Theology and Mission Between

Neocolonialism and
Postcolonialism
J O E R G RlEGER*

ABSTRACT
In this article Joerg Rieger writes about the historical connection between
colonialism and mission, and the connection between neocolonialism and mission in the
present situation of globalization. Thinking on mission today, he argues, does not always see
the subtle connection between mission and neocolonialism, even though it has recognized
and renounced the former colonialism. While mission as "outreach" and "relationship"
have some positive aspects, they can easily be tainted with neocolonial attitudes. In contrast,
Rieger advocates an understanding of mission as "inreach," by which one approaches
the other as truly other, and opens oneself to be changed in the encounter. A dialogical
approach to mission - indeed a "multilogical" approach is "no longer optional but essential
to the future of both mission and theology."

KEYWORDS
Neocolonialism, Postcolonialism, Mission Theology

"To missionize is to colonize and to colonize is to missionize. Ever

since the conquest of the Americas, Christian mission and colonialism have
been inextricably related. And while the forms of both colonialism and mis-
sion have changed over the centuries, they have continued their alliance.

*Joerg Rieger is Professor of Systematic Theology, Southern Methodist University,

Dallas, Texas, USA. Among his publications are Remember the Poor: The Challenge to Theolog))
in the Twenty-First Century (1998) and God and the Excluded: Visions and Blindspots in Contemporary
Theolog) (2001). Address: Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University,
Dallas, T X 75275-0133, USA. E-mail: jrieger@mail.smu.edu.
In 1913, the German Roman Catholic missiologist J. Schmidlin complemented the
statement of German Colonial Secretary W.H. Solf with the statement "to missionize is to
colonize." See Bosch 1991: 306.

©2004 Koninklijke Brill NV also available online

Mission Studies 21.2 see: www.brill.nl
202 JOERG RIEGER

Yet colonialism has now, by and large, officially come to an end. While
some African countries have seen the end of their status as colonies only
in recent years (Zimbabwe in 1980, Namibia in 1990), various countries in
the Americas have seen the end of colonial status two centuries ago (the
U.S. in 1783, Argentina in 1810, Brazil in 1822). Much of theology and
mission has followed along, happily assuming the end of colonialism but
wasting little thought about what it means to live in a postcolonial society.
Few mainline theologians would defend the ventures of colonial Chris-
tianity. But have we truly overcome our colonial legacies? Do we even
understand what the basic problems of colonial Christianity were? Is this
case really closed? Can we return to business as usual? These questions
impose themselves as soon as we leave the safe havens of "first world"
mainline Christianity. Encounters with Christians from other parts of the
world who bear many of the marks of both colonialism and neocolonial-
ism in their own bodies, and even encounters with Christians at home
subjected to internal colonialism and neocolonialism, might teach us that
we must not move on too quickly. The quality of international encounters,
if not the future of theology and mission itself, depends on how we deal
with colonialism, neocolonialism, and postcolonialism.
My main concern is with two roadblocks that prevent Christians in the
U.S. and in other parts of the so-called "first world" from building genuine
relationships with other Christians around the world. First of all, failure to
consider our colonial heritage may result in failure to understand who we
are today. This question has nothing to do with the guilt trips of certain
strands of mainline middle class Christianity; the question is simply how we
have been shaped by our histories. Second, failure to deal with our colonial
histories may also result in failure to deal with the neocolonial histories that
are now being made and thus in another failure of mission as a whole. In
Jacques Lacan's words, what has been repressed from the symbolic order -
from the realm of language and open discourse, from the stories that we tell
about ourselves — returns in the real. In other words, if we repress our colo-
nial and neocolonial histories, they will come back to haunt us all the more.

M i s s i o n , C o l o n i a l i s m , and P o w e r

The missionary enterprises of past centuries have greatly extended the

reach of Christianity. The Portuguese and the Spanish introduced Chris-
 THEOLOGY AND MISSION BETWEEN NEO- AND POSTCOLONIALISM 203

tianity in the South of the Americas, the British spread Christian faith in
India, Asia, and Africa, and U.S. missionaries further extended the reach
of Christianity in many of these parts of the world. It is well known that
in all of these cases Christianity worked in close relation with the colonial
powers. The relation of mission and colonialism took different shapes in
the different contexts.
The Spanish missions that were set up in sixteenth century Latin
America, for instance, could rely on their King's army - whose function
was not primarily to convert the Indians but to pacify the mission field
and to regulate dissent (see Rieger 1998: 49). While early British colonialist
ventures worked without missionary support, in the nineteenth century
the missionaries could rely on the support of the economic and political
structures that had been established (Bosch 1991: 303). Yet while American
missionaries in the U.S. were supported by the westward movement of the
nineteenth century, a form of "internal colonialism," their colleagues in
mission to other countries were much less connected to formal colonialist
structures. U.S. American missions to Latin America might even be seen as
the first postcolonial missions, since most of the Latin American nations had
received their independence in the early 1800s. Nevertheless, even in this
situation the U.S. missionaries still found their work in accord with U.S.
interests, as expressed for instance in the Monroe doctrine of 1823 that
announced a special interest of the U.S. in the affairs of both Americas. 2
While the relations between colonial structures and Christian mission
were thus quite complex, one of the common features has to do with
relations of power and authority (see Rieger 1998). With few exceptions,
colonial power went hand in glove with the theological authority claimed
by the missionaries. The authority of the Spanish missionaries, for instance,
supported by the unquestioned authority of the pope and the classical
texts of the church, closely resembled the power of Spanish colonialism
supported by the Spanish monarchy (Ibid.: 46 ff.). And while missionaries
and monarchs were not always in agreement, Christianity collaborated
with the colonial forces to such a degree that it was often difficult to
distinguish the two (see Klaiber 1992: 197). In the later colonialisms of the

2
"Since the promulgation of the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, Latin America has been
subject more than any other region in the world . . . to neocolonialism in the form of U.S.
imperialism: military, political and economic" (Young 2001: 194).
204 J O E R G RIEGER

eighteenth and nineteenth century, the power of the colonialist empires was
usually seen as direct proof for the authority of Christianity. In the words
of German theologian Friedrich Schleiermacher: "In view of the great
advantage in power and civilization which the Christian peoples possess
over the non-Christian . . . the preachers of today do not need such signs
[i.e., miracles]" (Schleiermacher 1986: 450). The proof of the power of the
colonialist nations was ultimately seen as stronger than the reference to the
authority of the miracles of Christ. In other words, the power differential
between the colonizers and the colonized was also perceived as an authority
differential: God was on the side of the missionaries.
In the high imperial era after the 1880s, missionary enterprises were
still in full swing. At this time, the North American missions had taken the
lead in global missions, modeling an activist and pragmatic spirit.3 People
simply wanted to help those in other parts of the world who seemed
less fortunate. But once again, power and authority went hand in hand.
As David Bosch has pointed out, the "operative presuppositions" of the
missionaries were "those of Western democracy and the free-enterprise
system" (Bosch 1991: 334). "There was something businesslike," Bosch
adds, ".. .about the launching of the new societies" (Ibid.: 330). Here,
power was once again supported politically, yet now with an increasing
emphasis on economic structures. Once again, the power differential
between colonizers and colonized was also perceived as an authority
differential. No wonder that this approach saw mission basically as a one-
way street, moving from the wealthy to the poor or, in terms that probably
reflect better the mindset of those who were trying to help, moving from
the "civilized" to the "primitives," or from the "more developed" to the
"less developed." A similar mentality can still be found in the middle of
the twentieth century. Reinhold Niebuhr, assuming that the new empires
of his day are superior in both civilization and technology, leaves no doubt
that colonialism has been and still is providing a service to the world. 4 The

