THE FRAMEWORK
How Mission and Extraction Function as One System
This essay is the fourth in a series exploring what it means to do mission work within systems of empire.
In “A Garden Hose to a Forest Fire,” I examined the futility of responding to systemic injustice with individual acts of charity.
In “The Church as Esther,” I asked whether the Western Church would use its position within empire to speak truth to power, or remain silent while offering mercy without justice.
In “Canadian Mining Corporations, Conflict in Africa, and the Role of Canadian Churches,” I traced the direct line between Western consumption and Congolese suffering—showing how Canadian mining operations and the cobalt in our devices fund the violence that kills millions.
But the more I’ve wrestled with this—living between two worlds, carrying both wound and benefit—the more a pattern has emerged. A structure I couldn’t see until I stood on both sides.
Here’s what became clear:
The question isn’t the problem. The framework is.
Plenty of missionaries ask “why are they poor?” Justice-minded churches study colonialism. Fair trade movements interrogate supply chains.
But after 140 years of missions in Congo, the poverty persists. After decades of justice work in Guatemala, extraction continues. After centuries of “help” in Haiti, it remains the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere.
Why?
Because there’s a framework—an operating system with three interlocking gears—that was designed during colonialism to make exploitation look like rescue. This framework was never dismantled. It was updated.
And its most elegant feature? It can absorb the question “why?” and still maintain extraction.
Let me show you how it works.
PART 1: THE THREE GEARS
I didn’t understand the system until I lived on both sides of it.
In Congo, I saw suffering and thought: This is our failure. Our corruption.
In the West, I found comfort and thought: This is their success. Their systems.
Then I saw the line connecting them.
My comfort here is made possible by the suffering I left behind. Not metaphorically. Structurally.
There’s a framework with three gears that turn together. Once you see it, you can’t unsee it.
GEAR 1: THEOLOGICAL SUPERIORITY
“We have what you need: salvation, civilization, development”
I learned this gear in Congolese classrooms using Belgian textbooks. We studied French history, not Lumumba’s speeches. We memorized Descartes, not our own philosophers. We were punished for speaking our languages.
The system didn’t teach us dignity. It taught us inferiority.
By the time missionaries arrived with genuine compassion, the gear was already turning. We believed we needed what they brought. They believed we needed saving.
The gear positions helpers as superior, helped as deficient. Mission becomes one-way: we give, they receive.
GEAR 2: ECONOMIC EXTRACTION
“We’ll take what you have: land, labor, resources”
But you can’t just take from people. You need permission. A story that makes it look like help.
That’s what Gear 1 provides.
Under Leopold: Rubber. Ten million dead. Missionaries came believing they were bringing salvation while the Force Publique cut off hands.
Under Belgian rule: Copper. Same extraction, new regime.
Under Mobutu: CIA-backed dictatorship. Continued extraction.
Now: Cobalt. Six million dead in thirty years. For the phones in our pockets. The laptops we’re reading this on.
Someone died for this convenience. Someone’s child. Someone’s father.
And missionaries? Still there. Running hospitals. Treating wounds caused by violence over the resources we consume.
GEAR 3: CULTURAL ERASURE
“You’ll forget what you had: languages, systems, sovereignty”
This gear doesn’t just take resources—it takes memory. The ability to imagine alternatives.
By the time I left Congo, I’d forgotten we had systems that worked before Belgium arrived. I’d internalized the narrative: We need them because we lack what they have.
Lumumba tried to remember. Tried to build sovereignty. He lasted 67 days before the CIA helped kill him.
Because the framework requires dependency. Requires amnesia. Requires that we forget alternatives ever existed.
HOW THEY INTERLOCK
Watch the cycle:
Theological superiority → justifies intervention
Intervention → enables extraction
Extraction → produces wealth
Wealth → funds more missions
Missions → create erasure
Erasure → prevents resistance
Lack of resistance → allows more extraction
And the whole time, it looks like help.
Good people participate. Genuine compassion flows. Real mercy happens.
But the framework remains intact.
PART 2: WHY ASKING “WHY?” ISN’T ENOUGH
Here’s what I need you to understand:
The framework doesn’t prevent the question “why?”—it controls the answer.
You might be reading this thinking: But I DO ask why. I’ve studied colonialism. I support fair trade. I’m part of the justice movement.
And that’s exactly what makes the framework so powerful.
