Baptist Churches in the Philippines

Wednesday, February 06, 2019

Legal discussions on the Family Code of the Philippines for pastors and church members

Friday, October 12, 2018

The 29th Fundamental Bible Conference in Metro Manila, Oct. 25-26

For more information, visit www.facebook.com/fundamentalbibleconference

Monday, June 11, 2018

“Sex Offenders Groom Churches Too: How predatory behavior goes undetected in congregations” (Christianity Today International)

“Sex Offenders Groom Churches Too: How predatory behavior goes undetected in congregations” (Christianity Today International, June 2018) by Kimberly Harris

Excerpts:

A man who had long sexually abused children sat in front of his pastor, wanting to confess his crimes. He began cautiously, mentioning that there had been accusations against him. He got no further, as his minister broke in, “Well, that’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard of,” the minister said quickly. “You’re the last person I’d believe that of. End of conversation.”

This true account was shared in Anna C. Salter’s 1991 book, Predators, Pedophiles, Rapists, And Other Sex Offenders. As a psychologist who has spent over 20 years working with and studying victims and sexual offenders, Salter says that “many offenders report that religious people are even easier to fool than most people.”

Evangelical churches can also grow in understanding what kind of culture sexual abusers count on and work to create. Psychologists call it “grooming.” A proposed definition of grooming states that abusers, “... strategically manipulate the victim, their family, and the community to hide their deviant intentions and avoid detection.” The predators that are statistically likely to be in the pews, volunteering, and even behind the pulpit aren’t just grooming their victims, they are grooming their community to view them as trustworthy and even as spiritual leaders.

Related article: DSWD supports call to ‘break the silence’ in child sexual abuse and exploitation (February 2017)

Excerpts:

The Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), as the lead agency in the protection and promotion of children’s welfare and rights especially the disadvantaged and vulnerable, pledged to fully support the call to end child sexual abuse and exploitation during the Break the Silence National Network Launch held on Monday at the Philippine Christian University (PCU).

Break the Silence is a campaign against child sexual abuse and exploitation started by Stairway Foundation, Inc., a children’s rights organization.

Wednesday, March 14, 2018

“5 Ways Your Church Could End Up In Court” (Christianity Today)

By Emily Lund at https://www.christianitytoday.com/pastors/2018/march-web-exclusives/risk-management-matters.html

Pastors must educate themselves, their boards, and other staff members on the issues that could land them in court. Each of the following stories concerns a church that recently encountered such issues.

Church Factions Compete over Property

Be aware of the legal matters that could affect your property, and ensure that policies, procedures, and documentation are in place before a disagreement erupts.

Saddleback Church Faces Sexual Abuse Allegations

Though no longer the top reason churches end up in court, sexual abuse remains a major issue in churches large and small.

No Legal Recourse for Syrian Man in Oklahoma Church Lawsuit

For most Christians, baptisms are a cause for celebration—but for an ex-Muslim man from Syria, his baptism was nearly his death sentence.

A Landmark Religious Freedom Ruling

From a risk management perspective, this case could establish a critical precedent for cases involving churches and religious freedom.

Violent Incidents at Churches—and a Deadly Common Denominator

In November of 2016, in Jamestown, New York, 36-year-old Shari J. Robbins encountered her estranged husband—against whom she had a restraining order— in a church parking lot. During the confrontation, Robbins’s husband shot and killed her.

Read the complete article.

Thursday, January 04, 2018

“5 Things The Bible Says About Paying Pastors or Church Leaders” (Christian Media Magazine)

Excerpt:

“It always seems to be a constant source of contention; how much should a pastor make, if anything? On the one hand, people argue that they are to be servants and thus can serve within the church as pastor while working elsewhere. They will cite the Apostle Paul and say that he had a tent-making job, then claim that modern pastors must do the same. So, it’s a question that is on a lot of people’s minds. The Bible, however, clears up any confusion on the subject.”

Read the complete article by Michael Krauszer.

Tuesday, January 02, 2018

“Feelings versus Truth” (Christian Media Magazine)

Excerpt:

“Even if we wholly believe in the infallibility of the Bible and characterize God as our “Lord”, the majority of us still generally live out of our limbic system. You know – the emotional part of our brain that virtually each and every time overrides our prefrontal cortex, which is the part of our brain that was designed to compel us to pursue wise decisions. I have heard it said that we make 90% of our decisions based on how we feel. And as we witness every day, that process produces an overwhelming assortment of turmoil and heartbreak.

“For those of us who characterize ourselves as Christians, let’s take a look at how we stack up in this area. Compelling statistics from various sources indicate:

Extramarital affairs are nearly as prevalent in the church as they are outside of the church
Pornography use is already rampant among those who attend church as roughly 70% of men 30% of women struggle with unbiblical compulsive sexual activities they cannot stop
Road rage, though sadly joked about so often within the church is on a regular basis”

Read the complete article by Steve Hunt.

Friday, November 25, 2016

Reformers Unanimous (RU) Recovery Ministries Conference, Bethany Makati, Nov. 28, 2016

This one-day conference, starting 9 AM, will discuss how pastors and churches can deal with various kinds of addictions.

This ministry is based in North Love Baptist Church in Rockford, Illinois (Paul Kingsbury, pastor) with Dr. Ben Burks as International Director.

Besides Pastor Kingsbury and Dr. Burks, the RU team includes Sis. Wendy Burks, Missionary Tim Farley, and Bro. Eddie Ferguson.

The RU team has previously held this same conference in Batangas City hosted by the Good Shepherd Baptist Church.

