Reflecting on Myself and Christian Missions Education

I just finished reading a book on teaching missions. The book is “Equipping for Global Mission: Theological and Missiological Proposals and Case Studies.” It is edited by Laura P Saunders, Gregory Mathias, and Edward L. Smithers. It is published by William Carey Publishing in 2024. This is not a review of the book (though I do like the book). Rather, this is some of my reflections from reading the book.

I teach at two seminaries Christian missions subjects. I have also served as a cross-cultural missionary for 21 year. Those two things would, presumably, make me an expert at teaching Christian missions. Alas… not so. There is the humorous dig that: “Those who can’t do— teach.” There are reasons for that joke, and the system often supports that. In many educational settings, one must have an advanced degree in education to teach. This is especially true for teaching in primary or secondary schools. For teaching adults, accreditation often demands even more advanced degrees to teach. To block of a period of one’s life to earn a Masters in Secondary Education, or a PhD in many (but not all) academic fields involves gaining new skills while the skills related to “doing” the subject tarnish.

However, the inverse of the dig above is also often true– “Those who do— can’t teach.” There can be several reasons for this.

The passion to do may not demonstrate itself in a passion to teach others to do.The focus on doing may mean that one has never developed the academic interest to know one’s field better.The focus on doing may mean that one has never developed the skills to teach.

But the other side has its problems as well: For adult education especially, often the skills gained associated with advanced degrees are more associated with research and writing rather than teaching.

Also from a personal standpoint, my uniqueness in terms of learning makes it hard at times to teach others. When I was young, my classmates would joke that I would go home after school and curl up in a corner with a dictionary. Was that true? Not particularly. With an Encyclopedia? Yes. With an atlas? Yes again. And yes goes to books on animals, astronomy, dinosaurs, and more. I suppose the term “nerd” at the time was not inappropriate. At seminary, I took some classes in creative teaching methods. I found them interesting in theory. However, a lot of them felt like, to me, things to do INSTEAD OF learning rather than a means for learning. But over time I came to two realizations.

A. At least some of the creative teaching methods do aid learning… even cognitive learning.

B. A lot of traditional classroom and library training does not lead to people competent for the tasks that the classes are, theoretically, preparing them for. (As an example, I was a mechanical engineer doing four years for my Bachelor’s degree and another three for my Master’s degree. People were shocked to learn that I did VERY LITTLE design in those seven years of formal education, and had no formal training in fastening, choosing metals, paints, electrical harnessing, or so much of what is the main work in the type of engineering I did.)

Based on all of this, I realize that I do need to make some changes. The book I just finished dealt with a lot of ideas and themes. Among them are:

The importance of both formal education and non-formal education, with bringing them together in partnership being an ideal. Both are important and should not be seen as at odds with each other.Related to non-formal education, it is good to develop credentialing/certification programs, that are ladderized. (The book did not use the term ladderize… but that seemed to be the idea they were going for.)The recognition that face-to-face is GENERALLY a better way to learn… and for most people in the field, communal learning is superior. Further, developing training that does not have to remove the missionary from the field is best (for most trainings). There was also, however, recognition that what is ideal is not always possible in some situations.Holistic learning should be the norm for missions training. That is, training should focus on the cognitive (head), affective (heart), and behavioral (hands), with the understanding that these three areas should be integrated together not kept separate. Mission training ideal is integrated with mission doing. (I did my formal education in the mission field and I think that was an advantage.)Mission training should be done to shift people away from the outdated assumption of “The West to the Rest.” It is “Everyone to Everywhere” and “Everywhere to Everyone.” Training should motivate Christians in areas that are traditionally missionary-receiving countries to go on mission, and should give them the tools to do it.Mission training should never be built on the presumption that the Old Sending Countries (have figured everything out). Mission training should not only be contextualized to the learner, but the learner should be given skills and freedom to modify methods and even underlying principles as is needed.Mission training is a key area where CBTE (Competency-Based Theological Education) should be done. In other words, one should start from the end result desired, what competencies graduates should have, and work backward to the curriculum and method of learning. Adding the contextual issues the come up in missions, one could change this to CBME (Competency-Based Missiological Education). One must be aware of the trend to remove “missions” or “missiological” from the titles of programs and departments. It is more common to speak of “Inter-cultural studies.” (I don’t have any problem with this personally, as long as the clear vision and mission are solid.)

I am sure there was a lot more, but this will do for now. Got a lot of thinking to do as I have two different classes to prepare for this week.