Grace School of Theology

A BIBLICAL ETHIC ON THE CHURCH RESPONSE

ON FINANCIAL AID COMING FROM A POLITICIAN

A Paper Presented to

Fred Chay, Ph.D.

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of

MS-771: Contemporary Moral Issues in Ministry

by

Joriel S. Asi

Lobo, Batangas, Philippines

May 19, 2020

 RESEARCH PAPER OUTLINE

Title: A BIBLICAL ETHIC ON THE CHURCH RESPONSE

ON FINANCIAL AID COMING FROM A POLITICIAN

1A. Introduction

2A. Body

1B. The Extent and Nature of This Problem in Our Society

2B. The Primary Positions Held Regarding This Moral Problem

3B. The Key Biblical Texts That Shed Light on This Moral Problem and

Major Principles Can Be Gleaned from These Texts

4B. My Convictions on This Moral Problem and Why

5B. Some of The Key Personal and Pastoral Implications Relevant to This Moral Problem

3A. Conclusion
 2

A BIBLICAL ETHIC ON THE CHURCH RESPONSE

ON FINANCIAL AID COMING FROM A POLITICIAN

Introduction
One of the most prevalent passages in the bible concerning separation of Church and
State is from Matthew 22:17-21 where Jesus made a clear separation of the work of God and the
work of the State. Jesus says in verse 21, “then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and
to God the things that are God’s.”1 As Wayne Grudem puts it, “this is a remarkable statement
because Jesus shows that there are to be two different spheres of influence, one for the
government and one for the religious life of the people of God.”2
However, this clear separation does not accompany with specific things that are of

“God’s” and of “Caesar’s”. The bisecting line between is broad. There are many questions about
the proper ways a church should respond to government initiatives. One of these is how a church
should respond on financial aid coming from a politician. This research aims to build up a code
of conduct that is biblically ethical in response to this question.

The Extent and Nature of This Problem in Our Society

The Philippines has democracy type of government where leaders are chosen by its
people through election. In order to win, candidates have to do all possible ways which will
make the mass be in favor of them. Some are seriously convincing the people using concrete
platforms while other are just entertaining them.
Another way the politicians do is that they get involved in religious activities, especially
during assembly of churches where they could meet religious leaders. Most of the time, many of
them would offer financial aid for church projects or needs of the members as their “goodwill”.

1
BibleGateway, “Matthew 22,” accessed May 16, 2020,
https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=Matthew+22&qs_version=NASB. Note: All Scripture
quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are in NASB translation and are taken from BibleGateway website.
2
Wayne Grudem, Christian Ethics: An Introduction to Biblical Moral Reasoning (Illinois: Crossway,
2018), 683.
 3

They would talk to heads of church associations offering support to the ministry of churches
along with a request to hold an event where they could give talk and their “gift” to all the
churches.
Their motive is not explicitly communicated. Perhaps, to gain sympathy. No one will say
“vote for me” on the coming election because it is always too early, and the election campaign is
still prohibited. Nevertheless, at the back of every gift they give is the expectation of support on
the election to come. It is part of their upcoming campaign – an investment for the future.

Section 104 of the Omnibus Election Code prohibits electoral candidates or any of its
representative during the campaign period to donate in cash or in kind to any churches or
chapels.3 Probably, this is the reason why long before the election campaign period, politicians
grab the opportunity to interact with different groups including churches through giving
donations or gifts.
Filipinos are known for one of the widely traits called utang na loob (debt of goodwill or
debt of gratitude). Utang na loob, according to George A. De Vos and Eric S. De Vos, “refers to
the residual emotional attachment or obligation that is associated with a gift or assistance, but
which goes beyond the repayment of the gift or assistance.” 4 While undoubtedly this trait has a
positive effect, because of the self-imposed obligation it causes to someone, it also poses a
negative effect. De Vos added,

“For example, if a poor man is given money or job, he presumably has utang na loob for his

benefactor that would link the poor man to the business, political, and social interests of his

benefactor. The poor man, in theory, feel obligated to support the benefactor regardless of his

personal feelings about an issue. And he would continue to feel obligated after the debt was