Friday, October 21, 2016

The 27th Fundamental Bible Conference in Metro Manila, Oct. 25-28, 2016

Date and time: October 25-28 (Tuesday to Friday), 6-9:30 PM

Venue: Philippine National Red Cross Auditorium, Rizal Chapter, 611 Shaw Blvd. Brgy. Kapitolyo, Pasig City, Metro Manila

Registration fee: Php 180.00

For more information, please contact Dr. Roberto-Jose Livioco, Conference Chairman:

Email: fbc_ministries@yahoo.com

Mobile: 0917-584-4316

Landline: 801-6789, 514-8340 or 646-3354

www.facebook.com/pages/Fundamental-Bible-Conference-in-Metro-Manila

Friday, May 27, 2016

800-plus free interactive Bible exercises

As part of the resources of http://baptist-distinctives.blogspot.com, I am creating 800-plus interactive exercises from various sources. These free exercises are either matching type or cloze (fill in the blanks) and have time limit and automatic scoring. Each exercise has a total number of items ranging from 10 to 50-plus, depending on the topic’s complexity.

Some 500-plus interactive exercises are now available. These exercises are hosted on Bit Balloon, a free web hosting service. Available exercises and topics are:

Theology

Christology

Pneumatology

BBFI Articles of Faith

Christology

Biblical distinctives of Baptists

Scofield Reference Notes (1917)

Terms and definitions from world religions and cults (flashcards and quizzes),

Biblical manhood and womanhood

Creationism

The Great Doctrines of the Bible by Evans.

Miscellaneous: Fifty reasons Christ suffered and died, Psalm 19, or church covenant

Wednesday, March 30, 2016

Free or low-cost ways to put your church services online (Facebook streaming, YouTube, etc.)

From “5 Low Cost Ways to put your Church Service Online” by Christian Computing Magazine:

“These days churches need to be online. If your church has a website or a Facebook page, you’ve taken the first important step towards connecting with people in today’s culture. But what’s the next step?

“A lot of people attend church remotely – that is, they still want to participate in the church service, but for numerous reasons are not able to physically be at church. What if there was a way for your church to have the sermon, or even the entire worship service, available online for viewing?

“There are actually several options out there for putting your church services online – and some of them are even free. Here are five of Christian Media Magazine’s favorite tools getting church service videos out on the internet:”

Read the complete article.

Thursday, February 12, 2015

The Fundamental Bible Conference in Metro-Baguio, Pines City Baptist Church, February 23-25, 2015

Venue: Pines City Baptist Church, No. 1 Malvar St., Trancoville, Baguio City; Phone: (074) 442-2862; Smart:0998-254-0868; Globe: 0915-221-0238; email: pinesbaptistbaguio@yahoo.com

Registration fee: Php 150.00

Conference Committee Chairman: Dr. Roberto-Jose Livioco

Keynote speaker: Dr. Ron White, 33 years as a missionary to Japan

Schedule of activities:

February 23, Monday

Registration 1-2 PM

Seminar 1: 2-3 PM "What Does It Take to Be a Biblicist in Our Choices?" by Pastor Erick Garcia

This message will lay down what ought to be the underlying, fundamental basis or authority for belief and behavior - not tradition, not experience, not church, not reason, not research but divine revelation found in God's Word, the Bible.

Seminar 2: 3-4 PM "How Decisions Are Affected If There Are Errors in the Bible" by Pastor Jared Garcia

This will address underlying concerns on the Bible's trustworthiness and why orthodox Christianity upholds the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy - that all other bases are flawed and fallible.

Break

Seminar 3: 6-7 PM To be arranged

Service 1: 7-8 PM "Excellence in Missions" by Dr. Ron White

February 24, Tuesday

Seminar 1: 9-10 AM "Man's Interpretation or God's Integrity" by Pastor Gary Jones

This will underscore the importance of taking God at His Word, that the meaning of the Scripture is found in the text of Scripture (author's intent - not in the imagination of the reader), and that the proper reading of the Scriptures is an issue of God's integrity, not simply a preference to a particular hermeneutical approach.

Service 2: 1-11 AM "Excellence in Music" by Dr. Ron White

Break

Seminar 3: 6-7 PM "Are We Settling for Substitutes?" by Dr. Roberto-Jose Livioco

This will underscore the importance of the Christian's living a separated life and highlight the tragedy all can expect for making choices based on the world's principles, even for those who claim to be identified with the fundamentalist camp.

Service 3: 7-8 PM "Excellence in Ministry" by Dr. Ron White

February 25, Wednesday

Seminar 1: 8:30-10 AM Panel Discussion

Service 4: 10-11 AM "Excellence for the Master" by Dr. Ron White

Wednesday, October 08, 2014

25th Fundamental Bible Conference (2nd Far East Regional Conference of International Partnership Ministries), Oct. 27-31

Oct. 27-28 at The Demiren Hotel, Tiano-Makahambus Sts., Cagayan de Oro City

Oct. 29-31 at The Integrated Bar of the Philippines, 15 Julia Vargas St. Ortigas Center, Pasig City

For inquiries, you may call 829-37-33; 801-67-89; 514-83-40; 636-55-35.

The one-time registration fee of P150.00 will enable delegates to avail of notes and pens, and to attend all the sessions. Visit and "Like" us at Facebook for updates and details of time schedules.

