Browsing by Author "Chung, Youjin"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Looking anew at the new prophecy : Tertullian's montanism and Pentecostalism as neo-montanism
    (Stellenbosch : Stellenbosch University, 2013-12) Chung, Youjin; Plaatjies van Huffel, Mary-Anne; Stellenbosch University. Faculty of Theology. Dept. of Systematic Theology and Ecclesiology.
    ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Through the eyes of the Catholic Church, one usually looks at Montanism as a second-century heretical sect. This prevailed orthodox view has devalued the Catholic Tertullian as a schismatic when he had accepted Montanism as his theological verification. The recent scholarship, however, has challenged that Tertullian’s transition to Montanism had not necessarily resulted from his theological conclusion. Rather this suggests that Tertullian, from the very beginning, was much more sympathetic to the new prophets than to the Catholic priests; the Montanist Tertullian had always taken precedence over the Catholic Tertullian. Given this new perspective, the thesis is developed as follows; Chapter 1, the topic and title are introduced with four critical research questions; (1) Why were the original Montanists condemned? (2) Why did Tertullian become a Montanist? (3) Why does Montanism exclude the present day Pentecostalism as Neo- Montanism? (4) Why does Montanism include the present day Pentecostalism as Neo- Montanism? Here particular interest is Tertullian’s intermediate position; as a point of contact, Tertullian stands not only between the Montanists and the Catholics, but also between the original Montanists and the present day Pentecostals as Neo-Montanism. Chapter 2 seeks to find an answer to the first research question of “Why were the original Montanists condemned?” Then, the researcher focuses on the root cause of the original condemnation of Montanism in three aspects. (1) Montanism was condemned as the victim of the institutionalization of the church, (2) Montanism was condemned as the pagan inspiration including controversial manifestations, such as ecstatic prophecy (and speaking in tongues), fanatical millenarianism, and strict puritanism, and (3) Montanism was condemned as the power struggle between the urban and rural church leadership. The point is that these three reasons are interrelated as a whole and, not as a separate entity. Yet, the conflict in the church regarding church government had taken the lead in the original condemnation of Montanism. The victory of urban church leadership had justified the victimization of the Montanists, the representative of the rural leadership. Chapter 3, the thesis has dealt with the second question; “Why did Tertullian become a Montanist?” The researcher acknowledges of the uneasy connection between the apologist Tertullian and the Montanist Tertullian. Yet, if Montanism was accused of its political conflict, not of its theological deviances, the relationship of Tertullian with Montanism needs to be reconsidered. Then, the researcher tries to vindicate Tertullian’s position through two methodological approaches. First, the researcher reconstructs the new image of Tertullian as the lay leader born into Montanism by deconstructing the conventional portrayal of Tertullian; (1) as the son of an officer of the Roman army, (2) as the professional Jurist, (3) as the Catholic priest at Carthage, and (4) as the schismatic. Second, the researcher also takes into account of Tertullian’s identity in the concept of the transitional correlation. By applying Tertullian’s transitional period as the Pagan-Catholic-Montanist to the concentric circles of concern, the previous view of Tertullian can be transformed into the new formula of Pagan as caterpillar- Catholic as cocoon-Montanist as butterfly. This three-fold structure then opens the way for a newborn image of Tertullian. Chapter 4 is dealing with the relationship between Montanism, the Montanist Tertullian, and the present-day Pentecostalism in order to answer the final question; “Why does Montanism include/exclude the present-day Pentecostalism as Neo-Montanism?” Tertullian’s Montanism, like a hinge, closely interconnects the present-day Pentecostalism to the original Montanism in historical, theological and ecclesiological sense of the word. First, the first generation of Pentecostals, regardless of whether they are the proponents of the Azusa Street or Topeka revival, they find their historical identity in the first generation of the apostolic church and this includes the second-century Montanists and the Montanist Tertullian. Second, from the theological point of view, the Montanist distinctive theological fashions, such as ecstatic prophecy, speaking in tongues, and the impending eschatological hope, has clearly re-echoed in the diadem of the current Pentecostal theology.. Third, the original Montanists and the present-day Pentecostals are both ecclesiologically the strong advocates of the pneumatological theocracy. For both, the priority is to return to the apostolic primitive church.. So, the current Pentecostals is convinced that they trace their root from the second-century spirit-filled Montanists. Chapter 5 summarizes the relationship between Montanism, the Montanist Tertullian, and the present day Pentecostalism by answering to the following four research questions; (1) “Why were the original Montanists condemned?” The answer is the ecclesiastical power struggle between the urban and rural leadership made the Montanist crisis a highly politically charged affair rather than a theologically controversial issue. (2) “Why did Tertullian become a Montanist?” The answer is Tertullian, as natural born Montanist, is determined to be a self-sacrificing mediator in order to bring reconciliation between the two rivals, namely, the city-priest and the countryside prophets. (3) “Why does Montanism include/exclude the present-day Pentecostalism as Neo- Montanism?” The answer is Montanism is the antecedent of the present-day Pentecostalism.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Munster and Minjung : re-reading the Anabaptist Münster kingdom from a perspective of Korean Minjung (common people) theology
    (Stellenbosch : Stellenbosch University, 2018-03) Chung, Youjin; Plaatjies-Van Huffel, Mary-Anne; Stellenbosch University. Faculty of Theology. Dept. of Systematic Theology and Ecclesiology.
