The isolation and affluence with which many North American Christians live has blinded us to the way most other followers of Jesus live around the world today, has reduced the mission of the church to something mostly unrecognizable to Christians world-wide, and has eroded the North American church’s view of the Gospel itself. What this has left is an anemic, privatized version of a faith that in the words of Tom Sine, an American author and futurist, is little more than “the American Dream with a little Jesus overlay”. At first, this may seem a harsh critique. But as we open our eyes to what God is doing in his church worldwide, we have to begin to wonder why churches in the United States begin to feel so inwardly focused and irrelevant to society and the rest of the global community by comparison. The kind of transformational life and vitality that so many of us long for seems so often to escape North American Christ-followers. Many churches in the United States (especially mainline protestant “evangelical” churches) have become proficient in proclaiming and living an excessively privatized gospel. To the extent that this “gospel” engages the surrounding culture at all, it often does so through an extremely narrow “values” agenda that rings more like discord than good news. Though there are many reasons for this, and many contributing factors, this essay begins with this statement, this negative critique, as an assumption.

Ann spoke of how on several occasions the campaign had no money left in the bank with bills coming in. Just then a large cheque would arrive and the campaign continued. She described being in New York in September 1999, deeply disillusioned with the lack of progress, and abandoning her team to have a coffee and a moan with a friend. In the café CNN was showing live as President Clinton came to Press Conference to deliver probably yet another bland reassurance that something would be done at some time. Instead he simply said that the U.S. would no longer take any debt payments from the most heavily indebted poor countries. Ann was dumbfounded. Later she heard that the U.S. Treasury had refused to back such a move, and Clinton’s presidential aides advised against it. He was still working on his speech as he went to the Press Conference. Ann saw his dramatic announcement as ‘miraculous.’

The event in 2003 felt much less than a miracle, more a damp squib. 5 years before the human chain had easily circled inner Birmingham in midsummer sunshine. 5 years on we only just managed to circle the small Cathedral precinct in persistent drizzle. The Mothers Union were well represented along with the mainstream churches. Homemade red chains adorned the railings and whistles were blown as we held hands and sang “We shall overcome.” It was a cheerful remembrance but we were aware how insignificant we now were. A few people asked what we were doing and why so many people were wearing rainbow coloured scarves. The Press kept away.

Michael Taylor, former Director of Christian Aid, spoke of sustainability. Can we keep campaigning even now? Less than 20% of the debt has been cancelled - not enough. Even Uganda who has had more debt cancelled than any other country still pays huge amounts in debt repayments. Virtually nothing has been achieved since 1999. With the price of many commodities falling, the problem is growing worse again. Michael Taylor encouraged us to keep going in friendship with people across the world. He recalled being in a village in India where there is no significant debt problem. The women were working on several problems of their own, including a home brew seller who enticed the men to spend too much on beer, and landowners who didn’t pay fair wages. But they were also travelling far and wide, further than they had been in their lives, to gather signatures for the debt petition. Michael asked them why. “Because we want to stand with our sisters in Africa” they replied.

The campaign has indeed been taken to heart in Africa. Many African countries now have organisations bringing together faith groups and NGOs to campaign for debt cancellation and to monitor closely money that has been released through debt cancellation. People are more involved in scrutinising national and local governments. A culture of accountability is being built up. The Fellowship of Christian Councils in Southern Africa has moved on from talking about unpayable debt to illegitimate debt - debt incurred by former corrupt leaders for which the present generation should not be held responsible. Responsibility lies more with the lenders who knew the kind of people they were lending to and what the money would be used for.

Africa and Britain took the Jubilee Campaign to heart. Europe however did not. After Birmingham 1998 came Cologne 1999. Great crowds were expected and the town was saturated with police. Thousands of Brits went over for the day. But numbers from Germany, France and other mainland countries were small. The G8 leaders announced the debt cancellation they had been working on since Birmingham, but probably breathed a sigh of relief that they could leave it at that. By the time of the 2001 Genoa meeting, the debt protestors had been swamped by violent anti-capitalists.

