Politics and the Church:Part 4
October 10, 2008 by Ildefonso Rubrico
Filed under Commentaries
We will now continue the conversation between the three prominent Christian leaders – Chuck Colon, Shane Claiborne, and Greg Boyd on the issue of whether political engagement is a Christian duty, or is just a distraction from the real work of a believer here on earth. Each Christian leader represents a major thinking pattern among their respective flock, namely: (a) dual duty to God and country (Colson’s); (b) Jesus’ social agenda (Claiborne’s); (c) and making sure that God’s kingdom work well in the world (Boyd’s).
Clairbone is now talking…
Claiborne pursues Boyd’s line : I’ve got a great friend and teacher named Tony Campolo[a noted Preacher] out in Philadelphia. And one of the things that he always says is mixing church and state is like combining ice cream and horse manure. It may not do much damage to the manure, but it’s sure going to mess up the ice cream. And I think that’s what we’ve seen. Christianity is at its worst when we fuse it with the state.
George W. Bush on Ellis Island in 2002 said, “The ideals of America are the hope of mankind. This light shines in the darkness and the darkness will not overcome it.” That’s very dangerous theology. But to be fair, Barack Obama on The David Letterman Show this year said, “This country is the last great hope of the planet.” And that’s very dangerous theology too.
I think we know what the hope of the world is, and it’s much better than any presidential candidate.
Boyd: [To Claiborne] I don’t know where you got the title of your book, “Jesus for President,” but I love the title because what I find is that Christians confess “Jesus is Lord,” but we don’t have lords anymore. So the word gets packed with whatever meaning you want to give it. But we do have a president, and as kingdom citizens Jesus is our only president.
We ought to quit confessing Jesus as Lord and start confessing Jesus as President. Whoever may be president of this country doesn’t matter; my real President is Jesus Christ, and I’ll take my marching orders from him. So great job on the title.
Claiborne replies: It’s just as radical to say “Jesus is my Commander-in-Chief” today as it was to say “Jesus is Lord” two thousand years ago.
Boyd is in a good mood: You owe me on that book endorsement. (Laughter from everyone).
Colson: Let me add one thing to that. C.S. Lewis wrote a wonderful essay about Christian patriotism. He said it is not wrong to love your country, because God has called you to love your neighbors. Aquinas said the same thing about military service. He said someone who serves to defend the innocent is acting out of Christian love. So I don’t think you can simply forget the fact that we live in a kingdom and a state. [This is the dichotomy of our Christian life]. Our job is to make the state as righteous and as conformed to God’s standards as possible. But you can love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and soul and also love your country as a way of loving your neighbor.
Boyd: [To Colson] This is a real fundamental difference between us. In your book you speak a lot about our dual commitments, our dual allegiances to God and to country. I just don’t know where in the New Testament you get that. I can’t imagine Jesus or Paul saying such a thing. God tells us to obey the laws of the land as much as possible and to pray for peace. Those are our two engagements. But I don’t feel we have any kind of duty to love or defend our country.
Colson defends his stand: The New Testament is pretty clear that you render to Caesar what is Caesar’s and render to God what is God’s. [Luke 20:25, Mark 12:17, Matt 22:21]. It’s also clear that you are to respect the authorities because they are appointed by God to wield the sword in order for us to live peaceable lives [Romans 13:1]. So government has a role biblically. A military man takes an oath to support the Constitution because it’s God’s ordained instrument to preserve order. And without order you’ve got chaos.
Claiborne: Dorothy Day[the noted Christian writer] once said, “If we’ve given to God what is God’s, there’s not much left for Caesar.” It’s easy to miss the point of what Jesus is saying here. I think he’s spinning everything on its head and calling into question what really is Caesar’s. Caesar can imprint a piece of metal with his picture. Fine, give it back to him. But I think Jesus is saying, “God made humanity; humanity bears God’s image. Caesar has no right to that.”
Boyd: With regard to Romans 13, it’s important to realize that the chapter divisions weren’t in the original, so we have to read it in the light of Romans 12. And there Paul says never return evil with evil. If your enemy is hungry, give him something to eat. If he’s thirsty, give him something to drink. Never exact vengeance. Two verses later God uses government to exact vengeance. But he expressly forbids us from ever doing that. And therein lies the separation of the kingdom of God and the kingdom of the world.
