인류는 늘 평화를 염원하지만 현실은 이러한 소망과 달리 다양한 갈등, 폭력, 전쟁 등으로 고통을 당하고 있다. 한편 평화를 위해 기여해 야 할 종교들마저 많은 곳에서 분열의 한 원인으로 작용하고 있다. 이런 상황에서 세계 평화에 남다른 관심을 가져온 세계교회협의회 (WCC)는 JPIC를 주장하면서 평화를 선교의 한 목표로 설정하였다. 평화를 중시하고 평화를 위해 교회가 기여하는 것은 아무리 강조해도 지나치지 않는다. 하지만 평화를 교회의 윤리적 과제가 아닌 선교의 목표로 삼을 때는 다양하게 고려해야 할 점들이 있다. 이러한 점들을 고려하지 못하면 교회는 선교를 수행하면서 예상치 못했던 다양한 문제들에 봉착하게 될 수도 있다. 이런 점에서 본 연구는 평화 개념을 선교의 목표로 삼는 것을 재고해보는 것을 주된 과제로 삼았다. 즉 본 연구는 세계교회협의회가 추구하는 평화에 대한 관심의 흐름을 역사적으로 살펴보고, 협의회가 주장하는 평화 개념의 주된 특징들을 분석해보았다. 또한 협의회가 말하는 평화의 주된 강조점들을 분석하 고, 그 후 평화를 선교의 목표로 설정할 때의 기여점과 한계점 등을 분석하였다.

안타깝게도 요즘 한국 교회가 세상으로부터 많은 지탄을 받고 있다. 세상에 선한 영향력을 끼쳐야 할 교회가 오히려 세상으로부터 손가락질을 당하는 모습이다. 상황이 이렇다 보니 교회의 공적 책임에 대한 관심이 높아지고 있으며 이런 문제에 대한 해결책으로 공적신학에 대한 논의가 활발하다. 공적신학은 사회의 공공선을 위한 가이드라인을 제시하고 실제 공공선의 실현을 위해 헌신하도록 도전한다는 점에서 기여를 하고 있는 것으로 평가된다. 하지만 공적신학의 이와 같은 기여에도 불구하고 과연 공적신학이 얼마나 성공적으로 그 과제를 수행하는데 기여하고 있는지는 다소 회의적이다. 학자들의 글 속에서는 활발하게 논의가 되고 있지만, 과연 공적신학이 얼마나 이 사회를 바꾸는 일에 기여하고 있는지는 다소 불투명해 보인다. 이런 점에서 본 연구는 공적신학을 다시 고찰해보면서 공적신학의 의미와 주요 강조점들을 정리한 후 이론적 측면 및 실천적 측면에서의 한계점들을 고찰해보았다. 특별히 공적신학은 교회의 정체성 약화를 가져올 수 있는 한계점도 지닌다. 공적신학이 이러한 점들을 유의하면서 그 한계 점들을 잘 보완할 필요가 있어 보인다.

1974년에 스위스 로잔에서 열린 로잔대회는 에큐메니컬 진영이 선교의 목표를 복음화에서 인간화로 잡고 구원의 개념도 전통적인 의미의 영혼구원에서 통합적인 구원으로 바꾸는 것에 대한 우려 가운데 탄생된 대회였다. 그런데 세월이 흐르면서 로잔진영은 우선순위에 대하여 다소 변화된 견해를 보이다가 1차 로잔대회 이후 약 36년 정도의 세월이 흐른 뒤인 2010년 남아공 케이프타운에서 열린 로잔 3차대회에 이르러 복음화의 우선순위에 대한 언급이 사라지게 되었다. 대신 ‘총체적 선교’(integral mission)라는 용어가 자주 등장하고 있다. 어느 한 곳에 우선순위를 두기 보다는 총체적인 선교가 올바른 선교의 방향이라는 견해를 표명한 것이다. 본 연구는 로잔의 대표적인 세 개의 대회들의 흐름을 살펴보면서 우선순위 문제가 각 대회에서 어떻게 이해되고 변화되었는지를 살펴보 면서 로잔신학에 있어서 우선순위에 대한 이해를 파악하고자 한다. 아울러 선교에 있어서 우선순위를 고려할 때 어떤 유익이 있는지를 생각하면서 로잔신학에 있어서의 우선순위 문제를 고민해 보았다. 물론 총체적 선교는 분명 이론적 강점이 있고 설득력도 있다. 하지만여전히 우선순위 문제를 고민하지 않을 수 없는 이유가 있다. 모든 운동은 선택과 집중을 해야 효율적으로 사명을 감당할 수 있는데, 총체적 선교는 선택과 집중 대신 모든 것을 다 똑같이 중요한 것으로 보면서 접근하기에 효율성이 떨어지는 면이 있다. 