It seems that there is little more to expect from world leaders. The Americans suddenly started talking about debt cancellation for Iraq, but, as a Christian Aid spokesman pointed out, this is probably because the debt is owed mostly to France and Russia. George Bush is not sympathetic to debt cancellation, and for him to go against his advisors it would take a miracle of miracles. The European leaders do not have a popular groundswell behind them. There is talk of an annual World Debt Day to provide a focus for the ongoing campaign, but if this is only in Britain and Africa, what impact will it have?

2005 was the year to ‘Make Poverty History,’ with the UK hosting the G8 meetings again as well as holding the Presidency of the European Union. Once again British Christians turned out in great numbers for a pleasant, sunny, protest, this time in Edinburgh. Once again other people stayed away. Bob Geldorf attracted thousands to London for a concert, but hardly anyone to Edinburgh for the real protest. It seems that a little more debt has been cancelled but all the campaigners say it is too little.

Is it now time to be more radical? We have spent years calling on the lenders to cancel debts, could we not now help the borrowers to think about not paying the debts? If these are debts which God has shown us are not only unpayable but are also illegitimate, could we not follow His Word rather than the accepted financial conventions? Ann Pettifor pointed out that periodic cancellation of debt is a Biblical principle. We could be more radical in putting this into practice.

A common approach to personal debt in this country is for a debt counsellor to calculate what an individual can afford to pay in debt repayments, and to tell the creditor that they can have this amount or nothing. Could we not move towards setting up some kind of body to make these calculations for any country that wanted to avail itself of this approach? This International Body would calculate how much a country can reasonably afford to pay in debt servicing. The country would then pay this amount and no more. If the creditors tried punitive action, the International Body, and its contributing members, would help the debtor country as much as they could.

Jubilee Debt Campaign is working on a procedure for insolvency for countries which is similar to this idea but which depends on the unlikely agreement of all parties. It is high time we at least talked about a more radical approach. We cannot force any country to take any particular course of action but we could invite them to think about it with us. We could offer to campaign on behalf of any country which decided to default. We could encourage coalitions of defaulters to support each other. We could help to calculate the effects of any trade embargo against defaulters, and how the effects could be alleviated. (Most of what the West provides for Africa could now be provided by or through India or China.) We could at least commit ourselves to start talking like this unless the creditors offer more cancellation over the next 2 years. We could stand with those countries who decided to follow the God of the Bible and of miracles rather than the financial institutions of the Western Empire.

Roger Harper
May 2003 and May 2006

Grace to you and peace from God the Holy Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. As leaders from the World Council of Churches member communions in the United States we greet the delegates to the 9th Assembly with joy and gratitude for your partnership in the Gospel in the years since we were last in Harare. During those years you have been constant in your love for us. We remember in particular the ways you embraced us with compassion in the days following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, and in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina just months ago. Your pastoral words, your gifts, and your prayers sustained us, reminding us that we were not alone but were joined in the Body of Christ to a community of deep encouragement and consolation. Even now you have welcomed us at this Assembly with rich hospitality. Know that we are profoundly grateful.

Yet we acknowledge as well that we are citizens of a nation that has done much in these years to endanger the human family and to abuse the creation. Following the terrorist attacks you sent “living letters” inviting us into a deeper solidarity with those who suffer daily from violence around the world. But our country responded by seeking to reclaim a privileged and secure place in the world, raining down terror on the truly vulnerable among our global neighbors. Our leaders turned a deaf ear to the voices of church leaders throughout our nation and the world, entering into imperial projects that seek to dominate and control for the sake of our own national interests. Nations have been demonized and God has been enlisted in national agendas that are nothing short of idolatrous. We lament with special anguish the war in Iraq, launched in deception and violating global norms of justice and human rights. We mourn all who have died or been injured in this war; we acknowledge with shame abuses carried out in our name; we confess that we have failed to raise a prophetic voice loud enough and persistent enough to deter our leaders from this path of preemptive war. Lord, have mercy.

