There is a well-known story of David Livingstone the missionary/explorer, that when he died, locals prepared his body and carried it a great distance, around 1500 kilometers, so that it could be shipped back to England. This was by the request of the British government. However, his heart did not go with the rest of his body. It was buried under a tree in what today is Zambia— in Africa (in case you did not know where Zambia is). The note sent with the body back to England read, “You can have his body, but his heart belongs in Africa!”
I don’t know what the wishes of Livingstone were, but based on his life story, I can’t help but think that he would have approved. He felt responsibility to family, supporters, and (perhaps) country. He, however, felt a true love for Africa.
The immediate contrast to Livingstone was Henry Stanley who, while sometimes described as a missionary, was even more focused on exploration and adventure than Livingstone. His relationship with local peoples of Africa was…. complex at best. While having great respect for some, he seemed to have some pretty awful views of the broader crowds. Stanley was far more entrepreneurial than Livingstone, and had a sad role in the colonization of South-Central Africa. (Livingstone had a role in this as well, but not so direct, and not so self-serving.) I don’t think anyone would have considered burying his heart in Africa— perhaps however his wallet would have been an appropriate substitute.
While many missionaries in history were charged with being an agent of their home nations (and some indeed were), many (and I like to think far more) would place the well-being of the people they served above the wishes of their own countrymen and government. While most missionaries would not be seen as “subversives” or “revolutionaries,” they often were key in developing a sense among the people as being equal in abilities and dignity to their colonizers, and they also trained and empowered the locals to lead.
Of course, I have also seen a lot of missionaries who are very obvious exporters of their own home cultures, even if they were not exporters of their own nations’ political aspirations. However, I think in most of these cases, missionaries do this under the (misguided?) notion that the people they minister to would be happier and “better” if they adopted practices of the missionaries’ home countries.
Should missionaries love the people/country they serve in more than their home country? I certainly think so. It is a touchy matter, however. I recall MANY years ago, returning to the community in the US I was raised in, and visiting the church I grew up in… the same church where my father had been head deacon, as well as his father before him.
When I got up to speak I said, “The last time I got back to the Philippines, I told the people that I was glad to be home. When I flew back to Virginia to our sending church I told them that I was glad to be home. And now that I am back here in Ivory, I can also truthfully say, ‘I am glad to be home.'”
Afterwards, a cousin of mine— a lot of cousins go to my old church—- came up to me and said, “Bobby, I know you said that all of those places were your home, but you know that this is your REAL home, right?”
I said that I knew that… but I was lying. Each place was home to me in some sense. However, of the the places, the Philippines felt most like my home. Frankly, after spending decades overseas, the US does not really feel that much like home. I left in 2004 and a lot of things have changed in the last 21 years. Many of those things I would say were most definitely not for the better.
I have to be careful in what I say, American self-perception of their own culture is a touchy thing. Americans like to say that their country is the greatest in the world. Even before I went off on missions, my reaction to that was always, “How do you know? How many countries have you visited?” Usually, I kept that to myself… a good thing. Today, I would say that the Philippines, my mission home, has many many many problems. However, I tend to think they have less problems now than the US. Is that rational assessment of economics, politics, society, and more? Maybe. Or maybe it is an emotional attachment that I have for the Philippines that I really don’t have for the US at this time.
This is of course not to say that I am anti-US. I am a US citizen. I believe in obeying the laws of my homeland, generally… at least the big ones. I believe in doing my duty as a citizen, again for the most part. However, I cannot really put on the patriotic, nationalistic fervor that seems to be idealized in the states nowadays. In some ways I prefer the patriotism I see in the Philippines. There it is a bit more low-key, at bit more sceptical… and yet still hopeful.
Is my situation typical? I don’t know. My wife was born and raised in the Philippines. My children are bi-racial and dual citizens. My family then is half white American and half Filipino. Actually, it is more Filipino since the Filipino side has done a much better job of populating their corner of the world than my own “kin.” If my family was entirely American, would I feel different? Again, not sure… but I have seen so many missionaries that clearly love the people they serve. I have known some who had to go back to their home countries and there failed to reintegrate well because they long to be back in their “new home.”
I do think there are tiers of attachment. God comes first. Family comes next. Church may come next… not sure. But somewhere in that list comes one’s country. I do think, however, that for a missionary, the country in which one serves should be placed higher. Now when I am speaking of country, I am using that term very intentionally. “Country” to me speaks of people, culture, and society. “Nation” speaks more of the governance and power structures. I don’t know where nation (either home nation or nation in the field) fits into this list, but for me it is far below country.
