The Mission of Missions

Because I will not be able to make the movie showing tomorrow, I watched The Mission over the weekend. When comparing the movie to many of the things that we have learned, I find an interesting point of conflict. In the paper that I wrote about devotional practices, I talked about how missionizing changed. In Acts, the apostles preached despite being told not to by the authorities and people believed. When Christopher Columbus traveled, though, he was being supported by the authorities and from his diaries it seems that the journey was less about converting the people there and more for political reasons. Additionally, he was willing to force the native people to convert if necessary. In the movie, we see both aspects of the mission field. The Jesuits present care about the people in the jungle for who they are. They care about the people opposing and upsetting the present political authorities. Yet, they are also under the authority of the political leaders who do not value the lives of the natives. Before, from our studies, it had seemed to me as though the missions were completely one way or another. They were either genuine and good, or political and bad. Silly me. This movie does a good job of showing the grey area: there are people who genuinely care, yet are tied up in a political situation. I wonder how this would apply to modern mission movements. I don't know much about mission movements in other traditions, but one popular type of mission in the Protestant tradition would be the one-week, short term missions. This week normally had a very physical goal, like rebuilding a house, as well as the spiritual goal of conversions. People genuinely want to help others. Yet, the first type is often a feel-good exercise. People feel good about themselves for sacrificing a week of their lives. What other modern mission movements are you familiar with, what is genuine about it, and what is not?