즉 로잔신학 이 통합적인 접근을 하면서도 여전히 우선순위를 고려할 때 선교에 있어서 집중력이 높아지고, 전도의 동력이 향상되고, 선교의 개념이 명확하게 됨으로 말미암아 선교가 효율적으로 수행될 수 있는 유익들이 있는 것이다. 물론 여전히 총체적 선교가 확실한 대안이라는 패러다임 을 가진 경우 이런 논의 자체가 구시대적인 이분법이고, 교회확장주의 적 사고이고, 제국주의적 사고로 보일 수 있다. 하지만 적어도 기독교가 존재할 때에 세계를 섬기는 것이 가능해진다는 것을 생각하면 여전히 기독교의 건강한 성장을 위해 효율적인 선교의 필요성은 고려되어야 한다. 이 점에서 로잔의 선교 방향이 이런 점을 심각하게 고민하여 통전성을 추구하면서도 여전히 우선성을 지님으로써 미래에도 여전히 세계선교에 기여하는 운동이 되기를 기대해본다.

지금까지 기독교 선교역사에 나타난 선교신학의 유형은 크게 세 가지로 분류할 수 있을 것이다. 첫째는 ‘전통적 선교신학’(또는 복음주의 선교신학), 둘째는 ‘에큐메니칼 선교신학,’ 셋째는 ‘통전적 선교신학’이라고 할 수 있을 것이다. 전통적 선교신학은 가장 오래된 역사를 지닌 신학이라고 할 수 있으며, ‘세계 복음화’를 선교의 분명한 목표로 삼은 신학이라고 할 수 있다. 두 번째로 태동된 에큐메니칼 선교신학은 전통적인 선교신학의 문제점을 인식하면서 대안으로 제시 된 선교신학으로 주로 이 세상에서 인간을 인간답게 살 수 있는 곳으로 만드는 일과 샬롬을 선교의 주된 과업으로 보는 경향이 있다. 그리고 이 둘 사이의 갈등과 충돌 후에 대안으로 나타난 소위 말하는 ‘통전적 선교신학’이 세 번째 선교신학이다. 본 연구는 통전적 선교신학의 배경이 된 전통적 선교신학과 에큐메 니칼 선교신학을 간략하게 분석한 후 오늘날 가장 널리 수용되고 있는 세 번째 선교신학인 통전적 선교신학을 깊이 있게 분석하면서 이 신학이 과연 오늘날 위기에 처한 기독교를 구출하여 21세기에도 기독교가 여전히 존재하며 세계를 섬길 수 있도록 만드는 선교신학인지를 고민하 여 보았다. 그 결과 본 연구는 통전적 선교신학에 대한 대안적 선교신학 태동의 필요성을 생각하게 되었는데, 그 주된 이유로는 1) 날로 약화되어 가는 기독교의 현황, 2) 통전적 선교신학의 우선순위 배제로 인한 효율성의 약화 문제, 3) 통전적 선교신학의 전도 동력 약화 문제, 4) 선교에 윤리 문제를 혼합시켜 혼동을 줄 수 있는 가능성 등을 살펴보았다. 본 연구에서는 제4 선교신학이 구체적으로 어떤 신학인가를 다루 는 문제를 차후의 과제로 미루고, 대안적 선교신학의 태동 필요성에 대해서만 집중적으로 고찰해 보았다. 물론 이와 같은 대안 모색에 대하여 상당한 비판적 견해가 있을 수 있다. 특별히 하나님의 관심은 교회가 아니라 세상에 있으며, 세상을 섬기고 변화시키는 것이 구령사 역과 동일하게 중요하다는 관점에서 보면 제4 선교신학의 모색은 여전 히 지나치게 교회 중심적이며 협소한 선교 개념으로 보일 수 있을 것이다. 하지만 세상을 섬기는 것도 좋고 세상을 변화시키는 것도 좋지만 최소한 교회가 존재해야 이 모든 신학적 논의가 가능해지며, 지금은 교회의 존립 자체가 위협을 받는 심각한 위기 상황에 있다고 할 수 있다. 따라서 우리는 오늘날 가장 널리 수용되고 있는 통전적 선교신학이 과연 가장 적합한 신학인지를 냉철하게 분석하면서 제4 선교신학과 같은 대안적인 선교신학을 모색해 보아야 할 절박한 시점에 와있다고 보며, 이러한 점에서 본 연구는 오늘날 위기에 빠진 기독교 선교가 나아갈 방향을 제시하는 데 일정 부분 기여할 수 있을 것으로 사료된다.