Because when most people ask “why are they poor?”, the framework provides answers that don’t threaten extraction:
“Corruption” (not: extraction)
“Lack of education” (not: destroyed systems)
“Bad governance” (not: coups we funded)
“Need development” (not: stolen wealth)
The framework has learned to absorb critique without requiring change.
EXAMPLES OF ABSORBED JUSTICE
Fair Trade Coffee: You pay more. Farmers get slightly more. But the trade systems that impoverish them remain intact. The World Bank’s structural adjustment continues. The debt accumulates.
Microfinance: No more charity dependency—now it’s debt dependency. Different gear, same extraction.
“Sustainable Development”: We’ll help you develop... into permanent consumers of our products, permanent debtors to our banks, permanent providers of our resources.
Even justice-oriented mission work can maintain the framework if it doesn’t dismantle the three gears.
WHAT I SEE FROM THE GAP
In Congo: Missionaries treat wounds from cobalt violence. But Western corporations still pay warlords to control mines. The help and the harm are part of the same system.
In Guatemala: Churches build schools. But the 1954 US-backed coup that destroyed their systems? The ongoing trade policies that extract wealth? Unaddressed.
In Haiti: Disaster relief after earthquakes. But the $21 billion France extracted as “reparations” for freedom? The US military occupations? The structural adjustment that prevents development? Still operating.
The framework allows mercy to flow while extraction continues.
Not because missionaries are complicit. But because the framework is bigger than individual compassion.
PART 3: WHEN “WHY?” ACTUALLY WORKED
In 1903, two men dismantled part of the framework by asking “why?” differently.
E.D. Morel and Roger Casement didn’t just ask: “Why are the Congolese suffering?”
They traced the answer all the way home. To European companies. To Belgian wealth. To their own consumption.
They exposed Leopold’s “humanitarian mission” as genocide. They documented the rubber quotas, the severed hands, the ten million dead.
They made the framework visible.
By 1908, international pressure forced Leopold to surrender control.
This is the proof: Asking “why?” can dismantle empire—if you follow the answer to YOUR doorstep.
BUT THE FRAMEWORK UPDATED
Watch what happened:
Leopold → Belgian colonial rule
Belgian rule → Mobutu/CIA
Mobutu → Mining corporations
Rubber → Copper → Cobalt
10 million dead → 6 million more
Colonial OS v1.0 → Neocolonial OS v2.0
“Humanitarian mission” → “Development projects”
Force Publique → Private security
King Leopold → Apple, Tesla, Samsung
Missionaries silent on Leopold → Missionaries silent on cobalt
Same three gears. New interface.
THE LESSON
Morel and Casement succeeded because they didn’t just ask “why?”—they followed the answer home and demanded dismantling.
We fail because we ask “why?” but accept answers that don’t implicate us.
Asking “why?” only works if you’re willing to dismantle what benefits you.
PART 4: TESTING THE FRAMEWORK
Before any mission trip, any project, any donation—test the three gears:
GEAR 1 TEST: Who Defines Need?
Does this assume we have what they need?
Does it position us as saviors, them as recipients?
Does it center our definitions of “development”?
Or does it amplify local voices defining their own needs?
If we’re defining their needs without them: Gear 1 is running.
GEAR 2 TEST: Who Profits?
Does this challenge systems that impoverish them?
Or does it provide relief while extraction continues?
Could this work continue if they became wealthy and self-sufficient?
If extraction remains untouched: Gear 2 is running.
GEAR 3 TEST: Who Holds Power?
Does this strengthen sovereignty or increase dependency?
Does it preserve indigenous knowledge or replace it?
Can they imagine alternatives without us?
If dependency increases: Gear 3 is running.
If all three gears are running: you’re maintaining the framework, not dismantling it.
WHAT DISMANTLING REQUIRES
I write this from the gap. I benefit from empire now. The cobalt in my phone came from Congo. I can’t pretend I’m outside the framework.
Neither can the Church.
So where is the real work?
IN SUPPLY CHAINS
In Canada:
Not just: “I’ll buy fair trade”
But: Pressure the Canadian government to enforce Bill C-262 (UNDRIP) extraterritorially—requiring Free, Prior and Informed Consent from Indigenous peoples before Canadian mining companies operate on their lands anywhere in the world.
Investigate where your church’s pension fund is invested. Is it in Barrick Gold? Kinross? Companies operating in conflict zones? Divest. Publicly. Loudly.