The rivers, oceans, lakes, rainforests, and wetlands that sustain us, even the air we breathe continue to be violated, and global warming goes unchecked while we allow God’s creation to veer toward destruction. Yet our own country refuses to acknowledge its complicity and rejects multilateral agreements aimed at reversing disastrous trends. We consume without replenishing; we grasp finite resources as if they are private possessions; our uncontrolled appetites devour more and more of the earth’s gifts. We confess that we have failed to raise a prophetic voice loud enough and persistent enough to call our nation to global responsibility for the creation, that we ourselves are complicit in a culture of consumption that diminishes the earth. Christ, have mercy.

The vast majority of the peoples of the earth live in crushing poverty. The starvation, the HIV/AIDS pandemic, the treatable diseases that go untreated indict us, revealing the grim features of global economic injustice we have too often failed to acknowledge or confront. Our nation enjoys enormous wealth, yet we cling to our possessions rather than share. We have failed to embody the covenant of life to which our God calls us; hurricane Katrina revealed to the world those left behind in our own nation by the rupture of our social contract. As a nation we have refused to confront the racism that exists in our own communities and the racism that infects our policies around the world. We confess that we have failed to raise a prophetic voice loud enough and persistent enough to call our nation to seek just economic structures so that sharing by all will mean scarcity for none. In the face of the earth’s poverty, our wealth condemns us. Lord, have mercy.

Sisters and brothers in the ecumenical community, we come to you in this Assembly grateful for hospitality we don’t deserve, for companionship we haven’t earned, for an embrace we don’t merit. In the hope that is promised in Christ and thankful for people of faith in our own country who have sustained our yearning for peace, we come to you seeking to be partners in the search for unity and justice. From a place seduced by the lure of empire we come to you in penitence, eager for grace, grace sufficient to transform spirits grown weary from the violence, degradation, and poverty our nation has sown, grace sufficient to transform spirits grown heavy with guilt, grace sufficient to transform the world. Lord, have mercy. Christ, have mercy. Lord, have mercy. Amen.

Globalization is a historical process. As such, it does not happen suddenly. In the case of present-day imperial globalization, it is the culmination of a process which started five centuries ago and that, throughout this period, has had different Western countries as protagonists and has affected “all other living societies, whether pre-civilizational or civilized” in different ways. My intention in this lecture is to show the connection between the first moment of imperial globalization and its present-day moment. My claim is that, despite the very deep differences between these two historical moments, there is also a real continuity between them—a continuity which in fact makes of present-day globalization one of the greatest challenges to the Christian mission.

The Roots of Imperial Globalization
October 12, 1492, may be regarded as representing the beginning of the era of
Western worldwide expansion. The “discovery” of America by Christopher (“the Christ-bearer”) Columbus was not merely an amazing feat of navigation but also the opening of a new world of bountiful treasures which in time provided the economic basis for Western development. The Genovese sailor, whom John A. Mackay described as “a mystic in no small degree” (1933:24), saw himself as sent by God to fulfill the prophecy in Isaiah 60.9: “For the coastlands shall wait for me, the ships of Tarshish first, to bring your children from far away, their silver and gold with them for the name of the Lord your God.” Therefore, according to Bartolomé de las Casas in his Historia de las Indias (Book 1, chapter 28; 1981:149), he offered, first to the king of Portugal and subsequently to King Fernando de Castilla and Queen Isabel de León, to discover “extensive lands, isles, and beautiful solid lands, very wealthy in gold, silver, and precious stones, and many people,” and to reach the eastern extremities of the Asian continent, including India and the kingdom of the Great Khan.

The epic that followed Columbus’ accomplishment—the conquest of America—was marked by three ominous factors: greed, ethnocentrism, and religious justification.

by Brian McLaren

I wish that C. Rene Padilla were wrong in his article "Why Do People Hate Americans?" But my experience traveling widely over the last decade requires that I say, with sadness, that he is right.

