Jaesoon Park 씨알 함석헌의 생명철학적 존재론

(3) Facebook

Jaesoon Park

1t3Spuohnsnlorlfed  · 

씨알 함석헌의 생명철학적 존재론(씨알사상연구원 발제에 대한 논평문)

김형근의 ‘저항 속에 존재하는 씨ᄋᆞᆯ: 하늘(ㅇ), 나(ㆍ), 저항(ᅟᅠᆯ)’을 읽고-씨ᄋᆞᆯ 함석헌의 생명철학적 존재론을 중심으로

박 재 순

나는 이미 김형근 씨ᄋᆞᆯ이 ‘청년씨ᄋᆞᆯ회’에서 발표한 글들을 여러 편 읽었으며 그가 진지하고 뛰어난 함석헌사상 연구자임을 알고 있었다. 이번에 발표한 김형근의 글은 함석헌의 씨ᄋᆞᆯ사상에 대한 깊고 명확한 논의와 주장을 담고 있다. 그 내용과 주장은 내가 다 공감하고 동의할 수 있는 것이다. 따라서 내가 논쟁을 벌이거나 비판을 하고 싶은 내용은 없다. 다만 내가 강조하고 접근하고 싶은 관점과 지향점은 다르다고 생각한다. 나는 나의 관점과 지향점을 밝힘으로써 김형근 씨ᄋᆞᆯ의 생각과 나의 생각을 맞추어보려고 한다.

김 씨ᄋᆞᆯ의 글은 두 가지 독특한 주장과 관점을 담고 있다. 첫째 글 제목에서 ‘저항 속에 존재하는 씨ᄋᆞᆯ’이라고 함으로써 ‘씨ᄋᆞᆯ의 존재’를 ‘저항’ 속에서 파악하고 있다. 또한 씨ᄋᆞᆯ의 생명활동 ‘ᅟᅠᆯ’을 저항으로 파악함으로써 생명의 근본 활동과 성격을 저항으로 제시하였다. 둘째 “씨ᄋᆞᆯ아, 네가 어디 있느냐?”는 실존적인 물음에서 시작하여 그 물음을 따라서 씨ᄋᆞᆯ사상의 핵심을 파고 들어간다.

이런 접근과 문제의식은 사회역사의 현실과 대중문화적 현실과 접촉점을 마련하고 현실과의 대화를 발전 심화시킬 수 있다고 생각한다. ‘저항’을 강조함으로써 씨ᄋᆞᆯ사상은 역사와 사회 속에서 혁신과 변화를 이루기 위해 투쟁하고 저항하는 사람들과 대화하고 연대 협력할 수 있으며, 투쟁하고 저항하는 사람들을 위로하고 격려할 수 있을 것이다. 또 “씨ᄋᆞᆯ아, 네가 어디 있느냐?”는 물음은 함석헌의 제자로 자처하거나 씨ᄋᆞᆯ사상을 연구하는 사람들에게 도전하는 물음이 될 수 있을 것이다. 나아가서 물질론과 기계론이 지배하는 현대산업문명 속에서 생명과 영혼을 잃고 헤매는 대중들을 일깨우는 실존적인 물음이 될 수 있다. 

김형근은 저항을 씨ᄋᆞᆯ 생명의 존재와 본성으로 파악하면서도 생명의 존재와 본성의 핵심에는 ‘자기초월’이 있음을 밝히고 있다. 또한 “씨ᄋᆞᆯ아, 네가 어디 있느냐?”는 물음에 “내가 씨알이다. 씨알은 내 안에 있다.”라고 대답한다. 나는 김형근의 이런 논의가 중요하고 의미 있다고 생각하면서도 김형근이 도달한 씨ᄋᆞᆯ 생명의 자기초월과 “내가 씨ᄋᆞᆯ이다.”는 씨ᄋᆞᆯ의 자기선언에서 함석헌의 씨ᄋᆞᆯ생명철학이 비로소 시작된다고 생각한다. 

인간은 자신의 해방자와 창조자

함석헌은 ‘우리가 내세우는 것’에서 씨ᄋᆞᆯ은 “우리 자신을 모든 역사적 죄악에서 해방시키고 새로운 창조를 위한 자격을 스스로 닦아내기 위해 일부러 새로 만든 말”이라고 하였다. 그는 ‘씨ᄋᆞᆯ’에서 ‘ᄋᆞᆯ’을 이렇게 풀이하였다. “‘ㅇ’은 극대(極大) 혹은 초월적(超越的)인 하늘을 표시하는 것이고, ‘ㆍ’은 극소(極小) 혹은 내재적(內在的)인 하늘 곧 자아(自我)를 표시하는 것이며, ‘ᅟᅠᆯ’은 활동하는 생명의 표시”라고 하였다. 또 함석헌에게 인간은 우주 자연, 생명 진화, 인간 역사, 신적 생명의 씨ᄋᆞᆯ이다. 인간 속에는 무궁한 과거와 영원한 미래의 생명이 씨ᄋᆞᆯ로서 심겨져 있다. 

이 짧은 글 속에 씨ᄋᆞᆯ사상의 생명철학이 담겨 있다. ‘우리 자신’이라고 함으로써 함석헌은 인간이 씨ᄋᆞᆯ사상과 실천의 주체적 참여자이고 당사자임을 밝혔다. 씨ᄋᆞᆯ로서 인간은 모든 역사적 죄악에서 자신을 해방하고 구원하는 주체이며 자신이 스스로 해방하고 구원할 대상이다. 자신의 해방자이면서 동시에 자신이 해방시켜야 할 대상이라는 점에서 인간은 자신과의 대립과 갈등, 모순과 역설 속에 있다. 또한 인간은 새로운 창조를 위한 자격을 스스로 닦아내야 할 존재다. 인간은 자신의 해방자이면서 새로운 창조자이며 자신의 해방과 창조를 위한 자격을 스스로 닦아내야 할 존재다.

씨ᄋᆞᆯ이 자신의 해방자와 창조자라는 관점에서 ‘ᄋᆞᆯ’에 대한 풀이를 볼 때 그 생명철학적 의미가 분명히 드러난다. 씨ᄋᆞᆯ로서 인간은 ‘극대 혹은 초월적 하늘’을 품은 존재이며 ‘극소 혹은 내재적 하늘 곧 자아를 지닌 존재로서 활동하는 생명을 가진 존재이다. 하늘은 땅의 물질적 속박과 법칙을 초월한 것이다. 씨ᄋᆞᆯ의 생명은 땅의 물질에 터잡고 물질에 의존하여 살면서도 하늘의 초월적 자유를 누리며 실현한다. 더 나아가서 씨ᄋᆞᆯ은 자신의 역사적 죄악에서 자신을 해방하고 새롭게 창조하는 존재다. 역사적 생명으로서 씨ᄋᆞᆯ은 물질적 제약과 법칙적 속박을 초월하는 존재이며 자신을 해방하고 새롭게 창조함으로써 끊임없이 자신을 초월하는 존재이다. 

함석헌 씨ᄋᆞᆯ사상의 생명철학적 존재론 

우주 만물, 생명진화, 인류역사, 신적인 얼과 혼의 씨ᄋᆞᆯ인 인간의 자아 속에는 물질, 생명, 감정, 지성, 영성, 신성의 심층적이고 입체적인 수많은 차원의 존재들이 압축되어 있다. 인간의 자아는 자기포기와 초월을 통해서 낮은 차원의 존재들을 승화 고양시킴으로써 보다 높은 차원들의 존재들을 구현해 간다.

