Decolonising the gospel of Jesus Christ
Alton P Bell explores how Christianity has been used historically to justify slavery, colonialisation and economic exploitation, and why it’s time for the Gospel to be decolonised
The Gospel of Jesus must be separated from the colonial and imperial systems that historically used Christianity to justify conquest, racial hierarchy, slavery and economic exploitation. Decolonising the Gospel means returning to the biblical Jesus and His message of God’s Kingdom – centred on liberation, justice, reconciliation, service and care for the oppressed. True Christian authority is therefore expressed not through domination or status, but through humble service, symbolised by Jesus washing His disciples’ feet.
The colonised Gospel
The Gospel did not originate in the capitals of the ten European empires who carved up Africa in 1884–85. Jesus was not European. He was a first-century Jew living under Roman imperial occupation. His proclamation did not announce the superiority of a European civilisation. It announced something far more radical:
“The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent and believe in the good news” (Mark 1:15).
The central political-theological declaration of Jesus was therefore not “Europe has come” nor “Christendom has come” nor even “the institutional Church has come”. It was “the kingdom of God has come near”.
When Christianity becomes identified with human empire, the Gospel can be distorted to justify conquest and domination. Although some missionaries opposed colonial abuses, Christianity was also incorporated into European imperial projects. Decolonising the Gospel therefore means separating the teachings of Jesus from the political, cultural and imperial additions of colonialism.
Jesus proclaimed a kingdom, not an empire
The New Testament presents ‘the Kingdom of God’ as the central theme of Jesus’ mission. Jesus announces the Kingdom (Mark 1:14–15) and teaches His disciples to pray: “Your kingdom come. Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:9–10). Jesus describes His mission in language of liberation, viz: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set free those who are oppressed” (Luke 4:18). Moreover, when His disciples reproduce the world’s obsession with rank, Jesus explicitly contrasts kingdom leadership with gentile political power:
“The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you” (Luke 22:25–26). Those five words – “But not so with you” – constitute a direct challenge to imperial Christianity.
Jesus recognised authority based upon hierarchy, status and domination and told His disciples that His community must operate differently.
Jesus’ Kingdom turns conventional hierarchy upside down. The greatest becomes the servant. The first becomes last. The leader becomes one who serves. The King enters Jerusalem on a donkey. The Lord kneels before His disciples with a towel.
The Kingdom proclaimed by Jesus therefore cannot simply be identified with the political systems of those who later professed Christianity.
Indeed, Jesus’ own encounter with imperial power culminated not in Caesar giving Jesus a throne, but in Roman authority putting Him on a cross. The cross should therefore make Christianity permanently suspicious of empire.
Roman empire to imperial Christianity
The Western Roman Empire fell in AD 476, although the Eastern Byzantine Empire continued until 1453. Christianity’s relationship with imperial power had already changed dramatically before 476. The persecuted Church of the first centuries increasingly became an imperial religion after King Constantine converted to Christianity, and, by the end of the 4th century, Nicene Christianity was the religion of the Roman imperial order.
As political authority fragmented in Western Europe, bishops and other ecclesiastical institutions assumed social, administrative and political functions previously associated with Roman civic structures. The Bishop of Rome gradually acquired exceptional influence in Western Christianity, eventually contributing to the medieval papacy and what became the Roman Catholic Church.
The Church increasingly possessed property, jurisdiction, courts, administrative territories and political influence. At various moments medieval popes claimed extraordinary authority over Christian monarchs, while monarchs themselves attempted to control bishops, church appointments and ecclesiastical wealth.
The relationship between throne and altar was therefore complex and contested; however, a seismic theological importance had occurred. A movement, whose founder said: “I am among you as one who serves” (Luke 22:27), had become capable of reproducing many of the visible structures of imperial society.
The Church resembling empire
The institutional Church developed increasingly elaborate structures of authority. Dioceses, bishops, archbishops, priests, deacons, archdeacons, cardinals and, ultimately, the papacy became parts of the ecclesiastical organisation of Western Christianity. The only biblical offices are bishop and deacon. The problem, therefore, is not organisation itself. Every community requires order. The problem begins when function becomes status, service becomes rank and leadership becomes domination.