When I hear my fellow Americans discuss this question, they have very different answers from Rene’s. “They are just jealous of our success,” is the most frequent response I hear. “We have worked hard and become powerful and prosperous, and so they resent us.” Perhaps there is some truth to this diagnosis in some cases, although the psychology assumed by this defense doesn’t make sense to me. For example, I believe that Costa Rica has great natural beauty, that France and Greece have extraordinary cultural treasures, that Canadians and Brits have a tremendous sense of humor, that South Africa has charted an amazing course of truth and reconciliation over the last decade. Their extraordinary features don’t make me hate them or resent them, but rather appreciate and admire them.

“They’re just jealous of my strength,” sounds like exactly the kind of thing the bully in Rene’s school might have said to comfort himself when the nice kids in the class didn’t invite him to their birthday parties.

One of the most important books I read in 2005 was Richard T. Hughes’ Myths America Lives By (Univ. of Illinois, 2003). This professor of religion from Pepperdine University details six myths that have arisen over our history, myths that may have a grain of truth to inspire, but also have great power to self-deceive. They are:
1. The Myth of the Chosen Nation
2. The Myth of Nature’s Nation
3. The Myth of the Christian Nation
4. The Myth of the Millennial Nation
5. The Mythic Dimensions of American Capitalism
6. They Myth of the Innocent Nation

Supported by a range of quotes from the founding fathers to our current president, the book argues that America has “absolutized its myths” and as a result has entered, or is at great risk of entering, a deep state of denial or willed ignorance about “the suffering that American policies might inflict on poor and dispossessed people in other parts of the world.” He calls for “a true revolution of American values” which will “encourage Americans to see the world through someone else’s eyes, perhaps even through the eyes of their enemies.”

As a leading Latin American theologian and leader in the mision integral movement across Latin America, C. Rene Padilla is telling us what the North American Distinguished Professor of Religion Richard Hughes has also concluded. Until we move beyond an immature and unchristian defensiveness (strengthened, no doubt, by the “warrior trance” that has overtaken our country since September 11, 2001), and until we seek with great humility to see ourselves as others see us, we will not experience a true revolution of American values. We will instead become more and more entrenched in the myths that we have become dependent on – that some might say we have become addicted to.

I hope that increasing numbers of Americans will heed the Biblical call to self-examination, that we will recognize the dangers that the Bible tells us successful people and nations are particularly susceptible to. I hope that we will remember what the Book of Proverbs and James both say characterizes wisdom – notably, a humble willingness to listen to correction and rebuke. I hope that we will aspire to something far better than being feared as a bully. Rather, I hope that we will aspire to be a good neighbor in the global classroom … with a reputation for wisdom, humility, honesty, cooperation, justice, and the kind of strength that is displayed not in violence but in kindness and compassion.

There is probably no other topic that has attained such world-wide diffusion  during the past decade as that of globalization. At the same time, we would be mistaken to assume that everyone who speaks or writes on the topic uses the term with the same connotation. For the sake of clarity, the least we can do at the outset of our reflection on the subject is to admit that “globalization” is an ambiguous word and that the phenomenon to which it points in general terms may be considered from differing perspectives.

The globalization with which we are concerned in these lectures is the globalization of the economic system predominant in the world today—the neo-liberal capitalist system, which is intimately related to modern technology and the culture-ìdeology of comsumerism and which has the West, especially the United States of America, as its geopolitical center. This understanding of globalization involves at least two presuppositions. In the first place, that the economic factor plays a decisive role in the shaping of the globalization with which we are dealing. In effect, the net result of the present globalization is that the world becomes a global shopping center controlled by commerce, finance, and production, in partnership with modern technology and the culture-ideology of consumerism.

In the second place, our understanding presupposes that the principal promoter of today´s globalization is the West, paradigmatically represented by the United States. This is not to deny the importance of other centers in the growing interconnectedness of nations; it simply recognizes that at present the West, and particularly the United States, is the most powerful force in the creation of a world dominated by the market. Already, in the early 1970s, Arnold Toynbee stated that...

