In what seems like a past life, I taught functional programming as part of a Programming Languages course. Most of the students had no exposure to functional programming but did have experience in languages like C++ or Java. Those language have a very different underlying mental model, but use lots of syntax. I thought it a mistake to drop both of those (mental model, concrete syntax) for a new language so chose Standard ML as the language, as it has the right mental model, but uses concrete syntax to help guide the user and reader. Lisp and its immediate variants use only abstract syntax (basically nested parentheses and indentation) in place of concrete syntax.
Modern functional programming languages that use concrete syntax are the ML variants, including OCaML, as well as Haskell, and Clojure. I'd suggest that you explore each of those, rather than LISP itself.
As a personal note, I found that I could program quite effectively in ML, but remain very unskilled in LISP.
You could, of course, also, teach in one of the more modern functional programming languages and periodically show how the same things are expressed in LISP with only abstract syntax. There is a close overlap in the concepts.
I have a friend who was a student of McCarthy (inventor of LISP) and who, himself, did some important work with the language and its libraries. He once told me that he could look at a LISP program and its indentation structure and know, pretty much, what it did. I was skeptical, but he was good enough generally to be believed when he said such things. I never got close to that level.