조적 장치를 적시에 마련할 때 사회적 안정성을 확보할 수 있다는 것이다. 이런 관점에서 본 논문은 크게 세 부분으로 나누어 논의를 진행한다. 첫째, 철학적 · 사회학적 관점에서 다원주의의 흐름을 개관한다. 둘째, 라이프니츠의 위상을 자리매김함으로써 그의 다원주의 개념을 규명한다. 마지막으로 라이프니츠가 제시한 다양성과 통합성의 조화 모델과 고려 사회의 다원주의를 비교 고찰함으로써 사회운영 방안을 위한 몇몇 의미를 도출한다. The main purpose of this paper is to discuss the ways of social management by considering Koryo Dynasty which is a plural society with the framework of Leibniz’s harmony theory. Leibniz’s philosophical ideas and the sociological tendency of Koryo Dynasty are historically not in any relationship with each other and each is comprised of its own heterogeneous areas. However, they share some meaningful structural similarity in respect that they both distinguishingly center on the harmony between pluralism and unity. It is noticeable for Koryo Dynasty to sustain a long period of stable prosperity just as pluralism and unity in it was in harmony and balanced, whereas it was insecurely disintegrated when the gap between them was critically increasing. In this perspective, this paper intends to explore the way of acquiring the stability of a society by taking a close look at the history through the very philosophical thought, which is considered as the most systematic theory for the harmony of pluralism and unity. Pluralism has a twofold potential with regard to social management. On the one hand, the spread of pluralism, if it is accompanied by solid integration, constitutes a key mechanism to contribute to the stability and development of a society. What makes it possible is in the way that central and local forces hold the relative autonomy through an adequate tension between them. On the other hand, in case of collapsing the harmony between pluralism and unity, thereby, the society inevitably experiences the transformation of its structure, and, further, the remaining society breaks down or is replaced by other types of society. Koryo Dynasty originally started as a pluralistic social structure, though, its rise and fall seems to have been determined by whether it successfully maintained the balance between pluralism and unity or not. If so, we are able to reach a possible and crucial lesson in the consideration of Koryo dynasty with the framework of Leibniz’s harmony theory, namely, that we can secure a stable society when timely settling the societal structural system which can provide the balance of pluralism and unity. In this regard, this paper focuses largely on three parts as follows. First, in philosophical and sociological perspective, it makes a general overview of pluralism. Second, it specifically determines the Leibniz’s concept of pluralism in his philosophical thought. Finally, it derives some meaningful ways when it comes to social management by comparatively considering both the Leibniz’s harmony model of pluralism and unity and Koryo Dynasty’s pluralism.

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.