선교적 교회론은 오랫동안 선교지에서 사역한 후 자신의 고국인 영국에 돌아온 후 오히려 선교지 보다도 더 영적으로 황량해진 고국 교회의 회복을 고민하면서 교회의 선교적 본질 회복을 외쳤던 뉴비긴(Lesslie Newbigin)의 영향을 받아 일단의 북미 신학자들과 목회자들이 GOCN(the Gospel and Our Culture Network)이라는 단체를 구성하고 교회와 복음, 그리고 문화라는 세 영역을 상호 소통시킴으로써 지역교회의 선교적 본질을 회복하고자 한 노력의 산물이라고 할 수 있다. 이와 같은 배경 하에서 태동한 선교적 교회론은 오늘의 교회들을 선교적으로 갱신하는데 일정 부분 기여를 하고 있다고 평가된다. 하지만 다른 한편에서 보면 아직 이 이론이 현장에서 지역교회들을 실제적으로 갱신하고 변화시킨 보고는 그리 많지 않다. 즉 선교적 교회론의 내용 자체는 충분한 당위성을 지니지만 현재로서는 그 성과를 확신하기 어려운 면이 있으며, 선교적 교회론의 전략은 다소 현실성이 떨어지는 측면도 있는 것으로 평가된다. 이런 상황에서 본 연구는 선교적 교회론이 실제적으로 선교 백성으로서의 사명을 감당할 수 있는 교회를 형성하는 일에 기여하려면 예배의 측면에 대한 깊은 고려가 필요함을 강조한다. 선교적 교회론이 역동적으로 작동을 하려면 성도들이 선교적 교회론이 주장하는 삶을 살아갈 수 있도록 동력을 제공하고 적절한 훈련을 제공해야 하는데, 이것에 가장 적합한 장 중 하나가 예배이다. 이런 점에서 본 연구는 선교적 교회론을 작동 가능케 할 원천으로서의 예배를 탐구하는 것을 주된 목적으로 삼는다.위와 같은 목적 하에 본 연구는 1장 서론에 이어 2장에서는 선교적 교회론이 태동된 배경, 선교적 교회론의 주된 강조점, 그리고 선교적 교회론에서 고려되어야 할 사항 등을 살펴보았다. 선교적 교회론은 교회의 선교적 본질을 재발견하고 강조함으로써 약화된 서구 교회를 활성화하고 복음의 공적 영향력을 회복하고자 하는 시도에서 출발하였는데, 이와 같은 목표를 달성하기 위해서는 실제로 이 일을 수행해야 하는 성도들이 이 일을 감당할 수 있도록 능력을 공급하고 훈련하는 작업 등에 대하여 깊이 고려하여야 할 필요성이 있음을 살펴보았다. 3장에서는 예배의 계명이 선교백성으로 선택받은 이스라엘 백성에게 능력을 공급하고 선교백성의 삶을 살 수 있는 훈련을 위해 주어진 계명임을 밝히고, 이 기초 위에서 선교와 예배 사이의 긴밀한 관계를 밝히면서 선교적 교회의 실현을 위하여 수행해야 할 바람직한 예배의 기본적인 방향을 찾아보았다. 그 방향은 성도들로 하여금 하나님을 대면하여 능력을 체험하게 하는 예배, 복음의 사회적 영향력을 실현하도록 훈련하는 예배, 성도들과 잠재적 성도들을 하나님께로 이끄는 예배임을 살펴보았다. 본 연구는 선교적 교회론과 예배의 관계를 분석한 연구로서 이 관계가 역동적으로 잘 이루어질 때 선교적 교회론이 효과적으로 실현될 수 있을 것임을 주장한다. 특별히 선교적 교회론의 주된 관심이 주로 ‘흩어지는 교회’에 집중되면서 ‘모이는 교회’에 대하여는 다소 미흡한 면이 있는데, 이 연구는 선교적 교회론이 보다 균형 잡힌 시각을 갖게 되고 그 실현 가능성을 높이는 데 일정 부분 기여할 것으로 기대된다.

