| Abstract
|
:
|
The way in which theology is formulated often relates to three components—texts, traditions, and contexts—each of which has its own distinctive and interactive forces to shape theology. The major conundrum affecting methodology of contemporary theology is, however, a radical shift from text and tradition to context, as if both text and tradition had been contextual and thus theology were always to be contextual. What if our contexts are oppressive and violent? On what basis can we resist such violent contextual values? Who are ‘we’ here and what does ‘resist’ imply for theological method? Reviewing various concepts of person in Max Scheler, Korean neo-Confucian scholar Dasan Cheong Yak Yong (1762–1836), and Emmanuel Levinas, this article argues that person, not as a self-sufficient subjectivity but as one interacting with others and their contexts, must be included as one of the subjects that formulates theology, along with texts, traditions, and contexts, and that interactions among the four components are the actual forces for constructing theology. The way in which theology is formulated often relates to three components—texts, traditions, and contexts—each of which has its own distinctive and interactive forces to shape theology. The major conundrum affecting methodology of contemporary theology is, however, a radical shift from text and tradition to context, as if both text and tradition had been contextual and thus theology were always to be contextual. What if our contexts are oppressive and violent? On what basis can we resist such violent contextual values? Who are ‘we’ here and what does ‘resist’ imply for theological method? Reviewing various concepts of person in Max Scheler, Korean neo-Confucian scholar Dasan Cheong Yak Yong (1762–1836), and Emmanuel Levinas, this article argues that person, not as a self-sufficient subjectivity but as one interacting with others and their contexts, must be included as one of the subjects that formulates theology, along with texts, traditions, and contexts, and that interactions among the four components are the actual forces for constructing theology. The way in which theology is formulated often relates to three components—texts, traditions, and contexts—each of which has its own distinctive and interactive forces to shape theology. The major conundrum affecting methodology of contemporary theology is, however, a radical shift from text and tradition to context, as if both text and tradition had been contextual and thus theology were always to be contextual. What if our contexts are oppressive and violent? On what basis can we resist such violent contextual values? Who are ‘we’ here and what does ‘resist’ imply for theological method? Reviewing various concepts of person in Max Scheler, Korean neo-Confucian scholar Dasan Cheong Yak Yong (1762–1836), and Emmanuel Levinas, this article argues that person, not as a self-sufficient subjectivity but as one interacting with others and their contexts, must be included as one of the subjects that formulates theology, along with texts, traditions, and contexts, and that interactions among the four components are the actual forces for constructing theology. The way in which theology is formulated often relates to three components—texts, traditions, and contexts—each of which has its own distinctive and interactive forces to shape theology. The major conundrum affecting methodology of contemporary theology is, however, a radical shift from text and tradition to context, as if both text and tradition had been contextual and thus theology were always to be contextual. What if our contexts are oppressive and violent? On what basis can we resist such violent contextual values? Who are ‘we’ here and what does ‘resist’ imply for theological method? Reviewing various concepts of person in Max Scheler, Korean neo-Confucian scholar Dasan Cheong Yak Yong (1762–1836), and Emmanuel Levinas, this article argues that person, not as a self-sufficient subjectivity but as one interacting with others and their contexts, must be included as one of the subjects that formulates theology, along with texts, traditions, and contexts, and that interactions among the four components are the actual forces for constructing theology.
|