Colson: When I first came to Christ, a small group of five men discipled me. One of them was Harold Hughes. He was a liberal Democrat, anti-Vietnam War, an opponent of Richard Nixon. He heard me give my testimony one night. He said to me, “I’ve just listened to you. You love Christ; I love Christ. We’re brothers. I’ll stand with you anywhere.” He embraced me. All through Watergate and the years that followed, he helped me get started. We were best friends. Yet we probably never voted for the same candidate.
Christians don’t march lockstep into the ballot box. But certain issues demand that we get involved. Now there is a respectable tradition that says we should just stand back, be an alternative community, let the world see a better way. That’s an honest difference of opinion that’s gone on for hundreds of years. I happen to belong to more of [the German Christian philosopher Richard] Niebuhr school that says we are to make an impact for Christ in how we live our lives in challenging the political systems. But you can still be an evangelical and come from either one of these traditions.
Claiborne: If there’s anything I’ve learned from both conservatives and liberals, it’s that you can have all the right political answers and still be mean. And nobody wants to listen to you if you’re mean. One of the things that we can do is learn to disagree well. I think there is a new conversation happening within evangelicalism in post-religious-right America that is much healthier. We can actually learn to disagree well.
Boyd: What’s really amazing in the Gospels is that Jesus chooses Simon, a zealot, as one of his disciples. Zealots were political revolutionaries. They used violence when necessary. Then he chooses Matthew, a tax collector, a defender of the status quo. The difference between those two is greater than that between Ted Kennedy and Rush Limbaugh. In fact, zealots sometimes assassinated tax collectors. But Jesus calls them both to be his disciples, and we don’t hear one word about it. That tells me that having Christ in common is to render inconsequential all the opinions we have about politics. When Jesus is President, those things become of secondary importance.
Summary:
What do you think my esteemed listeners?
Is it better to promote “the kingdom of God” in this world, a view that Pastor Gregory Boyd passionately believes in, rather than questioning whether “we have any kind of duty to love or defend our country[America]?” Or for that matter, the Philippines?
Or, should we take Pastor Shane Claiborne’s perspective above that Jesus was actually a social reformer – helping the poor; working in prisons, etc.? That there is an urgent call for new political heroes – Mother Teresa for example?
Or, finally, what about Political Reform – Chuck Colson’s advocacy of a church actively engaged in the political arena, of morality visible in the public square critically bearing on society’s failings? He cites history’s examples like Martin Luther King of the Civil Rights Movement and Rev. Wilberforce’s fight against slavery in the British Parliament. Both were hard-fought. Both were successfully accomplished.[Note: The closest contemporary Philippine example would be ex-priest and current Pampanga Governor Ed Panlilio introducing transparency into government contracts and battling entrenched political dynasties in his province who want him out.].
What about you, my esteemed listener? Would you rather be: (a) like Boyd, a “kingdom promoter;” or, (b) a Claiborne, committing the church to a “gospel of social work;”or, (c) finally, follow Colson’s lead to say there’s hope whenever you campaign and vote for Christian politicians into office?
The choice is yours!
Politics and the Church:Part 3
October 10, 2008 by Ildefonso Rubrico
Filed under Commentaries
Body Politic
Three leaders, three generations, debate whether political involvement is a duty or distraction for the church.
Here are excerpts from their conversation, moderated by Krista Tippett, host of “Speaking of Faith,” a program produced by American Public Media and broadcast on National Public Radio. The entire forum is copyrighted © 2008 by Christianity Today International/Leadership Journal which is available in the Internet.
This is how their conversation went. We will start with Colson’s opinion whether political involvement is a Christian duty, or, just a distraction for the church.
Chuck Colson said: The cover of Newsweek called 1976 “The Year of the Evangelical.” The evangelical vote was actually decisive for Jimmy Carter in that election. Christians had been in the fundamentalist hinterlands through most of the twentieth century. They stayed out of the political limelight. They didn’t want to contaminate themselves, which was wrong. I don’t think you can leave your moral convictions behind when you enter the voting booth. It was the abortion issue among other things that suddenly riveted the attention of Christians onto the public arena.
But things dramatically changed from ’76 through the mid-eighties. I think now we’re maturing. I think we’ve gotten out of that adolescent stage of being a power bloc or a special interest group. We’re taking a much more sophisticated look at what it means to be a Christian in public life today.
