생성형 인공지능의 계속적인 발전은 다음과 같은 신학적 질문들을 제기할 것이다. “인공지능은 하나님의 창조물인가?”, “인공지능은 인간 의 존엄성에 도전을 제기할까?”, “인공지능은 도덕적 판단을 내릴 수 있는가?”, “인공지능은 신앙을 가질 수 있는가?”, “인공지능은 인류의 멸망을 초래할까?” 이런 질문들이 현재로서 다소 이르다고 생각할 수도 있지만, 생성형 인공지능의 발전 속도를 보면, 곧 우리에게 닥칠 질문이 될 것이다. 따라서 본 논문은 인공지능의 발전이 신학에 제기하게 될 질문들을 선교학의 관점에서 살펴봄으로써, 인공지능과 신학이 어떻 게 바람직하게 공존할 수 있을지에 대해 탐구한다. 나아가 창조론, 인간론, 죄론, 구원론, 종말론과 같은 기존 신학 영역들을 새로운 관점에 서 재해석하는 것을 넘어, 선교학적 측면에서 ‘인공지능 신학(AI theology)’의 가능성을 모색한다. 지난 2천 년의 기독교 선교 역사가 당대의 신학적 물음에 대한 진솔한 응답이었다는 점을 기억한다면, 우리는 계속해서 당대에 제기되는 신학적 물음에 대해 선교적 관점에서 고민해야 할 것이다.

The aim of this thesis is to outline the history of the mission of the Korean Church in Thailand and its characteristics, tasks and mission theological issues so that the thesis searches for the way of the mission of the Korean Church to contributing to the unity and empowerment of the Church of Thailand. To achieve this aim, the thesis deals with the social characteristics and value systems of Thai society and the history of the mission of Roman Catholics and of Protestants. Through suggesting the contour of the history of the mission of the Korean Church in Thailand, some characteristics of the mission of Korean Church are church plant, church-centered passion, project-centered and materialistic mission, and independent seminaries. Tasks of the mission of Korean Church in Thailand are acceptance of Thai Christians' critiques on Korean missionaries, Korean missionaries' understanding of Thai culture in depth, meagerness and lack of mission strategies, halt in mission, missionary kids' education, partnership in mission, acceptance of difference of Thai church culture, understanding of the missionary tasks from the socio-cultural and religious situation of Thai church, and theological issues. The main results of the research are as follows: first of all, there are two kinds of church in Thailand: one belongs to the Church of Christ in Thailand, the other to the Evangelical Fellowship of Thailand. Some Korean missionaries, however, established independent denominations and ran seminaries so that those denominations and seminaries obstructed the unity of Church in Thailand. These activities of Korean Church cannot be regarded as mission. Secondly, Korean missionaries to Thailand should not transplant the culture of the Korean Church to Thailand. Rather with Thai Church leaders, their missionary tasks are looking for the ways of how to communicate and share the Gospel with Buddhist Thais and identifying the appropriate ecclesiology in Buddhist society. Thirdly, the future of the mission of Korean Church to Thailand depends on whether Korean missionaries could expand the model of the partnership in mission done by the missionaries belonged to the Presbyterian Church of Korea to the relation between the Church of Thailand and Korean missionaries. Lastly, such an expansion of the model of the partnership in mission will be possible only when the ecumenical churches and the evangelical churches can reach a common conclusion through coming to an agreement on the theological issues such as human-centered theology, religious pluralism and mission methods and mission theology in the Buddhist country.