“Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” (Matthew 22:21)

Few biblical passages have shaped Christian political thought as profoundly as Jesus Christ’s answer to the Pharisees. When asked whether Jews should pay taxes to the Roman Empire, Jesus neither endorsed political rebellion nor surrendered religious authority to the State. Instead, He drew a distinction that has echoed through centuries of constitutional thought: civil government has legitimate authority over temporal affairs, while God alone exercises authority over matters of faith.

Every Christian denomination has interpreted that boundary differently. Some churches avoid politics almost entirely. Others openly campaign for public policies. Still others reserve political action for moments when they believe the State has encroached on religious territory.

The Iglesia Ni Cristo (INC) belongs largely to this third tradition.

Its recent mass mobilizations have revived an old question: Is the INC becoming increasingly political, or has political engagement always been part of its understanding of church-state relations?

History suggests the answer is more complicated than either its critics or supporters often admit.

Felix Manalo never preached political revolution

Contrary to popular perception, the Iglesia Ni Cristo’s founder, Felix Y. Manalo, did not leave behind a comprehensive political treatise defining the Church’s role in government. His surviving sermons and the Church’s official publications focus primarily on theology, salvation, church administration, and biblical interpretation rather than constitutional theory. ([Pasugo God’s Message][1])

Yet a remarkably consistent political philosophy emerges from the doctrines he repeatedly taught.

Central to INC teaching is Romans 13, in which the Apostle Paul instructs Christians to submit to governing authorities because “there is no authority except from God.” The Church has consistently taught that Christians must obey the law, pay taxes, respect civil authorities, and refrain from rebellion against legitimate government. These themes persist in official INC publications today. ([Pasugo God’s Message][1])

This is hardly the language of insurrection.

Indeed, throughout its history, the INC has never advocated replacing the Philippine government with religious rule, nor has it embraced revolution as a theological principle.

Instead, it has insisted on a different proposition.

Government possesses legitimate authority—but only within its proper sphere.

Separation of Church and State is a two-way principle

Much public debate assumes that the constitutional separation of Church and State requires religious organizations to remain silent on political questions.

The Constitution says no such thing.

The principle primarily restrains the government from establishing, controlling, or interfering with religion. It simultaneously protects the rights of religious organizations to speak, organize, assemble, petition government, and participate in public affairs like any other private association.

The Iglesia Ni Cristo has consistently interpreted the separation of Church and State in precisely this manner.

Government should not dictate doctrine.

Government should not intervene in ecclesiastical decisions.

Government should not determine how a church governs itself.

Conversely, the Church argues that exercising constitutional rights—including public assembly and advocacy—does not violate the separation of Church and State.

This doctrinal understanding has shaped virtually every major public confrontation involving the INC.

The Iglesia Ni Cristo is not politically neutral

The historical record makes one conclusion unavoidable.

The Iglesia Ni Cristo has never been politically neutral.

That observation, however, requires an important qualification.

The Church has generally distinguished between partisan politics and institutional self-defense.

It rarely mobilizes simply because it disagrees with a government.

Instead, it has historically organized mass actions under three recurring circumstances.

The first is protecting religious autonomy.

Historical accounts describe large demonstrations during the Martial Law period after tensions developed between the Marcos government and the Church. Although documentation from the 1970s is less extensive than modern reporting, available historical sources indicate that the protests centered on alleged government interference rather than on efforts to overthrow the regime. ([Wikipedia][2])

The second is challenging government policy.

In 1991, amid soaring fuel prices under President Corazon Aquino, the INC prepared what was expected to become one of the country’s largest protest rallies. Before the demonstration could proceed, the Aquino administration announced reductions in petroleum prices, prompting the Church to cancel the mobilization. Even then, Church officials denied pursuing a partisan political agenda, framing the action instead as advocacy on an issue directly affecting ordinary Filipinos. ([Wikipedia][2])

The third—and by far the most common—is responding to what the Church considers government intrusion into ecclesiastical affairs.

Nothing illustrates this more clearly than the five-day protest along EDSA in August 2015.

The defining test came in 2015

When the Department of Justice investigated allegations by expelled minister Isaias Samson Jr. of illegal detention within Church compounds, the Iglesia Ni Cristo viewed the investigation not merely as a criminal inquiry but as a constitutional issue concerning religious freedom.

Tens of thousands of members gathered first outside the Department of Justice, then occupied portions of EDSA for several days.

The Church maintained that government had crossed the constitutional line separating civil authority from internal religious governance.

Political analysts interpreted the demonstration as an attempt to pressure the government to withdraw from what the INC believed were ecclesiastical matters, while the government insisted that no religious organization stands above criminal law. ([Wikipedia][3])

Regardless of which side one finds more persuasive, the episode reveals something important.

The INC did not protest because the government existed.

It protested because it believed the government had exceeded its legitimate authority.

Recent rallies reflect continuity more than change

The same institutional logic appears in more recent mobilizations.

