United Methodist Professors of Mission

Sunday, August 10, 2008

Sub-committee Forwards Draft Core Competencies

Greetings to old and new members of the United Methodist Professors of Mission Blog!

Our sub-commitee was charged to bring a document to Atlanta that begins to translate recommendations made by the Seminary Task Force on Mission (GBHEM, GBGM, and UMMP) into "core competencies". These competencies were conceived as operational objectives that students should master when taking mission courses from seminaries in the United Methodist family.

While this document represents competencies deemed important for those designing courses in mission in North American seminaries--they emerge out of our deep emergence in the global Wesleyan connection. We anticipate a more diverse consituency from around the world to be present in Atlanta, August 14-17, 2008. It is this group that will produce a more permanent document. Such a document seeks to address the rapidly changing pedagogical and institutional needs of the UMC --as it seeks to form leaders to engage the world through partnership within the global Wesleyan family.

Tuesday, July 1, 2008

Response to Ben's Draft and Bill's Rubric

Ben,

Thanks for your attachment on the core competencies. These are very well stated and make complete sense. Another competency that I would add is toknow the missional polity/structure of the UMC and know where to findresources, how to enter a covenant relationship with a UM missionary, how to support disaster relief, where to get UMVIM training, etc. I would still like to go back to Paul's question and ask what is our mandate as a sub-committee: Are we to develop course objectives, core competencies or both? Another way to put the same question is to ask: At the "UM @ 40" consultation how could we best use our time to influence theother UM professors? I think we should do both, but realize that as a professor we can really only have control over the course objective, as the competency is a much loftier goal that depends more on the student's ability to assimilate and appropriate the course content into his or her own life and ministry.

In response to Bill's proposal that we relate course objectives andcompetencies with the UM vision statement, I would say that both mission and evangelism relate to each of these four areas. I think that we would have to write a fairly in depth paper to show where each objective and competency fits into each of the four areas.

Phil

Ben Hartleys' First Draft for UM Core Competencies in Mission

The purpose of this document is to identify the “core competencies” for United Methodist students at United Methodist seminaries in the study of Christian mission. The 2008 Seminary Task Force has also sketched out what it has named “core competencies.” This document elaborates on some of the points made by the Seminary Task Force but frames the competencies in terms of what, it is hoped, a student will be able to do after taking the course(s) in mission that is required of them.

The student will be able to understand that mission is constitutive of the very nature of the Triune God and thus mission is also integral to and thus inseparable from the nature of the church.

The student will be able to describe and define the interrelationship and distinctiveness of Christian mission and evangelism as indispensable to Christian witness to the Reign of God in the world.

The student will be able to identify how the whole of the Bible reflects the missio Dei in such a way that the Biblical foundations for mission extend well beyond the selection of a few stereotypically “missional” texts.

The student will be able to design and carry-out a mission education initiative for a United Methodist congregation that includes an awareness of Wesleyan mission history, theology, and current practice of the denomination’s mission agencies and programs

The student will be able to identify the challenges of cross-cultural communication in North American and global contexts and be familiar with the challenges faced by the growing immigrant Christian communities in America.

The student will be able to identify the strengths and weaknesses of short-term mission trips and understand how to make such trips both educationally effective and faithful to sound principles of missionary anthropology.

The student will be able to compare his or her personal theology of Christian mission with Scripture and major trajectories of missiological reflection in Roman Catholic, conciliar Protestant, and evangelical traditions in a global context.

