Attending the conference, I thought I would share a few takeaways from it. The way the conference is set up, everyone joins in the initial plenary address (being the meaning of plenary after all). After that, the rest of the day is several breakout sessions, 5 at a time. Because of that, one can only join about 20% of the conference. My wife and I decided it best to join the same sessions. Going to separate ones would double the sessions we attend. We thought we would gain more by joining the same ones and sharing our thoughts about them afterward.

I will make no attempt to summarize the presentations. I will simply bring up a few thoughts that Celia and/or I had from the presentations.

Plenary Speaker: David Tennant

Title: “Theological Anthropology in Mission: A Future and a Hope for Missiology”

Tennant noted the importance of good theology for good missiology and good missiology for good theology. This may seem obvious, but for years… centuries perhaps… the communication between formal theologians and missions has been limited. This is perhaps even more true when it comes the theological anthropology. However, things are changing rapidly now that is forcing both theology and missiology to grapple with that is relevant as to what makes one human, or what importance is their in our humanity.

He noted that three major changes in recent years have driven discussions. One is the issue of human migration. Tennant noted that for many years now (I did not write down the time period), the growth of people who are migrants has outstripped the birthrate. In recent years a question has grown louder and become more critical. Is human rights something that comes from God, or is it something given out (often sparingly) by the State? What are the implications of human migrants, often treated as something less than human by secular states, to missiological activites?

A second issue is gender dysphoria. What is the relationship, theologically, between our humanity (as image bearer of God) and our self-identity? To what extent is our sense of personhood socially constructed? What implication is there in this modern challenge to the question of the relationship between body and soul? A third issue is the explosion of AI. What truly makes humans unique? Missiology and Theology need to work hand-in-hand to delve into these and other issues seriously and explore the implications ministerially.

Breakout Session #1. Christian Townson

Title: “Image-Bearers and Image-Carriers: Lottie Moon’s Theological Anthropology as a Driver of Missional Strategic Leadership”

Lottie Moon is sort of a missionary “saint” with the Southern Baptists, even if she often challenged (and challenges) some Southern Baptist theological presumptions in terms of leadership. Townson saw Moon as an important example of one who had an important role in terms of influence on missions and mission strategy. This influence occurred even though she had almost no formal role in terms of denominational leadership. (Townson was pretty careful to avoid giving his opinion on whether the SB tradition of keeping women out of positions of formal power in the denomination is a good thing or not. Townson showed that Moon very much followed a process of strategic missional leadership (that Townsend described in terms of “Iorg’s Framework’) for influencing change.

Another key thing was his focus on terms “Image Bearer” (Genesis 1:27; Acts 17:27-29) and “Image Carrier” (Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 1:8). Townsend saw Strategic Missional Leadership as the bridge between the person as image bearer and the missionary as image carrier. In our own thinking, we were reminded of the Bugkalot tribe in the Philippines. They were image bearers— fully human but lacking the gospel message. The government (actually governments over the centuries) saw them as problems and in some sense less than deserving of concern and human dignity. The work of Florentino Santos and others of the New Tribes Mission changed that. They sought to bring peace between the tribe and the government, and peace between the tribal members and God. Santos and others were Image Carriers, driven by a strategic missional vision, to reach those who were already Image Bearers.

Breakout Session #2: David Wayne George

Title: “Women and Water: The Need for Water, Women’s Cultural Roles, and the Toll it Takes”

This presentation was especially interesting to me because it dealt with a major worldwide problem (water insecurity/water safety) and showed its problems not only in terms of the physical and economic, but also social. In most cultures where there is a lack of safe water, or where adequate safe water (approximately 20 liters per person per day) is not close at hand, the burden for providing that water is placed on women. Drawing water, carrying water, and even using water, largely, is considered to be women’s work. A difficulty is that this tradition also helps ensure that many women do not have the opportunity to be educated or to take other employment or roles in the community. He also talked about work done in missions to solve this. He specifically noted “Biosand Water Filters” that have been used successfully in many places.

It does occur to me that the continuation of the problems of water insecurity, while driven by scarcity of resources and uncontrolled population growth, may also be perpetuated because the men in the community are shielded from some of the burden of the problem.

