Should Missionaries Get Involved With Local Politics?

For those want a TLDR— my answer is “I Don’t Know.” But here is a longer discussion.

A few days ago, I was part of an online prayer gathering utilizing Facebook Live. When I joined, I put up the Emoji of Praying Hands to let people know I have joined the group. However, soon after I put it in the chat, I noticed that just a couple of quick posts above my Praying Hands was a request, “Please Pray Against the Passing of the New Divorce Law.” “Ooops!!” I thought to myself. What if people will assume that my Praying Hands response means that I am joining with that specific request? Can I remove my Praying Hands? Should I clarify that I am not praying for that request? Should I just not worry about it and move on?

Here is the deal. The Philippines is one of two countries today that does not allow divorce.

I am a very strong supporter of divorce being legalized in the Philippines. This puts me at odds with many of our ministry partners here who find the so called rejection of divorce here to be a commendable thing— even a source of pride. Additionally, my upbringing was in a denomination that looked very negatively on divorce. It was not out-and-out rejected… but if one was going to speak positively of divorce, there was almost a need to start with, “I don’t approve of divorce, BUT…” However, I minister in a pastoral counseling center and come across so many people (women especially, but sometimes men) who are legally stripped of options in a marriage that is abusive, or wildly unfaithful. While separation is allowed, it can be done with little legal or financial protection for themselves or the children. I do struggle with understanding the opposition to divorce. It is allowed in the Bible. Scripture says that God hates divorce… but allowed it due to the hardness of man’s heart. I know there are different ways of looking at it, but for me I understand it to mean that God knows that we are not as faithful to our vows as He is, and He is more concerned by people hurt in marriage than He is concerned about the institution of marriage. I, frankly, believe that is a good general principle. If one is has the choice between siding with an institution— government, church, education, marriage, etc.— or with people, we are to side with people.

But should I become a campaigner for legalized divorce in the Philippines? I don’t really think so. As a foreigner, I don’t see my role as one that should be prominently involved with government. I frankly get a bit annoyed when my friends in the Philippines start giving their opinions on American politics— why would I assume they would appreciate my thoughts on Philippine politics to say nothing of attempts on my part to influence local politics?

A. One problem is the matter of stakes. As a foreigner, I have limited stakes as to the laws in the Philippines. If the Philippines passes laws that make living here torturous, I can pretty easily leave. My stake here is pretty limited and so how strongly should I try to influence the local governance when the repercussions on me are far less than others?

B. Another is the matter of expertise. As someone who did not move to the Philippines until I was 38, am I really culturally embedded enough to understand issues her like, for example, OFW (overseas foreign workers) or POGO (offshore gaming) situations to be competent to promote an agenda?

C. A lot of examples I have seen of missionaries bringing in their political beliefs to the Philippines from back home have been pretty cringe-y. Sometimes, American missionaries bring their Westernized progressive views or their Christian nationalist conservative views to the Philippines and try to indoctrinate people here with them. On the other side, sometimes one gets missionaries who support politics here in the Philippines that vary wildly from politics in the US. I recall missionaries working hard to convince the City Council to prevent the building of a mosque in our city. That move was temporarily successful, but ultimately a failure because freedom to practice religion is supported here, just as it is in the US. These same missionaries tried to prevent a religiously syncretistic (Christian and pagan) candidate from becoming mayor in our city by carrying out what seems to me to be a pretty syncretistic ritual with the chair that the mayor uses. Things can get pretty uncomfortable when a missionary gets too interested in politics here.

For me, a lot of Filipinos like to know my own views on American politics. I typically work to avoid giving my views. One time a pastor friend of mine here tried to get around my avoidance by asking who I thought would be elected president of the US this November. I told who I thought would be elected. He looked sad— clearly I did not give him the answer he hoped. However, he asked who I thought would be elected, NOT who I liked for president. (Truthfully, I DON’T LIKE ANY OF THE CANDIDATES ALL THAT MUCH… but please don’t tell him that.) I also don’t tell people who I like for Philippine elections. As one whose political philosophy is to undermine accumulation of power, I focus more on how to disempower candidates, not on who to give power to. Again, however, that is pretty hard to explain to the 99%+ of the population who see the accumulation of power (to one’s camp) a good thing.