After the 1880s, during the high imperial era, "activism and pragmatism were
propounded with renewed vigor. They were now more clearly identified as an expression
of North American missions, but were by no means restricted to them. It was the 'age of
energy' and a time for great enterprises" (Bosch 1991: 336).
Niebuhr, as would be expected, also stresses the moral ambiguity of colonialism. For
this reason, he argues for the need of checks and balances. See Niebuhr 1959: 24-25;
28-29.
 THEOLOGY AND MISSION BETWEEN NEO- AND POSTCOLONIALISM 205

power differential authorizes both the colonial mentality and Christian

mission.
What were the underlying problems of colonialist missions? Ethical and
moralizing explanations fail here, for greed and the strife for personal gain
cannot explain the missionaries' actions. Often the missionaries themselves
- a large number of them went either as volunteers or with minimal
support from the sending agencies - did not benefit direcdy from the
colonial system. But even in the cases of those missionaries who had more
formal support, greed and personal gain were not the main motivation.
There was simply too much hardship and danger at the everyday level
(think only of the medical challenges), and (unlike for the colonialists who
pursued political office or business ventures) too little promise of profits.5
Reading the histories, one gets a strong sense that the missionaries meant
well; they genuinely wanted to make a difference and wanted to help. So
why did Christian mission end up as part of the colonial enterprise?
On the whole, the missionaries accepted the colonial powers - or at
least did not question them. David Bosch helps us to understand part of
the problem when he points out that "simply by accepting the presence
of the colonial lords as incontrovertible reality" (Bosch 1991: 306) the
missionaries ended up supporting the system. At best, the missionaries
perceived themselves as intermediaries between the powers that be and the
people.

They did not comprehend that, in their attempts at playing the mediator
between colonial government and local population, they were - simply by
accepting the presence of the colonial lords as incontrovertible reality -
actually serving the interests of the colonizers. The best they could do in
these circumstances was meekly to plead with the governments to be more
careful in the selection of colonial officials and to choose "practical moral
men." (Ibid.)

But the relationship of mission and colonialism might be perceived at

an even deeper level: What if for the missionaries the role of the colonial

George E. Tinker addresses this enigma in terms of the North American missions to
Native Americans: "While the missionaries clearly functioned to facilitate the exploitation
of Indian people, they themselves usually did not benefit from those acts of exploitation"
(Tinker 1993: 17).
206 J O E R G RIEGER

system was like the role of water for fish? Not only did their mission depend
on colonial structures (for virtually everything from transportation to moral
support), they lived within the system to such a degree that they were
simply able to forget about it. On the whole, it seems that the missionaries
did not see much wrong with the colonial system as such — except of course
for what was perceived as abuses of that system - a response that is not
unlike the current critique in the U.S. of abuses by CEOs in that it sees
the fault not with the system itself but with individuals who fail morally.
Here, I would argue, lies the deepest root of the question why the
missionaries ended up supporting the colonial system. Taking for granted
the colonial system, living within it to such a degree that it would be the
natural context for mission, they simply had no other option. Colonialism
cannot be critiqued from within, from the level of those who more or
less are part of the system; a fish cannot critique water - except perhaps
the quality of it. George Tinker has illustrated the problem in regard to
the missions to Native Americans in the U.S. While they meant well,
the missionaries were so caught up in their own worlds that they were
virtually unable to learn from the people they came to missionize. The
result, says Tinker, was cultural genocide. 6 It was the well-meaning but
patronizing attitude of the missionaries that prevented this learning from
happening. Theology and mission were caught in the same vicious circle:
unable to see through the colonial powers, they were left supporting the
system. No wonder the authority structures that they promoted matched
the structures of the powers that be: the colonizers' "principles of reason"
and their "dictates of common sense" were seen to blend with scripture
and providence (Bosch 1991: 335).7 Yet even Tinker wonders whether the
missionaries could have stayed completely oblivious to what was going on
all those years. 8

Tinker draws the parallel to today: "If the missionaries, with the best of intentions,
perpetrated such havoc among Indian peoples, what does our own, modern myopia conceal
from us, whatever our intentions to the contrary?" (Tinker 1993: 16).
7
The issue, however, is not merely Enlightenment thinking, as Bosch seems to assume,
but the whole spirit of the age, including economics and politics.
Tinker wonders whether it can all be explained by "naive innocence," and concludes
that "at some level, they must have know what they were about" (Tinker 1993: 18). Did
the North American missionaries to the native Americans never wonder why, for instance,
 THEOLOGY AND MISSION BETWEEN NEO- AND POSTCOLONIALISM 207

Postcolonial Missions

There is some awareness today that mission in the past shared the
colonial mentality. Even though the deeper reasons are not addressed,
the colonialist mistakes of mission in the past are acknowledged (strangely
enough, there is considerably less awareness of the colonial mistakes of the
theology of the same period). 9 Now, however, that colonialism is officially
over, there is a sense - whether the language of postcolonialism is used
or not - that we do not have to worry about these problems any more.
The encyclopedic book on mission by David Bosch, which dedicates a
substantial part to describing the problem of colonial mission, embodies
the problem. For Bosch, the problems of modernity appear to be fading
away as we move into postmodernity (Bosch 1991: 349-362). By the same
token, colonialism (which in Bosch's narrative is merely a sub-section of
his overarching concern with modernity and the Enlightenment) seems
to have faded away as well. Mission is thus seen as having found new
freedom (and new innocence). Without having to worry about colonialism
and the associated (mis)use of power and authority any more, mission and
missionary enterprises now seem to be free to reinvent themselves. 10
But while colonialism in its political manifestations of direct govern-
ment over a particular area is indeed over, many of the colonial structures
persist. Even though direct patronizing structures at the political level have
been discontinued with the end of colonialism, patronizing structures con-
tinue at other levels, including the economic and the intellectual. This is the
phenomenon captured by the term "neocolonialism" (see Rieger 2004a).
Talk about necolonialism serves as a reminder that, even in a postcolonial
age, colonial mentalities have not disappeared; many have simply been

the fur trading companies would make generous contributions to their efforts (see Ibid.:
10)?
9
Litde work has been done on theology and colonialism. For a reading of Schleier-
macher that gives some consideration to the colonial context, see Rieger 2001. See also
Donaldson and Kwok 2002.
See, for example, the essays in Foust, Hunsberger, Kirk, and Ustorf, eds., 2002. What
gets most of the attention is postmodernity and the end of modernity, and even the essays
that address globalization say little about the colonial/neocolonial background of missions.
208 J O E R G RIEGER

