In tackling this issue, I am sure to be treading on dangerous and oftentimes misunderstood waters. As a Protestant, my views on the issues involving Catholic bishops can be easily taken in the wrong light by faithful Catholics. However, as a voting citizen of the Republic of the Philippines, this is an issue that affects almost everyone of us. Here we have an institution labeled to be the moral force of the country yet embroiled in issues that will put this moral angle in issue. In the first few days that this issue came out, a lot talk and speculations came into scene as the details were unfolding. A number of bishops were labeled as Pajero bishops for they were reported to have received funding to purchase car which was mistakenly labeled as Pajero. Pajero or not, the issue was about their use of public funds to but service-utility vehicles or SUV’s. Many were surprised that the clergy can actually make use of government money to buy things such as these.

This issue can easily be blown out of proportion and it indeed was. In the Roman Catholic side, there was a group of laymen that called for the resignation of PCSO Chief Juico over the mislabeling of these cars as Pajeros while on the other hand, the so-called freethinkers and the progressive parties preyed on the issue to point out that these bishops have lost their moral hand in other issues like the RH Bill. As my Pastor Yount said in an unrelated sermon before: “Keep the main thing, the main thing.” This indeed is how we must look into this case. On the side of the Roman Catholic laymen, even if the PCSO chair Juico mislabeled this cars as Pajeros instead of the real brand, there is still a probable cause for corruption. While the moral fiber of the bishops has been eroded a bit by these controversies, it is terribly unnecessary to co-relate this with the RH Bill issue and certainly this does not give them the license to disrespect the elderly bishops no matter how disrespectful their deeds are.

So, how does this affect me, a Protestant citizen of the Republic of the Philippines? Even as we have no priests of the same vow and vocation in my denomination, I do know a lot of things about the vows of the priests and their duties. One particular vow of priests is the vow of poverty. Though I do not see a biblical reference on why a clergyman must really be poor but I do know this alludes to the fact that the early apostles lived a simple life devoid of any earthly pleasures. This fact alone brings us to the notion that certainly this bishops in asking for a birthday gift did go contrary to the example that a clergy must follow. As far as my knowledge can bring me, it is all but prudent for a clergyman to receive gifts but never ask for one. Even so, there is still justification as to the fact that they may be poor being clergy or they need assistance in helping poor communities but as we open the books of several companies, we can see that dioceses do own cash-producing property and company stocks that amount to billions of pesos. Why ask government for funds if in your own pockets, you are overflowing with money? This certainly puts the purpose into doubt.

As have been mentioned before, there is also the contention of the separation of Church and State enshrined in our Constitution. While the bishops’ bickering on certain laws like the RH Bill can be justified by their so-called moral fiber in society as being unrelated to the separation clause, funding clergy is certainly another more valid concern. I remember in my Political Thought Class that this separation clause does not mean that clergy cannot run in political positions but just simply means that the State should not promote a specific religion or fund a religious organization for their promotion. This gives us already a grey area on the issue for there is an interpretation that clearly hinders the State from giving government funds to a Church. As much as some cars may have been used for charity work, this in itself is already can be a violation of the separation clause for an object funded by the government may have been used in promoting religious causes. I do not expect that these vehicles will just carry supplies but they carry the priests to locations to say Mass for example. That is one thing but it is aggravating if these cars were used for personal purposes of the bishops concerned. The issue opens up more questions and more doubts about the moral veracity of an age-old institution such as the Roman Catholic Church in the Philippines.

I may be a Protestant, specifically a Baptist belonging to the Calvinist school of soteriological thought, but I do give an respect to the bishops and clergymen of the Roman Catholic Church. This issue may bring to question their moral veracity but I, as a Christian, am compeled to treat them with respect but this does not stop me to call on the authorities concerned to punish them and others involved for justice knows no boundaries, even if you are a high-ranking church official. This issue will shake the Roman Catholic institution but I believe they are there to last and so we must deal with them with respect. I just hope that this issue was not raised in order to be a smokescreen of other more pressing issues that need to be tackled. As responsible citizens, we must always be vigilant and actively pursuing what is good for the country.

Every person has encountered millions of people in his lifetime. Often they are strangers, a number are acquaintances, a few are friends but only a handful are people who make an impact in one’s life. These people may be close friends, family or role models that are well-off in life or academics yet set their feet on solid ground. As I reflect on this, I remember a great statesman who made an impact in my life the past year, former DND Secretary Gilbert “G1BO” Teodoro. I have seen him several times but nothing beats this experience with him in his office in Camp Aguinaldo. This picture is one of the few I have as a memorabilia with him…

Gibo is a no-nonsense professional who strives to work his best in the field. He came to the helm of DND when the AFP was swamped with controversies. It was sad that he only got to serve for a short span of time. We hoped for a better president and we saw it in Gibo Teodoro. The years 2009 and 2010 saw the best times of my life when I served him in my function in his campaign as his Regional Director in Western Visayas. I remember him listening intently very much when young people voice out their idea and sentiment. No wonder he got the hearts of the youth. His sense of authority yet humbling words saw crowds in every university presidential debate he goes in. Gibo never forgets to express his thankfulness to his volunteers when chance arise. I miss working with him and how he would encourage me in my careers randomly. I would never forget a person like Gibo Teodoro who has proven himself to be a statesman. He may have lost the Presidential Election but winning the Palace does not make one a statesman.