Greg Boyd reacts: In the early nineties, I went to a mega-church celebration on the Fourth of July. They sang patriotic songs. They displayed a cross and a flag together, and then they showed a video with patriotic music and a military general describing how God had given the U.S. the victory in the first Gulf War. At the end, four fighter jets in formation flew over three crosses. It freeze framed there and “God Bless America” appeared. The crowd stood up and cheered. I started crying. Then before the 2004 election, I was getting an unprecedented amount of pressure, as I think most pastors of large churches were, to steer the flock in a certain way politically. So I did a six-part sermon series called “The Cross and the Sword.”
[I cited Reverend and House of Commons Minister]Wilberforce [who] was fighting slavery [in the British]Parliament at the same time he was writing books about spiritual renewal and holiness. [But a dichotomy exists here].
I explained that Christians are not here to rally around America or any other country; we’re to rally around the kingdom of God. I told them why we’re not to jump on a political bandwagon. Good, honest, and Bible-believing people can have the same values but translate them into politics in different ways. Our job is to focus on living out the kingdom. That’s our one bull’s eye, our one duty to God. And we should let the politics take care of itself. [But the reaction of people was quite violent]. Some people were absolutely aghast. About a thousand people left the church, about 20 percent.
I believe we are to transform the world. Absolutely, that’s the call. Ours isn’t a privatized faith. But the way you do it from a kingdom perspective is very different from the way you do it from the world’s perspective. We’re to bleed, we’re to sacrifice, we’re to replicate Calvary.
Shane Claiborne speaks: [In the gospels I think] Jesus had plenty of political options—to flee society and go into the hills or to fight with the zealots—but he was very peculiar in how he was political. In all of our hunger and drive to be culturally relevant, we can lose the distinctiveness of the values and upside-down rationality of the kingdom of God. [Let me explain:]…
What if people looked at Christians and were [curious] like… Wait. Why are they driving their cars off [or with] vegetable oil[as fuel, like biodiesel]? And we say, “Because we love the Creator, and we believe that we should care for the earth.” [In the same way] We should be helping the poor. We should be working in prisons.
Colson reacts: I’m listening to Shane [Claiborne] and agreeing with everything he just said, particularly because he recognizes we need to be engaged in the moral issues of the day. Shane mentioned we should be working in the prisons, and that’s where I spent my life. What drove me there was the massive sense of injustice in the way we were treating a lot of people in prison. And I ended up addressing state legislatures across the country. Had I followed Greg [Boyd's] advice, I would have just “tended to the kingdom” and felt good about my relationship with Jesus.
If Martin Luther King had followed that advice, we wouldn’t have had the Civil Rights Movement. I don’t mean to take harsh issue with you, Greg, but just “tending to the kingdom and letting politics take care of itself” is exactly what the slave owners said during the Civil War. [German theologian during the Second World War, Rev.] Bonhoeffer stood against Hitler. Thank God he did.
Wilberforce stood up on the floor of Parliament against the slave trade in England and fought a twenty-year battle. He was fighting moral issues at the same time he was writing books about spiritual renewal and holiness.
Christians may have all the right political answers and still be mean… We can learn to disagree well.
Boyd [with an edge in his voice]: It’s not an issue of whether or not we should engage moral evil and politics, but is it our primary job? It’s not the main job of the church to be running the government or to influence legislation. The main job is to live out the kingdom. I feel like some Christians put the political cart before the kingdom horse.
Christians in America differ very, very little from the broader American culture. We’re almost indistinguishable. I’m focused on getting my congregation to live out radical kingdom principles 24 hrs a day/7days a week. If we get that done, I think we’ll have a lot of clarity about how to engage the culture, including politics.
[Saint]Augustine told an abbot one time, “Love God and do what you please,” because if you love God, everything else is going to follow. I would say, love God and vote as you please. Because if you’re really loving God, your politics will take care of itself.
Claiborne replies to both: What I love about Jesus is he wasn’t just offering a political platform or agenda; he embodies what he values. He’s born a baby refugee in the middle of a genocide. He lives struggle. So I think we need new political heroes and she-roes. Mother Teresa is one of those for me.
I worked with her in Calcutta. She’s done so much toward decreasing abortions and honoring life from the cradle to the grave, but it wasn’t because she went around wearing a prolife t-shirt. She lived it. Like she said, “If you don’t want your baby, you can give it to me.”
I’m prolife, which is why I don’t want abortions and I don’t want war. But that also means that I have an obligation to figure out what to do when a 14-year-old girl on my block gets pregnant, which happened. You can have all the right answers and great rhetoric, but what we’re really hungry for is a Christianity that has substance, that embodies the gospel.