Although it has recently become fashionable to use the term integral mission, the approach to mission that it expresses is not new. The practice of integral mission goes back to Jesus himself and to the first century Christian church. Furthermore, a growing number of churches are putting this style of mission into practice without necessarily using this expression to refer to what they are doing: integral mission is not part of their vocabulary. It is clear that the practice of integral mission is much more important than the use of this new expression to refer to it.

The expression integral mission (misión integral) came into use principally within the Latin American Theological Fraternity (FTL) about twenty years ago. It was an attempt to highlight the importance of conceiving of the mission of the church within a more biblical theological framework than the traditional one, which had been accepted in evangelical circles due to the influence of the modern missionary movement. In the last few years the expression has been used so widely that the literal translation into English, integral mission, is gradually becoming a part of the vocabulary of those who are pressing for a more holistic approach to the Christian mission, even outside Spanish-speaking evangelical circles
What is this approach to mission? In what aspects does it differ from the traditional approach?

The Traditional Approach to Mission

In the traditional approach, which took shape within the modern missionary movement especially since the end of the eighteenth century, the Christian mission was conceived of mainly in geographical terms: it consisted in crossing geographic frontiers for the purpose of taking the gospel from the Christian West to the mission fields of the non-Christian world (the heathen). In other words, to speak of mission meant speaking of transcultural mission.

The purpose of missions was to save souls and to plant churches, mainly in foreign countries, by means of the preaching of the gospel. The agents of mission were principally the missionaries, the majority affiliated to missionary societies, either denominational or interdenominational (the faith missions). The qualifications of the missionaries varied, but it was taken for granted that the first requisite (in addition, of course, to the experience of conversion to Jesus Christ) was to feel, generally on an individual subjective level, called by God to the mission field. To answer God’s call to missions, as in the case of the call to the pastorate, was usually considered the highest calling, the maximum commitment that a Christian could make in serving God. By no means was it ever considered to be something to be expected of all Christians.

What was the responsibility of the local church in this pattern? With the exception of a few churches (especially among the Plymouth Brethren) that sent out missionaries without the intervention of missionary societies, the role of the local church was reduced to providing personnel and spiritual and economic support for missions. Even the preparation and training of the missionaries was delegated by the local church to specialized institutions.
It should be pointed out, however, that with all its weaknesses, this concept of mission, characteristic of the modern missionary movement, inspired (and in many cases continues to inspire) thousands of transcultural missionaries to do what Abraham did centuries earlier: he left his homeland and his family and went out to the land God showed him. They went out to spread the good news of salvation in Jesus Christ, and thus have written some of the most moving pages of church history. Thanks to the work of these traditional missionaries true heroes of the faith, many of whom gave their lives for the sake of Jesus Christ-- , today the church is a world-wide movement with congregations in practically every nation on earth. Praise God!

On the other hand, it must be recognized that the identification of the mission of the church with transcultural mission has resulted in at least four dichotomies that have had a negative effect on the church.
1. The dichotomy between churches that send out missionaries (generally located in the Christian West) and churches that receive missionaries (almost exclusively in countries in the so-called Two-thirds World: Asia, Africa, and Latin America). This pattern is changing, with the growing number of transcultural missionaries being sent from outside the West (or from the periphery of the West, in the case of Latin America). It must be recognized, however, that until a short time ago (transcultural) mission was that carried out from headquarters in Europe (for example, England, Scotland, Germany, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Sweden, Norway), or in the United States, Australia or New Zealand. The transcultural missionary movement with headquarters in Asia, Africa, or Latin America is relatively new.

2. The dichotomy between home, located in some country of the Christian West, and the mission field, located in some pagan country. It is not surprising that the majority of career missionaries (sometimes with years of service) decide to retire in their home country.

