김교신 연구의 논쟁점 재검토

Abstract

This article selected four key discussion points in existing research on Kim Kyo-shin and attempted to conduct an academic reexamination. These are either new perspectives that appeared as existing studies on Kim Kyo-shin began to be criticized or issues that have caused controversy and thus they are in need of academic organization. The four points are as follows. ① Did Kim Kyo-shin pursue the reconciliation of Christianity and Confucianism under the influence of Ryu Young-mo? ② When did Kim Kyo-shin accept the doctrine of justification? ③ Did Kim Kyo-shin criticize Tsukamoto Toraji, who was a second-generation representative of Japanese non-churchism? ④ Can Ham Sok-hon be viewed as a second-generation non-churchist to succeed Kim Kyoshin? First, Kim Kyo-shin believed in the absoluteness of Christianity and did not pursue the reconciliation of Christianity and Confucianism. Regarding other religions, he held a position based on the Fulfillment Theory and with regard to his religious stance, he was most influenced by Uchimura Ganzo. Second, Kim Kyo-shin overcame Confucian perspectives on humans and accepted the soteriology of Christianity, not during the period of the Holiness Church but when he listened to explanations given by Uchimura on <Romans>. Thus, Kim Kyo-shin’s acceptance of the doctrine of justification can be seen to have come into existence some time around 1921 to 1922 and not 1920. Third, it is difficult to conclude that Kim Kyo-shin targeted or criticized Tsukamoto with regard to issues of non-churchism and prophetic Christianity. To Kim Kyoshin, Tsukamoto was like a respected senior and teacher. When consideration is given to their special personal relationship and the fact that there is no clear historical support for such claims, it cannot be concluded that Kim Kyo-shin criticized Tsukamoto. Fourth, Ham Sok-hon cannot be viewed as a secondgeneration non-churchist to succeed Kim Kyo-shin. Ham Sok-hon left the nonchurch organization after liberation and, ideologically, he did not accept the cross-substituting faith which is the core of non-churchism, or the doctrine of justification.