Colson argues: There is a fine balance that no one has articulated better than Augustine in [his monumental work] “The City of God.” He would be the last one to say we shouldn’t engage in politics. He would say our first task is to build the kingdom, but in the course of building the kingdom, we care deeply about the moral condition of the society in which we live. Christians have always done this. Women’s rights were pushed by the church in Rome in the third century, which is one reason the church grew so rapidly. They elevated the role of women in the church, and Roman culture followed. As you go back through the centuries, Christians have always engaged the political process when human rights and the sanctity of life have been involved.
Boyd objects to Colson’s argument with his own line of reasoning: You’re right; they were for life and women’s rights, and the church did grow. But they did it by being the kingdom, not by being political. In fact, for the most part in the early church, they discouraged believers from serving in government. They saw it as of the devil. It was after the church acquired political power that Augustine authorized the state to start persecuting heretics. And that was the first time violence started being done in Jesus’ name. That’s when Christian history started getting ugly, and it brought defamation to the name of Christ.
Colson admits: That was a mistake. We’ve made many mistakes, and we correctly repent of those mistakes. But that doesn’t mean you don’t keep trying to get it right.
My esteemed listeners, we will continue this interesting exchange next time between three highly-intelligent Christian leaders, on the propriety of engaging (or not engaging) the Christian in the political arena.
“Where there is no vision, the people perish!”
Segment 82
www.biblical-perspectives.org Oct. 2008
Politics and the Church:Part 2
October 10, 2008 by Ildefonso Rubrico
Filed under Commentaries
Last time we briefly traced the history of the relationship between the Philippine Church and the State, which was indeed quite a cozy relationship for almost four centuries of Spanish rule, punctuated every now and then by local revolts and uprisings coming out of the excesses of the friars. When I said “Church” I meant the Roman Catholic Church, which since 1521 had gained a firm foothold in the country and has since baptized 85 percent of the population into the Catholic faith. However, with the establishment of the American regime in 1898, other various Christian denominations like the Baptists, Methodists, Presbeterians, Congregationalists and Adventists came as American missionaries and proceeded to establish schools, hospitals and seminaries most of which are still existing today. These Protestant Christians – as they were known – comprise about 7 to 8 percent of the population today, with those of the Muslim faith in the South, Buddhists, Hindus and animists making up the rest of the population.
Following the First Philippine Revolutionary Constitution of 1898, the Americans drew a definite demarcation line between the Church and State in the years that followed. By drawing heavily on the 1788 American Constitution, the First Amendment, and American jurisprudence, the 1935 Philippine Constitution contained provisions that were a virtual copy of the U.S. Constitution – including separation of church and state and freedom of religion. The passage of the 1987 Philippine Constitution departed from the classical interpretation of these two provisions in that – unlike the U.S. constitution which called for the legislature to set the limits on them: a de jure situation – compared to our current constitution that allows and accomodates the practice of religion de facto. De jure is a legal term which means, roughly “by law,” whereas de facto loosely means, “by the fact of” or “inherent to.” In other words, in the U.S., special laws were required to be passed in order to legally spell-out specific exemptions. For example, U.S. churches are generally tax-exempt. However, during the time of Pres. Lyndon Johnson in the mid-60s, a law was passed prohibiting pastors from using the pulpit to endorse political candidates, under pain of losing their tax exemption privileges.
Last time also we asked the all-important question of whether the Church should be involved in state affairs – meaning engage in politics. And what does the Bible say about it? Today, we tackle the negative side.
No Politics for the Church
Those who say that , no, the Church should not engage itself in politics by citing what happened after the time of the Judges when there was no revelation from God to Israel.
In that dark period of Israel’s history known as the Inter-testamental Period, God had not spoken to His people for more than 300 years, neither through His mouthpiece, the prophets, or by direct revelation as He did to Moses. Why had this God, reverently called Yahweh by His people, all of a sudden became silent, where before He used to be “in the thick of things,” the day-by-day events overseeing the worldly and spiritual affairs of His people? Maybe part of the answer (part only, because we will never be able to completely fathom God’s mind) is that Israel had been disobedient and had provoked God’s anger on so many occasions (eg. Is 9:8ff, Hos 13:1ff, Jer 11:1ff).