Monday, June 30, 2008

Organizing Principles for UMC at 40 Working Document

Hello Ben, Phil, Paul, Mike,

In reflecting on our task, within the larger shifts of UMC polity and mission, I had a thought I want to put to the group. In light of the new rubric proposed by the Connectional Table to guide the budgeting and prioritizing of the General Agencies (including GBGM), would there be some merit in structuring our working discussion of core >competencies around the four focus areas of ministry? 1. Leadership formation 2. Congregational development 3. ministry with the poor 4. health issues. These four areas will be the guiding principles for visioning Methodist ministry globally for some time, and relating our discipline's best teaching practices to these institutional (missional?) communities seems both prudent and practical. (The Anglicans have published a book, edited by Andrew Walls, on the Mission of the church in the 21st century, using the organizing principle of the "Five marks of mission".)If our church has adopted these four ministry emphases, perhaps we could articulate a vision of mission education for lay and clergy leadership that relates or translates the wisdom we already teach in these areas, into language agencies and conferences are really trying to live into. A minimalist approach would be to simply find ways to organize competencies in these four areas as a heuristic device. Maximally, we could try to articulate a rationale for our competencies, our learned outcomes, "what we would like our students to be able to do at the end of the course" in ways that take these four areas seriously.

Here is a link to the connectional table with rationale: https://webmail.service.emory.edu/horde/services/go.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.umc.org%2Fsite%2Fc.lwL4KnN1LtH%2Fb.3896915%2Fk.E1AB%2FOur_Work.htm

I think we all probably teach mission courses with these emphases in our curriculum, but perhaps we could place our discipline on stronger institutional grounds by showing how Methodist mission education supports the larger goals of our denomination at the national and international level. I know we all have many other things on our plates these days, but I appreciate the chance to work with you all on this draft. I hope we can sharpen our thinking and strengthen our discipline in the process.

best wishes,
Bill Daniel

-----------------------------------------------------------

Bill,Thanks for getting this started. I like the idea of chosing some guiding areas or focal points for developing mission education. I assume that church planting and church growth would come under heading # 2. Congregational Development. I would think that, somewhere in the mix and to keep a Wesleyan balance in order to keep both ends of the church spectrum in the game, we should name Evangelism somewhere among the goals of mission. Secondly, while "health issues" is significant, I wonder if abroader category that would include health, education and economic development (including micro-economic development, community organization, capacity building) might not be more appropriate.

Cheers,Mike

Michael A. RynkiewichDirector of Postgraduate Studies, Professor of Anthropology (:-{>Asbury Theological Seminary, 204 N. Lexington Avenue, Wilmore, KY 40390859-858-2218, fax ...2025

Saturday, June 28, 2008

Core Competencies Sub-Committee: From Task Force to UMC at 40

To the sub-committee--Phil, Paul, Ben, Mike, and myself, for the larger group we represent:

Based on the agreed charge we received at Techny, our sub-committee hereby submits its thoughts (distracted as they may be at present during the fourth of July week) on Methodist mission education best practices, i.e. core competencies. Our thoughts draw upon the long back-story of our group's conversation with GBGM and GBHEM on the future of mission education, which culminated in the Task Force report we received from those agencies at Techny, IL, on June 19, 2008.

We commit together to forward a document for review in Atlanta, August 14-17 at the UMC at 40 Conference to the larger group of United Methodist Professors of Mission. Although we all come to this task from our personal and instutional locations, let's give ourselves permission to think freely and openly together, about how our teaching would form leaders at the intersection of Methodist and missiological teaching in the past, our own growing wisdom in the present, and the future challenges to our church and the needs of the world. We already have a long received and hard won wisdom, so let's let it shine folks!

With that grand opening statement, I formally submit an opening group of statements from our sub-committee's thoughts on the subject during this holiday season:

-----Original Message-----From: Phil Wingeier <Phil.Wingeier@pfeiffer.edu>To: Michael_Rynkiewich@asburyseminary.edu; bhartley@eastern.edu; wdaniel@emory.edu; pwchilcote@aol.comSent: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:32 pm

Subject: UM @ 40 missions sub-committee Bill, Paul, Mike and Ben,

If I read Dana's minutes correctly, the five of us agreed to work on mission course objectives to be ready for the UM @ 40 conference. I thought the task force gave us a good head start, and I'd like to ask what changes you would make? I think Paul made a good distinction between course objectives and competencies. What else would you change? Phil

