Furthering Christ’s Mission: International Theological Education

Education and Christian Mission

Sociologically, culture shifts slowly and in large part through institutional impact. Institutions have the breadth, depth, power, resources and sustenance to create new cultural ideals which then become embedded and instilled in the daily cultural logic. To impact a culture for the gospel, one must consider how to impact its cultural institutions, for example, art, science, commerce and education. ³ Indeed, education has been a vital institution in the work of the gospel. Consider the historical centers of learning spawned in large part by the church over the centuries: monasteries, universities, academies, theological centers, mission schools and seminaries. ⁴ So long as education is afforded high status, it stands vital in changing culture. To the extent that Christ’s servants are educated, they are given avenues to enter higher echelons of cultural institutions to impact societal development.

Education in pursuing Christian mission has been seen throughout the history of the church. The many examples will be left aside other than noting a few briefly. Childhood education has had significance in populace formation as can be seen by the effects of missionary schools such as those started in Korea at the end of the 19th century. Robert Raikes established Sunday schools throughout England. For example, consider Catholic private education in the US. Theological education is another long-standing missiological endeavor. ⁵ Apart from the myriad examples world-wide, this article examines international education in particular, whereby foreigners are allowed entry into a different country for the purpose of temporary study.

International education points to the globalizing influence upon systems of education around the world. As the Bologna process implemented in Europe illustrates, education is increasingly evaluated from the world’s eye view. ⁶ In addition, students’ migration for education outside of their country’s borders is a widespread phenomenon. In the world past, only the minority elite were educated, and they were largely limited to one’s geographical context. In the world present, it is arguable that still only the elite are educated, but now often across the world. Berger (2012: 369–70) discusses how a ‘vanguard’ minority can bring huge developmental changes in society to influence a majority culture. The highly educated minority of international students are such an elite to consider. Their participation in the current flows of globalization and Christian mission warrant special attention.

In fact, the international education of believers, gaining advanced theological training outside of their country of origin, can further Christ’s mission and will be the focus of this article. Indeed, dispersion by geographical migration, from the account of Scripture, has been significant in the fulfillment of Christ’s mission.

The most helpful and recent works to date on theological education (Antone et al., 2013; Phiri et al., 2013; Werner et al., 2010) are the Regnum series of handbooks – in Asia, Africa, and World Christianity, respectively. These massive compilations discuss Christian theological education in a global context regarding key issues, regional surveys, denominational and historical perspectives, networks, models and case studies. While several chapters are dedicated to theological education as mission, the subject of international theological education, especially an investigation of what affects migration patterns of those who study abroad or how a foreign education might further Christ’s mission, is not a particular focus.

Attention has also been given to the expatriate missionary training of nationals in their ministry context. Phenner (2005: 9) presents a collection of essays focused on models of this sort, largely in Central and Eastern Europe, as well as discussing the broader concept of when is theological education with and without mission. Phenner differentiates theological education in North America and Europe from the rest of the world, however. The aforementioned type of theological education can be mission, to the extent that the parties are mutually collaborative. He hesitates to confirm that theological education in the US and Europe is mission, lamenting their loss of mission and descent into becoming ‘places of the goddess academia.’ ⁷ Undoubtedly, some institutions have fallen prey to this, but as the case study later demonstrates, international theological education in the US may yet further Christ’s mission in the world.

Benefits of International Theological Education

How do the benefits of receiving theological training outside of one’s country of origin further Christ’s mission? The efficacy of study abroad in general has previously been established and will not be elaborated here. ⁸ Notwithstanding its drawbacks, receiving an international education holds benefit, but more, how does it promote Christian mission? The answer is multi-faceted, and the limitation of space here cannot fully address it, but a few points in particular will be offered.

