캐트린 테너의 대중문화의 신학: 대중문화로 본 하나님, 교회, 성서

손호현(Sohn Ho-Hyun) 한신대학교 신학사상연구소 2013 신학사상 Vol.0 No.161

오늘날 기독교 신학은 ‘문화로의 전환’ 이라는 뚜렷한 특정을 보이고 있다. 그리고 이러한 대중문화의 신학이라는 새로운 기획의 중심에 바로 예일대학의 신학자 캐트린 테너가 자리하고 있다. 본 논문은 논쟁의 공동체로서의 교회, 텅 빈 하나님의 초월성, 그리고 대중문화 텍스트로서의 성서라는 세 가지 주제를 중심으로 테너의 대중문화의 신학을 고찰한다. 첫째로 창조적 소비, 기독교적 기생주의, 혼종성, 스타일 등과 같은 포스트모던 문화비평에 기초해서 교회는 논쟁의 공동체로 이해되어야 한다는 테너의 주장을 살펴볼 것이다. 테너는 자신의 스승이었던 린드벡의 후기자유주의신학이 교회를 일종의 “문화적 섬나라”로 만들었다고 비판한다. 이에 대항하여 테너는 교회의 독특한 정체성이란 어떤 고립적인 구성요소들로 이루어지는 것이 아니라, 다른 곳에서 빌려온 공통의 문화적 요소들을 반복, 전유, 전복, 타협, 저항과 같은 여러 비판적 방식들을 통해 새로운 스타일을 구성하는 논쟁의 공동체라는 점에 있다고 주장한다. 둘째로, 이러한 자기 - 비판적 문화로서의 교회를 근본적으로 가능케 하는 테너의 초월적 하나님 개념을 분석할 것이다. 사이드, 하버마스, 린드벡과 같은 이들은 종교가 자기 - 비판적이 될 수 있는가의 질문에 대해 부정적이다. 그러나 테너에 따르면 이러한 결론은 필연적인 것이 아니며 오히려 “하나님의 초월성은 비판적 거리를 강화시킨다” 고 주장한다. 셋째로, 성서는 단지 고등문화의 고전으로 이해되어서는 안 되고 오히려 대중문화의 텍스트로 이해되어야 한다는 그녀의 주장을 고찰할 것이다. 마지막으로 테너에 대한 몇몇 비평가들의 도전을 간략하게 살펴보는 것으로 논문을 마치고자 한다. Kathryn Tanner is at center of so-called ‘ the tum to culture' in the last century. This article offers an investigation of Tanner' s theology of popular culture, focusing on her three major claims. First, Christian identity cannot be understood as forming a separate social or cultural community with its clear boundary. It is rather a hybrid relational identity, in which people share the common task, concern, or question of who or what Jesus Christ is. Church is in this sense a community of argument concerning the meaning of true discipleship. Second, Christianity as this kind of self-critical culture is fundamentally based on the transcendental freedom of God in both ontological and cognitive senses. While Edward Said, Jiirgen Habermas, and George Lindbeck claim that religion cannot function as a self-critical culture, Tanner suggests that God's transcendence nurtures a critical distance. Lastly, the Christian scriptures are better understood as a popular text. Instead of the previous understandings of the Bible as a “classic” , whether it be understood a timeless text, a timely text of inexhaustible meaning, or a timely text of indeterminacy, Tanner argues that it is most adequately described as a “popular” or producerly text. The article concludes with an observation of several challenges of her critics.

융의 사위일체 신정론: “넷째는 어디에 있는가”

