최근 들어 빅데이터(Big Data)가 경제, 사회적으로 주목을 받고 있다. 지난 10여 년간 IT 기술의 발전, 인터넷의 대중화, 데이터 분석 기술의 발전이 눈에 띄게 이루어져 엄청난 데이터가 생성되었다. 특히 스마트 폰을 비롯한 모바일 기기가 광범위하게 보급되고 소셜 미디어 (Social Media)의 사용이 급속도로 늘면서 개인정보부터 정치, 환경에 이르기까지 폭넓은 데이터의 수집이 가능해졌다. 과거에는 특정 용량 이상이나 기존 데이터베이스로 처리가 불가능한 규모의 데이터를 칭했고, 대용량 데이터를 다루는 일부 소수 전문가나 기업의 기술적 이슈에 불과했으나, 이제는 경제, 경영, 사회의 각 영역에서 필수 자산으로 인식되고 있다. 특히 빅데이터가 가진 잠재가치는 다양한 산업의 글로벌 기업들이 경쟁우위를 확보하고자 앞 다투어 투자를 할 정도로 크며 사회 문화적 파급효과의 측면에서도 중요한 주제가 되고 있다. 본 연구는 빅데이터가 가질 수 있는 핵심적인 맥락을 살펴보고, 그에 기초하여 빅데이터가 내포하는 여러 다양한 가능성과 함의들을 짚어보고자 한다.

This essay examines the seventeenth century New England Congregationalists’ doctrine of the “church covenant” and its relationship with the “half-way covenant.” According to Perry Miller, there is a radical discontinuity between them. Miller points out three major differences. First, the half-way covenant introduced a new internal/external distinction into the early fathers’ church covenant, while the latter had considered their church covenant as a visible form of the internal covenant of grace. Second, accordingly, the defenders of the half-way covenant “drastically separated” the church covenant from the covenant of grace. As a result, the church covenant was “no longer viewed as a direct manifestation of spiritual conversion.” Third, there was a generation gap: While the old generation opposed the principle of the half-way covenant, the young generation tended to defend it. Miller shared the early seventeenth century critics’ view of the church covenant--as shown in Samuel Rutherford's polemical works against New England Congregationalism. Rutherford, for example, tended to identify Thomas Hooker’s concept of the church covenant with the Separatists’ view of it which was deeply rooted in their “pure church” ecclesiology. Both Rutherford’s and Miller’s thesis, however, represent a one-sided view. Hooker and his brethren present enough counter-evidence to show that the principle of the half-way covenant should be compatible with the early doctrine of the church covenant: First, the internal/external distinction does not belong to a later development because it was a basic feature for Hooker’s doctrine of the church covenant. Hooker clearly sees his church covenant as an external--not internal--covenant. Second, Hooker and his brethren make a significant distinction between the invisible/inward covenant of grace and the visible/outward covenant of grace. The latter, Hooker argues, is given for the visible church--either an explicit or an implicit form of church covenant. Third, Hooker’s church covenant does not nullify the traditional distinction of the visible/invisible church. On the contrary, it must preserve it. Finally, unlike Miller’s thought, the majority of the early Congregationalists--even in the 1630s--actually favored the principle of the half-way covenant. The above facts must account for the reason why the defenders of the half-way covenant could claim that they had the fathers of Congregationalism (including Hooker) on their side. In short, the complex reality demands that we should seek a more balanced approach to the issue of continuity/discontinuity between the church covenant and the half-way covenant.