외상으로 동측의 상직근과 상사근이 동시에 손상된 1예

이신형 ( Shin Hyung Lee ),지준영 ( Jun Young Ji ),장무환 ( Moo Hwan Chang ) 대한안과학회 2003 대한안과학회지 Vol.44 No.5

하나님 나라의 교설에서 바라본 판넨베르그와 브라튼의 신학적 관계성

이신형(Shin-Hyung Lee) 한신대학교 한신신학연구소 2013 신학연구 Vol.63 No.-

하나님과 자연과학

이신형(Shin Hyung Lee) 한국기독교학회 2001 한국기독교신학논총 Vol.21 No.-

In this article I intend to provide some methodological considerations for theologians if they try to relate the scientific understanding of the reality to the religious idea of God. It is not new term for theologians to consider their methodological procedure before they apply their idea of God to the world of science. However, it is the new term for them to consider their scientific knowledge of the world to the idea of God. In former case, theologians are safe when they only stand on the verge of the world of meaning, so that their elaboration for the idea of God would be immune to the critique of the god of science. In latter case, theologians are not safe when they elaborate their idea of God based upon the scientific understanding of the reality because they happen to know that they might come to the edge which the world of science could challenge to reformulate their understanding of God. Wolfhart Pannenberg is one of them who have courage to get into the world of science and take the responsibility for reformulating the idea of God in terms of the Triune God as the Creator of the world of science. But he has more than that. He challenges the scientists to get in touch with theologians for better understanding the reality. In other words, he pushes the scientists to consult with theologians about their theories how things they are. For him, the reality of the science is nothing but the same reality of religion, so that the way of interpreting the reality of science must be incorporated into the way of understanding the reality of God in terms of the totality of truth, or vice versa. That is to say that Pannenberg reminds us of the fact that God is the ground of the totality of truth, in which the scientific truth claim becomes a partial truth if it has nothing to do with the theological assertions. This article has three purposes. First is to present the Pannenberg`s way of incorporating the scientific theories into the theological assertions for reformulating the doctrine of Triune God with the realm of creation. Second is to critically examine the legitimacy of Pannenberg` s procedure to make a room for theology at the realm of science. Third is to provide theologians with a methodological considerations to dialogue with the science. To put it different way, my intention for looking at the Pannenberg`s program is to enlarge our understanding of God by means of his interpreting the world of science as the place where God plays to be Creator. He does see the reality as the reality of God in so far as the process of reality points to the nature and function of God. In other words, he does look to it that the whole process of reality corresponds to the reality of God himself. I think that Pannenberg has something to get us doing theology in the age of science. Although he has something more to do with his own program, I believe that we still have a reason to listen to him.

한국 현대소설에서 바라본 기독교인의 인간성

이신형(Shin Hyung Lee) 한국기독교학회 2011 한국기독교신학논총 Vol.74 No.-

The protestant church in Korea has been faced with a crisis losing her credibility. People, although they are small in number, vehemently begin to blame her. What they saw in the protestant church is nothing but people who gather at the religious social institute looking for their blessing from God. To them, the protestant church has gone the wrong direction wishing to be with one of the rich churches which are mostly located at the richest place in Seoul. While pastors work hard to adopt the program of the rich churches and to imitate the preaching of those churches with its method and content, people change their attitude and begin to blame Jesus. To them, Jesus is the one who stands behind and gives birth to the protestant church in Korea. So, they pour their anger into him and utter blasphemies against Jesus. And their blasphemies are getting bigger and bigger through the internet. Why do people hate the church and openly blame it? An easy way to answer that question is that church fails to hold on the teaching of Jesus and fails to follow his footstep. In other words, because pastors want to make their church big. Pastors do not listen to what theology has taught. What the pastors have learned from their ministry experiences was that theology was not useful for them to make church bigger. Therefore, the crisis of losing the credibility lies in the lack of the recognition that theology is a key to construct church as the church of Jesus Christ. But the lack of the recognition of theology is not the only reason for the crisis of losing her credibility. Non-christians do not concern theology. What matters for them is whether Christians are sincere and honest or not. Therefore, what matters for us is to ask ourselves: Are we really trustworthy? Are we okay morally and sincere to them? What if we are not? Then things get into hassles. That is to say, the crux of the problem is not the shortcomings of theology, but the immaturity of Christian personality. In other words, Korean society hates church not because of theology, but because of Christians. Christians are in the midst of the crisis of the protestant church in Korea. This reality is vividly reflected in modern Christian novels.