함석헌의 존재론은 물질적, 관념적 존재론이 아니라 생명철학적 존재론이며 생명철학적 존재론은 주체적 자아의 존재론이다. “세계란 것이 먼저 있어 가지고 그 한 모퉁이에 내가 버섯 돋듯 나온 것이 아니라, 세계 속에 내가 벌써 있었고 내가 있음으로 세계가 있다. 나 가기 전에 누가 낸 길이 있어 그것을 내가 걷는 것 아니라 천지 창조하기 전에 아버지 안에 내가 벌써 있었고 내가 있을 때 내 안에 길이 있었다. 길 위에 내가 떨어진 것이 아니라 ‘내가 길이요, 진리요, 생명이다.’”(207) 함석헌은 하나님과 씨ᄋᆞᆯ도 주체적 자아로 파악한다. “우주는 움직이는 우주요, 인생은 자라는 인생이다. 하나님은 영원히 되자는 이, 되어가고 있는 이다....‘있어서 있는 자’....‘나는 나다 하는 자다.’...‘나는 있으려는 자로 있으려는 자.’다.”(211) “우리는 터져 나가는 우주에 산다. 우리가 터져 나가는 우주다. 우주의 씨이다. 우주의 한 없는 겨레가 터져 나올 씨이다.”(새 삶의 길’ 함석헌전집 2권 1983. 212) “모든 있음[存在]은 그 속에서 피어나오는 정신에 자기를 양보해서만 생(生)에 참여할 수 있습니다. 살이 사라짐으로만 정신은 살아날 것입니다.”(‘비폭력 혁명’, 함석헌전집 2권. 35)

생명철학적 존재론에서 존재, 있음은 고정된 것이 아니라 있음과 없음의 경계를 넘나드는 것이며 자기부정과 초월을 통해 새롭게 형성되고 창조되는 것이고, 생성과 변화의 과정 속에 있는 것이다. “있음과 없음이 둘이 아니요, 있음과 생각과도 둘이 아닐 것이다. 있다 하면 없는 것이요, 없다 하면 있는 것이다. 참 생각이야말로 있음이요, 참 있음이야말로 생각이다. 있다 함은 벌써 생각이 끊어진 것이요, 생각하면 벌써 있음은 깨진 것이다. 그러나 이것은 어떻게 할 수 없는 모순이다···생명은 이것으로써 자기초월을 해 나간다. 인격의 본질은 자기초월이다. 제가 저를 아는 것이 긍정이면서도 자기부정이 된다...인격은 자기반성으로 자기부정을 하고 자기를 부정하는 순간 자기는 자기 이상일 수밖에 없다. 이리하여 쉬임 없이 자기초월을 해나가는 것이 인격이다.”(‘인간혁명’ 함석헌전집 2권. 95) 생명은 자기부정과 초월을 하는 것이므로 끊임없이 새롭게 형성되고 창조되는 것이다. 주체적 자아의 존재는 주체적 자아의 활동(생각)과 대립과 갈등, 모순과 역설 속에 있다.

이러한 자기초월과 혁신의 존재론은 생명의 근본원리 ‘스스로 함’에서 비롯된 것이다. 그리고 스스로 하는 생명은 존재의 까닭과 이유, 동기와 목적을 자신 안에 가진 것이다. “인격의 본질이 자기초월이라는 말은, 생명의 근본은 스스로 함이란 말이다...모든 것은 결국 생명이 스스로 하는 데서 나온 것이다. 그것이 우리 눈에 모순의 통일로 보이는 것은 우리 이성이 설명할 수 없기 때문이다. 이성이 설명 못한다는 것은 까닭을 알 수 없단 말이다. 까닭을 모르는 그것은 스스로 하는 존재기 때문이다. 까닭은 물건에 있지 생명에는 까닭이 없다. 그 자신이 까닭이다. 내가 사는 것은 까닭이 있어 사는 것 아니다. 그저 살고 싶어 사는 것이다. 하나님이 살라시니까 산다든지 하나님을 위해 산다든지 하는 말은 결국 까닭 없다는 말이다. 까닭은 물적 이유, 원인이다. 정신에는 까닭 없다. 하나님은 까닭 없이 있는 이다. 그러므로 나는 그저 있어서 있는 자라 한다. 우리 생존 이유를 하나님에 붙인다는 것은 우리 생존이 물질적인 것에 의존하지 않고 순정신적인 것이라는 말이다. 정신은 까닭 없이 있어 모든 그의 까닭이 되는 것이다. 뜻이 만물을 있게 한다는 말이다. 그러므로 인격은 이 스스로 자존하는 데 뿌리를 박은 후에야 비로소 힘이 있는 생활 곧 자신(自新)해가는 생활을 할 수 있다.” (‘인간혁명’, 함석헌전집 2권. 95) 

그러나 인간의 생명은 물질적 육체 안에 있는 것이며 물질에 의존해서 사는 것이다. 따라서 인간의 생명은 온전히 스스로 하는 자유를 누릴 수 없는 존재이며 물질과 육체의 물질적 속박과 법칙적 제약 속에 사는 존재다. 물질적 속박과 법칙적 제약 속에 살기 때문에 생명의 자유로운 본성과 사명을 거스르는 죄악을 저지르게 된다. 그러나 인간은 스스로 물질적 속박과 법칙적 제약을 극복하고 초월하여 자신의 죄악에서 벗어나 생명으로서 자신의 본분과 사명을 구현해야 하는 존재다.

함석헌에 따르면 ’모든 역사적 죄악‘은 인간 자신이 저지른 것이며 그 역사적 죄악에 사로잡힌 자아를 해방하는 것은 그 자아를 부정하고 초월하고 혁신하여 새로운 자아를 창조하는 것이다. 따라서 자아는 고정된 존재가 아니라 자기 부정과 초월, 자아혁신과 새로운 창조를 통해서 새로운 자아로 되어가는 존재다. 생명과 생명적 자아의 존재(있음)는 늘 새로운 존재로 되어가는 과정 속에 있는 것이고 새로운 차원의 존재로 되어야 하는 것이다. “생각하는 씨ᄋᆞᆯ이라야 산다.”는 함석헌의 말은 생각함으로써 새로운 생명(자아)을 지어야 한다는 것을 뜻한다. 생각한다는 것은 자기부정과 초월을 통해 새로운 자아, 새로운 차원의 자아와 존재로 나아가는 것이다. 그러므로 함석헌은 ’있음‘을 긍정하고 받아들이면 생각이 끊어진 것이고 생각하는 순간 있음은 깨어지고 부정되는 것이라고 하였다. 

인간의 생각, 의식, 정신은 생명과 자아의 존재를 깨트리고 부정하고 초월하여 새로운 존재를 창조하고 형성하는 것이다. 스스로 하는 생명의 자발적 주체로서 자아는 물질(육체)적 자아(물질 육체적 존재)와 관념적 자아(관념, 지식적 존재)를 깨트리고 부정하고 초월하여 스스로 하는 자발적 주체가 되어야 한다. 물질적 관념적 존재와 순수한 자발적 주체로서의 자아는 대립과 모순, 갈등과 역설의 변증법 속에 있다.

’뜻으로 본 한국역사‘에서 함석헌은 생명과 정신을 물질적, 관념·논리적 인과관계를 벗어난 것으로 이해했다. 모든 물질과 관념은 자기밖에 원인과 결과를 가지고 있다. 그러나 스스로 하는 생명의 주체적 자아는 제가 저의 까닭, 존재의 이유와 목적이 제 안에 있다. 그러므로 자아를 잃은 것이 모든 간난과 폐해의 근원이다. “우리나라 역사에서는 이 자아를 잃어버렸다는 일, 자기를 찾으려 하지 않았다는 이 일이 백 가지 병, 백 가지 폐해의 근본원인이 된다. 나를 잊었기 때문에 이상이 없고 자유가 없다. 민족적 큰 이상이 없기 때문에 대동단결이 안 된다.”(『뜻으로 본 한국역사』 함석헌전집 1권. 1983. 297)  

전통적 존재론과 생명철학적 존재론의 차이

인간의 생명과 자아에 대한 함석헌의 논의는 생명철학을 드러낸다. 생명은 물질 안에서 물질을 초월한 것이다. 생명체는 물질적 육체를 가진 것이면서 비물질적 초물질적 정신(의식)을 가진 것이다. 생명의 생명다운 특징과 본질은 비물질적 초물질적인 데 있다. 생명의 근본 특징과 원리는 스스로 하는 자발적 주체성, 통일적 전체성, 창조적 진화성이다. 주체성과 전체성과 진화성을 관통하는 원리는 ’나‘(자아)다. 스스로 하는 주체가 나이고 전체의 통일적 초점과 중심이 나이며 진화의 동인과 목적, 주체와 대상도 나다. 생명의 본성적 특징과 원리인 주체, 전체, 진화, ’나‘는 물질적으로 측정되거나 계산될 수 없는 것이다.

생명의 주체인 ’나‘, 자아는 물질, 육체적 자아에 대하여 끊임없는 부정과 초월을 통해서 새로운 자아로 진화 고양 향상 초월하여 초월적 하늘(하나님)께로 나아가는 존재다. 자기부정과 초월을 통해서 물질적 관념적 존재를 깨트리고 부정하고 초월함으로써 끊임없이 새롭게 혁신되고 창조되는 존재다. 