3
Commission on Elections, “Omnibus Election Code - Article XI,” May 3, 2012, accessed May 17, 2020,
https://www.comelec.gov.ph/?r=References/RelatedLaws/OmnibusElectionCode/OECArt11().
4
George A. De Vos and Eric S. De Vos, “Cross-Cultural Dimensions in Conscious Thought: Narrative
Themes in Comparative Context,” Psychocultural Research with the Thematic Appreciation Test 2, (Lanham,
Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2014), 426.
 4

repaid.”5

It is in this case that the financial aid coming from a politician becomes an issue because
a pastor and in effect, the church he is handling, would be obligated for the repayment which is
primarily in a form of vote. Referring to the benefactor, Francis Dancel says, “at its ugliest, a
Filipino will attempt to explicitly collect on an utang na loob; he will resort to sumbat
[reproach], to explicitly and palpably remind a creditor of the favors owed and the returns
expected, in order to compel the latter’s obeisance to his whims. In cases such as these, utang na

loob is used to control, to enforce obedience and compliance, and a Filipino will more often than
not obey, no matter what the cost or consequences.”6
Although it is unspoken, the expectation for repayment is clear. There is an emotional
imperative attached with the gift being received. Thus, it requires strong conviction and courage
for someone to go against his or her self-imposed obligation caused by receiving the gift. It
manipulates so much on one’s discernment and right to vote. This transaction could be likened
therefore, if not as exactly as, to implicit bribery or vote buying which legally and morally
wrong.

The Primary Positions Held Regarding This Moral Problem

Because of another known trait of Filipinos called pakikisama, majority of Christians
including church leaders, are seemingly helpless to confront this issue. In his book entitled
Gospel & Culture, Dr. Narry F. Santos defined, “the word, pakikisama, comes from the root
sama, which literally means ‘to accompany, to get along with.’ It is the willingness to
subordinate one’s own interest in favor of others, in the spirit of harmony, friendship,

5
Ibid.
6
Francis Dancel, Utang Na Loob [Debt of Goodwill]: A Philosophical Analysis, Filipino Culture Traits,
Philippine Philosophical Studies 4, Claro R. Ceniza Lectures, ed. Rolando M. Gripaldo (Washington, D.C.: The
Council for Research in Values and Philosophy, 2005), 109-28.
 5

cooperation, and deference to majority decision, so that group goals can be easily achieved.”7
So, it is not surprising that of 30 pastors I have asked, 25 said that it is not wrong to
accept the financial gift from a politician. There were only 5 who are aware of the conflict of
interest it could bring. Contrary to the statistics conducted form ordinary church members whose
major view favor to not accepting the gift due to its self-imposed obligation in the future.
However, some of those who favor to accept the gift consider the right motive of a politician.
But that pose another challenge – to really know what one’s real motive behind giving a gift

inexplicably.
Could there be a written policy to simplify the decision-making on this issue? Would it
depend on if a politician is Christian, non-Christian, church member, non-member? Does
receiving financial support from politician really build or destroy church dignity/integrity? Is
there a case when a church should rely on the financial support from a politician? These
questions would be taken into consideration, so in answering, will hopefully shed light on the
issue.

The Key Biblical Texts That Shed Light on This Moral Problem and

Major Principles Can Be Gleaned from These Texts

Since it involves money, in cash or in kind, the Bible has a lot of principles to teach about
how the church should handle this kind of situation. The bible teaches that the love of money is
the root of all evil. The apostle Paul says in 1 Timothy 6:10, “For the love of money is a root of
all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced
themselves with many griefs.” Desiring to have much of it has danger of becoming its slave. So,
the amount of gift should not be the basis of accepting it or not. While God is using people to
fund His causes, Churches should not be limited by depending on politicians’ financial support.
In the Old Testament, God has established laws for the people to fund or provide for the