------------

On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:19:06 -0400 pwchilcote@cs.com wrote:

Friends,I am in Florida at the moment - someone has to do it!As soon as we are settled in Ashland, I was going to turn to this.? In the interim, here is what I would suggest in terms of what would be helpful:1) Course objectives (these are essentially what the document describes as core competencies)2) Learning outcomes (or what I would call competencies - introduced by a statement such as: At the conclusion of this course, students will be able to. . . )3) Suggested bibliography (very basic; core texts)4) Perhaps, very minimal content outline. I don't think this is rocket science and should not take a whole lot of effort to construct; but I do think this could be extremely helpful as a model as well for other UM courses. Paul

--------------

Benjamin Hartley
To:
pwchilcote@cs.com , Phil.Wingeier@pfeiffer.edu , Michael_Rynkiewich@asburyseminary.edu , bhartley@eastern.edu , wdaniel@emory.edu
Subject:
Re: UM @ 40 missions sub-committee
Headers:
Show All Headers
Hello all,Thanks for getting this going, Phil. I think we have been charged specifically with developing "core competencies" and should focus most of our attention in getting these well-formulated. The key texts may be more difficult to agree upon and I think should be a secondary for our consideration.I agree with what Paul has said in terms of these competencies being essentially "learning outcomes." They are things we should be able to measure in terms of students' ability.I will try to get to this and propose a few by early next week. Ben

--------------------------------

Date:
Fri, 27 Jun 2008 21:55:34 -0400 [06/27/08 09:55:34 PM edt]
From:
wdaniel@emory.edu
To:
Benjamin Hartley
Cc:
pwchilcote@cs.com , Phil.Wingeier@pfeiffer.edu , Michael_Rynkiewich@asburyseminary.edu
Subject:
Re: UM @ 40 missions sub-committee
Headers:
Show All Headers

Hello Ben, Phil, Paul, Mike,

In reflecting on our task, within the larger shifts of UMC polity and mission, I had a thought I want to put to the group. In light of the new rubric proposed by the Connectional Table to guide the budgeting and prioritizing of the General Agencies (including GBGM), would there be some merit in structuring our working discussion of core competencies around the four focus areas of ministry? 1. Leadership formation 2. Congregational development 3. ministry with the poor 4. health issues. These four areas will be the guiding principles for visioning Methodist ministry globally for some time, and relating our discipline's best teaching practices to these institutional (missional?) communities seems both prudent and practical. (The Anglicans have published a book, edited by Andrew Walls, on the Mission of the church in the 21st century, using the organizing principle of the "Five marks of mission".)If our church has adopted these four ministry emphases, perhaps we could articulate a vision of mission education for lay and clergy leadership that relates or translates the wisdom we already teach in these areas, into language agencies and conferences are really trying to live into.

A minimalist approach would be to simply find ways to organize competencies in these four areas as a heuristic device. Maximally, we could try to articulate a rationale for our competencies, our learned outcomes, "what we would like our students to be able to do at the end of the course" in ways that take these four areas seriously.

Here is a link to the connectional table with rationale:http://www.umc.org/site/c.lwL4KnN1LtH/b.3896915/k.E1AB/Our_Work.htm

I think we all probably teach mission courses with these emphases in our curriculum, but perhaps we could place our discipline on stronger institutional grounds by showing how Methodist mission education supports the larger goals of our denomination at the national and international level.I know we all have many other things on our plates these days, but I appreciate the chance to work with you all on this draft. I hope we can sharpen our thinking and strengthen our discipline in the process.

best wishes,

Bill Daniel

W.Harrison Daniel, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor in the Practice of History and Mission
Candler School of Theology
Emory UniversityAtlanta, GA 30322
wdaniel@emory.edu
404 441-2998

GBGM Task Force Report in Response to Methodist Professors of Mission

SEMINARY TASK FORCE ON MISSION

Final Report - March 2008

Purpose of the Task Force
In 2005, the General Board of Global Ministries responded to and agreed with the concerns of the United Methodist Professors of Mission that even though there was a new emphasis on evangelism, globalization and cross-cultural experiences, mission, as a field of theology and practice of ministry, was slipping away from the core curriculum of our United Methodist Seminaries.