Today is his Forty-seventh birthday. He is still young indeed though now out of the political scene, hopefully for now. A true father he is to his only son and I would remember how recounts cooking for his family or buying vegetables in Market – Market when he is not busy. I wonder if I’ll ever see him again but I hope I would soon. Rumors have been going around that he might run for Senator but that remains a rumor still. Even now, I am still ready to be of service to him when he rekindles his passion for the people by running for any office. I say, this man deserves as second chance for the Palace. We need a man like him to run our country that is beleaguered with many turmoils and troubles in and outside our borders. It is my prayer that he will live this another year of his life well and thankfully. Sulong Gibo!

I have always noticed that the rallying point of many anti-RH people is the papal encyclical entitled Humanae Vitae. This document has been quoted extensively in the course of discussion about the RH Bill. Some pastors and theologians have pointed to the contention that the Filipino Roman Catholics’ stand on the RH Bill is in keeping with papal infallibility. A number of Roman Catholic priests have replied to this statement in a number of ways, oftentimes contradicting. The Roman Catholic doctrine on papal infallibility in itself is a confusing contention though I do not believe in the papal infallibility doctrine since it contradicts certain aspects of the Bible and that of the nature of the Holy Spirit. Though I understand the technicalities of Roman Catholic doctrines through my extensive studies, let me clarify that I do not claim authority in these since I am an Evangelical Christian and of course non-Roman Catholic.

The question is: “Are papal encyclicals infallible?” Of course in the Biblical, Evangelical and personal standpoint, it is not. Roman Catholic explanations on the papal infallibility especially in papal encyclicals has been confusing. While they contend that papal encyclicals are far from being infallible, there is a qualifier that made it confusing which is “in general”. This leaves out a point for them that some papal encyclicals are “infallible” but how as to these are infallible is vague. One sure infallible declarations for Roman Catholics is the “ex-cathedra” proclamation which is part of the pope’s magisterial authority. Then comes the term “ordinary magisterium” which extends papal infallibility in some matters and this makes their doctrine all the more confusing since what is the qualifier of these “ordinary magisterial” teachings to be infallible? Answers are detailed but heavily laden with words “may” or “some” which contributes to tentativeness rather than certainty.

If I got this correctly, papal encyclicals to them can be fallible and infallible depending on situations. What those situations are, they are a mystery. This rather puts Humanae Vitae in a rather questionable spot. Are the teachings of Humanae Vitae, with regards to Roman Catholic thinking, infallible in its entirety, infallible in part or fallible in whole? This is still a debatable matter even at present in the Roman Catholic Church which reminds me that at the time of the Humanae Vitae publication, it caused confusion or uproar among some Roman Catholic circles. While Humanae Vitae is just one part of the contention among Roman Catholic anti-RH, they must be aware that its subject to the Catholic infallibility is still in question. As Fr. Joaquin Bernas, SJ qualifies the contraception doctrine, maybe referring cum Humanae Vitae, as not subject to infallibility. The issue of papal infallibility with regards to papal encyclicals and the contention on contraception are by far the most confusing of matters when we consider the Roman Catholic standpoint.

With these contentions upon looking at Roman Catholic perspective, I cannot help but say that the Bible alone indeed is useful in matters of faith and practice. Man-made philosophies or religious declarations are merely built on sinking sand. As a Reformed Christian, it is in my uncompromising standpoint that papal infallibility is non-Biblical. Papal Infallibility assumes that the Holy Spirit can still dwell on people with questionable and un-Christian character like some popes undeniably are. The Roman Catholic explanation that even these certain “evil popes” can facilitate infallible doctrine with the help of the Holy Spirit is quite misleading since the evidence of the Spirit’s existence on the life of the person or ”… the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.” The passage adds further that opposed to “… such things there is no law …” and that people “… who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires …” (Galatians 5:22-24, NIV 1984) This just shows that these certain “evil popes” with their sinful passions or desires and the Holy Spirit can never mix.

The biblical evidences in themselves especially in this passage are at odds with Roman Catholic explanations on papal infallibility. It is this same infallibility they claim to be their advantage with the supposed “disunited” Evangelicals or Biblical Christians but they utterly disregard the fact that what “disunites” us are just matters of liturgical and ceremonial interpretations rather than doctrinal. I am a Baptist, a Conservative Baptist, but I call a Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Anglican, Pentecostals and Messianic Jews brothers and sisters-in-Christ because there is one thing that binds us and that is Christ died to redeem us from sin and give us eternal salvation by grace, through faith in Jesus Christ alone. With regards to the Roman Catholic interpretation to certain passages that they deem “anti-contraception”, these are rather the consequence of their pounded mindset and not on in depth Biblical exegesis or in-depth Biblical analysis.

Before anyone misconstrue or misinterpret my writing of this blog, let me clarify that I am not debating for the RH Bill by deconstructing Roman Catholic doctrine but rather try to assess the questions I have in mind on this Roman Catholic belief. I just want to facilitate a discussion on that matter and make some of my Roman Catholic friends be aware of some conflicts whilst making them reconsider applying another point in contention to the RH issue. My study on that matter of Roman Catholic belief produced more questions and few or no answers at all. This makes me appreciate more the sure certainty of the Bible itself. On the other hand, in the midst of the RH debate, we must not only look at this in the Roman Catholic angle or any angle whatsoever but examine it in the entirety without pre-conceived bias and pre-conditioned mindsets in order to know fully well, establish the truth and contribute to the wealth of knowledge.

Purple– symbol of the pro-RH

Red– symbol of the anti-RH

As I read along posts in Facebook, I cannot help but appreciate the fact that some anti-RH thinkers are actually trying to correct wrong perceptions that some in their number keep on pushing. For my part, I have been trying to correct wrong notions of people when it comes to the RH Bill and the people who support it. It is frustrating when people judge you just because you chose to stand on the other side of the issue. I have to admit that I have been a bit affected that some people are taking me too personally on this issue. All these personal tirades do not serve our country’s best interests and just divides our country further.