Could this perhaps be the case of the Israelites having no competence for self-rule in accordance with God’s commands after a trial period spanning several centuries? Whatever it was, still, the people kept their hopes alive for a Ruler whom Isaiah had prophesied in Is 9: 6,7: “For unto us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the GOVERNMENT shall be upon his shoulders… Of the increase of his GOVERNMENT and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom, establishing it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever; the zeal of the Almighty Lord will accomplish this.”
Surely, if past rulers have failed before because of human disobedience, the coming One – Jesus Christ - will not!
A Child did come, grew into manhood, was crucified, and rose again to the glory of His Father in heaven: Jesus. That was 2,000 yrs ago. Now we ask: Where was/is Jesus’ promised “government” of peace, justice and righteousness that “has no end?” Today, by all accounts the world remains a grand mess: governments and its leaders are still corrupt; politicians recognize no god except themselves, their money and power; everywhere there is chaos, wars, terrorism and human-rights violations. If – as in the past – the Church will enter into the political arena, what are the chances that it will not itself wallow in the muck of greed and corruption?
Body Politic
In the paragraphs that follow, I will be quoting extensively the views of three American pastors as they weigh in on the political scene of the United States today. But why the U.S.? Why not the Philippines? The answer is simple: church leaders in the U.S. are more transparent, their thoughts shared with others, and, more importantly – they “walk the talk” rather than “talk the walk.” In other words, the religious leaders that I will feature in this program are honest, open and are doers. All of them have successful ministries in the truest sense of the word: in prison ministry, in social work, and in pastoring a flock who believe in the Kingdom of God, now and hereafter.
Three leaders, three generations: one in his 60s, the other in his 40s, and the last in his late-20s - debate whether political involvement is a duty or a distraction for the church. Is the church distracted from its mission by seeking to influence politics? Or has it not been engaged enough? Homespun wisdom says that neither religion nor politics should be discussed in polite company. But what about religion and politics? These three leaders debate the role church leaders should play in the political scene today: a “burning social issue” appropriate to our Biblical Perspectives program here.
This incendiary mix of divergent opinion-makers was the focus of a three-way discussion at the most recent National Pastors Convention in San Diego. To quote Christianity Today, “while the conversation was polite, the panelist’s divergent perspectives made for an, at times, tense engagement.”
The Panelists
The panelists in that forum were: Charles Colson, Gregory Boyd, and Shane Claiborne.
Their respective profiles are as follows:
Charles Colson has a long history of political involvement dating back to his role serving President Nixon and later serving seven months in prison for the Watergate scandal. He is a strong proponent of Christians engaging the political arena, and the author of God and Government: An Inside View on the Boundaries Between Faith and Politics (Zondervan, 2007).
Gregory Boyd is pastor of Woodland Hills Church in St. Paul, Minnesota. He’s leery [or, overly cautious to the point of avoiding] of Christians who indiscriminately synchronize their faith with any political ideology—a viewpoint articulated in his book The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power is Destroying the Church (Zondervan, 2007).
Shane Claiborne is a founding member of The Simple Way, a new monastic community in Philadelphia. With an emphasis on seeking justice for the poor, Claiborne advances an incarnate form of political engagement that is embodied in one’s local setting. He is the coauthor of Jesus for President: Politics for Ordinary Radicals (Zondervan, 2008).
Seeing Charles Colson, Greg Boyd, and Shane Claiborne together illustrates their differing positions on faith and politics. Colson, in coat and tie, is a model of establishment propriety. Boyd, in blue jeans and a blazer, is informally relevant. Claiborne, in frayed dungarees and dreadlocks, places himself on the social margins.
We will feature these three in our next segment.
“Where there is no vision, the people perish!”
Segment 77
www.Biblical-Perspectives.org Oct. 2008
Politics and the Church:Part 1
October 10, 2008 by Ildefonso Rubrico
Filed under Commentaries
Good morning! This is your host, Nene Rubrico welcoming you once more to Biblical Perspectives, your socio-biblical commentary on the “burning issues of the day.” This program is brought to you by the family of Engr. Ildefonso Rubrico. All views expressed herein are solely the commentator’s and do not reflect the views of this station.
The Church and State: History and Jurisprudence
Today we are going to talk about the Church and the State. Under our 1987 Philippine Constitution, these two terms – church and state- appear quite early, in Article II: “DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES,” and Section 6 declaring the Principle that “The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.” Inviolable means, according to the 10th edition of the Oxford Dictionary: “never to be infringed or dishonoured.” The framers of our Constitution wisely included another important section to further explain what they meant by the principle of separation of the church and state never to be infringed or dishonoured, namely, Article III, Section 5 which I quote: “No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.” Our Philippine Constitution – while establishing a demarcation line between the church and the state which must not be crossed by either side, in Art. II, Sec. 6 – nevertheless recognizes and allows the free exercise of religion, without state interference, in Art. III, Sec. 5. These two principles – the principle of separation between church and state, and, the freedom of religion – have had a long and colorful history.
