‘상생(相生)의 신학’은 1991년 11월에 열린 제1회 청암학술 잔치를 통하여 한국 신학계에 모습을 드러내기 시작하였지만,1) 박종천 교수의 신학적 작업에 의하여 한국신학으로서 성숙되어져 갔다.『상생의 신학』 과『기어 가시는 하느님』을 통하여 상생의 신학은 한국 민족종교 속에 서, 특별히 동학 속에서 한국신학의 단초를 찾으며 토착화신학과 민중 신학으로 양분되어져 있는 한국신학을 통전하려고 시도하였다. 그러므 로 이 글에서는 박종천 교수의 위의 두 책을 중심으로 그의 동학의 해 석에 초점을 맞추면서 상생의 신학을 살펴보려고 한다. 그리고 상생신 학의 아시아 신학적 의미를 위하여 스리랑카 신학자인 알로이시어스 피에리스(Alysius Pieris)의 아시아 신학과 대화를 나누려고 한다.

The first goal of this paper is to articulate the interliving theology in Korea and the second is to investigate the meaning of the interliving theology as an Asian theology. Korean theology can be categorized as “Indigenous Theology” and “Minjung Theology.” The inter-living theology as an indigenous theology appeared on Korean theology in November, 1991. Pro. Jongchun Park is deeply developing the theology as a Korean theology. Therefore, in this article, the interliving theology signifies the theology developed by him, and Asian theology is limited to the Asian Theology of Aloysius Pieris because a lot of Asian theologians think that his Asian theological frame, which presents Asian religiousness and poverty, represents Asian theology. Pro. Park seeks “Grafting Model” as the methodology of the interliving theology for the relationship between Gospel and Korean culture resting on Rome, 11:13-24. The model accomplishes two kinds of ‘cutting.’ The first is to cut ideological aspects in Korean history, which oppressed Minjung. The second is to cut Western aspects in Christianity, which deconstructed Korean culture. Park’s interliving theology finds out the prototype of Korean theology in Tonghak, which is a traditional religion in Korea. He reads Tonghak as a grammar of interliving. However, he insists that Sooun, who is the founder of Tonghak, is ‘anonymously altogether Christian’ rather than ‘altogether Christian.’ After all, Pro Park criticizes Western Christianity from the perspective of Korean religion and culture, and Korean religions and cultures from the perspective of Gospel. Pieris insists that the peculiar aspect of Asia is ‘religiousness’ and ‘poverty,’ and believes that Asian church should be baptized by the Jordan of Asian religion and the Calvary of Asian poverty. But he does not consider that Asian religion and culture should be baptized by Gospel because Jesus was baptized by John rather than baptized other people. Even though Interliving theology seeks mutual relationship between Gospel and Asian religion (culture), Pieris’ Asian theology does unilateral relationship for Asian theology. Therefore, this article suggests that the methodology of Asian theology should develop mutual interpretation like Park’s Inter-living Theology rather than unilateral interpretation like Pieris’s Asian theology.

The first goal of this paper is to articulate the interliving theology in Korea and the second is to investigate the meaning of the interliving theology as an Asian theology. Korean theology can be categorized as “Indigenous Theology” and “Minjung Theology.” The inter-living theology as an indigenous theology appeared on Korean theology in November, 1991. Pro. Jongchun Park is deeply developing the theology as a Korean theology. Therefore, in this article, the interliving theology signifies the theology developed by him, and Asian theology is limited to the Asian Theology of Aloysius Pieris because a lot of Asian theologians think that his Asian theological frame, which presents Asian religiousness and poverty, represents Asian theology. Pro. Park seeks “Grafting Model” as the methodology of the interliving theology for the relationship between Gospel and Korean culture resting on Rome, 11:13-24. The model accomplishes two kinds of ‘cutting.’ The first is to cut ideological aspects in Korean history, which oppressed Minjung. The second is to cut Western aspects in Christianity, which deconstructed Korean culture. Park’s interliving theology finds out the prototype of Korean theology in Tonghak, which is a traditional religion in Korea. He reads Tonghak as a grammar of interliving. However, he insists that Sooun, who is the founder of Tonghak, is ‘anonymously altogether Christian’ rather than ‘altogether Christian.’ After all, Pro Park criticizes Western Christianity from the perspective of Korean religion and culture, and Korean religions and cultures from the perspective of Gospel. Pieris insists that the peculiar aspect of Asia is ‘religiousness’ and ‘poverty,’ and believes that Asian church should be baptized by the Jordan of Asian religion and the Calvary of Asian poverty. But he does not consider that Asian religion and culture should be baptized by Gospel because Jesus was baptized by John rather than baptized other people. Even though Interliving theology seeks mutual relationship between Gospel and Asian religion (culture), Pieris’ Asian theology does unilateral relationship for Asian theology. Therefore, this article suggests that the methodology of Asian theology should develop mutual interpretation like Park’s Inter-living Theology rather than unilateral interpretation like Pieris’s Asian theology.

Inter-living Theology, Asian Theoilogy, Korean Theology