Firstly, the benefits afforded to the individual student in the development of their Christian character are pertinent. Besides pursuing an academically rigorous program, the pupil begins to see theology from more than one social context. This hugely impacts how they define and describe God. The confines of each social context and language are somewhat mitigated by expression in a different system, so learning theology in more than one broadens one’s perspective significantly. In this way, the student learns in a deeper way how contextual theology is. ⁹ For example, one graduate who had returned to his home in Southern Europe, and whom I interviewed, commented:

Of course, there are some basics, some essentials about Christianity, but there is not [only] black and white. There is a wide area of gray area, you know, where people can live out their own Christianity in a good way and not necessarily the same way you do.

In fact, international students encounter numerous changes of perception and practices in their journey which cannot be fully described here. ¹⁰ However, the ability to step away from one’s ministry context should not be underestimated. Outside of one’s country, students are afforded sufficient time to mediate at deeper levels for theological study than the usual demands of local ministry allow. As another graduate shared:

I tried to do something in [country of origin] studying with either online or short courses, one-week courses, intensive courses here, but the ministry was so intensive. I couldn’t find time to do my homework, read the books, and write the papers. So it was difficult to even finish a course. So I said, ‘Well, after 13 years, maybe I need a break and focus on developing and growing as a leader and as a Bible teacher.’ I thought I need the time to do that. And I chose a two-year degree so that it would not be a long time to separate me from my ministry and my country. It’s short enough and quick enough that you can concentrate on the bible, learn what you want to learn, and then come back and invest again.

In addition, the process of migration itself teaches the student experientially a new way of contemplating God and what it means to be human. Daniel Groody (2002) illustrates this in his narration of the spiritual journey migrants experience in crossing from Mexico into the United States. The practice of crossing borders manifests the nature of being human before God in this world as ‘a pilgrim people.’ ¹¹ To be human, to accept that one is created, also requires humility. Consider this graduate’s appraisal of his migration experience:

A lot of my security I had back in India, it got shattered. Everything was completely new. You know, when I came to America, several things I knew; several things I did not know. It was almost like bringing down a building, and then after that, rebuilding it . . . I was a leader in India before I came here. I had lot of people who would come alongside and help me. I would have a driver and, you know, I had people helping me in the office. When I came to America, the first job I did was in the cafeteria . . . it was a humbling experience to me.

To the extent that migration affords one humiliation, is not humility the essential requirement to seek God rightly (Micah 6:8)? The process of uprootedness, alienation, and sense of lostness encountered in migration offers the student an ability to identify uniquely with what God in Jesus Christ endured on our behalf (Phil. 2:3–8). Also, this graduate’s description of his migration experience as the construction and reconstruction of a building is an appropriate image for how the experience of migration can teach students of theology as well, for, does not an encounter with God rupture preconceived notions (Exod. 3; Luke 1:5–24)? Thirdly, another graduate sharing his international student experience felt like he had a ‘backpack always on all of the time’ in the sense of traveling and being always on the move. Certainly, following Christ and as migration reminds us, we ought to always be heading somewhere in mission. At the intersection of faith, education and migration, then, one’s self-understanding and God-understanding is continuously formed.

Although globalization has made traveling and living among countries more feasible, the opportunity to receive a rigorous theological education in many countries is still wanting. The reality of intermittent electricity and the lack of theological libraries remain. Even though the advent of substantial biblical software with hundreds of embedded resources, such as Logos, might mitigate this somewhat, insufficient internet access still limits much of the world. In these cases, leaving one’s country of origin may be the better way to receive theological training.

One’s academic sojourn does not lead only to further education and Christian formation; it leads to an expanded network of ministry partners. The connections made abroad among friends, relatives, churches and community organizations can serve the student for a lifetime of ministry. Graduates gain financial partners and even church teams who visit and participate in the Christian work being done in these countries. Despite the priority for indigenous ministries to be self-sustaining, global economic inequalities in relation to Christian mission continue. In fact, the Nordic Institute for Missiological and Ecumenical Research recently hosted a conference on the theme, ‘Missions and Money: Mission in the Context of Inequalities.’ ¹² This dilemma applies no less to theological institutions in their efforts to create and maintain infrastructure required to function. Until a resolution is forthcoming, the need for international theological education remains. These ‘individual’ benefits, however, do not impact the student alone. They extend to how students raise their families, interact with society, and approach ministry.

