dissertation

262
sion and ecclesial contexts; and develop a richer understanding of the skills associated
with reflective practice in an emerging church context. This unit, then, is focused on an
integration of theory and practice – on learning in ministry, instead of learning about or
for ministry. 247 This brings us to the aspect of educational philosophy and teaching practices.
9.3.7 What Educational Philosophy and Teaching Practices Are Adopted?
The “missional model of theological education,” according to Robert Banks, has a “view
of learning that revolves around active involvement in ministry through both practical
reflection and reflective practice. While it also stresses the importance of learning the
tradition – biblical, historical, theological – this should take place in a formational and
life-oriented way.” 248 This dense statement communicates the thrust of the educational
philosophy that is typical of programs on Missional Leadership, 249 and contains implications
for the adopted teaching practices as well.
The educational philosophy of Forge (Australia), for instance, is fully in line with
Banks’ vision. Its designers believe that their approach is of great significance to the development
of effective missional leaders and even for training leaders in general. 250 We
summarize and, where appropriate, paraphrase the most pertinent points below, as this
helps to get a sharper picture of the didactic and pedagogic approach that is characteristic
of the Emerging-Missional milieu as a whole.
1. Actional context is primary: learning for mission and leadership should take place in
the organic context of the student’s or intern’s workplace or mission setting. Different
leadership styles will emerge from different mission contexts.
2. Context is everything: learning environments should be ‘edgy’, i.e. challenging; learning
support is given on a need-to-know basis.
3. Action-reflection learning model: action is the starting point for reflection and learning.
251
247
This emphasis is typical for all programs that educate for missional leadership. We give just one more
example, this time from IGW International in Switzerland. Their Master program is not primarily meant
for the transmission of theory, but students and teachers work individually and together on Fragestellungen
aus der Praxis. Head, heart, hand, and feet should be moved by the learning process. See the “Factsheet
Masterprogramm,” http://www.igw.edu/informationen-zum-downloaden/ (accessed December 20, 2011).
248
Banks, Reenvisioning Theological Education, 157.
249
It is also recognizable in the English Mission-Shaped Church Report of 2004 that is quoted in the Prospectus
of the CMS Pioneer Mission Leadership Training Course: “A pattern of training, mentoring and apprenticeship
‘on the job’ should be developed, rather than outside or apart from the mission situation where the
leader (or potential leader) is exercising their ministry.” http://www.freshexpressions.org.uk/sites/default/fil
es/ cms-pioneer-prospectus.pdf (accessed November 7, 2011).
250
Frost and Hirsch, The Shaping of Things to Come, 221. What follows is derived from this same page and
the next one (222).
251
Cf. Eddie Gibbs, “Theory simply does not provide students with the skills for problem-solving; it must
be front-ended with problem-settings that provide the basis for theoretical exploration.” Gibbs, Leadership
Next, 177.