Global Ministries named a Task Force with representatives of seminary administration and faculty, bishops, staff of General Board of Higher Education, and Directors and staff from Global Ministries to consider how the church might re-center its call to mission.

The Seminary Task Force on Mission was asked to:
1. Assess the teaching of mission theology and history in the seminaries and Course of Study,
2. Propose ways to integrate mission studies with pastoral/ church leadership education,
3. Recommend ways for seminaries and other intellectual centers of the church to interface with the General Board of Global Ministries , and
4. Consider diverse ways for identifying the financial and human resources needed to facilitate a revitalized focus on theological education for mission.

The Task Force, working through the Deans and Presidents, looked at the curriculum, class offerings and faculty listings in the area of mission. The Task Force found strengths as well as gaps in the offerings for students.

Review of Findings
The Task Force reviewed the requirements for ordination, graduation, certification and licensing in the Master degree programs for elders and deacons, Course of Study Schools and certification studies. In varying degrees, the seminaries are responding to the teaching of mission in a context of globalization and religious and cultural pluralism.

Nevertheless, the lack of support for full-time mission faculty in United Methodist Theological schools reflects the uncertain place of missiology - including mission history, theology and anthropology - in the active intellectual life of the church.

The requirements for ordination, whether deacon or elder, include one class in mission. There is no guidance for either a seminary or a conference Board of Ordained Ministry to determine what must be included in a class to meet this requirement.
Current course offerings in mission may be categorized into three areas. The order below reflects the priority of influence from most common to least common, as indicated by the number of course offerings and consideration of required or elective status.
1. experiential education about mission in cross cultural contexts;
2. critical reflection on Christianity in a world of religious pluralism, and
3. theological reflection on particular aspects of mission.

Here is further explanation of these categories.
1. The course offerings that focus on experiential theological education in cross cultural settings seek to provide students with a heightened awareness of the way a culturally patterned theological identity shapes interpretive frameworks, values, attitudes and social practices in different settings. These classes appear to promote a theological anthropology suggestive that one becomes a human being by befriending strangers in the larger context of God's reconciling union.
2. Several seminaries offer a variety of classes related to the context for mission. Practical reflection on the church's mission emphasizes understanding of class, race and gender issues. These courses tend to complement those concerned with critical scholarly inquiry, giving attention to global context for mission, religious plurality, globalization, secularization, evangelism and church growth issues.
3. Courses in theology and history of mission are typically located in the historical field of theological study. Again, the pattern centers attention on changing missiological issues such as growth in religious and ethnic pluralism, rise of Liberation Theologies and colonial/post-colonial studies of mission. What appears less common are basic courses explicitly on the history of Christian mission, including women in mission, missiology as discipleship formation and the use of social sciences in mission practice.
The Call to Conversation
In April, 2006, the Task Force issued a "Call to Conversation." Through this action, the Task Force affirmed the belief that the time has come to rebuild the teaching of mission studies in United Methodist seminaries and Course of Study schools. It was also a call to provoke a wider process of missiological reflection. This proposed renewal must begin with understanding the changing realities of how United Methodists are engaged in mission today. The process of globalization has, in the words of Thomas Friedman,
"flattened" communication structures so that local churches are enabled through frequent travel and internet communication to set up short-term mission trips for their own congregants. Tremendous energy and activism for mission are bubbling up from the grassroots. In some circles, short-term mission trips have replaced camping and conferencing as the spiritual formation experiences of the middle class.
The proliferation of congregation-based, short-term mission trips is a recent pattern common throughout American Protestantism and is causing a shift in the nature of mission that is a subject of research by missiologists. And yet, local churches are often disinclined to undertake missiological reflection in dialogue with mission theologians and theorists. If pastors and lay leaders are not trained in missiological thinking, there is an inherent danger of repeating mistakes of the past, of losing commitment to the connectionalism, of using short-term mission as a form of spiritual formation for the affluent, and a loss of long term relationships that are necessary to address larger issues of poverty, justice and discipleship.
Another critical issue in this twenty-first century is the increasingly diverse, non-western constituency of Methodism worldwide, even as the number of United Methodists in the United States remains static or declines. The implications of the southward demographic shift in Christian population has not been fully assimilated into our missiological thinking.
While our seminaries host a wonderful variety of cross-cultural experiences and contextual studies and faculties are more active than ever before in a range of cultural settings, basic theological and historical reflection on the meaning of mission is in short supply. Leaders are interested in mission, but lack the training necessary to bring their congregations to the level of missiological awareness needed for the changing and diverse world in the twenty-first century. In the academic discipline of missiology, scholarly reflection from Wesleyan and United Methodist perspectives has fallen behind that of Reformed and Roman Catholic traditions.
It is also recognized that when a seminary sees many faculty and classes fulfilling the mission requirement, it is difficult to know how or with whom other mission faculty and the General Board of Global Ministries might have regular exchanges regarding the current face and implementation of missiology. Therefore, it is possible for a student to graduate from a United Methodist seminary without any real awareness of how the denomination is engaging in global mission or how they might motivate and lead their congregations into new avenues of mission.

