A Jeong Trinity: Toward a Korean Feminist Doctrine of the Trinity

This study engages a Korean feminist doctrine of the Trinity through the notion of jeong which can represent a more relational understanding of the Trinity in order to revalue Korean church women's jeongful life and support their flourishing. The work carries out a critical dialogue with Jung Young Lee's doctrine of the Trinity, Wonhee Anne Joh's notion of jeong, Kathryn Tanner's radical transcendent model of the Trinity, and Sarah Coakley's incorporative model of the Trinity.;Chapter II, A Korean Understanding of the Doctrine of the Trinity, analyzes and evaluates Jung Young Lee's trinitarian theology, focusing on mutual inclusiveness and the dynamic power of the yin-yang principle for his doctrine of the Trinity. It suggests supplementing Lee's dualistic interpretation of yin-yang with Yul-Gok Lee's li-chi monistic interpretation of yin-yang. It then further ponders how Wonhee Anne Joh's notion of jeong could extend the trinitarian notion of love of powol as a good tool for a Korean feminist trinitarian theology.;Chapter III, Kathryn Tanner's Doctrine of the Trinity, investigates Augustine, Gregory of Nyssa, and Karl Barth as Tanner's resources for her trinitarian theology. This chapter also studies her theological methodologies: postliberalism and cultural theories. Based on these influences, it describes her trinitarian theology and its theological implications with regard to divine power and materiality. Finally, it evaluates Tanner's contributions and the limits of her trinitarian scheme.;Chapter IV, Sarah Coakley's Doctrine of the Trinity, studies Gregory of Nyssa in Coakley's reading as a source of her trinitarian theology. The chapter analyzes Ernst Troeltsch's methodological influences, particularly his historical method, along with that of Maurice Wiles, and their influence on Coakley's feminism. It describes her trinitarian theology and states its theological implications for divine power and materiality. Finally it evaluates her trinitarianism.;The conclusion compares and contrasts Tanner and Coakley. Next it appropriates Lee's version of yin-yang and Joh's notion of jeong in a trinitarian way, to then dialogue with Tanner's radical transcendent model of the Trinity, and Coakley's incorporative model of the Trinity of love or eros, in order to challenge the monarchy of the Father and propose a more relational trinitarian theology by problematizing the clear boundaries between the three Persons. Through this dialogue, it proposes a path for a Korean feminist trinitarian theology: a Trinity of Jeong.