손호현(Ho-Hyun Sohn) 한신대학교 신학사상연구소 2018 신학사상 Vol.0 No.182

심층 심리학자 카를 쿠스타프 융은 현대에 와서 신학과 심리학이 더이상 방법론적으로 분리될 수 없다고 보며 기독교의 교리들에 대한 심리 학적 개정을 수행한다. 고전적 삼위일체론은 하나님의 존재를 과도하게 영성화하고, 과도하게 남성화하고, 과도하게 단순화함으로써 필연적으로 악에 대한 물음을 발생시킨다. 특히 융이 그린 악의 구체적 얼굴은 삼중적이다: 물질, 여성, 악마가 바로 그것이다. 따라서 융의 신정론의 핵심은 고전적 삼위일체론에서 생략된 물질, 여성, 혹은 악마라는 넷째를 포함시켜 새로운 사위일체를 구성하는 것이다. 중세 연금술에서처럼 철학적 황금으로 상징되는 철학자들의 돌이 넷째로 포함될 때에, 우리는 성부-성자-성령-물질의 ‘연금술적 사위일체’를 가지게 된다. 성모승천설 교리에서처럼 여성성을 상징하는 마리아가 포함될 때에, 우리는 성부-성자-성령-성모의 ‘여성적 사위일체’를 가지게 된다. 심층 심리학에 서처럼 무의식의 그림자 혹은 어두운 하나님을 상징하는 악마가 포함될 때에, 우리는 성부-성자-성령-악마의 ‘심리적 사위일체’를 직면하게 된다. 이처럼 융의 사위일체 신정론은 선악미분의 성부, 그리스도와 악마로 분열된 이중적 인격, 그리고 더 발전된 통합으로서의 성령이라는 사위일체의 전개 과정을 가리키는 것이다. 마지막 결론에서 우리는 신학과 형이상학을 심리학의 영역 안으로 끌어들인 융의 이른바 심리주의의 위험을 사제로서의 심리학자, 정신 건강법으로서의 신정론, 그리고 건강으 로서의 구원이라는 세 주제를 통해 비판적으로 성찰하고자 한다. Carl Gustav Jung sought to overcome the methodological separation between theology and psychology, revising theological doctrines from a modern perspective of depth psychology. The classical doctrine of the Trinity over-spiritualizes, over-masculinizes, and over-simplifies the being of God, he argued, omitting the issue of the fourth, as mentioned in Plato’s Timaeus. Jung gives us a concrete threefold face of evil as matter, femininity, and devil. The crux of Jung’s theodicy is a transformation of the Trinity into a new threefold quaternity through the inclusion of the fourth within God’s essential being: the alchemical quaternity of Father-Son-Spirit-Matter, the feminine quaternity of Father-Son-Spirit-Mother, and the psychological quaternity of Father-SonSpirit-Devil. Jung believes that medieval alchemy, Catholic doctrine of assumptio Mariae, and modern depth psychology all testify to the necessity of theogenesis, i.e., what Meister Eckhart calls the birth of God within soul. The article concludes with some critical reflections on the danger of Jung’s psychologism with three issues of psychologist as priest, theodicy as mental hygiene, and salvation as psychological health.

아름다움과 성스러움: 존재 유비로서의 예술과 예수

손호현(Sohn, Ho-Hyun) 한신대학교 신학사상연구소 2014 신학사상 Vol.0 No.165

예술가가 아닌 자는 기독교인이 아니다'고 윌리엄 블레이크가 말할 만큼, 아름다움과 성스러움은 성육신의 존재 유비(analogia entis)로 이해될 수 있다. 본고는 종교와 예술의 네 가지 유형론적 사유를 구성한다. 동일기원론은 예술과 종교가 단일한 역사적 기원을 가진다는 입장이다. 예술종언론은 현대에 예술의 종교적 사명은 끝났으며, 이제 철학의 개념적 사유가 그러한 사명을 이어받았다는 견해이다. 예술구원론은 종교가 아니라 예술이 이제 인류에게 비종교적인 구원을 제공한다는 주장이다. 예술표현론은 예술과 예수는 성육신이라는 존재 유비의 구조를 가지며 세계 속 하나님의 성례전적 현존을 가능케 한다는 입장이다. 결론에서 필자는 예술종언론이 신학의 텍스트로서의 예술이 지니는 지속적 중요성을 간과하였으며, 신학이 종교적 엘리트주의를 극복하기 위해서는 예술이라는 텍스트를 재발굴해야 한다고 주장한다. 또한 예술구원론이 예술의 위로하는 힘 후경에 놓인 신비의 익명성을 보지 못했으며, '오직 신만이 우리를 구원할 수 있다'는 하이데거의 진술은 심각하게 받아들여져야 한다고 제안한다. 마지막으로 동일기원론과 예술표현론을 옹호하며, 예수와 예술은 하나님의 시(詩)라고 하는 성육신의 존재 유비를 가지기에 '역사적 성육신'은 '미학적 성육신'으로 재현되어야 한다는 주장으로 이 글을 마무리한다. The man or woman who is not an artist is not a Christian,' says William Blake. Beauty and holiness form analogia entis. This article suggests four typological paradigms between art and religion. The 'co-origination' theory claims that both religion and art share one single historical origin about 50,000 years ago in human history. The 'end-of-art' theory announces the death of art in its religious vocation and the importance of philosophical concepts for this purpose. The 'art-salvation' theory voices the opinion that the salvation of humanity now depends on art, not religion. The 'art-expression' theory claims that both art and Jesus make God's sacramental presence in the world possible in their historical or aesthetic expressions. The article concludes with the criticism that the end-of-art theory ignores the permanent value of art as forgotten theological text to avoid religious elitism in theology. The art-salvation theory misses the anonymity of mystery beneath the seemingly salvific power of secular art. As Martin Heidegger confesses, 'only a God can say us.' Lastly, depending the co-origination theory and the art-expression theory, the author claims that art and Jesus are God's own sacramental poem, and that the historical incarnation of Jesus must be reenacted in the aesthetic incarnation of art.

