#106. US Imperialism, Evangelicalism, and Christian Mission (Part 1)

A Response to Ted Esler

On 11 March 2025, I published on my newsletter a piece entitled “We Have A New Constantine: How Will Mission Change?” Two days later, Ted Esler of Missio Nexus in the USA issued a response: The End of Globalization, ala Trump: This is not an era of Constantine but of De-Globalization. This is the first of my three-part response to Ted.

As someone who has published some reflections on something in mission almost every week for longer than two years now, both on my newsletter and on many other platforms, I am used to people engaging with my thoughts, favourably or not. “We Have A New Constantine” did something I had not intended it to do. It started an unexpected but, in my opinion, a long overdue conversation about US Evangelical influence on mission in the era of Donald Trump. This is a needful conversation in 2025 because, of course, the whole world knows about the unwavering support many US Evangelicals give to Trump and MAGA. When I wrote “We Have A New Constantine,” my concern was not about Trump and MAGA (though, maybe it should have been). It was entirely focused on the implications of a MAGA-informed Evangelicalism on Christian mission, its theological self-understanding and practical work around the world.

I wrote “We Have A New Constantine” knowing that some in the US missions community would read it, but I did not expect that it would raise concerns among US Evangelicals that would require Ted to make a response. In the end, I am glad that this happened—it allows us to begin an honest conversation in the Evangelical Community about the implications of whatever we see happening in the US part of the family. One thing ought to be clear. The Evangelical missions community around the world is, to a great extent, shaped by and led from the US, (at least, in its thought and practice). Because of this, Christians around the world pay close attention to the trends taking place among US Evangelicals. Many are aware and, currently, extremely anxious about the drama going on in the US political arena, not only because it is taking place in the US—the empire du jours—but also due to the fact that US Evangelicalism has enabled a great deal of that drama. US Evangelicals have exported their form of evangelicalism to many parts of the world and now, Evangelicals worldwide are surprised what has happened in the US.

What Others Said About “We Have A New Constantine”

The response to “We Have a New Constantine” was overwhelmingly positive. Many of my African readers were quick to voice their agreement. A Nigerian friend texted, “How can they send people to evangelise us when their own leaders call our countries ‘sh*tholes?’” A Kenyan leader of a mission organisation added, “American Evangelicals ought to know they’ve lost all the credibility they once had. We see what they’ve done to the world.” Another friend from Malawi declared, “The days of colonial missions are long gone. We should be sending our people to evangelise the US.”

The response in Europe was similarly strong. Within hours of publishing the newsletter, I received three requests for translations into European languages. A Dutch version was quickly published online and shared on LinkedIn.

Among my US readers, I heard from several friends—all serving in missions in Europe and Africa. They fully grasped the message of the newsletter. Interestingly, they were all eager to distance themselves from the “strange developments back home.” One of them told me, “If you ever see me acting like someone emboldened by this new imperialism, please call me out.”

What is at stake for Ted?

The first point Ted makes in his response to my newsletter is that my portrayal of current affairs as a new form of imperialism seems a bit “off.” This assertion I find the most intriguing. It raises critical questions about his understanding of mission in the world—a world in which he has a responsibility to promote good mission theology and practice. I wonder whether he is underestimating the global awareness of the United States’ imperial tendencies, which have persisted for decades. I do not think Ted is uninformed about U.S. imperialism. I refuse to believe that he is merely feigning ignorance. And I do not believe that he feels that we do not see or know what the US has done around the world. Maybe we are not his audience, and those who he intends to speak to, he wants to keep them undisturbed—“we are not an empire; we are not included in the mission and imperialism discourse.” Of course, if he slips up and acknowledges imperialism in US Evangelical missions in the world, his entire mission theology and the beliefs of his audience are at stake.