Lineup of seminar speakers:

Dr. Kevin Callahan, President of IPM, Hanover, Pennsylvania
Dr. Bill Bowen, IPM International Representative
Rev. Matthew Barfield, IPM Vice-President of Field Ministries
Pastor Jun Gonzales, Pastor of Las Pinas Baptist Church, Las Pinas
Pastor Abet Tiangco, Pastor of Promised Land Baptist Church, Malabon
Dr. Roberto-Jose Livioco, Foundation Baptist Church, Pasig City

Topics:

"Ethical Concerns Regarding Electronic Pleasures" by Pastor Abet Tiangco
"God's Design for the Christian Home" by Pastor Jun Gonzales
"Discerning Errors of the Charismatic Movement" by Dr. Kevin Callahan
"Decisions by Convenience, Covetousness, or Conviction" by Rev. Matthew Barfield
"Biblical Separation Applied" by Dr. Roberto-Jose Livioco
"The Role of Prayer in Global Missions" by Dr. Bill Bowen

Keynote speaker this year is Dr. Chuck Phelps, Senior Pastor of Colonial Hills Baptist Church, Indianapolis, USA. His messages will cover the following

"Assurance When You Are Afflicted"
"How to Bring Faith to Your Family
"How to Have a Double Portion of God's Blessings
"Bringing Great Joy to Your City"

Tuesday, June 10, 2014

Supreme Court decision on RH law a victory for freedom of religion

Plain Language summary:

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/592893/sc-ruling-on-rh-law-win-win

[1] Sections 7, 23 and 24 of the RH law obligate hospital or medical practitioners to immediately refer a person seeking health care and services to another accessible healthcare provider despite their conscientious objections based on religious or ethical beliefs.

[2] The obligation to refer imposed by the RH Law violates the religious belief and conviction of a conscientious objector.

“Generally, healthcare service providers cannot be forced to render reproductive health care procedures if doing it would contravene their religious beliefs.”

[3] Exception: in life-threatening cases, healthcare providers cannot invoke freedom of religion.

“But an exception must be made in life threatening cases that require the performance of emergency procedures. In these situations, the right to life of the mother should be given preference, considering that a referral by a medical practitioner would amount to a denial of service, resulting to unnecessarily placing the life of a mother in grave danger.”

[4] Freedom of religion preferred in Constitution; Benevolent neutrality doctrine

“In case of conflict between the State and Constitution’s free exercise of religion clause, the Court adheres to the doctrine of benevolent neutrality” which is “the spirit, intent and framework underlying the Philippine Constitution.”

[5] No compelling State interest to set aside benevolent neutrality

[6] Relevant US case: “Supreme Court Sides with Hobby Lobby”

“In a 5 to 4 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government cannot require faith-based companies to provide potentially abortifacient contraceptives to their employees in violation of their owners' religious beliefs.” (Read the complete decision.)

The Supreme Court, voting unanimously, upheld the Reproductive Health Law as Constitutional. But the Court, at the same time, struck down certain provisions of the RH law because they violate the Constitutional provisions on freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Among the provisions declared un-Constitutional are:

Section 7 and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR insofar as they: a) require private health facilities and non-maternity specialty hospitals and hospitals owned and operated by a religious group to refer patients, not in an emergency or life-threatening case, as defined under Republic Act No. 8344, to another health facility which is conveniently accessible; xxx

Section 23(a)(l) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR, particularly Section 5 .24, insofar as they punish any healthcare service provider who fails and or refuses to disseminate information regarding programs and services on reproductive health regardless of his or her religious beliefs.

Section 23(b) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR, particularly Section 5 .24, insofar as they punish any public officer who refuses to support reproductive health programs or shall do any act that hinders the full implementation of a reproductive health program, regardless of his or her religious beliefs; xxx

Obligation to refer violates freedom of religion

“Sections 7, 23, and 24 of the RH law commonly mandate a hospital or a medical practitioner to immediately refer a person seeking health care and services under the law to another accessible healthcare provider despite their conscientious objections based on religious or ethical beliefs.” The Court ruled that the obligation to refer imposed by the RH Law violates the religious belief and conviction of a conscientious objector:

Once the medical practitioner, against his will, refers a patient seeking information on modem reproductive health products, services, procedures and methods, his conscience is immediately burdened as he has been compelled to perform an act against his beliefs. As Commissioner Joaquin A. Bernas has written, "at the basis of the free exercise clause is the respect for the inviolability of the human conscience."

The Court further explained:

Though it has been said that the act of referral is an opt-out clause, it is, however, a false compromise because it makes pro-life health providers complicit in the performance of an act that they find morally repugnant or offensive. They cannot, in conscience, do indirectly what they cannot do directly. One may not be the principal, but he is equally guilty if he abets the offensive act by indirect participation.

Freedom of religion preferred in Constitution

The Court said:

Freedom of religion was accorded preferred status by the framers of our fundamental law. And this Court has consistently affirmed this preferred status, well aware that it is "designed to protect the broadest possible liberty of conscience, to allow each man to believe as his conscience directs, to profess his beliefs, and to live as he believes he ought to live, consistent with the liberty of others and with the common good."

Penalties by RH law on healthcare service providers who refuse to refer are un-Constitutional

The Court is not oblivious to the view that penalties provided by law endeavor to ensure compliance. Without set consequences for either an active violation or mere inaction, a law tends to be toothless and ineffectual.

Nonetheless, when what is bartered for an effective implementation of a law is a constitutionally-protected right the Court firmly chooses to stamp its disapproval. The punishment of a healthcare service provider, who fails and/or refuses to refer a patient to another, or who declines to perform reproductive health procedure on a patient because incompatible religious beliefs, is a clear inhibition of a constitutional guarantee which the Court cannot allow.