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.

민중신학과 문화신학의 합류(合流)를 향하여

손호현(Ho-Hyun Sohn) 연세대학교 신과대학(연합신학대학원) 2014 신학논단 Vol.77 No.-

폴 틸리히의 문화신학과 표현주의 모델

손호현(Ho Hyun Sohn) 한국기독교학회 2013 한국기독교신학논총 Vol.85 No.-

Even though theology of culture has been a long-standing project of Christian theology since the time of St. Augustine, explicit methodological investigations on its model are found only in the 20th century. Three major methodological paradigms or models are worthy of mentioning in this context: Paul Tillich`s ``expressionism`` model, George Lindbeck`s ``language game`` model, and Kathryn Tanner`s ``hybridity`` model. In a sense these three paradigms correspond to the three models of interreligious dialogue: ``exclusivism,`` ``inclusivism``, and ``pluralism``. This article has a limited purpose of analyzing only the first of Tillich`s expressionism model as the earliest groundbreaking attempt to heal the disastrous separation between religion and culture, between Christian message and contemporary situation. Paul Tillich can be rightly called the father of modern theology of culture. The author investigates Tillich`s theology of culture as a whole, focusing on his four important ideas: 1) Religion can be defined as ultimate concern, found beneath every form of cultural expression; 2) Religion is the substance of culture, while culture is the expressive form of religion; 3) Cultural expression shows a threefold typology of autonomy, heteronomy, and theonomy; 4) Culture asks questions while religion answers them. Analyzing each of these claims based on careful textual analysis of Tillich`s own works, the author suggests that there is found a subtle paradigm shift between Tillich`s earlier and later thoughts on religion and culture. The former is called Tillich`s "expressionism model" while the latter "correlation model". Further, Tillich`s later correlation model and its hermeneutical unilateralism are critically evaluated from an alternative perspective of hermeneutical bilateralism found in Jurgen Habermas, David Tracy, Francis Fiorenza, Kyoung Jae Kim, and so forth. The article ends with a tentative suggestion of structural parallel between Tillich`s theology of culture (expressionism model of form and substance) and Karl Rahner`s theology of religion (the inclusivism model of anonymous Christians).

