Teaching Mission in the Complex Public Arena: Developing Missiologically Informed Models of Engagement

The digital copies of these recordings are available for free at First Fruits website.
place.asburyseminary.edu/firstfruits

FOREWARD

The Association of Professors of Mission was organized in June of 1952 and held its first meeting during that year. This means that 2017 marked our 65th anniversary.Clearly teaching mission in 1952 was a lot different from teaching mission today. The missiological issues of 1952, during the beginning of the “golden years” of the Eisenhower administration, are not the missiological issues of today. That this is so is reflected in the very membership of the APM. For example, back in 1952 there were no women in the APM (the first woman didn’t join until 1962), and very few Roman Catholic professors (most didn’t start attending until the late ‘60s), or professors of color. And, back in 1952, the teaching of mission was quite simple for most: mission professors teaching missionaries and missionary candidates here how to do cross-cultural ministry somewhere over there. There was very little emphasis on local engagement.The theme of 2017’s meeting was “Teaching Mission in the Complex Public Arena: Developing Missiologically Informed Models of Engagement.” In 1952 there wasn’t much discussion, or really any discussion, about missiologically informed models of engagement. Sixty-five years later this certainly is no longer the case. For if we professors of mission today do not develop missiologically informed models of engagement, what we teach will likely fall on ears that will not hear. Why is this so? Because today our North American context constantly immerses us in complex contemporary issues that arise from the public arena: issues of racial justice, immigration, gender and sexuality, ecology and environment, to name but a few. Speaking to such issues responsibly from a missional perspective requires awareness of how religious language is heard, as well as how to have gracious dialog and loving engagement. Thus, during our two days together, we sought to consider this question: What should mission and the teaching of mission look like in our increasingly complex public arena? We considered how to negotiate contemporary landscapes in North America and worldwide with faithful Christian witness in our mission teaching and scholarship, including models of dialog and engagement. Embodying a missionally informed perspective in today’s world can be challenging. We can be uncertain about what will offend and what will resonate, what is respectful of social difference and what is faithful to what we have seen and heard. This is especially pertinent as we prepare students for mission work globally; equipping them to appropriately interact with their various complex environments. Our students are wondering how to effectively engage in their complex public arenas in both biblically and missiologically informed ways. The following papers help address some of these issues as we attempt to faithfully teach mission in the public arena.

Larry W. Caldwell