Exception: in life-threatening situations, healthcare providers cannot invoke freedom of religion

While generally healthcare service providers cannot be forced to render reproductive health care procedures if doing it would contravene their religious beliefs, an exception must be made in life threatening cases that require the performance of emergency procedures. In these situations, the right to life of the mother should be given preference, considering that a referral by a medical practitioner would amount to a denial of service, resulting to unnecessarily placing the life of a mother in grave danger.

Doctrine of benevolent neutrality

In striking down these provisions, the Supreme Court said that "in case of conflict between the State and Constitution's free exercise of religion clause, the Court adheres to the doctrine of benevolent neutrality" which is "the spirit, intent and framework underlying the Philippine Constitution."

The Court explained what benevolent neutrality is all about:

The benevolent neutrality theory believes that with respect to these governmental actions, accommodation of religion may be allowed, not to promote the government's favored form of religion, but to allow individuals and groups to exercise their religion without hindrance."

No compelling State interest to set aside benevolent neutrality

The Court may set aside benevolent neutrality if there is a compelling state interest. In the case of the RH law, the Office of the Solicitor General said that the compelling State interest was "fifteen maternal deaths per day, hundreds of thousands of unintended pregnancies, lives changed." But the Court rejected this argument:

The undisputed fact, however, is that the World Health Organization reported that the Filipino maternal mortality rate dropped to 48 percent from 1990 to 2008, although there was still no RH Law at that time. Despite such revelation, the proponents still insist that such number of maternal deaths constitute a compelling state interest.

Friday, June 06, 2014

Supreme Court Justice Jose C. Mendoza: Life begins at fertilization, not during implantation

The Supreme Court has affirmed that the Reproductive Health law is Constitutional. But the Court has also said that several provisions of the RH law are un-Constitutional because they violate the freedom of speech and freedom of religion clauses of the Constitution. As to the moment when life begins, the Court said that it is a scientific and medical issue that should not be decided without proper hearing and evidence. But the Court allowed each Justice to express personal views on this issue.

Justice Jose C. Mendoza is the ponente (writer) of the Court’s decision on the RH law. He expressed his view that life begins at fertilization, not when the fertilized egg has been implanted on the uterine wall.

“In all, whether it be taken from a plain meaning, or understood under medical parlance, and more importantly, following the intention of the Framers of the Constitution, the undeniable conclusion is that a zygote is a human organism and that the life of a new human being commences at a scientifically well-defined moment of conception, that is, upon fertilization.”

“This theory of implantation as the beginning of life is devoid of any legal or scientific mooring. It does not pertain to the beginning of life but to the viability of the fetus. The fertilized ovum/zygote is not an inanimate object - it is a living human being complete with DNA and 46 chromosomes. Implantation has been conceptualized only for convenience by those who had population control in mind. To adopt it would constitute textual infidelity not only to the RH Law but also to the Constitution.”

(Note: Statements in Supreme Court decisions that do not affect rulings, like personal views, are called obiter dicta.)

Overview of Justice Mendoza’s views:

Plain and legal meaning	Webster’s Third New International Dictionary describes conception as the act of becoming pregnant, formation of a viable zygote; the fertilization that results in a new entity capable of developing into a being like its parents. Black’s Law Dictionary gives legal meaning to the term “conception”as the fecundation of the female ovum by the male spermatozoon resulting in human life capable of survival and maturation under normal conditions. Continental Steel Manufacturing Corporation v. Hon. Accredited Voluntary Arbitrator Allan S. Montano Gonzales v. Carhart
Medical parlance	Mosby’s Medical, Nursing, and Allied Health Dictionary defines conception as “the beginning of pregnancy usually taken to be the instant a spermatozoon enters an ovum and forms a viable zygote.” It describes fertilization as “the union of male and female gametes to form a zygote from which the embryo develops.” The Textbook of Obstetrics (Physiological & Pathological Obstetrics)
Intention of the Framers of the 1987 Constitution	Records of the Constitutional Convention also shed light on the intention of the Framers regarding the term “conception”used in Section 12, Article II of the Constitution. From their deliberations, it clearly refers to the moment of “fertilization.” The records reflect the following: Rev. Rigos: In Section 9, page 3, there is a sentence which reads: “The State shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from the moment of conception.” When is the moment of conception? xxx Mr. Villegas: As I explained in the sponsorship speech, it is when the ovum is fertilized by the sperm that there is human life.

Friday, March 21, 2014

Online Bible quizzes

These interactive exercises (matching type, multiple choice, cloze, and flashcards) are part of my Baptist Distinctives blog. For the timer and automatic scoring to work, you must enable Javascript in your browser.

Articles of Faith

Biblical manhood and womanhood

Christology

Creationism (flashcards and quizzes)

Great Doctrines of the Bible (Evans)

Scofield Reference Notes 1917

World religions and cults (flashcards; matching type quizzes)

Miscellaneous exercises

Easy-to-remember shortcut is http://tinyurl.com/onlinebiblequizzes but you also go directly to https://googledrive.com/host/0B974furNxV78OWx3c2FvRmZKejg/index.htm

Tuesday, December 10, 2013

Typhoon Yolanda (Haiyan): Where is God When Things Go Wrong?

“Where is God When Things Go Wrong?” by evangelist and apologist John Blanchard is a free PDF booklet to download from David Legge’s www.preachtheword.com and by kind permission of www.evangelicalpress.org (Note: This download is for personal use only and should not be printed or copied. The book can be ordered singly or in bulk from Evangelical Press.)