7
Narry F. Santos, Gospel & Culture, ISACC Bible Study Series 3, Institute for Studies in Asian Church
and Culture, Quezon City, Philippines, 2007, 80.
 6

needs in the temple and it causes. One of which is through tithing. In Leviticus 27:30-33 God
stated that the all the tenth part of the land, grain or fruit of trees, is His. In Malachi 3:8-10, by
not bringing the tithes and offerings, the mortal is robbing God. In the New Testament, giving
for the needs of the Church is not only limited to tithing. In Acts 2:44-45, the believers even sold
their possessions to give away so that there would be in-need among them. Should the one local
church be in need? Other local churches were compelled to help them (2 Corinthians 8:3-4).
In other words, it is sufficient to say that funds for the church needs should be coming

from the tithes and offerings from among believers. Furthermore, in Philippians 4:18, Paul
accepted in full the financial support sent by the Christian church in Phillipi through
Ephaphroditus as their fragrant offering, acceptable sacrifice, pleasing to God.
Interestingly, in Genesis 23, Abraham as stranger, refused gift from Ephron the Hittites.
In 2 Samuel 24:24, David refused to build altar for the Lord at the threshingfloor that was offered
for him free of charge from Araunah the Jebusites. Hittites – “are repeatedly mentioned
throughout the Hebrew Tanakh (also known as the Christian Old Testament) as the adversaries
of the Israelites and their God.”8 and “the Jebusites were, according to the books of Joshua and
Samuel from the Hebrew Bible, a Canaanite tribe that inhabited Jerusalem prior to the
conquest.”9 Both Hittites and Jebusites are from the Canaanites who were ungodly. Abraham and
David refused gift from them respectively. The main purpose most probably I believe, as bearers
of God’s name, is to place the Lord God in highest reverence.
Some argue that Nehemiah accepted all the gifts from the king. For instance, in the Bible,
concerning receiving gifts or favor, Nehemiah asked the king Artaxerxes to grant him a letter for
the governors and the forest keeper to have him safe passage and provide timber beams to be
used in rebuilding the gates and wall of Jerusalem. It says in Nehemiah 2:7-8,

“And I said to the king, ‘If it please the king, let letters be given me for the governors of the

8
Joshua J. Mark, “The Hittites,” May 1, 2018, accessed May 19, 2020, https://www.ancient.eu/hittite/.
9
Wikipedia, “Jebusite,” March 14, 2020, accessed May 19, 2020, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jebusite.
 7

provinces beyond the River, that they may allow me to pass through until I come to Judah, and a

letter to Asaph the keeper of the king’s forest, that he may give me timber to make beams for the

gates of the fortress which is by the temple, for the wall of the city and for the house to which I

will go.’ And the king granted them to me because the good hand of my God was on me.”

In this case, God allowed Nehemiah to ask help from the king for the sake of Jerusalem
and Israelites. And we can see that the king granted his requests. Nehemiah accepted the timbers,
officers of the army, and horsemen given by the king.

In the very first verse in his book, Nehemiah was the cup-bearer to the king. He was
working with the government. In fact, in chapter 5 he was the governor of Judah for 12 years. He
served the people well. As Matthew Henry puts it, “Nehemiah’s agency for the advancing of the
settlement of Israel we have a full account of in this book, wherein he records not only the works
of his hands, but the workings of his heart, in the management of the public affairs.”10 In this
passage, he was the politician with good governance who requested favor from the king for the
restoration of Jerusalem. It was an intra-government transaction.

My Convictions on This Moral Problem and Why

First, because donations from a politician always involve money, the church especially its
leadership, should be hesitant and analytical on accepting it. Refusal being the first impression
will always keep the church ministries and its reputation secured. In the light of 1 Timothy 6:10,
the love of money is a root of evil and it in longing for it, some wandered away from faith.
Second, trust God alone for the provision for any church ministry needs. Be positive in
raising fund from within the local church and to other churches or Christian organization. Both in
Old and New Testament (ex. Lev. 27:30-33, Num. 18:21-26, Mal. 3:10, Acts 2:44-45, Phi. 4:18).
God ordained his people to bring their tithes and offering for His causes. In light of this, I could
say the church could accept financial aid from a politician if the latter will give it as tithe or

10
Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, ed. Leslie F. Church (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1961), 491.
 8

offering.
Third, always hold the church’ so as the name of God in high esteem like what Abraham
and David did. They did not make the name of God cheap by living and offering things that cost
them nothing. We are God’s representatives and the manifestation of His works so we have to
always seek to be the head in giving blessings to the lost, not as tail who always needed to
depend on what we can get from others. As the apostle Paul says in Romans 13:8, “Owe nothing
to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.”