pushed under ground and have adapted in other ways, frequently taking
more vicious shapes than ever before.11
Very early examples of missions after the end of formal colonial systems
can be found, as already indicated, in nineteenth century Latin America.
Here, after formal independence of many of the Latin American nations,
Protestants began new mission projects without being the beneficiaries of
formal colonialism. The focus of these projects was strongly on education.
Education included not only academic subjects but also the teaching of
discipline and manners and - perhaps even more important - the study
of English. Such missions also introduced other North American values
such as the ideas of democracy and, at least to a certain degree, were
emancipatory for women. These missions introduced Protestantism as a
denomination that provided stepping-stones, which aimed at the middle
classes and helped people become upwardly mobile and find their way
into those newly emerging middle classes. Even though mission here is
no longer tied to colonialism, the ties to neocolonial structures and to the
hegemonic tendencies of another world are quite obvious. In the words
of David Martin, in Peru the "arrival of American Methodism was . . .
parallel to the arrival of American capital" (Martin 1990: 86).12
This approach coincides with the overall tendency of mission at the
end of the nineteenth century (after a time of "church planting" in
which the church had become self-centered) to focus more and more on
social mission projects. Despite the benevolent intentions, this tendency
toward social mission projects introduces new problems for it reflects, in
the words of David Bosch, "the modern Western mood of activism, do-
goodism, and manifest destiny" (Bosch 1991: 332). The end of blatant
ecclesial and colonial self-centeredness does not end self-centeredness as
such. A neocolonialist bent appears already in these early postcolonial

Niebuhr defends U.S. imperialism by economic means. In his judgement, European

imperialism based on ethnic and cultural superiority was much worse and caused more
harm (Niebuhr 1959).
12
Martin emphasizes the effectiveness of this approach: "The Methodists, like the
Presbyterians in many other parts of Latin America, played a surprisingly significant role
in offering new perspectives, new areas of competence, new conceptions of self and of
personal discipline, through their schools. What they lacked in numbers they made up for
in influence and in contributions to social change" (Martin 1990: 85). See also Bonino
2003 and Bosch 1991: 328.
 THEOLOGY AND MISSION BETWEEN NEO- AND POSTGOLONIALISM 209

missions. The end of formal colonial structures does not signify the end
of colonial intellectual attitudes, reflected now for instance in the belief
in the "manifest destiny" of the missionaries and their nations, led by the
U.S., to shape the globe in their own image. Neither does the end of formal
colonial structures signify the end of economic dependencies, reflected now
in growing capitalist networks that mainly benefit one side.
At the beginning of the twenty-first century, neocolonialist attitudes
are often tied up with arguments about the processes of globalization,
combining both economic and intellectual claims. In his famous book The
L·xus and the Olive Tree, a book that might be called the "Bible" of another
seemingly benevolent strand of neocolonialism, Thomas Friedman leaves
no doubt that globalization is the way of the future. And while he gives
room to the idea that some of the manifestations of globalization can
be used by people at the bottom as well, e.g. the use of the Internet
(Friedman 2000: 88, 257), Friedman is clear about what really matters:
"What developing countries need most from America today is not aid.
Rather, it is an understanding of what is the real source of American
prosperity; the combination of the right operating system - free markets -
with the right software, political institutions and political consensus that can
protect property and innovation, maintain a level playing field, ensure that
the most productive players usually win, and provide some minimum safety
net to catch the losers" (Ibid.: 163). The parallels to the early neocolonialist
missions in nineteenth century Latin America are stunning. What is new is
a stronger economic claim: "free markets" are now at the center of it all.
Neocolonialism is perhaps more subtle than colonialism - we no longer
tell people what to do through direct governance - but it is no less clear
about its mission ("we know what is right for the world") and no less
powerful when it comes to the results (those in power shape the lives of
those without power). The process of globalization, according to Friedman,
cannot be stopped, and it is this process which decides what is right or
wrong (Ibid.: 132).13 One of the reasons why neocolonialism still remains
fairly invisible has to do with its relation to the U.S. Historically, the U.S.
has not been too involved with overt colonialism. While the footprints

0
Friedman talks about the "saving grace" of globalization: "While problems can come
faster, so too can solutions - provided your country does the right things" (Friedman 2000: 132).
What is right is solely dependent on the rules of the market.
210 JOERG RIEGER

of the old colonialist powers are still visible and can be easily identified in
their neocolonialist ventures (when the English make demands, for instance,
their former colonial subjects are quite sensitive for good reasons), most
of the new powers based in the U.S. often leave hardly any footprints
at all, operating through financial networks, stock markets, and low-key
political projects (such as the clandestine but sustained support for certain
governments and guerilla groups in Latin America). The only exceptions
to these hidden operations are occasional military interventions such as the
recent war on Afghanistan and the earlier war in the Persian Gulf, a war
that is continuing in the present war with Iraq. The powers of globalization
identified with the U.S. have thus rarely felt the need to examine their own
colonial attitudes.
Colonial Christianity failed to question colonialism, mostly because it
operated under the tacit assumption that the colonial enterprise was the
Christian enterprise. Contemporary Christianity, by comparison, is even
less able to question neocolonialism, mostly because we are unaware of its
existence on a grand scale and how it shapes our mission. In the words of
Jonathan Freedland, comparing the parallels and differences between the
Ancient Roman Empire and the U.S.: "Romans reveled in their status as
masters of the known world, but few Americans would be as ready to brag
of their own imperialism. Indeed, most would deny it" (Freedland 2002:
4)·
Once again, authority and power are closely related. In the colonial
setting, the authority of the missionary (and of the theologian) was based,
at least to a certain degree, on the visible support of the colonizing
powers, a commonly accepted and proclaimed set of morals and values,
and what was called "civilization." In other words, mission was shaped
by these factors and - if anybody had raised questions - this would have
been defended as a good thing. In the neocolonial setting, on the other
hand, the authority of the missionary and of the theologian is tied to
less visible realities. It relates to more sublime arrangements of power: to
global economic networks that are worked out in the boardrooms and
often remain invisible even to the politicians and the state, to intellectual
structures that seem more interested in the well-being of the "other" than
ever before, and to cultural arrangements that now permit the affirmation
of "multiculturalism" without being challenged by people who are different.
 THEOLOGY AND MISSION BETWEEN NEO- AND POSTCOLONIALISM 211

