On Empires and Deglobalization

Interregnum is upon us and with it comes chaos, uncertainty, and opportunity

[Next week I am leading the CEO retreat for Missio Nexus and won’t be posting.]

A few weeks back I reacted to Harvey Kwiyani’s post, We Have a New Constantine in Town. My view is that we are not facing imperialism. We are facing rising deglobalization. That prompted him to write a three-part essay which starts with this post. He has some great thoughts which you can read and evaluate.

I need to start with an apology, as my writing evidently came across as accusatory to Dr. Kwiyani. It was never my intent to be confrontive or accusatory, so please forgive me. The last thing I want to do is be ungodly when we talk about how God is working in the world.

I don’t apologize, however, for the substance of my original post. Imperialism does not best represent the changes in our world today. That is, in my view, a retreat to the arguments made over the past century in missiology. This is a part of the change going on, in fact. We need to… well, re-imagine mission using the reality we confront now, not that of the past century.

I also want to reiterate that I am not posting in defense or critique of Trump. I am more interested in how the current change of era is going to propel the Kingdom forward in new ways. Ways that are currently clouded by the old ways.

Between Eras

A few weeks back, Chris Howles posted this Bosch quote on X:

We live in transition - on the borderline between a paradigm that no longer satisfies and one that is still amorphous and opaque. A time of paradigm change is by nature a time of crisis, and crisis is the point where danger and opportunity meet.

- David Bosch, writing in 1991

Bosch most likely wrote that sentence 35 years ago. In those 35 years, a lot has happened. There was a shift toward heightened globalization around 1990. The Cold War ended and the dividend of winning that war resulted in the greatest economic expansion in history. The economic transformation in places like in Korea and China are historically unprecedented. Bosch was sensing this change.

Let me take a little pericope here. Lesslie Newbigen’s book, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society, was a high-water mark for how modernism and missiology interacted with each other. That same book is not very helpful in a post-modern era. Newbigen’s book addresses pluralism in a way that is similar to Aaron Renn’s “neutral world” paradigm. It is a contextualizing missiology for a culture which permits interaction. Thus, in a post-modern context (Renn’s “negative world”), where one is condemned for being a Christian and interaction is censored, that book is not as applicable. The point here is that modernism and its attendant pluralism gave way to a more militant post-modernism. Newbigen’s approach has lost a bit of its relevancy (still a great read, though!). This is what is going to happen to us with globalization. The missiology we have been using will be less applicable in a very short time.

Looking back, I think it is fair to say that these authors were seeing change in two primary areas. First, they were witnessing the fading of modernism and rise of post-modernism. This shift blossomed into radical individualism in the West, as evidenced most acutely by the transgender movement, an expression of extreme individualism. It is important to note that as post-modernism struggles, it does so alongside globalization. But my focus in this post is on globalization, not post-modernism.

Modernity produced globalization. The liberal world order that presided for decades got under way after the post-World War 2 European/American settlement. But its full flourishing happened from about 1990 to the present day. Looking back, we can see what Bosch could not. He was writing at the very beginning of the most globalizing 35 years in human history. The cold war was passing away and the Internet was spreading like a virus. Bosch knew big changes were afoot, but then Bosch tragically died in a car accident in 1992, not living long enough to see what this new order was going to be.

Thus, I do not believe that our era of change is what Bosch was describing. Yet, what is helpful about Bosch’s quote is that the time between paradigms is upon us once again, amorphous and opaque. Change is already underway, but we cannot see around the corner well enough to know where we are headed. When this happens, there are elements of the past and future happening at the same time. Global trade is out due to tariffs one day and then the next day the Houthi’s are bombed to… protect global trade routes. It does not make sense. Because of the erratic nature of the Trump administration, these interpolated events are not being observed over months, but from day to day.

But globalization is most certainly ending. The new challenge is trying to figure out what comes next.

Don’t Take My Word for It!

Kier Starmer’s staff recently said, “The world has changed, globalisation is over and we are now in a new era” (The Independent). That was two weeks ago. Since then, tariffs have been on and off, and global uncertainty has only grown. Tara Zahra recently wrote a guest essay in the New York Times titled, “Globalization Is Collapsing. Brace Yourselves.” You can use your favorite search engine yourself to find the many articles about deglobalization.