In the US:
Demand mandatory supply chain transparency laws. Support the Dodd-Frank Act Section 1502 (conflict minerals disclosure). Lobby for expansion to all minerals, not just 3TG (tin, tantalum, tungsten, gold).
Use denominational purchasing power. When your church buys tech, demand conflict-free certification. When millions of churches demand it, corporations respond.
IN TRADE POLICY
In Canada:
Oppose CUSMA provisions that protect mining company rights over Indigenous sovereignty. Support groups like Mining Watch Canada and Above Ground. Use church lobbying infrastructure to pressure MPs.
The Canadian Church helped pressure government on residential schools truth and reconciliation. Use that same infrastructure for corporate accountability abroad.
In the US:
Lobby against trade agreements that enable extraction. Oppose IMF/World Bank structural adjustment. Support debt cancellation legislation. The evangelical vote has weight in Congress—use it for something other than culture wars.
IN LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY
In Canada:
Use denominational lobbying capacity (United Church, Anglican Church, Catholic bishops) to pressure Parliament
Support Bill C-262 implementation
Demand corporate accountability legislation for extraterritorial operations
Make mining accountability a moral issue, not just an economic one
In the US:
Use evangelical political weight for reparations, not culture wars
Support conflict-free certification requirements
Advocate for IMF/World Bank reform
Make supply chain accountability a litmus test for political endorsement
Both nations:
Coordinate cross-border church advocacy. Canadian and US denominations working together multiply pressure on both governments and multinational corporations.
IN TRUTH-TELLING
Not just: “Acknowledge history”
But:
Preach it from pulpits. Include it in mission training. Require it in seminary education. Put it in church statements and denominational resolutions. Make “following the supply chain home” part of every missions committee decision.
Name your country’s role. Your consumption’s cost. Your investments’ impact. From the pulpit. Regularly.
This costs something. That’s how you know it’s real.
It costs comfort. Political capital. Relationships with wealthy donors. The approval of politicians who court your vote.
But if your “justice work” doesn’t cost you institutional power—if you can talk about injustice and still maintain political relationships with those creating it—that’s the framework working.
DISMANTLING LOOKS LIKE THIS:
Not: Mercy alone
But: Mercy AND justice. Inseparable.
Not: Charity
But: Reparations. Stop the bleeding. For every $1 we give in charity, $6-10 is extracted through debt servicing, structural adjustment, and resource extraction at below-market prices.
Let them keep what is theirs in the first place.
Not: Mission trips alone
But: Policy change. Confronting empire at home through legislative advocacy, divestment, corporate accountability.
Not: Fair trade purchases
But: Demanding supply chain transparency laws, divesting church portfolios from extractive companies, using institutional purchasing power for accountability.
Not: Feeling good about helping
But: Following “why?” to your own doorstep—to your pension fund, your government’s foreign policy, your consumption patterns—and dismantling what you find.
FOR SUCH A TIME AS THIS
Let me be clear about something: The Western Church—in both Canada and the United States—has more power than it admits.
We act like we’re on the margins. We’re not. We’re in the palace.
The numbers tell the story:
The North American Church controls an estimated $260 billion in annual income. Christian institutions hold trillions in endowments and investment portfolios. Denominational lobbying offices have direct access to lawmakers in Ottawa and Washington. The evangelical vote is courted by prime ministers and presidents. The Catholic Church influences policy across both nations.
We’re not powerless. We’re positioned.
THE CHURCH’S ACTUAL INFLUENCE
In Investment: Church pension funds, denominational endowments, Christian university portfolios—billions invested in the very corporations profiting from extraction. Canadian pension funds are among the largest investors in mining companies operating in Congo. US church portfolios hold shares in tech companies using conflict minerals. That’s not just complicity—it’s leverage we’re not using.
In Policy:
In Canada: The United Church, Anglican Church, and Catholic conferences have established relationships with Parliament. They’ve influenced refugee policy, environmental legislation, Indigenous reconciliation. But rarely do they use this access to address corporate extraction abroad.
In the US: Major denominations have lobbying offices in D.C. They’ve shaped policy on abortion, religious freedom, marriage. They have the infrastructure. They’re just not using it for dismantling extraction.
In Public Opinion: When the Church speaks on moral issues, media covers it. Politicians respond. Policy shifts. We’ve mobilized congregations for other causes. We could mobilize for this.
