This study is designed to demonstrate reorganization of the social and religious time in the later Roman empire through legislation of Christian feasts by the Theodosian Code. It first examines the social rhythm of Roman society in the middle of the 4th century with recourse to the Codex-Calendar of 354. Then it proceeds to demonstrate how the imperial laws in the fourth and fifth centuries had changed traditional Roman time into Christian time. The legislation of Sundays/Lord’s days as feriae publicae introduced weekly holidays into Roman society. Subsequent laws designated Christian feasts such as Easter, Epiphany, and Christmas as public holidays, while they abolished feriae connected with pagan gods, thereby making them workdays. Creation of many imperial anniversaries may be understood as a process of modifying a pagan Roman society into a Christian one. Reorganization of the social time can also be seen in imperial legislation which prohibited spectacles on Christian feast days. Many imperial laws which abrogated pagan cults and superstitions and strove to preserve and keep spectacles demonstrate secularization of public entertainment. Furthurmore, prohibition of spectacles, even those linked to imperial anniversaries, on Christian feast days as well as conceptual distinction between “time for prayer” and “time for entertainment” displays a process of separation between religion and festivals. Other imperial laws emphasized humanitarian concerns on Christian feasts. They demanded Easter amnesty, prohibition of tortures during Lenten seasons, and visitation of prisoners on every Sunday. This study corroborates that the process of Christianization of the later Roman empire included reorganization of the social and religious time through imperial legislation.

Die Leipziger Disputation von 1519 stellt einen Höhepunkt in der frühen Reformationsgeschichte dar. Die Bedeutung der Leipziger Disputation liegt in der heftigen Auseinandersetzung über der kirchlichen Autorität, vor allem den päpstlichen Primat. Diese Arbeit zielt darauf ab, die Leipziger Disputation aus Sicht der Autoritätenfrage zu verstehen und deren reformatorische Bedeutung herauszufinden In der frühen Phase der Reformation ging es um den Autoritätenkonflikt. Zwar begann Luthers Konflikt mit der römischen Kirche, wie 95 Thesen gegen den Ablass von 1517, mit der Ablasskritik, aber dabei ging es wesentlich um die Autoritätenfrage. Das Zentrum der causa Lutheri, die sowohl bei Prierias als auch vor Kardinal Cajetan behandelt worden war, lag in der gültigen Autoritätenfrage. Luther erregte Debatten mit J. Eck über die Autorität von Papst und Konzil und bestreitete diese. Hierbei behauptete Luther, dass der Papst bzw. der Konzil irren könne und kein göttliches Recht behalte. Für Luther ist etwas heilsnotwendiges für die Christen keine kirchliche Instanz wie Papst, sondern nur die Heilige Schrift. Luther hat mit der Autorität der kirchlichen Institutionen auch ihre Lehren und Satzungen sowie kirchliche Traditionen relativiert. In der Leipziger Disputation ging es Luther um die Unterscheidung zwischen Gotteswort und Menschenwort sowie zwischen göttlichem Recht und menschlichem Recht.

Auf der Weltmissionskonferenz (The World Missionary Conference) in Edinburgh 1910 forderten die 17 nicht-westlichen Vertreter ein herzliches Zusammenwirken zwischen westlichen Kirchen und nicht-westlichen Kirchen. Auf der Vollversammlung des IMR in Jerusalem 1928 forderten die Delegierten aus nicht-westlichen Kirchen die Anerkennung ihrer kirchlichen Selbständigkeit. Nicht-westliche Kirchen wünschten eine nationale vereinigte Kirche im Zusammenhang mit ihrem erwachsenden Nationalgefühl. Auf der Vollversammlung des IMR in Tambaram 1938 waren die Delegierten aus nicht-westlichen Kirchen in der Mehrheit. Aber dazu wurde im Bericht, der John Merle Davies vorgelegt hatte, ernüchternde festgestellt, dass nichtwestlichen Kirchen in einer schlechten finanziellen Lage waren, und dass ihre Strukturen immer noch schwach waren. Auf der Vollversammlung des IMR in Whitby 1947 wurde die Partnerschaft zwischen westlichen Kirchen und nicht-westlichen Kirchen viel stärker verwirklichen. Die Weltkonferenz für Praktisches Christentum (The Universal Christian Conference on Life and Work) veränderte nicht ihren westlich geprägten Charakter auf der Vollversammlung in Stockholm 1925 sowie auf der Vollversammlung in Oxford 1937. Auch die Weltkonferenz für Glauben und Kirchenverfassung (The World Conference on Faith and Order) veränderte nicht ihren westlich geprägten Charakter auf der Vollversammlung in Lausanne 1927 sowie auf der Vollversammlung in Edinburgh 1937. Deshalb hatten die Weltkonferenz für Praktisches Christentums und die Weltkonferenz für Glauben und Kirchenverfassung keine guten Beziehungen zu nichtwestlichen Kirchen. Darüber hinaus dominierten westliche Kirchen den Gründungsprozess des Ökumenischen Rates der Kirchen (ÖRK). Auf der Vollversammlung in Amsterdam 1948 gab der ÖRK der Lage der nicht-westlichen Kirchen keine Beachtung. Bei den ökumenischen Bewegungen in der ersten Hälfte des 20. Jahrhunderts. will westliche Kirchen keine echte ökumenische Annäherung an nicht-westlichen Kirchen.