자기부정과 초월을 통하여 끊임없이 새롭게 창신되는 주체적 자아의 자기부정과 초월, 자아혁신과 창조의 생명철학적 존재론은 끊임없이 새로운 차원의 존재를 열어가고 지어가는 심층적이고 역동적인 존재론이다. 이러한 생명철학적 존재론은 이성과 물질을 중심으로 형성된 서양의 물질적 존재론과 관념적 존재론, 천지인합일의 우주자연과 인간심성을 리와 기로 설명되는 동아시아의 존재론과는 구별된다. 

기존의 전통적 존재론을 크게 세 가지로 구분할 수 있다. 첫째 그리스의 형이상학적 존재론은 이데아와 질료로 구성되는 존재론이다. 이것은 보고 인식하는 인간의 이성이 주도하고 지배하는 존재론이다. 인간의 이성이 순수하게 보는 수학, 기하학의 논리적 관념과 도형, 이데아, 형상이 존재의 불변적 본질과 실체이며 물질적 질료는 생성소멸하면서 있을 수도 있고 없을 수도 있는 가변적 존재이다. theoria(이론) idea(이데아)는 모두 ’본다‘는 말이다. 이성이 보는 관념, 형상, 이론, 지식이 물질적 존재를 형성하고 지배한다.

둘째 데카르트가 대표하는 근현대의 정신·물질의 이원론적 존재론이다. 그는 생각하는 이성의 관념적 논리적 사유의 세계와 과학이 탐구하는 자연물질세계를 엄격히 분리시켰다. 관념적 사유의 세계로부터 자연물질세계를 분리독립시켰다. 결국 실제로 존재하는 세계는 자연물질세계이며 관념과 논리의 사유세계는 생각 속에서만 존재하는 것으로 쪼그라들었다. 따라서 근현대문명은 생명없는 물질론과 영혼없는 기계론이 지배하게 되었다. 나와 다른 사람과 우주자연생명세계를 물질과 기계로만 인식하고 대접함으로써 현대문명은 자기파괴와 자멸의 길로 들어서게 되었다. 인간은 이제 서로 물질과 기계가 되고 물질적 기계적 효율성과 합리성만을 추구하게 되었고 생명과 영혼을 잃고 공동체를 파괴하는 길로 들어섰다.

셋째 천지인합일의 통합적 생명세계를 지향한 중국의 합일적 존재론이다. 중국의 존재론은 천지인합일에 이르는 우주자연과 인간의 심성(心性)을 도(道), 리(理), 기(氣)로 설명하려고 하였다. 도는 천지인합일에 이르는 길이며 리는 하늘의 도를 드러내고 이해하는 이치이며 기는 땅의 물질과 생명과 정신을 꿰뚫는 기운이다. 기는 아무리 고양되어도 땅의 자연 물질 생명 세계에 속한 것이다. 동학처럼 지기(至氣)와 천주(상제)를 동일시하면 천주는 우주 자연 생명 세계에 속할 뿐이며 새 하늘, 새 땅을 창조하는 초월자가 되지 못한다. 이런 존재론은 자연생명세계와 인간의 심성을 생명친화적이고 통합적으로 이해하고 설명하지만 자기 초월과 새로운 창조의 혁신적 역동적인 생명철학적 존재론에 이르지는 못한다. 동아시아의 생명철학은 하늘과 땅과 인간을 통합하는 조화와 상생의 공동체적 존재론을 제시했지만 하늘과 땅과 인간을 창조하고 혁신하는 자기초월적 생명철학에 이르지는 못하였다. 오늘날 인간은 자연 만물과 자기 자신의 본성과 본질을 개조할 수 있는 존재가 되었고 국가와 사회와 역사를 새롭게 지어갈 수 있는 주체가 되었다.

씨ᄋᆞᆯ생명철학의 심층적 중층적 다차원적 존재론

함석헌의 씨ᄋᆞᆯ사상은 자기부정과 초월을 통해 새로운 존재를 창조하고 열어가는 생명철학적 존재론을 제시한다. 씨ᄋᆞᆯ로서 인간은 자신의 해방자와 구원자이며 자신이 해방하고 구원해야 할 대상이다. 또한 씨ᄋᆞᆯ로서 인간은 자신의 창조자와 피조물이다. 생명진화와 인류역사를 돌이켜 보면 생명과 인간은 자신의 창조자와 피조물로서 죽음과 신생을 통해서 새로운 존재의 차원을 열어왔다. 씨ᄋᆞᆯ은 초월적 하늘(하나님, 하나임)을 품고 그 하늘을 향해 끊임없이 솟아올라 나아가는 존재이다. 또한 씨ᄋᆞᆯ은 스스로 내재적 하늘로서 끊임없이 자기초월을 하는 자아를 가진 존재이고 생명으로서 참된 주체와 전체와 진화를 이루기 위해서 활동하는 존재이다. 

씨ᄋᆞᆯ의 존재와 활동은 생명철학적 존재론을 드러내고 구현한다. 씨ᄋᆞᆯ은 스스로 땅 속에 묻혀서 자기를 깨트리고 썩고 죽음으로써 새 생명으로 태어난다. 씨ᄋᆞᆯ은 새싹으로 싹트고, 줄기와 가지, 잎과 꽃과 열매를 맺음으로써 죽음과 신생, 자기부정과 초월, 탈바꿈과 새로운 창조를 통해서 새롭고 크고 높은 생명으로 진화하고 고양된다. 자기부정과 초월을 통해 내재적 하늘인 자아가 존재의 차원변화를 일으키며 초월적 하늘을 향해 솟아올라 나아가는 씨ᄋᆞᆯ생명철학의 심층적이고 역동적인 존재론을 좀 더 생각해보자. 우주와 자연생명과 인간의 사회역사와 하늘의 얼과 신의 세계는 다층적이고 심층적이며 복합적인 존재의 차원들을 지니고 있다. 

수학과 기하학의 수와 도형, 개념과 논리, 지식과 정보는 2차원 평면 세계에 속한다. 3차원 공간의 물질세계, 4차원 시공간의 우주는 중력과 물리역학, 상대성원리와 같은 자연법칙이 지배한다. 5차원 생명세계는 2~4차원의 수리 물리 화학 법칙들을 충족시키면서 그 법칙들을 초월하는 상생공존의 생리세계다. 6차원은 5차원 생리세계를 뛰어넘는 심리세계다. 7차원은 6차원 심리세계를 뛰어넘어 개인과 집단의 주체들이 갈등하고 대립하며 협력하고 공존하는 역사 사회의 도리(道里) 세계다. 8차원은 개인과 집단의 갈등과 대립을 뛰어넘는 몰아적 신명과 신비적 합일의 종교 예술적 영리(靈理)세계다. 9차원은 개별적 자아의 깊은 자각을 가지면서 서로 주체로서 생명(우주, 인류) 전체의 하나 됨에 이르는 구도자적 애리(愛理)의 세계다. 10차원은 개별적 주체의 자아가 생명 전체(초월적 하늘, 하나님)와 완전한 합일에 이르는 신리(神理)세계다. 자기부정과 초월을 통해서 초월적 하늘에 이르는 과정에서 낮은 차원들은 높은 차원들에 포섭되고 포월되어 고양되고 승화되며, 높은 차원들은 낮은 차원으로 육화, 물화되어 개별화하고 구체화한다. 물질과 육체는 생명화, 정신화, 영화, 신화(神化)하며 하늘의 얼과 신은 물화, 육화한다.

물질론과 기계론이 지배하는 현대사회에서 생명의 심층적 중층적 차원들은 그 깊이와 높이와 풍부함을 잃고 수학적 계산과 기하학적 도형, 디지털 지식과 정보(데이터)의 2차원 평면세계로 위축된다. 2차원 평면세계는 생명과 정신, 얼과 혼이 없는 사회다. 인터넷 공간과 메타버스(metaverse)의 세계에 생명과 영혼의 가치와 의미를 반영시킬 수는 있지만 인터넷 공간과 메타버스는 생명과 영혼이 결여된 세계다. 씨ᄋᆞᆯ사상은 인간이 물질론과 기계론을 넘어서, 인공지능과 메타버스의 평면 세계를 넘어서 생명과 영혼, 감성과 이성과 영성의 심층적이고 중층적인 다차원적 존재의 세계를 구현하는 생명철학이다. 2차원 평면세계에서 초월적 하늘에 이르는 우주의 대자연과 인간의 생명과 정신, 하늘의 얼과 혼에 담긴 참되고 어질고 아름답고 거룩한 존재의 세계를 드러내고 실현하는 것이 내재적 하늘을 품고 초월적 하늘을 지향하는 인간의 자아가 씨ᄋᆞᆯ로서 지닌 사명과 본분이다.