Mission is now shaped by these neocolonial realities, whose dark

side is often overlooked. Economic networks distribute power unevenly,
intellectual concerns for the other end in affirmation of tolerance rather
than equality, and issues of multiculturalism or "inculturation" often do
not challenge cultural power. 14 Even progressive academic ventures such as
"area studies" often perpetuate neocolonialist interests without being aware
of it. After all, the study of areas such as Africa or Latin America provides
important information: new business ventures and other enterprises depend
on it. As a result, the study of these areas often proceeds in one-way
fashion, trying to figure out the "others" without being willing to learn from
them (see Mignolo 2000). In relation to the mission to Native Americans
in the U.S., George Tinker has reminded us that "the cultural imposition
of the missionaries continues today, even among the more sensitive and
liberal-minded missionaries of our own time" (Tinker 1993: 113).15
This question is most sensitive in the context of the U.S. Having
become a "hyperpower," one step up from being a "superpower," we have
an important role in the formation of a neocolonial empire that is both
more subtle and more powerful than any of the old colonialist empires
(see Hardt and Negri 2000). The U.S. is said to be more powerful now
than Britain ever was. If mission and theology fail to develop an awareness
of these developments and some insight into the close relation between
authority and power, we will end up, once again, on the side of the powers
that be, escaping the colonialist traps only to be caught in the neocolonialist
ones. There is simply no "in-between" left in a globalizing world. There
are no more spaces that remain untouched by necolonialism, not even the

For a critique of the postmodern notions of multiculturalism, otherness, and differ-

ence, see Rieger 2003. In mission, the notion of "inculturation" shares in this problem.
At the same time, the concern for inculturation can be quite helpful when it is raised by
people at the grassroots. See, for instance, Martey 1993. At the same time, the concern for
inculturation, when raised by those in power, however, is often pitted against the concern
for liberation, and ends in a celebration of multiculturalism that does not challenge the
powers that be.
Tinker shows the cultural and systemic roots of the problem, pointing to "'liberal'
and 'open' white missionaries [who] usurp native cultural forms into their own repertoires"
(Tinker 1993: 114). He offers a brief suggestion of the inextricable relation between religion
and political and economic forces (see Ibid.: 113-117).
212 J O E R G RIEGER

proverbial ivory towers of academia and the church. 16 In the following, I

will take a look at contemporary efforts at mission and their theological
rationale in light of the neocolonialist challenge.

Mission as Outreach

At the level of both local churches and mission agencies, mission is still
frequently identified primarily as an "outreach" activity of the church.
In fact, the interest in mission as outreach is growing. More and more
churches, from the smallest to the largest, continue to add "outreach
programs." No doubt, this position is a huge improvement over the
common self-centeredness of the church. It takes into account the fact
that the church does not exist for itself. The proponents of outreach have
told us for many years, and with good reasons, that the church needs to
go out into the world.
Mission as outreach takes many well-known forms, from soup kitchens,
Meals on Wheels, Habitat for Humanity and other building projects,
educational opportunities, to medical and legal assistance for the destitute.
Mission understood as outreach also includes forms of teaching and
preaching that might be called "monological," where the missionaries
talk and those to be missionized listen (at best they are permitted to ask
questions of clarification). One of the most common ways for church people
to be in mission now is to join volunteer mission teams, which travel either
to foreign countries or to places in inner cities and other locations of
pressure at home (places that, for many members of these teams, are just
as much uncharted territory as foreign countries).
A recent report from a youth group in the Dallas, Texas, area
exemplifies the high level of commitment of such a group and people's
genuine willingness to help: "The eyes and hearts of our youth group and
the adults who went along were opened to the desperate needs of other
people. What this youth group learned and saw was appalling! . . . This
year they are planning to make a . . . video that will show the conditions

The problem with the academic "ivory towers," for instance, is not that they are
irrelevant. They are part of the system, unless they reflect on it and raise questions. If they
appear as irrelevant it is more likely that nobody really needs their support at this point
- or that they are so integrated in the system that their support is taken for granted. The
same is true for churches that have become self-centered.
 THEOLOGY AND MISSION BETWEEN NEO- AND POSTCOLONIALISM 213

that these people in and around Matamoros, Mexico have to live in. It is
our hope that our North Texas Conference will see these desperate needs
and help us continue to do something about them. However small our
efforts might be, something has to be done and every little bit helps. We
can't do everything, but we can all do something to make a difference."17
How could anyone dare to question the work of such a well-meaning
and compassionate group? But there are problems, and the main one has to
do with the one-sidedness of the approach. Like the missionaries in colonial
times, the volunteers engaged in outreach projects too easily project their
own ideas and values on other people. The work performed by these
missionary enterprises, whether practical or theological, is usually done
by the missionaries themselves; the missionized remain on the receiving
end. The position of power in which the missionaries find themselves -
backed to a very large degree by the uneven distribution of wealth of the
neocolonialist system - once again provides and shapes their theological
authority. While few people who embrace mission as outreach would deny
that the missionaries are also receiving something in return, this is not
where the emphasis lies.
In the case of the above youth group, a certain amount of learning does
indeed take place. But this involves mainly learning about the perceived
needs of the other and what might be done about it: the situation is
"appalling," the needs are "desperate," and "we" have to "do something
about them." Is this the whole meaning of the beginning sentence, that
"the eyes and ears of our youth group . . . were opened"? Theology in this
situation often resembles the theology done by the friends ofJ o b in the Old
Testament. While these friends are deeply concerned about Job's suffering,
their theological responses never manage to escape the status quo.
This approach does not threaten the neocolonial system. Necolonialism
does not mind if someone takes care of its victims or repeats the doctrines
of colonial theology. From this perspective mission as outreach, whether in
far away countries or at home, is always a good thing. Here no questions
arise about why the situation is so appalling and about what it is that gets
people into these positions. And even if there is an occasional vague idea
of the reality of neocolonialism lurching in the back, like for instance the

7
Letter of a United Methodist youth group of the North Texas Conference, August 5,
2002.
214 JOERG RIEGER

realization that a multitude of people have to work for abominably low

wages so that a few can get rich off their labor, there seems to be little that
can be done about it. We have been taught for the last two decades that
capitalism is here to stay and we have come to believe that the forces of
globalization are "natural." 18
What is missing in the mission as outreach model is the ability to
learn from the other in ways that lead to self-knowledge. What if the
question is not first of all, What can we do? but, What is going on? and,
How might we be part of the problem? Unless these questions are raised
in the encounter with people on the mission field, nothing will change.
South African Methodist Bishop Mvume Dandala has reminded us that,
even after the official end of colonialism, first world missionaries are still
imposing their own ways of life on African traditions. Many Africans are
thus made to feel that all they can do in this situation is to play along
in the outreach game, conform to the expectations of the neocolonialist
system, and hope that they receive at least a few of its benefits.19
There is now a rapidly growing sense that we must not ask too many
questions. U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, when asked in an interview
on the Jim Lehrer "News Hour" whether the U.S. should try to find
out why people in the world do not like us, answered with a definite
"no" (September 8, 2002). From Cheney's perspective, what could possibly
be the harm in trying to find out? Does he not believe the conservative
propaganda that people do not like us, and commit terrorist acts, because
they are jealous of our liberties in the U.S.? Such an answer would only
underscore the greatness of the neocolonial system. But what would happen
if U.S. citizens discovered alternative answers and found out what role the
U.S. plays in the world? Asking questions can indeed be dangerous.
Mission as outreach is usually an afterthought for theology and the
church: this is where we "apply" our abilities. Returning mission teams are
celebrated, but no one expects to learn anything new, except perhaps for
a few interesting facts. Being non-essential to the life of the church and

Friedman sees globalization in terms of a "fundamental, age-old human drive - the

drive for sustenance, improvement, prosperity, and modernization" (Friedman 2000: 32-
33).
19
Lecture at the Oxford Institute of Methodist Theological Studies, Oxford, England,
August 21, 2002, and following conversation.
 THEOLOGY AND MISSION BETWEEN NEO- AND POSTCOLONIALISM 215

to theological thinking, outreach programs are therefore often the first to

be cut if there is a budgetary crisis such as the current one. Still, mission
as outreach performs a much-needed service to the system. As long as we
are preoccupied with helping others - with all the temptations of trying to
shape them in our own neocolonial image and make them conform to our
world - we will not raise nosy questions about ourselves. As long as we
continue to celebrate our own generosity, nothing can really challenge us.
Yet mission does not have to end here. There is evidence that even the
focus on outreach can never be so absolute as to prevent real encounters
with other people and to prevent some learning from taking place. Here
lies the hope - even if it is a hope against hope, a hope against the way
we have set up the system.