Secondly, in addition to the student, the hosts of the country and foreign institution are enriched. Their perspectives are affected in the exchange of ideas and expressions. To the extent that international education allows expression of different voices, it is liberating. Theologians crossing borders and the mixing of theological ideas greatly contribute to the yielding of fresh fruit for continuing global theological dialogue, so long as it does not collapse into one majority view such has happened with the homogenizing influence of one ‘global culture.’ As Ingleby (2010: 63) claims, globalization has become more about the spread of consumerism and materialism than the sharing widely of diverse cultural ideas. ¹⁷

Further, the concept and implications of reverse mission, of Christians from the South now ministering to former ‘sending’ nations of the North, have been thoroughly explicated elsewhere. ¹⁴ Jehu Hanciles (2013) has made an excellent case for the purposefulness of migration for Christian mission. ¹⁵ My point here is to extend the reality of Christian migrants from former colonies, now providing clergy and repopulating mainline denominations in North America and Europe, to Western theological colleges. Those foreign-born, internationally-educated ministers have an important prophetic voice in these bodies. Despite the structural obstacles present, would God not use ‘foreigners’ to breathe Spirit life into these age-old institutions?

Thirdly, many have used their international education to crucially impact their country of origin. The sheer number of para-church and ecclesiastical ministries, educational programs and seminaries which have been founded in the last 50 years alone is remarkable. Take, as but one example, the number of evangelical seminaries which now are staffed by internationally trained nationals at high levels of academic leadership. The International Council for Evangelical Theological Education (ICETE) cites 26 institutions including the Liberia Baptist Theological Seminary, Ethiopian Graduate School of Theology, the Nairobi Evangelical Graduate School of Theology (NEGST) and Moffat Bible College in Kenya, also naming others in Malawi, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Swaziland and Zambia. ¹⁶ ICETE lists only members in one of the eight sponsoring associations and does not include others such as Shalom Evangelical School of Theology (ESTES) in Chad, ECWA Theological Seminary (Nigeria), Evangelical Seminary of Southern Africa (RSA), Westminster Theological College and Seminary (Uganda), Université Shalom de Bunia (DRC), or Namibia Evangelical Theological Seminary. While several of these schools may have been started by expatriate mission agencies, the number of nationals with advanced degrees now operating in these higher administrations is a tremendous advancement for theological education in Africa and the furtherance of Christ’s worldwide mission.

However, a caution in uncritically promoting international theological education is due. Some question altogether the applicability of receiving a theological education in North America, for internationals serving in foreign ministry contexts. ¹⁷ The value of different pedagogical and assessment methods is also debated, in discussing American standards of education in a global context. ¹⁸ The ‘discursive imperialism’ in the proliferation of feminist discourses in a colonial language, English, is challenged. ¹⁹ Further, Kirk’s (2005) imaginations are particularly helpful in questioning the Western ‘content and methods’ of educational processes and in marking a new path for theological curriculum. Above all, an essential part of employing international theological education to pursue Christ’s mission is to ask and evaluate, as Jonathan Ingleby (2010: xviii) does, ‘Are the current pursuits of international education in some way perpetuating past colonial power?’ ²⁰ These are serious issues worthy of thorough consideration even while heralding the efficacy of international theological education. In fact, a variety of scenarios of how foreign-educated ministers are continuing the work of the Christian church around the world will be described in the last section. Sufficed to say now, the potentialities are unrealized, but what factors might affect migration outcomes?

International Student Migration

Let us now consider our subject: the international student. An international student is defined as an individual, born in their respective country of origin, who is granted a temporary, non-immigrant student visa to study in the United States. Students are most commonly admitted entry into the United States on an F-1 or J-1 student visa, having evidenced non-immigrant intent at a United States Embassy.