Norman Morrison - Wikipedia

Norman Morrison - Wikipedia

Norman Morrison

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Norman Morrison
Born	December 29, 1933 Erie, Pennsylvania, U.S.
Died	November 2, 1965 (aged 31) The Pentagon, Arlington County, Virginia, U.S.
Cause of death	Self-immolated to protest American involvement in the Vietnam War
Nationality	American
Alma mater	College of Wooster
Spouse(s)	Anne Welsh
Children	3

Norman Morrison (December 29, 1933 – November 2, 1965) was a Baltimore Quaker best known for his act of self-immolation at age 31 to protest United States involvement in the Vietnam War. The Erie, Pennsylvania-born Morrison graduated from the College of Wooster in 1956. He was married and had two daughters and a son.^[1] On November 2, 1965, Morrison doused himself in kerosene and set himself on fire below Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara's Pentagon office.^[2] This may have been taken after Thích Quảng Đức and other Buddhist monks, who burned themselves to death to protest the repression committed by the South Vietnam government of Catholic President Ngo Dinh Diem.^[3]

Contents

• 1Death
• 2Legacy
• 3Cultural depictions
• 4Memorials
• 5See also
• 6References
• 7Further reading
• 8External links

Death[edit]

See also: List of political self-immolations

Morrison took his daughter Emily, then one year of age, to the Pentagon, and either set her down or handed her off to someone in the crowd before setting himself ablaze. Morrison's reasons for taking Emily are not entirely known. However, Morrison's wife Anne Welsh later recalled, "Whether he thought of it that way or not, I think having Emily with him was a final and great comfort to Norman... [S]he was a powerful symbol of the children we were killing with our bombs and napalm--who didn't have parents to hold them in their arms."^[4]

In a letter he mailed to Welsh, Morrison reassured her of the faith in his act. "Know that I love thee ... but I must go to help the children of the priest's village". McNamara described Morrison's death as "a tragedy not only for his family but also for me and the country. It was an outcry against the killing that was destroying the lives of so many Vietnamese and American youth." He was survived by Anne Welsh and three children, Ben (who died of cancer in 1977), Christina and Emily.^[5]

Legacy[edit]

Morrison was seen as devout and sincere in sacrificing himself for a cause greater than himself. In Vietnam, Morrison quickly became a folk hero to some, his name rendered as Mo Ri Xon.^[6] Five days after Morrison died, Vietnamese poet Tố Hữu wrote a poem, "Emily, My Child", assuming the voice of Morrison addressing his daughter Emily and telling her the reasons for his sacrifice.^[7]

One week after Morrison, Roger Allen LaPorte performed a similar act in New York City, in front of the United Nations building. On May 9, 1967, as part of the start to the 1967 Pentagon camp-in, demonstrators held a vigil for Morrison, before occupying the Pentagon for four days until being removed and arrested.^[3]

Newspaper - The Sun (Baltimore)

Morrison's widow, Anne, and the couple's two daughters visited Vietnam in 1999, where they met with Tố Hữu, the poet who had written the popular poem Emily, My Child.^[5] Anne Morrison Welsh recounts the visit and her husband's tragedy in her monograph, Fire of the Heart: Norman Morrison's Legacy In Vietnam And At Home.^[8]

On his visit to the United States in 2007, President of Vietnam Nguyễn Minh Triết visited a site on the Potomac near the place where Morrison immolated himself and read the poem by Tố Hữu to commemorate Morrison.^[9]

Cultural depictions[edit]

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Filmmaker Errol Morris interviewed Secretary McNamara at length on camera in his documentary film, The Fog of War, in which McNamara says, "[Morrison] came to the Pentagon, doused himself with gasoline. Burned himself to death below my office ... his wife issued a very moving statement - 'human beings must stop killing other human beings' - and that's a belief that I shared, I shared it then, I believe it even more strongly today". McNamara then posits, "How much evil must we do in order to do good? We have certain ideals, certain responsibilities. Recognize that at times you will have to engage in evil, but minimize it."

Perhaps the most detailed treatment of Morrison's death appears in The Living and the Dead: Robert McNamara and Five Lives of a Lost War, by prizewinning author Paul Hendrickson, published in 1997.^[10]

Morrison's widow Anne Welsh appears, with her young children, in a segment of the French documentary, Far from Vietnam, in which she calmly describes the circumstances of her husband's death and expresses approval of his act. This footage is interspersed with an interview with a Vietnamese expatriate, Ann Uyen, living in Paris, who describes what Morrison's sacrifice meant to the Vietnamese people.

Morrison's immolation is portrayed in the HBO film Path to War, in which he is portrayed by Victor Slezak.

Morrison is the subject of a poem by Amy Clampitt called "The Dahlia Gardens" in her 1983 book The Kingfisher.

The incident inspired George Starbuck's poem Of Late.^[11]

A play by Canadian playwright Sean Devine, Re:Union, imagines a meeting between Morrison's daughter Emily and Robert McNamara. The play was published by Scirocco Drama in 2013.

Memorials[edit]

In the Vietnamese city of Đà Nẵng, a road is named after Norman Morrison in memory of his act against American involvement in South Vietnam. Parallel to it also is a road named after Francis Henry Loseby.^[12]

North Vietnam named a Hanoi street after him, and issued a postage stamp in his honor.^[13] Possession of the stamp was prohibited in the United States due to the U.S. embargo against North Vietnam.^[14]

See also[edit]

• Alice Herz
• Roger Allen LaPorte
• Florence Beaumont
• George Winne, Jr.
• Thích Quảng Đức
• Nhat Chi Mai
• Path to War

References[edit]

1. ^ Profile Archived 2012-12-15 at archive.today, wooster.edu; accessed December 11, 2014.
2. ^ "The Pacifists", Time Magazine, November 12, 1965; accessed July 23, 2007.
3. ^ Jump up to:^a b Tucker, Spencer C. (2011). Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War, The: A Political, Social, and Military History (2nd ed.). ABC-CLIO. p. 775. ISBN 978-1-85109-960-3. Retrieved 9 October 2015.
4. ^ Hollyday, Joyce (July–August 1995). Grace Like a Balm, Sojourners Magazine
5. ^ Jump up to:^a b Steinbach, Alice (30 July 1995). "THE SACRIFICE of NORMAN MORRISON Thirty years ago a Baltimore Quaker set himself on fire to protest the war in Vietnam. Did it make a difference?". The Baltimore Sun. Retrieved 2021-04-05.
6. ^ My Lai Peace Park website Archived 2004-03-06 at the Wayback Machine
7. ^ Christian G. Appy (2008) Vietnam: the Definitive Oral History Told From All Sides. Ebury Press, p. 155
8. ^ Flintoff, John-Paul (15 October 2010). "I told them to be brave". The Guardian. Retrieved 2021-04-05.
9. ^ Thanh Tuấn (July 7, 2007). "Đọc thơ Tố Hữu bên bờ sông Potomac". Tuoi Tre. Retrieved 2007-07-07.
10. ^ The Washington Post. Washington, D.C., November 4, 1999, p. C14.
11. ^ ""of Late"". Poetryfoundation.org. Poetry Foundation. Retrieved 19 January 2017.
12. ^ Lê, Gia Lộc (9 November 2013). "Ân nhân của nhân loại". Báo Đà Nẵng.
13. ^ BBC (21 december, 2010). A life in flames: Anne Morrison Welch
14. ^ Mitchell, Greg (13 November 2010). "When Antiwar Protest Turned Fatal: The Ballad of Norman Morrison". The Nation. Retrieved 9 October 2015.

Further reading[edit]

• Welsh, Anne Morrison & Joyce Hollyday. Held in the light: One Man's Sacrifice for Peace and His Family's Search for Healing, Orbis (2008); ISBN 978-1-57075-802-7
• King, Sallie B. (2000). "They Who Burned Themselves for Peace: Quaker and Buddhist Self-Immolators during the Vietnam War". Buddhist-Christian Studies. 20 (1): 127–150. doi:10.1353/bcs.2000.0016. JSTOR 1390328.
• Patler, Nicholas (2015). "Norman's Triumph: The Transcendent Language of Self-Immolation" (PDF). Quaker History. 104 (2): 18–39. doi:10.1353/qkh.2015.0010.