합당한 다원주의와 경합적 다원주의

이진현(Lee, Jin-Hyun) 경북대학교 인문학술원 2013 동서사상 Vol.15 No.-

정치철학에서 다원주의는 정치적 영역에서 합의의 잠정성과 진리의 불확실성을 내용으로 한다. 오늘날 정치적 논의에서 다원주의라는 사실은 부정할 수 없는 것으로 받아들여지고 있다. 그러나 다원주의에 대한 이해와 이에 따른 안정성의 문제에 있어서는 상이한 입장을 보이고 있다. 특히 이 글에서 다루는 롤즈와 무페는 다원주의의 발생과 안정성의 문제에 있어서 서로 상이한 입장을 보이고 있다. 롤즈는 우리의 정치 문화에서 다원성은 이성의 부담 또는 판단의 부담에 의해 발생하고, 가치다원성을 개인의 차원에서 한정하고 공적영역은 합당성이라는 규제적 이념을 통해 사적인 가치다양성을 규제하면서, 공적이성을 통한 중첩적 합의를 확보할 수 있다는 논의를 전개한다. 이성에 의해 규제되는 다원성, 공적이성에 의한 중첩적 합의를 통한 안정성을 강조한다. 그러나 그의 논의에서 이성과 양립할 수 없는 다원주의 또는 자유민주주의에 동의하지 않는 다원주의는 처음부터 배제되기 때문에 합당한 다원주의의 한계일 것이다. 이와 함께 처음부터 합당성을 충족시켜야 하기 때문에 제약된 다원주의 일뿐 사실로서의 다원주의가 아니다. 무페는 차이를 다원성의 관념과 연결시키고, 갈등과 적대는 정치에 내재적이며 최종적인 합의가 성취될 수 없음을 강조한다. 그녀는 정치철학 내에서 합의는 다원주의의 핵심적 특징인 잠정성을 바탕으로 도출되어야 한다고 본다. 다원주의가 합의의 잠정성과 진리의 불확실성을 내용으로 한다면, 롤즈의 합당한 다원주의에서 주장하는 공적이성과 중첩적 합의가 다원주의의 본의미를 제대로 담아낼 수 있을까? 이에 대한 대안으로 무페의 경합적 다원주의를 고려할 필요가 있다. 그녀는 갈등과 적대의 추상화를 통해 사회적 동의를 성취할 수 있다고 보지 않고, 이런 갈등과 적대를 추상화하기보다는 비트겐슈타인이 주장하는 이해가 아닌 화창으로서의 동의를 고려할 필요가 있다고 본다. 그녀의 주장은 우리가 한 사회에 동의한다는 것은 그 사회가 추구하는 것이 옳아서, 또는 합의해서가 아니라 원칙을 받아들인 상태에서 우리의 생활 속에 공유하고 있는 삶의 양식과 판단을 받아들이는 태도에서 비롯된다는 것이다. This paper is concerned with issues of ‘reasonalbe pluralism’ in John Rawls and ‘agonistic pluralism’ in Chantal Mouffe. John Rawls’s reasonable pluralism in political domain consist of the conceptions: the overlapping consensus, the public reason, reasonable and rational. he argues that modern democratic society in characterized not simple by a pluralism of comprehensive religious, philosophical, and moral doctrines but by a pluralism of incompatible religious, philosophical, and moral doctrines but by a pluralism of incompatible reasonable comprehensive doctrines. and that plurality of reasonable yet incompatible comprehensive doctrines is the normal result of the exercise of human reason. The reasonable regulates the ration, and supports the idea of public reason and the burdens of judgement. reasonable people support liberal frameworks. The public reason is the standary by which the public domain is to be regulated. The public reason which is exercised by discussing basic political problems mean to substitute the philosophical truth by political reasonable in the core of Rawls’s conceptions of political lies the idea of public reason by which the use of political power. Chantal Mouffe’s agonistic pluralism argues that conflict and division play in a agonistic pluralism. This is why she ends up proposing what can be called a ‘consensus’ view of democracy. Politics, especially democratic politics, can never overcome conflict and division. Its aim is to establish unity in a context of conflict and diversity ; it is concerned with the formation of a ‘we’ as opposed to a ‘them’. What is specific of democratic politics is not the overcoming of the we/them opposition but the different way in which it is drawn. When we accept that every consensus exists as a temporary result of a provisional hegemony, as a stabilization of power, and that it always entails some form of exclusion, we can begin to envisage democratic politics in a different way.

법다원주의의 이해

Brian Z. Tamanaha, 이상진(Lee, Sang - Jin) 원광대학교 법학연구소 2010 圓光法學 Vol.26 No.3

This article, an abridged Korean translation of “Understanding Legal Pluralism: Past to Present, Local to Global” by Brian Z. Tamanaha, explains about the conceptual problem plaguing legal pluralism and introduces a probable solution. Based on this conclusion, it devises a framework which categorizes the legal pluralism phenomena and further explores how these categories clash to what results. Legal pluralism has been heralded by scholars of legal anthropology, legal sociology, comparative law and international law as the theory elucidating the daunting multiplicity of legal orders. But despite all this attention, legal pluralism was marked by conceptual confusion from the very beginning. Participants of legal pluralism come from different disciplines, bringing different concepts and orientations to the subject. Also theorists were not able to agree on a single definition of law for social scientific purposes. If law is defined too broadly, it becomes impossible to discern from other social relationships. This article suggests a solution by regarding law as a “folk concept”; in other words law is what people think of as law. This simple approach can be expanded into a framework that divides the phenomena of legal pluralism into the following six categories: Official legalsystems; Customary/Cultural normative systems; Religious/Cultural normative systems; Economic/Capitalist normative systems; Functional normative systems; Community/Cultural normative systems. A single social arena can have one or more of these legal orders; co-existing legal orders tend to clash with each other for supremacy in redundant areas. Most often official legal systems tend to clash with the other five normative systems mentioned above. In such situations, the official legal system copes with the conflict in either of three ways. First, the official legal system might disallow the competing system but take no action to repress it. Second, the official legal system might absorb the competing system. Third, the official legal system might denounce the competing system, and then actively execute that claim. But if the competing system is more prominent in the social arena than the official legal system, the above methods might not operate as expected. Other from the prior systematic approach, the conflict between normative systems can be viewed from the perspective of individuals and groups. Strategic actors resort to the legal system that aligns with their cause and in making this decision they consider the barriers that exist in connection with each system. The forgoing framework brings on the same plane much of what is discussed by scholars interested in legal pluralism. Now with the conceptual problem of legal pluralism resolved, this framework will work as a practical tool in handling the plurality of law in all societies.

