An Educational Approach to Theodicy : ‘Experiential Theodicy’ for the Sick through Spiritual Mentoring

Hwang, In-Hae 한국실천신학회 2020 신학과 실천 Vol.0 No.70

The purpose of this study is to put forth an educational approach to theodicy. I propose an ‘experiential theodicy’ through spiritual mentoring for the sick, who suffer one of the most prevalent suffering in the world. The methodology for this study is a modified version of R. R. Osmer’s ‘Consensus model’ of practical theology. I begin with a descriptive section that includes for context the concrete story of a sick man whom I had the chance to observe in a pastoral role and descriptions of three theological responses to his suffering: atheistic rage, understanding of sickness as punishment, and communal participation. In the interpretive section, I systematically explore diverse themes and types of theodicy in light of these theological responses: theoretical theodicy, practical theodicy, and the integrated view of the two. In the normative section, I select useful elements for an effective theodicy for the sick from critical discussions on the themes of theodicy: the sufferer’s voice, the compassionate God who suffers with the sick, emotional/spiritual healing within transformative suffering, and spiritual growth. With these elements, in the fourth, normative section I formulate an ‘experiential theodicy’ as an effective theodicy for the sick. In the final, pragmatic section, I show that the practice of spiritual mentoring can play an effective facilitating role in the process of experiential theodicy, and thus propose spiritual mentoring as the most suitable educational method for the sick. As conclusion, I argue that ‘experiential theodicy’ should be regarded as an effective educational approach to the sick. ‘Experiential theodicy’ has its purpose and method in common with Christian education, spiritual growth and mentoring, which allows ‘experiential theodicy’ to function as an educational approach to theodicy. Thus, this new type of spiritual mentoring for the sick should be added to the repertoire of the ministry of Christian educators.

신정론과 하나님의 고난 신정론 문제의 응답으로써 하나님 고난이 주는 의미

박영범 ( Young Bum Park ) 한국조직신학회 2012 한국조직신학논총 Vol.33 No.-

How do we say both the negative experiences of suffering and evil and our Almighty God altogether without contradiction? This paper does not attempt to present answers which have not provided so far to the Theodicy question. The main concern of this paper is to primarily discuss the appropriateness of the “Suffering of God” as response to the Theodicy question by investigating its relation to the “Suffering of God” which has been presented as an alternative explanation to the fundamental meaning of the Theodicy. To this end, the Theodicy question(Theodizeefrage) will be distinguished from the fundamental meaning of the Theodicy (Theodizeeproblem). Then, focusing on J. Moltmann and H. Jonas, in particular, among modern theologians, the concept of the “Suffering of God” will be reviewed. The review is intended to identify what connection the “Suffering of God” has with the Theodicy question and to investigate whether it is a way of answering the Theodicy question conclusively. The result of the discussion will show that, first of all, the answer to the Theodicy question(Theodizeefrage) is impossible and that Jonas and Moltmann also do not consider the concept of the “Suffering of God” as an answer to the Theodicy question. However, it will be revealed that a passionate inquiry on the fundamental meaning of the Theodicy (Theodizeeproblem) make us through the Theodicy question to look earnestly at the suffering in reality which has been lost. The concept of the Suffering of God is the one that has been revisited by identifying the critical questions implied in the fundamental meaning of the Theodicy. Second, the concept of the Suffering of God has changed the traditional metaphysical image of God which was effective in the past. God now participates in the human suffering experience in reality, instead of being Almighty. In addition, the consolation of Christ who is crucified on the cross is now expected along with the fellowship which is given in the suffering. When the secretive fellowship in crucified Christ is given in the place of suffering, they become humble at the same place. In this place, they feel that God participates in the suffering. In this place, they get relief and concern about the suffering of others. And they see the light of hope from God and get the new power to overcome the suffering. The theology of the Suffering of God, however, has also challenges. Theologians who speak of the Suffering of God tend to emphasize God`s love and goodness more than God`s almighty. Without a doubt, God`s love and goodness are his amazing grace. But the problem is that the more we emphasize his love, the more severe the suffering gets in reality. How can God of love tolerate this suffering? Why is God in silence for Auschwitz and natural disasters? At the same time, this helpless God should be able to explain his helplessness from the Eschatological perspective. The question of how this helpless and suffering God is going to overcome the suffering and to get rid of the evil still remains unanswered.