Mission as Relationship
In light of the shortcomings of mission as outreach, the current theological
emphasis on relationship might offer a better alternative. In the struggle
against the self-centeredness of the church, thinking about mission in terms
of building relationships is even more helpful than thinking about mission
in terms of outreach. Here seems to be a way out of mission as a one-way
street, allowing for a greater mutuality between the missionaries and the
missionized. Here, mission projects would be concerned not primarily with
"getting the job done" but with working together. Relational teaching
and preaching would let us take some of the concerns of the people
seriously. Thinking about mission in terms of building relationships might
also prevent us from overreacting against the mission-as-outreach model
and falling into the opposite extreme: too often those disappointed by
outreach have claimed that instead of trying to help people we should
simply get off their backs. Mission as relationship recognizes that we are
all connected and must, therefore, not leave people to themselves. But how
are we connected - what kinds of relationships are we talking about?
The calls for relationship that can now be heard across the board are
no longer the trademark of more progressive strands of Christianity alone.
In an essay in Chnstianity Today, Philip Yancey illustrates the importance
of relationship in the following statement: "American Christians trained
in Enlightenment reductionism can learn about spiritual warfare firsthand
on mission trips to South America. We can learn about suffering from
216 J O E R G RIEGER

the church in China, about passionate evangelism from Africa, and about
intercessory prayer from Korea. Just as nothing threatens my faith like
a visit to the agnostic portions of Europe, nothing invigorates my faith
more than a visit to churches in non-Western countries" (Yancey 2002:
88). In this passage, the sort of relationship that promotes learning from
the other is key. But this learning does not seem to go much beyond the
"invigoration" of what one already has (the author refers to "my faith") and
is seen in opposition to that which might pose a threat to one's faith. The
churches of the former colonies now have a special role to play: "nothing
invigorates" more. Is this "mission in reverse," a relationship that allows
for a two-way street, or is it yet another way to exploit the resources of
others for our own purposes - just like neocolonialism still depends on
"raw materials"? 20
Relationships demand a certain level of mutuality and inclusiveness.
This, too, is recognized by many conservatives today. Riley Case, a retired
pastor active in the Methodist Good News and Confessing movements
reports: "We have been 'inclusive' in the best sense of the word. We
have allowed ourselves to be enriched by the worship and cultural styles
of ethnics, charismatics, those in para-church ministries and those in
welcoming ministries" (Case 2002: 4). While being enriched is certainly
an important part of a relationship, the metaphor has undertones of
economic gain that are not unfamiliar in neocolonialism. In fact, there
is an increasing openness to such enrichments at all levels in the business
world: ethnic minorities and women are admitted to the higher ranks of
corporations, particularly where they help to broaden the horizon and open
up new markets. Yet mutuality is limited to those individuals who conform
to the system and control remains firmly in the hands of the establishment.
The liberals are not off the hook in this matter. George Tinker has
pointed out the limits of relationship in regard to some New Age attempts
to relate to Native American traditions. Here the problem is exactly the
opposite of that of the colonial missionaries of old. Some liberal white

2
Gustavo Gutiérrez has talked about an "ecclesiastical 'colonial treaty,'" according to
which "Latin America was to supply the 'raw materials': the faithful, the Marian cult,
and popular devotions." O n the other hand, "Rome and the Churches of the northern
hemisphere were to supply the 'manufactured goods': studies of Latin-American affairs,
pastoral directives, clerical education, the right to name bishops" (Gutiérrez 1971: 45).
 THEOLOGY AND MISSION BETWEEN NEO- AND POSTCOLONIALISM 217

Euro Americans now seek to participate in Native American spirituality.

But their efforts are still destructive for the Native Americans since the Euro
Americans are in a position of power which allows them to impose their
own concerns on the old ceremonies. Thus, in Tinker's words, "dancing
in a ceremony in order 'that the people might live' gives way to the New
Age, Euro American quest for individual spiritual power" (Tinker 1993:
121-122). 21
All this is not to say that trying to build relationships always fails.
Mission trips that focus on building relationships are much more powerful
than those that see themselves simply in terms of outreach. In my own
efforts to build relationships between Perkins School of Theology and
West Dallas, a part of town marginalized along the lines of race and
class, some Perkins School of Theology faculty and students experienced
that these relationships were transforming us — not only individuals but
also the school - and that "meeting God in West Dallas might transform
both our lives and our theology." 22 Nevertheless, even these relationships
are constantly messed up by the overarching relationships already in place,
established by the structures of the market economy and of political power.
These asymmetries made our relationships almost impossible to maintain
over the long run.
Calls to build relationships that focus mainly on religion and culture do
not go far enough. The rift in relationships - and the asymmetry of power
- is hardly limited to this level. For this reason it makes little difference
whether Muslims will be the global religious majority soon, as Samuel
Huntington has argued, or whether Christians will be in the majority, as
Philip Jenkins has claimed more recently. Jenkins indirectly acknowledges
the deeper source of the conflict when he points out that "the Christian and
Muslim communities experiencing the fastest growth will be neighbors,"
and that "due to God's sense of humor, these places are in areas rich with

n
In this situation, there is a strong temptation for the Native Americans to sell out
to the dominant interests. Even those who do not sell out may be impacted by these
encounters in subde ways that are not recognized.
^Perkins Perspective (Summer, 1997): 13. This was acknowledged also by the fact that
some of those colleagues who initially congratulated us for doing such a nice outreach job
put up some serious resistance to our efforts to allow these experiences to transform the
school as a whole.
218 JOERG RIEGER

oil" (Jenkins 2002a). The events of September 11, 2001, for instance,
cannot really be explained in terms of tensions between Christianity and
Islam. 24
Once again, the power brought to bear by neocolonialism shapes the
authority claimed by mission and theology, even though these powers are
now even more hidden than before. No doubt, the claim to authority
is on more solid grounds than in the outreach model. Authority is now
seen in a relational way, shared by those who enter into a relationship,
which includes the relation to God. But, due to the asymmetry of power,
authority turns out asymmetrical too, as the above examples show. We
get stuck not only celebrating our own power but also our own authority,
never really being able to relate either to the neighbor or to God. In light
of this asymmetry, even the now common insight that it is better to be
in ministry with others than for them reaches its limits and needs to be
rethought.
In sum, the problem with understanding mission as relationship is not
that we would not mean well. Just the opposite: because we do mean so
well, because we really want to see the other as equal, we often fail to give
an account of the deeper inequalities and differentials in power. Unless we
understand who we are and become aware of these differentials of power,
we are simply not in a position to learn from the other and to share
authority in any meaningful way. 25 One of the more progressive models of
mission displays the problem: "It is better to teach people to fish than to