Recommendations from the Task Force

Core Competencies
By affirming that the purpose of the United Methodist Church is to "make disciples for the transformation of the world," and by requiring ministerial leaders
(including elders, deacons, and local pastors) take one course in mission studies, the United Methodist Church has recognized that formation for mission is a core priority for ministerial training.
The goal of the Seminary Task Force on Mission is to research the status of education for mission in the seminaries, and to make specific recommendation toward its furtherance for pastors in training. In the course of conversation over two years, the Seminary Task Force has come to the following consensus:

1. Every United Methodist seminary and every Course of Study should promote the regular teaching of missiology/ mission studies. Ideally this goal can be met through hiring a fulltime professor of mission. The Task Force applauds Perkin School of Theology for its recent decision to hire a tenure-track professor for Global Christianities and Mission Studies. In the cases where it is not possible or expedient to have a fulltime professor, we request that one faculty member at each seminary be designated to take primary responsibility for the teaching of the mission course. This would provide an embodied presence for students, other faculty and agencies to have meaningful discussions about mission and a focus for mission education in that institution.
2. Given that contexts for pastoral education differ widely, and that creativity can best be stimulated by multiple approaches, we believe that agreement about "core competencies" is a more productive approach to the required course in missiology than to mandate a "one size fits all" syllabus.. Each seminary and course of study must be free to specialize in its own contextual reading of mission, and to meet the needs of its own constituents. Nevertheless, identification of core competencies will enable educators to enter a common conversation, and will guarantee a basic level of instruction for pastoral leaders. The required mission course in Seminaries and the Course of Study will only be the beginning of a lifelong process of mission formation.
3. "Core competencies" for mission education include the following:
· Mission Formation. Create a passion for mission among pastoral leaders so that they understand that to be a follower of Christ is to be in mission. As Emil Brunner famously stated, "the church exists for mission as fire exists for burning."
· Equip pastoral leaders with basic building blocks for a mission theology that is biblically grounded and exemplifies Wesleyan holism.
·
Encourage pastoral leaders to equip the laity for mission, including support for volunteers in mission, mission education, ecumenical cooperation, long term mission partnerships, United Methodist Women, and the myriad structures for mission in the United Methodist Church.
· Communicate to pastoral leaders that all forms of ministry in the 21St century involve cross-cultural awareness and contextual sensitivity to religious and ethnic diversity.
· Provide a framework in which seminarians and other pastoral leaders in training can consider a special vocational call to cross-cultural mission (in addition to the general call to discipleship and witness required of all followers of Jesus Christ).