External links[edit]

• Claus Bernet (2009). "Norman Morrison". In Bautz, Traugott (ed.). Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon (BBKL) (in German). 30. Nordhausen: Bautz. cols. 1023–1024. ISBN 978-3-88309-478-6.

Fire of the Heart: Norman Morrison’s Legacy in Viet Nam and at Home (Pendle Hill Pamphlets Book 381) eBook : Welsh, Anne Morrison : Amazon.com.au: Kindle Store

Fire of the Heart: Norman Morrison’s Legacy in Viet Nam and at Home (Pendle Hill Pamphlets Book 381) eBook : Welsh, Anne Morrison : Amazon.com.au: Kindle Store

Fire of the Heart: Norman Morrison’s Legacy in Viet Nam and at Home (Pendle Hill Pamphlets Book 381) Kindle Edition
by Anne Morrison Welsh (Author) Format: Kindle Edition

Kindle$8.80
Length: 41 pages

---

The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age, George A. Lindbeck

Post: Edit

Amazon.com: The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age: 9780664246181: George A. Lindbeck: Books

The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age Underlining Edition

by George A. Lindbeck  (Author)

4.6 out of 5 stars    32 ratings

Product details

Publisher ‏ : ‎ Westminster John Knox Press; Underlining edition (January 1, 1984)

Language ‏ : ‎ English

Paperback ‏ : ‎ 142 pages

Customer reviews 

4.6 out of 5 stars

----

Top reviews from the United States

Michael

4.0 out of 5 stars Cognitive Propositional!

Reviewed in the United States on December 4, 2011

Verified Purchase

Lindbeck categorizes doctrine as one of the following three:

Cognitive Propositional. This is the understanding that doctrines make truth claims about objective reality. Propositionalism finds certitude in Scripture and emphasizes the cognitive aspect of faith and religion. This has been the traditional approach of Orthodox Christian belief. Synthesizing these Scriptural truths and doctrines is also a part of this method. Thinkers in this group remain critical of post-foundational approaches.

Experiential Expressive. This method, which emphasizes religious feeling, was thought to have found universal objectivity for religious truth. While it was presupposed that all religious feeling had a common core experience, it was discovered that there was no clear evidence that this was the case. Further difficulty with this approach was found in specifying distinctive features of religious feeling, such that “the assertion of commonality becomes logically and empirically vacuous” (18).

Cultural Linguistic. This is Lindbeck's method. It's design is ecumenically minded but has fostered a larger discussion pertaining to its use in theological method. At the risk of sounding too reductionistic it might be said that this alternative seeks to understand religion as a culture or a semiotic language. Religion shapes the entirety of life, not just cognitive or emotional dimensions. A religion is a “comprehensive scheme or story used to structure all dimensions of existence” (21). And “its vocabulary of symbols and its syntax may be used for many purposes, only one of which is the formulation of statements about reality. Thus while a religion's truth claims are often of the utmost importance to it (as in the case of Christianity), it is, nevertheless, the conceptual vocabulary and the syntax or inner logic which determine the kinds of truth claims the religion can make” (21).

In terms of measuring religions for truth, categorical truth is what is to be accepted, which may or may not correspond to reality (37). Truth, in this regard, is what is meaningful (34). Lindbeck uses a map metaphor in which the knowledge provided by the map is only “constitutive of a true proposition when it guides the traveler rightly” (38). This dynamic understanding of truth is not answerable to static propositional truth claims. Religioin must be utilized correctly to provide ontology, or meaning (38).

The possibility of salvation as solus Christus is said to conform to this approach. “One must, in other words, learn the language of faith before one can know enough about its message knowingly to reject it and thus be lost” (45). Lindbeck has in mind here fides ex audit and envisions a post-mortem offer of salvation.

In readdressing propositional truth, it is said that religious sentences have first-order or ontological truth or falsity only in determinate settings (54; recall the map metaphor). Understood in this way, the Cultural Linguistic approach proves to successfully supply categorical, symbolic, and propositional truths.

Rule Theory maintains that what is “abiding and doctrinally significant” about religion is not found in inner experience or their propositional truth, but “in the story it tells and in the grammar that informs the way the story is told and used” (66). In order to make sense of religious experiences they must be interpreted within an entire comprehensive framework.

Lindbeck presents a softer view of doctrine, which is less truth-claiming, and more about community rules. Doctrines, thus, may be reversible or irreversible, unconditional or conditional, temporary or permanent.

Read less

8 people found this helpful

---

Rev. Ron Hooker (Yale Graduate)

5.0 out of 5 stars The Nature of Doctrine

Reviewed in the United States on May 2, 2014

Verified Purchase

Professor Lindbeck's timeless work is experiencing a bit of a revival. It is a great book for

well-educated Clergy and Lay Scholars. I was fortunate to have had him as a Professor. He was one of most outstanding at Yale. I shall always be thankful that for three decades,

I was able to read and re-read this great book! Rev. Ron Hooker (Yale Graduate)

Not often is such a great Reformation Scholar, Professor, and Faithful Christian, to be

found in one person. He is one of the last Vatican II Official Observers still living.

2 people found this helpful

---

Ben Kickert

5.0 out of 5 stars Postliberal approach to religion and theology

Reviewed in the United States on December 10, 2008

Verified Purchase

Ben Kickert. Review of George A Lindbeck, The Nature of Doctrine: Religion Theology in a Postliberal Age (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1984).

In 1984 George A. Lindbeck presented a new approach to viewing religion and doctrine in his book The Nature of Doctrine. As the subtitled indicates, it was his desire to provide a "framework for discussion" (10) that was compatible with the emerging postliberal movement. What he came up with is non-theological approach that advocates a cultural-linguistic view of religion and a rules-based understanding of doctrine. He then evaluates his proposal in light of various test cases. This review will assess the usefulness of this approach and evaluate the book as a whole.

The author makes his personal religious convictions clear. He is a Christian, with a great interest in unity in the midst of diversity (7-8). He wants to be able to adequately address not only divergent beliefs, but the dynamic nature of beliefs (9). In order to do this, he calls for a paradigm shift on behalf of theologians and students of religion (8). Lindbeck admits the approach he lays out is mostly theoretical, but invites others to evaluate it (11). The book is laid out in 6 chapters. The first serves as an introduction while chapters 2-3 address the cultural-linguistic approach. Chapters 4-5 deal with rules theory of doctrine while chapter 6 outlines a larger theological framework.

In his introductory chapter, Lindbeck critiques the approaches to religion that were dominant in his day. He describes two major methods: the cognitive and the experiential-expressive. The former focuses on truth claims as the primary determinate of religion while the later uses experiences. The author also looks at a third approach that seeks to synthesize these two. In light of his goal, the author rejects these and turns instead to an understanding that views religion in terms similar to culture or language. He expands this discussion in chapter 2 and argues for the superiority of a cultural-linguistic approach. The non-theological framework he presents contends that like culture "religions produce experience" (33) rather than being the explainer of experience. Furthermore, like language, it must be learned and interiorized; only then can a person full participate through expression and experience (35-37). This is a complete reversal of the experiential-expressive model. Chapter 4 evaluates whether this non-theological theory of religion can be religiously useful by looking at the concept of superiority of religions, their interrelationship, salvation for non-adherents and the overarching concepts of religious truth. The author concludes a superior religion is categorically true, rightly utilized, and corresponds to ultimate reality (52). From here religions can regard themselves as different without judging superiority. In regards to the salvation question, Lindbeck take a universalist approach.

Chapter 4 moves to the issue of doctrine within religions. It is here the author lays out his approach. He contends, "a rule theory not only is doctrinally possible but has advantages over other positions" (73). The result is a view of doctrine that operates like grammatical rules rather than absolute faith statements. This allows for differences within religions and between religions to stand without the need to reconcile them. This theory is tested in chapter 5 by evaluating three contentious issues: Christology, Mariology and Infallibility. He concludes what matters is not conclusions, but rather what lies behind them; this provides reconcilement for the first two issues, but not the later. For the author, a rules based approach to doctrine is best utilized in relation to behavioral requirements.

The final chapter of this book serves to place cultural-linguistic theory and a rules-based approach to doctrine within the larger framework by evaluating their implications. These views push for an intra-systemic (or intra-textual) approach to meaning wherein the religion gives meaning rather than describes meaning. Within this system, religious text are formative within the communities that adapt them. Religions and sacred texts hold the power to shape communities. This, the author concludes, is a necessary part of the wider society and culture. Lindbeck is essentially arguing for a relativistic view of religions while advocating religious communities resist relativism so they can teach the culture and language of religion. His ultimate conclusion is that the theories he has presented in his book are valuable, but in the end each religion must be true to its roots and message.