Excerpts:

Why should issues of good and evil, or human suffering, cause any problems? If the British philosopher Bertrand Russell was right to dismiss man as ‘a curious accident in a backwater’, why should it matter in the least whether lives are ended slowly or suddenly, peacefully or painfully, one by one or en masse? If the Oxford professor Peter Atkins, another dogmatic atheist, is right to call mankind ‘just a bit of slime on a planet’, why should we be remotely concerned at the systematic slaughter of six million Jews or half a million Rwandans? Are we traumatized when we see slime trodden on or shoveled down a drain? The whole world wept over the destruction and death brought about by the tsunami in the Indian Ocean, but why not have the same anguish over the fate of beetles or bacteria, rats or reptiles? If human beings are simply the result of countless chemical and biological accidents, how can they have any personal value, and why should we turn a hair if dictatorial regimes or natural disasters dispose of them by the million? The same applies to violence or bloodshed on a personal or limited basis. If we are nothing more than biological flukes, with no meaningful origin or destiny, why should the way we treat each other matter more than the way other creatures behave?

How can we jump from atoms to ethics and from molecules to morality? If we are merely genetically programmed machines, how can we condemn anything as being ‘evil’, or commend anything as being ‘good’? Why should we be concerned over issues of justice or fairness, or feel any obligation to treat other ‘machines’ with dignity or respect? When people respond to tragedy by asking, ‘How can there be a just God?’ their question is logically flawed, as without him words like ‘just’ and ‘unjust’ are purely matters of personal opinion.

Friday, September 27, 2013

The 24th Fundamental Bible Conference in Metro Manila, October 22-25, 2013

Date: October 22-25, 2013

Venue: Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Julia Vargas Avenue (back of Megamall)

Speaker: Dr. Matthew Recker, Senior Pastor, Heritage Baptist Church, New York, USA

Conference chairman: Dr. Roberto-Jose Livioco (Foundation Baptist Church, Pasig City)

For more information, please call 801-6789, 829-4474, 514-8340, 0917-8139-551, 0922-898-4725, or surf to Facebook Fundamental Bible Conference page

October 22

“Authentic Corporate Worship” by Pastor Gilbert Castillo, Gospel Light Baptist Church, Quezon City

“Christ’s Offer to the Moslem World” by Dr. Roberto-Jose Livioco, Foundation Baptist Church, Pasig City

“The Glory of His Character” by Dr. Matthew Recker - Keynote Speaker Heritage Baptist Church, New York City, New York, USA

October 23

“Lessons from the Lord’s Prayer” by Pastor Jun Gonzales, Las Piñas Baptist Church, Las Piñas City

“Victorious Living in Stressful Times” by Pastor Leo Lorenzana, Promised Land Baptist Church, Malabon City

“The Glory of his Creation” by Dr. Matthew Recker

October 24

“The Challenge of False Cults” by Pastor Carl Gormley, Calvary Baptist Church, San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan

“Biblical Manhood” by Dr. Phil Kamibayashiyama, Director, Bob Jones Memorial Bible College, QC

“Biblical Womanhood” by Mrs. Debbie Recker, Keynote Speaker’s Wife

“The Glory of His Church” by Dr. Matthew Recker

October 25

“Glorying God in Our Body” by Pastor Cornelio Sacramento, Christian Baptist Church, Bulacan, Bulacan

Panel Discussions

“The Glory of His Commission” by Dr. Matthew Recker

Pastors & Christian Workers Fellowship, October 25, 2013, 3:00-5:00 PM, Meal P100; “Completing Our Course with Joy” by Dr. Matthew Recker

Saturday, June 01, 2013

Due process must be observed in terminating church membership

What is due process?

(1) “Before a person can be deprived of his life, liberty, or property, he must be given an opportunity to defend himself.”

(2) “Fundamental fairness”

(3) “Opportunity to be heard”

(4) “What due process contemplates is freedom from arbitrariness; what it requires is fairness and justice; substance, rather than the form, being paramount. What it prohibits is not the absence of previous notice but the absolute absence thereof.”

Supreme Court ruling: “While the civil courts will ordinarily leave ecclesiastical matters to church authorities, they may however intervene when it is shown that they have acted outside the scope of their authority or in a manner contrary to their organic law and rules.” (Fonacier vs. Court of Appeals and Isabelo De los Reyes, Jr., 1955)

Plain English explanation:

(1) The pastor, board, or congregation, must comply with the church constitution or rules in terminating church membership.

(2) Church leaders must educate members on how church membership is terminated.

Biblical due process: Matthew 18:15-17

Several years ago, a young pastor from a province south of Metro Manila was actively opposed by some church members. When he couldn’t take these members’ actions anymore, he announced after the Sunday morning preaching that he was terminating their membership right there and then. His church was split the next Sunday, and he has since then transferred to another church.

The Philippine Supreme Court has ruled in the following cases that due process must be observed when church membership is terminated:

[1] Taruc et al vs. Bishop de la Cruz et al, 2005

We would, however, like to comment on petitioners’ claim that they were not heard before they were expelled from their church. The records show that Bishop de la Cruz pleaded with petitioners several times not to commit acts inimical to the best interests of PIC. They were also warned of the consequences of their actions, among them their expulsion/excommunication from PIC. Yet, these pleas and warnings fell on deaf ears and petitioners went ahead with their plans to defy their Bishop and foment hostility and disunity among the members of PIC in Socorro, Surigao del Norte. They should now take full responsibility for the chaos and dissension they caused.