The RH Bill is a matter of utmost concern since it seeks to be a first step in solving some of our country’s problems like worsening abortion rates, rising teenage pregnancies and heightening poverty especially with the country’s poor who do not have access to family planning methods that are most effective to them. All these are valid concerns to deal with and put into consideration. The anti-RH thinkers have their own valid concerns too but are clouded by those anti-RH sentimentalists that serve no good to their own movement by resorting to deception and intimidation. In order to have a real and better discussions, we must erase all overarching wrong perceptions and instead deal with the merits of the issues at hand.

We do not need to make enemies in order to express our own ideas for that is not what defines us. We must always be mature in our dealings, sensitive to each other’s thoughts and open our minds to the opinions of others. We must have teachable spirits and not let pride conquer our perceptions on others, letting God and the needs of His people at the center of discussions instead of our own interests. What we need now is not further debates but understanding discussions. Purple and red maybe colors that clash both in art and ideology but we are human beings and not just merely colors. At the end of the day, may you be pro- or anti- RH, we are still the same Filipino people who wants to see our country progress and move forward.

(quoted from Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics, www.reformed.org)

Note: This was taken from a debate of two theologians but this is a prevailing standpoint among Reformed Theologians ever since the 1930 Lambeth Declaration. Since the Anglicans initiated the matter, other Protestant/ Reformed Churches followed suit in tackling this matter and had similar declarations as well.

Issues and Interchange

The goal of this regular feature is to provide our readers with opposing arguments on topics pertinent to the Christian life. Due to the power of party spirit, personal credibility, credentials, etc., we have asked all the authors writing for this feature to publish their brief statements anonymously. By doing this, we hope to encourage the reader, in some small way, to focus on the arguments involved in each position rather than on personal factors.

The authors selected for the respective sides in the debate are outspoken supporters of their viewpoints.

The burden of proof in the interchange is placed on Advocate One. For that reason, Advocate One opens and closes the debate.

ISSUE: Is Birth Control Morally Permissible?

ADVOCATE 1: Some Forms of Contraception Are Morally Permissible

Contraception has become a volatile issue among many Christian groups because it involves the issues of life, such as sexuality, and child rearing which our culture often distorts in ugly ways. Many Christians simply offer blanket condemnations of almost any practice which is even incidentally related to these distortions. We must realize, however, that emotions which arise from such concerns may often cloud our ability to think through an issue clearly. As Christians, we want to be sure to decide any issue by the standard of God’s Word alone.

Contraception, in short, is the practice of preventing a conception from taking place. A proper Biblical evaluation of contraception requires us to understand some foundational ethical issues (1- 2 below). After this foundation is set, we can then deal with the more particular concerns and objections raised in regard to contraception itself (3 – 4 below). The conclusion will be that certain forms of contraception, when used under proper conditions, are morally permissible options for the Christian married couple.

1. Freedom of Conscience and A Biblical Affirmation of Creation

The first foundational issue concerns the standards by which the Christian is to order his or her behavior. A Biblical understanding of this point will alleviate many of the confusions that enter into the discussion of contraception.

Legalism has often distorted the Christian ethic. From earliest times, many deceived persons have attempted to use God’s law as means of salvation, though God obviously never intended the law for such a purpose. Other forms of legalism characteristically add to and/or subtract from God’s Word, though God condemns this as well (Deut. 4:2). Yet such additions and deletions are central to Legalists from the Pharisees to modern fundamentalism. The Christian must sternly reject any such practice. Christ Himself condemned those who “set aside the commandment of God in order to keep [their] tradition…thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition” (Mark 7:9,13). Any humanly contrived commandment (such as the familiar fundamentalist prohibitions against drinking, dancing, and other social activities) added to the Scripture is sinful in God’s sight. Paul also condemned legalism in the most stringent terms. Those who taught these things were proclaiming another gospel –they were under a divine curse (Gal. 1:6-10) and were teaching “doctrines of demons” (I Tim. 4:1-3). No one is to tamper with the word of the sovereign God.

The Christian view of freedom of conscience is to be understood in light of the above context. The Christian is free to do anything that is not contrary to the word of God. Scripture alone is the ultimate standard of ethical activity. God alone is the Lord of the conscience. Human commandments which are contrary or additional to God’s word have no authority over the Christian conscience. Moreover, the Christian is free to do anything (not contrary to the word of God) because he or she knows that God’s creation is good (I Tim. 4:4). Paul declares that “I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself“(Rom. 14:14). Scripture rejects all pagan notions which describe the human body or the physical world in general as evil or inferior to spirit. The Christian ought to rejoice in God’s creation to God’s glory. As this norm is applied to the question of contraception, then, the Christian is free to use contraception, unless it is forbidden by Scripture.