While the total number of international students worldwide is a small percentage, the levels of education they are receiving carry larger symbolic capital for these individuals and for cultural change respectively. ²¹ That considerable weight is given to international education is shown by the number of organizations which grant large sums of money in formal or informal educational scholarships. This is the investment strategy of such faith-based groups as the Overseas Council, Global Proclamation Academy, the Langham Partnership and ScholarLeaders International. Countless non-faith organizations support international education extensively, including the US Department of State which sponsors the Fulbright program, and the British Government which grants the Chevening scholarship to 1000 leaders from over 130 countries for annual study in the UK. A great number of universities also fund international scholarships directly, although their motivation may be more to increase campus diversity and utilize government research grants than for a direct impact abroad. ²² The Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs under the US Department of State publishes a list of internationals who studied in the US and the role they now serve in their home country. This list names 131 prominent individuals with such notable fame as Gloria Arroyo, President of the Philippines; Kofi Annan, former UN Secretary General; and Wangari Maathai, Nobel Peace Prize Winner, not to mention multiple other presidents, prime ministers and ministers of state in countries including Afghanistan, Bolivia, Indonesia, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. ²³ Though a minority, the educational elite have access to positions of power to inversely affect cultural change greatly. The spread of educationally trained leaders in democratic theory, ethics, reconciliation strategy and undoubtedly, also utilitarianism, will have effect in their country of origin should they return. This is an effect not only of ideological knowledge but of expanded networks. The tactic of facilitating this international education is precisely ‘aimed at future leaders, opinion formers, and decision-makers’. ²⁴

The majority of foreign students (58%) travel to a few particular regions – namely, North America, the United Kingdom, and Western Europe. In fact, the United States hosts more internationals than any other country at almost one-fifth of all foreign students. ²⁵ Consider the political and organizational groups who have invested greatly to train these educational elites, as mentioned previously. According to the president and CEO of the Institute for International Education, ‘Pursuing an education in a foreign country allows a young person to develop the skills necessary to become an effective and productive global citizen’. ²⁶ But if these internationals are primarily being educated in the North/West, how does this shape their education received, their return migration, and their future ministries?

Unfortunately, while much migration research has been completed, little on international education migration exists, especially studies on return migration or between individual motivation and migration outcome. ²⁷ A transnational comparison (Simmons, 1986: 133) of Egypt, Kenya, Philippines, Thailand, and the US evidenced similarities of behavior in the perceived cost-benefit analysis of the two locations (called a place–utility model of migration). They showed that social-psychological economic background variables predicted migration intention. Further, background variables seem to be a better predictor of migration behavior than place utilities, suggesting that external realities, such as ‘opportunities and access to resources’, determine migration rather than the perceived level of satisfactory variables in a place–utility model. ²⁸ Indeed, Bradley et al. (2008) found that the mental expectation to move predicted later mobility. Still, the data is limited.

That more information is gathered on the activity of international students is imperative. Consider that in 1949, almost 26,500 internationals studied in the US. In 2012–2013, almost 820,000 international students were enrolled in US institutions. Students from three countries comprised almost half of that number (49%): China, India and South Korea. The next three countries, ranked fourth through sixth, brought 11% of the total: Saudi Arabia, Canada and Taiwan. ²⁹ The broad phenomenon of migrants departing their country of origin, gaining a higher level of skill or education abroad and not returning home, has created such concepts, well-known in educational circles, as ‘brain drain.’

In fact, academic study is suggested as the simplest method of entry foreigners use to immigrate to the US. ³⁰ Few, however, have studied any facet of educational migration upon graduation. Research available is limited and reflects foreign doctoral graduates’ rates of stay only from certain fields (engineering, science, and economics). ³¹ In Borjas’ (2002) research, almost two-thirds of foreign students remain in the US as a result of marriage (over 50%) and petitions from relatives already in the US (10%), with the last third due to employment-based applications. ³² Finn (2012) has shown successive stay rates of foreign science and engineering doctoral graduates. Of those who received PhDs, 62% were residing in the US five years after graduation with rates remaining stable over a 10-year period. Citizens of certain countries exhibited the highest stay rates: China (89%), Iran (89%), Romania (85%), former Yugoslavia (84%), India (79%) and Bulgaria (79%). The lowest stay rates were exhibited by students from Saudi Arabia (5%), Thailand (12%) and South Africa (28%). ³³ This academic migration has implications for Christian mission. Is this same demographic shift occurring for those in other subject fields, such as theology? What will be the impact for the countries left behind?