    ENGLISH ABSTRACT: The main interest of this research is to reinterpret the sixteenth-century radical Reformation in general and the event of the Anabaptist Kingdom of Münster in particular, through the lens of the twentieth-century Korean Minjung Theology. This revisits not only to the radical Reformation as the place where the suffering/crucified minjung and Messiah are meeting together and the place where the liberated/resurrected minjung and Messiah are encountering together. It also re-invites the Anabaptist Kingdom of Münster as the place of hybridity, wherein the radical Reformers and the common people are dialectically driven to participate and contribute to the Reformation both as guru and avatar; victimizers and victims; and sinners and sinned-against. This helps looking anew the rank-and-file minjung as being-in-the Messiah; both as the protagonists (guru), who have achieved their liberation by themselves, and the psalmists (avatar), who have received their salvation by the Messiah. By connecting this perichoresis to the contemporary suffering context as the epitome of ecclesia semper reformanda, the research results are being portrayed as follows; Chapter 1: Introduction The premise of the researcher is that history is not an objective, external historical reality. Rather historians play a pivotal role in constructing history. The researcher has made use of the constructive theological methodology in order to make Korean Minjung Theology –Minjung-hermeneutics, the dialectic of han-dan –and Anabaptist Kingdom of Münster as an open conversation. The researcher enquires to what extent Korean Minjung Theology stands in the tradition of the sixteenth-century Radical Reformation rather than the Magisterial Reformation. Chapter 2: Re-Reading the Reformation From Below In this chapter history from below is being used as methodology to challenge the traditional historiography. The chapter therefore gives more attention to the Christian masses –the voiceless, the ordinary faithful. A rewriting of this history concentrates on the Reformation of the common men –the way they reacted and contributed to the Reformation. In this sense, the radical Reformation and the Anabaptist movements shed new light against the Magisterial Reformation by directing the centre of interest away from the princes and theologians to the peasants and ordinary folks. This chapter, however, presupposes that both are not contradictory, but complementary in their dialectic and dynamic tensions. Chapter 3: Re-Reading the Radical Reformers as Being-in-the-Common Men This chapter provides a historical and diachronic reading of Münster Anabaptism, centring on so-called the “bastard line” (sic) of radical Reformers, namely, Thomas Müntzer (1489-1525), Hans Hut (1490–1527), Melchior Hoffman (1495–1543), and John Bockelson (John of Leiden) (1509?-1536). Although each of them, in their chain of connections, left an indelible imprint on the rise of Münster Anabaptism, this chapter more focuses on the avatar-hood than the guru-ship in presenting their significant contributions. Each of radical Reformers inexorably sets them up in a certain way of being-in-the-common men, which is, (1) Thomas Müntzer, the radical reformer, as being-in-the-retributive common men, (2) Hans Hut, the radical reformer, as being-in-the-restorative common men, (3) Melchior Hoffman, the radical reformer, as being-in-the-revelatory common men, and (4) John Bockelson, the radical reformer, as being-in-the-rhetorical common men. In this light, the Münster event is also seen as the being-in-the-Communal Reformation under the dialectic of guru-avatar; radical Reformer-common men as a whole. Chapter 4: Re-Reading Korean Minjung Theology as Being-in-the-Korean Minjung This is an attempt to read the radical Reformers from the perspective of Korean minjung, the suffering common people. The rationale for applying this minjung hermeneutics into the interpretation of radicals is three-fold; (1) its dynamic and changing concept, (2) its solidarity with Jesus (and the Jesus-event), and (3) its messianic role through suffering. The dialectic of han-dan is also suggested to elaborate and enlarge, without diminishing and distorting, the dialectic of guru-avatar as its dynamic equivalence. By delving into the viewpoints of four selected minjung theologians, namely, (1) Suh, Nam-Dong’ Spirit of Missio-Dei, (2) Ahn, Byung-Mu’s socio-biblical analysis of ochlos, (3) Kim, Young-Bok’s Messianic Politics, and (4) Hyun, Young-Hak’s Korean mask dance This chapter attempts to construct the critical and creative synthesis of the double-mirror reading, that is, the radical Reformers, seen from Korean Minjung Theology, in terms of one way of being in the avatar-hood for the common men (minjung). This creates a new portrait of the radical Reformers in Münster as follows: (1) Thomas Müntzer seen from Suh, Nam-Dong weighs his avatar-hood toward the retributive minjung in the Spirit, (2) Hans Hut seen from Ahn, Byung-Mu weighs his avatar-hood toward the restorative minjung in the ochlos, (3) Melchior Hoffman seen from Kim, Yong-Bock weighs his avatar-hood toward the revelatory minjung in the Messianic Politics, and (4) John Bockelson seen from Hyun, Young-Hak weighs his avatar-hood toward the rhetorical minjung in the Korean mask dance. Chapter 5: Re-Reading the Anabaptist Kingdom of Münster from Korean Minjung Theology The purpose of this chapter is to apply a diachronic-synchronic reading of the history. This includes the necessity of posting Münster Anabaptism as the place of hybridity, depending on its dynamic interconnection between the avatar-hood of the radical Reformers and the guru-ship of the common men, or the prophetic practice of the radical Reformers and the messianic practice of the common men: (1) John Matthjisson as being-in-the-immigrant Melchiorite prophets, the radicals, (2) Bernhard Rothmann as being-in-the-native civic reformers, the reactionary, (3) John Bockelson as being-in-the-eclectic between the two power structures, and (4) Münster minjung, beyond the radical, the reactionary, and the eclectic. The chapter offers a possibility that the Anabaptist Kingdom of Münster can be seen not as the husk but as the kernel of the Communal Reformation, wherein two parties were dialectically driven to maintain both as guru and avatar. Chapter 6: Conclusion In conclusion, Münster Anabaptism seen from Korean Minjung Theology can be a good example of both analepsis and prolepsis of the Jesus-event, where Minjung Reformator forms Christo Reformator and Christo Reformator reforms Minjung Reformator as Minjung-Messiah Transformator, not as an once-and-for-all, but as a continuing and recurring historical event for the realization of Minjung as being-in-the-Messiah.