In evaluating Lindbeck's proposal, the first issue that must be considered is his approach. He is clear in pointing out that his theory is non-theological. As such, his primary purpose is not to provide a tool for Christians to evaluate their belief systems. Instead, it is his desire to offer a theory of religion that allows an observer to judge and understand a system of beliefs entirely on their own merit. Therefore, before any judgment can be made on conclusions, this method should be evaluated. Since the author is clearly writing from a Christian perspective, one could expect a theory that supports the claims of orthodox Christianity. This book does not set, nor achieve this goal. Lindbeck is much more concerned about unity than about orthodoxy. However, from a non-theistic approach to understanding religion, the approach the author employs is exceedingly useful and relevant.

The primary advantage of Lindbeck's approach to religion lies in its ability to study and evaluate religions intra-systemically without having to evaluate ontological correctness. In effect, each religion can stand alone and be evaluated on it own merits. This is extremely helpful when viewing faith systems objectively, especially from an anthropological viewpoint. In addition to providing a non-judgmental way to evaluate religions, the cultural-linguistic articulated in this book provides fresh insight and perspective on the role religion plays in communal formation and spiritual development. It is certainly important to ask questions about how experiences can be explained through religion, but just as important is an understanding of how religions shapes and informs those experiences. This framework allows individuals to better appreciate the contributions and unique features of a religion. Additionally, the rules based approach to doctrine allows for the dynamicity apparent in most religions. Rather than seek to reconcile transitions, Lindbeck's approach embraces these.

The Nature of Doctrine is not without its limits and shortcomings. In emphasizing ecumenical and interfaith unity, the book has lost some of its value for evaluating and informing traditional, orthodox theologies. For instance, the universalism he argues for is outside the scope of orthodoxy for many evangelical traditions. It could be argued that Lindbeck misses the goal of being religiously useful. This is perhaps most apparent in the concluding chapter; here the author admits his framework explains the assimilation process, but does little to convince those who "share in the intellectual high cultural" (124). In effect, he is concluding cultural-linguistic theory and rules theory of doctrine can explain religions, but may not bolster them. A final shortcoming of the books is one readily admitted to by the author. At the time of it's writing the approach presented was largely untested and thus relied heavily on theory. It is almost as if Lindbeck was throwing out an idea for others to try. Considering the brevity of the book, it seems a more thorough treatment would have possible and useful.

The contributions of Lindbeck cannot be overlooked and should be applauded. The ideas outlined in the pages of this book continue to reverberate 24 years later. The lens the author provides his readers is innovative and practical; however, its practicality is primarily found in external evaluations of religion. One could assume that Lindbeck expected his theories to have been accepted or rejected by this point in history. However, the tension still remains between modern (especially evangelical) thinkers and postmoderns (or postliberals as Lindbeck calls them). Where ever a person falls on that continuum, they would be well served to join the discussion spurred by this book. We may not agree, but hopefully we can better understand each other.

Read less

13 people found this helpful

---

Translate all reviews to English

Jim Harries

5.0 out of 5 stars Cultural-Linguistic models to guide the church

Reviewed in the United Kingdom on August 22, 2016

Verified Purchase

Serving the church in Zambia (1988-1991) I found myself on a steep learning curve. I had to unlearn much that I had previously thought I understood about Africa while I was still in the UK. I resisted doing so then. I have continued to resist doing so since then, having lived in Kenya from 1993. Something deep in my Western upbringing tells me that African people CANNOT BE as different from ‘us Westerners’ as they appear to be.

My battle to discover and to confirm same-ness has not yet ended. One reason it has yet to end, is because of never-ending ways in which it is presupposed. It seems that almost everything that the West does in Africa (well, the parts of Africa with which I am familiar) tries to assume that African people are no different from them. Just as constantly, the above is found to be not-true, resulting in lies, concealment of truth, corruption, ongoing poverty, outside dependency. An individual missionary has to deal with this concealing of truth. They can be forced into denial of what is being observed, latent depression as things do not work as they should, or to being at loggerheads with accepted Western wisdom.

George A. Lindbeck dares go where few tread. His short book The Nature of Doctrine has received wide attention, and been widely criticised. Critics have had three reservations in particular, Marshall tells us: 1. Lindbeck fails to sufficiently support Christian belief, or reason itself. 2. Lindbeck proposes a withdrawal of the church into a ghetto. 3. Lindbeck’s bowing to postmodern relativism has him deny the objectivity of truth.

Lindbeck’s primary concern is ecumenical unity. In pursuit of that unity, he endeavours to unearth the otherwise intangible reasons moderns struggle to accommodate difference. Traditionally, Christian doctrines are considered cognitively to be propositional truths, Lindbeck tells us. That is, Christians, especially theologians, make propositions about truth on the basis that those truths are already established in the spiritual realm. Hence Catholics declare that the bread of the Holy Communion turns into the body of Christ. Protestants deny this. It would seem on this basis that a prerequisite to ecumenical unity is capitulation by one side. How come, then, that some unity is being achieved, for example between Catholics and Lutherans, Lindbeck asks (127)?

An alternative basis for unity arises from contemporary understanding of doctrines as founded in experiential-expressiveness. This founds unity within the common heart of humanity. Because God is actually one, so the argument goes, religions’ efforts at reaching him are merely an inadequate grasping of one truth. Doctrines are symbols that help people to express their deep yearnings. According to these theorists, apparent differences between doctrines among Christian denominations, and even between ‘religions’ like Islam and Hinduism could be resolved if one were only to realise this. This dominant contemporary understanding is “logically and empirically vacuous” Lindbeck tells us (18). No wonder some inter-religious and ecumenical discussions go around in circles.

The cognitive approach that founds itself in propositions, and theories based on experiential-expressiveness, dominate theology. Other disciplines in today’s world run on a third, the cultural-linguistic, approach. For Lindbeck, the failure to take this latter seriously is what is bringing the church into a ghetto. Interaction, as a result, between theologically related disciplines and the university are minimal; the two are seen as mutually inimical. But, explains Lindbeck, taking the cultural-linguistic approach seriously could explain what is happening and enable ecumenical progress in today’s world. That is to say, variations in doctrine are responses to contexts in which the church finds itself. When the context changes, then clearly different responses are required in order to communicate the same truths. One-size declaration does not fit all, shall we say.

Two things at least have me agree with Lindbeck. One is a foundational question; why did anthropology and theology part ways? Anthropology (coming from the biblical Greek term anthropos) has roots in Christian theology. In recent centuries, anthropology has been adversarial to theology. Many in the contemporary world might see anthropology, and secularism in general to be ‘winning’, and the church to be ‘losing’. Rejection by the church of contemporary linguistics and anthropology, Lindbeck states (this is in my own words) has been a rejection of reason, for which the church is suffering.

I see the above in sharper focus as a Christian theologian engaging indigenous African Christianity. That brings me ecumenical challenges somewhat like those faced by Lindbeck. When western theologians behave like juggernauts determined to ignore African particularisms, I acquire empathy with Lindbeck! The above juggernauts choose to ignore language and to ignore culture, thinking that our common humanity gives us sufficient basis for clear communication, which in practice is always the West communicating their pearls of wisdom using Western languages, requiring Africans to ‘adjust’ this wisdom to their context. (It is rather telling that the reverse does not happen.) At the same time that this goes on, a clearly recognised divide continues, centuries on, between White and Black churches even within the USA, right in the heart of the West itself. This vision of cultural superiority enabling open communication is primarily forced by Western hegemony achieved on the back of superior economy.

“Locating … the constant … in a religion … [in] inner experience … result[s] in the identification of the normative form of the religion with either the truth claims or the experiences appropriate to a particular world … [e.g.] Florida” states Lindbeck (70). In so doing, he identifies the abiding ‘sin’ of Western theologians reaching Africa: they end up communicating not the God of the Scriptures, but their home culture. To not-do-so requires use of appropriate categories, hence as pre-requisite, a grasp of indigenous culture, plus use of languages that make sense of that culture. To do this, frankly, as a further pre-requisite, requires a theologian to avoid forcing their agenda using outside funding.