Case Study: International Graduates of Christ Biblical Seminary ³⁴

The migration outcomes of international theological graduates, and the reasons tied to their movement, are integral to a consideration of how theological education outside of one’s country of origin is advantageous to furthering mission. What affects the stay rates of graduates or, alternatively, their return migration? What directs their choice of relocation and type of ministry? What are their migratory intentions, if any, and when do these intentions appear (before, during, or after their course of study)? What results from the consequential brain gain or brain drain for the countries which ultimately receive the most highly trained students and for the countries they leave, respectively? In relation to that phenomenon, consider the term, ‘gospel drain.’ What is the resulting gospel drain or gain from international student migration? This article will now consider the results of a recent study of the migration outcomes of a subset of these Christians, namely theological students who studied at a US seminary.

The author completed a research project of the migration outcomes of international graduates at Christ Biblical Seminary in the US. What percentage of international graduates returned to their country of origin? What personal and socioeconomic factors were related to their decision (marital status, gender, age, length of study, type of degree, employment)? Did the type of scholarship aid lead to a difference in rates of return? What implications would these results have for the ongoing mission of the seminary? Along with these questions, the missiological implications of international education will be considered.

Foreign students who had enrolled and completed a master’s or doctoral degree in theology were tallied. In total, 296 international students representing 60 nationalities comprised the foreign graduates of classes 2000–2011. ³⁵ Of the 296 graduates, 179 students consented to be included in group analysis. The graduate student sample (N = 124) included 31 females and 93 males. ³⁶

The correlation between six life circumstances of international students (admitted entry into the United States for the purpose of academic study on a non-immigrant visa) and their geographic choice of location upon graduation was examined. The independent variables were: length of study, type of scholarship, type of degree, participation in optional practical training, application for a temporary work visa, and the economic classification of the student’s country of origin. The dependent variable was student geographic location as of 15 May 2011. The initial research questions were:

Outcome of Study

So what happened after the term of study abroad was completed? How many of these internationally-trained theologians from 2000–2011 departed the United States? For the 179 graduates in the sample, 55.3% of international graduates lived overseas as of 2011; that is, these theological graduates demonstrated a stay rate of 44.7%. ³⁷ As mentioned above, this author has found scant research on graduate stay rates in general and none from other theological institutions, such as Bible colleges or seminaries.

What variables were associated with returning overseas? Results showed that contractual scholarship aid and work authorization were statistically significantly correlated to a graduate’s ultimate location. Receiving a contingent type of scholarship aid (that is, the recipient was awarded with a conditional requirement that they return to their country of origin) showed a negative correlation to US residence upon graduation. These findings affirmed the value of a contractual agreement for return migration, which earlier research (Card, 1982: 21–24; Kwok and Leland, 1982: 98) has also shown. ³⁸ This study also confirmed that delaying departure for temporary employment is significantly related to ultimate residence. Because the data spanned almost 12 years, the findings showed where students chose to reside even after their 1-year or 3-year employment term had expired. An area for further research is a determination of the factors that lead to their choice of residence upon completion of a temporary work term. Delaying departure after studies may indicate changing immigrant intent, and other research (Rosenzweig, 2007) has shown that students may be driven by the same motivation as the general population in migration: economic benefit. Card (1982: 23) found that stay rates increase with the permission to remain legally in the foreign country of study, and therefore, delay a return to one’s home country. Migration outcomes are dictated by a decision-making process described as ‘a “seduction” by an appealing alternative to the original plan’ and not determined by the ‘strength of the original commitment to return home.’