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

인도 선교사로 파송되었던 뉴비긴은 선교사역 초기에 인도에서 힌두교도들과 적극적인 종교간의 대화에 나섰지만, 무슨 까닭인지 시간이 갈수록 이런 열정적인 종교간의 대화를 지속하지 않았다. 무슨 일이 있었던 것일까? 필자는 뉴비긴의 후기의 삶에 나타난 타종교에 대해 가지는 소극적 대화 자세로의 변화에 대해 연구했던 밥 로빈슨의 주장에 기본적으로 동의하면서도, 이런 변화에는 또 다른 중요한 이유가 있는데, 바로 서구 후기기독교사회에서 새롭게 등장한 종교다원주의 때문임을 말하고자 한다. 따라서, 본고는 타종교 문제를 다룸에 있어서 뉴비긴의 관심이 종교간의 대화에서 종교다원주의 논쟁으로 이동한 것과 이런 변화의 선교적인 의미에 대해 관심을 가지고 연구한 것이다. 이런 변화를 논함에 있어서, 본고는 먼저 왜 뉴비긴이 많이 알려진 배타주의, 포괄주의, 다원주의로 구분하는 유형론을 배격하는지에 대해 논할 것이다. 그리고 다양한 형태로 나타나는 종교 다원주의의의 중요 논지들에 대한 뉴비긴의 비판적인 논쟁들을 살펴볼 것이다. 존 힉의 코페르니쿠스적 혁명 이론이나 폴 니터의 구원론적 종교다원주의, 케이쓰 워드의 수렴적인 종교다원주의에 대한 비판을 살펴볼 것이다. 마지막으로 왜 뉴비긴은 종교다원주의가 교회를 파괴한다고 비판했는지 논하려 한다. 결론적으로, 서구 기독교사회 안에서 종교다원주의가 기독교 신앙을 위협하는 새로운 세력으로 등장한 것이 뉴비긴의 관심이 점차 타종교와의 대화에서 종교다원주의 논쟁으로 이동하게 되었다는 것이 본고의 주장이다. 선교적인 관점에서 보면, 이제 뉴비긴은 서구의 후기기독교사회 속으로 다시 보냄 받은 선교사임이 분명하다. As a missionary sent to India Newbigin made a concerted effort to have interreligious dialogue with Hindus. He engaged in intensive interreligious dialogues with them, but such arduous endeavors did not continue in Newbigin’s life. What happened to him? Basically as I agree with Bob Robinson who has examined Newbigin’s reluctance toward interreligious dialogue in his later life, I would like to argue in this paper that the emergence of religious pluralism is another reason that he could not go on his interreligious dialogues. Thus, this paper is to examine the shift of emphasis in Newbigin’s life from interreligious dialogue to religious pluralism debate, and its missional implications. In discussing this shift, firstly it will discuss the reason that Newbigin rejects the well-known typology of exclusivism, inclusivism and pluralism. And then, it will look into the main themes of Newbigin’s critical debates with religious pluralism in different forms: the theory of the Copernican revolution of John Hick and the soteriocentric religious pluralism of Paul Knitter and convergent pluralism of Keith Ward. Finally, it will discuss why Newbigin criticizes religious pluralism as destroying the church. My conclusion is that the emergence of religious pluralism as a new force to threaten the Christian faith in Western Christianity has gradually changed Newbigin’s main concern from interreligious dialogues to religious pluralism debates. Here, from the missional perspective it is certain that Newbigin was sent again as a missionary into the Western Post-Christendom.

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.

Priest’s Problem and Non-Injective Pluralism

Roy T Cook 한국분석철학회 2014 철학적 분석 Vol.0 No.31

Stephen Read has recently formulated an objection ("Priest"s Problem") to logical pluralism (building on a thought by Graham Priest - hence the name) that suggests that one logic (the strongest of the acceptable candidates for correctness) will always be better than all others, since it is more informative with regard to the central task of logic - determining how we ought to (deductively) reason. In this paper I distinguish between two distinct forms of logical pluralism - injective pluralism (the sort defended by JC Beall and Greg Restall), and non-injective pluralism - and I then show that Priest"s Problem only affects injective pluralism: non-injective pluralism is immune to the objection.

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.