Whatever made Ted deny US imperialism, I hope it is not exactly what “We Have a New Constantine” was raising awareness about. By dismissing what I said, arguing that “there is no imperialism here,” could Ted be shielding the very people who need to hear this? Downplaying US imperialism, especially with regard to mission, many US missionaries go about the world with an awkward sense of entitlement—not only to share the good news of Jesus but also to teach people the American Way. Before you say this is history, I can assure you it still happens today especially in Africa.

Talking to US Christians about Imperialism in Mission

US imperialism (like any form of imperialism) is not something to be ashamed of—it is simply a form of governance that some embrace and others reject. When I refer to US imperialism, I am not passing judgment on whether it is good or bad. Rather, I am acknowledging it as a present-day reality, much like the Roman Empire was a reality during the time of Jesus in Palestine. As a matter of fact, there is a lot of literature about this. For instance, A.G. Hopkins’ American Empire: A Global History and Daniel Immerwahr’s How to Hide an Empire may be a great place to start. If Francis Fukuyama is not too “woke” for Ted’s readers, his recent essay, “The New American Imperialism,” is a good introduction to the conversation. While these pieces of literature (among many others) are helpful, we have an easy starting point. When we hear about annexing Canada, Greenland, and the Panama Canal, of course, the “taking over of Gaza,”—as I write this, I see news about the tariffs imposed on not only Venezuela but also any countries that trade with it—and when we remember the 750 military bases in 80 countries and territories worldwide, it is difficult not to think that the US is an empire. As my American friends in Minnesota taught me, if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

In addition, Ted seems to have missed the point on my suggesting that we are living in the new Constantinian Era. Just like people who call the US the new Rome, I am not suggesting that the new Constantine is precisely like the old one. And I do not “see imperialism everywhere as a part of an oppressor/oppressed philosophy,” as he accuses me of doing. I could never suggest that all MAGA politicians are racist (again, as Ted reads into my text). In a nutshell, I am aware of the questions around both Trump’s and Constantine’s faith. But both these men favouring Christians (in Trump’s case, US Evangelicals) has great consequences on their Christian followers’ self-perception. When Christians have power, both in the fourth century CE and today, in the twenty-first century, a lot of things can happen. When it comes to mission, mixing the gospel of the kingdom of God and that of the empire seems a natural outcome. The Emperor becomes the Messiah, the only One who can fix all the problems facing his people. In addition, when missionaries are confident that the emperor has their backs, they can misbehave on the mission field, knowing that they can never really be without powerful support. Essentially, all I am trying to explore is the impact of MAGA ideology on missions. When MAGA Christians become missionaries and go on the mission field in Haiti or Nigeria, how will they relate with the locals?

In conclusion, I am convinced Ted missed an excellent opportunity to start a very important conversation with his audience. European Christians have an understanding of mission and colonialism that their US brothers and sisters are yet to grasp. Many in Europe admit that, indeed, their empires used the Christian message to spread their influence around the world. Like Ted, many US missionaries do not want to own the very fact of American imperialism. It wrecks their missiology. But, as far as I can tell, they are just burying their heads in the sand. There is no doubt to many around the world that Christian mission and Western imperialism have, for centuries, worked hand in hand. The evidence connecting Christian mission to imperialism in the past 500 years is overwhelming. Any attempts to deny this are simply unsustainable. We can go back as far as Christopher Columbus (1492) or even to Dum Diversas (1452); the drive to dominate and civilise the world has always been directly connected with the desire to Christianise it. Of course, not every missionary is an imperialist or, indeed, a coloniser, but the Western work of mission around the world was and still is, to a fair extent, not only part and parcel of Western imperialism, but also both its fuel and justification. The fact that the great century of the Western missionary movement—the 19th Century, according to Kenneth Latourette—coincides with the great century of European expansionism ought to tell us something.

I finish with my last statement from the original newsletter: it is quite difficult to be humble when the emperor has your back. How will this new US imperialism shape US Evangelical missions in the world?

I pray that you will be faithful to the work God has for you this week.