다양한 종교권에서 복음을 전하는 선교사들이, 특별히 유대교, 이슬 람교 종교권에서 사역하는 선교사들이 복음 전도의 대상인 선교지 사람들 에게 어떤 관점에서 복음을 전해야 할지, 멜기세덱(Melchizedek)의 반차에 대한 연구를 선교신학적인 관점에서 고찰해봄으로 그 해답을 찾아가 보고자 한다. 멜기세덱 본문에서 멜기세덱 반차에 대한 이해는 오늘날 개혁교회로 하여금 하나님에 대한 이해, 예수 그리스도에 대한 이해를 새롭게 조명하게 해 준다. 무엇보다 멜기세덱의 반차를 선교신학 적 관점에서 해석하게 되면 왜 교회가 이들 지역에 선교를 해야만 하는지에 대한 타당한 이유를 찾게 된다. 특별히 히브리서 저자는 예수 그리스도의 나타나심과 하나님 되심에 대한 이해를 멜기세덱의 모습과 유비시킴으로 써 예수 그리스도가 영원한 대제사장이심을 강조한다. 이러한 사상은 히브리서 저자가 멜기세덱의 신앙과 예수 그리스도가 이해한 하나님 사이에 걸림돌 역할을 하고 있는 유대교의 신앙과 그들의 사상을 뛰어넘어 가게 한다.

한국교회에 만연한 숨 떨어지면 천국으로 직행한다는 통속적 천국관의 폐해는 이 땅과 이 땅에서의 삶에 대한 경시이다. 사도신경과 주기도문에서 이미 명확하게 드러난 하늘과 땅의 불가분리성과 새 하늘과 새 땅에 대한 소망을 주요 신학자들을 중심으로 재조명해 그 선교적 함의를 밝히는 것이 이 논문의 목적이다. 2장에서는 통속적 천국관을 극복하기 위해서 조종남을 중심으로 종말론을 다룬다. 자유주의 신학의 영혼 불멸설과 신정통주의 신학의 순간적 부활설과 가톨릭의 연옥설과 재세례주의자들과 안식교인들의 영혼 취침설과 정통주의 신학의 중간 상태, 즉 낙원과 음부를 다룬 후 조종남의 구원의 여정인 몸의 부활과 최후의 심판과 우주의 회복인 새 하늘과 새 땅과 하늘나라와 지옥에서의 영생을 소개한다. 3장에서는 하워드 스나이더(Howard A. Snyder)와 톰 라이트(Nicholas Thomas Wright)를 중심으로 부당하게 이혼된 하늘과 땅의 재결합을 다룬다. 4장에서는 라이트와 칼 바르트(Karl Barth)를 중심으로 하늘과 땅의 재결합을 가장 명확하게 밝히는 주기도를 다룬다. 결론에서는 이신론과 영지주의적 영성과 개인주의적인 현실도피적인 구원관을 넘어서 성경적 방식으로 창조세 계를 대할 것을 제안하며 스나이더의 네 번째 회심을 소개한다.

Matteo Ricci, a Jesuit missionary to the late Ming China, translated of Epictetus’ Enchiridion into Twenty-Five Sayings in Chinese for the purpose of Christian mission. His selection of the representative book in the Western stoic philosophy had specific purpose: Introducing one of religious semantic meaning in the Western Christianity, Stoic ethics and its religious similarities with Buddhist frameworks. By doing so, Ricci tried to demonstrate the Western Christianity was same in relation to ethical framework but different in regard to religious implications. He tried to find the point of contact and the point of difference at the same time by comparing Christianity’s stoic characters and China’s Buddhist ethics, which was different from traditional Confucian framework. The Chinese responses, however, show different outcomes. The Chinese intellectuals, who responded Ricci’s missiological intention, read his book with different perspectives. They showed their surprising interests in the newly translated book on the Western stoic philosophy in relation to promote and uphold their traditional Confucian values. The author claims that both missionaries and the responders of the new religious teaching tend to be confused by semantic values in the early period of cultural and religious contact. Without this awareness, both sides of cultural and religious contact would be confused in the proper understanding of the true religious meanings.

The major goal of this article is to find missiological implications of the fruit of the Spirit(love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control) in Galatians 5:22 by investigating John Wesley’s and others’ writings. Because the author believes that attitude is strongly contagious in mission fields, he especially aims to suggest that the fruit of the Spirit would supply some valuable hints for proper missionary attitude.The first half of this article deals with John Wesley(1703-1791) and the fruit of the Spirit. Unlike some theologians who divide the fruit of the Spirit into three or four portions, Wesley regards the fruit of the Spirit as an indivisible whole. Wesley does draw a distinction between extraordinary gifts of the Spirit and ordinary gifts of the Spirit. However, to Wesley, the fruit of the Spirit is more than merely the gifts of the Spirit. It is synonymous with Christian perfection. Wesley’s view of the fruit of the Spirit is congruent with the verse “Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus”(Phil. 2:5).The second half of this article handles missiological implications of the fruit of the Spirit. In order to do so the author applies insights from Thomas Keating, Elisa Morgan, Evelyn Underhill, Philip D. Kenneson, James Merritt, Viv Grigg, and the Bible. Among these, the subtitles of Merritt’s nine chapters are worth mentioning: If you’re not loving, you’re not living; Joy to the world; How to keep your head while others are losing theirs; Winners never quit and quitters never win; Try a little kindness; How to live the good life; The world’s greatest ability; The lower you get, the higher you go; Never let them see you sweat.The author concludes this article by emphasizing that intercultural missionaries should be deeply purged good soil and stay close (not to the sender or to the host people but) to Jesus in order to be fruitful. The perfecting or maturing of the Christian character is what the fruit of the Spirit is all about.