The purpose of this article is to investigate the understanding on the workers of mission in ecumenical theology. Since mission is an action for the Kingdom of God, it is important to understand who is in charge of this work for an effective ministry. In the past, the church thought that the major agents of mission are ‘the church’ or ‘the chosen people.’ However, after the second world war, the ecumenical theology started to see the worker of mission more in a wider view including various organizations in the world. In this paper, first I tried to find out from what motivation the new view came out. They were the following perceptions: 1) the church realized that the church, the major agent of mission, committed serious sins especially during the two world wars, 2) due to the impact of Missio Dei, the church came to see that the workers of mission are not just the church but also many other institutions in the world, 3) the church came to change its view on the world from a target of mission to a coworker of mission. With this kind of background, the ecumenical theology tends to see the workers of mission as the triune God himself, the various institutions in the world used by God, lay people, and the poors. This kind of understanding contains various strengths and weaknesses. It might be helpful for the church to break its arrogance and self-centered attitude. Also it can help the church to cooperate with the world in carrying out the mission, and to keep going forward toward the ideal direction of mission. However, this view contains some weaknesses as well. As it emphasizes God as the major worker of mission too much, it can reduce the church's responsibility and enthusiasm for mission. As it pursues cooperation with the world, it can bring a result of weakening the identity of the church also. As it includes the world, which is not concerned and interested about God, as a major worker of mission, the church can fall into a trap of idealism and as a result of this it can cause enfeeblement of mission. If these kinds of weaknesses are compensated properly, the ecumenical view on the workers of mission would be helpful for building up the church for world mission.

When we carry out a work or project, setting a clear goal is crucial for a success of the vocation. A goal means a task, target, or place to go or to achieve, and in this sense, a project whose goal is not clear enough cannot be achieved successfully. Since mission is also a ministry of a religion, making a clear goal is important for its success. However, in Christian mission the goal of mission is understood in various ways. While in the traditional view the understanding of mission’s goal is rather simple and clear, recent view is rather inclusive and complicated. In particular, the ecumenical view of the goal is quite different from that of the traditional view. So this article investigated the goal of mission in ecumenical view with a desire to provide a foundation for making a desirable purpose of mission today when the Christianity is in a deep crisis. For this purpose this article studied some major goals of ecumenical missiology such as humanization, JPIC, unity and reconciliation. As a result of this investigation this paper suggested some major characteristics of ecumenical goal of mission: broad inclusiveness, deep concern on the transformation of the world, high possibility of change, and removing priority. These kinds of characteristics have various strengths and advantages in serving and transforming the world, and in making suitable goals which fit the felt needs of the changing world. In other words, the ecumenical goals are effective in serving the world. However, the ecumenical goals have some limitations as well. The goals of the ecumenical wing are so broad and inclusive that the energy would be divided into many directions. Some goals are agendas of the world which seek welfare of the world, so these goals are helpful for the development of the world but not much for growth of the church, a major goal of mission. If ecumenical goals are compensated in these areas, the goals would be much more effective for the Kingdom of God.