And this shift is not new. In 2022, Larry Fink, the CEO and founder of Blackrock, said, “The Russian invasion of Ukraine has put an end to the globalization we have experienced over the last three decades,” in his 2022 letter to shareholders. For the more astute among us, the 2017 purge of foreigners from China (including missionaries) should have been the first sign of what was coming. Back in February, 2023, I did a webinar on “The End of Globalization.” The TL;DR version is that the global system of trade guaranteed by the US military and economic policies that governed the world are over.

This has big ramifications for global missions.

So, no, I do not think this is an era in which we have a new, global Emperor. We do not really know what comes next, but it appears now that it will be marked by isolationism, protectionism, and nativism. You can throw a healthy scoop of populism in there as well. I do not discount the reasons for why this has happened. But it has happened, and we may as well face the fact that our world is in the midst of a historic realignment.

Interregnum

We are in an interregnum, a period of time between two eras (literally, “the time between kings”). I believe that globalization represents the last era. We do not know what the next will look like, but we can make some educated guesses.

Interregnums have strong elements of the past era and shocking reversals of the past, all the same time. Social orders are not like a disruptive technology that wholesale replaces the former technology. Instead, it is a modification of what went before. Thus, we might talk about the end of globalization, but the connectivity brought about during globalization will continue. Global youth culture, largely a digital phenomenon, might continue while global supply lines fade. We just do not know.

A definition I use for globalization is, “the increased connectedness and interdependence of world cultures and economies on a worldwide basis.” Thus, we might consider deglobalization as, “the decreased connectedness and interdependence of world cultures and economies on a worldwide basis.” I believe our future will be marked by more regionalization, populism, indigeneity, and scarcity. These will affect and influence missiology in many unpredictable ways. These four dynamics are, to me, the ones to watch as we undo globalization.

Are Empire and Missiology Linked?

Missiology, in part because it is a form of applied theology, does not happen in a vacuum. It is impossible to ignore the effects of culture when we pursue mission. Paul made use of Roman roads and laws. Patrick, a Roman, was taken as a slave and then an opposer of slavery. William Carey sailed on colonial ships. American missionaries used their advantages as Americans to project missions influence globally. Today, diaspora ministry is flourishing because immigration is on the rise (well, perhaps not in the US right now, but that is not a sustainable reality). These all were conducted within the current “Empire” of the day.

So, yes, Empire and mission are inextricably connected. I agree with Dr. Kwiyani on this point.

How about American Empire? In 1900, at the Ecumenical Missions Conference held in New York City (still the largest missions conference in world history, I believe) three US Presidents were platformed. Former president Benjamin Harrison served as the honorary chair of the conference and kicked it off at Carnegie Hall. An address was given by the current president, William McKinley. Future president Theodore Roosevelt, who was the governor of New York at the time, also gave an address. This conference reflected a missiology of “civilizing.” Bringing the Christian faith meant bringing Western civilization. This intertwining of culture and gospel proclamation was wrapped up not in a fundamentalist, “proclaim only” mantel. Rather, education, literacy, sanitation, medicine, and health advancements were part and parcel of the civilizing nature of the missiological approach. This would later lead to a split between fundamentalists and modernists (something outside the scope of this essay). It is hard for us now to imagine the extent to which American imperialism marched with mission in this period of time.

Over the past 125 years, missiology has made great strides in understanding the supra-cultural nature of the gospel, the importance of indigenous empowerment, how patron/client relationships have harmed gospel witness, what poverty is about, and many other areas. This is not to say that these, or other, negative effects of colonialism and imperialism have been overcome in mission. There are examples, quotes, stories from the field, and more to support the contention that these dynamics continue in global missions. Yet, the American missionary of 2025 is not working from the same perspective held by missionaries in 1900.

Added to this is an expansion of how we understand mission. Not just a “from the West to the rest,” but as more of a dynamic movement of people from all cultures to all cultures (if we pause a second and look at that language, “from all cultures to all cultures,” we might see shades of our own attitudes about globalization embedded therein).

Mission is also multi-modal. It includes not just the sending of missionaries, but immigration, short-term exposure, business as mission, tentmaking, digital ministry, and a host of additional modes. Together with a globally dispersed, decentralized leadership (which we globalized missiologists call polycentric), the mission of 2025 looks very different from the mission of 1900. The continent with the most promising demographic future, Africa, is also where the future lies in global missions. There is much to praise God over as we look back.

Yes, Challenges Remain

While this sounds like a rosy picture of mission advancement, it hides the underlying reality. There continue to be huge gaps in global mission. The divisions in the global church were apparent at the Lausanne 2024 event. Continued struggles to define missions, deconstruction of missions generally, and a continued charge that missions is colonialist haunt us.