2. Cultural Mandate: Stewards of God’s Creation

A second foundational concern in this discussion regards Christian stewardship. At the creation, God laid certain responsibilities upon the human race (Gen. 1:28). Two aspects of this cultural mandate bear directly on our discussion.

a) Man is to act as a ruler (controller) over creation. We are commanded to subdue creation as God’s stewards. This means that we are to act as organizers and controllers of creation under God in every area of life — we possess a Biblically limited stewardship over creation. We may not serve as passive creatures who blindly allow creation to “order” itself or assume that God will carry out the responsibilities He has given to us. Many Christians claim to “trust the Lord” for events that God has given humans authority over. To live this way is to live irresponsibly; it is to act contrary to the cultural mandate. This mandate is given to men and women as image-bearers of God (Gen. 1:27). God exercises absolute sovereignty over all things, and we, as those made in His image, are to exercise faithful stewardship over the world. If we add this foundational issue for Christian practice to the Christian understanding of freedom discussed above, we see that we are to exercise authority over creation in obedience to God, not man. We are forbidden to exercise control over our families, businesses, nations, or churches, in a way that is contrary to the word of God. Stated positively, we are directed to actively and responsibly order our families, etc., as faithful stewards in accord with Scripture.

b) We are commanded to “be fruitful and multiply.” Part of the cultural mandate is to raise children. This is one form of subduing the earth. We are to train our children faithfully in God’s ways and thus extend the covenant generation by generation. Much of our culture views children as inconvenient objects (the most heinous expression of this is, of course, abortion). The Bible views children as a gift of God that we ought to desire. “Behold, children are a gift of the LORD; the fruit of the womb is a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, so are children of one’s youth. How blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them” (Ps. 127:3-5). We read in Psalm 128:3,4 that “Your wife shall be like a fruitful vine within your house; Your children like olive plants around your table. Behold thus shall the man be blessed who fears the LORD.” God promises to bless those who keep His covenant and “turn toward you and make you fruitful and multiply you, and I will confirm My covenant with you” (Lev. 26:9). The Christian ought to desire and actively seek this blessing from God.

3. Constraints on the Cultural Mandate–I Corinthians 7

The command to subdue the earth is the norm for the believer. However, we see in the New Testament, that there are limited circumstances in which this norm does not apply. In I Corinthians 7, Paul is writing to those who are facing persecution (Acts 18:1-18). He counsels them “that it is good in view of the present distress, that it is good for a man to remain as he is….If you should marry you have not sinned; and if a virgin should marry, she has not sinned. Yet such will have trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you” (I Cor. 7:26-28).

Paul advises the Corinthian believers to avoid taking on the responsibilities of family life due to the present (or impending) tribulation.[1] Our Lord Himself gave a similar warning to those believers inhabiting Jerusalem at the time of its judgment: “Woe to those who are with child and to those who nurse babes in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land, and wrath to this people.” (Luke 21:23; cf. 2 Thess. 2:2). The concerns of family life are obviously compounded in a time of crisis, and Paul wanted to spare the Corinthians this kind of “tribulation” (v. 28; — cf. Matt. 13:21; I Thess. 1:4). The Lord calls His people to suffer for righteousness sake (I Pet. 2:21), but we are not to compound our tribulations irresponsibly.

The Lord is merciful and concerned about our possible distress. Paul does not counsel the Corinthians in these circumstances to idly “trust in the Lord.” They are to use Godly wisdom in ordering their lives; wisdom in this case is to avoid normal cultural responsibilities of family life, if possible. The principle, then, expressed in this constraint on the cultural mandate can be stated as: There are circumstances in which it is contrary to Godly wisdom to take on familial responsibilities.

Is persecution the only time we may forego normal cultural responsibilities? — evidently not, according to Paul’s reasoning. The necessary element in Paul’s counsel is that we be spared the type of added familial distress found in times of persecution. For example, in a time of persecution: a parent would fear to leave the family alone at any time for security reasons; a parent’s financial, sustenance, and shelter concerns must include several people instead of one; a family’s ability to move or hide is more difficult than a single person’s. The list could go on. These are the types of distresses that Paul wants believers to avoid. Since Paul is concerned with types of distress, the principle stated above will apply to all those circumstances in which such familial distress occurs–i.e. persecution is not the only situation in which we may temporarily forego taking on familial responsibilities. We can imagine numerous situations in which there is no persecution such as that found in the first century, yet the aforementioned kinds of distresses may occur (e.g. wartime, plague, famine). Nevertheless, Scripture presents yet further less catastrophic circumstances in which it is contrary to Godly wisdom to take on added familial responsibilities. We find the principle for such circumstances in I Tim. 5:8.

4. Providing for One’s Own — I Timothy 5:8

In the course of various directives regarding living above reproach, Paul instructs us that “if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever.” Work is a natural and necessary aspect of the Christian life. Anyone who does not support or provide for his family is worse than one who hates God. This principle not only requires us to have a job (or some means of income), but it also forbids us to place ourselves in situations in which we cannot support our family even though we may have some form of employment; the outcome is the same. There are obvious examples: we may not gamble away our paycheck or spend it on relative luxuries when our children have no food. Furthermore, we are forbidden to take on obligations, no matter how well intentioned, which would lead us to fail to provide for our families. Hence, I Tim. 5:8 provides us with further circumstances in which our previous principle (3) would apply.

One common application of principle 3 to the circumstances of I Tim. 5:8 would be in initiating a marriage itself. We ought normally to marry in accord with the cultural mandate, but if the potential husband has no means of providing for his potential wife, then they ought not to marry in light of I Tim 5:8 (inability to provide might form the basis of her father’s refusal of the marriage–Ex. 21:17;18). If we can see how these principles work together in these circumstances, then we should have no difficulty in seeing how they would provide a similar basis for temporarily delaying childbearing. The case envisioned is one in which the married couple desires a family (rejecting all humanistic rationalizations about convenience, career, etc.) yet under the immediate circumstances would not be able to provide for a child or another child (in violation of I Tim. 5:8). We can imagine other scenarios as well. However, every case is circumscribed by all of the principles above.