23
See Huntington 1996, and Jenkins 2002b. Not taking into account the broader
perspective of neocolonialism, Jenkins ultimately comes up with the suggestion that what
really needs to happen is that we get to know each other and that wealthy Christian
societies need to "assist" the poor who are increasingly Christian. See Jenkins 2002b:
216-217.
24
Jenkins assumes that "the critical political frontiers around the world are not decided
by attitudes toward class or dialectical materialism but by rival concepts of God" Jenkins
2002b: 163), and he references the work of Samuel Huntington, Peter Berger, and David
Martin. There is no doubt much fuel in religious conflicts, but this can hardly be seen as
the sole center. One wonders if claims such as the one by Jenkins are designed to distract
from the growing U.S. empire.
2
Jacques Lacan has explored this issue in regard to sexual relations between men and
women. In patriarchy, where men are in power, there is no real sexual relation. Even
where intercourse takes place, those in power relate only to themselves. See Rieger 1998:
83.
 THEOLOGY AND MISSION BETWEEN N E O - A N D POSTCOLONIALISM 219

give them fish," as the old saying goes. What is presupposed, however, is
precisely the asymmetry of power and authority that I have been talking
about: Apparently, the people have no idea how to fish, and we know
it. Therefore, we are the teachers. This asymmetry is also behind much
empowerment-talk, however progressive it may be: those of us who have
the power can pass it on to the people in need of it.
In fact, the power differential in neocolonialism is now so great that
some postmodern and postcolonial theorists have argued that the "outside"
has virtually disappeared. There is no independent "outside" any more -
places or people who have not been touched by global capitalism in any
way - to which we could build relationships. The other has been reshaped,
at least to a certain degree, in our own mirror image.

M i s s i o n a s "Inreach"

If mission as outreach still harbors too many of the colonial sentiments,

and if mission as relationship is too easily distorted by asymmetries of
power supported by the new neocolonial world order, what other shape
can mission take? How can we resist the neocolonial models of power and
authority and their impact on our mission projects and our theology? How
were the few who resisted in the past able to do it? 26 What if the most
important thing in mission - after a long period in which we celebrated our
ability to transform others and make them more Christian - is not what
we are doing but what God is doing? But the mere reference to God's own
mission - the missio Dei that has been emphasized for over half a decade -
may not be enough. 27 This, too, can be pulled into the neocolonial force
field: God can be claimed for almost anything. Nevertheless, how can we
still develop some awareness for what God is doing?

2
One of the early resisters of Spanish colonization is Bartolomé de Las Casas. Gustavo
Gutiérrez points out his ability to learn from the Indians (Gutiérrez 1993). At the same
time, Las Casas had his own limitations. See Boff 1991: 15. Roland Boer reports on the
Australian context where the dissenting churches and their lay preachers were more likely
to resist the official colonial efforts (Boer 2002). Another element of resistance finds roots
in where the Bible is read "from below."
27
T h e emphasis on the missio Dei, mission as God's own mission, was picked up in
various ecumenical meetings since the early 1950s and became a central emphasis of the
World Council of Churches, as well as other churches, including the Eastern Orthodox,
evangelicals and the Second Vatican Council. See Bosch 1991: 389-393.
220 JOERG RIEGER

One of the more recent emphases of volunteer mission teams has been
on what comes back to those who are in mission. Among the things that
are often identified as coming back are (besides a long list of insights
into the social locations and the lives of other people) a new awareness
of one's privileged status, one's obligation to help others, and perhaps a
somewhat changed awareness of oneself. Here, "outreach" is beginning to
be reshaped in light of what, for lack of a better word, might be called
"inreach." Mission gathers new steam where both outreach and inreach are
connected. 28 Here, mission projects need to be rethought from the bottom
up and teaching and preaching can only happen in truly dialogical modes
(everything else would be pious self-gratification). Nevertheless, this initially
rather dim awareness of something coming back is only a first step at best.
Rethinking mission in terms of "inreach" - where something comes
back to us - serves as a first reminder of the fact that mission does not start
with ourselves. Mission starts with God's mission. John Wesley's insight that
even the so-called "works of mercy" are means of grace offers a similar
reminder (see Rieger 2002). All mission starts with God's grace. God is the
first missionary, and all of us are recipients. We continue to be recipients
even in our own participation in God's mission. Even our acts of mission
and solidarity with others are never one-way streets; they function as means
of grace, as channels through which God's grace comes back in our lives.
As we encounter the other in mission - and only then - do we become
recipients of God's power.
This insight moves counter to the colonial/neocolonial attitudes, ac-
cording to which our main task is to bring something to others - or to
"grace them" with our presence. Here, a radical reversal takes place. The
first task of those who consider themselves to be in mission is to give up
control, to commit things to God, and (as a result) to leave things in the
hands of those to which the mission is directed. This latter part is, of
course, the most difficult one. But here it shows whether we truly trust in
God's grace. As we learn to leave things in the hand of others, we learn
anew what it means to leave things in the hands of God as well. In other
words, as a reversal of power takes place, a reversal of authority happens
as well.

2
A very brief reference to the word "in-reach" can also be found in one of Frederick
Herzog's later essays (see Rieger 1999: 286).
 THEOLOGY AND MISSION BETWEEN NEO- AND POSTCOLONIALISM 221

The biggest challenge, however, is that this reversal forces us to take

a deeper look at ourselves. Before we can become part of the solution, we
need to develop a self-critical attitude that helps us reflect on how we have
come to be (and still are) part of the problem. Mission as inreach leads us
to a new look at ourselves, at our interconnectedness with others, which
includes an awareness of how the suffering of others is related, inversely,
to our success. This is perhaps most clear when it comes to economic
issues - just take a look at what (and who!) is involved in keeping down
the prices on clothes and other manufactured products that we consume
in the U.S. But this interconnectedness also holds true for intellectual,
theological, and other matters (see Rieger 2004a). In the gracious encounter
with other people and God (this is the point of the "means of grace"), we
can learn a few lessons about ourselves and the state of the world that
no one else can teach us, not even the experts. One thing is certain, and
John Wesley, writing during the times of British colonialism puts it best:
"religion," including mission and theology, "must not go from the greatest
to the least, or the power would appear to be of men" (Wesley 1986: 178).
Neither colonial nor neocolonial power, always moving from the greatest
to the least, will thus do Christianity any service.
What happens when Christianity goes the other way around? As
global Christianity grows exponentially in many places outside of the first
world and shrinks at home, there are now many calls for "mission in
reverse." In Britain, there are at least 1500 foreign missionaries at work,
most from Africa and Asia (Jenkins 2002b: 205).29 The problem is that,
despite the growing numbers of Christianity all around the world, the
neocolonial powers continue to prevent us from seeing the "other," except
as mirror image of ourselves. And so these missionaries are often seen as
embodiments of us at some time in the past when we still "had more
faith," and were "more spiritual." "Mission in reverse" often ends in a
mystification and romanticization of the faith that often occurs when we
meet people from other parts of the world who have fewer economic
means and less power. But this will not do much for anybody. Mission in
reverse cannot be about their "simple faith," or their "incredible trust in
God" - the kinds of things that impress mission teams the most. Mission in