Harking back to the Spanish Period, the demarcation line that separated the church and the state was practically non-existent, with the religious orders openly dictating to the civil and military authorities their wishes, under (some say) “pain of excommunication.” Jose Rizal, in his novels Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo, graphically captured these moments. During the Philippine revolution, the Malolos Constitution of 1898 codified the formal separation of church and state. With the advent of the American colonial period in the early 20th century, religious freedom finally became a reality. Successive Philippine Constitutions of 1935 and 1973 affirmed these two principles. And the matter should have rested there.
Notwithstanding, their legal interpretation have also been challenged in the courts at various times: as when a certain and powerful religious sect’s political favors were openly courted by aspiring politicians and political groups, in exchange for government positions and fat contracts. Or, when some nationally-known religious leaders ran for public office utilizing the tax-exempt resources of their churches for political ends. As of this writing, there have been at least three prominent religious leaders – one Roman Catholic bishop, and two tele-evangelists – who have publicly announced their opposition to the Reproductive Health Bill, H.B. 5043 or “An Act Providing for a National Policy on Reproductive Health, Responsible Parenthood and Population “ authored by Rep. Edcel Lagman. The good bishop reportedly planned to deny Holy Communion to any lawmaker who would support the Bill, while one popular televangelist allied to the Catholics threatened to “run in 2010” if the law is passed. The third religious leader – who had ran in the 2004 presidential elections under the banner of reform in government, and placed last in a field of seven candidates – voiced his “concern” for the bill. He reportedly plan to run again in 2010 but is waiting for “a sign from God.”
Just recently, the Supreme Court of the Philippines, ruling in 2003 and 2006 in the landmark case of Estrada vs. Escritor, established the doctrine of benevolent neutrality-accommodation. The 2006 ruling, penned by now-Chief Justice Puno, explained benevolent-neutrality in the context of U.S. jurisprudence as follows:
Under the benevolent-neutrality theory, the principle underlying the First Amendment is that freedom to carry out one’s duties to a Supreme Being is an inalienable right, not one dependent on the grace of legislature. Religious freedom is seen as a substantive right and not merely a privilege against discriminatory legislation. With religion looked upon with benevolence and not hostility, benevolent neutrality allows accommodation of religion under certain circumstances (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_religious_freedom_in_the_Philippines).
The good Chief Justice was referring to the 1788 American Constitution, specifically the First Amendment, which states in part: “that expressly prohibits the United States Congress from making laws “respecting an establishment of religion” or that prohibits the free exercise of religion…” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment). A close reading of both the American and Philippine constitutions reveals a subtle, but, important, difference. Whereas the American constitution prohibits the making of laws that will either: (a) recognize a specific religion; or (b) prohibit religious freedom, the Philippine constitution allows – under certain circumstances – the government to be accomodating of a person’s religious practices, or at least take a neutral stand on it. Furthermore, any Philippine law that conflics with an individual’s expressely-held religious beliefs must first pass the so-called “strict scrutiny test” in order for that law to be enforceable (Ibid.). I shall no longer discuss here what this ‘strict scrutiny test’ is all about except to say that it is a judicial review conducted by the courts.
In a recent forum at the University of the Philippines Law Center at U.P. Diliman, retired SC Associate Justice Hugo Gutierrez had this to say:
Sixty-seven years ago, the Supreme Court emphasized that Filipinos are a religious people. In Aglipay v. Ruiz 64 Phil 201 (1937), the Supreme Court stated that, “in so far as it instills into the mind the purest principles of morality the influence of religion is deeply felt and highly appreciated.” The preamble of the Constitution itself manifests our intense religious nature and places unfaltering reliance upon Divine Providence to guide our people and nation (ibid.). [“The Ecumenical Ministry of the Church of the Risen Lord.” Associate SC Justice Hugo E.Gutierrez, Jr. (ret.). A paper read before the UPCYM-ACTS International Conference, 15 August 2008 at UP Law Center, UP Diliman].