I do consider Lindbeck to be misguided to consider non-Christian traditions to be ‘religions’. His own articulation is clearly and deeply rooted in Christian texts, history and tradition, so why assume it transfers to Islam or Hinduism? Lindbeck’s world, deeply rooted in discussions in Vatican II, now more than 50 years in the past, is rather different from my world in contemporary Africa. Yet the truths he identifies as means for understanding of doctrines that may rescue faith in Jesus from scholarly isolationism and Western imperialism have profound relevance to inter-cultural communication in contemporary times. What Lindbeck is talking about, is the need for contextualised theology.

Read less

3 people found this helpful

----

5.0 out of 5 stars The Nature of Doctrine

Reviewed in Brazil on March 21, 2017

Verified Purchase

Reflexão relevante. O assunto é pertinente e atual. Recomendo também a leitura de "A Gênese da Doutrina" de Alister McGrath.

One person found this helpful

Report abuse

Translate review to English

Young bae Son

5.0 out of 5 stars Good

Reviewed in Australia on November 12, 2015

Verified Purchase

Ono of best basic book for theology...

Report abuse

See all reviews

==

Sep 11, 2018David rated it really liked it

Shelves: theology

This was a pretty heavy book. Not literally heavy, as its only 120 pages. It was a slow-going and challenging read. And it has been very influential in theology for the last few decades. Lindbeck puts forth a "post-liberal" view of theology. He discusses two different approaches to theology. First is the cognitive one, with a focus on propositional truth and ideas. This would be the conservative or even fundamentalist view: the Bible provides data from which we formulate our beliefs about God. Speaking of which, growing up conservative, this would be my background. I've read a bit of "post-conservative" theology in the past, but Lindbeck is the first post-liberal I've read (though I've seen this work mentioned).

Anyway, the second approach is the emotive-expressivist (if I recall the name right, the book is in my basement right now and I don't feel like retrieving it!). This is the view that roots theology in experiences of God. All humans have a feeling of dependence on something beyond, something transcendent. This view often then emphasizes similarities in religions because people across cultures have similar experiences.

Lindbeck puts forth a cultural-linguist understanding where theology functions more like grammar. Essentially, theology takes place locally and contextually. We cannot assume all religious experiences are the same, for all take place in cultures and religions that explain them differently. To learn theology is not to read some propositions either. Instead you must live in the community. Thus, there may be those who practice faith well but cannot necessarily articulate theology; just as some read well but don't know how to explain the rules of grammar. Lindbeck dives into a lot from this, from inter-denomination discussions to inter-religious ones.

Overall, this is a challenging and good book for those interested in theology. I want to go back to my shelf and look up some of the references to Lindbeck. I deeply resonate with a different way of doing theology than the old conservative/liberal dichotomy. If you do too, then check this one out. (less)

flag4 likes · Like  · comment · see review

Kendall Davis

Nov 27, 2019Kendall Davis rated it really liked it

I found Lindbeck's description of doctrine as akin to language and grammar compelling and potentially productive for Christian thought. I especially appreciated his breakdown of the propositionalist model, the expressivist model, and the postliberal model. This comparison was extremely helpful and enlightening.

I'm not so sure he fully delivered on everything that he seems to set out to do, particularly with regard to some of his eccumenical concerns, but I'm not as familiar with these sorts of conversations. (less)

flag1 like · Like  · comment · see review

Jeff

Jan 24, 2018Jeff rated it it was amazing

I found this book among the most helpful I've read on post-liberal/narrative theology which is based on a cultural-linguistic understanding of religion. Very clearly articulated, Lindbeck is able to state his case so that those not particularly well-versed in philosophy and/or theology are able to follow the flow of his argument. That's a skill not shared by many theologians. Lindbeck presents narrative theology as a faithful alternative to the problematic cognitive/propositional (conservative) and experiential-expressive/ (liberal) theories of religion and doctrine. A most worthwhile read for those interested in this sort of thing. (less)

flag1 like · Like  · comment · see review

Dr Bruce

Jan 23, 2019Dr Bruce rated it it was amazing

George Lindbeck graduated with a B.D. from Yale University in 1946. He had completed his doctorate in 1955 and had already served on the faculty of Yale Divinity School for several years. Lindbeck’s work had predominately been around theology and philosophy until he served as an official Lutheran observer for the Second Vatican Council. After serving as an observer for the council, Lindbeck’s work transitioned to ecumenical matters. In The Nature of Doctrine Lindbeck argues that the best way for religions to be evaluated in regard to truth, in an attempt to create dialogue between opposing religions, is to employ the cultural-linguistic method to analyze their truth claims.

Lindbeck’s work is scholarly and requires a fairly high comprehension level of its reader. Lindbeck appears to be writing to theological students at the university level or nontheological readers with higher educational backgrounds. The book is formulated from a series of lectures that Lindbeck delivered in 1974 at Gonzaga University which seems to support the intended audience having a scholarly background. The work is presented in a logical and comprehensive manner, but the extensive vocabulary of theological and Latin phrases requires a background in theological study.

This was one of the most challenging and rewarding books I have read in regard to dealing with assigning propositional and ontological truth to concepts and doctrine. Lindbeck identifies the three predominant methodologies to interpreting truth in theological issues, and introduces a fourth that he advocates, as: 1) classic-propositional, 2) experiential-expressive, 3) the two-dimensional (cognitive-experiential) of Roman Catholicism and 4) Lindbeck’s cultural-linguistic approach. Classic-propositional is the fundamentalist or conservative (literal) approach to everything theological and doctrinal. Traditional orthodoxy would adhere to the classic-propositional approach. Experiential-expressive is the approach of liberalism. This approach focuses on the experiences a person has within a faith community. Experiential could be defined as metaphysical and existential. The two-dimensional approach seeks to use both propositional truths and faith experiences to analyze the truthfulness of a doctrine or proposition. Finally, Lindbeck introduces his cultural-linguistic approach that pursues religions as linguistic in nature.

Initially, I was somewhat confused by Lindbeck’s assumption that religion could be evaluated using a linguistic regulatory method to assign truthfulness to religions based on the cultures where they were established. However, as he began inductively presenting the case over the six chapters and afterwards of the book I began to agree with Lindbeck’s conclusion of its ability, both of theological and nontheological religious studies, to determine the reliability of the truthfulness of religious beliefs within a stated faith. Ultimately, Lindbeck was not defining truth as propositional truth, like that of God’s sovereignty or salvation in Christ alone, but rather if the statements were fundamentally true with regard to intratextuality of a faith’s Holy writ. Lindbeck, true to the lectures from which the work was derived, builds with each chapter the ability to use cultural-linguistic methodology over increasingly deeper doctrinal statements. For instance, he begins with an abject example, i.e. “The car is red.” to demonstrate how this methodological approach works and culminates with assigning propositional and ontological truths as well as their applications on topics as theological stepped as Nicaea and Chalcedon.

The greatest analogy within the text is the comparative analogy of religion to language. He profoundly defends this analogous relationship throughout the entirety of the text. For instance, how can two religions have a constructive dialogue if they are speaking two different languages? It should be noted, Lindbeck is writing from a Christian perspective concerning a method that he argues can be transferrable to all religions and fields of study. If we are going to have constructive conversations with others, we must at least begin by understanding the languages we are speaking. Lindbeck argues, and I agree, that if solus Christus is a propositional truth we must engage others in their language with the hopes that the Holy Spirit will open their eyes and ears to the one true language, Christ.

Finally, the cultural-linguistic approach to the Nature of Doctrine simply asks the theological student to consider the cultural and environmental factors that are involved in a religion’s statements of faith. If someone of another faith is living out the truth found in the intratextuality of the faith’s Holy writ. they are essentially living out truth, just not the propositional and ontological truth found only in the Christian Scriptures. Conversely, if a Christian is not living according to the standards of Scripture they are living falsely. The cultural-linguistic method, as in the previous statement, is not concerned with which religion is superior, but rather how one practically lives out their faith is, in itself, a determining factor of the nature of the stated doctrine. The greatest argument Lindbeck made for this reader on the validity of a cultural-linguistic approach was the question of which comes first, knowledge of a religion or experience of religion. For Lindbeck, and myself, faith comes by hearing. Therefore, our experiences are based on our knowledge (language abilities) of our faith.

(less)

flagLike  · comment · see review

Sooho Lee

Apr 13, 2018Sooho Lee rated it really liked it

Shelves: theology, important-reads

Very few theologians spark a generation(s) of scholarship, much less just one work of those theologians. Yet George Lindbeck's The Nature of Doctrine accomplished such a feat in less than 150 pages. The Nature of Doctrine is, as Lindbeck confessed, an introduction to what he calls "postliberal theology." Unfortunately, Lindbeck never got around to publish a fuller treatment on his methodology, but some of his students have made great strides on his behalf.

