The End of Globalization, ala Trump

This is not an era of Constantine but of De-Globalization

[Edit: Original article mispelled Dr. Kwiyani’s name. Fixed and apologies.]

This past week I got a couple emails asking if I agreed with or disagreed with Harvey Kwiyani’s recent post, We Have a New Constantine in Town. He wrote about Trump, but in a “he-who-must-not-be-named” sort of way (Trump himself is not mentioned). He raises good questions about the future, and I like the application from the article. Humility is something that is always ripe for recommendation. He is right - change is coming.

Overall, this article is a call for missiology without Western imperialism. Who would argue? Yet… while the application is solid, the framing of current affairs as a new form of imperialism seems to be a little “off.” We are facing a strange situation. European elites are forming armies while American foreign policy has taken a peace-first approach. This new American foreign policy is being decried because it is not imperial. It is, instead, isolationist.

I hope you can take this in a missiological frame, which is my intention. Probably not possible, but that is my hope. I am trying to observe, not assign judgment to the global shifts underway.

Dr. Kwiyani asks very pertinent questions. Missions is changing, and in abrupt ways. I believe he is correct in that we have a new world order, but not because of a new “Constantine.” The fear stoking European elites is Trump’s reluctance in being Constantine on their behalf. The “NATO Empire” is in disarray and Trump seems only too happy to let it crumble. “America First” is isolationist and protectionist. It signals a reluctance to use military force to expand American influence. Constantinian Imperialism is something quite different.

I would humbly submit that a better historical analogy describing isolationist eras might be the Edo Period in Japan or the Ming and Quing Dynasties. You can analyze the history of how those eras worked themselves out, for better or for worse. American isolationism is a part of the ongoing car wreck of Globalization. This is what we are witnessing; an unraveling of “We Are the World” without a handle on what is coming next.

The Constantine narrative doubles down on post-modern critique. This critique sees imperialism everywhere as a part of an oppressor/oppressed philosophy. The resistance of MAGA politicians to charges of racism is an example that this polemic has lost its grip, at least in American society. It is, in fact, fading alongside Globalization. The days of a robust, dominating Western monolith recede with each new tariff, many lodged against other Western nations. Trump is forcing things along in a very Trumpian way, but it was inevitable. Globalization, along with the US playing the role of the world’s policeman (and funder of Globalism), is over. This is bigger than any one American president.

Globalization has interfaced with missions in mixed ways. The primary narrative of missions over the past 25 years or so has been the rise of the “Global Church.” It is no accident that Lausanne was born in 1974, a harbinger of global Christianity that took off in the ensuing decade alongside Globalization. Our missions language reflects the homogenizing nature of Globalization. When we say, “Global South” we categorize diverse cultures and lump them together. The common attribute we are trying to communicate is “not Western.” We will need new language if the West, as a descriptive noun for a bloc of like-minded nations, does not survive this new era. I have always thought that the phrase “Global South” is a bit schizophrenic. Is it “global” or is it “south?” This is perhaps why indigeneity is on the rise, as a corrective to our Globalized missiology. These are some of the threads we will need to pull on to reweave a new missiology in a De-Globalized world.

If your gig is migration or refugee ministry, these changes are threatening, at least in the short-term. If you are a sending agency, you started coping with deglobalization in 2017. That was when the Chinese kicked the world out of their country, including most missionaries. India has followed a similar path. Yet ministry continues to flow from these countries and into these countries, albeit in different ways than before. There is far more digital ministry. There is more empowerment of national leaders. Sending continues, but those sent have vastly different roles. We should see this as a good thing. If you believe (as I do) that sending missionaries is not just a strategy but a biblical model for us to follow, there are still many ways to serve, but they have necessarily changed and will continue to evolve.

We do not really know how much the US funds global missions. My educated guess is that it is close to 80% worldwide. The majority of that money is given by major donors. Dr. Kwiyani asks a great question, does “America First” mean that funders will look to Jerusalem and Judea before they consider Samaria and the ends of the earth?

I am involved in numerous missions funding initiatives. Thus far, I see resilience in givers that focus on evangelism, discipleship, and planting churches. On the other hand, giving to relief, development, humanitarian aid, and similar such giving is mentally being grouped with USAID-style programming. On a recent phone call, a major donor asked me if any Missio Nexus members were “NGOs.” This is a misunderstanding of what an NGO is, but the question was seeking to discover if we were tied to “the wrong sort of people.” I do not have data, but I suspect that projects without a strong connection to spiritual transformation are being scrutinized. Daily reports of corruption in the USAID system (and I do not think this can be reasonably denied) makes donors wary.

To conclude, I would suggest a different background narrative than Dr. Kwiyani yet I agree that our approach to missions is in necessary change. Like all change curves, it is hard to see too far around the corner. The sharper those corners are (and this one feels pretty sharp right now) the more difficult it becomes to know the future.

All the more reason to lean on Jesus, humbly, in these turbulent times.