지진은 하나님의 심판인가?: 고전적 신정론의 네 가지 대답들

손호현(Sohn Ho-Hyun) 한신대학교 신학사상연구소 2011 신학사상 Vol.0 No.154

이 논문은 지진과 같은 자연재해가 하나님의 심판이라는 해석학적 견해가 잠재적으로 비성서적일 뿐만 아니라, 기독교의 유일한 견해도 아니라고 주장한다. 요한복음 9:1-7과 누가복음 13:1-5의 본문에 기초하여 저자는 이러한 도덕적 범죄와 자연재해 사이의 인과율적 연관 고리가 예수 그리스도 자신에 의해 비판받았음을 지적한다. 나아가 저자는 여기에 대한 대안으로 지진에 대한 세 가지 가능한 신학적 해석을 제시한다. 첫째, 하나님은 넬슨 파이크가 “도덕적으로 충분한 이유”라고 부른 것을 가지기 때문에 지진을 허용하거나 일으킬 수 있다는 논리적 가능성이다. 파이크는 아이의 건강을 위해 쓴 약숟가락을 강제로 아이의 입 속에 밀어 넣는 아버지의 예를 든다. 마찬가지로 지진의 경우 하나님도 그러한 도덕적으로 충분한 이유를 가질 가능성이 있다는 것이다. 둘째는 우주의 조화로운 아름다움은 선과 악, 천국과 지옥 등의 대조적 부분들을 필요로 한다는 성 어거스틴의 미학적 신정론이다. 이러한 서로 다른 대조적 부분들이 존재해야지만 우주 전체가 보다 아름다울 수 있고, 이러한 맥락에서 지진과 같은 자연재해도 인식되어야 한다는 것이다. 마지막 셋째로 저자는 지옥은 영원할 수 없다는 수정된 어거스틴의 미학적 신정론을 자신의 입장으로 제시한다. 정의는 각자에게 자신의 몫을 주는 것이고, 이러한 하나님의 정의 때문에 시간 안에서의 악행은 영원한 처벌이 아니라 시간적으로 제한된 처벌을 받게 될 것이라는 견해이다. This essay sets out and defends the hypothesis that a hermeneutical interpretation of natural disasters as God’s punishment is potentially unbiblical, and that it is not the only possible Christian response to natural disasters either. Based on biblical texts of John 9:1-7 and Luke 13:1-5, the author suggests that the theological connection between moral offense and natural disaster has been criticized by Jesus Christ himself within the New Testament. This kind of causality between offense and punishment is already denied in the Old Testament book of Job. The author suggests the view that we must make a distinction between “God’s punishment”and “God’s action.”In contrast to the old view of theological causality between offense and punishment in regard to the example of earthquake, the essay offers three alternative possibilities. First, God may allow or even cause earthquakes to happen because he has what Nelson Pike calls “morally sufficient reasons.”Pike offers the case of a parent who forces a child to take a spoonful of bitter medicine. The coercive act is justified because it is done for the child’s health. Likewise God might fail to prevent suffering or even bring it about while remaining perfectly good if there is a morally sufficient reason for his action. The second alternative is St. Augustine’s aesthetic theodicy that a cosmic beauty of harmony requires contrastive parts including good and evil, heaven and hell, and so on. In other words, the question of whether the order of God’s providence embraces both good and evil is thus given a positive answer. For the contrasting effect of parts with heterogeneous qualities enhances the overall beauty of the whole universe. Even the most beautiful universe contains natural disasters including earthquakes for this cosmic beauty of God’s providence. Thirdly and lastly, the author offers a revised version of St. Augustine’s aesthetic theodicy as his own theological position arguing that the bea

윤동주와 슬픔의 신학 : 「八福」에 드러나는 신정론을 중심으로

손호현(Hohyun Sohn) 연세대학교 신과대학(연합신학대학원) 2015 신학논단 Vol.81 No.-

Yun Dong-Ju is perhaps the most beloved Christian poet in the Korean history of 20th century. Based on the hypothesis Yun is not merely a literary poet but also an anonymous Christian theologian, the article claims Yun’s status in theology as being a perfect embodiment of what Karl Rahner calls ‘the marriage of priest and poet.’ Focusing on the poem entitled “The Beatitudes”(八福) written in 1940, it suggests four logical types of theodicy found in the traces of revision process of this poem. First, as God’s reward for those who mourn, Yun concludes the work with the phrase 1) “they will mourn” and crosses these words out later. Second, he writes 2) “they will be comforted” instead and crosses them out again. Thirdly, he writes 3) “they will mourn for a long time” and crosses them out as well. Lastly, he concludes the poem with the phrase 4) “they will mourn in eternity.” In regard to this effacing and revising process of “The Beatitudes,” the author offers an analysis of four parallel types of literary positions and theological theodicies. 1) ‘Aesthetic Titanism’ or ‘antitheodicy of sorrow’ is to dwell in sorrow stubbornly rejecting any future comfort from God. 2) ‘Ethical Titanism’ or ‘theodicy of consolation’ is to demand God of justice and consolation knowing at the same time that these will never be actualized in the world. 3) ‘Historical Titanism’ or ‘theodicy of eschaton’ is to mediate these two aesthetic and ethical Titanisms on the horizon of eschatological time and beyond. 4) Lastly, ‘religious Titanism’ or ‘theodicy of eternal sorrow’ is to deepen transvaluation of suffering and sorrow from mere negative sign of God’s absence toward absolutely positive sacramental affirmation of God’s absent presence or God’s consolation without consolation, as in the theologies of Moon Ik-Hwan(문익환) and Simone Weil. Yun the priest-poet is one of few figures who show the possibility of Korean theological aesthetics in the future. Yun Dong-Ju is perhaps the most beloved Christian poet in the Korean history of 20th century. Based on the hypothesis Yun is not merely a literary poet but also an anonymous Christian theologian, the article claims Yun’s status in theology as being a perfect embodiment of what Karl Rahner calls ‘the marriage of priest and poet.’ Focusing on the poem entitled “The Beatitudes”(八福) written in 1940, it suggests four logical types of theodicy found in the traces of revision process of this poem. First, as God’s reward for those who mourn, Yun concludes the work with the phrase 1) “they will mourn” and crosses these words out later. Second, he writes 2) “they will be comforted” instead and crosses them out again. Thirdly, he writes 3) “they will mourn for a long time” and crosses them out as well. Lastly, he concludes the poem with the phrase 4) “they will mourn in eternity.” In regard to this effacing and revising process of “The Beatitudes,” the author offers an analysis of four parallel types of literary positions and theological theodicies. 1) ‘Aesthetic Titanism’ or ‘antitheodicy of sorrow’ is to dwell in sorrow stubbornly rejecting any future comfort from God. 2) ‘Ethical Titanism’ or ‘theodicy of consolation’ is to demand God of justice and consolation knowing at the same time that these will never be actualized in the world. 3) ‘Historical Titanism’ or ‘theodicy of eschaton’ is to mediate these two aesthetic and ethical Titanisms on the horizon of eschatological time and beyond. 4) Lastly, ‘religious Titanism’ or ‘theodicy of eternal sorrow’ is to deepen transvaluation of suffering and sorrow from mere negative sign of God’s absence toward absolutely positive sacramental affirmation of God’s absent presence or God’s consolation without consolation, as in the theologies of Moon Ik-Hwan(문익환) and Simone Weil. Yun the priest-poet is one of few figures who show the possibility of Korean theological aesthetics in the future.