Fourth, in the context of Nehemiah, financial support from the government and not
personally from the politician could be taken and received with pleasure. However, this fund is
not for the church sole benefit only but includes community transformational causes also.
Moreover, it requires corporate application and government approval. It this case, the transaction
becomes objective, not subjective which protects any individual in the church especially the
pastor himself from the self-imposed obligation to repay due to utang na loob.

Some of The Key Personal and Pastoral Implications Relevant to This Moral Problem
From this study of biblical texts and conviction I have, I would suggest that the church or
the pastor, in regard to a politician offering a personal financial gift, should further talk about it
with all due respect. Honestly inform the politician that the church is a body and the decision to
accept is not for the pastor only to decide. Should the politician be really willing to give, the
pastor could ask to offer it to the Lord in a form of tithes or offering without any requisite to
announce it in public. Otherwise, the pastor should refuse the gift being offered.
In case that the church is financially in need, the pastor should first mobilize its members
to become resourceful enough. Then this church could also ask help from other churches or
Christian organizations who have ministry focus in the specific needs. There are many brethren
out there who can help not just through giving but also through financial stewardship training.
The Lord will surely provide. He will not let His children beg on the street for food. He our
Jehovah-Jireh for His name sake.
 9

Now, please do not misunderstand me. I am not a separatist. I hope all the churches could
be involved in a holistic transformation of its members as a way to affect or contribute in the
national transformation through involving in the community transformational development
ministry in their respective places. In this case that the church has ministries that involves the
community as a whole for its physical, moral and spiritual benefits, the church could partner with
the government funded agencies or Christian organizations to ask for the financial or physical
support.

Conclusion
Upon searching for different views and studying some Bible passages about receiving
and refusing a gift, we came up with some guidelines on when and how to deal with a politician
who personally offering a gift to a church or a pastor. Therefore, we have to take this situation
seriously as this may put the church at risk of losing its salt and light. It is also recommended that
this topic should also be discussed in the churches to give awareness.
 10

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BibleGateway. “Matthew 22.” Accessed May 16, 2020. https://www.biblegateway.com/

quicksearch/?quicksearch=Matthew+22&qs_version=NASB.
Commission on Elections. “Omnibus Election Code - Article XI.” May 3, 2012. Accessed May
17, 2020. https://www.comelec.gov.ph/?r=References/RelatedLaws/
OmnibusElectionCode/OECArt11().
Dancel, Francis. Utang Na Loob [Debt of Goodwill]: A Philosophical Analysis, Filipino Culture
Traits. Philippine Philosophical Studies 4, Claro R. Ceniza Lectures. Edited by Rolando
M. Gripaldo. Washington, D.C.: The Council for Research in Values and Philosophy,
2005.
De Vos, George A. and Eric S. De Vos. “Cross-Cultural Dimensions in Conscious Thought:
Narrative Themes in Comparative Context.” Psychocultural Research with the Thematic
Appreciation Test 2. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2014.
Grudem, Wayne. Christian Ethics: An Introduction to Biblical Moral Reasoning. Illinois:
Crossway, 2018.
Henry, Matthew. Commentary on the Whole Bible. Edited by Leslie F. Church. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1961.
Mark, Joshua J. “The Hittites.” May 1, 2018. Accessed May 19, 2020.
https://www.ancient.eu/hittite/.
Santos, Narry F. Gospel & Culture. ISACC Bible Study Series 3. Institute for Studies in Asian
Church and Culture. Quezon City, Philippines, 2007.
Wikipedia. “Jebusite.” March 14, 2020. Accessed May 19, 2020.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jebusite.