4. To accomplish the goals of the core competencies, we recommend that the basic introductory case to mission studies include the following:
· Biblical foundations for mission.
· Theologies of mission, including the relationship between missiology and ecclesiology.
· Historical patterns of mission, including the role of deacons and laity in the history of mission, and the global demographic shift of Christian population to Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
· The dynamics of culture, including the evolving cross cultural, global, and multi-faith contexts for mission.
· Varying forms and models of mission, including examples of denominational ministries.
· Practices of mission today.

As a continuing part of our Call to Conversation about mission across the connection, we invite both the General Board of Global Ministries and the General Board of Higher Education and Ministry to endorse these core competencies as a framework, and to invite seminary professors, conference boards of ordained ministry, bishops and others to continue to shape and refine these core competencies.

Additional mission opportunities for seminarians

The Task Force calls upon the General Boards of Global Ministries and Higher Education and Ministry to implement the following three options for additional learning opportunities for seminary students.

1. A "study abroad" program that would include orientation to a mission context or setting. This would be a program that would earn academic credit, and could be associated with another of our Methodist
institutions of higher learning. The program could be possible for a semester or an academic year.
2. Establish settings in national and urban ministries in which seminarians can take their internships in a mission setting alongside the possibilities of an internship in local congregational setting.
3. Re-institute the "Seminary Intern" program in which a seminary graduate could spend a year in mission. This would have precedent in the current mission intern program that is primarily open to college graduates; however this program would have special implication for those who are considering mission as their vocational commitment. There are anecdotal stories of persons who were a part of such a program offered by the mission agency in a previous generation whose whole ministry was shaped by such a formational experience.

Additional interaction of agencies and seminaries

The Task Force is convinced that agencies and seminaries could benefit from greater interaction. It is not one institution/ agency informing the other, but an integration of common goals and vision. The following are places in which this cooperative work could begin.

1. Missionary Week in Residence. The General Board could make mission personnel available to a seminary for one week. The mission personnel could participate in a mission class, a polity class, or a special colloquy around Volunteers in Mission.
2. A bi-annual or quadrennial gathering of persons to specifically explore a Wesleyan/ United Methodist theological perspective on mission and the implications for how the denomination views and shapes its ministry. We believe that conferences such as the "United Methodist Church at 40," hosted by Candler School of Theology is a good way for these conversations to happen. We affirm the General Boards in assuring faculty participation at this event: Global Ministries in providing for mission faculty, and Higher Education and Ministry providing for doctrine and polity faculty.
3. Intentionally increase the scholarly material on mission from a Wesleyan perspective. Most current literature is written from a Reformed or Catholic perspective. Mission is in our Wesleyan DNA and offers a unique perspective on personal and social holiness. As the UMC considers what it means to be the church in the "Wesleyan Way," it is an ideal time to regain a missional focus for holistic ministries. We affirm the agreement that the General Board of Global Ministries has made with the Professors of Mission to produce one small book in each of the next four years on a particular aspect of mission. Other groups considering publications might want to contact the academic deans
of our seminaries when searching for authors or papers for particular meetings.

Mission Education for a Lifetime

The Task Force commends Global Ministries for its new Academy for Mission Renewal and the ongoing Schools of Mission sponsored by the Women's Division. We applaud the Women's Division in asking Dr. Dana Robert, Truman Collins Professor of World Mission at Boston School of Theology to author their 2010 study on "Mission and Evangelism." In addition to the ongoing representation from Global Ministries, we would encourage a staff person related to the Schools of Mission also attend the annual meeting of the United Methodist Professors of Mission to engage others in teaching and writing for in the future. We also commend Robert Hunt, former GBGM missionary to Malaysia, Singapore and Austria and now Director of Global Theological Education at Perkins for his innovative writing and training for Volunteers in Mission leaders in the South Central Jurisdiction. We believe that these are models of cooperative work between agencies and academy that benefits the whole church.