29
O t h e r numbers are impressive too. In 1900, Christianity in Africa was at six percent.
Today, fifty percent of all Africans are Christians, and the percentage keeps growing.
222 JOERG RIEGER

reverse only happens when we begin to realize what is really going on in

the world, who we are in relation to each other, and how we continue to
exploit the rest of the world. In this sense, mission in reverse happens not
just when we are touched by people from other parts of the globe; mission
in reverse also happens at home, where those who have been pushed to
the sidelines of society (usually on grounds of their class, race, or gender)
become means of grace, teach us a few new things about ourselves, and
thus become agents of God's missionary transformation of the world.
In this context we can revitalize some of the key terms of traditional
missionary discourse, particularly the notions of conversion and repentance.
When we consider these terms not first of all in relation to those who
are to be missionized but in relation to those who are in mission, the
"missionaries," another major reversal takes place which includes a radical
reversal of neocolonial power and authority. Mission begins not, as is
often assumed, with the conversion of the other. Mission begins with
the conversion of the missionary self - in light of God's own mission.
Such a conversion includes repentance, a confession of what distorts God's
mission, and a turning away from these things, particularly from our own
attempts to form the other in our own mirror image (neocolonial authority)
and to direct economic and other affairs to our own exclusive benefit
(neocolonial power).
Mission as inreach gets us one step closer to challenging and over-
coming the colonial/neocolonial heritage of mission. While the mainline
churches on the whole are past the stage at which they actively promoted
colonialism, the problem is that we are not aware of how much of what
they do feeds into the invisible structures of neocolonialism. By not address-
ing the political and economic dynamics of neocolonialism, theology and
the church are not asserting their independence (as we sometimes believe)
but forego resistance and are more and more pulled into their force field.
In this situation, we need mission as inreach in order to inform us about
where we are and about the invisible "principalities and powers" that use
even the most well-meaning efforts at mission for their own purposes. Mis-
sion as inreach can free our view once again for God's own mission, lead
us to position ourselves in line with the channels of God's grace, and thus
help us to become more truly "postcolonial."
 THEOLOGY AND MISSION BETWEEN NEO- AND POSTCOLONIALISM 223

A Theological Conclusion

The three different approaches to mission are built on different theological

presuppositions which usually operate below the surface and are thus
rarely named. The mission-as-outreach model - deep down - assumes
not only that God is on our side, the side of the established churches,
but also that God is introduced to other places through us. This is one
of the common rationales behind much of what is currently called "urban
ministry," especially when it is pursued by the mainline churches. Here
urban ministry often means that the church needs to move back into the
cities which it vacated in the 1960s and 1970s, and that in the process we
bring God back. The tacit assumption is that the churches have taken God
with them into the suburbs. The God who is on our side left the cities
when the churches left.
The mission-as-relationship model is clearer about the fundamental
Christian belief that God's presence cannot be limited. God is everywhere,
not just on our side. But since this model does not take into account the
asymmetry of power that is the mark of a neocolonial world, it often ends
in a theological asymmetry according to which God appears to be more
on one side than the other. God is with those who mean well.
The mission-as-inreach model pays closer attention to the fact that
God is never limited by the powers that be. Here, we can take more
seriously the thought that God may be in places where our common sense
logic least expects it - one of the constant surprises of encounters with God
reported in the Bible. This puts mission on a new footing and encourages
a true dialogue and encounter with others. Unless we encounter God in
these unlikely places, we may miss God's reality altogether.
In all three models, authority and power are closely related. The self-
centered powers of colonialism/necolonialism hold up a mirror to the
mission of the church. Mission, and the theological authority it claims,
has often been just as self-centered as the colonial/neocolonial system. It
has failed to take other people seriously, and thus it has often ended up
supporting conquest and exploitation. The consequence has been a severe
distortion and perversion of both mission and theology: Missing the reality
of other people, we have also missed the reality of God (see Rieger 2001).
Failing to respect others - celebrating our own power over others - we
224 JOERG RIEGER

have also failed to respect the divine Other, and replaced God with our
own authority.
Where we thus miss God's own reality, the otherwise very helpful
reminder that mission is first of all about God's own mission does not help
us much. How do we get back in touch with the missio Dei, to God's own
mission? A reconstruction of theological authority needs to go hand in hand
with a reconstruction of power. The first step, therefore, is to become open
to the "inreach factor," which includes not only a fundamental reshaping
of theological authority but also the reconstruction of our power over other
people.
The radical reversal of authority and power that I am calling for can
also be approached from a slightly different angle, by asking from where
the energy of each of these approaches to mission derives. In the outreach
model, the energy comes mostly from ourselves, even though we may not
realize it. No wonder that burnout is often the result.30 In the relationship
model, there is a better sense that we receive much of our energy in
relation; but the power differential bends this question in such a way that
our own needs set the stage. The energy that comes from working with
others is often not much more than a parasitic "feel-good energy," an
energy that misuses the other for our own purposes. The inreach model,
finally, locates the source of energy elsewhere, not only with other people
but also with the divine Other, whose mission meets us in unexpected
ways and transforms the way things are (see Rieger 2001). Here, energy is
generated outside of ourselves, even though not independently of ourselves
(see Rieger 1998: chapter 3). This is why genuine dialogues, trialogues, and
other "multilogues" are no longer optional but absolutely essential to the
future of both mission and theology.

REFERENCES
BOER, ROLAND
2002 "Marx, Postcolonialism and the Bible." Drew University Colloquium in Trans-
disciplinary Theological Studies on Com/promised Lands: The Colonial, the
Postcolonial, and the Theological. September.
BOFF, L E O N A R D O
1991 New Evangelization: Good News to the Poor. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.

(
I explore this problem in Rieger 2004b.
 THEOLOGY AND MISSION BETWEEN NEO- AND POSTCOLONIALISM 225

BONINO, JOSÉ MÍGUEZ

2003 "Methodism in Latin American Liberation Movements." In Rieger and Vincent,

eds. Pp. 193-206.
B O S C H , D A V I D J.
1991 Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis
Books.
CASE, RILEY

2002 The United Methodist Reporter. September 13.

D O N A L D S O N , L A U R A E. A N D K W O K P U I - L A N , E D S .

2002 Postcolonialism, Feminism, and Religious Discourse. New York: Roudedge.

F O U S T , T H O M A S F., G E O R G E R. H U N S B E R G E R , J. A N D R E W K I R K , AND W E R N E R
USTORF
2002 A Scandalous Prophet: The Way of Mission after JVewbigin. Grand Rapids, Ml: William
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
FREEDLAND, JONATHAN

2002 The Guardian. September 18: 4.

FRIEDMAN, THOMAS L.