We should note that although the above Biblical principles demonstrate the permissibility of contraception in general, they also unquestionably rule out some forms of contraception. For example, abortifacient methods such as the Intrauterine Device would be strictly forbidden by principle (1) above. Similarly, a couple rebelling against the Cultural Mandate are using contraceptives in a sinful manner.

Though no attempt is made to answer all questions regarding contraception in this discussion, this account would be greatly lacking if we did not respond to some common objections made against contraception. We will consider only three.

A. Contraception is unnatural

Many object to contraception on the basis of its “artificiality.” The general principle embedded in this objection is that we ought not attempt to hinder any natural course of events such as conception — “Contraception is contrary to natural law.”

Two points can be made in response. First, there are many things we do which go contrary to the “natural order” and yet are not immoral: e.g., shaving, airplane travelling, landscaping, driving, satellite transmitting, etc. Second, if we were consistent in following this prescription, then we would be forced to violate other commandments. For example, if we could not go contrary to the “natural order” of events, then we could not offer any medical assistance to those who are sick or injured, and we would be forbidden from aiding those who are starving. By omitting to do these things, we violate clear and constant Scriptural injunctions to care for the sick.

Furthermore, those who raise the above objection usually substitute some form of supposedly “natural” birth control such as abstinence or the rhythm method. However, it is absurd to refer to these practices as natural! Abstinence runs counter our natural sexual drives, and the intricate charting and scheduling involved in rhythm methods demonstrates that this form of birth control is far from “natural.”

B. God condemned birth control in the case of Onan (Gen. 38:7-10)

Judah, son of Jacob, had three sons: Er, Onan, and Shelah. The Lord took Er’s life because of his wickedness and “Judah said to Onan, `Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform your duty as a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.’ And Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so it came about that when he went in to his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground, in order not to give offspring to his brother. But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord; so He took his life also.” Many take this passage to be a clear Biblical rejection of any form of birth control.

One must ignore the clear statements in this passage in order to draw the conclusion that God forbids birth control. First of all, one must read such a prohibition into the text, since Scripture nowhere forbids such an act. Second, we do clearly see that Onan refused to carry out the Levirate institution of raising children to his brother as prescribed in Deut. 25:5-10. Though failure necessitated no civil penalty apart from humiliation, the Lord may bring His own death sentence at His holy discretion apart from any such civil restraints (cf. Acts 5). Thirdly, even rejecting the immediately prior argument, Onan not only failed to fulfill his Levirate obligation, but he also committed adultery. A brother-in-law could not choose to have intercourse with his widowed sister-in-law at their discretion, for this is simply adultery, which has a civil and final death penalty. Onan was guilty of this and deserved his death sentence on both counts. Hence, this interpretation offers at least two objective and concrete sins committed by Onan and does not require one to read a tenuous claim into the text (as opponents must do).

A clear disproof of the anti-contraception view is that if that view is correct in its analysis of actions, then we would be obligated to condemn other non-sinful actions. For example, a parallel misinterpretation can be read into Achan’s sin. If we wanted to demonstrate that gold was wicked or that burying things was contrary to God’s commands, we could point to God’s judgment on Achan for seeking gold and burying it. But such a conclusion misses the sin at issue as much as those who use Onan to prove their point. Achan was judged for violating God’s ban against taking any plunder from Jericho (Josh. 6:17; 7). Hence, the anti-contraception interpretation seriously confuses the sins of Onan.

C. Contraception shows a lack of trust in God

Opponents of contraception often claim that those who use it are simply acting out of a lack of faith. If they truly trusted God, they would allow Him to control this aspect of their lives.

Though this claim would apply in some cases, it would suggest a form of irresponsibility in others. When someone tells us that they are simply “trusting in God” in these circumstances, they often evidently mean “I am not taking any responsiblity for my actions.” But it is absurd for a Christian to claim that he or she is not responsible for his or her actions; such an unbiblical attitude clearly shows the error in this objection. We are commanded to live our whole lives in obedience to and trust in God, and yet the Lord has given us certain responsibilities to carry out. When we trust in God for sustenance praying, “Give us this day our daily bread,” we do not sit at home passively waiting for food to be dropped on our doorstep. Rather, we go out and work. If we were to ignore our God given responsibilities and carry the above objection (C) to its logical conclusion we ought not ever work, use locks on our homes and cars, save money for emergencies, use brakes in our automobiles, wear safety goggles or sun screen, support the police or national defense, etc., but failing to do these things would be irresponsible. Such actions are Biblical, and so they cannot be contrary to trusting in God. The principles laid out in the main body of this discussion are an attempt to show that in some circumstances contraception can at times be another one of these areas of responsibility.

None of the above objections stands up to simple scrutiny. All of them fail to demonstrate that contraception is forbidden by the word of God. Many in our culture do abuse contraceptive measures (even some Christians), but, analogously, we need not refuse to print books just because the enemies of God use books also. Abuses of contraception need to be properly distinguished from a Biblical understanding of the issues so that we may make a proper evaluation of the practice. The principles outlined above give us a start on this question, and so in light of the above Biblical principles, we can indeed conclude that certain forms of contraception under certain circumstances are morally permissible.

NOTE

[1] Though Paul refers only to marriage in this passage, we should not limit the reference of his remarks to be the concerns of a married couple alone as we might given contemporary usage. Paul, in accord with the overall understanding of marriage in Scripture, would have a wider range of responsibilities in mind. Marriage would naturally include child rasing. This is evident from Paul’s instructions to widows in ITim. 5:!4: “I want younger widows to get married, bear children, keep house, and give the enemy no occasion for reproach.”