신정론 유형으로 본 한국의 신종교

김항제 ( Hang Je Kim ) 한국신종교학회 2012 신종교연구 Vol.27 No.-

신정론(Theodicy)이란 이 세상에 현존하는 악과 그에 따른 고통 그리고 불의에 대한 하나님의 의를 설명하는 신학적 성찰이라고 할 수 있다. 특히 이유 없이 당하는 고통과 그 고통을 당하는 의인들에 대한 신학적 성찰이다. 이러한 신정론은 오늘날에도 만연하고 있는 고통과 소위 고통 받는 인간 곧 의인 때문에 범종교적인 주제가 되고 있다. 특히 의인의 고통에 대한 신학적 이해는 어떤 종교든 관심하는 것이고 신종교 또한 같은 맥락에서 그에 대한 신학적 답변을 요청받고 있다. 한국 신종교의 신정론은 그 태생적 이유 때문에 대개의 경우 종말론적 신정론을 갖고 있다. 한국의 신종교도 기성종교(established religion)에 대한 종파(sect)의 성격을 갖고 태어났으며, 종파로서의 성격 중 가장 분명한 것은 종말론적 시대경륜론dispensation)을 갖고 있다는 점이라고 할 수 있다. 한국의 신종교의 시원으로 볼수 있는 동학(천도교)부터 그 사상적 특징 중 하나가 개벽사상 혹은 지상천국사상인 점을 보면 분명하다. 한국의 신종교는 내세에서의 복락만을 추구하지 않는다. 오히려 한국 신종교의 관심은 현세에서의 구원에 있다. 따라서 내세에 관한 교리가 없거나 미약하며 현세에서의 행복한 삶을 영위하는 교리가 지배적이다. 그러나 신정론 유형으로 본 한국 신종교는 대개의 경우 세월의 흐름에 따른 종말의 지연은 종말론적 신정론의 유형변화를 운명적으로 겪게 되었다. 이는 가치의 문제가 아니고 정체성의 문제라고 할 수 있다. 종파로서의 신종교가 발전하여 기성종교가 되지 말라는 법도 없기 때문이다. 다만 유형의 변화에 따라 정체성도 변화한다면 태생적 조건은 한계가 될 것이며 그러한 한국 신종교의 유형변화는 자신의 종말론적 역동성을 잃게 하며 그로 인해 한국사회에서 무시되고 결국은 도외시될 것이다.신정론이 종교문화를 형성하는 이데올로기라면 한국 신종교의 신정론 유형변화는 한국의 신종교가 형성해온 종교문화의 지형이 변화되는 것을 의미한다. 따라서신정론 유형변화에 따른 적절한 대응을 모색하지 않는 한국의 신종교는 생존을 가름하는 일도 일어날 수 있음을 성찰해야 할 것이다. Theodicy is a theological reflection on God`s justice explaining the reality of evil and its accompanying pain. Especially, Why do righteous people suffer from pain without any reason? How can they be consoled? Where is righteous God? Christian theology responds to these questions in the name of theodicy as well known. However, theological discussion about the pervasive pain is not only Christian problem but also all religions` problem. That is, theological understanding of the righteous people`s pain is the matter of concern to all religions including new religions. The pain of modern society results from social structure more than personal immorality. Theodicy can be politics of praxis to overcome the reality of pain and evil. Therefore, the politics of theodicy is a theological dialectic of the reality of sin and evil, and the participation in salvation today. The politics of theodicy is an active participation in God`s future against the reality of sin and evil. Consequently, it will be meaningful to examine the meaning and the type of theodicy in sociology of religion and the politics of theodicy of Korean new religions. Generally, new Korean religions inherently have eschatological theodicy. However, as the time goes by, the delay of the end of the world causes the change of theodicy type. This is not the problem of virtue but identity. A sect of religion may become an established religion later. But if the change of theodicy type causes the change of identity, it is possible to loose the eschatological activity of new religion. It could result in disregard in Korean society. If theodicy is an ideology establishing religious culture, the change of theodicy type will make change in the culture of new Korean religions. Therefore, appropriate reaction of new Korean religion is necessary for their survival.