하임신학의 적합성

이신형(Shin Hyung Lee) 한국기독교학회 2012 한국기독교신학논총 Vol.83 No.-

The purpose of this article is to verify the place of Heim`s theology in the realm of the dialogue between theology and science. That sounds strange to someone who is engaged in the dialogue between theology and science. There are two reasons for this. First is that Heim has no meaning to theologians who participate in the dialogue between theology and science, simply because they are unable to find the relevant idea from him. For them, Heim has an outmoded idea and therefore he has no place to put the working of God within the scientific world. Second, Heim was forgotten in the world of theology even at his time. Even though he was published many books, his theology had no influence on the world of theology at that time. Barth and Bultmann were the main figures for his time. Theology at that time is indebted to Barth and Bultmann, not on Heim. Heim has spread his idea of God throughout Germany and around the world: in that case, we can only find Heim`s influence on the younger generations who were concerned about the faith. Heim was a famous figure for youth who wanted to know the meaning of believing in God, but not for theologians. But, the presumption that Heim had no place in contemporary theology was due to the misconception about his theology. Heim has a unique idea about relating God to the world of science or vice versa. Heim was a pioneer who knew the problem of God in the world of science, and he endeavored to anchor God in the world of science. He had a massive knowledge of physics, and he wrestled with science because science assumed the absolute certainty about reality. Heim thought that science needed to be demythologized, whereas other theologians thought that the Bible needed to be demythologized. I think that the relevance of Heim`s thought for the modern theology lies in his intention that science needs to step down from claiming the ultimatum about how really things are. In other words, theology needs to listen to Heim`s voice and change presumption about science that scientific discovery about nature can change the notion of christian idea of God in order to suit God in the world of science. I do not claim that Heim`s idea of God has no problem at all. For the contrary, his way of presenting the idea of God looks strange to theologians who are at front in the dialogue between theology and science. However, the fact that modern theology is unfamiliar with Heim`s methodology does not give an excuse for ignoring Heim`s voice. Therefore, I will present Heim`s theology in a way that will clarify its place between theology and science.

신의 죽음의 신학의 관점에서 고든 카우프만 이해하기

이신형(Shin Hyung Lee) 한국기독교학회 2009 한국기독교신학논총 Vol.64 No.-

국내 특성을 반영한 e-Discovery 대응절차

이신형(Shin-Hyung Lee),이상진(Sangjin Lee) 한국정보보호학회 2016 정보보호학회논문지 Vol.26 No.5

오늘날 많은 국내 기업들이 미국 시장에 진출하여 해외사업을 확장함에 따라 미국 기업들과의 소송에 직면하는 경우가 빈번해지고 있으며 이에 대해 체계적으로 대응할 수 있도록 e-Discovery에 대한 준비가 필요하다. 아직 우리나라에 e-Discovery 제도가 확립되지는 않았지만 국내 기업들은 몇몇 대기업들의 소송 사례들을 계기로 e-Discovery에 대한 관심이 높아지고 있으며 그에 대한 대응방법 등을 모색하고 있는 실정이다. 미국의 e-Discovery 제도를 우리나라에서 실행할 시 고려해야 할 부분은 크게 세 가지로, 법률 차이, 기업 시스템 차이, 그리고 언어와 기업문화 차이가 있다. 본 논문에서는 실무를 바탕으로 국내 기업들이 미국소송에 대응하는 데 있어서의 문제점들을 도출하여 그것들을 효과적으로 극복할 수 있는 특화된 e-Discovery 절차와 과정을 제안하려고 한다. Today, many domestic companies often face the lawsuits from the U.S. companies as they expand their business in the U.S. market and it is necessary for the domestic companies to prepare for the e-Discovery process in the systematic manner. Yet, the e-discovery system has not been properly established in Korea, however, domestic companies are growing more and more interests in e-Discovery processes and procedures so that they are seeking for the appropriate actions that they should take when facing lawsuits. When adopting the e-Discovery system in Korea, there are three main considerations including the differences in laws and regulations, enterprise system and language and company culture. This study aims to draw the problems for the Korean domestic companies in responding the U.S. lawsuits and to suggest the specialized e-discovery processes and procedures to effectively overcome them.

