This article aims to develop a theology of mission in the context of refugees and asylum seekers, using the Australian situation as an illustration. It suggests that hospitality is the most appropriate approach to such a theology of mission. Ten dimensions of hospitality are explored: defense of human rights, political action, settlement assistance, sanctuary, being welcoming multicultural churches, intercultural learning, interfaith dialogue, awareness of the ethics of welcome, meals and personal friendship, and openness to a transforming divine presence.

Emerging from recent ecotheology, ecomissiology is an approach to mission that sees the mission of God in terms of reconciliation at all levels in a reality characterized by relationship and interdependence. Inviting a conversation on the scope of ecomissiology, there is here a list of missiological implications of ecotheology, involving a distinctive method, content and personal location. The ecomissiological vision for cosmic redemption is comprehensive and holistic, setting traditional mission and evangelism in a broader context and calling for the pursuit of ecojustice, ecopraxis, and an ecospirituality.

Should missiology seek the status of a theological discipline? After a brief account of the history of academic missiology it is argued here that a trinitarian missiology is at the heart of all of theology. Missiology should both permeate theology and exist as a subject area to accompany missionary praxis, making theological education at least missiological to the core, if not itself missional. Missiology is part of practical theology, praxis-based and oriented to specific contexts. It draws on both theological and other disciplines (particularly the social sciences) as an interdisciplinary enterprise rather than as a discipline in its own right.Missiology as a separate focus of study is a relative newcomer in theological education. In many theological circles it is still marginal. There are some, particularly in Europe, who argue that it will not develop further unless it gains greater legitimacy as an "independent, officially recognized branch of theology" (Findeis, 1997: 302).I would like to suggest, however, that missiology ought to celebrate its interdependence with the rest of theology, prod theological education to be missiological throughout, draw more on resources beyond the theological, and accept that it is a field or focus rather than an academic discipline. As the global church in many ways recovers its sense of mission there is a need for missiology-both as a dimension of all theological studies and also as a subject area-to assist in providing a strong missional direction to the whole enterprise of theology and theological education.

It is clear to anyone who moves in Protestant evangelical circles that concern for the environment is infrequently expressed. I have never heard any sermons preached on the environment other than those I have preached myself. There is a flurry of books being written by evangelicals urging Christians to care for the environment, but with a couple of exceptions they are at the popular level and have a breath-less feel, as if they know they are late in jumping on the environmental bandwagon. There is an International Evangelical Environment Network, but its concerns are not widely discussed in the evangelical mainstream (see the websites at Evangelical Environment Network [UK] 1998; Evangelical Environment Network [USA] 1998). I know of no general evangelical text in missiology that mentions either the environment or ecojustices in its index.

No abstract