Homiletical Theodicy for Preaching on Suffering

Seo, Ji-Ma 한국실천신학회 2021 신학과 실천 Vol.- No.75

Humans live by experiencing various types of sufferings. For this reason, it is evident that one of the topics of great interest in congregations is the question of suffering. The study aims to classify and examine the various types of suffering in order to effectively preaching on suffering, and to present a homiletical theodicy by discerning, and synthesizing the arguments of each theodicy. The detailed contents of this study are mainly composed of three parts. First, this paper will classify and examine the various types of suffering first according to the causes, scope, and theological purpose. One of the important things for preachers who preach on suffering is to understand it properly. This study will provide assistance to preachers so that they may preach on suffering in an effective manner by providing categorization of suffering. Second, this paper will examine various theodicies regarding suffering. Philosophers and religious intellectuals have proposed different answers to the issue of suffering. In this study, the writer will briefly review the arguments of these different theodicies and discuss how to effectively preach the theological positions of each theodicy in the sermon. Third, this paper will present a homiletical theodicy and explain it in detail. In particular, the writer will present a homiletical theodicy based on the basic elements of the meta-narrative, and the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Homiletical theodicy based on this meta-narrative can provide the audience with Christian perspectives on suffering. This homiletical theodicy might also provide preachers with insight as to what should be considered when preaching on suffering.

신정론으로서의 평화주의: 존 요더의 평화주의의 신정론적 독해

김기현 ( Ki Hyun Kim ) 한국기독교철학회 2016 기독교철학 Vol.22 No.-

이 논문은 존 요더의 평화주의적 신정론을 고찰한다. 전쟁과 폭력에 반대하는 평화주의는 고통과 악에 대한 대답인 신정론의 일부로 재구성될 수 있다는 것이 핵심 주장이다. 찰스 핀치스에 의하면 평화주의는 이론적 신정론에 대한 하나의 대답이다. 또한 이론으로서의 신정론이 갖는 약점인 실천을 지향한다는 점에서 하나의 대안이다. 그렇지만 요더 자신은 평화주의를 신정론으로 독해하는 것에 심한 거부감을 표현한다. 이론화된 신정론은 살아계신 인격으로서의 하나님을 죽은 자의 하나님으로 만든다고 본다. 그러나 나는 평화주의 자체가 하나의 신정론 이라는 핀치스의 주장에 동의한다. 평화주의는 이론적 신정론에 대한 하나의 대답이고 대안이다. 이론적 신정론이 아니라 실천적 신정론의 일부라고 생각한다. 나는 요더에 반하여 그가 명시적으로 거부한 신정론을 평화주의와 연결시킴으로써 핀치스를 옹호하고자 한다. 평화주의는 이 세상에 만연한 악과 고통에 대한 하나님의 궁극적인 해답을 제시한다. 그러나 지옥의 교리가 요더의 곤경이라고 말하는 핀치스에 반하여 그가 논리적 일관성을 지니며, 신정론으로 부합하다는 논지를 펼치고자 한다. 핀치스는 지옥(hell) 교리가 신정론에 맞지 않다고 말한다. 그러나 지옥은 평화주의와 신정론의 논리적인 귀결로 인정해야 한다. 마지막으로는 타자의 자유를 존중하여 폭력적으로 나의 의지를 강제하지 않는 평화주의야 말로 실천적인 자유의지 신정론이라고 주장한다. This article is to study on the pacifistic Theodicy of John Howard Yoder. It is central claim that Pacifism against war and violence is able to be reconstructed as a part of theodicy which defends God``s goodness and justice in the face of the existence of evil. According to Charles Pinches, Pacifism is an answer to the theoretical theodicy. Also, while the weakness of the theodicy is theoretical, it is possible to be an alternative to the theodicy in that pacifism seeks to praxis. However, John Yoder has a strong aversion to interpreting pacifism as a theodicy. He understands that the theoretical theodicy can make the living God into the God of the dead. However, I agree to Pinches who argues that pacifism be a kind of theodicy. Pacifism is an answer and an alternative to the theoretical theodicy. I suggest that it is a part of practical theodicy, not of theoretical. Pacifism provides ultimate answer to evil and suffering being rampant in the world. I support Pinches who tries to link theoodicy to pacifism, contrary to Yoder. But contrary to Pinches saying that the doctrine of Hell is Yoder``s predicament, I argue that Yoder has logical consistency and his approach is suitable to theodicy. Pinches says that the doctrine of Hell is at odds with theodicy. However, I argue that hell should be approved as the logical consequence of pacifism and theodicy. Finally, I suggest that pacifism is practical free will theodicy, which is not restricted to my will violently for the sake of other``s freedom.

