The Captivity of Mission in North American Churches

Mission is a term of multiple and intense meanings. On the one hand, it evokes responsibility, outreach, overseas service, funds, cooperation, unity, redemption, conversion, dialogue, witness, and so forth. On the other hand, it brings to mind such negative elements as colonialism, cultural and religious superiority, imposition of denominations, dependency, and exploitation. Historically, mission reminds the church of both its benevolent intentions with disastrous results, and its cruel actions with redeeming effects. Psychologically, reactions to mission swing from rejection and indifference, to passionate and enthusiastic engagement.

In many ways, mission simultaneously embodies the grace of God and the evil of human arrogance and worldly interests. Mission entails ambiguity and the risk of walking the narrow path with big stumbling feet! From a Four-Fifths World perspective—the perspective of the Southern and Eastern Hemispheres of the globe—it carries the bittersweet taste of hope from a flourishing and vital Christian faith with the sorrowful history of colonialism and cultural genocide: joy in the midst of tragedy. Mission carries the same uncertainty that the father of the possessed son experienced when he declared: "I believe; help my unbelief!" (Mark 9:24).

Because mission imports such conflicting meanings, it is crucial for us to gain some historical and theological perspectives that will provide us with a critical foundation for our conversations. Moreover, we need to explore the context from which many of these meanings emerged, and to suggest some theological connections that will speak to Christians in the United States.

As stated in the introduction, this chapter offers an important theological lesson from missiology. When reflecting on our missional task, Christians in North America need to be aware of the contextualized character of the gospel. This means that the church needs to take seriously how the cultural, economic, social, political, and religious situation of its context shapes its understanding of the gospel and its missional task.

Frequently, however, it is difficult for Christians in North America (and in any other context) to discern and discover the contextualized character of the gospel. Many Christians assume that their Christianity is normative and pure; they are blind to the interplay between the gospel and their culture(s), the ways in which their faith shapes and is shaped by the context where they live. There is no "pure" faith, and mission is always shaped by the context. Hence, the Christian faith is always a contextualized faith, and this contextualized faith is also what Christians share in their missional endeavors. The contextualized nature of the gospel is based on God's incarnation in Christ. Contextualization, as we will see in other chapters, is a natural process in both the transmission and the reception of the gospel.

An important question, nevertheless, is: How can Christians in a particular context become aware of their contextualized gospel, and therefore, also become aware of the methods used to share the gospel? An important resource for such an exploration comes from cross-cultural mission encounters. The critical assessment of the cultural other—those to whom our mission work is frequently directed—significantly contributes to identify cultural factors that shape our understanding and practice of the gospel and our mission work. Their assessment often serves as a "mirror" in mission. They help us see who we are as Christians in mission.

But why do we need a "mirror" for our mission work? We need the assessment of the cultural other because it helps us look critically at the ways in which our contexualized gospel—the gospel we also communicate—is either open and congruent with God's missional work or under cultural captivity, bound to human values and interests distant from the values of the Reign of God. Regrettably, many times our contextualization of the gospel is not as healthy as we might think and it needs the renewal of the Spirit of Christ, renewal that usually begins with a critical evaluation of our mission work from those who have been missionized. As a result, contextualization is not discerned in isolation from the people who live in the context where mission is being done. On the contrary, contextualization requires an intentional conversation—a conversation between the missionaries and the context, between the missionaries and the people in the context, between these people and their own context, and between the three parties and God. It is a multidimensional conversation in which missionaries become partners and facilitators, and provide cross-cultural insights in the process of contextualization.

What follows is an essential step toward an evaluation of the contextualization of the gospel and of mission in North America. This step focuses on the mission practice of congregations. It also helps us see how missiology and cross- cultural mission, as theological disciplines, can contribute to the liberation of the mission of the North American church from the captivity that restrains it.

The Captivity of Mission: Five Mission Models and a Mission Framework That Restrain Mission

The five mission models and the mission framework that follow are a description of the practice and theology of mission in many congregations. They are an appraisal of the understanding of mission from a church-based perspective. They serve as a map by helping us see and evaluate the situation of mission in local congregations, denominations, and parachurch organizations. As models and a framework, they are not fixed, nor do they exhaust reality. Despite their limitations, they may help us understand the obstacles and tensions regarding mission in congregations and organizations.

During my teaching and pastoral experience in North America, I have witnessed the struggle of Christians, especially mainline Protestants, in coming to terms with "mission." To talk about "ministry" is fine, but once we begin conversations about mission everything becomes blurred. To some extent, theological categories such as "evangelical," "ecumenical," and others have created barriers that impede dialogue regarding mission at local and grassroots levels. There seems, however, to be a syndrome of ambiguity when speaking about mission. Everybody seems to know what "missions" is about without trying to understand the essence of "mission." This syndrome of ambiguity restrains congregations from engaging in mission, thus making them captive to their own ambiguity.

1. The first and most common model of mission is mission as an overseas task. On the one hand, mission is done for those unsaved and unchurched in the distant lands of Africa, Asia, Latin America, or the Pacific. It is the task for the salvation of...