[2] The Church In Quezon City, 2001

As early as 1988, the respondents-Board of Directors patiently and persistently reminded, advised and exhorted the erring members, including herein petitioners, to stop espousing doctrines, teachings and religious belief diametrically opposed to the Principles of Faith embraced by the CHURCH. The respondents-Board of Directors further warned them during Sunday worship gatherings, in small group meetings and one-on-one talk, that they would face disciplinary action and be dropped from the membership roll should they continue to exhibit acts inimical and injurious to the teachings of the Holy Bible which the CHURCH so zealously upholds. When they ignored petitioners’ exhortations and warnings, the erring members should not now complain about their expulsion from the membership of the CHURCH by the Board of Directors on August 30, 9193. The Board of Directors, before deciding to purge their list of membership, gave the erring members sufficient warning of their impending ouster.

[3] Fonacier vs. Court of Appeals and Isabelo De los Reyes, Jr., 1955

The Supreme Bishop cannot punish an erring member without first giving him an opportunity to be heard and to defend himself, and, in any event, without first securing the opinion of the Judge of the Curia de Apelaciones, and in serious cases, the case needs to be referred to the Supreme Council of Bishops. With regard to a case where a bishop is involved, the action shall be submitted to the Supreme Bishop for approval. And in case of guilt, the accused may appeal to the Curia de Apelaciones, whose decision shall be final. Such is the procedure laid down by the constitution of the church when disciplinary action needs to be taken against a delinquent member. It is not, therefore, correct to say that the Supreme Bishop can take action alone in connection with an erring bishop, even in disregard of the Supreme Council, in view of the over-all powers he claims to possess under the circumstances.

Sunday, March 24, 2013

Instances when secular courts can intervene in church disputes (Supreme Court ruling in Fonacier vs. Court of Appeals and Isabelo De los Reyes, Jr., 1955)

Summary:

[1] Case title: “Santiago A. Fonacier, petitioner, vs. Court of Appeals and Isabelo De los Reyes, Jr., respondents” G.R. No. L-5917, January 28, 1955

[2] Supreme Court ruling:

(A) While the civil courts will ordinarily leave ecclesiastical matters to church authorities, they may however intervene when it is shown that they have acted outside the scope of their authority or in a manner contrary to their organic law and rules.

(B) Civil courts have jurisdiction to revise decisions on ecclesiastical matters where it is necessary for settling the question of civil and property rights, or when property rights are affected.

(C) Civil courts can intervene if a member is expelled without due process and a property right is involved.

[3] Plain English explanation: Secular courts can intervene in church disputes (a) if the pastor, board, or congregation, acted contrary to the church constitution or rules; or (b) when the dispute affects personal or property rights; or (c) if a member is expelled without due process and a property right is involved.

[4] Related post: “Doctrine of Church Autonomy: secular courts and church disputes”

Note: Claro M. Recto was the lawyer for the respondents. He later on became a senator known for his nationalism; the famous avenue in Manila is named after him. Ferdinand E. Marcos acted as the Supreme Court’s amicus curiae (“friend of the court”).

Facts of the case:

[1] The Iglesia Filipina Independiente (IFI), represented by its Supreme Bishop Gerardo M. Bayaca, filed a case with the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila against Bishop Santiago A. Fonacier. The IFI sought to require Bishop Fonacier to render an accounting of his administration of all the temporal properties in his possession belonging to the church and to recover the properties from him. The IFI claimed that Fonacier had ceased to be its Supreme Bishop.

Bishop Isabelo de los Reyes, Jr., having been elected as Supreme Bishop after the filing of the original complaint, was later made a co-plaintiff in a supplementary complaint.

[2] Fonacier claimed in his defense that:

(a) he has not been properly removed as Supreme Bishop;

(b) his legal successor was Juan Jamias who had been elected in accordance with the church constitution ;

(c) Bishop De los Reyes, Jr. formally joined the Protestant Episcopal Church of America and for this reason ceased to be a member of the Iglesia Filipina Independiente;

(d) Bishops De los Reyes and Bayaca having abandoned the faith, fundamental doctrines and practices of the Iglesia Filipina Independiente, ceased to be members and consequently, have no personality in filing the complaint.

[3] On May 17, 1950, the court rendered judgment declaring Mons. Isabelo de los Reyes, Jr. as the sole and legitimate Supreme Bishop of the Iglesia Filipina Independiente, and ordering Mons. Fonacier to render an accounting of his administration of the properties and funds of the church.

[4] The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the CFI. Fonacier then filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court.

Some issues raised by Fonacier and the Supreme Court ruling

[1] Issue: The Court of Appeals erred “in holding that the ouster of Bishops Manuel Aguilar, Alejandro Remollino, Isabelo de los Reyes Jr., Gerardo Bayaca, Juan Quijano and Pablo Tablante decreed by the Supreme Council and the petitioner as Obispo Maximo was illegal.”

Ruling: The civil courts have jurisdiction to review the action regarding the ouster.

(A) “Where a decision of an ecclesiastical court plainly violates the law it professes to administer, or is in conflict with the laws of the land, it will not be followed by the civil courts.”

(B) “Expulsion of a member without notice or an opportunity to be heard is not conclusive upon the civil courts when a property right is involved.”

“Since it is claimed that the ouster was made by an unauthorized person, or in a manner contrary to the constitution of the church, and that the ousted bishops were not given notice of the charges against them nor were they afforded an opportunity to be heard, the civil courts, have jurisdiction to review the action regarding the ouster.”

[2] Issue: The Court of Appeals erred in holding that the abandonment of the constitution, restatement of articles of religion and abandonment of faith or abjuration alleged by petitioner are unquestionably ecclesiastical matters which are outside the province of the civil courts.

