Anti-Partisan missions in a Partisan World

At church a few weeks ago our pastor was speaking about God’s command to love one another. He then brought it around to politics. He spoke of the two major parties in the US (I am in the US right now, but will be soon going back to the Philippines). He said something like:

“And I know how some of you are. As a Republican you say, ‘I have to love my Democrat neighbors?’ Yes you do! And as a Democrat you say, ‘I have to love my Republic neighbors?” Yes you do!”

I noticed in one of those challenges, the people in the sanctuary smiled and chuckled a bit. But for the other, the smile and chuckle was a bit constrained and nervous. It was clear that for the majority, one of those challenges did not affect them, while the other one was a bit too close to home. I should note that my church is not nearly so embedded in the “Culture Wars” of the US right now. But regardless, the partisanship is still so intense that many could not even give a convincing fake smile and nod.

As one who is anti-partisan, it is even tougher for me. The call to love all people means I get to struggle with loving ALL people—- and this includes people of all parties (Republican, Democrat, Green, People’s Worker, Libertarian, Constitution, Socialist, etc.). A personal aside to follow. You can ignore and continue below the highlighted section if you prefer.

I should explain what I mean by anti-partisan. I think there is a real name for this viewpoint, and I think I found it once, but now I can’t remember. Anti-partisan, for me, is NOT the same as Non-partisan. Non-partisan may simply mean that one has not (yet) chosen a side. Or it may mean that one has a partisan perspective but consciously chooses to bracket those biases and treat each side similarly. That is not what I mean. Let me use an extremely generic partisan opinion to explain what I believe via contrast. A partisan person, a person who aligns with a person or group, believes that if “their person” or “their group” was in charge, things would be better than they are now. Or if “their person” or “their group” had more power tomorrow than today, things would be better than they are today.

That is what I reject. To me, power is the ultimate drug. Too much power or too much of a power imbalance is bad. My goal is gridlock, balance of power, and undermining those with power. I can’t seem to find the right word for this. “Subversive” does apply somewhat but a partisan can be subversive as easily as one who opposes factions. “Anti-factional” tends to be used to describe the move by members of one faction against another… as opposed to being opposed to factions in the first place. James Madison speaks of opposing factions in Federalist Paper #10, and does express some of my concerns, but ultimately goes in a different direction.

Of course, the US is not the only place where partisanship is strong. In the Philippines there presently is a power struggle between Marcos clan and the Dutertes. I have been asked to express my opinion or choose a side. Due to my ideology, that is difficult. If I stand against one, that does not mean that I necessarily stand for the other. But this is even more difficult when one serves in missions. To what extent is it useful to side with one power group against another?

As a missionary (or cross-cultural minister if one wants to avoid a controversial term), I see Jesus as a model of anti-partisan missions. Jesus did not support power groups, but sided with the marginalized— the powerless.

And yet… when I look at the life of Jesus, I mostly see the difficulties of being anti-partisan.

First century Palestine was a hotbed of power conflicts. There were religious power struggles (pagan versus temple Judaism versus rabbinical Judaism), political (Roman Imperial versus Herodian versus Jewish Revolutionary versus …), and cultural (Hellenistic versus Jewish versus Samarian versus …). Jesus seemed to go out of his way NOT to side with any of them very strongly. Talking to the Samaritan woman in John 4, Jesus gives support to Jews over Samaritans (saying that salvation is from the Jews) but immediately follows that this no longer matters. Jesus appears to side with the Pharisees over the Sadducees (Matthew 22) but immediately after makes it clear that He is not really siding with them either. Jesus appears to support paying taxes to Rome but does so in a way that makes it clear that one’s adherence should be more focused on God than on any power group. He made it clear to Pilate that His own kingdom was ‘not of this world’ but makes attempt then to suggest that this makes Him harmless to Rome. Jesus, on the other hand, made every effort to side with the sick, the power, and the marginalized. He empowered the powerless.

But there was clearly a cost to this strategy. We find that Jesus often had to avoid certain areas for ministry because of His relationship to religious leaders. When told of the death of Lazarus, Jesus determined to leave to head to Bethany and Jerusalem. Thomas clearly recognized that leaving the relative safety of Galilee was potentially a death sentence.

The problem was even greater in his week before His death. On the first day of the week, He was hailed by the people as a Messianic character— very much in a way similar to Judas Macabbeus. Most likely they saw him in terms of political and power factions—- one who would restore political power to the Jews. But during the week, He did not do it. In fact, He seemed more interested in teaching and being in conflict with Jewish leaders. This failure to act in the way that many of His supporters wished seems to be part of the reason they rejected Him so thoroughly only a few days later. Perhaps this same thing is what drove Judas Iscariot. Perhaps he dreamed of a violent overthrow of the Roman rulership. If so, he became disenchanted with Jesus and so betrayed Him. Alternatively, perhaps he thought he could force Jesus’s hand. Turning Him over to the enemy of the Jews would force Jesus to act against that enemy. The trials of Jesus were a lesson in power politics, with the ultimate argument for His death to seemingly be, “whoever is not explicitly for us, MUST be against us.” After His resurrection, He still avoided choosing a side beyond guiding His followers to share the good news with the world— a message without political or ethnic agenda.

So does Jesus provide a good model for missions or a cautionary tale regarding missions? I think the answer is both. His siding with the marginalized is a great thing to emulate. His fighting off the lure of power and politics (include the direct temptation of this by Satan in Matthew 4) is also very commendable.

But there is a cost. To not stand with one group solidly, is often to be seen as the enemy. On the other hand, to stand against something evil, thus perhaps siding with one group against another (at least on that specific issue) may make one be viewed as wholeheartedly being connected to that group. In the Philippines, I was (and am) repulsed by the extrajudicial killings (“tokhang”) associate with the drug war. This puts me at odds with former President Duterte. That does not, in itself mean that I am in support of the power bloc that is on the other side. In the US, I am very unhappy with the anti-immigrant policies, that puts me in opposition to the present leadership. Again, that does not mean that I am on the side of the opposition.

But in the case of Jesus, not playing power politics did not make Him immune to the dangers of those who are highly partisan and concerned about power.

There was a Russian movie that came out in 1994 called “Burnt by the Sun” (Утомлённые солнцем). It spoke of the dangers of getting too cozy with those in power.

Colonial missions often involves missionaries cozying up with oppressors. Some ultimately proved to be a thorn in the flesh of the colonial rulers, siding with the colonized over the colonizers, or even the established mission organizations. They stand head and shoulders in my mind over those who supported the colonizers.

But what is the equivalent today? What are the power factions now? Does being a guest in a country require one to acquiesce to the local government? 

I am still thinking through this.