The January 2025 National Rally for Peace opposed efforts to impeach Vice President Sara Duterte, with Church leaders arguing that prolonged political conflict threatened national stability. Later that year, another mass demonstration focused on transparency and accountability amid allegations surrounding flood-control spending. The current mobilizations similarly frame themselves around justice, due process, and accountability rather than calls for regime change. ([Wikipedia][2])

Critics understandably view these demonstrations as unmistakably political.

They are.

But politics and anti-government activity are not synonymous.

The historical evidence suggests that the Iglesia Ni Cristo has generally accepted the legitimacy of the Philippine State while reserving the right to challenge particular government actions or policies that it believes violate constitutional principles, religious liberty, or broader national interests.

A doctrine of obedience with constitutional limits

Taken together, more than a century of INC history reveals a remarkably consistent institutional philosophy.

The Church teaches obedience to lawful authority.

It rejects rebellion as a religious principle.

It encourages civic participation rather than political withdrawal.

Yet it also insists that government possesses constitutional limits beyond which it may not intrude into matters of faith.

That explains why the Iglesia Ni Cristo can simultaneously preach submission to government while organizing some of the largest demonstrations in modern Philippine history.

To outsiders, this may appear contradictory.

Within the Church’s own theological framework, however, there is no contradiction at all.

Jesus never said Caesar owned everything.

He simply reminded His followers that Caesar’s authority ends where God’s begins.

The enduring debate in Philippine politics is not whether the Iglesia Ni Cristo believes in that distinction.

It is where, exactly, that line should be drawn.

Where, then, does the present rally belong?

If the historical record is correct, the Iglesia Ni Cristo has generally mobilized only under three broad circumstances: to defend religious autonomy, to oppose specific government policies, or to respond to what it perceives as government actions affecting constitutional principles, justice, or institutional interests.

That framework raises an unavoidable question about the present demonstrations.

Into which of these categories does the current rally fall?

Is it primarily an act of institutional self-defense? If so, one must identify precisely what aspect of the Church’s religious autonomy is under threat.

Is it in opposition to a government policy? If so, which specific policy is being challenged?

Or does it represent something different altogether—a public demonstration supporting two political figures closely associated with the Church: Senator Rodante Marcoleta, who faces possible plunder charges, and Vice President Sara Duterte, whose impeachment has become one of the country’s defining political battles?

The Church itself has framed the gathering as a defense of justice, due process, and what it views as the proper application of the law. Its leaders argue that the legal actions against Marcoleta and the political campaign against Vice President Duterte reflect broader concerns about fairness, accountability, and the abuse of state power.

Critics, however, arrive at a different conclusion. They contend that the rally goes beyond defending constitutional principles and instead places the institutional weight of one of the country’s largest religious organizations behind identifiable political personalities.

History offers evidence for both interpretations.

The Iglesia Ni Cristo has never hesitated to defend its institutional interests when it believed they were threatened. At the same time, its recent mobilizations increasingly intersect with high-profile political conflicts involving elected officials whom the Church has publicly supported.

That evolution does not necessarily invalidate the Church’s long-standing doctrine on church and state. It does, however, invite a broader constitutional and democratic conversation.

At what point does defending principles become defending personalities?

At what point does protecting religious liberty become political advocacy?

Where should a religious organization draw the line between exercising its constitutional freedoms and becoming an influential participant in partisan political struggles?

Those questions are not directed solely at the Iglesia Ni Cristo. They confront every religious institution that chooses to enter the public square.

More than two thousand years after Jesus uttered the words, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s,” the difficult task remains the same: not merely acknowledging that a line exists between the Church and the State, but discerning where that line ought to be drawn.

[1]: https://www.pasugo.com.ph/the-founder-of-the-iglesia-ni-cristo/?utm_source=chatgpt.com “The Founder of the Iglesia Ni Cristo”

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iglesia_ni_Cristo?utm_source=chatgpt.com “Iglesia ni Cristo”

[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Iglesia_ni_Cristo_protests?utm_source=chatgpt.com “2015 Iglesia ni Cristo protests”

[4]: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330514132_The_2015_Iglesia_ni_Cristo_Protest_EDSA_IV_Against_DOJ_Secretary?utm_source=chatgpt.com “The 2015 Iglesia ni Cristo Protest (EDSA IV) Against DOJ …”

 Abejero, Dulce P. 2019. *The 2015 Iglesia ni Cristo Protest (EDSA IV) Against DOJ Secretary: A Test to Its Brethren’s Sanctity and Solidarity*. Polytechnic University of the Philippines. ([ResearchGate][4])

* Iglesia ni Cristo. *Pasugo*. “The Founder of the Iglesia Ni Cristo.” ([Pasugo God’s Message][1])

* UCANews. 1991. “Religious Sect to Rally for Rollback in Oil Prices.” (Contemporary report on the planned 1991 INC rally.)

* Research and contemporary reporting on the 2015 INC protests and subsequent political analyses. ([Wikipedia][3])