A Confucian Reappraisal of Christian Love: Ahn Changho Contra Augustinian Studies Conducted in South Korea

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Good article, though I found a few typing mistakes:

line 25 Kitokkyo should be Kidokkyo

line 51 its problem of accuracy.  “its problem with accuracy” would be better.

line 58. most Augustine’s works  should be most of Augustine’s works

line 300 I may be misreading it, but I wonder if this line should say preparing for God’s eschatological salvation in the earthly city. 

line 330-331 recognized as the organizer of the first Korean-American immigrant community in 330 the United States, —is this correct? What about Hawaii? Shouldn’t this be recognized as the organizer of the first Korean-American immigrant community in  the mainland United States,  Hawaii was not a state back then, but it was a US territory and therefore could be considered part of the US. 

line 342 thought on Christian love  Shouldn’t this be thoughts on Christian love?

line 425 missing out love of God. Shouldn’t this be missing out on love of God 

line 443. that cannot be reduced  Shouldn’t this be that it cannot be reduced 

line 604 any eschatological pursuit for personal salvation. I wonder if this might sound better as any eschatological pursuit of personal salvation. 

p. 638 scholars in South Korea switch their scholarly interests  Would sound better if change to scholars in South Korea have switched their scholarly interests 

I found the decision in the bibliography to treat each syllable of Korean in Korean titles as a separate entry and separate it from surrounding syllables with hyphens somewhat disconcerting. Linguists do that, so their readers can see what each syllable is. But in other academic works, we write words, not syllables. The correct romanization can be found at http://roman.cs.pusan.ac.kr/input_eng.aspx 

Author Response

Thanks for your comments.

1. Response to the Referee 1

(1) The referee asks me to use another Korean Romanization system, and s/he requests me to consider whether separating syllables with hyphens in the bibliography is appropriate or not.

Response: I also used the same Korean Romanization Converter that has been developed by AI LAB in Pusan National University and NARA INFO TECH Co. Ltd. And, as the referee might know, there are three Romanization systems authorized by the National Academy of the Korean Language, and I used one of them. Thus I don’t feel obliged to change all Korean Romanized alphabetic scripts with the Korean Romanization system that was suggested by the referee. However, I accepted her/his suggestion of putting words without separating syllables with hyphens in the bibliography. As the referee points out, syllables with hyphens can be disconcerting.

Reply: I changed all Korean Romanization alphabetic scripts into words without separating them from surrounding syllables with hyphens.

(2) The referee suggests several alternative expressions with which I can deliver my thoughts more clearly in a moderate manner.

Response and Reply: I accepted all alternative expressions except for line 443 that should indicate the broad range of relationships.

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting, insightful and incisive work on Augustinian studies in South Korea in general with a focus on Ahn Changho’s distinctive contribution.  The author characterizes the South Korean reception of Augustine’s idea of love as an emphasis on individual salvation, which resulted in a dearth of civic dimensions.The author’s contextual portrayal of South Korean engagement with the Augustinian conception of love, modelled on Luther’s take of Augustine, foregrounds the contrast with Ahn Changuo’s Confucian interpretation of Christian love, which underscored the importance of communal relationships. The author’s account of Ahn Changuo on love demonstrates analytical force and clarity and is convincing indeed. This essay is an exemplary study of cross-cultural theological and philosophical engagement with significant implications for political and social thought. 

 

While this work is highly sophisticated, I have a couple of suggestions for the author’s consideration for what it’s worth. 

 

First, the contextual discussions on pp. 3-7 under the headings of ‘Augustine’s Love in Augustinian Studies’ and ‘Luther’s Augustine and Self-centered Eschatology’ are conceptually clear; however, the presentation of various South Korean thinkers is not sufficiently reader-friendly especially for those who have little or no knowledge of South Korean intellectual history. It appears the author discusses authors of both the twentieth century and the current century, but it is not clear how they are historically related to each other. Lee Chang-Sik’s work dates back to 1961, while Chung Kae-Hyun’s and Moon Si-Young’s are published in 2004 and 2018 respectively. Meanwhile, Ahn Changho wrote his works before 1938. Why, then, has Ahn Changho’s view been overlooked by more recent thinkers? I am aware that the author’s intention may be not so much historical as theoretical. Perhaps the author wanted to rehabilitate Ahn Changho’s view as an alternative to the dominant, non-political reading of Augustine. But historically minded readers might wonder how those authors may be located in the lineage of Christian theological scholarship in South Korea. In this connection, brief notes about biographical information about each author would be helpful. Also, it is not clear what sort of Protestantism Ahn Changho subscribed to. 

 

Second, given the main theme of this article, I was struck by no mention of Hannah Arendt’s On the concept of love in the thought of Saint Augustine. Has this work that sought the ontological foundation of social bonds failed to influence recent South Korean authors in their understanding of love? I also wonder how the author would compare Ahn Changho with Arendt on the Augustinian idea of love. But this might well be beyond the scope of the work under review.   

Author Response

Thanks for your comments. 

No revision request.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments relating to line numbers in original:

24 ‘… translated 10 chapters of Augustine’s Confessions.’

Not “chapters” but “books”.

108-109 ‘… the pathos of distance from civic participation.’

Explain what ‘pathos of distance’ means.

116 ‘… Augustine’s view of love for neighbors …’

            Better to use the singular, ‘love of neighbor’, and throughout.

192-196           For a broadening of these perspectives, see Raymond Canning, The Unity of Love for God and Neighbour in St Augustine, Leuven-Heverlee: Augustinian Historical Institute, 1993.

208-226           On Luther and Augustine in this regard, see Canning (above), pp. 116-121.

226                  ‘Nevertheless, Augustinian studies in South Korea often expound Luther’s Augustine.’

                        Or, at least insofar as love for self is concerned, they expound Luther’s break with Augustine, as presented by Nygren.

336-337           ‘… an expression of Luther’s Augustine.’

                        Point out how this is an Augustine of whom Luther approves, but also, as above, in relation to love of self, an Augustine of whom Luther does not approve.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Use 'love of neighbor' or 'neighborly love', not 'love of neighbors' [plural]

Author Response

Thanks for your comments.

 (1) The referee asks me to change ‘love for neighbors’ and ‘love of neighbors’ to ‘love of neighbor’.

Response & Reply: We generally use ‘love for neighbor’ and ‘love of neighbor’ exchangeably. And we often use the former particularly when we intend to associate ‘love for neighbor’ or ‘love for neighbors’ with the concepts and practices of commitment or devolution towards neighbors. However, as the reviewer requests, we can unify them with ‘love of neighbor’ as distinguished from ‘love of God’. To fulfill

the request, I changed all ‘love for neighbors’ and ‘love of neighbors’ to ‘love of neighbor.’

(2) The referee asks me to footnote one more Raymond Canning’s work, and s/he also wants me to put forward Raymond Canning’s view of ‘love of self’.

Response: Throughout the paper, two Raymond Canning’s works have been taken as important references to Augustine’s mature view of Christian love that two commandments, love of God and love of neighbor, are summed up in loving care of neighbors. But Raymond Canning’s interpretation of ‘love of self’ with respect to his analysis of Luther’s radicalization of Augustine is not so much relevant to the main arguments of this paper about Augustinian studies in South Korea. So I left aside the referee’s request for adding Raymond Canning’s view of ‘love of self’ to my criticism of Augustinian studies in South Korea.