The purpose of this article is to research and evaluate the Chosunyaklon(朝鮮畧論) of the Anglican Church of Korea. Chosunyaklon has not been well known so far. This manuscript small book has been in the Central Library of Yonsei University. Chosunyaklon is consist of five parts, including the history of Chosun(朝鮮國歷史), the culture(敎化), the religion(宗敎), Christianity(基督敎), and the Anglican Church of Korea(朝鮮聖公會). And the first two pages of The Book of Common Prayer of Korea(公禱文) are sealed in the last part of this book. Considering the contents of it, Chosunyaklon is supposed to have been written in 1911-1912. And compared with the record about the Anglican Church of Korea, The Book of Common Prayer of Korea in this book is considered to be made in 1908. The contents of this book might reveal the viewpoint of the first bishop of Korea, Charles John Corfe(高要翰, 1843∼1921) and his successor, Arthur Bresford Turner(端雅德, 1862∼1910). This book might be written by John Samuel Badcock(朴要翰, 1869∼1942), who was an important assistant of two bishops. The purpose of this book could be to commemorate the 20th anniversary of Korea Mission by the Anglican Church, and to report the situation about the Anglican Church of Korea to Mark Napier Trollope(趙馬可, 1862∼1930), the new bishop. The contents of Chosunyaklon, however, were not written according to the true knowledge about Korea. Sometimes the author of it revealed the attitude regarded as Orientalism by Edward Wadie Said. He regarded the Korea History as the history strongly influenced by China, and considered the rule of Japan as desirable for Korea and the mission. Yet the author had tendency to accept the union work over denominations based on ecumenical angle, the attitude to Korea situation of early 20th century was something different to those of missionaries who had supported independent Korea such as Horace Newton Allen(安連, 1858∼1932), Horace Grant Underwood(元杜尤, 1859∼1916), Oliver R. Avison(魚丕信, 1860∼1956), James Scarth Gale(奇一, 1863∼1937), and Homer Bezaleel Hulbert(訖法, 1863∼1949).

Despite his popularity, the Rev. James S. Gale has not been given sufficient scholarly attention. How could it be? It appears that while Gale has been known as a missionary and a scholar of Korean studies, this two-fold identity has not been appreciated in a comprehensively way: scholars tend to interpret two aspects of his identity as contradictory ones or simply juxtaposed ones rather than as mutually interacted ones. In this context, in the area of Korean studies, they have seen him mainly as a Korean expert, without paying attention to his being a missionary; on the other hand, in the realm of Korean Christian studies, they have largely viewed him as a missionary, without properly relating this to his expertise in Korean studies. This article aims to overcome this discrepancy in the understanding of Gale in the contemporary studies, secular and Christian, in Korea. The thesis of this article is that the mutually integrated two-fold identity of Gale is the key to the understanding of his thought and work; that is, he was a scholar of Korean studies as a missionary. Such characteristics of his being a scholar of Korean studies as a missionary can be summarized as follows: first, he prepared himself as a missionary in Korea through cultural identification, through which he gradually overcome his paternalism; second, he equipped himself with expertise in Korean studies, which enabled him to be a first-class cultural missionary, namely, a theologian of missionary indigenization; and last, he bequeathed his legacy as a missionary scholar, which paves the way for Korean studies as mission. Thus, he challenged the understanding of both missionary works and a missionary.

Many Korean and Western church historians and church leaders regarded the Pyongyang revival in 1907 was the first great revival in Korea, so that many events that celebrated the centennial anniversary of the Pyongyang great revival were held in Korea in 2007. However, the first great revival in Korea started not in Pyongyang but Wonsan in 1903. In this paper, the writer points out some misunderstandings in terms of the early Korean revivals and then investigates why the Wonsan revival in 1903 was a great revival with two standards of Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758). Even though Yong-Kyu Park’s book, The Great Revivalism in Korea: Its History, Character, and Impact 1901-1910 was often evaluated as a fine work for the Korean revival study, some points of Park should be reconsidered for the better study for the early Korean revivals. First of all, Park used “undong” which means “movement” for the early Korean revivals. However, the early revivals in Wonsan and Pyongyang from 1903 to 1907 were not movements because they occurred not by people’s activities, but by the strong work of the Holy Spirit. Second, the Million Souls Movement from 1909 to 1910 was not a revival but an evangelical campaign. Third, rapid church growth phenomenons were not revivals. Last, but by no means least, Park made a decisive mistake by regarding the Wonsan revival as a general revival after separating it from the Pyongyang revival without any sufficient proof. For the reliable as well as persuadable criteria of great revival, two elements of the great awakening by Jonathan Edwards are significant. In his 1737 work, A Faithful Narrative of the Surprising Work of God, Edwards described the First Great Awakening in Northampton in 1734-1735, and offered two reasons why this awakening may be considered great: 1) all kinds of people, and 2) diffusing to other places. When we evaluate the Wonsan revival with the two standards, people can understand the Wonsan revival was a great revival. It is not only because various kinds of people (e.g., missionaries, missionary kids, old and young Koreans, and Korean men and women) explained the baptism of the Holy Spirit or revival, but also because the Wonsan revival fire swept over almost all places in the Korean peninsula. Therefore, the Wonsan revival from 1903 was a great revival.