Korean Buddhism is located under the Mahayana school. That is quite different from the more original Theravada (or Hinayana) school. And it has developed its unique religious characteristics throughout the history of Korea since its arrival. As the result it is very different from other Japanese and Chinese Buddhism; and even more from Southeast Asian Buddhism. However it still shares much common ground with other kinds of Buddhism, as an offspring of the same parent Buddhism. Just as Buddhism and culture have been interwoven in other cultures, and become almost synonymous with the host cultures, Korean Buddhism also has developed into something unmistakably Korean in the Korean culturalhistorical context. The challenge is that Korean Buddhism is now numerically larger than Christianity, and is also faster growing than Protestant Christianity. This research draws some missiological implications from the characteristics of Korean Buddhist success and expansion. The first characteristic of Korean Buddhism is its syncretic openness to preexisting religions. That is clearly evident in the development of ‘Buddhist’ rites of passage. These syncretized rites have come to feel very essential to the lives of Koreans under Buddhist influence. Korean churches will need to develop contextualized rites of passage in order to for Koreans accept Christianity as the religion of their lives. The second characteristic is their variety of piety. Korean Buddhism is divided into different kinds of sects, although they share common ground. Different approaches need to be developed to different Buddhist denominations. The third characteristic is loyalty. Although their members do not understand their doctrines much and don’t read their scriptures much and don’t attend their worship regularly, they do not leave their religion because of their sense of belonging to the religion of their lives. The traditional way of Christian evangelism has been to compare and contrast doctrines. It has been proven a failure for evangelism. We need to study how to fulfill the religious and emotional desires of Korean Buddhists’ in a Christian way. The fourth characteristic is its family centeredness. Our mission strategy should focus on working with groups rather than individuals. The fifth characteristic is their integration of culture and religion. This challenges us to work hard to contextualize Christian culture to become a Korean religion of life. And our theological reaction to the Buddhist’s challenge to the identity of Jesus and the Bible should be well prepared, and be delivered with a humble and respectful attitude. The sixth characteristic of Korean Buddhism is their religious openness and tolerance. We need training on how to look with the love of God at Buddhism as a fellow religion. In the Korean Christian circles we desperately need to learn how to share our religious convictions politely. We need to do so with a deep understanding of where they are, yet without losing our identity. The seventh characteristic of Buddhism is their strong desire for inner peace. Their inner peace focus links them into oriental spirituality. A Christian spirituality based on prayer and meditation of the word of God would be more relevant to those already focusing on seeking inner peace. Korean Buddhism needs to be studied more deeply in many aspects to find missiological touching points with the various levels of Korean Buddhists. To do this more effectively, I recommend we establish study centers for crossfertilization and informationsharing of models found effective for the evangelism of the Korean Buddhists.

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.

This paper began by recognizing the critical issue that the emergence of AIC has impacted on the growth of African Christianity. The purpose of this study is to examine the reasons for the emergence and rapid growth of AICs, to briefly give typology of the churches, to describe the general theological characteristics of the churches, and to evaluate the significance of AICs for missiology. And finally 1 will try to give future direction and development of the churches Many scholars defined African independent church as a church which has been founded in Africa, by Africans, and for Africans. But later many African churches founded by European mi ssionaries became independent. So this term became inadequate and the term African indigenous churches was proposed. As mission-founded churches have been regarded as indigenous, it was also inadequate “ African initiated churches" and “ African instituted churches" are terms that avoid these difficulties. There are six causative factors of the emereæ nce and !!:rowth of AICs with which various scholars agree: ( 1) oppressive colonial situations making AICs be home of Africans as socio- political factor; (2) Protestant denom inationalism creating separate denominations ; (3) Bible translation giving AICs an ability to interpret the Bible; (4) accidental and incidental factors such as personal crisis and various epidemics; (5) strong reaction to western missions and colonialism; and (6) re]jgious factor as the most important one The AICs has contributed to shape African theology. Several theological characteristics of AICs can be pointed out. First, in AIC movement the emphasis on the Holy Spirit is the most crucial. The majority of AICs are of pentecostal type. Pneumatology of AICs is connected with the holistic African worldview. For them spirits pervade every aspect of individual and community life. This is evident in the prophetic and charismatic leaders. However, this view of the spirit can be an extension of traditional re]jgion. It may be a danger of producing syncretism. So AICs need to examine the biblical understanding of the spirit in order to avoid the false prophets who manipulate the Spirit. Second, many scholars point out an overemphasis on pneumatology in AICs so that Jesus may be superseded. But they insist that the divine healer is not the Spirit but Jesus Christ. For them Jesus Christ as the God' s mediator can be seen in the AIC leaders. They do not replace Jesus. Rather they reflect and concretize Jesus Christ. Third, soteriology of AICs is always related to divine healing. Many AICs portray Jesus Christ as the powerf비 conqueror over sickness and affliction. Prophets in AICs are the agents of God’s salvation as they try to meet people’s felt needs. In fact, salvation proc\aimed in AICs is holistic. AIC movements raise important questions for missiology. The remarkable growth of AICs and decline of MPCs request us to c\ose examination of mission methods and strategies of AICs. Before criticizing the movement we need to have an open mind to learn from them. In fact, AICs is an attempt of contextualization in the African context. Though AICs cannot be escaped from the blame of syncretism, if we are keenly aWare that contextualization is a process as it continues to develop more authentic theology which is based on the Scripture and re levant a given context. AICs motivated by the proc1amation of Spiri t- fi lled massage have shown a strong passion for mission. It’s missional effectiveness can be seen in providing the source and motivation of African people’s life.