초록 열기/닫기 버튼
발전하는 현대과학의 세계관의 영향과 자극을 받아 등장한 신학들중의 하나가 과정신학이다. 이러한 과정신학에서는 기존의 기독교의 전통적인 교리인 삼위일체론을 어떻게 수용하고 변형하고 발전시켜왔는지를 고찰함으로써, 미래의 과학기술의 발전에 대해 신학이 어떻게 반응할 수 있는지에 관하여 하나의 귀중한 통찰력을 얻을 수 있을 것이다. 이 논문에서는 과정신학이 삼위일체론을, 특히 경륜적- 내재적 삼위일체 관계라는 현대 삼위일체 신학의 쟁점에 관하여 어떻게 반응하여왔고 어떠한 입장들을 드러내고 있는지를 윌리엄 노만 피턴저(William Norman Pittenger), 마조리 휴잇 수코키(Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki),조셉 브라켄(Joseph A. Bracken)을 중심으로 살펴보고자 한다.
Process theology heavily draws on philosophical works such as “Philosophy of Organism” by Alfred North Whitehead and “Surrelativism” by Charles Hartshorne, which, in spite of their differences, are widely known as process philosophy for their common positions. And its understanding of God is primarily characterized by the dipolar structure of the nature of God. Thus most process theologians such as John B. Cobb, Jr. are predominantly concerned with the relation between the transcendence of God to the world and the immanence of God in the world, to the neglect of the inner distinctions within God. On the contrary, there have been some process theologians such as William Norman Pittenger, Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki, and Joseph A. Bracken, who make an attempt to explicate the doctrine of the Trinity within the framework of process theology, though they are very different to each other. This paper investigates, analyzes, and describes some responses of trinitarian process theologians to the doctrine of the Trinity. In so doing, it focuses on how each comes to formulate each own position,that is, on what kind of ontology and epistemology each has in each own position. First, Pittenger argues that the immanent Trinity is supremely expressed in the economic Trinity, but not exclusively, which implies that God acts focally and decisively in Jesus Christ, but this divine action is not confined only to the historical person of Jesus Christ,and that the Holy Spirit is the divine response which enables the early Christians to respond to the divine action in Jesus Christ, but this divine response is not restricted to the Spirit within the Christian community. This position is based on his strong focus on the mystery of the Trinity, which makes an impact in opening a wide gap between the immanent and the economic Trinity. Thus Pittenger considers the immanent Trinity as much more than the Palestinian Trinity. Second, Bracken, while developing a metaphysics of becoming and an ontology of society, has a strong tendency towards “immersing” the economic into the immanent Trinity, for the way of the workings of the immanent Trinity is not only qualitatively different from that of the workings of the economic Trinity, but also the former incorporates the latter into its own activities. Here Bracken does not leave any room for a notion of mystery in his doctrine of the Trinity. For him, there is no constant mystery, but merely a temporary incognitio, which is already expected to take place. It is something to be proved in the end. Last, Suchocki, due to a strong emphasis on a relational ontology,leads inexorably towards “absorbing” the immanent into the economic Trinity. For Suchocki, the immanent Trinity is the immanent-inthe world economic Trinity, which is the Trinity already intrinsically in relation to the world. Here Suchocki maintains that God is experienced as the Trinity of Presence, Wisdom and Power. Thus God for us is the mystery, but it is something to be experienced, and the given in our internally relational ontology. In this sense, it is what can be explicitly and fully known through our experience of it, though it is now recognized ambiguously.
키워드열기/닫기 버튼
Process Theology, The Immanent-Economic Trinity, Ontology, Epistemology, Mystery