대순진리회에서 신정론 문제

차선근 대진대학교 대순사상학술원 2019 대순사상논총 Vol.33 No.-

이 글은 기존의 신정론 유형들을 활용하여 대순진리회의 신정론을 기술한 것이다. 대순진리회의 세계관 내에서 신정론은 다음과 같이 기술될 수 있다: “대순진리회 세계관에서 악과 고통의 문제는 상극의 문제로 대치되어 기술된다. 대순진리회의 신정론은 선천, 그리고 천지공사 이후부터 개벽 직전까지 후천으로 넘어가는 과도기에만 논의할 문제이다. 후천에는 상극이 없기에 고통이 존재하지 않고, 신정론도 논할 필요가 없다. 선천과 과도기의 신정론은 각각 다르게 조명되어야 한다. 우주는 최고신이 전체적인 법칙을 주관하고, 실제 세부 운영은 하부 신명들이 담당하는 시스템으로 되어있었다. 우주의 운행에 있어서 만물은 상극과 상생이라고 하는 법칙을 갖도록 만들어졌다. 상생은 서로가 서로를 돕는 것, 상극은 서로가 서로를 극하는 것을 의미한다. 고통이 존재하는 이유는 상극이 존재하기 때문이다. 그런데 선천은 상극이 지배하는 시기였다. 그 이유는 성장과 발전이라는 가치를 구현해야 하기 때문이었다. 상극은 결코 악의적인 의도에서 마련되어진 것은 아니었다. 즉 상극은 본래 나쁘고 잘못된 것이라는 도덕적 가치를 지니지 않은 것이었다. 그러나 상극의 지배가 오래 지속되자 상극으로 인해 발생한 원한이 풀리지 못하고 누적되어갔고, 우주의 법칙을 운용하던 명부의 신명들도 종종 착오와 실수를 일으키곤 했다. 이것이 점점 심화되자 세상은 엄청난 재앙을 맞이하게 되었다. 이상의 상황을 ‘이원적 상극 신정론’이라고 명명할 수 있다. 신명들로부터 우주가 심각한 위기에 빠졌음을 보고받은 최고신은 우주의 실정을 살펴본 뒤 증산이라는 한 인간으로 강세하였다. 그가 천지공사를 시행하면서 개벽은 예정되었고 그에 따라 과도기가 시작되면서 신정론도 다르게 묘사된다. 그것은 개벽 때 대심판을 받는다는 사실, 그로써 신명ㆍ인간을 포함한 모든 악한 존재들은 소멸하고 지상에 천국이 열린다는 사실, 개벽이 도래하기 전까지 각자가 해원을 시도한다는 사실을 주 내용으로 한다. 이것을 ‘말세론적 해원 신정론’이라고 부를 수 있다. 대순진리회의 신정론은 이상 2개의 신정론을 핵심으로 삼으면서, 상황에 따라 영혼 성장 신정론, 자유의지 신정론, 배상 신정론, 내세적 신정론, 카르마 신정론, 참여 신정론, 교류 신정론 등을 중첩적으로 포함하고 있다.” This study aims to explain theodicy in Daesoon Jinrihoe using established theodicies. Theodicy in Daesoon Jinrihoe can be described as follows: within the worldview of Daesoon Jinrihoe, the problems of evil and suffering are better addressed by analyzing the problem of mutual contention. Accordingly, theodicy in Daesoon Jinrihoe is a matter which should be discussed only in regards to the time period known as the Former World and the transition period after the Reordering Works that leads up to the Later World. The Later World does not operate under patterns of mutual contention. Consequently, there will be no suffering. Therefore, issues of theodicy are irrelevant in the Later World. Theodicy should be dealt differently as it pertains to the Former World and the previously mentioned transition period. Daesoon Thought posits that there is an underlying principle presides over the cosmos, and the divine beings act in accordance with it and perform specific duties in their own subdivisions. The cosmic principle is able to contain cycles of both Sanggeuk (‘mutual destruction’ in general usage, but ‘mutual contention’ in Daesoon Thought related to the Former World) and sangsaeng (‘mutual generation’ in general usage and ‘mutual beneficence’ in Daesoon Thought related to the Later World). Suffering came into being due to mutual contention. However, mutual contention was not set into motion maliciously, but was arranged instead to facilitate the realization of greater values such as growth and development. In other words, mutual contention are not products of a moral value the nature of which is bad or wrong. Yet, since the world has operated under mutual contention from time immemorial, a nearly incalculably vast multitude of grievances have accumulated. In addition, the divine beings who had operated under mutual contention often made mistakes and spread confusion. This extreme situation resulted in tremendous disasters breaking out all over the world. Perhaps this particular theodicy could be named “Dualistic Sanggeuk Theology (Dualistic Theodicy of Mutual Contention).” After the divine beings reported to the Supreme God that the world had fallen into a serious crisis, the Supreme God penetratingly examined the circumstances of the world and then descended to Earth as a human being named Jeungsan. As Jeungsan practiced the Reordering Works of Heaven and Earth, the Great Opening was preordained by Him. As a result, the transition period started, and from that point onward, theodicy should be described differently. It is presumed that all creatures will be judged at the time of the Great Opening. This will result in the annihilation of all wicked beings including both divine beings and humans. There will also be the establishment of an earthly paradise as well as grievance resolution for all beings prior the Great Opening. This can also be called “The Eschatological Theodicy of the Resolution of Grievances.” Theodicy in Daesoon Jinrihoe adopts the two theodicies mentioned above. In addition to that, various theodicies from other traditions such as Irenaean (“soul-making”) Theodicy, Free Will Theodicy, Recompense Theodicy, Afterlife Theodicy, Karma Samsara Theodicy, theodicy of participation, and Communion Theodicy can all potentially be applied on a case by case basis.