한경직 목사의 신학적 유산

이신형(Shin Hyung Lee) 한국기독교학회 2008 한국기독교신학논총 Vol.56 No.-

연구논문 : 『사람의 아들』에서 제기된 신학적인 질문

이신형 ( Shin Hyung Lee ) 21세기기독교사회문화아카데미 2015 신학과 사회 Vol.29 No.1

이글은 간학문적 연구로서 문학에 대한 신학의 참여다. 이 글의 논지는 매우 단순하게 서술 될 수 있다. 문학계의『사람의 아들』에 대한 해석학적 이해는 재고되어야 한다. 왜냐하면 『사람의 아들』에 담겨진 이문열의 기독교에 대한 물음은 19세기 개신교 신학에서 회자되었던 물음 ― 성서의 절대성, 역사적 예수문제, 기독교의 정체성: 예수의 종교 or바울의 종교 ― 에 대한 것이기 때문이다. 이 글은『사람의 아들』의 이야기와 성서의 예수 이야기의 두 이야기의 합류를 통해서 이문열의 물음의 내용을 규정하는 것이다. 두 이야기의 합류는 성서의 예수 이야기와 아하스 페르츠의 이야기와, 신인교리의 예수 이야기를 민요섭, 아하스 페르츠와, 예수와 바울의 관계를 민요섭과 조동팔의 관계와 겹쳐서 읽어가는 것이다. 다시 말해서 이문열에게 내재한 성서의 예수와 신인교리의 예수에 대한 갈등의 인식을 갖고 민요섭, 아하스 페르츠, 조동팔을 읽는 방식을 취함으로서 그의 신학적 문제의식을 밝히는 것이다. 두이야기의 합류를 통해서 신학적 해석의 당위성과 문학계의 해석학적 문제점이 명료하게 부각된다. At the age of 23, Lee Moon Yul published a short story named The Son of Man. That short story four years later became a larger one which gave him fame and fortune. Lee Moon Yul was a winner of the prize for ``Today``s Writer`` in 1979. Since then, more than three million copies of The Son of Man have been sold. When Lee Moon Yul gave his accepting speech for the prize of ``Today``s Writer``, he said what he wanted to do was to have people hear about God, and in that sense, he succeeded. People loved his book. However, the important thing is not the fact that people loved this book, but whether people heard the story of God or not. What really matters is whether people understand his question of God or not. Lee Moon Yul raised a serious question of historical certainty through which Christianity might tumble down. Three theological questions were raised by Lee Moon Yul; (1) the historical question of Jesus who lived in Palestine as a man, not the son of God whom people believed in, (2) the credibility of the Bible, (3) the foundation of Christianity. This study deals with the theological questions raised by The Son of Man and tries to answer these questions. I am not saying that The Son of Man did directly raise the above questions, but I am saying that if you read the story of the main characters, such as, Min Yo Sup, Cho Dong Pal, and Ahas Periz with the story of Jesus and Paul, you will identify Min Yo Sup with Jesus and Cho Dong Pal with Paul as well as Ahas Periz as the self consciousness of Jesus as the man. In other words, when Lee Moon Yul created the main characters such as Min Yo Sup, Cho Dong Pal, and Ahas Periz, he portrayed them with the story of Jesus and Paul. So, it is necessary to understand the meaning of The Son of Man that one must relate Min Yo Sup and Cho Dong Pal with Jesus and Paul, and Min Yo Sup and Ahas Periz with Jesus. In chapter II, III, I compare the relationship between Min Yo Sup and Cho Dong Pal with Jesus and Paul. At the same time, I compare Jesus with Ahas Periz. In doing so, I clarify those relationships and specify the questions by Lee Moon Yul. In chapter IV, I will briefly comment the former interpretations and one will see the way which I will respond to them.

청소년 학교폭력 예방을 위한 기독(목회)상담 프로그램 제안

이신형(Lee, Shin Hyung) 연세대학교 상담코칭지원센터 2015 연세상담코칭연구 Vol.3 No.-

최근 한국사회에서 학교폭력은 국가가 ‘4대악’으로 지정하는 큰 문제이다. 학교와 가정의 힘으로는 학교폭력 문제에 대처하기 어려워지고 있고, 국가와 사회의 개입과 도움을 필요로 하는 상황이 펼쳐지고 있다. 그 중에서도 교회는 사람을 사랑하고 존중하는 가치관을 기반으로 하기 때문에 학교폭력 문제를 근본적으로 치유해 나갈 수 있는 기관이다. 이와 함께 학교폭력이 확대되면서 나타나는 큰 특징 중 하나는 피해자가 가해자로 역할이 급작스럽게 변화되는 ‘가피해자’가 확산되고 있다는 점이다. 따라서 교회내의 청소년들을 대상으로 가피해자가 되는 잠재적 상황을 예방할 수 있는 프로그램을 개발하는 것은 의미있는 일이다. 본 연구에서는 교회 내의 ‘가피해자’의 사례를 통해, 한국교회의 청소년 부서들이 계절별 수련회에서 실제적으로 적용하여 실시할 수 있는 학교폭력 예방프로그램을 제시했다. 이런 프로그램을 통해서 훈련된 청소년들을 실제 학교폭력의 현장에서 학교폭력을 단절하는 역할을 할 수 있는 해결적 주체로 길러내는 방안을 제안했다. The school violence is one of the biggest problems in Korea society. It is getting harder to handle only with school and family supports. Therefore national and society supports are urgently needed. Among those supports, the church stands on the basis of full of love and understanding human being, is an important institution to support and to heal essential problems of school violence. Also while school violence is escalating, one of the statues is that victims are abruptly changed to become assailants, and it is called bullyvictims. Therefore this research firstly explores examples about bully-victims from Korea churches, and suggests a pastor counseling program model for school violence that is made from based on seasonal church retreats. Also this research suggests a specific method to make school violence stop from the all of education field by using the program.