Ruling: “The amendments of the constitution, restatement of articles of religion, and abandonment of faith or abjuration alleged by appellant, having to do with faith, practice, doctrine, form of worship, ecclesiastical law, custom and rule of a church having reference to the power of excluding from the church those allegedly unworthy of membership, are unquestionably ecclesiastical matters which are outside the province of the civil courts.” (45 Am. Jur., 748-752, 755.)

Friday, March 01, 2013

Secular courts do not have jurisdiction over expulsion or excommunication of church members (Supreme Court decision in Taruc et al vs. Bishop de la Cruz et al, 2005)

Summary:

[1] Case title: Dominador L. Taruc, Wilberto Dacera, Nicanor Galanida, Renerio Canta, Jerry Canta, Cordencio Consigna, Susano Alcala, Leonardo Dizon, Salvador Gelsano and Benito Laugo, petitioners, vs. Bishop Porfirio B. De La Cruz, Rev. Fr. Rustom Florano and Delfin Bordas, respondents. (G.R. No. 144801, March 10, 2005)

[2] Issue: Whether courts have jurisdiction to hear a case involving the expulsion/excommunication of members of a religious institution.

[3] Supreme Court ruling: “The expulsion/excommunication of members of a religious institution/organization is a matter best left to the discretion of the officials, and the laws and canons, of said institution/organization. It is not for the courts to exercise control over church authorities in the performance of their discretionary and official functions. Rather, it is for the members of religious institutions/organizations to conform to just church regulations. In the words of Justice Samuel F. Miller: … all who unite themselves to an ecclesiastical body do so with an implied consent to submit to the Church government and they are bound to submit to it.”

[4] Note: Civil courts can intervene if a member is expelled without due process and a property right is involved. Please read “Instances when secular courts can intervene in church disputes” (Supreme Court ruling in Fonacier vs. Court of Appeals and Isabelo De los Reyes, Jr., 1955). In this case we’re discussing (“Taruc et al vs. Bishop de la Cruz et al”), the Supreme Court ruled that due process was observed and no property right was involved.

Facts of the case:

[1] Political differences lead to conflict between church members and parish priest Fr. Florano

Petitioners were lay members of the Philippine Independent Church (PIC) in Socorro, Surigao del Norte. Respondents Porfirio de la Cruz and Rustom Florano were the bishop and parish priest, respectively, of the same church in that locality. Petitioners, led by Dominador Taruc, clamored for the transfer of Fr. Florano to another parish but Bishop de la Cruz denied their request. It appears from the records that the family of Fr. Florano’s wife belonged to a political party opposed to petitioner Taruc’s, thus the animosity between the two factions with Fr. Florano being identified with his wife’s political camp. Bishop de la Cruz, however, found this too flimsy a reason for transferring Fr. Florano to another parish.

[2] Petitioners organize mass during town fiesta with another priest, Fr. Ambong, despite appeals by Bishop de la Cruz

Hostility among the members of the PIC in Socorro, Surigao del Norte worsened when petitioner Taruc tried to organize an open mass to be celebrated by a certain Fr. Renato Z. Ambong during the town fiesta of Socorro. When Taruc informed Bishop de la Cruz of his plan, the Bishop tried to dissuade him from pushing through with it because Fr. Ambong was not a member of the clergy of the diocese of Surigao and his credentials as a parish priest were in doubt. The Bishop also appealed to petitioner Taruc to refrain from committing acts inimical and prejudicial to the best interests of the PIC. He likewise advised petitioners to air their complaints before the higher authorities of PIC if they believed they had valid grievances against him, the parish priest, the laws and canons of the PIC.

Bishop de la Cruz, however, failed to stop Taruc from carrying out his plans. On June 19, 1993, at around 3:00 p.m., Taruc and his sympathizers proceeded to hold the open mass with Fr. Ambong as the celebrant.

[3] Bishop de la Cruz excommunicates Taruc and other members

On June 28, 1993, Bishop de la Cruz declared petitioners expelled/excommunicated from the Philippine Independent Church for reasons of:

(1) disobedience to duly constituted authority in the Church;

(2) inciting dissension, resulting in division in the Parish of Our Mother of Perpetual Help, Iglesia Filipina Independiente, Socorro, Surigao del Norte when they celebrated an open Mass at the Plaza on June 19, 1996; and

(3) for threatening to forcibly occupy the Parish Church causing anxiety and fear among the general membership.

[4] Obispo Maximo urges Fr. Florano to step down voluntarily but does not interfere with Bishop de la Cruz’s decision

Petitioners appealed to the Obispo Maximo and sought reconsideration of the above decision. In his letter to Bishop de la Cruz, the Obispo Maximo opined that Fr. Florano should step down voluntarily to avert the hostility and enmity among the members of the PIC parish in Socorro but stated that:

… I do not intervene in your diocesan decision in asking Fr. Florano to vacate Socorro parish…

[5] Bishop de la Cruz reassigned; his successor continues to support Fr. Florano

In the meantime, Bishop de la Cruz was reassigned to the diocese of Odmoczan and was replaced by Bishop Rhee M. Timbang. Like his predecessor, Bishop Timbang did not find a valid reason for transferring Fr. Florano to another parish. He issued a circular denying petitioners’ persistent clamor for the transfer/re-assignment of Fr. Florano. Petitioners were informed of such denial but they continued to celebrate mass and hold other religious activities through Fr. Ambong who had been restrained from performing any priestly functions in the PIC parish of Socorro, Surigao del Norte.