3. The dichotomy between missionaries, called by God to serve him, and common ordinary Christians, who can enjoy the benefits of salvation but are exempt from sharing in what God wants to do in the world. I would dare to suggest that the dichotomy between clergy (including missionaries and pastors) and laity lies at the root of the problem of the masses of Sunday Christians that are part of the evangelical church.

4. The dichotomy between the life and the mission of the church. If, in order for a church to be a missionary church, it were sufficient to send and support a few of its members to serve in foreign missions, it is possible that such a church had no significant influence or impact on its surrounding neighborhood: the life of the church was carried on in the local surroundings (at home); mission took place in another setting, preferably in a foreign country (the mission field).
All these dichotomies were the result of the reduction of mission to transcultural missionary efforts. Consequently, mission was reduced primarily to the task of evangelization carried out by missionaries sent from Christian countries to the mission fields of the world; thus they fulfilled representatively or vicariously to put it bluntly-- the missionary responsibility of the whole church.

Integral Mission, A New Paradigm

From the perspective of integral mission, transcultural mission is far from exhausting the significance of the mission of the church. Mission may or may not include a crossing of geographical frontiers, but in every case it means primarily a crossing of the frontier between faith and no faith, whether in one’s own country (Aat home) or in a foreign country (on the mission field), according to the testimony to Jesus Christ as Lord of the whole of life and of the whole creation. Every generation of Christians in every place receives the power of the Spirit that makes possible the witness to the gospel in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth (Acts 1.8). In other words, every church, wherever it may be, is called to share in God’s mission a mission that is local, regional and world-wide in scope-- beginning in its own Jerusalem. In order to cross the frontier between faith and no faith, crossing geographical boundaries is not indispensable; the geographical factor is secondary. Commitment to mission is the very essence of being the church; therefore, the church that is not committed to the mission of witnessing to Jesus Christ and thus to crossing the frontier between faith and no faith is no longer the church, but becomes a religious club, simply a group of friends, or a social welfare agency.

When the church is committed to integral mission and to communicating the gospel through everything it is, does, and says, it understands that its goal is not to become large numerically, nor to be rich materially, nor powerful politically. Its purpose is to incarnate the values of the Kingdom of God and to witness to the love and the justice revealed in Jesus Christ, by the power of the Spirit, for the transformation of human life in all its dimensions, both on the individual level and on the community level.

The accomplishment of this purpose presupposes that all the members of the church, without exception, by the very fact of having become a part of the Body of Christ, receive gifts and ministries for the exercise of their priesthood, to which they have been ordained in their baptism. Mission is not the responsibility and privilege of a small group of the faithful who feel called to the mission field (usually in a foreign country), but of all members, since all are members of the royal priesthood and as such have been called by God that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light (1Pet 2.9) wherever they may be. As Brian D. McLaren aptly states,

For Christ, his "called ones" (which is what the Greek term for "church" really means) will also be his "sent ones" [or missionaries]. . . . In this line of thinking about the church, we don’t recruit people to be customers of our products or consumers of our religious programs; we recruit them to be colleagues in our mission. The church does not exist in order to satisfy the consumer demands of believers; the church exists to equip and mobilize men and women for God’s mission in the world.

According to this view, what is the role of the local church in mission? We have already expressed the answer in McLaren’s words: to equip and mobilize men and women for God’s mission in the world not exclusively in the church building, which may or may not exist, but in all fields of human life: in the home, in business, in the hospital, in the university, in the office, in the workshop . . . in conclusion, everywhere, since there is no place that is not within the orbit of the lordship of Jesus Christ.

Understood in these terms, this Anew paradigm for mission is not so new; it is, rather, the recovery of the biblical concept of mission since, in effect, mission is faithful to the teaching of Scripture to the extent that it is placed at the service of the Kingdom of God and his justice. Consequently, it is focused on crossing the frontier between faith and no faith, not only in geographical terms, but in cultural, ethnic, social, economical and political terms, for the purpose of transforming life in all its dimensions, according to God’s plan, so that all people and human communities may experience the abundant life that Christ offers them. As such, integral mission resolves the dichotomies mentioned above in the following ways:

1. At least in principle, all churches send and all churches receive. In other words, all churches have something to teach and something to learn from other churches. The road mission follows is not a one-way street Bit does not go only from the Christian countries to the pagan countries--; it is a two-way street. A good example is seen in the missionary movement from the countries in the South, which is sending a growing number of cross-cultural missionaries even to countries in the North.

