본 연구는 국내의 이주민 가운데 무슬림을 위한 선교전략과 방법을 논의하는 것이 중요한 목적이다. 국내에 273만 명의 다양한 형태의 이주민이 있다. 이주민은 이주근로자, 국제결혼가정, 유학생, 주재원, 난민 등이다. 이들 가운데 이슬람권에서 이주한 무슬림을 향하여 복음 의 접촉점과 선교의 전략을 갖는 것은 선교적으로 매우 중요하다. 여기에 적절한 선교전략을 세우는 것이 중요하다. 본 연구는 첫째 국내 이주 무슬림의 상황, 현황과 실태를 파악하고, 이주를 하게 된 배경과 동기를 찾아본다. 둘째는, 국내 무슬림과 어떻게 접촉점을 갖고 복음을 전달해야 할지 전략적인 관점을 논의하였다. 셋째는 무슬 림의 선교를 위해 나라별, 대상자들을 분류하여 이주근로자, 유학생, 결혼이주가정, 난민, 주재원등 선교전략을 세우며, 현재 점차적으로 늘어나고 있는 이주민 선교의 전략을 세우고자 하였다. 무엇보다 한국 교회의 국내 이주 무슬림 선교를 위한 다양한 시각과 통전적 접근을 방향성과 과제를 논의하였다.

본고는 서로 이질적인 종교 정체성을 가지고 있는 지역, 즉 다민족, 다문화권에 대한 선교전략을 수립하고 시행할 때 그 민족 고유의 역사 적, 정치적 상황을 면밀히 고찰하는 일은 매우 중요하다는 점을 전제로 한다. 이 점은 특히 이슬람 선교에 더욱 중요하다. 피지배 민족의 역사 및 정치적 상황을 이해하고 분석하는 것도 주요한 선교전략 요소이 지만, 지배민족인 러시아의 정신적, 종교적 정체성인 러시아정교에 대한 이해를 통해 다문화권 선교전략을 모색하는 것은 필수불가결한 연구 주제다. 이에 따라 본고는 비이슬람으로서 지배민족의 종교적 정체성과 이슬람 사이에 역사적, 정치적 관계를 파악하는 일에 집중하 고자 한다. 본고는 러시아의 정복 대상지였던 이슬람권 지역에 대한 이해를 통해 러시아 지역에 대한 선교전략을 모색하며, 이를 위해 피지배 민족인 러시아연방 내 무슬림 민족들에 대한 역사적, 종교적 부분, 그 중에서도 러시아정교와 이슬람과의 관계를 규명하는 데 초점을 맞추고 있다. 본고는 러시아권에서의 러시아정교와 이슬람의 역사적 이념을 러시아와 오스만 튀르크와의 역사적 관계를 통해서 규명하며, 소비에트 체제 이후 러시아정교와 이슬람의 관계를 통해 이를 강조하고 있다. 전체적으로 현재의 러시아연방 내에서 러시아정교도와 무슬림 간의 종교 정체성에 대한 기본적인 틀을 이해하고, 이를 통해 러시아연 방 내의 무슬림권에 대한 선교 전략을 도출하는 학적, 방법론적 내용을 규명하는 것을 목적으로 한다.

India had been opened to Protestant missionary activity by a decree of the British Parliament in 1813. In 1832/1833, non-British missionary agencies were allowed to enter and launch their mission work in British India. The Protestant (mostly British) missionaries were very eager to preach the gospel message and disseminate gospel tracts on the market place. Inevitably, missionaries had clashed with local Muslims. There arose a fear that the beginning of Christian preaching and proselytizing activity in Agra was a threat to the center of Islam on the uneducated Muslims of the city and the surrounding region. Protestant missionary activity was a new phenomenon to the Muslims of north India. Encounters between Indian Muslims and Protestant missionaries in the years following British expansion into the old Mughal heartlands of north India brought about a mode of interaction and conflict between the two parties. This study examines the obstacles in reaching out to the Muslims with a special emphasis on the debate held in Agra, India on April 10-11, 1854. I will attempt to analyze the significance of this Muslim-Christian debate in India and its effects on future Muslim apologetical works. One of the missionaries, Karl Pfander, who was already experienced in Georgia, was circulating Persian and Urdu gospel tracts which criticize Islam and their prophet Muhammad. Kairânawî, together with some of the local Muslims, thought that it was the high time to challenge the aggressive mission activity. The Agra debates marked a turning point in Christian-Muslim apologetics, for it was the first time that Muslim theologians utilized European critical methods to disprove Christian doctrines. Why is the 1854 Agra debate of such significance? Although the Agra debates took place nearly 160 years ago, their impact is still felt today. Both disputants are still well remembered in the Muslim world and have influenced not only the form of modern apologetics, but the modern Muslim view of Christianity as well. Although the debates had been planned to address the topics of the deviation of the Bible, the Trinity, the Quran as the word of God, and the sending of the prophet Muhammad, the debate did not proceed further than the deviation of the Bible. The Islamic polemicists insisted that the Bible had been corrupted and tried to prove this with evidence taken out of the Bible itself and works from Christian authors who most fellow Christian would regard as skeptics or outright unbelievers. The timing of this counterattack was significant because Pfander, with a Pietist background, was either unfamiliar with or extremely hostile to the works of the aforementioned Biblical liberals. By utilizing such findings to undermine Pfander from within the Christian fold, the Muslims were able to declare an easy victory. Interestingly, the Muslims still employ such tactics today to attack Christian beliefs as they did 160 years ago. Therefore, missionaries who are working among Muslims should know the issues of the Agra debate and be prepared to answer the Muslims.

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.