This thesis analyses the most popular Korean Protestant magazines “The Youth” and “The Christian News” during the colonial era, in order to examine the Korean Protestant understanding of war and peace of the time. This war, utilizing modern scientific knowledge for military weapons, was an unprecedented disaster that forced Korean Protestants to realize and acknowledge the importance of ‘war’. As Protestantism sought the cause of war in state-ism, scientism, and capitalistic competition, it started to critically view the limitations, contradictions, and necessity for reformation of modern Western civilization, which used to be a role-model. On the other hand, there was critical revision towards historical practices of Christianity, and also search for the ideal Christian response towards war. In general, the human crisis-war-and Christianity was understood as conflicting concepts and Christianity needed to maintain a non-belligerent stance. The philosophies of Tolstoy and Ghandi’s non-violent social disobedience were also introduced. It is debatable how much their philosophies were understood, but it holds true that there was an introduction to the Korean Protestantism at the time of the philosophical thought that rejected the capitalistic liberalism ideals, that sought the future ideal society in villagecommunities represented by small farmers, and that practiced this through non-violence social disobedience. But such philosophical thought and search towards peace decreases with the Manchurian Incident in 1931. Eras of Sino-Japanese War and the Pacific war was dominated by arguments of Holy Wars based on definitions of self as absolute right and the enemies as absolute evil. Such Holy War theories become vastly spread throughout Korean Protestantism during the Korean War and the Vietnam War, generalized as the Korean Protestant response towards war. Today, the Korean peninsula where North and South Korea are hostile towards each other, is a power cake of the world and the possibility of war increases with North Korea’s possession of nuclear weapons. In order to realize the Christian ideals of ‘respect towards life’ and ‘realization of peace’ under such circumstances, there must be critical analysis about the peaceful traditions of colonial times and also the arguments of ‘righteous war’ in order to define what allows wars to be righteous. For Christianity to mediate conflicts of interest and politics, there needs to be much more meditation on what Christianity can do to actively build peace. Moreover, there is a critical need to continuously find and review peaceful movements within church history, such as the ‘The World Day of Prayer for Women Incident’ conducted by women of a nameless church during the Pacific wars, at a time in which the Holy War theory was dominant.

Since Korean War, even though Kim Chai-choon, Han Gyung-Jik and Park Hyong-Ryong had manifested their anti-communism, their understanding for it was quite different one another. For, they have experienced the communism in the different situations. For Kim Chai-choon, he manifested himself as an anticommunist but he had a deideological understanding in his deep aspect. He criticized the dogmatism of communism, not but communism itself. Thus, Kim’s understanding for communism is considered as deideological one. The reason that he had deideological understanding was that he was influenced from Reinhold Niebuhr. In 1950’s, right after the end of the Korean War, he expressed the very vigorous view against the communism. However, it was because Song Chang-gun, his supporter as well as his friend, was kidnapped by North Korea. Meanwhile, Han was the strong view against the communism and he was an anticommunist. He imparted a “red dragon” to the communism, which was the religious meaning. Right after the independence, Han established the Christian Social-democratic Party in a bid for political activities. But his activities caused the conflicts with communists. So, he came to South Korea. After the Korean War, he worked as a senior pastor for Bethany Church(it became Young-Rak Church afterwards), which was consisted of many North Korean refugees. This was the main reason why he became a very vigorous anticommunist. Therefore, Han’s understanding for communism was called an “ideological understanding for communism based on personal experiences.” Park Hyong-ryong was also an anticommunist but not so much as Han. Because he had been working in South Korea right after Independence, he had no chance to have confliction with communists. He understood the communism as “God’s punishment against sinful people” and such an understanding was very normal at that time. However, in 1959, since third division of Presbyterian churches, he has had cold war ideological understanding. NAE, in which he played a central role and WCC, in which Han played a central role, crashed each other. At that time, Park accused Han of pro-communist and since then, he started understanding “New Theology” and “Communism” in the same category. Since then, Park has interchanged with Carl McIntyre, who was an anticommunist as well as an extreme right Christian leader. As a result, Park had the cold war ideological understanding against communism. Kim Chai-choon, Han Gyung-Jik and Park Hyong-Ryong experienced the Korean War and their experiences made themselves anticommunists but the reason that their views were quite different was that they had very different experiences.