말라기에 나타난 ‘신정론적 문제 제기’의 문학적, 신학적, 정경적 의미

유윤종 한국서양고대역사문화학회 2024 서양고대사연구 Vol.69 No.-

본 논문은 말라기 2:17; 3:13-15에서 제기된 신정론적 문제 제기에서 출발하여 말라기의 텍스트를 분석하여 그의 문학적, 신학적, 그리고 정경론적 의미를 탐구하는 데 목적을 둔다. 문학적 관점에서 신정론적 문제 제기를 중심으로 말라기를 분석함으로써 말라기의 전통적인 여섯 부분 구분이 아닌 다섯 부분의 교차 대구 구조로 분류한다. A. 무너진 정의에 대한 야웨의 책망(1:1-2:16) B. 이스라엘의 신정론적 문제 제기 (2:17) C. 야웨의 응답 (3:1-12) Bˊ. 이스라엘의 신정론적 문제 제기 (3:13-15) Aˊ. 종말에 이루어질 야웨의 정의(3:16-4:6) 위의 구조에 의하면 신정론적 문제 제기에 대한 야훼의 대응이 말라기의 핵심 주제임을 보여준다. 말라기 시대에는 유대 사회가 페르시아 식민지 상태에 있었으며, 하나님의 정의에 대한 조롱과 회의가 널리 퍼져 있었다. 말라기는 그러한 사회적, 종교적 불의에 대한 야훼의 책망을 반영하며, 궁극적으로 하나님의 정의가 종말에 이루어질 것으로 선포한다. 따라서 말라기의 신정론은 보상의 원칙에 입각한 계약적 신정론과 종말론적 신정론의 특성을 나타내며, 이 땅에서는 계약적 신정론이 지연될지라도 궁극적으로는 종말에 실현될 것이라 선포한다. 12 예언서의 마지막인 말라기는 12 예언서 전체의 정황에서 정경적 의미를 갖는다. 즉 말라기는 첫 번째 책인 호세아와 주제에 있어서 연결되어 있음을 나타내며, 계약적 및 종말론적 신정론을 동시에 보여준다. 호세아의 세 자녀의 이름은 계약적 신정론에 기반한 심판의 메시지를 전달하며, “종말”에 발생할 사건들은 종말론적 신정론과 관련되어 있다. 호세아와 말라기의 수미 상관관계는 12 예언서 전체를 통틀어 신정론이 중요한 주제임을 강조한다. 더 나아가, 말라기의 신정론은 페르시아 시대의 예언서인 학개와 스가랴와 연결되어 있으며, 계약적 및 종말론적 신정론을 공유한다. 학개와 스가랴에서는 성전의 재건이 계약적 신정론의 새로운 주제로 등장하며, 이 주제는 말라기에서도 계속된다. 학개와 스가랴의 종말론적 신정론도 말라기에서 이어진다. 말라기는 “내 사자”의 도래를 통한 회개라는 새로운 개념을 소개한다. 이는 페르시아 시대의 예언서와 말라기 사이에는 신정론의 연속성을 드러내며, 말라기 신정론이 더 종말론적이고 확신에 찬 구원과 심판의 메시지를 전달함을 보여준다. This paper starts with the issue of theodicy raised in Malachi 2:17; 3:13-15, and then analyze the text of Malachi to explore its literary, theological, and canonical significance. From a literary perspective, analyzing Malachi from the viewpoint of the issue of theodicy allows for a new classification of Malachi's structure, not according to the traditional six-fold division but as a chiastic structure with a five-fold division. A. Yahweh's rebuke for the broken justice (1:1-2:16) B. Israel's raising the issue of theodicy (2:17) C. Yahweh's response (3:1-12) Bˊ. Israel's raising the issue of theodicy (3:13-15) Aˊ. Yahweh's justice to be established in the eschatology (3:16-4:6) Therefore, Yahweh's response(C) to the issue of theodicy demonstrates itself as the central theme of Malachi. During Malachi's time, Judean was a Persian colony, with mockery and skepticism among the people regarding God's justice being widespread. The book of Malachi reflects Yahweh's rebuke for complaining about such social and religious injustices, ultimately proclaiming that God's justice will be established in the end. Consequently, Malachi's theodicy exhibits characteristics of covenantal theodicy and eschatological theodicy, declaring that although covenantal theodicy may be delayed on this earth, it will ultimately be realized in the end. Malachi as the last book of the Twelve holds canonical significance within the context of the book of the Twelve. As a result, it demonstrates a thematic correlation with the first book, Hosea, sharing covenantal and eschatological theodicy. The names of the three children in Hosea convey a message of judgment based on covenantal theodicy, and events to occur on the “last day” are related to eschatological theodicy. The correlation with Hosea underscores the importance of theodicy as a significant theme throughout the books of the Twelve. Furthermore, Malachi's theodicy aligns with the prophetic books of the Persian era, Haggai and Zechariah, sharing covenantal and eschatological theodicy. In Haggai and Zechariah, the reconstruction of the temple emerges as a new theme in covenantal theodicy, a theme that continues in Malachi. The eschatological theodicy in Haggai and Zechariah is also carried forward in Malachi. Malachi introduces a new concept of repentance through the arrival of “my messenger,” referring to the coming of Elijah. This reveals the continuity of Malachi's theodicy with the prophetic books of the Persian era and emphasizes that Malachi's theodicy conveys a more eschatological and assured message of salvation and judgment.

