Life, Ecology, and Theo-tao:

• 발행기관: 한국민중신학회
• 저자명: 성공회대학교 신학연구소
• 간행물 정보: 『Madang: Journal of Contextual Theology』제11권, 1~16쪽, 전체 16쪽
• 주제분류: 인문학 > 기독교신학
• 파일형태: PDF
• 발행일자: 2009.06.30

영문 초록

Ecological crisis was a great koan (an evocative question) for contemporary Christian theology. A scholar worried, “If current trends continue, we will not.”1 Thomas Berry raised a serious question, “Is the human viable species on an endangered planet?” Furthermore, Lynn White criticized that, emphasizing divine transcendence and endorsing human “domination” over nature, Christianity has offered the “historical root” of the ecological crisis. Despite his defective knowledge of Christian theology, White made an important observation: “What people do about their ecology depends on what they think about themselves in relation to things around them. Human ecology is deeply conditioned by beliefs about our nature and destiny—that is, by religion.”2 Liberation (social justice), dialogue (world religions), and ecology (life) are regarded as the three most significant themes for Christian theology in the twentieth century. In fact, this statement of a scientist evoked scholars and theologians to reexamine Christian traditions and seek alternative resources in other religions. 3 Various liberation, political, feminist/womanist, black, third-world, minjung theologies argued that liberation and orthopraxis are primary but neglected motives for Christian theology owing to the White, male, middle-class privatization of Christianity on the pretext of orthodoxy. Having realized values of world religions, Western theologians began to appreciate the wisdom of ‘other’ religions by means of interreligious dialogue, theology of religions, comparative theology, or religious pluralism. Nonetheless, late twentieth century contextual and constructive theologies lingered on in the division of these two major camps, the theology of religions (inculturationist) and liberation theology (liberationist), failing to surmount the inherited Greek dualism between logos (theory) and praxis (practice).4