최근 평양대부흥 수정주의 입장에 대한 종합적 이해, 문제점, 그리고 그에 대한 시사점 연구 (Recent Revisionist View on the Great Pyongyang Revival and Its Synthetic Understanding, Problems, and Implications)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국교회사학회
· 수록지 정보 : 한국교회사학회지 / 56호 / 7 ~ 38페이지
· 저자명 : 고훈

초록

본 논문은 1980년대부터 전개되었던 미국 제1차 대각성 운동에 대한 수정주의 논쟁을 간단히 정리하고, 특히 김상근, 류대영, 그리고 이만형의 수정주의 입장에 대한 종합적 이해, 그들의 연구의 문제점, 그리고 본 논문의결과들이 주는 시사점에 대하여 연구하고자 한다. 이를 위하여, 본 논문의2장은 선택된 학자들을 중심으로 미국 1차 대각성 운동에 대한 수정주의입장과 그에 대한 반응이 무엇이었는지 정리하고자 한다. 3장에서는 김상근, 류대영, 그리고 이만형의 연구를 종합적으로 이해하고자 미국 제1차 대각성 수정주의 입장이 그들의 연구에 어떻게 반영되고 있는지, 그리고 왜그러한 연구를 시도하였는지 연구한다. 나아가 그들의 연구에는 문제가 없는지 살펴보고자 한다. 4장에서는 2장과 3장에서 도출된 결과들을 중심으로 본 논문이 평양대부흥 연구에 주는 시사점을 논하고자 한다. 끝으로 지금까지 논의를 정리하고, 그에 대한 필자의 생각을 밝히고자 한다.

영어초록

The study of the Great Pyongyang Revival (hereafter GPR) has entered a new chapter because of studies produced by some scholars like Sang-Keun Kim, Dae-Young Ryu, and Man-Hyung Lee, who were affected by revisionists like Jon Butler, Joseph Conforti, and Frank Lambert, who reduced the scale or the importance of the Great Awakening (hereafter GA) and argue that the GA was an invention or an interpretive fiction.
The purpose of this paper is to organize a debate on the GA between revisionists and critics of the revisionist opinion, to both understand and criticize the revisionist view on the GPR, and suggest some implications of this study. As a result, I have observed the following findings. The Korean revisionists’ common ground was the emphasis on human factors in the GPR and such a study has some weaknesses. First, their study is based on the assumption that the study of church history emphasizes the role of the Holy Spirit too much that it underemphasizes its academic discipline. As a result, their study is overemphasized. Second, although they stress the historicity of the GPR, their argument is weak because their study tends to not use primary sources and relies on their framework. Third, they overlook diverse aspects of the revival.
Moreover, this paper’s implications can be summarized as follows, First, a postmodern theory of stressing the textuality of history rather than the reality of history has entered into the study of the GPR. Second, although American revisionists tend to reduce the importance of the GA, Korean revisionists tend to begin by reacting against the conservative view of emphasizing the role of the Holy Spirit. Third, the definition and period of the GPR need to be discussed again. Fourth, the correlation between the GPR and the March First Movement need to be reconsidered by reexamining existing sources and using a new method Overall, my arguments are as follows, First, although the Korean revisionists’ arguments have some limits mentioned above, their studies can help us rethink whether or not our study neglects human factors. Second, a new theme and method need to be developed rather than to simply discuss whether the GPR is fact or fiction.
This paper has two contributions to the study of the GPR: (1) the deep understanding of recent studies on the GA and the GPR and (2) the stimulating of new ideas for developing the study of GPR

참고자료

· 없음