Over time, elaborate clerical hierarchies created an enormous social distance between clergy and laity. Ministry became a career ladder. Ecclesiastical clothing signified rank. Forms of address emphasised status. Moreover, access to education and theological knowledge became concentrated among clerical elites. The Church reproduced ‘the pyramid of empire’, with one supreme figure at the top, descending ranks of authority beneath him, and a large population at the bottom expected to obey. Yet the New Testament’s dominant metaphor is not a ladder to be climbed. It is a body in which different members serve one another (1 Corinthians 12). Therefore, greatness is not upward mobility but downward service.
The New Testament states that the Church is a body (1 Corinthians 12). The people of God constitute a royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:9). Gifts are distributed throughout the body.
Leadership exists to equip God’s people for ministry rather than monopolise ministry (Ephesians 4:11–12). Decolonisation therefore means returning the Bible, theological education, ministry and responsibility to the people.
Clerical titles
The language Christians use about leadership deserves similar examination. Psalm 111:9 declares concerning God: ‘Holy and reverend is his name’. This is the only occurrence of the English word ‘reverend’ in the King James Bible, and there it describes the Name of God rather than establishing a clerical title. This does not by itself prove that every modern use of ‘reverend’ is sinful; reverend is an English translation choice and later ecclesiastical convention rather than a New Testament ministerial title. But that is precisely the point.
The question for a decolonised Church is not merely: Is this tradition permissible? But does this tradition help us resemble Jesus?
Jesus repeatedly warned religious leaders against pursuing public recognition, prestigious seating and honorific forms of address (Matthew 23:5–12). His concern was not vocabulary alone but the human appetite for religious status.
Decolonisation therefore requires examination of every ecclesiastical title and distinction that creates artificial distance between the giver and recipient of ministry. The Church must recover the understanding that ministry is not elevation above God’s people; it is service among God’s people.
Colonial Christianity
From the 15th century onwards, European expansion accelerated and travelled overseas. The Cross and crown became dangerously intertwined. European rulers claimed territories, issued Papal pronouncements, royal charters and theological arguments that legitimised conquest and possession. Missionary activity followed military and commercial penetration.
There were also devastating contradictions:
- A gospel proclaiming liberty coexisted with enslavement.
- A gospel commanding love of neighbour coexisted with racial hierarchy.
- A gospel centred upon a man who owned no empire accompanying the seizure of continents.
- A gospel warning against greed coexisted with enormous systems of extraction.
- A gospel declaring humanity’s relationship to one Creator was preached inside societies that classified African human beings as property.
Biblical interpretation was manipulated to justify colonialism, emphasising selective texts while suppressing biblical themes of justice, dignity, liberation, and resistance to oppression.
Conclusion
The decolonisation of Christian leadership must therefore become practical.
Churches should seriously reconsider the proliferation of titles that separate ministers from the people they serve. The issue is larger than whether words such as Reverend, Very Reverend, Right Reverend, Archbishop, Apostle, Prophet, Bishop or other honorifics can be defended historically.
The question is what kind of ecclesiology they create.
Do our titles communicate function or superiority?
Do they identify responsibility or manufacture prestige?
Have we recreated a Christian aristocracy?
Have our platforms become thrones?
Have our robes become royal garments?
Have our processions become demonstrations of rank?
Have our conferences become places where Christian leaders compete for visibility?
Have we created a ladder Jesus never instructed us to climb?
There is nothing inherently wrong with identifying responsibility. A community needs to know who carries pastoral, teaching, administrative or oversight responsibilities. But function does not require personal exaltation.
Jesus said: “The greatest among you will be your servant” (Matthew 20:27). The solution to clericalism is not disorder. It is servant order. The decolonised Church still has leaders, but its leaders kneel. A hierarchical Church does not merely create elevated clergy. It creates dependent laity.
When ordinary believers are taught that spiritual understanding belongs primarily to a professional religious class, they surrender responsibility for reading Scripture, discerning truth, exercising spiritual gifts and participating meaningfully in the mission of God.
A leader should not create followers who remain permanently dependent. Christian leadership should produce mature disciples of Jesus Christ.
ALTON P BELL
Senior Pastor of Wembley Family Church and Chair of the Movement for Justice and Reconciliation. Visit www.mjr-uk.com