K. Braaten mentioned that today’s theological issue is ecclesiology, and this is true also in missiology. In the traditional view of mission, the major agent of mission and the goal of mission was the church. In other words, in the past planting self supporting church in mission fields was the goal of mission, and the missionary work was done no other than by the church itself. In this sense, the church was the beginning and end of mission, and so the church was a deep concern of missiology in the past. However, with the emergence of Missio Dei concept, the status of the church in mission was changed. Since God‘s mission was done not through the church, like in the traditional understanding of the church, but by God Himself directly in the world, the church was not considered as a major or core agent of the church any more. Also by the impact of the Missio Dei concept, the major goal of mission was not church planting in mission fields but accomplishing shalom in the world. People in ecumenical side came to think that the church centered view of mission needs to be transformed to world centered view of mission. In spite of this change in missiology, the evangelical wing still holds the traditional view of ecclesiology, and so there is a big gap between the ecumenical understanding of the church and that of the evangelical wing. In this thesis, I tried to analyze the major characteristics of the ecumenical church view to provide a theoretical basis of desirable ecclesiology for authentic mission. For this purpose, first I investigated the outcomes of major ecumenical conferences to find out the characteristics of ecumenical view of the church. Based on the former study, then I tried to build up the status of the church, goal of the church, and working area of the church. The conclusion of the study was that the ecumenical view of the church was ‘he church for the world.’ The ecumenical church view was described from a positive viewpoint of ‘world’, and for the purpose of transforming the ‘world’. This kind of church view is helpful for the church to go beyond the boundary of the church for serving the world, and for challenging the church to become a responsible church for transforming the world. However, this view has a weakness of neglecting the source, ministry of up-building the church itself, as it is absorbed too much in the goal, transforming the world. Furthermore, as it emphasizes the world excessively there might be a possibility of breaking the border line between the church and the world, and it bring the result of weakness of the church itself which should become the major source of transforming the world. Therefore, the desirable ecclesiology might be the one that considers not only the goal but also the source, and unity with the world and difference from it as well.

As long as we know, Paul was one of the greatest missionaries throughout the whole Christian history. In the short period of around 10 years he planted a lot of independent churches in major cities of Eastern part of Rome, and challenged the churches to continue to spread the gospels to their neighbors. As a result of this, when he wrote the letter to the Romans, he was able to write ‘But now that there is no more place for me to work in these region, (Rom. 15:23). Through this saying, we can easily guess that his ministry was so effective and fruitfu l. However, this does not mean that his ministry was always smooth and mild. Rather, as we all know well, there were numerous difficulties and hardships in his ministry. The tria1s were so tough that he could not but confess that “We were under great pressure, far beyond our ability to endure, so that we despaired even of life"(2 Co 1:8). Yet he was not subdued by a11 the pressures. Rather he overcame all these difficulties and fulfilled his ministry successfully, saying “We are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair, persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed"(2 Co. 4:8- 9). He carried out his ministry with full of hope in that worst situation. What were then the roots of the hope he had which were the major motivation of his fruitful ministry? 1 looked for six major roots of the hope he had in this paper. The first one was the strong affirmation that he was called to become the apostle for the gentiles. Since he strongly believed that he was called by the Lord of the universe, he was sure that the Lord would fulfill his ministry through him under any situation. The second factor was the conviction about the reward that would be given to him, a faithful missionary, in the coming world. The third one was the belief in the guidance and empowerment of the Holy Spirit in his ministry. The forth one was his strong love for the souls. His love for souls was so strong that nothing could subdue his zea1 for winning souls. Fifthly, he was well aware that he got too great grace to pay back to Jesus. This awareness of the limitless grace always caused him to dedicate his whole life for mission. Finally, the eschatological faith also was a major source of his endless hope. To his belief the last time would be the time of perfect victory of Lord Jesus and his people. Believing the final triumph, he was not in low spirits in spite of all the present failures and difficulties. Also in expecting the great time, spreading the gospel was the best way to shorten the time of Jesus' coming back. As Paul' s ministry situation was not easy at all, so are the circumstances of today’s mission fields. In this situation, one the most urgent matters all God’s workers need to consider is the way of being empowered. Since the roots of hope that empowered Paul are still valid for today’ s missionaries, 1 hope, this paper would cause us to check the roots of our hope whether they are right and strong enough.