Copyright © by Covenant Community Church of Orange County 1990

Two days ago, my family especially me and Dad had a little talk on the RH Bill. This conspired because he reminded me of the upcoming debate on the RH Bill in ABS-CBN’s Harapan Debate. More than the logical and statistical issues being debated on the RH issue, we also talked about the spiritual implications of the bill and how it goes for us followers of Christ. In the course of our conversation, he mentioned a verse from the Bible. He was not able to cite which passage it came from but I looked it up in BibleGateway.com and found it in 1 Timothy 5:8. I quote from the New American Standard Bible and it says…

⁸But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

He was actually making a point in the Roman Catholic denial on the hardships of families below the poverty line that subsists in less than a dollar a day in feeding five or more children. For the Roman Catholic sentimentalists on the RH Bill, it seems that it is okay for the family to starve to death as long as they do not use artificial means to plan their family. They do not take into consideration the fact that Apostle Paul himself exhorts Pastor Timothy that failing to provide for the family is worse than being an infidel or unbeliever! The Roman Catholic clerics threaten shame or excommunication on their parishioners if they used artificial family control methods from their so-called Papal declarations but have forsaken Scriptural exhortations, driving their own parishioners unknowingly to an apostatizing kind of sin just suit their man-made philosophy.

As I have mentioned in the article before this, I have taken note that family planning and population control falls under the plan of God. God had that in his mind for he knew that time would come that human population will grow to an unmanageable level if that is not so. He also had 1 Timothy 5:8 included in Scripture because he also knew that some group of people will try to forsake the family in the name of fallible man-made declarations. These anti-RH sentimentalists claim to be pro-Family but in the end they are actually blatantly anti-Family!

These anti-RH sentimentalist often cite this or that saintly publication, papal declaration or even Scriptures to justify their own ideas! My word for you guys is that before you believe them, reference with Scripture first. The Bible is not just a “religious text” but a guide in everyday living. Not only should you check their statements through the eyes of Scriptures but I also encourage for you to check mine as well! Man-made philosophies will always be fallacious but as Matthew 24:35 says…

³⁵“Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.”

My final word is this, when you look to a certain issue especially if it has spiritual implications, look at it in all four sides. We often nitpick on things that are popular and vocal yet we fail to look at them in its whole context. Don’t be misinformed but rather look at it with open eyes,sound mind and a healthy spirit.

For many of you readers, my thoughts about the RH Bill has been published here since the issue became hot again with the resolution of the baranggay ordinance at Ayala Alabang Village. Such thoughts have been expressed from time and time again but let me state this position from time and time again as an Evangelical Christian. Yes, I am a Christian and I may have been vague in the past as to how I am with the RH Bill but let me say this now, I am proudly Pro-RH. Last two years ago, I have been in quandary as to how I will approach this issue of the RH Bill since I belong to a university whose influence comes primarily from the group officially named Prelature of Opus Dei and the Holy Cross, a conservative Roman Catholic group comparable to an RC Diocese which is ardently anti-RH with its pool of Economics professors which explained their Anti-RH sentiment in the economic standing and point.

As per personal opinion, these economic points do have a bearing since I do believe that population growth does not have a straightforward economic impact. At a symposium, these economists did cite countries with steadily dropping populations like the Scandinavian countries and Spain to mention a few with the fact that we are the top country that sends labour to other parts of the globe. His position is that our growing population is an advantage to which we can send more labor to other countries. This seems to be reasonable but to think deeply about it, that too has several loopholes to cite. I may not be an economist but even to a simple folk can discover these obvious loopholes themselves. Here is an example…

“The growing Philippine population as an advantage to send more OFW’s and have more workers…”

Well, I do agree that our big population can enable us to send more OFW’s and hence more remittances but what is more agreed is that the OFW phenomena is in itself a social problem. A family with a missing parent, no matter how advanced the mode of communications have become, is not a family working at an optimum. Another issue is that with the prevalent disasters, wars and many stories of abuse is another problem which the Philippine government has to bear with high costs. Also, we would want as much as possible for the professionals to stay in the country and help with its development rather than continue their exodus.

It is known very well that more than 50% of our population lives under poverty line with a little more than a dollar a day. Getting employed in another country or the very act of going there involves money that most of our country’s citizens cannot afford. Most of those who go out of the country as OFW’s are at least lower middle income citizens. Fact it is as well that the highest percentage in population growth belongs to these same people who are poor therefore cannot afford being OFW’s. Therefore, the stipulation that out continuing population growth will do us good is rather shaky and still subject to further study.

There is also a stigma that the RH Bill will bring to our country the same fate as Europe had brought on themselves. Europe for one has a dropping population of locals which means the number of Spaniards will decrease by half in a decade. Looking at it further, the real reason for the drop in European population is not much with their passage of a similar law to the RH Bill but rather their cultural inclinations. Europeans are NOT family-centered like us Asians or specifically Filipinos. To us Filipinos, we have a strong desire to find our mate and sire a family. The average number and preferred number of children among Filipinos is two to three children. No where far are we going to have  any decrease in the number of people.

