The Christian approach to Islam has been undergoing a period of flux during the last decade. As a reaction to the slow progress in Islam mission and the fragility of churches of converts from Islam, some missionaries have cast about for a new model of approach for the Muslims. An important feature of the new approach has been a quest for new forms that involve converts remaining within Islam. This has been called C5 ministry or “insiders movement.” This C5 ministry among the John Travis’ C1-C6 spectrum, which compares and contrasts types of “Christ-centered communities” found in the Muslim world(1998), has drawn fire from the other side of the missiologists. Phil Phashall considered C5 approach to represent a dangerous slide into syncretism. Although John Travis and Dean S. Gilliland responded on the criticism, that was the beginning of long arguments on the possibility, validity, and credibility of the C5, or insiders movement. These arguments can be divided into two categories: theological interpretation on the biblical references which have been used to support the C5 ministry and some missiological issues on definitions of the terminologies of C5 ministry as well as social-religious culture and identity of the insiders. Due to the limited space, the author focused on some missiological issues only. The author analyzed the missiological arguments by dividing them into four areas: degree of contextualization, possibility of using Islamic culture and religious forms, Christian identity, and ethical problem. Then the author showed how the arguments have been expanded more widely among the missiologists’ circle after 2006. At the end, the author concluded that the arguments are still in progress. The arguments have shown the positive possibilities of Islam mission and left some challenges. The challenges are lacking of MBB leaders’ participation in the course of the argument, the continuing quotations of Parshall’s statistics from the side of the opponents, the issue of the translation of some sensitive biblical expressions to Muslims such as “Son of God,” and theological exegesis and applications of the supporting biblical references of the proponents. However, I feel more deepened discussions needed in the future. C5 ministry will continue to grow, regardless of the process of these arguments, because of its dynamic characteristics. Thus, we need to show generous attitude to the process of their growth and focus on the direction of the group as well as the each individual of C5 movement. And everybody in the future arguments needs to remember that each argument should be a process to keep balance between theology and praxis in order to build Christ’s church.

• 김성익(삼육대학교 교수 · 선교학) | Kim SungIk