2. The whole world is a mission field, and every human need is an opportunity for missionary service. The local church is called to demonstrate the reality of the Kingdom of God among the kingdoms of this world, not only by what it says, but also by what it is and by what it does in response to the humans needs on every side. Francis de Assisi was right when, as he sent his followers out to proclaim the gospel, he exhorted them to proclaim it by every means at their disposal, and that if it was really necessary they should use words. The proclamation of the gospel includes everything we do moved by the Spirit of Jesus who, when he saw the crowds, had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd (Mt 9.36).

3. Every Christian is called to follow Jesus Christ and to be committed to God’s mission in the world. The benefits of salvation are inseparable from a missionary lifestyle, and this implies, among other things, the practice of the universal priesthood of believers in all spheres of human life, according to the gifts and ministries that the Spirit of God has freely bestowed on his people. It is the responsibility of pastors and teachers to prepare God’s people for works of service [diakonia], so that the body of Christ may be built up (Eph 4.12).

4. The Christian life in all its dimensions, on both the individual and the community levels, is the primary witness to the universal lordship of Jesus Christ and the transforming power of the Holy Spirit. Mission is much more than words; it involves the quality of life it is demonstrated in the life that recovers God’s original purpose for the relationship of the human person with his Creator, with his neighbor, and with all of creation.

In conclusion, integral mission is the means designed by God to carry out, within history, his purpose of love and justice revealed in Jesus Christ, through the church and in the power of the Spirit.

I had my first lesson in “Might makes right” when I was in primary school. One of my peers in a class of about thirty kids made a name for himself because he was able to  beat anyone who dared to stand in his way. He was tall and strong, the class bull. Most of our classmates made every possible effort to insure his friendship or at least not to be an easy object of his wrath.

I learned the meaning of “Might makes right” one day when the bully was dealing in a rather unfriendly fashion with one of my friends. “That is not right!,” I protested. That was enough—before I could realize what was happening, his might fell upon me and, with a sore cheek, I was reduced to silence. That was, of course, his way of proving that he was right.

Guess what most of my classmates thought about the strong boy. Some of them obviously wished to be like him: they were attracted not so much by him as a person, but by his ability to impose his own way. The large majority of the kids, however, despised or even hated him, but made sure that their feelings remained unknown to him.

Could it be that the reason why “people hate Americans” is that in the classroom of nations the United States oftentimes exhibits the kind of behavior that people associate with the idea that “Might makes right”? In answer to this question, let me make two comments.

In the first place, we must make sure that the question “Why do people hate Americans” is regarded as a real question, not as a statement of fact. If it is regarded as a question, the way is open for an honest inquiry into the reasons behind a very common attitude toward Americans in general. If it is regarded as a statement of fact, the natural reaction to be expected on the part of most Americans is a defensive attitude. Are we really willing to explore why so many people (not everybody, to be sure) around the world strongly reject the way in which the United States government, with the acquiescence on the part of a high percentage of American citizens, behaves with the rest of the world?

Terrorism, say the authors, creates fear in those who are victimized, whether those acts are committed by governments, special interest groups, or individuals. In the eighteenth century, the term usually referred to governments while in the present it is more frequently applied to the two latter agents. Since governments use violent acts to keep their own or other peoples in subjection, the word is still properly used in the broad sense. Senator J. William Fulbright so uses the word when he decries the intervention of the United States in the internal affairs of Third World countries, albeit in the name of freedom and democracy. “We and some of our friends,” he says, “have initiated some of the worst aspects of modern terrorism” (p. 65). Senator Fulbright chaired the Senate Committee on International Relations for almost thirty years (1945–74).