Breakout Session #3: Neelima Bonakurthi

Title: “The Cosmic Person and Imago Dei: Theological Anthropologies on Hindu Personhood”

Sadly, I missed some of this presentation while running around and taking care of some other things. However, a key point addressed is that in reaching out to Hindu believers, the key barrier is less about abstract belief and more about relational disruption. Some of this is related to the issue of caste, as it relates to marriage, eating, and socialization. As such, the move should focus more on communal conversion, utilizing communal proclamation. From there, focus less on what the convert must stop doing, and focus instead on sensitivity as to what the Spirit of God is saying must change. From there one moves toward activity that challenges caste relationships.

Breakout Session #4: L. Lynn Thigpen

Title: “Vulnerable to Story: Rescuing Homo Narrans through Biblical Narrative Warfare”

I found this presentation valuable, even though I have come to really not care for the War metaphors associated with Christian ministry. The term “Homo Narrans” is a somewhat joking twist on “Homo sapiens.” Our uniqueness is tied less to the fact that we think than to the fact that we tell and value stories. Humans are “vulnerable.” They have a seductive quality to us. Additionally, worldviews are tied to cultural stories. As such, as missionaries, we use stories, especially Biblical stories, but not limited to them, to reach the people. Thigpen calls this “Biblical Narrative Warfare.” Of course, the term warfare is used not to express violence but rather as a contest of ideas and the seeking of change. A key takeaway is that mission work is not primarily a contest between ideas (and I would also add spirits, although I am not sure others would agree) so much as a contest between narratives.

Breakout Session #5: Anna Daub

Title: “The Gift of Limits: How Embracing Human Finitude Leads to Global Church Engagement”

I will express this a little different than Daub. She notes that our Limitedness is a gift of God not a curse— a clear reminder that we are created beings— not God. Part of that limitedness expresses itself in terms of limited in knowledge. Many have pointed out that our knowledge is limited and we do not have clear access to objective truth. Out of this has come post-modernism with the question as to what is truly knowable. What we have is subjective. However, a result of this subjectivity is our need to interact with others. If we are limited by our own subjectivity, we are at least helped by the subjectivity (perspectives) of others. With this, we go beyond subjectivity to intersubjectivity.

But as Christians, we don’t stop there. As Paul Westphal notes, “We cannot see over God’s shoulder,” meaning we are limited in our perspective, but we do believe that God is, and God’s perspective is objective — absolute. This understanding of Perspectivism developed by Poythress and Frame (God’s objective perspective, my subjective perspective, and the intersubjective perspectives of others), gives a fuller understanding of truth. The missional implications of this is that we need to seek God, who is the “Absolute Infinite Triune God Who Self-Reveals,” but we also need to actively seek the perspectives of others. This drives interreligious dialogue, among other things.

Breakout Session #6: Robert Munson

Title: “Holy Defect: Metaphors and the Quest for the Perfectly Flawed Missionary.”

I already gave my presentation in part 1, but talking to Celia, here are a few other points. Our image of the ideal missionary is flawed. We may see such an ideal missionary as:

“perfect, without blemish,” hyper-competent, never failing, fully successful or prosperous, fully healed or unbroken, victorious, eloquent, culturally/socially adept, and (drawing from Mary Poppins) “practically perfect in every way.”

This view is not only flawed, It is harmful. We are more effective as missionaries when we are:

-Wounded/scarred, since this makes us more empathetic of others who are also hurt

-Bumbling, since this helps us connect with people in a way that those who are hyper-competent cannot

-Comical/foolish, since this gives us access to the hearts and minds of people (narrative warfare perhaps?)

-Sinful, since this makes us humble before God, and others

-Broken/flawed, since this better shows God’s power working through us

-Ordinary, since this better shows the Glory of God in contrast, rather than our own glory

Breakout Session #7: Danny McCain

Title: “Language Shift in Plateau Churches: The Rise of English Over Indigenous African Languages”

This study, done in partnership with Sunday Agang, looked at the use of language in church and Bible reading in the Plateau region of Nigeria. It was found a greater focus on English, and a secondary role of Hausa (a regional trade language), with a steep decline of use of the local languages. As a follow up to this, there was research in terms of comprehension where it was found that English was better understood by a majority, especially younger people, over Hausa, and far over local languages.

This shift brings up many questions: Should the focus on missionaries as conservators of language be continued (at least in this particular situation)? What REALLY is the heart language of a people? If we, for practical reasons and clarity, move to English (in this setting) are we identifying in some way with the colonial past? What is lost in the decline of local languages, and should missionaries be concerned by this?