From the foregoing we see that Philippine jurisprudence is rich on upholding the twin principles of: separation of church and state, and, freedom of religion. As a matter of fact, it is our churches (and their leaders) that seem to be impinging on what is decidedly state affairs. More so in the Philippine context.
So the question is: Does the Church engage in politics? We have already answered that question by citing some examples above. Should it even engage in politics? What are the biblical guidelines, if any?
Some say, yes, the church may engage in politics, specifically citing Leviticus 25:43: “Do not RULE over them ruthlessly, but fear your God.” Now, let us focus on the word “rule.” Nowadays, to rule means to “govern.” In our modern society, the system of governing, or, governance, is known as “politics.” Therefore, to “govern” is to engage in the system of “politics,” or to be involved in the political system. Politics has been defined as: ”the art or science of government or governing, especially the governing of a political entity, such as a nation, and the administration and control of its internal and external affairs.” (http://www.answers.com/topic/politics). .Without a system of governance or politics, hardly any country can go forward. Notice how Somalia – without a functioning government except its land-based warlords and sea-borne pirates – is making international havoc among other peaceful nations!
To bolster the yes argument further, in Genesis 1:26, 28 God created human beings in his image and commanded them to “rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” Man – God’s “image-bearer”- was to be the STEWARD of God’s creation. Stewardship means “taking care of something IN BEHALF OF.” Thus originally, “rulership” meant stewardship of and by His image-bearers (man) because there was only one Supreme Ruler (God) and all the rest were His Stewards.
From the foregoing, it is clear that God expected man to “rule,” i.e., to govern, (or to exercise political control) – albeit, “without ruthlessnessness” (or, cruelly) – over his fellow human-beings. There is plenty of biblical support for this: Abraham was a ruling tribal chief respected (and even, feared) by other tribes; and so did the generations after him: Isaac, Jacob and his12 sons, who themselves founded 12 tribal nations to govern. The Old Testamenent patriachs exercised political leadership over their people, extending all the way to the establishment – with God’s blessings – of the dynastic kingdoms and up to the period of the Judges. We will continue on this topic next time.
“Where there is no vision, the people perish!”
Segment 76
www.Biblical-Perspectives.org Oct. 2008
Biblical true friends and false friends
October 6, 2008 by Ildefonso Rubrico
Filed under Scriptural study
Brethren,
Who are our true friends and false friends?
The Bible says in Prov. 17: 17, “A true friend will stand by, even in times of trouble. A friend loveth at all times, and a brother is born for adversity.” The Bible speaks of false friends, too, when it warns, “Confidence in an unfaithful man in time of trouble is like a broken tooth, and a foot out of joint” (Prov. 25: 19).
FoxNews is running a commentary on Obama and his “radical friends,” (below). Todate, no other ‘mainstream media’ has taken up the thread, most of whom have self-identified themselves as “liberal; left-wing.”
-nr
===========================
Obama and his “radical friends”
Wall Street crashed once again. The Nasdaq went down below 10,000 points (9728 na as of this posting, although it’s slowly recovering from the panic). The last time that happened a few days ago, Wall Street lost a TRILLION DOLLARS. Financial crashes in Germany, the U.K. and Netherlands too. Who else? What about the Philippines? The whole financial world is watching…..
FoxNews has named Obama’s “radical friends” below:
1. ACORN – Assn of Community Organizers for Reform Now. This NGO is one of Obama’s not-so-secret org that has been dubbed “the most radical organization in America today.” It has been involved anywhere from voter fraud, business harassment, congressional coercion, etc
Acorn has managed to infiltrate Capitol Hill and almost all Democrats and a few Republicans appear to be on its payroll. In fact the new bailout plan mandates that the Federal Housing Trust (a euphemism for Acorn) must share in whatever profits from the bailout to the tune of 20%! The amount has been computed at around 100-150 million dollars. (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080927140444AA7Lxjn). The impression is that US Congress still wants to save the hide of ACORN and in fact wants to throw out bailout money its way. This, despite the fact that some economists question whether the bailout plan will even generate “profits.” What profits, they ask? The 700 billion is not even enough to pay out the US financial system which is computed to lose about 3 TRILLION DOLLARS.
Acorn has in the past been the subj of several congressional hearings on voter fraud based on a complaint by the Consumers Rights League : voters list padding; hakot;vote-buying. Also embezzelment, cover-ups – sounds like the Philippines, no?