Other variables (gender, marital status, duration of study, type of degree, and the economic PPP rating of country of origin) showed no significant correlation in this initial study. Most surprisingly, the economic PPP rating of the home country, although it may be presumed as having impact, did not bear any in the analysis (categorically or continuously). In other words, the study showed no relation to the objective economic differences of a student’s country of origin and their ultimate choice of residence. Great value lies in this lack of correlation in that it serves to correct assumptions about a particular student’s migration outcome. To label students, based on the economic earning power of their home country (and perceived country status), as more or less likely to depart the United States was not validated by the data. Suanet and Van de Vijver (2009) hypothesized that using country-level measures of country wealth (such as Gini and Hofstede’s dimension of country economic wealth) were associated with foreign exchange student perception of cultural distance, yet the association was similarly not confirmed by their findings.

An ongoing evaluation of variables will be continued to elucidate related factors. This single study, the first of its kind, had a relatively small sample size and limited generalizability. However, the results, in demonstrating what factors were and were not related to location upon graduation, provide relevant information for the institution to clearly communicate to its constituency and administration as to the correlated factors related to the migration behavior of foreign students and tomorrow’s international theologians and pastors.

International Theological Education: Missiological Implications

How does this case example inform how international theological education furthers Christ’s mission? The answer may not be as simple as merely the return of all students to their country of origin. The reality of civil wars and political oppression can preclude even the bravest theologian from returning home. How then can these students use their international theological education to best impact their country of origin? But not only so, could their foreign education have a greater global reach?

Secondly, economic power unequally resides in regions such as North America and Europe, and as a result, more is available in the form of scholarship aid and paid employment after graduation, especially for those with theological degrees. Educational institutions in countries with fewer financial resources struggle to financially survive, and do so often with foreign aid. ³⁹ They sometimes rely on expatriate scholars supported by Western entities to reduce the cost of salaries rather than employ qualified nationals. ⁴⁰ Moreover, when will a degree outside of North America and Europe, for example, an African degree, be enough? Academic circles and the populace alike continue to give tremendous weight to an educational degree from North American and Europe. Accreditation standards and concerns over quality of education in parts of Asia, Africa and Latin America are valid, and also promulgate the assumption that an education received in North America and Europe is superior. For example, in the QS World University Rankings 2013–2014, not a single institution from Africa and Latin America was listed in the top 100. Only one institution in Africa and three institutions in Latin America made the top 200. The Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2013–2014 excluded all but one of these four. ⁴¹ Until the tide of this these realities change, educational influence will flow in primarily one direction. ⁴² Given these issues, how will those internationally educated effectually improve the theological education within their own countries? Pillay’s call (2008: 170–72), for ‘widening participation’ of those less economically-able should be championed among Christian schools, is poignant.

With the explosion of online institutional platforms and online education accreditation by the Association of Theological Schools (ATS) in May 2012, the possibilities for expansion and the reach for international education are greatly broadened. ⁴³ However, without tuition subsidization, individuals from most countries are economically disadvantaged so as to not be able to afford education, more readily available by extension, but still no more accessible. What strategies can be devised to bridge this gap? Forces outside of institutional control will still slow the dispersion of education, even reciprocal programs, namely, the political context and infrastructure of the country. With political limitations and without greater technological internet capacity, the reach around the world remains limited, especially to rural areas.

In this author’s experience, there seems to be an expectation that an international student coming to study in the United States would automatically return to their home as a matter of course and out of Christian responsibility. ⁴⁴ As the period of study was temporary and granted due to non-immigrant intent, as determined by the US Department of State, this is not altogether unexpected. Additionally, contractual agreements to return, if any, should be honored. While foreign students returning to their homeland is certainly viable, it may be myopic. Are we, as ministerial and educational leaders brainstorming new alternatives and changing course to address global trends? Those in educational and missiological leadership would do well to strategize how graduates’ international routes might lead to tactical new ministries. For international education, let us go beyond thinking only in terms of foreign students returning home to anticipating how to harness changing global policies, immigration regulations, and accreditation of online education for new migration – and missiological – opportunities.