D. As a guest of a country there are limitations of law and courtesy as to how far one pushes against the government that has welcomed them in. The Philippines rarely kicks missionaries out… but the laws are written to give them some teeth to act if the government is so motivated.

E. Missionaries have had a long and awkward relationship with local government from the Colonial Era. Many missionaries cautiously opposed the colonial governments, but many others worked hard to maintain the status quo.

F. Here in the Philippines there is a lot of political corruption (sadly). There are also a lot of pastors and other religious leaders who want to get elected to political post (and “Yes,” I DO doubt their motives). It is hard to get involved in politics here without being pulled into some dubious things. We have interacted with the local government by doing so cash-free. We don’t pay or receive pay for what we do with the government. In the past we have at times done medical mission projects, receiving help from the local mayor or governor and in so doing end up advertising him prominently usually through a tarpaulin. There may, or may not, be any problems with this… but I am glad we don’t do that anymore.

But does that mean that staying out of politics is virtuous? I don’t think so. William Carey, for example, famously worked hard to make widow-burning illegal in those parts of India that were under the British Crown (directly or indirectly). Sometimes, one needs to embrace a prophetic voice against evil. But how often is changing the law the right response?

Peace with the local government can be a problem. When Extrajudicial killings of those involved with drugs was seemingly supported by the government here, that made things tricky for our ministry. We were working with people who previously had problems with drugs. They were ones who voluntarily “surrendered” themselves to the local government, putting themselves on one list to avoid being put on a much more dangerous list. We worked with these “surrenderers.” As such, were we working with the government? Were we working against it? That actually is hard to answer. We were working with people to help people— to me that is the important thing. Again, people are more important than institutions.

Is living at peace with the local government virtuous? Michael Desjardins stated, “‘peace’ that does not allow for resistance against physical oppression can be considered ‘violence,’ especially when it is combined with a disregard for the need to transform society.” (Michel Desjardins, Peace, Violence and the New Testament (Sheffield,England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 34). Avoiding conflict in a manner that perpretuates abuses is itself a rejecting of true peace.

It seems as if there are some aspects of social justice that cannot be addressed without risking putting one up against government. Sex-based human trafficking (intra-national and international) and sexual tourism are pretty rampant here in the Philippines. But what is the best way to fight such malignancies? Here in Baguio, the sex workers are protected SOMEWHAT by local laws and the Department of Health. Attacking the problem legally by criminalizing the sex work may well be simply harming more those who already are pretty desperate and marginalized. It is hard for a missionary to know what to do. To bring back William Carey, widow burning was done for some questionable religio-cultural reasons, but the culture also created taboos off of that reduced opportunities to flourish. A widow had no value in the culture and had few options for a good quality of life. Making widow-burning illegal (I forgot to define this— killing/burning the widow of a man when he dies) was a good thing, but there needed to also be cultural changes to open opportunities for widows in India. One without the others was simply not enough.

At the top of this rambling post, I gave the answer as I Don’t Know. A fuller answer may be YES, a missionary should be WILLING BUT EXTREMELY CAUTIOUS in getting involved in local politics. Keeping divorce illegal hurts people more than it helps (if it helps anyone). Criminalizing sex work probably will not reduce it all that much… but it will put the marginalized outside of government protections, and effectively provide, paradoxically, greater protection for abusers of sex workers. Stopping overseas foreign workers will reduce some international abuses, but will also hurt literally hundreds of thousands of families who receive remittances for overseas work. On the other hand, the separation of family members through the OFW system creates deep sociological problems for families. What is the best solution? I don’t know and I don’t think many missionaries know either. Sometimes missionaries need to stay out of local politics NOT BECAUSE it is wrong in itself, BUT BECAUSE it is wrong to go into local politics without understanding the issues.