The most wicked reality, in my view, is that one third of all people live in cultures that have no viable church. This is the challenge of the unreached. Wealth disparities between the West and the rest of reached world contribute to this challenge. Those most suited to do mission are often the least resourced to do it. In a deglobalizing world, this reality will likely get worse, not better.

From traditional sending countries the church, generally, is in retreat. Islam is the fastest growing religion in Europe. US Evangelicalism is fragmenting, having lost its boomer leaders. There is rising Christian Nationalism on the right that wants to inject America First into missiology. These folks tend to be wrapped up in a mano-spheric version of Evangelicalism, decrying the wokeness of others and suggesting that local ministry is a priority over global ministry. There is liberal drift on the left, seeking to define missions as social justice. This tribe tends to stalk the elite halls of Evangelicalism, particularly the educational institutions (where they deconstruct missions to the point where it is unrecognizable). The US missions movement no longer has a leadership class as it did in the past. The heroes of the past fifty years were Boomers who are aging out or have already passed into eternity. Nobody has replaced them, at least not yet. I have wondered if the change upon us is crafted in part to “clear the decks” for the future generation of leadership.

Globalization’s Unique Role in Evangelicalism

The missions movement of the past 35 years has been inextricably linked with globalization. To use Dr. Kwiyani’s term, I think one might go so far as to say that globalization has been the Empire upon which much of today’s missions structures and concepts have been built. An event like Lausanne, drawing thousands of “global Christians” (a relatively recent invention of language, by the way) needed globalization logistically, if not philosophically. Cheap communication, travel, easy access in an almost borderless world have made international gatherings like Lausanne possible.

During globalization, wealthy Westerners used their business acumen to gain access to otherwise closed countries. Whether they were “job fakers, takers, or makers” globalization opened doors. The powerful passports of the West further cemented access. English as the lingua franca of the world, Zoom, Whatsapp, and Signal have propelled the cause of Christ forward on a global scale.

High immigration levels happened under globalization. In 2019 I worked in a refugee camp in Greece. People from as far away as Afghanistan had made their way to the camp. Generous immigration laws required that they only step foot into an EU country to gain refugee status. Millions did so. The US border was essentially erased under the Biden administration. Last summer I was in Cairo where a massive stream of Sudanese refugees was arriving. Immigration is a reality possible only through the mechanisms of globalization. Remittances, a key driver for immigration, would be next to impossible without the global connections made possible by Internet banking. A Spanish speaking immigrant can live their life in my hometown without ever learning to speak English. The large number of participants at Lausanne 24 interested in the diaspora track is an indicator of how important immigration has become to global missions.

The Global South missions movement itself has come of age during the era of globalization. Most of these cross-cultural workers have never known a world without instant, worldwide telecommunications. Today’s missionary, regardless of their country of origin, can lead a double life. They can integrate locally while continuing relationships back home. This, too, has made the sting of going less problematic even though it has had negative effects on integrating with others in the new culture. This may be one reason numerous Global South missions leaders have expressed concern about high attrition rates among their workers.

Have we overlooked the problems inherent in the “McDonaldization” effects of globalization? Following the Lausanne gathering, numerous missiologists questioned its role. How global is the church, in reality? What dependencies are we creating in the global church? What role are funders playing in this expensive game of "global Christianity? How does globalization mute regional or local expressions of Christianity? One irony in our approach to mission pits the indigenous against the global. We use an ethnolinguistic lens for unreached people groups while simultaneously creating global mission structures.

Yes, Evangelicalism has grown over these past decades of globalization. Yet, not all is positive. The end of globalization might usher in new ways of understanding mission that are currently beyond our grasp.

So, What Comes Next?

I wrote above that deglobalization suggests more regionalization, populism, indigeneity, and scarcity (scarcity is more due to depopulation, but that is for another post). Of those four, regionalization and indigeneity have advantages. I can see a future with more indigenous, localized, and mutual expressions of mission growing from the carcass of decaying globalization. This is something to look forward to, not fear.

Do we believe that the church can rise above the negative elements of populism that puts self-interest above the interests of others? If so, it would be a strong statement that the Kingdom is not of this world. This is what happened in the early church when the Christian community contrasted with Roman culture. Let us pray it happens again.

This is all part of the Interregnum. Chaos and disorder due to instability and uncertainly. At the same time, opportunity created by the change. As the old Empire fades and new one comes into focus, there will be new doors open to us that were closed before.

This is a time for hope.