The Obama connection is dat he served as Acorn’s training officer in the 80s, and Acorn has supported him all the way from state senator, US senator and now presdtl candidate.This is the “community worker” record that Obama has been telling everybody about. Acorn is on record as having coerced Freddie Mac and Fannie May to extend easy housing loans to unsuitable individuals bec. the Democrat-controlled congress said so. So now dey have traced who instigated those bad loans, Acorn. Acorn activists have also been known to break into city council meetings and company CEO meetings to harass them into approving measures to benefit those on wefare. Sounds like Bayan tactics to me….
The biggest campaign beneficiary of Fannie Mae is Obama at USD150,000 altho McCain also got 15K. Now some lawyers are questioning the constitutionality of this bec Fannie Mae is a quasi-govt. housing agency barred from giving contributions. Think Pag-Ibig Funds being doled out to our politicians – that’s the picture!
2. William Ayers – is a suspected U.S. terrorist belonging to the Weatherman group that was responsible for rail bombings in the 90s in the U.K., and now a respectable professor in the University of Illinois. Although never convicted of any crime, he told the New York Times in September 2001, “I don’t regret setting bombs…I feel we didn’t do enough.” Both Obama and Ayers were members of the board of an anti-poverty group, the Woods Fund of Chicago, between 1999 and 2002. In addition, Ayers contributed $200 to Obama’s re-election fund to the Illinois State Senate in April 2001, as reported. They lived within a few blocks of each other in the trendy Hyde Park section of Chicago, and moved in the same liberal-progressive circles. (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_weatherman_connection.html) Obama guilty by association? We’ll see.
3. Rev. Jeremiah Wright – of Trinity United Church and pastor to Obama for 20 years. Wright made headlines when he blamed America for 9/11 on natl. TV (“God damn America….). His church is known for its liberal views. He and another radical black Catholic priest, Michael Pleger (see below) have been tagged as racist. After Obama reportedly resigned from his church, Rev. Wright kept talking. He made his way to the National Press Club and spewed out more venom, including continued praise of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan and the communist Sandinista regime of Nicaragua; his theory that the U.S. government created the HIV virus to get rid of racial minorities; a demand for the U.S. government to apologize for slavery. Of most note, however, was his claim that the only reason Senator Obama had distanced himself from Rev. Wright was because he wants to get elected. “He didn’t distance himself,” Wright announced, “He had to distance himself, because he’s a politician, from what the media was saying I had said, which was anti-American.” You would think a spiritual mentor of twenty years would know the mind and heart of his disciple. Who knows? (http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/06/02/obamas-loyalty-to-liberation-theology/)
4. Fr. Michael Pfleger – is a known radical espousing Black Liberation Theology in his Chicago parish. He claims a “prophetic preaching” modeled along Rev. Wright’s whom he claims as a friend. What’s wrong with ‘liberation theology?’
Liberation Theology was written in 1984 by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger,” known today as Pope Benedict XVI, and “introduces its readers to the dangers inherent in Black Liberation Theology.” In that belief system, which is in reality a political movement, Cardinal Ratzinger tells us “hope is interpreted as “confidence in the future” and . . . subordinated once more to the history of class conflict.” In this belief system, salvation and liberation are synonymous (http://iperceive.net/black-liberation-theology-marxism-in-a-clerical-collar-2/).
Fr. Jonathan Morris writes (http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/06/02/obamas-loyalty-to-liberation-theology/ministry:
A new video recording is released showing Roman Catholic priest, Michael Pfleger, giving a racist, sexist, crude and demeaning sermon, a stinging defense of Senator Obama against “white entitlement”. It quickly came to light that Fr. Pfleger has been twice a major recipient of earmark funds from Senator Obama’s political advocacy, and more importantly, he is another one of his longtime “spiritual guides” (Rev. Obama’s own words). Was his relationship with Fr. Pfleger part of the “context” which Senator Obama said was needed in order to understand Rev. Wright’s inflammatory words? Should we understand Senator Obama’s religious convictions by looking at his other spiritual role models? In 2004 Senator Obama told The Chicago Sun-Times that Fr. Pfleger helped him “keep his moral compass straight.”
For those of us who knew of Fr. Pfleger’s long history of controversy in the South Side of Chicago, we’re saddened, but not surprised by the show. He is a social activist inspired by liberation theology who for many years has watched his step closely so as not to break canon law (Church law) and thus give his local bishop legal grounds to remove him from.
——————-
Whew! With friends like the above, Obama doesn’t need enemies. What say you? -nr