[6] Taruc and other excommunicated members file complaint with Regional Trial Court of Surigao City, contending that their expulsion was illegal and violated due process; RTC rules that it has jurisdiction over the case

Because of the order of expulsion/excommunication, petitioners filed a complaint for damages with preliminary injunction against Bishop de la Cruz before the Regional Trial Court of Surigao City, Branch 32. They impleaded Fr. Florano and one Delfin T. Bordas on the theory that they conspired with the Bishop to have petitioners expelled and excommunicated from the PIC. They contended that their expulsion was illegal because it was done without trial thus violating their right to due process of law. Respondents filed a motion to dismiss the case before the lower court on the ground of lack of jurisdiction but it was denied. Their motion for reconsideration was likewise denied so they elevated the case to the Court of Appeals.

[7] Court of Appeals reverses RTC decision, saying that civil courts should not interfere in the internal affairs of a religious organization except for the protection of civil or property rights

The appellate court reversed and set aside the decision of the court a quo and ordered the dismissal of the case without prejudice to its being refiled before the proper forum. It held:

… We find it unnecessary to deal on the validity of the excommunication/expulsion of the private respondents (Taruc, et al.), said acts being purely ecclesiastical matters which this Court considers to be outside the province of the civil courts. … “Civil Courts will not interfere in the internal affairs of a religious organization except for the protection of civil or property rights. Those rights may be the subject of litigation in a civil court, and the courts have jurisdiction to determine controverted claims to the title, use, or possession of church property.” … Obviously, there was no violation of a civil right in the present case. … Ergo, this Court is of the opinion and so holds that the instant case does not involve a violation and/or protection of a civil or property rights in order for the court a quo to acquire jurisdiction in the instant case.

[8] Supreme Court affirms CA ruling; courts do not have jurisdiction to hear a case involving the expulsion/excommunication of members of a religious institution

Petitioners appealed from the above decision but their petition was denied. Their motion for reconsideration was likewise denied, hence, this appeal. The only issue to be resolved in this case is whether or not the courts have jurisdiction to hear a case involving the expulsion/excommunication of members of a religious institution. We rule that the courts do not. Section 5, Article III or the Bill of Rights of the 1987 Constitution specifically provides that:

Sec. 5. 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.

In our jurisdiction, we hold the Church and the State to be separate and distinct from each other. “Give to Ceasar what is Ceasar’s and to God what is God’s.” We have, however, observed as early as 1928 that:

upon the examination of the decisions it will be readily apparent that cases involving questions relative to ecclesiastical rights have always received the profoundest attention from the courts, not only because of their inherent interest, but because of the far reaching effects of the decisions in human society. [However,] courts have learned the lesson of conservatism in dealing with such matters, it having been found that, in a form of government where the complete separation of civil and ecclesiastical authority is insisted upon, the civil courts must not allow themselves to intrude unduly in matters of an ecclesiastical nature. (italics ours)

We agree with the Court of Appeals that the expulsion/excommunication of members of a religious institution/organization is a matter best left to the discretion of the officials, and the laws and canons, of said institution/organization. It is not for the courts to exercise control over church authorities in the performance of their discretionary and official functions. Rather, it is for the members of religious institutions/organizations to conform to just church regulations. In the words of Justice Samuel F. Miller:

… all who unite themselves to an ecclesiastical body do so with an implied consent to submit to the Church government and they are bound to submit to it.

In the leading case of Fonacier v. Court of Appeals, we enunciated the doctrine that in disputes involving religious institutions or organizations, there is one area which the Court should not touch: doctrinal and disciplinary differences. Thus,

The amendments of the constitution, restatement of articles of religion and abandonment of faith or abjuration alleged by appellant, having to do with faith, practice, doctrine, form of worship, ecclesiastical law, custom and rule of a church and having reference to the power of excluding from the church those allegedly unworthy of membership, are unquestionably ecclesiastical matters which are outside the province of the civil courts. (emphasis ours)

(Note: Facts of the case above are from the Supreme Court decision but numbered and with some paragraphs broken up for easier reading. Headings are mine.)

asthenopia
Definition:	A tiredness of the eyes caused by prolonged close work by a person with an uncorrected vision problem.
Synonyms:	eyestrain

Wednesday, February 06, 2019

Friday, October 12, 2018

Monday, June 11, 2018

Wednesday, March 14, 2018

Thursday, January 04, 2018

Tuesday, January 02, 2018

Friday, November 25, 2016

Friday, October 21, 2016

Friday, May 27, 2016

Wednesday, March 30, 2016

Thursday, February 12, 2015

Wednesday, October 08, 2014

Tuesday, June 10, 2014

Obligation to refer violates freedom of religion

Freedom of religion preferred in Constitution

Penalties by RH law on healthcare service providers who refuse to refer are un-Constitutional

Exception: in life-threatening situations, healthcare providers cannot invoke freedom of religion

Doctrine of benevolent neutrality

No compelling State interest to set aside benevolent neutrality

Friday, June 06, 2014

Overview of Justice Mendoza’s views:

Friday, March 21, 2014

Tuesday, December 10, 2013

Friday, September 27, 2013

Saturday, June 01, 2013

Sunday, March 24, 2013

Facts of the case:

Some issues raised by Fonacier and the Supreme Court ruling

Friday, March 01, 2013

Translate

Bookmark and share

Directory of Baptist churches

Improve your church communications, missionary reports, etc.

Links to Baptist churches and ministries

Previous articles

About Me

Friends of "Baptist Churches in the Philippines" blog

World missions update

Related website

Campus Connection blog

Related blog (relationships, marriage and family)

Related blog

Inspirational podcasts; ministry audio, devotionals, Bible tools

Getting married? Take a look at what “covenant marriage” is all about

Online resources

Blog Archive