아름다움의 모험: 화이트헤드의 세 가지 신정론 분석

손호현(Ho Hyun Sohn) 한국기독교학회 2006 한국기독교신학논총 Vol.43 No.-

음악과 신정론

손호현(Hohyun Sohn) 연세대학교 신과대학(연합신학대학원) 2013 신학논단 Vol.73 No.-

Does music save? Pythagoras does suggest this possibility saying that everything is made of numbers. Through its historical survey of the so-called Pythagorean aesthetic tradition in Christianity including the New Testament, Augustine, Boethius, Thomas Aquinas, Leibniz, Bach, Hegel, Barth, and John Cage, the article offers a historical analysis of music and theodicy with the following three tentative suggestions. Firstly, in the Pythagorean aesthetics, music functions as a wordless theology. Like the contemporary ‘string theory’ in physics, the Pythagorean aesthetics is based on the conviction that music and the universe share the common isomorphism of vibrating numbers. Second, the theodicy of music is based on the logic of contrastive harmony that partial dissonances enhance the beauty of the overall consonances. Consequently, the existence of evil does not disprove the existence of God, as St. Thomas Aquinas correctly claims, but prove God’s existence on the contrary. For disorder is needed for the existence of order and beauty. Lastly, music is a symbol of eschatological hope. If the universe is in fact God’s perfect work of art, you cannot take something from it or add something to it even if it is not beautifying at the moment. As Aristotle’s definition of a “perfect work of art” shows, “excess and deficiency destroy perfection” (Nicomachean Ethics, 2.6.9). In this sense, human music does not save us but give us eschatological hope for fulfillment and salvation of the world in the future. Does music save? Pythagoras does suggest this possibility saying that everything is made of numbers. Through its historical survey of the so-called Pythagorean aesthetic tradition in Christianity including the New Testament, Augustine, Boethius, Thomas Aquinas, Leibniz, Bach, Hegel, Barth, and John Cage, the article offers a historical analysis of music and theodicy with the following three tentative suggestions. Firstly, in the Pythagorean aesthetics, music functions as a wordless theology. Like the contemporary ‘string theory’ in physics, the Pythagorean aesthetics is based on the conviction that music and the universe share the common isomorphism of vibrating numbers. Second, the theodicy of music is based on the logic of contrastive harmony that partial dissonances enhance the beauty of the overall consonances. Consequently, the existence of evil does not disprove the existence of God, as St. Thomas Aquinas correctly claims, but prove God’s existence on the contrary. For disorder is needed for the existence of order and beauty. Lastly, music is a symbol of eschatological hope. If the universe is in fact God’s perfect work of art, you cannot take something from it or add something to it even if it is not beautifying at the moment. As Aristotle’s definition of a “perfect work of art” shows, “excess and deficiency destroy perfection” (Nicomachean Ethics, 2.6.9). In this sense, human music does not save us but give us eschatological hope for fulfillment and salvation of the world in the future.