The theology of religions, which examines theologically the meaning of other religions and their relationships, is important, but controversial issue in theological world. In the religiously pluralistic society, Christians who are participating in the interaction with other religions should be attentive to the theology of religions and have rules and principles. In the era of the Enlightenment and modernism, the radical continuity between the natural and supernatural and between God and humans was also connected to continuity among religions, and relativity and the seeds of pluralism were highly fostered beyond Augustinian exclusivism. However, Karl Barth rejected mancentered theology in modern context and liberalism, which made religion a matter of this world by magnifying humans at the expense of God. For Barth, there is no natural theology as a point of contact between God and humanity, and rather there is total discontinuity between them standing in opposition to each other. This article especially focuses on Barth’s theology of religions which is described as complex and self-contradictory and gives some missiological implications. On the one hand, in Barth’s rejecting natural theology or general revelation and regarding religion, which is contradicted to revelation, as unbelief, his theology does not seem to be helpful for the dialogical basis with other religions. However, on the other hand, by the view in his later writings, Barth’s theology provides for a more positive and implicit view of the religions. In the doctrine of reconciliation of Barth, God’s self-revelation could not be confined to the realm of the Christianity, and other lights and words which come from outside the Christian church are in some sense represent a view on God’s revelation. Furthermore, relational aspects in Barth’s theology based on imago Dei builds a common ground for inter-religious interaction. On the whole, Barth is not only in commitment to the Christian faith, but also in profound openness toward other religions beyond outright denial. However, in making theology relevant to contexts, Barth cautions against losing the faithfulness to the Word of God or the distinctiveness of the Christian message. Barth’s theology of religions is a guidepost in this respect today.

The missiological tension with regard to the question of salvation and humanization is dynamic, and it is found in the different perspectives between the WCC camp and Lausanne camp or evangelical and ecumenical camps on the mission. Although the naps are getting narrowed thanks to the holistic missiology, the tension still exists in the Korean context, of which example is the CCK’s case that raised objection against hosting 2013 WCC conference. This paper is, focusing on the holistic feature of humanization and salvation, to provide a missiological base to overcome the problem caused by the discrepancy between K. Barth’s “God’s humanity” and Korean Christians’ inhumanity. It analyses style and patterns of criticism on Korean Christians, and argues that the culprit which causes Korean Christians' humanity to be criticised negatively is Christ-centered and Church-centered attitude of the Korean church, which is Korean evangelical camp’s theological stance. It points out that this is caused by lack of “God’s humanity” which helps Christians remain faithful to their own identity and mission. Therefore it suggests that this problem is solved when Christians acknowledge their own raison d'etre to realize God's humanity, and that by so doing the holistic balance between salvation and humanization is to be achieved. It also suggests ecological system and internet as a sample of holistic mission field which makes the interdependent mission possible.

Roland Barthes (1915-1980) has been a leading French semiotician, philosopher and cultural critics, along with Michel Foucault, Jacques Lacan and Jacques Derrida. Barthes began his academic career as a freelance-writer for Comba during the late 1940s and for Le Lettres nouvelles during the early 1950s in Paris. His early writings on various topics, based on his existentialism and Marxist critique, were collected in Mythologies (1957) and the publication of the book was the beginning of Barthes'semiological research. His early semiology in Mythologies exposes the process of ideological distortions in the meaning of the sign. He calls the distorted sign as "myth." All kinds of sign in modern capitalistic society became "myth" through the process of "a tri-dimensional pattern" in the interaction of the signifier, the signified and the sign. A newly-defined meaning of the sign becomes to function as a new signifier. When this new signifier is interrelated with the signified of the sign tautologically, it produces another "sign" which is called "myth." From the process of "a tri-dimensional pattern" in myth-making, we missiologists may learn some important semiological lessons from Barthes' scholarship. Missionary translators have the similar task in mission field when they want to translate the terms and concepts of Christian faith into the local languages. When they translate the Christian term, they experience the same process of myth-making: the newly-translated term becomes a new sign, to which new religious meanings are accumulating. The sign becomes a new signifier after missionaries' translation of the term. But the most important aspect that we may learn from Roland Barthes's semiology is that it is local people who relate or accumulate new religious meanings into the newly translated terms. Through their acceptance and/or rejection of the term as their religious term, the newly-translated term, i.e., a new Christian sign, begins to possess new Christian meanings.

Es handelt sich bei diesem Artikel um einen Versuch, wie man die Spaltung der Kirche und der Theologie in Korea zu überwinden. Die Verhältnisbestimmung der Mission und der Theologie bei Karl Barth hilft dieser Uberlegung analogisch. 1m Vortrag “Die Theologie und die Mission in der Gegenwart", den Barth am 11. April 1932 an der Brandenburgischen Missionskonferenz in Berlin gehalten hat, versuchte er zu Wlssen, wie die Theologie der Mission dient，was die Mission von der Theologie erwartet. Nach ihm steht auch die Theolgie “ irgendwo neben der Mission als Versuch kirchlichen Gehorsams". Er sieht die Missionswille und die Theologie als zwei unabhängige Handeln der Kirche mit eigenen Gultigkeit. Die koreanische Kirche steht der Theologie wie die meisten andere christliche Lander gegenüber. Vor allem die evangelikale oder konservative Kirchen sind stark dafur verantwortlich. Die methodistische Rivalen Koreas schlossen zwei Theologen 1992 aufgrund von Häresie aus der Kirche aus. Die Theologie scheint durch dieses Ereignis einen großen Schock zu errcahren. In diesem Zusammenhang muß man diese dualistische Spalrung zwischen der Kirche und der Theologie abbrechen. Dazu trägt die oben etwähnte Uberlegung von Barth analogisch bei. Es darf nochmals betont werden, daß sich die Theologie von der Kirche unterschedet. Aber Ihre Funktion in der Kirche und der Theologie liegt nicht gegenüber. In dieser Bescheidung werden die Kirche und die Theologie auf alle Fälle beieinander sein müssen. Mit anderen Wort müssen die Kirche und die Theologie fur gesundes Kirchenwachstum zusammendienen.