You might tell me… “Even if that’s the case, its still morally wrong and anti-life!” You might go on to the litany of protecting babies or the procreation value of sexual intercourse or many other things but all I can say is that you ar merely mistaken in your ideas. Let us look for example the passage you cited in the “I Oppose the RH Bill” from Deuteronomy 30:19 which says: “I call heaven and earth to witness against you today that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Choose life so that you and your descendants may live.” and 1 Corinthians 7:28 which says… “But if you marry, you do not sin, and if a virgin marries, she does not sin. Yet those who marry will experience distress in this life…” In the case of Deut. 30:19, this is not even a passage that talks about physical life but rather spiritual life. It talks about God giving spiritual life to the people and death spiritually. As for 1 Cor. 7:28, nowhere does it talk about sexual life though there is a note to virgins that they should not have sex before marriage (premarital sex) for if so, they sin. The point of this passage is that it talks about the life that single men and women should live and why they should choose their future spouse carefully because married life is hard, not so much with sexual life but family life and its responsibilities! I lament at the fact on how poorly and how badly they use Scriptures out of context to justify their means. One such thing as well is the misuse of the biblical passage “go forth and multiply” for they have forgotten the other part of the passage which says “subdue the earth”. Not so much to use the resources but rather in living responsibly and managing growth.

Earlier this year, the Philippine Council of Evangelical Churches issued a statement on the RH Bill and this one was written in the Facebook page of Bishop Ephraim Tendero. I will do the liberties of posting it here…

The Philippine Council of Evangelical Churches (PCEC), a network of more than 30,000 local congregations in the Philippines, is thankful for being invited as resource for this hearing on the Reproductive Health (RH) Bill. We are thankful for the honorable legislators for having this bill.

PCEC is supportive of the RH bill for 3 reasons:

1. It advocates the protection of life. We believe that life begins at fertilization and the promotion of the use of artificial forms of fertilization does not take life away, for the human life begins in the union of the sperm and the egg cells.

2. It promotes developmental and responsible living. In the Holy Scriptures, Genesis 1:26-27 tells us that God created man in His own image. Even in the mandate to Adam and Eve, God said, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.” When the command was given, it was to a total world population of two people. But now the whole world is overpopulated, and the second part of this mandate is to subdue the earth, which means to have responsible living. This calls for responsible parenthood, that couples must determine the number of children that they can raise up and nurture properly.

We believe that procreation is one of the purposes of sex. However, sex is not limited to procreation alone. Sex for the infertile and for those in menopause violates such provision. Therefore, we believe that the use of contraception in the union of the husband and wife does not violate the purpose of sex, for another purpose of sex is to express the intimacy of the union of the husband and wife. We support the RH Bill because it is pro-development and advocates responsible parenthood.

3. It fulfills one of the functions of government. The government was instituted by God to promote good and restrain evil. By providing a comprehensive RH Bill, the Philippine Government is able to fulfill the function of protecting lives and promoting development of such lives.

To summarize, the RH Bill is pro-life, pro-development and pro-poor. A simple look at our demography shows that majority of the affluent couples have limited number of children and have raised them properly because they have access to education and health services that enables them to have carefully planned parenthood.

The great majority of the indigent families do not have planned parenthood or do not practice such because they do not have access to education and the necessary health services. The RH bill will rectify this inequality by giving the great majority of the indigent couples the needed education and services to have responsible parenthood.

We ask that the different versions of the RH Bill be consolidated and be brought to the plenary session of the Congress for debate and action.

As with the decision of the leaders of the Philippine Council of Evangelical Churches, the Church body which my denomination, Conservative Baptist Association of the Philippines, belongs to. They painstakingly consulted the Bible on what must be done before taking a stand. This is what must be done. I lament all the more at how the Catholic groups twist the Bible for to suit their own standing. Not only are their ideas out of Biblical context but painfully ridiculous!

One such statement as well is that contraception is abortion. Let’s not delve with pills for I believe there must be medical consideration as how to use this and must not be indiscriminately distributed though I acknowledge the fact that all the birth control pills out there in the market are safe and only stops the woman from being fertile while taking the pill. True, there might be concerns but as for condoms and withdrawal method being labeled abortion? This is completely ridiculous. I know their logic which goes by this… “Abortion stops life from developing so it is murder and because contraception stops the egg cell and sperm from meeting hence not forming life so it is abortion as well.” This logic is plainly nonsensical because how can you abort something that’s not even there! How can you abort life if there is no life there yet, not a single fertilized cell in the womb? I believe that life starts from conception, that egg cell that has just been penetrated or fertilized by the sperm, but if there’s no conception, how can it be possible that you are aborting life? I myself am stringently anti-abortion at all stages of human development from that newly fertilized cell to a baby ready to be delivered. I wish these people read the dictionary very well. This reveals that they themselves have not read the RH Bill with logic intact. They claim that RH Bill permits abortion, forces sterilization on the population, imposes a two-child policy and introduces pornography to children. Nowhere in the RH Bill are these things mentioned, not any of the provisions!

On the argument that using condoms is morally wrong and bastardizes the real meaning of the sexual act is also plainly nonsensical. I do have to remind them that putting procreation as the sole center of focus in sexual intercourse is plainly misleading. Not only is sexual intercourse for procreation but also it signifies the bonds of the husband and wife. It is their ultimate act of trust and love for each other. Sexual intercourse is not only a physical act but an emotional act where the married couple is open to everything with nothing hidden and their hearts one. I agree that pleasure should not be the focus of sexual intercourse but one must also acknowledge the emotional bond it brings. True to the fact that most animals can only have sexual intercourse in the female’s most fertile period but we humans can have it even if the woman is not in her fertile period. It just comes to show that sex as we call it is more than just an act of reproduction but the highest form of intimacy which God wants husbands and wives to enjoy.

