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.

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.

1930년대에 접어들어 일본기독교계엔 바르트에 대한 열풍에 가까운 관 심으로 다수의 바르트 신학 관련 번역서들이 출판되었다. 그와 비교할 때, 한국의 기독교 출판계는 선교사들의 통제 하에 기초적인 단계의 신학 및 신앙서적들의 번역소개에만 머물고 있었다. 따라서 일본에 비해 당시의 최 근 신학 동향을 파악하기 위한 중요 신학 서적들의 번역 소개는 충실히 이 루어지지 못했다. 한국교회에 본격적으로 칼 바르트에 대한 사상이 소개되는 것은 1930년대 초반부터이며, 주로 신문과 잡지에 바르트 신학의 기초 적 내용들이 소개되고 있다. 해방 전후 한국교회에서 활동한 대부분의 신 학자들은 ‘바르티안’(Barthian)들이었으며, 대부분 1930-40년대에 유학한 일본의 여러 신학교 출신들이었다. 해방 직후 신진 학자들의 칼 바르트 대 표 저작의 번역출판 시도가 있었지만, 6.25전쟁의 발발로 지체되었고, 이후 1950년대까지는 바르트 등의 최근 신학 저술들이 번역 소개되어도 대부분 이미 출판된 일본어 번역서를 모본으로 삼아 한글 번역을 시도한 결과였 다. 그러나 1960년 전후부터는 일본어 번역문의 피동적 수용 자세를 탈피 하기 위해 독일어 원문과 영문 텍스트를 직접 한글로 옮기는 등의 주체적 수용 노력을 보인다. 비록 일제강점기의 한국교회와 기독교 출판은 일본의 신학계와 기독교 출판계의 성과들에 의존할 수밖에 없었지만, 해방 이후부터는 구미의 신학을 직접 배우고 익혀, 한국인의 정신사와 종교문화에 걸 맞는 번역과 연구 성과들을 출판물로 산출하기 시작했다.