다원성과 모호성

손호현(Ho Hyun Sohn) 한국기독교학회 2012 한국기독교신학논총 Vol.82 No.-

Since Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz originally coined the term “theodicy” in 1710, probably based on St. Paul`s remarks in Romans 3:4-5, theodicy discourse tends to be considered an Enlightenment philosophical apology to defend God`s goodness and justice in face of evil in the world. Despite its potential biblical roots, however, Christian theodicists have largely ignored biblical theology and its immense resources. Consequently, theodicy and biblical theology are totally disjoined and separated from each other in contemporary debates. This article attempts to amend this undesirable situation by analyzing several theodicy motifs found in the Old Testament. Adopting and revising Ronald M. Green`s typology, the author suggests five theodicy models to be used for analysis: (1) the “free-will or retribution” theodicy, (2) the “educative” theodicy, (3) the “eschatological” theodicy, (4) “theodicy deferred” or “the mystery of suffering,” and lastly (5) the “communion” theodicy. Analyzing several important scriptural texts including the fall story of Genesis 2:5-3:24, Deuteronomistic history and Chronicler`s history in regard to the destructions of Israel and Jerusalem, the Book of Job, and the Book of Daniel, the article shows that various heterogeneous theodicy models are co-existing in tension and competing for its own validity over against other models in the Old Testament, without any one model totally dominating others. Based on this observation of radical plurality and ambiguity, the author suggests the following three theological conclusions. First, the plurality and ambiguity of biblical theodicy itself can be the most fundamental message of the Old Testament. It dissuades us from trying to provide a monotonous answer to the problem of evil, as well as from falling into an illusion that the Bible offers a clear solution of evil completely isolated from our existential hermeneutical decisions. Second, the plurality and ambiguity of biblical theodicy leads us to discover the importance of intertextuality of biblical books. Instead of merely focusing on each book`s isolated message, we learn that the very co-existence of various competing theodicies opens up a hermeneutical space of discourse on plurality and ambiguity. Through this character of intertextuality we encounter the fundamental provisional character of all our theological projects. Lastly, we must avoid a kind of bad pluralism in theodicy discourse. Despite its radical plurality and ambiguity, the Old Testament does not allow all types of theodicy as legitimately biblical but exclude a certain non-biblical type, for instance, a karma theory in Hinduism or Buddhism, which Max Weber considers as the perfect solution in theodicy. It may be a good, even a perfect, theodicy but not a biblical one.

Contextually Relevant Theodicies for Pastoral Care

Kim, Gi Chul 한국실천신학회 2013 신학과 실천 Vol.0 No.37

This article is an attempt to construct contextually relevant theodicies for pastoral caretakers who have complex realities of suffering and evil. In a postmodern era, traditional theodicy cannot be contextually relevant or meaningful enough for complex human predicaments. Traditionally, theodicy has been constructed as a way of defending God. It has focused primarily on God's goodness and almighty power rather than the reality of human suffering and evil. God’s compassion has not been applied enough into constructing traditional theodicy. This article, based on the personal relationship between God and human beings, tries to focus mainly on exploring the reality of human predicaments, seeking constructing contextually relevant theodicies for practicing pastoral care. In the process of constructing a new theodicy, eventually the sufferer needs to have an experience of empathizing with God and God with the sufferer as well. For this experience, a deep and open questioning about our predicaments is required. Approaching the end of our journey of questioning we should experience the mutually communion of heart with heart in our personal relationship with God. Lastly, this article presents three steps to construct a contextually relevant theodicy for practicing pastoral care: 1) deeply questioning in human predicaments–completing the unfinished question, 2) empathizing with God–encountering God personally, and 3) constructing a new theodicy. Through our wholehearted and desperate questioning about suffering and resisting evil, we can start a journey of constructing a new theodicy. Pastoral caregivers need to elaborate and appropriate the process of constructing new theodicies in order to practice a contextually relevant pastoral care.

Contextually Relevant Theodicies for Pastoral Care

김기철 한국실천신학회 2013 신학과 실천 Vol.0 No.37

This article is an attempt to construct contextually relevant theodicies for pastoral caretakers who have complex realities of suffering and evil. In a postmodern era, traditional theodicy cannot be contextually relevant or meaningful enough for complex human predicaments. Traditionally, theodicy has been constructed as a way of defending God. It has focused primarily on God's goodness and almighty power rather than the reality of human suffering and evil. God’s compassion has not been applied enough into constructing traditional theodicy. This article, based on the personal relationship between God and human beings, tries to focus mainly on exploring the reality of human predicaments, seeking constructing contextually relevant theodicies for practicing pastoral care. In the process of constructing a new theodicy, eventually the sufferer needs to have an experience of empathizing with God and God with the sufferer as well. For this experience, a deep and open questioning about our predicaments is required. Approaching the end of our journey of questioning we should experience the mutually communion of heart with heart in our personal relationship with God. Lastly, this article presents three steps to construct a contextually relevant theodicy for practicing pastoral care: 1) deeply questioning in human predicaments–completing the unfinished question, 2) empathizing with God–encountering God personally, and 3) constructing a new theodicy. Through our wholehearted and desperate questioning about suffering and resisting evil, we can start a journey of constructing a new theodicy. Pastoral caregivers need to elaborate and appropriate the process of constructing new theodicies in order to practice a contextually relevant pastoral care.