The subtitle of the book under discussion emphasizes that the authors’ is not the final word of truth in the matter; it is “a” not “the” Christian word. Rather, it represents the testimony of a part of the Christian Church (from Latin America) given in the interest of the message of peace and justice that our Lord came to proclaim and to initiate. René Padilla, an Ecuadorian who has lived in Argentina since 1967 and studied in the United States and in England, is a theological, literary, and pastoral leader. Perhaps, along with José Míguez Bonino, he is the best known lecturer and writer among Latin American Protestants. Lindy Scott taught for fifteen years in Mexico, has written and edited a number of books, and continues an active role in Latin American religious affairs. Christians, the authors believe, owe it to one another to speak with clarity and conviction on the matters discussed in the book in order to further kingdom righteousness.

The book begins by citing the testimonies of many churches and Christian organizations in Latin America, all in opposition to the current war in Iraq. Protestant groups, the majority of which have historically been silent on such divisive political issues, have made themselves heard from the whole spectrum of denominations, from the Pentecostal to the historical. The concerns expressed in the many documents cited include the following: the sacrifice of so many innocent lives, including women and children; the hypocrisy of having been allied to Iraq in the 1980s when the worst atrocities were committed; the prospect of winning the war but losing the peace; the fomenting of more reactionary fanaticism which breeds more terrorism; the use of resources for destruction rather than for meeting basic human needs; the violation of international law; the unilateral rather than United Nations-approved action; and the furthering of hostilities with the Muslim peoples which impedes the communication of the gospel message of peace and reconciliation to God and our neighbor. No document was found from Latin American church groups which favored the war in Iraq.

As a North American pastor I am often involved in discussions about what it means for the church to be the church. There are lots of versions of this discussion floating around. Some churches seem to hide within themselves. Some focus on Evangelism, some pride themselves on their "External Focus", some describe themselves as "Missional". And while I would not say the discussion among church people in North America is completely academic (I see many churches doing meaningful ministry), I would say that it has been somewhat frustrating and limited. It seems to fall victim to an all-too-common polarization. Either we have churches that are involved in evangelism and are concerned about the condition of people’s souls, or we have churches that are concerned with social issues like poverty and injustice. Seldom do we encounter churches that are willing or able to embrace both ends of this biblical spectrum.

As a pastor connected with some of what God is doing in Latin America, I have, for the last 10 years, been both humbled and inspired by what so many churches in Central and South America understand as the nature of church. Many of these churches have had to forge their existence in difficult environments. Systemic poverty and corruption are a fact of life in many places in the Third World. The claim that one has "Good News" rings much differently in an environment where human suffering is more pervasive and visible. There must be Good News for both body and soul.

As a result, one of the beautiful things the Latin American church has given us in the last half-century is a rich theological basis from which we can build discipleship and ministry which embrace the fullness of what church should be. For decades now, Churches in Latin America have been talking about the mission of the church as an "integrated mission". The following is a brief description of the concept written by a group leaders who have been practicing Integral Mission for a long time.

From the Micah Network Declaration on Integral Mission:
"Integral mission or holistic transformation is the proclamation and demonstration of the gospel. It is not simply that evangelism and social involvement are to be done alongside each other. Rather, in integral mission our proclamation has social consequences as we call people to love and repentance in all areas of life. And our social involvement has evangelistic consequences as we bear witness to the transforming grace of Jesus Christ. If we ignore the world we betray the word of God which sends us out to serve the world. If we ignore the word of God we have nothing to bring to the world. Justice and justification by faith, worship and political action, the spiritual and the material, personal change and structural change belong together. As in the life of Jesus, being, doing and saying are at the heart of our integral task."

This blog will seek to provide postings and discussion which explore this concept of churches bridging the divide and ministering to the complete range of human needs. We will seek to foster dialogue among church leaders in South and North America in an effort to promote Integral Mission not just in the Americas, but everywhere.