Consider the experience that some international students, and in this case, seminarians, face near the end of their period of study. On the one hand, the foreigner may be encouraged by the institution to return home for their ministry endeavor as well as by family and friends. However, churches in the US, with whom these students have volunteered and/or completed their internship, encourage and offer them the means to stay by employing them. The development of this very working relationship correspondingly improves the possibility for an opening to stay, especially if the church has or sponsors a second-generation congregation locally. At the same time, the distancing of a working relationship with the ministries in their country of origin, by virtue of the student’s absence, decreases the options or openings to return. Some students are passionate to return only for their previous position to be reassigned or the home organization to question their loyalty for leaving in the first place. Some students express ambivalence about where to serve and are unsure of their global direction.

Furthermore, some international graduates have created successful ministries traveling to and from their home country while maintaining their base in the United States, citing ease of maintaining financial support and improved ease of traveling with a change to US citizenship. ⁴⁵ Other students fervently wish to return overseas and seek to join mission agencies as a conduit for support. These agencies, however, do not accept them in their non-immigrant status. US federal tax laws pose an obstacle, and it is only the visionary and small-scale mission agency which has addressed this challenge, despite the widespread call by most for empowering national leadership. ⁴⁶ Other international graduates choose neither to remain in the US nor to return home, but migrate to a third country for ministry. For example, a recent European graduate and his family are now missionaries in Mexico; another from South America currently trains church leaders in South Sudan. Several couples, having met in the US as like-minded singles, now live in neither of their home countries, but rather elsewhere, such as Malaysia, Vietnam and Tanzania.

A significant percentage of graduates are choosing to leave, and as detailed above, this does not seem to be related to their country of origin. Why are they leaving? Especially considering that stay rates of other international graduates are much higher, why are some leaving the proverbial American dream? The author investigates this further in her forthcoming dissertation. Whereas the present research showed correlated factors to migration outcomes, future research could elucidate more clearly their reasons behind their decisions. What is driving their dispersion? Are their choices from religious, economic, political, social motivation, or a combination of which?

Returning to Ingleby’s challenge, each Christian, student and educator, home or abroad, must ask, ‘For what are we pursuing international theological education?’ To further Christ’s mission? How? What are our motivations? Are we being driven by fear, power, a false sense of security, or survival? An accounting of the reasons – which Ingleby (2010: 8) offers may be closer to ‘greed, economism, consumerism, desire for comfort, racism, national pride’ – may yet guide us to greater obedience to Christ’s mission. Interestingly, even those outside of Christian education are questioning if migrants are getting caught on the ‘hedonic treadmill’ of economic aspirations. ⁴⁷ The international student may be motivated by greed or comfort to stay in the United States, but is the American, who insists international students return to their country regardless, not also motivated by greed and comfort? Do North American nationals insist that international students return because we are then absolved from personal consideration of involvement with said country ourselves? Would that international theological education not be reduced to a form of ‘religious materialism’ for personal comfort. ⁴⁸

In the present age of globalization and changing immigration policies, can one assume which location of residence is more strategic? ⁴⁹ What has been the missio-logic of the past may be short-sighted for the future. Transnationalism is shifting our understanding of national boundaries and while the state lines may remain drawn, technological and transportation networks are creating new connections previously impossible. Perhaps the focus should be on formation, on preparing these international students for a purpose, not necessarily for a country. In fulfilling the Great Commission, the question is, ‘Where is God calling you, and how can we as mobilizers shape that?’ This is not to say that coming to America and staying is inherently wrong, but to encourage all of us to ask ourselves, ‘Where in the world should we be?’ ⁵⁰

International education is one of the significant resources for missiological endeavor in the 21st century as God has used centers of education throughout history to further His kingdom. What changes will come politically and missiologically in the next few decades that would create new options for these theological graduates to use their foreign education for Christian mission? Let us strategically imagine what those would be.