Why Bro. Eddie Should Not Run For President

There is a debate right now among my friends regarding the presidential candidacy of Bro. Eddie Villianueva, the founder of JIL (Jesus Is Lord Fellowship), a born-again charismatic group here in the Philippines. Some are pro and some are against.

Allow me to give you my two-cents worth of idea.

Why am I not in favor of the candidacy of Bro. Eddie Villanueva? Simply because he is a church leader and it may violate Article 2 Section 6 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution that states, "The separation of the state and the church shall be inviolable."

The said law was upheld in the Executive Order No. 2, Book 2, Chapter 1 Section 6 under the title, "Basic Principles and Policies".

A very good friend, Pastor Vincent Olaer contended that, "they only need to be separated in function, but not in spiritual and moral values. The Church functions as a spiritual adviser of the state, while the state functions as a ruling government of the state which covers the church as well."

Though there is a very thin delineation between advising the state on spirituality and morality and governing. There is an eminent danger that religious advising might encroach and overlap with political matters. Imagine if the Philippines is not a Catholic nation. Let us say that majority of Filipinos are pagans where beheading is common. Would you like their priests and priestesses to advise the President in that capacity? Surely not!

As Christians, we should set an example on how to respect our laws. It may set a precedence for other religious leaders to run for a post just to have a political clout. And it is very frightening to think that my equal right as a Filipino will be endangered by sectoral (or should I say religious) biases.

One may say that we cannot stop Bro. Eddie from running because he is not the church. He is just a pious person. May I remind everyone that Bro. Eddie is the founder and present leader of JIL Movement. In fact, he is bragging that he can command and get millions of votes from members of JIL Movement. Therefore, we cannot disconnect Bro. Eddie from JIL. In some extent, he represents and will represent JIL Movement and all other pentecostal groups.

He may step down from JIL leadership but there is a danger that the thin line that separates the church and state will be infringed.

One may even deduce that Bro. Eddie is just like President Arroyo who is a pious catholic. Now, that is wrong syllogism. We cannot compare Bro. Eddie with President Arroyo in terms of involvement in and in representing the church. President Arroyo is not a church leader. Yes, she is pious as can be seen by her consistency in attending catholic gatherings and in her being vocal in her spiritual stance. But the fact is she did not found any church and she is not at the helm of the catholic church.

I can accept the comparison between Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani of Iran who is the spiritual leader in Iran and Bro. Eddie but not between President Arroyo and Bro. Eddie. Hell, even Ayatollah doesn't dream of being elected as the President of Iran. They still have President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad!

Moreover, it is my conviction that Jesus desires that political power should be delineated from spiritual powers. As to quote Him, "Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and give to God what belongs to God". (Matthew 22:21. NLT)

Another friend posited that this passage pertains only to taxation and not about political matters. Isn't it that taxation is a political matter? Taxation is part and parcel of politics and we cannot separate the two.

In studying a passage we have to know the surrounding facts about it. I believe that Matthew Henry has a good analysis of the said passage. Matthew Henry said that, to quote, "Ministers that would mind their business, and please their master, must not entangle themselves in the affairs of this life: they forfeit the guidance of God's Spirit, and the convoy of his providence when they thus go out of their way. Christ discusses not the emperor's title, but enjoins a peaceable subjection to the powers that be." (Matthew Henry Commentary of the Whole Bible)

It is suffice to say that Matthew Henry does interpret the passage as Christ's recognition that we, Christians, should recognize earthly powers. Therefore, this passage does not pertain only to taxation per se but to the whole political or governance issue.

Thus, "give unto Caesar what is due unto Caesar and unto God what is due unto God." We should leave political matters to politicos and let us all concentrate in doing what God wants us to do. Sharing the Gospel. Sharing His love.

Justice Roberts of the U.S. Supreme Court has a good reason why we should all adhere to the absolute separation of the state and the church. He said, "In the realm of religious faith, and in that of political belief, sharp differences arise. In both fields, the tenets of one man may seem the rankest error to his neighbor. To persuade others to his own point of view, the pleader, as we know, at times, resorts to exaggeration, to vilification of men who have been, or are, prominent in church or state, and even to false statement. But the people of this nation have ordained in the light of history, that, in spite of the probability of excesses and abuses, these liberties are, in the long view, essential to enlightened opinion and right conduct on the part of the citizens of a democracy." (Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 310 U. S. 310 (1940))

Furthermore, let us all be reminded that there are so many religious groups here. As Filipinos, we have to live in harmony with one another. I strongly believe that religious leaders should refrain from engaging in politics for sectoral and religious harmony amongst all groups in the Philippines.