부와 가난에 대한 신학적 성찰: 성 아우구스티누스가 남긴 불행한 유산
On Wealth and Poverty: A Critical Reflection on the Unfortunate Legacy of St. Augustine of Hippo
0
조회
0
다운로드
4
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
이 논문에서는 부와 가난에 대한 예수의‘급진적’가르침이 어떻게클레멘트, 헤르마스, 암브로시우스, 크리소스토무스 등과 같은 초대 교부들에 의해 서서히 완화되어 갔는지, 그리고 결국 성 아우구스티누스에 이르러 어떻게 부와 가난의 문제가‘하나님에 의해 만들어진 자연적질서의 한 부분’으로 탈바꿈하면서 신학적으로 변두리의 문제로 격하되었는지 그 과정을 추적할 것이다. 이를 통해 오늘날 우리 교회와 신학이 어떻게 아우구스티누스의‘불행한’유산으로부터 벗어날 수 있는지를 모색해 보고자 한다.
Abstract
Wealth has been an uneasy subject in the church from its earliest days, even to the extent that one could deduce that the unease was part of the essential fabric of the classical Christian tradition. In terms of wealth and poverty, however, Jesus set a radical new standard: “You cannot serve God and wealth.”(Matthew 6:24b) He questioned unambiguously the possibility of rich men’s salvation; instead, he exalted the poor as the locus of God’s kingdom. In a word, Jesus showed a naked hostility toward wealth, taught radical renunciation of possession, and required the redistribution of wealth as the very act of faith. Yet, a substantial number of writers from the patristic tradition onward remained ambivalent about accepting these teachings of Jesus. As for many church Fathers, it was difficult to accept either that wealth could be damned or that poverty could be admirable. Therefore, through analogical and other forms of interpretation, through the adaptation of Stoic principles, they softened or explained away the hardest teachings of Jesus. The author of this essay delineates how the classical patristic doctrine against Jesus’ teachings was sketched out in Clement and Hermas, followed by a long chain of preachers such as Ambrose, Chrysostom, and eventually completed by Augustine. As Augustine confirmed that wealth and poverty are part of the natural order established by God, argues the author, the church has been unable to respond in any radical or consistent way to the growing disparities between the poor and wealthy. Rather, the church has helped to continue the legacy of condoning economic inequality. Due to this “unfortunate legacy” of Augustine, argues the author, matters such as the origin, nature, and use of wealth are not considered theological issues even today. The church at large avoids them by conveniently placing them at the margin. And by defining them as issues of social ethics, and therefore as the subject matter of a different discipline, theologians have tended to define them as nontheological issues. The author proposes Christian churches to restore Jesus’hardest teaching on wealth and poverty as one of central agenda for theological discussion today.