In Global Networks: Canadian and American missionaries, partner churches, denominational connections across every nation where extraction occurs. We have eyes on the ground. We have relationships with affected communities. We have the infrastructure for coordinated global action.
In Economic Power: North American congregations control massive purchasing decisions, investment choices, donor networks. If churches demanded supply chain accountability as a condition of institutional purchasing, corporations would respond.
THE CANADIAN CHURCH’S SPECIFIC LEVERAGE
Canada is a mining superpower. 75% of the world’s mining companies are headquartered here, many in Toronto. They operate in Congo, Guatemala, Peru, the Philippines—everywhere the framework operates.
The Canadian Church has unique proximity to this extraction:
Church pension funds invest in these mining companies
Congregations include mining executives and shareholders
Churches operate in communities where these companies have head offices
Canadian missionaries serve in the very regions these companies extract from
This isn’t abstract. This is direct connection. Direct leverage.
If the Canadian Church made mining accountability a priority—if we divested, advocated, testified, demanded transparency—we could shift an entire industry.
THE US CHURCH’S SPECIFIC LEVERAGE
The US is the demand engine. American consumption drives global extraction. US tech companies need Congolese cobalt. US foreign policy has backed coups to protect corporate interests (Guatemala, Congo, Haiti). US financial institutions (IMF, World Bank) impose structural adjustment.
The US Church has unique access to these systems:
Denominations have D.C. lobbying offices with congressional access
The evangelical vote influences presidential elections
Church portfolios hold billions in tech and finance stocks
American missionaries serve in nations shaped by US foreign policy
This isn’t peripheral. This is central.
If the US Church made reparations and supply chain accountability a voting issue—if we used our political weight for dismantling instead of culture war issues—we could shift policy.
WHAT IF WE USED THIS POWER TOGETHER?
Imagine if the North American Church made dismantling the framework its mission priority:
If every Canadian church pension fund divested from mining companies operating without consent in Indigenous territories—those companies would face market pressure overnight.
If every US denomination with congressional access made Haiti reparations and Guatemala coup acknowledgment their lobbying priority—legislation would move.
If Canadian churches mobilized around Bill C-262 (UNDRIP implementation) and demanded it apply to Canadian mining operations abroad—corporate accountability would advance.
If US churches made supply chain transparency a condition of tech purchases—Apple, Tesla, Samsung would respond.
If both Canadian and US seminaries required students to trace the supply chains of the poverty they’ll serve—the next generation would see the framework.
If every pulpit in North America preached the connection between our comfort and their suffering—congregational consciousness would shift.
The framework would not survive that Church.
ESTHER’S POSITION, ESTHER’S CHOICE
Esther didn’t leave the palace. She used her access to power to expose what was hidden and advocate for her people.
We’re in the palace. We have the access. The question is: Will we use it?
Mordecai asked Esther: “Who knows but that you have come to your royal position for such a time as this?”
The Western Church—positioned within empire, resourced beyond measure, connected globally, with institutional access to power—has been placed here for such a time as this.
Not by accident. By providence.
Not to maintain our comfort.
Not to feel good about helping.
Not to treat symptoms while extraction continues.
But to use our position to dismantle the framework that makes exploitation look like rescue.
THE CHOICE BEFORE US
We can keep asking “How can we help?” while the framework absorbs our compassion and maintains extraction.
Or we can ask “Why are they poor?”—and follow the answer all the way home. To our investments. Our policies. Our consumption. Our complicity.
And then dismantle what we find.
Even when—especially when—it costs us institutional power.
Even when it threatens donor relationships.
Even when it complicates political alliances.
Even when it requires us to give up what we benefit from.
This is our Kairos moment.
Not to feel guilty, but to see clearly.
Not to stop serving, but to serve completely.
Not to abandon mercy, but to expand it into justice.
To use our access to power for dismantling, not maintenance.
I write this from the gap. Between Congo and the West. Between suffering and comfort. Carrying both the wound and the benefit.
And from this gap, I’m saying:
The framework is powerful. But the Church is positioned.
The framework is adaptive. But visibility is fatal to it.
The framework can absorb critique. But it can’t survive coordinated dismantling.
Once you see the three gears, you can’t unsee them.
Once you see how they interlock, you can’t pretend they don’t.
Once you see your power to dismantle, you can’t claim powerlessness.
For such a time as this.