5 ‧ 18정신과 타자를 위한 인간 ―문용동과 본회퍼의 생애를 중심으로

Abstract

“The man for the others” is a term in the later theology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer that was hanged under Hitler’s Nazi regime. Taking into consideration the situations of the 20th century characterized by the denial of god and the effort to make reason's activities absolute, Bonhoeffer defined God's son or Jesus Christ as a “man for the others” that sacrificed himself until he died on the cross. This paper focused on two men that lived and died in the faith of Jesus Christ that existed as a “man for the others”: Bonhoeffer and Mun Yong‐dong. Just like Bonhoeffer was a true disciple of Jesus that lived a sacrificing life for others until his death, Mun displayed himself as a true disciple of Jesus of Nazareth, who was the archetype of “man for the others,” in the process of Gwangju Democratization Movement in May, 1980. Mun was a student attending the Honam Theological University and Seminary and minister that proclaimed God's words passionately at church during the movement. There are close connections between the spirit of the Gwangju Democratization Movement or the spirit of May 18 and “man for the others.” The spirit of May 18 can be found in a life of “man for the others,” which is in turn clearly found in the Gwangju Democratization Movement on May 18. The spirit of May 18 stemmed from the process of struggling against autocracy and for democratization. It represented the good values of restoring people’s freedom that was taken away, raising peace that collapsed again, and getting back people’s human right that was trampled. Both Mun and Bonhoeffer clearly showed what was ethical life as a “man for the others.” Their lives were built upon God's love and affection for neighbors. The present study had the following results: first, Christian faith includes the acts of faith manifested in specific situations. Mun and Bonhoeffer did a good job at showing the essence of faith accompanied by actions without separating action from faith. Secondly, they aroused the importance of calling and responsibility that were critical to Christian faith. They added the significance of responsibility to calling as a vocation in their thinking process. Thirdly, they lived as “man for the others.” From a theological perspective, Mun followed Calvin's theology, whereas Bonhoeffer reflected the viewpoint of Lutheran theology. Finally, it is important to ask ourselves whether we participate in the existence of Jesus of Nazareth as Christ. Both Mun and Bonhoeffer offer an answer to this question.