선교관의 두 구조인 “교회 중심적 선교”와 “미시오 데이”는 상호 대립으로 인해 선교의 본질에 대해 논쟁의 역사를 이어왔다. Missio Dei의 관점이 교회 중심의 선교에 대하여 비판이 거세짐에 따라 전통적으로 교회가 주도하던 선교는 점점 약화되었다. 그러나 비판되었던 교회지상주의에 빠지지 않아야 하지만, 우리는 교회 설립의 본질을 찾고 대안을 제시하여 하나님의 선교에서 교회의 본질과 역할을 회복해야 한다. 이에 하나님의 선교에서 교회의 정당한 위치역할이 무엇인지를 바르게 세워야 한다. 이러한 필요에 가장 적합한 담론이 선교적 교회이다. 선교적 교회는 유행이나 트렌드가 아닌 교회의 본질이기 때문에 성서적 근거와 기초를 세우고 정체성을 확고히 해야 한다. 선교적 교회의 본질은 언약 개념의 근거위에 선다. 하나님과 사람의 깨어진 관계가 회복된 언약 공동체는 그리스도의 구속 사역을 통해 세상에 세워진 것이 교회이다. 새로운 언약 공동체인 교회는 본질적으로 선교를 위해 세워진 하나님의 대리자이다. 이 교회가 하나님의 왕국을 확장시키는 데 사용되는 최상의 선교 기관이며 역동적 선교를 수행할 것이다.

This essay examines the seventeenth century New England Congregationalists’ doctrine of the “church covenant” and its relationship with the “half-way covenant.” According to Perry Miller, there is a radical discontinuity between them. Miller points out three major differences. First, the half-way covenant introduced a new internal/external distinction into the early fathers’ church covenant, while the latter had considered their church covenant as a visible form of the internal covenant of grace. Second, accordingly, the defenders of the half-way covenant “drastically separated” the church covenant from the covenant of grace. As a result, the church covenant was “no longer viewed as a direct manifestation of spiritual conversion.” Third, there was a generation gap: While the old generation opposed the principle of the half-way covenant, the young generation tended to defend it. Miller shared the early seventeenth century critics’ view of the church covenant--as shown in Samuel Rutherford's polemical works against New England Congregationalism. Rutherford, for example, tended to identify Thomas Hooker’s concept of the church covenant with the Separatists’ view of it which was deeply rooted in their “pure church” ecclesiology. Both Rutherford’s and Miller’s thesis, however, represent a one-sided view. Hooker and his brethren present enough counter-evidence to show that the principle of the half-way covenant should be compatible with the early doctrine of the church covenant: First, the internal/external distinction does not belong to a later development because it was a basic feature for Hooker’s doctrine of the church covenant. Hooker clearly sees his church covenant as an external--not internal--covenant. Second, Hooker and his brethren make a significant distinction between the invisible/inward covenant of grace and the visible/outward covenant of grace. The latter, Hooker argues, is given for the visible church--either an explicit or an implicit form of church covenant. Third, Hooker’s church covenant does not nullify the traditional distinction of the visible/invisible church. On the contrary, it must preserve it. Finally, unlike Miller’s thought, the majority of the early Congregationalists--even in the 1630s--actually favored the principle of the half-way covenant. The above facts must account for the reason why the defenders of the half-way covenant could claim that they had the fathers of Congregationalism (including Hooker) on their side. In short, the complex reality demands that we should seek a more balanced approach to the issue of continuity/discontinuity between the church covenant and the half-way covenant.