I do acknowledge that sex outside marriage is a sin and young people must be encouraged to stay pure. There’s the issue of sex education in schools that some Catholics say is tantamount to having porn in the classrooms. Though I agree that the law must be precise on what the contents of the curriculum must have but sex education in itself is necessary. Parents have the duty to inform their children about sex and its consequences, most parents fail to do so and since the school is the second home, it must also have the responsibility to teach the children about the consequences of sex. I roll my eyes at the fact that some of these Catholics having the sentiment against sex education fail to remember that Catholic schools themselves have already a part on sex education in their religion classes. Also, they fail to acknowledge the fact that the Secretary of Education is a De La Salle Brother, a Catholic and religious. Also, True Love Waits, Philippines has programs around the country on abstinence in sexual matters and the consequences of sexual sin. It even has some points of cooperation with the Department of Education. I believe that sex education would be nowhere near in showing porn clips in classes for I know the parents themselves would take action. True that even we teach the young people about sex education 24 hours a day, some of them will commit that sin but what’s different is you are giving them the alternative to society’s destructive view of sex and somehow lead many to the light.

Some Catholic clergy shouts litanies on the degradation of morals and the further degradation it brings if the RH Bill is passed. I believe that morals are already degrading among the majority of Filipinos but this is not the State’s own action but the fact that the Roman Catholic Church has failed to do their part of shepherding their flock and having the accountability among its members. Corruption and moral degradation is the result of the Roman Catholic Church own failure to do its job to morally shepherd their congregants which makes up the majority of the country’s population. Many Protestant Churches are at fault too. It is their failure to uplift the morals that the State is taking actions and fortunately, committed followers of Christ mostly among the Evangelical block are doing their part.

Many of these Catholics against the RH Bill fail to realize that as long as they come up with the most desperately ridiculous and nonsensical reasons to oppose the RH Bill, the more they are alienating themselves with the people whom they want to convince. Instead of going to the streets and protesting or using the pulpit for political exercise, I’d rather see these clergies stepping up to know the spiritual standing of their flock and creating an accountability with them. The Roman Catholic clergy has delved far from their responsibilities and has let the spiritual climate of their congregants fall all the more. If only they stop bickering and start visitations among communities, preaching love and the salvation from the grace of God can we see moral corruption from spreading. They must realize that they have the problem and not the RH Bill. They themselves must stop preaching lies and manipulating the truth of the RH Bill. They should live up to what they preach so that the people will see the light and they do not have to go to the streets and protest again.

A lot of the contentions on the RH Bill has been always on contraception or sex education but what has always been left out is the real point of this bill, which is to safeguard the reproductive health of women. My heart goes out to those thousands of victims of illegal abortions that die by the thousands each year. In the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church, they are murderers but in my eyes and in Jesus’ eyes, they are victims too needing God’s grace. Though I support many of the RH Bill’s provisions, what I really want is the fact that this law also stipulates proper psychological, emotional and even possibly spiritual help for these women. This is sadly what many anti-RH people fail to see and even realize. In a society that has always been judgmental, these women deserves to be cared and to be loved. The Roman Catholic Church and the society at large has no place for them but I admire the fact that some in the government and the ordinary people saw their plight. More than anything in the RH Bill, the plight of the victims of illegal abortion and hospital mishandling of women is the reason why I support the RH Bill.

>> An iconic picture of nuns kneeling on EDSA in front of soldiers who were ordered to fire at them but instead shown mercy and joined the protesters.

The 1986 EDSA People Power Revolution…

now celebrates its 25th Anniversary since the historic revolution started and shook the dictatorship out of office. Though I belong to the post-Martial Law generation, I can remember the vivid descriptions of the event by the generation which my parents and grandparents belong to. This event has ushered the Philippines to a special place in the world. Many democratic countries that were once autocratic events somehow owe their formations to a people power revolution that were directly or indirectly influenced by the Philippines example. The Revolution is one of the many things that make me proud of having the blood of my native land running in my veins but, how have we fared so far from this proudly historic event? Let us take a look at the lessons we can derive from the events during and after the 1986 EDSA Revolution…

1. Unity can be possible for the otherwise divided people. The Philippines is composed of many ethno-liguistic groups, many of which have bitter animosity towards each other. The Revolution exhibited that this can be possible.
2. Peaceful means can be utilized in order for change to be made. People have the power because governments run not for themselves but for the sake of the people.
3. The Church (not just the Roman Catholic Church) has a big influence on the lives of many people which can be a guiding institution for the people though the Church herself must respect the movements of the State.
4. Though the people themselves can institute change, we need a strong leader who can implement these changes.
5. A weak leadership after the revolution immediately weakened the momentum of EDSA. After the revolution, there was much political instability and economic deficiency.
6. Though a government with a moral face is good, we need to be vigilant as well since no government is perfect. The First Aquino Administration (first, to differentiate it with the current Aquino) was in fact filled with corruption.
7. The military is a powerful catalyst for change and we must reserve utmost respect to the defenders of the land.

The question that most daunts us is that if we even learned from the lessons of EDSA. Apparently, with the situation of our country today, we have not. Current representations of the glorious event are rather misguided. EDSA Revolution is not a revolution of Cory or Ninoy alone but of the Filipino people. It was the time that we learned that collectively, we have the power to change. Without the people, neither of the President Aquinos that served and is serving our land would even be there. This is the time that the people themselves shall reclaim EDSA for themselves. We have not progressed yet because we have dumped the responsibility of change to the government. The real solution to which we can live the Revolution is to be responsible citizens ourselves and not be slaves to media hyperbole or self-satisfaction. EDSA Revolution is now at 25, what have you learned?

Here is an old music video of the ever famous song “Handog ng Pilipino sa Mundo” (translated: The Gift of the Filipinos to the World) which puts into colorful imagery the determination of the people for freedom. I hope that as we celebrate the 25th year of the event, we would not forget the lessons by which our parents have fought for…