2000 The L·xus and the Olive Tree. New York: Anchor Books.
GUTIÉRREZ, GUSTAVO

1971 "Contestation in Latin America." In Urresti, ed. Pp. 40-52.

1993 Las Casas: In Search of the Poor Jesus Christ. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
H A R D T , M I C H A E L AND A N T O N I O NEGRI

2000 Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

H E I T Z E N R A T E R , R I C H A R D P., ED.

2002 The Poor and the People Called Methodists. Nashville, TN: Kingswood Books.
H U N T I N G T O N , SAMUEL P.

1996 The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Simon &
Schuster.
JENKINS, PHILIP
2002a "Christendom: O n the Rise in the World." The Washington Times. May 10.
2002b The Next Christendom: The Coming of Globalized Christianity. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
KLAIBER, JEFFREY

1992 The Catholic Church in Peru, 1821-1985: A Social History. Washington, D C : Catholic
University of America Press.
MARTEY, EMMANUEL

1993 African Theology: Inculturation and Liberation. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
MARTIN, DAVID

1990 Tongues of Fire: The Explosion of Protestantism in Latin Amerìca. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
226 JOERG RIEGER

M I G N O L O , W A L T E R D.
2000 Zoco/ Histories I'Global Designs: Coloniality, Subaltern Knowledges, and Border Think
Princeton Studies in Culture/Power/History. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
NlEBUHR, REINHOLD
1959 The Structure ofNations and Empires: A Study in the Recumng Patterns and Problems of t
Politwal Order in Relation to the Unique Problems of the Nuclear Age. New York: Charle
Scribner's Sons.
RlEGER, JOERG
1998 Remember the Poor: The Challenge to Theology in the Twenty-First Century. Harrisbu
PA: Trinity Press International.
2001 God and the Excluded: Visions and Blindspots in Contemporary Theology. Minneapol
MN: Fortress Press.
2002 "Between God and the Poor: Rethinking the Means of Grace in the Wesleyan
Tradition." In Heitzenrater, ed. Pp. 83-99.
2004a "Truth that Liberates: Postcolonialism and the Challenge of the Margin." In
Catherine Keller, Michael Nausner, and Mayra Rivera, eds., Postcolonial Theology:
Divinity and Empire. St. Louis, MO: Chalice Press.
2004b "Beyond Burnout: New Creation and the Economics of Grace in Late Capi-
talism." Quarterly Review Spring: 67-79.
RlEGER, JOERG, ED.
1999 Theology from the Belly of the Whale: A Frederick Herzog Reader. Harrisburg, PA:
Trinity Press International.
2003 Opting for the Margins: Postmodernity and Liberation in Christian Theohgy. America
Academy of Religion, Reflection and Theory in the Study of Religion. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
RlEGER, JOERG AND JOHN VINCENT, EDS.
2003 Methodist and Radical: Rejuvenating a Tradition. Nashville, TN: Kingswood Books.
SCHLEIERMACHER, F R I E D R I C H
1986 The Christian Faith. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.
T I N K E R , G E O R G E E.
1993 Missionary Conquest: The Gospel and Native American Genocide. Minneapolis, MN
Fortress Press.
U R R E S T I , T E O D O R O J I M É Z , ED.
1971 Contestation in the Church. New York: Herder and Herder.
WESLEY, JOHN
1986 The Worh of the Rev. John Wesley. Thomas Jackson, ed. Third Edition. Peabody,
MA: Hendrickson. Original edition London: Wesleyan Methodist Book Room,
1872.
YANCEY, PHILIP
2002 "God's Funeral." Christianity Today 46. 10. September 9: 88.
Y O U N G , R O B E R T J. C.
2001 Postcolonialism: An Historical Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
 THEOLOGY AND MISSION BETWEEN NEO- AND POSTCOLONIALISM 227

S u m m a r i e s i n S p a n i s h , G e r m a n , French
En este artículo, Joerg Rieger describe la conexión histórica entre el colonialismo
y la misión y la relación entre el neocolonialismo y la misión en la situación
actual de la globalización. La reflexión actual sobre la misión, arguye, no siempre
da cuenta de la conexión sutil entre la misión y el neocolonialismo, aunque ella
haya comprendido y rechazado al colonialismo de antaño. Mientras la misión
como "outreach" (proyectarse hacia el otro) y "relación" tiene algunos aspectos
positivos, estas perspectivas fácilmente pueden adoptar actitudes neocolonialistas.
Por el contrario, Rieger aboga por una comprensión de la misión como "inreach"
(proyectarse hacia adentro), en la que uno se acerca al otro como verdaderamente
otro y se abre a ser cambiado en este encuentro. Un acercamento dialógico - en
realidad, multilógico - a la misión "ya no es una opción, sino que es esencial para
el futuro de la misión y la teología."

In diesem Artikel schreibt Jörg Rieger über die geschichtliche Verbindung zwis-
chen Kolonialismus und Mission und die gegenwärtige Verbindung zwischen
Neukolonialismus und Mission in der Situation der Globalisierung. Wenn man
heute über die Mission nachdenkt, argumentiert er, werden die feinen Verbindun-
gen zwischen Mission und Neokolonialismus nicht immer gesehen, selbst wenn die
Mission den früheren Kolonialismus anerkannt und zurückgewiesen hat. Während
die Mission als "outreach" (auf den anderen Zugehen) und "Beziehung" positive
Aspekte beinhaltet, können eben diese Inhalte von neokolonialistischen Haltun-
gen beeinträchtigt werden. Im Gegensatz dazu verteidigt Rieger ein Verständnis
der Mission als "inreach" ("Hineingehen"), in dem auf den anderen als wirk-
lich anderen zugegangen wird und man selbst offen ist, in diesem Zusammen-
treffen verändert zu werden. Eine dialogische Annäherung an die Mission -
eigentlich eine multilogische - ist "nicht länger eine Möglichkeit, sondern tat-
sächlich wesentlich für die Zukunft sowohl der Mission als auch ihrer Theologie."

Dans cet article, Joerg Rieger traite du lien historique entre le colonialisme et
la mission et du lien actuel entre le néocolonialisme et la mission en situation
de mondialisation. Lorsque nous réfléchissons sur la mission aujourd'hui, dit-
il, nous ne voyons pas toujours le lien subtil entre mission et néocolonialisme,
même si nous avons reconnu et renoncé au colonialisme du passé. La mission
« à l'extérieur» (as «outreach») et la «mission-relation» ont des aspects positifs
mais elles peuvent facilement être teintées de néocolonialisme. Rieger préconise
une mission « à l'intérieur» (as «inreach»), où l'on approche l'autre vraiment
comme autre et où l'on s'ouvre au changement entraîné par la rencontre. Une
approche dialogique de la mission - en fait une approche « multilogique » n'est
plus facultative, mais essentielle à l'avenir de la mission et de la théologie.
 ^ s
Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.