In the traditional view the ultimate goal of mission was to build up the indigenous church which can stand itself carrying out self- govercúng, self-propagating, self-supporting. For this reason the three-self princip1e was considered the most crucial principle in mission strategies. At 1east until 1950s there was almost no one who doubted or opposed the formula. Yet with the appearance of Mìssio Dei concept -- which emphasizes the "world" instead of the "church"-- in the 1950s, lots of criticisms fell on the three-self principle which specially focused on indigenous church. Finally in these days the three-self principle seems to be considered an antique or useless concept not drawing any interest. This article started from the question why this change occurred and whether this kind of negative view toward the principle is proper or not. With the concern fìrst I invesstigate the major contents of the three-self formula to find out the strengths and weaknesses of the principle. Then evaluating all the criticisms on the principles whether or not they are proper，I found out that it is hard to accept some criticisms though some are valid. on the contrary to the negative view on the principle, I recognized that the principle is still very useful with lots of strong points and wisdoms for effective church planting ministry in the mission fìeld. Of course, the three-self principle is not the perfect mission principle as all others are not either. The principle is not the unique answer for solving problems in today’s mission either. In addition there might be some mission fìelds where it is hard to apply this formula exactly. However, I recognized that the three-self principles is very effective in building up healthy churches. Some scholars in the liberal wing tend to see church planting in the misslon fìeld as the act of imperialistic rnission. However, it is impossible to think of mission without church, since having Christian faith without community is impossible. One of the most serious problems in many mission fìelds today is the churches that rely only on missuibaries. There are so many churches that cannot stand well without the help of missionaries though they started 10 - 20 years ago. The worse thing is that there is a high possibility that these churches would dose their doors or be changed to other purposed-building easily as soom as missionaries leave the place. Furthermore, since the church is fragile, so are the seminaries also. The churches cannot provide canclidates for future pastors to the seminaries due to the lack of people, and lifewise the seminaries cannot send good pastors to the church either. As a result of this, as we can easily expect，the vicious cycle is continued, and the people in the mission field getting relying on missionaries more and more. so the missionaries cannot leave the rrusslon field though there are thousands of places where the more urgent needs are existing. In our missionary enterprises, all our resources and times are limited Considering the wide mission fields and the people’s needs there, we cannot but evaluate the effectiveness of our missionary works. Three- self principles provides abundant ideas and guidelines to the missionaries desiring to do effective ministries in the misslon fields. If we refer to the three-self principles and try to apply the id않s drawn from the formula, our missionary works would be much more effective in building up churches that grow up strongly and transform their society faithfully.

In the Old Testament, the worship law was given as a part of the Sinaitic Covenant, the purpose of which was to make Israe1 a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (Ex. 19: 6). With the covenant, God desired that Israel would carry out the role of mediating the nations with God (the role of priest) by living a sacred life among the worldly nations (the role of a holy nation) Then from where were the Israelites able to get the power to perform these roJes? The major source of power for that life was given through worship that continued to remind the Israelites of the history of salvation done by God throughout their history. As they heard how God saved the Israelites from Egypt and how he fed them for 40 years in the desert, they praised the great salvation carried out by God. Through these activities the Israelites were ab1e to experience God who saved them not onJy in the past but also now, and thus, based on that experience, they gained the power to live the life of witnesses in the wor1d. In a word, God, by commanding worship 1aws, intended to provide “ a context for equipping Israel" toward effective and powerful centripetal witness. In this sense, the major purpose of worship is to train and equip God’ s people so that they can contrib ute to the expansion of the kingdom of God. When this goal of worship is well achieved, the church as the agent of the kingdom ministry will grow naturally. Then what are the ways of making the worship that nurtures kingdom witnesses? Of course the ways would vary according to the context where worship is done. So I would like to provide just brief and basic suggestions toward that goal. First, we need to consider the needs of worshipers. The worship that ignores the needs of attendees will be ignored by the people in return. On the other hand, the worship that satisfies the needs of congregations would lead many people. Secondly, it is necesary to make worship to be oriented toward witness. When we say the term “ worship that is oriented toward witness," it means the worship that attracts non-believers and the worship that empowers congregations to become effective witnesses. Thirdly. we should try to make worship dynamic. Dynamic worship is possible when it is opened towards the work of the Holy Spirit who leads worship with flexi-bility and dynamics. Fourthly, we have to recognize the importance of praise in worship. Effective worship leaders do their best in selecting and developing hyrnns that would touch the heart of people. Finally, we need to consider the emotional dimension of people. Wise worship leaders do their utmost to give good impressions to attendees and, in particular, to newcomers in their worship. To effectively bring about dynamic church growth, we need to continue to study detailed methods and develop them with a view of the big picture of “ witness-oriented worship."