First: the name of the missiologist whose posts you refer to is Harvey Kwiyani, not Kwijani.
Second: I agree that we're living in an interregum—but it seems to me that globalization is too imprecise of a term for the previous era that is ending; and so likewise with the equal and opposite term deglobalization. The post-Soviet era was one of *US hegemony.* All the significant legal and banking and trading networks were tilted toward US dominance. Some have even spoken of the "exorbitant privilege" (with reference to the international reserve currency). The era we are now entering is one where the US no longer enjoys such hegemony. Probably in some ways like the UK, it will be a smaller, weaker, poorer nation: a powerful player, but now on a polysovereign stage. But by no means does the self-immolation of the US mean that other nations will pursue a protectionist or isolationist strategy. They aren't deglobalizing. Commerce and travel and trade will continue.
Third: there are a number of "tells" in this post that suggest its sourcing from within a rightwing US information ecosystem. For example: citing Renn. Aaron Renn's work has come under criticism because of how it enshrines a kind of persecution complex among conservative Christians—many of his readers question how negative the negative world really is that he observes. Another example of a "tell": bringing up "the transgender movement" as an example of individualism...this is connecting some dots that may be intuitive for some readers. Or signal something to some of them? I don't know. Not at all my area of expertise! But still I am passingly aware that gender fluidity exists in cultures that are the *opposite* of individualistic. Just to say, this is a sidelong reference that works only for those who are already familiar with the bogeyman. Another example: a side reference to Biden's border policy! Again: this works with only a pretty specific readership. Anyone who knows about policy in greater depth knows this is just a soundbite, a meme. Maybe more importantly: the post gently welcomes populism; it raises some skeptical questions about "globalism," associating the latter with "elitism" (who are elite evangelicals? are you one? if not, why not?). Each of these are innocent in themselves. But this post exists in a MAGA media context where each of these has a special, almost Pavlovian significance: negative world/persecution of American Christians! (BOO) transgenders! (EXTRA BOO) elites! (BOO) "populism" (shading into nativism? cautious YAY?)
The linking of populism with indigeneity is especially intriguing...because indigenization/contextualization have been major research foci for a long time among the allegedly globalist elite evangelical missiologists...
Agree that globalization has tilted toward the US, with a strong dose of European compliance and often at the expense of the developing world. Disagree that globalization is imprecise, particularly as it connects with global missiology.
The BOOS are why good conversation seldom happens in the current environment.
First: the name of the missiologist whose posts you refer to is Harvey Kwiyani, not Kwijani.
Second: I agree that we're living in an interregum—but it seems to me that globalization is too imprecise of a term for the previous era that is ending; and so likewise with the equal and opposite term deglobalization. The post-Soviet era was one of *US hegemony.* All the significant legal and banking and trading networks were tilted toward US dominance. Some have even spoken of the "exorbitant privilege" (with reference to the international reserve currency). The era we are now entering is one where the US no longer enjoys such hegemony. Probably in some ways like the UK, it will be a smaller, weaker, poorer nation: a powerful player, but now on a polysovereign stage. But by no means does the self-immolation of the US mean that other nations will pursue a protectionist or isolationist strategy. They aren't deglobalizing. Commerce and travel and trade will continue.
Third: there are a number of "tells" in this post that suggest its sourcing from within a rightwing US information ecosystem. For example: citing Renn. Aaron Renn's work has come under criticism because of how it enshrines a kind of persecution complex among conservative Christians—many of his readers question how negative the negative world really is that he observes. Another example of a "tell": bringing up "the transgender movement" as an example of individualism...this is connecting some dots that may be intuitive for some readers. Or signal something to some of them? I don't know. Not at all my area of expertise! But still I am passingly aware that gender fluidity exists in cultures that are the *opposite* of individualistic. Just to say, this is a sidelong reference that works only for those who are already familiar with the bogeyman. Another example: a side reference to Biden's border policy! Again: this works with only a pretty specific readership. Anyone who knows about policy in greater depth knows this is just a soundbite, a meme. Maybe more importantly: the post gently welcomes populism; it raises some skeptical questions about "globalism," associating the latter with "elitism" (who are elite evangelicals? are you one? if not, why not?). Each of these are innocent in themselves. But this post exists in a MAGA media context where each of these has a special, almost Pavlovian significance: negative world/persecution of American Christians! (BOO) transgenders! (EXTRA BOO) elites! (BOO) "populism" (shading into nativism? cautious YAY?)
The linking of populism with indigeneity is especially intriguing...because indigenization/contextualization have been major research foci for a long time among the allegedly globalist elite evangelical missiologists...
Agree that globalization has tilted toward the US, with a strong dose of European compliance and often at the expense of the developing world. Disagree that globalization is imprecise, particularly as it connects with global missiology.
The BOOS are why good conversation seldom happens in the current environment.
Sounds good, Harvey. Good luck with the book