Arenas for Further Conversation

The Task Force recognizes the unique opportunity that has been offered to look together across agency, academic and ministerial lines to consider what the future might hold for mission. We believe that other settings should be intentionally structured.

Use international gatherings of higher education administrators and faculty to explore what it means to be in mission in the global and interfaith context in which we live. We realize that the General Board of Higher Education and Ministry regularly meets with these groups and organizations, and we strongly recommend that certain specified meetings be designated for such discussions and that those occasions have additional representation from mission faculty and staff and/or directors from Global Ministries.
Enrich the discussion among mission faculty at the United Methodist Professors meeting by extending invitations to others in the Pan-Methodist traditions.
Extend the participation of "United Methodist Church at 40" to include Presidents and Academic Deans of our seminaries. They have a unique role for seeing the importance of and the how to include particular classes in a seminary curriculum.
Build on the perspective that the Task Force has witnessed that both agencies and institutions are willing partners and both strive for
excellence in mission. To enhance this cooperative spirit, the task force suggests these options:

a. General Secretaries visit each campus, share their vision with faculty, listen to ideas and needs of campus community, and worship together in chapel.
b. Offer a mission immersion experience to academic deans and let them know first-hand how mission theology and experience can be mutually enhancing.
c. Global Ministries executives be invited once a quadrennium to AUMTS to continue the conversation of how we work together for mission leadership and to institute and evaluate the new programs for seminaries and seminarians.
d. Offer support to faculty efforts to see mission through the lenses of various disciplines, e.g. polity, worship, preaching, women's studies.

Continuing Agenda

Even though we who are members of the Seminary Task Force on Mission believe that we have made great strides in assessment and plans to enhance education for mission for ministerial leaders, we confess that we did not have time to explore the last assignment given to us:
Consider diverse ways for identifying the financial and human resources needed to facilitate a revitalized focus on theological education for mission.

Therefore, we ask that
1. our Seminary Task Force on Mission be ended with the above recommendations being implemented through the appropriate agency, and that there be a meeting of the General Secretaries and selected staff of Global Ministries and Higher Education and Ministry to decide which agency will take the lead on which proposals.
2. During the 2009-2012 quadrennium, a new Task Force on Funding Theological Education for Mission be established for the explicit purpose of identifying the multiple ways to provide for financial and human resources to facilitate this revitalized focus on mission. It should consider how a seminary might have a fully-endowed chair in missiology. Such a Task Force would have the same representation of seminary personnel, bishops, and directors and staff of both General Board of Global Ministries and General Board of Higher Education and Ministry.

Thank you

As Directors of the General Board of Global Ministries, you have authorized the work of this Task Force. We believe that if the recommendations of this task force are implemented, the mission of the church will be enriched. Thank you for the opportunity to do this strategic thinking on your behalf.

Dr. Maxie Dunnam, Chair Seminary Task Force on Mission

Other persons who have served and contributed to the work of this Task Force:
Dr. Myron McCoy, President, Saint Paul School of Theology
Dr. Harold Recinos, Professor of Church and Society, Perkins School of Theology Dr. Dana Robert, Collins Professor of World Mission, Boston School of Theology Bishop Alfred Norris, North Texas Area, former President, Gammon School of Theology
Bishop Bruce Ough, Director of GBGM, Trustee, United Seminary and Methodist
Theological School in Ohio
Rev. Grant Hagiya, Director of GBGM, Adjunct faculty, Claremont
Ms. Joan Johnson, Director of Women's Division and GBGM

Representatives of General Board of Higher Education and Ministry:
Rev. Mary Ann Moman
Rev. Robert Kohler
Rev. Anita Wood

Representatives of General Board of Global Ministries:
Dr. S T Kimbrough
Ms. Cheryl Trent
Dr. David Wu
Dr. Rena Yocom