#107 "Missio Sine Imperiis"

A Response to Ted Esler (Part 2)

My first response to Ted Esler sought to make it clear that I do not buy his ideas about US isolationism and de-globalisation. I understand his perspective. I have sympathy for where he is coming from, but in my opinion, what he presents is an extremely limited and—if I did not know Ted, I would say—an imperialistic way of looking at the world. One really needs to be in a world totally different from the rest of us to believe that the US foreign policy is taking a peace-first approach that is "not imperial but isolationist.” I give Ted the benefit of a doubt. It is possible that he truly believes that there is no such thing as US imperialism, in which case, he would have done better to ask for an explanation instead of attempting to correct or dismiss my argument.

Imperial Violence and Mission

Whether the US is an empire or not is not in question for me. By now, you know I have no doubt it behaves like one. When I wrote “We Have A New Constantine,” the fact of the US Empire was, to me, a given. It was not until Ted focused my attention on it that I saw the need to engage it further. Overall, my interest is not in the US Empire, or any other empire, for that matter. I am interested in what happens when powerful empires become the centre of Christian missions. I study the intersection between Christian empires’ use of violence in connection to mission. There is a lot of history around this—the British Empire (of which I am a citizen) was once at the forefront of Christian missions. It is pretty telling that mission history of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries is full of British names. Of course, the British missionary movement coincided with British imperialism and the loss of that empire has had massive implications for those working in mission in the UK.

I am interested in the intersection between mission and imperialism because empires have always achieved their peace by means of violence or, where possible, a threat thereof, while the peace of Christ often leads people to resist empires and their powers.

Of course, the old era of the Pax Romana was only possible because, at its start, Octavian managed to conquer all his major enemies, including Marc Anthony. Constantine’s conversion to Christianity took place right in the context of war in 312 CE.

About the time of the midday sun, when the day was just turning, he said he saw with his own eyes up in the sky and resting over the sun, a cross-shaped trophy formed from light, and a text attached to it which said, “By this conquer.” Amazement at the spectacle seized both him and the whole company of soldiers which was then accompanying him on a campaign he was conducting somewhere, and witnessed the miracle. (Eusebius, Life of Constantine, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), Book 1, 81.)

Immediately, the idea of Christian violence and, therefore, a just war became inevitable. Today, as Pax Americana seems to be losing grip in various parts of the world—think about the BRICS working on de-dollarising their economies, or the Houthis targetting US ships, or indeed, North Korea’s long-range missiles—it is very unlikely that the US will not seek to assert itself in various ways. The current tariffs are but a step in this direction. The US Liberation Day that is coming tomorrow, 2nd April 2025, is not about isolationism or de-globalisation. Someone is trying to flex muscles in a world that has shifted in the past few years, hoping for the results of the old days. America First may be a way to America Only—after everyone else has capitulated and been dominated. The de-globalised world that Ted talks about only exists in the eyes of a small privileged percentage of the world’s population.

It Is Mission History

Before the British, it was the Dutch, the Germans, the Spanish, and the Portuguese, among others, who were at the forefront of Christian missions. The church was involved when the Portuguese started their voyages around Africa and the Spanish crossed the Atlantic to colonise the Americas. In 1452, Pope Nicholas V gave the Portuguese “full and free permission to invade, search out, capture and subjugate … any unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be, their kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities, and other property ... and to reduce their persons into perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate and convert to the use and profit of [the Portuguese] perpetually.” In 1493, Pope Alexander VI divided the world between the Portuguese and the Spanish to civilise and Christianise.

Among other works well pleasing to the Divine Majesty and cherished of our heart, this assuredly ranks highest, that in our times especially the Catholic faith and the Christian religion be exalted and be everywhere increased and spread, that the health of souls be cared for and that barbarous nations be overthrown and brought to the faith itself. ...[W]e ... assign to you and your heirs and successors, kings of Castile and Leon, ... all islands and mainlands found and to be found, discovered and to be discovered towards the west and south, by drawing and establishing a line from ... the north, ...to ...the south, ... the said line to be distant one hundred leagues towards the west and south from any of the islands commonly known as the Azores and Cape Verde. (Inter Caetera, 1493).

In the 1880s, Pope Leo XIII supported Leopold II of Belgium and his cronies as they colonised Africa, believing that would be great for Europe’s civilising mission in the continent. Of course, this continues—the US leads now, though, of course, Nigeria has more Christians scattered around the world who, for various reasons, are not included in the mission statistics of our era. Without a doubt, the Nigerians also behave like an empire wherever they can—this is the missiology they learned from the British who colonised and Christianised them and the Americans who continue to shape their evangelicalism. The connection between mission and imperialism is not an only American thing.

Even in the Evangelical Fold today

It is always within every empire’s playbooks to deploy its young men to its defence, even when those young men are ill-equipped. They call this patriotism, but it is imperial violence. Often, these defenders of the empire feel entitled to take down anyone and everyone who dares critique their emperors. This is also common in evangelicalism. Those who dare say something the empire dislikes are often discredited and cancelled. There is a great deal of imperial violence in our evangelical fold. Only two years ago, Brad Vaughn sought to silence Mekdes Haddis when he wrote a disparaging review of her book, A Just Mission, calling it the most dangerous book in mission in a generation. This is always regrettable. We are all better when we engage one another with humility and understanding. Non-western scholars and writers can speak for themselves. This whitesplaining, often intended to discredit us in order to shield parts of the Western Christian communities, does not help at all. I find it quite strange that we often talk about change without engaging the people who can help us change. In Vaughn’s case, it was a direct cancelling of Mekdes because she dared to critique US missions while being an African.

MAGA Missions and Migrants

When Ted says that the US funds almost 80 per cent of missions around the world, we have to be grateful. (I remember seeing someone on TV yelling, “you have not thanked us enough.”) This figure shows that there are many Christians in the US who care deeply not only about mission but also about the people on the other side of the world who need real material help. The generosity of these Christians matters a lot. However, as we have seen in Europe, when the imperial fortunes begin to change, mission is always affected. This is critical today because, on the one hand, as we have seen in Europe, funding for mission-related projects is shrinking and, on the other hand, majority world Christians are already taking their place at the forefront of missions. Many of those will come without any imperial powers at all—they will come from countries like Congo (whose population is almost entirely Christian and yet, as a country, it remains as vulnerable and exploited as it has always been since the 1870s when Leopold II made it his personal colony). Most of them will not be registered and sent by a mission agency. They will simply be Christian migrants, moving up and down around the world for various reasons. Some of them will end up in places like Springfield, OH. Others will find their way to Silicon Valley. They will all be followers of Christ with a calling to make disciples for him among the nations. Engaging mission and migration will not be a “gig,” to use Ted’s word, for some interest groups. It won’t be only about ministering to refugees. Christian migration will be a central part of mission—“mission” and “migration” will almost be interchangeable. In this MAGA-dominated world, US mission agencies must still find ways to receive migrant Christians and enable their missionary work in the US and beyond. Forward-looking leaders in mission agencies and churches in the US and the broader Western world ought to realise that very soon, missions work will be dominated by people who are currently outside their circles or empires—those many want to keep out. How will they adapt?

The change is already here … beware the gospel of empire.