http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
Phyllis Trible(필리스 트리블) 한국신학정보연구원 2012 Canon&Culture Vol.6 No.2
이 논문은 성서에 대한 생태 성서 신학적 성찰의 출발점이 되고 있는 창세기 1장의 창조 본문 특히 1장 28절의 “땅을 정복하고 다스리라(dominion)”는 하나님의 축복 명령은 하나님께서 보시기에 “좋았더라”는 문맥과 맥락 안에서 재해석하고 있다 창세기의 창조는 고대 메소포타미아의 창조 서사시인 에누마 엘리쉬와 달리 창조의 선함과 아름다움을 찬양하고 있으며 창조 과정에서의 어떠한 폭력적 요소도 담고 있지 않다. 인간 창조 이후 “정복하고 다스리라”는 하나님의 축복 명령은 그 단어들 자체로는 지배와 통치를 통한 억압과 폭력의 여지를 담고 있다. 따라서 “다스리라”는 하나님의 명령을 그 단어의 뜻만 가지고 해석한다면 축복이 될 수 없다. 하나님께서 창조하신 후 보시기에 좋았더라고 말했던 문맥에서 이해될 때 “다스리라” 는 명령은 선하고 아름다운 창조와 이를 유지하기 위한 제한된 명령으로 풀이되며 창세기 1장은 비로소 우리에게 신학적으로나 생태학적으로나 축복의 본문이 된다. 그럼에도 창조 이전의 혼돈과 암흑의 상태는 세상의 악함을 전제로 하고 있으며 다스리라는 명령이 다른 본문에서 억압과 폭력의 맥락에서 쓰인 점 등이 이 명령을 선한 창조의 상황에서 해석하는 데 딜레마가 되고 있다 다스리라는 명령이 창조 질서를 유지하는 긍정적이고 책임적인 명령이 되기 위해서는 우리의 책임적 응답이 뒤따라야 하며 인간은 통치권이 주어졌지만 그 통치권은 창조의 선함을 지키고 보호하는 선에서 그 권한을 부여받고 행사하도록 부름 받은 것임을 기억해야 할 것이다. The present article examines the meaning of the divine command, “have dominion(radah)” in Genesis 1 and its ecological significance. Genesis 1 illustrates the environment that God created works as intended, manifests beauty, and exudes ethical integrity. Yet, the troubling word “dominion”(radah), along with its parallel “subdue”(kabas), disturbs the ecological bliss of Genesis 1 because of the negative connotation of those two words, that is to have power, especially over enemies. The contextual approach returns us to the adjective “good.” “Everything God created, lo, it was very good.” Within this pragmatic, aesthetic, and ethical context appear the verbs “have dominion” and “subdue.” The question arises if these verbs, with their negative meanings elsewhere in the Bible, subvert this context of the “good” or does this context subvert the negative meaning of these verbs and if these verbs give humankind permission to rape the earth and its non-human creatures or do they exhort us to preserve the goodness of the earth. In raising such questions, we encounter the dilemma of dominion. This enduring dilemma relates also to the issue of the separation of humankind from nature. Text and context in Genesis 1 both affirm and limit dominion. To exercise dominion within the limits of the “good” is to do the work of God in the world. To exercise dominion in the world is to “image” transcendent goodness. To exercise dominion is to live in harmony with the rest of creation. To exercise dominion is to take responsibility for that harmony. Also the text and context of Genesis 1 disavows misuses of dominion. Theology and ecology unite. Ecology and the Bible set before us the dilemma of dominion. The outcome depends upon right choices by us-the exercise of responsibility to preserve the goodness of creation. What story will endure-a story of creation or of destruction? The answer lies in human responsibility.
Phyllis Bo-yuen Ngai 연세대학교 빈곤문제국제개발연구원 2019 Journal of Poverty Alleviation and International D Vol.10 No.2
Cambodia remains one of the poorest countries in Asia. The Cambodian government has declared poverty reduction as its top development priority. Many NGOs have stepped in to help the rural population improve living conditions by means of increased participation in economic activity. Driven by international donors’ agendas, most Cambodian NGOs claim to embrace the participatory approach to development in combination with use of microfinance. Through investigating a Cambodian NGO’s approach to poverty reduction, this case study inspired critical reflection on the implications of adapting an exogenous vision to the rural-development context. The reported findings highlight localization of key elements of the participatory approach applied by the studied Cambodian NGO, including “community-based development” in the form of social enterprises, “self-reliance” in the form of self-help groups, and “participatory democracy” limited to the village level. The key theoretical principles of the participatory approach omitted by the local NGO featured in this study include: integrating indigenous knowledge, incorporating local voices throughout the development process, and addressing structural barriers that hinder full grassroots participation. A key lesson is that practitioners need to find the right mix of strategies and tactics called for in each unique development context. The author concludes with a list of thought-provoking questions intended to guide exploration of ways to adapt the participatory approach for poverty reduction in situ without compromising desired emancipatory goals. The need for creative hybridization merits particular consideration.