Lindbeck's thesis is as follows: in our postmodern (and postliberal) age, there is need for better religious dialogue. The cognitive-propositionalist (truth-statement and truth-claims) and experiential-expressivist (emotive and subjective) approaches are limited, or at least they do not facilitate religious dialogue well. Instead, the nature of doctrine or religious claims should be cultural-linguistic. Lindbeck draws influence from Wittgenstein (philosopher of language), J.L. Austin (linguist), anthropology, and sociology. In short, the cultural-linguistic approach parallels talking about God and learning a language. Much like how learning a language demands the subject to immerse oneself in another's culture, environment, native speakers, and history, learning how to do theology or say religious claims equally demands the like. In other words, cultural-linguistic approach prioritizes communal or common language about God or religious objects. It's absorbing how people talk about God that forms how to talk about God.

Lindbeck's proposal is attractive and, I think, simple enough for the laity or congregation (the true theologians of a particular church) to get excited about. This is the clear benefit of Lindbeck's postliberal or cultural-linguistic theology. But it is not without some limitations. First, if theology is just a particular community's talk about God, then can theology be reduced to ecclesiology (doctrine of the church)? Theology then is not really about God or Jesus, but how God or Jesus is perceived by this or that church. Second, if theology is cultural-linguistic, then does it have any reality or metaphysical grounding? Put differently, if theology is just language, then does it matter if that language is historically accurate -- e.g., Jesus actually rose from the dead? I don't see how postliberal theology can demand this from its followers. Thus, Lindbeck's postliberal or cultural-linguistic theology must be supplemented, I think, to make it a thicker and more grounded way of doing theology.

cf. www.sooholee.com (less)

flagLike  · comment · see review

E.

Jun 23, 2018E. rated it it was amazing

One of those classics I finally read. And one that was part of the milieu of other theologians who have deeply influenced my own thinking.

For Lindbeck, learning a religion is like learning a language, a skill that you develop. Take this sentence for instance, "In short, intelligibility comes from skill, not theory, and credibility comes from good performance, not adherence to independently formulated criteria."

I long ago adopted this basic framework--skill and communal practices and not propositional belief. And the non-foundationalist epistemology.

I'm glad there are people who think so deeply as this and develop the basic theory that undergirds what I do. (less)

flagLike  · comment · see review

Earl

Aug 09, 2018Earl rated it it was amazing

Shelves: theology

A lot of things here worth looking, and it appears that Lindbeck has already spoken of the problems and tensions we encounter at present. Good reading for anybody who wants to enter to systematic or fundamental theology.

flagLike  · comment · see review

Stephen Drew

Jun 24, 2020Stephen Drew marked it as to-read

Said to be important by newbigin

flagLike  · comment · see review

Caleb N

Oct 23, 2019Caleb N rated it it was ok

Read for class, skimmed.

flagLike  · comment · see review

Krish Kandiah

Jan 19, 2019Krish Kandiah rated it really liked it

Ground breaking exploration of doctrine as grammar.

flagLike  · comment · see review

Micah Enns-Dyck

Apr 23, 2019Micah Enns-Dyck rated it it was amazing

Phenomenal book. Lindbeck's methodological inquiry is captivating, compelling, and honest. This broad strokes of this book seem as pertinent today as they clearly were in 1984. The last chapter is especially inspiring. (less)

flagLike  · comment · see review

Robert D. Cornwall

Dec 28, 2012Robert D. Cornwall rated it really liked it  ·  review of another edition

Shelves: sabbatical-2013, christian, interfaith, philosophy, religion, theology

I have been meaning to read this book for many years. After all, Lindbeck is considered one of the central figures in what is known as post-liberalism, and it has long seemed that I have an affinity for that perspective. I intended to read it during my sabbatical in the fall of 2013, but ended up reading other materials. I can say that I've finally read it, and yes I do have an affinity for what he calls the "cultural-linguistic" model of theology. This model understands theology/faith to be like languages. We speak specific languages, which we learn and which help form us.

Lindbeck's book, this being the 25th anniversary edition, suggests that there are three basic models -- propositional, experiential-expressive, and cultural-linguistic. Although he gives some attention to the propositional model, that is not the focus of his concern. Being that this is post-liberal theology, he addresses himself to the theological model to which postliberalism responds. That would be the experiential-expressive model of liberalism. In this model, faith describes an inner experience of divinity, one that is shared in essence with other religious traditions, such that the different religions are simply different expressions of what is held in common. The cultural-linguistic model suggests that this simply doesn't work, that religions have a particularity that simply doesn't translate. While the liberal intention of making the faith intelligible to the culture makes sense and is attractive, it doesn't allow the faith itself to speak. Thus, he proposes an understanding of the Christian faith (and religion in general), in which the direction of formation moves from outer to inner. Therefore the point is to draw the world into the biblical world, not the other way around.

This is a challenging book, but I think it makes a lot of sense, even if I too am attracted to the progressive/experiential model! (less)

flagLike  · comment · see review

Jacob Aitken

Aug 04, 2011Jacob Aitken rated it liked it

Shelves: barthian-studies, dialectic, epistemology, hippie-theology, philosophy, postmodernism, sacramental-theology

It's important, if not ultimately persuasive. The death of god theologians were doing their thing and every one thought they were hip. Lindbeck published a small book with a rather boring title which subsequently shook the very foundations of neo-liberal theology. If Karl Barth delivered a mortal blow to liberalism, Lindbeck nailed the lid shut on the coffin.

Lindbeck identifies three types of doctrinal theory: propositionalist (conservative), express-symoblic (liberal), and cultural-lingusist. Lindbeck points out problems with the first two and then expounds upon his cultural-lingusist system.

Lindbeck argues that true doctrine is best understood in its "speech." He means by this that doctrine is to be "lived out" and practiced in the community. Note the subtle argument. He is not saying, ala conservative evangelicals, that you need to live out your doctrine (e.g., application), but that doctrine itself is best understood in its communal performance (e.g., liturgy).

Lindbeck's system is by no means air-tight not self-evident, and he hints as much.

Conclusion and critique:

I am not convinced Lindbeck avoids the same critique that Langdon Gilkey delivered to (and subsequently finished) neo-Orthodoxy: if the whole point of doctrine is linguistic and communal, and has no reference to reality, then what does it really matter? If I want a good story and beauty, then why not go to Tolkien, for example? (less)

flagLike  · comment · see review

Dwight Davis

Oct 24, 2016Dwight Davis rated it liked it  ·  review of another edition

Overall, I appreciate what Lindbeck is trying to do here: Reframe theological discourse in such a way that it is possible to be relevant to contemporary concerns and culture while at the same time remaining faithful to historic Creedal Christianity. In many ways, this is the primary struggle I have in my own theology and academic life as a Creedal Christian at an institution with little time for classical theological formulations. But, I'm not convinced that Lindbeck is entirely successful. The actual mediating authoritative voice in traditions which validates what is true and unchangeable for that tradition is somewhat murky in Lindbeck's formulation. I'm not entirely clear on who decides what doctrines are open to reformulation and how such a decision is reached. I'm also unclear as to whether radical theologies (i.e. feminist, womanist, liberationist, black) are possible in Lindbeck's system or if they would be to aberrant from the norms of their communities. I thought his last chapter on hermeneutics was somewhat helpful, but also murky.

To be completely fair: I had to read this in one sitting for class this week, so it's entirely possible my confusion and issues with the work will be resolved once I'm allowed more time to digest and re-read portions that were murky to me. In any event, the brilliance and influence of the work are undeniable, even if I do have some (seemingly) significant quibbles with it. (less)

flagLike  · comment · see review

Sarah

Jul 10, 2010Sarah rated it it was amazing

Shelves: theology

Linkbeck's conclusions are the starting point for a lot of the theology books I have enjoyed reading. Now I finally know some of the alternative views of understanding religion (propositional and experiential-expressive) and I know what the "liberal" in "post-liberal" means (understanding all religion as starting from essentially the same human experiences that we all share).

I have seen the word "intratextual" thrown around in other places and know I finally know what that means too; this quote sums it up nicely: "Intratextual theology redescribes reality within the scriptural framework rather than translating scripture into estrascriptural categories. It is the text, so to speak, which absorbs the world, rather than the world the text." (page 118)

I learned another fun new word: fissiparousness, used to describe Protestantism in contrast to Roman Catholic authoritarianism (page 103). (less)